Roots
(click)
I’ve read a good amount over the years.
Once you’ve read a certain amount of material in the same vein or genre, it becomes harder and harder for that type of writing to surprise you, to shock you, to grab you by the neck and reorganize every idea in your head. There’s nothing wrong with that - it’s just how the mind works. This is equally true whether the material you’re reading is an endless series of romance or detective novels, or an endless series of academic essays in queer theory. You learn to appreciate craftsmanship; you might enjoy a particularly well-turned phrase; certain ideas stick with you. But that shock, that jolt that can happen when you first discover something - that tends to fade.
Given this inevitable consequences of habit on the workings of the mind, Eve Sedgwick’s work holds a special place in my heart for two reasons. The first and, frankly, more banal reason is that I read Between Men and The Epistemology of the Closet in quick succession right before I went off to university, and each of those books separately and together changed my thinking permanently.
Between Men introduced me to the idea - surprising to me at the time - that homophobia and violence against homosexuals is closely linked with and related to misogyny and violence against women. This was the first time I’d encountered the idea that the political investments of feminists and gay men might align in important ways; it was also the first time I’d encountered the idea of Foucauldian power - the notion that different oppressions and different identities might be organized in different ways by the same kind of structures or the same kind of socio-political pressure. Between Men, in other words, teaches its reader the danger in distinguishing unilaterally between closely-related phenomena.
The Epistemology of the Closet, meanwhile, worked in some ways to undo the lessons of Between Men; by generating a set of conceptual and critical tools for what she called anti-homophobic inquiry, Sedgwick not only played a key role in teaching me the value of strategic alliance but also the important of careful and rigorous distinction, the ways in which the presumption of identity and alliance can hide crucial linkages between forms of power, discourse, and oppression. The Epistemology of the Closet, in other words, teaches its reader the danger in unifying without reflection closely-related but fundamentally distinct phenomena.
That these two books complement rather than contradict each other is a testament to the brilliant refinement of Sedgwick’s mind, her concepts, and her intellectual project. Each of Sedgwick’s books takes risks, goes in unexpected directions, creates infinite possibilities at every turn. She was never afraid to change, to dare, to revise, and to me, that bravery - that self-reflexivity - is the most important mark of a true and committed critical thinker. There are many smart and insightful critics; there are far fewer brave critics, and in this regard, Sedgwick stood head and shoulders above the vast majority of her contemporaries.
But for me, the most incredible aspect of Sedgwick’s work as I sit and write about it today isn’t how brave it was in its day - that part is impressive, but boldness isn’t necessarily a testament for the ages. What’s incredible about these books, today, is that they haven’t lost a single iota of their ability to jolt, to excite, to inspire, and to challenge me. Gender Trouble, Of Grammatology, Ecrits…so many of the books that used to shock and awe me as an undergraduate have largely lost their effect. Many of them I’ve had to reject entirely. But Sedgwick never gets old, or dull, or predictable. Even the essays I’ve read 5-6 times still have the power to surprise and illuminate.
A key part of Sedgwick’s enduring appeal, to me, is how prescient she was; like most truly great thinkers, Sedgwick was light years ahead of the curve. Where so much ’90s queer theory is rapidly become quaint and even naive, the full implications of Sedgwick’s ideas are just beginning to unfold. So yes, yes to this article. We need Sedgwick’s insights and wisdom. We need them now more than ever. If you’re interested in the topics I write about, in the way I approach them, or in the kind of concepts I generate, you need to go read Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s work.
“Repeat Rape: How do they get away with it?”, Part 1 of 2. (link to Part 2)
Sources:
- College Men: Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists,Lisak and Miller, 2002 [PDF, 12 pages]
- Navy Men: Lisak and Miller’s results were essentially duplicated in an even larger study (2,925 men): Reports of Rape Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel, McWhorter, 2009 [PDF, 16 pages]
By dark-side-of-the-room, who writes:
These infogifs are provided RIGHTS-FREE for noncommercial purposes. Repost them anywhere. In fact, repost them EVERYWHERE. No need to credit. Link to the L&M study if possible.
Knowledge is a seed; sow it.
(via thenewwomensmovement)
Have you ever wanted to ask a white guy anything? Well, we here at Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell sent Kamau & writer Ethan Berlin up to Harlem to ask the residents this very question.
"
A deeply political knowledge of the world does not lead to a creation of an enemy. Indeed, to create monsters unexplained by circumstance is to forget the political vision which above all explains behavior as emanating from circumstance, a vision which believes in a capacity born to all human beings for creation, joys, and kindness, in a human nature which, under the right circumstances, can bloom.
When a movement for liberation inspires itself chiefly by a hatred for an enemy rather than from this vision of possibility, it begins to defeat itself. Its very notions cease to be healing. Despite the fact that it declares itself in favor of liberation, it’s language is no longer liberatory. It begins to require a censorship within itself. Its ideas of truth become more and more narrow. And the movement that began with a moving evocation of truth begins to appear fraudulent from the outside, begins to mirror all that it says it opposes, for now it, too, is an oppressor of certain truths, and speakers, and begins, like the old oppressors, to hide from itself.
"— Susan Griffin
"Sexual desire has varied and multiple dimensions and is rarely as “exclusive” as any norm would suggest. A liberatory sexuality would not teach women to see their bodies as accessible to all men, or to all women, for that matter. It would favor instead a sexuality that is open or closed based on the nature of individual interaction. Implicit in the idea of sexual preference is the assumption that anyone of the preferred sex can seek access to one’s body. This is a concept that promotes objectification."
— bell hooks
(Source: pushthemovement)
1916
Dada 1916
Audrey Smith
Paper & Acrylic on WoodPhoto by Scott Griggs Studio
————————————-
The Dada art movement began in Zurich, Switzerland in 1916 as a direct,
negative reaction to World War I and the political atmosphere in Europe
during that time. The Dadaists rejected aesthetic convention, preferring to
highlight the illogical, the absurd, intuition and randomness. They
experimented with new methods of art making, music, and writing. One
such method was collage, which had been introduced not long before by
the painters Pablo Picasso and Georges Braques during their Cubist period.
The Dadaists expanded upon the use of collage, creating purely abstract
compositions that were less about picture making than they were about
the actual materials being used. Collage allowed the Dadaists to express
their ideas about the absurd by using clippings from magazines, news-
papers, and other media, as well as explore the concepts of intuition and
randomness in art making. It is my belief that the Dadaists were ultim-
ately responsible for turning modern art on its head, and they continue
to influence to this day.
When I began studying art as a teenager I was introduced to the work of
Max Ernst by a surrealist painter. Through Ernst I learned about Dada and
its artists, and I was profoundly affected by their aesthetic and approach
to art making. I feel a debt of gratitude to the Dada artists and their
influence on modern and contemporary art.
(via audreysmithart)
These are all so good.
The second one
“I am so bad at being likable that I’ve had to create an elaborate force field of imagined persecution to justify it.”
This tag somehow turned into the best thing ever.
(via thenewwomensmovement)
"Raise your words, not your voice.
It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder."
— Rumi (via likeafieldmouse)
(Source: likeafieldmouse)
