Beyond the Grave

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Austin Svedjan
{"title":"Beyond the Grave","authors":"Austin Svedjan","doi":"10.1353/pmc.2023.a931356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Beyond the Grave <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Austin Svedjan (bio) </li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>Some of us came to bury antirelational queer theories at the 2005 special session on the antisocial thesis.</p> —José Esteban Muñoz, \"Thinking Beyond Antirelationality and Antiutopianism in Queer Critique\" </blockquote> <p>I want to wager the following indecency: Leo Bersani welcomed his death and avoided his dying but importantly failed at both. One initial justification for so crass a claim could be that, despite a prolific career, he never edited a special issue. The generic injunction of special issues, after all, is to stake their import on the refusal to bury things. Even as titles flirt with the possibility of theoretical demise, special issues often justify their own publication by animating emergent concepts, resuscitating old ones, and immortalizing key figures in attendant debates.<sup>1</sup> In the case of the 2014 special issue of <em>Social Text</em> commemorating the life and thought of José Esteban Muñoz, this editorial tendency toward the conceptual extends to Muñoz himself. As one contributor notes, \"the problem that animates this special issue: José Esteban Muñoz should not have died, but how do we continue to think and live with him (and each other) in spite of this loss?\" (Chambers-Letson 14). But in saying that Bersani might have advocated for his <em>death</em> but not his <em>dying</em>, I don't mean to revivify queer theory's love of hagiography and claim that while the body of the man has died, the body of his work lives on. Instead, that distinction evokes Bersani's continual grappling with a problem over the course of his career through his speculation on how to loosen the death-grip that difference and its violent dramas have on our available modes of relationality. The hope was that such a loosening need not necessitate our physical deaths. As Bersani wrote in the closing paragraphs of 1987's \"Is the Rectum a Grave?\": \"if the rectum is the grave in which the masculine ideal (an ideal shared—differently—by men <em>and</em> women) of proud subjectivity is buried, then it should be celebrated for its very potential for death. Tragically, AIDS has literalized that potential as the certainty of biological death\" (222). But the attempt to wrest relationality from its variously murderous, suicidal, or otherwise death-driven violences and the threatening differences that incite it, we shall see, proves overwhelmingly problematic. In this special issue that problematic inheres in the term \"the antisocial.\"</p> <h2>The Citational Gimmick</h2> <p>In referring to \"the antisocial\" in this way, especially in proximity to Bersani—and partly against the inclination of special issues—this special issue attempts to lay to rest what has been termed \"the antisocial thesis in queer theory\" by reclassifying it as conceptual dead weight. Coined by Robert L. Caserio as the title of a 2005 panel organized by the Modern Language Association's Division on Gay Studies in Language and Literature, the \"thesis\" subsequently proliferated in an oft-cited 2006</p> <p><em>PMLA</em> forum of the same name explicating the presentations delivered by Lee Edelman, Jack Halberstam, Muñoz, and Tim Dean. Attributing the thesis's formulation to Bersani's now-immortal suggestion in 1995's <em>Homos</em> that there is \"a potentially revolutionary inaptitude—perhaps inherent in gay desire—for sociality as it is known,\" Caserio sets Bersani and other \"explorations in queer unbelonging\" against the historical backdrop of an ascendant \"gay rage for normalizing sociability\" (819). While queer theorists anxiously watched as gays and lesbians readily embraced normative forms of social life, the apparent advantage of Bersani's claim came to be staked on being against \"the social\" itself. The debate that ensued from that 2006 forum implicated much of queer theory's broader conceptual lexicon—queerness, normativity, affect, and politics, to name only a few—as sites of definitional and instrumental dispute. Still today, we are often told, these debates remain protracted, at least ongoing if not still critically topical (Kahan 811). And indeed much ink has been and continues to be spilled over appearances of \"the antisocial thesis\" and its conceptual kin, to the extent that terms like \"antisocial,\" \"negativity,\" \"antirelationality,\" and \"antiutopianism\" have all undergone the theoretical rigor mortis that produces everything from intradisciplinary shorthand to introductory primers.<sup>2...</sup></p> </p>","PeriodicalId":55953,"journal":{"name":"POSTMODERN CULTURE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POSTMODERN CULTURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pmc.2023.a931356","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Beyond the Grave
  • Austin Svedjan (bio)

Some of us came to bury antirelational queer theories at the 2005 special session on the antisocial thesis.

—José Esteban Muñoz, "Thinking Beyond Antirelationality and Antiutopianism in Queer Critique"

I want to wager the following indecency: Leo Bersani welcomed his death and avoided his dying but importantly failed at both. One initial justification for so crass a claim could be that, despite a prolific career, he never edited a special issue. The generic injunction of special issues, after all, is to stake their import on the refusal to bury things. Even as titles flirt with the possibility of theoretical demise, special issues often justify their own publication by animating emergent concepts, resuscitating old ones, and immortalizing key figures in attendant debates.1 In the case of the 2014 special issue of Social Text commemorating the life and thought of José Esteban Muñoz, this editorial tendency toward the conceptual extends to Muñoz himself. As one contributor notes, "the problem that animates this special issue: José Esteban Muñoz should not have died, but how do we continue to think and live with him (and each other) in spite of this loss?" (Chambers-Letson 14). But in saying that Bersani might have advocated for his death but not his dying, I don't mean to revivify queer theory's love of hagiography and claim that while the body of the man has died, the body of his work lives on. Instead, that distinction evokes Bersani's continual grappling with a problem over the course of his career through his speculation on how to loosen the death-grip that difference and its violent dramas have on our available modes of relationality. The hope was that such a loosening need not necessitate our physical deaths. As Bersani wrote in the closing paragraphs of 1987's "Is the Rectum a Grave?": "if the rectum is the grave in which the masculine ideal (an ideal shared—differently—by men and women) of proud subjectivity is buried, then it should be celebrated for its very potential for death. Tragically, AIDS has literalized that potential as the certainty of biological death" (222). But the attempt to wrest relationality from its variously murderous, suicidal, or otherwise death-driven violences and the threatening differences that incite it, we shall see, proves overwhelmingly problematic. In this special issue that problematic inheres in the term "the antisocial."

The Citational Gimmick

In referring to "the antisocial" in this way, especially in proximity to Bersani—and partly against the inclination of special issues—this special issue attempts to lay to rest what has been termed "the antisocial thesis in queer theory" by reclassifying it as conceptual dead weight. Coined by Robert L. Caserio as the title of a 2005 panel organized by the Modern Language Association's Division on Gay Studies in Language and Literature, the "thesis" subsequently proliferated in an oft-cited 2006

PMLA forum of the same name explicating the presentations delivered by Lee Edelman, Jack Halberstam, Muñoz, and Tim Dean. Attributing the thesis's formulation to Bersani's now-immortal suggestion in 1995's Homos that there is "a potentially revolutionary inaptitude—perhaps inherent in gay desire—for sociality as it is known," Caserio sets Bersani and other "explorations in queer unbelonging" against the historical backdrop of an ascendant "gay rage for normalizing sociability" (819). While queer theorists anxiously watched as gays and lesbians readily embraced normative forms of social life, the apparent advantage of Bersani's claim came to be staked on being against "the social" itself. The debate that ensued from that 2006 forum implicated much of queer theory's broader conceptual lexicon—queerness, normativity, affect, and politics, to name only a few—as sites of definitional and instrumental dispute. Still today, we are often told, these debates remain protracted, at least ongoing if not still critically topical (Kahan 811). And indeed much ink has been and continues to be spilled over appearances of "the antisocial thesis" and its conceptual kin, to the extent that terms like "antisocial," "negativity," "antirelationality," and "antiutopianism" have all undergone the theoretical rigor mortis that produces everything from intradisciplinary shorthand to introductory primers.2...

坟墓之外
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要: 超越坟墓 奥斯汀-斯维德扬(简历) 在 2005 年关于反社会论题的特别会议上,我们中的一些人开始埋葬反传统的同性恋理论。何塞-埃斯特万-穆尼奥斯,《超越反社会性的思考与同性恋批评中的反乌托邦主义》:利奥-贝尔萨尼迎接了他的死亡,也避免了他的死亡,但重要的是两者都失败了。尽管他的职业生涯多产,但他从未编辑过特刊。毕竟,特刊的一般要求就是拒绝埋没事物。即使特刊的标题有可能在理论上消亡,但特刊往往会通过激活新出现的概念、恢复旧有的概念以及使相关辩论中的关键人物永垂不朽来证明自己的出版是正确的1。正如一位撰稿人所指出的,"本特刊所要解决的问题是:何塞-埃斯特万-穆尼奥斯的思想是什么?何塞-埃斯特万-穆尼奥斯本不该死,但尽管失去了他,我们如何继续思考并与他(以及彼此)共存?(钱伯斯-莱森 14)。不过,我说贝尔萨尼可能主张他死而不主张他死,并不是要重振同性恋理论对传颂的热爱,声称虽然人已经死了,但他的作品还在继续。相反,这种区别让人联想到贝尔萨尼在其职业生涯中一直在努力解决一个问题,那就是如何放松差异及其暴力戏剧对我们现有关系模式的致命控制。他希望这种松动并不需要我们的肉体死亡。正如贝尔萨尼在 1987 年出版的《直肠是坟墓吗?"如果直肠是埋葬男性自豪的主体性理想(男性和女性的理想不同)的坟墓,那么它就应该因其潜在的死亡而受到赞美。可悲的是,艾滋病已将这种潜能文字化为生物死亡的确定性"(222)。但是,我们将看到,试图将关系性从其各种谋杀、自杀或其他死亡驱动的暴力以及煽动这种暴力的威胁性差异中解脱出来,证明存在着巨大的问题。在本特刊中,"反社会 "一词就包含了这一问题。公民噱头 本特刊以这种方式提及 "反社会",尤其是在接近贝尔桑的情况下--部分原因是与特刊的倾向背道而驰--试图通过将 "反社会论在同性恋理论中的应用 "重新归类为概念上的 "无用之物",使其得以平息。该 "论题 "由罗伯特-L-卡塞里奥(Robert L. Caserio)于 2005 年在现代语言协会同性恋语言文学研究分部组织的一次讨论会上提出,随后在 2006 年 PMLA 的同名论坛上扩散开来,李-埃德尔曼(Lee Edelman)、杰克-哈尔伯斯塔姆(Jack Halberstam)、穆尼奥斯(Muñoz)和蒂姆-迪恩(Tim Dean)分别在论坛上发表了演讲。Caserio 将这一论点的提出归功于贝尔萨尼在 1995 年出版的《同性恋者》(Homos)一书中提出的 "一种潜在的革命性的不适应性--也许是同性恋对已知社会性的固有欲望",并将贝尔萨尼和其他 "对同性恋非同一性的探索 "置于 "同性恋对社会正常化的愤怒 "日益高涨的历史背景之下(819)。当同性恋理论家焦虑地注视着男女同性恋者欣然接受规范的社会生活形式时,贝尔萨尼的主张的明显优势就体现在反对 "社会 "本身。2006 年那场论坛引发的争论牵涉到了同性恋理论中更广泛的概念词汇--同性恋、规范性、情感和政治等等--成为定义和工具争议的焦点。时至今日,我们经常被告知,这些争论依然旷日持久,如果不是仍然具有批判性的热点话题,至少也还在继续(Kahan 811)。事实上,关于 "反社会论 "及其概念亲属的争论已经并将继续下去,以至于 "反社会"、"否定性"、"反合理性 "和 "反乌托邦主义 "等术语都经历了理论上的严谨性,从而产生了从学科内速记到入门指南的各种东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
POSTMODERN CULTURE
POSTMODERN CULTURE HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Founded in 1990 as a groundbreaking experiment in scholarly publishing on the Internet, Postmodern Culture has become a leading electronic journal of interdisciplinary thought on contemporary culture. PMC offers a forum for commentary, criticism, and theory on subjects ranging from identity politics to the economics of information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信