Sissies, Loafers, and the Feebleminded

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
R. Cartwright
{"title":"Sissies, Loafers, and the Feebleminded","authors":"R. Cartwright","doi":"10.1215/10642684-9991313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Focusing on rural white communities in the early twentieth century, this article examines how disability, queerness, and economic estrangement were intertwined in American eugenic assessments of the “unfit.” In doing so, it attends to the knotty relations of power by which such communities were simultaneously adjudged deviant and bestowed with the privileges of whiteness. Eugenic family studies supported claims to white superiority by regulating and preventing reproduction among “unfit” rural white communities who might reveal the sham of white supremacy. Yet eugenicists were also concerned about same-sex sexuality and other nonproductive sexualities among the unfit, despite their focus on the “science of better breeding.” This article first analyzes how eugenicists defined a desire for work as the counterpoint to perverse sexual desire. Next, it examines how state institutions used a legal “conduct test” to classify a person as incapable self-support — and therefore feebleminded — on the basis of same-sex sexual relationships, refusal to marry, interdependence, or failure to meet gendered labor norms. Throughout, the article details how eugenic family studies mapped disability, nonproductivity, and nonheteronormativity onto rural landscapes. It concludes by contending that rural queer studies can leverage these landscapes of marginality to think with the racialized city rather than against it.","PeriodicalId":47296,"journal":{"name":"Glq-A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glq-A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-9991313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Focusing on rural white communities in the early twentieth century, this article examines how disability, queerness, and economic estrangement were intertwined in American eugenic assessments of the “unfit.” In doing so, it attends to the knotty relations of power by which such communities were simultaneously adjudged deviant and bestowed with the privileges of whiteness. Eugenic family studies supported claims to white superiority by regulating and preventing reproduction among “unfit” rural white communities who might reveal the sham of white supremacy. Yet eugenicists were also concerned about same-sex sexuality and other nonproductive sexualities among the unfit, despite their focus on the “science of better breeding.” This article first analyzes how eugenicists defined a desire for work as the counterpoint to perverse sexual desire. Next, it examines how state institutions used a legal “conduct test” to classify a person as incapable self-support — and therefore feebleminded — on the basis of same-sex sexual relationships, refusal to marry, interdependence, or failure to meet gendered labor norms. Throughout, the article details how eugenic family studies mapped disability, nonproductivity, and nonheteronormativity onto rural landscapes. It concludes by contending that rural queer studies can leverage these landscapes of marginality to think with the racialized city rather than against it.
Sissies、Loafers和弱势群体
这篇文章聚焦于20世纪初的农村白人社区,探讨了在美国对“不适合”的优生学评估中,残疾、古怪和经济隔阂是如何交织在一起的。在这样做的过程中,它关注了棘手的权力关系,通过这种关系,这些社区同时被判定为离经叛道,并被赋予白人特权。优生家庭研究通过调节和防止“不合适”的农村白人社区的繁殖来支持白人优越感的说法,这些社区可能会揭露白人至上主义的骗局。然而,优生学家也对不适合的人的同性性行为和其他非生产性行为感到担忧,尽管他们关注的是“更好的繁殖科学”。本文首先分析了优生学家如何将工作欲望定义为与反常性欲的对立面。接下来,它考察了国家机构如何使用法律“行为测试”将一个人归类为无能力自立 — 因此变得虚弱 — 基于同性性关系、拒绝结婚、相互依赖或未能满足性别劳动规范。整篇文章详细介绍了优生学家庭研究如何将残疾、非生产性和非异质性映射到农村景观中。它的结论是,农村酷儿研究可以利用这些边缘化的景观来思考种族化的城市,而不是反对它。
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
Glq-A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies
Glq-A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Providing a much-needed forum for interdisciplinary discussion, GLQ publishes scholarship, criticism, and commentary in areas as diverse as law, science studies, religion, political science, and literary studies. Its aim is to offer queer perspectives on all issues touching on sex and sexuality. In an effort to achieve the widest possible historical, geographic, and cultural scope, GLQ particularly seeks out new research into historical periods before the twentieth century, into non-Anglophone cultures, and into the experience of those who have been marginalized by race, ethnicity, age, social class, body morphology, or sexual practice.
×
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