Darwin's Orchids

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
D. Schaefer
{"title":"Darwin's Orchids","authors":"D. Schaefer","doi":"10.1215/10642684-9316824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Is there a queer Darwin? It is often assumed that Darwinian biology is an ally of conservative approaches to sexuality and gender. The Christian legal framework known as natural law philosophy, for instance, reads Darwin as a champion of heterosexual coupling, proving the biological imperative of straight sex. Some feminist readings of Darwin (such as that of Elizabeth Grosz) find in Darwin a confirmation of the necessity of sexual difference organized around masculinity and femininity—an approach Myra Hird has called the “ontology of heterosexuality.” But these interpretations are incorrect. Schaefer argues that far from being an advocate for the ontology of heterosexuality, Darwin provides tools to demolish it. Turning to his research on barnacles and orchids and his speculation on the sources of organic variation, this essay highlights the irreducible importance of diversity and change for Darwin's framework. The ongoing ferment of variation that is the guideline of all life on earth extends not only to the morphology of sex organs but to desire itself. Darwin shows that the ontology of heterosexuality is an arbitrary snapshot, a single moment in the fluid trajectory of life, rather than a law that can be arbitrarily cast over the whole arc. In this, Darwin supports Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's first axiom for queer theory: “People are different from each other.” The essay concludes by connecting a Darwinian approach to sex with José Esteban Muñoz's call for a queer ecstasy that anticipates the futurity of desire.","PeriodicalId":47296,"journal":{"name":"Glq-A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","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/10.1215/10642684-9316824","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

Is there a queer Darwin? It is often assumed that Darwinian biology is an ally of conservative approaches to sexuality and gender. The Christian legal framework known as natural law philosophy, for instance, reads Darwin as a champion of heterosexual coupling, proving the biological imperative of straight sex. Some feminist readings of Darwin (such as that of Elizabeth Grosz) find in Darwin a confirmation of the necessity of sexual difference organized around masculinity and femininity—an approach Myra Hird has called the “ontology of heterosexuality.” But these interpretations are incorrect. Schaefer argues that far from being an advocate for the ontology of heterosexuality, Darwin provides tools to demolish it. Turning to his research on barnacles and orchids and his speculation on the sources of organic variation, this essay highlights the irreducible importance of diversity and change for Darwin's framework. The ongoing ferment of variation that is the guideline of all life on earth extends not only to the morphology of sex organs but to desire itself. Darwin shows that the ontology of heterosexuality is an arbitrary snapshot, a single moment in the fluid trajectory of life, rather than a law that can be arbitrarily cast over the whole arc. In this, Darwin supports Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's first axiom for queer theory: “People are different from each other.” The essay concludes by connecting a Darwinian approach to sex with José Esteban Muñoz's call for a queer ecstasy that anticipates the futurity of desire.
达尔文的兰花
有一个奇怪的达尔文吗?人们通常认为达尔文生物学是保守的性和性别方法的盟友。例如,被称为自然法哲学的基督教法律框架将达尔文解读为异性恋伴侣的拥护者,证明了异性恋的生物学必要性。一些对达尔文的女权主义解读(如伊丽莎白·格罗斯的解读)在达尔文发现了围绕男性气质和女性气质组织的性别差异的必要性——Myra Hird称之为“异性恋本体论”的方法。但这些解释是不正确的。Schaefer认为,达尔文并不是异性恋本体论的倡导者,而是提供了摧毁异性恋本体的工具。在谈到他对藤壶和兰花的研究以及对有机变异来源的猜测时,这篇文章强调了多样性和变化对达尔文框架的不可低估的重要性。变异的持续发酵是地球上所有生命的准则,它不仅延伸到性器官的形态,而且延伸到欲望本身。达尔文表明,异性恋的本体论是一个任意的快照,是生命流动轨迹中的一个瞬间,而不是一个可以任意投射到整个弧线上的定律。在这一点上,达尔文支持Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick关于酷儿理论的第一条公理:“人与人不同。”。这篇文章的结尾将达尔文式的性方法与何塞·埃斯特班·穆尼奥斯(JoséEsteban Muñoz)对预期欲望未来性的古怪狂喜的呼吁联系起来。
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