(The promise of) Monstrous Kinship? Queer Reproduction and the Somatechnics of Sexual and Racial Difference

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Ulrika Dahl
{"title":"(The promise of) Monstrous Kinship? Queer Reproduction and the Somatechnics of Sexual and Racial Difference","authors":"Ulrika Dahl","doi":"10.3366/SOMA.2018.0250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the figure of the monster and monstrosity as a phenomenon as an entangled effect of kinship and reproduction, and thus as conveying specific understandings of gender, sexuality and race. While non-heterosexual reproduction and family-making has long been viewed as monstrous, increasing LGBTQ rights and recognition has instead insisted on its normality. Engaging with feminist and queer monster theory, and building on ethnographic research in Stockholm, Sweden, this article considers the monstrous remains within contemporary queer kinship. In particular, it proposes that when choice and intent rather than biological ‘facts’ constitute the foundation of (queer) family, sexual and racial difference does not cease to exist, but rather, re-emerges as monstrous attachments and embodiments. To sketch a larger argument about the potential limits of ideas about social construction, the article hones in on two examples. First, it shows that gestation and childbirth, as monstrous embodiments, can pose problems for families that insist on parental equality through the perceived sameness of shared intent. Secondly it proposes that in the context of Sweden, reproduction through donor-insemination is built on a cultural idea of white sperm as both neutral and desirable. These examples, the article suggest, point to some remaining irreconcilable dimensions embedded in the fantasy of queer kinship that, like monsters, haunt its queer normative forms. In closing, it argues for a reconsideration of hopeful monstrosities by considering both queer reproduction and the sexual and racial differences with which it inevitably engages can instead be understood as somatechnical, as kinship technologies that are inevitably entangled in the biopolitics of (queer) nation-making and its natrualised whiteness.","PeriodicalId":43420,"journal":{"name":"Somatechnics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3366/SOMA.2018.0250","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Somatechnics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/SOMA.2018.0250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

This article considers the figure of the monster and monstrosity as a phenomenon as an entangled effect of kinship and reproduction, and thus as conveying specific understandings of gender, sexuality and race. While non-heterosexual reproduction and family-making has long been viewed as monstrous, increasing LGBTQ rights and recognition has instead insisted on its normality. Engaging with feminist and queer monster theory, and building on ethnographic research in Stockholm, Sweden, this article considers the monstrous remains within contemporary queer kinship. In particular, it proposes that when choice and intent rather than biological ‘facts’ constitute the foundation of (queer) family, sexual and racial difference does not cease to exist, but rather, re-emerges as monstrous attachments and embodiments. To sketch a larger argument about the potential limits of ideas about social construction, the article hones in on two examples. First, it shows that gestation and childbirth, as monstrous embodiments, can pose problems for families that insist on parental equality through the perceived sameness of shared intent. Secondly it proposes that in the context of Sweden, reproduction through donor-insemination is built on a cultural idea of white sperm as both neutral and desirable. These examples, the article suggest, point to some remaining irreconcilable dimensions embedded in the fantasy of queer kinship that, like monsters, haunt its queer normative forms. In closing, it argues for a reconsideration of hopeful monstrosities by considering both queer reproduction and the sexual and racial differences with which it inevitably engages can instead be understood as somatechnical, as kinship technologies that are inevitably entangled in the biopolitics of (queer) nation-making and its natrualised whiteness.
(承诺)怪物亲属?酷儿生殖与性别和种族差异的身体技术
本文认为怪物和怪物的形象是一种现象,是亲属关系和繁殖的纠缠效应,从而传达了对性别、性和种族的特定理解。虽然非异性恋生育和组建家庭一直被视为怪异,但LGBTQ权利和认可的增加却坚持认为这是正常的。结合女权主义和酷儿怪物理论,并以瑞典斯德哥尔摩的民族志研究为基础,本文考虑了当代酷儿亲属关系中的怪物残余。特别是,它提出,当选择和意图而不是生物“事实”构成(酷儿)家庭的基础时,性别和种族差异并没有停止存在,而是以可怕的依恋和体现形式重新出现。为了勾勒出一个关于社会建构思想潜在局限性的更大的论点,本文着眼于两个例子。首先,它表明,怀孕和分娩作为可怕的化身,可能会给坚持父母平等的家庭带来问题,因为他们认为父母有共同的意图。其次,它提出,在瑞典的背景下,通过供体人工授精的生殖是建立在白色精子既中性又可取的文化观念之上的。文章认为,这些例子表明,酷儿亲属关系的幻想中存在着一些不可调和的维度,这些维度就像怪物一样,困扰着酷儿的规范形式。最后,它主张通过考虑酷儿生殖和不可避免的性别和种族差异来重新考虑充满希望的怪物,而不是将其理解为身体技术,作为亲属技术,不可避免地纠缠在(酷儿)国家建立的生命政治及其自然的白人。
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
Somatechnics
Somatechnics SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
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