Jack Halberstam's writing has been annoying me for a decade so when I first encountered this blog post (all over my Twitter feed as well) I read it, thought "well, same old same old," and waited to see how the comments would play out. I found Cross's response one of the more helpful, but there's also a great comment on the original post by "alejo" (who I thought was an LJ person, but that account seems to have been purged, so perhaps not). Anyway, that person makes reference to "the notion that there’s political and ethical good to be found in interpersonal decency and thoughtfulness," which they say Halberstam's piece is definitely lacking (I agree).
At the end of the day, what value is there in being antagonistic towards one another? If by politely changing my behavior to accommodate someone with an excessive sense of victimization, I'm somehow coddling that person, I think I'd rather coddle them than act in ways that continue to make this world a cruel place. While there were pieces of Halberstam's post that were a good window onto the perniciousness of neoliberalism (especially the safety/security stuff, which I hadn't seen in alignment prior), there's a way in which its macho asshole tone is neoliberalism at work, yeah?
In the end the revolution is going to be about civility and respect. I'm convinced of that. When we get to that point when our economy truly and finally caves in, probably over issues of mass unemployment and economic inequalities, the way we're going to get growth out of that chaos is by a focus on human dignity. Right now, I think some communities are trying to implement early iterations of this (safer space, etc). One of the reasons I became a historicist (and generally don't respect/use my extensive theoretical training) is because I felt like queer theory capitulated to the power of global capitalism, and because I still still still think that you live in a world like this one by mobilizing energy to make something better. Sure, it's nearly impossible to articulate anything outside of expansive and patriarchal power structures. I grant that. But someday that will not be the case. I gotta believe.
(Also no love to Halberstam for making fairly misogynistic arguments related to students at UCSB, weeks after a mass shooting there that was fueled by misogyny...)
no subject
At the end of the day, what value is there in being antagonistic towards one another? If by politely changing my behavior to accommodate someone with an excessive sense of victimization, I'm somehow coddling that person, I think I'd rather coddle them than act in ways that continue to make this world a cruel place. While there were pieces of Halberstam's post that were a good window onto the perniciousness of neoliberalism (especially the safety/security stuff, which I hadn't seen in alignment prior), there's a way in which its macho asshole tone is neoliberalism at work, yeah?
In the end the revolution is going to be about civility and respect. I'm convinced of that. When we get to that point when our economy truly and finally caves in, probably over issues of mass unemployment and economic inequalities, the way we're going to get growth out of that chaos is by a focus on human dignity. Right now, I think some communities are trying to implement early iterations of this (safer space, etc). One of the reasons I became a historicist (and generally don't respect/use my extensive theoretical training) is because I felt like queer theory capitulated to the power of global capitalism, and because I still still still think that you live in a world like this one by mobilizing energy to make something better. Sure, it's nearly impossible to articulate anything outside of expansive and patriarchal power structures. I grant that. But someday that will not be the case. I gotta believe.
(Also no love to Halberstam for making fairly misogynistic arguments related to students at UCSB, weeks after a mass shooting there that was fueled by misogyny...)