![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Reading Notes: Runions, "Queering The Beast: The Antichrists' Gay Wedding"
I picked this one to do detailed notes on mostly because of the Chris Adrian story about the Antichrist.
"In a culture given to homophobia and apocalyptic phantasm, Hussein and bin Laden were predictably portrayed as antichrist, as day and on occasion, as both. The political entity of the homosexualized antichrist dissolved into focus through electronic waves of worry over national security and apocalyptic eschatolocial doom..."
"These homophobic and apocalyptic manifestations of the enemy illuminate the question of what counts as human, and what is relegated as in/human (not quite human, yet still human enough to ground imperializing tactics)... They make visible theologically and apocalyptically informed social and legal constraints on desire."
Is there an "apocalyptic logic" that renders the support of torture and laws against gay marriage legible? The author believes that yes, it has to do with the border between human and inhuman. Gay marriage bans are about enforcing a certain view of family --- how do "the religious narratives that buttress these views" also contribute to imperialism?
South Park Movie's Satan/Saddam relationship is a coalescense of these views combining "an apocalyptic eschatological orientation with desire, or its by-product, fear." While the forms might be human, the desires are inhuman.
"The Political Enemy as In/Human Antichrist" is an awesome section heading. I just gotta say. The antichrist is threatening because he is inhuman (beastly and deceptive) but also human (able to deceive, has potential human form). (Interesting that the antichrist is gendered, although I guess female political enemies would be called whores of Babylon or something?) Oh I didn't know this --- 1 John 2:18 suggests there could be many antichrists, so anyone could be an antichrist, really. There's an excellent summary of early apocalyptic thinking suggesting an "eschatological opponent" who is to Satan as Jesus is to God. A footnote says the antichrist is "sometimes depicted as a wild animal, or with an eye like a lion." I want to riff off of this for a little bit in a couple of directions --- first, a D&G direction, thinking about becoming-animal and mentioning but not really exploring the role of an animal eye in the faciality of the antichrist. How does the apocalypse fit into lines of flight, de- and re-territorialization? I would say one potential interpretation of an apocalyptic machine would be one that did not deterritorialize but instead unterritorialized --- having the function of the war machine, but leaving behind nothing that could be reterritorialized, or nothing at all. Removal from the possibility of discourse. The lion's eye also makes me think of the Book of Revelation, where one of the heralds of the Apocalypse is a lion covered in eyes. (Rev 4:6-8) Not sure if that's related at all, since those creatures sit by the throne of God, though. (They also apparently show up in Ezekiel 1:4-13? "I am not an eschatologist, consult competent clergy.")
...if antichrists are imperialist, where does that leave us? This section on antichrists as imperial powers would seem to run counter to the author's goal to use antichristing the other as an excuse to be imperialist. I will see where she takes it...
Explication of Bush's apocalyptic dogwhistles is just _creepy_ every time. Eleven times out of ten. Eyugh.
"The deceptive antichrist poses the threat of contamination by non-normative desire... [and] means that human and inhuman cannot be told apart, nor their respective sexualities... it is this 'threat' that becomes a possibility for reclaiming the queer antichrist."
Pages 88-89 show the arguments made by James Dobson to suggest that gay marriage would lead to the apocalypse. The author is excited for "the gay antichrist as that queer element that will helpfully resist and disrupt the homophobic discourses that insist that sexual desire be properly oriented toward the successful future of the (Christian) nation and humanity."
On page 92 is a good explanation of how "Christian values become secular human morality through the regulation of the nation-state" --- and thus things that don't follow that moral code become inhuman. There's also mad orientalism going down here, according to Adrienne McLean acting "as a liminal dreamscape on which to project displaced Western erotic and political desires," and painting the Arab as other than human. "Erotic projection is done in a way that is safe because it justifies aggression toward the very object of desire." The author cites examples like tshirts about not getting "Saddamized" that suggest instead sodomizing Hussein with a missile.
"Why such trust in the power of law to regulate affairs in the US [banning gay marriage] and such dismissal of its ability to do so overseas [torture]? While it is tempting to write off this dynamic as power-hungry cynicism, I would like to suggest that there may be more at work --- it may be precisely the apocalyptic determination of appropriate human desire that binds the proliferation of law-making at home to the refusal of law abroad." ... "bare life is animal life that is not quite yet human." (bare life is explained more on page 96, see also Giorgio Agamben) This is tied to the idea of exceptions such as Bush's authorization of indefninite detentions --- bare life is outside the political and must be contained by it. "bare life as a limit marker for the human." Liminality, border zones, I feel like there's a D&G connection here too. "raw sex" as sex that is not constrained by a goal, connected to bare life. Similarly included and excluded through exceptions; I find this a convincing argument.
Abu Ghraib prisoners as borderline of human and inhuman --- order from commanding officer to treat them like dogs, but "such inhuman treatment is predicated precisely on detainees' humanity, their ability to talk, to inform, to be in human pain, to be humiliated. Though treated as inhuman, their humanity is necessary to the process." Oh here's the connection: prisoners forced to engage in mock or real homosexual acts, equating the inhuman with the non-heterosexual --- both in line with the eschatological ideas and orientalism previously discussed. The sadistic desire of US soldiers is blamed on homosexuality --- and their heterosexuality remains "because the seductive in/human object of desire could be aggressed at the same time as desire is enacted." [0]
"All this is more than a little depressing," says the author. Uhh, yes. So, she suggests, can we reclaim the antichrist? "Antichristic desire confuses identity, transgresses borders and confounds telos. It is polymorphously perverse." That does sound pretty queer-theory-queer. "His deceptiveness threatens every identity." Oooh, this ties to Edelman/Lacan, queerness as death drive, removing the goal of the Child from sexuality and disrupting "the future-oriented trajectory of identity." Does it really become anti-apocalyptic, though, as the author suggests? She suggests the Child is necessary for the apocalypse, but would not a lack of Child mean the end of the world? Or am I being too literal?
"The antichrist demonstrates what post-structuralism has been insisting: meaning may not be what it seems. The queer antichrist defies certainty." Looking to conservative Christian discourse for post-structuralist arguments is certainly a bold move. I find this a useful lens (and interesting to compare as she does to Halberstam's "queer time") but am not sure how I feel about taking it to its conclusions. I will think about this overnight as I distill these notes for class tomorrow!
Also I'm peeved that she never engaged with always using masculine pronouns for the antichrist.
[0] I think it would be really interesting to take this idea into analysis of pornography, but it's out of scope for me here.
"In a culture given to homophobia and apocalyptic phantasm, Hussein and bin Laden were predictably portrayed as antichrist, as day and on occasion, as both. The political entity of the homosexualized antichrist dissolved into focus through electronic waves of worry over national security and apocalyptic eschatolocial doom..."
"These homophobic and apocalyptic manifestations of the enemy illuminate the question of what counts as human, and what is relegated as in/human (not quite human, yet still human enough to ground imperializing tactics)... They make visible theologically and apocalyptically informed social and legal constraints on desire."
Is there an "apocalyptic logic" that renders the support of torture and laws against gay marriage legible? The author believes that yes, it has to do with the border between human and inhuman. Gay marriage bans are about enforcing a certain view of family --- how do "the religious narratives that buttress these views" also contribute to imperialism?
South Park Movie's Satan/Saddam relationship is a coalescense of these views combining "an apocalyptic eschatological orientation with desire, or its by-product, fear." While the forms might be human, the desires are inhuman.
"The Political Enemy as In/Human Antichrist" is an awesome section heading. I just gotta say. The antichrist is threatening because he is inhuman (beastly and deceptive) but also human (able to deceive, has potential human form). (Interesting that the antichrist is gendered, although I guess female political enemies would be called whores of Babylon or something?) Oh I didn't know this --- 1 John 2:18 suggests there could be many antichrists, so anyone could be an antichrist, really. There's an excellent summary of early apocalyptic thinking suggesting an "eschatological opponent" who is to Satan as Jesus is to God. A footnote says the antichrist is "sometimes depicted as a wild animal, or with an eye like a lion." I want to riff off of this for a little bit in a couple of directions --- first, a D&G direction, thinking about becoming-animal and mentioning but not really exploring the role of an animal eye in the faciality of the antichrist. How does the apocalypse fit into lines of flight, de- and re-territorialization? I would say one potential interpretation of an apocalyptic machine would be one that did not deterritorialize but instead unterritorialized --- having the function of the war machine, but leaving behind nothing that could be reterritorialized, or nothing at all. Removal from the possibility of discourse. The lion's eye also makes me think of the Book of Revelation, where one of the heralds of the Apocalypse is a lion covered in eyes. (Rev 4:6-8) Not sure if that's related at all, since those creatures sit by the throne of God, though. (They also apparently show up in Ezekiel 1:4-13? "I am not an eschatologist, consult competent clergy.")
...if antichrists are imperialist, where does that leave us? This section on antichrists as imperial powers would seem to run counter to the author's goal to use antichristing the other as an excuse to be imperialist. I will see where she takes it...
Explication of Bush's apocalyptic dogwhistles is just _creepy_ every time. Eleven times out of ten. Eyugh.
"The deceptive antichrist poses the threat of contamination by non-normative desire... [and] means that human and inhuman cannot be told apart, nor their respective sexualities... it is this 'threat' that becomes a possibility for reclaiming the queer antichrist."
Pages 88-89 show the arguments made by James Dobson to suggest that gay marriage would lead to the apocalypse. The author is excited for "the gay antichrist as that queer element that will helpfully resist and disrupt the homophobic discourses that insist that sexual desire be properly oriented toward the successful future of the (Christian) nation and humanity."
On page 92 is a good explanation of how "Christian values become secular human morality through the regulation of the nation-state" --- and thus things that don't follow that moral code become inhuman. There's also mad orientalism going down here, according to Adrienne McLean acting "as a liminal dreamscape on which to project displaced Western erotic and political desires," and painting the Arab as other than human. "Erotic projection is done in a way that is safe because it justifies aggression toward the very object of desire." The author cites examples like tshirts about not getting "Saddamized" that suggest instead sodomizing Hussein with a missile.
"Why such trust in the power of law to regulate affairs in the US [banning gay marriage] and such dismissal of its ability to do so overseas [torture]? While it is tempting to write off this dynamic as power-hungry cynicism, I would like to suggest that there may be more at work --- it may be precisely the apocalyptic determination of appropriate human desire that binds the proliferation of law-making at home to the refusal of law abroad." ... "bare life is animal life that is not quite yet human." (bare life is explained more on page 96, see also Giorgio Agamben) This is tied to the idea of exceptions such as Bush's authorization of indefninite detentions --- bare life is outside the political and must be contained by it. "bare life as a limit marker for the human." Liminality, border zones, I feel like there's a D&G connection here too. "raw sex" as sex that is not constrained by a goal, connected to bare life. Similarly included and excluded through exceptions; I find this a convincing argument.
Abu Ghraib prisoners as borderline of human and inhuman --- order from commanding officer to treat them like dogs, but "such inhuman treatment is predicated precisely on detainees' humanity, their ability to talk, to inform, to be in human pain, to be humiliated. Though treated as inhuman, their humanity is necessary to the process." Oh here's the connection: prisoners forced to engage in mock or real homosexual acts, equating the inhuman with the non-heterosexual --- both in line with the eschatological ideas and orientalism previously discussed. The sadistic desire of US soldiers is blamed on homosexuality --- and their heterosexuality remains "because the seductive in/human object of desire could be aggressed at the same time as desire is enacted." [0]
"All this is more than a little depressing," says the author. Uhh, yes. So, she suggests, can we reclaim the antichrist? "Antichristic desire confuses identity, transgresses borders and confounds telos. It is polymorphously perverse." That does sound pretty queer-theory-queer. "His deceptiveness threatens every identity." Oooh, this ties to Edelman/Lacan, queerness as death drive, removing the goal of the Child from sexuality and disrupting "the future-oriented trajectory of identity." Does it really become anti-apocalyptic, though, as the author suggests? She suggests the Child is necessary for the apocalypse, but would not a lack of Child mean the end of the world? Or am I being too literal?
"The antichrist demonstrates what post-structuralism has been insisting: meaning may not be what it seems. The queer antichrist defies certainty." Looking to conservative Christian discourse for post-structuralist arguments is certainly a bold move. I find this a useful lens (and interesting to compare as she does to Halberstam's "queer time") but am not sure how I feel about taking it to its conclusions. I will think about this overnight as I distill these notes for class tomorrow!
Also I'm peeved that she never engaged with always using masculine pronouns for the antichrist.
[0] I think it would be really interesting to take this idea into analysis of pornography, but it's out of scope for me here.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Look at 2 John 1:7-11, for example.Is 'the' really the correct translation here? It doesn't sound remotely like a single person is being described.
no subject
Which translation are you using?
no subject
no subject
I ask because the NIV is an explicitly evangelical Christian translation, and it was made because the Christian Reformed Church and a couple other evangelical churches found the RSV too liberal. I've always been a bit suspect of its scholarship, though it at least has the decency to have gone back to contemporary Greek and Hebrew texts rather than rewriting the KJV as some "translations" do.
It looks like the KJV uses "an antichrist," but the RSV and NRSV use "the antichrist". I wonder if this is a KJV mistranslation, a change between the earlier texts the NIV, RSV, and NRSV are based on and the later texts the KJV is based on, or a bit of modern evangelicalism slipping into the translation. My guess was the latter, but now I'm not so sure.
I agree that "the antichrist" in the context of the Epistles doesn't have any particular eschatological context, though.
no subject
So, uh, maybe it does have eschatological context. ::shudder::
no subject
no subject
no subject
There's an excellent summary of early apocalyptic thinking suggesting an "eschatological opponent" who is to Satan as Jesus is to God.
I don't think I had drawn that connection in the name, so it's possible I'm reading it incorrectly. Though given Trinitarian doctrine, by analogy any adversary could be one such in multiple persons, so the distinction could be a fine one. Chewy.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject