Building
on the work of Foucault, J.L. Austin, and Silvan Tomkins, Sedgwick covers a
broad range of topics in this collection of essays, though they all loosely
center around the notion of affect and how it is informed by scholarship on
queer theory and performativity. Noting
that much of queer theory has used Austin’s work on performativity to discuss
gender, Sedgwick proposes “a new class of periperformative
utterances who complex efficacy depends on their tangency to, as well as
their difference from, the explicit performances” (5). What’s useful to my work is some of this
affect discussion: for example, when Sedgwick says, “Attending to psychology
and materiality at the level of affect and texture is also to enter a
conceptual realm that is not shaped by lack nor by commonsensical dualities of
subject versus object or of means versus ends” (21), how does this relate to
the concept of intersubjective space?
Further, some of her discussion of shame may be relevant, such as her
quote from Michael Franz Basch: “The
shame-humiliation response, when it appears, represents the failure or absence
of the smile of contact, a reaction to the loss of feedback from others,
indicating social isolation and signaling the need for that condition” (36).
She goes on to say herself that shame makes a “double movement…toward painful
individuation, toward uncontrollable relationality” (37). I think this may relate to intersubjective
space, too, and how ugliness functions there.
Her
discussion of the periperformative and how it relates specifically to marriage
is also useful to me, as I think the marriage economy is going to be at least
part of my work. Pages 71-71 in
particular she discusses the interpellative nature of weddings—not only for
those getting married, but for the witnesses as well, and the compulsory
heterosexuality which these ceremonies work to enforce. In addition to my idea that ugliness marks
those who should not be reproducing, who should not be rewarded with marriage,
it’s interesting to consider what effect their proximity to the marriage
economy in general—are they an Eris-like threat to order?
No comments:
Post a Comment