Queer of Color Methodologies - Jozi Chaet

Josephine Chaet

GWS 502.01 – Women of Color Methodologies

Professor Naber

Relevance to the Text Generally

Over the course this past week, the information presented throughout the readings has largely focused on the way in which, or the extent to which, critical formations concerning queerness in the context of the United States might illuminate or inspire considerations of considerations of the institutional, legal, and political understanding of sexuality. In particular, David Eng, Roderick Ferguson, and Jasbir Puar examine the role of both queer theory and the study of sexualities in examining the “metatheories and the ‘real-politiks’ of Empire, often understood…as ‘the real business of politics” (Puar 2005, 121). While the following post cannot successfully engage with all of the complex notions presented by Eng, Ferguson, and Puar, this post attempts to think through the primary concept addressed over the course of the readings, which is mentioned briefly above – namely, the way in which the study of sexuality can be used to assess the racialized, gendered, and classed forms of power embedded within the historical construction and development of the United States as a whole. In turn, this post attempts to explore the implications of that anaylsis, and endeavors to address the potential ways in which it relates to my own emergent research.

Throughout her discussion concerning the way in which the South Asian queer diaspora has been reshaped over the course of the past approximately five years (at the time of publication), Puar reflects on the relationship between queer narratives and American nationalism. Specifically, Puar states that “queerness is proffered as a sexually exceptional form of American national sexuality through a rhetoric of sexual modernization that is simultaneously able to castigate the other as homophobic and perverse, and construct the imperialist center as ‘tolerant’ but sexually, racially, and gendered normal” (Puar 2005, 122, italics in original). In effect, Puar suggests that the understanding of queerness is related to the creation and establishment of the formation of nation subjects throughout the United States (Puar 2005). That same notion is reflected throughout the work published by both Eng and Ferguson. In particular, Eng examined the connections between sexuality, the economy, and race inform and are informed by conceptions of American nationalism and identity. Moreover, Ferguson explicitly focuses his analysis on the theorization of sexuality as “a mode of racialized governmentality” (Ferguson 2005, 89), and thus examines sexuality as “an operation of power” (Ferguson 2005, 89). In doing so, all three scholars explore the value of queer studies in understanding empire, globalization, neoliberalism, and sovereignty (Eng et al. 2005), and thus examine queer epistemology in a way that permits the reconsideration of queer studies in relation to historical events of national importance.

Applications to Real or Imagined Project(s)

Eng, Ferguson, and Puar’s separate discussions concerning the emerging role of queer studies in investigating broad social concerns in association with particular historical moments are stimulating, and provide a basis for an exploration of the relationship between perceptions of queerness, notions of sexual normativity, and the establishment of national identity. While my project does not directly focus on queerness, and thus, while I am unsure if my emergent project will explicitly apply a queer theoretical lens to my research, I am interested in the way in which the disciplinary apparatus of the state interacts with the “rights obtained by individuals in their conflicts with central powers” (Eng 2010, 28), a discussion that provided the underlying foundation for the analyses presented by all three scholars. Thus, while I am not, as my research stands now, directly engaged with discussions of sexual identity and sexuality, the interest in the state apparatus that is in some way part of all the articles for this week is in an interesting concept, and is one that can certainly be applied to my emergent project. In turn, the readings for this week are useful in their generative encouragement to critically explore and engage with questions concerning the law, the state, and civil society, as well as the intersections between those three institutions/entities. I am not completely sure if this notion makes sense, but the relationship between collective rights and politics was something that I was mulling over, and is something that I’m sure will continue to develop as the semester progresses.

Discussion Question(s)

At the moment, however, I have been thinking about a few particular, inter-related questions –

In what ways can the theoretical perspectives and methodological objectives presented over the course of the articles for this week be applied to research that focuses not on particular historical moments, but on extant communities and ongoing events? To what extent does that potential application confound (or illuminate) questions concerning positionality, accountability, and validity in research?