Representing some of the most exciting work in critical ethnic studies, the essays in this collection examine the production of racialized, gendered, and sexualized difference, and the possibilities for progressive coalitions, or the “strange affinities,” afforded by nuanced comparative analyses of racial formations. The nationalist and identity-based concepts of race underlying the mid-twentieth-century movements for decolonization and social change are not adequate to the tasks of critiquing the racial configurations generated by neocolonialism and contesting its inequities. Contemporary regimes of power produce racialized, gendered, and sexualized violence and labor exploitation, and they render subjects redundant and disposable by creating new, nominally nonracialized categories of privilege and stigma. The editors of Strange Affinities contend that the greatest potential for developing much-needed alternative comparative methods lies in women of color feminism, and the related intellectual tradition that Roderick A. Ferguson has called queer of color critique. Exemplified by the work of Audre Lorde, Cherríe Moraga, Barbara Smith, and the Combahee River Collective, these critiques do not presume homogeneity across racial or national groups. Instead, they offer powerful relational analyses of the racialized, gendered, and sexualized valuation and devaluation of human life. Contributors Victor Bascara Lisa Marie Cacho M. Bianet Castellanos Martha Chew Sánchez Roderick A. Ferguson Grace Kyungwon Hong Helen H. Jun Kara Keeling Sanda Mayzaw Lwin Jodi Melamed Chandan Reddy Ruby C. Tapia Cynthia Tolentino
An impressive collection of contemporary essays on race, gender and sexuality. The authors revive women of color feminist texts from the 1980s as theoretical frameworks, rather than simply drawing from post-structuralist and more eurocentric versions of queer theory, although they draw on Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, et al too. It provides a clear geneaology of contemporary "queer of color critique" & I would definitely use this book to teach from. It provides a good sampling of where the field is now, particularly in terms of literature and film studies. As with any collection, some essays are stronger than others.
Why do academic writers insist on using 200 words to explain what could be said in 20? Why? This was a slog. Full of jargon, completely inaccessible even to those with a background in race and ethnic studies, and just generally tedious. If anyone gets anything out of it, it's because most chapters are written so opaquely that you can put nearly any interpretation you want on them. Nostradamus is more easily interpreted.