homoness’s Reviews > European Others: Queering Ethnicity in Postnational Europe > Status Update

are you taking a course in queer theory or have you just sprouted an interest in this stuff?

While it should be noted, that this book does not in particular constitute a queer theory, even though it draws from it, I have indeed taken a course in queer theory, entitled: "Intersections: Race & Gender" - I found it to be very stimulating and have gotten hold of five or six books, that we were supposed to read in excerpt form, and have finished most of them. After this one, only Ms. Morgensen's "Spaces between us" remains and I can return to my more usual schedule, although many of the books we discussed there, at least in passing, have been new to me, though I won't tackle them now ("The Creoliziation of Theory" comes to my mind).

In a nutshell: yes, I have, even though the interest has been there before. What are your ideas about queer theory?

I don't have many because I'm not versed in it. I would like to read some of Sara Ahmed's work but other than that most stuff under that umbrella does not really pique my curiosity at all. I did take a course called "Identity/Difference Politics" last year (the text book shared the name of the course, I believe I rated it on here) and it didn't exactly disabuse me of the notion that most of the stuff in that field is really pedantic academic stuff without much urgency to it, which made it kind of an irritating course (albeit a very easy A). It was if nothing else good to see "ethnicity," "culture," "multiculturalism," etc interrogated outside of a liberal framework, though I didn't get the impression most of the other people in the class had encountered the words "intersectionality" or "essentialism" or w/e in previous studies. But that's neither here nor there.

A representative anecdote for the course would be the time the prof brought up "LGBTQQA" people, with the "A" apparently standing for "allies." I liked the prof but that was embarrassing for the whole class.

Oh and what didn't you like about that bell hooks book that you rated? (assuming the relatively low score you gave it is indicative of having some kind of fairly major issue with the book)

That entire "allies"-term and the concepts that surround it are a bit problematic, I would aver. In the course I was refering to, we actually even read a text on the very concept, by Jo-Anne Lee. Lee argues, that in ally-ship, there lies the danger of an illusion of equality and a false
belief that "allies“ are indeed taking antioppresive action, when, in fact, being an ally is ”a conceptual identification and little more [...] the ally subject position only serves to falsely and ideologically inoculate them against further critical learning about the ongoing realities of discrimination, poverty, and violence in many communities.“ (Lee 2013: 71)
Allyship thus becomes a mask or a veil that can be taken off and put on depending on the very context, the very ally is subjected to. It offers a salve to heal a wounded sense
”of self, but it fails the test of critical antiracism - which is the full dismantling of white dominance as the ultimate, albeit unattainable, objective.“ (Lee 2013: 72) Through these critical stances on the White ally, Lee hopes to deflect objectification and distancing on the part of White students and some minority students who want to see themselves as always and already "morally untarnished and good.“ (Lee 2013: 73)

Quite a stance, she makes there. And yeah, the twit is ofc quite hilarious.

I have never ever encountered the term "LGBTQQA" in that form before, we are approaching an alphabet-length, it seems. I find it a bit problematic to huddle "allies" into the same category als LGBTIQ but find it interesting to see how a class of heteropatriachal upholders would respond to that.

As for hooks: Her book and its task is urgent, however her delivery is a bad too bland. She makes some important points of how to conceptualize teaching (as collaborative, exciting, open) and students (active, not necessarily well versed in English/philosophy, poor, diverse whatnot). All of that though, entrenched in a prose of almost messianic "radical pedagogy" which I found abit hard to bear. Hence 2/5 stars.

Pardon my English, it's past my bedtime :/

I don't normally like dril, weird twitter, 4chan humour in general, etc, but that's pretty good. "Straight allies" do seem like people who would eat a lot of BLTs.

And I haven't read the hooks book that you rated so I can't really comment. However, I would say that "Feminist Theory" is an extremely important example of what it is but some of the books she wrote afterwords do, as you say, have kind of a milquetoast delivery of the ideas.

I have no idea, Etta. I still would like to read hooks' Feminist Theory; thanks for the word "milquetoast", never saw that before, is pretty cool tho.