Here's an interesting article from today's New York Times that I thought many of you might find interesting. Check it out if you're so moved:
"Once a Pariah, Now a Judge"
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Post for Monday, August 31: Three Movements for LGBTQ Justice
Thank you all for responding to my first post last week. I appreciated learning more about yourselves and seeing how you were making sense of our first reading, as well as thinking through the questions you posted. Please note that I responded to everyone who responded (as of Saturday morning), so if you'd like to continue responding, you are more than welcome to. Also, I encourage you to take time to read the comments your classmates make and respond to them, too. My hope is that this space will become a very dynamic virtual space that will enrich and reflect our time in class.
One of thoughts I was left with after our conversation on Wednesday, was a point that we didn't spend too much time on, but seems important to return to: As historians of sexuality have worked to show us that identities like "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," or even "homosexual" don't always make sense historically (or even cross-culturally), sometimes we continue to act like these terms are coherent and stable today. Jagose argues that phrases like, "homosexuality in the modern sense" or "homosexuality as it is understood today" suggest or "imply that modern homosexuality, unlike its predecessors, is coherent, certain and known. Much is invested culturally in representing homosexuality as definitionally unproblematic, and in maintaining heterosexuality and homosexuality as radically and demonstrably distinct from one another" (18). As we continue to reflect on this book, it's arguments, and the meaning and usefulness of "queer," I think continuing to be open to all the mismatches and lack of coherence with regard to sexuality in our contemporary world will be important. What do you think?
(As an aside, I found this link to an interesting online conversation that HuffPost Live aired a few years ago. If you have time and interest, please view it, as it might help enhance our collective understanding: "What Does It Mean to Identify as Queer?")
For class on Monday, I'd like you reflect on two things: First, what specific kinds of activities, or discussion starters, do you like to do in classes like ours to get the discussion going? I will bring in a range of different activities starting on Monday, but would love to know what works best for you.
Second, after reading the next few chapters in Queer Theory: An Introduction, please take time to reflect on the three different movements that Jagose describes. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the reading and raise whatever questions seem important to you. I would be curious to read more about the distinctions or differences you see between these three movements or approaches to sexuality, as well as anything they might be said to share in common.
I look forward to reading your thoughts, and would love to see you read and comment to each other, too. Thank you!
One of thoughts I was left with after our conversation on Wednesday, was a point that we didn't spend too much time on, but seems important to return to: As historians of sexuality have worked to show us that identities like "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," or even "homosexual" don't always make sense historically (or even cross-culturally), sometimes we continue to act like these terms are coherent and stable today. Jagose argues that phrases like, "homosexuality in the modern sense" or "homosexuality as it is understood today" suggest or "imply that modern homosexuality, unlike its predecessors, is coherent, certain and known. Much is invested culturally in representing homosexuality as definitionally unproblematic, and in maintaining heterosexuality and homosexuality as radically and demonstrably distinct from one another" (18). As we continue to reflect on this book, it's arguments, and the meaning and usefulness of "queer," I think continuing to be open to all the mismatches and lack of coherence with regard to sexuality in our contemporary world will be important. What do you think?
(As an aside, I found this link to an interesting online conversation that HuffPost Live aired a few years ago. If you have time and interest, please view it, as it might help enhance our collective understanding: "What Does It Mean to Identify as Queer?")
For class on Monday, I'd like you reflect on two things: First, what specific kinds of activities, or discussion starters, do you like to do in classes like ours to get the discussion going? I will bring in a range of different activities starting on Monday, but would love to know what works best for you.
Second, after reading the next few chapters in Queer Theory: An Introduction, please take time to reflect on the three different movements that Jagose describes. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the reading and raise whatever questions seem important to you. I would be curious to read more about the distinctions or differences you see between these three movements or approaches to sexuality, as well as anything they might be said to share in common.
I look forward to reading your thoughts, and would love to see you read and comment to each other, too. Thank you!
Monday, August 24, 2015
Post for Wednesday, August 26: Welcome to “Justice, Gender, Sexuality”
Welcome to our course blog—“Justice, Gender,
Sexuality”! In this space, you’ll have
the chance to reflect on our course reading, ask questions, interact with each
other and build a virtual community to complement our classroom space. For this
first post, I invite you to do two things: First, tell us more about yourself. If you like, you can recount one of the
stories from your “First Impressions” worksheet, or share something else about
yourself that you think is significant or that you’d like us to know about
you. You might also consider telling us
more about why you decided to take this course, and what you hope to learn from
it.
Then, please reflect on the reading assigned for class. Given the first two chapters of Queer Theory: An Introduction, tell us more about what you think the main point is that our author, Annamarie Jagose is trying to make. What key point do you think is essential from this reading? Why? Also, since it is fairly complicated, you are welcome to share any confusions or questions you’re having. We can do our best as a class to respond to each other and help in whatever way make sense.
Aim for at least 250 words in your comment to this post. Make sure to take time to edit it for clarity and correctness. I look forward to reading what you have to say!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)