May 9, 2010: Queer Theory and Native Studies
The discussion material for this Sunday's meeting is a hot-off-the-presses piece by Native scholar and activist, Andrea Smith. It dovetails nicely with our ongoing work on coloniality and gender/sexuality, but engages more explicitly with queer theory, particularly in the context of colonialism and native studies. The need to decolonize critical theory moves in tandem with the need to queer decolonial theory/action - especially in light of Lugones' critique of the "coloniality of power" paradigm as articulated by Quijano - and as such, Smith's piece makes a decisive intervention in both domains. Please read this short piece and come prepared for an exciting discussion!
Smith, Andrea. "Queer Theory & Native Studies: The Heteronormativity of Settler Colonialism," GLQ: A Journal of Gay & Lesbian Studies 16, nos. 1-2 (2010): 41-68. Available online here: http://www.4shared.com/document/akzmNi4f/Smith_A_-_Queer_Theory__Native.html
1 comments:
I am commenting having only heard Andrea a few times (online) and read synopses and reviews of her ideas. And while I am going to read this latest link carefully, I still feel like a few comments need to be heard (as I am not able to access the internet very regularly, and may not be able to get back to this for months).
Basically, I think Andrea is making a mistake in making "ad hominem" attacks of colonial mentalities when they are informally interacting; even when they are still in positions of authority over others. Perhaps this is a tactic to aid in mobilizing people, but on the other side, the consequences, I feel, are that you are burning any possible bridge with people who are following their intuitions. Meaning, that in categorizing intuitive leanings towards being human beings with each other as "evil" or "always bad", you only further entrench gaps between one mentality and another.
I am referring to informal relations made between persons who do not have a balance of power, generally speaking, yet, are inclined to authentic connections in some capacities.
Yes, all coercive tactics by authorities are out of line. Yes they need to be challenged and demystified and blocked from further attacks. Yet still there is something being lost in the seemingly populist-style push for hysteria (or, in the cases I'm thinking of, continued hysteria which blocks ALL serious dialogue).
That something being lost is a bridge to humanity's shared organic intuitions and privatized (or armored) internal reality (versus the outward face that all colonized persons believe they must show).
And I am saying that even these authority figures, in their informal realities, are colonized. Other indigenous people have discussed this to extents, say the NYM's zig-zag in his various run-downs of the history of european colonization (as related to indigenous colonization).
So all I'm pushing for is some nuance when we concern ourselves with articulating (i.e. labeling and stigmatizing) the human beings behind the formal implementing of policies. They are tools (and tooled) themselves! And even when authoritarian (what is the psychology of that?!), I for one know that there are human beings within whom are either so jaded, cynical, and victimized by THEIR colonization (starting in their childhoods and their childhood education, no matter how elite), that they act like beasts. Yet, within that place in which they've numbed themselves out, is still a gift.
If we can thus inspire each other's creative intelligence, instead of forever perpetuating the "Us vs. Them" mentality of politics (et al), we can work (and play) to bring out people's gifts, not their extremes of entrenched fear and forever war.
i pray that you'll think about this, and seriously consider my words, even tho i am likely one in a "nonexistent" (and likely much too distracted) minority.
Post a Comment