Affective Assemblages: Entanglements & Ruptures—An Interview with Lauren Berlant

Not applicabl

Sexe en public

À partir d’un questionnement sur les médiations de la sexualité dans l’espace public, l’article propose une analyse critique de l’hétéronormativité inspirée aussi bien par les travaux de Jürgen Habermas et Michel Foucault que par la théorie queer. Il donne à voir le processus de constitution de l’hétéronormativité en une culture publique hégémonique. Bien que la culture hétérosexuelle ne compose ni une idéologie cohérente, ni un ensemble homogène de croyances partagées, elle se manifeste de façon diffuse dans presque chaque aspect des formes et des arrangements de la vie sociale : la nationalité, l’État et le droit, l’économie, la médecine, l’éducation ou encore les conventions narratives. Une telle culture publique prend appui sur l’idéologie de l’intimité et ses institutions qui participent d’un double mouvement de privatisation du sexe et de sexualisation de la personnalité. En excluant le sexe des objets de débat public et en le réduisant à une affaire strictement personnelle, les conventions hétéronormatives de l’intimité empêchent la formation de cultures sexuelles publiques non normatives.This essay interrogates the mediations of sexuality in the public sphere and provides a critical analysis of heteronormativity inspired by works by Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and queer theory. More specifically, it explores the construction of heteronormativity as a hegemonic public culture. Although heterosexual culture is neither a single ideology nor a unified set of beliefs, it manifests itself in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life: nationality, the State, and the law; commerce; medicine; and education; as well as narrative conventions. Such a public culture relies on the ideology and institutions of intimacy, which contribute to a double movement of privatization of sex and sexualization of personhood. By making sex seem irrelevant or merely personal, heteronormative conventions of intimacy block the building of nonnormative public sexual cultures

Sex in public

Aineisto on Opiskelijakirjaston digitoimaa ja Opiskelijakirjasto vastaa aineiston käyttöluvist

Stakkels Eliza

Rodgers og Hammersteins Kongen og jeg er et sjældent eksempel på et stykke klassisk americana, som ikke udspiller sig i Amerika. Den overdådige musical foregår, atypisk nok for samtiden (1949), under en krise i forholdet mellem Det britiske Imperium og Siam, der involverer en række forskellige militære og økonomiske intriger, men koncentrerer sig om en kulturalistisk politik. Fra åbningen med Anna Leonowens’ ankomst til Siam minder stykket om, at Storbritannien har eksporteret en civilisatorisk pædagogik som en del af sin imperiebygningsstrategi: Leonowens bliver importeret, så hun kan ”bringe det gode i vestlig kultur til Siam” (Rodgers og Hammerstein 379). Hendes læresætninger omfatter respekt for ”videnskaben” og for anti-despotismen i både den politiske sfære og i paladsets

Whose personal is more political? Experience in contemporary feminist politics

Whose personal is more political? This paper rethinks the role of experience in contemporary feminism, arguing that it can operate as a form of capital within abstracted and decontextualised debates which entrench existing power relations. Although experiential epistemologies are crucial to progressive feminist thought and action, in a neoliberal context in which the personal and emotional is commodified powerful groups can mobilise traumatic narratives to gain political advantage. Through case study analysis this paper shows how privileged feminists, speaking for others and sometimes for themselves, use experience to generate emotion and justify particular agendas, silencing critics who are often from more marginalised social positions. The use of the experiential as capital both reflects and perpetuates the neoliberal invisibilisation of structural dynamics: it situates all experiences as equal, and in the process fortifies existing inequalities. This competitive discursive field is polarising, and creates selective empathies through which we tend to discredit others¹ realities instead of engaging with their politics. However, I am not arguing for a renunciation of the politics of experience: instead, I ask that we resist its commodification and respect varied narratives while situating them in a structural frame