I would venture this: it's time to start over.
In theory again, repeating the policy, and thus to rethink the relationship between theory and politics. The rethink, in other words the attempt to undo ever, ever, to rebuild differently. .
I'll explain in a moment.
But first let me say how great is my pleasure to be here tonight with you, to give the inaugural lecture of the Queer Week you organize. When you invited me, you mentioned the delay of France in the emergence of studies on gender and sexuality in French institutions of education and research. I've noted that your initiative, speaking amid a proliferation of courses, seminars, conferences, books ... on these issues, showed instead that the delay was largely caught up or was in process of being implemented. The delay, I could attest to that! You have kindly pointed out in your program that I organized in 1997, a conference at the Centre Pompidou. Y participated people whose names were largely unknown in France at the time, like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, whose magnificent work, Epistemology of the Closet , would wait another ten years before being brought ... There were also prominent thinkers as Leo Bersani , there was George Chauncey, author of the magisterial Gay New York ... More were already very famous in France, of course, as Monique Wittig, who returned it for the first time in public since leaving the United States twenty years ago. ... I also invited Judith Butler and Teresa de Lauretis, but they could not come at the date of the conference, but their names were mentioned repeatedly. Pierre Bourdieu had come to pronounce a communication, he has published in the appendix to his important work on the Domination male .... In the paper read, slightly different from that published, he explained that he had accepted my invitation, first of all because he wanted to provide support to new studies that developed in the U.S. and all over Europe, but the French university seemed to continue to ignore, and secondly, he had insisted interest on any intellectual, any social scientist had to raise questions to which, specifically, forced the social sciences out of the routine in which they were often locked. I remember at the time, this conference had been vilified in the press as the importation of "communalism in the U.S.," as the eruption of identity politics (when all the perpetrators were people whose work deconstructing notions of identity). There was even an article published in the "A" of World to worry about the mortal danger that this conference was for the university, thought, culture - and probably many other things as noble and precious, I forgot the exact list, it had to save from this assault by barbarians. The article concluded that, fortunately, this conference and what he wanted to promote had no future in our beautiful nation Republican, closed to the affirmation of differences and minorities. The World refused to publish the letters of protest to both farms and ironic several participants whose work had been presented in a way that simply stated to the readers that the author of this tissue of nonsense never opened one of their book and do inform readers on his total ignorance of what which he spoke. Pierre Bourdieu, in which another newspaper had joked by saying that he probably wanted to create a "pan queer" (do not laugh, that's not so funny is how we discussed these problems with these not so distant time in major French newspapers ... there was Express I think) then sent a letter - which World obviously could not refuse to release - to be indignant that such eminent researchers and important issues and discussed throughout the world have been insulted and defamed in the columns of a newspaper which claimed so serious, and we just gave, he said, a new version of the denunciation of homosexual conspiracy against culture and civilization. The conference proceedings were published the following year, and World course, did not even mention a few lines in this publication which, I must point out, the first printing of 2,000 copies was exhausted in a month. Today, Le Monde questions almost every week on why the France was such a delay in receiving the American work ... I could perhaps suggest that they some answers. Reminding them, for example, their heavy responsibility for this delay (Note also that, more generally, the same newspaper, who fought with great vehemence and a beautiful systematicity during the years 1980 and 1990, all authors who wished to continue to support critical thinking, now run behind everything that speaks of "the people" and "revolution," everything is as "communist" and even "insurgent", etc.. and it seems that nothing is quite "radical" in their eyes.). In any case, the authors insulted on the first page of the World and defamed on a full inside page in June 1997, are now recognized as major references listed in all bibliographies. And this conference promises to have no future as a point of reference, and is often presented as an inaugural moment the introduction of gay and lesbians studies and queer theory in the French intellectual landscape. Conference Eve Sedgwick Kososfky titled "Making Queer Meanings, Build queer meanings. These meanings have since been largely constructed. They have spread in many directions.
So I can say that the mere fact that you are holding this week in Queer great French institution indicates that we can no longer speak of late, but to presence of stronger and stronger from what had been repressed or marginalized. Which does not take, of course nothing of the importance of this event that you created and which you have invited and for which so many of us to find ourselves in this amphitheater is called upon to date and we will see, no doubt, the effects in the years to come when others will seize upon this idea to be inspired.
But precisely because this week is expected to eventually provide a date, it is this future that I want to talk without a pause longer on the past history, the delay, the reasons for the delay, everything that we could reinforce the idea that, having caught a delay, we could simply be satisfied with the current situation, without question us on what the situation, what we do, what we do. Be the goal of catching up gives no indication of the contents and meanings of what is to come close the previous absence or on our tasks, both within and outside the university. Because if that was long ignored or dismissed, denied, by the institutions, There is now a place, it is interesting to wonder what a transformation it can not fail to produce not only the institution that opens and then changes but also on what it receives, and that s 'as in everything, and inevitably changed. To put it in a nutshell, is what is born of an attempt at destabilization, inconvenience, disruption of the theory, academic disciplines, objects of research and look that you wear on them do not risk losing any destabilizing force in the very process of looking for recognition - and now acquired. After all, the very idea of being on queer theory, should sound like a contradiction in terms, and perhaps as an aberration. What remains of it queer queer theory when it becomes a subject is taught, with delimitation of its key concepts, quest precursor, introduction to basic texts, presentation of the second generation, etc.. What was living freezes, which was creative and inventive becomes abstract, if not recitation of a catechism. Imagine this title in a program of courses: "Introduction to Queer Theory" with the choice for evaluation methods: continuous or final exam, and recommended books to review! This could lead to some amazing discussions among students: "You have passed your examination of queer theory? No, I have to revert to the second session. " As for those who have missed, it may be regarded as the most queer of them all! And therefore give them priority.
The price of success would be the routinization and neutralization: the cluster bomb would have been defused.
should try to rearm. Reaffirming, first and foremost, that queer theory, if there is something we can designate this as a unifying name, which does not seem at all obvious, and queer politics, and I will return in a moment on what can be stored under this term, necessarily involves a critical intellectual and political positioning, and I would say radically critical. Remember that the word queer is first a word of insult, which refers to abnormal, deviant! And reclaim the commitment to preserve something of this significance even when where the returns to make it his own, to make a place in the theory and politics, those who were the recipients of uttering offensive, and positional proximity effect, to all the men and women who are victims standards of violence and domination. It does not seek to build consensus through debate and exchange on controversial issues, but to settle on watersheds and confrontation, and the highlight, to emphasize, to highlight the issues. Queer theory, queer politics are or are not oppositional. And it is the why, if I may, I am tempted to challenge the title you gave to your event: Queer Week: Week of gender and sexuality . Because it is not sufficient that a discourse theoretical or practical policy addresses issues of gender or sexuality so they can be described as queer. Include under the label of all queer discourses and practices that address gender and sexuality, is to lose its radical queer approach, which should remain its radical if we want the approach remains queer. I feel somewhat embarrassed that the word queer used simply to designate an awareness of future political and economic elites of the country to issues of gender and sexuality. Awareness, education against discrimination of all kinds are certainly fundamental, and I applaud it, but that does not draw a very innovative program, nor a theoretical point of view or a political point of view. And this addition to the curriculum may well be ultimately a kind of extra soul - soul democratic course, and I am delighted - learning management politico-economic. If you want to stay true to a certain critical pulse is on the side of the governed rather than on the side of governments that we must situate. Let me take an example, you may view as too controversial directly, and without doubt it is, since one of the possible definitions of the word queer is precisely the controversy, the controversy being waged against the policies implemented or contemplated on behalf of principles that must be challenged, even when they present themselves as feminists or as inspired by the demands of a struggle against oppression or discrimination. This example, I have not chosen randomly, Where proposed prohibition of prostitution, with the criminalization of clients on the model of the Swedish law (penalty resulting in convictions, with the obligation to attend rehabilitative therapies) is a measure that figure, I remind you, in the program of the Socialist Party. So you can have people who supported the improvement of the PACS at its celebration in the town hall, which will play the same big-es progressive, thinking positive - after having been, moreover, so long and so brutally hostile in the name of preserving the symbolic order-the right to marry and the right to parenthood for same-sex couples, who can even come and participate in a queer week, but they prepare, they come to power, soon to promote a state feminism, a feminism repressive, with its arsenal of laws and regulations, and police harassment and also to go with psychiatric, and we have to fight alongside the men and women who are victims. We know the consequences of such laws: prostitutes to push the car parks of the suburbs, exposing them to insecurity or violence. It would still be better to listen Claims associations requesting that prostitution is recognized as a profession, with royalties on social security, retirement ... But there is more: the American anthropologist Don Kulick, in his study to the debates that took place at the time of institution of the law in Sweden, showed how all the speeches that have proliferated in time led to the manufacture of a new class of perverts, a new type of character as a deviant social stigma it would be important and urgent to re-educate: the client of a prostitute (all this course involving a vision in which women are prostitutes and clients of men - and women victims and male predators - while, of course, prostitutes are also men who are clients of other men who have women clients, because obviously there are women who pay men ... or women who pay ... Etc. (I say so. Because I do not forget transvestites, transsexuals, transgender people who escape this binary division of men and women ... and I wonder how the Socialist Party in its approach puritanical, punitive and rehabilitative succeed in cope with these realities, and with monitoring the Internet that should logically lead). In any case, these new perverse, these new deviant, even these new monsters, and if I dared say these new queer that customers are promised punishment established by the State of feminism, were described during the debates Swedish in a language that looks almost word for word from the vocabulary of psychiatric and police nineteenth cons inverts guilty of engaging in sex against nature. In this approach étatico-repressive, it is indeed a question of gender - men and women - and sexualities, but precisely such an approach to gender and sexuality that queer theory and politics to oppose. What some people and some like to show their concern for tolerance for homosexuals best move at the same time, on another category, the pathologizing gaze and attention to healing I do not think - and not appear to targets of this law announced - as a step forward particularly liberating, or even simply progressive. Many feminists do not recognize themselves in what the lawyer called Janet Halley, to disassociate itself with force, the Governance Feminism same feminism that also wants to ban, among other things, pornography ... In any case, feminism is not one: there are feminisms. Whose positions on many points are mutually contradictory, mutually incompatible. And we should not try to hide the contradictions, inconsistencies. It is important to bring to light, and be careful listening to what people say such associations of prostitutes, or women filmmakers and artists who produce works or pornographic images, or women who like to consume these images. Here, queer, would mean speech, speaking of those whose dominant discourses speak but that the same dominant discourses and officials would like to silence. However, silence, there will not.
Since I just mentioned how the phenomenon perpetuated indefinitely, categorization stigmatizing, moves to direct his gaze endlessly into new target, I should mention by immigrants or religious minorities. And it certainly behooves us to consider ourselves, in this case also, the side of targets rather than on the stigma. I know that it is not without difficulties because if we want to support both sexual minorities and religious minorities, for example, can be found to defend religious minorities that condemn sexual minorities to which one belongs or the movement of which we participated in prior years . We must confront these challenges, deal with it. But the first statement should be that we do not accept what has been embodied the sexual movements is used, manipulated - by people we do not know when or if feminist pro-gay - to build a sense of Republic or national identity that would establish a boundary - physical or psychological, external or internal to the nation fantasmatically defined by this exclusion, - outside of which should be maintained including all that belongs to the Muslim culture, ordained abroad forever and therefore undesirable puisqu'inassimilable. I do not want that fight that I carried were taken by people against whom I have undertaken to use now to justify policies - very communal: the national community, and very identitarism: community based on the identity national), to serve, I said, to justify policies abhorrent, and often disgusting, against immigrants, undocumented migrants, women who want to observe the precepts of their religion ...
These are challenges we face, intellectually and politically, and challenges, and the desire to meet them may well set a space - without precise contours and certainly installed at the intersection, inevitably conflictual and full of tensions, movements and several homes problems and problematics - in which new perspectives theoretical and policy could emerge.
If I define politics as well as a Queer oppositional politics, linked to the struggles of minority and multiple forms of resistance to power, I must also point out that this opposition, this oppositional politics is addressed to the standards liability, and that they operate at different levels in different registers and in different ways at one time or another. Therefore I must hasten to clarify that I do not pay in one of these stereotypical discourse of the Vulgate queer who thinks or pretends subversive when it denounces, iteratively and almost obsessive same - that speech often comes down to it, it's queer parody, or imitation queer - the normalization of gay and lesbian movement or what is depicted in horror as homormativité that expresses itself in claiming a right to marriage or the legal recognition of family forms that exist but are socially and culturally deprived of legal existence. It is naive is simplistic to believe that there would, on one hand, the standard and the right and the other, sexual freedom and lie outside the law or refuse any kind of claim that appeals to the law, it would be outside the norm or in opposition to it, and it would be truly subversive. This can also be reversed. Such pseudo-subversive attitude, which subverts anything, may instead contribute to ratify the order as it is and shares that operates between those who have rights and those who do not. So it's an attitude intellectually and politically naive, and at the bottom, although conservative (and besides, all this pseudo-conservatives love queer ... that goes in the same without them). On the one hand because no one is ever completely outside the norm of law (and believe otherwise is an illusion that allows the social order and standards to perpetuate). And secondly because it is obvious that if the standard is registered and stabilized by the law, work to amend the law can help undo the stranglehold of the standard. How many battles took place under the aegis of a claim of right: should abortion, right to contraception, who were also fighting against sexual norms. This seems especially evident in the case of claim of marriage and parenthood.
[...]
