In reading Epistemology of the Closet, by Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick, I had difficulty being engaged as I had with previous texts. This was due to the academic tone of the
piece. I frequently had to look up words
to follow along with the meaning of the passages. I had to reread passages to comprehend the
different syntax than I am used to. Thought
this piece did not feel as accessible to me as others, there were many messages
that made me think critically about the subject.
The Epistemology of the Closet covers the discourse
surrounding sexuality. Sedgwick
constructs sections of the book based off of classic literature and philosophers. They analyze sexuality and especially gay men
as it appears in the texts. This was not
what I was expecting when I approached this book. But as we have talked about in class and in
many other readings, literature is a version of human theory. Even literature that is produced without the
intention of sending a message about sexuality often does. Literature can be used as a measure of
specific culture at a historical moment.
One line that I could really relate to was in the
introduction. Sedgwick is discussing the
complications of doing theory and states: “It is only by being shameless about
risking the obvious that we happen into the vicinity of the transformative.” I have experienced this personally. The greatest take transformations I have had
about my own socialization and perception of others comes out in words that
make my friends say: “yeah, duh.” This
phrase can also relate to what Cherrie Moraga spoke about when she visited OSU
this winter. She was advising that we
approach situations with the beginners mind.
That having that openness we will be able to see things that we shut
ourselves out to when we are used to a topic or consider ourselves expert. It felt unique to come across this passage in
a text that was written very academically.
In fact much of Sedgwick’s writing is very humble and intentional about
being undefining. That is a challenge to
the prestige that is associated with academic writing. It is nice to see that power structure messed
with. It is also a reminder to me that I
should not judge pieces based on their tone.
As Qwo-Li suggested in class, if we consider stories and oral histories
to be theory, we also need to not antagonize academic work. It is all theory.
Sedgwick spoke of the genocide against queer people, and
that this complete genocide would mean the eradication of the whole human
species. This was a logical point, but
she further warned: “The impulse of a species towards its own eradication must
not either, however, be underestimated.”
This gave me pause. It is hard to
accept that humans as a species could compulsively eradicate themselves. But it is also not hard to accept. The logic behind genocide is simple. It perhaps can develop from not engaging in
complicated logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment