![]() ![]() ![]() Radical effectiveness is therefore profoundly and irrevocably compromised, as even Jagose seems to acknowledge (somewhat uneasily) when she asserts that queer identification should still be understood ‘largely in relation to the more stable, more recognisable, categories of ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’’. While Jagose claims ‘profitability’ in ‘Queer’s’ very diffuseness and therefore, its capacity to be tacked on as ‘value adding’ to just about anything, there is also the potential for dilution of the urgency and focus necessary towards a radical, political thrust. ![]() Supporting the development of queer theory, Annamarie Jagose makes the following claim, ‘as queer is unaligned with any specific identity category, it has the potential to be annexed profitably to any number of discussions…’ 1 Indeed, and here lies the problem. ‘Queer’ theorising has complicated and undermined the achievements of the politically radical, gay liberationist movements of the Nineteen-Seventies and Nineteen-Eighties and has made sexuality (and therefore identity) so ambiguous and contingent that it is difficult to stitch together any protest, let alone a cohesive, liberationist strategy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |