[-empyre-] Fwd: Queer *Is* Violent: Response to Part of Judith's Position/Statement

[naxsmash]

Here is a side exchange that has gone on between my partner Terry, who  
teaches a design studio in architecture, and George, a former student  
of Terry's who's been working on the problematics of violence in  
architecture. Thought it would be worth sharing with the list.
>
>

George observes,


> > Thank you Terry for this article. I was particularly interested in  
> Summers post and the Derrida argument. This is pretty important from  
> where I've gone from your class in that instead of just violence in  
> architecture, I'm now trying to design a particular violence related  
> to the project, yet at the same time almost coddle the users...to  
> embrace the users I suppose. My thoughts are that isn't violence the  
> norm they speak of (which would be some weird implication statement  
> of Summers' on violence against the norm)? After all, aren't nearly  
> all civilizations/cultures founded upon violence of some form or  
> another? Do not all humans resort to violence when bare instinct is  
> all you have to rely on? Even the simple things such as learning how  
> to ride a bicycle or learning how to cook have their own 'violence"  
> in learning procedures. They are times when hasty decisions lead to  
> disastrous consequences, but hold to be the most valuable of  
> learning experiences none the less. However, we all tend to forget  
> that stage of development. I also think that humans are a  
> psychologically tortured species who happiness is merely a level of  
> facade. Secretly regretting mistakes in the past and trying to get  
> over them one by one. I think the glow of a person is a reflection  
> of personality rather than one's happiness.
> >
> > Its the recapturing of that through design that is what is  
> important because I think society tends to forget the "violent"  
> process, the tortured soul, and we only portray our best and never  
> show anything less. So, design in affect, should remind the users of  
> that "violent" learning process, the "violence" of instinct, the  
> mistakes, but also let the users feel submerged into their  
> accomplishments, level of experience, and their rate of happiness.  
> Its all a complete duality but I guess it lets the user interpret if  
> they want to be caressed or take a blow.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 16, 2009 9:30am, Terry Hargrave thargrav at calpoly.edu> wrote:
> > > fyi
> > >
> > > queer nation implications from Christina's friends at empyre
> > >
> > >
> > > t
> > >
> > >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: davin heckman davinheckman at gmail.com>
> > > Date: July 16, 2009 8:25:59 AM PDT
> > > To: soft_skinned_space empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Queer *Is* Violent: Response to Part of  
> Judith's Position/Statement
> > > Reply-To: soft_skinned_space empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was reading Agamben's State of Exception, and then stumbled  
> across
> > > Robert's post.  It strikes me that Agamben's discussion of  
> Benjamin's
> > > "pure violence" might be useful here.  Also useful here might be
> > > Agamben's discussion of anomie (lawlessness) and nomos (the  
> law), and
> > > the sort of lawlessness that results where the law is too weak  
> (there
> > > is no norm) or too strong (where the norms are impossible to  
> follow).
> > > In my mind, queer tactics reside in between the two poles of  
> anomie.
> > > On the one hand, as Foucault demonstrates, norms play a critical  
> role
> > > in shaping and cultivating desire.  On the other hand, where  
> norms are
> > > too severe, they have the effect of criminalizing everyone.
> > >
> > > I think there is a metaphysical "violence" in queer tactics  
> here, but
> > > I think they are the kind of violence that the Merriam-Webster  
> online
> > > dictionary defines as "undue alteration (as of wording or sense in
> > > editing a text)."  Occasionally, this violence might also  
> describe a
> > > category of emotional state ("fervor) or aesthetic state
> > > ("discordance").  And, as a fundamental goal, an anomic relation  
> to
> > > the law (which verges closer to the kind of physical confrontation
> > > associated with "violence.")  At some point, as we progress from
> > > "undue alteration" towards a critique of the law as a system, we  
> move
> > > from a discussion of improvised means towards a discussion of
> > > strategically defined ends...  which might mean that it is  
> impossible
> > > to theorize a "queer tactics," as they would more properly  
> regarded as
> > > "strategies."
> > >
> > > I don't know what to make of these connections.  In my mind,  
> such a
> > > conception of a "pure violence," if it is to be applied, veers too
> > > close to an outright nihilism.  If it is to continue as an
> > > abstraction, it does not offer practical utility.  And, finally,  
> as a
> > > pacifist (I am, I think, as I write this, a pacifist), I wonder  
> what
> > > the implications of an abstract pure violence would have for my
> > > opposition to the forms of violence that we are familiar with  
> (from
> > > physical force to threats of force).  On the other hand, it is  
> hard
> > > for me to imagine a "queerness" which is not, in some way,
> > > threatening....  not by its own design, but by the very laws  
> written
> > > to prevent its transient character from emerging.  I have a hard  
> time
> > > seeing "violence," say, in the kinds of cultural queering that  
> takes
> > > place in borderlands.  Rather, the laws that seek to prevent this
> > > process...  through linguistic purity, the construction of  
> barriers,
> > > and nativist movements...  exert a violence on what would  
> otherwise be
> > > an organic process.  Yet, all the same, the very sorts of queering
> > > that take place in the various borderlands of our structured  
> society
> > > are not insignificant...  they have ontological power...  they  
> "harm"
> > > (end, dissolve, destroy) one way of being by becoming another.
> > >
> > > Very, very interesting reading this month.
> > >
> > > Peace!
> > >
> > > Davin Heckman
> > > www.retrotechnics.com>
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Robert  
> Summersrobtsum at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would respectfully yet disagree with many aspects of what  
> Judith wrote,
> > >
> > > One passage: *Robert's original call asked about the _possible_
> > > heteronormativity of
> > > *relational aesthetics.* I'm not interested in *torturing*  
> anything, whether
> > > bodies or the proper names of continental theorists, but I am  
> interested in
> > > *the democratic space of the *violence of participation,* though  
> I'd add
> > > quite emphatically not as the repetition of violence or even the
> > > metaphorical torturing of anything but as the exploration of,  
> for example,
> > > behaviors, obedience to authority among them. *Queering*  
> relational
> > > aesthetics, then, is productive inasmuch as it forces that  
> metadiscursive
> > > activity.*
> > >
> > > Indeed, there is, I argue, a certain *violence* to/of  
> queer(ing).  In
> > > the words of Sedgwick, "'[q]ueer’ is a continuing moment,  
> movement,
> > > motive—recurrent, eddying, troublant. The word ‘queer’ itself  
> means
> > > across -- it comes from the Indo-European root -twerkw, which also
> > > yields the German quer (transverse), Latin torque (to twist),  
> English
> > > athwart” (_Tendencies_, 1993: xii).  This *speaks* of a certain
> > > violence (*torque* can also be traced to torture, which is an  
> act of
> > > violence), and to queer (or queering -- which I want to also use  
> as a
> > > transitive verb, which would violate/torture rules of grammar)  
> *is*
> > > violence against the normative (and queer _does_ do/enact more  
> than
> > > just this), and we can *see* a certain *queering* as a certain
> > > *violence* when Derrida states, in a way that shows the slippage
> > > between binary oppositions, *... a caress may be a blow and vice
> > > versa. … And let us not exclude either that certain experience of
> > > touching (of 'who touches whom') do
> > > not simply pertain to blows and caresses.  What about a kiss?   
> Is it
> > > one caress among many?  What about a kiss on the mouth?  What  
> about a
> > > biting kiss, as well as everything that can then be exchanged  
> between
> > > lips, tongues, and teeth?  Are blows wanting there?  Are they  
> absent
> > > in coitus, in all the penetrations or acts of homosexual or
> > > heterosexual sodomy?  Is a 'caress,' more so than a 'blow'? (_On
> > > Touching_, 2005: 69)*
> > >
> > > I do not think we need to participate in the reifying of binary
> > > oppositions (either/or), and I do not believe in *meta*  
> anything.  I
> > > would never argue that *queering* is a *meta* anything.  Why  
> this turn
> > > to the *meta* -- which implied both a transcendence and an  
> outside?
> > > And it is interesting that Judith states *Queering* relational
> > > aesthetics, then, is productive inasmuch as it _forces_ that  
> metadiscursive
> > > activity* (emp. mine).  Here we are at a certain violence, a  
> force,
> > > even as it is disavowed.
> > >
> > > I mean this to be polemical, btw.
> > >
> > > Robert Summers, PhD/ABD
> > > Lecturer
> > > Art History and Visual Culture
> > > Otis College of Art and Design
> > > e: rsummers at otis.edu
> > > w: http://ospace.otis.edu/robtsum/Welcome
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090716/845f801b/attachment.html