Annamarie Jagose knows that queer theory did not spring full- blown from the head of any contemporary theorist. It is the outcome of many different influences and sources, including the homophile movement, gay liberation, and lesbian feminism. In pointing to the history of queer theory--a history that all too often is ignored or elided--Jagose performs a valuable service.--Henr...
Annamarie Jagose knows that queer theory did not spring full- blown from the head of any contemporary theorist. It is the outcome of many different influences and sources, including the homophile movement, gay liberation, and lesbian feminism. In pointing to the history of queer theory--a history that all too often is ignored or elided--Jagose performs a valuable service.--Henry Abelove, co-editor of The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader
The political and academic appropriation of the term queer over the last several years has marked a shift in the study of sexuality from a focus on supposedly essential categories as gay and lesbian to more fluid or queer notions of sexual identity. Yet queer is a category still in the process of formation. In Queer Theory, Annamarie Jagose provides a clear and concise explanation of queer theory, tracing it as part of an intriguing history of same-sex love over the last century.
Blending insights from prominent theorists such as Judith Butler and David Halperin, Jagose argues that queer theory's challenge is to create new ways of thinking, not only about fixed sexual identities such as heterosexual and homosexual, but also about other supposedly essential notions such as sexuality and gender and even man and woman.
Queer is also productively informed by lesbian feminism in three crucial respects: its attention to the specificity og gender; its framing of sexuality as institutional rather than personal, and its critique of compulsory hetersexuality (查看原文)
Nationally and internationally, gay liberation was neither a monolithic nor even an entirely coherent social movement. It was organised around analyses of the structures of lesbian and gay oppression, and how such oppression might be overcome. Homosexuality was represented as an identity repressed by heterosexist power structures which privilege gender-asymmetry, sexual reproduction and the patriarchal nuclear family. Unlike the homophile
movement, gay liberation theorised that the system would never be radically transformed by those who were invested in it.
Dominant formulations of sex and gender categories (and the institutions which supported them) would be eradicated only by gay men and lesbians who, refusing to accept their subaltern status, would destroy the system through literal a... (查看原文)
2 有用 咸浣熊 2021-09-19 21:55:15
编年史和关键词都兼顾到。流水的酷儿理论，铁打的福柯（权力不是压迫而是生产性的，和德勒兹相会）和巴特勒（操演不是表演，不是穿上一件衣服那么简单）。行为/身份的两分、建构论也可以恐同、从乞求认同到身份政治、改良和运动、女同的隐身（身份嵌套的两难）与显现（赋予性别而非性取向优先权重）、贴合当下的姐妹/男人话语和国家主义酷儿.....酷儿理论、女性主义和后殖民等20世纪理论很多都是“拿来主义”的，面对现实... 编年史和关键词都兼顾到。流水的酷儿理论，铁打的福柯（权力不是压迫而是生产性的，和德勒兹相会）和巴特勒（操演不是表演，不是穿上一件衣服那么简单）。行为/身份的两分、建构论也可以恐同、从乞求认同到身份政治、改良和运动、女同的隐身（身份嵌套的两难）与显现（赋予性别而非性取向优先权重）、贴合当下的姐妹/男人话语和国家主义酷儿.....酷儿理论、女性主义和后殖民等20世纪理论很多都是“拿来主义”的，面对现实状况直接摘取近两个世纪的理论，因此模糊性和效力之间有张力。本书罗列的各种对酷儿理论的批评都太实在，反驳的底气都很弱。去批判“理所应当”是很可贵，只是身份和任何知识型一样有其必要的界限（看到能解释什么不能解释什么），试图挪用出一个没有排他性的术语，拼凑碎片去囊括一切是很徒劳而且容易被收编的。 (展开)
2 有用 巨翅 2013-08-05 16:43:37
海龙果读书会上备受瞩目的重口“小黄书”，内容很有意思。从起初带有病理化色彩的homesexual，到具有社群意识的gay/lesbian认同，再到颠覆传统性别性征观念、拒绝本质主义定义的queer（酷儿），作者结合性少数群体政治权利运动的历史，梳理了直至酷儿理论诞生的社会思潮发展脉络，展现出酷儿理论的独特创见，以及其“叛离”身份政治而引发的争议。
2 有用 无阴无晴 2013-12-24 14:43:53
优点在于为深度阅读铺展路径，其弱点在于几乎只是在话语层面进行推演，当时当下的历史实践与哲学思潮的交叉对话隐而不显，特别是到了80年代末，酷儿理论登台亮相，面对种种质疑，作者几乎一股脑把辩词推到酷儿的不稳定性与持续重构性上来，难以让人信服，结果造成的印象是只有认识论层面的更新，而利用此认识论进行踏实的实在研究的作品依旧是犹抱琵琶半遮面。
1 有用 失望的奥利瓦🌈 2023-02-16 19:55:39 湖北
涵盖面很广，包括本质/建构之争、早期同性恋之友运动、女同性恋女权主义、艾滋运动等都有涉及。“酷儿”看起来像是一个LG针对BT+的统战策略，而“酷儿理论”就充满了学术制造的意味，本身也是带有非常强美国色彩的历史性的产物，虽然最后输出到了全世界。如果对历史性缺乏关切，酷儿理论恐怕和概念游戏也没什么区别了。
0 有用 MIK 2024-09-20 00:46:59 上海
一本脉络梳理书，酷儿理论是涵盖一切边缘群体的，它的不稳定性与包容性是它最大的特点，而酷儿能和女权主义相对抗也是令我诧异的，white gay是边缘群体的主权人物。