08.12.2016 Views

Crossroads in Cultural Studies Conference 14-17th December 2016 Program Index

Crossroads-2016-final-draft-program-30-Nov

Crossroads-2016-final-draft-program-30-Nov

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

3S<br />

Lyons)<br />

Mess<strong>in</strong>g with the Cultured Subject: Genealogies of Futures, the Before, and the After (Chair, Siobhan<br />

This transdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary panel proposes a range of methodological approaches to the materially situated temporality of<br />

gender as a cultured subject. The categories of gender, subjectivity, identity, and sexuality are problematised by such<br />

notions as affect, agency, performance, entanglement, decolonisation, and spacetimematter<strong>in</strong>gs (Haraway 1988;<br />

1991; Butler 1990; 1993; Braidotti 2002; Barad 2003; Mohanty 2003; Angerer 2007; Visweswaran 2010). These<br />

notions have both exposed the agnostic nature of power fields (Haraway 2008), and given us licence to “grapple with<br />

the mess<strong>in</strong>ess of the world” (Stengers 2011).<br />

Kate O’Halloran Anti-sociality and Queer Enough Futures<br />

This paper explores scholarship on queer temporality. Texts on queer temporality post the anti-social turn <strong>in</strong><br />

US queer theory are pitched as a challenge to so-called l<strong>in</strong>ear time l<strong>in</strong>es, to the necessity of equality with<strong>in</strong> a<br />

neoliberal, conservative regime. Typically, this means one of two approaches: the rejection outright of the<br />

concept of the future (Edelman 2004), or the encouragement of alternative, queer timel<strong>in</strong>es, which are seen<br />

as disrupt<strong>in</strong>g the hetero/homonormative or l<strong>in</strong>ear status quo (Halberstam 2005). Although pitched as<br />

“oppos<strong>in</strong>g” scholarly trajectories, both <strong>in</strong>sist on a broad-based challenge to “normativity” and preface<br />

“better” or anti-social futures on a b<strong>in</strong>ary opposition to the ord<strong>in</strong>ary. This b<strong>in</strong>ary logic thus <strong>in</strong>vests queerness<br />

<strong>in</strong> pre-determ<strong>in</strong>ed objects, locations, and timel<strong>in</strong>es. The paper argues that this is out of step with the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />

theoretical impulse of scholarship on queer temporality (see Freeman 2000; Freccero 2006), and will<br />

propose an ethical impulse of queer theory for present and future theoris<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Er<strong>in</strong> K Stapleton The Girl that Came Before: Material Genealogies of Sexed Bodies<br />

The contemporary popular imag<strong>in</strong>ary conjures a restrictive, morphologically specific image of the female<br />

sexed body as a visible marker of digitally produced cultures, whilst simultaneously offer<strong>in</strong>g a slogan-based<br />

iteration of fem<strong>in</strong>ist discourse that aims to <strong>in</strong>tervene <strong>in</strong>to the exclusive space of that image production. The<br />

dissonance between these two narratives produces prescriptive conditions under which the female sexed<br />

body might operate (the perfect woman, the bad fem<strong>in</strong>ist). This paper will <strong>in</strong>vestigate the genealogical<br />

production of the contemporary sexed body (Barad 2007; Van der Tu<strong>in</strong> 2015) to uncover potential for<br />

resistance through enacted transgressions (Bataille 2001; Foucault 1978) of those material conditions,<br />

referr<strong>in</strong>g to recent films Spy and The Heat featur<strong>in</strong>g actress Melissa McCarthy. The use of the term “sexed<br />

body” rather than “gendered body” produces the potential for sexual possibilities that operate alongside<br />

situated material conditions under which gender is produced.<br />

Felicity Colman The After-Life: Lovelace and Lucrezia<br />

In critical terms fem<strong>in</strong>ists who look at the genealogies of how the terms of “act<strong>in</strong>g,” “th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g,” and “feel<strong>in</strong>g”<br />

have been used and are used <strong>in</strong> relation to gendered discourses are engaged with critical work concern<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the constitution of subjectivity, the human, posthuman, sex, sexuality, and gender<strong>in</strong>g. These debates, once<br />

referred to as ideology, are now described as a range of different political registers (Angerer 2007; Howie<br />

2010; Visweswaran 2010; Braidotti 2013; Fraser 2013). This paper addresses aspects of the genealogical<br />

work of fem<strong>in</strong>ist th<strong>in</strong>kers engag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the media literacy of these politics (de Lauretis 1993; Plant 1998; Van<br />

der Tu<strong>in</strong> 2015), whose methods for approach<strong>in</strong>g gender<strong>in</strong>g – <strong>in</strong> terms of the modal relationships allowed to<br />

be expressed by genders - can be useful for th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g the genealogical recod<strong>in</strong>g required for material histories<br />

(as Haraway 1988 critiques). Plant and De Lauretis’s respective research (amongst others) is a rem<strong>in</strong>der of<br />

how cultural literacies need to be developed with non-gender discrim<strong>in</strong>ation codes <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d.<br />

98

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!