…Oh, now, if space and the body are hard to accurately describe, the word queer can only point towards the place where space and mindheartbody not only inform each other, but experientially osmose and fade away.  “…queer does not have a relation of exteriority to that with which it comes into contact” (Ahmed, 2006, p. 4). If common understanding is that form is solid, and space is not, queer understanding is a fluctuating perception of what is and is not form, and what is and is not space. (Here is where the science of Buddhism expressly tatters the veils of normal and might be seen as queer theory itself.) Queerness is a particularly bodied knowing and movement of identities, behaviors, and expressions. Queerness is also disoriented from more accepted or common orientations to what it means to be, to live, to love. A queer blogger writes:

The issue, for me… is figuring out how we can resist the tendency to normalize from the position of a privileged affective response or attitude. …I am interested in the mingling of destruction and construction—concurrent undoing and doing—…and an understanding of subjectivity as extremely volatile… Because our affective responses are in flux, shifting our outlooks… I’m wondering if it’s okay if I’m sometimes full of a whole lot of negativity and hope, wondering why we think of things as mutually exclusive or why it sometimes seems so hard for us to think of things as multiple. (Loneberry, 2010, June 22).

            Though an important and inspiring resource for me, Situpa’s (1992) Relative World Ultimate Mind’s many descriptions of how relative circumstances are ultimately empty of duality depend disproportionately on male-female references. Of all the contrasts available as illustrative false perceived dualities, in discussing grammar, astrology and other core knowledges, Situpa (1992) seems to consider the gender binary as the most stable or obvious example of duality. He is not unique in this. Yoga, Tantra and all spiritual systems of thought are riddled by an assumed seeming essence of male-female truth. I can presume it is an attempt to personalize the association to a human bodied context. However, race and ethnicity are clearly off limits in these modern times. As a genderqueer person among a burgeoning community with understanding of the fluidity of gendered experience, reliance on a gender binary, not only as an acceptable fail-safe model of duality, but also as a socially agreeable one, is ignorant and insensitive. “We are returned to the language of gaps and intervals familiar from… descriptions of relations across sexual difference, returned to the description of normative gender as a realm of catalyzing mystery” (Salamon, 2010, p. 153). …

excerpt from the thesis 😉

Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: orientations, objects, others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Loneberry. (2010, June 22). Negative feminism, anti-queer theory and the politics of hope. [Blog]. Retrieved from: http://loneberry.tumblr.com/post/724635724/negative-feminism-anti-social-queer-theory-and-the

Situpa, T. (1992). Relative world, ultimate mind. Boston, MA: Shambala.

Salamon, G. (2010). Assuming a body: Transgender and rhetorics of materiality. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: