著者

羽生 有希

出版者

国際基督教大学ジェンダー研究センター

雑誌

Gender and sexuality : journal of Center for Gender Studies, ICU (ISSN:18804764)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.149-174, 2016

著者

羽生 有希

出版者

国際基督教大学ジェンダー研究センター

雑誌

Gender and Sexuality (ISSN:18804764)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.149-174, 2016-03-31

---

Resonating with early queer theory's motifs such as appropriation, LeeEdelman's No Future or its central theme, queer negativity, has received notonly applause but also fair criticism, and thereby occupied one of the centralpositions in recent queer theory. In response to such criticism, Edelmanclarifies that the negativity he proposes should not be equated with thesimple negation of particular political positions, and its refusal of “positiveidentity” should rather be directed to the identity principle on which ourwhole society rests. Although such a radical challenge to positive identitycannot be underestimated, we might question whether such a drive-like,amorphous queer resistance tacitly preserves or rehabilitates the positiveidentity it purports to negate. It should also be asked how, while criticizingsuch an insidious risk, we can reframe queer negativity.In order to answer these questions, this paper firstly examines thesimilarities between the argument of queer negativity and that of Frenchfeminist theory, focusing on the concept of improper subject; botharguments, relying on Lacanian psychoanalysis, insist on dis (ap) propriationof identity.After demonstrating their connection, the second section of this paperexplores the criticism offered by Gayatri C. Spivak of such insistence on thedivided subject, and, by doing so, marks the risk that the argument of queernegativity might entail. This section first considers her criticism againstJacqueline Rose. Based on Derridean affirmative deconstruction and hisuse of catachresis, Spivak proposes to understand the subjectivity of thedecentered subject not as a privileged right but as “a bind to be watched”.She also warns against Rose’s reduction of the difference between theontico-epistemological subject and the ethicopolitical subject. Through a reading of such criticism, this paper suggests that an argument like thatof Rose implicitly obliterates the trace of the wholly-other, which is onlynoticeable by attending to the catachresis “woman”, and that it reintroducesthe sovereign subject.The latter part of the second section connects such metaphysicalarguments with the political analysis also made by Spivak. This partexplores the criticism against Foucault / Deleuze, focusing on (A) the statusof the “desire” as catachresis and (B) the inattention to the gap betweendescriptive representation and political representation, which can berespectively compared with (A’) the status of the catachresis “woman” and(B’) the reduction of the difference between the ontico-epistemologicalsubject and the ethicopolitical subject. The inattention to the gap betweenDarstellung and Vertrerung leads to, according to Spivak, the perpetuation ofbourgeois ideology. Functioning with that kind of ideology, the confusion ofthe desire of the empirical instance with that of the transcendental instancerehabilitates the S / subject and implicitly preserves the transparent subjectof the theorists. This paper, based on the similarities between the argumentof queer negativity and that of the French feminist theory demonstratedearlier, lastly directs the criticism on French theory offered by Spivak to theargument of queer negativity. It concludes that queer negativity is to be“watched” in order to affirm the radical negativity of the other.

著者

羽生 有希

出版者

国際基督教大学ジェンダー研究センター

雑誌

Gender and sexuality : journal of Center for Gender Studies, ICU (ISSN:18804764)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.149-174, 2016

---

Resonating with early queer theory's motifs such as appropriation, LeeEdelman's No Future or its central theme, queer negativity, has received notonly applause but also fair criticism, and thereby occupied one of the centralpositions in recent queer theory. In response to such criticism, Edelmanclarifies that the negativity he proposes should not be equated with thesimple negation of particular political positions, and its refusal of "positiveidentity" should rather be directed to the identity principle on which ourwhole society rests. Although such a radical challenge to positive identitycannot be underestimated, we might question whether such a drive-like,amorphous queer resistance tacitly preserves or rehabilitates the positiveidentity it purports to negate. It should also be asked how, while criticizingsuch an insidious risk, we can reframe queer negativity.In order to answer these questions, this paper firstly examines thesimilarities between the argument of queer negativity and that of Frenchfeminist theory, focusing on the concept of improper subject; botharguments, relying on Lacanian psychoanalysis, insist on dis (ap) propriationof identity.After demonstrating their connection, the second section of this paperexplores the criticism offered by Gayatri C. Spivak of such insistence on thedivided subject, and, by doing so, marks the risk that the argument of queernegativity might entail. This section first considers her criticism againstJacqueline Rose. Based on Derridean affirmative deconstruction and hisuse of catachresis, Spivak proposes to understand the subjectivity of thedecentered subject not as a privileged right but as "a bind to be watched".She also warns against Rose's reduction of the difference between theontico-epistemological subject and the ethicopolitical subject. Through a reading of such criticism, this paper suggests that an argument like thatof Rose implicitly obliterates the trace of the wholly-other, which is onlynoticeable by attending to the catachresis "woman", and that it reintroducesthe sovereign subject.The latter part of the second section connects such metaphysicalarguments with the political analysis also made by Spivak. This partexplores the criticism against Foucault / Deleuze, focusing on (A) the statusof the "desire" as catachresis and (B) the inattention to the gap betweendescriptive representation and political representation, which can berespectively compared with (A') the status of the catachresis "woman" and(B') the reduction of the difference between the ontico-epistemologicalsubject and the ethicopolitical subject. The inattention to the gap betweenDarstellung and Vertrerung leads to, according to Spivak, the perpetuation ofbourgeois ideology. Functioning with that kind of ideology, the confusion ofthe desire of the empirical instance with that of the transcendental instancerehabilitates the S / subject and implicitly preserves the transparent subjectof the theorists. This paper, based on the similarities between the argumentof queer negativity and that of the French feminist theory demonstratedearlier, lastly directs the criticism on French theory offered by Spivak to theargument of queer negativity. It concludes that queer negativity is to be"watched" in order to affirm the radical negativity of the other.