In that article, Brede develops a reading that joins Freud and Simmel’s accounts of the role of the figure of “the stranger” in modern societies. In Civilization and its Discontents, Brede argues, Freud described “strangers” in terms that initially appear incompatible with the account Simmel had put forth in his famous 1908 “Excursus on the Stranger.” Simmel described the mechanisms whereby social groups exclude strangers in order to eliminate danger—thereby controlling the “monstrous reservoir of aggressivity” that would otherwise threaten social structure. (The quote is from Parsons.) Freud wrote that, despite the Biblical commandment to love our neighbors, and the ban on killing, we experience a hatred of strangers, because they make us experience what is strange in us, and fear what in them cannot be fit into our cultural models. Brede concludes that it is only by combining Freudian psychodynamics with Simmel’s account of the role of exclusion in social formation that critical social theory could account for the forms of violence that dominated the history of the twentieth century (Brede 199, 43).
For sure. The industry is also remarkably insulated considering how enormous it actually is, and it’s amazing how many women are out there reading ‘dubious consent’ books considering how completely under-the-radar it is to people who don’t read it. It’s almost like if Marvel movies were a secret only men knew about. I think that speaks to how protective women are are the genre and industry, how much they want the space for the fantasy without being scrutinized by outsiders.
I also think one of the reasons erotica doesn’t make the leap to film is because it’d be moving from a women-dominated industry to one completely controlled by men. “Dubious consent” erotica is highly cerebral, situational, and emotional, and I just don’t see a bunch of male film executives pulling that off if it’s even possible.
Following Ernst Bloch's The Principle of Hope, Muñoz is interested in the socially symbolic dimension of certain aesthetic processes that promote political idealism. Muñoz re-articulates queerness as something "not yet here." Queerness "is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough." Muñoz reconceptualizes queerness from identity politics and brings it into the field of aesthetics. For Muñoz, queer aesthetics, such as the visual artwork of Vaginal Davis, offers a blueprint to map future social relations. Queerness in Muñoz's conceptualization, is a rejection of "straight time", the "here and now" and an insistence of the "then and there." Muñoz proposes the concept of "disidentificatory performances," as acts of transgression and creation, by which racial and sexual minorities, or minoritarian subjects articulate the truth about cultural hegemony. Muñoz critiques Lee Edelman's book "No Future" and the concept of queer death drive that results in Muñoz theorization of queer futurity or queer sociality. Queer futurity thus "illuminates a landscape of possibility for minoritarian subjects through the aesthetic-strategies for surviving and imagining utopian modes of being in the world."
Though the personal is political in many ways, personal experience and preference are actually lousy guides for political organizing and action. So what if this is my experience and these are my preferences and reactions? Other people navigate the world in different ways. In order to generate political action in response to collective experiences of trauma, we do need to do more than reference our own pain and strategies.
In 1967, James Baldwin wrote an essay for The New York Times, as declarative in its title as in its prose: “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White.” Poor blacks in New York hated the Jewish landlords and grocers and pawn-shop owners who ran their communities, he said, but they mistakenly attributed their animus to Jews themselves. “The most ironical thing about Negro anti-Semitism is that the Negro is really condemning the Jew for having become an American white man—for having become, in effect, a Christian,” he wrote. “He is singled out by Negroes not because he acts differently from other white men, but because he doesn’t.”