Sep. 22nd, 2025 04:58 pm
an explicit reclamation (3h)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shrineofsealsEdited 9/1/0/25: small in word count, large in meaning.
It's always been unclear to me how much of the Queer Liberation Fantasy (QLF) reading of CF was/is seen as rehabilitation of canon (Death of the Author) or canon itself.
Because on one hand the QLF is easy to see. People constantly shooting it down, particularly the 'crits', was/is irritating, even if I personally agree that CF is, in the end, not aspirational at all(and neither is AM). And it often veer(ed/s) dangerously close to centrist maligning of violent resistance.
On the other hand, claiming that the QLF is canon is giving more credit to ISKT—who have proven to be obsessed with caricature, white saviourism and heteronormativity—than they deserve. It didn't help when the 'stans' call(ed) their opposition liberals/centrists/conservatives wholesale and especially when they said/say this or that CF antagonist would support [hyperspecific manifestation of ultraconservative angloAmerican repression].
So like no one really explicitly took the specific (not centrist!) position of "CF is by definition revolutionary but has major sociopolitical and philosophical dangers that go somewhat beyond squick/personal preference".
It's always been unclear to me how much of the Queer Liberation Fantasy (QLF) reading of CF was/is seen as rehabilitation of canon (Death of the Author) or canon itself.
Because on one hand the QLF is easy to see. People constantly shooting it down, particularly the 'crits', was/is irritating, even if I personally agree that CF is, in the end, not aspirational at all
On the other hand, claiming that the QLF is canon is giving more credit to ISKT—who have proven to be obsessed with caricature, white saviourism and heteronormativity—than they deserve. It didn't help when the 'stans' call(ed) their opposition liberals/centrists/conservatives wholesale and especially when they said/say this or that CF antagonist would support [hyperspecific manifestation of ultraconservative angloAmerican repression].
So like no one really explicitly took the specific (not centrist!) position of "CF is by definition revolutionary but has major sociopolitical and philosophical dangers that go somewhat beyond squick/personal preference".
Tags: