Abstract
Highlighting the silencing of same-sex desire that marked both the early days of the AIDS crisis and the Pulse nightclub massacre, this chapter presents an overview of the monograph’s main contention: that such silencing continues, in both overt and covert manners, within a disciplined, Western academic sphere. Taking the recent relationship between ethnomusicology and queerness as meriting not celebration but scrutiny, it is argued that both disciplinary sites are undergirded by a gendered ‘metaepisteme’ driven by a masculinity indissolubly linked to a monologic, Eurocentric, exploitive coloniality. Ultimately, it is the embracing of ‘negative’ emotions and an affectively motivated future—marked, in part, by a self-silencing—that offer the possibility of a truly dialogic, equitable, postdisciplinary future for explorations of sound, music, sex/uality, and other as-yet unknowable/unnamed sites of inquiry.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
The profound devastation of the Pulse Nightclub mass shooting in Orlando, Florida—affecting individuals, families, communities—engendered complex, manifold responses. There were many, I imagine, who amidst the audible responses to the horror—cries of grief, narratives of survival, calls for solidarity and strength, all mingling together—felt that the only possible response was silence, one reflecting a confrontation with a destruction that was experienced as inarticulable. Such silence, however—borne of respect, surrender, or an attempt to attain some sort of spiritual knowledge or succourFootnote 1—stood in stark contrast to an almost immediate and deeply troubling silencing (a pernicious action), the aim of which appeared to be a desire to erase yet again non-normative sexual subjects from material and symbolic social space. In one highly visible instance, the realization of such silencing led British journalist Owen Jones to walk angrily off the set of a televised news segment devoted to the shooting, after Sky News co-host Mark Longhurst repeatedly attempted to suggest that the massacre had had nothing to do with LGBT+ persons, but was an attack on humanity in ‘general’ (suggesting, as usual, an ‘unmarked’ white/male/heterosexual/Christian subject as ‘universal’).Footnote 2 The widely disseminated media appearance of one white journalist, however, must not obscure the troubling history and continuing reality of silencing impacting millions of subjects across geographic, temporal, and cultural locations: In an interview the following day, at which Jones and Scottish MP Mhairi Black were present, activist Noorulann Shahid warned against the ‘whitewashing’ of the tragedy, resulting in the erasure of the Latina/o/x identities of the majority of those killed.Footnote 3 Such an erasure was noted as well by Venezia III, whose analysis of the shootings highlighted how ‘solidarity on social media [rallying] around #weareorlando and expressions of sadness at this attack on “all Americans”’ (2016) was complicit in just such racial/sexual erasure.
What makes these attempted elisions even more troubling (if possible) are the ways in which such actions appeared to follow, in an extremely distilled form, the contours of initial official/governmental responses to the AIDS crisis decades ago, over a span of several years, perhaps best crystallized in U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s refusal—in the context of pain, suffering, and deaths of thousands of people—to even publicly acknowledge or name the syndrome. The recognition of the relationship between a failure to speak up/out and inevitable continuing devastation led to a vocal revolt, including creation of one of the most widespread slogans and iconic textual/graphic representations of the era: Silence=Death.Footnote 4 Activists, unwilling to remain inaudible, invisible, marginal, expendable, demanded and highlighted the importance of an existence that refused erasure from the sociocultural sphere. Yet despite the ensuing years of ‘progress’, of increased audibility/visibility, in 2016 it once again appeared that the coercive, repressive, and normalizing power structures enlisted in the policing of material and symbolic public space continued to construct barriers to those whose identities and embodied experiences were defined in any way by same-sex desire.Footnote 5 That those impacted by the Pulse atrocity—from victims to protestors to vigil-holders—were arguably allotted more representational space than those impacted by AIDS in the earliest decades of its emergence says more about a significantly changed media space than societal attitudes towards non-normative sexualities, not only in relation to the ease and rapidity of dissemination of ‘information’, but also the often subtle ways that such representation masquerades for a ‘diversity’ that, in essence, camouflages continued elisions and exploitations.Footnote 6 Frank Ocean’s Tumblr post in response to the shooting reminded the complacent (or willfully unaware) that any belief in a ‘post-homophobic’ world is unfounded; recounting examples across wide swaths of time and space he noted, ‘many people hate us and wish we didn’t exist’ (n.d. [2016]).Footnote 7 ‘Hate’ in the present tense.
The diverse machinations and bases of power (and the attendant violence enacted corporeally and ideologically upon the noncompliant) have received significant academic scrutiny over the past several decades, including examinations of power enacted by academic disciplines themselves.Footnote 8 As such, although it is difficult to imagine any social-ideological space that is not in some way complicit in the construction of exclusions and inequalities, some might have hoped or expected that academic realms—especially those constructed around disciplines and theories devoted to the critical examination of cultural production and structuration over wide temporal and geographic spaces—held the possibility, through increased self-reflexivity, of immunity from enacting the most destructive forms of social-symbolic control. And yet, over the past several years, surveying the disciplinary locations in which I have spent considerable amounts of time—ethnomusicology and gender/sexuality/queer studies—I have become increasingly confronted with the unavoidable understanding that these locations themselves, far from bastions of equity, are deeply problematic, founded upon and nourished by all manner of erasures, silencings, and exploitations. Such an understanding is, of course, far from prescient or exceptional, as throughout the previous decade calls for inculpation and reparation have extended to Western academia’s warping stranglehold on epistemological production—perhaps most vividly in the calls for decolonization of thought and discipline (including musical), which I will engage throughout this textFootnote 9—highlighting the fact that egregious asymmetries must not be allowed to be disguised by a superficial institutional claim to promote equity via the perpetual use of vague, non-threatening terms such as ‘inclusiveness’. Indeed, as Ahmed has noted, numerous scholars have explored the use of just such benign terms, finding, for example, that ‘the institutional preference for the term “diversity” is a sign of the lack of commitment to change and might even allow organizations such as universities to conceal the operation of systemic inequalities’ (2012: 53).
It is thus in this context that I approach both ethnomusicology and queerness. To be absolutely clear from the outset: this is not a book about ‘fixing’ ethnomusicology or celebrating its ‘evolution’ via a relatively recent, sudden embrace of ‘queer’ (where the latter, via its much-lauded incisive and subversive theoretical mettle is understood as capable of exposing and remediating the oppressive and repressive, transhistorically and transculturally). To the contrary, it is an unapologetic, emotionally, and affectively motivated polemic ultimately calling for the disappearance of both. Additionally, it is not a panegyric to the current state of ‘interdisciplinarity’—another vague term that, I will later contend, is both meaningless and suspect in the context of the Western, neoliberal university. While a text praising the interdisciplinary marriage of the ‘ethnoqueer’, gesturing towards a bright future of ‘more diversity’ in academia may generate warm feelings for those creating what are often self-serving narratives, in this long cultural moment marked by material and cultural upheavals that are largely the outcomes and magnifiers of what are disturbingly intractable and lasting structures of inequity and exploitation, such a text would be, in my opinion, not only untenable, but irresponsible.
Indeed, the astounding ease with which one of the most egregious examples of colonialist scholarship—inexplicably continuing into the twenty-first century—has dovetailed with a theoretical/political stance that is self-constructed as standing in diametric opposition to just such exploitations, and the lack of critical attention that has greeted such a melding, signals a need to examine these instances of symbiotic unions as indicative of disturbing undercurrents at disciplinary, institutional, and pervasive socio/geocultural levels. While some may wish to draw the distinction between an ethnomusicology of queerness, and the queering of ethnomusicology—claiming it is the latter, a queering that will attack and remedy the most problematic aspects of the ethno- that we now see in operation—such a differentiation is meaningless if one refuses the narcotic of a compelled, superficial positive thinking, and trains even a minimal amount of scrutiny on these fields, individually and in consort. Ethnomusicology, for the vast majority of its existence, has been marked by a deafening silencing, an infuriating present absence of any attention to same-sex desire, an obliteration often explained away as an ethical, cross-culturally sensitive refusal to impose Western epistemologies or ontologies (‘homosexuality’, e.g.) onto non-Western sites and practices. Yet the very moment that non-normative sexualities are embraced by the ethnomusicological canon of vetted-as-safe theoretical foci, it is in fact via what is (I will argue) the most Western, most partial/provincial conception/construction of sexuality conceivable—queerness—one inextricable from and gestated in relation to capitalism, poststructuralism, and postmodernism, an Anglophone/Eurocentric hegemonic monologue that perpetually endeavours to conceal just such a genesis. And these largely unacknowledged, actively obscured foundations, linked in disturbing manners to gendered, racist, and colonialist power structures which ultimately animate both disciplinary sites, cannot but perpetuate further exploitation.
My analysis progresses from a primary contention that any critical-theoretical undertaking intending to unmask structures of inequity that so often rest upon erasure and silencing cannot be successful if it operates via recourse solely to a broad, generic template; there cannot, for example, be a ‘universal method’ of decolonial, antiracist, or anti-homophobic scholarship that functions in all social/cultural/academic/epistemological spaces, places, and times. Rather, in order to most fully expose, extirpate, and eradicate the root causes of asymmetries, attention must be paid to the specifics of individual disciplinary and/or theoretical locations—in their cultural and institutional contexts—understanding what is elided, why these elisions occur, and how (and in what manner) a reversal of silencing might lead to a transformation that is more than simply cosmetic. Noting the unacknowledged racism upon which the discipline of music theory rests, for example, Ewell rightly notes, ‘we must…reframe how we understand race, which we cannot do if we rush to find solutions to problems we do not understand or acknowledge’ (emphasis added; 2020). I add, however, that as much as specificities are indeed necessary, it is also possible that knowledge gleaned from individual interventions may function as either catalysts or preliminary bases for action in other locations. This book is thus a close, critical examination of two particular sites of inequity and, at the same time, what I hope might be a stimulus or incitement for research, interventions, productions, and actions beyond these particulars.
My argument will progress in two broad sections. First, having already highlighted the continuation of homophobic erasure, in Chaps. 2, 3, and 4 I undertake an exploration of the relationship of ethnomusicology to that which it has constructed as ‘unspeakable’—a relationship in which non-normative sexualities are marked by a disturbing, signifying absence for over half a century, preceding AIDS and continuing past Pulse—and expose this absence as more than some sort of unintentional oversight, capitulation to the ‘reality’ that no one discipline can fully or successfully engage all possible registers of cultural production, and/or, as noted, an ethical unwillingness to impose Western social-theoretical concepts on non-Western sites and populations. Rather, I argue that the de facto obliteration of specifically same-sex desire from the discipline stands as the predetermined and essential outcome enacted historically and currently by practitioners of ethnomusicology who, as both products and producers of power structures linked to a culturally specific, fetishized masculinity, have continuously embraced and reified both a methodology (fieldwork) and its concomitant discipline (anthropology) rich with significance and performative power; here, the establishment of masculinity comes about in contradistinction to the feminized connotations constructed around musicology (and music, as well as the sonic, in general). In this regard, I am taking the term masculinity to signify—in relation to what I will refer to as the Global North (with ‘Western’ enlisted as a more manageable adjectival marker)—a set of attributes (including those related to appearance, behaviour, comportment, and beliefs) that have historically been ideologically, discursively, and corporeally constructed as the inevitable correlates of a specific (biological, male) body, and the founding-resulting superior status afforded this specific alignment. This construction inevitably arises in tandem with a denigration of the dimorphic pair’s ‘Other’, the female/feminine.Footnote 10 While the term ‘toxic’ masculinityFootnote 11 may initially seem appropriate in relation to my coming analyses, I worry that the modifier may seem to suggest that there exist some forms of masculinities that are not ‘toxic’ or otherwise highly problematic (descriptors that might equally be applied to femininity). And in the context of the Global North I do not believe this to be the case.
If, for example, masculinity may be understood as having been historically defined via recourse to traits such as strength, candour, assertiveness, bravery, loyalty (etc.) (or femininity as marked by compassion, nurturing, softness, [etc.]), such qualities have already been manufactured, via numerous centuries-long, ideological-linguistic-corporeal apparatuses, as adhering to/inhering in one specific, ‘correct’ arrangement of genes, hormones, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics. As such, the very legibility of even the ‘subversions’ or novel re-combinations of these alignments—conceivably resulting, for example, in ‘nonce taxonomies’Footnote 12 which unmoor the alignments—remains dependent upon the understanding of behaviour, action, and/or ‘style’ as having been constructed as (or, for some, continuing in an essential manner to be) linked in some way to corporeal (sexual) morphology, within a system that is both hierarchical and limited to the binary. As such, applied to manners of acting, being, or seeming, ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’—used without the strong caution of scare quotes or other visual/rhetorical methods—remain for me almost entirely negative, insofar as they implicitly/explicitly call forth, or explicitly/implicitly summon supposed foundational/essential/biological bases of gendered attributes that cannot be entirely erased within the span of mere decades. Rather, at the very least, they remain as seeping, echoing traces in innumerable visual and auditory cultural palimpsests that continue to proliferate (and thus suture legibility/comprehensibility to the dimorphic). As such, I would argue that the success of the ‘nonce’ or any other engagement of gender with an aim towards destabilization, would be ultimately dependent not upon its ability to expand the concept of gender, but to eradicate it—a hope, a suggestion made decades ago by Rubin (1975).Footnote 13 Moreover, and of central importance to my argument (as I will discuss shortly), this Western hegemonic masculine—critically understood to be (yet often unacknowledged as being) defined as much by a propensity for exploitation, extraction, depredation, oppression, denigration, and textual/epistemological elision (via a monologic/univocal apparatus) as the aforementioned idealized, laudatory attributes—is inextricably linked to, and cannot be fully understood apart from a mutually constituting relationship with the colonialist-capitalist with which these troubling, dangerous characteristics are continually replicated. As Cremin argues, masculinity is a ‘disorder’ engendered by capitalist systems, ‘borne from a sick society that none of us, whatever our sex and gender, is immune from’ (2011: 1).
I do not claim that it is only non-normative sexualities that ethnomusicology has erased; the discipline’s self-proclaimed ‘inclusivity’ is continually belied on numerous fronts by both its literature and the make-up of its privileged academic ‘personnel’. I will argue, however, that this field-defining homophobia (indeed, as I will show, a fear of same-sex desire, particularly that between men/males), explored and exposed confrontationally, is revealed as inextricably linked to essentialist, fetishized, desired, and perpetually reenacted constructions of masculinity that continue to exist in and as the foundation of the entire enterprise. And while many have, often privately and/or casually (in my decades-long experiences), lamented ethnomusicology’s past and continuing status as a sort of ‘big boys’ club, undergirded by frat-boy-like or laddish enacting and expressions of this privilege-conferring masculinity, it is remarkable that such a perpetual, discipline-defining dynamic has escaped even the most minimal critical scrutiny (a deficiency that mirrors the dearth of literature within the field devoted to critical studies of sex and sexuality, and one that serves to highlight the intractable nature of certain forms of power). That such low-hanging fruit has remained relatively untouched by any anti-normative, anti-colonial examination—that such inquiry is de facto forbidden; that the discipline has become an ally of queerness, rather than its target—is a significant part of my analysis. Specifically, understanding that the most blatant forms of homophobic silencing operate in plain sight for decades, what can this suggest about the surreptitious, the covert, and the various cloaking devices enlisted in attempts to keep structural control intact?
It is with this in mind that I turn to the second broad area of inquiry. Using my discussion of the economic and disciplinary exploitation of difference in Chap. 5 as a transitional space, in Chaps. 6, 7, and 8 I focus on academic queerness and its arguably less transparent but no less disconcerting links to masculinity-capitalism-coloniality. I note in advance that for centuries the aforementioned gendered-sexed correlations may have been (and continue to be) deemed immutable, replicated in stereotypical, rigid, and indeed threatening manners owing to ideological imperatives; however, as Cremin (2011) suggests, sex—perhaps especially so in the past two centuries—has ceased to be culturally constructed as incontrovertible guarantor of either the masculine or the feminine. And while this slippage or ‘freeplay’ may be argued to have salubrious consequences, a masculinity decoupled from sex may also be afforded the possibility of proliferating via stealth. It is thus not impossible, as will become clear, for female, trans*, non-binary and/or, especially in the context of my analysis, queer subjects to be equally motivated by and productive of the various circuits and structures of what has been defined as masculine for centuries. I also note, in order to clarify my specific uses of the terminology, that I engage ‘queer’ or ‘queerness’ throughout as terms indicating academic work and theoretical constructions emanating largely from the Anglophone Global North. Owing to the sociocultural pedigrees of such constructions, as well as the current state of Western Academia Inc., they are in profound ways equally indissolubly linked to the gendered functioning of capitalism and colonialism.
My engagement with queerness commences with an examination of the ways that non-normative sexualities have become co-opted by both capitalist structures and university administrations (including queerness’s symbiotic, disciplined relationship with ethnomusicology). In the following three chapters, I then turn to the thorny and often problematic relationships between queer and homo* (a term I will later unpack); here, understanding queer’s frequent de facto functioning not as a theoretical interrogation of identity, but as either a utilitarian, superficial shorthand for LGBT+, or as a generic marker of ‘subversion’ (having little or nothing to do with sex), I argue that ethnomusicology’s inclusion of a smattering of ‘queer subjects’ (where the second word defines both person and object of study) cannot in any way ameliorate the profoundly problematic nature of the discipline. Moreover, I will contend that in contrast to the often-encountered queer default to defining and exploring sexuality as primarily constituted by and with ideology, politics, and discourse, and a subsumption of various specificities under the broad umbrella of ‘non-normative’, an interdisciplinary relationship intended to combat ethnomusicology’s rampant homophobia would be dependent upon an unambiguous foregrounding of that which is so terrifying to the discipline—same-sex desire, engaged as not only ideological, but embodied, erotic, sensual, material, and experiential.Footnote 14 Such a foregrounding, coupled with a fearless embrace of ‘negative’ emotions—similar to the actions of early AIDS activists as well as BIPOC movements both historical and contemporary, and refusing current neoliberal mandates for ‘positive thinking’Footnote 15—could theoretically lead to queerness’s ability to battle ethnomusicology as a discipline (rather than being disciplined by ethnomusicology), culminating in a queer occupation and destruction of this colonialist enterprise and its silencing tactics. Ultimately, however, queerness itself—revealed to be every bit as colonizing in its monologic relationship to the discourse on (disembodied) sexuality—can only fulfil the potentials it has promised for decades, I argue, by submitting to an affectively motivated future, one in which its own silencing is the precondition for an equity that will only obtain via a truly dialogic, pluriversal, postdisciplinary or undisciplined space in which sound, music, sex/uality, embodiment, place, space, and other currently unknowable/unnamed sites of inquiry might converge in order to generate new forms of salubrious, equitable, generous knowledge and experience.
The concept of discipline, in numerous senses, occurs throughout this text. While I do not wish to foreclose upon the various, complex connotations this word may engender for the individual reader, I note nevertheless that my usage is inflected (though not exhausted) by a Foucaultian (1975/1995) understanding of discipline’s ongoing, protean, and structuring role over an expansive historical landscape, with special attention to its modern manifestations. Deployed neither by some central agency nor hereditary or elected ruler(s), discipline, rather, permeates culture/society through diverse, acephalous mechanisms of (hierarchical) observation, (normalizing) judgement, and examination. Although the various manifestations of these mechanisms often avoid announcing themselves as sites of disciplining historically understood as such (e.g., the prison), all contribute to the ultimate task of identifying, containing, normalizing, and confirming the regulation of the deviant subject—a ‘docile body’ as product of created knowledges. Arguing for the necessity of ‘[abandoning] the belief that…the renunciation of power is one of the conditions of knowledge’ (27) Foucault finds that, conversely, the two are inseparable, and central to the disciplinary project—a ‘power/knowledge’ that ‘determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge’ and, through its force, ‘the establishment of truth’ (28). Such truth-making knowledges may then be enlisted as instruments through and with which the mechanisms of normalization might best function. Operating from just such a Foucaultian understanding of power/knowledge, Ferguson’s (2012) keen analysis of interdisciplinarity within the modern, Western academy highlights the ways in which hegemonic society’s Others became/become disciplined by the very institutions they were to have altered (via the inclusion of their views, ideas, histories, and their very bodies).Footnote 16 My arguments comport with many of Ferguson’s, and I draw upon his work implicitly and explicitly at various points of this text. I engage, however, additional sociocultural, geographic, and epistemic sites. In my reading, both queerness and ethnomusicology, imagining themselves as battling against the exclusionary canons and ethnocentric elisions within academia have not only become fully disciplined, but have colonized numerous locations far beyond the rarified realm in which they operate, via profoundly gendered and monologic mechanisms that reduce Otherness to something mirroring and/or existing for the benefit of the self. They are, in short, not only produced by, but producers of power/knowledge.
Several additional overarching dynamics inform my discussion—at times explicitly, at times tacitly—the first two of which appear already in relation to my opening examples. Regarding this first—the silencing that occurred in relation to the Pulse murders—and understanding the specific Western, gendered histories of ethnomusicology, anthropology, and queerness, it is essential that questions of race and class are not elided by any sort of implicit suggestion of a ‘universal/unmarked’ construction of gender/sex/sexuality. In line with Shahid’s aforementioned cautioning, numerous Latina/o/x commentators have similarly pointed out how, if LGBT+ persons were erased in the media coverage of Pulse, then people of colour—the majority of those killed and injured—were doubly erased.Footnote 17 La Fountain-Stokes’s contention that many queer Puerto Ricans ‘live lives marked by invisibility’ (adding that ‘well-meaning LGBT white persons systematically exclude the voices of queer people of color’) (2016) highlights the necessity of an intersectional approach to sexual identity—and in the case of ethnomusicology, this silencing of sexual Others must be understood as significantly inflected by variables of gender, class, and race, relationships that are frequently highlighted in decolonizing literature. As Mignolo argues, for example, the ‘Colonial Matrix of Power’ (CMP) rests upon the three ‘pillars’ of racism, sexism, and (the invention of) nature (2018b);Footnote 18 similarly, Quijano views this matrix as instantiated via the control of economy, authority, gender/sexuality, and subjectivity/knowledge (2000) (an analysis problematized by Lugones who also highlights the mutually constituting interactions of race, class, gender, and sexuality in the colonialist context) (2008, 2010).Footnote 19 And Haywood et al., with specific reference to homophobia, note that ‘[such] sentiments and practices [are] not just reducible to gender but situated and intertwined with…racialized and nationalistic discourses’ (2018: 96). Certainly some of the most incisive writing in queer theory has argued persuasively for the necessity of approaching what has been termed ‘sexuality’ with cognizance of a wide range of realms, sites, and dynamics intimately linked thereto—from militarization to economics to race and ethnicity.Footnote 20 Yet aware of the countless instances in which a veneer of passing references to ‘diversity’ mask an underlying Western or Anglocentric bias in queering practices, it is arguably necessary to constantly and explicitly highlight the need for attention to an often ethnocentric, assumed ‘we’ that dictates the very choice of those realms/sites/dynamics deemed essential and those implicitly constructed as marginal.
Another of La Fountain-Stokes’s observations—that is, the utility of ‘anger, fury, and rage’ in combatting ‘profound violence’Footnote 21—relates to my second example, that is, activist responses to the AIDS crisis in the early years of the epidemic. I engage both the experiential and theoretical complexities of this issue most fully in the second half of this book, where I argue for the importance of understanding the differences between the cultural legibility of emotion and the ineffable/indeterminate/intractable nature of affect, with an aim towards signalling the latter’s potential as a site of resistance to attempts at myriad types of disciplinary control. Understanding the ways in which an idealized queerness and affect are at least theoretically intertwined and ontologically similar (both voluble and resistant to fixity), I suggest that it is both ‘negative’ emotions and affective ceding of control—rather than a mandated acceptance of a pseudo-scientific methodology that serves as the singular marker of academic legitimacy (the very basis of its masculinist, silencing project)—that are necessary to effectuate change. Both Adebisi’s question—‘How illogical is it that the structure we are attempting to decolonize is the structure we are attempting to use to decolonise?’ (2019)—and Lorde’s famed assertion—‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’ (1979/1984: 110)Footnote 22—highlight the dangers of attempting to queer ethnomusicology, or to place any faith in the liberatory possibilities of interdisciplinarity, by enlisting (and leaving unexamined, intact) the very structures that guarantee a continuation of marginalization and silencing of some, concomitant with and dependent upon an entrenchment of enduring privileges and powers. This difference—between the safety and comfort afforded by the known, and the dangers that often accompany the enigmatic or unimaginable—will be instructive in exploring the possible ways to imagine (and engender) the dissolution of just those sites and structures that thrive on a rapacious disciplining, leading to a more undisciplined future for engaged inquiry.
If not already so, it will likely become clear that my text, endeavouring to address ongoing inequities in academia (and, by extension, the culture in, through, and for which these institutional sites function) often veers towards the theoretical rather than applied/pragmatic, and that decolonial literature has contributed to my thinking about these pressing issues. As such, I note my awareness of critiques of ‘the decolonial bandwagon’, highlighting the problematic nature of ‘intellectual decolonization’ (Moosavi 2020) or a ‘metaphorical’ practice that ‘kills the very possibility of decolonization…recenters whiteness…resettles theory [and] extends innocence to the settler’ (Tuck and Yang 2012: 3). Moreover, Mignolo makes a distinction between ‘dissenting within the CMP’ (a ‘Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism’) and decoloniality, which is defined as ‘[delinking] from both Eurocentric regulations and dissent within Eurocentrism’; the former, while necessary, is ‘highly insufficient’ in relation to the task of supporting the ‘planetary diversity of local histories that have been disrupted by North Atlantic global expansions’ (2018a: 151). Although I do not view my text as a proper example of decolonial scholarship, to the extent one might take it as such, it is clearly insufficient and even, noting my use of theory emanating from the West, another problematic re-centring. However, if my views of an equitable future are at least partially congruent with those held by some decolonial scholars and activists, perhaps my work might contribute or serve an ancillary function to their numerous initiatives—which I hope will be the case. As a polemic, this book arguably blurs the distinction between theoretical/practical; but even taken as wholly in the realm of the former, I hold that an imaginative thinking, refusing the adherence to a mandated ‘scientific’, ‘objective’ method (a value-laden model in which the aforementioned attributes are but chimerical) is crucial, as are concepts engaging with and emanating from our lived, corporeal experiences. I will ultimately attempt to make clear that the re-centring marking this Eurocentric critique is only provisional: I theorize, in part, from the position of Western disciplinary administration in order to decentre—to ultimately call for a vanquishing of—those discourses, ideologies, disciplines, and practices most implicated in the perpetuation of inequities resulting from the continuing attempted colonization of material and conceptual geographies and temporalities.
As a site of theoretical inquiry, temporality features prominently not only in decolonial literature, but in musicology, ethnomusicology, and queer studies as well. Taking the aforementioned examples of Pulse and AIDS together—examples separated by decades yet joined by disconcerting similarities—underscores another of the central animating forces of my inquiry: the necessity of approaching ethnomusicology, queerness, or any Western disciplinary site in a manner that takes into consideration the importance of cultural-historical context, the cultural conventions of and investedness in history’s creation, and the complexities of temporality’s experiential and conceptual registers. On a subjective level, while my biography (my status as a same-sex-desiring-identifying person; my education and practice in the Anglophone United States and in Northern Europe; my age and ethnicity) has certainly played a part in my positing of specific disciplinary dynamics as most in need of scrutiny, I do not intend what follows to function as an exercise in self-reflexivity, extrapolating individual experiences into universal explanans or Rosetta Stone; ‘my’ erasure is, as noted previously, only one of several others that mark the fields of ethnomusicology and queerness, with questions of, inter alia, race, class, faith, (dis)ability, as much as issues of sexuality, likewise implicated just as profoundly via their signifying absences and segregations. Additionally, while it is essential to understand the temporal and geocultural geneses of the ethno-, the queer, and the ethnoqueer (including via attention to the artefacts each has produced), there is no suggestion that any of this text is meant to be read as a history of any of them.
Rather, my historicized approach may be considered (provisionally) related to another of Foucault’s formulations (1966/1989)—apt, I believe, insofar as much of my discussion will highlight Western knowledge production and restrictions (on, and emanating from, the production). Specifically, I approach the various (synchronic, socioculturally contextualized) manifestations of disciplinary products and practices archaeologically, understanding them as moulded by the compulsions and prohibitions of the episteme in which they come into being. As with the distributed, decentralized nature of power/knowledge, the structures, performances, actions, and resulting artefacts constructing and constructed by this epistemic space are understood as illuminating not the decisions and desires of individual actors (or even the deliberate, ‘objective’, ‘scientific’ thought[s] of groups of sovereign subjects in general) but, according to Foucault, the unconsciously motivated discursive-ideological context in and through which any utterance, practice, or formation occurs. As he notes, it is the ‘rules of formation…never formulated in their own right, but…found…in widely differing theories, concepts, and objects of study’ (xii) that are the markers of the various historical epistemes, the foci of his archaeological project. I admit, however, that in my hands both episteme and archaeology may not appear entirely faithful to their original, Foucaultian forms, and it is arguable that I work against as much as with them; while my analysis does indeed assume broad, prevailing, and unacknowledged constraints on what is possible to know or claim (as well as motivations for making such claims), I depart from Foucault in several ways.
First, understanding that the central knowledge formations with which I am concerned have roots spanning centuries, appearing as disturbing continuities in the present, it is difficult to support a heuristic in which strictly defined, discrete, disjunct epistemes exist. While much of my discussion focuses on academic spheres operating within the relatively short span of the last several decades, the hierarchicalization of human life and worth, for example—in countless manifestations, and underlying just such disciplinary formations—has a far longer lineage. Also, in direct relation to this ongoing (indeed ongoing, as I will argue) colonial project, while my analysis critiques disciplinary production in the Global North, I am equally concerned to highlight how epistemic restrictions operate to require an expansion that ultimately sucks in, absorbs, and injures (materially and conceptually) those it constructs as Others, often via a so-called ‘representation’ that functions rather as tangential location and quarantine. While the Foucaultian episteme is often thought of as a deep, structuring ‘worldview’, it is a ‘world’ that begins and ends with the Western subject. As Slater notes, Foucault’s theorizations of such concepts as sexuality or confinement (among others) may have relevance in locations outside of the Global North/West; yet they are notable for their failure to ‘connect with the critique of Eurocentric discourses of colonialism and imperialism’ (1992: 312n3).Footnote 23
The insularity of the episteme, a ‘worldview’ created and contained not only with little cognizance of that which is located (supposedly) outside itself, but also obliterating those Others within, is also related to its singularity; noting that ‘in any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one episteme that defines the conditions of possibility for knowledge’ (1966/1989: 168), the episteme for Foucault often appears to have the attributes of an ontologically closed, essential entity, rather than that which is brought into being via an ongoing process of interaction. It is arguable that such closure and singularity is necessary for the very existence of that which has the capacity to structure the fundamental manner in which ‘the’ world is understood. However, in what follows, I want to suggest that there is the possibility not only for refusals of or reactions to ‘the’ episteme, but entirely different epistemes that question both what is understood about ‘the’ world, as well as the very nature of ‘understanding’. Specifically, while the Foucaultian episteme may be viewed as proliferating at the level of the ‘unconscious’, knowledges based upon materiality, sensuality, corporeality, subjective and intersubjective, hold the possibility for upsetting the oppressions that have marked Western academia for centuries. By refusing a dead-ended, consumptive ‘cognitive empire’Footnote 24 that owes its very existence to the understanding of docile, compliant embodiment as that which is discursively produced and acted upon (rather than a site opening on to alternative forms of knowing), the acting, experiencing, and sexed/sexual body becomes one channel for alternatives to epistemic monologic totality, from ripple to rupture.Footnote 25
Finally, although I am reluctant to draw lines of separation between distinct/disjunct epistemes, embodied subjects as (discursive/corporeal) objects or agents, or epistemic foundations and effects, I have fewer such concerns in relation to the gendered and gendering structure of masculinity as I engage with it here. In short, while it is likely that many, in line with the poststructuralist tradition, more comfortably conceive of sex/gender/sexuality as that which is constructed by disciplinary power/knowledge (occurring as a specific manifestation within unique epistemic worldviews), I have already made clear that I view masculinity as a central, foundational motivating force, a vital component of the CMP, responsible for myriad compulsions operating on unexpressed/unconscious/‘habitual’ (i.e., of the corporeal habitus) registers. One might argue that Foucault’s focus, in the context of epistemology and archaeology—that is, the production of and limits on knowledge—are quite different than those engaged by decolonial theorists such as Mignolo and Walsh (2018). However (and here I am comfortable suggesting an antecedence), what functions above or at the root of the various manifestations of the ordering of knowledges which reflect epistemic ‘worldviews’ (according to Foucault: resemblance; categorization; historicization; any others to follow) are not only the definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘world’, but how knowledge is to be known and made manifest, and who is that subject capable of knowing, defining, writing, articulating, positing, the sexed, gendered, raced (dis)-embodiment of the sole species with access to the most recondite foundations of the physical and ideal world and those realms beyond. There exists an incontrovertibly gendered metaepisteme that adjudicates what counts/what does not count as knowledge; and it operates not only in contemporaneous relation to each of those archaeological strata in which things are ordered, but also in relation to the contemporary ordering of the knowledge of the ordering (in this second instance, the understanding that what has been studied is/was ‘the’ knowledge of the period, ‘the’ worldview; and that the current analysis is likewise legitimate knowledge).Footnote 26
Returning to temporality, as related to history, I agree that an implicit or explicit belief in the inevitable melioristic flow of history (from the ‘problematic’ ‘past’ to the ‘enlightened’/‘woke’ ‘present’/‘future’) must be viewed not only as erroneous, but dangerous; Foucault’s successive epistemes are seen as discontinuities, their analysis representing not a ‘growing perfection’ of knowledge, but ‘its conditions of possibility’ (1966/1989: xxiii–xxiv). Ideological constructions predicated upon a fiction of development or evolution project culpability away from (indeed, the impossibility of its emanating from) the ‘enlightened’ self, and give rise to a simplistic, unreflective optimism engendered, in part, by an equally simplistic, binarized understanding of discipline, identity, sociocultural location, and ethics (to name but a few), these often combining as bizarre, internally incoherent constellations. As I will argue more fully later in this text, the careless and constant iterations of any number of ‘post-’s (as in ‘post-racial’), proof of a need (= desire) for a type of anodyne, exculpatory amnesia, would seem to be predicated upon such tacit, erroneous, and indefensible suppositions as racism having been eradicated with the election of U.S. President Barak Obama (or the assessment of #MeToo a pointless action in the age of Western ‘gender equality’). And it is exactly such suppositions that, although outwardly repudiated, in fact underlie academic production from within both of the disciplinary/disciplined fields at issue here.Footnote 27
That narratives conjoining temporality to hierarchy and worth have been consistently enlisted by Western, colonialist powers—for example, prefixes such as ‘pre-’ or ‘proto-’ ascribing or withholding the very status of human (Mbembe 2013/2017; Mignolo 2018b; Wynter 2003)—should certainly signal the extent to which ethnocentric, monologic control of epistemological production frequently and dangerously undergirds melioristic narratives; the location on the sequential, evolutionary narrative automatically marks a necessarily externally located ‘past’ as inherently and essentially backward, evil, degenerate, amoral, or any number of similar negative assessments, often explicitly applied to questions of gender and/or sexuality. Scott, for example, highlights how the constructed opposition enlightenment/oppression erroneously, facilely, and inevitably geoculturally situated (with the former term of the dyad ensconced in the West), rather than offering any sort of theoretical or practical (ameliorative) perspicuity, in fact obscures the complexity of ideological construction and the workings of power, allowing inequality and injury to perpetuate surreptitiously (2018).Footnote 28 Hoad also draws attention to the complexity and troublingly generative qualities of such narratives. Noting that homosexuality has for centuries been presented as some sort of backward/‘retarded’ practice (linked by Westerners to ‘primitive’ Others, in contradistinction to the heterosexual, white male as the apotheosis of civilization), he argues that this narrative is eventually perpetuated in the late twentieth century by the Western, most often white/male/gay scholars of gender and sexuality. The modern (gay) subject is ‘constituted by progress through its various others, which are then posited as vestigial, arrested, anachronistic, or degenerate’ (2000: 134)—‘living savages [who]…fill the fossil gap, through a spatialization of time written on the human body’ (135)—revealing the necessity of vigilant attention to ‘deep cultural blind spots as overdetermined consequences of often unconscious allegiances to predigested narratives and metaphors that are part of the legacy of colonialism’ (147). More than a decade after Hoad’s insights, various Others—some refusing a wholesale, compelled silencing—note with dismay the continuation of such narratives emanating from queer studies, whereby the geotemporality of the West remains hegemonic, ‘discursively presented as supposedly more advanced, while others are framed as backward’, via a specious ‘universal model of development…[that] forecloses a full recognition of local specificity’ (Kulpa, Mizielińska, and Stasińska 2012: 123).
The cognizance of the ethnocentric, monologic concatenation of temporal and geocultural variables with hierarchies of (social, ontological, ethical) value, continually reconfigured and redeployed by various actors in myriad settings, must surely signal the dangers of the often-encountered, simplistic, and ultimately obfuscatory binary of good/bad, positive/negative. So often implicitly posited, appearing as de facto truths in need of no explication, such superficial dualisms—frequently with connotations of inside/outside—have often served as the cloaking devices par excellence for the perpetuation of hegemonies and exploitations. Mohanty, for example, decades ago drew attention to the ways in which feminism—a site of ‘good’—as a discourse co-opted by Northern voices and employing a ‘binary analytic’, rather than serving as a means to overcome oppression for all, functioned instead as a mechanism to place women of the Global South in negative relation to their ‘liberated’, ‘advanced’ Northern counterparts (1984). Yet a Western/non-Western, Northern/Southern split is also deceptive; highlighting the need for a more nuanced analysis of the postcolonial, for example, Rao argues ‘if postcolonial critique is to continue to remain meaningful in the contemporary world, it must do more than simply remind us of the enduring legacies of colonialism. It cannot avoid wading into the messy critical task of determining how responsibility for ongoing oppressions must be apportioned between colonial and postcolonial regimes’ (2020: 9). Finally, the often smug posturing of certain disciplinary realms, wherein the self is constructed and presented as both immune to and bravely battling that which is evil, venal, exploitive, coercive—always figured as residing in and/or with other times, places, and social actors—is one of the most evident yet least acknowledged or investigated dynamics structuring academia as a whole, and numerous specific sites it comprises. Thus within the ‘good’ university (apart from the ‘bad’ market), there is further hierarchical sorting, both according to discipline and the subjects enfolded within them. Ethnomusicology presents itself as ‘inclusive’, ‘diverse’ in opposition to ‘elitist’, ‘narrow’ musicology; and queer is the evolved, resistant, subversive, and ethical stance in contrast to the archaic sexual subject self-defining via a superseded ‘identity politics’ or—worse still—a co-opted, consumerist ‘gay’(male) (all of whom ‘are a fast lane for capitalist accumulation’ according to Halberstam) (Burns 2020).Footnote 29 As I hope will become clear, the positioning of a Western discipline, theoretical stance, or institution as somehow immune to, above, or outside capitalist (thus colonialist and masculinist) co-optation is often an indication of an increased need for urgent denudation.Footnote 30
Notwithstanding my agreement with a non-melioristic view of history, and the necessity of attention to rupture and discontinuity, I nonetheless reiterate the value in attending to the (diachronic) longue durée in addition to the (synchronic) break. For, as much as history is not teleological, moving towards some sort of modernist, utopian fairy tale of ‘perfection’, and as much as ruptures are surely part of temporal movement, they occur in relation to and as the consequences of some deeply systemic ideological, contextual bases that I have already outlined (i.e., the/a metaepisteme). In relation to this, I highlight the fact that the theoretical works upon which I am basing parts of my arguments span several decades. While not meaning to suggest total stasis or the impossibility of a voiced/embodied empowerment (due to the inevitable and invincible rule of the normative majority),Footnote 31 attention to the ways theoretical investigations related to gender, sexuality, and race/ethnicity produced years ago may still seem depressingly relevant today can assist in revealing which power structures recur as the most intransigent (and by which means), resisting extirpation via critical, textual, engaged, enraged ‘exposure’. Moreover, equally important is the refusal to ascribe a melioristic omniscience to any given ‘current’ theory via implicit, tacit suggestions of perpetual, inevitable movement closer to ‘the’ ‘truth’ (engendered as much by the inevitable march towards progress as by the detached, objective, scientific-critical stance of the academician-theorist). Such narratives have marked the scholarly production of numerous disciplines; as only one example, Stacey highlights the frequently encountered narratives of feminist history marked by a move from ‘“naïve and simplistic” feminist theory to “wise and sophisticated” Feminist Theory’ (1993: 58)—a conventional ‘progress narrative’ where the contemporary scholar is ‘presented as the enlightened, knowing [subject] at the end of a progressional history’ (59).
This refusal is, additionally, linked to two others. First, I wish to resist the contemporary consumerist imperative—again understood as equally virulent in academia as in ‘daily life’—to hypervaluate only newer-better-shinier theory or the unofficial (yet no less compelled) canon, pitching all other ‘obsolete’ models to the junk heap. What drives the assessment of ‘old’ theory by (primarily) temporal criteria, thus judging it negatively (or, at least, lacking/incomplete), has of course something to do with the understanding of the importance of constantly remaining open to new possibilities of analysis, critique, investigation, and relation, in response to changing technological, social, material, biological, aesthetic, and affective phenomena. Yet as Korsyn argues, the current academic landscape is also marked by a ‘corporate mentality [that…] builds a certain planned obsolescence into scholarship, through an exaggerated reverence for scholarly currency’ (2003: 7), and it is attention to just such administrative, capital-driven dynamics that again highlight the necessity of critically assessing claims of immunity and impunity emanating from disciplinary locations. The relationship of the academic to the capitalist-colonial will be a recuring theme throughout this text. Second, by engaging in what I unapologetically term a promiscuous relationship to theories and texts—refusing the heteronormative imperatives of ‘monogamy’ and ‘depth’, breaching temporal and disciplinary boundaries, ‘pinging’ with pleasure from one to another, experiencing the texts as revealing new understandings approached in such a manner—I hope to at least gesture towards the limitations of the masculinist-colonialist epistemologies that devalue vast swaths of what is often a corporeally based, experiential production of knowledge.
It is essential to understand, of course, that discourses and ideologies—including those that structure and make possible academic disciplines—do not confine themselves to textual perpetuation. Much to the contrary, as numerous authors have shown (including, inter alia, Beauvoir 1949/1953; Bourdieu 1977; Mol 2003; Heyes 2007; Horton-Stallings 2015; Lorde 1978/1984; Macharia 2019; Merleau-Ponty 1958/2005; Sandoval 2000, 2002; Scarry 1987), the ideological is often played out at the level of the body, from the structuring of access to social space, to the adoption of bodily postures signalling hierarchies of norms and values. MacDougall’s concept of ‘social aesthetics’—‘a [wide] range of culturally patterned sensory experience’ (2006: 98)—is instructive in this area, perhaps particularly as implicated in relation to the construction of privilege (see Fahey, Prosser, and Shaw 2015).Footnote 32 And Haraway’s discussion of ‘situated knowledge’ foregrounds—in line with much phenomenological theory—the ‘need to learn in our bodies…how to attach the objective to our theoretical and political scanners’ (1988: 582). Clearly the ‘objective’ and the theoretical do not exhaust the entire field of possible avenues of making/gaining knowledge; rather, both are animated in significant ways by affects (neither wholly objective nor theoretical), states of corporeal/social/intersubjective perturbation and possibility that are every bit as much a part of ‘real’ ‘history’ as artefacts or events.
This understanding of corporeality as an essential site of experiential meaning/knowledge making runs throughout the chapters of this book. And in this regard, I highlight—I admit; I reveal my experiential biases—that the longue durée to which I refer, encompassing ethnomusicology (and, to a significant extent, anthropology) as well as LGBT+ and, later, queer studies, is not one that I approach solely or primarily via text or ‘objective’, ‘disinterested’, or temporally distant perspective. Rather, it is a (my) lived-in-the-world experience of decades of the corporeal-affective, of the various forms of hatreds, exploitations, erasures, exclusions, cruelties, and punishments associated with homophobia—including the homophobia of/within academia. I have navigated through and grown/aged in relation to times, actions, and events including the activism of ACT UP and Queer Nation; the March on Washington; the constant threat and sometimes enactments of the physical violence of ‘fag bashers’; media artefacts from The Celluloid Closet (1995), to Visible: Out on Television (2020), to the dramatic revisitings of AIDS via such engaging streaming fare as When We Rise (2017); the challenges and ravages of AIDS, and the prophylactic promise of PrEPFootnote 33 (for the wealthy who could/can afford it); Section 28 (the UK, 1988–2003) and the ‘Gay Propaganda’ legislation (Russia, from 2013 onward); and numerous other experiences that have shaped my understanding of all manner of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ homophobias. My understanding of AIDS, Pulse, ethnomusicology, queerness, and the structures and ideologies that connect all of these, is not something engendered (only/primarily) by an ‘objective’ perspective (events that occurred in ‘other’ times/to ‘other’ people, and most ‘in’ ‘the past’); rather, it is via experience of and as what others might understand (only) as a ‘then’/‘there’/‘them’ (the ‘past’ struggles at odds with the ‘current’ ‘unproblematic’ status of LGBT+ people) that my partial, situated observations and analyses come to be. There is, I contend, no understanding of social dynamics absent the foundational importance of experience which encompasses both feelings we believe to be articulable, and those we viscerally understand as resistant to any sort of linguistic closure—and this includes one’s experience of and in academia, a realm that does not exist in some rarified, ‘objective’ location outside society. Only through these complex (objective, material, affective, critical, individual, social) experiences, in dialogue with other partial, situated knowledges, can the silencing monologic and oppressive be challenged.
The decade has begun as rupture. And although it is the appearance of a novel, biological pathogen that has engendered profound material consequences around the globe, the effects cannot be understood as material alone. Rather, this newest rupture, owing to the ripples of its seismic effects, is only the latest instance of a physical, tangible catastrophe (from viruses to hurricanes to wildfires) that has laid bare the disturbing social and cultural inequalities that perpetually manifest across continents and centuries. Yet understanding the most current eruptions of resistance to these disparities as the newly enraged legacies of movements gaining and having gained momentum within and extending from the previous decade (from Black Lives Matter to #SayHerName), one might dare to believe that a tipping point has been reached, that the assumed inviolability of innumerable spheres of privilege, oppression, and exploitation might finally, via action, be refuted. Indeed, a call for reckoning in relation to one of the disciplinary sites explored in this text appeared at approximately the halfway point of my work on this manuscript—coming, conspicuously, not from those in power, but from those who had refused and thus situated themselves outside (or at the margins of) power’s strongholds. Two separate ‘open letters’, one from an ethnomusicologist (Brown 2020), to which I will turn later, the other a joint initiative between Project Spectrum and ‘The Scare Quotes’ (a coalition of BIPOC and queer ethnomusicologists) have made it undeniably clear that the indefensible may be close to reckoning.
If I sit somewhere at the interstices of being too old to be wholly naïve, and too young to be irredeemably disillusioned, of one thing I feel certain: in order to stoke the possibility of this long-overdue reckoning, confrontation is necessary. As such, as I have noted previously (Amico 2020), I am unapologetic in my embrace of the polemical, the furious, the ‘negative’. As Ebert notes, the foregrounding of the polemic (and the manifesto) ‘is one of the most urgent tasks of theorists and pedagogues in part because [they] desediment the settled discourses of culture and, in doing so, open up a space for the struggle for change’ (2003: 560). And Flannery reminds us that in avoiding the confrontational, ‘restricting conviction to what propriety will tolerate…we also run the risk of losing the generative possibilities of volatility and contestation’ (2001: 128).Footnote 34 The polemical—kin to the manifesto—brings about a ‘coarse thinking’ (Ebert: 556)Footnote 35 and, at historical junctures where ‘cracks in the well-regulated society’ appear, it ‘can be seen to sprout like weeds in the sidewalk and to open up the cracks further’ (Flannery: 120).
This cultural moment is one in which the cracks produced by rupture have become too gaping to be concealed with yet another skim coat of cement (in the form of ‘scientific objectivity’, token representation, virtue signalling, or ersatz wokeness). I hope this monograph, at this moment, will assist in turning cracks to chasms, by which the structures of exploitation might finally be swallowed. Audre Lorde’s words continue to resonate: ‘There are so many silences to be broken’ (1977/1984: 44).Footnote 36
Notes
- 1.
An understanding of the importance of silence is a component of numerous religious traditions: the Hesychast practice of Eastern Orthodoxy, the concept of Mauna in Hinduism, the relationship of silence to enlightenment in Buddhism, and the widespread instances of monastic silence. The Trappist monk, scholar, and activist Thomas Merton has written widely on the foundational importance of silence in varied spiritual traditions, noting that ‘if there is no silence beyond and within the many words of doctrine, there is no religion, only a religious ideology. For religion goes beyond words and actions, and attains to the ultimate truth only in silence and Love’ (1965/1979: 20). For a wide-ranging survey of silence’s cultural significance (including attention to Merton’s work), see Brox (2019). I will engage the importance of silence in relation to queerness and intercultural dialogue in Chap. 8.
- 2.
The incident took place during a 12 June 2016 broadcast on the UK’s Sky News channel, and may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEgd9q8ugs4 (last accessed 1 November 2022). The following day, Jones explained his motivation for the abrupt exit in both a live broadcast of the UK’s Channel 4 News (accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvt-7zZo5P4; last accessed 1 November 2022), as well as in an essay published in The Guardian. In the latter, questioning the motivations of some who were focusing attention on the LGBT+ community, he noted ‘today, the “we only care about LGBT rights if Muslims are involved” brigade are out in force’ (Jones 2016).
- 3.
The interview, carried out by Channel 4’s Jon Snow may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvt-7zZo5P4 (last accessed 1 November 2022).
- 4.
The poster on which the slogan originally appeared was created by the Silence=Death Project, a New York City-based political/support group founded in 1987 by Avram Finkelstein, Brian Howard, Oliver Johnston, Charles Kreloff, Chris Lione, and Jorge Soccarás. The poster’s pink triangle—used by the Nazis to mark homosexuals—served as a graphic representation and reminder of the links between homophobia and material/symbolic extermination. The slogan and poster ultimately came to be closely associated with the group ACT UP.
- 5.
It is notable that Jones was later attacked and beaten by three men outside a London pub on 17 August 2019. The three perpetrators—clearly understanding the effects the assault being deemed a hate crime would have on sentencing—denied, in court, that their actions were in any way motivated by the journalist’s sexual orientation and their own homophobic views. Ultimately, however, the court found these assertions to be implausible. See, inter alia, BBC (2019, 2020); Jones (2020).
- 6.
It is also arguable, as Venezia III highlights, that this representation was at least partially motivated by a ‘homonationalist’ dynamic (Puar 2007). Here, the victims were exploited for the purposes of demonstrating the West’s ethical and moral superiority (a ‘liberal’, ‘diverse’, ‘tolerant’ society) in contradistinction to that of the ‘backward’, ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim world.
- 7.
The post may be found at https://frankocean.tumblr.com/post/146249813326/i-read-in-the-paper-that-my-brothers-are-being; last accessed 1 November 2022.
- 8.
- 9.
The call to decolonize specifically musical scholarship is evident, for example, in the University of Edinburgh’s Reid School of Music’s virtual conference in July of 2020, ‘Decolonising the Musical University’ (see https://www.ed.ac.uk/edinburgh-college-art/reid-school-music/decolonising-musical-university/participate-conference/virtual-event-2020; last accessed 1 November 2022). Of note also are the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) actions, as well as recent charges of the whitening and de-politicization of intersectionality. On intersectionality see, for example, Bilge (2013, 2020) and Tomlinson (2018).
- 10.
In this text, I use ‘Other’ (capital ‘O’) to indicate those entities (human or otherwise) constructed/experienced as fundamentally ‘other-than-self’, whose difference is necessary for ‘self’ to exist (in contradistinction). Although my use of this term is not meant to signal a specifically Lacanian understanding of (inter)subjective experience, my use of ‘Other’ probably bears a closer resemblance to Lacan’s ‘autre’ (the objet petit ‘a’) rather than ‘Autre’. I have opted to use the initial capital, however, to mark this Otherness as significant in terms of ideological production.
- 11.
On the concept of toxic masculinity, see Karner (1996) and Marcotte (2017). The dynamic of toxic masculinity is engaged in examinations of the Pulse shooting by both Haider (2016) and Ochoa (2016). I agree with Boise’s argument that the often broad-stroke categorizations of masculinity (‘toxic’, ‘hegemonic’, e.g.) lack ‘a sensitivity to the potential implications of how the interplay of history, biography, discourse, and geopolitics might be better integrated into our own conceptual frameworks rather than falling too easily into ready-made typologies which provide reductive answers to wider problems’ (2019: 150). I hope that by contextualizing my discussions of masculinity within a very specific sociocultural, disciplinary, and intellectual sphere, my arguments will at least partially avoid such reductionism.
- 12.
The terminology is Halberstam’s (1998) (following Sedgwick [1990]). Halberstam’s study, with attention to both historical and sociocultural variables, is remarkable for its attention to the numerous instances of complex manners in which individuals’ and communities’ experiences and lived performances of multiple re-alignments of a sedimented gender/sex binary might fecundate entirely new categories (the nonce taxonomies) of gender. Yet, while I agree with Halbestam’s argument that ‘female masculinity’ must not be seen as derivative—that it is a ‘specific gender with its own history’ (77)—and that exploring gendered attributes in relation to bodies different than those to which they have been compelled, historically, to obtain offers multiple possibilities for understanding how gender/sex systems come into being and perpetuate, I am not fully convinced that a multiplicity of ‘new’ genders can overwrite the (ideological, historical) foundational binary. While ‘new’ genders might establish novel relations between M/F, leading to a future with countless, less restrictive possibilities, I am more compelled by Rubin’s utopian future, an ‘androgynous and genderless (though not sexless) society, in which one’s sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love’ (1975: 204). In such a future, one might envision countless new identity formations, new combinations of attributes that are felt to resonate on subjective, intersubjective, and sociocultural levels; however, such novel ‘nonce taxonomies’ would be most liberating, in my estimation (and in agreement with Rubin), to the extent that ‘gender’ was no component at all. On non-male masculinity, see also Reeser (2010: Chap. 6) and Noble (2004). See also Cremin (2011).
- 13.
The idea of legibility/comprehensibility is not only central to sociocultural location—and, most detrimentally, disciplining—but, in a more positive sense, to one’s own sense of self and that self’s relation to what is experienced as a salubrious place (a ‘home’) and others. Halberstam, for example, notes that their inquiry is prompted, in part, by a desire ‘to make my own female masculinity plausible, credible, and real’ (1998: 19). As such, I do not deny the importance of gender—its construction, re-construction, subversion, embrace—in relation to one’s physical/social/emotional wellbeing. I do, however, maintain that on a critical, theoretical level, a ‘genderless’ future is one conceivably offering greater freedom from oppressive social structures (including, obviously, the ‘sex/gender system’) (Rubin 1975).
- 14.
Although I do not always differentiate between M-M or F-F same-sex sexuality in my discussions, in the context of my own (embodied) experiences—as a white, homo, semi-cis male—within a specific academic context, and ethnomusicology’s obsession with masculinity, it is often the former to which I am referring (and upon which my analyses are based). This in no way suggests that male-male sexuality should be privileged as a site for exploring and combatting homophobia or colonialist structures and practices; rather, as I have noted, it is motivated by a belief that specific situated knowledges in relation to specific scholarly realms are necessary in order to avoid what may be an ineffectual recourse to the general.
- 15.
For a discussion of the ways in which a type of compelled ‘positive thinking’ has been used in the service of perpetuating capitalist consumer culture in the United States, see Ehrenreich (2009). See also Ruti (2013) on the refusal of the typical, the banal, and the simplistic, and the embrace of the complex, the eccentric, the ambiguous in the formation of a meaningful life.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Additionally, Walsh, noting the work of Alvira Briñez (2017), offers the example of ‘the use of orality and song by campesina communities, and particularly women, in the Andean Cajamarca region of Peru in their struggle to resist and in-surge against the impositions of extractivism, capitalism, neoliberalism, and patriarchy (all understood as complicit and interwoven)’ (2018: 38).
- 19.
See also Sousa Santos who, in the first of his manifesto’s twenty-two theses, states that the modern era has been dominated by the intimate interconnections among capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy, a synergistic relationship that is neither mere economic nor political model, but ‘a Eurocentric civilizational paradigm’ (2020: 117).
- 20.
Notable examples of this tendency include the introductions to two special issues of the journal Social Text: ‘What’s Queer about Queer Studies Now?’ (Eng, Halberstam, and Muñoz 2005) and ‘Left of Queer’ (Eng and Puar 2020). In the first, for example, the authors argue that ‘a renewed queer studies…insists on a broadened consideration of late-twentieth-century global crises that have configured historical relations among political economics, the geopolitics of war and terror, and national manifestations of sexual, racial, and gendered hierarchies’ (1); in the second, the authors repeat and quote this contention (1). Additionally, Bacchetta argues ‘if we consider the planet’s various systemic arrangements of sexism and queerphobia as co-productions that are co-constituted in and by multiplicities of relations of power (colonialism and coloniality, race, capitalism, etc.), we can better understand their commonalities and differences’ (Bacchetta, Jivraj, and Bakshi 2020: 577).
- 21.
See also Ortega who notes that the anger in the Latina/o LGBT+ community following the shooting ‘grows tall, so tall that there is no room for it in the boundaries of the skin (2016)’.
- 22.
Lorde’s published essay was originally presented as Comments at ‘The Personal and the Political Panel’, Second Sex Conference, New York, 29 September 1979.
- 23.
In his assessment, Slater refers to Spivak’s widely read text, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ (1988). He notes: ‘For Spivak…Foucault’s project has tended to foreclose a “reading of the broader narratives of imperialism”, and as she expresses it “to buy a self-contained version of the West is to ignore its production by the imperialist project”’ (1992: 285).
- 24.
The term is used by Sousa Santos (2018). Although the author does indeed highlight the importance of overcoming epistemological hegemony (of the North, by the South), his engagement of the epistemological often implicitly or explicitly highlights the role of corporeality in thinking, knowing, and theorizing, all in relation to liberation. I engage with his work at various points throughout this text.
- 25.
My highlighting of the theoretical is not to deny the existence of the material atrocities visited upon people in prisons, police states, war zones, or repressive societies in general, or to advocate for some sort of superficial ‘wishful thinking’. However, as Mignolo and Walsh note throughout the chapters of their text (2018), material depredation cannot exist without a theoretical/epistemological foundation; as such, my argument is that in the realm of the academic, it is a corporeal-ideal theorization that may assist in overturning the purely discursive which manifests so often as violence upon the body.
- 26.
I use this term to identify not the study of epistemology (as in metaepistemology) but—understanding Foucault’s use of the term episteme (as opposed to epistemology), as well as the various meanings of the prefix ‘meta-’—that which is situated above or beyond, that which comprises or subsumes the individual epistemes (the temporal/cultural/ideological epistemic locations in which knowledge conforms to specific possibilities and impossibilities). Although the epistemes might be disjunct, operating in relation to changed sociocultural landscapes, they exhibit a continuing relationship—in my figuration—based on a variable (gender) that transcends or traverses the various disjunctions. Although the role of corporeality in relation to the puissance and longevity of a possible metaepisteme that exists in relation to variables of sex and gender appears to me to me an especially fertile area of exploration, it is not one I will explore here.
- 27.
I will engage with the positing of a supposedly ‘post-racial’ society later in this text. For now, however, I note that numerous commentators find such claims to be facile and unsupportable, generally oblivious to the systemic roots of racism. As Kimmel, for example, notes, ‘we triumphantly declare America a “postracial” society because we have had an African-American president, and it not uncommon to hear people “opt out” of understanding racism because they voted for Barack Obama (as if racism were a personal lifestyle option)’ (2017/2018: 2). Similarly, Susan Searls Giroux notes the common occurrence of a ‘symbolic unfurling of yet another gratuitous “mission accomplished” sign [that feeds] the amnesiatic tendency of Americans to forget the past, and in so doing [condemns] the present to subtle and not-so-subtle forms of racist mimicry’ (2010: 6).
- 28.
In a 2018 interview, Joan Scott maintained that the revelations of Harvey Weinstein’s numerous instances of sexual violence and predation ‘exposed a culture of male domination that persists, despite all the reforms, despite the vote, despite the fact that there are more women in some jobs than there were before…there are definitely signs of improvement, of openings. But the culture of male domination, the sense of male entitlement continues. And…it’s not only Harvey Weinstein, he is not the rare exception—he’s the symptom of a sense that there is male power that can demonstrate itself, sexually, politically, economically—and that continues’ (accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M-hOU-eA48&ab_channel=FRANCE24English; last accessed 1 November 2022).
- 29.
Halbertam’s blanket assessment seems not to take into account the vast number of men in numerous socioeconomic/sociocultural classes, ethnic communities, and non-Western/non-Anglophone geocultural locations who self-identify as ‘gay’, who count the variable of same-sex desire (rather than gender fluidity) as central to their experience of self, but cannot convincingly be understood as having capitulated to capitalist imperatives. On the bad/good, gay/queer binary, see also Drucker who contrasts a ‘gay normality’ rooted in capitalism/neoliberalism with a resistant queerness (despite the latter’s postmodernist/poststructuralist and Anglophone/Western lineage) (2015).
- 30.
- 31.
Tin, highlighting a propensity for simplistic, either/or thinking in relation to assessments of homophobia, argues that ‘pessimism and blind optimism constitute two symmetric pitfalls for both thought and action, inasmuch as both of these attitudes rest upon completely illusory presuppositions: one, that homophobia has and always will exist, and is a constant in human society; the other, that homophobia is generally a thing of the past. In reality, homophobia as it exists today is neither a transhistorical inevitability, impossible to fight, nor an historical residue destined to disappear by itself over time. It constitutes a problem of humanity, serious and complex and with many ramifications’ (2003/2008: 11).
- 32.
MacDougall’s use of the word ‘aesthetic’ here should not be taken as indicating matters of ‘taste’, ‘discernment’, ‘valuation’, or ‘beauty’, but as a more inclusive reference to all that is included within a subject’s perceptual sphere (‘closer to what the Greeks originally meant by aesthesis, or “sense experience”…not “beauty-aesthetics” in the Kantian sense’) (98).
- 33.
PrEP is an acronym for pre-exposure prophylaxis drugs (such as Descovy or Truvada) taken to prevent the transmission of HIV.
- 34.
Flannery draws here upon the work of Hall (1991).
- 35.
The term comes from Benjamin (1972/1978: 199–200) in his discussion of the work of Bertholt Brecht.
- 36.
The essay was first presented as a paper delivered at the Modern Language Association’s ‘Lesbian and Literature Panel’, Chicago, Illinois, 28 December 1977. The first publication was in 1978, in Sinister Wisdom 6.
Bibliography
Print Material
Adebisi, Foluke Ifejola. 2019. ‘Why I Say “Decolonisation Is Impossible”’. Folukeafrica.com, 17 December 2019. Accessed at https://folukeafrica.com/why-i-say-decolonisation-is-impossible/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Ahmad, Aisha-Nusrat, Maik Fielitz, Johanna Leinius, and Gianna Magdalena Schlichte, eds. 2018. Knowledge, Normativity, and Power in Academia: Critical Interventions. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alvira Briñez, Yamile. 2017. ‘El Lugar del Canto y la Oralidad como Prácticas Estético-Pedagógicas para la Reafirmación de la Vida y su Existencia en los Andes-Cajamarquinos’. Pedagogías Decoloniales: Prácticas Insurgentes de Resistir, (Re)existir y (Re)vivir, vol. 2 (ed. Catherine Walsh). Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala. 245–272.
Amico, Stephen. 2020. ‘“We Are All Musicologists Now”; or, the End of Ethnomusicology’. The Journal of Musicology 37(1): 1–32.
Bacchetta, Paola, Suhraiya Jivraj, and Sandeep Bakshi. 2020. ‘Decolonial Sexualities: Paola Bacchetta in Conversation with Suhraiya Jivraj and Sandeep Bakshi’. Interventions 22(4): 574–585.
Barrios, Gregg. 2016. ‘To Be Young, Gay, Latino, and Invisible’. Latinopia Guest Blog, Somos Orlando, Latinopia.com. Accessed at http://latinopia.com/blogs/latinopia-guest-blog-somos-orlando-gregg-barrios/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
BBC. 2019. ‘Trio Admit Owen Jones Attack but Deny Homophobic Motive’. BBC.com, 4 December 2019. Accessed at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-50660336; last accessed 1 November 2022.
BBC. 2020. ‘Owen Jones: Journalist Attacked Because of Sexuality and Political Views’. BBC.com, 17 January 2020. Accessed at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51150517; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Beauvoir, Simone de (trans. Howard M. Parshley). 1949/1953. The Second Sex. London: Jonathan Cape.
Benjamin, Walter (trans. Edmund Jephcott). 1972/1978. ‘Brecht’s Threepenny Novel’. Reflections (ed. Peter Demetz). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 193–202.
Bilge, Sirma. 2013. ‘Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Intersectionality Studies’. du Bois Review 10(2): 405–424.
Bilge, Sirma. 2020. ‘The Fungibility of Intersectionality: An Afropessimist Reading’. Ethnic and Racial Studies 43(13): 2298–2326.
Boise, Sam de. 2019. ‘Editorial: Is Masculinity Toxic?’ NORMA 14(3): 147–151.
Bourdieu, Pierre (trans. Richard Nice). 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Danielle. 2020. ‘An Open Letter on Racism in Music Studies, Especially Ethnomusicology and Music Education’. Mypeopletellstories.com, 12 June 2020. Accessed at https://www.mypeopletellstories.com/blog/open-letter; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Brox, Jane. 2019. Silence: A Social History of One of the Least Understood Elements of Our Lives. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Burns, Sean. 2020. ‘Jack Halberstam on Wildness, Illegibility, and the Commercialization of Desire’. Frieze.com, 15 December 2020. Accessed at https://www.frieze.com/interview/jack-halberstam-wild-things-disorder-of-desire; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Chukhrov, Keti. 2020. Practicing the Good: Desire and Boredom in Soviet Socialism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cremin, Ciara. 2011. Capitalism’s New Clothes: Enterprise, Ethics, and Enjoyment in Times of Crisis. London: Pluto Press.
Drucker, Peter. 2015. Warped: Gay Normality and Queer Anti-Capitalism. Leiden: Brill.
Ebert, Teresa L. 2003. ‘Manifesto as Theory, and Theory as Material Force: Toward a Red Polemic’. JAC 23(3): 553–562.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2009. Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Eng, David and Jasbir Puar. 2020. ‘Left of Queer’. Social Text 145, 38(4): 1–23.
Eng, David, Judith Halberstam, and José Esteban Muñoz. 2005. ‘Introduction: What’s Queer about Queer Studies Now?’ Social Text, 84–85, 23(3–4): 1–17.
Ewell, Philip. 2020. ‘Music Theory and the White Racial Frame’. Music Theory Online 26(2). Accessed at https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.html; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Fahey, Johannah, Howard Prosser, and Matthew Shaw, eds. 2015. In the Realm of the Senses: Social Aesthetics and the Sensory Dynamics of Privilege. Singapore: Springer.
Ferguson, Roderick A. 2012. The Reorder of Things: The University and Its Pedagogies of Minority Difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fisher, Mark. 2009. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester UK: O Books.
Flannery, Kathryn Thomas. 2001. ‘The Passion of Conviction: Reclaiming Polemic for a Reading of Second-Wave Feminism’. Rhetoric Review 20(1): 113–129.
Foucault, Michel. 1966/1989. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel (trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith). 1969/2002. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel (trans. Alan Sheridan). 1975/1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Giroux, Susan Searls. 2010. Between Race and Reason: Violence, Intellectual Responsibility, and the University to Come. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Groes-Green, Christian. 2012. ‘Ambivalent Participation: Sex, Power, and the Anthropologist in Mozambique’. Medical Anthropology 31(1): 44–60.
Haider, Syed. 2016. ‘The Shooting in Orlando, Terrorism or Toxic Masculinity (or Both?)’. Men and Masculinities 19(5): 555–565.
Halberstam, Jack. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hall, Ann Drury. 1991. Ceremony and Civility in English Renaissance Prose. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599
Haywood, Chris, Thomas Johansson, Nils Hammarén, Marcus Herz, and Andreas Ottemo. 2018. The Conundrum of Masculinity: Hegemony, Homosociality, Homophobia, and Heteronormativity. New York: Routledge.
Heyes, Cressida J. 2007. Self-Transformations: Foucault, Ethics, and Normalized Bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoad, Neville. 2000. ‘Arrested Development or the Queerness of Savages: Resisting Evolutionary Narratives of Difference’. Postcolonial Studies 3(2): 133–158.
Horton-Stallings, LaMonda. 2015. Funk the Erotic: Transaesthetics and Black Sexual Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Jones, Owen. 2016. ‘On Sky News Last Night, I Realised how Far Some Will Go to Ignore Homophobia’. Theguardian.com, 13 June 2016. Accessed at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Jones, Owen. 2020. ‘What My Attacker’s Conviction Taught Me about Taking on the Far Right’. Theguardian.com, 23 January 2020. Accessed at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/23/what-my-attackers-conviction-taught-me-about-far-right; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Kaplan, Elizabeth. 2002. ‘“Many Paths to Partial Truths”: Archives, Anthropology, and the Power of Representation’. Archival Science 2(3–4): 209–220.
Karner, Tracy. 1996. ‘Fathers, Sons, and Vietnam: Masculinity and Betrayal in the Life Narratives of Vietnam Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’. American Studies 37(1): 63–94.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2017/2018. ‘Introduction: Toward a Sociology of the Superordinate’. Privilege: A Reader (Fourth Edition) (ed. Michael S. Kimmel and Abby L. Ferber). New York: Routledge. 1–12.
Korsyn, Kevin. 2003. Decentering Music: A Critique of Contemporary Musical Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kulpa, Robert, Joanna Mizielińska, and Agata Stasińska. 2012. ‘(Un)translatable Queer?, or What Is Lost and Can Be Found in Translation…’ Import-Export-Transport: Queer Theory, Queer Critique, and Activism in Motion (ed. Sushila Mesquita, Maraia Katharina Wiedlack, and Katrin Lasthofer). Zaglossus: Vienna. 115–145.
La Fountain-Stokes, Lawrence. 2016. ‘Queer Puerto Ricans and the Burden of Violence’. Latinousa.org, 21 June 2016. Accessed at http://latinousa.org/2016/06/21/opinion-queer-puerto-ricans-burden-violence/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Laing, Olivia. 2016. ‘On the Orlando Shooting and a Sense of Erasure’. Theguardian.com, 16 June 2016. Accessed at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/16/orlando-shooting-and-a-sense-of-erasure; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Lorde, Audre. 1977/1984. ‘The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action’. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press. 40–44.
Lorde, Audre. 1978/1984. ‘Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power’. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press. 53–59.
Lorde, Audre. 1979/1984. ‘The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House’. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press. 110–113.
Lugones, María. 2008. ‘The Coloniality of Gender’. Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise 2: 1–17.
Lugones, María. 2010. ‘Toward a Decolonial Feminism’. Hypatia 25(4): 742–759.
MacDougall, David. 2006. The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Macharia, Keguro. 2019. Frottage: Frictions of Intimacy Across the Black Diaspora. New York: New York University Press.
Marcotte, Amanda. 2017. ‘Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us in Many Ways’. Alternet.org, 25 October 2017. Accessed at https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/toxic-masculinity-killing-us-many-ways; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Mbembe, Achille (trans. Laurent Dubois). 2013/2017. Critique of Black Reason. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (trans. Colin Smith). 1958/2005. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
Merton, Thomas (ed. Naomi Burton Stone and Patrick Hart). 1965/1979. ‘Love and Solitude’. Love and Living. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 15-24.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018a. ‘The Conceptual Triad: Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 135–152.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018b. ‘The Invention of the Human and the Three Pillars of the Colonial Matrix of Power: Racism, Sexism, and Nature’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 153–176.
Mignolo, Walter D. and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1984. ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’. Boundary 2 12(3) (‘On Humanism and the University I: The Discourse on Humanism’): 333–358.
Mol, Annemarie. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Moosavi, Leon. 2020. ‘The Decolonial Bandwagon and the Dangers of Intellectual Decolonisation’. International Review of Sociology 30(2): 332–354.
Noble, Jean Bobby. 2004. Masculinities Without Men?: Female Masculinity in Twentieth-Century Fictions. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Ochoa, Marcia. 2016. ‘Toxic Masculinity and the Orlando Pulse Shooting’ (Countering Hate with Knowledge, Fury, and Protest: Three Latina/o Studies Scholars Respond to Orlando Massacre). Mujerestalk.org, 28 June 2016. Accessed at https://mujerestalk.org/2016/06/28/countering-hate-with-love-latinao-scholars-respond-to-orlando-massacre/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Orlando Advocate. 2016. ‘Pulse Nightclub Attack Brings Invisible Demographic to Worldwide View’. Orlandoadvocate.com, 16 June 2016. Accessed at https://www.orlandoadvocate.com/pulse-nightclub-attack-brings-invisible-demographic-worldwide-view/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Ortega, Mariana. 2016. ‘SIN PULSO/no pulse’ (Countering Hate with Knowledge, Fury, and Protest: Three Latina/o Studies Scholars Respond to Orlando Massacre). Mujerestalk.org, 28 June 2016. Accessed at https://mujerestalk.org/2016/06/28/countering-hate-with-love-latinao-scholars-respond-to-orlando-massacre/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Pereira, Maria do Mar. 2017. Power, Knowledge, and Feminist Scholarship. New York: Routledge.
Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Quijano, Anibal (trans. Michael Ennis). 2000. ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America’. Neplanta 1(3): 533–580.
Ramirez, Johanna L., Kirsten A. Gonzalez, and M. Paz Galupo. 2018. ‘“Invisible During My Own Crisis”: Responses of LGBT People of Color to the Orlando Shooting’. Journal of Homosexuality 65(5): 579–599.
Rao, Rahul. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reeser, Todd W. 2010. Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction. Mladen, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rubin, Gayle. 1975. ‘The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex’. Toward an Anthropology of Women (ed. Rayna R. Reiter). New York: Monthly Review Press. 157–210.
Ruti, Mari. 2013. The Call of Character: Living the Life Worth Living. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sandoval, Chela. 2002. ‘Dissident Globalizations, Emancipatory Methods, Social-Erotics’. Queer Globalizations: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism (ed. Arnaldo Cruz-Malavé and Martin F. Manalansan IV). New York: New York University Press. 20–32.
Scarry, Elaine. 1987. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, Joan Wallach. 2018. Sex and Secularism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Slater, David. 1992. ‘Theories of Development and Politics of the Post-Modern: Exploring a Border Zone’. Development and Change 23(3): 283–319.
Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. 2018. The End of Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. 2020. ‘Toward an Aesthetics of the Epistemologies of the South: Manifesto in Twenty-Two Theses’. Knowledges Born in Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South (ed. Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maria Paula Meneses). London: Routledge. 117–125.
Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 271–313.
Stacey, Jackie. 1993. ‘Feminist Theory: Capital F, Capital T’. Introducing Women’s Studies: Feminist Theory and Practice (ed. Victoria Robinson and Diane Richardson). New York: New York University Press. 54–76.
Thrasher, Steven W. 2016. ‘LGBT People of Color Refuse to Be Erased after Orlando: “We Have to Elbow In”’. Theguardian.com, 18 June 2016. Accessed at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/orlando-latino-lgbt-media-whitewash; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Tin, Louis-Georges (trans. Marek Redburn). 2003/2008. ‘Introduction’. The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay and Lesbian Experience (ed. Louis-Georges Tin). Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press.
Tomlinson, Barbara. 2018. Undermining Intersectionality: The Perils of Powerblind Feminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. ‘Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40.
Venezia III, Gaetano. 2016. ‘Homonationalism in Wake of the Pulse Shooting’. Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org). 7 October 2016. Accessed at https://c4ss.org/content/46496; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Walsh, Catherine E. 2018. ‘Insurgency and Decolonial Prospect, Praxis, and Project’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 33–56.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. ‘Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument’. CR: The New Centennial Review 3(3). 257–337.
Media
Black, Dustin Lance, Dee Rees, Thomas Schlamme, and Gus Van Sant (directors). 2017. When We Rise. Disney-ABC Domestic Television (distributor).
Epstein, Rob and Jeffrey Friedman (directors). 1995. The Celluloid Closet. Sony Pictures Classics (distributor).
White, Ryan (director). 2020. Visible: Out on Television. Apple, Inc. (distributor).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amico, S. (2024). Introduction: Silencing. In: Ethnomusicology, Queerness, Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15312-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15313-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)