I made this comment on Jes's post about the article in the National Post discussing his Post Doc, but I wanted to post it here as well and expand upon it a bit.
To start with, I want to say that I am proud to call Jes my best friend, I am proud to call him my colleague, I am proud to say that he inspires me to be a better academic and a better person through his work, thoughts, speech, ideas, and friendship. Yes, I am another queer academic working in the field of queer theory and I am stepping up to defend him - should you not like that, well too bad... write your own blog post.
I think all of these comments are fantastic - baring the hip surgery concerns - but I would like to briefly point out that no one who is talking about this article (should we wish to call it that) or those who are commenting on Jes's posting of that "article" is actually mentioning his Post-Doc project.
Why are we not mentioning that Jes is one of the few individuals out there who is talking about queer youth, specifically queer AT RISK youth? Yes, he teaching popular culture, specifically television - but that is is teaching job, it is the position that he was GIVEN through CUNY. But even so, how can we say that television is not relevant - can someone name another media today that does not reflect the tenor of our lives at this current moment? Or of our histories?
But that is besides the point. Jes is not doing a Post-doc on television. He is doing a monograph on gay, lesbians, trans, bisexual teenagers and preteens who are seen as at risk for either public, private, and self violence - amongst other dangers. Is this not important? Is this not what the heart of this discussion should be about? Not that Jes got a tattoo or that he bought a book or teaches I Love Lucy in his classroom, but that he IS taking on a social responsible role as a young gay academic and is actually trying to make a difference. That he is looking at the teenagers who are afraid to be open about their gender or sexuality and feel the desire to chose death over life? Can we not talk about the fact that Jes might actually be giving them a voice? Giving them an outlet to expresses themselves - even if it is an indirect one? Could his work not be seen as Socially Responsible? In the vein that SSHRC strives to be?
This post doc will result in a look at young queer individuals who are both being written about and writing themselves - how exactly is that not socially responsible? Or Socially relevant?
Yes, Jes has published in the realm of popular culture and film and television studies, but what about his larger and more advanced work? What about his discussion of queer theory today? His look at gay youth? His discussion on queer fantasy novels and how that has social significance: in which he talks about drag culture, youth suicide amongst other topics?
I think we should perhaps keep that in mind when addressing Fulford's article. So please rather than go on about how Jes is just talking about television or movies or buffy the vampire slayer - perhaps ask him about his actual research, his actual interests, or his ideas and his beliefs - and you might find that there is more to him than Television and tattoos.
Also, should we be considering this as a type of fame? Why does having your research and academic name dragged through the mud equal being famous? I'm rather confused about that. As Jes mentioned to me, he was not lauded for his work, he was fucked up the ass by a National Newspaper.
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
(I made a spelling error when I first posted this. doh.)
Interesting thoughts Matt. I agree that in talking about Jes' work, it is important to take account what a varied scholar he is--something that I think Fulford grossly overlooks. Did you see the comment from the woman who is one of the heads of research at Mac? She talks about approaching the research in good faith (looking at it as contributing to a field in a way that isn't instant gratification for Fulford).
Thinking about your comment about fame, when has fame ever been exclusively positive? How many intellectuals do we know whose success is actually linked to some cohesive greatness or fame? Rather, it seems so often--theorists especially--become famous especially for those very ideas they are critiqued for. I don't think this is a bad thing. If I've learned anything in the Celebrity/Culture course with Lorraine York so far it's that the celebrity subject becomes an intensely fraught site--a site upon which the media does a sort of ethical violence (I've been reading lots of Butler lately) to the celebrity personality and upon which ideologies are grafted in the struggle for power.
BTW Jes Battis probably one of the most socially responsible people I know (other than Cec), a fabulous intellectual and my idol. ;)
Get over it. The real heroes for G-L-B-T youth are the front line workers: councellors, advisors, crisis workers . . . people getting $10/hour and no cash handouts so you ivory tower types can turn tricks for cash handouts. Jes's monograph won't help a single Matt Shephard out there, no matter how self-righteous you think your 'research' impacts the world. Get off your blog and donate some time in the bad part of town, where TS youths are taking shots of heroin to deal with the real society -- not your pretend media version of it.
Dear Anonymous,
You have no idea about what kind of work I do or what kind of activism I am involved with - these are things I do not post on my blog. So you are telling me that my work on youth and AIDS and my work with volunteer orginizations in Toronto make no difference.
Perhaps, before you start casting stones, you might actually take a moment to ask me about myself and my work.
And if you think that cultural studies makes no difference, then why are you wasting time reading a blog focused on cultural studies?
anonymous:
Please just consider in good faith:
Yes,I'm in grad school. Yes I talk theoretical sometimes. And, YES, I think the people working on the 'front-lines' of all social justice issues should be recognized more than they are. Please do respect though that most of us are in school AND working for causes we believe in. Our academic writing is only one facet of what we see as contributing to social justice.
Perhaps your anger comes from the intense separation society creates between issues of theory and practise. Society tells us they are separate--that the world of the university has nothing to do with people's lived experiences. But I do believe that there is some crossover. I know, for example, that on campus there are unspoken acts of violence and hate-crimes committed against LGTBQ and visible minorities ALL the TIME.
I work with several groups who are trying very hard to make those problems visible not only to the university but to the community at-large. The thing to remember too is that as much as one might want to be more public about that work, jobs are at stake. You couldn't afford to do the work that you're passionate about (like helping make the university realize that we are if anything else organic beings who cannot conform to a mold as the university sees fit).
Many of us are here (in university) because we despise the way university can be an intensely hypocritical place, preaching human rights while sweeping violence against minorities under the rug. Many of us feel that universities--and this goes for highschools, prisons, courtrooms, etc--that these places are many times the structures that enforce various forms of inequality and violence to marginalized peoples.
Instead of ripping me to shreds, please PLEASE do consider my thoughts--they come from a place of respect and engagement.
PS: Please also keep in mind that there are many academics out there who do not get 'handouts' and are still committed to issues of social justice both within and 'outside' the university.
Post a Comment