Author Archives: michellespiegel

Andrea Smith- Queer Theory and Native Studies: The Heteronormativity of Settler Colonialism

The essay “puts Native studies into conversation with queer theory to look at both the possibilities and limits of a postidentity analytic” (45) 

  • recent trend in critiques of Native studies to incorporate queer theory: “beyond representing queer peoples within Native studies” but to “queer the analytics of settler colonialism” (41)
  • ”queer theory provides a helpful starting point for enabling Native studies to escape its position of ethnographic entrapment within the academy” (44) 
  • indigenous scholars address this entrapment by calling for a “reformulation of Native studies [that] does not entail rejecting identity concerns, but expands its scope of inquiry by positioning Native peoples as producers of theory and not simply as objects of analysis” (43)
  • interdisciplinarity and alliances necessary for change (not intellectual isolationism)
  • Native Studies can benefit from queer theory’s subjectless critique…by placing focus “on a ‘wide field of normalization’ as the site of social violence,” helping demonstrate Native studies’ broad applicability, and moving beyond a politics of inclusion in the colonial academy (44)
  • On the flip side–Native studies and a decolonization project can prove useful to address critques of Queer studies deploying a “postidentity” politic and the white, middle-classed identity it reinstantiates/universalizes, and its lack of acknowledgement of “settler colonialism and the ongoing genocide of Native peoples” (45)

  • US politics rhetorical construction/use of futurity; protectionist discourse: “the investment in the future justifies contemporary oppression;” (46) this often relies on an appeal to a prior state (problematic)
  • ”the appeal to ‘tradition’ often serves as the origin story that buttresses heteropatriarchy and other forms of oppression with Native communities while disavowing its political investments” (46-7); normative futurity as dependent on an origin story

  • limits of subjectless critique for decolonization- the need for a political program: ”an anti-oppositional politic can quickly lapse into a leftist cynicism, in which all politics are dismissed as ‘reproductive’ with no disruptive potential….a politics of ‘opting out’ clearly privileges those who are relatively more comfortable under the current situation” (48)
  • what is the value of “no future” for Native peoples?
    -”this call for ‘no future’ relies on a primitivizing discourse that positions the [white] queer subject in relation to a premodern subject who is locked in history. The ‘Native’ serves as the origin story that generates the autonomous present for the white queer subject” (48)
    -”the Native queer…becomes situated at the ‘horizon of death’ within a ‘no futures’ queer theory: such individuals must free themselves from their Native identity and community to become fully self-determined subject” (49) –ideological and material death is required of racialized subjects in order for modern white queer subjects to live (or be free)
  • Challenge temporal linearity of “no future” framework made by Native scholars: “memories of alternative social organization exist[ing] at all helps denormalize our current social structure” (50)
  • primitivist discourse found also in queer of color critique and ethnic studies: “it is the primitive Native that enables a mature mestizaje consciousness” (52); and “mestizaje and queerness often intersect to disappear indigeneity through the figure of the diasporic or hybrid queer subject” –without an analysis of settler colonialism, it reifies Native peoples “entrapped in a logic of genocidal appropriation” (53)
  • cultural appropriation of indigeneity- based on a logic of genocide and required for successful colonization of land- or “a logic of bipower whereby Natives must die so that postmodern subjects can live” (54) 
  • can we think of indigenous nationhood as already queered? 
  • tendencies within many Native studies scholarship and Native communities to work through counteridentification (but has ramifications of political silencing)
  • Munoz’s “model of disidentification can inform Native studies’ emphasis on decolonization” -disidentification as “a strategy recognizing the shifting terrain of resistances” (56)
    -but it too has its limits (particularly for addressing settler colonialism) -because of its centering on the public sphere/counterpublic based on a minority whose goal is not necessarily to dismantle the public sphere ; additionally, the binarism = bad, hybridity = good may work against indigenous interests (57)
    -emphasizes the primacy of war of maneuver “implies that the time of direct colonization and subjugation has passed, thus erasing the current colonization..globally” (58) 
  • queer theory generally presuming the givenness of the settler nation-state, particularly the US and “indigenous nationhood is imagined as simply a primitive mirror image of a heteronormative state” (59)
  • Native activists’ visions of national liberation not tied to nation-state governance as potentially useful in challenging heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy because it challenges the naturalness of social hierarchy (60)
  • internalization of social domination logics > reification of neocolonialism (62)
  • “the logics of settler colonialism and decolonization must be queered in order to properly speak to the genocidal present that not only continues to disappear indigenous peoples but reinforces the structures of white supremacy, settler colonialism, and heteropatriarchy that affect all peoples” (64)

Questions:

  • Can we see how a subjectless critique might be useful (or limiting) for other populations
  • So how do we engage in theoretical practices that utilize the subjectless critique of queer theory while acknowledging settler colonialism in a ways that “contribute to solidarity work with contemporary indigenous struggles” (53)?
  • How do we utilize the disruption in temporal linearity that Native studies provides in thinking about the past and helping to formulate ideas for a future in practical ways?

Reading Notes on Eric Michaels

Eric Michaels- Excerpts from Unbecoming

Michaels is the author of Bad Aboriginal Art, For a Cultural Future, and The Aboriginal Invention of Television. At the time of his death, he was a Lecturer in Media Studies at Griffith University in Brisbane.

Description of the book by Duke University Press:
In 1982, the American-born anthropologist Eric Michaels went to Australia to research the impact of television on remote aboriginal communities. Over the next five years, until his death, he became a major intellectual presence in Australia. Unbecoming is Michaels’s gritty, provocative, and intellectually powerful account of living with AIDS–a chronicle of the last year of his life as he became increasingly ill. Michaels’s diary offers a forceful and ironic rumination on the cultural phenomenon of AIDS, how it relates to his concerns as both an anthropologist and a gay man, and the failure of medical and governmental institutions to come to terms with the disease…Unbecoming provides a view of the AIDS epidemic from a distinctly new vantage point.

Some Notable Themes/Quotes
*General Reflections on Living with/Understanding the Disease or a Diseased State

  • “Perhaps the oddest thing about AIDS is that it takes so very long; one is required to live through all its stages, at each point confronted with insane, probably pathological choices” (3)
  • ”managing disclosures” (5)- who do you tell and how; for what reasons?
  • ”what begins here is a process of labeling, a struggle with institutional forms”…labels that are “inflicted” and practices “to deal not so much with disease…but…with sin and retribution” (4-5)
  • ”the rhetoric may kill us before the virus!” (8)
  • A fear of losing one’s mind, one’s rationality (24)
  • his experiences of being denied access to staying in the country because of his rejection of “nationalism and the nuclear family” (24-5)
  • critiques of AIDS activism – Queensland AIDS council (26)

*Death, Memory and Legacy?:

  • Aboriginal obliteration of memory of the deceased and how that works with and against his own understanding of death and legacy (9-10)
  • a social body created during life that exists after the self no longer does
  • ”questions of property ownership or custodianship”
  • his “resistance to fixed notions of property, ownership, which is superseded by ideas of custodianship, utility, of ‘looking after’: a processual model” (13)
  • ”I think now, perhaps more than ever, it is important to have regrets, to admit mistakes (don’t you just hate that ‘I wouldn’t do anything different’ bullshit….) and to cultivate carefully a few feuds” (48)

*Diagnoses and Reading of the Body:

  • a self monitoring of the body (one’s own and others’) for signs of disease (5)
  • ”trying to read the body so that one can use it as a text for the construction of a narrative called ‘diagnosis’ too easily becomes an obsessive pastime in my condition” (13) and for doctors; necessary?
  • ”I’d exhausted my body’s tolerance to the antibiotic. In short, I’d wrecked myself…no defense against anything, and…teetering on the edge. I was surrounded by people convinced I would die” (9)
  • (self?)-perceptions of vulnerability: “I feel like they can smell me now, like an injured member of the pack…And they go for me, the sons of bitches, they go for the throat” (30)
  • a feeling of the body more acutely, a knowing and simultaneous not knowing of one’s own body (30)
  • others’ (friends/family) reactions: “indescribable contradiction between illness and wellness which appears to alternate in PWAS” (38); is his body diseased or not? How is disease conceptualized and by whom differentially? What is it dependent on? (40)
  • Questions about care and responsibility- family? University? State? (39, 41)
  • perceptions of self and treatment: “Do I start chemotherapy and add another layer of medicalization, routine and poison cures which further confound my ability to judge sensually my own condition? Or do I let myself degenerate into a deformed and frightening creature? Or is there an alternative?” (44)
  • visibility of diseased state- in the mirror, in travel, in lecture (work), walking down the street (49)

*The paradox of “tidiness”

  • contradictory discourses; connections to discourses on fitness- “both terms obscure the very principles they claim to promote…substitutes the appearance of health for health itself, often in a most unhealthy manner” (15)
  • ”tidiness is a process which…is only interested in obscuring all traces of history, of process, of past users, of the conditions of manufacture”…”the tidy moment does not recognize process, and so resists deterioration, disease, aging, putrefaction” and therefore is “an appropriate discourse to inflict on the diseased” (17)
  • his examples of the antiques, the carpet, the waxing of the ward’s floors

*Reflections on writing:

  • process of creating an autobiographical account of this experience with disease- why we write? how do we write? how will our work be received? (4)
  • non-chronological as an attempt to invoke ‘activeness’ (19)
  • his perceptions that the effect of his “textual moves” wasn’t “riveting”…”I leave nothing generic for the reader to hang on to…Hoping the effect will be art is even more arrogant than hoping the effect will be sense” (34)

*Relationships and Survival:

  • ”I had better get more careful right quick about alienating the decreasing number of allies who may be willing to help me in my hour of dependency” (24); “attempts to set up some kinds of support which I’m told will be…necessary for me to live outside of hospital” (26)
  • various expressions of loneliness

Questions
*What is his intended goal in writing a piece like this? What kinds of feelings does reading a piece of writing (his writing) evoke for readers? What kinds of thinking does it provoke? Evoke?

*How do we talk about or theorize the treatment of AIDS as a biopolitical phenomenon without denying or obscuring the materiality of emotions and understandings of “self” of those with the disease?

Haraway: Cyborgs to Companion Species: Reconfiguring Kinship in Technoscience

*Goals of essay: “telling a story of co-habitation, co-evlution…and embodied cross-species sociality,” this piece “compares two cobbled together figures–cyborgs and companion species–to ask which might more fruitfully inform livable politics and ontologies in current life worlds” (297)

  • Haraway falls on companion species as more productive

*Cyborgs and Companion Species (CS) as useful in challenging boundaries/categories and bringing together the human and the non-human

*Why dogs?

  • they’re the “fleshly material-semiotic presences in the body of technoscience” and are “partners in crime of human evolution” (298)

*Her conceptualization of kin networks as blending nature/culture, of “multidirectional gene flow–multidirectional flows of bodies and values” (298)

*Cyborgs

  • Reiterates the “history” of the term and provides definition (299)
  • Reiterates her alternative narrative for cyborgs from her Manifesto (300)
  • “cyborgs as junior siblings in the much bigger, queer family of companion species” (300)

*Inter-action vs. Intra-action (300)

*Claims/Tasks in this essay:

  • Companion animals as only one kind of CS
  • appropriation of molecular biologists to affirm the dog-human origin story
  • thinking about biodiversity practices/discourses in “dogland”

*Companion animal as arising recently in vet schools in biomedical, technoscientific literature (even though they’ve come up before in the indication of the health and life benefits they offer their human counterparts) 

*CS as “a much bigger and more heterogeneous category than companion animal” (301) and  its construction/visibility dependent on:

  • evolutionary biology
  • CS as a philosophical category (defining difference)
  • the corporeal joining of the material/semiotic

*Canines of all kinds and co-evolution

  • “‘Pure’ breeds are an institutional fiction, if one that threatens the health of animals regulated by the story” (304)
  • Provides debates and brief overview of domestication (304-6)
  • distinction between dogs and wolves centers on reproduction

*CS as “figures of a relational ontology, in which histories matter; i.e.: are material, meaningful, processual, emergent and constitutive” (307)

*Biodiversity as dependent on high technology 

*”genetic disease discourse shapes communities of practice” and reigns in research (funds)- she focuses her work mostly on “genetic diversity” in purebreds 

*Analysis of Canine Diversity Project website (including the information posed and the rhetorical strategies deployed

  • Argues that it’s a plea for the value of diversity itself, not just as a solution to genetic disease(s) (311)

*Analysis of presentation of “breed survival plans”- linked to info on species survival plans 

  • “connote that something is endangered” -inflammation of the occurrence (312)
  • “invites a reproductive tie between natural species and purebred dogs” (312)

*SSPs: goal is to create “viable, managed, captive populations to maintain as much of the genetic diversity for all extant taxa of the species as possible…to provide a genetic reservoir for the reinforcement or reconstitution of wild populations;” involves many companion species “of organic, organizational and technological kinds” (312)

  • similar to most BSPs, SSPs are very interested in “Full and accurate pedigrees,” while SSPs are more concerned with preservation of diversity 
  • “some breeders…embrace genetic diversity discourse and population genetics. They worry that the foundation of their breeds might be too narrow and getting narrower;” but most breeders’ discourse doesn’t mesh with genetic diversity that easily… (314)

*Stakes of this conceptualization of co-evolution/CS

*Co-evolution story preferable to a version of the story that indicates who shaped or invented whom because “it redoes the story of the human place in nature in homely ways that also impact on fortifications between categories of nature and culture” (308)

  • “how we think about liveliness and agency in different worlds” (308)
  • CS as offering a “bypass surgery for liberal idioms of both individuals and of diversity” (308)- a way to think through practices of diversity, of environmental and human-animal relationship politics (317)
  • an understanding that “nothing is self-made..or self-sufficient” (317)
  • addresses feminist critique of possessive individualism (317)
  • “foregrounds relations of communities of practice in relation to intersectionality and invites intersectional analysis (317)

Questions:

1) What does Haraway mean by thinking about “agency in dog-human interactions” (304), “dog agency in the drama of genetics and co-habitation” (305)? 

2) I feel like I was fuzzy on her conversation of the stakes, particularly in questions arond how this moves to address/represent issues around diversity and intersectionality. 

3) I’m always interested in stylistic decisions of the authors we read. Do you think Haraway is a “difficult read?” Is her language, unabashed ramblings and techno-jargon intentional? productive? How so?

Neferti Tadiar’s “Domestic Bodies”

Quick Author Intro:
Neferti Tadiar is current Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies faculty at Barnard at Columbia University. Her academic interests include transnational and third world feminisms; postcolonial and Marxist theory; critical theories of race and subjectivity; literary and social theory; cultural studies of the Asia Pacific region; and Philippine studies. Her book, Fantasy-Production: Sexual Economies and Other Philippine Consequences for the New World Order, from which the chapter we read for today was from, was awarded the Philippine National Book Award in Cultural Criticism for 2005.

“Domestic Bodies”

-Discusses how news reports demonstrate how “physical bodies of Filipina overseas domestic workers are predominantly constructed and sometimes treated by their employers, and the ways in which the diaspora of overseas contract workers (OCWs), in particular, overseas domestic helpers (DHs), is constructed as a national body for a national audience in the Philippines” (113)

Tadiar’s goal in this chapter: “to sketch out some of the relations between the material and symbolic practices constituting” the (individual) domestic body overseas and the nation’s collective body and how different value systems “shape the emerging transnational fantasy-production of global domestic helpers” (113)

-Feminization of migrant labour (but really just rhetorically) and in the specific form of the domestic worker –as the “predominant representative figure of Filipino OCWs” (114)

-Stories of abuse “demonstrate the way in which domestic helpers are considered bodies without subjectivity…corporeal objects at the mercy and for the pleasure of those who buy them” (115)

-Domestic workers as paid for their (gendered) bodies rather than a specific skill

  • Bought as labour-commodities (because they can’t dispose of their labour power, rather it’s sold or appropriated) and sold by others- the “new-industrial ‘slaves’” (115)

-Modern slavery produced and maintained not through cultural practices but “the concrete operation and effect of the gendering and racializing constitution of domestic labour which is carried out in and through the local cultures of both ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ countries, a conglomeration of processes mediated by transnational capital” (116)

Logics determining the treatment of DH as slaves:

  • ’flexibilization’ of labour” as the transformation of techniques of appropriation from a focus on labour-time to the “labourer herself as the embodiment of indefinite labour-time” (her labour-power is at the disposal of the employer/owner) (117)
  • intersection of gender/racial systems of differentiation —-the realization of the ojbectification of social relations of disposession through the physical abuse of DH bodies

-Domestic enslavement as part of producing a new ‘race’ (just about denying gender, class and sexual sameness)– and this denial also necessary for justifying lack of protection for abused DHs- “their subjugating constitution AS difference) which serves as the social technology for their commodification on a global scale” (118)

  • Justified by some as culture shock on the part of Filipa DHs themselves (failure to adjust and accommodate the differences between her and her employer) — Tadiar takes issue with this because not only is it victim-blaming, but it takes as essential the racialized/gendered role of the DH- and offers the only solution as improving the DH herself
  • “‘the vulnerability’ of Filipina domestic helpers is premised precisely on their construction as objects of other people’s actions” (120)

-”In this techno-logic, the DH-body is racialized to the point of her ungendering, but at the same time, her racialization as being for her employer/owner (both male and female) rests upon and intensifies her constitution as a ‘feminine’ bodily-being-for-others, a captive body that can be and is often ‘invaded’ or violated” (121)

-Discursive autopsies performed on both living and deceased DHs- the tragic spectacle of the body

  • Demonstrate the embodiment of exchange value (123); their bodies also serve as sites of construction of the national body (124)

-”the compassion for and identification with” some of these media spectaclized DHs is “incorporated into a hegemonic national anxiety over the global status of the Filipino people” characterized by “a moral concern for the integrity of the Filipino people and an economic concern for the progress of the country” (127)

  • Images converge that represent the destroyed body of the nation, the violated domestic body and the shattered national body abroad (127)- all invoked by the image of “Filipinas being taken out of or leaving their home country and selling the labour which properly belongs within the ‘home’”
  • Filipina DH “must be alienated from the national subject as the object of its love and concern…the sacrifice of her body enabled the nation to mobilize itself and assert its sovereignty as a national subject worthy of respect from other nations” (129)
  • Labouring women as “the new bio-geographical territories of the nation, on and over which power struggles are staged” (129)- therefore protection of the DH is also a demand for protection over the national interests

-“The economic value produced by this group…is the possibility of their political power as well” (131) in addition to their “collective creative capacities acquired as women to extend themselves to and care for others”

  • experiential labour”- the productive function of domestic helpers’ subjective cooperation” (132)- their living labour– that which hasn’t yet been objectified- has transformative power- Negri’s “subjective potential” (132)

-”the economic rendering of ‘humanity’ as a value that is extracted and can be taken back provides a way of cultivating labouring Filipinas’ political potential which is now not merely a function of their economic power” (134)— how??

-”the fusion of the discourse on human rights and the economics discourse of costs and value is potentially transformative to the extent that the concept of human worth is determined by more than one system of value” (135)– again how?

-”unleashing time from its corporeal reification, from its fusion with women’s being–rather than being time, women might then express their own time, the time of their experiences” (136) hanging onto “doses of human time which help to sustain…life and…desire to live. It is this desiring enacted though writing to reach beyond the confinements of her bodily labour-time that constitutes her vital power” (137) —but does this really address the issue?

  • ”Through writing, women can create experiential contexts which they can share with other women, and through this sharing form potentially transformative involvements with each other….if we understand ‘context’ to be the form of one’s relations with the world, then the active constitution of one’s context means the active constitution of one’s self” (142)

SLAVERY– “in the field of fantasy-production, the ‘slave’ is at once the binary opposite and the supplement of the ‘free worker’” and “‘slavery’ is also the symbolic figure against which political freedom and sovereignty for the colony are won” (146) and a “symbolic practice that participates in the displacement and objectification of the Philippines’ crisis in the bodies of Filipina domestic workers” (147)

  • “the Philippines re-asserts its sovereign state agency by externalizing its [feminizing] crisis in the image of enslaved bodies, the regulation of which expresses the nation-state’s renewed (masculinist) self-possession and self-control” (148)

 

Questions:

1. What is the potential of art or poetry (or the redemption of “creative power” p.135) in addressing these (or other?) issues?

2. Tadiar gives us a fairly contextualized explanation of how these processes work with Filipina OCWs– but can we see this translated in any other context? Could it be translated to another context?

3. What did you think of Tadiar’s discussion of the narrative construction via mass media of DH-bodies? Do we see this done (similarly? differently? for different ends? with different bodies?) with mass media in the US? Is there any connection to our conversation from last week?

Andrea Smith: “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing”

The author:
Andrea Smith is Cherokee, an anti-violence and Native American activist and scholar and is currently teaching media and cultural studies at the University of California, Riverside. She is co-founder of the Boarding School Healing Project and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence.  Some select publications: Author of Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances and Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide; Editor of The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Nonprofit Industrial Complex.

The essay:
The piece we read for today is a chapter from a book Smith co-edited: “The Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology,” which attempts to shift the focus from domestic violence and sexual assault to address state violence, surveillance and the repression of people of color, including strategies for resistance and movement building.

The argument:
*highlighting common problematic trends in “women of color” or “people of color” political organizing
-the organizing principle of shared oppression against white supremacy faulty/limited
-assumes experiences with white supremacy and solutions for social change as universal

*proposes a model/framework starting with a more thorough understanding of the ways in which white supremacy functions and is maintained

*“Three Pillars of White Supremacy”- more fluid, contextualized understanding of oppression under white supremacy– interconnection of multiple “logics”-pillars
-Slavery/Capitalism
-Genocide/Colonialism
-Orientalism/War

*Slavery/Capitalism:
-blackness as slaveability—serves as the “anchor of capitalism” (67)
-”slavery” in whatever form historical or contemporary it may develop, applies a racial hierarchy to the system of capitalism — provides the idea that being “not Black” affords you the ability to escape being a commodity
-shift from the slavery system to PIC- “the criminalization of Blackness as a logical extension of Blackness as property” (67)

*Genocide/Colonialism:
-the necessity of the disappearance of indigenous peoples for the justification of land
and cultural acquisition by non-Natives
-colonization due to the “present absence” of Native peoples in the US colonial
imagination (68)
-democracy is actually the alibi for genocide–it is the practice that covers up United States colonial control over indigenous lands” (70)

*Orientalism/War:
– “the logic of Orientalism marks certain peoples or nations as inferior and as posing
a constant threat to the well-being of empire” (68) ie: targeting of immigrants of
color/racial profiling of Arab Americans
-the need to protect and preserve
-white supremacy upheld because the US is always at war
*Sora Han: “the United States is not at war; the United States is war” (69)

Further contentions…
*the US as not being able to exist without these three pillars

*”Whiteness” as differentially operating under the three logics- marking of bodies as different but similar purposes– (ex: mark as many bodies as black for labor, as many as Oriental to justify threat and war, and as few bodies as Native for land acquisition)

*current racial justice organizing as doing a number of problematic things (not always):
-utilizing a primarily civil rights framework–the (mis)appropriation of African
American civil rights and Black Power strategies
-can be characterized by anti-Black racism at times
-US-centric
-politics of multicultural representation– a superficial inclusion of others
-too central a focus on the black/white binary– or desire to move entirely beyond it
-but she says, we can’t “go beyond the black/white binary” since it is
central to the slavery logic- but doesn’t mean we have to neglect other
racialized/ing logics and other communities of color

*this new framework framework allows us to acknowledge power as more complicated
-“what keeps us trapped within our particular pillars of white supremacy is that we
are seduced with the prospect of being able to participate in the other pillars” (69) –
collusion
-“Thus people of color organizing must be premised on making
strategic alliances with each other, based on where we are situated
within the larger political economy;” and we should “check our
aspirations against the aspirations of other communities to ensure
that our model of liberation does not become the model of oppression
for others “ (69)

*Heteropatriarchy as essential to development/maintenance of the nation-state (71)
-heteropatriarchal family as small versions of the state
-Charles Colson- Christian Right activist- ”we must preserve traditional marriage in
order to protect the United States from those who would use our depravity to
destroy us” (72)
-emphasis on suburban private family shifts attention away from the
disinvestment in urban areas “that makes suburban lifestyle possible” (72)– and
allows us to blame the social decay happening there on deviating from Christian
ideals

*colonization dependent on patriarchy as naturalized
-“any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot
substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy” (72)

*secondary marginalization: when the most elite class of the marginalized furthering their own goals and/or rights by further marginalizing other groups–takes on a nation-state model of governance reliance on the domination of others

*importance of reconceptualization of the nation and family (challenging of right-wing conceptions) for liberation

Qs:
1. What does Andrea Smith’s theorizing illuminate about biopolitics?
2. Do we feel like her three pillars, or logics, are all encompassing? Do they address the ways in which white supremacy functions and is maintained in all contexts?
3. Smith articulates fairly clearly and succinctly, how racial domination is produced and maintained through various logics in this piece. How does her work reflect/challenge what we’ve read so far in regards to racial formation and domination?
4. How do we go about organizing around this new conceptualization of the nation/family when they have become discursively and politically pervasive in dominant formations, and when it has been so easy for groups to be attracted by and seduced into “secondary marginalization” in an attempt to grab hold of some power?