homosexual as homo sacer?

Edelmen writes that "queerness can never define an identity; it can only disturb one" (17). In our culture, queerness does not warrant the same amount of respect as heterosexuality. Gay sex is not procreation so it can only crudely be referred to as "fucking." Queerness defies the heteronormativity that is supposed to define our future. The homosexual has strayed somewhere along the road to normalization. With all of the the associations to the death drive, I started thinking about whether the homosexual could be understood as a homo sacer.

Example versus exception

On page 21, Agamben brings up some tricky issues that I'm hoping to get some more clarity on, please! He delineates two opposing modes: inclusive exclusion (which serves to include what is excluded) versus exclusive inclusion (which i think one could infer serves to exclude what is included . . . ?)

Syndicate content