Skip to main content
punctum books

Queerness, Openness

  • Zach Blas (author)
Chapter of: Leper Creativity: Cyclonopedia Symposium(pp. 101–113)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
      Cannot generate record: No publications supplied
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
      Cannot generate record: Missing PDF URL
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
    • EBSCO Host
      Cannot generate record: No PDF or EPUB URL
    • ProQuest Ebrary
      Cannot generate record: No PDF or EPUB URL
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
TitleQueerness, Openness
ContributorZach Blas (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.21983/P3.0017.1.06
Landing pagehttps://punctumbooks.com/titles/leper-creativity-cyclonopedia-symposium/
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
CopyrightBlas, Zach
Publisherpunctum books
Published on2012-12-22
Long abstractThe state of queer theory today is somewhere between death and life. Since Teresa de Lauretis coined the term at a conference at the University of California Santa Cruz in 1990, this body of theoretical work, it has been claimed, has quickly peaked—or reached an impasse—within the last 15-20 years. In fact, de Lau-retis gave up on the term only after three years, claim-ing that “queer” had already been taken over by the various mainstream institutions and establishments it was created to resist against. Yet, if queer theory always promises an openness to its future and constantly insists on its inability to be pinned down or limited, what has happened to queer theory, when so many proclaim its usefulness is over or pronounce its outright death. There are many thoughts, suggestions, and disagreements about this: while some suggest queer theory never made good on its promise of openness, others note that queer theo-ry’s very openness and amorphousness fatally diluted it. Perhaps the problem with the “peaking of queer theory,”1 as David Ruffolo calls it, is that queer theory has not been open enough.
Page rangepp. 101–113
Print length13 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)