Abstract
In my response to commentaries by Hartman and Sedgwick, I examine the positions from which each chose to speak. Hartman's rather light approach performs a particular function: the mentalization of anal erotic and homoerotic desire through the introduction of surplus meaning. I explore the relationship of this approach to the absence of rigorous theoretical critique in his essay. I question Sedgwick's decision to limit her critique to the confines of queer theory; this results in a constriction of meaning rather than the expansion she purports to offer. I challenge her notion of growth through mutual recognition with a model of change that is based in psychoanalytic theory and practice. Contrary to her assertion, I do not jettison danger or gender destabilization from the discourse on anal eroticism between men, but I question these as obligatory or constitutive to its meaning.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
