To me, queer rhetoric is an example of what Hayles argues embodies the post human. Queer rhetoric transcend the boundaries of conventional discourse and challenges us to become "uncomfortable" and to accept that such as discourse exists. As Alexander and Rhodes argues, "queer rhetoric is a self-conscious and critical engagement with normative discourse of sexuality in the public sphere". By doing so, queer rhetoric is mirroring what Hayles attempts to portray in her book titled, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Hayles makes the argument that "the body produces culture at the same time that the culture produces the body"(200). If we think about this notion and how it pertains to the content discussed by Alexander and Rhodes, I turn to the infusion of popular culture in the beginning of their work which references early army advertisements which give emphasis to the physical conditions men must embody in order to thrive in the army.
Alexander and Rhodes discuss how these advertisements are used as "visual pornography" in which the homosexual men "festishize the images". Although these advertisements are intended for a specific audience, Alexander and Rhodes discuss it's implications within queer rhetoric and how such diverse implications on this advertisement propels them to create a counter-discourse, pushing against the notions of intended audience and questioning the ethos, pathos, and logos presented within society and specifically, our popular culture. Discussing discourse and navigating queer rhetoric, Alexander and Rhodes state the following:
"discourse as densely persuasive--a set of textual tools (textual, visual, auditory) through which bodies and psyches are shaped and cast in particular identity formation and through which such bodies and psyches might potentially be recast and reformed."
These examples of where queer rhetoric is explored and how it pertains to the body makes me think of the arrangement that Hayles uses within her text. In Hayles work we see a historical discussion on how the posthuman is deeply embedded within science, literature, and informatics. Alexander and Rhodes take a similar approach to explain queer rhetoric in their examples of Whitman and Wilde as the first writers to ever really explore queerness, eventually nodding towards more current popular culture examples and how they push against or contend with the ethos, pathos, and logos. Alexander and Rhodes define this resistance as disidentification, in which they define the term as "the ways in which one situates themselves both within and against the various discourse in which we are called to identify".
As Alexander and Rhodes note, "queer rhetorical practice focuses more on strategies to broaden even to the breaking point what counts as 'normal'". I think Hayles is challenging us to do the same thing, but rather to focus on the argument of information and the body, and how there has been an intention to separate the two, rather then discuss them as a collective entity. For Alexander and Rhodes, the body is the multimodal tool to which many of these queer rhetorical practices take place. In thinking about the Lavender Menace group, they used their bodies to display their t-shirts to show they were part of the queer rhetoric, and in turn their bodies provided a framework for disseminating information. As Jonathan and Rhodes note "information and data about queer rhetoric is readily accessible through archives, which is consistently challenged to make it meaningful." This is where I really see the discussion about informatics in what Hayles talks about mirrored in Alexander and Rhodes work. The space of the archives to help reference and understand queer rhetoric is a great tool.
However, as Hayles would argue, the body is removed from these archives, therefore it lacks what Alexander and Rhodes emphasizes groups can achieve. Alexander and Rhodes discuss this relevance of groups in the following statement, "groups are not minds articulating a sense of the queer but also with bodies performing queerness". In addition to this notion, Alexander and Rhodes cite Grindstaff and how he argues "ways in which lesbian and gays have had to position themselves rhetorically and materially" two must exist together in order to be effective in pushing against normal discourse. This was a concept in the Hayles text that was initially confusing to me before our in-class discussion last Wednesday. However, after now having class and talking through Hayles, I think she would agree to the notions Alexander and Rhodes are presenting in advocating for a infusion of body and information as a tool for discursive power, because really, thats what the posthuman attempts to convey. As Alexander and Rhodes note, "technology complicates and also makes access easier". When we think about the arguments conveyed within Hayes, and how the integration of technology is constantly grappling with the notion of what it means to be embodied with informatics, Johnathan and Alexander argue that technology serves as a great archival resource, but it is really though the body that queer rhetoric is empowered. Referring back to Hayles notion of culture and the body, the two are linked, this is what Alexander and Rhodes attempt to convey in their analysis of how queer rhetoric pushes against our contemporary understanding of rhetoric, and how disidentification and a resistance to normative sexuality and gender speak back to the discourses present within society today.
No comments:
Post a Comment