Leave a comment

curiouscliche December 31 2005, 09:03:27 UTC
See, I think another connection between Buddhism (especially of the Chan/Zen/Dhyana/Seon variety) and Queer Theory is that the philosophies are intrinsically resistant to rigid dogmatization. Essentially, they’re anti-essentialist non-identities. Because of this, Buddhism could be applied in incredibly broad social settings and contexts, from Indian aristocrats, to Chinese merchants, to Japanese warriors, to American beat poets. I don’t see dogma as a viable danger for Queer Theory. The danger I see is that a bunch of frat brothers could expropriate the term and label date-rape as queer (they’re already starting to move towards this tactic).

I think there’s a difference between offering information/knowledge/wisdom/empowerment (power = knowledge?) to people (education) and forcing one’s perspective/experiences down someone’s gullet (“education”). That being said, sometimes the latter might be necessary, although that’s not the tactic I’d personally choose.

Another connection I forgot to mention is the relationship between the dichotomy of queers and allies (I’m sort of assuming this is a dichotomy, I could be wrong) and the Buddhist dichotomy between arhats and bodhisattvas. Arhats are those who have attained the ultimate nirvana and have escaped from the endless cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). Bodhisattvas are those who’ve stopped just short of this ultimate nirvana and have chosen to enlighten all sentient beings in the universe before finally ending the game of samsara. This connection ties in with something that I’ve been pondering for a while. From a pragmatic perspective, is it more effective to label oneself queer and create revolution by example, or should one label oneself an ally and educate straights from a point of common ground. The second option is sort of Jesuit in its approach.

So yeah, I didn’t really answer your question at all.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up