woldy
in
lgbtq_recs
Book: The Queer Art of Failure by Jack Halberstam
On the surface, The Queer Art of Failure is a light-hearted academic book about pop culture and film, ranging from Finding Nemo to Austin Powers and many things in between. Digging beneath the surface, it's a provocative look at power and resistance in the context of neoliberalism, where Halberstam suggests that failure may offer a more liberatory path than success:
“Under certain circumstances failing, losing, forgetting, unmaking, undoing, unbecoming, not knowing may in fact offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world. Failing is something queers do and have always done exceptionally well; for queers failure can be a style, to cite Quentin Crisp, or a way of life, to cite Foucault, and it can stand in contrast to the grim scenarios of success that depend upon ‘trying and trying again.’” (3)
Halberstam's approach in this book is "low theory," which attempts to simultaneously engage ordinary people and analyse power structures through the use of eccentric and humorous sources. In practice, this involves entertaining interpretations of comedy films and animated children's movies. One of my favorite themes was Halberstam's analysis of 'Pixarvolt', or animated narratives of popular revolt in films such as A Bugs Life. Here, Halberstam sees an alternative form of narrative for children in which failure is inescapable and de-stigmatized:
“But along the way to these ‘happy’ endings, bad things happen to good animals, monsters, and children, and failure nestles in every dusty corner, reminding the child viewer that this too is what it means to live in a world created by mean, petty, greedy, and violent adults. To live is to fail, to bungle, to disappoint, and ultimately to die; rather than searching for ways around death and disappointment, the queer art of failure involves the acceptance of the finite, the embrace of the absurd, the silly, and the hopelessly goofy. Rather than resisting endings and limits, let us instead revel in and cleve to all of our own inevitable fantastic failures.” (186-187)
Although The Queer Art of Failure was entertaining and an excellent example of how to use popular culture examples to make academic points (I especially loved the combination of Nietzsche and Finding Nemo to muse on the power of memory and forgetting), it's politics is less clear. Halberstam's point seems to be that if you can't beat neoliberalism and heterocentrism but you don't want to join them, then failure may be the best option. But where does failure get us, individually or collectively?
The political message was brought out when I heard Jack Halberstam speak about the book a few months ago, so I hope you'll forgive me for recounting an example. One questioner spoke of counseling a student who was terrified into studying by the hope of admittance into a prestigious law school, which offered the eventual prospect of a well-paid job. In this context, the questioner said "my student can't afford-" "-to succeed" Halberstam interrupted. The questioner gawped. Halberstam explained that if the student got the law school place then they would be condemned to over $100,000 in debt, requiring them to take a corporate law job that upholds this system, which they would probably hate and still live in constant insecurity. Given that, is success really preferable?
Halberstam's challenge to us is to ask whether we can afford to succeed on the terms of neoliberal society. Or, if we fail on those terms, can we make the space for something different?
“Under certain circumstances failing, losing, forgetting, unmaking, undoing, unbecoming, not knowing may in fact offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world. Failing is something queers do and have always done exceptionally well; for queers failure can be a style, to cite Quentin Crisp, or a way of life, to cite Foucault, and it can stand in contrast to the grim scenarios of success that depend upon ‘trying and trying again.’” (3)
Halberstam's approach in this book is "low theory," which attempts to simultaneously engage ordinary people and analyse power structures through the use of eccentric and humorous sources. In practice, this involves entertaining interpretations of comedy films and animated children's movies. One of my favorite themes was Halberstam's analysis of 'Pixarvolt', or animated narratives of popular revolt in films such as A Bugs Life. Here, Halberstam sees an alternative form of narrative for children in which failure is inescapable and de-stigmatized:
“But along the way to these ‘happy’ endings, bad things happen to good animals, monsters, and children, and failure nestles in every dusty corner, reminding the child viewer that this too is what it means to live in a world created by mean, petty, greedy, and violent adults. To live is to fail, to bungle, to disappoint, and ultimately to die; rather than searching for ways around death and disappointment, the queer art of failure involves the acceptance of the finite, the embrace of the absurd, the silly, and the hopelessly goofy. Rather than resisting endings and limits, let us instead revel in and cleve to all of our own inevitable fantastic failures.” (186-187)
Although The Queer Art of Failure was entertaining and an excellent example of how to use popular culture examples to make academic points (I especially loved the combination of Nietzsche and Finding Nemo to muse on the power of memory and forgetting), it's politics is less clear. Halberstam's point seems to be that if you can't beat neoliberalism and heterocentrism but you don't want to join them, then failure may be the best option. But where does failure get us, individually or collectively?
The political message was brought out when I heard Jack Halberstam speak about the book a few months ago, so I hope you'll forgive me for recounting an example. One questioner spoke of counseling a student who was terrified into studying by the hope of admittance into a prestigious law school, which offered the eventual prospect of a well-paid job. In this context, the questioner said "my student can't afford-" "-to succeed" Halberstam interrupted. The questioner gawped. Halberstam explained that if the student got the law school place then they would be condemned to over $100,000 in debt, requiring them to take a corporate law job that upholds this system, which they would probably hate and still live in constant insecurity. Given that, is success really preferable?
Halberstam's challenge to us is to ask whether we can afford to succeed on the terms of neoliberal society. Or, if we fail on those terms, can we make the space for something different?