SWIP conference

First of all let me start by saying (or writing) that I would like to post more. However, my approach to blogging at this moment is somewhat akin to doing homework and class assignments which for some reason I have been very resistant....In some ways it doesn't make sense because I really like my classes and the material is extremely germane to my dissertation project...but then again, now that I think about it that may be the problem. In any event, more on that later.
Back in the summer, I was informed that the Society of Women in Philospophy (SWIP) put out a CFP for their conference Engendering/Queering Race. I was encouraged to apply to read a paper. I was extremely excited about this opportunity because issues in queerness are still rare and to be in a space that was dedicated to this particular conversation was a welcome event, indeed. In any event, I submitted my paper and it was accepted. Now, here comes the tricky part.
On Friday November 11th I went to the opening event which was a mixer. Hardly anyone was there except for one of the organizers, two ISU women studies students, and another presenter. One of the ISU students at this mixer is also a friend of mine. This person is also someone who identifies as transgendered. My friend took me aside and said that there may be some problems because many of the women in this conference are 2nd wave feminists and are extremely uncomfortable having a male body present at this event. I was a little confused because the CFP was not gender specific and if this conference were a women only space I wanted to respect that. My friend also disclosed to me that the self identification of transgender that my friend (the limits of language do not permit me to use an appropriate pronoun!) espoused was also extremely problematic for them. Consequently this friend of mine had been having a very difficult time maintaining a space in this organization that was safe. I was standing there thinking, "hello double queering." Listening to my friend talk to me about the experience of being transgender within this space was heartbreaking. The psychic violence that surrounded my friend was unbelievably intense. Trauma to be sure, and the wounding even more so. Throughout this evening I was continually reminded of Audre Lorde and the impossibility of dismantling the master's house using the master's tools. But where do we go from here? It is at times like this that I realize how important my work is for me. That, indeed, marginalized groups (in this instance the gay and feminist communities of which I am apart of and am also implicated within) reify the very terms of oppression that they claim they are fighting against. And that was only on Friday.
Saturday November 12th at 3:15 was the day and time assigned for my paper. I show up a 2:00 because I wanted to hear the paper before me and to have the opportunity to mill around a bit and meet people. The friend that I spoke of earlier in this post came up to me and quickly ushered me out of the room. Apparently the idea of a male body presenting at this conference was being hotly argued on the administration level. The idea that I was to present broke a rule. The committee that accepted my paper claimed that my name was gender neutral so they just assumed that I was female. Now, for those of you who know my name, it is Hebrew and it is gendered...it is a male name. However, I can see from a Western perspective it could claim a type of neutrality...which is kind of cool now that I think about it. In short there was a rift in this organization and at the time that I walked into the room the volatility was at its peak.
I asked my friend if I should speak. My friend said that we should ask one of the organizers. This particular organizer (she also encouraged me to apply to the conference) said that she wanted me to present but understood if I didn't want to. My only concern was that I was transgressing a space...that would my presence contribute to a positive dialogue or exacerbate the situation would depend if I should speak or not. This organizer said that change needs to occur, that they accepted my paper and to prohibit my paper from being read would be an act of discrimination. I thought, "wow, how do I get myself into these situations..." This organizer wanted me to read my paper and she (as well as my transgendered friend) had been attacked continuously throughout this conference.
I am a talker but more importantly I am also a listener....This was a situation that had nothing to do with me. It had everything to do with power and what my body was signifying. The compromise that was made involved setting up two spaces. One space was for the bodies that wanted to hear my paper and the other space was set up for the women who did not want to hear my paper (and to talk about not wanting to hear my paper). It was a wounding right before my very eyes. It hurt.
So, I read my paper. It's funny how at times like this my pedagogy comes to the surface. I wanted to get everyone in a circle because for me this takes away some of the power space between the speaker and the audience. I wanted this to be teachable. Time and size did not permit me to do this. However, I did read my paper sitting down in front of the audience without a table or podium between me or them. The talk went well. The questions were difficult, context bound, and, in some instances, ideologically and politically loaded. I took them all and I answered as honestly as I could. The important part of this entire ordeal was the importance of voice and that even the women who chose to go into the other space were being allowed and accommodated to have a voice in that. Silence and nonpresence has its/their own voice. But voice is one thing and wounding is quite another. The bodies that were under attack at this conference because of difference was depressing indeed. That's what I wanted to bring to the fore...or the surface, if you will, to let them float...to be recognized in the very least if not extensively discussed. There was active marginalization and it was just as ugly and traumatic as any larger cultural ideology could deploy. It was queering the already queered and it affected me in profound ways. So, I read my paper and I answered questions and I hope that my presence helped instead of hindered. I guess only time will tell.
"What if it were possible to incite a slight shift in the character of political expression and political claims common to much politicized identity? What if we sought to supplant the language of 'I am'--with it defensive closure on identity, its insistence on the fixity of position, its equation of social with moral positioning--with the language of 'I want this for us'?"--Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity, 75.