Human Rights Campaign day 2: gender, pronouns, scholarship, conversations, life

Day 2 felt incredibly long!  Yet, it was incredibly amazing!  Meeting new people, new scholars, and finding ways to be connected despite our differences.  Challenging, but very heartwarming!  We had breakfast together, talked about the Emilie Townes lecture, and then went into our large group to discuss the Townes lecture further.  We then transitioned into discussing writing and the writing process.  Being here, I have found someone who has some anxiety around the gravity of the dissertation process.  And, I have found some other friendly folks who get feminist and queer writing, and are also troubled by their male colleagues’ responses to this writing.  In short, I found myself to be really thankful.  I am also really thankful to Sharon Groves who is convening this Summer Institute.  She has continued to make insightful remarks in our large group settings or during breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

I met Sharon at AAR this past year in Montréal (2009).  She encouraged me to apply for the Summer Institute, and so I did.  She knows my advisor, along with so many other folks, and I find this to be a really valuable connection.  She also has a Ph.D. in English Literature…in short, she is ultra rad!  I am looking forward to getting to know her better and enjoying our newly formed writing partnership!  Nothing like being engaged in writing w/ an English Lit. scholar who is creative, critical, and attentive to issues of difference!

Lunch was a highlight of my day.  My table got to talking about gender and gender pronouns.  You might have read my earlier post on being assigned a gender pronoun.  If not, you can read it here.  It is short, and will contextualize my following comments.  So, we began talking about how I felt about being assigned the gender pronoun: Ze.  How did that feel to me, am I ok with it, etc.  We spent a fair amount of time talking about this and talking about how I intentionally use the terms Latina and Mestizo in referencing myself.  I don’t necessarily feel “in-between” genders, though that space of intersection, liminality, or on the “borderlands” is really appealing to me.  It is more of an issue of transcending the binaries and finding new ways to be.  And, one way of doing this is to use both he and she.  Though, I am pretty clear with my Latino/a scholars that I am a Latina Scholar, not a Latino Scholar.  Confusing, I am certain!

So, I simply use my name as a way to consider myself, especially in writing.  This largely means that I write about myself in the 3rd person instead of using she or he.  I am also keen to the practice of using “I” to reference myself.  At any rate, this conversation around gender and gender pronouns was fascinating, and I am seeking to find a way (in myself) to consider this “being assigned” a gender.  On some level, and I said this yesterday at the lunch table, I find it endearing.  On another level, I find it troublesome.  Is this just one way to exist within the queer collective?  And if so, what does that mean?

Scholarship is another important aspect of the Summer Institute.  I had to submit an abstract of a publishable piece.  I am working on “Equal But Different:  The Effect of Equality Discourse on the QueerMestizo Body.”  I presented this work in my writing group.  I received some very helpful feedback from everyone, including having to answer the question “who is my audience?”  I had 45 minutes to workshop my piece, listen to responses and reactions, and respond to questions.  This is one of the best pieces to the Summer Institute:  the time and space to think critically about one’s work.

I was growing tired by the close of the afternoon.  Nikki and I sat in the little living room, flipped the TV on, and chatted.  The time that I have spendtwith Nikki has been an incredible gift.  She won the dissertation scholarship this year, and her work on Black Queer Ethics is groundbreaking!  I am really looking forward to being in conversation with Nikki.  We are already planning an outing w/ our families during AAR this year.  I’m thinking it’ll be good times.

By the time Nikki and I made it to dinner, everyone was already seated at their tables.  Students at several tables, and the faculty mentors and speakers at their own table.  Where were Nikki and I to sit?  Patrick Cheng, my faculty mentor, invited us to sit at their table.  Nikki took her seat, and she then gestured to the other empty seat.  It just happened to be right next to Janet Jakobsen!  I make myself comfortable and we introduce ourselves to one another.  The conversation flowed just like it always does in academic circles:  where are you from?, what do you study?, and what is your focus?  This was one of the best conversations I have had with a speaker.  We had the opportunity to talk about epistemology and its intersection with ethics, the politics of marriage, and the limits of intersectionality.  All of those topics didn’t happen all at dinner, but the time and space to have these conversations created a deep desire in me to stick with my idea of epistemology and ethics!  Janet is going to make an introduction of me to Mary Pat Brady (Cornell).  Brady’s work is on Chicana Literatures, Cultures, and Space.  She might very well be a helpful conversation partner!

Jakobsen’s and Kathleen Sands lectures were great.  The Marriage Equality talk made its way into the Institute (I was waiting for it to show up), and I really feel as though my own thinking concerning this issue has deepened as a result of this lecture.  Later, I had the chance to talk with Janet about the politics of marriage and why there is a need to pursue marriage equality.  She and I both seem to be right-on in terms of how we understand the politics of marriage and the marriage equality debates.  It was nice to find an academic who agrees with me on these issues (though I am sure there are more, and perhaps even here).

I am growing to really enjoy my time here at Vanderbilt, and I am especially grateful to have had the opportunities to visit with people like Ellen Armour.  We spoke last night at the reception.  Though she has been here each night of the Institute, I finally had an opportunity to visit with her.  She is an outstanding scholar, and I appreciate her well thought-out philosophy.

Life seems to be not only busy here but also constructive.  This has been a constructive and instructive time for me.  When I was told that I don’t do LGBT(Q) stuff, I actually stopped and considered whether this is right.  Being here and with other Queer folks (like Nikki and Sofia), I am reminded that all of the work I do has a queer edge, focus, methodology to it.  I am also learning how important this space is in my development as a scholar.

Tags: phd, Queer