Picture citation: https://izquotes.com/quote/audre-lorde/our-visions-begin-with-our-desires-114740
Native
feminist theorists have reframed the concept of futurity to allow a new
conceptualization of the future of sovereignty (Arvin, Tuck, & Morrill, 2013). As such, this is a
critical move toward decolonization and establishing a more equitable and
community-focused society in which differences are embraced. For example, many
queer theorists suggest that children are utilized to reproduce social norms,
such that children viewed as embodying any degree of deviance are not deemed
worthy of having a future (Lesnik-Oberstein, 2010). Many theorists suggest
that queer or deviant individuals are contributing to the perpetuation of the
existing social order by reproducing bodies and thus society such that every
vision of the future is heteronormative (Dean, 2009; Grzanka & Mann, 2014 ).
However, “an indigenous critique
must question the value of ‘no future’ in the context of genocide, where Native
peoples have already been determined by settler colonialism to have no future” (Smith, 2010, p. 48). Furthermore, Triple
Quandary Theory would suggest that by navigating the black cultural reality,
one is inherently questioning the “no future” narrative granted by the minority
reality in which one is viewed as underground, outcast surplus and thus not
worthy of value (Collard & Dempsey, 2017). In other words, given the ways
in which the privilege of having children has historically been denied to those
lower in the social order, investing in “no future” is not only impossible for
such individuals but would further perpetuate the way in which colonization
perpetuates inequity, particularly with regard to whiteness (Arvin et al., 2013)…and (ambiguous) existence
is resistance. Thus, queer and
indigenous theorists reconceptualize futurity in minority populations “as
oriented as much toward an underdetermined future as toward an always already
determined past” (Dean, 2009, p. 123).
How might society become
decolonized and what is the utility of reconceptualizing futurity? Queer
theorists emphasize the concept of becoming,
which offers an anti-essentialist theory of futurity by describing the ways
in which change occurs and life emerges outside of reproduction: “Becoming entails not
reproduction—reproducing in the future a version of what exists in the
present—but what might be called nonreproductive, nonapocalyptic invention” (Dean, 2009, p. 135). Similar to the concept of cultural competence
in which competency is viewed as a continuous process in which the final status
of being “culturally competent” can never truly be achieved (Campinha-Bacote, 2007), becoming is conceptualized as “a ceaseless movement of being that
is not coordinated by teleology or development, [which] never results in
anything resembling an identity” (Dean, 2009, p. 135).
As such, theorists have suggested
the utility of desire-based approaches to explore the way in which becoming influences futurity. The key
way in which desire-based research is differentiated from traditional
approaches lies in the way in which desire is conceptualized to involve the
feeling of longing, which inherently involves both the past and the future (Arvin et al., 2013). In other words, desire
for something involves thoughts of “not yet” or “not anymore,” conveying a past
that is inextricably tied with the future, desire embodied in history.
Not only is the concept of
needing to “imagine future history in a way that is not restrained by our own
lifetimes” (Davis, 2016, p. 116) critical in itself, but
it evokes a new conceptualization of future and history as inextricably
intertwined in the use of the term “future history.” A collective vision of the
future (Davis, 2016) that does not perpetuate
violence is critical given the way in which having and being able to envision
one’s future is a privilege currently afforded only to those that embody and
enforce social norms. For example, “one of the major examples of the violence
of racism consists of the rearing of generations of Black people who have not
learned how to imagine the future – who are not now in possession of the
education and the imagination that allows them to envision the future. This is
violence that leads to other forms of violence” (Davis, 2016, p. 89): violence that is
required for colonization.
The utilization of a desire-based approach
reframing futurity would allow for exploration of the ways in which
individuals’ vision of the future is reflective of both an acknowledgment of
the historical influences of colonization as well as a hope for decolonized
possibilities. An integral part of the acknowledgment of colonized history
relates to the way in which institutional barriers influence futurity via the
ability to individually overcome structural limitations. As stated by Berlant
(2007), “The structural position of subaltern lives intensifies this
foreshortening. Under a regime of crisis ordinariness, life feels
truncated—more like doggy paddling than swimming out to the magnificent
horizon” (p. 779). For example, the proliferation of the prison-industrial
complex dramatically alters and often limits the way in which parents of color
and other marginalized identities are able to be parents, particularly in
predominately black and brown urban areas with histories of white supremacy and
classism. As stated by Audre Lorde, “You fear your children will grow up to
join the patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our children will be
dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs
upon the reasons they are dying” (Lorde, 1990, p. 119).
Thus, envisioning of a future that takes place
in an equitable society in which happiness is truly obtainable for all suggests
a future history in which inequity was eliminated, an outcome only possible via
acknowledgement and understanding of the history of colonization and thus the
potential for a decolonized future. Desires
reflective of experiences as a colonized surplus subject are indicative of the
requirements of colonization in which capitalism conveys happiness through
material and capital, and success within institutions such as education is a
mandatory requirement for the possibility of eventually obtaining such
happiness. Such possibility is generally only afforded to those already in
power, but these limitations do not inherently limit such potential in the
future if one is able to imagine a more decolonized, equitable future society.
For instance, colonization restricts the
futures of populations deemed surplus, as bodies are seen only as capital for
the use of creating more capital but are not seen as not worthy of obtaining or
utilizing the capital they themselves make, thus dramatically reducing their
likelihood of surviving and thus having a future. In other words, futurity is
intertwined in “the activity of doing what’s necessary to lubricate the body’s
movement through capitalized time’s shortened circuit—not only speed-up at work
but the contexts where making a life
involves getting through the day, the week, and the month. Time organized
by the near future of the paying of bills and the management of children
coexists with the feeling of well-being a meal can provide” (Berlant, 2007, p. 778, emphasis added). As such, the conceptualization of a future which is not
defined by time is a future that only the most privileged can access in the
current colonized capitalist context. Thus, by envisioning a future that
extends beyond one’s present and historical restrictions, one is instilling
hope for a more equitable future which it itself an act of resistance that can
be taken up in the overall project of decolonization.
In addition, the ability to acknowledge history
while reimagining the future allows for more broad and idealistic desires for
the future. This tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity can be beneficial in
contexts in which one is struggling with seemingly opposing goals and
possibilities as a result of colonization and the resulting pressure that falls
upon them. This pressure is evident in many narratives of historically silenced
voices by way of discourse related to individual freedom and personal
responsibility as a result of colonization and the current capitalist context.
As stated by Dean Spade, “as disciplinary norms
become internalized, more directly coercive or violent means of social control
are replaced by self-regulation, so that ‘soft’ control replaces direct
violence” (Spade & Willse, 2015, p. 3). In other words, the internalization of these disciplinary
norms in the rhetoric of “personal responsibility” and “individual freedom” does
not negate the fact that it is a form of state-violence that is a direct result
of colonization and the history of genocide upon which our country is founded. Societies
themselves should be responsible for ensuring equitable access to resources
that would inherently protect the individuals within them, rather than
restricting individuals’ possibilities and subsequently punishing them for
using those that are left.
Taken together, envisioning the future
simultaneously as it is and as it could have been have seemingly infinite
potential for desire-based research examining futurity as desires can be reflective of both living as a colonized surplus
subject and the future possibility of living as a decolonized collective
individual. While these conceptualizations are not superficially dissimilar
with regard to living as a historically marginalized body in a society founded in inequity, living as a decolonized collective individual is antithetical in that rather than this
history being negated and
perpetuating inequity, it is instead acknowledged and at the forefront of
promoting equity.
Written by Cathryn
Richmond, MA
References
Arvin, M., Tuck, E., & Morrill, A. (2013). Decolonizing
feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.
Feminist Formations, 25(1), 8–34.
https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2013.0006
Berlant, L. (2007). Slow death (sovereignty, obesity, lateral
agency). Critical Inquiry, 33(4), 754–780.
https://doi.org/10.1086/521568
Campinha-Bacote, J. (2007). The process of cultural
competence in the delivery of healthcare services: The journey continues, 13(3),
181–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/10459602013003003
Collard, R. C., & Dempsey, J. (2017). Capitalist natures
in five orientations. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 28(1),
78–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294
Davis, A. Y. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle:
Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement. Chicago: Haymarket
Books. Retrieved from https://www.haymarketbooks.org
Dean, T. (2009). An impossible embrace: Queerness, futurity,
and the death drive. A Time for the Humanities: Futurity and the Limits of
Autonomy, 122–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13x0cd3.12
Grzanka, P. R., & Mann, E. S. (2014). Queer youth suicide
and the psychopolitics of “It Gets Better.” Sexualities, 17(4),
369–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460713516785
Lesnik-Oberstein, K. (2010). Childhood, queer theory, and
feminism. Feminist Theory, 11(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700110376281
Smith, A. L. (2010). Sexuality, nationality, indigeneity. GLQ:
A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 16(1–2).
https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2009-012
Spade, D., & Willse, C. (2015). Norms and normalization.
In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist
Theory (pp. 1–15). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328581.013.29
