Desire-Based Research: Reimagining the Future//Cathryn Richmond, M.A.


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



No comments:

Post a Comment