(Anti)Queer : introduction

The ‘anti- of ‘(Anti)Queer’ is a queer anti. In particle physics, a domain of science which was for a long time peddled as ultimately knowable, rational and objective, the postmodern turn has made everything queer (or chaotic, as the scientific version of this turn is perhaps more commonly named). This is a world where not only do two wrongs not make a right, but a negative and positive do not calmly cancel each other out to leave nothing, as mathematics might suggest. When matter meets with anti-matter, the resulting explosion can produce not only energy - heat and light? - but new matter. We live in a world whose very basics are no longer the electron and the positron, but an ever proliferating number of chaotic, unpredictable - queer? - subatomic particles. Some are ‘charmed’, others merely ‘strange’ . Weird science indeed. The ‘Anti-’ of ‘Anti-queer’ does not place itself neatly into binaries. This is not a refutation of all that queer has been or will be. It is explicitly a confrontation, a challenge, an attempt to take seriously not only the claims made for queer but the potent contradictions and silences which stand proudly when any attempt is made to write a history of the term. Specifically, ‘Anti-Queer’ is not Beyond Queer, the title of Bruce Bawer’s 1996 book which calmly and self-confidently explains the failings of queer, extols a return to a liberal political theory of cultural change and places its own marker on queer as a movement whose purpose has been served. We are not Beyond Queer. And if we are Anti-Queer, it is only to challenge those working in the arena to acknowledge and work with some of the facts of the movement’s history whose productivity has been erased with a gesture which has, proved, bizarrely, to be reductive and homogenising.