1 See, for instance, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Scattered Speculations on the
Question of Value,” 73–93; Amy Villarejo’s reading of Spivak in Lesbian Rule:
Cultural Criticism and the Value of Desire, 31–36; and Christopher Nealon, “Value |
Theory | Crisis,” 101–6.
2 A sanguine approach to these issues—one that pulls back from the excesses
of crisis rhetoric—is to be found in Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence:
Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. For an equally sanguine
survey of the field of “critical university studies” in which Fitzpatrick partici-
pates, see Je=rey J. Williams, “Deconstructing Academe: The Birth of Critical
University Studies.”
3 See, for instance, Stanley Aronowitz and Jonathan Cutler, eds., Post- Work: The
Wages of Cybernation; and Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism,
Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries.
4 William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.
5 Tammy Wynette, “Stand by Your Man.”
6 Intersecting queer studies and disability studies, Jasbir Puar confronts prevail-
ing assumptions about capacity and debility in her recent essay, “The Cost of
Getting Better.” With acknowledgment of that work’s insights, I mobilize the
word capacities rather in a sense nearer to Judith Butler’s when she celebrates
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s writing for bringing “into theoretical regions
precisely that ethically capacious sensibility which a rms the necessity of the
incongruous, and where the trajectory of desire requires a detour from the
logic of either / or in order to thrive and—in whatever way—become known”
(119). See Puar, “Coda: The Cost of Getting Better. Suicide, Sensation, Switch-
points”; and Butler, “Capacity.” This note anticipates as well my working with
and to the side of Agamben’s deployment of capacity, which features in a later
section of this introduction.
7 Judith Halberstam, The Queer Art of Failure, 5.
Previous Page Next Page