"I agree with you that we need to be aware of the danger of engaging in "the substitution of one god for another," as you put it so well; unfortunately that is precisely what you yourself propose, simply substituting the authority of the academic logos -- in this case, the texts of Judith Butler & other approved queer theorists -- for that of religious scripture. You have written, "i see queer theory as contributing to the muddying of the binarism between moral/immoral, noble/shameful, divine/profane, healthy/sick."

"Far from liberating us from binary oppositions, the meta-normative discourse that you advocate would merely entrench us in yet another binary opposition. In contrast to obvious binarism, you propose "muddying of the binarism between moral/immoral," etc. as the new moral code to which we all have a normative obligation to adhere. The anti-binary of 'muddying binarism' is in fact based upon the most subtle of binary oppositions, one which carefully disguises its own binarism; it is an art that conceals art.

"Adherence to a strict moral code of inscrutable paradox & normative statements disguised as non-normative or even anti-normative statements is the foundational premise that you insist upon. Only statements in the form of Butlerian paradox -- "the animalic is what is human, or that the shameful is ennobling, or that mutilation is an act of preserving integrity" -- are admitted as legitimate forms of speech within the new moral code & only moral concerns shared by the privileged elite who are guardians of the new moral code are admitted as legitimate participants in moral discourse. Those who disagree with that foundational premise or who are critical of its implications for moral discourse (as understood outside the charmed circle of that privileged academic elite) and for the participation of the marginalized and disadvantaged in moral discourse are labeled self-righteous moralizers and their concerns are dismissed.

"Phrases such as 'radical & liberatory discourse' are deployed precisely to undermine the possibility of anyone challenging the position of privilege from which normative statements are issued (as non-normative statements, to be sure). Only those who can cite the proper and approved academic literature and who can speak in the approved Butlerian language that is the normative code of the ostensibly non-normative are admitted to participation in the rarified elite that grants itself the privilege of making normative claims. Only those with the proper academic and theoretical pedigree are admitted to candidacy in the moral universe in which the old gods are dethroned in favor of the new gods, Judith Butler & anti-normative paradox (coded in the appropriate jargon). The language of the 'radical or liberatory' is co-opted to serve the purpose of producing new academic and theoretical literature. Devotional citation of the tropes of the new moral code -- carefully disguised as anti-normative statements -- then becomes crucial for gaining tenure and entry to the new elite, just as co-optation of the language of the 'radical and liberatory' is crucial for silenciing those who would voice genuine concern for those who were the ostensible object of the language of the 'radical and liberatory.'

"The objective of the theory industry which is the profit center of the new elite will be to entrench the new (but of course, carefully disguised) binarism in academic institutions. Journal articles & university press books filled with utterances in the approved code (e.g., "Morality is also - like all meaning-making practices - productive of its own resistances, and it is upon these which we must seize in order to contest moral claims, the activity of which constitutes the space of the political") will be the product of the new growth industry. At the same time, the institutional power that the new elite gains will be wielded to camouflage the power & privilege of that very elite.

"It is a most ingenious project, indeed, but not one that will advance any agenda that could remotely be called progressive, let alone liberatory."

I should add that I have exchanged e-mail messages off-list with H since posting that long message to the list, but it struck me that no one responded on-list. But I did get responses from two list members off-list, one of whom wrote:

"Wish I could post to the list, but I'm on the job market and can't afford to offend the H's of the academic world right now. sigh." This Ph.D. candidate responded to my long critique of H's screed,

"That last message was brilliant, Pauline. Truly. That message was a very eloquent and succinct expression of the problems I know a lot of us have with queer theory's arrogant ventures into queer politics."

So it seems to me there are at least three issues that become clear from all of these exchanges on-list and off. First: the utility of queer theory as a conceptual framework for explaining queer politics. Second: the relevance of queer theory as a conceptual framework for informing LGBT activism. And third: the institutional politics within academia that seems to reward the most abstruse and fanciful and least useful theory construction and that seems to silence those who would question it.

At the outset, I should make clear that it would be absurd to suggest that a critique of the current state of queer theory could be based solely on a few e-mail messages from one academic on one listserve. Clearly, even assuming that I have fairly and accurately characterized H's thought, it would be a gross over-generalization indeed to make broad statements about all of queer theory based solely on my exchange with H. And yet, it seems to me that H is emblematic of the current state of queer theory in a number of respects.

H's pronouncements on morality and queer theory seem to me to suggest an answer to the first question along these lines: while some queer theorists may produce useful analysis, there certainly seems to be quite a lot of queer theory being produced today that clearly fails the test for any conceptual framework that would help us understand what is going on when we talk about issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Following Judith Butler, H attacks the notion that one can make any affirmative normative statements at all, let alone normative statements on issues of sexuality and gender. H instead enjoins us to 'celebrate' the 'shameful' and the 'animalic.' In H's view, all morality is oppressive.

It is difficult for me to see how such notions can inform activism of any kind, let alone an activism that would actually be useful to real LGBT people facing real-life situations. Celebrating the shameful and the animalic will not help LGBT individuals combat the discrimination, harassment, abuse, and violence that we face -- pervasive for LGBT people of color and transgendered people in particular.

What strikes me as particularly extraordinary, given H's screed, is that H refers to herself in one of her messages as an 'activist' and describes her work as 'activism.' Only in academia could the production of abstruse Butlerian paradoxes be considered activism.

Let me state clearly that I see the problem with absolutist morality and the kind of overly concretized normative statements that queer activists -- just like everyone else in the United States, influenced as we are by our Puritan heritage -- are prone to make. Rarely is LGBT activism theoretically informed, and much of what we do could be improved by thinking through the conceptual and philosophic implications of the activism we engage in and the way in which we articulate our political agenda(s). We could certainly use a theoretically informed discussion of identity politics and how identities and identity formations can be concretized in ways that may not always be helpful for our relations with each other both within and outside the LGBT community.

But it seems to me that the drive to eliminate the possibility of articulating clear moral imperatives would only serve to undermine the possibility of LGBT activism altogether. It does not take queer theory to understand the need to protect LGBT people from discrimination and violence. It does not take a sophisticated theoretical framework to advocate on behalf of transgendered people, who may be among the most marginalized in our society.

I am in fact very interested in theory and theory construction, but I must say that I have found very little produced by the academy that has been useful for my work as an activist. And far from wanting to see the "withering away" of morality, I would like to see the withering away of the kind of queer theory that H and other Judith Butler acolytes produce.

Finally, it seems to me that the institutional politics of queer theory cannot be ignored in discussions of theory. Being a faithful acolyte of Judith Butler, H will have a very good chance of getting published and getting tenure. Butler exercises a hegemony over transgender studies that would surprise anyone outside of academia. If and when she gets tenure based on her Butlerian scribbling, H will then be in a position to wield institutional power within academia. Now, if H really does think of herself as an activist, perhaps she'll be willing to use that institutional power on behalf of the LGBT community.

It seems to me that the one respect in which one can speak of 'activism' in an academic context is the struggle to gain resources for LGBT students, faculty and staff on campuses across the country. While an increasing number of colleges and universities in the United States have added paid coordinators of LGBT student services and programming to their staffs, most have no such positions and no LGBT-specific programming for students, let alone for faculty and non-academic staff.

But I have to admit to a bit of skepticism that H would get involved with anything so practical once she gets tenure. The career path of the new breed of queer theorist increasingly demonstrates the failure of the radical potential of queer theory. Rather than a force for a 'radical' and 'liberatory' politics -- the favorite language of the Judith Butler brand of queer theorist -- the new queer theory has simply become one more growth industry in academia which aspiring graduate students in departments of humanities secure tenure-track positions and as assistant professors gain tenure. Few such queer theorists will dirty their hands by working with actual members of the LGBT community or community-based LGBT organizations. Instead, they will simply reproduce the most institutionally conservative aspects of American academia -- piling up university press books and journal articles written in a language inaccessible to members of the community who are their ostensible concern and attempting to establish or extend hegemony over their chosen area of academic expertise. Like Judith Butler, once they gain tenure, they will be content with imagining themselves to be engaged in a 'radical' and 'liberatory' politics; but they will ignore the real challenge of pursuing social justice and social change; indeed, they will denigrate the activism of those who do. In doing so, these self-styled queer theorists will be betray the truly radical potential of queer theory that they use to justify their institutional power and privilege. To quote the closing line of my message to the Q-Study list, it is a most ingenious project, indeed, but not one that will advance any agenda that could remotely be called progressive, let alone liberatory.