This post talks about the pros and
cons of academia as discussed by Susan Stryker and Paisley Currah in the
introduction to the Transgender Studies Quarterly.
This essay is about the creation of
the Transgender Studies Quarterly. It begins by talking about
transgender people in popular media, like Chelsea Manning. Then they move on to
an extensive discussion of the history and scope of the field of transgender
studies. After this they talk about the steps the creators of the TSQ had
to take to create this journal and why they felt they were necessary. Lastly,
they give an overview of what the structure and content of the journal will
look like.
A significant portion of this piece
was a discussion around the academy and the pros and cons of having the TSQ be
a part of it. Obviously, I’m doing this project within academia, and am
including many academic essays and theories into my analysis of the literature.
I love school and learning and the unnecessarily dense essays I’ve been reading
about surrounding gender and sexuality; however, I also recognize the problems
within academia. A major issue is that the bar for entry is extremely high in
terms of how much is required financially and the types of people they let in.
The academic space has never been very diverse, but even now people of color,
queer, and trans people are still being kept out.
The editors of the TSQ explained
that there have been criticisms of the journal because they went the root of
academic journal instead of something self-published or done online. The press
required the founders of the TSQ to raise $100,000 in order to
start the publication. They say that this is common for academic journals and
that they have gotten funding from a variety of sources within the academy, but
not all of it. Therefore, critics have asked why they would go through all of
this and remain within the confines of the academy which has closed its doors
to so many people in the very communities they are trying to serve. Their reply
is an acknowledgement and celebration of the varieties of independent work
being created and released in the trans community, as well as an acknowledge
that they want “a different kind of legitimation, with different effects of
power, within systems of power that we cannot readily escape simply because we
critique them” (12).
Their goal is to have trans studies
be recognized as a legitimate area of research in the academy. Again, they see
its faults, but they feel that the only way for this journal, and trans studies
as a whole, to achieve the success and acclaim they feel it deserves, is to do
it within the academy. In addition, they feel its connection with academia will
boost the people involved. It will give importance to the articles and
academics that publish work in it, which will help boost the careers of people
in the academy who want to change it “to best wield the power of cultural
capital for transgender studies, TSQ must follow the norms and
standards of academic publishing” (13). They say you can’t put out a fire from
inside the house, but I can also see how the people involved in this journal
want to spark change from the inside out. There is also the problem of seeking
legitimation from an institution that has never welcomed this community.
Perhaps they should be finding a home elsewhere, instead of conforming to the
standards of an institution that has historically shut us out. There is no easy
answer here, but regardless I do think this journal is a positive addition
within academia and without.
Comments
Post a Comment