I am currently re-reading Lee Edelman’s excellent book, No Future: Queer Theory & the Death Drive (highly recommended), which will prompt a re-read of the Left’s (secularized Christian) obsession with deliverance and redemption (and what Edelman calls “reproductive futurism”) aka “the Future”. I’m taking Edelman’s assertion that “politics is always a politics of the signifier” and that the “underlying structure of the political” is the futurity of the Child as the basis for this inquiry. According to Edelmen,
politics, construed as oppositional or not, never rests on essential identities. It centers, instead, on the figurality that is always essential to identity, and thus on the figural relations in which social identities are always inscribed.
With this in mind, the
queer must insist on disturbing, on queering, social organizations as such – on disturbing, therefore, and on queering ourselves and our investment in such organization. For queerness can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one.
So, the nature of my inquiry is to read the Left’s preoccupation with the “future”, with the Christ Child as redeemer as the signifier for the future and its redemption even if it denies such a blatantly heteronormative and/or theological understanding of history and, therefore, of politics, in the background.