Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Queer Ecologies Roundtable
Queer Ecologies Roundtable
Roundtable Discussion
Part 1: From Queer/Nature to Queer Ecologies
On September 11, 2014 members of the UnderCurrents editorial collective sat political and creative possibilities of
down with Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram, Peter Hobbs, and Catriona Sandilands— introducing what we might call a con-
scholars working within the field of queer ecologies—to talk about the successes, chal- cept-practice of persistent love into the
lenges, and possibilities of queer ecological scholarship. We began by asking Gordon, investigation of queer nature. O’Don-
Peter, and Catriona to reflect on the contribution that “Queer/Nature,” Volume 6 of nell writes:
UnderCurrents, made to discussions at the intersection of queerness and environmen-
talism and invited them to reflect on how queer ecologies has changed in the twenty Queer is, for the most part, de-
years since that volume’s publication. With an interest in the future of the field, we fined from a position of “affec-
asked the roundtable participants to tell us how they understood queer ecologies in tional preference.” And nature
the present moment and to suggest some of their favourite scholarly, activist, and ar- is, in the dominant paradigm,
tistic examples of queer ecological work. “that which is not human.” To
The generous conversation that took place around Catriona’s dining room table, love, in both of these instan-
with Brent joining on Skype from Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, opened up ces, is to jar up against confin-
avenues through which we might trace the history and sketch the futures of queer ing categories of being in this
ecologies. We have transcribed the conversation and included four parts of it in this space, and this time, on earth.
What is required in this act,
volume. These fragments of the round- Hearence co-producers to create a pod- as [Caffyn] Kelly [one of the
table are scattered throughout in an ef- cast episode, available publicly on the contributors to that volume]
fort to put them into conversation with UnderCurrents website and through the reminds us, is persistence. (3)
the scholarly and creative contributions CoHearence iTunes feed. The podcast
that comprise Volume 19. Edited for offers a fuller record of the roundtable What has persisted in your own schol-
clarity and flow, the pieces are inten- discussion and is an ideal way to give arly and personal relationship, maybe
tionally incomplete, reminding us that readers auditory access to the voices of even your own loving relationship, with
any conversation about queer ecologies the discussants and to allow us to imag- practices, ideas, politics, and methods
must remain open to new associations, ine UnderCurrents beyond the page or of investigating queer natures and,
trajectories, and challenges. the computer screen. eventually, queer ecologies?
In addition to our transcriptions, We sincerely thank Gordon, Peter,
and in order to capture the unique con- and Catriona for participating in this Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: In re-
versational nuance and energy of the conversation and for generously agree- flecting on my own 1994 article in
roundtable itself, members of the Un- ing to allow us to share it with you here. “Queer/Nature,” on spatial contextual-
derCurrents editorial collective record- ization of queerness—which is an awk-
ed the roundtable discussion. As part UnderCurrents: Shauna O’Donnell’s ward term that I’d never use now—I was
of UnderCurrents’ commitment to both editorial for UnderCurrents Volume 6, mostly relying on Foucault’s methods
creative and collaborative scholarly “Queer/Nature,” points, in the end, to for sketching the development and de-
practice, we’ve teamed up with the Co- the question of affect and signals the stabilization of institutions of nature,
2015 | UnderCurrents 19 15
Brochu-Ingram, Hobbs & Sandilands | Queer Ecologies Roundtable Part 1
on one hand, and sexuality, on the other and specifically to take up some of the I’m continuing to follow, and what di-
hand; perspectives that had historical- threads that were raised in the “Queer/ rections have gone by the wayside . . .
ly been repro-centric and heteronor- Nature” volume, about thinking about either dying a good death or [seeing the]
mative. So to talk about queer nature queer beyond the subject positions of things that I may need to look at again.
twenty years ago was really to approach LGBT individuals. One of the things I do realize that
a frontier. What I might argue is the point I am still quite committed to is under-
Today, my 1994 UnderCurrents es- that came up in the “Queer/Nature” standing queer as a mode of politicized
say feels a bit naive and over-personal- [volume] that hasn’t been returned to in estrangement of the familiar. So Jack
ized. From [my current] vantage point, quite so robust a manner is the relation- Halberstam talks about queer theory
the value of the “Queer/Nature” con- ship between that sort of ontological/ and queer politics as essentially any
versation was in the crude attempts to epistemological queering and on-the- version of politics that does not have the
try on notions of social space as habitat ground political activism. If I see a gap, white heterosexual couple at the centre
within an ecosystem. . . . Methodolog- that’s kind of what it looks like for me. of it. And I think that that kind of es-
ically, I was adapting interdisciplinary . . . I think that queer ecology is naming trangement is the kind of work that I do
methods from environmental studies to an increasingly diverse set of scholarly and that Peter, Brent, Nicole Seymour,
queer populations that in 1994 had still and creative practices but I’m not quite Robert Azzarello, and that Darren
only been defined through sociology sure how it is being manifest in activ- do—calling into question some of the
and epidemiology (especially in rela- ism. comfortable habits of ecological and en-
tion to AIDS) and literature (in relation vironmentalist thought that align with
to early queer theory). So, a lot of these Peter Hobbs: It’s hard for me to talk this understanding of the couple. So, for
rich possibilities in 1994 for interdisci- about twenty years of queer ecolo- example, one of the figures from queer
plinary investigations have been more gies/natures . . . but looking back at theory who has emerged into the queer
recently appropriated and cordoned by the “Queer/Nature” issue today, I was ecological universe is Lee Edelman. His
cultural geography, a subfield that is too struck—and maybe this is echoing some book, No Future: Queer Theory and the
often adverse to recognition of complex [of the] sentiment that Brent is express- Death Drive, [explores] the notion of
biological contexts and mixing qualita- ing—[that] I could identify certain reproductive futurity and the ways in
tive markers with quantitative methods. tropes, concerns, and sentiments that which this is an imaginative and psy-
From the standpoint of research were expressed in the issue [and that] chic structure for capitalist societies. It
methods, that 1994 queer natures mo- are still being expressed today. So there is also very much part of a certain kind
ment was quite promising in bringing is sort of a lag, a proliferation of queer of environmentalist narrative—and
sexuality into environmental studies. ecology or queer materialism, there is a several people have used him as a way
But the research that has followed has real interest in using the methods and of calling into question the heteronor-
been less creative, with many interdis- not so much the theory. . . . I guess queer mativity of much contemporary envi-
ciplinary research and methods still theory had to end. It couldn’t continue ronmental discourse.
underutilized. Forgive me if I’m being a troubling theory where queer ecolo- For me, even if the kinds of modes
little adversarial. . . . I think that there gies can continue. I see the similarities of estrangement, the places where I’m
were a lot more possibilities that the in the stuff that [was] taken up in [the thinking about estrangement, the par-
1994 discussion opened up that haven’t 1994] issue is still being taken up today. ticular things that I’m trying to make
been pursued [by] very many research- So I was quite impressed when I went strange have changed, I’m still quite at-
ers. In my mind, the most promising line back and looked. tached to that understanding of queer as
was the cluster that Cate [Sandilands] an actively anti-heteronormative mode
has nurtured at York that has led to the Darren Patrick: Cate you’re nodding . . . of questioning. Which is actually pret-
queer ecologies discussion. But that’s ty portable, it goes a lot of interesting
largely a York animal and when I get out Catriona Sandilands: I was nodding places.
into the broader world of queer studies because it’s still a very impressive doc-
and queer theory, a lot of the possibili- ument. And hats off to Shauna [O’Don- Conversation continues on page 27.
ties that we glimpsed twenty years ago nell] for dreaming it up and for bringing
have barely been explored and applied. together a very interesting collection of
approaches. It was a bit of a stab in the
Catriona Sandilands: I think you might dark because we had no idea what we
go to the wrong conferences Brent . . . were doing. Even the piece that I wrote
[laughter] I would almost say the oppo- is a collage piece; there is no coherent
site. Certainly in the last three or four sense of what the relationship was going
years . . . there’s [been] a proliferation to be between queer and nature, and it
of works that are trying to stage a con- is interesting to look back at the piece
versation between queer and ecology, and see what directions I followed, that
16 UnderCurrents 19 | 2015
Queer Ecologies
Roundtable Discussion
Part 2: Examining Heteronormativity, Reprocentricity, and Ecology
UnderCurrents: There [were] a lot of really interesting knots in that first round of
things. One of those knots touches on something that Peter said about the relation- Peter Hobbs: Brent do you have an ex-
ship between queer theory as a kind of academic enterprise and queer ecology as this ample of a good bridge?
ostensibly more mobile enterprise that can travel. In queer politics, in general, the
process of engaging with heteronormativity, the process of engaging with reprocen- Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: Yeah!
tricitiy is, in some sense, what makes it queer. As ecology helps the queer travel in dif- . . . If you’re serious about calling into
ferent universes and attaches it to different kinds of things, how do heteronormativity question the reprocentricity and het-
and reprocentricity act as centres for what queer ecologies is doing? Do you think that eronormativity of modern science and
the insistence on queer ecology or queer theory as an anti-reprocentric or anti-heter- modern ecology, then you start to open
onormative enterprise changes when we start to pay more attention to ecology as a the door to a range of other narratives
mode of doing the work? and experiences and investigations of
our environments. It’s everything from
Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: I have a kind of a strong response. . . . The queer ecol- traditional environmental knowledge
ogies framework for me has been pretty easy to graft onto a whole body of decolonial to the kind of cultural narrative that
and Indigenous theory around environment. You know, it’s hard sometimes, and I say we see in environmentalism. But ecol-
ogy as a science as we’ve known it is up
this as somebody who is very a highly lonial environmentalism on one-hand, for reconsideration. It’s not necessarily
assimilated mixed-race Indigenous per- which I see all over this region—Salt undermined, but it’s broadened. And I
son. My mother’s family is Metis with Spring Island and Southern Vancouver think we’ve all been doing that. On one
deep roots in three regions in northern Island—but also the remnants of In- level we’ve been trying to shore up the
Canada, boreal Canada. I grew up as digenous ecological knowledge on the importance of ecology and environ-
part of an Indian Reserve community other hand, which has seen a huge re- mental studies. At the same time, espe-
in Southern Vancouver Island, but [I surgence not only just because of this cially with the queer work, we’re calling
was], you know, pretty middle class. So year’s [2014] Supreme Court of Canada some of the earlier assumptions, such as
like many of us, it has taken me much decisions [regarding Tsilhqot’in First reprocentricity and heteronormativity
of my life to process that and I often do Nation] but a huge sort of cultural resur- into correct question. We’re demolish-
it through colonial theory. Now I think gence both in Indigenous populations ing part of modern science, ecological
that there is a very direct relationship and in the broader population around science, and we’re trying to find substi-
between some of our queer ecologies here. So it’s on everybody’s minds out tutes.
methods because there is a deeper cri- on the west coast. So there are some
tique of science. Science as we know other bridges and possibilities that the Catriona Sandilands: I think you
was largely a Euro-centric, decolonial, queer ecologies conversations—we’ll could also argue that there is a trajec-
imperial project. . . . The queer ecolo- call them doors, you know—doors that tory of queering in some versions of
gies conversation gives me a kind of de- lead to bridges that sometimes people ecological science, even though the
colonial bridge between white-neoco- want to walk along. folks doing it probably—actually, defi-
2015 | UnderCurrents 19 27
Brochu-Ingram, Hobbs & Sandilands | Queer Ecologies Roundtable Part 2
nitely—wouldn’t call it that. So moving ingly obvious that that’s not the case. So wonderment. It thrives, it should thrive
away from, for example, some of the it’s no longer the case that you have to on, experimentation and wonderment.
more reductionist genetically driven have the heterosexual coupling at the That’s what the best science does. That’s
accounts of evolutionary biology that centre of questions of change and genet- what science is supposed to do . . . it pro-
focus on the idea of the adaptive trait ic inheritance. There are . . . epigenetic ductively mangels and entangles. And I
being carried by an individual through forces. There are ways in which we can would add, and it might be a trope that I
the process of sexual selection. Moving now look at life in much queerer ways, use way too much, but it’s that the world
away from an understanding of that as and that queering is coming from the is always already queer . . . I think that’s
the central model of inheritance—in humanities, the arts, the social sciences. one of the main points of queer ecolo-
some ways Lamark ends up being some- I would argue that it’s appearing in the gies—seeking out the queerness in ev-
what vindicated—we’re able to look at sciences as well. I’ll just end it there, end eryday life and reminding people that,
the ways in which environmental con- of thought. of course, science is constructed follow-
ditions trigger genetic change and mu- ing certain restrictions and certain dis-
tation. There’s one understanding in Peter Hobbs: The only thing that I ciplines, but it is also the performance
evolutionary biology that difference in would add to that is that it’s not new. of matter. Yeah. And then I’ll end there.
a species is only produced through sex- You know, science has always been in-
ual relationship, but in fact, it is increas- terested in an experimentation and Conversation continues on page 46.
28 UnderCurrents 19 | 2015
Queer Ecologies
Roundtable Discussion
Part 3: Politics, Resistance, Alliances, and Imbroglios
UnderCurrents: In preparing for tonight’s roundtable, we went back to Andil Gosine’s ly stick a finger into that huge pie . . .
contribution to the Queer Ecologies book, “Non-white Reproduction and Same-Sex there’s one work, one text that, for me,
Eroticism: Queer Acts Against Nature,” in which he raises three powerful concerns/ perfectly encapsulates what I think is
questions about the formation of queer ecologies. The first regards the “political geog- the potential of queer ecologies. And
raphy of queer ecology: Is the production of ‘queer ecology’ a decidedly Euroamerican that’s Shani Mootoo’s novel Cereus
project?” (166, emphasis in original). Building on this, the second is “a concern about Blooms at Night.
race-racism: If queer ecology is to maintain a primary gaze on the production of nature One of the reasons that I’ve been,
in Euroamerican contexts—which, despite my reservations is, I think, a legitimate and in recent years, so incredibly drawn
viable option—what becomes of race-racism?” (166, emphasis in original). Finally, “a to works of art and literature is that
concern about the political resistance” by way of articulating a mode of politics that they are able to stage and perform
goes beyond alliances in its “refusal of race-racism [as] not separate from the refusal those complicated articulations and
of heteropatriarchy,” Gosine finally asks, “Might queer ecology be better served, for cross-penetrations . . . in incredibly ac-
example, by the kind of model of political resistance that has been articulated by black cessible and powerful ways, that works
lesbian feminists such as Audre Lorde, M. Jacqui Alexander, and Dionne Brand, where that call themselves ‘theory’ do not nec-
its work is not merely to attend to the ‘sexuality’ part of oppression, but to recognize essarily need to do, because theories are
attempting to universalize and literary
and work with its full, complex render- the new work . . . on critiques of homon- texts are showing the dense particulari-
ing?” (167–168, emphasis in original). ationalism, like Jasbir K. Puar’s Terror- ties of certain kinds of relationships.
So, in light of Gosine’s questions, ist Assemblages. But also what’s really But Mootoo’s novel stages—I can’t
what might it look like if queer ecolo- been useful this year is Christina Han- talk about it in all its glorious complex-
gies were to strengthen its engagements hardt’s 2013 Safe Space: Gay Neighbour- ity—but it stages a relationship among
with other self-forming fields and to hoods History and the Politics of Violence, gender, sexuality, species, race, colony,
other modes not only of resistance but which is really about missed opportu- and [ableism]. And I particularly love it
also of research? nities for coalition building. I see a lot because it does so through plants. [I]t’s
of potential, and I go to some meetings an extraordinary representation of the
Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: [O]ne where people recognize the potential. dense ways in which all of these differ-
thing I’ve been thinking about is how But in my world out here—and maybe ent relationships are articulated. Does it
important these queer nature and ecolo- not at York University—it’s still been offer up a politics? No, it doesn’t. That’s
gy conversations have been for creative- in its very formative stages [of seeing] not the work that it attempts to do.
ly coming up with more resources, more how these new forms of queer ecologies Does it draw our attention to the ways
theoretical ammunition. To challenge investigation and analysis can help us in which these power relationships are
retrogresses and increasingly ‘neo- build bridges that lead to new kinds of densely interwoven and actually insep-
liberal’ . . . conceptualizations of both coalitions. arable? You know, you cannot name a
ecology and LGBT communities. So, for single source of oppression as primary
example, I’ve been recently moved by Catriona Sandilands: To tentative- in that text. . . . It offers this incredibly
46 UnderCurrents 19 | 2015
Queer Ecologies Roundtable Part 3 | Brochu-Ingram, Hobbs & Sandilands
powerful articulation and you end up, which some of this more recent theoret- Mel Chen’s book is amazing because it
after having read the novel, with an ical work is seemingly asking different does all this work—and that’s the whole
incredibly deepened understanding of kinds of queer theoretical questions. point of the book—that’s what makes
each one of those different sets of re- So, Foucault was incredibly influ- it so good, because [Chen] formats the
lationships. If you ask me for a single ential, Lee Edelman has been incredibly book so that [the] methodology match-
queer ecological text to read, that’s the influential, enabling us to ask different es . . . what [they’re] doing. There’s a
one I will give you. kinds of questions. I think that precise- mirroring going on there, right? [Chen]
The other thing I would say is that ly works [by] . . . Puar, Chen, and also talks about messy imbroglios and [is]
. . . the way in which queer theory is go- . . . Katherine McKittrick [are] asking us creating messy imbroglios, and that’s
ing to come back into the queer ecolog- to re-think what it means to ask a queer important to what queer ecologies is.
ical conversation is through queer peo- question.
ple of colour theory. And we’ve already Conversation continues on page 60.
seen that with Mel Chen’s book Anima- Peter Hobbs: Yeah, I was going to men-
cies and I think that there are ways in tion Mel Chen’s book as my pick. . . .
2015 | UnderCurrents 19 47
Queer Ecologies
Roundtable Discussion
Part 4: Queer Ecologies at the Limits
UnderCurrents: As we engage in this extended discussion tonight, what about an in- there is no limit to queer ecology, be-
version of the first question: When do we reach a limit after which the work we’re cause ecology is always already queer.
doing is not queer ecological work anymore? It’s a sort of goofy contingent question to I start wondering, “Well, if everything
pose, but it was something that came up in our editorial process this year. is queer, than nothing is queer.” Because
we lose, I think we lose the specificity,
Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: Well, I have a visceral response. we lose the politics, we lose the sense
that—Peter is shaking his head, we’ve
Darren Patrick: Oh, good, we need your viscerality! disagreed on this publicly before . . .
Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: That is, that we are living in a time of environmental Darren Patrick: Let’s get it on tape this
crisis which affects everybody, including queer identified people, [which] often has time. [Laughter] Let’s commit it to the
huge implications for sexual practices. And, I have to say that what’s going to drive the global archive.
notion of queer ecology in the long term is this very queer dynamic between surviv-
al quests—quests for survival—whether its protection from violence or recognition Catriona Sandilands: I don’t think it
of marriage rights or recognition of the right to live outside of any kind of accepted fundamentally depoliticizes, because
it is actually calling into question, it is
norm, there’s going to be this drive or a scholarship that has called itself queer actually calling to attention certain ver-
kind of queer survival or a larger kind ecology, for example, Tim Morton’s sions of, certain processes of life that
of queer space, on the one hand, and I editorial in the Pacific Modern Life As- are otherwise not considered publicly,
think, we’ve alluded to it, I’m think- sociation (PMLA) journal, which a lot so I think it is actually quite important.
ing of that book [Cruising Utopia] by of people quote, and he’s arguing that I think Barad’s article is actually quite
the now sadly deceased José Esteban queer, that queerness is sort of a funda- important.
Muñoz. [All the works we discussed mental principle of the universe and we Is there some way in which we
are] struggling with notions of the all kind of share it. And, in this, he ends need to have different ways of talking
queer imagination as . . . somehow relat- up equating queerness with relational- about queerness in different ontolog-
ed to our research and our scholarship ity. He has since changed his mind, in ical registers? So, within the biological
and our lives. And it’s not easy—we’ve his more recent work on hyperobjects, realm, within the political realm, the
got these two poles—for many of us it is he has become less interested in rela- social realm, within the affectional or
quite painful to try to figure out how to tions and more interested in objects, other realms. There seem to be differ-
respond to both of those imperatives in but, that’s OK. And he gets quoted a lot. ent versions of what queer means. So,
our lives and in our scholarship. . . . A more sophisticated version of this I think queer [ecology] is potentially
is Karen Barad’s work on queer perfor- limitless, but what I would actually
Catriona Sandilands: I think that one mativity. In which she’s also arguing like to see us do is speak more specifi-
of the things that I have struggled with that queer is somehow a basic principle cally about some of the particular con-
in the midst of some of the more recent of life. So, on both of those accounts, junctions, some of the more particular
60 UnderCurrents 19 | 2015
Queer Ecologies Roundtable Part 4 | Brochu-Ingram, Hobbs & Sandilands
articulations that appear between and course, if “everything is queer then queer ecology; that’s one of the most ex-
among these realms. So, that’s kind of nothing is queer;” I don’t quite follow citing parts that queer ecology is think-
a non-answer to your question. . . . It’s that. If everything is queer, then every- ing with and through the animal or the
potentially everything, but I don’t think thing is queer. non-human. And you could say the ex-
that it should be everything. I think it act same thing: If everything is going to
should be a bunch of very particular Catriona Sandilands: Both things can tell us a story then, of course, we’re go-
things. be true at the same time. ing to lose certain stories.
But I do want to point out that there
Peter Hobbs: I totally understand that Peter Hobbs: But, regardless of that— is this shift away from a cultural stud-
point that you would lose specificity and ies to more material studies, a notion
you would lose specificity by opening Catriona Sandilands: Maybe the axiom of performativity, and this call to think
up the notion of queer to include star- is: “If everything is queer, then nothing with and through non-human. I think
fish and lead. And the idea that “if ev- is queer in the way that I want it to be [that is] important to queer ecologies.
erything’s queer, then nothing is queer.” queer.” [Laughter]
I understand that. And, this is sort of a Catriona Sandilands: I think that we
minor difference, if it is a difference, be- Peter Hobbs: Yeah, I guess the specific- need both things. And the work that
cause, I think we . . . are pretty much the ity [is] a specificity for certain stories most compels me is the work that actu-
same person. [Laughter] that haven’t been worked over enough ally manages to do both things well.
that I think that you would be hesitant
Darren Patrick: But let’s zoom in on the to lose. . . . A similar criticism is made Gordon Brent Brochu-Ingram: Well
difference a little bit. All the disclaimers of the posthuman: that we can’t talk . . . I haven’t read Mel Chen’s work, I
being on the table, let’s talk about that about the posthuman because we’d lose know of some of [their] earlier work;
difference, even if it is a minor differ- out on the stories of all those wonderful I’m still stuck on this idea that queer
ence. and horrible stories of being human... ecologies—through this recognition of
So, I totally understand that, but I think a reprocentric and heteronormative bi-
Peter Hobbs: Well I knew this was go- that’s maybe the difference between; ases of 300 years of modern science—
ing to come up. So I was thinking about maybe we haven’t talked about the dif- has a huge implication for how we view
this axiom: If everything is queer then ference between a cultural studies ap- the world. And I thought . . . the back
nothing is queer. And how it sort of is proach to queer ecologies and looking at and forth with Peter and Cate is very
an axiom. discourse [analysis] approach. . . . important, but, for me, it’s still funda-
When materialism has been in- mental that queer ecologies is part of a
Catriona Sandilands: As long as it’s not troduced to queer ecologies and has greater critique of—and a very profound
a cliché. taken on a role, we’re looking to think critique of—much of what we know as
with and through animals and microbes biology and ecology. We’ve just begun
Peter Hobbs: [Laughter] Yeah, and of and plants. That is definitely part of the to understand what that means for how
we view the world and how we identify
what’s important and what’s vulnera-
ble, what we can count on and what is
more ephemeral. So, I like the way this
conversation is going, but, again, it goes
back to a kind of critique of science; co-
lonial science and neo-colonial science,
heternormative science, patriarchal sci-
ence, all the things that we have just be-
gun to challenge. Because, what I hear
with the back and forth between Cate
and Peter is . . . a lot of philosophical
kinds of nuance that I haven’t been able
to explore . . . and I’ll for sure look at Mel
Chen’s reading.
2015 | UnderCurrents 19 61