We Have Laws for That: A Response to Jack Halberstam

Jack Halberstam’s evocative description of a fellow airline passenger’s service animal is both an artful performance of queer negativity, and also an outstanding example of the nested interdependencies that are the subject of my essay. However, he misrepresents my definition of care by claiming that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNew literary history Vol. 51; no. 4; pp. 725 - 728
Main Author Adams, Rachel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press 01.09.2020
Subjects
Aesthetics
Airlines
American literature
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US
Animals
Caregivers
Children
Disability
Eroticism
Halberstam, Judith
Literary history
Older people
Powers, Richard (1957- )
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Jack Halberstam’s evocative description of a fellow airline passenger’s service animal is both an artful performance of queer negativity, and also an outstanding example of the nested interdependencies that are the subject of my essay. However, he misrepresents my definition of care by claiming that it depends on benevolent human regard. I agree with Halberstam that desire is often taboo in our understanding of good care relationships because all too often the care of vulnerable people—children, ill, disabled, or elderly dependents, and their caregivers—is accompanied by sexual abuse. But the concern with safety may deprive dependents of self-expression and leave vital needs unmet. Our failure to address the erotics of care more openly can further disadvantage dependents and their caregivers by denying sexual desires as real as their need for life-sustaining care.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0028-6087
1080-661X
1080-661X
DOI:10.1353/nlh.2020.0045