I'll keep this week's posting short. What interested me most about Ahmed's text is the passively confrontational relationship between the Killjoy and everyone else. It seems like the reason why a Killjoy ruins the mood in feminist discourse is that they embody a dissonance between reality and expectation. The Killjoy makes it apparent that there is "a gap between the ideal feeling and the ideal feeling and the actual feeling".
The reason why this is important is because the Killjoy makes it apparent that despite prior models, you are not guaranteed happiness even if you achieve successes. The Killjoy does so by not being satisfied in success. This is an unsettling reality. We are winning, right? We should rejoice! But the Killjoy is a constant reminder that happiness is a simple pleasure, and that feminism has matured beyond that point (think Simone De Beauvoir's levels of maturity).
Just a side thought here, but could it be that the Killjoy feminist is a catalyst for progressive thought? The sort of anti-hero that reminds us that experiences are both unique and identifying, that solidarity is the opiate of progressive, so wipe that goofy smile off of your face.
Hi Nii,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you bring Beauvoir into the conversation. I wonder if you could say more on your point about her levels of maturity? I also am reminded of her line in The Second Sex that it's not about happiness, but freedom.