Michael J Lecker is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Masculinities Studies at Hampden-Sydney College and a PhD candidate in the Cultural Studies Program at George Mason University. His dissertation “Queer Enough?: The Radical Faeries, Kinship, and Worldmaking is an ethnographic examination of the US Radical Faerie subculture. The work’s central theoretical juxtaposition is a tension between the queer ephemerality and continuity. This research highlights both how the Faeries use history to create collectives and identities, foster intergenerational dialogue around the AIDS crisis and HIV, and create alternative forms of kinship. His master’s is from Bowling Green State University’s Popular Culture department and his bachelor is from Edinboro State University of Pennsylvania in sociology. He is a 2013 University of Minnesota Elmer L. Andersen Research Scholar. He has published articles and chapters on military advertisements in comic books, the ethics of gay and lesbian biographies, and a queer reading of the X-Men. He has taught courses on identity and literature, masculinity and nature, creativity, HIV/AIDS, mass cultures, and conflict within the LGBTQ community.
Lastly— The Title of My Blog—
My blog’s title is “It Was Curiosity.” This is from the introduction of Foucault’s History of Sexuality V. 2. This is his motivation for doing research. I think it’s a pretty fantastic point-of-view and motivation. The full quote is below.
From Foucault, The Use of Pleasure—v. 2 History of Sexuality, pp 8-9: As for what motivated me, it is quite simple: I would hope that in the eyes of some people it might be sufficient in itself. It was curiosity—the only kind of curiosity, in any case, that is worth acting upon with a degree of obstinacy: not the curiosity that seeks to assimilate what it is proper for one to know, but that which enables one to get free of oneself. After all, what would be the value of the passion for knowledge if it resulted only in a certain amount of knowledgeableness and not, in one way or another and to the extent possible, in the knower’s straying afield of himself? There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all. People will say, perhaps, that these games with oneself would be better left backstage; or, at best, that they might properly form part of those preliminary exercises that are forgotten once they have served their purpose. But, then, what is philosophy today—philosophical activity, I mean—if it is not the critical work that thought brings to bear on itself? In what does it consist, if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? There is always something ludicrous in philosophical discourse when it tries, from the outside, to dictate to others, to tell them where their truth is and how to find it, or when it works up a case against them in the language of naïve positivity. But it is entitled to explore what might be changed, in its own thought, through the practice of a knowledge that is foreign to it. The “essay”—which should be understood as the assay or test by which, in the game of truth, one undergoes changes, and not as the simplistic appropriation of others for the purpose of communication—is the living substance of philosophy, at least if we assume that philosophy is what it was in times past, i.e., an “ascesis,” askesis, an exercise of oneself in the activity of thought.