![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OMG.
Yoshino's work is actually one reason why I really think I'm not cut out for academic work. He's a very pointed example because when I read his stuff in law review journals, I was totally taken with his arguments about race, sexuality, and discrimination. But oddly to me, I've heard from people in Critical Race Theory and in sexuality & the law studies that Yoshino pretty much doesn't register in their intellectual circles. For some, it's because his work is derivative of these "traditions" without citing them or being part of a community of scholars that do such work. But for others, I get the sense there's a deeper intellectual dissatisfaction with his understanding of identity, discrimination, legal justice, and so on. He does sort of lean on the idea of authenticity a bit much, but I think it's less in the service of a universalizing gesture (all gay people are like X) and more to push the idea of difference (as in Sedgwick's wonderfully axiomatic pronouncement in Epistemology of the Closet that people are different). Sigh. I'm totally buying the book ASAP, though. I dunno. Maybe some of you smart people on my flist can clarify this for me?
Yoshino's work is actually one reason why I really think I'm not cut out for academic work. He's a very pointed example because when I read his stuff in law review journals, I was totally taken with his arguments about race, sexuality, and discrimination. But oddly to me, I've heard from people in Critical Race Theory and in sexuality & the law studies that Yoshino pretty much doesn't register in their intellectual circles. For some, it's because his work is derivative of these "traditions" without citing them or being part of a community of scholars that do such work. But for others, I get the sense there's a deeper intellectual dissatisfaction with his understanding of identity, discrimination, legal justice, and so on. He does sort of lean on the idea of authenticity a bit much, but I think it's less in the service of a universalizing gesture (all gay people are like X) and more to push the idea of difference (as in Sedgwick's wonderfully axiomatic pronouncement in Epistemology of the Closet that people are different). Sigh. I'm totally buying the book ASAP, though. I dunno. Maybe some of you smart people on my flist can clarify this for me?
