"cultural imperialism" is just fucking hilarious. idk i get big "veganism is anti-indigenous" vibes from this. like there are some important critiques to be made of veganism and or performativity when approaching marginalized groups politically and rhetorically, but that

doesnt mean its just like haha welp throw it all in the trash bc some marginalized people don't like it. like there are absolutely queerphobic trans people and i dont think this is really very useful for doing this shit lol

also butler is contrasted with foucault a lot and criticized for basically not doing the same thing? like not exactly but it seems really weird. a geneology of gender would be worthless, everyone knows its culturally and historically contingent, that wouldnt do anything to

dislodge the affinity for essentialism people feel and would not get to the metaphysical nature of things. there needs to be theory done in this way that can't just be handled like punishment for example idk

that being said the article did cite someone i think will be more convincing, or at least seems a lot more promising. Sedgwick, Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading. weak theory and strong theory, bad surprises. i think i much more partial to these ideas, even if Schep is

trying to argue the same thing. With all this being said, i think there are still strong criticisms you can make about hegemony within a field, even if that hegemony is ostensibly progressive. but i think that criticism has to be very focused and precise, and the examples can't