According to the Human Rights Campaign, less than two hours after being sworn into office, the Trump administration removed all mention of LTBQIA+ issues from the White House webpages. This reignited what has turned out to be a systematic erasure of the subjecthood of queer individuals living both within the borders of the United States and in countries all over the world. Despite acts of resistance ranging from the Women’s March and activism by the HRC and Black Lives Matter, the contemporary moment has become increasingly precarious for those who identify, or are identified, as queer. Faced with an administration that is actively hostile towards those who do not fit into the increasingly restrained confines of the heteronormative, the politically disruptive focus of queerness has become even more prescient. The articles contained within this special issue therefore investigate the ways in which queerness is a mode of being and resistance, exploring a range of identifications and subjectifies from different theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives. Indeed, it is the variety of these perspectives on US queerness that is foregrounded and celebrated. The expansive nature of the queer subject also validates how queer studies can be incorporated into other theoretical arenas, whilst the particularity of this historical juncture highlights how queerness can be understood in specific times and places – demonstrative of how static norms can no longer function yet continue to exert culture force. This special issue argues for the legitimacy and importance of developing queerness to incorporate a range of political identities and social positions that exist outside of the normative core of contemporary society. This builds on the long history of queer studies exemplified by Cathy J. Cohen’s 1997 essay, ‘Punks, Bulldykes, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?’, that identifies queerness as not simply a marker of gender and/or sexuality but one that considers the wider intersections of those sublimated by the forces of heteronormativity. One might consider this as a form of antinormativity that includes, for instance, children and people of colour within what Jack Halberstam indicates is ‘the excess’ of queerness that disrupts ‘identity and the violence of power and the power of representation’ (1993, 193). The political figure of the queer, then, becomes limited by political discourse in Lee Edelman’s terms (2004), or demonstrates how the present becomes what José Esteban Muñoz calls a prison house for queerness (2009). Given that theorists have argued for the purpose of queer studies to consider the relationship between sexuality, race, and gender (Harper et al. 1997; Patrick

中文翻译：

---

简介：酷儿的主观性与当代美国

根据人权运动的说法，宣誓就职后不到两个小时，特朗普政府从白宫网页上删除了所有有关LTBQIA +问题的提及。这再次点燃了事实，即有系统地消除了生活在美国边界和世界各国范围内的酷儿的主观性。尽管发生了抵制行动，包括妇女游行和人权理事会和黑人生活问题组织的积极行动，但对于那些认定或被认定为酷儿的人来说，当代时刻变得越来越不稳定。面对对那些不适应异规范的日益严格限制的人们的积极敌对的政府，酷儿的政治破坏性焦点变得更加有先见之明。因此，本期特刊中的文章探讨了酷儿是一种存在和反抗的方式，探索了一系列识别方法，并从不同的理论，方法和学科角度进行了主观研究。的确，人们对美国酷刑的这些观点的多样性是人们所关注和赞扬的。酷儿主题的广阔性质也验证了如何将酷儿研究纳入其他理论领域，而这一历史关头的特殊性凸显了如何在特定的时间和地点可以理解酷儿，这说明静态规范如何不再起作用发挥文化力量。本期特刊主张发展古怪性以纳入当代社会规范核心之外的一系列政治身份和社会地位的合法性和重要性。这是基于悠久的酷儿研究历史，以凯茜·科恩（Cathy J. Cohen）1997年的文章《朋克，布尔迪克和福利皇后：酷儿政治的巨大潜力？》为例证，该研究将酷儿识别为不仅仅是性别和/或性行为的标志但是考虑到异方差力升华的那些交叉点更广。有人可能会认为这是一种反规范的形式，例如，杰克·哈伯斯坦（Jack Halberstam）所指的是有色人种和儿童，这是“过分”的古怪，破坏了“身份，权力的暴力和代表权”（1993年， 193）。然后，酷儿的政治人物受到李·爱德曼（Lee Edelman）的政治言论的限制（2004年），或证明了当下如何成为何塞·埃斯特万·穆尼奥斯（JoséEstebanMuñoz）称为酷儿的监狱（2009年）。鉴于理论家为古怪研究的目的而争论要考虑性，种族和性别之间的关系（Harper等，1997； Patrick）。