No question has generated as much venom and vitriol in USbased sexuality studies, and its literary instantiation in particular, as “the antisocial thesis.” The lost socialities portrayed in these two excellent books provide an occasion to recast and to take stock of this debate that has fueled the field since the millennium turned. With the understanding that “the antisocial thesis is not ‘a’ thesis,” as Robyn Wiegman points out, but “an arena of interpretive battle” (220), I revisit its general contours to suggest how these books’ visions of sociality move us beyond the debate’s antitheses. As articulated by Leo Bersani, Guy Hocquenghem, and most prominently Lee Edelman, the antisocial thesis, broadly construed, argues that all social life and sociality—encompassing the good life, happiness, and citizenship—is organized by heterosexuality and reproductive futurism (emblematized by the figure of the child) and constitutively excludes queerness. Rather than representing an identity or a group, queerness for Edelman is a figural position, embodying an implacable negativity that “disturb[s]” civil society and the social order (17). While Bersani eschews art’s redemptive power, Edelman seeks to dismantle the social order not to serve some more “viable political future,” but to bar “every realization of futurity . . . [and] every social structure or form” (4). He thus calls for an abdication of the politics of hope altogether and an embrace of queer abjection in the name of destroying the social order. The most prominent of Edelman’s critics is undoubtedly Jos e Esteban Mu~noz, who argues that the figurality of Edelman’s queerness—its inattention to “actual children” and their specificities of class and race—produces a “monolithic figure of the child that is

中文翻译：

---

反社会论文之后的酷儿社会性

毫无疑问，在美国的性研究中，尤其是其文学实例中，产生了与“反社会论点”一样多的毒液和尖刻。这两本优秀著作中所描绘的失落社会提供了一个机会来重新塑造和评估这场自千禧年以来一直在推动该领域的辩论。正如 Robyn Wiegman 指出的那样，“反社会论题不是‘a’论题”，而是“解释斗争的舞台”（220），我重新审视了它的总体轮廓，以表明这些书的社会性愿景如何影响我们超越辩论的对立面。正如 Leo Bersani、Guy Hocquenghem 和最突出的 Lee Edelman 所阐明的那样，广义上的反社会论点认为，所有社会生活和社会性——包括美好生活、幸福、和公民身份——由异性恋和生殖未来主义（以儿童形象为标志）组织起来，并在本质上排除了酷儿。爱德曼的酷儿不是代表一个身份或一个群体，而是一种形象的立场，体现了一种“扰乱[s]”公民社会和社会秩序的无情的消极情绪（17）。虽然贝尔萨尼避开了艺术的救赎力量，但埃德尔曼试图瓦解社会秩序，不是为了服务于更“可行的政治未来”，而是阻止“对未来的每一次实现”。. . [和]每一种社会结构或形式”（4）。因此，他呼吁完全放弃希望政治，并以破坏社会秩序的名义拥抱酷儿的落魄。爱德曼最杰出的批评家无疑是 Jos e Esteban Mu~noz，