In Edelman's chapter, "Sinthomosexuality," he defines this title as "the site where the fantasy of futurism confronts the insistence of a jouissance that rends it precisely by rendering it in relation to that drive," with connections to the "sin" of homosexuality or "queerness" (38). This sin can be found in homosexuality's destruction of reproductive futurism.
Edelman utilizes the example of A Christmas Carol, with Scrooge and Tiny Tim to represent queer sinthomosexuality and child futurism. Edelman claims that, it is only through Scrooge's eventual evolution into Tiny Tim's "second father" and renouncing action of queerness that he promotes the "promise of futurity" and vanquishes the death drive through Tiny Tim's survival (46-47).
Regarding the death drive, Edelman claims that narcissism is the main theme of the death drive, in that it "constitutes the hallmark of the future-killing queer" without reproductive futurism through children (50).
Silas Marner is another example used by Edelman to show the pull to renounce queerness and embrace futurism through the security of children.
A final paradox Edelman brings up is that, despite homosexuality's negative label of "future-nagating sameness," it actually bears the difference that heterosexuality does not, in that heterosexuality refuses to acknowledge homosexuality as an existing difference in idea (60). This paradox applies to the idea that reproduction and sex, (which is a stand-in for heterosexuality), have become separated - not in need of eachother to exist within themselves. Therefore, futurism through reproduction does not have to be tied to a heterosexual act.
Overall, Edelman's examples illustrate a "Child + End of Queerness = Future + No Death.
1 year ago