Socially Sanctioned Gluttony (and the Great Seattle Snow Storm)

And my blog has come full circle (please see "Simpler Times" entry, circa December 2009), as I now find myself writing about my second Thanksgiving here in Seattle, with what are now (after a year of serious studying and dedicated drinking) good friends, and chock full of what can be now classified as (having established the extensive history of "twice") annual traditions.

So, happy (belated) Thanksgiving, all! My favorite holiday of the year. And, what a Thanksgiving it was, held at the same spot as last year, featuring the same superb cast of characters and sustained by the same signature holiday beverage.

• Pilgrim Punch [pihl-grum puhnch]: (noun) an intoxicating beverage, incorporating apple brandy, bourbon and cranberry juice with a splash of lime, consumed in ceremonial or celebratory situations.

I make no effort to conceal the fact that, when in each other's company, my friends do enjoy the occasional brew or two. Thanksgiving was no different; the hedonistic festivities commenced early in the afternoon with betting (clearly the only way to enjoy viewing the National Dog Show. I ended up down $3, but at least I now know what an affenpinscher is), followed by more betting and boozing (again, how else is one to suffer through two football games, back to back? J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets!) and then a meticulously prepared meal (formal menu and all), a la our resident (and extremely talented, if I may add) chef. The 11-hour marathon of merriment ended with, yet another timely Thanksgiving tradition, a rousing game of Kings. Clearly, no gathering is complete without it. And, sure, while it's been acknowledged that most individuals lose interest in said drinking game by the time they graduate from college, it seems we're all pretty comfortable with bringing this game with us well into our 30's; it just never gets old.

On another note: Nothing makes the holiday season like frigid weather and unpredictable snow storms. Seattle got a pretty good dose of this just before the 25th. Ultimately, it was just a dusting by Northeast/New England standards (a couple of inches, maybe?) but the lack of plows, sanding, and all that jazz, paired with the insurmountable hills shut the city down for a good 24 - 36 hours. My first school snow days since, yikes, the 1990's...?

I now give you a little glimpse of the magic that happened out on the streets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZCyQ3emQg

(It gets pretty awesome around minute 3, though the whole thing is quite entertaining.)

What's in a word?

Well, just about everything.

This morning in Queer Theory, we were told that the Women Studies department is quite possibly being renamed as Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies. Is this a big deal? Well, yeah; it's the careful and intentional manipulation of terms, which in my opinion signifies that there are far bigger factors at play, aside from a simple switch of a moniker. Maybe women's studies is a unique field; embedded within the name of this young department is the history of a social movement, the intentional visibility of a once marginalized social group, the delineation of a unique space for the production of innovative scholarship and the creation, validation and acceptance of new knowledge. Does the title "Gender, Women and Sexuality" erase this history and gloss over the department's initial political function of naming, defining and ownership? Eh, I don't know. Conversely, does the singular title "Women", or at other universities "Women's", Studies limit scholarship, fix polarizing, binary notions (man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual, nature/nurture), ignore the experiences of other subjugated groups, diminish the interconnectedness of race, class, ability, and sexuality, etc., etc., etc.? Then again, does a simple name change prevent ossification and/or adequately address these critical considerations? Or, does it simply mask the very same spatial and scholarly arrangements? Again, I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this yet. Other universities boast varying iterations - "women", "feminist", "gender", "sex and sexuality", "queer" - and while I'm sure you could argue that these terms infer about a bazillion things, no matter how you slice it, none of these combinations could possibly illustrate the entire breadth of courses that these departments offer.

Consider just how ambiguous and fluid most commonly held concepts really are, and discourse becomes absolutely fascinating. Single words hold, and have held, a multitude of meanings depending upon specific times, spaces, places, geographic locations. String them together in varying ways and throw them into different contexts, and you can complicate interpretations, rock a double entendre, co-opt for political purposes or subvert the potentially oppressive. As I mentioned queer theory earlier, "queer" is an awesome, albeit pretty obvious, example of a word thats malleability has lent it various meanings; from shame, offense and aggression, to appropriation, reclamation and empowerment. And, despite it's ubiquitous use over the past decade, when wielded in an intentionally vitriolic manner by individuals in specific contexts, the word still holds the power to abet unforgivable verbal violence, as is evidenced by recent current (and heartbreaking) events. As with many recent queer theorists, I'm absolutely in awe of academics (and activists and, well, just about anyone) that can not only construct articulate intellectual arguments but at the same time trouble the institutionalization of the very disciplinary locations that they use (necessarily) as forums to present information. Because, whether it's "women's studies" or "gender studies" or even "queer studies", how much does it matter? Slapping a label on anything both empowers (in the ability to name and define) and simultaneously limits (by needing to define and thus set firm boundaries), right?

So, the purpose of these arguably inarticulate and likely verbose, musings? Eh, they're fairly self-serving; there's not much purpose other than killing some time on an uneventful Thursday evening. But, constantly and critically questioning seemingly cemented categorizations can have some very real consequences and provide interesting (helpful? positive? productive?) perspectives. I mean, take education. Beyond higher ed and squabbles over department names, what about the basic, every day terms that we commonly toss around, like success, achievement, underrepresented, minority, disabled...? All come with a slew of assumptions and, at the same time, a certain degree of ambiguity and constant fluctuation.

Oh, and here's an additional note that's sure to inspire some thought: the recent proposal to create academic space for deconstruction and empowerment of individuals that identify as, or are perceived to be, fat. Fat Studies and the Fat Acceptance Movement.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-03/fat-studies-colleges-hot-new-course/

http://bitchmagazine.org/tag/fat-acceptance-28