Emily - Safe Space

In this book, Hanhardt explores how and why anticrime and LGBT rights strategies converged and overlapped. I struggled more with this book than I have with the books from previous weeks. In general, I have a difficult time applying methodologies for studies of movements to my own work, and this book was no exception (I think I have trouble seeing the parallels between movements and research that I do on identity and experience—although as I write this, I can already see some overlap).  Because Hanhardt explains her methodology behind this study through the introduction, I have studied this closely to identify methodological ideas that I found interesting and possibly useful. Several points stood out to me as being particularly unique regarding her rational for how she conducted this study. She makes sure to emphasize that she is not presenting a history of a gay neighborhood but rather “an urban history of the encounters between gay and neighborhood.” By framing her research as a history of encounters, she sets up the books as a series of chronological case studies that explore various concepts. This reminded me both of Foucauldian genealogies and of last week’s reading in which Allen sets up “scenes” and “frames” to explore different themes. Last week I considered the idea of a geographical scene, and Hanhardt’s “encounters” are geographical in nature too, but also chronological. Using this approach, I imagine collecting case studies of migrants over a period of time, and presenting themes Notably, Hanhardt emphasizes that she is not writing a straightforward history but is rather “sketch[ing] a light and jagged line.” (15) She views her research as “reaching across time and geography to mark the past in the present, and to find the future there as well.” This is a lofty desire, and although I am not convinced she accomplished it, it does seem like a good foundational goal for starting any research that explores multiple sites throughout time.

I also appreciated how Hanhardt systematically addresses each discipline that has studied similar topics: historians, sociologists, psychologists, and queer theory. She explains the benefits to each disciplines but ultimately suggests that they are lacking in “’thick description’ of how grassroots and national movements construct the agents and victims of the violence that they hope to prevent and the spaces that they aim to protect” (8). I found her briefly analysis of the pros and cons of each discipline’s exploration of the same subject to be a useful way of framing data and methodological decisions.

As a question to the class: Hanhardt suggests that her book is meant to be a “gesture of recovery” (19).  What does this phrase mean? What are the implications for her work? And, could your work be considered a “gesture of recovery”?