Ok, no one has ventured here yet, to my surprise, so I'll go there: What, exactly, are the real and tangible consequences of advocating for No Future?
Edelman paints his argument with biting facetiousness, frequently taking aim at the holiness of the Child, etc. Which is fine, considering his call, yet I can't help but feel frustrated with the vastness of this indictment. I'm struggling here, in that I am eager not to discredit an argument which names a most hidden, and central, pillar of social order as we know it; yet I find myself distressed with regard to the ways in which Edelman associates the Child to its 'advocates.' Staunch conservativism aside for a moment, it has already become apparent on the blog that a number of us feel the sharp attack on our value for children, future, family, etc. And while I want deeply to see a No Future 'queerness' as an avenue ideal for not merely breaking, but ultimately abandoning, this social order, I wonder what good comes of speaking tangibly about Childlessness.
Edelman makes the disclaimer that this is more of a theoretical exercise of resistance, however, it seems a dangerous road to go down given the possibility for co-optation by a violent right wing rhetoric. He hails the Right for their acknowledgment of the truly devastating connotations of queerness, in light of the less radical-discourse of the Left which refuses to speak in terms of apocalyptic scale. Yet I can imagine an indignant Neo-Con reading this as the ultimate proof that the gays want to destroy us all - and while all of us are busy taking up Edelman's call for rhetorical queerness against reproductive futurism, there remains the queer community receiving the social violence of oppression as a result of this getting to the wrong hands. Pardon my paranoid musing,; I'm just concerned with the implications of making these delineations.
I am, as usual, quite unresolved about all this; as KF said, this is at once compelling and terrifying. At the moment, on a street-level, I'm a little more terrified.