Who Am I?

In this section, we ask the question: “Who am I?” 

This question is a loaded one, as it attests to the erasure of many everyday LGBTQ+ individuals. In the book dedication, we see Rachel and Alex being addressed. However, there is no way of determining who they are or even the gender identities of the participants. Since Alex is a gender-neutral name, there is no way for certain that we are able to conclusively know how this person identifies themself. 

Therefore, this unlocks one of the key tenents of this type of everyday writing: speculation. For years, LGBTQ+ history has been pushed into the shadows. Speculation is a hallmark of a new way of seeing history. Ephemera, such as this book dedication, Kumbier believes expands  “thinking about archives in ways that exceed their historical function, and to think about archival materials as having value and significance beyond the evidential.” In another way, ephemera has a history beyond what is specifically stated. Imagination is invoked to guess who this individual is. 

As individuals, we are intrigued by the mystery. A quick glance at the book's contents reveals a host of lesbian thinkers that attested to the power of queer love. While there is nothing explicitly stated in the book's dedication, we can create conclusions based on the book's content. It is not a definitive way of knowing who this person is, but reveals a great deal about the human tendency to inquire. 

With the loaded implications of a declaration of love within the pages, we can imagine the possibilities of the relationship between these two individuals. Queer love can exist on these pages if we imagine it to. Queer love has been an object of speculation rather than public display. As Halperin argues, queer love “cannot be fully captured or embodied by existing ways of life and which no existing social institutions can adequately formalize or express.” This is nearly exactly how we form LGBTQ+ archives. 

The existing way of dealing with everyday writing is to track down the individual at its source, to create definitive boxes and categories for an individual to fit in. However, as evidenced here, there are complications to this approach. Everyday writing allows us to guess in a way that is exciting and exploratory. A world of possibilities is created. 

However, we should, as Sarah Beck attains, “acknowledge the affective responsibilities that occur when archivists seek out and foster human connection between themselves and their subjects.” We are creating connections with people that we do not know. While we know the relationship between individuals is that of love and affection, we are simply assuming who they are based on the book's contents. While searching out possibilities of queer existence, we must recognize that some of these conclusions might come from internal motivation to see oneself. 

The history of this form of everyday writing is yours. Who Alex and Rachel are is completely up to you. 

Works Cited: 

Beck, Sarah. “‘Doing It’ in the Kitchen: Rhetorical Field Methods, Arts, Practice-Based Research, and Queer Archives.” Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, vol. 21, no. 1, September 2020, pp. 16-26.

Halperin, David. “Queer Love.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 45, no. 2, Winter 2019, pp. 396-419.

Kumbier, Alana. Ephemeral Material: Queering the Archive, Litwin Books, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fsu/detail.action?docID=3328242.