{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019313304721030045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.447004608294931, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shameful Separations and Embarrassing Proximities: Affective Constructions of Political (Il)Legitimacy in the Danish Debate on Prostitution

This article introduces various theories of shame as they figure within a queer theoretical framework. Drawing on E.K. Sedgwick's thinking, shame is presented as a theory of non-normative subject formation that holds potential for political activist thinking. Rather than regarding shame as an inner state of the subject or a mere social construct, this thinking enables an understanding of shame as performative acts that constitute the very positions that a subject may occupy and experience. Using examples from the on-going Danish debate on prostitution, the article suggests an analysis of “what shame does” as a means of opening up the debate to alternative interpretations. The analysis focuses on the ways in which shame creates subject positions as politically (il)legitimate and considers the potential and pitfalls of this feature of shame. When does shame highlight and undermine normative structures, and when does it stigmatize the sex workers whom the speakers purport to protect? Inspired by Sara Ahmed's work on affect, the article concludes that shame can play interestingly together with activist strategies when its ability to “stick” certain subject positions and subject matters together rather than its distancing function is invoked.