Session 1, Part 1
Session 1, Part 2
Session 2, Part 1
Session 2, Part 2


Schneider: Hello everyone I would like to welcome the audience in the world to this first roundtable discussion. This is a discussion on India sexuality, health, stigma. We are based at the University Of Chicago Gleacher center in Chicago. This event is being sponsored in part by University Of Chicago, Center for International Studies, the Committee on South Asian Studies, the School of Social Services Administration, and the Global Health Initiative. We have brought today together group of scholars who focus on India and/or sexuality to discuss several themes which I will address in a minute. I would first like to introduce the panel including myself. I am John Schneider, I am a faculty member within the Departments of Medicine and Health Studies. I do public health work in India focused on HIV prevention. We have over here to our right Dr. Lawrence Cohen. He is faculty in the Department Of Anthropology at University of California at Berkeley. He is a faculty member who studies sexuality in India, medicine, health and the body. We also have Sanjay Srivastava who is in the Department of Sociology at the Institute of Economic Growth in New Delhi. He is an anthropologist and his research interests include masculinities, sexualities, and urban and middle class cultures. We also have Anjali Arondekar from Santa Cruz. She is in the Department of feminist studies. She is a historian; she studies poetics and politics of sexuality, colonialism and historiography. We have Dr. Niranjan Karnik who is in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago. He is a sociologist and an adolescent psychiatrist and he studies issues surrounding high risk youth, drug use both in the United States and formerly Mumbai, India. We have Philip Kumar who is an independent consultant from Hyderabad. He does work consulting the Government of India as well as the Bill and Melinda gates foundation on issues of HIV prevention among men who have sex with men (MSM). We have Stuart Michaels who is a research scientist with National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at University of Chicago. He wrote the homosexuality chapters for the seminal sex survey in the United States and with experience on Western sexual identity. It is a conversation today - it will be moderated by Dr. William Mazzarella who is in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago. He studies political anthropology of mass publicity, commodity aesthetics and post coloniality with ethnographic focus on India.

So I would like to welcome everybody today and this is a unique venue and form of discussion. The format is basically going to focus on three major themes that we would like to cover today. We will go for about 75 minutes, and this will be followed by a 30 minute break where the audience both in the United States and around the world, we have groups in India, Hyderabad and New Delhi, will be posing questions and comments which we will catalogue during the intermission and then we will address during the second half of discussion. There are three major areas which we would like to focus on today. We will start of with issues surrounding sexual identity in India and how these sexual identities may be shaped or may shape western sexual identities. This has been largely brought to be within the context of HIV and we’ll discuss how that affects the sexual identity. The 2nd component which we are going to focus on is media representation of sexual identity in India, how that media representation is effected by the West and how does that effect the West’s own media representation. We are also going to focus on Penal code 377 and the current debates and briefings on the legalization of same sex behavior and identity. So first I’d like to just start it off by – there’s this notion, right or wrong, that sexual identity, homosexuality is a construct, is a component of the West that has been brought to India, and I know the panel has certain feelings about that and so I’d like to first turn it over to Lawrence Cohen who has discussed it at length previously.

Cohen: Thank you John. Well it is pleasure to be here, and since many of the panelists and I think many people who think about sexual politics and AIDS think lot of above the importance of location. Since we are in Chicago I just will start by acknowledging the long history of people in the city who have focused upon sexual politics around South Asia, and I’m thinking about [can’t figure out the name] but many others, and it’s a pleasure to be here. Let me say, very few things very briefly in response and the first would be that this question of is often called homosexuality something which is imported to India, is in some ways an interesting question, it came up very recently when the current health minister of India Nabi Azad said quite famously, this is translated from Hindi – unfortunately there is a disease in the world which has come to our country which is absolutely unnatural and should not but it does, and he was thought to be speaking about homosexuality but next day he “I was speaking actually about AIDS”. What was a stake, in part, in his comments were 2 things. First that homosexuality is unnatural, this goes back to the language of the law 377 which has been at stake for the last few years in India but also that it should not happen in this country or elsewhere and the question was is homosexuality foreign? And to the extent of homosexuality is an idea that is developed in a very specific way in Europe in the 19th century, then surely homosexuality is a globally circulating term. Many activists, historians, Sanscritists, literary scholars that there are forms of same-sex sexual desires of transgender practice of aesthetics in many Indian genres, traditions for hundreds if not thousands of years. And in the last few years there’s been a turn to, specially with rise to many NGOs and community organizations focused on AIDS to the question of what are local Indian ways of thinking about same-sex behaviors and two such categories have been the kothi and the Panthi. Kothi as defined being defined as a man who defines himself in variety of feminine ways and sexually desires to be penetrated and Panthi is a man who defines himself as “a man” and who he has sex with. And arguments are made that this is a traditional category and it has been around forever and it’s basically a pan-South Asian category from Dhaka to Peshawar from Kanyakumari to Srinagar and so forth. And so I wrote a controversial paper some years back which argued that kothi draws upon many longstanding ways of thinking and practice but in fact comes together because of AIDS that is it is a category created by activists and community members for many important reasons to get money to people to create prevention efforts, to link very disparate regions under the same language and tied to the demands of funders to have a coherent set of categories to the demands of epidemiologists to have things that they can count and get funding for, and so forth. And one of the questions has been because of course whether or not the kothi has developed in the 1990s it becomes for many a category of organization of activism in many different parts of India. So one question I would start with is what is the relationship between funders in the AIDS world, community organization, both groups who are often grouped as MSM or men who have sex with men groups but also range of queer and feminist politics, and the Government of India and other Governments and how do these things form the conditions under which people develop resources to get access to drugs, to get access to community, to get access to political resources dealing with the police, discrimination and so forth.

Mazzarella: So it seems like they are really two kinds of questions on the table, here in that comment, one of them has to do with when does it become useful to have a coherent identity, a coherent label, a coherent marker, what can it enable, what can it prevent what can it trouble, another one has to do with this question of foreignness versus Indianness right, under what conditions does it become important and for whom does it become important to be able to claim that this is something indigenous or that this is something imported. So I’m wondering if anything has any thoughts on any one of those two coming off of Lawrence’s statements.

Arondekar: I think I will just add a small sort of wrinkle to the story as it were. And I think the recent circulation of the brief of 377 that the lawyers collected and many related organizations compiled, it tells a very difficult and yet compelling story of the connections that Lawrence is saying and I think its bifurcated along two lines: one is the us-not us, the West versus the rest. And so if you look at the contents of the brief, and these debates are, yeah I’m using the brief as the event but of course these questions are percolating everywhere not just around debate on 377 - in families who are trying to understand the sexual behaviors of their children who have briefly flirted with the west etc. etc. – is how do you debate the idea of us and not us. So what 377 did was something very interesting which goes to the foreign and not foreign as well, is they battled with the idea of fact that homosexuality is both of our time and not of our time. So meaning one of the thing they did was to say that if we don’t get rid of these draconian laws we are out of time with rest of world, but they also indicated that the draconian laws were imposed in the idea of a Judeo Christian time mode and in our time, whatever Hindustani time may be, I’ll use a more secular term, those laws would not have made any sense. So the battle of whose time is one way to think about it. The second and I think more interesting thing that 377 did was they concertedly used Hindu sources to speak about the presence of homosexuality in the past, and as someone who works in the past this is a very important political move because it addresses a 2nd part of the foreignness, right, it’s no longer just the West and the rest , it’s also about how “the other” in whatever form whether it’s the Muslim, it’s the hijra, or its the lesbian, who is of course missing today for obvious reasons and I’m not touting that as the figure that needs to return, but there are all kinds absences, right, so I think it would be worthwhile to think about not just the West as being the kind of bully that we’re trying to get out of but also to think about bullies, and the BJP is obviously the big big big guy in the room, but there are local outfits that don’t agree with the BJP. So for example Bal Thackrey when the whole controversy around “Fire” which is now history almost, if the heroines had had Muslim names he was happy for the film to have come out. His only problem was that the heroines were called Sita and Radha. It wasn’t about the contents of their acts per se. So those are interesting ways to imagine it especially given what’s going on around the panic around migration, movements of bodies across borders, inside and outside of India, from Bangladesh, Nepal, of course which effects the sex work industry enormously both on multiply gendered forms, so I think we need to be little bit more robust on how we imagine the idea of foreign, right, those are us who have grown up in India, the idea of foreign hand has always been a very, anything goes wrong is foreign hand, but it has multiple implications now when you think about foreign hand.

Mazzarella: So Philip I was wondering if the people you work with, to what extent do some of these questions and problematics about the foreign and non-foreign, the indigenous, the importance of certain kinds of categorical labels, to what extent do they matter to the constituents that you work with?

Kumar: As John has introduced I was working in the coastal Andhra Pradesh (AP) doing the implementation of the gates foundation program for the MSMs, and it took some us some time for us to actually teach them the terms of MSMs, because it was completely new to them and this term MSM was invented after the HIV had come onto the scene. So, they were familiar with Kothi, Panthi but double-decker was a new term for them, and so does, you know, akhwar among the TGs, it was you know kind of it was in the parlance it was in use among these MSMs. But the MSM terminology was big no no. So it was kind of, you know, it took some time to teach them. And therefore it was always perceived as a foreign term, a foreign thing which was coming to them. But the behavior aspect has there been for a long time, and you know people were there, but nomenclature was kind of…

Schneider: But Lawrence mentioned the idea that Kothi has been part of the survey now and is becoming more prominent I mean is there a feeling from the group that you know it’s just that Kothi was a private term, it was a private, perhaps identity, and now it’s made more public?

Cohen: Stacey Pigg who is anthropologist in Canada has asked a question about AIDS practice and prevention practice in Nepal where she says that a lot of prevention efforts are organized around translation, not just “what is AIDS” you know and so forth, but the importance, in working with a community as an NGO, of creating a stable nomenclature, so you have to bring in MSM, and one of the questions she asks is why does this become an obvious feature of public health prevention efforts, that there should be a stable nomenclature that’s introduced. I think that’s in part a question, following William’s question for us, that I put why is the effort to create a category of MSM at all important for a prevention effort funded by the Gates foundation. I mean it’s an interesting question.

Michaels: The interesting thing about MSM and it is a point that I sort of wanted to, what’s interesting is when we set this up and when we ask a question about a foreign import to India, it also sort of fixes the West as if it’s homogenous, and as if the categories, I mean you Lawrence gestured to the fact that homosexuality as a category actually is a recent invention in the West, but it’s still in these kinds of debates hard to keep in touch with how variable and debated it is. So to me as gay activist of 70s getting involved in the AIDS movement, the creation of the term MSM was kind of shocking. So it was itself a new creation to distinguish between behavior and identity and because we are faced with the problem of who are we talking about, who are we talking to, what language can we find to both sort of study and interact with people and the gay or homosexual was a term which was going to exclude a lot of people who were involved in behaviors that were putting them at risk for HIV. But you have fluidity and changeability and history on both sides, and in any given moment we’re sort of trying to figure out who we are talking about, who we are talking to. And I think part of this that’s for me always the problem of these categories, the difference between category and identity, I mean who is using a certain term and for what purpose is always in question, and the outside person in whatever form of outsiderness and whatever relationship is going on, applying a category to other people and then the people themselves creating a response to that using either the same or other categories, is part of the problem both of knowledge and how do we organize on what we do.

Mazzarella: That’s right and I think Stuart your point about the relationships between designations that are based upon the apparently innocent category of the behavior as opposed to apparently the much more complex category of identification a really interesting one, and perhaps worth discussing more.

Srivastava: Just one general point I think one of the contexts that seems to me that not just in we’ll call homosexual culture but the general rise in discussions of sexuality in India, right, the general and I say kind of a heterosexual in the context of William your own work in the media for example, there’s been a general efflorescence in last 25 years about why and we should think about why it is that suddenly people want to discuss sexuality. In many so called women’s magazines in Hindi at least in North India there has been a explicit discussion over the last 25 years about lesbianism , about women and pleasure and also about homosexuality of different kinds. So sexuality itself has become something that people want to talk about as an aspect of themselves. Now within that you have cities like Delhi which want to be seen as global city so you have sense in media that a global city needs a homosexual culture as well, right, so you have a rise of media articles about that we have wonderful homosexual gay people, lesbians, but of course the problem is as many friends says, that if you are a gay person in Delhi you’re not allowed to about slum evictions, you must only talk about gay and lesbian issues. So if you are also an activists who is interested in other kinds of politics, your identity is, the media doesn’t want to deal with it, they’ll say but you’re a gay

person why the hell are you talking about slum evictions, talk about sexual issues. So the other thing is about what’s happening within sort of cities, and how they want to be seen. I think the really interesting shift is been from the old Kama sutra narrative in India, that Indian sexuality is essentially about Kama sutra and what he link was between this sort of ancient text and contemporary sexual culture has never been clear in India. I think what the discussions around AIDs/HIV , homosexuality has done is has destabilized that kind of conversations you still have books, coffee table books being published about Kama sutra but that’s been destabilized. And I just want to say something about 377, regarding Anjali’s point, what’s interesting about 377 is that simultaneously as its brought into public discussion, it’s been read down, right, it hasn’t decriminalized yet, simultaneously of course the manner in which the petition was filed has also then stigmatized other kinds of groups. So because the petition was filed mainly in terms of a health initiative, saying that if you don’t allow us to do this work in public there’s a greater risk for HIV/AIDS – what that is that the notions of publicness and privateness because they’ve been so crucial to this anti 377 movement means that it is seems to have primarily become one about middle class gay men in Delhi. So it has stigmatized actually others who don’t have to access to private spaces, number one. I would like to link it also, because lot of these judges in 377 case borrowed some of their thinking from American case studies, and the American case studies that they based their judgments on was also one would say, well homosexuality is natural – number one, because it’s not monetized, right. So it automatically stigmatizes for example sex workers in India, it stigmatizes others who don’t have access to these sorts of spaces. So interesting ways in which the HIV debates in India are so specifically linked to broader issues which in well meaning ways, as Lawrence was pointing out people were filing cases against 377, but the manner in which it was done has actually made it very difficult. You’d see gay people in India and sex workers are natural allies because they are both stigmatized, but of course through this judgment what has happened is they’ve established a hierarchy of good sex and bad sex, so good sex has become homosexual people, because its not monetized, but then sex workers... and that’s borrowed a lot from American judgment how intimacy is good, and homosexuality is okay because it’s not monetized after all. So the interesting ways in which these contexts have become linked, I think many people watching in India will be familiar with these kinds of arguments.

Arondekar: Just one important caveat and this I think to take up Sanjay’s very important point of what questions are silenced when you focus on one issue than other, and I think another important piece of collaboration that has fallen away is the feminist project, and I’m thinking about particularly the work of people like Falavia Agnes who is a very prominent legal feminist activist based in Bombay, Mumbai as we currently, say who one of her project is of course around sex workers but the argument which she has made about the project of 377 which is a compelling argument and worth thinking about which goes to Sanjays question of what communities are being represented through this project is she’s been citing a couple of cases that she’s working on with women who are married. So this is also about if 377 is a criticism of the marriage form, the heterosexual form of marriage or the family form as being not one that one should want to recuperate or hold on to. Her question is that she has clients whose married partners who are men, have sex with other men. So the writing down of the repeal not the decriminalization of 377, makes that behavior legitimate in the eyes of the law, if that is what the end point is, but it doesn’t allow it the status of adultery. So for example who are interested in divorcing or separating from their husbands cannot use the categories that are ordinarily used for divorce or separation, because that behavior hasn’t been folded it or addressed through these other legal issues. So I think if you want to think about these questions as questions that are about social justice, or gender questions, then you also have to address is what is happening to women who are in relationships, and this is an issue in the United States, the first organizations that started in New York in San Francisco like Trikone like SALGA, which are organizations base primarily for South Asian Americans were organized around the debate around should we let men who are in heterosexual marriages into these support groups because what does it do to our feminism. And this is a very different version of that question and I’m not advocating for “outing” or any kind of coercive censorship around who gets to be in or out, but it’s worth thinking about that as we embrace the liberatary politics of 377, what kinds of other heterosexual forms stay stable, and I think the marriage form is one that, you know, Srimati Basu is another very important feminists scholar who works on this question has been asking, and I think we need to talk about, as Sanjay has been bringing up.

Karnik: Can I add another layer of complexities to this. Putting my hat as sort of person who thinks about development, I want to point out that I think the discussion till this point has been focused on these broad societal tensions through which these categories play out and I think there is a dynamic through which this comes down into families that’s important to think about. So one of the thing that I’ve, sort of, see every day in my practice, in you know working with young people is the way in which there is an assumption that children and adolescents sort of adopt the culture of their parents and I think that’s actually a mistaken assumption but actually they have their own cultural form, which is an emergent process that is intention and in resistance to, in part, their parents.

Mazzarella: So Niranjan could you say a little bit more just in terms context about the kinds of kids you are working with.

Karnik: So I‘m working with underserved youth both here in Chicago and in the recent past in India and South Asia, and you know a lot the children with I work with are homeless or on the streets and these are kids who are very much marginalizes and have either left of their choice from their families or have been thrown out by their families and in those situations and even in more routine practice in University of Chicago where I work with adolescents you know from middle class family in the Chicagoland area, I hear these stories constantly, how “parents don’t understand me”, and “I am not what they expect to be”, in various ways. And I think there is sort of rising tension among adolescents as a whole that pushes up against, and I think that is a dynamic that happens in every generation. If you look historically I think there is actually always this push from adolescents against the adults, I think it’s a developmentally normative process, but sexuality is something that emerges in that process as well and as children become adolescents and teenagers and have a sense of their sexual identity. It’s interesting I mean we are sitting here and talking about terms like MSM, homosexuality, gay, lesbian, right, I actually have a lot of adolescents in my practice who are in schools of Chicago who would resist all of those terms, who want to exist in this very undefined nexus and there is some experimentation going on some questions and they tend to resolve their identities gradually over time. So I think when it comes to issue of identity I think we have to keep in mind it is a emergent process and there is always tensions both generationally but also in terms of the society’s politics which we have been talking about. I just think that developmental aspect of it is important to remember because that’s part of the force of change. And you know Sanjay when you were talking about why is it India is talking about sexuality now like why is this become a topic, I think it’s become more a topic than in US. One other things I see pushing that trend is in part, I see a lot of advertisement and sexualization of youth in multiple context in India, in the US, and there has been very interesting debates in the United Kingdom about advertisement there and its impact on youth. I think that’s one factor that’s driving the conversation, and, you know, we can discuss the morality of those things if we like but I just think this is one other thing I want to add it to the discussion.

Mazzarella: Well that gets to one of our other set of headings that John mentioned earlier on which is the relationship of all this to a politics of representation, to publicly circulating images, and I’m sure all of us, from our various perspectives, the kinds of work we’ve been doing, have various kinds of reflections on that, and how these publicly circulating representations both become foci for all kinds of struggles and arguments but also how they function as means for identification, as objects as longing or aspiration, or aversion, as the case may be. So Sanjay I’m sure you have thoughts, for instance, on this one.

Srivastava: Just I wanted to make one point just before, one is the discussion about the “invention” of identity categories versus the other actually existing works, the kind of work Philip is involved in. I don’t think any of us would deny that one sort of category so called “invented”, that the politics around the category is important, it become an organizing principle for example. So I think the two need to exist in tension, we need to obviously as Lawrence said talk about how categories become invented. But simultaneously then, there is another kind of politics like in the west, so the gay becomes the organizing term you wouldn’t deny just because it was invented in 18-19th century. So in the Indian context, certainly people who work in NGO sector, I think it’s important that all of us keep that in tension, and people do that you know. That’s something for me is quite important. I think in terms of media representation what been happening in the popular media is a real sense of anxiety; simultaneously you have so called gay film makers in the main stream who make main stream Bollywood cinema, for example, with so called gay people. I think it’s a sigh of great anxiety right now, a certain kind of male heterosexual anxiety about not just discussions of sexuality but homosexuality in the public sphere. And I am using the term homosexuality in sense of same-sex rather than man-sex, in order to include all kinds of identities. I think a significant way in terms of media representations is simultaneously as people want to be seen as cosmopolitan because you are discussing non-heterosexual issues, its underlined by a huge amount of anxiety. There hasn’t actually so far, but here been kind of documentary-like films but there’s been no serious main stream film which actually treats it as a complex issue rather than in a stereotypic sense. So there’s this tension between, in say, middle class India between being seen to be a cosmopolitan person, living people in a city that has gay people, but simultaneously how do you represent them, and I think representation is completely wrecked by the sense of anxiety about the fact that you have same-sex practices. And we can see this both in the media so in television, advertisements, and certainly in cinema. And I think its heterosexual male anxiety, as a more specific, it seems to me, theme that runs through representations in media.

Arondekar: I think there’s one other place in which these conversations are happening and I think this is where I would have limited understanding of the question, is the regional kind of representation of these questions. So for example, in Maharashtra, particularly in Mumbai, and I was telling Sanjay this yesterday that there is a robust, I mean robust in best sense

of the word, discussion in Marathi talk shows for example, around questions of bisexuality which has being coming up. So I have an overly zealous mother and a father who are invested in this question who constantly ringing me up and relatives who write to me with editorials that are published in Lok Sahitya, Maharashtra Times, and the interest that they have is in finding pieces that don’t represent the question of homosexuality in a tragic mode, right, because that’s been the you have down-trodden or disenfranchised homosexual queer figure who is then misunderstood and dies, or etc. So the thing that I have noticed in last 5 years particularly in Marathi language based talk shows of which there are quite a few is that there is a lot of discussion on not just male homosexuality but I think more problematically bisexuality which is something that falls away, I think that is more tense-creating than the stabilization of both and I think that’s been the question, that’s where the question of women tends to come out more. Snd is both a good thing and a bad thing because bisexuality always hold that the possibility of a return which other two categories don’t . So it might be worthwhile to think about genera’s like the talk show some of which are very servatious and are very interested in only selling one store, but then others which may be, and I would be curious to hear from Philip for example, whether in Andhra or, I mean Sanjay and I have sort of suggested one version of the story but in other language, because there are different genealogies for how these are presented, for example Vijay Tendulkar who is one of the most important play writes wrote a very important play about two women, and there have been movie representations earlier on around these questions, so we have different understandings and habits of mind when we look at these questions, so I’d be interested to hear from your prospective as well.

Kumar: Taking the queue from Sanjay about the mainstream Bollywood movies, I got this phone call from a community friend of mine who called me up from Vizag and said “Sir I think now we have moved from being a joker to being a hero in the films”, I said what does that mean? He said that earlier all the films, whenever they have to project a MSM character, you know, a gay kind of character, it was only for comic scenes, he was a comedian, he was looked down upon, you know, he was never an important character in the film but with Kal Ho Na Ho and Dostana kind of movie, and Amitabh Bachan’s son Abhishek Bachan playing the lead role of being a gay or kothi identity, I think it was a big movement. So I think it’s really interesting to see that kind of change and move from being a comedian to a protagonist in the movie and making the movie a Bollywood hit also.

Cohen: Could you say more on that, or maybe back to Anjali, because when I saw Dostana which is a very comic film, and so in a sense they are main roles, there are no longer a side role, but it’s very much within the tradition, going back in many ways to the Marathi roots of film in Tamasha in which the… Anjali: And Malowni Lawrence: (continuing) in which the queer character is the source of comedy. So whats happened is the queer comic character has become the protagonist of comedy. So on the one hand what you’re talking about is a shift in organization of comedy, but when someone’s calling you and saying this is a good thing, one of the questions is how is that playing for the public and the second question is where is the tragic coming in, because it obviously raises the question of tragic hero, or heroine, whether it is a big film like Fire to My brother Nikhil. In that sense and you can argue that one of the things that NGOs do in order to justify themselves is to produce through interviews and materials through ethnography, tragic stories. Because tragic stories remind us of how important something is, of why this is of real pressing social concern, and so one could argue that there are lot of forces that produce tragic narrative, and that the function of comic narrative may have a different function in a moment in which NGOs are very very central to how sexual categories are being produced.

Mazzarella: So if I could just add on to that one thing, so on the one hand I think yes absolutely it’s a very interesting point that in a way there’s a kind of ethical shall we say a pull towards a certain kind of tragic narrative which then enables certain kind public intervention, and justifies it ethically. On the other hand, Anjali’s point about the predominance of these tragic narratives then raises the question of what kinds of spaces for affirmative narratives are there in fact. And one of them which seems to me become absolutely, as it were, should we say, omnipresent is the sort of aspirational consumerist affirmative narrative of homosexuality, right. So a lot of what we’re wrestling here with in this discussion about film representations and advertisements so forth, is the problem of either you have the tragic narrative that become the one that justifies the kind of, as it were, the paternalistic intervention, or you have the affirmative sort of consumerist narrative which then locks the representation into a certain kind of complicity with, you know, sort of the forces of liberalization, the forces of consumerism, a certain kind of relationship to fashionable representations, certain kinds of bodies, certain kinds of ways of preparing and certain kinds of ways of imagining oneself as kind of self-determining self-realizing subject making choices of making about one’s life, one’s lifestyle. So just as a kind of open-ended comment.

Next: Session 1, Part 2

Lauren Feig

Lauren Feig, AM '14

“I feel incredibly lucky to be working at CCYVP and for the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. Doing so has given me the opportunity to sharpen my research, writing, and communication skills, assets that will be particularly valuable as I move forward in my career.”