Abstract: Critics are increasingly recognizing the presence of irony in environmental cultures, often stressing its ability to highlight disjunctions between the individual’s convictions and their compromised behaviors. This article extends this work by taking up the relationship between irony and settler-colonial imaginaries in writings about unpredictable bodies of water. Focusing on settler writing in Australia, the article juxtaposes nineteenth-century author Henry Lawson and contemporary novelist Jane Rawson to argue that irony constitutes a form of environmental knowledge, calling up norms and hierarchies regarding water but also creating openings toward waters that cannot be given meaning. Lawson’s writings about ephemeral rivers and lakes stress their divergence from metropolitan ideas of water’s continuity, presence, and visibility. Largely ignoring Indigenous peoples’ relationships with water, his ironies of overturned expectations and norms make contact with but also disparage water in unfamiliar forms. By contrast, Rawson’s A Wrong Turn at the Office of Unmade Lists (2013) employs irony to grasp how climate-changed floodwater disrupts settler norms founded upon the erasure of floodplains and of Indigenous and colonial histories of urban rivers. Juxtaposing Rawson with Lawson illuminates an ongoing need to be cautious about the ideals that irony may evoke in response to changing and uncertain waters. At the same time, irony provides a multivalent tool to critically address what Mark Rifkin calls “settler common sense,” to glimpse the persistence of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives, and to acknowledge occluded forms of environmental agency.









Abstract: This Essay interrogates the reasoning behind the retrenchment toward LGBTQ rights progress that has taken place since marriage equality. With marriage rights for same-sex couples now “on the books,” the Supreme Court’s treatment of same-sex couples in both Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis reveals the status quo’s hesitancy to recognize same-sex relationships on equal footing. Retrenchment, however, only describes the moment itself; it alludes to but offers no comprehensive or satisfying theory that identifies the motives behind the moves. This Essay theorizes from within the context of the Supreme Court’s LGBTQ rights advancement cases why such diminishment has occurred in Masterpiece and 303 Creative and what these recent decisions mean for sexual minorities. Retrenchment is not an unexpected halt to the LGBTQ rights progress of the early 2010s because of some new grievance from the status quo; rather, retrenchment is part of the ongoing establishment’s maneuverings involving group rights and identities that have always been at play in our democratic commitments—particularly as a settler colonial state. Specifically, from a historical-political perspective, this Essay anchors Masterpiece and 303 Creative within our American settler colonial experience to explain the persistence of retrenchment. From this anchoring, the Court’s motivations in 303 Creative become clearer. Ultimately, the American settler colonial experience informs the Court’s normative vision of queer people and relationships post-Obergefell. As this Essay reveals, these post-Obergefell decisions that involve same-sex couples allow the Court to normatively envision same-sex relationships after marriage equality—putting an imprimatur on same-sex relationships as second-tier to opposite-sex relationships as a way to ultimately preserve or privilege a discriminatory, heteronormative status quo.