Gay but Not Queer: Toward a Post-Queer Study of Sexuality
Author(s): Adam Isaiah Green
Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 31, No. 4, (Aug., 2002), pp. 521-545
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108514
Accessed: 15/08/2008 14:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Gay but not queer: Toward a post-queer study of sexuality
ADAM ISAIAH GREEN
Indiana University, Bloomington
In recentyears, in the wake of queer theory,the study of sexualityhas
undergonewhat some would call a paradigmshift. In disciplines as
diverseas comparativeliterature,history,and Asian-AmericanStudies,
queer theory has spread like wildfire,catching the attention of some
of the most esteemed scholars throughoutthe humanitiesand social
sciences.1Sociologists, too, have taken notice of this "hot"paradigm,
and have sought to integrate a queer critical perspective in social
scientific texts, conferences, and research agendas.2 While not all
scholars of sexuality identify themselves as "queertheorists,"queer
theory exertsa formidableinfluencein the study of sexualitynonetheless,3powerfullyreshapingthe language,concepts and theoreticalconcerns of contemporaryacademicproduction.
On the whole, the surge of queer theoretical currents over the last
decade representsan importantturningpoint in the study of sexuality.
Scholarsof sexualityfrustratedby the limitationsof sexologicalreductionism have profitedfrom the queerturn, gaining a new, fertiletheoreticalframeworkin which to reimaginethe relationshipof sexualities
and societies. Sociology,in particular,has stood to benefitfrom queer
theoryby adoptinga more criticalapplicationof conceptionsof heterosexual and homosexual "identity"or "community."Rather than conceivingof these as monolithicempiricalunits of analysis- as points of
arrivalfor our researchagendas- sociologistshavebeen challengedto
sharpentheir analyticlenses, to grow sensitizedto the discursiveproduction of sexualidentities,and to be mindfulof the insidiousforce of
heteronormativityas a fundamentalorganizingprinciple throughout
the social order.4Hence, Stein and Plummerobservefour hallmarksof
queertheory that echo these conceptualchallenges:
Theory and Society 31: 521-545, 2002.
? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
522
1) a conceptualizationof sexualitywhich sees sexual power embodied in
differentlevels of social life, expresseddiscursivelyand enforced through
boundariesand binarydivides;2) the problematizationof sexualand gender
categories,and of identitiesin general. Identitiesare always on uncertain
ground,entailingdisplacementsof identificationand knowing;3) a rejection
of civil-rightsstrategiesin favorof a politics of carnival,transgressionand
parodywhichleads to deconstruction,decentering,revisionistreadingsand
an anti-assimilationistpolitics; 4) a willingnessto interrogateareas which
normallywould not seen as the terrainof sexuality,and to conduct"queer"
readingsof ostensiblyheterosexualor non-sexualizedtexts.5
Taken together, these hallmarks represent a critical intervention in the
study of sexuality. From the standpoint of a radical deconstructionism
(hallmarks one and two) and a subversive sexual politics (hallmarks
three and four), queer theorists set out to "interrogate" cultural production (e.g., cinema, photography, literature), social practices (e.g.,
public sex, promiscuity, S/M, identity politics) and public health policy
(e.g., AIDS prevention). This "interrogation" contests the epistemological ground upon which sexology is based by politicizing discourses of
"normality" and normative gender or sexuality throughout the social
order. Turning the queer lens on texts, subjectivities, social practices,
public policies, and moral panics, queer theorists complete their critical task, exposing "queer"cracks in the heteronormative facade (i.e.,
"queering"), and "decentering" those regimes of "normality" that bear
on the sexual and gender status quo.
Yet, despite its laudable ambition and broad academic appeal, queer
theory tends to lapse into a discursively burdened, textual idealism that
glosses over the institutional character of sexual identity and the
shared social roles that sexual actors occupy. This elision plagues the
queer project by creating a theoretical cataract that permits only a dim
view of the contribution of the "social" to the sexual. As a consequence,
queer theory constructs an undersocialized "queer" subject with little
connection to the empirical world and the sociohistorical forces that
shape sexual practice and identity.
Applied to the study of sexuality, this theoretical shortcoming is particularly problematic in two ways. First, by rejecting categories of
sexual orientation (i.e., gay and straight), queer theory obscures the
ways in which sexological classifications are embodied in institutions
and social roles - thereby underestimating straight and gay difference.
Yet, secondly, by neglecting those social roles that both heterosexuals
and homosexuals occupy, queer theory obscures processes of social-
523
ization that cut across sexual orientation - thereby overestimating
straightand gay difference.In fact, an ample historical and sociological literaturehas documentedthe ways in which the sexologicalconstruction of heterosexualityand homosexualityhas broughtgays and
lesbians together in sharedcommunitiesand political struggles;6but
also, the ways in which such categories mask social characteristics
common to heterosexualand homosexualactors.7
Objections to queer theory are not wholly unknown in the social
sciences.8Seidman,for instance,takes issue with the tendencyof queer
theorists to deteriorateinto a vulgar anti-identitypolitics.9And Edwardsuses the work of two queertheoriststo highlightthe limitations
of textual analysis in the study of sexuality.10These essays provide
critical insights on their respectivetopics, yet they tend to be metatheoreticalin their orientationor analyticallydelimitedto the political
arena.Hence, a systematicexaminationof queertheoryas it appliesto
concretehistoricaland empiricalcases has yet to be performed.
In what follows, I identifytwo strainsof queertheory and apply these
to historically specific cases of homosexuality.I show that the first
strain of queer theory - "radical deconstructionism" - superimposes a
postmodern self-conceptonto the homosexualsubject,therebyglossing over the enduringinstitutionalorganizationof sexuality;I show
that the second strain of queer theory - "radical subversion" - super-
imposes a politicallymarginalself-conceptonto the homosexualsubject, therebygrosslyoversimplifyingcomplexdevelopmentalprocesses
attendant to sexual identification.Taken together, these deficiencies
havethe ironic effectof erasingthe homosexualactors in these studies,
either by contesting the epistemological grounds upon which their
sexual identitiesare formed(in the first strain),or by inventinga transcendental queer that exists outside of culture and social structure
(in both strains). From this analysis, I propose a reenergizedsociological presencein the study of sexualitythat recognizesthe limits of
poststructuralismand makescentralthe role of institutionsand socialization - i.e., the "social"- in shapingthe "sexual."
Towardthis end, I begin by distillingtwo strainsof queer theory and
definingtheir centraltenets. I treateach strainindividuallyin separate
sections, comparingthe claims of its most seniortheoristsagainstdata
from existingsociologicaland historicalresearch.A discussionsection
explores the theoreticalimplications of this analysis and proposes a
"post-queer"studyof sexualitythat incorporatesthe criticalinsightsof
524
queer theory while maintaining the grounded footing of empirical
sociology. I conclude by reiteratingthe pivotal theoretical problem
that producesboth flawedstrainsof queer theory,and underscorethe
necessity of a more effectivesociological interventionin the study of
sexuality.Ultimately,I argue,if scholarsof sexualityare to accountfor
erotic subjectivities,practicesand communities,they must more fully
engagethe social landscapein whicheroticactors are situated.
It shouldbe noted that while not all texts circulatingas "queertheory"
will necessarily advance the same critical claims, I examine essays
below that are consistent with the four hallmarksoutlined by Stein
and Plummer and are considered canonical work in queer theory.
Hence, these essays should be seen as paradigmaticexamplesof queer
theory; their shortcomings are not unique to this work, but rather
representsystematictheoreticalflawsat the core of the queerproject.
Radical deconstructionism (strain 1)
In its currentincarnation, queer theory is less a formal theory with
falsifiablepropositionsthan a somewhatloosely bound, criticalstandpoint. Defined against the grain of lesbian and gay studies, two interrelatedstrainsof queertheoryrun throughthe contemporarysexuality
literature.The predominantstrainof queertheory - what I referto as
radicaldeconstructionism- embracesa social constructionistproject
seeded by French post-structuralismand Lacanian psychoanalysis.
Scholarsof this varietydraw from Foucault," challengethe scientific
basis of sexual identityand reduce sexual classifications(e.g., heteroThese sexological
sexuality,homosexuality)to the effectsof discourse.12
classificationsare thought to constitutethe foundationof a powerful
and insidious "regime"of social control that disciplinesthe body and
psyche.Taxonomiesof sexualorientation- createdby nineteenth-and
twentieth-centurypsychiatry,psychoanalysis,sexology,and the criminal justice system - have been used in the service of oppressionand
social control. Indeed, the very concept of a lesbian or gay identityis
understood to be a fictitious product of modern hegemonic forces.
Moreover,sexual categoriesignore the plasticityof eroticismand obscure erotic subjectivitiesthat accrue by race, class and gender. For
instance,Halperinwrites that the category"homosexual"is a "discursive and homophobicconstructionthat has come to be misrecognized
as an objectunderthe epistemologicalregimeknown as realism."13 In
this vein, queertheoristsobjectto the use of sexualclassificationsas a
525
unit of analysis on epistemological and political grounds, and call for a
shift in the study of homosexuality from an examination of lesbian and
gay identities and communities to a deconstruction of unified concepts
of sexual identity and subjectivity. Hence, radical deconstructionism
pulls the "lesbian" and "gay"out of the study of lesbians and gays.
The rejection of classifications of sexual orientation pits queer theory
against the core units of analysis in lesbian and gay studies, i.e., the
lesbian and gay individual, history and community. Nowhere is this
position more clearly stated (and in turn, cited) than in the work of
Judith Butler, one of queer theory's most celebrated foremothers. Noting her objection to "lesbian" and "gay" designations, and "lesbian
theories" and "gay theories," Butler writes that she is not at ease "with
lesbian theories, gay theories, for ... identity categories tend to be
instruments of regulatory regimes whether as the normalizing categories of oppressive structures or as the rallying points for a liberatory
contestation of that very oppression." 14 Butler goes on to argue that
heterosexuality itself is an impossible imitation - a compulsory performance that is doomed to failure. As a consequence of this ontological
failure, Butler suggests that categories of sexuality and gender are
merely the products of straight men and women "panicked" over the
uncertainly of their heterosexuality.15She writes:
... (H)eterosexualityis alwaysin the processof imitatingand approximating
its own phantasmaticidealizationof itself - and failing.Preciselybecauseit
is bound to fail, and yet endeavorsto succeed, the projectof heterosexual
identityis propelledinto an endlessrepetitionof itself.Indeed,in its effortsto
naturalizeitself as the original, heterosexualitymust be understood as a
compulsiveand compulsoryrepresentationthat can only producethe effects
of its own originality;in other words, compulsoryheterosexualidentities,
those ontologicallyconsolidated phantasmsof "man"and "woman,"are
theatricallyproducedeffectsthat postureas grounds,origins,the normative
measureof the real.16
Drawing from psychoanalytic discourse, Butler theorizes that gender
and sexual identification are only provisional intrapsychic compromises or "melancholic incorporations" that result from a much earlier
psychic loss or separation. Consequently, categories of sexuality
grossly oversimplify the deep-seated ambivalence attendant to any
form of sexual identification. Hence Butler deconstructs and dismisses
"gay"and "lesbian" identity:
526
Sucha considerationof psychicidentificationwouldvitiatethe possibilityof
any stable set of typologiesthat explain or describesomethinglike gay or
lesbianidentities.And any effortsto supplyone... sufferfromsimplification,
and conform,with alarmingease, to the regulatoryrequirementsof diagnostic epistemicregimes.17
Butler is not content, however, with challenging the epistemic grounds
upon which scholars of sexuality invoke categories of sexual orientation. Instead, Butler warns that the articulation of the concept of
sexual orientation and its attachment to sexual practices serves to
support compulsory systems of gender and sexuality, adding to their
tenacity and regulatory capacities.
If a regimeof sexualitymandatesa compulsoryperformanceof sex, then it
maybe only throughthat performancethat binarysystemsof genderand the
binarysystemof sex come to haveintelligibilityat all. It may be that the very
categoriesof sex, of sexualidentity,of genderare producedor maintainedin
the effectsof this compulsoryperformance,effectswhichare disingenuously
renamedas causes, origins, disingenuouslylined up within a causal or expressivesequencethat the heterosexualnorm producesto legitimateitself as
the originof all sex.18
Butler's objections to sexual classifications and to the academic field
built upon them - lesbian and gay studies - are echoed throughout
queer theory. These objections are crystallized in the term "queer,"
which signals a critical distance from sexual categories and identities.
Extended to the political sphere, Halperin makes the following observations regarding the dissolution of identity politics and associated
ethnic models of mobilization:
... I thinkwhat the shift awayfroma liberationmodel of gay politicsreflects
is a deepenedunderstandingof the discursivestructuresand representational
systemsthat determinethe productionof sexual meanings,and that micromanageindividualperceptions,in such a way as to maintainand reproduce
the underpinningsof heterosexualprivilege.19
And Jagose punctuates this radical deconstructionist perspective when
she writes: "Given the extent of its commitment to denaturalization,
queer itself can have neither a foundational logic nor a consistent set of
characteristics." 20
Despite the intellectually seductive character of denaturalization, there
exists a robust literature on lesbian and gay histories that cannot be
captured, let alone understood, using this radical deconstructionist
framework. For instance, Esther Newton's ethnography of lesbian
527
communitiesin Cherry Grove, Fire Island, makes a strong case for
keeping categoriesof sexual orientationat the forefrontof our analyses, even as her researchcomplicatesthese same concepts. Examining
lesbian summer migrationto the Island over a period of sixty years,
Newton outlines the futility of invoking monolithic notions of "the
lesbian community."21Throughout its history, Cherry Grove was
home to at least three distinct groups of lesbians. The "Ladies,"
"Dykes"and "Postfeminists"were distinguishedby their generation,
class and ethnic backgrounds.Whereasthe Ladieswere typicallyfrom
the middle and upper-middleclasses, with eitherhighly lucrativeprofessional careers or inheritedwealth, the Dykes were decidedly less
affluent,coming from mostly workingclass, Jewishand Italian neighborhoods.So too, whereasthe Dykes identifiedfirst and foremostwith
the male homosexualcommunityon the island, the Postfeministshad
no such identificationand more commonly engaged in heterosexual
conventions,includingdonning makeup, stylish clothes, and in some
cases, building families.Yet the variety of social cleavagesthat these
women representdid not make the significanceof their sharedsexual
orientation any less consequential.Quite the contrary,women who
invested in and traveled to Cherry Grove were first and foremost
respondingto the sexual organizationof their societies. It was only
because lesbian sexuality would have marginalizedthe Ladies from
their nativeWASPcommunities,or the Dykes fromtheir nativeJewish
and Italian communities,that CherryGrove exists. For these women,
categories of sexual orientation were not simply floating discursive
forms, but were concretely embodied in institutions (e.g., marriage
and kinship)and informalstructuresof social control (e.g., daily interactions with their nativeheterosexualpeers and coworkers)that compelled their sexual identificationand their summer migration to the
Island. Hence, despite their diversity,Fire Island lesbians developeda
self-concept,and in turn, a community,congruentwith classifications
of sexual orientation.As Newton observes:"Sinceat least the turn of
the century and perhaps earlier, women in Western cultures have
formed named groups based on self-conscious, nominally exclusive
sexual orientation..."
22
Taken in this light, the deconstructionistvision set forth by Butler,
Halperin, Jagose, and other prominentqueer theorists poses serious
problems for an academic study of sexuality,as it glosses over the
enduringinstitutionalcharacterof sexualorientation.Epistemological
regimes that map the sexual are not simply the isolated propertyof
sexologists,but ratherare fundamentallyconstitutiveof the organiza-
528
tion of social life. This insight may lead logically to a particularset of
political strategies - as in the staging of opposition to "normalizing"
social forces and a transgressive,queer "politics of the disruptive
gesture"23 - but it fails as an adequatelens for understandingsexual
identity.Even if we accept that categories of sexual orientation are
invented,the fact of social constructionby itself does not make a given
culturalartifact (e.g., "gay,""masculinity")less salient in organizing
self-understandingsthan a "natural"characteristic.On the contrary,
social constructions, as that of gender or sexuality,may exhibit an
extraordinarycapacity to shape identities, sexual interactions,social
movementsand politicalhistoriesas a whole. As Butlerherselfaffirms,
genderidentity- if even a strategicfiction - is not simplytaken up or
discardedat will: "Thereis no volitionalsubjectbehindthe mime who
decidesas it were,whichgenderit will be today."24Hence Butler'sown
analysis of gender provides a useful example of the way in which a
socially constructed element may play a central role in structuring
identityand social practice,even in spite of deconstructionistfeminist
analysesand one's own inevitableperformativefailings.
By analogy,the hetero/homoclassificatoryscheme,muchlike the binary
gendersystem, operatesas a ubiquitousand constitutivedimensionof
Western society embodied in institutions and social roles. This does
not mean that sexual orientation- any more than genderidentity- is
necessarilyrootedin biology or other transhistoricalhumanprocesses.
Rather, the implication is that categories of sexual orientation have
material significanceapart from their etiology. As David Greenberg
notes,
[T]he epistemologicalobservation that alternativesystems of classifying
people are possible has little relevanceto those who are now classifiedas
homosexual.... The modern Western system of sexual classification is
embodied in social identities,roles, institutions,and ways of life that can
hardlybe abolishedby an arbitraryact of will.25
Drawingfrom sociologicalphenomenology,Greenbergrecognizesthe
significanceof classificatoryparadigmswhile bracketingthe issue of
their "truth."26 In this approach,the sourceof sexualorientation,be it
discursiveor organic, is irrelevant.Hence, Greenbergis able to map
the social productionof identitywithout getting lost in the Butlerian
conundrumof "origins"verses"effects."
Appliedto the studyof homosexuality,Greenberg'sphenomenologicalsocial constructionismhighlights the institutional and cultural contexts in which identities are
constructed and experiences produced. His analysis makes it clear
529
that the hetero/homo classificatorysystemis not less importantto our
scholarship,but more,as we map the social mechanismsthat produce
the "modernsexual regime"and its effectsin structuringidentityand
experience.To be sure, Butleris right in arguingthat sexualcategories
cannot adequatelycaptureeroticplasticityin the humanspecies in any
historical era, let alone our own - but to be a powerful organizing
social force they do not need to. Labeling-interactionistsrecognized
this generalpoint decadesago in theirworkon a wide rangeof deviant
phenomena. Schur, for instance, analyzed the inferior position of
women using the labeling perspective,and demonstratedthe ways in
whichclassificationsof genderwere sociallyconstructedand embodied
in institutionsand social roles that benefitedmen; and Goffman outlined processesof minstrelizationthat led the stigmatizedto conform
to their deviant identities.27This latter enterprise has a forty-year
history in sociology, and its core tenets tend to reappearin this strain
of queer theory with little referenceto its scholarly past. Although
surely it could be argued that the investigationof sexual categories
as an axis of social organizationrepresentsa unique application of
labeling-interactionisttheory,its noveltywould derivefrom the particularityof its focus ratherthan the substanceof its theoreticalinsights.
In fact, we have good reason to keep the hetero/homo binary at the
centerof our researchagendas,giventhe wide rangeof lesbianand gay
identities,networksand communitiesthat have been uncoveredin the
last three decades of sexuality scholarship.Like Newton's research,
this body of historical and social scientific work makes it clear that
sexual classificationshave had an enormous impact on shaping the
experience of homosexuals. In the twentieth and now twenty-first
centuries, men and women of the Western world who feel sexual
attractionfor same-sex partnersencountera massive conceptual and
institutionalapparatusaroundwhich their social, sexual and political
lives orbit. From childhood forward, local community attachments
and informal structuresof social control intervenein the project of
becoming sexual, transmittingand enforcingclassificationsof sexual
orientation across the life-course.In this context, homosexualactors
have been and will continue to be influencedfundamentallyby sexological classificationsas they developa self-concept,28engagein sexual
practices,29maneuverin and out of the closet,30encounterhomophobia,31negotiate stigma,32confront HIV/AIDS,33participate in and
observe local and national political events and religious struggles,34
and exist within or alongsidegay communities.35Indeed, in the information age, we can expect the impact of categoriesof sexual orienta-
530
tion to be ever morefar reaching, as various media transmit and
reproducethe sexologicalepistemologythat undergirdsWesternconceptions of the erotic acrossthe globe.36
What'smore,becausethe effectsof classificationsof sexualorientation
are confined neither to sexological texts nor gay summer resorts, we
deconstruct these at our peril. Regardlessof how they self-identify,
sexual actors know this intuitivelyevery time they walk into or out of
a gay bar, or hold hands with their same-sexpartnerin a publicvenue,
or relayquietlydetailsof the same-sexdate they had the formerevening
to a friendin a restaurantflankedby heterosexualcouples, families,or
worse yet, teenage males. Indeed, even as an individualgay man will
intellectuallyapprehendthe epistemologicallimitationsof sexological
classificationsand theircentralhistoricalrole as a discipliningapparatus, it will do him no good to cite Butlerwhen confrontedwith a pack
of gay bashers,(or a homophobiclandlordor employer),and protest
that his identityis multipleand unstable,thus exemptinghim from the
ensuingbeating(or discrimination).
Finally, though sexual orientation intersects with class, race, ethnic
and gender standpoints,it does not follow that sexologicalcategories
are less analytically valuable in understandingthe erotic lives and
subjectivitiesof sexual actors. All social classificationsby their nature
are reificationsthat "forcethe flux of realityinto schemata,overlooking or ignoring some perceivabledifferences."37 Ironically,the same
deconstructionistlogic that would have sociologists do away with
sexual classificationswould also requirethe rejection of race, class,
ethnic and gendercategories- the very social contingenciesthat queer
theorypurportsto foreground.Indeed,we can'thaveour analyticcake
and eat it too. If we wantto incorporatesocial contingencyin the study
of sexuality,we cannot selectivelydismiss from the outset the salience
of those categories that don't agree with our political sensibilities.
Rather,we must capturecontingencyas it arises throughthe prism of
distinctsocial standpoints.
In short, classifications of sexual orientation have been shown to
possess an active, enduring, and consequentialpresence in contemporary Western societies that must be grappledwith by scholars of
sexuality.Theorizing transcendencefrom these may animate innovative political movementsand inspire a heightenedlevel of categorical
scrutiny in lesbian and gay scholarship, but cannot replace social
scientificprojectsthat map the historical presence and experienceof
531
gay identitiesand communitiesand the social forces that propel them
into existence. As Esther Newton concludes, "No deconstructionist
theory yet has persuadedme that what I see as an anthropologistand
live as a humanbeing - gay communities- don't or shouldn'texist."38
Radical subversion(strain 2)
A second, related strain of queer theory - what I refer to as radical
subversion- targets homosexualityand other non-heteronormative
practices,identities,and representationsas sites of queer subversion.
In this formulation,the very fact of non-heterosexualdesire connotes
transgressionand rebellion. Doty, for instance, writes that "queer"
is "atermwhichmarksa flexiblespace for the expressionof all aspects
of non- (anti-, contra-)straightculturalproductionand reception."39
Yetwhat is "queer"is not limitedto the overtlymarginal;indeed,queer
theorists locate "queerness"throughout cultural production, and
sometimes in places one would least likely suspect. Sedgwick, for
instance - perhaps the most highly esteemed and widely recognized
queertheorist - analyzesHenryJames'sNotebookson the importance
of memory for literarycreation, and finds instead hidden themes of
anality and fisting (i.e., rectal penetrationby a fist).40Similarly,Doty
examines the sitcom Laverne and Shirley, arguing that the show's
central concern is with lesbianism.41In these "queer"readings,both
queertheoristsclaim to have recoveredrepressedhomoeroticism,thus
bringingsexualmarginalityto the foreground.
In the spiritof subversion,this second strainof queertheoryconceives
of homosexualityas an open challenge to the normative sexual and
genderorder.42Becausethe sexualityof homosexualsis marginal,their
erotic practicesare disruptiveto the social order.Hence Bronskiconceives of gay men as sexualoutlaws:"Gaymen havelearnedhow to use
our sexuality as a social marker, as a disruption of the social and
sexual status quo, and as a way to make our presence felt in the
world".43In these cases, subversionof heterosexuality,genderidentity
and other "regimesof the normal" is thought to ensue from homosexuality,with far reachingconsequencesfor the social order.In effect,
queertheoristsscratcha homosexualand find a disruptivequeer.
While queer theorists are certainlyright to suggest that homosexuals
occupy a marginal location in the social order, social cleavages can
hardly be captured by sexual dimensions alone. At the institutional
532
level, for instance, homosexuals encounter a wide range of social
structures that incorporate them within various "regimes of the normal." Indeed, just as sexual categories will structure self-understandings and the formation of sexual communities, so they may also obfuscate social cleavages that cut across categories of sexual orientation.
As Escoffier argues:
(B)eing queerdoes not necessarilymean that one can escape other institutionalizedsocial identities.The discursiveformationsthat shape the queer,
the homosexual,and the sexual perversionsdo not stand alone. They are
embeddedin a whole networkof discursiveprocessesthat generatea spectrum of American social identities - racial, gendered,religious,regional,
ethnic,and generational.44
In fact, the relationship between sexual identity and subjectivity is
enormously complex and highly variable. Even as we recognize the
structuring effects of sexual categories, we would be wrong to assume
that homosexual desire by itself can be characterized as or representative of a "queer" identity. Yet this assumption is a common thread
uniting much of what is called queer theory and is made literally
evident by the use of "gay" and "queer," "gay culture" and "queer
culture" as interchangeable signifiers in queer texts, conferences, and
discourse.45 While some queer theorists make an effort to distinguish
"gay" and "queer,"46 queer theorists more often treat "queer" as a
subversive subject-position that all homosexuals may claim for themselves.
For instance, in the introduction to the seminal queer text, Fear of a
Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory,Michael Warner equates
"queer" with "homosexual" and situates lesbian and gay identities in
opposition to "regimes of the normal." 47Warner then goes on to argue
that queer, by definition, implies an articulated, self conscious challenge to "regimes of the normal." Warner's queer not only defies
sexological classifications, but also exhibits an extraordinarily radical
self-concept and a sweeping, synthetic political sensibility. He writes:
knows in one way or
Everypersonwho comes to a queerself-understanding
anotherthat her stigmatizationis connectedwith gender,the family,notions
of individualfreedom, the state, public speech, consumptionand desire,
nature and culture, maturation,reproductivepolitics, racial and national
fantasy,class identity,truth and trust, censorship,intimatelife and social
display,terrorand violence,healthcare, and deep culturalnorms about the
bearingof the body.Being queermeansfightingabout these issues all of the
time, locally and piecemeal,but alwayswith consequences.It means being
533
able, more or less articulately,to challengethe common understandingof
what gender differencemeans, or what the state is for, or what "health"
entails,or whatwoulddefinefairness,or whata good relationto the planet's
environmentwouldbe. Queersdo a kind of practicalsocial reflectionjust in
findingwaysof beingqueer.48
Warner'sinvocation of "queer"is problematicin a numberof ways,
not least because it is uncertainexactly to whom or what his "queer"
refers.In some instances,"queer"and "lesbiansand gays"are invoked
while in other instances"queer"seems to represent
interchangeably,49
a metaphoric epistemologicalposition.50This muddy application of
"queer"lets Warnerin one moment move beyond theoreticalabstraction to engage gay subjectivity,but in the next moment to retreatto
a definition of "queer"that representsnot an actual subject, but a
theoreticallocation at the margins of the social order.Thus, in some
instances"queer"is invokedas a discreetsubject-positionthat describes
and distinguishes a particular individual or group with empirically
identifiablecharacteristics- not unlikerace or gender- while in other
instances "queer"is used to representnot a unit of analysis in the
material world, but an analytic strategyor epistemologicalposition.
These proteanuses of "queer"lend themselvesto very differentapplications and lines of inquiry,and their conflationmakes human action
and orderthe concern of queertheory,while at the same time insulating it from social scientificaccountability.
For the purpose of the presentcritique,I want to focus on the formulation that definesqueeras a distinct subject-position(i.e., "gay,""lesbian,"or marginalsexual actor). Using Warner'stext as an example,
queer is distilled from so many regimes of the normal - fossilizing
these in a static opposition - that one wondersif such a subjectexists
at all, let alone with any great frequency.In fact, lesbiansand gay men
have been found to occupy nearlyall social cleavagesand to advocate
a wide range of political positions (for instance, consider the now
populargay republicans,pro-life gays, or gays for Christ).No matter
how much we might wish that sexual minorities would constitute a
revolutionaryvanguard- aligning their identities and erotic desires
with the rarifiedconsiderationsof queerand gay liberationdiscoursethere is little empirical evidence that sexual actors engage in sexual
identificationwith such a savvy political sensibilityor sophisticated
self-concept.
Quite the contrary,scholars of sexualityhave long documented the
ways in which homosexual and heterosexualindividuals draw from
534
similar social roles availableto them in a given historicalperiod.51In
this literature,the developmentof homosexualidentityis understood
to emergeas an embeddedsocial productbearingthe markof socialization processes. For instance, if we consider gender as an axis of
social organization,it is not difficultto see that when gay men exhibit
a highly gendered affect, or appropriatemasculine iconography in
their erotic fantasies,or developa genderedself-concept,they actively
draw from constructionsof masculinityand femininitythat hold currencyin the courseof local social exchange.Yet, so too, the violationof
dominantsocial codes - as when homosexualmen engage in practices
deemed"unnatural"for their gender- is no more certainlyindicative
of subversion.As I show below,such practicescan have a multitudeof
causes and effects that do not lend themselvesso readily to the spectacular subversionpromisedby queer theory. Indeed, the theoretical
notion that marriessubversionto sexualmarginality,eitheras an intentional component of gay subjectivityor as an unintendedeffect, may
representa gross oversimplificationof more complexsocial processes.
Martin Levine's fascinatingethnographyof the gay clone culture of
Manhattanin the 1970sand 1980smakesclear the waysin whichqueer
theory fails to capturethe identitiesand developmentalprocessesthat
accruefrom sexualmarginality.52
His empiricalresearchdemonstrates
the fluidityof gender constructionsacross sexual orientationand the
ways in which heterosexualand homosexualeroticismcan take similarly structuredforms. "Clones" refer to gay male subjects within
urban centers in the 1970s and 1980s who were characterizedby a
cookie-cuttermasculine style and affect that earned them their title.
The prevalenceof the clone and his tenaciouscommitmentsto masculinity raisedthe questionof genderidentitydevelopmentamong members of nontraditional,sexually marginal communities. Building on
Simon and Gagnon's social constructionistmodel, Levine set out to
explainthe clone phenomenon,and broughtto the foregroundthe fact
that preheterosexualand prehomosexual boys undergo the same
ranges of gender socialization.This allowed Levine to make sense of
patternsin the sexual strategiesand practicesof the clone by linking
these with the larger universeof genderedmeanings.Overall, Levine
illuminateda processby whichhegemonicconstructionsof masculinity
are internalizedin early phases of socializationthat come to structure
the eroticpracticesand ideationof straightand gay men. He writes:
The lack of anticipatory socialization for male homosexuality in our culture
signified that men who eventually became gay experienced essentially the
535
same erotic socializationas men who grew up to be straight.Socialization
youthsthe dictatesof
agentstaughtboth prehomosexualandpreheterosexual
the male sexualscript.Consequently,gay men acquireda recreationalerotic
code that held that sex was objectified,privatized,and phallocentric,and an
arenafor demonstratingmanlyprowess.53
As a consequence of masculine socialization, gay men were found to
reproduce traditional gender norms and practices in the construction
of masculine personas and presentational strategies.
... (T)hesemen usuallyfashionedthemselvesaftersuch archetypically
masculine icons as body builders and blue collar workers,and commonly wore
work boots, flannelshirts, and button-upLevis and had gym bodies, short
haircuts,and mustachesor beards.54
Additionally, the clone would enact and perpetuate a hegemonic male
sexual script through hyper-masculinized, anonymous, and objectified
sexual repertoires.
A roughuninhibited,phallocentricform of sexualitycharacterizedtricking
among clones. Trickingfrequentlyinvolved...vigorouslyjamming the penis
completelydown the throat, which frequentlycaused gagging or choking.
Anal intercourseusuallyentailedstrenuouslyrammingthe penis entirelyup
the anuswhilepainfullyslappingthe buttocks.55
Thus, the social identities, sexual practices, and affective makeup of
the clone served in many respects to reiterate and consolidate the
gender system, and were constituted by dominant meanings of masculinity acquired within heteronormative communities. As faithful erotic
missionaries of masculinity, the clone developed within and internalized the gendered semiotics of the heterosexual world, transposing
and magnifying these in local interactions. As Kimmel has noted:
"They [gay men] are not 'perverts' or 'deviants' who have strayed from
the norms of masculinity.... They are, if anything, over-conformists to
destructive norms of male behavior." 56 Hence, the gay clone has been
said to be not less masculine, but perhaps, more masculine than his
heterosexual counterparts - hardly the stuff of a transgressive queer.
Yet even when gay men or women appropriate overtly "deviant" presentational styles or gender identifications, this deviation does not by
itself indicate subversion. Chauncey's turn-of-the-century New York
fairy makes this point eminently clear.57The fairy was a working-class
homosexual man who enjoyed sex with other, hyper-masculine, workingclass men - i.e., "trade." As "inverts," the fairies displayed overtly
536
effeminate characteristics,including flamboyant dress and speech,
rouged lips, bleached hair, and sexual receptivityduring anal intercourse. While fairies representeda negative referencepoint against
which"normal"men constructedmasculineidentities,they nonetheless
came to their own self-identificationthrougha processof assimilation.
Becominga fairy was markedby the adoption of prevailingconstructions of gender that channeled working-classhomosexual men into
particularsexual roles and gender identificationsconsistent with late
nineteenthcenturyNew Yorksociety.Chaunceywrites:
The prominenceof the fairyin turn-of-the-century
New Yorkand his consistencywiththe hegemonicgenderideologyof the eramadehim the dominantand most plausible- role model availableto boys and men trying to make
sense of vaguefeelingsof sexualand genderdifference.Themodelof thefairy
offered many men a means of constructing public personas they considered
more congruent with their "inner natures" than conventional masculine ones,
but that were also consistent with the terms of the dominant gender culture in
which they had been socialized and that had, therefore, helped constitute those
'innernatures."Takingon the role of the fairy,that is, allowedthemto reject
the kind of masculinityprescribedfor them by the dominantculture,but to
do so withoutrejectingthe hegemonictenets of theircultureconcerningthe
genderorder.58
Chauncey'swork suggests that even as the fairy was situated at the
marginsof the New York,turn-of-the-centurysocial order,his identification as a gender invert and the affectiveand sexual practicesthat
would follow were derivativeof dominant gender ideologies. Moreover,"normal"men of the workingclasses used the body of the fairy
(for anal intercourse)and his flamboyantaffect as a referencepoint
against which a strongermasculine identitywas forged. Rather than
disruptingthe logic of genderand sexuality,the fairydemonstratesthe
mobility of hegemonic social roles and gender ideologies, and their
subsequentimpact in shapingthe lives and sensibilitiesof homosexual
men (and those aroundthem). Then, the fairy did less to contest the
terms of gendered "regimesof the normal" than to internalizeand
reproduceideologicalconstructionsthat linkedhomosexualityto gender inversion.Not only did fairies drawfrom the dominantculturein
the invention of a homosexualself, but they did so in a manner that
would consolidate ratherthan destabilizethe gender identitiesof the
"trade"with whom they had contact.
Chauncey'sfairy,like Levine'sclone, servesto illustratethe fluidityof
boundariesbetween"straight"and "gay"realmsand the inapplicability
of notions of queer/dominant,and margin/centerin capturinghomo-
537
sexual identities and practices. Their work makes it clear that we
cannot retrospectivelyassign to homosexualidentitiesand practicesa
political intentionality,a radicallymarginaldevelopmentalprocess, or
a disruptiveeffect, findingeverythinggay to be queer and subversive,
and everythingstraightto be dominantand hegemonic.Unfortunately,
despite the political appeal of locating subversivequeers who defy
"regimesof the normal"or upset their stability,such a projectis likely
to miss the complexdevelopmentalprocessesattendantto sexualmarginality- processesthat do not confoundthe logic of heteronormativity,
but bear fundamentallyits markings.Indeed, gay men are certainly
not straight;but then, they are also not necessarilyqueer.
Towarda post-queerstudy of sexuality
To be sure, queer theory promises to enrich and build upon more
traditionalsociological scholarshipas researchersof sexuality refine
even furthertheiranalysesof the complexrelationshipsbetweengender,
sexuality,society and history.What's more, queer theorists are right
when they level critical challenges to sociological discourse and its
tendenciesto employ crude, reductiveconceptions of gay and lesbian
"identity"or "community"as monolithic empiricalunits of analysis.
Nonetheless,the queerprojectsuffersfroman underdevelopedanalysis
of the contributionof the social to the sexual.This theoreticalshortcoming runs through both strains of queer theory, and cannot be
rectifiedwithouta vigoroussociologicalintervention.
So what might a study of sexualitythat incorporatesthe criticism of
queer theory while maintaining the grounded footing of empirical
sociology look like? Is queer theory too theoreticallydistanced in its
focus, too utopian in its substance to be of much use in a scientific
studyof sexuality?Or, conversely,is the scientificstudyof sexualitytoo
rigidly structuredin reified social categories, too fixated on social
reproductionratherthan social change to be commensurablewith a
radicalqueerenterprise?
Surelyit is too soon to know the directionthat sexualityscholarswill
take in negotiatingthese crosscuttingcurrents.Yet, thereis a promising
"post-queer"stream of work within sexualityscholarship- one that
brings to bear the categorical scrutiny of queer theory on concrete,
empirical case studies - that may serve as the promising start to a
more synthetic research agenda. For instance, as observed above,
538
Newton demonstrates the crude reductionism of sexual categories
while explicatingtheir global significancefor generationsof lesbians
on Cherry Grove.59Pronger excavates the centralityof masculinity
for the male homoeroticimaginarywhile highlightingits ironic interruption in the play of gay sex.60And Dowsett develops a "practicebased"theoryof sexualitythat examinescomplexand variedprocesses
of sexual identitydevelopment,but alwaysin referenceto the cultural
and institutionalembodimentof sexualcategories,includingthe unique
opportunities(and constraints)that attendsexualidentifications.61
Yet perhapsthe most developedexampleof a post-queerenterprisecan
be found in Connell'sanalysis of masculinity.62
Using the life-history
method, Connell analyzes the biographiesof Australianmen from a
varietyof class backgrounds.His work makes clear the inadequacies
of both strainsof queertheoryeven as it uncoverssubtledisruptionsin
sexual and gender identity development.Contraryto radical deconstructionism,Connell finds that homosexualmen often seek out and
forge vital attachmentsto gay community institutions that embody
classificationsof sexual orientation (e.g., gay bars and baths). They
recognizeand negotiate their homosexualidentitiesthroughstrategic
careerchoices, controlleddisclosuresamong homophobic associates,
and "coming-in"to existing gay milieu through investmentsin gay
networks.63Moreover,Connell observes that in the lives of his subjects, sexologicalcategoriesserveless as instrumentsof regulationand
social control than as the foundation for conditions of freedom. In
short, sexological categories have an active, liberatingand enduring
role in structuringthe life historiesof homosexualmen.
Furthermore, contrary to radical subversion, Connell notes the
markedmasculine styles of many of his "very straightgay" subjects.
These men show strong commitments to masculinity in their own
presentationalstrategiesand personal affect, but also in that of their
object-choices.These are men who eroticizenot simply "a-body-withpenis," but rather, "embodied masculinity."64Moreover, far from
aligningthemselveswith a feministpolitics - let alone a radicalqueer
agenda- Connell'smen arelargelyapolitical,with little understanding
of or identificationwith feministgoals. In short,"thereis no challenge
to the genderedorder here."65 Indeed, Connell's"very straightgay"
men are a far cry fromradicalqueers.
Yet Connell'smen are not simplyhomosexualmen who identifywith
sexological categories, exhibit a masculine affect, and eroticize "em-
539
bodied masculinity."Their life histories demonstratepatterned"crisis
tendencies"that are embeddedin the wider social structure.With one
foot in the clutchesof institutionalizedhegemonicmasculinityand the
other floating in the quick-sandof sexual marginality,these homosexual men do not simply reproducethe social order, but uneasily,
clumsily,and often unwittinglyreworkit in the process of their daily
lives. There is no spectacular disruption here, but neither is there
wholesalerearticulation.Rather,the process of developingand acting
on sexualand genderidentityis muddy,conflictedand provisional,and
in this sense - if even for only a fleetingmoment - unavoidablyselfconscious.Thence the recuperationof the queerproject,i.e., the categorical instabilitypromisedby queer theory.Indeed, here is the heart
of a post-queersexualitystudies that recognizesthe subversivepotential of sexualmarginalitywithin the strongparametersof an empirical
sociology.
Conclusion
In this article, I have identifiedtwo strains of queer theory that are
plaguedby an underdevelopedanalysisof the effectsof the "social"on
the sexual.The first strain,radicaldeconstructionism,glosses over the
ways in which sexual classificationsare embodied in institutionsand
social roles, and thus under-theorizestheir role as a principalaxis of
social organization.Similarly,the second strain of queer theory,radical subversion, neglects the shared social contexts in which sexual
actors are socialized, and thus obscuresthe complexityof sexualmarginality and its attachment to other institutionalizedidentities and
social roles. Yet, even when homosexual practices are perceived to
disruptheteronormativityin the abstract,we would be foolish to think
that subjectspracticinghomosexualdesiresdevelopa sexualsubjectivity consistent with a radicallyqueer epistemology,or that subversion
occurs just because it is theorized from the standpoint of the plush
academicarm-chair.
Ultimately,keepingour eye on the "social"presentssexualityscholarship with a critical dual challenge: First, deconstructionistanalyses
that expose the epistemologicalbasis of categories of sexual orientation do not in and of themselveschange the power of those categories
in shaping sexual identities and social exchange. Classifications of
sexual orientation are embodied in institutions and social roles and
are highly consequentialfor the developmentof self-conceptsand the
540
patterningof social interaction.Heterosexualsand homosexualsoccupy
distinctsocial structuralpositions by virtue of their sexualorientation
and cannot be viewed as analyticallyinterchangeable.Hence, scholars
of sexualitymust recognizethe expandingsalienceof sexualclassifications for the construction of self, regardlessof their convictions regardingthe etiology of sexualorientation.
And yet, secondly, sexual actors cut across social cleavages,and we
would be wrong to think that sexual orientationby itself defines the
totalityof institutionalizedidentitiesthat one may occupy.Regardless
of their sexual orientation,women and men share the same rangesof
socializationas childrenand young adults,and may sharea multitude
of social characteristics,ideologies, and experiences.In fact, a substantial literaturedemonstratesthe ways in which marginal sexual
actors arriveat sexual identitiesand practicesnot in spite of heteronormativity,but because of it. Hence, scholars of sexualitymust not
assume that subversiveintentions or effects come married to sexual
marginality.Ironically,when we overestimateheterosexualand homosexualdifference,we renderourselvesunableto accountfor the subversive potentialsof homosexuality,ignoring the ways in which self-concepts accruefromboththe institutionalizationof genderand sexuality,
and fromthe marginalityof homosexualpractices.
Reconciling these dual challengescalls for a reenergizedsociological
presencein the studyof sexuality.By reconnectingsexualpracticeand
identity to the patternedorganizationof the social world, we make
sexual actors the subject of a scientific enterprise, rather than the
objectof our political sensibilitiesor activistintentions.Such an effort
will keep sexual classificationsat the centerof our analysesas long as
these continue to exert influence on sexual actors. Yet their "truth"
need not be taken for granted;on the contrary,a more sociological,
post-queerstudy of sexualitymust retain a critical distance from the
reigningcategoriesthat constitute identity so as to be mindful of the
ways that individualsmay use, negotiate,and resist these constructs.
Surelysuch an effortruns throughthe heart of the sociological enterprise, as decades of research on deviance and medicalization have
demonstratedheretofore.
In summary,if we overextendthe explanatorypowerof queertheoryin
the study of sexuality,we do a disserviceto our ability to understand
the makingof sexual actors. Indeed, the "modernsexual regime,"like
all Old Regimes, will not dissipate through theoretical innovations
541
alone. It took more than Enlightenmentideology to topple the French
Monarchy,and it will takemorethanqueertheoryto renderthe modern
sexual regime and the hetero/homo binary inert. In the meantime,
rather than circulatingour fantasies of a sexual revolution, perhaps
we are better off to look for subversionin its less overtly spectacular
forms, in the subtle disruptions and local disjuncturesthat pervade
social interaction.An invigoratedsociologicalpresencein the studyof
sexuality will surely mean keeping our eyes and ears open to these
queerpossibilities.
Acknowledgments
Please direct inquiriesto Adam Isaiah Green, Sociology Department,
BallantineHall, 1020 E. KirkwoodAvenue,Indiana University,Bloomington, IN 47405-7103U.S.A.; or by E-mail at Isaiah2001@aol.com.
The author wants to thank Alan Charles Green, David Greenberg,
LynneHaney,Josh Gamson,Wolf Hydebrand,Liena Gurevich,Aaron
Panofsky,Olga Sezneva,membersof the New YorkUniversityGender
Workshop,membersof the New York UniversityCultureand Institutions Workshop,and the Editors of Theoryand Society for their support and criticalcontributionsto this project.
Notes
1. See, for instance, Henry Abelove, The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (New York:
Routledge,1993);and JudithButler,"Imitationand GenderInsubordination,"in
Diana Fuss, editor, Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (New York: Rout-
ledge,1991),13-31;and JoshGamson,"MustIdentityMovementsSelf-Destruct?A
Queer Dilemma,"in Social Problems42/3 (1995):390-407; and StevenSeidman,
"IdentityPoliticsin a'Postmodern'Gay Culture:Some Historicaland Conceptual
Notes," in Michael Warner, editor, Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and
Social Theory(Minnesota: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1993), 105-142; and
Dana Takagi,"MaidenVoyage:Excursioninto Sexualityand Identityin Politicsin
Asian America,"in Steve Seidman,editor, Queertheory/Sociology(Cambridge:
BlackwellPublishers,1996),243-258.
2. See, for instance,CharlesLemert'sdiscussionof the significanceof queertheory
for sociologyin "EditorsPreface,"in StevenSeidman,editor,Queertheory/Sociology
(Cambridge:BlackwellPublishers,1996),vii-ix; or Steinand Plummer'senthusiastic
engagementwith queertheoryin "I Can'tEvenThinkStraight:'Queer'Theoryand
the Missing Sexual Revolution in Sociology" in Steven Seidman, editor, Queer
theory/Sociology(Cambridge:BlackwellPublishers,1996),129-144.
3. Here I referto the wide rangeof researchthatcharacterizesthe studyof sexualityin
the last threedecades,includingcontributionsfromsociology,anthropology,com-
542
parativeliterature,culturalstudies,cinemastudies,and history.Whilemuchof this
workmightfall underthe rubricof "lesbianand gay studies,"I avoidthis category
becauseit excludesimportantrecenteffortsto problematizeheterosexuality.
4. Heteronormativityrefersto that set of institutionalizednorms and practicesthat
marriage,family,monogamousdyadic
supportsandcompelsprivateheterosexuality,
commitment,and traditionalgenderroles.
5. ArleneSteinand KennethPlummer,"I Can'tEvenThink Straight:'Queer'Theory
and the MissingSexualRevolutionin Sociology,"in StevenSeidman,editor,Queer
theory/Sociology(Cambridge:BlackwellPublishers,1996),134.
6. See, among many others, Barry Adam's detailed discussion of the formationof
"homosexual" movements in The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement (Boston:
Twayne,1995);or LillianFaderman'sdiscussionof the impactof sexologicalcategories on the formationof lesbiancommunitiesin OddGirlsand TwilightLovers:
A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth Century America (New York: Penguin Books,
1991);or the wonderfullyrichworkof FrancesFitzgeraldwho studiesgay life in the
Castro,San Franciscojust prior to and followingthe onset of HIV/AIDSin Cities
on a Hill: A Journey Through Contemporary American Cultures (New York: Simon
and Shuster,1986).
7. For instance,Leo Bersaninotes the prevalenceof the eroticizationof masculinity
amonggay men and theirrepugnancefor femininityin "Isthe Rectuma Grave?"in
Douglas Crimp, editor, AIDS: Cultural Analysis Cultural Activism (Cambridge
Massachusetts:MIT Press, 1987), 197-222. Similarly,Bob Connell identifiesthe
"momentof engagement"when gay men are socializedinto dominantconstructions of masculinityin "AVeryStraightGay: Masculinity,HomosexualExperience,
and the Dynamics of Gender," American Sociological Review 57 (1992): 735-751.
8. On this point, seeTim Edwards"QueerFears:Againstthe CulturalTurn,"Sexualities 1/4 (1998):471-483;and JoshGamson'sanalysisof the limitationsof the antiidentity position of queer politics in "Must Identity MovementsSelf-Destruct?
A Queer Dilemma," Social Problems42/3 (1995): 390-407; and also Stephen
Murray'scriticismof "medicalcreationism"in AmericanGay(Chicago:University
of ChicagoPress,1992).
in StevenSeidman,editor,QueerTheory/Sociology
9. StevenSeidman,"Introduction,"
(Cambridge:BlackwellPublishers,1996).
10. Tim Edwards,"QueerFears:Against the CulturalTurn,"Sexualities1/4 (1998):
471-483.
11. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (New York: Vintage,
1980).
12. Among others, see Judith Butler,"Imitationand Gender Insubordination,"in
Diana Fuss, editor, Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (New York: Routledge, 1991); and David Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (New
York:Routledge,1990),and also AnnamarieJagose,Queertheory:An Introduction
(NewYork:New YorkUnviersityPress,1996).
13. David Halperin, Saint Foucault: Toward a Gay Hagiography (New York: Oxford
UniversityPress,1995),45.
14. Judith Butler,"Imitationand Gender Insubordination,"in Diana Fuss, editor,
Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (New York: Routledge, 1991), 13-14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Ibid., 23.
Ibid., 21.
Ibid.,27.
Ibid., 29.
543
19. David Halperin, Saint Foucault: Toward a Gay Hagiography (New York: Oxford
UniversityPress,1995),32.
20. AnnamarieJagose, Queertheory:An Introduction(New York:New YorkUniversity Press,1996),96.
21. EstherNewton, "JustOne of the Boys: Lesbiansin CherryGrove, 1960-1988,"in
Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale,and David Halperin,editors, The Lesbian
and GayStudiesReader(New Yorkand London:Routledge,1993),528.
22. Ibid., 538.
23. StevenSeidman,"IdentityPoliticsin a'Postmodern'Gay Culture:Some Historical
and ConceptualNotes," in MichaelWarner,editor,Fearof a QueerPlanet: Queer
Politicsand Social Theory(Minnesota:Universityof MinnesotaPress, 1993),133135.
24. Judith Butler,"Imitationand Gender Insubordination,"in Diana Fuss, editor,
Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (New York: Routledge, 1991), 24.
25. David Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of
ChicagoPress,1988),493.
26. David Greenberg,Book Review,"Formsof Desire,"by Ed Stein,Journalof Homosexuality23/3 (1992):122-123.
27. Ed Schur, Labeling WomenDeviant: Gender, Stigma and Social Control (New York:
McGrawHill, 1971);and ErvingGoffman,Stigma(EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1963).
28. See, for instance, David Greenberg, The Social Construction of Homosexuality
(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1988);and GilbertHerdt,"Intergenerational
Relationsand AIDS in the Formationof Gay Culturesin the United States,"in
Martin Levine et al., editors, In Changing Times. Gay Men and Lesbians Encounter
HIV/AIDS(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1997).
29. See, for instance, Frances Fitzgerald, Cities on a Hill: A Journey Through Contem-
porary AmericanCultures(New York: Simon and Shuster, 1986); and Martha
Fowlkes,"SingleWorldsand HomosexualLifestyles:Pattersof Sexualityand Intimacy," in Alice Rossi, editor, Sexuality Across the Life-Course (Chicago and
London:Universityof ChicagoPress,1994).
30. See, for instance,John Gonsiorek,"GayMale Identities:Conceptsand Issues,"in
Anthony DAugelli and CharlottePattersons,editors,Lesbian,Gay,and Bisexual
Identities over the Lifespan. Psychological Perspectives (New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press,1995),24-47.
31. See, for instance, Jeffrey Escoffier, American Hero. Community and Perversity
(Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1998);and Gergory
Herek,"On HeterosexualMasculinity:Some PsychicalConsequencesof Gender
and Sexuality,"in Linda Garnets and Douglas Kimmel, editors, Psychological
Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experience (New York: Columbia University
Press,1993),316-331.
32. See, for instance, David Greenberg, The Social Construction of Homosexuality
(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1988);ElizabethKennedyand Madeline
Davis, Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community
(New York: Routledge, 1993);and R. Savin-Williams,"Lesbian,Gay Male and
Bisexual Adolescents,"in Anthony DAugelli and CharlottePattersons,editors,
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities over the Lifespan. Psychological Perspectives
(New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1995),165-188.
33. See, for instance,MichaelGorman,"The Pursuitof a Wish:An Anthropological
Perspectiveon Gay Male Subculturesin Los Angeles"in Gilbert Herdt, editor,
544
Gay Culture in America: Essays From the Field (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 87-
106;and MartinLevine,"TheLife and Death of the Gay Clone,"in GilbertHerdt,
editor, Gay Culture in America: Essays From the Field (Boston: Beacon Press,
1992),68-86.
34. See Barry Adam, The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement (Boston: Twayne, 1995);
and Donn Teal, The Gay Militants. How Gay Liberation Began in America: 1969-
1971(New York:St. MartinsPress,1971).
35. Among many others, see ManuelCastells, The City and the Grassroots(Berkeley
and Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1983);and JohnD'Emilio,Sexual
Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United
States,1940-1970(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1983);and MartinWeinberg
and Collin Williams, Male Homosexuality(New York: Oxford UniversityPress,
1975).
36. The Internetis a fine exampleof this process.Websites like "Gay.Com"or "PlanetOut" are founded on sexologicalcategoriesand reproducethese as a means of
attractinga customer base. Erotic chat rooms too are often organized around
sexualclassificationsthat serveas cyberlandmarksaroundwhichone must orient
herself.
37. StephenMurray,AmericanGay(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1996),34.
38. EstherNewton, "JustOne of the Boys: Lesbiansin CherryGrove, 1960-1988,"in
Henry Abelove, MicheleAina Barale,and David Halperin,editors, The Lesbian
and GayStudiesReader(New Yorkand London:Routledge,1993)538.
39. AlexanderDoty, TheLesbianPostmodern(New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,
1993),3.
40. Eve Sedgwick,"QueerPerformativity:Henry James' The Art of the Novel," in
GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1/1 (1993): 1-16.
41. AlexanderDoty, TheLesbianPostmodern(New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,
1993).
42. See MichaelBronski,"WhyGay Men Can't ReallyTalk About Sex,"in Michael
Lowenthal,editor, Gay Men at the Millennium(HELLO, 1997); and Michael
Warner, Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minnesota:
Universityof MinnesotaPress,1993);and MichaelWarner,"We'reQueer,Remember?" The Advocate 9/30 (1997): 7.
43. Michael Bronski,"Why Gay Men Can't Really Talk About Sex," in Michael
Lowenthal, editor, Gay Men at the Millennium (HELLO, 1997).
44. Jeffrey Escoffier, American Hero, Community and Perversity (Berkeley and Los
Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1998),183.
45. Michael Warner, Fear of a Queer Planet. Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minne-
sota: Universityof MinnesotaPress,1993).See also the sameconflationin Warner,
"We'reQueer,Remember?"The Advocate9/30 (1997):7.
46. Both David Halperinand Eve Sedgwickmakethese distinctionsin theirwork. See
above.
47. Michael Warner, Fear of a Queer Planet. Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minne-
sota: Universityof MinnesotaPress,1993),xxvi.
Ibid.
Ibid. For instance,see pagesvii, ix, xxi, xvi, xvii, xxv,xxvi.
Ibid. For instance,see pagesxi, xii, xxvi, xxvii.
Scholarsin this literatureincludeGeorge Chauncey,Bob Connell, MartinLevine,
Simonand Gagnon,amongmanyothers.
52. MartinLevine,"The Life and Death of the Gay Clone,"in GilbertHerdt,editor,
48.
49.
50.
51.
545
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Gay Culturein American:Essays From the Field (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992),
68-86.
MartinLevine,"The Life and Death of the Gay Clone,"in GilbertHerdt, editor,
Gay Culturein American:EssaysFromtheField(Boston:BeaconPress,1992),73.
Ibid.,77.
Ibid.,78.
MichaelKimmel,"AfterFifteenYears:The Impactof the Sociologyof Masculinity
on the Masculinityof Sociology,"in J. Hearn and D. Morgans, editors, Men,
Masculinitiesand Social Theory(London:Unwin Hyman,1990).See, for a similar
point on gay men and masculinity,SeymourKleinberg,AlienatedAffections(New
York:St. Martin'sPress,1980).
George Chauncey,Gay New York:Gender,UrbanCulture,and the Makingof the
GayMale World,1890-1940 (New York:Basic Books, 1994).
Ibid.,49-50, emphasisadded.
EstherNewton, "JustOne of the Boys: Lesbiansin CherryGrove, 1960-1988,"in
Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale,and David Halperin,editors, The Lesbian
and GayStudiesReader.(New Yorkand London:Routledge,1993).
BrianPronger,TheArenaof Masculinity.Sports,Homosexuality,and the Meaning
of Sex (New York:St. Martin'sPress.1990).
Gary Dowsett, PracticingDesire: HomosexualSex in the Era of AIDS (Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress,1996).
See Bob Connell,"AVeryStraightGay:Masculinity,HomosexualExperiences,and
the Dynamics of Gender,"AmericanSociologicalReview57 (1992):735-751;and
also Bob Connell,TheMenand theBoys. (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,
2000).
Bob Connell,"AVeryStraightGay: Masculinity,HomosexualExperiences,and the
Dynamicsof Gender,"American
SociologicalReview57 (1992):744
Ibid., 746.
Ibid.,748.