Greg Knotts
“Gay and Lesbian Studies” is a perfect example of how the growth of a field outpaces its literature. The collection of articles in this volume were once timely and even transformative — and this is only a decade since it was written. Now this volume can be used by academics, researchers, or just interested people to compare the growth in ideology, theory, and practice in gay and lesbian studies in such a short period of time. Compared to the establishment of black studies and women's studies a few decades earlier, Minton describes the landmark growth of gay and lesbian studies in the early 1990s. Read in a present context, much of this material can at first appear dated, part of memory, and even a little trite. The articles are still useful, however, in framing a field that has experienced tremendous growth. Some of them even have great resonance today.
The collection includes Escoffier's review of mainstream thought in gay and lesbian studies and Minton's own description of the field. The deconstruction of the discipline in theoretical, political, and institutional constructs by ki namaste still resonates today. Jack Collins discusses the history of, and his role in, the creation of the Gay and Lesbian Studies Department at the City College of San Francisco — the first of its kind at any American college. Hekma and van der Meer discuss the growth of the field in the Netherlands and Gammon discusses the growth of the field in Canada. Roscoe proposes a lens for viewing the field in the future — and read in that future, provides, perhaps, the most interesting and relevant discussion in the text.
Jeffrey Escoffier's piece on the various paradigms captured in the discipline of Gay and Lesbian Studies is interesting. Escoffier traces the history of the search for authenticity, social construction, essentialism, difference and race theory, and cultural studies. At times, some proponents of these theories lie along generational identities, he concludes. Quoting and referring to works from Butler, D'Emilio, Katz, and Faderman, Escoffier traces the emergence of some of these paradigms of thought. These authors are still referenced today and have stood the test of time in seminal and watershed works in the field of gay and lesbian studies. Escoffier also discusses the interdisciplinary nature of Gay and Lesbian Studies in referencing works by Lorde, Moraga, and Anzaldua. Again, these same authors are still used today as leaders in the discipline — it appears that few younger or newer scholars have made entrée in establishing their mark in the discipline.
James Donovan shares a piece on a sociocultural study in determining definitions for such words as gay, homosexuality, homosexual, and lesbian. In a world of television shows like “Will and Grace” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” this discussion seems, perhaps, the most dated. What is interesting in this discussion, however, is the prevalence of the social construction and essentialist debate. Donovan also discusses the influence of religion, history, and the academy in use of word choice and etymology of words and definitions. These references, debates, and influences still hold constant today — so perhaps the field has not grown in theoretical ways as much as it has grown in practical and quantifiable ways.
Donovan's investigation of emic versus etic definitions in research is extremely viable and relevant today as well. These terms: gay, homosexuality, homosexual, lesbian, can often be loaded and impacted terms that require deconstruction and context. Choosing an emic or etic use of these terms in research can potentially shape the discourse and even direction of the study or research. This is a piece that merits close inspection for researchers of gay and lesbian topics.ki namaste contributes an investigation into the interdisciplinary nature of the field of gay and lesbian studies. In light of deconstructionist and critical theory, namaste claims there are political, practical, and theoretical underpinnings to working within the discipline, publishing work, or presenting at conferences with gay and lesbian themes. The marginalization within the academy for scholars contributing to gay and lesbian studies is as relevant today as it was when namaste wrote this piece. namaste says, "If we want to think about contesting, much less surviving, heterosexism in the academy, we need to consider how we have historically been marginalized (ignored) as well as how we are presently being marginalized (tokenism)" (p. 57).
Scholars in gay and lesbian studies are still often the red-headed step-children of their colleagues in their home disciplines. Few colleges and universities have yet to create formal Gay and Lesbian Studies Departments — often a Queer Studies department may exist, but more often than not, the Women's Studies or Gender Studies programs serve as the umbrella for gay and lesbian themes in academe.Arthur Flannigan-Saint-Aubin and Joseph Cady both contribute discussions incorporating homosexual themes in literature and text. Flannigan-Saint-Aubin investigates the queering of text and reclaiming themes that have been co-opted by more mainstream topics. Flannigan-Saint-Aubin also asserts that the homosexual identity informs the reading of text(s), in that individual sexual object choice can play a vital role in the interpretation of text. Cady asserts that teaching homosexual literature is a subversive act. Topics like homosexuality had been subverted for so long, that to teach literature with homosexual themes openly is to subvert that norm and reinvent homosexual literature as a more mainstream 'teachable' topic. The cultural notion of homosexualityas 'unspeakable' or 'untouchable' becomes subverted by the open confrontation of these themes in literature courses.
"Higher education has always been the hope of mankind, and the future of the world. Its job and mandate is to break through bigotry and fear and challenge students to see and understand the world and themselves both historically and dialectically" (p. 123). Jack Collins makes this assertion in his discussion of the creation of the first Gay and Lesbian Studies Department at an American college — at City College of San Francisco. The historical piece is a relevant contribution for anyone teaching in higher education who may want to approach the formation of such a department.
The contributions of Hekma, van der Meer, and Gammon are helpful to look at through a comparative, international lens. The Netherlands and Canada have unique issues not repeated in the United States, but the discussion of the creation, status, and condition of gay and lesbian studies departments in higher education in those settings is helpful and relevant for those using a critical, comparative framework.
Will Roscoe asserts the three critical forms for gay and lesbian studies in the future (today's present) are collection, image, and audience for the discipline. In essence, who will be included within the field, how those people will be perceived by themselves and others, and who will be the target market for such a discipline. These three forms are still relevant to the discussion of the field. The content and subject of the field, Roscoe asserts, will remain constant — and for the most part it has. But it is the form of the message — within the academy, in community-based programs, organically driven by individuals in the community itself — that will change.
I am not certain how much of this is true or has happened in various locales. I believe that the academy itself has changed — simply in the shear number of programs and faculty members now teaching in established Gay and Lesbian Studies Departments. Certainly, the community of New York public schools has spoken with the creation of the Harvey Milk School. Nine states, including Washington DC, now have laws protecting sexual orientation and/or gender identity in their Education Codes — making the young members of the community at least protected from, if not taught about, issues regarding homosexuality.Minton's collection of Gay and Lesbian Studies is informative and useful. Though sometimes dated, many of the contributions still have relevance and purpose for today's researcher. It would be too easy to pass off texts like this as outdated as opposed to simply 'dated.' The contributions provide a historical relevance and context to a fledgling discipline that, while still young, has experienced tremendous, often exponential, growth in such a short period of time. Many of the scholars quoted in the articles still inform the discipline today — their relevance and usefulness is still present and lived in the discipline. There is room for new scholars and new voices at the table. Perhaps a volume of texts with new voices might inform future scholars about the growth of the discipline and a proposed new future.
commenting closed for this article