lek © CHAPTER 9 QUEER THEORY/LESBIAN AND GAY APPROACHES Gloria Fitax Department of Secondary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Canada Dennis Sumara Department of Secondary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Canada Brent Davis Department of Secondary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Canada Debra Shogan Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Albert, Canada Key concepts Gloria Filax and Oebra Shogan Queer theory addresses the problem of a avo-sex, (worgender, one-sexuality ordering, which aystemad cally categorizes and then divides humans into what counts as normal and deviant. The idea of manmae thas iotepral to understanding the significance of wer theory: Research processes that draw on qucer Y pay close artention to processes of normaliz. ition including those that construct categories of ace able-bodiness and age along with the content of hice, culture and time in researching experiences, scours and idence related t this normalizing Sesual order. Queer theory problematizes and histor foundational assumptions of all categories * human science research mostly takes for “4. Quece theory borrows from and has close *eortcal and pola! afliatons with feminis, gay 4 lesbian theories and studies. Inenducing the word ‘queet” into seademic dis. SRDS. stazests both a rupture as wel as continuity n't fhe older categories of lesbian and gar. (Queer, sd identification, was conference theorizin ven intellecrual g lesbian and gay he University of California, Santa n February 1990, The e "© premise that homosesusligy is no ‘defined either by opposition or hamology to Stable form of sesuality (heterosexual — 4 erence was based on, hucarde MMydls jute ty Proper or natural sexuality. Participants wete invited ‘o reconceprualize male and female homosewualites 8s social and cultural forms in their own right, cven if under-coded and discursively dependent on more established forms of sexuality. In the words of Teresa de Lauretis [Rather than marking the limits of the social space by designating a place atthe edge of eulture gay Sexuality in is specific Female and male cultural (or subcultural) forms acts as an agency of social Process whose mode of functioning is both inter- active and yet resistant, both participatory and yer clstinet, claiming at once equality and difference, demanding political epresencation while insisting fn is material and histcieal specificity. (1991; 3 While ‘queer’ has come t0 stand in subjectvities that defy ‘the normal, gy, bisexual, wanssexual a queer theory works to problematize, transgress of transcend the ideological bageage of distinctions produced by the tems lesbian, bomtosextal und pu “Queer is contentious and teined by ‘queer’ beesuse it is perceived to be range of lesbian, fuse to be con research, which has 4 perspective to social science ib and decors. Pose. serucrul theo provides chuqus of he neon rh ely / Doar) i aPARTI” RESEARCHING EOR IMPACT subject or individual and calls into question the stability or fxedness of categories that are normally assumed. Subjectivity represents the poststructuralise potion that a human being is formed or produced through discourse. Poststructuralist theories of sub- jectivity insise there is no fixed, unified, biological, ‘essential of prediscussive self, Instead human sub- jects are born into language, culture and discourse. How we call, at, chink, what i said, what ean be said, who is authorized ro speak, when and where, and the ways in which our lives are organized, constitute unified ways of thinking about chings, people, culture and events, An example of a discourse is gender, Gender is a systematic way of organizing and thinking about humans, which has the effect of producing male and female subjects. How bodies ace produced a5 male and female through discursive practices of gender include: ways of dressing, family arrangements, laws regarding who can marry and inherit, appropriate leisure and work activities, and emotional responses and responsbiltes. Discourses are multiple, overlap- ping, and contradictory. Queer theory is interested in hhow gender, sex, desire and sexuality organize all human behaviour including religion, education, family and kinship, polities, work and so on. By destabilizing categories, queer theoretical reworkings of poststuc- turalist theories of subjectivity reveal that human identity is a constellation of multiple and unstable positions. Four overlapping, principles operate in relation to queer theory L. Queer theory works to problematize identity categories by showing how the assumptions on which they are based are falsely normalizing, riffing, hom- ogenizing, naturalizing and covalzing. Queering the ‘norm or standard (Shogan, 1999) reveals the arbitrari- ress of all social categories. Further, queer theory shows how fixed categories lke lesbian or gay, even when these are used as a corrective to heteronor- mativity, leave heteronormative discourse unaltered and that ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ specify sexual identities that reproduce the ideology of heterosexual society. ‘The effect of these categories is to fx 2 normal ‘human identity in a ewo-ses, owo-gender, one-sexual orientation system in what Warner calls the ‘sexual order’ (1993: xx). Because the sexual order per- ‘meates all social institutions (Family, religion, work, leisure, law, education), challenging this order has the cffect of challenging common-sense ideology about what it means © be a human being. To theorize sexualities outside ofthe heterosexuality /homosexval- ity binary is to proliferate sexual categories, Bisexual- ity, transgender, transexuality, thied sex and queer straight are just some terms to caprure sexuality and. gender category proliferations, These, ia turn, ace proliferated by problematizing racial categories. Finally, it is because sexuality is so inevitably personal, because it so inextricably entwines the self with others, fantasy with representation, the subjective with the social, thar racial as well as gender differences are a crucial area of concern for {queer theory, and one where critical dialogue alone can provide & better understanding of the specific- ity and pardality of our respective histories, as well as the stakes of some common struggles. (de Laucetis, 1991: xi) To sexuality, cace and gender we add class, physicality, religion, age, colonial, postcolonial and euleure. Each of these is unstable and further destabilizes fixed sexual identities by proliferating categories. Differen ces are interlocking, producing hyphenated identities, Different perspectives, histories, experiences and dif ferent terms make crucial the reformulation of ques tions posed by queer theory. For example, tombs aad ‘sbi ix West Sumatra Blackwood, 1999) and tra: ‘pirted for some indigenous peoples in North America (Wilson, 1996) are contemporary categories informed by sexuality, culture, gender, colonialism, eacism, ethnocentrism and posteoloniaism, ‘Two theorists are of particular importance ia understanding the disruption of identity categorie Eve Sedgwick’s Bpiseoulay of the Chat (1990) ‘roubles the assumed connection between gender and sexuality as well as troubling the open secret of the closet, an awareness of the existence of homosexuality alongside exclusion, denial and silence about homo= | sexuality. Judith Butler's Gonder Trouble (1990) probe which prefgures 4 cultural gendes. 2 Quect theory works to problematize ive ‘natity 28 the dominating form of sexcality problemasization challenges and destablizes how a alization works by exposing incoherencies bet sender, chromoromal sex, sexuality and sexual de (agose, 1996: 3). Rather than sce heterosexuality the original or that fom which homosexuality d ates, both are seen as mutually productive of 6 another. They are both effects of cach of excisions Proc sesualty catego bnomal or dev which heterone everyday life, que religion, psychiae aciviy all embed and are normaliz Warner wites: I and Aterseson tc oourculture means idea of how wides are (1993: ai, 08 Proper age-stage educational, legu standard. family development in Queer theo sons ty po tng sd kin Speed fom leat tome ¢ sense Laue proce of i Ce camatiep tor sh dn fe en Ene Wes gy aetna vond dat need big a roca Sanaa to of oncom 82, Th equ ee Sra sbi 4. Queer theory forms of analysis, bis, deconstruction Fovcaule offers a Essibilty 970) ov » prea (1979) we “hich discourses ox © produce paricula Htor of Sexual, #578 in which hum, aS selves and oth sextal practioo a exclusions. Processes of normalization produce all other sexuality categories as outside the norm, thet is as slbnotmal or deviant. To understand the myriad ways in Which heteronormativity organizes and structures everyday life, queer theory explores how education, law, religion, psychiatry, family, and any other area of human activity all embed assumptions of what counts as normal and are normalizing mechanisms in human relations. As Warmer writes: ‘Realization that themes of lvmopbebia and drrowsci-may be tead in almost any document of ‘our culture means that we are only beginning ro have an idea of how widespread those institutions and accounts are’ (1993: xi, our emphasis). For example, accounts of| proper age-stage models of maturation embedded in educational, legal and family discourses. assume dard family form as well as normal sexual development in youth towards hetezosexulity 3. Queer theory opens up possibilities for human relations by producing and/or noticing other ways of living and thinking differences. The least known and presented forms of desize may produce new and sent forms of identity, community and social telations (de Lauretis, 1991), Living differently will be Productive of different sorts of hietatchies whose effects cannot be predicted in advance. For some, queer theory shuts down potential as it reproduces another generic identity: white, colonial, male, well-resourced, Euro-Western, gay, adult, United States. For others, queer is a word that cannot be reclaimed and symbolizes Forte forms of homophobia. Taking up queer theory obligates a researcher to work within what Hutcheon calls eanpltous ertige (1989) and Flax calls recogmiz- 3tion af one’s own con-nnactat forms of knowledge 1992), This requires researchers 10 be vigilant about how their own assumptions are aa ongoing site of contict, ambivalence and power/knowled, +. Queer theory mostly draws on thrce specific forms of analgsis. These are Feuaauldian sbi, desertion and paychoanadsis, uicaul offers a method which traces sovdiour 1970) or what he has termed a8 a dite of wit (1979) which reveals the myriad w discourses ovedlap and reinforce one oduce particular kinds of human subjects. In The ioe J, Foucaule (1980) deseribed ih human sciences of sexuality ereste an know the Truth about selves and others through “knowing? and con- #f sesual practices. Indeed, knowing one’s self Spemtve for people a QUEER THEORY/LESBIAN ANO GAY APPROACHES and others through sexual practices, ‘in modern Western culture fs} the most meaning intensive of hhuman activities” Sedgwick, 1990: 5). Through con- fessional technologies and their supporting, dis- courses, sexual identities are created and regulated which, in tur, are central to the constitution of the subject as both subject to and subject of sexual (and other) discourses (Foucault, 1980). Both identity and consciousness of identity take place in contexts that constrain available identity categories, To problemati: ze identity, then, is to interrogste ways in. which individuals take up identity categories, as well a5 ways in which categories are socially produced, In order for heterosexuality to function as the ‘normal, natural and given, it must have its abnormal, ‘unnatural, absent other: the homosexual. Both decon struction and psychoanalytic theory make it possible fo expose the ways in which heteronormativity is constructed through exclusion of the queet ‘ath. Deconstruction interzogates a eategory’s ‘construction 8 a pregiven or foundational premise” (Butler, 1992: 9) and demonstrates ‘how the very establish ment of the system as a system implies a beyond to it, precisely by virwe of what it excludes” (Cornell 1992: 1). Deconstruction ealls into question, problem” atizes and ‘opens up’ a category for ‘a reusage or redeployment that previously bas not been authori2~ ced’ (Butler, 1992: 15). Homosexuality is not a stable for autonomous term but a supplement to the defii- tion of the heterosexval. “The homosexual’ functions 48 a means of stabilizing heterosexual identity and, as such, is the limit or the beyond of ‘the heterosexual’ Psychoanalytic theory makes it possible to see “the inary sther whose famboyent lifference deflects attention from the contradictions inherent in the construction of heterosexuality. Often this deflection is through a demonization process in which the actions of queer people are always already perverse in the negative sense by virtue of being queer. Perverse actions then become the defining features of what is queer, Heterosesualty is able to thrive precisely by preserving and consolidating its internal contradictions a the same time as it preserves and consolidates ignorance of them, homosexual’ as an in Implications for research design Deanis Suara and Brent Dasies Research informed by queer theory can utilize many established social siePART lit” RESEARCHING Faw IMPACT Because queer theory is primarily interested in how ppaticular orderings of sexuality and gendering have been given primacy over others, the questions that guide research focus on bath the constrictions of and the experiences of personal and collective identities. ‘These questions might be sociological: how are gay, lesbian, transgendered and heterosexual identities socially structured and policed? How have capitalism and globalization influenced the development of 2 ‘wo-sex, two-gender, one-sexuality ordering? They might be anthropological: what meanings do those ‘who identify in different sexuality categories bring to thei daily, lived experiences? They might be histori= cal: what social and cultural circumstances have led to Particular views of sexuality and gender? Or psychoanalytic: how does trauma and repression contribute to the organizing of sexualized and gen- dered identities? While all these methods are used, most research informed by quece theory is primarily interested in expressing historical and cultural per- spectives: how do human beings experience the way sexuality and sexual identities are shaped by dis courses of race, class, gender, ete? How are these experiences of identity influential to che organization of societies and cultures? Research informed by queer theory generally views the posing of research questions, the development of data gathering activites and the processes of analysis, and interpretation as iterative and recursive. That is, all aspects of research informed by queer theory continue to shift as the research develops. For ‘example, in the ‘Stories from the Field’ section below, the research began with questions about how gay ane lesbian teachers develop their pedagogical practices but, over time, evolved eo include more fine-grained analyses of how minority sexuality categories can develop hierarchies of what is considered normal and deviant, Outcomes from esearch developed with queer ‘theory can be as varied asthe different methodologies employed. However, what all research shares is a ‘commitment t0 revealing the usually-not-perceived relationships berween experieaces of human sociality and culture, and expressions and experiences of sexuality, All outcomes of research informed by queer ‘heory must in some way uminate the ways in which sex, sexualities, sexual identities are both influenced by and influence individual and/or collective experi- ‘The outcomes of research informed by queer theory can be presented in what are now considered 4 to be taditional qualitative research forms (eg, anthropological or sociological reports, case stodies, reports of action research). However, in keeping with the queer theoretical imperative to interrupt status quo discourses and practices, the use of alternative representational forms such as literary, natrative, new journalism and other creative non-fiction that ate able to more fully represent the complexity of human identities is encouraged. Stories from the Field — troubling identities with literary forms: action research informed by queer theory. Dennis Sumara and Brent Davis : From 1995 to 1997 we conducted an action research project with cight teachers who identified as gay, lesbian and transsexual. The purpose of our research, ‘was (0 uy to gain some insight into what it meant to occupy a minority sexuality identity category and be a ppublic school teacher. All eight participants in che research were experienced teachers in a laqye Cana dian urban centre. Four were men, three were women and one was transsexual in the process of transition- ing from male to female. (Our reading of the theoretical literature in queer theory had suggested t0 us that we needed to create 1 research methodology that was collaborative and, at the same time, that remained critically aware of how collaboration, in itself, funccioned to reproduce struc: tures we were trying 0 interrogate. For us, this meant representation of the identities that paricpated in research processes, but, as well ofthe ways in which the forming of a research collective functions 1 reproduce particular sons of identities and not others ‘As well, we needed to create research proceses tht highlighted che complex ways in which identity consinuallyshife and proliferate through processes OF identification and representation, Therefor, although telephone aad face-to-face interviews were inal used t0 gather demographic and autobiogrphicl information about participants in the research these were not considered «9 be ceatal to out ‘da gathering. Instead, we aimed 10 create structures that we hoped snght hep all participant this collaborative research (including ourselves 36 presented hhuman bei poststructt the ways « discursive course of j teaching). C these insig devient bir Cal ng hich en cored ding tenga idenifcaton chalenged a Ived exper wo inepet Bligh ocmer sre of os these he posses & Jesopoingy” felons of spect Bones wea ‘mins ie pons wor torte bene Tasting Zant New Severed Hendin Poteeay Seu the were abe Bal end cas Parc Bo wee dsoowiedge"presented our identities as human beings and as Jhuman beings who were also teachers. Our reading of poststructural theories had helped us to understand the ways our identities were structured by various discursive practices (including, for example, the dis- course of gender, clas, race, age, ability, schooling, teaching). Our reading of queer theory had elaborated. these insights by reminding us that the normal/ deviant binary has been supported by 2 rwo-sex, * twoguar, ouccemaly ordering, which assumes the tania of a matow view of eteroneraly tod the "unnaraines of aay other presentation of deny that departs fom ih aonmalized version of buman tent. Following methods developed by Sumara (2002) we wed shard readings of Beary tens at ses for Ceiling in orde to ocerrup the ual ways in which denies are both expesienoed and re-pes- Cnied dating procstes of interpretive inguiy. These fradog scivises quired readers to foun lizary Henifcadons with charetrs and stations that challenged and expanded remembered and curenly Fred expec. By working with our co-esearchers to lnteqpet thse ltemryideadicatons, moments of insight occured tat often interupted the traneparent Sveum of our peroptions and our thinking, For fn these shed sesponses to leary ext crete posses for what Iser (1993) has Called "terary Inihrepology’— an interpretive scvity where the eonships among memory, history and experiences of subjectviny were made avalible for ana Because we all ead the same text, and ident in ‘rinorgy indy categories, we predicted that our tesponses would be sila OF couse, this proved oto be the cas. Tn eating and responding to Audee Lorde’ (1982) Zant A New Sling of My Nome, for example, we Aiscovered hat no. two members of out group enified simiadly. Not only were the responses osceably srucased by learned gender diferences, they were ako cleat influenced by the members? ‘aca and enic backgrounds. Some of te responses, Tricity from several male particpans of the - Sroup, were puzzling in that they seemed unable to acknowledge chat anget and frustration was very "Buch part of the experience of women depicted in ‘henovel, As Jim explained jest don't understand why che main character is always so angry. Surely, things were aot as bad for ‘women as is suggested. Even if they were, I chink 9 QUEER THEORY/LESBIAN AND GAY APPROACHES thar maybe some of what she is experiencing she is binging on herself. Here it became clear that, although some male ‘members of the group expressed the need to unite ‘under the banner of same-sex identification, many of their responses were structured by @ profound and largely unnoticed (by them) misogyny. The women in the group, however, did notice and, for them, these responses conficmed past experiences with gay men. As Jan explained: T guess I shoulda’t be surprised by some of the things T hear from the men in the group. I mean, that’s one of the seasons that lesbians must have their own communities. Gay men can be just as sexist as straight men. ‘These curious experiences of identification and non- Identification continued in our group's reading and iscussion of Califia’s (1995) shor story, ‘The surprise party, where we learned thet personally familiar erotic identifications can become restructured by literary identifications: As Sandy explined: “After reading this story, T had some vividl dreams thae include tex of the kind the characters had in the story ... I didn’t think thar T could be interested in that kind of sex. ‘These responses 0 literary fiction informed our understanding about the relationships between and among expressed and experienced idencies, regulated tnd disciplined forms of socialry, and experiences of pleasure, desice and imagination. Although it is obvious that human beings experience events of identification and pleasure that are not necessarily understood as ‘normally’ heterosexual, the various technologies of regulation around gender and sexval- ity force open. secrets about what constiutes both identification and pleasure. And, although ‘the closet? is usually understood 35 che place where queer ‘identities simultaneously hide and make themselves comprehensible to themselves, we suggest that the closets boundaries must be understood ro include the polymorphous ways ia which identification and pleas- ure are produced. Its important to note that we used {queer theory to analyse any identity that defines itself a counterto-aormative constructions of heterosex- vali, including those who sexually identify with members of the opposite sex and/or geader, but notPART III RESEARCHING FOR IMPACT jin ways that are heteronormative, If sexuality is understood as a category of experience that emerges from various and overlapping technologies of selé- creation and re-creation, then the cultural mythologies ‘of what constitutes the categories that are understood 2s ‘normal’ ~ particularly the category heterosexual — must be estially interrogated, ‘At fist, calling into question the construction of heterosexuality seemed easy for those of us in the research group who identified with minority sexuality positions. As we discussed our responses to literary characters who identified as both heterosexual and ‘nor-heterosexual’ we were able to deconstruct the ‘ways in which what is considered a ‘normal hetero- sexual’ identity is represented in almost every struc ture that we could identify, including everyday uses of language. What we eventually came to learn, however, was that ‘normalization’ occurs at every level of clare, including the gay, lesbian and cultaral groups with which we identified. ‘Most surprising in this research were insights chat ‘emerged from the presence of Tersy, our transsexual research group member. In her mid-fifties, Tetry joined our group in the middle of her three-year programme of transitioning from a male to female ‘identity. Terry suggested to us that her 25 year history as a husband and a father meant that she had had no. history of involvement with the gay and lesbian ‘communities and therefore felt like an outsider in our group. During most meetings, Tesry continually at- tempted to represent the ways in which she did and did not identify with male/female gender systems or ‘with straight/gay identity categories. During one of ‘our meetings, Terry suggested that if our group was to be called the ‘queer teachers study group’ then she was the ‘queerest’ of us all, ‘The primary challenge for those of us who initiated this research and who were most familiar with the theoretical scructures that guided the methodologies ‘we were using, was to continually publily surface and analyse the ways in which our research was reproduc- ing the very normative structares that we were tying to both understand and undermine, As our group continued to meet, it became clear that the ‘aormal/ snot-normal’ binary was being created in our group — those who presented unambiguous gay or lesbian identities and Terry who presented a much mote fluid and ambivalent identity — one that continued to have features (both physiological and psychological) shift ss she moved through her sex-reassignment transi tion. Some members of our group confided privately {0 us that they were not comfortable having Terry in a ‘our group: ‘transsexe 0 other iden ‘She continues to iist that she is a woman and eee Tm trying to see her that way. But she continues ee to respond to the women ia the group like a man, endfeas. and she insists chat she was a heterosexual man, reproducth Wel, I just can’t accept that! To me, Temy is just farce fot 2 woman and never will be, no matter what eee sorts of surgical and hormonal interventions are pata = =o hich we b ‘Tenry had her own responses to the group: You all seem 10 be so sute about your identities and you seem to have friends and activities that Annot: support who you are. Ihave aone of that. When vwas martied and rising children I did not feel ike Abelove, H, Twas a ‘proper heterosexual man and now that Fm This is an « doing what feels right to me, I don’ feel like I'm a essential re: ‘proper’ member of this queer research group. Butler, J. (16 ‘ern’s presence in our research group helped us Taking up ce understand how strong the impulse to cxeate fixed sex are identicy categories can be, and how easy it is for ‘moment in ic individuals and groups to make decisions about what De Lauretis, counts as a ‘normal’ identity and what will be Atigh, isi designated ‘devient. While all members of our te: search group identifed as activists forthe civil ights Duberman, M of all members of society, we continued to make This edited be judgements about how the normal/not-aoemal bin ‘theory and m was to be structured within our study/cete group. ‘These issues were never fully resolved. members continued to feel dissonance with different ways identities and experiences were ented within the context of group meetings, Ho in final interviews with Sumara, it was clear th everyone had a much more well-developed conscious ness of how processes of normalization are rep duced at all levels of cultural involvement, even there is an awareness of how these structures created and enacted. As persons who ident ‘queer’ and who were also teachers, we realized. ‘we needed to abandon the idea that we could de neat line between different ways pet i Foucault, M, ( A key readin; ‘Soualized ide 0 correspone knowledge an, Fabelled norm: Hommonds, . this research showed us was that aot only co not make a cortelation between features experienced and expressed identities, but couldn't even be certain that we knew exactlyCo 9 QUEER THEORY/LESBIAN ANO GAY APPROACHES meant when we used signifiers like ‘gay’, lesbian’, for ourselves. In otder to conduct research that is sexual” or ‘heterosexval’ to sepresent our and informed by queer theory, we leamed that we as cother identities, While these identity markers did help researchers must consciously and conscientiously con- fo connect us with historical and contemporary tinue to queer the ways in which we are involved in cultures and communities, at the same time, close language forms that explicidy aim to produce hetero idemification with any of them seemed to require a normativity. For us this did not mean merely bringing reproduction of processes of normalization that we, aerial eye and ear to the ways in which language 4 petsons working within a qucer theoretical frame- and cultural pracces function to produce normalized work, simed to avoid. However, we did learn that identities. Ie also meant creating research structares participating in literary identifications helped us to that deliberately aimed to interrupt familiar ways of render more visible the usually transparent ways in preseating, representing, and interpreting knowledge ‘which we both identified others and created identities and knowing identities. Annotated bibliography Abelove, H, Barale, M. and Halperin, 0, (eds) {1993} The Lesbion and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge This is an early edited and comprehensive volume (7 sections, 42 chapters, 666 pages), which includes essential readings from work in lesbian, gay and eatly queer studies and theory Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge. Taking up deconstruction, psychoanalytic theory and Foucauldian discourse analysis, Butler shows how gender and sex are productive of one another, effectively disrupting the notion that sex is a prior and more biological ‘moment in identity formation De Lauretis, Te. (1991) ‘Queer theory: lesbian and gay sexualities: an introduction, differences, 32): tev Atight, insightful introduction to the interface between queer, lesbian, gay and feminist theory and studies, Duberman, M. (ed.) (1997] A Queer World, New York: New York University Press, This edited book (5 sections, S2 chapters, 705 pages) showcases a range of scholarship which ombraces queer theory and methods, Foucault, M. (1980) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction, New York: Vintage. ‘key reading in which Foucault traces the conditions of possiblity that have given rise to moderisms’ Sexualzed identities and subjectivities, rior to the mid-nineteenth century diverse sexual practices existed but no corresponding identities. With the rise af the human sciences (scientia sexualis), both an accumulation of knowledge and a continuous refining of detail about identity categories were linked to behaviours which were labelled normal or deviant, and became fixed, hardened and productive of forms of human identities, Hammonds, E, (1997) ‘Slack (w]holes and the geometry of black female sexuality, in £. Weed and N. Schor (eds), Feminism Meets Queer Theory. Sloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 136-S6. This article critiques the hegemony of white thinking in queer theory. Essential reading pointing to the Possibilities and limits of existing scholarship. Jegose, A. [1996] Queer Theory: An Intraduction, New York: New York University Press Excelent overview of the history of thinking from lesbian and gay studies which Inform as well as remain Sistine from queer studies. The tensions, problems and strategie reasons of the perennial debate within queer Communities Between integration (fitting in} and separation are reviewed. Sedguick, EX, (1990; The introduction is absolutely essential © much queer research, istemology of the Closer, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ding, setting out Sedgwick’s six axioms which have become centralPART Ill RESEARCHING FOR IMPACT Sumara, 0. and Davis, 8. (1999) ‘nterupting heteronormativty: toward a queer curriculum theory, Curriculum Ingury, 29(2}: 191-208, This article interupts education as usual by applying queer theory to questions regarding curiulum. The authors demonstrate how interrupting heterenormative thinking is important to both social justice fssues and broadening possibilities for interrupting singular and familiar pattems of thinking Wilson, A. {1996] ‘How we find ourselves: identity development and Two-Spirt people’, Harvard Educational Fevew, 66: 303-17, This article points to the intersection of sexuality stusies, aboriginal cultural practices and colonial legacies, showing how these cannot be understood separate from one another. This article is important because of the disruption to dominant white narratives and research in sexvaity studies Further references Blackwood, E. (1998] ‘Tombois in West Sumatra: constructing masculinity and erotic desite, in E. Blackwood ‘and S. Wieringa (eds}, Same-Sex Relations and Female Desires. New York: Columbia Unversity Press, pp. 181-205 Butler, J. £992] ‘Contingent foundations in J. Butler and J, Seot (eds], Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge, pp. 3-2. Califia, P. (1995) The surprise party, in P. Califia and J. Fuller (eds], Forbidden Passages: Whitings Banned in Canada, San Francisco, CA Cleis Press, pp. 110-24. Corel, D. (1982) The Philosophy of the Limit. New York: Routledge Flax, J. (1992) ‘The end of innocence’ in J Butler and J. Scat (eds), Feminists Theorize the Potical. New York: Routledge, pp. 445-63, Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. rans. A. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M, (1973) Discipline and Punish trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage. Hutcheon, L, (1989) The Politics of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge. Iser, W. (1993) The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lorde, A. (1982) Zami: A New Spelling of My Nome, Freedom, CX: Crossing Press. Shogan, . (1999} The Moking of High-Performance Athletes. Toronto: Unversity of Toronto Press ‘Sumara, D. (2002) Creating commonplaces for interpretation: literary anthropology and literacy education research, Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2): 237-60. Warner, M, (1994) ‘Introduction, in M. Warner (ed), Fear of o Queer Planet. Winneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press