Lesbian Studies After The Lesbian Postmodern

Abstract

While Lesbian Studies is established as a commodity in the academic marketplace, its disciplinary contours are rather more obscure-and even more problematically, its disciplinary genealogy remains somewhat crude. The dominant genealogy of Lesbian Studies might best be characterized as a 'collision model,' a battle between politics and theory, even though much existing scholarship draws on both Lesbian-Feminist Theory and Queer Theory.1 This article proposes that the tools and methods of a sub-field called 'Lesbian Cultural History' might be useful in generating other historical accounts of the origins and evolution of Lesbian Studies. Such a project is vital because the writing of our disciplinary History clarifies how we envision a disciplinary future.

Specificity without identity: Articulating post-gender sexuality through the “non-binary lesbian”

“…This either/or/between model in theory is repeated—sometimes earnestly, others critically—by nearly everyone speaking of lesbian identity’s discontents, as if the discovery of opposition and the suggestion of an overlapping middle path were the only approach. This fault does not sit squarely with lesbian studies: it is repeated by queer theorists (Doan, 2007; Garber, 2001; Stein, 1997). Although the reality is closer to a shared, messy genealogy with more in common than supposed, 2 queer theory often appears as the progressive rejection of essentialism to a fault.…”

The place of geography in lesbian history

“…This theoretical framework was used to explore the impact of certain texts such as the 1928 novel The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall (Doan, ) or legal pronouncements such as the “Cult of the Clitoris” scandal of 1918 (Medd, ). Laura Doan () argued that by connecting “the tools of historical inquiry, the theoretical strengths of Lesbian Cultural Studies and Queer Theory, and research methodologies of different disciplines” (p. 30), a new lesbian cultural history was possible. Part of Doan's logic was that work on the history of sexuality did need to remain grounded in archival research but should not jettison the potential of queer theory to open up new vistas for understanding.…”

“…And although Vicinus necessarily presents them as largely distinct paradigms, they tend to coexist rather than supersede each other. Nevertheless, one common critique of the various paradigms is that the first four tip perilously close to ahistoricism or else struggle to find meaningful evidence for their claims about women's erotic desires and sexual practices, Doan's () plea for scholars of sexuality to take “a trawl through the archives” notwithstanding (p. 30). However, there has been another way of re‐focusing on the specificity of lesbians' lives.…”