Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Uncovering The Queer Anthology
Uncovering The Queer Anthology
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
NWSA Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
De Paul University
The "Call for Submissions" has assumed iconic, even ironic proportionsin
lesbian circles. A recent issue of the venerable lesbian (literary)journal
Sinister Wisdom posted six anthology notices under its regular column
"Calls for Submission" requesting materials on such disparate topics as
"multicultural lesbian relationships," "Arab feminists," "'eating out'
while dining in," "women with facial hair," "brother-sisterincest," and
"gay/lesbian/queerprison anthology. '' These various Calls are representa-
tive of those found in anthologies displayed at the local "alternative"
bookstore; what they have in common is the condition of topicality. No
theme, issue, or "special interest group" is immune to the allures of
collective publication. I myself published two poems in a highly specific
anthology indicatively titled Cats (and their Dykes), after responding to
the siren "Call." Irene Reti and Shoney Sien, the editors of that collection,
have published at least three others between them-making a veritable
careerof anthologizing. They are not alone. Lesbian (andgay male) readers
buy these communal texts. What is the allure? This essay scrutinizes the
"anthologistic principle," through textual and cultural manifestations, as
a quasi-radicalyet efficacious "queer phenomenon."
The relative virtues of the anthology as a generic entity are suggested by
parsing the term "anthology": it stems from two Greek roots, anthos
(flower) and logia (collecting), rendering the New Latin anthologia, a
collection of epigrams. The modern anthology, then, consists of a "se-
lected" collection of texts, usually circumscribed by a single genre or
theme. In this textual garden, each work stands as an attractive bloom
worthy of individual (aesthetic) consideration. The horticulturalistic
editor weeds, selects, prunes, and displays the verbal flowers within the
context of a grand schema, a grounds plan often intimated by a prefatory
text. The readeris intended to understand that the editorial selection and
presentation process has resulted in an amalgam of only blue-ribbon texts,
organized into a volume which in some way "readswell" cover to cover.
The particular organizational schema of an anthology depends on the
purposes and "vision" of the editor(s);the principle may be item-to-item
variety, chronological order of composition, comprehensive coverage of a
topical field, and so on. Overall, each anthology effects two simultaneous
yet divergent (readerly) impulses: the foci on discrete texts and the
panoramic view of the melange.
The general "quality" of an anthology thus appears to hinge on the
talents of its editor(s) to select and arrangematerials. The editor acts in
coverageof both lesbian and gay male news, plus the occasionaljoint
interestitems (oftenlegalistic),an individualpublication'sbalancetended
to tilt towardone groupor the other.4The nationallesbianandgaymedia
hadmaintainedgender-distinctprofiles. OUT/LOOKbridgedthe gender
gap,thoughnot without hostilities. Perusinglettersto the editoroverits
not quite twenty issue lifespan,I notedlesbianscomplainingof gaymen's
graphicmaterial(e.g.,by Tom of Finland)andgay men decryinglesbians'
political correctitude(e.g.,re Tom of Finland).Yet the hybridizedmaga-
zine did manageto printroughlyequivalentquantitiesof writingsgeared
specificallyto lesbians and to gay men along with articles of collective
interest, all of roughlyequivalentliteraryand intellectual "quality,"for
aboutfouryears. OUT/LOOK succumbedin 1992,to financialpressures
ratherthan to genetic defects, but not beforehaving had a noticeable
impacton lesbianandgay (serial)publishing.
This essayneednot presenta detailedhistoryof lesbianandgayactivity
even duringthe past decade;however,I must note that OUT/LOOK's
pioneering"dualformat"arosein the late 1980s,a decadecharacterized by
the (ongoing)AIDScrisis andcoalition-buildingAIDSactivism. Numer-
ous AIDSorganizations,particularlyACT-UPchapters,have countedgay
men and lesbiansamongtheirmembers,and"suddenly"lesbiansandgay
men discoveredcommonground,commonissues, andcommongoals(i.e.,
overcomingmutual oppressions).5The National Gay and LesbianTask
Forcehasbecomea powerfulinclusiveorganization,as haveLambdaLegal
Defense Fund and the Human Rights CampaignFund. However,the
political ups and downs of "thirty- or forty-something,"mostly white,
middleclass lesbian/gayactivists in the eightieshave not told the whole
story. While we babyboomershave been caughtup with AIDSand civil
rights, a youngergenerationof lesbian and gay youth has reachedits
majority,forgingtrendsin outsizedclothes,brashmusicalstyles, andever
bolder activist modes, moving from punk to grungeto hip-hop. The
coalescenceof Queer Nation is loosely attributedto discontentwithin
ACT-UP;the newer group sports a younger,hipper (punker?),louder,
angrierimage,exemplifiedby its very name.6
Twenty-fiveyears ago "queer"was a vulgar synonym of "homo,"
"bulldagger,""fag,""dyke,""fruit,"and "lezzie"uttered only in con-
temptuous condemnation,most often by straights.7 Since Stonewall,
mainstreamactivistshavechampionedthe use of "gay"-with its positive
connotations-to signify "homosexual,"thoughthe wordhas contracted
to meanprimarily"gaymen." Many(ifnot all)gayfemaleshavepreferred
the term "lesbian." Now, QueerNation has undertakento reclaimthe
word "queer"fromthe homophobes,a difficultrecuperationdesignedto
empowerus by means of our "otherness."Yet this new "us"denotesa
new, differentpopulationas well. QueerNation and like-mindedindi-
viduals have adoptedthe term "queer"to indicate not only its "tradi-
tional" homosexual referents, lesbians and gay men, but also bisexuals and
transsexuals of both sexes, transvestites of all genders, sadists and masoch-
ists, fetishists of various stripes, even "friendly" straights: a veritable
horde springing from the cultural substrata.8 Postmodern novelist Kathy
Acker and perennial Beat provocateurWilliam Burroughs,raucous colum-
nist Michelangelo Signorile and critic/theorist Teresa de Lauretis have all
appeared under the "queer" rubric. Already famous for her gay (male)
criticism, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick now identifies herself as a "perverse
reader"and attempts to delineate the theoretical and practical semiotics of
"queer"in a recent essay (242). In its new currency "queer"has come to
signify anyone "other," different, marginal, or (especially sexually) per-
verse, identifying the "abnormal" as positive element via a (perverse)
binaristic relation to "normal" society.
Clearly, a self-identifying "queer"constituency exists. However, I am
ambivalent about whether I am myself a member of this amoebic group,
other than in the opinion of rabidhomophobes who remain ignorant of the
reinvested usage. At some chimerical moment since adolescence, I may
have ceased to be an "AngryYoungMan" type (neverhaving been a "young
man" at all surely hastened the transformation).9Unaware of current pop
bands, I am suddenly two fashion fads behind ... indeed, I am over thirty.
Quelle horreur. What'sworse, I'm somewhat comfortable. Having learned
to utter "lesbian" aloud in nearly any social situation without turning
green, I confront a new sociolinguistic challenge. In 1978, my sister
responded to my request for a goodbye kiss with the tongue-in-cheek
"what are ya, queer?" "Yeah,"I replied. "Gimme a kiss." We laughed.
Subsequently, I've told this story to illustrate object lessons ranging from
familial open-mindedness to in-group contextualization of language. I
have called myself "queer."
But saying "queer" is one relatively easy thing; believing it is quite
another. Alisa Solomon has defined the current sociopolitical "split in the
lesbian community [sic]-between women whose analysis of sexuality
was based on a model of oppression and victimization, and [younger]
women whose model is Madonna[,jan emblem of autonomy and sexual
taboo. [The older] generation rebelled against patriarchy;the 'new' lesbi-
ans are rebelling against us" (213). PerhapsI "betray"my lesbian-feminist
roots-or even my bar-dyke upbringing-when I admit suspicion of the
"queer" conclave; can I honestly pronounce my political and social soli-
darity with everyone that "queer"now implicates? The pending ambiva-
lence expresses a function of the politics of collective marginality, for
"queer"gathers together groupsand individuals precisely by virtue of their
difference, from "normal" society and from each other. Is "difference"a
sufficient basis for social identity, for group coherence?
The most widely accessible (textual) artifacts of the queer constituency
include-no surprise-three anthologies published in 1991 and '92. Exam-
Not only have the "ideological liabilities" been retained; they have multi-
plied. To "transgress,"to "walk over," is not the same as "flying above and
beyond," "transcending."
Textual praxis can, in a sense, artificially "transcend"material praxes,
because text inhabits a "different"space; mutual influences are possible,
but the materiality of texts has no independent affective power. Texts can
only affect or alter material "reality"through a reader'sagency. In "queer"
textuality, we see an ultimate example of semantic "problematiz[ation]":
shifting, multiple referents lumped under a single, (negatively) marked
sign, resulting in multiple sociopolitical, material, "readerly"dilemmas.
to which I now belong than I was when in their position. Yet I detect that
this "new" ageism is a specious, selective one-Cooper, the forty-year-old-
male editorial authority, is okay-and I am alarmed to observe this
youthful bias correlated with proud ignorance of history, offhanded mi-
sogyny, and a generalized, nonspecific hatred ... of unknown persons. If
this is the new "unity" of the "queer" collectivity, supposed to valorize
difference, it is a sham. This particulate "unity" comprises just one more
xenophobic example of the "Us vs. Them" mentality; the only evident
difference is that the "us" has skipped a generation. That is, this "queer
us" in-group has unknowingly adopted a radical position counter to what
is perceived as the conservative "lesbian and gay" (andstraight) Establish-
ment by allying with if not the persons, then assuredly the ideas of the
radical generation one step removed. Though they don't know it, they're
saying "fuck the hippies, the gay libbers, the lesbian feminists" of the baby
boom and "hurrahfor the doped, violent, woman-hating beatniks" of the
preceding generation: hence the inclusion of William Burroughs'swork in
High Risk and the allusive Discontents transcript title "Naked Lunch."
What's queer here in this cluster of (literaryand cultural)phenomena is the
"queernation" perception that "their" (cynical) ideals are new. Old news
is no news, as "they" say.
So I confront a most difficult issue. When I buy and read these queer
anthologies, economically supporting both mainstream publishing and
the writers and editors of texts I sometimes find politically offensive and
aesthetically disgusting, do I simply fulfill the cynical suspicions of
younger "queers" who reject my age-enabled consumerism? Do I now
echo my own parents' condemnations of the counterculture of twenty five
years ago? Or is this situation (sociohistorically) different? I think so. My
parents still perceive me, their lesbian daughter, as a compulsive radical.
They never read Malcolm X or listened to JeffersonAirplane or absorbed
feminism. That stuff was alien, truly other to them, by choice. Today,I am
keenly aware of a youth culture in which I cannot be a full participant, and
I am influenced by the new "queer"agenda, the "queer theory," the most
recent rejection of capitalist, dualist material culture. But I don't like it,
not all of it. I cannot condone without reservations a divided, even divisive
queer "unity" that freely embraces hate; I might prefer to maintain a
primary identification with the lesbian nation to which I truly belong-if
one could only define who is a "true lesbian," that is. The materiality of
texts permits production of the "queeranthology" as a "coherent" whole,
but life cannot always follow art. The "queer anthology" does not offer a
viable sociocultural model for identity per se.
Yet that is precisely what the queer anthologies are selling-particu-
larly to the general public. A mainstream reader of Discontents, High
Risk, or Indivisible who is unaware of lesbian or gay community realities
may easily draw the conclusion that these broadly inclusive texts do
articulate the "state of the (queer)union." What a lesbian readerinterprets
Notes
4. In Chicago today, for example, it's generally perceived that the Windy City
Times, a weekly paper, caters to the gay male reader, while Outlines, a
monthly paper, and its weekly sibling Nightlines appearto favor the lesbian
reader-nonpartisan disclaimers notwithstanding. One reliable guide to
readershipis the gender/sex breakdown of a publication's Personals section.
6. For a detailed discussion of Queer Nation's genesis in the US and the UK, see
Smyth 17-28. This pamphlet also provides a review of "queer" politics for
approximately the past century.
7. The word "queer"is of unknown origins; the OED dates it to 1508, Webster's
Ninth to 1812 as a noun signifying "homosexual." Key words in the principal
Webster's definition specify its negative, "marked" denotations: eccentric,
unconventional, odd, mildly insane, obsessed, worthless, counterfeit, ques-
tionable, suspicious: "1 d: sexually deviate; HOMOSEXUAL-usu[ally] used
11. In line with their corporate size, Plume sells these two trade-paperback
anthologies for $9.00 (High Risk) and $10.95 (Indivisible); the Amethyst book
is $12.95, perhapsreflecting higher overheadfor materials and marketing and/
or a limited distribution network-it's also about 75 pages longer than the
others' 300-page average. Plume enjoys wide mainstream distribution.
12. The six "notables"named on the cover of High Risk are KathyAcker, William
S. Burroughs, Mary Gaitskill, Dennis Cooper (of the later Discontents),
Dorothy Allison, and Essex Hemphill: boy-girl, boy-girl. These authors hold
wider reputations in the mainstream, perhaps, than "the 19 others," though
GaryIndiana,Pat Califia, and KarenFinley are certainly not unknown figures.
Authorial "cross-fertilization" occurs among the three books: High Risk
(1991) shares one author with Indivisible and seven with Discontents, includ-
ing editor Cooper, of 25 authors (32%);Indivisible includes one present in
High Risk and two in Discontents, of 24 authors (one of its editors also appears
as an author);Discontents: New Queer Writersincludes six writers previously
published in High Risk alongside editor Cooper, and two who appeared in
Indivisible, of 59 authors. Indeed, I'd hardly call "new" such lesbian "discon-
tents" as Dorothy Allison, Alison Bechdel, or SarahSchulman, among others,
who have published books!
13. Does high-visibility front cover position for the one male critic balance the
back cover status of the two female critics? Maybe.
15. The AIDS-oriented title High Risk posits a specious association between
dangerous (gaymale) sexual behaviors and (anyone's)illicit social behavior(s),
enacting a flip-flop positive valuation of modern death culture.
16. Noxema et al. note that Cooper split a $1000 fee among the writers, amount-
ing to $20 each.
17. Perhaps it is enough for us to recognize and negotiate our (multiple) differ-
ences from each other-not that we've done this successfully so far. Dorothy
Allison's work appears in two of the three queer anthologies this article
examines, and her nonfiction essays have exerted a powerful influence on my
thinking. In Skin: Talking about Sex, Class and Literature Allison reiterates
the sad fact that "even" among lesbians, the differences between "sub-sub-
groups"have been stultifying, volatile, impossible to resolve even for the sake
of political solidarity. The vicious battle still ragingbetween lesbian/feminist
"pornographers"and feminist "censors," the never-ending "Sex Wars,"illus-
trates how the (received)meaning of texts exceeds control. Authorial inten-
tions undergo erasure once the text is subjected to readerlyintentionality; no
cover blurb or editorial introduction can entirely condition and delimit the
reception and interpretation of texts.
Responding to my recommendation of Skin, a lesbian-feminist acquaintance
recently informed me that she had no intention of reading Dorothy Allison's
new book, indeed had not readher last book, and did not anticipate readingher
future books-the refusal impartedin a voice drippingwith disdain. The back
cover copy of Skin remarksthat "[Allison] addresseswhat it means to be queer
and happy about it in a world that is still arguing just what it means to be
queer." I suspect my acquaintance has no desire to learn just what Allison
means by saying she's "queerand happy," which strikes me as conventionally
(hegemonically?) narrow-minded.
WorksCited