Analyzing talk in a long-term literature discussion group: Ways of operating within LGBT-inclusive and queer discourses

Blackburn, Mollie V., & Clark, Caroline T. (2011). Analyzing talk in a long-term literature discussion group: Ways of operating within LGBT-inclusive and queer discourses. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 222-248.

What struck me most in this interesting and challenging article was the power of literature. Blackburn and Clark captured the talk of a group of adults and young people for whom literature with Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered (LGBT) themes and characters served as a springboard for deep conversations about what our sexuality really means and how those meanings are enacted in our lives. Even though these conversations were had by individuals who had opened themselves to viewpoints beyond traditional heterosexism (they all were members of groups openly committed to fighting homophobia), still, much of the talk was uncomfortable for the participants, and at times probably disturbing. A lot of dissonance was obviously stirred up in these discussions, which spanned a three year period and covered a large collection of texts, which were largely chosen by the young people in the group. There were 32 individuals who participated during the 20 meetings that occurred (due to technical difficulties there were a total of only 18 transcripts of tapes), though only two of these participants (the two authors, Blackburn and Clark) attended all 20 meetings. In fact, looking at the breakdown of group participants over the entire three years (made possible by data shared with us in Table 2 on p. 227) reveals that not many participants were consistent members of the group. Only a few members besides the authors attended more than half of the sessions, though there is a good handful of members who attended between five and eight sessions. Having been the facilitator of an ongoing study group for several years, I understand the challenges of getting people to participate regularly, and the realities here do not diminish the authors’ findings (though I wish they had commented on that). One simply has to bear in mind that the patterns seen here were derived from a group membership that obviously fluctuated a good deal across time. That does not mean the categories the authors derived from the data are not valid.

There was much for me to learn as I entered the world of LGBT and queer discourse analysis here. The names of these two theoretical lenses were in themselves challenging for me. I want to use terminology that is correct and inclusive. A young student of mine helped me think about the term LGBT and why we use that precise term. The term “queer” is less well known to me and threw me a bit. I’ve always considered that term as a derogatory one, and it is treated here as a term that labels an alternative lens to the LGBT-inclusive lens; the latter of the two is the one I am more familiar with. The authors made it clear that these two terms represented two distinct ways of viewing discourse about sexuality, that they themselves embraced the discourse they called “queer” as superior to “LGBT-inclusive”, though they acknowledged that both discourses could be either “oppressive” (read: bad) or “liberatory” (read: good), and that the discussion participants (who represented a range of various sexual identifications) moved between the two discourses a good deal. My confusions with the terminologies and the distinctions which the authors treat as fairly obvious could come from my limited familiarity with the literature in which this study is grounded. Although perhaps one might assume that readers who would be attracted to an article titled as this one is, and in a research journal at the high level of sophistication that this one is, would likely be steeped in the vocabulary used here, the fact that I am reading and struggling with this article is evidence that not all readers would necessarily be steeped. Some background into the vocabulary and how these terms came into usage in this line of inquiry would have been helpful for me and would have made the article more meaningful.

All that aside, though, I was impressed by the sustained nature of this effort to bring people together over literature that deals with difficult themes. It is useful to examine the nature of the language we use when we talk about people and about their deepest feelings. In my view, the important thing is that everyone has the freedom to be who they really are, and to discover who they are freely, and without risk. Language, even when well-meant, can shut those freedoms down. For example, talk that “universalizes” all experiences, and states some version of the idea that we really are all alike as human beings, can actually be oppressive and contribute to a sense of “otherness.” We really are not all alike, and that is OK! Yes, we seek connections with one another, but our individuality is important. Minimizing that uniqueness minimizes us. The desire that everyone be alike can lead those who really do not feel they are the same to hide and enact non-transparent entities that change according to the demands of the specific context. These kinds of complexities appear to have been explored in depth during the discussion groups described here.

Finally, I was struck by the fact that these discussion groups did NOT occur in a school setting, but rather in an after-school time frame at a non-school location. I assume some of the youth involved were minors, so I wonder how informed consent was secured, but we are told nothing about that here. Although there are some brave (some would say foolhardy) teachers who have attempted to bring LGBT-themed literature into K-12 settings, that does not occur very often. Even though societal attitudes toward individuals who do not identify as heterosexual have broadened some in recent years, if the media and popular culture are any indication, heterosexism is still the norm in our society and in our schools, and often even homophobia is the norm, though that is less accepted, at least on the surface. I know that in my own metropolitan area, introducing literature like the books listed in this article in a classroom would provoke a strong reaction and could even be professional suicide. That is probably just as true in Ohio, where this research was conducted. One might get away with a light dabbling in this literature with the oldest high school students, but not much besides that. Maybe one day we will be able to do more, but I doubt if I will see that any time soon.