Reviews / Comptes rendus

Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology. By Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap, eds. (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 2002. Pp. 329, ISBN 0-252-07076-3, pbk.)[Notice]

  • Kate Bride

…plus d’informations

  • Kate Bride
    Memorial University of Newfoundland
    St. John’s

Given the modest presence of lesbian and gay and/or queer studies in folklore, at least in some institutions, I read this book with great curiosity and expectation. A companion volume to Out in the Field, an exploration of lesbian and gay experiences in anthropology, Out in Theory presents lesbian and gay anthropology as a “distinct” area of study and addresses the theoretical issues that have defined, and continue to define, the emerging field. The history of gay and lesbian studies in the social sciences makes this book worth the read, as do some of the complex and very interesting essays that grapple with issues such as power, gender, sexuality, poverty, archeology, and sex. Because of the varied nature of this collection, I feel it is worth offering brief overviews of each chapter. At the outset, this collection includes a forward by Esther Newton, an introduction by the editors, followed by eleven chapters from various scholars interested in gay and lesbian and/or queer studies. In the forward Ester Newton praises the scholarly work of anthropologists who have been central to the emergence of lesbian and gay studies in the field, and makes clear that Out in Theory is an important and advancing collection. In their introduction, the editors call Outin Theory “a moment of disciplinary reflection.” Arriving six years after Out in the Field (1996), Lewin and Leap suggest that Out in Theory has helped to create a professional visibility in anthropology and a link between lesbian and gay studies and the overarching American Anthropological Association (AAA). Out in Theory takes a step further by addressing the kinds of theoretical dilemmas that lesbian and gay anthropologists are taking up. In Chapter one Gayle Rubin acknowledges anthropology as a discipline that has expanded and grown over the years, and restates the disconnection between anthropology’s strong intellectual contribution to academia and its weak institutional presence in gay and lesbian studies. Rubin contextualizes the ethnographic study of gay, lesbian, and “other minority sexual populations” in urban centers of North America and looks at the ways in which early anthropological and other social science scholarship contributed to the articulation of new theories and paradigms of sexuality in the 1970s. In Chapter two Evelyn Blackwood explores two polar theories of sexuality articulated in the 1970s and 1980s: sexuality as a male-defined institution as suggested by “radical feminists,” and the masculinist scholars model based on men’s sexual practices. Blackwood ponders the ways in which these theories are complicated by ethnographic studies of women’s same-sex sexualities. For instance, by addressing women’s relationships in particular communities Blackwood disrupts the radical feminist assertion that lesbian relationships are forms of resistance by showing that many of these relationships are deeply meshed in the social fabric. Like Rubin and Blackwood, Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy grounds her work in the history of anthropological studies by offering a narrative of why anthropology was important to her in co-writing her 1993 Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of the Lesbian Community (Routledge). Nine years later Lapovsky Kennedy argues for the importance of anthropology’s contributions to gay and lesbian studies. Recognizing that anthropology was “ridden with homophobic skewing of social facts and homophobic interpretation” (99), the author reminds us of the importance of feminisms and gay and lesbian community studies that aided in opening some of the minds and hearts of anthropologists in and outside of the academy. In “Another Unhappy Marriage? Feminist Anthropology and Lesbian/Gay Studies,” Ellen Lewin makes use of the straight(forward) marriage metaphor to think about the relationship between sex and gender studies in relation to gay men and lesbians. While …