Abstract
At the occasion of 20 years of publishing Sexualities, it is perhaps of import to reflect not simply on what the field of sexualities studies has offered over the past 20 years, but also what might be some productive roads to develop, pursue, and expand over the next decades. What follows is a set of ruminations in this regard, meant less as prescriptive or programmatic, and more as invitations to reflect on future iterations of the field.
Beyond identity politics?
An historical review of sexuality studies over the past two decades would undoubtedly trace the emergence, and subsequent institutionalization, of sexuality studies with particular reference to gay/lesbian studies, queer theory, and more recently, transgender studies. In related ways, these substantive identities anchor the field and its referents. This is not to say, of course, that there is no place for studies of bisexuality, or even heterosexual marriage, within sexuality research. But it is to state that specific identities occupy a central place in defining the field: one would be hard pressed to think about what sexuality studies would look like without reference to gay men, or more recently, to transsexual women. While these identity categories certainly inform the field, they may also circumscribe it in particular ways. Looking toward the future, then, how might one conceive of a field of sexuality studies that does not rely on pre-determined identities? What might this produce, and how might it be useful? What would it mean to develop and expand sexuality studies in a manner which does not rely on a priori referents?
Displacing Anglo-American models of community, social action and research?
The central place of queer theories, and queer identities, within a broader rubric of sexuality studies speaks to a reality that is at once ubiquitous and unnamed: the axiomatic nature of English-language identities, forms of community organizing, and social action. As the field develops in the next decades, how might it productively displace a reliance on English-language conceptual and heuristic devices, and why might this be useful for thinking differently about “diversity” or, to invoke a current English-language concept, “intersectionality”? If queer theories and identities have had a tremendous impact on how sexuality studies frames itself, and if those theories and identities have emerged in particular within Anglo-American locations, what does that mean for investigations of sexuality in the non-Anglophone world? What would it mean to train students in a manner such that concepts developed in the Anglophone world cannot simply be extrapolated into other linguistic and geographic contexts? Do programmes in sexuality studies need to consider mandatory language requirements? What would such a strategy produce in terms of sexuality research? The evolution of the field, in a global context, might wish to consider the ways in which language can facilitate, or impede, understanding.
Sexuality studies curriculum
The thoughts raised in the foregoing section bring forth the important matter of programme development and curriculum with regards to sexuality studies. If the field has witnessed some success in terms of institutionalization – programmes of study exist in many universities around the world – what might be required, at the level of curriculum, to bring things to a deeper level? Should the sexuality studies curriculum revolve around specific objects? What might be the advantages and limits of such an approach? What kinds of teaching, pedagogy and curriculum would foster inquiry that is not object-based? What might be gained by reflecting critically on curriculum and pedagogy for sexuality studies? How might reflections in this area transform not simply what is transmitted to students, but how we go about doing research?
I offer these ruminations as food for thought in the current moment. The celebration of 20 years of publishing Sexualities invites reflection on how the past of the field will inform its future. Consideration of the three issues raised here – identity politics, the prominence of English-language categories of analysis, and matters of curriculum – might assist in the creative iteration of the field as it expands.