SDST250syllabus2006
- 1. McGill University Department of Interdisciplinary Studies SDST 250 Introduction to Sexual Diversity Studies Fall 2006 Tuesdays and Thursdays, 4:05-5:25 pm ARTS W-120 Instructor: Jason Morgan Office: TBA Office Hours: TBA or by appointment Email: jason_pq@hotmail.com (please put “SDST 250” in the subject line) Teaching Assistant: Jessica Wurster Email: jessica.wurster@mail.mcgill.ca ►COURSE DESCRIPTION◄ Whether discussed privately and in hushed tones, shouted about loudly in public, or simply avoided at all costs, it is clear that everyone has an opinion about sex, sexuality, and various issues associated with them. However, despite their ubiquity in our cultural landscape, few of us have taken the time to consider the complexity of these topics, or to question just how and why they have come to occupy such a central position in our lives. Clearly, these subjects merit a closer and more critical gaze than they have traditionally received, and it is precisely this that we will undertake in this course. By taking an interdisciplinary approach (drawing from fields as diverse as anthropology, biology, communications, cultural studies, film studies, gay and lesbian studies, history, linguistics, literary studies, philosophy, psychology, queer studies, sociology, and women’s studies), you will be introduced to key critical concepts and perspectives regarding the position of sex, sexual identity, and sexual community in (especially, although not exclusively) contemporary Western societies. In doing so, we will explore the history of sexuality as a concept, the politics sexual identity, the intersection of sexuality with other identities such as gender, race, and class, and the representation of sex and sexuality in popular culture. This course asks students to not only become fluent with the primary streams of research in the field of sexual diversity studies, but also to “operationalize” this material by using it to think critically about sexuality. Educational theorist Jean Piaget stressed the importance of disequilibrium (a sense of being unbalanced and/or uncomfortable) in the learning process. This sense of disequilibrium motivates people to develop cognitively, and this development is an important goal for each student. For this reason, this course will work at the “learning edge” – you will be encouraged to explore your own perceptions and experiences, to become aware of your own values and assumptions about sexuality, and to relate them to the concepts and theories explored in class. This, in turn, will foster a critical attitude by encouraging you to question and interrogate your own investments in particular ways of understanding sexuality and your relation to it.
- 2. ►CLASS POLICIES◄ A significant aspect of this course is its emphasis on participation. You must be prepared to attend classes regularly and participate in class discussion. In this sense, students actively contribute to the course content by sharing ideas, experiences and research with the rest of the class. Further, you are required to arrive on time and to stay the full length of each class. Attendance records will be kept at the beginning of each class to note attendances and absences. It is your responsibility to sign your name on the class sheet. If you fail to do so, you will be marked absent. Partial attendance (coming in late or leaving early) is also considered an absence, and I reserve the right to mark you absent even if you have signed-in for that class. You are responsible for the due dates of all assignments. Logs are due at the beginning of class and I will not grade late assignments without a doctor’s medical note. All material submitted for evaluation must be your original work. McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see http://www.mcgill.ca/integrity for more information). Students must familiarize themselves with this policy, since ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism is not an acceptable defense. Students who are unsure how to reference sources correctly are urged to ask the instructors for advice, to consult a style manual (for example, the MLA Handbook for Writers), or to attend a seminar on referencing offered by the library (http://www.library.mcgill.ca), prior to submitting their work. Freedom of speech and ideas is a fundamental principle for the university. This classroom will be a safe space, one where each and every student will be able to communicate their points of view, regardless of what they are. That being said, students are expected to express their opinions in a respectful manner, and to take responsibility for what they say. No homophobia, heterosexism, racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, ethnocentrism or any other imaginable “ism” will be tolerated in this course. Please listen carefully to your classmates and respect other viewpoints. Please do not speak out of turn or interrupt your classmates. Every student will have a chance to express her or his opinion as long as it is voiced in a deferential manner. You do not need to agree with the opinions of the majority or of the instructor, but you must be able to make a reasoned (as opposed to dogmatic) argument when speaking up in class. Equally, students should also feel safe to not express opinions on topics they don’t feel comfortable discussing in public. Finally, this class supports student involvement in movements for social change. Students are encouraged to bring announcements of events, however large or small, to class. Academic freedom and respect rules apply here as well. 2
- 3. ►REQUIRED READINGS◄ • Deborah Cameron and Don Kulick (2003) Language and Sexuality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Annamarie Jagose (1996) Queer Theory: An Introduction, New York: New York University Press. • Course Reader for SDST 250: Introduction to Sexual Diversity Studies. All readings are available at the McGill Bookstore (3420 McTavish, 514-398-7444). ►ASSIGNMENTS AND EVALUATION◄ Attendance and Participation 10% Research Logs 60% Final Exam (take-home) 30% Attendance/Participation (10%) Your attendance and participation is compulsory (within the limits discussed above). Participation means coming to class ready and willing to discuss the issues raised in the readings (which means you must have read them), offering your informed critical responses to the topic of the day, and responding to your classmates attentively. I will be evaluating you on how you participate and how committed you are to learning, not simply on how often you speak in class. Research Logs (60%) You will submit three Research Logs throughout the semester, each worth 20% for a total of 60%. Their importance is reflected in their overall weight in grading: the logs are worth more than half of your total grade. Research Logs are due at the beginning of class. Logs should be 5-6 pages each, typed (12-point font) and double-spaced with one inch margins. Please number the pages. An excellent log will be grammatically and typographically error-free, will address every part of the exercise, will engage the exercise in a critical and in-depth manner that goes beyond description, and will effectively use the structure of a 5-6 page written work. If you have concerns about your abilities to meet these requirements, you might want to consider visiting the McGill Writing Centre which offers free tutoring in writing to McGill students. Visit http://www.mcgill.ca/writing or call 514-398-6960 for more information. I will also be evaluating you on your ability to make use of theoretical insights in discussing an experience or an object. Although you might gain insights that you hadn’t expected in completing these logs, it is important that you adhere strictly to the requirements of each assignment (other observations can be brought up in class). Final Exam (30%) The final will be a take-home exam consisting of a series of short answer and essay questions, and will cover all the material from the course. More details to come… 3
- 4. ►RESEARCH LOG TOPICS◄ Each of the research logs is designed to test how well you are able to put the concepts and perspectives learned in class into practice. For the most part, this will involve using them to make sense of your own ideas and experiences. Consequently, there are two important things to bear in mind when undertaking these exercises: First, don’t be afraid of using “I” statements. Despite what you may have learned about academic writing elsewhere, your personal opinions and insights are central to what is expected for these assignments. However, it is also important to remember that your experiences are only valuable here insofar as you can situate them in the context of contemporary theory and politics; a detailed description of your experiences and opinions alone is not enough to achieve a good grade. Second, you don’t need to “agree with” the concepts in order to apply them. I realize that much of what we will be learning in class is contentious, and you may find yourself wanting to reject certain points of view outright. There is room in each of these assignments to voice whatever objections you may have, but you must demonstrate an understanding of a theory in order to disagree with its premises. While I will endeavor to respect your opinions, I will not give you license to not complete the required coursework because of them. #1: Heteronormativity (due September 28) Heterosexuality is enforced on everyone, everywhere, everyday. Although Adrienne Rich articulates compulsory heterosexuality in terms of women alone, the concept of heteronormativity – “those structures, institutions, relations and actions that promote and produce heterosexuality as natural, self-evident, desirable, privileged and necessary” (Cameron and Kulick, 55) – draws on Rich’s insights to explain the ways in which heterosexuality is positioned as “normal” for all individuals living in our society today, regardless of their gender. The goal of this exercise, then, is to identify and explain a personal experience of heteronormativity in your life. Through this discussion, you must demonstrate that you understand what the concept refers to (what “structures, institutions, relations and actions”?) and how these operate to normalize heterosexuality. Begin by describing the experience: how was heterosexuality enforced on you (regardless of whether it was successful or not)? Which social institutions and/or structures of understanding (such as religious doctrine, the legal system, familial norms, the educational system, bio-medical institutions, etc.) were involved? What specific strategies were deployed to constrain your sexual choices, and how did these call upon elements of your “self” other than sexuality (such as your gender, your age, your class, your ethnicity, etc.)? Then, consider how well the concepts of compulsory heterosexuality and/or heteronormativity fit with your experience. What aspects of these theories match what you experienced? Which do not, and why do you think that is? You must use specific references (direct quotations) to at least two readings we’ve already covered in the course in order to complete this log successfully (if you’re stuck, I would suggest considering Rich’s essay and chapters 2 and 3 of Cameron and Kulick). #2: Sexual Identity (due November 2) Having examined the divergent ways in which “community” has been formulated by gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer activists, it becomes clear that sexual identity is not something which is taken up by people in a uniform or clear-cut way. Although two individuals might both identify as “lesbian,” “straight” or “gay,” what that label means to them, how it affects choices they make in their daily lives, and how they choose to signal this identity to others can vary dramatically between them. Consequently, how can we argue that a particular gender and/or sexual identity is “naturally” one thing and not another? Drawing on the insights of queer theorists like Judith Butler, then, this exercise aims to 4
- 5. denaturalize your gender and/or sexual identity by asking you to describe and analyze how do you perform your gender identity and, as a consequence, your sexual identity. For the first part of this assignment, provide an example or series of examples of how you perform your gender and/or sexual identities. This can take the form of an anecdote, a short list of things that contribute to your personal performance of gender and sexuality, or any other format that you deem appropriate. Be creative! Bear in mind, however, that the performativity of gender and sexuality is not entirely conscious (it isn’t a matter of deciding which gender to “be” each morning), and nor does not occur outside a series of social limitations and sanctions. As such, for the second part of the assignment, consider what you have listed by answering the following questions: How is your personal, gender and sexual identity constituted through a performance of social and cultural ideals? Do other aspects of your “self” (your ethnicity, your class, your age, etc.) factor into how you perform these ideals? If so, how? To the best of your knowledge, how does your performance of gender and/or sexuality differ from that of others, especially those who claim the same sexual identity as yourself? In what ways, if any, do you maybe perform gender and/or sexuality them “wrong” or queerly? What might this say about the “communities” to which you belong? Make specific references to at least three readings from the class in order to clarify your ideas. #3: Representation (due December 5) The media do not simply reflect reality, they construct reality. In our media-saturated culture, advertising, television, music, films, magazines, and the news all play a large role in defining what sexuality means for most of us. We all look to the media for evidence of ourselves, for proof that we are not alone, for reassurance that we are “normal.” For members of marginal sexual communities, then, media representation can be an especially urgent issue. As such, an important part of sexuality-based activism must be the promotion of “positive” images in the media. However, “positive” and “negative” are not clear- cut categories. Instead, they shift depending on the values, politics, and perspectives of whoever is evaluating the images. This assignment asks you to analyze a mass media representation of a non-heterosexual (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersexed, queer, etc.) individual, group, or community. First, select a representation: for example, an ad from a magazine or newspaper, an episode of a television show, a film, a music video, a billboard, a song or album, a novel, a website, a magazine or newspaper article, etc. If you cannot include a copy of the representation with your log (please don’t submit videotapes), provide as much detail as possible about your example. Further, answer the following questions: Who is being represented, and for what purpose? For what kind of an audience is this representation intended? What kind of audience is being excluded? Second, evaluate the representation from the perspective outlined in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. GLAAD makes very clear what that organization considers to be a positive and a negative representation of a lesbian or gay person. What do you think they would say about the representation you selected? What justifications would they use for their evaluation? If their guidelines aren’t applicable, why do you think that is? From what perspective are GLAAD’s guidelines framed? Finally, based on what you have learned in class and the work you have done on the first two logs, what do you think of the representation? Define what you believe to be a positive representation and what you consider to be a negative one. Do these differ from those used by GLAAD? If so, why? If not, why not? Use specific references to at least four readings from the course (other than the GLAAD Media Reference Guide) to support your perspectives. 5
- 6. ►SCHEDULE OF READINGS◄ September 5: Introduction Cameron and Kulick, “Chapter 1: Making connections” I. Key Concepts in the Study of Sexuality September 7 & 12: The Discursive Construction of Sex and Sexuality Cameron and Kulick, “Chapter 2: Talking sex and thinking sex: the linguistic and discursive construction of sexuality” Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) “Of Gender and Genitals: The Use and Abuse of the Modern Intersexual,” in Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, New York: Basic Books, pp. 45-77. Roger N. Lancaster (2003) “The Biology of the Homosexual,” in The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 240-257. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (2004) “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay: The War on Effeminate Boys,” in Curiouser: On the Queerness of Children, Steven Bruhm and Natasha Hurley, eds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 139-150. September 14, 19 & 21: Heterosexuality, Homosociality and Heteronormativity Cameron and Kulick, “Chapter 3: What has gender got to do with it? Language, heterosexuality and heteronormativity” Merri Lisa Johnson (2002) “Fuck You & Your Untouchable Face: Third Wave Feminism & the Problem of Romance,” in Jane Sexes it Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire, Merri Lisa Johnson, ed. New York: Four Walls, Eight Windows, pp. 13-49. C. J. Pascoe (2005) “‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse,” Sexualities 8(3): 329-346. Adrienne Rich (1983) “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 177-205. Screening: Always a Bridesmaid (Nina Davenport, 2000) September 26 & 28: (Homo)Sexual Identity and the Limits of “Community” Jagose, “Chapter 2: Theorizing Same-Sex Desire” Cameron and Kulick, “Chapter 4: Sexuality as identity: gay and lesbian language” October 3 & 5: Queer Jagose, “Chapter 1: Introduction,” “Chapter 7: Queer” and “Chapter 8: Contestations of Queer” C. Jacob Hale (1997) “Leatherdyke Boys and Their Daddies: How to Have Sex without Women or Men,” Social Text 15 (3 & 4): 223-236. 6
- 7. II. Sexual (Identity) Politics October 12: The Homophile Movement Jagose, “Chapter 3: The Homophile Movement” Screening: Forbidden Love (Aerlyn Weissman, Lynne Fernie, 1992) October 17: Gay Liberation Jagose, “Chapter 4: Gay Liberation” Tom Warner (2002) “Lesbian and Gay Liberation,” in Never Going Back: A History of Queer Activism in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 61-95. October 19: Lesbian Feminism Jagose, “Chapter 5: Lesbian Feminism” Radicalesbians (1997) “Woman Identified Woman,” in The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, Linda Nicholson, ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 240-245. October 24: Transsexual and Transgender Politics Viviane Namaste (2005) “Making the Lives of Transsexual People Visible: Addressing the Politics of Social Erasure,” in Sex Change, Social Change: Reflections on Identity, Institutions, and Imperialism, Toronto: Women’s Press, pp. 1-11. Riki Anne Wilchins (1997) “The Menace in Michigan,” in Read My Lips: Sexual Subversion and the End of Gender, Ithaca: Firebrand, pp. 109-114. Screening: Transgeneration, “Meet Raci, Gabbie, Lucas, & T.J.” (Jeremy Simmons, 2005) October 26 & 31: Queer Activism Jagose, “Chapter 6: Limits of Identity” Lisa Duggan (1992) “Making It Perfectly Queer,” in Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture, Lisa Duggan and Nan D. Hunter, eds. New York: Routledge, pp. 155-172. “QUEERS READ THIS,” A leaflet distributed at pride march NY, published anonymously by Queers, June, 1990, pp. 1-12. November 2: Homonormativity, or the Politics of “Equality” Lisa Duggan (2003) “Equality, Inc.” in The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 43-66. III. Queer Intersections November 7: Buying In: Capitalism, Class and “Pink Dollars” Fred Fejes (2002) “Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity,” in Sex & 7
- 8. Money: Feminism and Political Economy in the Media, Eileen R. Meehan and Ellen Riordan, eds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 196-208. November 9 & 14: Queering Race Marlon Riggs (1995) “Black Macho Revisited: Reflections of a Snap! Queen,” in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, Corey K. Creekmur and Alexander Doty, eds. Durham: Duke, pp. 470-475. Barbara Smith (1993) “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin, eds. New York: Routledge, pp. 99-102. Screening: Tongues Untied (Marlon Riggs, 1996) November 16: The Global Gay? Dennis Altman (2001) “Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities,” in Postcolonial, Queer: Theoretical Intersections, John C. Hawley, ed. Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 19-41. Screening: Dangerous Living: Coming Out in the Developing World (John Scagliotti, 2003) IV. Sexuality and Popular Culture November 21 & 23: Pornography Maria-Elena Buszek (1999) “Representing ‘Awarishness’: Burlesque, Feminist Transgression, and the 19th -Century Pin-up,” The Drama Review 43(4): 141-162. Heather Butler (2004) “What Do You Call a Lesbian with Long Fingers? The Development of Lesbian and Dyke Pornography,” in Porn Studies, Linda Williams, ed. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 167-197. Laura Kipnis (1998) “Pornography,” in The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 153-157. November 28 & 30: Homographic: Adventures in Mass Media GLAAD (2004) GLAAD Media Reference Guide, 6th Edition, pp. 1-32. Anneke Smelik (1998) “Gay and lesbian criticism,” in The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 135-147. Anna McCarthy (2005) “Crab People from the Center of the Earth,” GLQ 11(1): 97-101. Jaap Kooijman (2005) “They’re Here, They’re Queer, and Straight America Loves It,” GLQ 11(1): 106-109. Screening: The Celluloid Closet (Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman, 1995) December 5: Queer Readings Nikki Sullivan (2006) “Queering Popular Culture,” in A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, New York: New York University Press, pp. 189-206. 8