Dealing with 'community' in queer linguistics research Lucy Jones 6 th BAAL Gender and Language Special Interest Group, Aston University, 10.04.2013.

Dealing with 'community' in queer linguistics research

Lucy Jones

6th BAAL Gender and Language Special Interest Group, Aston University, 10.04.2013

Why ‘community’?

• ‘The gay community’– Ideological/imagined

• Gay scenes– Shared language may be spoken by some gay

people in some gay contexts, but that does not:• Make it a ‘gay language’ (Darsey 1981: 63, Graf and Lipia

1995: 233). • Make it exclusive to gay people (Kulick 2000)

– Not all within a gay community are gay (Barrett (1997)

Why ‘community’?

• Gay contexts– E.g. Podesva (2007): gay identities produced

within gay spaces– E.g. Queen (1998): ‘the gay community’ often

reified through local interaction

‘Community’ in language and sexuality research: what’s the problem?

• No homogenous community of gay and lesbian speakers who share a language that they all use.

• But the gay community is a prevalent ideological construct.

• Language can represent both levels of community

Communities of practice

• Barrett (1997) speech community cannot account for differences within demographic groups

• Coupland (2003) we engage in multiple communities and have multiple identities as a result

• CoP: speakers who engage together in something in a mutual way which, over time, leads to shared ways of doing things, or practices (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992)– Language: part of a coherent, mutual and jointly-

negotiated response to broader structures and cultural ideas.

CoP

Local gay scene

Global gay community

Instantiated through interaction

Typical lesbian

Sociocultural linguistics

• “the social positioning of the self and other” (Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 586)

• POSITIONALITY PRINCIPLE– Identities emerge from interaction– Ethnographic context (CoP)– Macro-level demographic categories

The Sapphic Stompers

• Lesbian hiking group: middle-aged, middle-class, white, British women

• Stomper practice– Conformity to some lesbian stereotypes– Articulation of feminist values– Production of a binary• dyke/girl– CoP-specific reworking of butch/femme

Dolls or teddies?

Constructing the binary

• Girly

– Preferred by gay boys

– Symbol of heteronormative

womanhood

• Pretend babies

• Maternal instinct

• Dykey

– Preferred by ‘all lesbians’

– Not dolls!

• Positionality principle• Fleeting moment – dolls Vs teddies• Ethnographic norm – in/authentic binary• Ideological level – typical in imagined lesbian community

Discussion

• Dialogic construction of stances against dolls

– Rejection of heteronormative femininity• Relationship to broader ideological structures;

‘the lesbian community’

– Index a dykey identity• A community endeavour• Specific to the Stomper CoP

The women reify stereotypes and

position themselves as a part of imagined

lesbian community

Conclusions

• ‘Community’ should remain a research question– We might benefit from explicitly recognising the relevance of

the imagined gay community• E.g. Stompers drawing on ideologies of lesbians as masculine/gender

inversion

– We need to consider local communities of speakers; people who produce a queer-oriented identity in given contexts. • E.g. Stompers’ rejection of dolls is salient to CoP-specific ‘dyke’

identity

– The Stompers produce identities in line with:• What it means to be a member of a particular community of practice • Ideals and stereotypes which make up a broader ‘lesbian community’

“Dolls or teddies?” Constructing lesbian identity through community-specific practice

@[email protected]

Lavender Languages and Linguistics 20, February 15-17 2013