the struggle for control over meanings of lesbianism as it occurs within some of the most influential realms of American public life. At the same time, the cases thrust these particular lesbians into the limelight “as lesbians” and thus establish them, with or without the blessing of gay and lesbian communities, as representatives of a much larger but far less visible constituency.
This work adds to a growing body of scholarship on lesbians that has been largely concentrated in the fields of literature and history. Lesbian fiction and poetry have been the subject of an increasing number of articles and books, yet virtually no scholarship outside of law reviews looks at the nonfictional discourse surrounding lesbian issues. Even though Achtenberg and Cammermeyer are nationally known figures whose words and actions place them at the forefront of the public debate over lesbian and gay rights, to date no scholarly work (other than law articles) has been published about either woman. Yet what is said about them and the language used to portray them—whether by supporters or opponents, whether in a Senate chamber, military board hearing, or court of law—will have profound effects on public perceptions and understandings of lesbians. Of equal, if not greater, significance is the fact that because many lesbians themselves lack representations or role models, what we come to know and understand about these public figures through the discourse that surrounds them may deeply affect lesbians’ self-images and identities. These include, importantly, the self-images of young women just beginning to identify themselves as lesbians. For these reasons, it is vital to examine the rhetorical strategies employed in these debates and the key terms of voice and visibility, highlighting both the emancipatory and the regulatory potential of these strategies.
At a time when American politics have shifted abruptly to the right and conservative groups have succeeded in reversing the civil rights gains of other minorities, there is an urgent need to assess the direction of the lesbian and gay rights movement (Vaid 1995). The juxtaposition of lesbian visibility—witness the capitalist production of “lesbian chic”—with the evident power of the religious right forces us to examine existing representations in order to ascertain whether all increases in visibility mark progress. If not, we need to ask whether and when the aims of lesbians and gay men are undermined by the achievement of minor concessions and provisional tolerance that stave off larger demands. Likewise, we need to examine these representations with an eye to discovering what the newfound and widely hailed “inclusion” of gays and lesbians in the mainstream represents. We need to determine whether, in fact, it is only the “whitest and brightest” who are accepted or, more likely, tolerated, while those who are unable to pass for all but sexually straight are excluded. The mainstreaming of a few powerful figures at the expense of, rather than for the benefit of, other gays and lesbians should be a matter of concern for all of us (Hollibaugh 1993; Smith 1993).
From a legal standpoint, we must assess the limits of existing institutional frameworks for the purposes of lesbian liberation. The fragility of civil rights gains has been demonstrated by the crumbling of affirmative action initiatives in the mid-1990s, and some observers have argued that the Civil Rights movement never accomplished for African Americans all that it was credited with achieving (Bumiller 1988). The legal system, along with other mainstream institutions, may be inherently unable to advance minority rights precisely because it is founded on the very principles of exclusion and hierarchy that those who desire such rights seek to overturn (Becker 1995; Robson 1992; Smart 1989; Wilson 1995). If inequality is built into the system itself, those who seek parity within its framework will be forced to adapt themselves and amend their objectives in relation to it. In doing so, they inadvertently reinforce its authority, hierarchies, and injustices.
Recognizing these limitations invites a shift of focus from looking at lesbian identities as a puzzle or problem to examining homophobic social institutions as the problem. It encourages us to ask how the discourse of these institutions constructs lesbians in a way that deems us both “sick” and “scandalous” (Phelan 1993, 775). By viewing institutional structures as problematic and contestable, we are reminded that gains and losses, victories and defeats, are rarely unambiguous in relation to such systems. In examining the consequences that ensue when we do and when we do not achieve our ends, we must consider not only the gains of victory and the losses of defeat. We must also consider the possibility of advancement through our apparent losses, as well as the failures that may accompany even our most celebrated victories. We need to take a broader, macroscopic view of the political landscape, examining how our strategies contribute to an overall vision of a more egalitarian society. Only then can we identify which strategies we need to rethink, refine, or reject in response to counterattacks or attempts at assimilation.
Finally, we must examine the liberal discourse through which civil rights initiatives are expressed, looking carefully at what it says and does for us. What kinds of self-definitions and self-understandings does liberal discourse construct for lesbians? What happens to lesbian voices under the aegis of liberal politics? What roles are available and what kinds of visibility and empowerment can lesbians access within a liberal framework? Equally important, to whom is this visibility and empowerment available within lesbian communities? If we choose to work within existing institutions, we must examine the kinds of identities available to us through the language of these institutions and the degree to which we can successfully challenge and broaden institutional limits. Otherwise, our efforts to confront institutions and demand inclusivity may inadvertently validate the legitimacy and authority of these structures, reestablishing the dominance of homophobic thought and language in the larger social structure.
Issues of lesbian representation, like other lesbian issues, have rarely been addressed in scholarly literature as valid questions in their own right, to the great detriment of lesbian studies. “As soon as the lesbian is lumped in—for better or for worse—with her male homosexual counterpart, the singularity of her experience (sexual and otherwise) tends to become obscured. We ‘forget’ about the lesbian by focusing instead on gay men” (Castle 1993, 12). The experiences of lesbians differentiate us in important ways from both heterosexual women and gay men. Yet these differences are unaccounted for in analyses of feminist or gay discourse (Wolfe and Penelope 1993). While issues of lesbian identity clearly overlap with questions of heterosexual female and gay male identities, then, lesbian identities exceed the bounds of both. They therefore deserve and demand independent consideration (Zimmerman 1992).
A comprehensive understanding of the discourse surrounding lesbian oppression and lesbian rights remains some distance in the future. Scholarship about lesbians is still scarce, and the need for research is pressing. It can be overwhelming to consider how little is known about these and other marginalized women and to recognize the degree to which we are impoverished by our lack of knowledge about such groups. Speech communication is but one academic discipline that suffers from its inattention to the discourse of gay and lesbian rights. This book is intended to help fill this gap in our knowledge, and to bring us nearer to that encompassing understanding in the future.
THEORETICAL CONTEXTS FOR THIS WORK
Lesbian studies is an interdisciplinary perspective located at the intersection of women’s studies and gay studies. Recently, it has also been influenced to varying degrees by “queer theory,” an approach that seeks to destabilize our taken-for-granted assumptions about sexuality and categories of sexual orientation. Each of these perspectives informs the analysis and critique undertaken by this book. A brief explanation of each field of study follows.
Gay Studies
Gay scholarship would seem an obvious place to start looking for work on lesbians. The term gay, like the more clinical designation homosexual, ostensibly refers to both men and women with an erotic or affectional orientation toward members of their own sex, while gay liberation refers to the attainment of freedom and equality for all such individuals. However, many books that claim to focus on “gay” issues in fact concern themselves solely with men or incorporate only a passing claim to inclusivity, with no real attention to lesbian specificity. With few exceptions (see Altman 1982),
