Sunday, January 4, 2009: 3:30 PM
Riverside Suite (Sheraton New York)
My presentation will focus on the challenges of writing a synthetic global history of love between women from the beginning of time to the present. “Sapphistries” is a term I have coined, based on the historical and cross-cultural resonance of the Greek poet Sappho, to refer to histories of female same-sex love, desire, and sexuality. I am exploring diverse manifestations of women and “social males” with women's bodies who desired, loved, made love to, formed relationships with, and married other women.
One challenge involves confronting the limits of social constructionism while avoiding the suggestion of an essentialist position. I want to make clear that women have desired, loved, and had sex with other women in very different contexts. At the same time, we must confront the persistence of certain patterns in the history of female same-sex sexuality, particularly the role of female masculinity and the eroticization of friendship.
Another challenge is undermining a western-dominated narrative of progress. A global view makes clear that both private and public spaces are important, that erotic love between women has sometimes fit nicely into all sorts of heterosexual societal arrangements, and that the emergence of an identity based on sexual object choice is a minor part of the story of “Sapphistries.”
The final challenge I will discuss is the dominance of male same-sex sexuality in the shaping of our historical understanding. The patterns of cross-generational relationships and the eroticization of racial/ethnic and class difference that have been identified for men have little resonance for women. The emphasis on transformation when elite men could no longer penetrate any of their social inferiors without consequences for their normality and masculinity has no counterpart in the history of women. And movement into public space is just part of the story for women.
One challenge involves confronting the limits of social constructionism while avoiding the suggestion of an essentialist position. I want to make clear that women have desired, loved, and had sex with other women in very different contexts. At the same time, we must confront the persistence of certain patterns in the history of female same-sex sexuality, particularly the role of female masculinity and the eroticization of friendship.
Another challenge is undermining a western-dominated narrative of progress. A global view makes clear that both private and public spaces are important, that erotic love between women has sometimes fit nicely into all sorts of heterosexual societal arrangements, and that the emergence of an identity based on sexual object choice is a minor part of the story of “Sapphistries.”
The final challenge I will discuss is the dominance of male same-sex sexuality in the shaping of our historical understanding. The patterns of cross-generational relationships and the eroticization of racial/ethnic and class difference that have been identified for men have little resonance for women. The emphasis on transformation when elite men could no longer penetrate any of their social inferiors without consequences for their normality and masculinity has no counterpart in the history of women. And movement into public space is just part of the story for women.