G&L (print) issn 1747–6321
G&L (online) issn 1747–633X
Gender
and
Language
Review
The Language and Sexuality Reader. Deborah Cameron and
Don Kulick (eds) (2006)
London: Routledge, pp. 322
Reviewed by Brian W. King
The Language and Sexuality Reader is an important collection of key articles
for the study of language and sexuality. It sits in the problematic position of
both extending a young field and potentially restricting it. In an article that
preceded this edited collection, Kulick (2005: 616) (re)emphasized that we
should understand action in connection with ‘…the not-there, the unsaid
traces, the absent presences, that structure the said and the done’. Certainly
those compelling words come to mind upon opening this reader – a book
that claims through its title to be The Language and Sexuality Reader (my
emphasis). The use of the definite article has a ring of ‘finality’ that suggests
an ‘unsaid trace’ had raised its head from the outset. For that reason, it pays to
keep a close eye on what the editors are ‘saying’ through their exclusions and
disavowals. In the introduction, it soon becomes obvious that the editors are
acutely aware of just such a reading and have done their best (at least explicitly)
to be inclusive.
The volume contains a general introduction followed by Part One (with two
sub-sections) and Part Two (with three sub-sections). Each sub-section also
has an accompanying introduction. The General Introduction serves numerous functions. First, it introduces a broad definition of the study of language
and sexuality in order to be comprehensive. Language and sexuality is defined
as ‘…inquiry into the role played by language in producing and organizing sex
as a meaningful domain of human experience’ (p. 1). Such a definition allows
Affiliation
Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New
Zealand.
email: [email protected]
G&L vol 2.1 2008 129–135
©2008, equinox publishing
doi : 10.1558/genl.v2i1.129
LONDON
130
Gender and Language
for the inclusion of ‘sexual desire’ and ‘sexual identity’ under the umbrella of
‘sexuality’. Second, it outlines the collection. Third, it lays out the theoretical
underpinnings of the article selection process (an unavoidably reductive
process). Fourth, it marks the latest entry in an identity/desire debate that
was rekindled with the publication of Kulick (2000) and has continued across
numerous publications (Barrett 2003; Bucholtz and Hall 2004; Cameron and
Kulick 2003, 2005; Kulick 2005; Queen 2002). Although not framed as an
entry in that debate, this book inevitably fails to avoid that role. The editors
are at pains to justify a shortage in this collection of articles on language and
sexual identity by pointing out that they attempt not to duplicate resources
that are readily available in other collections. This explanation seems valid
enough in the end because selectivity will always be an issue in such a process.
Hopefully this book will take a place among these other collections as part
of a canon, as it is an exciting and useful resource for the academic study of
language and sexuality.
Part One (Laying the Foundations) begins with a sub-section titled
Anti-languages: homosexual slang and argot. Inclusion of these five articles
resuscitates elementary thinking on ‘language and sexuality’, demonstrating that current debates have considerable history. For instance, Gershon
Legman provides a glossary of ‘male homosexual’ terms from the Depression
Era, a reminder that the invisibility of lesbians in the literature has early
origins. Donald W. Cory’s article (originally published in 1951) reveals that
reappropriations of terms like ‘gay’ and ‘queer’ began earlier than one might
think. David Sonenschein points out (in an article originally published in
1969) that ‘homosexual life’ (thus language use) is complex and varied,
perhaps re-dating the conception that discourses of non-normative sexualities are ‘multiple’ and ‘contested’. Julia Penelope Stanley’s activist stance now
seems rather naïve, condemning ‘camp’ as intrinsically self-destructive and
sexist, as though camp terms allow for no agency on the part of the speaker
to use them in various ways. In fact, Louie Crew’s article points out that
‘cross-gender references’ are not always used destructively, highlighting the
agency of the speaker. Finally, he disputes the idea that gay men speak in
a unique manner. This particular message (published in the discipline of
communications) was slow to draw the attention of linguists, as the next
sub-section of the reader demonstrates.
Cameron and Kulick’s introduction to the next sub-section of part one
(Gayspeak: language, identity and community) troubles the perception of ‘gayspeak’ as a distinct and authentic form of English. Framing it as grounded in
identity politics, they argue that it fails to stand up to hard questions. In his
article, Joseph J. Hayes coins the term gayspeak, identifying features such as
innuendo, euphemism, and in-group slang. James Darsey questions whether
Brian W. King 131
those features are gay at all, particularly emphasizing that the ‘gayspeak in a
social setting’ that Hayes outlines is really just camp talk, a genre that is not
unique to gay men. William L. Leap’s article pursues ‘authentically gay discourse’,
but in the wake of the former criticisms his article is best read as research into
the ways in which some gay men use language. By placing Leap’s article in
this ‘wake’, the editors continue their critique of his earlier research into ‘gay
language’. Leap’s research is framed in this reader as ‘historically interesting’,
with an unsaid trace of ‘only’. The editors attempt to rationalize the placement
of Leap’s article in this historical sub-section on the basis of theme, but there is
a silence about Leap’s explorations of performativity, a topic that dominates the
next (and non-historically-framed) part of the reader. Unfortunately the effect
is to work against the impression of inclusiveness that the book’s introduction
attempts to create.
Part Two of the reader (Contemporary Debates) features more recent concepts of language and sexuality. The introduction to the sub-section titled
Sexual styles and performances begins with a useful summary by the editors
of Judith Butler’s concept of gender performance. What has been called the
‘performance turn’ in language and gender studies has shifted focus from how
language shows evidence of identities to how language also constructs identities. The five articles in this sub-section apply the concept of performance.
Re-tuning the language and sexual identity microscope, Justine Coupland
and Scott F. Kiesling both query the construction of heterosexual identities.
In Coupland’s analysis of dating advertisements, we see how language use
constructs identities in a medium that seems to constrain expressions of self.
Coupland demonstrates that dating advertisements are not as de-individuating as previously thought, giving examples that demonstrate creativity of
expression within marketplace constraints. Kiesling’s article reveals the ways
in which men in a homosocial setting use hegemonic masculinity to compete
with one another. What is most instructive is the discursive positioning of
other men in the subject positions ‘woman’ or ‘gay man’ for the purpose of
disempowerment. In so doing, these men use features of camp, supporting
Darsey’s argument that camp is a style available to all. Hideko Abe shifts the
focus back to a non-heterosexual setting by addressing ‘lesbian bar talk’ in
Japan. Abe reveals that the linguistic construction of different lesbian identities such as onabe and rezu is based on social context. The manipulation of
masculine and feminine Japanese pronouns is not done consistently across
speakers, a fact which further problematizes the idea of ‘gay language’. In a
similar vein, the article co-authored by Robert J. Podesva, Sarah J. Roberts,
and Kathryn Campbell-Kibler addresses ‘gay style’, arguing that different
variables come together to form numerous gay styles (indeed linguistic styles
in general). The features of language used to create gay styles are also available
132
Gender and Language
for the creation of other styles (perhaps ‘straight’). This theme of juxtaposition
of linguistic resources for the creation of identities solidifies in Rusty Barrett’s
now-classic analysis of the speech of African-American drag queens. This
article complicates previous assumptions concerning supposedly misogynistic gay male language use. We see that Stanley’s categorical dismissal of
these styles overlooked their potential as tools of resistance. Barrett’s analysis
demonstrates that power imbalances are redefined through the subversive
use of hegemonic styles, mocking hetero-society’s assumptions about how
gay Black men behave.
The six articles in the sub-section titled Heteronorms attempt to demonstrate how heteronormativity is upheld through language. One of the
noticeable trends in this reader is the inclusion of numerous articles about
heterosexual identity construction. The editors assume that many will be
unhappy about this leaning, and doubtless they are correct. However the
point is well taken that by placing the linguistic construction of heterosexuality under scrutiny one might destabilize its presumed invisibility. These
analyses indeed demonstrate that heterosexuality is in fact ‘queer’ under
a certain gaze. Celia Kitzinger’s article, for example, should be required
reading for anyone who has ever asked the question: ‘Why do ‘they’ always
have to talk about their sexuality?’ (where ‘they’ usually means lesbians and
gay men). Kitzinger’s analysis deftly reveals the ‘clamorous heterosexuality’
that surrounds us in everyday talk, which is so obvious to non-heterosexuals
yet has largely gone unnoticed. Turning to gender inequalities, Penelope
Eckert looks at the ‘heterosexual market’ where sexual styles are seen to
be co-constructed in communities of practice by individuals interacting
with groups. Eckert posits that girls engage in heterosexual style production
earlier than boys, but later end up in a subordinate position. Susan Ehrlich
also looks at the inequalities of heterosexuality by focusing on discourses of
sexual consent during a rape tribunal. Her main point is that discourses of
deficient communication between men and women contribute to a consigning of blame to the victim. The tribunal fails to take stock of the power
differences that are part of heterosexual relations. (Hetero)sex itself is also
placed under a new lens in this new sub-section. An interesting insight of
Deborah Cameron’s chapter is the unexpected effects of the Antioch College
Sexual Offense Policy on sexuality. The ‘only yes means yes’ approach to
sexual harassment at Antioch was criticized as a kind of passion killer, but
in the end many reported improved sexual experiences. By talking more
elaborately about sex, sex was further enabled, hinting at linguistic research
still to be done. Stephanie A. Sanders and June Machover Reinisch analyze
the term ‘had sex’ in a brief but revealing analysis. Evidence from surveys
privileges penile-vaginal intercourse as ‘having sex’. Other forms of sexual
Brian W. King 133
contact are more disputed in the USA, making Bill Clinton’s famous fellatio
defence more comprehensible. Finally, while sketching the vicissitudes of
the word ‘marriage’, Sally McConnell-Ginet demonstrates in her article that
its definition has indeed mutated over time. Key to her analysis is the idea
that definitions do matter because of the power of words to shape thoughts
and actions. These articles from the Heteronorms sub-section highlight the
ongoing hegemony of heteronormativity, thus enabling its subversion.
The four articles in the final sub-section, entitled The semiotics of sex and
the discourse of desire investigate what Cameron and Kulick (2003) have
previously highlighted as new areas of research in language and sexuality.
Implicitly these are the groundbreaking articles of the collection, so I have
chosen to give them a larger share of attention here. The introduction to this
final sub-section contributes one more entry in the identity/desire debate,
insisting yet again that identity is only a piece of the ‘sexual meaning’ pie.
Sometimes desires do not mesh with the identities provided by language, as
can be seen in David Valentine’s eye-opening analysis of Miss Angel, a person
whose gender and sexual identity labels show fluidity during discussion. This
article (re)complicates the binary of gender/sexuality, pointing out that the
strict division of these two categories was originally an activist move, made in
order to undermine former medicalized understandings of homosexuality as
confusion about gendered identity. Valentine suggests that this useful heuristic
division has become reified, meaning that some people must voice their
desires through categories that might not truly fit, rendering those desires
(and people) unintelligible. He finishes with a compelling call to focus on
desires expressed in talk, to shed light on how existing identity categories
shape our desires. The next two chapters in the collection provide valuable
perspectives on language and desire outside North America and Europe. In her
analysis of Nepali love letters, Laura M. Ahearn demonstrates that a discursive
shift has taken place among the youth of Junigau, Nepal. Desire has become
a sought-after experience. Love is seen to be discursively linked to literacy,
success and development. Love letters contribute to a gendered discourse;
they open new possibilities for courtship while risking the reputations of
young women more than young men. Momoko Nakamura makes a valuable
contribution to poststructuralist linguistics by examining the mechanisms
of indexicality. Schoolgirl speech is a speaking style seen as sexy by various
modern Japanese men. Nakamura traces the ‘sexiness’ of this style to its origin
(novels in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) and deals a blow
to the idea that indexicality might arise from the localized repeated use of a
style by speakers whose social identities have already been constructed. The
author instead argues that repeated local practices are much too diverse to
drive indexicality; rather it is driven by a concurrent construction of social
134
Gender and Language
identity and language ideology. Nakamura demonstrates that it was novelists
who created school-girl speech as a voice for female student characters, and
it later became a linguistic resource for the construction of sexiness by young
women. The gender ideology of ‘schoolgirls’ was transformed into a language
ideology, giving it the means to enter local practice. Finally this article ends
with the insight that hegemonic male discourses have restricted the resources
available for the performance of an ‘intelligent young woman’ identity in
modern Japan. In itself Nakamura’s article is worth the purchase price of
this reader for its impressive investigation into the workings of indexicality.
The reader closes with Kulick’s analysis of the words ‘no’ and ‘yes’ in sexual
contexts. Perhaps most importantly, Kulick explains the differences between
performance and performativity in a useful manner in this article. The use
of the word ‘no’ in response to a sexual advance is demonstrated to index the
sexual subject position ‘woman’. This is a performative effect, an effect that can
indeed be used as part of identity performance. Privileging the unconscious,
Kulick yet again criticizes an exclusive focus on identity performance. He
suggests that identification should be of equal concern at the very least because
by exploring unconscious identifications, linguists can reveal what language
use produces. His argument in favour of identification is clearly well-founded.
It must be said, though, that Kulick’s criticism of research on language and
identity performance rests on the expedient foundation that such research
has concerned itself mostly with conscious processes. This focus on a figure
of straw detracts from what is an indispensable article for the language and
sexuality field.
Cameron and Kulick have done their best in this collection not to contribute
to a reductive discourse on language and sexuality despite their de-emphasis of
certain elements, particularly sexual identity. There is a lingering concern over
the force of what remains unsaid. To allow this book to extend the Language
and Sexuality field, readers must pay attention to the explicit, inclusive message of the editors (the there) and keep the implicit, reductive messages (the
not-there) in perspective. The Language and Sexuality Reader is nonetheless an
accessible and informative resource for scholars interested in the intersections
of language, gender, identity, and desire.
References
Barrett, R. (2003) Models of gay male identity and the marketing of ‘gay language’ in
foreign-language phrasebooks for gay men. Estudios de Sociolingüística 4(2): 533–562.
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004) Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research.
Language in Society 33: 469–515.
Brian W. King 135
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (2003) Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (2005) Identity crisis? Language and Communication 25(2):
107–125.
Kulick, D. (2000) Gay and lesbian language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 243–286.
Kulick, D. (2005) The importance of what gets left out. Discourse Studies 7(4-5): 615–624.
Queen, R. (2002) A matter of interpretation: The ‘future’ of ‘Queer Linguistics’. In K.
Campbell-Kibler, R. J. Podesva, S. J. Roberts and A. Wong (eds) Language and Sexuality:
Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice 69–86. Stanford: CSLI Publications.