Environment and Planning P Sot tctv and Space 1997, volume 15, pages 223 2V

Coming out of Geography: towards a queer epistemology?

Jon Binnic
School of Social Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Trueman Building,
15 21 Webster Street, Liverpool 1,3 2ET, England; e-mail: j.r.binnic( livjm.ac.uk
Received 7 February 1995; in revised form 9 September 1996

Abstract. In this paper I argue that in order to challenge the marginalisation of lesbians, gay men, and
other sexual dissidents within the discipline, we need to pay more attention to how geography has
been studied. I consider how different theoretical approaches to the subject have treated sexual
dissidence. While positivism has been particularly guilty of ignoring the interests of lesbians and
gay men, the new cultural geography, and feminist geography, though enabling a limited amount of
work on the geography of lesbians and gay men, may also reproduce heterosexism. This raises the
question of which methodological and epistemological frameworks work best in promoting the interests of sexual dissidents within the discipline, and the academy more generally. Last I consider the
material components of sexual dissident identity and how these impact upon the production of
geographical knowledge.
Introduction
"The special centrality of homophobic oppression in the twentieth century, has
resulted from the question of knowledge and the processes of knowing in modern
Western culture at large."
Sedgwick, 1991, pages 33-34
Within the discipline of Geography a succession of writers have challenged the marginalisation and exclusion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual voices (Adler and Brenner, 1992;
Bell, 1991; 1992; 1994a; 1994b; 1995a; 1995b; 1996; Bell and Valentine, 1995; Bell et al,
1994; Binnie, 1994a; 1994b; 1995a; 1996b; Brown, 1995a; 1995b; Chouinard and Grant,
1995; Colomina, 1992; Davis, 1992; Jackson, 1989; 1994; Knopp, 1987; 1990a; 1990b; 1992;
1995; Longhurst, 1995; Peake, 1993; Valentine, 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; 1995; Valentine and
Johnston, 1995). This ever expanding body of work, which is establishing that space is not
naturally authentically 'straight' but rather actively produced and (hetero)sexualised,
represents a significant challenge to heterosexism within geographical thought. However, in this work there has been little discussion on how geographical knowledge has
been produced so as to hitherto exclude sexual dissidents. In this paper I suggest that
to provide a better understanding of the marginalisation of lesbians, gay men, and
other sexual dissidents within the discipline we urgently need to understand how
geography has been studied and taught. A clearer understanding of epistemological
issues (and how they then feed into methodological questions) is essential in order to
go beyond the current state of lesbian and gay geographies and Lesbian and Gay
Studies more generally.
In this paper I want to address the following questions. (1) How have systems of
(geographical) thought from positivist social science to poststructuralism treated sexual
dissidence? Are they inherently, essentially heterosexist? Are some systems of thought
and theoretical frameworks more damaging or better at promoting the interests of an
antihomophobic 'project' than others? Here I construct a case arguing that positivism
is necessarily heterosexist. I then go on to argue that the New Cultural Geography
inspired by poststructuralist thought (which is often represented as a critique of

224

J Binnie

positivism) is itself marked by heterosexism. (2) What are the major epistemological
and methodological questions in writing and thinking about sexual dissidence? This
leads to a discussion of what a queer epistemology would look like. (3) Is camp
precisely the queer epistemology neglected by lesbian and gay intellectuals? What do
discussions of (1), (2), and (3) imply for methodological questions in geographies of
sexuality? I argue that the need to materialise lesbian and gay geographies must be
balanced by an ever critical reflection on what these identities mean. An emphasis on
the lived experiences of lesbian and gay subjects must also include greater critical
awareness of the material conditions for the production of 'knowledge' about sexuality.
I shall conclude by critically reflecting on each of these issues, in the light of recent
work on sexuality and space.
Geography and sexdistant relatives or passionate friends?
"So much privilege lies in heterosexual culture's exclusive ability to interpret itself as
society."
Warner, 1993, page xxi
The notion that researchers must maintain a safe critical distance between subject
and object of research has been brought into question by a succession of feminist
geographers [including a special cluster on feminist methodologies in the Professional
Geographer (England, 1994; Gilbert, 1994; Katz, 1994; Kobayashi, 1994; Nast, 1994;
Staeheli and Lawson, 1994) and in the The Canadian Geographer on feminist method
(Dyck, 1993; Eyles, 1993; Moss, 1993; D Rose, 1993), plus Gillian Rose's landmark
work Feminism and Geography (Rose, 1993)]. However, the assumption that there is a
real world out there to be discovered and mapped independently of the researcher's
own subjective experience still retains a tight hold over the way geographical knowledge is constructed. Though feminist geographers have long criticised the masculinism
of positivism (Rose, 1993), there has been little sustained discussion of sexuality in the
research process [though for a notable and commendable exception see England
(1994)]. However, objectivism is particularly problematic when it comes to researching
sexuality. Here it is unsurprising that lesbians and gay men remain suspicious of
positivist social science given the latter's complicity with the social construction and
definition of 'homosexuality' as a sickness, a pathology, a threat to the social order. As
Thomas Piontek argues "The cultural myth that medicine is unbiased and objective
gave particular weight and authority to the medical establishment's moral judgements
and the alleged 'pathological character of homosexual behaviour'" (1992, page 145). In
his critical reflection on the geographies of AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), Michael Brown (1995a) argues that spatial science facilitates a critical distance
which legitimates straight researchers' ignorance of the worlds of gay men, and that
this has worked to erase the embodied experiences of gay men from discussions of
AIDS in Geography. The medicalisation and pathologicalisation of homosexuality that
has in the past represented gay men as suffering from an excess of nervousness and
emotion (Mosse, 1985), still pervades contemporary thought (even within erstwhile
radical circles).
Geographers as social scientists have been trained to uphold the clear distinction
and distancing between the reality out there (which we map), and the in here (our
bodies or selves). The wish to uphold an objective stance may partly reflect a certain
discomfort with one's own body and (hetero)sexuality. Yet it is precisely this discomfort
with gay men and fear that is also at the root of homophobia. This discomfort must be
made visible in order for it to be challenged. It often remains invisible, hidden within
the language of positivism and the need to maintain distance between self and other.

Coming out of Geography

225

As Barbara Smith notes this distancing is implicated in homophobia:

'There are numerous reasons for otherwise sensitive people's reluctance to confront
homophobia in themselves and others. A major one is that people are generally
threatened about issues of sexuality, and for some the mere existence of homosexuals calls their sexuality/heterosexuality into question ... One way to protect
one's heterosexual credentials and privilege is to put down lesbians and gay men
at every turn, to make as large a gulf as possible between 'we' and *thcy'" (1993,
page 100).
Thus there is a need to transcend this gulf. Straight researchers doing work on
sexuality must acknowledge their limitations in this regard. Related to the critique of
positivism must be a critique of squeamishness around sex, specifically sex that scares
the horses. As Gayle Rubin (1993) argues, sex remains a highly charged force in our
society:
*This culture always treats sex with suspicion. It construes and judges almost any
sexual practice in terms of its worse possible expression. Sex is presumed guilty
until proven innocent. Virtually all erotic behaviour is considered bad unless a
specific reason to exempt it has been established. The most acceptable excuses
arc marriage, reproduction and love. Sometimes scientific curiosity, aesthetic
experience, or a long-term intimate relationship may serve. But the exercise of
erotic capacity, intelligence, curiosity, or creativity all require pretexts that are
unnecessary for other pleasures, such as the enjoyment of food, fiction or astronomy" (1993, page 11).
Suspicion of and squeamishness around sex and sexuality are common threads
through academic production. In a recent article David Bell (1995b) has lambasted
squeamishness in the geographical community. Building on earlier comments by
Bob McNee (1984) about the squeamishness of the discipline, Bell argues that despite
the increase in work on sexuality and space, there are still very tight limits to how far
we can go in discussing sex within the discipline of geography. These limits include
censorship from the outside (and from within), and the particular difficulties attached
to obtaining research money for work on sexuality. Bell makes an important distinction between sex and sexuality, for it is precisely the mention of the embodiment of
sexuality that creates anxiety.
While devoting space to a discussion of positivism I realise that it is regarded as
somewhat old-fashioned and dated as a concept. Postmodernism has challenged the
notion of a stable unified subject (Pile and Thrift, 1995). However, I would defend
spending time discussing it here as it still retains such a tight hold over the geographical
imagination. Many degree courses in Geography still neglect other perspectives
in constructing geographical knowledge. Some courses still neglect qualitative methodologies, and maintain an emphasis on quantification. Within the New Cultural
Geography, epistemological approaches based on ideas from poststructuralism and
postmodernism have come to the fore (Doel, 1992). However, I remain deeply suspicious of the 'cultural turn' in geography and social theory more generally, as the postmodern emphasis on difference (although opening up a space for work on sexuality) has
also been guilty of skirting around the edges of sex and sexuality, preferring a more
abstract engagement with, for example, Lacanian psychoanalysis. The New Cultural
Geography has indeed opened up a space for sexuality, and people like Peter Jackson
have done pioneering work on sexuality (1989; 1994). But, acknowledging and celebrating difference is not enough to prevent marginalising and exclusionary practices. For
example, at a recent conference where I had presented a paper on the political geography of sexuality, someone I met spoke of the merits of using the margins as a site of
resistance. This incident fed a (widely shared) suspicion that the current celebration

226

J Binnie

of the margins is merely another form of appropriation. Given the importance of the
closet in structuring lesbian and gay lives, it would seem that the margins are more
often spaces of powerlessness [a point also made in Bell's discussion of bisexuality as a
"place on the margins" (Bell, 1994b)]. In her introduction to Inside/Out, Diane Fuss
warns against a "misplaced nostalgia for or romanticisation of the outside as a
privileged site of radicality ... To endorse a position of perpetual or even strategic
outsiderhood (a position of powerlessness, speechlessness, homelessness ...) hardly
seems like a viable political program, especially when, for so many gay and lesbian
subjects, it is less a question of political tactics than everyday lived experience" (1992,
page 5).
One particularly infuriating example of the tendency of some authors to celebrate
the margins while simultaneously erasing nonheterosexual subjectivities is found within
Rob Shields's Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity (1991). In his
representation of the British seaside resort of Brighton as a "place on the margin",
Shields is culpable of erasing gay male traces. Shields focuses on Brighton beach as a
liminal spacehe is apparently unaware of the use of this particular 'liminal space' by
gay men for sexual and social encounters (and its simultaneous use by queerbashers).
Though mentioning the institution of the 'dirty weekend' in Brighton and the general
seediness of the town, Shields makes little mention of Brighton's history as a safe haven
for sexual dissidentsa retreat for lesbians and gay men [documented in Daring
Hearts, a collection of lesbian and gay life stories from Brighton in the 1950s and
1960s (Brighton Ourstory Project, 1992)]. Shields does, however, quote from tabloid
newspapers describing the town as the "AIDS Capital of Britain" (Shields, 1991). Shield's
writing on Brighton tends to reinforce the marginality and invisibility of gay men. In
dominant discourses on the subject, gay men and AIDS are inextricably linked.
In Shields's Brighton we exist only as passive AIDS victimsgay male agencies and
embodied subjectivities are rendered invisible, unspeakable. This is merely one example
of the practices which marginalise sexual dissidents. This marginalisation leads to
considerable frustration that straight colleagues are unwilling to examine heterosexism
in their writing and thought (though see England, 1994). Richard Dyer expresses
impatience with the continued heterosexism of much left-leaning writingparticularly
when such work is now supposedly concerned with differences other than class.
"We are told that we live now in an age of diversity, that there is no longer any
privileged subject of history/politics. You could have fooled me. It is true that
swathes of the left feel that white, working-class men are no longer the undisputed
heroes of our forward march, but, within and without that narrow culture, being
heterosexual is still an undisturbed identity. Although the left now gamely includes
lesbian/gay issues in its marketplace, the centrality of heterosexuality as a reference
point and assumption remains secure" (1993, page 134).
I sometimes have the impression that straight critics can flirt with queer theory in
the abstract so long as it remains in the realm of ideas. Even feminist geographers who
have been the most receptive to queer theory have an ambivalent relationship with
matters queer. For example, Gillian Rose (1995, page 511) wonders whether "in order to
recover something from the difficulty of beingof being recognized asan academic
woman, I wonder if she might be a little bit queer". Though I empathise with her and
do see queer as a coalitional praxis, there are limits, breaking points where coalitions
fracture. In her invaluable, insightful critique of the masculinism of the discipline,
Rose (1995, page 507) does have a tendency to rant about "men and their theories",
and is surely correct to rage against masculinist, sexist practices in academic spaces,
and the ignorance and complacency of erstwhile radical colleagues. However, I am
concerned that there is a creeping essentialism in some of her writing about men

Coming out of Geography

and masculinism by which I understand to mean all num. The incessant sex-negativity
in her writing on landscape and visual consumption (Rose, 1993) would seem to make her
an unlikely queer given that queer has come to mean the celebration of queer pleasure,
sexual diversity, and exuberance. Rose borrows much from psychoanalytical theories of
vision which have at best, an ambivalent relationship with sexual dissidents (Dyer, 1993).
The role of pleasure as an oppositional strategy for gay men is a sensitive issue in an age
of AIDS when our pleasures have been severely restricted. The transgressive creation of
pleasure, safe space, and a sense of selfhood created through queer viewing should be
recognised. Issues of queer spectatorship have been central to the explosion of work under
the signs of queer theory and Lesbian and Gay Studies explored in collections such as A
Queer Romance (Burston and Richardson, 1995), How do I Look? (Bud Object-Choices,
1991), and Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Subjects (Dorcnkamp and Hcnkc, 1995). This
body of work demonstrates that queers do have a profoundly different relationship to
vision, and that this tends to be marginalised by the hcterosexism of gaze theory.
One wonders why the pleasures of the body remain olT-Iimits while geographers
of sexuality have explored the meaning of identity and community. I would posit that
the tolerance afforded queer geographers tends to evaporate when confronted with the
materiality of queer sex itself, Heterosexuals seem to cope with queer theory in its most
abstract, intellectualised, disembodied form, but tend to run scared when confronted
with the materiality of lesbian, bisexual, and gay lives, experiences, and embodiments.
Despite the recent blossoming in production of literature on sexuality there is still a
degree of embarrassment when sex is mentioned within an academic audience or text.
This discomfort is exaggerated when confronted with sexual practices such as sadomasochistic sex. At one conference I attended recently one paper which represented gay
male sadomasochistic sex provoked nervous laughter in the audience. Seeing she was
getting a response to her shock tactic, the presenter of the paper further encouraged
this laughter by continuing with ever more voyeuristic depictions of gay men's CP
(corporal punishment) for the titillation of the (mostly straight) audience. The conference had witnessed some of the leading star performers and authorities from
Cultural Studies holding court in a panel on stage (an intimidating sight in itself).
When someone from the audience spoke up to ask why in such a space the description
of sadomasochistic sex should elicit such a response, the audience fell uncomfortably
silent. Why did such an audience find sadomasochistic sex so embarrassing?
Epistemological and methodological questions in the Held of Lesbian and Gay Studies
"If gay and lesbian studies wants to develop a strong identity and to be regarded as a
valuable academic field, it has to be clear about its theoretical and empirical
foundations which includes more than a commitment to the ideas of gay and
lesbian liberation. It needs epistemological specificities."
Haumann, 1995, page 1)
Gunter Haumann argues forcefully for the urgent need to develop a queer epistemology, for "If we succeed in establishing a specific gay and lesbian epistemology, gay and
lesbian studies would achieve a better foundation, academically and politically" (1995,
page 1). He argues that a queer epistemology must better challenge the conventional
(positivist) methodologies by attacking the latter's exclusive focus on an (impossible)
objectivity, and problematise the notion of who can do Lesbian and Gay Studies.
Haumann asks "Being gay or lesbian is certainly not a sufficient precondition for
doing research, but is it a necessary one?" (1995, page 2). Third, he argues that we
must challenge the notion that 'real' or 'reliable' knowledge is unaffected by the socialcultural context. Though Haumann asserts the need for a queer epistemology, he is

228

J Binnie

hesitant in discussing what such an epistemology would be like. Where can we see
the roots of a queer epistemology? What would such a queer epistemology mean for a
politics of space? In my view, a queer epistemology would need to be based on both a
greater commitment towards embodiment in our work, and second, a recognition of
the value of camp (Bell, 1995b; Binnie, 1995c). Within social and cultural theory there has
been a turn to the body with a proliferation of new work on the discursive structure of the
body. Within Geography, Julia Cream (1992; 1995), Louise Johnson (1989), and Robyn
Longhurst (1995) have eloquently championed the development of "body geographies".
Longhurst argues that "it is as though the body has acted as geography's Other; it has
been both denied and desired depending on the particular school of geographical
thought under consideration" (1995, page 99). Longhurst criticises the mind-body
dualism in geographical writing, arguing that it is inherently gendered:
"Masculinist rationality is a form of knowledge which assumes a knower who
believes he can separate himself from his body, emotions, values, past experiences,
and so on" (1995, page 98).
It is exactly what Bell (forthcoming) terms "the mess and goo" of the body which
geographers need to consider. Longhurst's criticism of the mind-body dualism is
mirrored by Lawrence Berg's (1994) discussion of masculinism in fieldwork. Berg
criticises New Zealand Geography's obsession with the heroic fieldwork, and the
ways in which theory is seen as secondary to so-called "empirical investigation"
(1994, page 246). He notes how New Zealand Geography upholds fieldwork as an
heroic manly virtue, unlike the devalued labour of the sissy effeminate intellectual
studying in the library. Whereas Longhurst critiques the mind-body dualism, and
Berg critiques the dualism between theory and empirical investigation, perhaps it is
the distinction between sex and knowledge which is the most pressing for a discussion
of sexually embodied geographical knowledge. Eve Sedgwick has written eloquently of
this split between sex and knowledge.
"Our culture as a whole might be said to vibrate to the tense cord of 'knowingness'.
Its epistemological economy depends not on a reserve force of labor, but on a
reserve force of information, always maintained in readiness to be presumed
uponthrough jokey allusion, through the semiotic paraphernalia of 'sophistication'and yet poised also in equal readiness to be disappeared at any moment,
leaving a suppositionally virginal surface, unsullied by any admitted knowledge,
whose purity may be pornographically understood to be violated and violated yet
again each time anew, by always the same information in fact possessed and
exploited from the start. The 'knowingness' most at the heart of this system, is
the reserve force of information about gay lives, histories, oppressions, cultures,
and sexual actsa copia of lore that our public culture sucks sumptuously at but
steadfastly refuses any responsibility to acknowledge" (1994, page 222).
Although sexuality and the body may now be in vogue within certain sections of
the academy concerned with social and cultural theory, it is still rare to find accounts
of sexual embodiment in the research process itself. Esther Newton argues that this
absence must be addressed if we are to remove the stigmatisation of sexual dissidents:
"We must begin to acknowledge eroticism, our own and that of others, if we are to
reflect on its meaning for our work, and perhaps help alter our cultural system for
the better" (1993, page 8).
I have argued that talking about the body is easier than actually embodying our
work. For example in Bell et al (1994), within the section I contributed, I wanted to tell
a story of a pickupto materialise the body of the hypermasculine gay skinhead. I had
originally written in a scene from a bar pickup: a tactile safer-sex geography
of cruising, body shaving, watersports, wrestling, and dancing to disco. Faced with

Coming out of Geography

229

the material reality of getting an academic job and making a career, I finally gave in to
self-censorship. Perhaps it is easier to write sexual ethnographies and autobiographies
as an outsider than within the academy, as Ralph Bolton (1995, page 158) acknowledges:
"The few who have written most explicitly about such matters are precisely those on
the margins who, not by choice but because of discrimination, have been excluded
from academically respectable positions in major universitiesin other words,
individuals with nothing to lose by being honest and forthcoming",
Embodying geography is easier in theory than in practice. I am also mindful that
the autobiographical will seem cringe-making and embarrassing in years to come.
That I felt constrained by the bondage of conventional respectable academic discourse
to disembody my own work in this way reflects the extent of homophobia within the
discipline.
Accepting the ambivalence and taste in the ethics of embodying sexual geographies, there are also the more pressing concerns of the law and the role of the law
in legislating sexual cultures. There are more practical everyday limits to embodiment
and realising the materiality of gay and lesbian lives in academic production. For
example, consider the impossibility of describing proscribed illegal (sexual) activities.
There is the risk of possible self-incrimination. In the United Kingdom this point is
particularly salient for sadomasochistic sex, which has been made illegal in the wake of
the Spanner trial (Bell, 1995a; 1995b; Bibbings and Alldridge, 1993; Moran, 1995). The
banal, mundane, everyday punishment of sexual dissidence must be borne in mind
when discussing the transgressive possibilities of camp.
Camp as the production of queer knowledge and space
The rubric on the back cover of Mapping Desire (Bell and Valentine, 1995) invites the
reader to "discover the truth about sex in the city". This provocative chatup line is a
piece of pure camp which plays on the awareness that there is no essential truth about
sex in the city (or anything else). The notion that there is a single observable truth has
of course been used to silence and marginalise lesbian and gay lives and experiences.
This reminds us of the delicious possibilities of camp, as Elspeth Probyn argues: "one
of camp's most obvious and serious pleasures is precisely the way in which any truth
becomes yet another conceit to be played with" (1993, page 505). Dyer also hints at a
relationship between sexuality and knowledge, warning us to beware of accepting
dominant institutions' version of the truth. He notes that the arrogance of cultural
producers, and their faith in their right to interpret, is often combined with an
ignorance of issues around sexual dissidence.
"Camp can make us see that what art and the media give us are not the Truth or
Reality but fabrications, particular ways of talking about the world, particular
understandings and feelings of the way life is. Art and the media don't give us
life as it really ishow could they ever?but only life as artists and producers
think it is. Camp, by drawing attention to the artifices employed by artists, can
constantly remind us that what we are seeing is only a view of life ... It stops us
thinking that those who create the landscape of culture know more about life than
we do ourselves. A camp appreciation of art and the media can keep us on our
guard against themand considering their view of gayness, and sexuality in general, that's got to be a good thing" (1993, page 146).
Here I would add the academy to Dyer's list of institutions that "create the landscape of culture". Surely a camp appreciation of the academy is necessary in order to
survive its stultifying approach to sexual dissidence? It is my contention that camp can
productively work to undermine accepted values and truths, specifically the heterosexual definition of space. It can facilitate the creation of sexual dissident visibility

230

J Binnie

and space in oppressive locations and circumstances. In this way I resent the notion
that camp is not political or moral nor worthy of serious discussion in radical circles.
Dyer argues that "All the images and words of the society express and confirm the
Tightness of heterosexuality. Camp is one thing that expresses and confirms being a
gay man" (1993, page 135). In this sense camp is highly moral in asserting a right to
be different in a society which punishes and refuses to value sexual difference. Moreover in overcoming social and cultural invisibility, camp is the social practice by
which sexual dissidents produce queer space through overcoming distance. Camp
acts as a kind of insulation, a safe protective distance from homophobia. The shared
meanings and values embodied in camp produce a particular queer geographical
imagination.
This recognition of the value of camp does not mean to imply that all sexual
dissidents have shared valuesthe differences between sexual dissidents along lines
of race, class, gender, nationality, disability are huge and must be acknowledged.
Whereas camp has been associated with and claimed by gay men (and simultaneously
disavowed by other gay men), a recognition of the power of camp does not necessarily
imply uniformity and sameness. However, as Dyer recognises, camp can lead to
exclusion with a policing of the boundaries of what is camp.
"The togetherness you get from camping about is finebut not everybody actually
feels able to camp about. A bunch of queens screaming together can be very
exclusive for someone who isn't a queen or feels unable to camp. The very tight
togetherness that makes a lot of other gay men feel left out" (1993, page 136).
I have already stated that a queer epistemology must be informed by camp. Yet
camp is notoriously difficult to articulate within radical academic or media contexts.
Indeed academic production lends itself towards camp. Writing on the transgressive
potential of camp [including my own (Binnie, 1995c)] would itself seem particularly
vulnerable to camp. For instance, Moe Meyer's definition of camp as queer performativity could not be framed more awkwardly:
"As a mode for interpretation of queer cultural expressions, the one-way dynamic of
objectivism most often results in the erasure of gay and lesbian subjects through an
antidialogic turn which fails to acknowledge a possibly different ontology embodied
in queer signifying practices" (1994, page 9).
Who is the perceived audience for this kind of prose? Frustratingly dense language
such as this makes it prone to camp's detournement. The spontaneity and formlessness
of camp is less tied to fixed identities and meanings, and as such may be more
empowering and easier to identify with for some sexual dissidents, than the institutions
of the organised lesbian and gay community with their restrictive terms of membership.
This is clear from Colin Richardson's (1995) discussion of the British Channel
Four's Out television programme (a weekly lesbian and gay magazine programme)
and the Golden Girls (a situation comedy imported from the USA). Richardson discusses the failed seriousness of the Out programme, which had all the worthiness and
earnestness of minority programming. Out lacked the sparkle and humour of camp
which was conspicuously present in the Golden Girls (the programme which was
scheduled to follow on from Out in the channel's evening programming). Though Out
was certainly a landmark in British broadcasting, Richardson argues that "Out
embodied a kind of realism [which] is not all that surprising for Channel 4 appears
to have a problem with camp" (1995, page 237). On the other hand, the Golden Girls
with its ambivalence, its humour, and camp appeal appeared to be more popular
among lesbian and gay viewers. According to Richardson this was because it respected

Coming out of Geography

231

its viewers more than the worthy Out, and audiences were less comfortable being
addressed so directly:
"Golden Girts was aware that its humour had a particular resonance for those of a
camp inclination but it wasn't about to be so crude to say so out loud ... Golden
Girls essentially adopted the age-old strategy* ... of being simultaneously knowing
and innocent. The lesbian or gay viewer can feel a special thrill by catching meanings that largely elude a heterosexual viewer. It is what lesbians and gay men are
used to from popular cultureand perhaps, is what we have become too comfortable with. Out's directness, in contrast with the oblique approach of Golden Girlst
was admirable but, regrettably, it wasn't half as much fun" (page 238).
The sense of belongingness rests in the shared vocabulary and humour of camp
recognition in Golden Girls, Identity here is less of a burdenit is more spontaneous
and fluid. Lesbian and gay viewers may feel the need to identify with Outt but may
simultaneously feel bemuscment and alienation when the identities represented by the
programme do not correspond with their own vocabulary of queer life. As Richardson
argues, "[Out] assumed an identity for itself and for us, its viewers, and stuck to it"
(page 239). Camp is in this sense less exclusive to gay men and a fixed identity. The
relief of camp is that it offers a space to those dissatisfied by the sharp edges and fixed
boundaries of identity politics.
In his essay, "Sodomy to Salome: camp revisions of modernism, modernity and
masquerade", Peter Home (1996) notes the centrality of male homosexuality to English
modernism. He argues that camp is central to the formation of an oppositional sexual
identity. Camp enables the identification with other sexual dissidents (1996, page 153):
"As homosexuality came to be conceived more in terms of the same-sex object
choice than in terms of gender deviance, the pressure to avoid suspicion increased.
The modernist adoption of formal experiment, and especially the equivocal viewpoint of the narrator in fiction, became the means of avoiding disclosure of one's
own sex. What had to be excluded most of all was the taint of male homosexuality
of which sentimentality was a key sign. For the author, reader, or viewer, it became
insufficient to condemn sentimentality in order to avoid suspicion. The charge of
sentimentality revealed a responsiveness which showed too much understanding.
Camp became the appreciation of this excluded sentimentality and a sign of
community. To identify something as camp is to take pleasure in it and envisage
others of the same sexuality similarly pleased. While those who appreciate kitsch
hold their objects at a distance, as if their taste revealed nothing about themselves,
a camp person knows his or her taste is a give-away to others in the know. Camp
is a language that offers an identification".
I have argued that the erotic knowledge of camp informs a queer epistemology.
However, can we locate camp in current work on sexual geographies? Having argued
that camp and sex are necessary to flavour a queer epistemology, let us now continue
to look at some of the work done on sexual geographies and see if we can see the trace
of camp and sexual embodiment.
Methodological issues on geographies of sexualities
Current work on sexual geographies is still largely framed within preexisting epistemological and methodological frameworks. Within this work there is still the implicit
assumption that 'the truth is out there' waiting to be mapped by the eager geographer.
There are few examples of research which responds to Bell's call for work "closer to the
subject" (1991, page 328). Given the need to legitimise lesbians and gay men as both
valid subjects and objects of geographical research, this is unsurprising. Here we see
parallels with Geography's encounter with feminism. Early feminist geography, more

232

J Binnie

accurately described as the geography of women, was characterised by an urgency to

create visibility around women as excluded subjects of geographical investigation. The
approach was basically to 'add women and stir'. However naive and dated early
feminist writing may now seem with hindsight, Linda McDowell argues: "Redefining
geography to include 'women's issues' was one of the major achievements of the first
stage of feminist geography. A whole range of new areas become admissable for
investigation" (1992, page 404).
In the emerging study of sexuality and space we are at the stage where the study of
geography and gender was at ten years ago. We are still at the stage where the primary
concern must be to establish lesbians and gay men as subjects and objects
of geographical researchwe are witnessing the addition of lesbians and gay men to
Geography. The work of Gill Valentine and Larry Knopp has been groundbreaking,
adding lesbians and gay men to geographical analysis. However, it is my contention
that there is a fair amount of stirring which still needs to be done. Examples can be
found within Geography of work which exudes queer attitude. Alison Murray's (1995)
powerful essay on sex work and butch-femme identities exudes a wonderful bitchy
attitude seeking to undermine some of the hypocrisy surrounding sex within discussions of sexual politics:
"Dyke whores are no longer double deviants, in some parts of the West at least.
After being invisibilised by some feminisms, dyke whores have come out in a
babble of trendy deviances, though the working-class junkie whores are still invisibilised. There are new games to play, where the referee is not the only one with a
whistle" (1995, page 74).
Murray's work is a wonderful example of embodied writing, full of camp, attitude,
and anger expressed at the hypocrisy of feminism's treatment of sex: that the rules are
changed to suit the powerful middle-class feminists who once railed against SM dykes,
whereas now middle-class feminists (the referees in the game of sexual politics) revel in
radical SM chic. Class position dictates the setting and changing of the goal posts. This
honesty and embodied anger in discussing sex in geography is long overdue. As Bell
(1995a; 1995b) argues it, the time has come for geographers to talk about sex. Another
piece which is refreshingly candid about the limits of making geographies of sexuality
is by Kim England (1994). England's paper demonstrates that in the emerging geography of sexuality the thorny issue of heterosexuality can no longer be avoided. In this
landmark paper, England discussed the issues involved in doing work on lesbian and
gay geographies as a straight woman. She charts the course of what she terms her
"failed research project" on a lesbian community in Toronto. After employing a lesbian
research assistant "because she is a lesbian and, as such, provided me with another
means by which I could gain entry into the lesbian world" (page 84), England later
abandoned the project, noting that "the complicated layering and interweaving of
power relations between myself, my research assistant, and the project became too
much for me" (page 84). England's essay is significant for straight researchers admitting the limits of representation and it is important that lesbian and gay geographers
challenge the potential threat of voyeurism and misrepresentation in work carried out
by straight geographers on lesbian and gay male communities and spaces. As Probyn
argues, we need to "deconstruct [heterosexuality] as the norm against which 'exotic'
differences are measured" (1992, page 507).
It would be highly naive to imagine that simply because a researcher is gay or
lesbian this is sufficient ground for an 'accurate5 or 'truthful' representation of lesbian
or gay geographies. This is of course impossible. It is though necessary to take account
of differences between sexual dissidents. Here it may be useful to refer again to the
paper by Bell et al (1994) on queer performativity. Probyn argues that in their rather

Coming out of Geography

233

distanced, disembodied representation* Bell et al fail to address the materiality of the

lipstick lesbian':
"As she is isolated from other dykes, she is rendered as a lifeless trope, yet another
one of those vague \shes' that haunt cultural theory ... the authors seem to have
deliberately left her stranded all by herself in some horrible pub with men leering at
herall dressed up and nowhere but straight places to go" (Probyn, 1995, page 80).
Probyn argues that in our writing on sexuality we must materialise our sexual subjectivities. However, it is clear that some identities are easier to articulate within the
academy than others. Some sexual dissident identities have been rendered more public
by the growth of new consumption spaces in the city.
Material conditions for production of knowledge
The (not-unproductive) tension between 'lived experience' and 'discourse' is probably
one of the major tensions within contemporary Lesbian and Gay Studies. After the
immense scholarly impact of Eve Sedgwick and Judith Butler's work on queer performativity, there would appear to be a tangible shift towards conceptualising the social.
This need to queer social theory is most eloquently argued in Michael Warner's
introduction to the collection Fear of a Queer Planet (1993). In his paper at the Utrecht
Lesbian and Gay Studies conference, Joseph Bristow (1995b), echoes David Woodhead's (1995) desire for a greater emphasis on the materiality of sexual desire, noting
that "so eager has 'queer' been to 'cut against' such 'mandatory' categories as 'gender'
that it can be thought to have lost sight of the social conditions that have enabled it to
conduct this seemingly innovative transversal.(or cross-cutting) critique in the first
place" (page 3).
Knowledge does not remain unaffected by the social and cultural contexts of its
production. Within the field of Lesbian and Gay Studies we should be more critical
about the material conditions of production. Within Geography there is a particular
expression of this tension given the discipline's position straddling the humanities,
social, and natural sciences. There is an understated tension between more empirically
grounded work that tries to link lesbian and gay issues to wider social and material
concerns (such as capitalism, or the market) and which uses positivist methodologies
and questionable assumptions around what constitutes a lesbian or gay identity or
community. The everyday and lived experience of lesbians and gay men is charted in
the more social scientific research of Valentine. This work is contrasted with the
extremely ephemeral world of queer literary theory and poststructuralism, which it
appears can only address space in terms of spatial metaphors rather than actual or
'real' places and spaces. Similar tensions exist between activists and the constituencies
they purport to represent. The conflicts and tensions between activists and academics
at the Activating Theory conference did crystallise around the academic's assertion
that identities are fictions (Weeks, 1995, page 43), whereas for activists they were seen
as being real and empowering. Bristow is rightly suspicious about the ways in which
Lesbian and Gay Studies is becoming assimilated into the academy in the United
Kingdom because of its commodification. He argues that we must be ever critical
about the material conditions of production of this work:
"Perhaps the time has come to consider how our continuing intellectual investment
in the category of sexuality might in itself be a problem. For it may well be the case
that our work is not necessarily any longer fighting oppression but has become (to
a carefully qualified extent) part of the logics of domination in which what we are
and who we are have been sufficiently transformed and diversified to become
commodities in their own right" (1995a, page 9).

234

J Binnie

However, other writers in the field of Lesbian and Gay Studies argue that we
must be careful not to overstate or exaggerate the power that some lesbian and gay
academics may now enjoy. As Probyn (1996, page 138) notes, with some bemusement
"One could say that perceptions of overnight success and popularity form part of the
outside of queer studies. It matters very little if they are indeed exact". Bristow's
argument that queer theory has been commodified mirrors an emerging debate on
the commodification of sexual dissident identity. As queer consumer power becomes
ever more visible, a number of commentators are asking whether radicalism has
actually been evacuated from lesbian and gay politics (Binnie, 1995d; Forrest, 1994;
Hennessy, 1995).
Conclusion
In concluding this paper I shall try to piece together some tentative answers to the
questions I have raised on the epistemological and methodological issues in sexual
geographies. In the light of the earlier discussion of the heterosexism of positivism, I
am mindful that methodologies have no essential character. One also has to examine
how methodologies are applied, and for what ends. Positivist methodologies have been
successfully applied by lesbian and gay geographers to do work on lesbian and gay
geographies (if by successful we mean putting lesbian and gay geographies firmly on
the map of geography). Valentine's (1993a; 1993b; 1993c) work on the geographies of a
lesbian community in South East England, for example, is based on conventional
social scientific methodology.
Having urged the infusion of a queer methodology, I am now much less certain of
wishing to assert one methodology as being better than another. There is a productive
ambivalence and tension about methodologies which is carefully nurtured in Brown's
(1995a) discussion of his own research experience on the "AIDS community" of
Vancouver. Brown argues that distance which he had challenged (in terms of the
straight researcher's distance from the gay body, and homophobic fear of same-sex
desire) may also facilitate different, equally valuable spaces in which people can create
new geographies. To assert a queer epistemology implicitly means asserting some
notion of what is queer. This is a hazardous exercise which could lead me to be
prescriptive about what it means to be queer. Someone trying to define queer runs
the risk of reproducing some of the worst excesses of attempts to affirm a distinct
feminist epistemology (for these have tended to depend on a narrow view of feminism).
Camp is resistant to any such notions of definition, while simultaneously facilitating
sexual dissident identity and community. However, in the study of sexuality we must
not be so naive as to imagine that personal and professional costs are not involved in
adopting particular methods. Some may be more emboldened or empowered to speak
and do embodied work than others. While writers such as Elspeth Probyn argue that
we need to integrate the self in our research, writing, and teaching; this is easier
for some compared with others. Choices of epistemological and methodological
approaches are constrained choices. Celebrating the growth of work on sexuality and
space, it is important not to lose awareness of the constraints and limits in doing
embodied geographies and creating gender trouble.
Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to two anonymous referees for their constructive criticism,
and positive engagement with an earlier draft of this paper. I also wish to thank Geraldine Pratt
for her helpful and insightful suggestions on how I might improve it. In addition I wish to thank
Peter Jackson, Gill Valentine, and David Woodhead for reading and offering supportive comments on an earlier draft. Special thanks to David Bell for his encouragement and support whilst
writing this paper. Thanks also to Julia Cream for her support and friendship.

Coming out of Geography

235

References
Adler S, Brenner J, 1992, "Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city" International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16 24 - 34
Bad Object-Choices (Ed.), 1991 How Do I look? Queer Film and Video (Bay Press Seattle, WA)
Bell D, 1991, "Insignificant others: lesbian and gay geographies" Area 23 323- 329
Bell D 1992, "What we talk about when we talk about love: a comment on Hay (1991)" Area 24
409-410
Bell D, 1994a, "In bed with M.RRobinson'Mnw? 26 86-89
Bell D, 1994b, "Bkseximlitya place on the margins", in The Margins of the City: Gay Men's
Urban Lives Ed. S Whittle (Arena, Aidershot, Hants) pp 129- 141
Bell D, 1995a, "Pleasure and danger: the paradoxical spaces of sexual citizenship" Political
Geography 14 139-153
Bell D, 1995b, "[screw)in% geography (censor's version)" Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 13 \27-m
Bell D, 1996, "Review of RodwaySensuous Geographies and Lingis-Foreign Bodies"
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14 621 - 622
Bell D, Valentine G (Eds), 1995 Mapping Desire; Geographies of Sexualities (Routledge, London)
Bell D, Binnie J, Cream J, Valentine G, 1994, "All hyped up and no place to go" Gender, Place
and Culture 131 -47
Berg L D, 1994, "Masculinity, place and a binary discourse of'theory* and 'empirical investigation*
in the Human Geography of Aotearoa/Ncw Zealand" Gender, Place and Culture 1 245-260
Bibbings L, Alldridgc P, 1993, "Sexual expression, body alteration and the defence of consent"
Journal of Law and Society 20 356 - 370
Binnic J, 1994a, "Embodying the nation", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
of American Geographers, San Francisco, CA, March-April; copy available from the author
Binnie J, 1994b, "Invisible Europeans: sexual citizenship in the New Europe", paper presented at
the Regional Conference of the International Geographical Union, Prague, August
Environment and Planning A forthcoming
Binnie J, 1995a, "Embodied geographies of sex and power" Anthropology in Action 2 21 - 2 3
Binnie J, 1995b, "Sexuality, space and place: a review of lesbian and gay geographies", paper
presented at the Identity and Future of Gay and Lesbian Studies conference, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 3 - 5 July; copy available from the author
Binnie J, 1995c, "The trouble with camp" Trangressions: A Journal of Urban Exploration 1 51 - 58
Binnie J, 1995d, "Trading places: consumption, sexuality and the production of queer space", in
Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routlcdge, London)
pp 182-199
Bolton R, 1995, "Tricks, friends, and lovers: erotic encounters in the field", in Taboo: Sex, Identity
and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork Eds D Kulick, M Wilson (Routledge,
London) pp 140 - 167
Brighton Ourstory Project, 1992 Daring Hearts: Lesbian and Gay Lives of 50s and 60s Brighton
(QueenSpark Books, Brighton)
Bristow J, 1995a, "Lesbian and Gay Studies in the United Kingdom", paper presented at the
conference on "The identity and future of gay and lesbian studies", Universiteit Utrecht,
3 - 5 July; copy available from Theo Sandfort, Homostudies, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht
Bristow J, 1995b, "Dissident sexualities: queer intersections with feminist theory", paper presented
at the conference on "The identity and future of gay and lesbian studies", Universiteit Utrecht,
3 - 5 July; copy available from Theo Sandfort, Homostudies, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht
Brown M, 1995a, "Ironies of distance: an ongoing critique of the geographies of AIDS"
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13 159 -183
Brown M, 1995b, "Sex, scale and the 'new urban polities': HIV-prevention strategies from
Yaletown, Vancouver", in Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine
(Routledge, London) pp 245-263
Burston P, Richardson C (Eds), 1995 A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture
(Routledge, London)
Chouinard V, Grant A, 1995, "On being not even anywhere near 'the project' ways of putting
ourselves in the picture" Antipode 27 137-166
Colomina B (Ed.), 1992 Sexuality and Space (Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, NJ)
Cream J, 1992, "Sexing shapes", in Sexuality and Space Network, Lesbian and Gay Geographies?
Proceedings: copy available from D Bell, Cultural Studies, School of Arts, Staffordshire
University, Stoke-on-Trent

236

J Binnie

Cream J, 1995, "Re-solving riddles: the sexed body", in Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities
Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 31-40
Davis T, 1992, "Where should we go from here? Towards an understanding of gay and lesbian
communities", paper presented at the 27th International Geographical Congress, Washington,
DC, August; copy available from the author, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University,
Worcester, MA
Davis T, 1995, "The diversity of queer politics and the redefinition of sexual identity and community
in urban spaces", in Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine
(Routledge, London) pp 284-303
Doel M, 1992, "In stalling deconstruction: striking out the postmodern" Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 10 163 -179
Dorenkamp M, Henke R (Eds), 1995 Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Subjects (Routledge, London)
Dyck 1,1993, "Ethnography: a feminist method?" The Canadian Geographer 37 52-57
Dyer R, 1993, "Straight-acting", in The Matter of Images: Essays on Representations Ed. R Dyer
(Routledge, London) pp 133-136
England K, 1994, "Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality and feminist research" Professional
Geographer 46 80 - 8 9
Eyles J, 1993, "Feminist and interpretative method: how different?" The Canadian Geographer 37
50-52
Forrest D, 1994, "We're here, we're queer, and we're not going shopping: changing gay male
identities in contemporary Britain", in Dislocating Masculinity: Comparative Ethnographies
Eds A Cornwell, N Lindisfarne (Routledge, London) pp 97-110
Fuss D (Ed.), 1992 Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories/Gay Theories (Routledge, New York)
Gilbert M R, 1994, "The politics of location: doing feminist research at 'home'" Professional
Geographer 46 90 - 95
Haumann G, 1995, "Comment on Tuula Juvonen: my Finnish lesbian and gay studies: proposals
for teachers and scholars; Judith Schuyf, Theo Sandfort: Gay and lesbian studies and its
identity", discussant paper presented at the conference on the Identity and Future of Gay and
Lesbian Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 3 - 5 July; copy available from Theo Sandfort,
Homostudies, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht
Hennessy R, 1995, "Queer visibility in commodity culture", in Social Postmodernism: Beyond
Identity Politics Eds L Nicholson, S Seidman (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
pp 142-183
Home P, 1996, "Sodomy to Salome: camp revisions of modernism, modernity and masquerade",
in Modern Times: Reflections on a Century of English Modernity Eds M Nava, A O'Shea
(Routledge, London) pp 129 -160
Jackson P, 1989 Maps of Meaning (Unwin-Hyman, London)
Jackson P, 1994, "Black male: advertising and the cultural politics of masculinity" Gender, Place
and Culture 1 49 - 6 0
Johnson L, 1989, "Embodying geographysome implications of considering the sexed body in
space", in Proceedings of the 13th New Zealand Geographical Conference (New Zealand
Geographical Society, University of Otago, Dunedin) pp 134-138
Katz C, 1994, "Playing the field: questions of fieldwork in geography" Professional Geographer
46 67-72
Knopp L, 1987, "Social theory, social movements and public policy: recent accomplishments of
the gay and lesbian movements in Minneapolis, Minnesota" International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 11 243-261
Knopp L, 1990a, "Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land market"
Political Geography Quarterly 9 337 - 352
Knopp L, 1990b, "Exploiting the rent-gap: the theoretical significance of using illegal appraisal
schemes to encourage gentrification in New Orleans" Urban Geography 1148 - 64
Knopp L, 1992, "Sexuality and the spatial dynamics of capitalism" Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 10 651 - 669
Knopp L, 1995, "Sexuality and urban space: a framework for analysis", in Mapping Desire:
Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 149-161
Kobayashi A, 1994, "Coloring the field: questions of 'race', and the politics of fieldwork"
Professional Geographer 46 73 - 79
Longhurst R, 1995, "The body and geography" Gender, Place and Culture 2 97' -105
McDowell L, 1992, "Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human
geography" Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series 17 399-416

Coming out of Geography

237

McNee B, 1984,"If you are squeamish ..." East Lakes Geographer 19 16-27
Meyer M (Fid.), 1994 The Politics and Poetics of Camp (Routledge, London)
Moran L, 1995,"Violence and the law: the case of sado-masochism" Social and Legal Studies 4
225-252
Moss P, 1993, "Focus: feminism as method'* The Canadian Geographer 7H 48-49
Mosse G, 1985 Nationalism and Sexuality: Middle-class Morality and Sexual Norms In Modern
Europe (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
Murray A, 1995, "Femme on the streets, butch in the sheets (a play on whores)'*, in Mapping
Desire: Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 66-74
Nast H, 1994, "Opening remarks on 'women in the field*" Professional Geographer 46 54-66
Newton E, 1993, "My best informant's dress: the erotic equation in fieldwork" Cultural
Anthropology 8 3 - 23
Peake L, 1993, utRace% and sexuality: challenging the patriarchal structuring of urban social space"
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11 415 - 432
Pile S, Thrift N (Eds), 1995 Mapping the Subject (Routledge, London)
Piontek S, 1992, "Unsafe representations: cultural criticism in the age of AIDS" Discourse 15
128-153
Probyn E, 1992, "Technologizing the self: a future anterior for cultural studies", in Cultural Studies
Eds L Grossberg, C Nelson, P Treichler (Routledge, New York) pp 506511
Probyn E, 1993 Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies (Routledge, London)
Probyn E, 1995, "Lesbians in space: gender, sex and the structure of missing" Gender, Place and
Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 2 77-84
Probyn E, 1996 Outside Belongings (Routledge, London)
Richardson C, 1995, "TVOD: the never-bending story*', in A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men
and Popular Culture Eds P Burston, C Richardson (Routledge, London) pp 216-248
Rose D, 1993, "On feminism, method and methods in human geography: an idiosyncratic
overview" The Canadian Geographer 37 57 - 61
Rose G, 1993 Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge (Polity Press,
Cambridge)
Rose G, 1995, "Engendering and degendering" Progress in Human Geography 18 507-515
Rubin G, 1993, "Thinking sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality", in The Lesbian
and Gay Studies Reader Eds H Abelove, M Baraie, D Halperin (Routledge, New York)
pp 3 - 4 4
Sedgwick E K, 1991 Epistemology of the Closet (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead)
Sedgwick E K, 1994 Tendencies (Routledge, London)
Shields R, 1991 Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity (Routledge, London)
Smith B, 1993, "Homophobia: why bring it up?", in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader
Eds H Abelove, M Baraie, D Halperin (Routledge, New York) pp 9 9 - 102
Staeheli L A, Lawson V A, 1994, "A discussion of 'women in thefield*:the politics of feminist
fieldwork" Professional Geographer 46 96 -102
Valentine G, 1993a, "Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time - space
strategies" Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series 18 237-248
Valentine G, 1993b, "(Hetero)sexing space: lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday
spaces" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11 395-413
Valentine G, 1993c, "Desperately seeking Susan: a geography of lesbian friendships" Arena 25
109-116
Valentine G, 1995, "Out and about: geographies of lesbian landscapes" International Journal of
Urban and Regional Studies 19 96-112
Valentine G, Johnson L, 1995, "Wherever I lay my girlfriend that's my home: the performance
and surveillance of lesbian identities in domestic environments", in Mapping Desire:
Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 9 9 - 113
Warner M (Ed.), 1993 Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Weeks J, 1995, "History, desire, and identities", in Conceiving Sexuality: Approaches to Sex Research
in a Postmodern World Eds R G Parker, J H Gagnon (Routledge, London) pp 33 - 50
Woodhead D, 1995," 'Surveillant gays' HIV, space and the constitution of identities", in Mapping
Desire: Geographies of Sexualities Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 231 -244