Constructing (non-)normative identities in written lesbian discourse: A diachronic study

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of two texts written from a lesbian subject position at different points in recent history, to show how the authors construct (non-)normative ingroup representations. The study is based on theoretical notions from discourse theory, queer theory and social cognition research, and uses a mostly data-driven analytical approach. The two texts, a manifesto and a journal article, are investigated to see how they use nomination and predication to construct in-and out-group representations, to what extent these identities are non-normative and why they are constructed in this particular way. Results show a stark demarcation of a positive, non-complex in-group from a negative, equally non-complex out-group in the earlier text, which contrasts with a more differentiated and less uniformly positive in-group representation in the later text. This is explained with the respective socio-political context, and the earlier text is interpreted as promoting a more explicitly normative in-group representation.

Language, normativity, and sexual orientation obsessive-compulsive disorder (SO-OCD): A corpus-assisted discourse analysis

“…Motschenbacher 2011; Schneider 2013), the more recent concept of homonormativity describes practices through which (certain forms of) same-sex sexualities are treated as preferable 1 . Examples of homonormative phenomena include certain gay men's preference for ‘straight acting’ sexual partners (Milani 2013), the privileging of politicised lesbian identities in certain lesbian communities (Koller 2013), or the homonationalist showcasing of sexual minorities for political reasons (Milani & Levon 2016). Cisnormativity refers to the privileging of identities that show a neat correspondence between biological sex and gender, to the detriment of trans identities (Borba & Milani 2017; Ericsson 2018).…”

“…It stipulates which sexual aspects are deemed preferable or normal vs. stigmatised or abnormal, and this has an influence on which sexual aspects can be made explicit in a given context, the way people communicate about sexual matters, and how we conceptualise sexuality. Accordingly, normativity has played an important role as an explanatory tool in language and sexuality studies (see Baker 2013; Koller 2013; Motschenbacher 2014a, 2019). The focus on normativity was more of an implicit kind during the emergence of the field in the late 1990s and 2000s, as most researchers concentrated on the investigation of language and linguistic practices in relation to gay male, lesbian, and transgender subjectivities, which are traditionally viewed as non-normative at the societal macro-level (e.g.…”

“…Research on nonheterosexualities continues to be an important driving force for the field, but recently many researchers have turned to more epistemological questions of how normativity affects the way we use language to talk or write about sexuality in all its manifestations (e.g. Koller 2013 on lesbian sexualities; Milani 2013 on gay male sexualities; Motschenbacher 2014a,b on objectophilia; or Motschenbacher 2011, 2018a, 2019 on normativity in language and sexuality studies more generally). While earlier language-centred inquiry tended to focus on the experiences of sexual subjects traditionally deemed non-normative, newer work concentrates more on normativity as a discursive system and its relations to power structures.…”

Collective Female Identities in Discussions about Pussy Riot’s Performance

“…In this article, collective identity is interpreted as part of an individual's reality that is constructed through a vast argumentative texture (Laclau 1993). Collective identities are constantly renegotiated, and shared concepts (Koller 2013) are represented in the stories and images individuals produce, the emotions associated with them, the ways individuals conceptualise them and the values they ascribe to them (Hall 1997). In contrast to more conservative approaches that focus on 'gender differences', the critical discursive approach focuses on the notion of continuous construction of a range of masculine and feminine identities within and across individuals of the same biological sex (Litosseliti & Sunderland 2002).…”

Queer Linguistic approaches to discourse

“…local norms of what it means to be a ‘good’ lesbian woman or gay man). These latter forms of normativity must also be scrutinised from a Queer Linguistic point of view, as it is done in some of the articles (Koller, 2013; Milani, 2013) in this issue.…”