Lesbian and Gays Studies

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.
org/aronline
Annu.Rev. Anthropol.1993. 22:339-67 Copyright 1993by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
LESBIAN/GAYSTUDIES IN THE HOUSE OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1993.22:339-367. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Universidad Austral de Chile on 03/13/09. For personal use only.
Kath Weston
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University West, Phoenix, Arizona
85069-7100 KEY WORDS: homosexuality, lesbian,gay, gender,identity
INTRODUCTION As the Roaring Twenties drew to a close, Goldenweisercompleted one of the few reviewsthen written of the sparse anthropologicalliterature on sexuality. Homosexuality appeared midwaythrough his account, in the guise of yet "another sub rosa aspect of sex" (64:61). Sub rosa meansliterally, under the rose; secret, clandestine, in a waythat discouragesdisclosure. Throughout the first half of the century, most allusions by anthropologists to homosexual behavior remained as veiled in ambiguity and as couchedin judgmentas were references to homosexuality in the dominant discourse of the surrounding society. Not until the late 1960sdid the anthropological texts destined to become classics in lesbian/gay studies begin to be published. The samesociohistorical conditions that facilitated the development of a gay movement in the United States, combined with the efforts of a hardy few whorisked not only censure but their careers, allowed homosexualityto moveto the center of scholarly attention. Though the field of lesbian/gay studies in anthropology has been slower to develop than its counterparts in literary studies or history, by the 1990s ethnographic analyses of homosexualbehavior and identity, "gender bending," lesbian and gay male communities,transgressive sexual practices, and homosociality were flourishing. For a field that has beenconstituted througha set of stigmatizedcategories derived from Anglo-Europeansocieties, achieving legitimacy assumes an
0084-6570/93/1015-0339505.00
339
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 340 WESTON
addedsignificance. In this context, the inclusion of this essay in a publication such as the Annual Reviewof Anthropologyrepresents an institutionalizing move.At present lesbian/gay studies in anthropology features the unevenness and border conflicts one would expect of any emergent domain of inquiry. Even the terms "field" and "domain"impute a coherence to the publications under review that maybe as muchan artifact of analysis as a contour of the intellectual terrain. Whatfollows, therefore, is not a comprehensive survey. Mypurpose here is more focused: to chart presences and absences, critiques and controversies, whichaffect the potential of lesbian/gay studies to generate the kinds of questions that makepeople inside and outside anthropologythink. Within the last two decades the analysis of homosexualities and transgenderinghas become a "supra rosa" activity. To the extent that secrecy in the Foucauldian sense is productive rather than simply prohibitive, however,the legacy of silencing continues to shape the field (cf 120a). Despite a growing awarenessof the limitations of "breaking the silence" as a scholarly project, lesbian/gay studies in anthropology has not been immune to the documentary impulse that brushes aside theory in the rush for "facts," or to a tendencyto reify and idealize "traditional" forms of homosexuality in nonindustrial societies. Duringthe fields early years, the rose, as a double signifier of secrecy and romance, set the tone for the efflorescence of scholarship that was to come.
THE DATA GATHERERS

Almostwithout exception the review articles on same-sexrelations, published over decades, lament the lack of ethnographicmaterial on sexuality in general and homosexualityin particular (29, 40, 55, 149, 193). Westermarcks(210) turn-of-the-century overview of "Homosexual Love," Corys (37) venture into cross-cultural material, and the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) survey by Ford &Beach (56) stand out amongthe very few broad treatments published before the gay movement.Even the increased production of ethnographic materials with the emergenceof lesbian/gay studies in the 1980s can hardly be mistakenfor the successful drnouement to a narrative of progressive enlightenment on previously unmentionable topics. Coverage of same-sex sexuality and transgendering remains uneven, for reasons that include willful ignorance, fear of professional repercussions, paucity of documents from earlier periods, and reticence on the part of ethnographers. Today, as in 1906, there remain plenty of "peoples" and places for which no one has asked the relevant questions. Havingidentified such glaring lacunae in the anthropological record, the prescribed remedyinitially consisted of calls for research and a concentrated effort to "get somedata." Many of the scholars workingwithin lesbian/gay
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 341 studies in anthropology find themselves engagedin a form of ethnocartography, looking for evidence of same-sex sexuality and gendered ambiguity in "other" societies. Implicitly framingmuch of this literature is an old fashioned empiricist project allied to a hard-won understanding of the sexual politics that continue to target lesbian and gay male relationships in Anglo-European societies. The effects of these voyagesof discovery have been mixed, both for the field and its interlocutors. Just as gay liberation had its roots in the homophilemovement and bar culture of preceding decades, so lesbian/gay studies owesits emergence to a series of intellectual developments that prepared the groundfor its current expansion. Before ethnographers could set out to remapthe globe along the contours of transgendered practices and same-sex sexuality, homosexuality had to become a legitimate object of anthropological inquiry. Oneprerequisite was the redefinition of homosexualityfrom a matter of individual pathology (the medicalmodel)to a cultural construct. Credit for this movefrom psychological to cultural paradigmsof homosexuality has customarily gone to the social constructivist school of the 1970s, represented most prominently by DEmilio(43) in history and Mclntosh(124) and Weeks(207) in sociology. Anthropologists used these writers and the workof Foucault(58) to argue that specific cultural contexts shapedthe forms, interpretations, and occasions of homosexualbehavior. Somewent further, arguing that homosexuality and "sex drive" are social inventions without strict analogs outside Anglo-European societies. Only the occasional writer has taken issue with the findings of social constructivism, usually by marshaling data in support of biologistic explanations for homosexuality(214-216, 219). Vances(202, 203) invaluable commentaries on the uses and misuses of social constructivist arguments are amongthe most cogent available in any discipline. Before the social constructivists, the mid-1960spublications of Evelyn Hooker,a psychiatrist whoused ethnographicmethods,were pivotal in directing researchers attention awayfrom an obsessive search for the "causes" of homosexuality. Hookerfound psychological symptomsto be the product of the social stigmatization of homosexuality,rather than a source of "deviance" (93, 94). By looking beyond the individualistic approach embedded in most causal explanations, investigators formulatednew questions about howdifferent societies have structured and even"institutionalized" same-sex sexualities. Withinanthropology,another set of antecedentsfor the social constructivist turn can be found in the culture and personality school. Benedict (9, 10) and Mead (125, 126) did not dispute the conceptualization of homosexualityas matter of individual drive or temperament,but they saw some societies as better prepared than others to accommodate this variance. During the 1930s and 1940s, a scattering of other ethnographers such as Landes(109) and
Williams (222) added their observations to the small corpus of works that discussed homosexuality at any length. Yet it would be years before the deviance modelof homosexualitygave way to a view of same-sexsexuality as patterned, organized by culture-specific categories and occurring at particular cultural sites. After a hiatus of several decades, a series of foundational worksushered in the contemporary era of lesbian/gay studies. Sonenschein"broke the silence" as never before by arguing explicitly for the value of an ethnographicapproach to the study of homosexuality (193, 194). Mother Camp, Newtonslandmark study of female impersonators, was unparalleled in its day and has recently experienced a revival among scholars interested in gendered ambiguity (147). Rubins analysis of the part played.by "obligatory heterosexuality" in the production of gender and sexuality is a classic in gender theory (178). During the 1980sthe publication of Herdts edited collection, Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (86), and W. Williams The Spirit and the Flesh (225) inaugurated a proliferation of work on Melanesia and Native North America, respectively (see below). BlackwoodsAnthropology and HomosexualBehavior (reprinted as The ManyFaces of Homosexuality) remains amongthe most useful introductions to the variety of social arrangementsstudied under the rubric of homosexuality(13). Ethnographic treatments of homosexualbehavior and identity nowrange from erotic friendships in Lesotho (61) to accounts of Nicaraguanmachistas who have sex with other men but do not consider themselves homosexuals (107, 108). A reader with access to a reasonablywell-stocked library can learn about same-sex relations among miners in southern Africa (130), Azande"boy marriage" (50), butch/femme relationships among lesbians in the United States (41, 42, 52, 99, 181), marriage resistance by Chinesewomen (182, 199), or formation of gay subcultures outside the West (5, 96). These works join analyses that interrogate the mutable (indeed, indistinguishable) character anatomical sex and gender, including Bolins (16-18) studies of transsexuals andmy (212) theoretical discussion of the gendering of lesbian relationships (see also 21, 24, 48, 145, 148, 169-171). Generally less satisfying than these descriptively rich accounts are the transcultural surveys and comparative treatments. The distance between Westermarcks (210) rudimentary review and Greenbergs (70) massive compilation represents a leap in terms of material available for review, but merelya hop and a skip awayfrom armchair anthropologyin terms of form. In addition to the search for evidence of homosexuality in "other" societies (e.g. 23, 154), several intellectual projects surface in these studies: (a) assessments of the level of "tolerance" or "acceptance"for homosexuality across societies, (b) attempts to correlate specific practices or formsof social organizationwith the presence of transgendering or same-sexsexuality, and (c) the development
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 343 of transcultural typologies of homosexuality. That researchers wouldpursue the first project is understandable, given the heterosexual presumptionthat pervades life in the Anglo-European societies into which most of them were born. Unfortunately,a goodportion of the studies that fall into the first category rely heavily upon data from early ethnographies and the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF).Researchers have tended to use HRAF data uncritically to portray societies as coherent monoliths that either do or do not tolerate homosexualbehavior (e.g. 209). Because references to homosexuality from both sources are often fragmentaryand decontextualized, establishing criteria for assessing tolerance can be difficult and detecting conflicting views in different segments of a society virtually impossible. Included in the search for correlations across cultures are Herdts (80) attempt to relate the practice of "ritualized homosexuality"in New Guineato the presence of a boys father in sleeping arrangementsand Whiteheads(217) attempt to link "gender-crossing" in North AmericanIndian societies with particular modes of generating prestige hierarchies (see also 189). Regardless of their geographic scope, manysuch studies run roughshodover historical context by groupingcontemporary observations with details from earlier periods in order to makegeneralizations about "transvestism" or same-sexrelations in a particular society (e.g. 68, 74, 132, 133, 228). Onlythe rare scholar, such as Knauft (103, 104) in his meticulous tracking of semen exchangeand ritual in Melanesia, incorporates historical and comparativematerial in the reflective, judicious mannerthat leads to groundbreaking work. Over the years, a great deal of effort has gone into the developmentof classificatory frameworks to order the data collected. Greenbergs(70) sorting of homosexualities into transgenerational, transgenderal, and egalitarian is representative of this trend. Transgenerationalforms, characterized by an age differential between partners and a division of the sexual acts considered appropriate for each, have received renewedattention in recent years with the interdisciplinary expansion of work on Melanesia and ancient Greece. Forms such as AmericanIndian "berdache," in which males adopt elements of the dress and activities usually assigned to females (or vice versa), occupythe transgenderal category. Witha few controversial exceptions, egalitarian relationships, supposed to feature reciprocity in sex acts and (for some authors) lack of gendereddistinctions betweenpartners, cluster somewhat suspiciously in Anglo-European societies. Moreis at stake here than an organizational exercise in the tradition of Linnaeusor a push to arrive at a set of Weberian ideal types. Putting "homosexuality" into the plural representeda breakthrough for Western societies that had consistently reduced homosexualityto a matter of personal~preference or individual orientation (cf 140). Positing different forms of same-sex relations also allowedanalysts to trace regional patterns and to pose diffusionist ques-
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 344 WESTON tions. For example, are the rare forms of egalitarian same-sexrelationships described for someNewGuineasocieties indigenous, or are they the product of the colonial encounter (88, 142, 187)? At the most general level, all these classificatory schemesassume "homosexuality"as a universal category with readily identifiable variants (84, 84a, 97a).
"HEARING
HOMOSEXUAL
VOICES"
The ethnocartography of homosexuality, if not homosexuals, in societies across the globe has not yet run its course, but it is beginningto run into the limits faced by any enterprise that seeks data first and asks theoretical questions later. Rubins 078) pioneering workwouldseem to have given the field an auspicious, theoretically sophisticated start. Yet the field as a wholeis characterized still by the absence of theory Blackwood (14) noted in the mid-1980s,despite the recent emergenceof a new generation of studies drawing uponthe best of interdisciplinary scholarship. There are exceptionsevenin the older literature (13, 138), and many an author opens with an obligatory nod to Foucault before presenting research findings, but more commonly,the researchers theoretical perspectives remainembedded in apparently straightforward reports from the field. In effect, the absence of theory becomesthe submersionof theory. Lurking betweenthe lines are functionalist explanations, ethnocentric assumptions, and ad hoc syntheses of philosophically incompatible schools of thought. Nowhere are the effects of inattention to theory morepoignantly outlined than in Boltons discussions of AIDS research in anthropology(19, 20). As ethnographer concerned with a quintessentially "applied" goal, preventing transmission of the HumanImmunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Bolton found research questions on AIDS framed in waysthat paradoxically hindered investigators from generating data useful for developing prevention strategies. By deconstructing the term "promiscuity" and identifying the potentially fatal drawbacksof its usage in education and research, he was able to reformulate the issues at stake in a manner that combines theoretical rigor with the practical significance inherent in any endeavorto save lives. In the international arena, the "salvage anthropology" of indigenous homosexualities remains largely insulated from important new theoretical workon postcolonial relations. The story is a familiar one in the annals of the discipline: well-meaningethnographers rush out to record "traditional" practices and rituals before the latter changeor disappear. At their worst, these efforts repackagecolonialist discourse (e.g. "primitive" societies) for consumptionby Anglo-European audiences (15). At their best, they resurrect the vision of the Noble Savageliving in a NobleSociety that provides an honored
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 345 place for at least someforms of transgendering or same-sexsexual activity. A few essays explore the politics of data gathering and documentwriting (63, 175, 176). Some apply techniques drawnfrom history and literary criticism to documentsfrom the colonial period (63, 131, 157). The majority, however, invoke a static conception of "traditional cultures" that tends to assumethe only "real" social change is the one producedby Europeaninterventions. Too often the result is an account unintentionally imbuedwith Orientalism, exoticism, romanticism. Myrenewedcall for theory is not intended to minimizethe efforts of those whohave written descriptive accounts of their experiences in the field or to deny the contribution of their observations. Indeed, there is a need for more fieldwork yet. Despite the accumulationof research sufficient to support the elaboration of typologies, knowledge of transgendering and same-sexsexuality remains fragmentaryfor many regions. Details are sometimes incidental to a larger study, as with Kellys (98) work on witchcraft or Nisas remembrancesof childhoodsex play in her life history (190). Particularly lacking are data on homosexuality and homoeroticism amongwomen outside the United States (14). There is still much to document,as long as ethnographersproceed with the understanding that theory is always and already implicit in their documentation. Without the ethnocartographic moment,little would be knownabout the incredible variety of settings in whichtransgendering and same-sexsexuality occur. In a sense, ethnographers have begun to provide answers to the perennial question voiced by heterosexuals in the West: Whatdo "they" do (whether in bed or in the bush)? Nevertheless, the incompleteness of this geographic coverage carries its owndangers. Whenonly one or two investigators have studied homosexualityor transgendering in a particular region, it creates a situation in whichthe lone anthropologist becomesresponsible for describing "his/her people." Thus Parker (155-158) becomesidentified with Brazil, Cartier (27, 28, 30, 31) with Mexico,Herdt (75-80, 83, 86-88) with the Sambia, and Robertson(169-171) with Japan. The circumstantial pairing of one or two ethnographers with a particular society has meant that most of the data is configured by the analytic approachthe anthropologist in question adopts. If yougo to the literature seeking informationon the Yellamma cult in India, you will likely come up with a structuralist (as opposed to a historical, materialist, or postmodemist)account (22). Only in Native North America, Melanesia, the United States have anthropologists conductedsufficient research to formulate competing interpretations that apply different analytic frameworks to similar phenomena. Lesbian/gaystudies in anthropologyis currently going through a transition reminiscent of the shift from the anthropology of women to the anthropology of gender. As the anthropology of women began to come into its own, re-
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 346 WESTON searchers broke through the confines of a scholarly project focused on the collection of data that wouldgive women a voice previously denied them in ethnographic writing. The moveto an anthropology of gender broadened the enterprise from data-gathering to theorizing and from an exclusive focus on women to the study of femininities, masculinities, and male-femalerelations. Eventually writers beganto question the fundamentalcategories that grounded gender studies. Contemporaryfeminist debates about whether "woman" constitutes a valid analytic categoryfind their parallel in critiques of the alleged universality of concepts such as homosexualand heterosexual, lesbian and gay, feminine and masculine,and even sexuality itself (cf 153a). This ferment has complicated irretrievably the task of gathering data on homosexuality. Making "gay people" visible in the ethnographic literature becomes impossible once one substitutes the theory that gay identity is a Westerninvention for the belief that "youll know one whenyou see one." Breaking the silence about homosexuality becomes equally problematic after scholars begin asking what counts as homosexualityin a transcultural context.
COMING TO TERMS
"How are you going to define homosexuality?(Glad its not me!)" These were the sentiments of manya colleague upon learning that I had been commissioned to write a review article on "lesbian and gay ethnography." Fromthe beginning, topics associated with lesbian/gay studies in anthropology have been vexed by vague and inconsistent usage of terminology. Whether the object of study is Zuni lhamana (berdache)or hijras in southern India, scholars must grapple with a plethora of terms historically applied to the phenomenon at hand: homosexual,hermaphrodite,sodomite, transvestite, transsexual, even transgenderite. When it comesto gender, manyanalysts continue to use "man" and "woman,"like "masculine" and "feminine," as though the meanings of these categories were uncontested. For example,portraying male-to-female "cross-dressing" as a form of "feminization" perpetuates Western assumptions about the unambiguously binary character of gender. Problemsonly multiply whena project involves transcultural comparisons. Mostof the terms thrown around so loosely in the past derive from sexology, a discipline that grew up with anthropology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Of all the classifications of persons developedby sexology, "the homosexual"has proved amongthe most enduring. Early writers on homosexualitysuch as Benedict (9, 10), Mead(125, 126), and Kroeber (106) presumedthat certain people in any society wouldpossess a presocial
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 347 homosexual nature which might or might not find a socially acceptable outlet, depending uponthe cultural options available (cf 208). FollowingFoucaults contention that the constrnction of homosexualityas an essential nature is the relatively recent product of Westernhistory, Weeks (207) argued for the utility of distinguishing betweenhomosexual identity and homosexualbehavior. "WhoI am" and "what I do" then becomeanalytically distinct. To say "I ama gay person" assumesthe infusion of sexuality into total personhood in a way that might be incomprehensible to someonewho touches the genitals of another manor woman in a society without a word for such an action. The experience of going to a gay bar (1, 167) or engaging lesbian-feminist politics (45, 105, 120, 229) contrasts sharply with the organization of homoeroticism in societies that have not formed "communities" based on sexual identity. To complicatematters, the rise of queer politics in the United States destabilized the concept of a fixed identity (homosexual or otherwise) even for the Westernsocieties that had generated classifications such as lesbian and bisexual, bulldaggerand sodomite(47). In his later writing, Herdt (82, 84, 84a) goes beyondthe nowfamiliar caution against projecting the notion of homosexuality-as-identity onto "other" societies. Granting homosexualitythe status of an "it entity" that transcends specific cultural contexts can quickly become a methodologically problematic enterprise. By setting out in advanceto look for sexuality, the anthropologist cannot help but reify the object of (ethnographic)desire. It one thing to speak of "ritualized homosexuality"in NewGuinea; it is quite another to recast this set of practices as "semen transactions" (87) or "boy-inseminatingrites" (88). In the first case, the term "homosexuality" highlights eroticism and same-sexgenital contact. In the alternate phrasings, emphasis shifts to exchange relations or ingestion of a substanceprized for its life-inducing properties. Recourseto umbrella terms such as homosexuality,heterosexuality, or cross-dressing can obscuremorethan it illuminates. Writing about multiple genders or homosexualities does not extricate researchers from this philosophical dilemma,because these can be nothing more than varieties of somethingalready assumed to be known or recognizable. The $64,000 question remains: What is to count as homosexuality, gender, and sexual activity? Is the Kimam practice of rubbing sperm on youngmale bodies for its growth-inducing properties best understood as a form of "indirect homosexuality" (67)? In whoseeyes are such interpretations salient? Onevaluable outcomeof such methodologicalcritiques has been a renewed emphasison the importanceof taking into account context and meaning. Only by recognizing the insufficiency of behaviorist definitions that rely uponformal properties (e.g. whoputs on what clothing) could investigators set aside the Anglo-European assumptionthat sexuality comprises a domainunto itself. Authors writing about a single society are nowmore likely to leave key
cultural categories untranslated, allowing meaning to emergefrom the text. In her current studies of Oman,for example, Wikanemploysthe indigenous term xanith rather than transvestite or transsexual, earlier choicesthat ignited heated debate (220, 221). The abandonment of sexology-inspired universals in favor of local terms is but one instance of the ongoingtension in anthropologybetweenthe search for unified vs particular explanations (84, 84a, 97a). Yet the moveto employ indigenous categories is no moreneutral in its effects than the earlier, less reflective application of "homosexuality" to a multitude of occasions. Although intended as a corrective to ethnocentrism and overgeneralization, the use of "foreign" namesconstructs the subject of inquiry as alwaysand already Other. Now seemingly without parallel, the xanith becomesimplicated in a renewedform of Orientalism in whichlinguistic terms subtly reify differences and buttress ethnographicauthority. In the wakeof the deconstruction of homosexualityas an analytic category, the field I have called "lesbian/gay studies in anthropology"looks much more like queer studies than gay studies as conventionallyconceived. If lesbian and gay take a fixed sexual identity, or at least a "thing" called homosexuality, as their starting point, queer defines itself by its difference from hegemonic ideologies of gender and sexuality (47). In the West, "cross-dressing," butch/femme, and sadomasochism all becomequeer through contrast with cultural representations that mapmasculinity and feminity onto genitalia and privilege heterosexual intercourse as "real sex." Like queer studies, ethnography in general takes the hegemonicideologies of Anglo-European societies as an implicit point of comparison.It is not surprising that the sameethnographers whoare reading about male-malesexuality in Brazilian religious sects (60) are also reading about transvestism in the Pacific (73, 122), or that emergenttopics in this field focus on aspects of gendering and sexuality that wouldbe transgressive in an Anglo-European context. Each of the works reviewed here at least tacitly addresses the (Western) correspondencemodelof gender/sexuality that assigns anatomical sex a constant gender and a prescribed object of sexual desire. In manycases scholars engage with these issues only to conclude that an apparently transgressive practice is normative in its cultural context. Others raise the issue of sexuality only to deny its relevance, as Oboler does whenshe claims that partners in female-female marriage amongthe Nandi of Kenya have no sexual contact (153). I will continue to use the terms homosexualityand transgendering for convenience, but in effect the material covered remains the stuff of queer studies. While terminological debates are not an end in themselves, the disputes discussed here have complicated lesbian/gay studies in someextremely productive ways. In an important essay, Adam (2) argues that anthropologists
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 349 cannot comprehendphenomena commonly glossed as homosexuality by viewing themalong the single abstract axis of sexuality. In practice these phenomena are constituted in morecomplex waysthat refract sexuality throughclassifications of age, kinship, etc. Parker (157) avoids oversimplified dichotomies by exploring the nuancesof an extensive range of Brazilian categories, including slang terms. In his provocative theorization of the relationship between sexuality and the state, Lancaster (107, 108) explains whythe Nicaraguan cochtn cannot be reduced to a variant of the North Americanhomosexual, arguing that the division of male partners into subject and object of desire generates different possibilities for community formation and political organizing. Povinelli (166) finds that manyAustralian aborigines whoregarded homosexuality negatively whena term such as lesbian, bisexual, or gay was applied to persons continued to accept homoerotic practices incorporated into womensrituals. In contrast, membersof the younger generation who had learned to interpret homosexual behavior throughthe lens of identity tended to be more uncomfortable with the homoerotic elements of ritual. Levy (111, 112) and Newton(147, 151) are amongthe few whoconsistently distinguish identity from parody, exaggeration, and intensification. Theyremind readers that the realms of gendering and sexuality can incorporate humoras well as cultural critique (cf 212). Someof the most exciting work dealing with terminology examines the part that categorization plays in the negotiation of power. These analysts replace the positivist question that asks whichterm is most "accurate" with an interrogation of the contexts giving rise to disputes about social classification, the effects of those conflicts, and the linguistic strategies adopted by the people involved. In a semiotic analysis of Chicagos gay and lesbian pride parade, Herrell (92) examines the uses of symbols to create even as they signify community.Lewin (115, 117) shows howlesbian parents facing the threat of custody litigation workto construct themselves not only as "good mothers," but as women who have successfully "achieved" motherhood. One of the narrators in Herdts (83) discussion of hermaphroditism amongthe Sambiadiscusses the advantages of presenting oneself as a member of a third sex (as opposedto "really" male or female). In her analysis of a civil suit brought by a transsexual dismissedfrom her job as an airline pilot, Bower (21) examinesthe ways court proceedings can transform as they attempt to reinstate a binary construction of sex and gender. Goldbergs(63) insightful essay on Spanish representations of "the native body" following the Europeaninvasion of the Americas demonstrates how the ambiguity of a term such as sodomy allowed it to be mobilized for contradictory political ends (genocide, "mirror effects," resistance). Eachremindsthe reader that no one has a greater
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 350 WESTON stake in the outcome of conflicts over terminologythan the people whoconstitute themselvesthroughand counter to available cultural categories. WHERE THE BOYS ARE However discredited the concept of institutionalized homosexualitynowthat scholars have problematizedthe status of homosexualityas a master term, the concept did suggest that societies can routinize and normalize homosexual behavior. Under its auspices ethnographers began to accumulate a critical mass of material with twin regional foci on Melanesia and Native North America. Why these areas in particular have movedto the center of ethnographicattention is a questionthat merits investigation in its own right. For the present, rather than duplicate existing surveys of so-called ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia and berdache (itself no monolith) amongNorth American Indians (97, 102, 172), I review lines of inquiry in each area that have shaped the field as a whole. In both instances, anthropologists have focused on the process by which youngmales do or do not grow up to becomemen. Overthe last decadethe literature on same-sexsexuality and masculinities in Melanesia has grown exponentially. Much of the work in this region has followed the psychodynamicand/or symbolic approach of Herdts seminal research on the Sambia(8, 67, 98, 119, 185, 186). The scattered references early ethnographies to same-sexgenital contact during male initiations have nowgiven wayto an understandingof the significance of these rituals for the moregeneral analysis of social relations in the region (62, 197). ManyMelanesiangroups have regarded semen as a healing and strengthening substance, essential for a youngboys growthyet subject to depletion over the course of a lifetime. Depending uponthe particular society, male initiates may acquire this needed substance by going downon an older male (oral "sex"), by acting as the recipient in anal intercourse, and/or by rubbing semen on the surface of the body. According to Herdt, such practices set in motiona process of masculinization that speeds initiates along their way toward manhood(75, 78, 79, 87). Alternative interpretations of these rites have emerged,somethrough critiques of Herdts work (39, 49), and others by shifting the focus of analysis from psychologyto powerrelations (62) or biosocial factors (184). For example, Creed (39) sees the "sex" integrated into initiations as a mechanism whicholder menmaintain their control over youngermen. Accordingto Lattas (110) semenexchange in the Kaliai region of West NewBritain provides the metaphor for gift giving, "a poetic act of insemination"that feminizes menand is inseparable from the negotiation of local politics. Whitehead (218, 218a) contends that manyhighland NewGuineagroups elevate clan solidarity over manhood in fertility rituals. In these accounts what Elliston (49) calls semen
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 351 practices become as integral to marriage exchange,social solidarity, or securing the labor involved in bride service as they are to the c0ming-of-ageof individualinitiates. ,TheMelanesian literature is notablefor its attention to sexual subjectivities, albeit within the frameworkof developmental psychology rather than the exceptional work being done on this topic in queer theory. Outside the Melanesian context narratives of desire and discussions of eroticism are virtually nonexistent, with the important exception of Newtons(150) reflexive essay on the erotics of fieldwork in the United States and Kennedy &Davis (99) cultural history of lesbians in Buffalo, NewYork. Ethnographers who have carefully searched for evidence of "homosexual"activities may link behaviors to beliefs about gender, adulthood, or personhood,but seldomhave they addressed the question of whetherparticipants found those acts pleasurable. Doindividuals seek out the opportunity to exchangesemen, eventually cometo enjoy the practice, or simply endure it because it is culturally prescribed? Broaching these questions means grappling with the dilemmasof relating structure to agency, as well as reservations about applying the Anglo-European categories of pleasure and desire in Melanesian settings. Herdt &Stoller (91) offer a rare book-length treatment of eroticism outside Anglo-European societies. Knaufts (101) analysis of desire in a Gebusitext makesa strong case for attending to the excitement generated by transgression of the very rules and normsthat have historically preoccupiedethnographers. Because Sambianbachelors and initiates whodo follow cultural expectations will end sementransactions with other males not long after marriage, the Sambiancase argues eloquently against any absolute division of persons into heterosexual and homosexual.Put another way, the corpus of work on malemale relations in Melanesiahas supplied scholars in gender studies with the material to challenge the reduction of sexuality to a presocial "fact of nature" (cf 46, 201). To the extent that some Melanesian groups have considered semenpractices an essential step towardmanhood, the popularization of this research evokes a creative tension with the Anglo-European notion of malemale genital contact as feminizing. It is nowknownthat same-sex genital contact has been "accepted" in particular social contexts, but efforts to demonstrateits normative character walk a fine line betweenrelativism and romanticism. If the Melanesian material seduces readers by portraying societies in which homosexualityis a situational norm, research on AmericanIndian berdache engages the fantasy of a society in which homosexuality can be at once normativeand transgressive. Berdache is another catch-all term that ethnographers haveused to describe males(or, less often, females) whotake on at least some of the garments, occupations, and/or sexual parmers culturally pre-
scribed for what Anglo-Europeansmight call the opposite sex. Systematic research on berdache~predates the advent of lesbian/gay studies. The studies covered here begin with Angelino&Shedds (6) call for clarification of the concept (4, 12, 25, 26, 44, 57, 66, 69, 71, 72, 100, 106, 127, 128, 163, 173-175, 177, 183, 198, 217, 225). As in Melanesia, these investigators have focused on males (but see 4, 12, 66, 183). Outside North Americaethnographers have also drawn analogies between berdache and instances of transgendering such as the Hawaiian rnahu (111, 112) or the sarombavyof the MalagasyRepublic (142). At the very moment berdaches contraverted expectations governing gendered organizations of labor, clothing, and sexual behavior, to somethey seemedto have found a socially approved niche in which to practice "samesex" sexuality (106). This is not to implythat researchers havebeen in agreement on the degree to which "same-sex" sexuality has been a necessary or even integral part of becoming berdache. Many of these studies take the form of a search for one privileged feature of the institution, asking whetherberdachein a given society was "really" about occupational preference, spirituality, sexuality, or dress. Certainly not every berdache took other males(or other females) as sexual partners. The issue of whether berdache were accepted, even honored, membersof their societies has been hotly debated. In a widely critiqued article on the historical development of the institution, Gutirrrez (71) has argued that berdache originated as prisoners of war whose captors required them to wear womens clothing and engage in "homosexual acts" as a sign of subordination. In contrast, Greenberg(69) theorizes that the instances on record in which berdache became the target of teasing or censure had moreto do with kinship than disdain. Because berdache relationships were integrated into kinship networks, berdacheacquired joking partners and becamesubject, to sanctions such as exile for disregarding incest taboos. Roscoe(172-177) and W. Willianas (225), who have published widely on the topic, both conclude that berdache were highly revered. At times their accounts verge on the sort of idealization Goldenweiser (64) detected in EdwardCarpenters portrait homosexuals as culture heroes whoblaze newtrails in the course of challenging established codes of conduct. A second point of contention is whether berdache still exist in American Indian societies. W.Williams (225) says "yes," thoughhe believes the formal properties of the institution maybe changing. "Cross-dressing," for example, no longer seems to be central to the practices of those whocall themselves berdache. Herdt (84, 84a) responds with an unconditional "no," blaming the
1
cf M.Dickemann, "Gender Crossing andGender Mixing: Balkan Sworn VirginsandWestern Women Travelers" (manuscript in progress).
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 353 Anglo-European conquest for their disappearance. Someof the gay- and lesbian-identified American Indians whohave written on the topic locate themselves within an ongoing berdachetradition (4, 100, 127). Drawingupon his workwith the group GayAmerican Indians, Roscoeoffers a qualified "yes" as he notes the incessantly transformingcharacter of whatpeople call "tradition." There are other ways to approach berdachethan as a coherent institution (persisting or vanishing) or tradition (imaginedor transmitted). The kinds questions asked about berdachemight sounddifferent if brought into dialogue with recent theoretical developments in other disciplines. Imagine, for example, extending Silvermans (191) concept of the double mimesisto berdache such as Wewha,the famous Zuni lhamanawho is the subject of Roscoes (175) ethnohistorical study. In an essay on Lawrenceof Arabia, Silverman contends that the practice of ethnic cross-dressing allowed Lawrence not simply to imitate the Arabs, or even to become Arab, but ultimately to "out-Arab" the Arabs. His sartorial presentation had moreto do with the construction of "the Arab" in the Europeanimagination than with cultural adaptation or the transmission of social knowledge.By inspiring Arabfollowers to emulate his rendition of "Arabness," Lawrencehoped to augmenthis power. In a double mimesisthe berdache, recurrently described by anthropologists as better at "womens work" than women themselves, refracts twice through the ethnographic lens. Rebel and conformist both, positioned within rather than to the side of gendered hierarchies, Wewhas practice of berdacherenegotiated powerrelations as it reconfigured his/her ownsubjectivity. In this view the berdache appears as a representation, more Woman than the women whosurrounded him/her; in the eyes of manyethnographers, however, the berdachehas become a separate gender altogether. BEYOND THE BINARY Most ethnographic studies of transgendering have not availed themselves of this sort of cutting-edge workin gender theory. But if their overreliance on conceptssuch as socialization and genderrole seemsdated, their identification of multiple genders has generated interest across disciplines. Roscoe(175) considers the Zuni lhamanaa third gender; Wikan(221) says the same about the xanith of Oman,males who wear a combination of womensand mens clothing and conduct themselves as women in somecontexts, but whoalso do things that women ordinarily wouldnot do such as travel freely. In Neither Man nor Woman Nanda (144, 145) argues that the hijras of India, male devotees of the goddess Bahuchara Mata who sometimesundergo a ritual of castration, should be regarded as a discrete gender because they consistently violate certain prescribed aspects of both womens and mens"roles." In each
case, transgendering is at least occasionally associated with the practice of taking menas sexual partners. Not long ago scholars spoke of cross-gendering rather than transgendering and alternative genders. To cross genders is to movefrom one to the other of two fixed positions; to engagein transgendering opens up as many possibilities as there are gender categories. The two need not be mutually exclusive: Greenberg(69) believes that both gender crossing and a third gender mayhave existed amongsomeAmericanIndian groups. In the case of hermaphroditism, Herdt (83) hypothesizes that the incidence must reach a critical mass in population for a third gender category to emerge. For scholars inclined towardessentialism, the third gender "role" offers an option to youngpeople whoseinnate difference wouldhave madethem social misfits had they been born into a two-gendersociety. Other explanations look to the socially constructed character of gender itself. Wikan (220) describes Oman as a society in whichthe act of heterosexual intercourse (which xanith do not perform), rather than the possession of particular genitalia, becomes "fundamentallyconstitutive" of gender. The high level of interest in the idea of societies with multiple gendersis not particularly surprising, since the notion runs counter to the dualism of the Anglo-European two-gender system (223). But there are problems with these analyses. Scholars remainunclear about what makesa particular classification qualify as a discrete gender. At what point does berdache stop being an instance of genderedambiguity, or a variant of masculinity or femininity, and start becoming a gender in its ownright? Nosatisfying explanations have been offered for whythe numberof genders posited seemsto run in twos and threes rather than fives or sevens, or whyso manyof these categories lack female counterparts. Also left unexaminedis the uncanny resonance between the anthropological "discovery" of multiple genders and the nineteenth-century categorization of homosexuals as membersof a third sex, midwaybetween womenand men. While someethnographers were investigating the possibility of multiple genders, others began to develop more nuanced readings of the dichotomy between Man and Woman. Newton (147) discusses the complex layering signifiers of masculinity and femininity in the orchestrated display of bodies, clothing, and movementknownas stage drag. Rubin (181) maintains that critics whoreduce "butch" to "masculine" whenwriting about lesbians in the UnitedStates miss the intricate meanings attached to a term that differentiates members of the same sex along the lines of gender. By distinguishing between primary and secondary genders, each socially assigned, Robertson(169-71) able to explore a range of types of "male" and "female" performed by members of an all-female musical revue in Japan.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 355 In his important discussion of homosexualityand representations of masculinity amongthe ancient Greeks, Winkler (228:50) examines howthe poles "man"and "woman" were related and politicized in a society that recognized only two genders. Rather than present normative statements about manhood ("the Greeks believed"), he showshowmembers of the elite selectively invokedsuch normsto target political enemies. Surveillance became integral to the governance of a city-state in which ambitious opponents searched for evidence that a manhad succumbed to "the reversibility of the male person, alwaysin peril of slipping into the servile or the feminine." Other scholars have gone beyondthe binary without makingthe nominalizing move that multiplies genders. Povinelli (166), for example,describes the ritual moment at which senior aboriginal women in Australia becameceremonially both male and female. Rubin (181) raises the issue of female-to-male transsexuals whoblur the boundaries of sex by acquiring "intermediate" bodies rather than pursuing a complete sex change (cf 16-18). Workingon the borderline of legal anthropology and political theory, Bower (21) uses case law to shift the focus of discussion to the politics embedded in the process of adjudicating the classification of persons by sex, whetherthe classification be male, female, or transsexual. Andin a brilliant theorization of howlesbians and gay menin the United States construct identity, Coombe (35, 36) examines the subversive uses of celebrity images (JamesDean, Judy Garland, Greta Garboor any of the classic movieice queens) to create alternative representations of gender.
AIDS AND THE "AMERICAN" RENAISSANCE

Not to be underestimatedas an influence on the current scholarly fascination with gendered ambiguity and the fragmentation of identity is the AIDS pandemicwhich,as no respecter of persons, crosscuts the very identities that have provided the basis for the emergenceof gay "subcultures." Because sexual activity provides one meansof transmission of the humanimmunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pandemichas been instrumental in focusing anthropological attention on the topic of sexuality. While the numberof AIDS studies has multiplied over the past decade, most confine themselves to epidemiological analysis and calls for research. Despite the persistent lack of funding for analyses based upon participant observation, a small but growing numberof ethnographic studies have also emerged. Although scholars working on AIDShave conducted research on sexual beliefs and practices among gay and bisexual menin the United States, to my knowledge no comparablestudies exist for lesbians (53, 54, 65, 81, 90, 192). More specialized studies concentrate on phenomena such as the effects of representations of disease on youngpeople comingout in the age of HIV(54,
81, 90). A few demonstratethe impact of the (re)medicalization of homosexuality, whichhistorically has beeninseparable from the constitution and oppression of gay subjects in Anglo-European societies (20, 123, 196). Onlythe rare essay frames its discussion of AIDS with a category such as ethnicity that crosscuts sexual identity, yet remains inclusive of lesbian-, gay- and bisexualidentified members of a population (192). All in all, whenit comesto AIDS, there is still a worldof anthropologicalresearch to be done. Outside the United States, the drawbacksof applying conventional anthropological methodologyto an epidemic that spans several geographic regions quickly becomeevident (89, 159, 160). Both Parkers (155-158) research Brazil and Carriers (31, 34) on Mexicohave challenged methodological approaches that treat "gay people" as membersof bounded communities or subcultures. The permeability of such communities even in the urban areas where they organize at least someaspects of same-sex sexuality demonstrates the relative ease with which HIVcan cross imagined boundaries. In Mexico, for example, manymenhave sex with both women and menwithout considering themselves gay. Identity then often becomes sexualized through categories of activo and pasivo, penetrator and penetrated, rather than object choice (cf 107, 108, 139). In the UnitedStates as well, the high percentage of people who have had genital contact with someoneof the same sex without adopting a lesbian or gay male identity has highlighted the need for changes in AIDS education (192). AIDSeducation programs developed in North America may turn out to havelimited utility in societies that organize sexuality differently (33). Noting that the concentration on epidemiologyhas produced research that is practically useless for developing prevention programs, Bolton (19) suggests that researchers give renewedemphasisto the participation component in participant observation. Must anthropologists who study sexuality content themselves with information gleaned from interviews and other forms of selfreporting? Bolton concludes that, in an era when manyknowthey are supposed to be practicing safer sex, the only way to determine whether people practice whatthey preach is for at least someethnographersto have sex as part of their research. Ethics and self-preservation require, he cautions, that the anthropologist practice safer sex or terminate the interaction if a partner is ready to engagein a high-risk activity without proper protection. To do any less whenlives are at stake, Bolton argues, wouldbe the truly irresponsible act. His call for a more participatory modeof research on sexuality is not without precedent: comparethe fieldwork for Humphreys (95) controversial TearoomTrade, during which the ethnographer served as a lookout in rest rooms where men had sexual encounters, or Murrays (141) broader discussion of the topic, "Sleepingwith the Natives as a Sourceof Data." Thelife and
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 357 death issues associated with the transmission of HIVbecome intertwined with the dilemma of studying "sex" in societies that have privatized its practice. Anthropologicalstudies of AIDS are being conductedwithin the context of a new waveof research on the United States that has continued to gather momentum into the 1990s. The strength of recent lesbian/gay ethnographyon the United States lies in its detailed treatment of historical context, class analysis, and material relations. This literature also attends to the erotics and genderingof relations among women in a waythat is lacking for other regions of the world. Ethnographies of the United States from previous decades often presented "the gay world" as a monolithand treated their subjects as representative of lesbian- and gay-identified people everywhere (e.g. 165, 205, 206). In a radically oversimplified description of gay women in the Bay Area, for example, Wolf (229) tends to mistake the lesbian-feminist part of the "community" she observedfor the wholeof the lesbian population. In contrast, three important new studies feature the careful scholarship and theoretical significance that should earn thema lasting place in the long tradition of community studies in the UnitedStates. Newtons(151) cultural history of Cherry Grove, Fire Island, examines resort town that developedthe worlds first "gay controlled geography." In CherryGrove, lesbians and gay menfor the first time could speak and act from the position of a numerical majority. Beginning with the 1930s, Newton chronicles the coalescence of a gay property-owningclass with interests opposed to those of gay renters, workers,and day trippers. Though white ethnics and women were eventually able to gain admission to the Grove, the nationalist ideology of gay liberation in the 1960s did not prove strong enough to override class and racial divisions. Newtonsdetailed analysis of conflicts within a single gay "community" is welcome and unprecedented. Like Newton,Kennedy & Davis (99) capture the interplay betweenchanges at the local level and the elaboration of a national "subculture" in the years following WorldWarII. Their landmarkhistory of lesbians in Buffalo, New York, is the first to demonstratethe contributions to the social movements of the 1950s-1970s made by womenwho participated in the working-class butch/femme culture of the bars. Kennedy & Davis exploration of the semiotics of attraction and desire is also withoutparallel in ethnographies of lesbians and gay men. In Families WeChooseI also adopt a historical approach in myanalysis of the waythe cultural categories "biology" and "choice" figure in gay kinship ideologies (211; cf 146, 168). This study links the emergence of a discourse gay families in the 1980s to the enduring ramifications of the gay movements call to disclose ones sexual identity to "blood"and adoptive relatives. Todate this is the only lesbian/gay ethnographythat examineshowa range of racial,
ethnic, and class identifications can become interpretively entailed in the transformationof practices such as kinship. Outside the communitystudies tradition, Lewins (113-115, 117, 118) research on lesbian parents stands out for its analysis of strategies women have developed to managethe apparently conflicting identities of lesbian and mother. As the women elaborate these strategies in the context of custody disputes and demandsfrom children, lovers, and fathers, Lewin finds them constantly negotiating their identities rather than policing the boundaries of sexual identity as thoughthe latter were intrinsically most meaningful.In an absorbingaccountof living in the field with a partner of the samesex, Waiters (204) underlines the importanceof not assuminga universal salience for the abstract categories of identity politics. Yemeni women took the author, whois African-American, and her white lover for mother and daughter. Waiters believes that the emphasis on age as an organizing principle in Yemen superseded visible differences of skin color as well as any possible inference of a sexual relationship. 2 Equally unique is Newtons (150) essay on the impact erotic attraction on fieldwork, whichextends discussions of reflexivity in an important newdirection (see also 152). Morespecialized studies range from an ethnographyof a labor conflict at a lesbian auto repair shop (213) to works in progress on a gay theater company and the leather community (see also 161, 180).3 Linguistic anthropologyalso makesa rare appearancein lesbian/gay studies in the "American"arena (121, 134, 136, 137, 195).4 In Herdts (85) collection on gay men, Peterson (162) and Carrier (32) take a long overdue look at the relationship between racial/ethnic and sexual identities. Eachof these essays adds depth and complexity to earlier workthat includes Reads(167) ethnographyof "rituals of stigmatization" among patrons of a gay tavern, Bolins (16-18) pioneering research on transsexuals, and assorted studies of male cruising and sexual activity (38, 95, 200). These works also build upon research by a growing numberof nonanthropologists whouse fieldwork and interview techniques to goodeffect (e.g. 11, 51, 52, 164, 188). At its best, the new lesbian/gay ethnographyon the United States offers insights into topics of enduring anthropologicalinterest: the relationship betweenstructure and agency(92, 117); space, migration, and cultural identities
2 A revised version of Waiters essay will appear, along with other accounts by lesbianand
gay-identified anthropologists about the impact of sexual identityupon fieldwork andethnography,in E. Lewin, et al, eds. Lesbian~Gay Ethnography [provisional title] forthcoming from Urbana: University of IllinoisPress. 3 SeeM. Joseph,"Representing the GayCommunity: AnEthnographic Studyof Theatre Rhinoceros," andG.Rubin, "The Valley of the Kings: Leathermen in SanFrancisco, 1960-1985" (both manuscripts in progress). 4 Seealso W.Leap, Gay American English (manuscript in progress).
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline LESBIAN/GAY STUDIES 359 (151); community formation (99, 135, 151); commodification(35, 36, ideological transformations (211); contested hierarchies of "good" and "bad" sex (179); and the relation of subordinate groups to a dominantculture. seemsfitting that much of this research builds, however critically, uponthe concepts of identity and community.For anthropologists whowork in the UnitedStates, the object of study remains the cultural crucible that generated lesbian and gay, bisexual and queer, heterosexual and homosexual as categories that continueto organizescholarship and lives.
WHOS THE NATIVE
NOW?
Lesbian/gaystudies in anthropologyreached a turning point whenresearchers moved beyondfact-finding missions, typologies, and correlational studies to formulate questions about historical change, material relations, and how"the natives" conceptualized behaviors that observers glossed as transgendering and homosexuality. Ethnographersturned their attention to "what the natives have to say for themselves," not only in blanket statements about "traditional beliefs," but also in far moresophisticated interpretive analyses (cf 116). One ironic outcomeof the terminology debates has been to cast doubt upon the division into Native and Other(native to what?)that framedthis shift. In many cases ethnographerscontinue to favor holistic approachesthat tie homosexuality to place and locate "its" variants within bounded cultures, subcultures, or sex/gender systems. Yet a moveis also discernible to develop approachesto the study of gendering and sexuality that can deal with the diasporas and the fragmentation and reconfiguration of identities that havecharacterized the late 5 twentieth century. The significance of the participation of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-identified ethnographersin the development of transcultural studies of sexuality and genderingcannot be overestimated. But lesbian/gay studies in anthropologyis no longer easily separable into the products of ethnographers and natives, or even ethnographers whodouble as informants. Thoughthe change is incremental, research in other areas of anthropology has slowly becomemore inclusive. Studies of myth(59, 143), life histories (224), dance(72a), political relations (62), gender (197), and sexuality in general (129, 153a, 157) occasionally integrate material on homosexuality, homosociality, and transgendering. Homophobia has becomea topic for anthropological investigation (7, 7a, 55a, 226, 227). Scholars examinehow"gay" practices such as campare taken up and transformed by dominantideologies (35, 36, 147, 151). Politics 5 e.g.M.Manalansan III, "(Re)locating the Gay Filipino: Resistance, Postcolonialism and Identity" (unpublished ms.)andWinklers (228)argument that ancient Greek society hadits versions of sexual identities,though none equivalent to "homosexual."
as usual is disrupted whenactors and fans of the all-female TakarazukaRevue in Japan create alternative genderconstructs that resist state attempts to bend the theater to nationalist ends (170). Metaphors in medical texts encodesexualities at the cellular level in everyonesphysiology, with ominous political implications (123). A quarter century after the Stonewall Rebellion markedthe beginning of the gay movement, lesbians and gay mencontinue to wrestle with the limitations of a political strategy (coming.out) that takes sexualized categories personhood (lesbian, gay, bisexual) as givens. Tothe extent that these particular natives remain embedded in an economy of secrecy and disclosure, they encounter a paradoxsimilar to the one facing their ethnographers: scholars in lesbian/gay studies whoseek acceptance from a discipline which, until very recently, has marginalizedthemwith every newcontribution to the field. Rather than fostering a preoccupationwith issues of visibility or patrolling the border between"insiders" and "outsiders," the best workin this field uses ethnographicmaterial in classic relativist fashion to denaturalize Anglo-European conceptions of gender and sexuality. Anthropologists whohave benefited from the theory explosion that has characterized queer studies in the humanities have begun to rework more conventional approaches to power, bodies, work, ritual, kinship, medicine, desire, performance, and ethnographic method.Noneof this wouldbe possible without the constructivist current that has carried lesbian/gay studies in anthropologypast the Scylla of breaking the silence and the Charybdis of bringing the previously closeted into the light. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The final form of this essay owes much to the efforts of two research assistants, Alison Stratton and Linda Watts, whoworkedon the project at various stages. Ellen Lewin and Michael Moffatt made valuable suggestions about howbest to organize this sort of review. Kristin Koptiuch and Ellen Lewin gave newmeaningto the team collegiality by commenting on an earlier draft with less than 48 hours notice. Conversations with Lisa Bower,Thais Morgan, Esther Newton, and Geeta Patel helped clarify mythinking on several topics discussed here. Arizona State University West generously provided release time and other forms of material support. Thanksare also due to the colleagues and friends--too manyto name--whocontributed bibliographic references, contacts, support, and condolences once they discovered I had taken on the task. Literature Cited 2. Adam BD. 1986. Age, structure,andsexu1. Achilles N.1967. Thedevelopment of the ality: reflections ontheanthropological evhomosexual,bar as aninstitution. In Sexual idence onhomosexual relations.SeeRef. Deviance, ed. JHGagnon, W Simon, pp. 13, pp. 19-33 228-44.New York:Harper&Row
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

LESBIAN/GAY 3. Adam BD. 1989. Homosexualitywithout a gay word. Out/Look 1(4):74--82 4: Allen PG. 1981. Beloved women: lesbians in AmericanIndian cultures. Conditions 7:67-87 5. Allyn E. 1992. Trees in the SameForest: Thailands Culture and Gay Subculture. Bangkok: Bua Luang 6. Angelino H, Shedd CL. 1955. A note on berdache, Am. Ant hropol. 57:121-25 7. Arguelles L, Rich BR. 1985. Homosexuality, homophobia, and revolution: notes toward an understanding of the Cubanlesbian and gay maleexperience, part I. Signs 9(4):683-99 7a. Arguelles L, Rich BR. 1985. Homosexuality, homophobia, and revolution: notes toward an understandingof the Cubanlesbian and gay male experience, part II. Signs 11(1):120-36 8. BaldwinJD, BaldwinJI. 1989. The socialization of homosexuality and heterosexuality in a non-Westernsociety. Arch. Sex. Behav. 18(1):13-29 9. BenedictR. 1939. Sex in primitive society. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 9(3):570-73 10. Benedict R. 1959. Patterns of Culture. Reprint. Boston:Houghton Mifflin. 290 pp. 11. B~rub6 A. 1990. ComingOut Under Fire. New York: Free Press. 377 pp. 12. BlackwoodE. 1984. Sexuality and gender in certain Native American tribes: the case of cross-genderfemales. See Ref. 58a, pp. 27-42 13. BlackwoodE, ed. 1986. Anthropology and Homosexual Behavior. New York: Haworth. 217 pp. E. 1986. Breaking the mirror: 14. Blackwood the construction of lesbianism and the anthropological discourse on homosexuality. See Ref. 13, pp. 1-17 15. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg G. 1990. Pederasty among pfimitves: institutionalized initiation and cultic prostitution. J. Homosex. 20:13-30 and the lim16. Bolin A. 1987. Transsexualism its of traditional analysis. Am.Behav.Sci. 31(1):41-65 17. Bolin A. 1988. In Searchof Eve: Transsexual Rites of Passage. South Hadley, Mass: Bergin & Garvey. 193 pp. 18. Bolin A. 1992. Coming of age among transsexuals. In GenderConstructs and Social Issues, ed. TLWhitehead, BVReid, pp. 13-39. Chicago:Univ. Ill. Press terra incognita: 19. Bolton R. 1991. Mapping sex research for AIDS prevention--an urgent agenda for the 1990s. In The Timeof AIDS: Social Analysis, Theory, and Method, ed. G Herdt, S Lindenbaum, pp. 124-58. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage 20. Bolton R. 1992. AIDSand promiscuity: muddlesin the modelsof HIVprevention. Med. Anthropol. 14:145-223 STUDIES 361
21. Bower LC. 1992. "Transsexuals in the cockpit ": the "dangers"of sexual ambiguity. Presented at Annu.Meet. West. Polit. Sci. Assoc., San Francisco 22. Bradford NJ. 1983. Transgenderism and the cult of Yellamma: heat, sex, and sickness in South Indian ritual. J. Anthropol. Res. 39(3):307-22 23. Bullough VL. 1976. Sexual Variance in Society and History. NewYork: Wiley & Sons. 715 pp. 24. Bullough VL, Bullough B. 1993. Cross Dressing, Sex, and Gender.Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press 25. Callender C, Kochems LM. 1983. The North American berdache. Curr. Anthropol. 24(4):443-70 26. Callender C, KochemsLM.1985. Menand not-men: male gender-mixingstatuses and homosexuality. See Ref. 13, pp. 165-78 27. CarderJM. 1976.Cultural factors affecting urban Mexicanmale homosexual behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav. 5(2):103-24 28. Carrier JM, 1976. Family attitudes and Mexican male homosexuality. UrbanLife 5(3):359-75 29. Cartier JM. 1980. Homosexual behavior in cross-cultural perspective. In Homosexual Behavior: A ModernReappraisal, ed. J Marmot, pp. 100-22. NewYork: Basic Books 30. Carrier JM. 1985. Mexican male bisexuality. J. Homosex. 11(1/2):75--85 31. Carder JM. 1989. Sexual behavior and the spread of AIDSin Mexico. In The AIDS Pandemic, ed. R Bolton, pp. 37-50. New York: Gordon & Breach 32. Carrier JM. 1992. Miguel:sexual life history of a gay MexicanAmerican. See Ref. 85, pp. 202-24 33. Carrier JM, Bolton R. 1992. Anthropological perspectives on sexuality and HIVprevention. Annu.Rev. Sex Res. 2:49-75 34. Carder JM, Magafia JR. 1992. Use of ethnosexual data on menof Mexican origin for HWIA1DS prevention programs. In The lime of AIDS:SocialAnalysis, Theory, and Method, cal. G Herdt, S Lindenbaum,pp. 243-58. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage 35. Coombe RI. 1992. Author/izing the celebrity: publicity rights, postmodern politics, and unauthorized genders. CardozoArts & Entertain. LawJ. 10(2):365-95 36. Coombe RJ. 1992. Publicity rights and political aspiration: mass culture, gender identity, and democracy. N. Engl. LawRev. 26(4):1221-80 37. Cory DW,ed. 1956. Homosexuality: A Cross-Cultural Approach. NewYork: Burton & Westermark 38. Corzine J, Kirby R. 1977. Cruising the truckers: sexual encounters in a highway rest area. UrbanLife 6(2):171-92 39. CreedGW. 1984. Sexual subordination: in-

362 WESTON 56. Ford CS, BeachFA. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper. 307 pp. 57. Forgey DG. 1975. The institution of the berdache among the North AmericanPlains Indians. J. Sex Res. 11(1):1-15 58. Foucault M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. New Yurk: Vintage. 168 pp. 58a. Freedman EB, Gelpi BC, Johnson SL, WestonKM,eds. 1984. The Lesbian Issue: Essays from SIGNS. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 320 pp. 59. Friedrich P. 1978. The Meaningof Aphrodite. Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress. 243 pp. 60. Fry P. 1986. Male homosexuality and spirit possessionin Brazil. See Ref. 13, pp. 13753 61. Gay J. 1985. "Mummies and babies" and friends and lovers in Lesotho.See Ref. 13, pp. 97-116 62. Godelier M. 1986. The Making of Great Men: Male Domination and Power among the New Guinea Baruya. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press. 255 pp. 63. Goldberg J. 1991. Sodomy in the New World: anthropologies old and new. Soc. Text 9(4):46-56 64. Goldenweiser A. 1929. Sex and primitive society. In Sex in Civilization, ed. VF Calverton, SD Schmalhausen, pp. 53-67. NewYurk: Macauley EM.1991. Anthropological reflec65. Gorman tions the28(2):263-73 HIVepidemic among gay men. J. Sexon Res. 66. GrahnJ. 1986. Strange country this: lesbianismand North American Indian tribes. J. Homosex.12(3/4):43-57 67. Gray JP. 1986. Growingyamsand men: an interpretation of Kimam male dtualized homosexual behavior. See Ref. 13, pp. 5568 68. Gray JP, Ellington JE. 1984. Institutionalized male transvestism, the couvade, and homosexual behavior. Ethos 12: 54-63 69. Greenberg D. 1986. Whywas the berdache ridiculed? See Ref. 13, pp. 179--89 70. Greenberg DE1988. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 71. Guti~rrez RA. 1989. Must we deracinate Indians to find gay roots? Out~Look 1(4):61-67 72. Guti~rrez RA. 1991. WhenJesus Came,the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in NewMexico, 15001846. Stanford, Calif: StanfordUniv. Press. 424 pp. 72a. HannaJL. 1988. Dance, Sex, and Gender: Signs of Identity, Dominance,Defiance, and Desire. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress. 311 pp. 73. Hart DV. 1968. Homosexualityand transvestism in the Philippines. Behav. Sci. Notes 3(4):21148
stitutionalized homosexualityand social control in Melanesia. Ethnology 23(3): 157-76 40. Davis DL, Whitten RG. 1987. The crosscultural study of human sexuality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 16:69-98 41. Davis M, Kennedy EL. 1986. Oral history and the study of sexuality in the lesbian community: Buffalo NY, 1940-1960. Fem. Stud. 12(1):7-26 42. Davis M, KennedyEL. 1989. The reproduction of butch-femroles: a social constructionist approach. In Passion and Power, ed. K Peiss, C Simmons,with RA Padgug, pp. 241-56. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press 43. DEmilioJ. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 19401970. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 44. Devereux G. 1937. Institutionalized homosexuality of the MohaveIndians. Hum. Biol. 9:498-527 45. Dorniny MD.1986. Lesbian-feminist gender conceptions: separatism in Christchurch, New Zealand. Signs 11(2):274-89 46. Dover KJ. 1988. Greek homosexuality and initiation. In TheGreeksand Their Legacy, 2:115-34. NewYork: Blackwell 47. Duggan L. 1992. Making it perfectly queer. Social. Rev. 22(1):11-32 48. EdgertonR. 1964. Pokot intersexuality: an East African exampleof the resolution of sexual incongraity. Am. AnthropoL 66: 1288-99 49. Elliston DA.1992. "Ritualized homosexuality" in anthropology:critiquing a concept, re-situating practices. MAthesis. NewYork Univ. 50. Evans-Pritchard EE. 1970. Sexual inversion amongthe Azande. Am. AnthropoL 72(6):1428-34 51. FadermanL. 1991. OddGirls and Twilight Lovers: A History of LesbianLife in Twen~tieth-Century America. NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press. 373pp. 52. Faderman L. 1992. The return of butch and femme:a phenomenon in lesbian sexuality of the 1980s and 1990s. J. Hist. Sex. 2(4):578-96 53. Feldman DA. 1986. AIDS health promotion and clinically applied anthropology. In The Social Dimensions of AIDS: Method and Theory, ed. DAFeldman, TM Johnson, pp. 145-59. New York: Praeger 54. J. Feldman DA.17(1/2):185-93 1989. Gay youth and AIDS. Homosex. 55. Fitzgerald TK. 1977. Acritique of anthropological research on homosexuality. J. Homosex. 2(4):385-97 55a. Fitzgerald TK. 1993. Metaphors ofldentity: A Culture-Communication Dialogue. Ithaca, NY:State Univ. NewYork Press

LESBIAN/GAY 74. HeimannE, Le CV. 1975. Transsexualism in Vietnam. Arch. Sex. Behav. 4(1):89-95 75. Herdt G. 1981. Guardians of the Flutes: Idioms of Masculinity. New York: McGraw-Hill. 382 pp. 76. Herdt G. 1982. Fetish and fantasy in Sambia initiation. In Rituals of Manhood, ed. GHHerdt, pp. 44-98. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 77. Herdt G. 1986. Madnessand sexuality in the NewGuinea highlands. Soc. Res. 53(2):349-67 78. Herdt G. 1987. The Sambia: Ritual and Gender in New Guinea. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 79. Herdt G. 1987. Semendepletion and the sense of maleness. See Ref. 140, pp. 339451 80. Herdt G. 1989. Father presence and ritual homosexuality: paternal deprivation and masculine development in Melanesia reconsidered. Ethos 17(3):326-70 81. Herdt G, ed. 1989. HomosexualityandAdolescence NewYork: Haworth 82. Herdt G. 1990. Developmentaldiscontinuities and sexual orientation across cultures. In Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Conceptsof Sexual Orientation, ed. DP McWhirter, SA Sanders, JM Reinisch, pp. 208-36. NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press 83. Herdt G. 1990. Mistaken gender: 5-alpha reductase hemmphroditism and biological reductionismin sexual identity reconsidered. Am. Anthropol. 92(2):433-46 84. Herdt G. 1991. Representations of homosexuality: an essay on cultural ontologyand historical comparison, part I. J. Hist. Sex. 1(3):481-504 84a. Herdt G. 1991. Representations of homosexuality: an essay on cultural ontologyand historical comparison, part II. J. Hist. Sex. 1(4):603-32 Herdt G, ed. 1992. Gay Culture in Amer85. ica: Essays from the Field. Boston: Beacon. 255 pp. 86. Herdt GH,ed. 1993. Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia.Berkeley:Univ.Calif. Press. 2nd ed. In press 87. Herdt GH. 1993. Sementransactions in Sambia culture. See Ref. 86, In press 88. Herdt G. 1993. Ten years after Ritualized Homosexualityin Melanesia: introduction to the newedition. See Ref. 86, In press 89. Herdt G, Boxer AM.1991. Ethnographic issues in the study of AIDS.J. Sex Res. 28(2):171-87 90. Herdt G, BoxerA. 1993. Children of Horizons: HowGay and Lesbian Teens Are Leading a New Way Out of the Closet. Boston: Beacon. In press 91. Herdt GH,Stoller ILl. 1990. Intimate Communications:Erotics and the Study of CulSTUDIES 363
ture. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press. 467 pp. Herrell RK. 1992. The symbolicstrategies 92. of Chicagos gay and lesbian pride day parade. See Ref. 85, pp. 225-52 93. Hooker E. 1965. Male homosexuals and their "words." In Sexual Inversion, ed. J Marmor, pp. 83-107. NewYork: Basic Books 94. Hooker E. 1967. The homosexual community. In Sexual Deviance, ed. JH Gagnon, WSimon, pp. 16744. NewYork: Harper & Row 95. HumphreysL. 1975. TearoomTrade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine. 238 pp. 96. Isaacs G, McKendrickB. 1992. Male Homosexualityin South Africa: Identity Formation, Culture, and Crisis. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press 97. Jacobs S-E. 1968. Berdache: a brief overview of the literature. Colo. Anthropol. 1:25-40 97a. Jacobs S-E, Roberts C. 1989. Sex, sexuality, gender, and gendervariance. In Gender and Anthropology, ed. S Morgan,pp. 43862. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 98. Kelly RC. 1976. Witchcraft and sexual relations: an exploration in the social and semantic implications of the structure of belief. In Man and Womanin the New Guinea Highlands, ed. P Brown, G Buchbinder, pp. 36-53. Washington, DC: Am.Anthropol. Assoc. 99. Kennedy EL, Davis MD.1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold:The History of a Lesbian Community. New York: Routledge. 434 pp. 100.Kenney M.1988. Tinselled bucks: a historical study in Indian homosexuality. In Living the Spirit, ed. WRoscoe with Gay American Indians, pp. 15-31. NewYork: St. Martins 1986. Text and social practice: 101.Knauft BM. narrative "longing" and bisexuality among the Gebusi of New Guinea. Ethos 14:25281 102.Knauft BM. 1987. Homosexuality in Melanesia:the need for a synthesis of perspectives. J. Psychoanal. Anthropol.10(2): 155-91 103.Knauft BM.1990. The question of ritualised homosexuality amongthe Kiwai of South NewGuinea. J. Pac. Hist. 25(2): 188-210 104.Knauft BM.1993. South Coast NewGuinea Cultures: History, Comparison, Dialectic. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press 105. Krieger S. 1983. The Mirror Dance: Identity in a Womens Community. Philaddphia: TempleUniv. Press. 199 pp. 106.Kroeber AL. 1940. Psychosis or social sanction? Character Pers. 8:204-15

364 WESTON ed. K Plummer, pp. 30-44. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble 125.MeadM. 1949. Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World. New York: Morrow.477 pp. 126.Mead M. 1963. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: Morrow. 335 pp. 127.MidnightSun. 1988. Sex/gender systems in Native North America.In Living the Spirit, ed. WRoscoe with Gay AmericanIndians, pp. 32-47. New York: St. Martins 128. Miller J. 1982.People, berdaches,and lefthanded bears: human variation in Native America. J. Anthropol. Res. 38:274-87 129.Moffatt M. 1989. Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. 355 pp. 130. MoodieTD, Sibuyi VNB.1989. Migrancy and male sexuality on the South African gold mines. In HiddenFromHistory, ed. M Duberman, MVicinus, G Chauncey,Jr., pp. 411-25. NewYork: Meridian/Penguin 131.Mort-is RJ. 1990. Aikane: accounts of Hawaiian same-sexrelationships in the journals of CaptainCooksthird voyage( 177680). J. Homosex.19:21-54 132.Murtroe R, Whiting JWM, Hally D. 1969. Institutionalized male transvestism and sex distinctions. Am. Anthropol. 71:87-91 133.MunroeRL. 1980. Male transvestism and the couvade: a psycho-cultural analysis. Ethos 8:49-59 134.MurraySO. 1979. The art of gay insulting. Anthropol. Linguist. 21:211-23 135.Murray SO. 1979. The institution of a quasi-ethnic community. Int. Rev. Mod. Sociol. 9:155-75 136.MurraySO. 1980. Lexical and institutional elaboration: the "species homosexual"in Guatemala. Anthropol. Linguist. 22:17785 137.MurraySO. 1983. Ritual and personal insuits in stigmatized subcultures: gay-black--Jew. Maledicta 7:189-211 138.Murray SO. 1984. Social Theory, Homosexual Realities. New York: Gai Saber 139. MurraySO, ed. 1987. Male Homosexuality in Central and South America. New York: Gay Academic Union Murray SO, ed. 1987. Cultural Diversity 140. and Homosexualities. New York: Irvington 141.Murray SO. 1991. Sleeping with the nafives as a source of data. Soc. Lesbian Gay Anthropol. Newsl. 13(3):49-51 142.Murray SO, ed. 1992. Oceanic Homosexualities. NewYork: Garland. 409 PP. 143.Nadelson L. 1981. Pigs, women,and the mens house in Amazonia:an analysis of six Mundurucd myths. In Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality, ed. SBOrtner, HWhitehead,
107.Lancaster RN. 1988. Subject honor and object shame:the construction of male homosexuality and stigma in Nicaragua. Ethnology 27(2): 111-25 108.Lancaster RN. 1992. Life Is Hard: Machismo, Danger, and the Intimacy of Power. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 332 PP. 109.Landes R. 1940. A cult matfiarchate and male homosexuality. J. Abnorm.Soc. PsychoL 35:386-97 110.Lattas A. 1990. Poetics of space and sexual economiesof power: gender and the politics of male identity in WestNew Britain. Ethos 18(1):71-10 Ill.Levy R. 1973. Tahitians: Mindand Experience in the Society Islands. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press. 547 pp. 112. Levy RI. 1971. The community function of Tahitian male transvestitism: a hypothesis. Anthropol. Q. 44(1):12-21 ll3.Lewin E. 1981. Lesbianism and motherhood: implications for child custody. Hum. Organ. 40(1):6-14 114.Lewin E. 1985. By design: reproductive strategies and the meaningof motherhood. In TheSexualP o litics of Reproduction, ed. H Homans, pp. 123-38. London: Gower 115. LewinE. 1990. Claims to motherhood:custody disputes and maternal strategies. In Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture, ed. F Ginsburg, AL Tsing, pp. 199-214. Boston: Beacon ll6.Lewin E. 1991. Writing lesbian and gay culture: what the natives have to say for themselves. Am. Ethnol. 18(4):786-91 ll7.Lewin E. 1993. Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture. Ithaca, NY:Cornell Univ. Press. 256pp. 118.LewinE. 1993. Onthe outside looking in: the politics of lesbian motherhood. In Conceiving the NewWorld Order, ed. F Ginsburg, R Rapp.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press ll9.Lidz T, Lidz RW.1986. Turning women things into men:masculinization in Papua NewGuinea. PsychoanaLRev. 73(4):52139 120.Lockard D. 1986. The lesbian community: an anthropological approach. See Ref. 13, pp. 83-95 120aLongS, BornemanJ. 1990. Power, objectivity, and the other: the creation of sexual species in modernist discourse. Dialect. Anthropol. 15:285-314 ME.1976. Code switching and sex121.Lumby ual orientation: a test of Bernsteinssociolinguistic theory. J. Homosex. 1(4):383-99 122.Mageo JM. 1992. Male transvestism and cultural change in Samoa. Am. Ethnol. 19(3):443-59 123. Martin E. 1992. The end of the body?Am. Ethnol. t9(1):121-40 124.Mclntosh M. 1981. The homosexual role. In The Makingof the ModernHomosexual,

LESBIAN/GAY pp. 240-72. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press 144.Nanda S. 1986. Thehijras of India: cultural and individual dimensions of an institutionalized third genderrole. See Ref. 13, pp. 35-54 145.Nanda S. 1990. Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.170 pp. 146.Nardi PM.1992. Thats what friends a.re for: friends as familyin the gay and lesbian community.See Ref. 164, pp. 108-20 147.Newton E. 1979. Mother Camp:Female Impersonators in America. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress. 136 pp. 148.NewtonE. 1984. The mythic mannishlesbian: Radclyffe Hall and the New Woman. See Ref. 58a, pp. 7-25 149.NewtonE. 1988. Of yams, grinders and gays: the anthropology of homosexuality. Out/Look1 (1):28-37 150.Newton E. 1993. Mybest informants dress: the erotic equation in fieldwork. Cult. Anthropol. 8(1):3-23 151.NewtonE. 1993. Cherry Grove, Fire Island: Sixty Years in Americas First Gay and Lesbian Town. Boston: Beacon. In press 152.NewtonE, Walton S. 1984. The misunderstanding. In Pleasure and Danger, ed. CS Vance, pp. 242-50. NewYork: Routledge & Kegan Paul 153.Oboler RS. 1980. Is the female husband a man?: Woman/woman marriage among the Nandi of Kenya. Ethnology 19(1):6988 153a.Oldenburg VT. 1990. Lifestyle as resistance: the case of the courtesans of Lucknow, India. Fem. Stud. 16(2):259-87 154.Opler MK.1965. Anthropological and cross-cultural aspects of homosexuality. In Sexual Inversion, ed. J Marmot,pp. 10823. NewYork: Basic Books 155.Parker R. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndromein urban Brazil. Med. Anthropol. Q. 1:155-75 156.Parker R. 1989. Youth,identity, and homosexuality: the changing shapeof sexual life in contemporary Brazil. J. Homosex. 17(3/4):269-89 157.Parker RG.1991. Bodies, Pleasures, and Passions: Sexual Culture in Contemporary Brazil. Boston: Beacon.203 pp. 158.Parker RG.1992. Sexualdiversity, cultural analysis, and AIDS education in Brazil. In The lime of AIDS:Social Analysis, Theory, and Method, ed. G Herdt, S Lindenbaum, pp. 225-42. NewburyPark, Calif: Sage 159. Parker RG, Carballo M. 1990. Qualitative research on homosexualand bisexual behavior relevant to HIV/AIDS. J. Sex Res. 27(4):497-525 160.Parker RG, I-Ierdt G, Carballo M. 1991. STUDIES 365
Sexual culture, HIVtransmission, and AIDS research. J. Sex Res. 28(1):77-98 161.Perkins KB,Skipper JK Jr. 1981. Gaypornographic and sex paraphernalia shops: an ethnography of expressive worksettings. Dev. Behav. 2(2): 187-99 162.Peterson JL. 1992. Black menand their same-sexdesires and behaviors. See Ref. 85, pp. 147-64 163.Pilling AR.1992. NorthwestCalifornia Indian gender classes: "those whocould not marry," "those men whohave never been near a woman,"and "women whodo mens things." Soc. Lesbian Gay Anthropol. Newsl. 14(2):15-23 164.Plummer K, ed. 1992. Modern Homosexualities : Fragments of Lesbianand Gay Experience. NewYork: Routledge. 281 pp. 165.Ponse B. 1978. Identities in the Lesbian WorM: The Social Construction of Self. Westport, Corm: Greenwood 166.Povinelli B. 1992. Blood, sex, and power: "pitjawagaitj"/menstruation ceremonies and land politics in Aboriginal northern Australia. Presented at the Annu. Meet. Am.Anthropol. Assoc., San Francisco 167.Read KE. 1980. Other Voices: The Style of a Male Homosexual Tavern. Novato, Calif: Chandler & Sharp 168.Riley C. 1988. American kinship: a lesbian account. Fern. Issues 8(2):75-94 169.RobertsonJ. 1989. Gender-bending in paradise: doing "female" and "male" in Japan. Genders 5:50~59 170.RobertsonJ. 1991. Theatrical resistance, theatres of restraint: the Takarazuka Revue and the "state theatre" movement in Japan. Anthropol. Q. 64(4):165-77 171.RobertsonJ. 1992. The politics of androgyny in Japan: sexuality and subversion in the theater and beyond. Am. EthnoL 19(3):1-24 172.Roscoe W. 1987. Bibliography of berdache and alternative gender roles among North American Indians. J. Homosex.14(3/4): 81-171 173.RoscoeW. 1988. Strange country this: images of berdaches and warrior women.In Living the Spirit, ed. WRoscoe with Gay American Indians, pp. 48-76. NewYork: St. Martins 174.RoscoeW.1990. "That is myroad": the life and times of a Crow berdache. Mont.: Mag. West. Hist. (Winter):46-55 175.Roscoe W. 1991. The Zuni Man-Woman. Albuquerque:Univ. N. M. Press. 302 pp. 176.Roscoe W. 1991/1992. Writing lesbian and gay culture(s): an impossible possibility? OurStories 7(1/2):1, 10-12 177.Roscoe W. 1992. Howto become a berdache: towarda unified analysis of gender diversity. Presentedat the Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., San Francisco 178. RubinG. 1975. The traffic in women: notes

366 WESTON 197. Strathern M. 1988. Theqender of the Gift. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. 422 pp. 198.Thayer JS. 1980. The berdache of the NorthernPlains: a socioreligious perspecfive. J. Anthropol. Res. 36:287-93 199.Topley M. 1975. Marriage resistance in rural Kwangtung. In Women in Chinese Society, ed. MWolf, R Witke, pp. 67-88. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press 200. Troiden RR. 1974. Homosexual encounters in a highwayrest stop. In Sexual Deviance and Sexual Deviants, ed. E Goode, RR Troiden, pp. 211-28. NewYork: Morrow 201.TrumbachR. 1977. Londons sodomites: homosexualbehavior and Western culture in the eighteenthcentury.J. Soc. Hist. 11:1 33 202. VanceCS. 1989. Social construction theory: problems in the history of sexuality. In Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality? ed. D Altman, C Vance, M Vicinus, J Weeks,et al, pp. 13-34. London: GMP 203. VanceCS. 1991. Anthropologyrediscovers sexuality: a theoretical comment. Soc. Sci. Med. 33(8):875-84 204. Waiters DM. 1991. Cast amongoutcastes: interpreting sexual orientation, racial, and gender identity in Yemen.Soc. Lesbian Gay Anthropol. Newsl. 13(3):43-8 205.Warren CAB.1974. Identity and Community in the Gay World. NewYork: Wiley. 191pp. 206.Warren CAB.1977. Fieldwork in the gay world: issues in phenomenological research. J. Soc. Issues 33(4):93-107 207. Weeks J. 1987. Questionsof identity. In The Cultural Construction of Sexuality, ed. P Caplan, pp. 30-51. New York: Tavistock 208. Weiurich JD, Williams WL.1991. Strange customs,familiar lives: homosexualities in other cultures. In Homosexuality: Research Findings for Public Policy, ed. JC Gonsiorek, JD Weinfich, pp. 44-59. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage 209. WernerD. 1979. Across-cultural perspective on theory and research on male homosexuality. J. Homosex. 4(4):345-62 210. Westermarck E. 1906. Homosexual love. In The Origin and Developmentof the Moral Ideas, pp. 456-89. London: Macmillan 211. WestonK. 1991. Families WeChoose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press. 261pp. 212.Weston K. 1993. Do clothes make the woman?: gender, performance theory, and lesbian eroticism. Genders17:In Press 213.Weston KM,Rofel LB. 1985. Sexuality, class, and conflict in a lesbian workplace. See Ref. 58a, pp. 199-222 214. WhitamFL, Dizon MJ. 1979. Occupational choice and sexual orientation in cross-cultural perspective. Int. Rev. Mod. SocioL 9:137-49 215.WhitamFL. 1987. A cross-cultural per-
on the "political economy" of sex. In Toward an Anthropology of Women,ed. R Reiter, pp. 157-210. NewYork: Monthly Review 179.Rubin G. 1984. Thinking sex: notes for a radical theoryof the politics of sexuality. In Pleasure and Danger, ed. CS Vance, pp. 26%319. NewYork: Routledge & Kegan Paul 180. RubinG. 1991. The catacombs: a temple of the butthole. In Leatherfolk, ed. MThompson, pp. 119--41. Boston: Alyson 181.Rubin G. 1992. Of catamites and kings: reflections on butch, gender, and boundaries. In ThePersistent Desire,ed. J Nestle, pp. 466-82. Boston: Alyson 182.SankarA. 1986.Sisters and brothers, lovers and enemies: marriage resistance in Southern Kwangtung, See Ref. 13, pp. 69-82 183.Schaeffer CE. 1965. The Kutenai female berdacbe: courier, guide, prophetess, and warrior. Ethnohistory 12(3): 193-236 184.Schiefenhtvel W. 1990. Ritualized adultmale/adolescent-male sexual behavior in Melanesia. In Pedophilia, ed. JR Feierman, pp. 394-421. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 185.Schieffelin EL. 1976. The Sorrow of the Lonely and the Burning of the Dancers. New York: St. Martins. 243 pp. 186.Schieffelin EL. 1982. The bau a ceremonial hunting lodge: an alternative to initiation. In Rituals of Manhood, ed. GHHerdt, pp. 155-200. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 187.SchneebaumT. 1988. Where the Spirits Dwell: An Odyssey in the New Guinea Jungle. New York: GrovePress. 211 pp. 188.Sears JT. 1991. Growing Up Gay in the South: Race, Gender, and Journeys of the Spirit. NewYork: Hawoah.530 pp. 189.Shepberd G. 1987. Rank, gender, and homosexuality: Mombasa as a key to understanding sexual options. In The Cultural Construction of Sexuality, ed. P Caplan, pp. 240-70. NewYork: Tavistock 190.Shostak M. 1981. Nisa: The Life and Words of a .tKung Woman.Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 402 pp. 191. Silverman K. 1992. Male Subjectivity at the Margins. New York: Routledge. 447 pp. 192. Singer M, Flores C, Davison L, Burke G, Castillo Z, et al. 1990. SIDA: the economic, social, and cultural context of AIDS among Latinos. Med. Anthropol. Q. 4(1):72-114 193.Sonenschein D. 1966. Homosexualityas a subject of anthropological inquiry. AnthropoLQ. 39(2):73--82 194.Sonenschein D. 1968. The ethnography of male homosexual relationships. J. Sex Res. 4:6%83 195.Sonenschein D. 1969. The homosexuals language. J. Sex Res. 5:281-91 196.Spencer N. 1983. Medical anthropology and the AIDS epidemic: a case study in San Francisco. UrbanAnthropol.12(2):141-59

LESBIAN/GAY spective on homosexuality, transvestism and trans-sexualism. In Variant Sexuality, ed. GDWilson, pp. 176-201. London: Croom Helm 216.Whitarn FL, MathyR. 1986. Male Homosexuality in Four Societies. NewYork: Praeger 217. WhiteheadH. 1981. The bowand the burden strap: a newlook at institutionalized homosexualityin Native North America.In Sexual Meanings,ed. SBOrtner, H Whitehead, pp. 80-115. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 218.Whitehead H. 1986. Thevarieties of fertility cultism in NewGuinea, part I. Am. Ethnol. 13(1):80-99 218a.whitehead H. 1986. The varieties of fertility cultism in NewGuinea, part II. Am. Ethnol. 13(2):271-89 219.WieringaS. 1989. Ananthropological critique of constructionism: berdaches and butches. In Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality? ed. D Altman, C Vance, M Vicinus, J Weeks,et al, pp. 215-38. London: GMP 220.Wikan U. 1977. Man becomes woman: transsexualism in Oman as a key to gender roles. Man12:304-19 221.WikanU. 1991. The xanith: a third gender role? In Behind the Veil in Arabia: Women STUDIES 367
in Oman,pp. 168-86. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 222. Williams FE. 1936. Papuans of the TransFly. Oxford: Clarendon. 452 pp. 223. Williams WL.1987. Women, men, and others: beyond ethnocentrism in gender theory. Am. Behav. Sci. 31(1):135-41 224. Williams WL. 1991. Javanese Lives: Women and Men in Modem Indonesian Society. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. 238pp. 225.Williams WL. 1992. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in AmericanIndian Culture. Boston: Beacon.2nd ed. 344 PP. 226.Williams WL. 1992. Benefits for nonhomophobic societies: an anthropological perpsective. In Homophobia: HowWe All Pay the Price, ed. WJ Blumenfeld, pp. 258-74. Boston: Beacon 227. Williams WL.1993. Fromsamurai to capitalist: malelove, mensroles, and the rise of homophobia in Japan. J. MensStud. In press 228. Winkler JJ. 1990. The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropologyof Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. NewYork: Routledge. 269 pp. 229.Wolf DG. 1979. The Lesbian Community. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. 196 pp.

Lesbian and Gays Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesbian and Gays Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.

LESBIAN/GAYSTUDIES IN THE HOUSE OF ANTHROPOLOGY

85069-7100 KEY WORDS: homosexuality, lesbian,gay, gender,identity

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 340 WESTON

THE DATA GATHERERS

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 342 WESTON

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 348 WESTON

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 352 WESTON

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 354 WESTON

AIDS AND THE "AMERICAN" RENAISSANCE

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 356 WESTON

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 358 WESTON

WHOS THE NATIVE

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 360 WESTON

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline

You might also like