Cultural Geography

closet to cyberspace and from the individual to

the globe. Finally, we imagine several new queer

geographies that have yet to be written. We want

to stress at the outset that what follows is by no

means an exhaustive or definitive survey of the

field. Our hope is that this chapter helps others to

at least begin to find their bearings and consider

ways their own interests might jive with queer

geographies – because we are absolutely certain

that they can and must!

QUEER GEOGRAPHY AND

ITS PRECURSORS

While the publication of Mapping Desire(Bell

and Valentine, 1995) is often heralded as the

beginning of sexuality and space studies, even its

own editors remind us that there is a longer (and

courageous) legacy to appreciate. For example, a

number of disparate activities began to take

shape in the 1970s that put sexual minority iden-

tities and communities on the discipline’s map

(at least for those who were willing to see). The

simple act of arranging meetings of gay and les-

bian geographers at Association of American

Geographers’ meetings precipitated extraordi-

narily nasty public (and published) denounce-

ments from established and secure figures in the

discipline (Carter, 1977). Meanwhile, a small

number of researchers, mostly in urban, cultural

and economic geography and often linked to the

nascent gay and lesbian rights movement, began

drawing attention to gays and lesbians in other

ways. Barbara Weightman (1980), for example,

sought to bring into the open the significance of

gay bars as social spaces. Christopher Winters

(1979) and Bill Ketteringham (1979; 1983) noted

the important role played by gays and lesbians in

inner-city commercial and residential ‘revitaliza-

tion’. And Bob McNee (1984; 1985) examined

the role of oppressionin creating distinct but

marginalized gay and lesbian spaces and net-

works in cities, at the same time as he valiantly

challenged the discipline’s own homophobia and

sexism both in and out of print. In this respect

McNee was far ahead of his time. His contribu-

tions represented an embodiedinsistence that

oppression of gays and lesbians was real, sys-

tematic and fully present in the discipline of

geography – this at a time when critical reflec-

tion on academic practice (except perhaps in the

realm of research and teaching ‘ethics’) was

virtually unheard of! In his written work on the

subject McNee focused on where, how and why

gays and lesbians are and are not able to express

our embodied difference from heterosexuals,

particularly our same-sex desire and practice but

also other forms of gender non-conformity (for

example, drag) and affiliations (for example,

with prostitution) that tend to make middle-class

professionals (like geographers) ‘squeamish’.

McNee backed these assertions up with what

were at the time very controversial efforts to

make space at professional conferences for gays

and lesbians to be homosexual (not just to net-

work). He attended at least one session in drag

himself, led an informal field trip to the gay/

lesbian and red-light entertainment district of

Denver during an Association of American

Geographers’ conference there, and helped to

organize the first informal gay and lesbian caucus

of the Association of American Geographers

by posting invitations for gay and lesbian

geographers to meet.

But with the possible exception of McNee,

none of this ‘first wave’ of geographers dealing

with sexuality consciously challenged the posi-

tivist epistemology that underlay most human

geography at the time. Still, it quickly became

clear that this was inevitable. Similar (and cer-

tainly not coincidental) developments were taking

place in feminist geographic quarters where

issues of gender-based power relations were

being pushed, as well as in more traditional

radical circles where political economists (mostly,

but not exclusively, Marxists) were pressing

issues of class. More recently, anti-racists have

experienced essentially the same challenge in the

context of ‘race’. It seems dominant paradigms

were ill-suited to all of these issues.^5

For sexuality studies, the result has been a

series of efforts to deploy the theoretical tools of

feminism and political economy (and anti-

racism) as well as engagements with postmod-

ern, poststructuralist and queer theories. In an

early effort involving one of us (Lauria and

Knopp, 1985), Larry used the combination of

Marxian-inspired theories of organizations and

urban land use, feminist approaches to gender

and sexuality, and some early lesbian/gay social

theory to understand the role of gay communities

in urban redevelopment. Tim Davis (1991; 1995)

similarly employed Marxian-inspired theories of

social movements, augmented by feminist

theory, to understand gay and lesbian political

activism. British geographers Peter Jackson

(1989), Gill Valentine (1993a), Gillian Rose

(1993), David Bell (1995) and Jon Binnie

(1993), meanwhile, brought questions of repre-

sentation, desire and performance to the fore in

otherwise similar discussions. Eventually the

challenge represented by these latter contribu-

tions (which itself was simultaneously a major

contributor to, and product of, the cultural turn in

314 PLACING SUBJECTIVITIES

3029-ch16.qxd 03-10-02 10:55 AM Page 314