little or nothing, in a practical political sense, to
undermine either heterosexual hegemony or
the ‘tyranny’ of heterosexually–constructed
gender (Kirby, 1995). Larry has further argued
that the deconstruction of sexualities alone is
inadequate (and indeed dangerous) as a political
strategy, since it leaves unanswered crucial
questions of value and ethics, such as the impli-
cations for race- and gender-based power rela-
tions when certain highly sexualized (and
potentially sexist) and racialized (and potentially
racist) practices are engaged in by sexual minori-
ties (Knopp, 1995).
Lynda Johnston (1996), meanwhile, queers the
spaces of the gym and the female body by
demonstrating how disruptive to heterosexual
norms female body-builders’ physical presence
can be. The importance of physical interventions
in bodily processes such as menstruation and
birth control have also been analyzed and inter-
preted in terms of their significance to the con-
struction of genders and sexualities (Cream,
1995). And in the context of the central London
banking industry workplace, Linda McDowell
(1994; 1995) explores the role that gendered and
sexualized spaces can play in disciplining bodily
comportment (for example, styles of dress,
physical build, hairstyle, makeup, stance, manner
of self-presentation). These works are synec-
dochical of a spate of recent literature that
focuses on bodies as a frame for examining the
relationship between subjectivity and space
(Duncan, 1996; Nast and Pile, 1998; Pile, 1996).
Given the coding of sex and sexuality as
‘private’ matters, it is not surprising that some
geographers have begun also to queer the space
of the ‘home’. Whether it is seen as a space of
capital accumulation, social reproduction, care-
giving, double oppression or just a haven in a
heartless world, the home is increasingly viewed
also as a site of heteronormative structure by
these scholars. Several examples come to mind.
Valentine (1998) describes vividly how the
‘private’ space of her home was usurped and
disciplined by the homophobic predations of an
anonymous harasser. In the process she demon-
strates convincingly how the disciplining power
of heteronormativity works through home space,
and in collaboration with a wide range of cultural
assumptions. Valentine (1993a) and Mackenzie
and Rose (1983) make the brilliant but simple
point that residential architecture and design in
the late twentieth century have presumed the
norm of a heterosexual ‘nuclear’ family. In terms
of resistance to this, the capital gains on domes-
tic property through gentrification have been
shown by a number of geographers (including
Larry: see Knopp, 1990b; Peake, 1993) to be duein part to a complex interplay between market
forces and resistance to oppression on the part of
gay and lesbian owners. This includes an
acknowledgment of the very problematic role of
some gay men and lesbians in what can at times
be quite predatory forms of gentrification.
Michael, meanwhile, explored how incredibly
complicated the home geographies associated
with the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS
can be (Brown, 1997), while Jay (1997) stresses
that the politics of domesticity among lesbian
and gay parents are not as similar to those of
heterosexual parents as it might at first appear.
Spaces more traditionally constructed as
‘public’ have similarly been subject to the criti-
cal eye of queer theory and queer studies, includ-
ing the sometimes highly charged spaces of
teaching and research. In 1997 and again in
1999, for example, the Journal of Geography in
Higher Education featured symposia dealing
with the practice and politics of teaching and
researching sexualities. Both of these were
strongly influenced by queer theory. Special
sessions at conferences have also focused on the
politics of teaching and researching sexualities,
again from primarily queer perspectives. Topics
covered have ranged from how queer theory and
experiences can be used to shed light on subjects
such as borders, boundaries, nation-states and
capitalism, through the ways in which racism,
sexism and heterosexism can be deconstructed in
the classroom, to thorny issues of curriculum,
institutional and pedagogical priorities, and the
evaluation of educational ‘output’ (including
faculty performance).
Ironically, consensuses (of sorts) have
emerged around at least three points. First, all
human relations – including those in the aca-
demy – are sexualized and, in most contemporary
cultural contexts, characterized by the processes
associated with homophobia and heterosexism
(most significantly, closeting). This means that
even the most ‘private’ and mundane of spaces
are sites in which dominant relations of power
are reproduced and (potentially) resisted.
Second, the embodied experiences of real human
beings are almost always queer in at least one
dimension or another. They often involve, for
example, iterative performances that reveal the
constructedness of taken-for-granted everyday
experiences and artifacts (for example, borders,
nation-states, economies). This being the case, a
queer methodology that reveals the power rela-
tions and mechanisms behind these constructions
is potentially very effective. Third, sexual politics
(and the politics of sexuality) are particularly
apposite topics in colleges and universities.
Attention to these can be touchy, but is important316 PLACING SUBJECTIVITIES3029-ch16.qxd 03-10-02 10:55 AM Page 316