Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

HOW TO DO THE HISTORY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY

HOW TO DO THE HISTORY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY GLQ 6:1 pp. 87–124 Copyright © 2000 by Duke University Press GLQ: A JOURNAL OF LESBIAN AND GAY STUDIES © 2000 by Peter Lyssiotis continuity and discontinuity, identity and difference, in the history of sexuality. The constructionist-essentialist debate of the late 1980s should be seen as a particularly vigorous effort to force a solution to this question, but even after constructionists claimed to have won the debate, and essentialists claimed to have exposed the bad scholarship produced by it, and everyone else claimed to be sick and tired of it, the basic question about the historicity of sexuality has remained. In fact, current work in the history of sexuality still appears to be poised in its emphasis between the two poles of identity and difference, which in my view represent merely reformulated versions of the old essentialist and constructionist positions. netheless, it may be prudent to recast the question in less polemical or old-fashioned terms by ackwledging that any adequate attempt to describe the historicity of sexuality will have to fix on some strategy for accommodating the aspects of sexual life that seem to persist through time as well as the dramatic differences between historically documented forms of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies Duke University Press

HOW TO DO THE HISTORY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/how-to-do-the-history-of-male-homosexuality-ZyNlhQCDOa
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
1064-2684
eISSN
1527-9375
DOI
10.1215/10642684-6-1-87
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

GLQ 6:1 pp. 87–124 Copyright © 2000 by Duke University Press GLQ: A JOURNAL OF LESBIAN AND GAY STUDIES © 2000 by Peter Lyssiotis continuity and discontinuity, identity and difference, in the history of sexuality. The constructionist-essentialist debate of the late 1980s should be seen as a particularly vigorous effort to force a solution to this question, but even after constructionists claimed to have won the debate, and essentialists claimed to have exposed the bad scholarship produced by it, and everyone else claimed to be sick and tired of it, the basic question about the historicity of sexuality has remained. In fact, current work in the history of sexuality still appears to be poised in its emphasis between the two poles of identity and difference, which in my view represent merely reformulated versions of the old essentialist and constructionist positions. netheless, it may be prudent to recast the question in less polemical or old-fashioned terms by ackwledging that any adequate attempt to describe the historicity of sexuality will have to fix on some strategy for accommodating the aspects of sexual life that seem to persist through time as well as the dramatic differences between historically documented forms of

Journal

GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay StudiesDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.