Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to

Feminist Review. ®
www.jstor.org
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 137

conclusion to the conference. Speakers, whose presentations will be

published both in English and in Dutch later this year, included Martha
Vicinus, Monique Wittig and Jeffrey Weeks.
All the papers prepared for the conference were required to be
original, unpublished contributions and were also required to be
submitted several months in advance of the conference. This was
intended to enable the conference organizers to provide detailed
editorial feedback on the papers, and then to publish and distribute them
in advance of the conference. This in turn was intended to provide
participants with the opportunity to read many of the papers before
coming to Amsterdam. However, many participants had not read the
papers beforehand, and this perhaps contributed to the persistence of a
rather academic format in workshops. It was also unfortunate, given this
extensive amount of pre-conference organization, that workshops were
then divided into only five sessions, thus making it impossible for anyone
to attend more than four in addition to her/his own presentation.
Since there were so many overlapping activities, we were only able to
attend a selection of what was on offer, and therefore we can only report
our own impressions of the conference. As a result, this report draws
together themes from the workshops we attended, which were largely
focused on lesbian issues. Although a considerable portion of the
conference was concerned with issues of interest to gay men, these will
not be covered in any depth in this report. We begin with a discussion of
the theme of the conference, and the variety of questions this raised. This
is followed by a more detailed discussion of some of the workshops we
attended.

Part One: essentialism and social constructionism

revisited

The focus of the conference was the relationship between essentialist and
social constructionist theories in debates about lesbianism and
homosexuality. In particular the aim was 'to question the way in which
constructivism and essentialism are viewed in scholarly debate on
homosexuality as mutually exclusive approaches' and to consider
`whether historical and cultural continuities exist alongside discon-
tinuities (or vice versa)' (conference Program: 7). The success of this
conference can in part be attributed to the fact that papers on subjects as
diverse as history, theology, visual representation and science all
addressed these common themes. This resulted in considerable overlap
between workshops at a conceptual level, which in turn facilitated a
sustained dialogue among participants on the themes of the conference.
For most people familiar with recent debates in the study of gender
and sexuality, the terms 'social constructionist' and 'essentialist' are a
well-known shorthand for important political and epistemological
differences within the field. 'Essentialism' generally refers to argu-
ments about either gender or sexuality which appeal to biological or
138 Feminist Review

genetic determinism, universalism or explanations based on the idea of

`nature' or 'human nature', such as those of the early sexologists who
believed homosexuality to be pathological in origin. Essentialist expla-
nations are often characterized by a fixity which may be extremely
difficult to challenge, and an 'it just is that way' connotation which has
made them both appealing and enduring belief systems in the past.
Social constructionism, on the other hand, is the argument that
sexuality and gender are not natural, fixed or universal but specific to
their social, cultural and historical context. The argument that sexu-
ality and gender are socially constructed in accordance with different
sets of conditions in different contexts thus emphasizes change,
discontinuity and contradiction.
Within various feminist debates over the last decade the need to see
both sexuality and gender as socially constructed has been largely taken
for granted. The emergence of this position as dominant represents an
important political and intellectual triumph over various forms of
determinism which previously naturalized both heterosexuality and
male dominance, placing them in the realm of the inevitable and
unchangeable. In particular, certain privileged institutions, such as the
patriarchal nuclear family and compulsory heterosexuality, enjoyed
substantial legitimation and reinforcement through the ideologies of
biological and genetic essentialism, which were in turn legitimated by the
authoritative discourses of science. Both the feminist and the gay
liberation movements prioritized the need to challenge the operations of
these essentialist ideologies of sexuality, within scientific discourses
and at the level of commonsense beliefs.
What emerged at the conference was that the taken-for-
grantedness of this rejection of essentialism and the emergence of social
constructionism as the 'correct discourse' of gender and sexuality have
led to certain confusions. Beneath the superficial obviousness of the
differences between social constructionism and essentialism remain
certain unresolved tensions which threaten the distinction between the
two. Once we actually began to discuss the precise relationship between
social constructionism and essentialism the boundary between them
became increasingly blurred. Contrary to the received wisdoms within
studies of sexuality about the significant analytical differences between
these two approaches, and the historical formations which produced
them, many discussions demonstrated that social constructionism and
essentialism are not necessarily the unified, coherent and distinct
discourses many assume them to be. Neither are the differences
between them as definitive as the supposed opposition between them
would suggest. Deconstructing these discursive differences proved to be
enlightening.

Part Two: essentialism, which essentialism?

One source of confusion which emerged was that there are many
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 139

different kinds of essentialism. It was the profusion of essentialist

discourses on sexuality which led to the greatest difficulties in defining
what exactly we mean by essentialism, and whether we need to be
equally critical of all forms of essentialism. Under the general heading of
biological essentialism, for example, we could include explanations of
lesbianism and homosexuality which are based on the 'born that way'
argument, genetic determinism, discourses of pathology, and various
ideologies of the natural. Another form of essentialism can be identified in
beliefs or arguments about historical and cross-cultural continuities in
lesbian and homosexual experience (the 'we have always existed
everywhere' argument). Within psychoanalytic theory there are also
various assertions about sexuality which are keenly debated in terms of
their essentialism. For example, the idea of a human libidinal drive, or an
innate bisexuality are seen by some as fundamentally essentialist.
Equally contested within post-structuralist debates is the question of the
essential self, in which any notion of a unified identity (sexual or
otherwise) is seen as complicit with essentialism. Such a great diversity in
forms of essentialism obviously raises questions about its definition. One
further problem is that there are clearly different degrees of
essentialism, resulting in the need to be more critical of some than
others. Finally, such a broad diversity of definitions of essentialism not
only produces confusion but also active, and often quite intense,
disagreement about what should be subject to the pejorative and
dismissive label of 'essentialism'.
What also emerged when we began to consider the variety of
essentialisms was the question of whether essentialisms are themselves
socially constructed and socially deconstructed. The fact that essential-
ist beliefs vary in different social and historical contexts, and that they
are constantly shifting and changing, would seem to support this claim.
Another characteristic of essentialist beliefs is that they are often
contradictory, reproducing the contradictions of their time and place.
Ideas about 'the natural' are a particularly good example of both of these
features of essentialism. The belief that heterosexual intercourse is a
totally natural form of sexual practice, for example, directly contradicts
the fact that it is a socially constructed ritual which may only be
conducted under certain very specific conditions which change over
time.
It also became apparent that new forms of essentialism, socially
constructed in relation to specific historical shifts, are continually
emerging. Essentialist definitions of parenthood, specifically designed to
exclude lesbians and gay men, are currently being formulated through
legislation of the new reproductive technologies, for example.' As well as
challenging older, more obvious discourses of essentialism, such as the
pathological constructions of homosexuality by sexologists, it was felt
that lesbian and gay studies need to challenge new emergent essential-
ist discourses about sexuality.
Thus, in answering the question 'essentialism, which essential-
ism?', several considerations emerged from this conference which are
140 Feminist Review

central to debates about sexuality. Firstly, there is the need to take into
account the diversity of beliefs, arguments and explanations related to
sexuality which could be labelled essentialist. This raises the question of
how to define essentialism, and whether or not critics of essentialism
should be equally suspicious of all its manifestations. A more challeng-
ing approach to essentialism derives from the question of whether or not it
is itself socially constructed. Indeed, this claim would undermine the
basic premise of essentialism.

Part Three: the limits of social constructionism

Confusions about social constructionism raise a different set of prob-

lems from those discussed in relation to essentialism. If we as feminists
want to be critical of essentialism, and argue that sexuality and gender
are socially constructed, then we have to be able to explain how it is
socially constructed, and to account for changes in sexual identities and
desires. If sexuality is socially constructed, then we need to identify
where in the social it is constructed. Feminists, in their accounts of the
social construction of sexuality, have offered different accounts of where
these processes take place. Some have emphasized the family, others
have emphasized education, the media or economic factors.
One of the main problems of social construction theory which
emerged during this conference, however, was the limitations of these
accounts in providing a satisfactory explanation particularly of lesbian
sexuality. This appeared to be especially true in terms of individual
accounts of sexual identity, the need to explain why particular women
became lesbians and others did not. Given the tremendous amount of
social pressure to conform to heterosexual femininity, it is very difficult to
account for some women's resistance to it, and even more difficult to
explain why other women never participated in it in the first place.
Despite its understandable unpopularity amongst lesbians and gay
men, psychoanalysis is one of the only discourses of sexuality which
attempts to explain differences in the individual acquisition of particu-
lar sexual identities. There were a few sessions, however, which
engaged with the possibilities, and the difficulties, of constructing a
more psychoanalytically informed methodology in the study of lesbian or
gay identity.2
In her opening lecture, Carole Vance provided a helpful overview for
assessing some of the limits of social construction theory.' One of the
most striking features of her talk was the extent to which the features of
social constructionism originally seen to be its greatest strengths have
since come to be seen as some of its greatest weaknesses. She argued, for
example, that in its emphasis on deconstruction and discontinuity,
social constructionism threatened to make sexuality disappear alto-
gether: 'Is there an "it" to study?', she asked. Similarly, in its emphasis
on denaturalizing sexuality, she argued, social constructionism has
excluded the body from its considerations, thus denying the materiality
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 141

of its subject of study. Since sexed subjects also have bodies, how might
we incorporate the body into our analysis without becoming essentialist or
determinist, she asked. Finally, in its emphasis on dismantling
existing systems of difference, such as those which maintain the
sex/gender system, she argued, social constructionism threatens the
very identities lesbians and gay men want to preserve. This results in a
paradox: on the one hand, politically, we may want to insist on the unity
and coherence of lesbian or gay identity in order to defend our interests as
a group, whilst, on the other hand, this may simultaneously reify and fix
the sexual identities we are intellectually seeking to deconstruct.

Part Four: the workshops —the social

constructionist debate in action

In addition to the limits of social construction theory outlined by Carole

Vance, several of the papers in workshops analyzed its limits with
specific reference to lesbianism. Celia Kitzinger's paper, drawn from her
recently published book The Social Construction Of Lesbianism (1987),
called particular attention to the liberalism of social constructionist
approaches to lesbianism within mainstream psychology.' Whereas
psychology twenty years ago depicted lesbianism as pathological,
`enlightened' psychologists of today, she argued, see lesbians as normal
and natural, with the potential to be 'well-adjusted human beings just
like everyone else'. In emphasizing the privacy of sexual preference, the
fundamental similarities between lesbian and heterosexual women,
and the compatibility of lesbianism with the family and 'society as we
know it', liberal humanistic psychology or 'gay-affirmative' psychology, as
she calls it, depoliticizes lesbianism. In this case, social construc-
tionism is no more politically progressive an approach to lesbianism
than its Victorian antecedent.
Yet another set of questions about social construction theory
emerged out of the lesbian motherhood workshop. Although Carol
Vance argued that sexuality and gender are the last domains to have
their naturalness thrown into question' by social constructionism, this
workshop demonstrated the importance of including reproduction
within this list of supposedly 'natural' domains. Many of the issues
debated in this workshop were examples of the social construction
debate in action, as it were. The discussion also demonstrated how the
struggle against forms of essentialism and the need to take account of the
bodily dimension of women's experience (such as pregnancy) were
clearly being waged in very intimate contexts. Indeed, this discussion
demonstrated the very good reasons lesbians continue to debate the
questions social constructionism first posed.
This workshop began with a discussion of the contradiction
between the category 'lesbian' and the category 'mother', the one
representing the supposed antithesis of 'womanhood' and the other
representing its supposed fulfilment. This discussion highlighted both
142 Feminist Review

the inadequacy of existing kinship terms to describe lesbian parenthood

and the threat posed by lesbianism to dominant definitions of the
family. There followed from this a debate about lesbian co-parenting
and the category 'mother'. Many lesbians seeking to co-parent wanted to be
equal mothers; however, they disagreed about whether the biological
mother and the social mother could necessarily be 'equal'. This point
proved highly contentious. As feminists some lesbians wanted to
challenge the supposed 'naturalness' of the mother-child bond, but they
also felt, as lesbian co-parents, the difficulties of overcoming their
feelings of exclusion. Some lesbians said they felt the term 'father' better
described their feelings as the co-parent-to-be and sexual partner of the
expectant mother. Other lesbians who had children felt the social
mother might not have the same intimacy with the infant at first, but
that things could even out or be reversed as the child grew older. Still
other lesbians took a more radical view, asking whether having a sexual
relationship with the person you are co-parenting with is 'putting all
your eggs in one basket', and suggesting that co-parenting relationships
between lesbians should not necessarily be sexual relationships as
well.'
Overall, this discussion demonstrated the inadequacy of existing
kinship definitions, roles and terminology for lesbian mothers, and the
extent to which lesbians are forced to become social constructionists in
order to build alternatives for ourselves. This workshop also demon-
strated what is at stake for lesbians personally in the questions posed
within social constructionist debates.
Another subject which raised questions about social construction
theory and lesbian identity was the butch-femme debate'. At the
morning session of a day-long workshop, a paper by Saskia Wieringa
and Noor van Crevel entitled 'Beyond Feminism: The Butch-Femme
Debate', highlighted both the cross-cultural and historical 'continuities' of
butch-femme experience which were seen as evidence of the short-
comings of social constructionist accounts of lesbian identity. Why, it
was asked, does this particular version of lesbian subculture re-emerge,
time and again, both historically and cross-culturally, and how do we
explain why some women take up the position of 'butch' and others of
`femme'? Perhaps, it was suggested, we should not be frightened of
moving 'beyond social constructionism' to answer these questions,
towards a framework which could take the biological and ethological
dimensions of sexuality into account.'
Interestingly, there appeared to be two versions of butch-femme,
one 'essentialist' and one 'social constructionist' discussed at this
workshop. According to the essentialist version, espoused by some,
some women were butch and others femme by temperament, or even, it
was suggested, constitution. Others argued for a model of butch-femme as
roles, a more 'playful', 1980s version of butch-femme as interchange-
able identities. This latter position was the subject of a paper delivered by
Anja van Kooten Niekerk and Sacha Wijmer entitled The Comeback
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 143

of Butch-Femme Roles in the 1980s, which presented the results of a

recent interview project with lesbians in Amsterdam.'
This and other events concerning butch-femme roles proved to be
some of the most popular sessions at the conference, and many were sold
out before the conference even began. Perhaps this popularity was
indeed due to the comeback of butch-femme roles in the eighties, or
perhaps these workshops were seen to promise a more personal
discussion of lesbian sexuality and desire than was on offer elsewhere.
Joan Nestle, founder of the Lesbian Archives in New York and
self-described 'passionate advocate of butch-femme lifestyles', used her
role as chairperson to urge participants away from dry academicisms
and into the pleasures of confession and self-disclosure. However, some
lesbians found this invitation more appealing than others and, as in
many other workshops, the opportunity to speak more personally about
sexuality was resisted. This lack of personal discussion also char-
acterized the very well-attended international panel on Lesbian
Identity, although the setting of this event, the Chapel on the sixteenth
floor, was not particularly conducive to intimate disclosures.'
Precisely because they were so popular and well attended, we found
quite disturbing the frequent characterization of feminism in the
butch-femme workshops as 'prescriptive', 'oppressive' and 'moralistic'.
Although we found these attitudes echoed elsewhere at the conference,
they seemed to be particularly virulent here, where we heard feminism
described as 'a rigid strategy for regulating sexuality', and feminists
described as 'self-righteous vegetarians'.
There is an understandable antagonism between feminism and
butch-femme, an aspect of lesbian subculture to which feminism has
never shown a particular affinity. From the point of view of butch-
femme subculture, feminism has been seen as imposing only one version of
politically correct lesbianism on a subculture it has failed to
understand. However, the stereotyping of feminism as a prescriptive
`killjoy' perpetrates a dangerous rewriting of history which obscures the
ways in which feminism opened up new possibilities of sexuality for
women, particularly the possibility for many women to become lesbians
and to come out as lesbians. The casting of feminism as 'right but
repulsive' and butch-femme as 'wrong but wromantic' only serves to
reproduce clichés, and does little to facilitate an understanding of the
more complex relationship between the two. Moreover, it seemed to us
that feminism was being scapegoated as 'big bad sister' at a time when it is
a particularly easy target. In an increasingly conservative, reaction-
ary and antifeminist climate, it is important not to blame feminism's
`failures' entirely upon feminism itself. Likewise, it is misleading to
construct feminism as a monolithic discourse, thus attributing to it a
prescriptive power it has never come close to achieving.
Stereotyping and caricaturing certain kinds of feminism seems to be
particularly in vogue at the moment. In his report of the conference in The
Pink Paper, Simon Watney seems to delight in joining in this
144 Feminist Review

popular pastime. In his opening paragraph, in enlarged print, he boldly

states:

It proved an immensely productive conference for almost everyone

involved, save perhaps for a small group of die-hard lesbian separatists
whose political posturing seemed remarkably like that of the last
dinosaurs. It was sadly indicative of British insularity that the separatist
tendency hailed largely from England. For everyone else, the conference
provided an all too rare opportunity to compare international situations.
(Watney, 1987:5)

This is not only a totally inaccurate but also a rather baffling

representation, since lesbian separatism was certainly the most glar-
ing, although hardly surprising, absence at this conference. The fact that
statements such as these appear to be coming from many different sources
at the moment, from both lesbians and gay men, as well as from more
familiar opponents, is deeply disturbing. We question the need for this
kind of unwarranted antagonism against 'unfashionable' politics in the
current political climate.

Part Five: constructing lesbian identities: the appeal of

essentialism

The frustrations with social constructionism demonstrated within some of

the workshops were accompanied by evidence of the enduring — if not
increasing — appeal of certain forms of essentialism. This was particu-
larly true in personal accounts of lesbian identities. The appeal of
essentialism seemed particularly strong in relation to the need to
construct personal narratives in order to make sense of our 'deviant'
sexual histories. Not only were social constructionist accounts perceived as
somehow invalidating the intensity of deep feelings about their
lesbianism (what Carole Vance called the implication of disingenuous-
ness') but it also became evident that these accounts failed to fulfil
emotional needs met by various forms of essentialism.
The appeal of various forms of essentialism has long been a part of
lesbian subculture, and many of these forms were in evidence at the
conference. Essentialism appeared more frequently in the workshop
discussions than in the papers themselves, indicating, perhaps, that
although many lesbians may agree with the intellectual criticisms of
essentialism, they nevertheless continue to use essentialist discourses
when representing themselves more personally. Examples of discourses of
essentialism which continue to be popular among lesbians include: the 'I
was born that way' argument (or the 'I might as well have been born this
way' argument), the 'we've always been here' claim, the naming-
famous-lesbians pastime, the 'lesbians exist in many different cultures'
argument and, finally, the 'same-sex acts exist in the natural world' claim,
sometimes referred to as the 'gay seagulls argument'.
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 145

Despite the fact that these examples draw on different forms of

essentialism, and differ in their degree of essentialism, all of them
appeal to lesbians, we would argue, for similar reasons.
Firstly, these discourses of essentialism are appealing because they
provide a strong validation of lesbian existence, and they satisfy a need to
assert the imperviousness of lesbian identity to the constant attempts to
deny, silence and repress it. Secondly, they offer a more fixed and
permanent identity to lesbians, who are so frequently told that their
sexual identity is 'only a phase', that it 'can be cured' or that they will
`grow out of it'. Thirdly, they may offer the only option available for
lesbians who are isolated and are searching for confirmation of their
identity. Finally, pastimes such as naming-and-claiming-famous-
lesbians offer lesbians a rare opportunity to see themselves legitimated in
mainstream culture and to experience a sense of triumph that despite their
low sexual status, some lesbians have nevertheless achieved high social
status.
Whilst the insistence upon historical and cross-cultural continui-
ties of lesbian identities can be quite rightly seen as complicit with
essentialist definitions of sexuality, a belief in these continuities is often
an important touchstone in many lesbians' personal development.
Throughout the conference there were many examples of lesbians using
these essentialist discourses in their personal narratives and defin-
itions of lesbian subcultures. Whilst we would emphasize the political
limits of these forms of essentialism, it is nevertheless important both to
recognize the context of lesbian oppression in which these discourses
function, and to highlight the fact that social constructionism has not
been able to offer satisfactory alternatives.
In sum, there are several important points this conference raises
about the relationship between essentialist and social constructionist
approaches to the understanding of lesbianism and homosexuality.
Most importantly the conference discussions demonstrate the in-
adequacies of representing these two approaches as an antithesis.
Struggles over definitions of sexuality, such as in the butch-femme
debate, which draw on the discourse of social constructionism and
essentialism, do indeed place them in apparent opposition to one
another. However, the superficial obviousness of this opposition often
obscures more than it reveals. The idea of antithesis, of irreducible
opposition, cannot be said to describe the relationship between social
constructionism and essentialism for the following reasons: firstly, there
are many versions of essentialism, demonstrating that it cannot be seen as
unified or coherent discourse; secondly, the many criticisms of the limits of
social construction theory suggest the need to rework it in order to develop
a more thorough account of lesbianism and homosexu-
ality; thirdly, essentialist and social constructionist discourses cannot be
seen as entirely separate, for, as we have shown, there are
considerable areas of overlap between them, resulting in disagreement
about where the boundary should be drawn; finally, definitions of social
constructionism and essentialism are constantly shifting and changing,
146 Feminist Review

i
g
8
i
R.

`Stop Clause 27' March, 9 January 1988

 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 147

and mean different things in different contexts, making it difficult to

make definitive assessments of them either intellectually or politically.
We suspect that many conference participants, like ourselves,
initially responded to the theme of the conference with little enthusi-
asm, anticipating few new insights from this well-rehearsed debate.
However, as the conference organizers who suggested the theme no
doubt suspected, this topic is far from exhausted and it generated many
productive discussions amongst the conference participants.

Part Six: the broader social and political context

According to social constructionist theory, the formation of ideas and

identities occurs in accordance with specific social and historical
conditions. It should therefore be possible to speculate upon the
relationship between recent shifts in the debates about sexuality and
sexual identity, as evidenced at the conference, and broader changes in
the social and political climate for lesbian and gay people in the late
1980s. There are many possible interpretations which might be offered to
explain these shifts.
For those of us who reside in either Britain or America, and are
therefore living in an atmosphere of tangibly increasing anti-lesbian
and anti-gay prejudice, one explanation of the increasing appeal of
essentialism might be described under the category of its strategic uses in
times of need. In response to the threat posed to lesbians and gay men by
legislation such as Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which is so
broadly worded as to make the basic civil rights of lesbians and gay men
extremely vulnerable, essentialism may be increasingly appealing as a
means to protect and legitimate our right to exist, both as a group and as
individuals.
A related but in some ways opposite explanation might be that
essentialist beliefs are themselves the product of increasingly conser-
vative eras, and that what we are witnessing in the return of
essentialism within the lesbian and gay community is symptomatic,
rather than strategic. Different political conclusions will be drawn from
different assessments of the kind and degree of essent ialisms in
operation within the lesbian and gay community. If they are symptom-
atic of reactionary social climates they must be resisted even more in
times of threat. Conversely, if the uses of essentialism are strategic
their use as a defence is fully warranted.
The trend away from a consensus about the adequacy of social
constructionist explanations of sexuality also invites several possible
interpretations. On the one hand, the emphasis on change and
discontinuity may feel increasingly vulnerable when there is increasing
pressure on lesbians and gay men to go back into the closet or to go
straight. Reading the Sun's recent invitation to readers to send in
stories about 'gay conversions' they have witnessed and/or helped to
bring about might make an emphasis on the shifting nature of sexual
148 Feminist Review

identity look slightly less attractive. It may be that social construc-

tionist arguments make more sense in eras of progressive social change, in
which change has a slightly more hopeful connotation. On the other hand,
it is for the same reason that social constructionism may be most
important in times of reactionary, anti-gay sentiment, for it is precisely its
emphasis on change and contradiction which may offer the only way
forward.
Although it is tempting to draw general political conclusions about
some of the reasons for recent theoretical shifts apparent at the
conference, there are nevertheless considerable problems in doing so. To
begin with there is the obvious problem of attempting an overview of a
conference such as this, when our experience of it was inevitably limited
and selective. Another impediment to drawing these conclusions is the fact
that not everyone at the conference came from the same social and
political context. International differences, such as those mentioned at the
beginning of this article between Britain and The Netherlands,
mitigate against easy conclusions about the shifts in these debates.

Part Seven: concluding comments

Shortly before the conference, one of us was invited to attend a local

television programme about the recent decision of the Synod to prevent
`practicing homosexuals' from holding office within the Church of
England. This programme was meant to be structured around the
question of 'whether or not homosexuals are born that way'. The
question one of us was supposed to answer was whether or not
homosexuality is 'natural'. The answer, of course, was to be that it is not
natural but socially constructed, varying cross-culturally and histori-
cally in its forms. However, as soon as the debate began, it quickly
became apparent that members of the audience, the good burghers of
Branston invited to represent the general public, did not care at all
whether homosexuals were born that way or not. In fact, preempting the
intended debate, one avid Christian geneticist expostulated at length
about the scientific evidence available disproving the inborn hypothesis.
This, he implied, was all the more reason why homosexuals should be
banned from positions of authority within the Church since, if homo-
sexuality is a 'choice' rather than a condition, it can more easily be
resisted. Many more among the faithful agreed: it made little difference
whether it was the sinner or the sin, it was still wrong.
Experiences such as this may lead us to despair about the relevance of
academic distinctions between social constructionism and essential-
ism. To the bigoted zealots in the audience, this fine point was obviously of
little consequence. Yet it is precisely the extent to which sexuality
especially homosexuality, is being publicly debated in Britain at present
which increases the imperative for lesbians and gay men to think about
these issues seriously. Dominant discourses about sexuality are rapidly
being reformulated in Thatcherite Britain in such a way that hetero-
 Dyketactics for Difficult Times 149

sexuality and the family are being reaffirmed as the only acceptable
contexts for the expression of sexuality. At the same time there is a
growing movement of resistance amongst lesbians and gay men against
these attempts at repression. This January saw the largest lesbian and
gay rights march in British history, when over 12,000 demonstrators
marched through London in protest against Clause 28. Powerful
expressions of resistance such as this demonstrate the impossibility of
forcing lesbians and gays back into the closet. In continuing this
resistance, it is vital for us to have clear arguments and theories about
our sexuality with which to enter these public debates and participate
within the current struggle over the regulation of lesbianism and
homosexuality.

Notes

We are grateful to Hilary Hinds and Richard Dyer for their helpful and
encouraging comments in the rather rapid production of this review. We would
also like to thank Mieke Bernink and Klaartje Schweizer for their very generous
hospitality in Amsterdam.
Sarah Franklin is a member of the Birmingham Ladies' Indoor Five-a-Side
Football League at Aston Villa. She is also attempting to reincorporate the body
into social construction theory in her analysis of reproductive technology as a
postgraduate research student in Cultural Studies at the University of
Birmingham.
Jackie Stacey is a postgraduate research student at the Centre for Contem-
porary Cultural Studies doing research on women audiences and Hollywood
stars in post-war Britain. She also teaches women's studies, film studies and
lesbian and gay studies in both adult and higher education.
1 Workshop S08, New Reproductive Technologies: 'Implications of Reproduc-
tive and Genetic Techno-Science', Sarah Franklin.
2 Workshop S21, Psychoanalysis: 'Freud and Homosexuality', John Fletcher;
`The Construction of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality', Eric de Kuyper.
Workshop L18 Problems of Lesbian and Gay Art, 'Lesbianism and Sexual
Difference Theory', Jackie Stacey.
3 Opening Lecture, 'Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of
Sexuality', Carol Vance.
4 Workshop S15, Changing Conceptions 1: 'The Scientific Construction of
Lesbianism: the Liberal Humanistic Trap', Celia Kitzinger.
5 Workshop CO2, Lesbian Motherhood: 'My Aunt Became a Father', Ruth de
Kanter; 'Lesbian Motherhood', Maaike de Klerck; 'The Lesbian Teenage
Mother', Sharon Thompson (absent from conference). See also, Workshop
S08, New Reproductive Technologies: 'Reproductive Technologies and
Motherhood', Juliet Zipper.
6 Workshop H14, Butch-Femme 1: 'Beyond Feminism: the b/f Debate', Saskia
Wieringa and Noor van Crevel.
7 Workshop H14, Butch-Femme 1: 'Gender Stereotypes and Lesbian Life-
styles', Noretta Koertge. Workshop H18, Butch-Femme 2; 'The Reproduction
150 Feminist Review

of b/f roles', Madeline Davis and Liz Kennedy; The Comeback of b/f Roles in the
1980s', Anja van Kooten Niekirk and Sacha Wijmer.
8 The members of the Lesbian Identity Panel were: Saskia Grotenhuis, chair
(NL); Claudia Card (USA); Noor van Crevel (NL); Elizabeth Kennedy (USA);
Brigitte Lhomand (FR); Jackie Stacey (UK); Martha Vicinus (USA).

References

KITZINGER, Celia (1987) The Social Construction of Lesbianism London: Sage

Publications.
WATNEY, Simon (1987) 'Amsterdam Conference' The Pink Paper no. 7 (24
December) p.5.