Queer Communication is a both a body of study and a means of changing social systems through activist discourse. Queer communication studies are rooted in queer theory, which seeks to question how society and culture frame sex, gender, and sexuality. Queer theory is situated in the analysis and critique of gendered and sexual systems, discourses, and representations. In particular, it focuses on how these systems, representations, and discourses inform and impact the lives and epistemologies of LGBTQ persons. Queer theory sets out to debunk standard identity constructs such as gender, sex, race, and others by looking at the historical, economic, social, and cultural traditions that have shaped those understood societal "norms (de Lauretis, 1991; Tierney, 1997; Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2014). Academic approaches to queer theory, such as queer communication studies, illustrate how and why these social constructions can be critiqued and undone (Tierney, 1997; Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2014).
"In the academy, this "queering" has taken place in a number of disciplines in the social sciences, education, humanities and the arts....In the community, queer theory has reshaped identity politics, political organizing, and community activism" (Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2014, pp. 2-3).
Queer communication studies is grounded in the concept of sexual orientation and gender being parts of a continuum, rather than fixed or defined biological categories (Heinz, 2009). Therefore, most queer theorists are social constructionists, that is they believe that gender and sexuality are primarily social constructs and performances, though some do address biological determinist arguments and look at how the science of sexuality is not as clear-cut as traditional medical science has argued. However, these arguments are also tied to how the social and rhetorical constructions of the medical industry has predetermined ideals about gender, sex, and sexuality. From this constructionist perspective, identities such as sex and gender are not stable and are often described as fluid, or capable of shifting between and beyond boundaries.
A lot of how we understand queer theory in communication studies is influenced by Judith Butler's (1990) Gender Trouble and her critiques and understanding of performativity. Queer theory is situated in the assumption that gender and sexuality have performative roots, and that bodies are sites of the performance of identity. These performances generally maintained by expectations we associate with heterosexual culture, but they can be used to challenge understandings of cultural meanings associated with our bodies (Sloop, 2009).
Irigaray's critique of language as patriarchal and not having a true place for women's emotion and experience is echoed in discussions about language and queer identity. Patriarchal and heteronormative language have little place for queer experience and discourse, and "the love that dare not speak its name" (Douglas, 1894). That phrase, in fact, was so counter to heteronormative language and ideology that it was used in the 1895 'indecency' trials of Oscar Wilde.
As in the case of Wilde, homosexuality was historically illegal or highly restricted in many cultures. Because of this repression, many homosexual, genderqueer, and non-binary individuals either worked to pass as straight or sought solace in queer communities (Dolimore, 1999; Foucault, 1976/1990; Halwani, 1998). Some of these queer communities were set up to help members pass in society, others were more activist in nature (Chauncey, 1994). These gay communities developed their own characteristics and language patterns, and many similar LGBTQ+ and queer-influenced communities exist today. For example, contemporary "ball culture" has roots in drag culture and arose in response to a need for a sense of culture, community, family, and belonging.
Groups such as these often illustrate distinct characteristics, including an associated lexicon or speech pattern and symbolic characteristics associated with both verbal and nonverbal communication, function as speech communities or as they are sometimes known, language communities. Speech communities can create their own style of language, terminologies, performances, and communication styles, many of which conflict with broader social codes and norms (Chomsky, 1965). Similarly, discourse communities share basic discourse or speech patterns and lexicon forms rooted in epistemological concerns as public arguments (Bizzell, 1992; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyceta, 1958/1991). The key difference is that speech communities tend to form through natural communication processes (such as fans of a sports team over time adopting similar behaviors, language styles, and ritual practices) while discourse communities are formed through strategic arguments, generally in response to a perceived public need (people coming together to explore weight loss and developing language patterns to encourage that goal). The strategies motivating discourse communities can eventually fade, and a speech community can continue to evolve from the group.
Queer communities can be formed in either way and often the political motivations behind queer organizing and bonding will eventually lead to a speech community. The ability, or inability, for members of speech and discourse communities to engage with public arguments outside of their own communities is, essentially, a communication problem. James Cheesbro (1981) examined same-sex orientation as a communication construct associated with social labels that carried problematic meanings: homosexual, gay, lesbian (Heinze, 2009). The communication differences between homosexual and heterosexual communities, in terms of language choice and narrative style, is highlighted Cheesbro's work. Speech and discourse communities set patterns of acceptance that do not always range beyond the community boundaries.
When someone leaves the speech community, stereotypes from the outside world are often at play in their experiences. This is because the group's patterns can be easily misunderstood from the outside. Early studies of queer speech patterns illustrate this process. The lexicon that forms within the group, or the norms of language choices associated with the group, can take on stereotypical characteristics to outsiders. Gay speech communities are associated with a lavender lexicon (Leap, 1995). Scholars looking at the related speech patterns view gay communities as a part of a larger gay subculture and the speech patterns as echoing stereotypical norms of patriarchal language. For example, gay male speech patterns, an early lavender lexicon studied, are compared to feminine language patterns and tones, such as the use of wider pitch variables than normally associated with men, a pattern still examined by current linguists (Gaudio, 1994). The use of slang terms associated with gay subculture was also studied, with a focus on terms associated with sex organs and sexual behaviors (Doyle, 1982; Jacobs, 1996). These early studies are considered problematic by many in queer theory today, as they essentialized gay culture and gay behavior and speech into minority statuses (Livia & Hall, 1997).
Queer communications studies are rooted in political action. The speech communities of many of the earliest queer communication studies are political communities (Brummet, 1979; Cheesbro, Cragan & McCullogh, 1973; Hayes, 1976). These were dominantly rhetorical analyses of the language and rhetoric used to promote gay rights, gay activism, and gay consciousness-raising. These early studies also echoed feminist communication studies, with a focus on the relationship between categories of gender and sexuality with systemic power (Sloop, 2009). In one of the earliest edited volumes on queer communication, the editor writes that the book "examines the rhetoric of gay politicians, the symbols and strategies used during the coming out process, these strategies use to resolve conflicts in gay and lesbian relationships, and the decision whether or not to come out" (Ringer, 1994, p. 2).
In these early studies, queer identities are treated as categories of resistance to heteronormative ideologies, which itself implies marginalization (Yep, Lovass, & Elia, 2014, p. 4). Newer approaches to queer communication studies still focus on political ideals, but from a more inclusive approach. These approaches investigate intersectionality or the idea that aspects of the self, like categorizations of race, gender, sex, ability, and class, do not exist in isolation but impact each other (Crenshaw, 1989). This concept reinforces the perception of sex, gender, and other categorizations as fluid, and capable of bleeding into each other and outside of perceived barriers.
Queer Narratives
According to Walter Fisher (1987), “all forms of human communication can be seen fundamentally as stories” (p. 57). Fisher argued for what he called narrative paradigm theory, based on his belief that people are essentially storytellers, and therefore communication is primarily done as a process of storytelling. This means that all communication has a plot, characters, and setting, and we use these narrative elements to construct the world around us. Fisher's arguments influence performance studies and performativity theories, as well as have a profound impact on how we understand human gender and sexual life. Narratives are powerful tools, as storytelling can engage an audience in emotional connection to the story, characters, and the storyteller.
Fisher (1984) explains the key components of the narrative paradigm:
(1) humans are essentially storytellers; (2) the paradigmatic mode of human decision-making and communication is "good reasons" which vary in form among communication situations, genres, and media; (3) the production and practice of good reasons is ruled by matters of history, biography, culture, and character...; (4) rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings. (pp. 7-8)
In other words, the way that people understand and respond to stories is tied to the overarching or master narratives that guide our cultural perspectives, and therefore we are persuaded by stories that fit our cultural, historical, and social framing or those stories that break from that framing, based on our personal experience and values.
Fisher argues that ultimately, narratives (stories) are more persuasive than arguments. This is because narratives are generally built around pathos (emotion) while arguments ideally are grounded in logos (logic). Good narratives, however, should still appeal to logos, by presenting facts and evidence to support the story. Further, because narratives have a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appeals to audiences' sensemaking abilities, or their ability to apply their own reason and judgment to the facts of the story, whereas in a forensic or rational argument audiences may have difficulty making logical connections to their own opinions. This is why many persuasive public arguments are built around a narrative component used to draw audiences in and generate their emotional interest in staying involved with the stories and the stories' underlying rationale and emotionally charged themes, values, and conclusions.
Queer performances often carry narrative components (Alexander, 2003). Fisher goes on to argue that public moral arguments are often made through narratives. Fisher explains that these arguments are made toward what Aristotle called "untrained thinkers" and therefore often rely more on the emotive than the logical aspects of argumentation. He criticizes these as problematic narratives, and suggests that audiences with more awareness are also present, and therefore the narratives are best when they apply logical and not just moral reasoning to the stories told.
Voicing Genderqueer
While studies and public concerns regarding intersectionality have risen in recent decades, so have studies and public concerns on non-binary or genderqueer identities. Genderqueer identities are those which defy binary classification to the two-sex model (Griffin, 2014; Vivienne, 2017). Genderqueer approaches encompass transgender, transexual, intersex, crossdressers, drag artists, third gender, gender-fluid, and non-binary gender identities and performances. Communication scholars are interested in these identities in communication contexts, especially public contexts. These contexts include online gaming (Shaw & Friesem, 2016), social-media images (Griffin, 2014), news media (Billard, 2016; Landau, 2009), health communication (Kosenko, 2010), and popular culture forms (Capuzza & Spencer, 2017). Scholars and communication industry investigators also critique and examine how particular cultural forms are more or less likely to present genderqueer or intersectional identities.
Communication scholars also look at interpersonal communication contexts, such as how families, friends, and individuals communicate when someone chooses to transition (Chevrette, 2013; Norwood, 2013).
Genderqueer identities can also be examined as gender-fluid. Gender-fluid identities are often challenging to mainstream culture because they function as openly subversive (Butler, 1990) rejections of the gender binary (Vivienne, 2017). Gender-fluid individuals are viewed as being in open negotiation between their identities and culture. This is seen as different from intersectionality in part because of the presumption of choice in performing gender-fluidity (Davis, 2009). However, some scholars challenge this notion, as nature vs. nurture arguments often look at intersexed and asexual individuals as being biologically bound to those identities. According to news media, there is, however, a noticeable increase in performances of gender-fluidity and transgender choices, especially among younger generations (Marsh, 2016; Tanner, 2018).
Because non-binary identities are not normalized everywhere in culture, and are demonized in some areas, genderqueer voices are often initially communicated in isolation. As connections with others speaking from similar non-binary spaces are made, the conversations can advance (Howell, 2002). Voicing non-binary selves can act as conversation, as emotive release, and/or as activism, dependent on the goals of the speaker.
References
Billard, T.J. (2016). Writing in the margins: Mainstream news media representations of transgenderism. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4193-4218.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Capuzza, J.C., & Spencer, L.G. (2017). Regressing, progressing, or transgressing on the small screen? Transgender characters on U.S. scripted television series. Communication Quarterly, 65, 2, 214-230.
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the makings of the gay male world, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books.
Cheesbro, J.W. (1981). Gayspeak: Gay male and lesbian communication. New York: Pilgrim Press.
Chevrette, R. (2013). Outing heteronormativity in interprestional and family communication: Feminist applications of queer theory "beyond the sexy streets". Communication Theory, 23, 2, 170-190.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crenshaw, C. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 6, 1241-1299.
De Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 3, 2, iii-xviii.
Dollimore, J. (1999). Sexual dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1, 1-22.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. I. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House/Vintage. Original work published 1976.
Gaudio, R.P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in teh speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69, 1, 30-57.
Griffin, R.A. (2014). Feminist consciousness and "unassimilated" feminisms. Women's Studies in Communication, 37, 3, 254-258.
Halwani, R. (1998). Essentialism, social constructionism, and the history of homosexuality, 35, 1, 25-51.
Heinz B. (2009). Sexual orientation. In W.F. Eadie, (Ed.). 21st Century communication: A reference handbook, (pp. 387-396). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Howell, C. (2002). Stories. In J. Nestle, C. Howell, and R. Wilchins, (Eds.). Genderqueer: Voices from beyond the sexual binary, (pp. 18-22). Los Angeles: Alyson Publications.
Jacobs, G. (1996). Lesbian and gay male language use: A critical review of the literature. American Speech, 71, 1, 49-71.
Kosenko, K.A. (2010). Meanings and dilemmas of sexual safety and communication for transgender individuals. Health Communication, 25, 2, 131-141.
Landau, J. (2009). Straightening out (the politics of) same-sex parenting: Representing gay families in US print news stories and photographs. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 1, 80-100.
Livia, A., & Hall, K. (1997). Introduction. In A. Livia, & K. Hall, (Eds.). Queerly phrased: Langage, gender,a nd sexuality, (pp. 3-18). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Norwood, K. (2013). Grieving gender: Trans-identities, transition, and ambiguous loss. Communication Monographs, 80, 1, 24-45.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyceta, L. (1991). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Original work published 1958.
Shaw, A., & Friesem, E. (2016). Where is the queerness in games? Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3877-3889.
Sloop, J.M. (2009). Queer approaches to communication. In W.F. Eadie, (Ed.). 21st Century communication: A reference handbook, (pp. 90-97). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tierney, W.G. (1997). Academic outlaws: Queer theory and cultural studies in the academy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vivienne, S. (2017). "I will not hate myself because you cannot accept me": Problematizing empowerment and gender-diverse selfies. Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 15, 2, 126-140.
Yep, G.A., Lovass, K.E., & Elia, J.P. (2014). Introduction: Queering communication: Starting the conversation. In G.A. Yep, K.E. Lovass, & J.P. Elia, (Eds.). Queer theory and communication: From disciplining queers to queering the discipline(s) (pp. 1-10). New York: Routledge.
