Position Document on Keeping Nomenclature as LGBT
Compiled by Lionel Walsh
The LGBT Focus Group has revisited the possibility of changing the name of the Focus Group to Queer Focus Group a number of times over the years. In the past, there has been a great deal of controversy over this suggestion; as a result, the Focus Group commissioned an ad hoc committee to study nomenclature of LGBT and Q organisations and to make a recommendation to the Focus Group on how to proceed. At the Business Meeting in August, 2010 in Los Angeles, the ad hoc committee presented the results of its research and it was decided to allow the membership to vote on the name change on-line during Fall of 2010. It was further agreed that two members of the committee would post position papers outlining arguments in favour of and against the name change to the Queer Focus Group. I was designated to write the argument against the name change. What follows are points in favour of keeping the name as the LGBT Focus Group (or some variation of same). They are in no particular order.
1. Of the 54 Academically-based organisations I was able to research, only one used the word Queer in their name. To change our name would be to go against the current trend.
2. Research indicates that LGBT (and its variations) promotes plays and performance work exploring lesbian/gay life, and the critical exploration of theatre from the lesbian/gay perspective. It celebrates theatre practitioners who were lost or marginalized in theatre history because of their sexuality and celebrates the entry of gay, lesbian, bi and transgender theatre practitioners and plays into the mainstream -- from Tennessee Williams to Cherry Jones (or Robert Lepage) and seeks to bring them into the mainstream. This may be seen as a positive approach to our social and academic role within ATHE.
On the other hand, . "Queer performance" involves a challenge to societal norms of sexuality, gender and desire -- rejecting the Western notion of fixed identity, and universalist concepts (such as "everyone wants the same thing -- to be in a family. We're all the same, no matter what our sexuality").
"Queer studies" implies a stance on the periphery of power: an outlaw, outsider viewpoint, from the outside looking in.. "Queer tactics" seek to interrupt and destabilize the status quo through confrontation and critical awareness. It "outs" all identity. sexuality and desire as a performance -- fluid, erotic, unfixed -- refusing to be policed or normalized by the government, consumers, the academy, police, or even our own fearful selves..Queer denotes challenge.
(I am indebted to Dr. Erica Stevens Abbitt for her contribution to this explanation)
One may view the function of the Focus Group quite favourably in terms of its academic and social functions under the name LGBT. I do not see ATHE as a place of resistance to our identity or needs, academically or socially.
3. Politically, it might be very difficult for our members who live in the more conservative states or institutions to belong to an organisation called the Queer Focus Group. A name change right now may alienate members and put them in a position of denying themselves a ‘home’ in ATHE in order to avoid censure at home. For instance, in the state of Georgia right now, Queer Studies are under attack.
4. Many of our members see the Focus Group as a social home within ATHE and are not connected with Queer Theory (for instance, me). Remaining as LGBT honours this function of the Focus Group.
5. The use of LGBT as our name does not preclude scholarship in Queer Theory. However, changing to Queer Focus Group may preclude reaching out to some current or possible members because of the stigma that the word queer carries.
6. Academically, the trend now is beginning to move away from Queer Studies and toward Gender Studies. We may, in fact, find ourselves behind the times if we change the name now.
As a compromise position, I will suggest that if a name change is viewed a favourable, we simply add Q to our name. People can interpret it as Queer or as Questioning and it may cause less strife for people sensitive to the word queer.
________________________________________________________________________________
Position Paper Supporting a Name Change
Compiled by Cassidy C Browning
Based on the research compiled by the ad hoc committee members (Michelle Dvoskin, Brent Stansell, Lionel Walsh, and myself) and the discussion held during the ATHE 2010 conference at the "Trends in GLBT & Q Research" roundtable discussion, I have composed a list of the major arguments in favor of changing the LGBT Focus Group's name. They are as follows:
- Our name does not currently reflect the affiliation much of our scholarship and many of our members have with Queer Studies, thereby inhibiting our group's and members' ability to be legible and credible in the field.
- Our name currently limits membership and/or research subjects and methodologies to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. This leaves out members of the queer community who do not identify in these ways, as well as research subjects and methodologies which lie outside of these four categories.
- "Queer" as a term is more open-ended and inclusive than an acronym listing individual identities and affiliations. As shown in the ad hoc committee's research, some groups' acronyms have 10 or more letters (one was listed as LGBTTIAAQQ2S), making the prospect of including all possible members seem like an endless and losing battle. The use of "Queer" would circumvent many of these issues.
- Generally within scholarship and publications, academic institutions, community organizations, and theatre companies, "Queer" is more often than not included in the names and titles; it is not unusual to see "Queer" as the only name used (as opposed to an acronym including "Q"). It seems that the inclusion of "Queer" is the trend within our many fields of theatre practice, pedagogy, and scholarship. This is also supported by the fact that the conversation around changing our group's name from LGBT began in 2003.
I feel that our group's name should reflect our research subjects, identities, advocacy, and methodologies in order to honor the many reasons which bring us all together - and to leave us open to more possibilities. To achieve this, our name should be changed to at least include the term "Queer" (or "Q" to stand for "Queer").
