Moving Beyond the Inclusion of LGBT-Themed Literature in English Language Arts

Classrooms: Interrogating Heteronormativity and Exploring Intersectionality

Author(s): Mollie V. Blackburn and Jill M. Smith
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 53, No. 8 (May 2010), pp. 625-634
Published by: International Reading Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25653923 .
Accessed: 21/03/2012 21:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53(8)

May 2010
doi:10.1598/JAAL53.8.1
?2010
International Reading Association
(pp. 625-634)

COMMENTARY

Beyond the Inclusion of LGBT

in
Arts
Literature
English Language
Classrooms:
Interrogating Heteronormativity

Moving
Themed

and Exploring

Intersectionality
MollieV. Blackburn

| JillM.Smith

the fall of 2004, Mollie

(first author), a white, lesbian mom and
education
and
literacy
professor,
Jill (second author), a white, straight ally,
(GSA) advisor, and literacy education
English teacher, Gay Straight Alliance
k_yince

doctoral candidate, have participated in a teacher inquiry group committed to

belief, often subconscious, that straight people
combating heterosexism?the
are normal and thus superior to thosewho are not?and homophobia?the
ir
rational fear or hatred of people who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual,
classrooms and schools through
transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ)?in
the use of literature and film (Blackburn, Clark, Kenney, & Smith, 2010).
group has come to be called the Pink TIGers; pink in reference to the
communities and
pink inverted triangle used by some to symbolize LGBTQ

The

TIGers as an acronym forTeacher Inquiry Group. Over the years theTIGers,

both collectively and individually, have focused on a variety ways ofworking
toward

our

antihomophobia

commitment.

The first years of our TIGer meetings reflected patterns of acknowledg

(and subsequent shock) on the part of the straight allies: Few realized the
extent of homophobia and their complicity in ituntil they began talking about

ment

these issues in the group and grappling with them in theirwork in schools.
all of the conversations that initially ensued were occupied with prac
tical and theoretical antihomophobic strategizing and emotional bolstering for

Almost

straight allies. From the outset, it seemed that every group member had clear
understandings ofwhat explicit homophobic language and actions looked like
in their schools and classrooms and had strong ideas about what theywanted
to do to stop it. Combating
texts
homophobia by using LGBTQ-themed
seemed to accomplish thework we set out for ourselves. We found, however,
two shortcomings of this approach, one related to heteronormativity and an
other related to intersectionality.
By heteronormativity we mean

a way of being in theworld that relies on

the belief that heterosexuality is normal, which implicitly positions homo
sexuality and bisexuality as abnormal and thus inferior. It is oftenmuch more
subtle than homophobia.

625

we were working
against homophobia
a largely heteronormative framework was
and Lauren?another
evident, particularly toMollie

contexts, were
insisting that LGB
teachers needed to be out in their classrooms, Anette
was asserting that racial identities and racialized dy

out lesbian in the group?in

namics needed

That

within

theways that straight al

lies talked about, celebrated, and missed meetings for
weddings during a time and in a place where people
with same-sex partners were actively and publicly de
nied rights to that institution. Although Mollie
and
Lauren would
their
and
frustration
express
anger
about this outside of the group, their challenges to the

essays (e.g., Finnerty, 2004) to

scholarship (e.g., hooks, 2001), as well as film (e.g.,
Evans, 2004). (For a full list of our shared texts, see
1999)

to persuasive

as a group, one of the pivotal tran

sitions from working against homophobia within a

a study in which she interviewed lesbian

two
of whom were African American and
teachers,
one ofwhom was white, teaching in schools that serve
students (Melvin, 2010).
mostly African American

largely heteronormative framework toworking against

homophobia and heteronormativity was when Lauren
shared that she had

incorporated the transgender

en
Vie
film
Ma
Rose (Berliner & Scotta, 1997)
specific
as well as transgender guest speakers from a local
youth center into her curriculum (Kenney, 2010).
(Transgenderdescribes a person whose gender identity
is different than the one thatwas assigned at birth.)
Although

her intention was

towork with her students

irrational fear or hatred of

against transphobia?the
are
not
to gender rules and
who
do
adhere
people
efforts also explicitly highlighted
regulations?her
o
o
OJ
>
CO

heteronormativity for the TIGers by troubling and

unfixing the binary of the "he/she" pronoun and
other trappings of gender normativity such as cloth

oo
CO
LO

ing and hairstyles (Butler, 1999) in a way that LGB

inclusive texts had not up until that point. (The Twas
excluded here because we, as a group, did not read and

626

In an effort not to position Anette as the rep

resentative of all lesbians of color, we turned to lit
erature ranging from popular culture (e.g., Reeves,

Acting Out!: Combating Homophobia Through Teacher

Activism [Blackburn et al., 2010].) Moreover, Anette

For theTIGers

=3
-o
<
o3
?Z
oCO
CO
CO
o
<
o
CO
c
=>
o
?}

to be considered.

group were

relatively quiet and typically immersed in

the silences of straight allies.

>o
CD
03
_I

out-of-school

conducted

Although our collaborative effortsdid not help us an

swer the question ofwhether LGB teachers need to be
out, these efforts did help us complicate our under
standings ofwhy some teachers are and others are not
important, we learned that our efforts to
combat heterosexism and homophobia will always fall
short in the absence of our ability to grasp the incred

out. More

ible significance of intersecting identities.

Because of these experiences, this commentary
focuses on the shortcomings of LGBT-inclusivity by
concentrating on the problem of heteronormativity
and the promise of intersectionality. We do so with
a deliberate focus on adolescents and adults engaging
in literacy practices, construed broadly, in both in
school

and

out-of-school

contexts.

discuss texts uniquely pertinent to transgender people

a clear knowl
early in our work.) What emerged was

Heteronormativity

edge for us as a group that combating homophobia

was not only different than combating transphobia
but also different than combating heterosexism. This

examine

knowledge helped group members notice heteronor

mativity and theways that it supports and maintains
the very homophobic practices and policies we work
to fight.
That we were
identities was

failing to consider intersectional

brought to our attention by Anette,

another out lesbian and the only person of color in

and Lauren, drawing on
the group. While Mollie
their experiences working

with

LGBTQ

youth

in

In our concern that LGBT-inclusivity

is limited, we

the problem of heteronormativity. Nearly

every school in the United States is heteronorma
tive; that is, they are based upon the concept that

is not.
is normal and homosexuality
is
of
the
collection
practices and
Heteronormativity
heterosexuality

institutions "that legitimize and privilege heterosexu

as fundamental
ality and heterosexual relationships
and 'natural' within
We

society" (Cohen, 2005, p. 24).

the
reject
premise that the sexual orientation

of "straight,"

as one

of many

orientations,

is normal.

When understood as normal, straightness escapes crit

icism and as such takes on invisibility, thus positioning

all other orientations as abnormal or deviant. Just as

straightness-as-normal

is

problematic,

heteronorma

tivity, too, is a faulty premise. It promotes gross civil

individuals and forces
rights abuses against LGBT
limitations upon straightwomen and men in that it
insists that boys and men behave inmasculine ways,
including but not limited to being attracted to girls

is naturalized and thus

dichotomy

therefore, the use

indisputable;
one
of
lavatory or the other be
comes

mon

an

act

that

embodies

"com

sense"

1989).
(Fairclough,
enforcement
of
gender
Typically,
roles in schools starts immediately

and that girls and women behave in

feminine ways, such as by being attracted to boys and

upon entering them: Schools hold

a "monopoly of the official nam

men, among other expectations of girls and women.

Thus, heteronormativity keeps people in their

ing, of the right classification, of

the right order" (Bourdieu, 1991,
p. 242) of defining and enforcing

and women,

places. For this reason, ithas been described as "a tau

tology that explains thingsmust be thisway because
that's theway they are" (Atkinson & DePalma,
2008,
so
is
it
that
p. 27). Heteronormativity
prevalent
largely
goes

unexamined

in mainstream

conversations

about

concerned edu
education; it is simply inplace.When
cators call for acknowledgment, heteronormativity
draws skepticism unparallel to any other school issue.
Rich
(1980), though, provoked us to address hetero
normativity as an institution, recognizing that it is an
oppressive institution inmuch the same way that clas
sism and racism are.With that inmind, we turn our
attention to this institution.
Perhaps themost foundational way that schools
enforce the institution of heteronormativity
is
through their establishment of rigid gender roles.
From the time they enter school, students are system
ically calibrated with "normal" characterizations of
one of the two gender assignments, male or female,
and thesemanipulations,
in turn, are used to inform
and

enforce

heteronormative

school

cultures,

curri

cula, and policies. One of the other members in the

Pink TIGers recently recalled an early kindergarten
memory of being lined up for the bathroom accord
in one line, girls in the other. If
ing to gender?boys
someone had an accident or emergency, he recalled,
therewas a provision to the line-up procedure; that
person was permitted to use the square, entirely sepa
rate

room

marked

"Handicapped."

account prompted reflection on the ways

that gender segregation in schools can (and usu
ally does) escape notice. The labeling of bathrooms
This

as "boys" (or "men") and

"girls" (or "women") for
both children and adults reflects authoritative fixed
ness

(Bakhtin,

1981) in that it suggests the gender

gender. Under thismonopoly, stu

dents are indoctrinated with the

From the time

they enter

school,

are

students

systemically
calibrated
with

"normal"

characterizations

of one of the two

gender
male

assignments,
or female.

that gender and,

understanding
implicitly, attractions are both de
noted and inescapably determined by one's genitalia.
If this understanding is in place, then it is no won
der that students and teachers have trouble imagin
ing anything but a traditional gender binary related to
heterosexual desires in formalized school spaces.
These moments of gender definition and enforce
ment are not only limited to procedures but also re
inforced both by curricula and pedagogy (Martino,
2009). Most high school freshmen, for example, are
required to read Shakespeare's Romeo andJuliet, a text
in which

heterosexual

love,

sex,

and marriage

are

cen

trally positioned, rather than a screenplay of Brokeback

Mountain
(Proulx, McMurtry, & Ossana,
2005), a
text that would
easily and poignantly meet estab
lished ninth-grade curriculum standards. In thisway,
school curricula typically not only deny adolescents
access to texts that feature LGBTQ
"presum[e]

(or encourag[e])

characters but also

students to identifywith

Shakespeare's young couple" (DiGangi, 2000, p. 162).

adolescents to read a text focusing on
Requiring
a heterosexual

couple and to identifywith those char

acters as heterosexuals presents only one
option, that
of an unchangeable binary: You are eitherRomeo
or
Juliet, a boy attracted to a girl or a girl attracted to a
boy. However, despite potentially limiting mandated
there are opportunities available to chal
lenge heteronormative
thinking even when using
Shakespearean texts. Encouraging student adaptations
curricula,

of traditional Romeo andJuliet settings, such as swap

ping in gay-friendly New York club scenes for the

CO
E
o
o
CO
CO
CD
CO
<
CD
05
CD
13
O)
cz
CD
JCZ
Of)
cz
LU
cz
CD
ZJ
CD
CD
"a
CD
E
CD
-?Z
I?
H
CQ
CD
?I
o
cz
o
CO
=3
CO
cz
CD
-?Z
-a
cz
o
>~
CD
00
CD
CZ
>
o

627

patriarchal households in Verona, allows adolescents

to conceptualize
identities beyond those commonly
presented by textbook editors (Gonzales, 2010). We
advocate

for such

adaptations.

Although it'snot likely that teachers are conscious

of harm in their enforcements of heteronormativity,
these

enforcements

serious

have

One

consequences.

im

plication is for individuals who identify as intersexed?

which is defined as someone having sexual anatomy
subjectively defined as not standard (Intersex Society
as transgendered.
2009)?or
who
Adolescents and adults
either experience gen
der inways that are nondichotomous or inways that
ofNorth America,

are in conflict with thatwhich

is expected are policed

the heterosexual matrix, which

and punished within

Butler (1999) defined as thatwhich

"designate^] that
grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies,
genders, and desires are naturalized"
(p. 151). This

matrix
there

represents a complex
are

environment

sites where

innumerable

in which

heteronormative

designations are continually made.

Under

the

best

"confused"

circumstances,

stu

leeway during their "phase"

of gender exploration by being permitted use of that
neutral handicapped room. At worst, theymay find

dents might be allowed

rules and regulations in school intolerable

(Blackburn, 2004, 2007). Staff who do not adhere

gender
CZ)
o
CnI
>
CD

OO
CO
LO
>
CJ
CD
CD

3
-a

<
o3
cz
CD
o
CO
CD
O
a
<
o
CD
cz
ZJ
o
?3

628

to gender-role performances that are both consistent

and approved risk social condemnation ifnot removal
from their jobs (Blount, 2006).
As a high school teacher, Jill sees how the early
enforcements of gender roles serve to establish het
eronormative practices and policies. The rigidity of
gender roles translates into gender segregation that
feels bigger, yet somehow even more invisible, than
act of lining up
according to gender has, by high school, transformed
into a heterosexist metaphor for the school as awhole.
Gendered adult-positions inmany high schools mir
the kindergarten bathroom lines. The

ror traditional, patriarchal hierarchies

ministrators
school

nurses

and
are

coaches
female,

are male,
and

teacher

in which
secretaries
positions

ad
and
can

vary depending on subject area. Moreover, nearly all

athletic teams, gym and health classes, school-spon
sored dances, Reserve

Officers' Training Corps,

and

career

center

(nurse

opportunities

versus

automotive

training) reflect rigid gender norms.

The football program at Jill's high school is one
of the sites in which the relationships among rigid
gender roles, heteronormativity, and homophobia are
made

particularly visible. Consider, for example, this

year's recent homecoming week. An obvious site of
heteronormativity exists in the postgame homecom
ing king and queen ritual, inwhich the king is always
a boy and the queen is always a girl, and there is never
a king and king or a queen and queen, as there is in
de Haan and Nijland's
(2000) visionary fairy taleKing
andKing.
A

less obvious

site, however, is the district's

are literally large rocks near the
entrance to each school in the district. The rocks are
school rocks. These

considered student property, and popular students are

both permitted and encouraged to show school spirit
they deem
by painting their school rock whenever
student
appropriate: to announce birthday wishes,
or
scores
the
of popular athletic matches. The
deaths,
district practices based around these rocks reveal that
heterosexist rituals are not limited to dances.
of the ownership duties of seniors, par
ticularly senior boys, is guarding their own school's
rock from students who attend rival neighborhood
One

It is not

schools.

uncommon

for seniors

to camp

next

to their rocks all night before big football games or

rival-student
the week before graduation. When
infiltration occurs during football season, the most
common displays of vandalism
(although vandalism
may be a misnomer
proved) are direct
straight

the ritual is largely ap

indirect representations of

because
and

male-dominance.

Among the most frequent comments and sym

bols are "Gaylords," a derogatory slang for gay people;
"grass fairies," referring to male soccer players; the
or school name]" or "[stu
phrase "suck it [student
dent or school name] sucks"; and drawings of penises.
literacy practices surrounding the rock are both
and heterosexist. Implicit in the first
homophobic

These

is hatred of gay people; they suggest, "I

hate gay people, and because you (as students of this
two messages
school

or

as

soccer

players)

are

gay,

I hate

you

too."

second set of comments and the drawings simul

in that
taneously convey misogyny and homophobia

The

they forcefully assert the phallus as a way of show

ing dominance predominantly over weak or gay men

need is a response to the very real

policing of gender and sexual iden

but also over females. These messages

tities (Chambers, Tincknell, & Van

Loon, 2004; Oransky & Marecek,

are, in short, a

metaphorical rape.
We
recognize these literacy practices ideologi
cal (Street, 1995). Specifically we understand them as
saturated with hateful values, but, as is characteristic
of thatwhich

is heteronormative,

the textswere

read

only as expressions of school spirit rather than a rep

resentation

of

the heteronormative

Discourses

(Gee,

1999) that students have learned and mastered. Aside

from Jill, studentmembers of her school's GSA, and
the GSA

sponsor of another high school in the dis

the
trict,
specifically misogynist and homophobic na
ture of theway students enacted spiritweek through
their rock painting went uncontested.
It's not

that the vandalism

went

unnoticed.

Students who were caught were punished not for the

offensive nature of the content but rather because
they got paint on the sidewalk. They were lauded in
stafflunchrooms for keeping their shenanigans within
sanctioned, traditional "boys will be boys" behavior.
Such praise reinforces the heterosexual matrix in
which boys behave like boys by asserting theirmas
culinity over others.
Atypically, two of the rock painters thisyear were
female cheerleaders. Some administrators suggested
that the girls' participation proved the slurswere be
nign, for how could girls assert theirmasculinity?
much less their phallus. We argue, though, that their
participation indicates that those particular girls have
picked up on ways to be accepted by themore domi
nant male

football players by embodying their values.

example of heteronormativity at Jill's
school is the common use of the phrase "no homo"
Another

among male

athletes. This

saying is used preemp

some
labeled gay whenever

tively against being

males give compliments to other males. For ex
ample, a young man might tell a peer, "I like that
jacket," only to follow that statement quickly with,
"No homo." Anything from noticing another male's
new haircut to borrowing money from another male
for a soda seems to create alarm in some of her male
students.

These

students, in other words, perceive the need

to reject being labeled as gay before it occurs. This

2009) among high school boys,

and it echoes adult male behavior
in the building. Male
administra
tors and staffmembers who enact

Heteronormative
performances

include not only

"talk
also

as usual"

but

as usual.

silence

more

rigid performances of tradi

tend
tional, "strong" masculinity

to regulate one another's sexual identities much in

the same way. At mandatory staffmeetings, for ex
ample, where all certified staff come together, there
is inevitably some physical contact made among staff
members. That is to say, because somany people are
moving quickly into such a small space, hands or
shoulders might touch. These are accidents not inti
macies, but when that contact is between men there
are typically loud pronouncements such as, "I never
knew

you were

"Your

wife's

such
a

an

attractive

man,

Mr.

Jones"

or

lucky woman."

Such comments effectively communicate

that
not only are the speakers not gay but that they are so
not-gay, they are homophobic. They do the former
by naming the contact as between straightmen, in
one case by characterizing the speaker as not typically
attracted tomen, and in the second case identifying
theman

spoken to asmarried to awoman. This alone

a
near
is
equivalent to "no homo," but the adult men

that they are so

go further by sending the message
are
not-gay, they
homophobic. This is accomplished
the
through
slight suggestion of attraction, that is,
"normally I'm not attracted tomen, but here and now
I am attracted to you" and "your wife is lucky because
you are so hot, which I am noticing now." But far
from being a claiming of desire between men,
mockery of such desire.

it is a

this is a mockery of colleagues in

Jill's school because there are staffmembers who are
out as lesbian and gay. Staffwho are not
directly in
Furthermore,

volved in these interactions tend to support these dis

plays of heteronormativity with laughter or silence.
heteronormative
include not
performances
as
"talk
usual"
but
also silence
only
(Davies, 1997)
as usual. Although
the reasons for silences may be

Thus,

varied and complex, conformity does little to disrupt

00
E
o
o

fcO
00
CD
CJ>
00
<

CD
en
CD
=3
CD
CZ
CD
.cz
00

O)
cz
LU
CZ
CD
ZJ
CD
CD
D
CD
E
CD
-CZ
I?
h^
oo
CD
O
CZ
o
oo
ZJ
o
cz
CD
jCZ
T3
CZ
o
>
CD
CD
CO
CZ
'>
o

629

the harm being

The multiple
is based

approach

on an additive
in which

model

categories

of difference

are
as

understood

the sta
by maintaining
tus quo
2001;
(Mayo,
Meyer, 2008). Dynamics
like these have become
ritualized in that the same
made

and

responded to at the same

time in the same ways
and,

they have
consequently,
become a way of calling
the staffmeeting,
indeed

another.

the staff, to order in a way

sexual

are

comments

during each meeting,

to one

parallel

inflicted

that reinforces the hetero

matrix.

Although administrators who identify as LGBTQ

express a deep understanding of the ways they are
limited

by

environments

their heteronormative

(Koschoreck, 2003), typically attitudes and practices

of administrators point to a reluctance to (a) acknowl
edge heteronormativity (Davies, 1997) and (b) imag
ine that school approval or enforcement of a rigid
gender role binary has any relationship to it.Despite
some researchers sug
gest that relief from heteronormativity can be found
the status quo via role reversals
through mocking
this somewhat bleak outlook,

o
o

Cvl
>
CO

oo
CO
LO
>~
o
CO
CD
_I
=3
<
o3
cz
CD
O
00
CD
O
<
O
CO
cz
z>
o
?>

630

2008).
(Atkinson & DePalma,
One of Jill's closeted students, for example, wrote
and performed a skit for her class. In it, she assigned
herself the role of an adult who corrected adolescents
for using the phrase, "That's so gay!" in hallways. The
skit ends with the teens vowing never to offend again;
in turn, the adult rewards them with

their favorite

kind of doughnuts, and they all skip out of the class

room together. In this skit,both adult and adolescents
were permitted to be portrayed as heroes: The adult
was empowered to stop student usage of the offen
sive phrase, and the adolescents were

characterized as

enthusiastic and compassionate. Although we do not

suggest the exclusive promotion of imaginary worlds
where role-reversals and doughnuts preclude more se
against heteronormativi
cholesterol
the
levels!), doing so can be an
ty (imagine
important step toward redefining what's considered

rious efforts toward working

normal

in schools.

Intersectionality
Recent

scholarship makes calls for increased attention

to intersectionality. Related to these calls are critiques

of scholarship that privileges one category of

difference above others. Interestingly, this critique is

made

typically aimed at scholars focusing on queer people

and not those focusing on people of color (e.g.,Willis
et al., 2008). Still, the critique is one that deserves
attention, and the concept of intersectionality is one
way to address it. In terms of schools and classrooms,
(2009) asserted that the in
tersectionality of various "social and cultural catego
ries of identity and oppression" (p. 229) must shape

Blackburn

policy,

andMcCready

training,

resources,

curricula,

and

extracur

ricular efforts.Additionally, Hancock

(2007) pointed
to the need for research that "focuses on intersecting
categories of difference" (p. 64). Given such calls, it is
worth considering the history from which the term
emerges

and what

it has

come

to mean.

Intersectionality was borne out of the rejection

of unitary and multiple approaches (Hancock, 2007;
Kumashiro, 2001). The unitary approach focuses on
a single category of difference and universalizes the
experiences of thosewho fit into that category. In do
ing so, it conveys the idea that "one category reigns
paramount among others and is therefore justifiably
the sole lens of analysis" (Hancock, 2007, p. 68). This
approach results in groups of focus competing against
one another and imposing a false sense of unity within

these groups. The multiple approach is based on an

additive model in which categories of difference are

understood as parallel to one another. Like the unitary

approach, the multiple approach provokes competi
tion among groups of focus. It also "denies certain
groups who fall in between the intersections ofmulti
ple groups the political space for claims of qualitative,
not merely quantitative difference" (Hancock, 2007,
and Kumashiro identified these
p. 70). Both Hancock
approaches and their shortcomings in their studies of
educational policy.
Hancock
(2007), however, argued that the notion
of intersectionality can address these shortcomings
of the unitary and multiple approaches and help to
answer "questions left unanswered"
(p. 71) by these
approaches by addressing multiple categories of dif
ference in a balanced way, exploring the relationships

among them, acknowledging diversity within groups,

recognizing hybridity, and attending to the dialog
ic relationship between individuals and institutions.

In other words, this group would have conceptualized

as a gay group. If, however, our audience was within

Moreover,

The Attic, which served more males than females,

our focus would likely be gender identities. That is, it

which

would

she identifies four "domains of power" in

categories of difference intersect: "hegemonic

(ideas, cultures, and ideologies), structural (social in

stitutions), disciplinary (bureaucratic hierarchies and
administrative practices), and interpersonal (routin
ized interactions among individuals)" (p. 74). Such an
approach,

Hancock

asserted,

fosters

cooperation

rath

er than competition among marginalized groups and

thus offers a richer potential for a just society.
that in
(2001), however, worried
not
tersectionality is
enough and suggested that it
needs to be "troubled." He challenged teachers and
Kumashiro

researchers to admit that "we can never have full di

versity" (p. 11) because we can never hear all of the
voices, but the problem is less thatwe do not know
enough about diversity and more thatwe are resistant
to knowing more

about diversity.With this assump

prompted teachers and researchers

tion, Kumashiro
to reflect not on who

is being left out but why they

are being leftout and to disrupt "ways thatwe tradi
tionally comply with oppression" (p. 20). Here, he,
(2007), seemed to be advocating for our
to
the
attending
dialogic relationship between indi
viduals and institutions.
likeHancock

With

both Hancock's

(2007)

and Kumashiro's

(2001) theorizing on intersectionality, we turn to

an illustrative example. When Mollie worked in an
youth-run center in Philadelphia called The
she
coinitiated and facilitated a social support
Attic,
group forwomen with a person we'll call Dara. The
LGBTQ

group ranged in size, but it usually consisted of four

or five young women, most of whom were
working
class African Americans ranging in age from 16 to 23.
The

group's numbers and diversity usually increased

in the summers when more people from the suburbs
made theirways to The Attic.
Ifwe were

to take a unitary approach to ana

lyzing this group, we would have to choose a single
category of difference; which choice we would make
likely depend on the context. For example, if
our audience was beyond that of The Attic, say, in
schools, the context would likely be heteronormative;

would

therefore, our focus would

likely be sexual identities.

have been considered a women's

group.
to take amultiple approach to analyz
ing the group, and if our audience was thewomen's
group itself, then our foci might be race and class,
Ifwe were

with attention paid to seasonal fluctuations. Although

such an analysis would provide a more nuanced un
derstanding of the group than unitary approaches
might offer, it stillwould be more simplistic than an
analysis from an intersectionality approach.
Kumashiro
(2001) pushed us to "examine the in
tersections...that could disrupt theways we otherwise
sense of oppression and identity" (p. 2). In the
example of thewomen's group, itwould be reasonable

make

to study the intersections of sexuality, gender, race,

and class. These categories of difference are compel
ling here, in part, because of the design of the group.
First and foremost as part of the Attic, the women's
group was designed to exclude straight people. Being
a women's group, itwas designed to exclude men.
These borders were owned without hesitation as evi
denced by how the group described itselfon its flier: a
group of young women who love women.
However, group members were just as deliber
ate about trying to eliminate borders based on race
and class. For example, the image selected for the
group's flierwas a photograph taken in the summer
and showed women who appeared racially diverse and
whose dress at least hinted at class diversity. Thus, the

group was designed with borders in terms of sexual

ity and gender and without borders, ideologically if

not practically, in terms of race and class.

Reflecting
on the intersections of these four
categories of differ
ence holds promise for
answering questions leftunan
swered by unitary and multiple approaches.
Such promise can be achieved by engaging
Hancock's
(2007) domains of power:
The

hegemonic domain requires that we ac

knowledge that the society inwhich the youth
served by this group is generally, but not mono

lithically, homophobic, sexist, racist, and classist.

These values get presented through the many
texts with which these young people engage,

E
o
o
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
<
CD
O)
CO
=3
O)
cz
?ICO
szCO
OJ
cz
LU
cz
CD
ZJ
CO
CD
X3
CD
ECD
SZ
I?
H
QQ
CD
O
CZ
o
CO
ZJ
o
cz
CD
J=
"D
CZ
o
>~
CD
00
O)
CZ
>
o
631

including but not limited to books, films, and

television shows. As such,many of the youth in
this group are functioning in aworld
against them tirelessly.
The

thatworks

and members'

reminds us of how

structural domain

school experiences typically push these youth

out. We know that schools are hostile climates
for LGBTQ
youth, particularly LGBTQ
youth
of color (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008).
we know that GSAs, which
are
Moreover,
serve students of

do not usually

school-based,

color effectively (McCready, 2001). This op

pression is compounded by the fact that literacy
practices in schools are typically valued more
when
they resemble those defined in white
middle class ways (Heath, 1983).
disciplinary domain allows us to consid
er how The Attic in general and the women's

The

group in particular might also impact the lived

experiences of the young women of focus. The
for example, was not the only service
youth in the area, but it
provider for LGBTQ
was the only one that provided services for this
Attic,

population regardless of race or ethnicity. There

were other services providers that catered to
African American, Asian American,
CD
CD

Csl
>~
CO

oo
CO
LO
>
o
CO
CD
?I
ZJ
-a

<
o3

cz
CD
CJ
CD
O
-a
<
o
CO
cz
ZJ
o

632

youth, for examples. As

LGBTQ
youths

who

came

to

the women's

and Latino
a result, the
group

were

constantly challenged to reflect on racial dy

namics. The group was facilitated by Dara, who
isAfrican American, andMollie, who iswhite.
This

administrative move

affected thework of

the group, as evidenced by the photo on the

flier thatwe mentioned previously.
The

interpersonal domain, however, highlights

ways in which the women's group was prob
lematically exclusive. For example, defining the
group as forwomen hindered discussions about
how some members of the group experienced
gender less dichotomously, thus the diversity
members

among

Dara

was

was

concealed,

on the more masculine

even

though

end of the

imaginary gender continuum and Mollie was

on themore feminine end. Moreover, the group
was male
explicitly excluded one youth who
to-female

transgender

and

another

transgender. Others were likely

implicitly excluded as a result of the group's
limited understanding of transgender people

female-to-male

who

was

own

transphobia.

To

consider the dynamics in these four domains all

but forces us to address categories of difference, albeit
not in a balanced way; explore relationships among
them; acknowledge within group diversity; recognize
hybridity of those outside the group's parameters; and
attend to the dialogic relationship between individuals
and institutions (Hancock, 2007). It also requires us to
reflect on who is being leftout and why (Kumashiro,
2001).
It seems to us, then, that as we

consider the liter

acy practices around issues pertinent to LGBTQ

peo
ple, it isworth striving for an intersectional approach,
and that a promising way to accomplish this is to use
Hancock's
(2001)
(2007) domains and Kumashiro's
reminder to reflect on who is being leftout and why.
Narratives

that depict characters who

fall into a vari

ety of racial and sexual identities, such as If You Come

Softly (Woodson, 1998), or ones that explicitly exam
ine race, religion, and class, like the autobiographical
The Color ofWater: A Black Man's Tribute toHis White
Mother (McBride, 1996), can support "points of entry"
for discussing intersectionalities with adolescents and
adults (Mitchell, 2000) in that they engage readers to
think about the complexities that exist simultaneously
of the challenges and rewards
of acknowledging multiple identities is exemplified
inwhich
by McBride's
chapter "A Jew Discovered,"

within

identities.Many

James (who self-identifies as a black Christian) con

templates lifewhile sitting on the steps of his white
mother's childhood synagogue. His realization thathe
can be black, Christian,

and, at times, Jewish too is an

inspirational model for realizations

not have known were possible.

that readers may

Beyond Inclusivity
on LGBTQ
people can distract from the
problem of heterosexism and homophobia. That is
people, we sometimes let
by attending to LGBTQ
Focusing

and homophobic people off our radar.

But even focusing on heterosexist and homophobic
people, who are not mutually exclusive from LGBTQ
heterosexist

people, misses
of

is to address the forms

the point, which

work

and

oppression?heterosexism

homophobia?in

that benefit LGBTQ

people, their allies, and
those people who are restricted by their own igno

ways

rance about LGBTQ

populations (Martino, 2009).
on
the
sexual identities of LGBTQ
Focusing
texts do, typical
people, as so often LGBT-themed
ly comes at the expense of attending to intersecting
identities. Sexual identities cannot be effectively sepa
rated from the race, class, gender, and other identi
ties embodied by people since no one is solely sexual.
Sexuality cannot be understood well in isolation from
other identitymarkers (Kumashiro, 2001). Therefore,
even though we value the important and riskywork
that some teachers and youth service providers are
literature and
doing by including LGBT-themed
in their curricula and programs,
LGBTQ
people
we consider it imperative to add to such efforts by
combating heteronormativity and considering inter
sectionality. In fact, for teachers and youth service
to be a
providers who do not find LGBT-inclusivity
we
viable option,
encourage them to consider taking
on the concepts of heteronormativity and intersec
as alternatives.

tionality

J.M. (2006). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school

in the twentieth century. New York:
of
State University

Blount,
New

York

Press.
Harvard University
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble:Feminism and the subversion of iden
tity.New York: Routledge.
Chambers, D., Tincknell,
E., & Van Loon, J. (2004). Peer regula
tion of teenage

and the editorsfor their expedient and

grateful to Tricia Niesz
thoughtfulfeedback as we revised this commentary.

and Education,

16(3),

C.J.

radical

NC:

Durham,

21-51).

Duke

Press.

University

B.

and deconstructing
masculini
(1997). Constructing
ties through critical literacy. Gender and Education, 9(1), 9-30.
doi:10.1080/09540259721420

Davies,

M.

DiGangi,
W.J.

needs it? In
Shakespeare's
sexuality: Who
(Ed.), Lesbian and gay studies and the teaching of
Positions, pedagogies, and cultural politics (pp. 147-167).
(2000).

Spurlin

English:

IL: National

Council
of Teachers
of English.
(1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction toDiscourse
analysis: Theory and
method. New York: Routledge.
Urbana,

N.

Fairclough,

J. (2010). Risk and threat in critical inquiry: Vacancies,

and vacuums.
In M.V.
C.T. Clark,
Blackburn,

Gonzales,

violations,
L.M.

&

(Eds.), Acting out!: Combating

New York:
homophobia through teacher activism (pp. 74-87).
Teachers College
Press.
Kenney,

A.

digm.

are

identities. Gender

andWelfare
(2005). Punks, bulldaggers,
queens: The
of queer politics?
In E.P. Johnson & M.G.
potential
Henderson
(Eds.), Black queer studies: A critical anthology (pp.

Cohen,

addition:

We

sexual

397-415. doi:10.1080/09540250042000251515

Hancock,

Note

Press.

P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J.B. Thompson,

Bourdieu,
& M. Adamson,
Ed., G. Raymond,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

Smith

J.M.

(2007). When
Examining

equal
as a research

intersectionality
on Politics,

Perspectives

doesn't

multiplication

S1537592707070065

5(1),

63-79.

quick
para

doi:10.1017/

S.B.

(1983). Ways with words: Language,

life, and work in
communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge
University

Heath,

Press.
Intersex Society

References
E., & DePalma,

Atkinson,

normative:

British Journal

justice.

R.

Performative

(2008).

subversion

of Sociology

doi:10.1080/01425690701737333
Bakhtin,

M.M.

Holquist,

Ed.

University

of Texas

Blackburn,

M.V.

sanctioned
Blackburn,

The

(1981).
&

ofEducation,

25-35.

Press.

(2004). Understanding

agency

beyond

Theory Into Practice, 43(2),

(2007).

ing, and remaking

29(1),

dialogic imagination: Four essays (M.

& C. Emerson,
Austin:
Trans.).

Trans.,

activities.

M.V.

the homo
Imagining
in education
for social

The

experiencing,

of gender

youth. Journal ofGay & Lesbian

school

102-110.

negotiation,

break

rules and regulations by queer

Issues inEducation, 4(2), 33-54.

doi:10.1300/J367v04n02_04
Blackburn,

M.V.,

Clark,

C.T.,

Kenney,

L.M.,

&

(2010). Acting out!: Combating homophobia

activism. New York: Teachers College
Press.
M.V.,

in urban

& McCready,

schools:

Practice, 48(3),

L.T.

Possibilities

222-230.

(2009). Voices
and

limitations.

Smith,

J.M.

through teacher
of queer youth
Theory

doi:10.1080/00405840902997485

Into

of North

America.

(2009). Retrieved

December

from www.isna.org

L.M.
out and reading queer-inclusive
(2010). Being
Kenney,
texts in a high school English classroom.
InM.V. Blackburn,
C.T. Clark, L.M. Kenney, & J.M. Smith (Eds.),
Acting out!:
activism
teacher
Combating homophobia through
(pp. 56?73). New
York:

Teachers

Press.

College

the violence:

het
Transgressing
administration. Journal ofSchool

Koschoreck,

J.W. (2003). Easing

in educational
eronormativity

Leadership,

13(1), 27-50.

Kosciw,

E.M.,
J.G., Diaz,
National
School Climate

& Greytak,

E.A.

(2008).

The

2001

Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay,

bisexual and transgender youth in our nation's schools. New York:

GLSEN.
Kumashiro,

(Eds.).

Blackburn,

7, 2009,

K.K.

ism. In K.K.

students of color and antiracist,

(2001). Queer

antiheterosexist

education:

Paradoxes

of identity and activ

sexuality: Queer

(Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and

students of color and anti-oppressive education (pp.

1-25). Lanham,

MD:

Martino,

W.

Kumashiro

(2009).

interventions

Rowman

Literacy

in English

& Littlefield.

issues and GLBTQ

youth: Queer
In L. Christenbury,
education.
R.

oo
E
o
o
00
00
CD

C_J
00

<

CD
CD
CO
ZJ
en
cz
CD
-?Z
00

en
cz
LU
CZ
CD
ZJ
CD
CD
-a
CD
E
CD
-?Z
I?
OQ
CD
O
CZ
o
oo
ZJ
o
cz
CD
jCZ
-cj
CZ
o
>~
CD
QQ
en
cz
>
o

633

& P. Smagorinsky
(Eds.), Handbook
of adolescent literacy
research (pp. 386-399).
New York: Guilford.
C.
and its discontents:
race,
(2001). Civility
Mayo,
Sexuality,
and the lure of beautiful manners.
In S. Rice
(Ed.), Philosophy
Yearbook 2001
IL:
of Education
(pp. 78-87).
Champaign,
Bomer,

at Urbana-Champaign.
(2001). When
fitting in isn't an option, or, why
queer males at a California
high school stay away from
of Illinois

University

L.

McCready,
black

10. In K.K.

intersections of

Kumashiro
Project
(Ed.), Troubling
race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive educa
tion (pp. 37-53). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
(2010).

Smith (Eds.),
Blackburn, CT.
Clark, L.M. Kenney, &J.M.
Acting out!: Combating homophobia through teacher activism (pp.
Press.
127-142). New York: Teachers College
Meyer,

E.J.

(2008).

Gendered

Understanding

teachers'

Education,

555-570.

C.

Mitchell,

20(6),
(2000).

"What's

erature for children

harassment

in secondary

interventions.

(non)

schools:

Gender

and

doi:10.1080/09540250802213115
out

and young

there?": Gay and lesbian lit

adults. InW.J. Spurlin (Ed.),

and gay studies and the teaching ofEnglish: Positions, peda

IL: National
and
cultural politics (pp. 112-130). Urbana,
gogies,
Council
of Teachers of English.
Lesbian

Oransky,

M.,

& Marecek,
and

girl": Masculinity
peer

groups.

Journal

J. (2009).
emotions

of Adolescent

"I'm

in boys'
Research,

doi:10.1177/0743558408329951

Rich,

not going

to be

literacies: Critical

C,

Hall,

H.,

Burke,

Literature Cited
Berliner, A. (Director), & Scotta, C. (Producer).
(1997). Ma
rose [Motion picture]. France:
Sony Picture Classics.
de Haan,
S. (2000). King and king. Berkeley,
L., & Nijland,

in black

communities.

In D.

in
(Ed.), The greatest taboo:Homosexuality
black communities (pp. 67-73). Los Angeles: Alyson.
McBride,
J. (1996). The color of water: A black man's tribute to his
white mother. New York: Riverhead.
Constantine-Simms

D.
A., McMurtry,
L., & Ossana,
(2005)
Story to screenplay. New York: Scribner.

Brokeback

and
friendships
218-241.

Reeves,

K.E.

Woodson,

children. Essence, 30(1), 220.

(1999). All God's
come
J. (1998). If you
softly.New York: G.P. Putnam's

Sons.

Blackburn

teaches

Columbus,

USA;

teaches
Central

at The
e-mail

at The

Ohio

High

School;

Ohio

State University,

Blackburn.99@osu.edu.

State University
e-mail

Smith

and Westerville

smithjill@mac.com.

CO
CO
LO

cz
CD
o
CD
O
T3
<
o
CO
cz
ZJ
o
?>

634

CA:

from www.pflag.org/fileadmin/user_upload/An_Open
_Letter_12-04.pdf
hooks, b. (2001). Homophobia

CVI
>?
CD
~i

?
a
<
o3

vie en

Producer, & Writer).

(2004). Brother to brother
States: Miasma
Films.
[Motion picture]. United
to
D.
letter
An
white
lesbian, gay, bi
open
my
(2004).
Finnerty,
sexual, transgender sisters and brothers.Retrieved
June 8, 2009,

CD
CD

>
o
CO
CD

L., &

24(2),

approaches to literacy in
New
and
education.
York: Longman.
development, ethnography
Social

Hunter,

A.

Mountain:

660. doi:10.1086/493756
(1995).

M.,

(2008). On critically conscious research: Approaches

to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Proulx,

A. (1980). Compulsory
and lesbian exis
heterosexuality
tence. Signs: Journal ofWomen inCulture and Society, 5(4), 631?

Street, B.V.

A.I., Montavon,

Herrera,

Tricycle.
Evans, R.
(Director,

to stay "in" and the significance

Choosing
in urban classrooms.
of race for lesbian teachers
In M.V.
A.

Melvin,

Willis,

Inan effort to share research and practice with a global audience, the InternationalReading Association is
now offeringabstracts insix languages forthe content found inThe Reading Teacher, the Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy,and Reading Research Quarterly.Abstracts appear on theAssociation's website
inArabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. Visitwww.reading.org to view the abstracts or to
learnmore about the Association's publications.