Running head: QUEER THEORY 1

Queer Theory in Family Science: Theorizing the Undoing of Heteronormativity

Autumn Bermea, MS, Brad van Eeden-Moorefield, PhD, & Lyndal Khaw, PhD

Montclair State University

Paper presented at the 2017 Theory Construction and Research Methodology (TCRM)

Workshop, Orlando, FL

Please address correspondence to Autumn M. Bermea; Department of Family and Child

Development, College of Education and Human Services, Montclair State University, 1 Normal

Ave, Montclair, NJ 07079; phone: (512)-618-0424; fax: (973) 655-6795; email: [email protected].

QUEER THEORY 2

Abstract

Queer families have garnered more civil rights (e.g., marriage, parenting) in recent years and often scholarship mirrors this topical focus. Although this research has been valuable, even critical for access to rights, it inadvertently perpetuates the idea that there is one family type in that studies have generally focused on structures such as marriage and parenthood. Our paper extends from current queer lenses to propose, specifically, a queer family theory that engages with queer families, regardless of its adherence to these structures. To do so, we offer four axioms for family scientists who employ queer theory in their work that take into account the fluid, active, and marginalized nature of a manifold of queer families.

QUEER THEORY 3

Queer Theory in Family Science: Theorizing the Undoing of Heteronormativity

Within family sciences, the use of theory is important in order to understand families and interpret the way family scientists study them (Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, &

Klien, 2005; Berkowitz, 2009; Chrisler, 2017; Knapp, 2009; Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). Theories provide not only explanations of family phenomena, but also allow us to more deeply understand and engage with them (Knapp, 2009). In other words, through the use of theory, we are able to see families in ways we had not previously considered and generate rigorous conceptualizations for our work (Knapp, 2009; Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). For scholars working with queer families, it is especially important to have a critical understanding of the theoretical lens through which to study this population, as certain frameworks may be used to further marginalize or pathologize individuals and their families (Chrisler, 2017; Knapp, 2009). For example, in the present text, we define queer as those who do not reproduce actions, identities, or relationships that are valued within in the context of a culture that privileges heteronormative values and are thus vulnerable to being labeled deviant (Butler, 1990; 2004). Specifically, those who are heteronormative are cisgendered individuals who have exclusive attraction to as well as sexual and romantic relationships with those who identify as being of a different gender from a cisgendered perspective and have been monogamous in these relationships (Butler, 2004; Oswald, Blume, &

Marks, 2005).

However, much of present research on queer families does not utilize a theoretical lens that takes this into account; instead, most research examines queer families who are similar to married heterosexual families with children and, often, compares queer families to them as the standard, leaving many queer families unrepresented (Biblarz & Savci, 2010). For instance, queer families have been largely conceptualized through family process topics as the transition to QUEER THEORY 4 parenthood, domestic work division, and civil unions/marriage (Biblarz & Savci, 2010). That is not to say that what queer family scientists have contributed is not vital; the present body of research in this field has been invaluable to depathologizing queers and their families and should not be discounted (for reviews see: Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Staci, 2010; Kurdek, 2005,

Patterson, 2000; Peplau & Spalding, 2000). Findings from this body of research provides empirical evidence acknowledging that heterosexual individuals do not necessarily engage in relationships and family life in ways that are healthier than queer individuals. In fact, these studies indicate queers and their relationships and families are as healthy as their heterosexual counterparts (e.g., Kurdek, 2008; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bos, van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2014;

Goldberg & Smith, 2013).

However, although this research has had a positive impact, queer family scientists would benefit from increased research that uses a theoretical lens that takes into account the dominant power structures that impact the family lives they seek to understand and improve (Berkowitz,

2009). By incorporating a lens that recognizes power imbalances, a multitude of queer family types, including those who do not resemble the heteronormative, are recognized (Bunch, 2013;

Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012).

Despite its potential in family science, queer theory is a framework that, traditionally, has been overlooked (Berkowitz, 2011; Halberstam, 2003; Oswald et al., 2005; Oswald, Kuvalanka,

Blume, & Berkowitz, 2009; Stacey, 2004). Although limited, however, some research has begun to utilize queer theory in the examination of queer families (Oswald et al., 2009). Queer theory is attuned to power structures (Butler, 1990; 2004; Foucault, 1978; Halberstam, 2012; Sedgewick,

1991), which makes it a worthwhile theory through which to recognize how unique contexts and QUEER THEORY 5 influences, such as heteronormativity, may marginalize queer families, as those who do not fit a heteronormative model may not either be seen or viewed still as deviant (Bunch, 2013).

However, much of queer theory’s application in this field still utilizes it with a heteronormative perspective (e.g., Oswald et al 2005). For example, in Oswald and colleagues’

(2005) examples of queer theory in family science, including what the authors term “research on complex families” (p. 153), are somewhat heteronormative in that they describe processes that highlight those of families with children. In another study, although Berkowitz (2011) used a queer theoretical lens and, indeed, took into account the social construction of gender, she did so in order to answer questions of becoming parents, which reflected a heteronormative family process.

However, to make this theory applicable in family science, there must be an understanding of queer theory that recognizes queers whose families are not necessarily reflective of heteronormativity and understands queer families in diverse forms (Halberstam,

2012). For example, Butler (2004) raises the question of whether kinship (i.e., legal and biological recognitions of family, often meant for the purposes of reproduction; p. 102) is solely achievable through heteronormative means. In support of her claims, researchers have acknowledged how notions of kin have become more reflective of community and the close relationships made to meet the needs of the individuals within that become family, regardless of biological or legal status (e.g., Halberstam, 2012; Singh, 2013; Stacey, 2014).

Despite our critique, we value Oswald and colleagues’ (2005; 2009) work and use it as the basis for our own theoretical expansion of queer theory in family science. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to propose a version of queer theory that takes into account more diverse family forms outside of those that are most commonly studied (i.e., those who are or QUEER THEORY 6 mirror married couples with children). To do so we will expand concepts from Butler’s early work (i.e., performativity, the matrix of intelligibility; 1990) as well as define family in a way that emphasizes more active perspectives using concepts such as undoing (Butler, 2004) and

Halberstam’s (2012) principles of Gaga Feminism, which will be defined and discussed in depth below.

Queer Theory: An Overview

Scholars who utilize queer theory have recognized how societal constructions of power have deemed heterosexuality, specifically, monogamous heterosexual relationships with children, as the ideal (i.e., heteronormativity). Scholars utilizing a queer lens are attuned to this power structure and question research that perpetuates heteronormativity. In other words, the purpose of the theory is to “deconstruct construct” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 104) around cultural narratives that take the form of fallacious binaries (Butler, 2004). The act of labeling sexuality

(e.g., gay) creates a false binary between what is normative (i.e., heterosexuality) and what is deviant (i.e., queer; Butler, 1990). Binaries create and perpetuate heteronormativity. For example, youth who dress and otherwise physically appear outside of what is expected of their gender are often perceived as queer and have been documented to be harassed as either gay or trans*, regardless of identity (Oswald et al., 2005; Toomey & Russell, 2016). In other words, although there are many factors involved in appearance, those who present outside of the heteronormative are labeled as deviant within a heteronormative binary.

Thus, gender and sexuality are forms of socially constructed oppression (Butler, 1990;

Foucault, 1978). In understanding power in gender and sexuality, queer theory proposes the way individuals are understood and treated, even to the recognition of their personhood, relies on social interpretation (Butler, 1990; 2004). Butler (1990) refers to this as performativity, which QUEER THEORY 7 recognizes how gender and sexuality are not something a person has, but rather something they do (Butler, 1990). To illustrate, Ohnstad (2009) provides a case study of a woman who identified as a lesbian yet performed her sexuality with a male partner and kept a lesbian identification, indicating the multidimensional nature of performativity. In other words, queer theory rejects labels. Instead, it views labels as being designed by those in power in order to keep authority

(Butler, 1990; 2004; Foucault, 1978; Halberstam, 2012; Sedgewick, 1991). Performativity conceptualizes gender and sexuality as action, where those who act in ways closer to heteronormativity are granted increased civil rights, protections, and recognition (Berkowitz,

2009; Bunch, 2013; Butler, 2004). Those who adhere to heteronormative standards operate within the matrix of intelligibility. The matrix of intelligibility is the idea that sexuality and gender are not legitimized unless they are understood and acknowledged by others. For instance, transgender and other gender non-conforming youth who are forced by policy to use facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms that do not correspond to their gender are deemed to be unintelligible by policy makers, school personnel, and their peers (Alumit, 2017). To be unrecognized is to be misunderstood, even deemed non-existent, through their gender identity via use of tactics that dehumanize, victimize, limit access to services, or result in death (Butler

2004). For example, students, as described above, are at risk for harassment, bodily injury by peers, kidney-related disorders from avoiding restrooms at all, mental illness, and suicide

(Almuit, 2017).

Queer theory is attuned to both these oppressions and the outcomes of being deemed unintelligible and seeks to question, push, and resist what is socially normative (i.e., undoing;

Butler, 2004). Undoing is the refusal to submit to socially constructed normativities, as the belief in normativity and deviancy is what lends it legitimacy (Bunch, 2013; Butler, 2004). To QUEER THEORY 8 illustrate, Halberstam (1998), discusses drag culture, particularly Drag King culture, in which women take on masculine personas in order to navigate butchness, female masculinity, and illustrate gender and sexual permeability. Part of this culture is to subvert the normative, thereby resisting it, which is a key component of queer theory (Halberstam 1998; 2004).

Historical Contexts

Feminism. Feminist epistemologies and methodologies have seen substantial development within the social sciences (see Hesse-Biber, 2014). Specifically, within the family sciences feminist perspectives have changed the way we have conceptualized and studied families since the 1970s (c.f., Allen, 2016). Originally, feminist theory was incorporated into this field in order to critique patriarchal power structures within the family at the micro level (e.g., housekeeping, parenting, employment; Allen, 2016).

However, one major criticism that has long been given feminist perspectives both within and outside of family science has been its homogenous application towards white, middle class, heterosexual women (Allen, 2016). Indeed, historically, the political struggles of women have not included multiple marginalized groups, such as queer and/or women of color (Allen, 2016).

In order for feminist research to truly meet its objective of dismantling dominant power structures (Hesse-Biber, 2014), there must be a shift from a homogenous view of feminism to one that incorporated the views, experiences, and rights of all marginalized groups.

Queer Theory. Queer theory is also attuned to these constructions of power and has its roots in activism (Berkowitz, 2009). For instance, during the AIDS crisis, gay men were dehumanized on a national level, often losing their homes and families (Wright, 2013). Many called for discourses on sex positivity that framed gay men as human in ways that connected them with loved ones and removed them from isolation (Argüelllo, 2016; Wright, 2013). In order QUEER THEORY 9 to avoid labels of deviancy, queer theory promoted sex positivity. As such, although both theories recognized power discrepancies at the root of gender and sexuality, queer theory had major splits with feminism (Oswald et al., 2009; Showden, 2012).

For instance, feminism critiqued some sex practices as promoting power imbalances, while queer theory advocated for sex positivity in nontraditional sex. One example is how

Showden (2012) discussed a queer feminism in the context of sex work, arguing for safe prostitution practices, thereby recognizing the power imbalances for individuals in this profession while simultaneously refusing to shame sex work. Queer feminism is a useful tool for scholars to embrace both the recognition of power inherent in society and simultaneously reject the false binary of normativity/deviancy (Berkowitz, 2009; Bermea, Rueda, & Toews, in press;

Das, 2014; Oswald et al., 2009; van Eeden-Moorefield, Martell, Williams, & Preston, 2011).

Queer Families and Family Sciences

Despite queer feminism as an important tool for research at the individual level, little research has been conducted at the family level (e.g., Berkowitz & Ryan, 2011; Bermea, et al., in press; Goldberg, Allen, Ellawala, & Ross, 2017; van Eeden Moorefield et al., 2011; van Eeden-

Moorefield, Malloy, & Benson, 2016). As such, this body of research does not take into account power structures within queer families and larger societies. Instead, research has typically focused on LGBT families and comparing queers to heterosexual norms (e.g., Bos et al., 2014).

Additionally, within family science, it can be argued that the body of existing research mainly represents couples similar to those married with children and fails to include queer families who do not fit this model (Halberstam, 2012). For instance, Few-Demo, Humble, Curran and Lloyd

(2016) recently published suggestions on how to incorporate queer theory into pedagogy; however, the examples provided were focused on families with children and parenting. Although QUEER THEORY 10 the individuals themselves may have deviated from the heteronormative, the families themselves did not. This furthers heteronormative biases, indicating that not only should queers be compared to heteronormative families, but that only queer families who are visible are those who are mirror heteronormative families (Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012). For instance, non-monogamous relationships exist in virtually countless forms (Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015; van

Eeden-Moorefield et al., 2016) yet are rarely recognized and are provided even fewer healthy relationship services. Therefore, many queer families are rendered invisible in queer family research and service provision (Bermea et al., in press; Halberstam, 2012). The discrepancy in who is represented as a queer family is critical because, as described above, those who are recognized are those who are humanized (Butler, 2004).

Instead, there is no single family form. Many queer theorists are critical of highlighting marriage as the dominant queer rights cause (Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012; Hopkins,

Sorenson, & Taylor, 2013; LaSala, 2007). Although we are not contesting the benefits of marriage equality (see Riggle, Wickham, Rostosky, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2016), the discourses surrounding marriage and child rearing as ideal portrays queer families as acceptable only when heteronormative (Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012; Matsick & Conley, 2015). In fact, even within literature of queer couples raising children, lesbian couples, more so than gay male couples, are studied, given the normative notion of women as caregivers (Biblarz and Savci, 2010). These ideas affect how family scholars conduct research with heteronormative biases. For example, a literature review of family formation among same-sex families defined the process only as a child entering the family (Patterson & Riskind, 2010), failing to include families outside this form. QUEER THEORY 11

Similarly, in the most recent review of literature of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) research from the past decade, Biblarz and Savci (2010) not only mainly represented heteronormative families, but also predicted the coming decade of research as such.

Contrastingly, although not exhaustively, little research considers other families such as non- monogamous queers (e.g., van Eeden-Moorefield et al., 2016), fictive kin (e.g., Singh, 2013;

Stacey, 2004), or bisexuals in other-sex relationships, assumed to be heterosexual (Biblarz &

Savci, 2010; Goldberg et al., 2017), as family within the family science realm. For example,

Bermea and colleagues (in press) examined adolescent mothers in residential foster care who held relationships with both other female residents as well as the fathers of their children through a queer lens. Indeed, they found their relationship experiences with the other residents, including dating violence victimization, was positioned by residential staff as being less intelligible than with the fathers of their children. As such, steps were taken at the residency to prevent peer violence, not dating violence, impacting the quality of service provision and, thus, the mothers’ safety. This finding mirrors Butler’s (2004) theoretical positing of how queerness renders one less intelligible.

As described above, some scholars above have taken steps to incorporate queer theory into family science in order to open discussions of performativity (e.g., Few-Demo et al., 2016;

Oswald et al., 2005; 2009). As queer theory recognizes the importance of socially constructed power, this is important. However, it should be extended to include families who are not already largely included in family literature (Butler, 2004). For example, as described above,

Few-Demo et al. (2016), although inclusive of some families not frequently present in family literature (e.g., trans* families), positioned families from of heteronormative family processes, such as parenting. QUEER THEORY 12

The 2005 work of Oswald and colleagues in the Sourcebook of Family Theory and

Research widely introduced queer theory to an audience of family scientists (Oswald et al.,

2009). Although this work was emergent and controversial at the time of its publication (Knapp

& Williams, 2005; Oswald et al., 2009), it should be reconsidered and updated given the majority of this text presents the family structures that replicate the heteronormative in queering and creating a complex family. Although Oswald et al. (2005) provides a model of action for queering families (pg. 147), the resulting complex family remains fairly heteronormative.

Examples of this within the text include breastfeeding, lesbian couples attending weddings, and same-sex parents raising adolescents (Oswald et al., 2005). Their use of Carrington’s (2002) approach to queer theory cements this view of queer families, which focuses on domestic duties within the family. Many queer families do not do family in the way they are exemplified in

Oswald and colleagues’ (2005) work or the family science field in general. This body of research also examines performativity with the family as a whole, and tends to not examine the way individual family member performs gender and sexuality. As such, we will extend the work of

Oswald’s (2005; 2009) contributions, which have been invaluable to introducing queer theory into the family sciences field, yet must be expanded as the field of queer theory itself has grown.

Advancing Theory

Current Theory in the Family Sciences

The present extension of queer theory distinguishes itself from previous works which have focused on heteronormative definitions of family by expanding on both the conceptualization of family as well as how it is performed (e.g., Few-Demo et al., 2016; Oswald et al., 2005; 2009). Similar to work with individuals, queer theory recognizes gender, sexuality and, by proxy, family, as socially constructed. Queer families are often viewed as being less QUEER THEORY 13 understandable, sometimes to the point of being inhuman, even non-existent, to those who fit into a heteronormative structure (Butler, 1990; 2004). These views promulgate heteronormative biases inherent in queer family literature that idealize heteronormative families. Oswald and colleagues (2009) value queering family sciences for its ability to understand how everyone, in all family structures, both replicates and yet are able to resist heteronormativity. In other words, queer families are able to undo heteronormativity and subvert norms by refusing to acknowledge and replicate heteronormative standards (Bunch, 2013) and perform queerness as a mechanism for undoing social norms as a form of resistance (Butler, 2004). By undoing, entire families who have been erased in the way they have done family are able to construct and legitimize themselves (Butler, 2004). The present form of queer theory was influenced not only by performativity, which is prevalent in most queer feminist works, but by recognizing that queer families are active in doing family and are able to undo social norms to create it (Butler, 2004).

Furthermore, queer theory seeks to deconstruct binaries, yet the early work of critiquing normativity and deviancy inadvertently reinforces them (e.g., Butler, 1990). Instead of viewing families as deviant in the eyes of the heteronormative, our framework will seek to understand performativity without attributing it to normativity or deviancy and, instead, through action.

Queer families hold numerous possibilities in their divergence from heteronormativity

(Halberstam, 2012). As heteronormativity is a social construction, the ways families are formed are unlimited, despite their limited representation in research. They are not limited to those who were married following Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); nor are they only those raising children

(Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012). Given the oppression of queers and the form it often takes in the heteronormative narrative of queer families, “possibility is not a luxury; it is as crucial as QUEER THEORY 14 bread” (Butler, 2004 p. 29). There are virtually boundless possibilities for queer families, as they are not restricted to heteronormative limits (Halberstam, 2012).

Given the endless opportunities for queer family structures, they are not static forms, but undergo constant formation, dissolution, and negotiation (Halberstam, 2012; van Eeden-

Moorefield et al., 2011). Just as sexuality is done and not had, family is also a process (i.e.,

“doing” family; Oswald et al., 2005). For example, non-monogamous (van Eeden-Moorefield et al., 2016) or kinship (Singh, 2013) families are in constant flux of relationship boundaries and membership. Filial queerness is a space for active creativity (Oswald et al., 2005).

Unintelligibility denies queer existence, yet through the process of consistent, active doing, queer families call themselves into reality, demanding recognition (Butler et al., 2004).

Innovative Aims: Development of Axioms

Regardless of form, we offer four axioms through which to understand queer families of all types. Through these four axioms, we acknowledge the presence of queer families and how they are able to do family. Not only do they provide knowledge on how to do family, but in order to begin to deconstruct heteronormative boundaries of filial constraints, they also propose ways in which to further undo family. The use of axioms promotes flexibility. Just as queer families are not static, axioms, over more concrete propositions, are more appropriate for queer theory.

The following axioms, influenced by Halberstam’s principles of Gaga Feminism (2012, p. 27-

28) provide guidance through which queer family scholars are able to better understand families through a queer lens.

Axiom 1

Queer families are an active process. Traditional iterations of queer theory have not recognized families as a being (Butler, 1990; Sedgwick, 1991). In Butler’s (1990) seminal work, QUEER THEORY 15 she describes performativity in the way that understands queerness in individual contexts and how one does their sexuality and gender in their own lives. However, this, and other works, have ignored how one’s performativity interacts with another’s when family formation begins to occur. For instance, an individual performs their sexuality in a separate way from another individual. However, together performativity as a family is an entirely different form of action.

Some family theorists have begun to think about queer families through this theoretical lens (e.g., Berkowitz, 2009; Butler, 2004; Halberstam, 2012); however, they tend to not view families as active. For example, Oswald (2005) provided a description of the queering process and, although she emphasized doing family, she indicated the family as a single being (p. 147).

Instead, we view family as individuals who are each engaging in performativity on their own, but whose performativity changes as they are actively performing at the axis of another.

In her later work, Butler (2004) critiqued the notion of kin as a heterosexual concept and, indeed, the idea of fictive kin has been applied to the creation of queer family (Singh, 2013;

Stacey, 2004). For example, Singh (2013) described how transgender youth of color formed family of fictive kin around the notion of being ethnic and racial minorities as well as trans* through actions such as “evolving, simultaneous self-definition of racial/ethnic and gender identities” (p. 695) and “finding one’s place in the LGBTQQ youth community” (p. 698). Each individual youth performed gender with other experiences of marginalization in their own means. However, when brought together, they formed a family of resilience who actively supported and performed their own gender. Although none were biologically or legally related, they were “variations on kinship that depart from normative didactic heterosexuality based on family forms secured through the marriage vow…” (Butler, 2004, p.104). Although these youth are often rendered invisible as their family is not recognized by society, and are thus nonexistent, QUEER THEORY 16 the daily rituals and actions of the family bring them into being (Bunch; 2013; Butler, 2004).

This is the key component of undoing at the family level; they were resisting cultural components that marginalized them, such as transphobia and racism, and performed family, as individuals brought together as a whole.

Axiom 2

Gender, sexuality, and desire are fluid and must be consistently evaluated and re- evaluated (Chevrette, 2013). For some, this means engaging in new forms of relationships or for others a reconceptualization of queerness. For instance, in research, as well as for individuals, queerness often becomes focused on a narrative of fixed identities (e.g., gay, lesbian), even among other queers (Gurevich, Bailey, & Bower, 2009; Ohnstad, 2009). For example, when considering queer identities and families, bisexual identities are largely overlooked in favor of a gay or lesbian identity (Gurevich et al., 2009). This axiom calls to question how we experience queerness outside a normative/deviant dichotomy. It should be noted, however, that this process is largely internal, which is the focus of much of queer theoretical literature.

In terms of the family, individuals should reflect internally on their own performativity as well as communicate externally with their partner(s) about the construction of their relationship.

For instance, variances of non-monogamy have been documented both among different (Bermea et al., in press; Manley et al., 2015) and within same gender (van Eeden-Moorefield et al., 2016) relationships, which may meet different needs for different members of the family (e.g., sexual desires). As such, the potential for such should be evaluated as needed within relationships. Yet, families are fluid and desires do change (Manley et al., 2015). For instance, Manley and colleagues (2015) noted how within polygamous relationships not only did the desire for who was in and out of the relationship change, but so did desire for the gender(s) of those within the QUEER THEORY 17 relationship change as well. As such, it is critical to be open to these changes and how boundaries may shift within them over time.

Lastly, members of the family should think critically of how families of origin impact their own ideals for family and how they believe families, including their own, should be structured. For instance, in a study of survivors of intimate partner violence, all of whom identified as bisexual, some women discussed how their partners, who identified as exclusively as heterosexual males, threatened to disclose their bisexuality to members of their extended family (e.g., parents) as a form of control (Head & Milton, 2014). Although together with their partners they performed a queer family, one individual had heteronormative ideals as well as performativity and, thus, more power in the relationship over his partner. As such, they were less able to undo heteronormativity.

Axiom 3

Families in general have changed (Livingston, 2015). Just as gender and sexuality are in constant flux, some families are granted structural legitimation and others are not, yet continue to thrive (Butler, 2004). Hertz and Johanson (2015) describe a bottom-up version of sexual freedom, which emphasizes the importance of everyday queer life in understanding and resisting heteronormativity. In other words, it is important to understand as many aspects of ourselves as possible that may both marginalize as well as empower us, such as race or (dis)ability. Ignoring forms of structural inequality is to ignore queerness itself (Berkowitz, 2009). For instance, Butler

(1990) warns against “a transnational nation of patriarchy” (p. 48). This includes the recognition of different identities within the family. Queer theorists have critiqued marriage as an exclusionary institution, not only because, in American history, it has excluded same-sex couples, but because it has excluded mixed-race couples, and black couples before that QUEER THEORY 18

(Halberstam, 2012). In other words, the family is not solely a queer unit; the family brings to it queerness in addition to other identities, as such as race, gender, and class among others through the individuals within it (Berkowitz, 20009; Butler, 1990; Halberstam, 2012; LaSala, 2007). In placing an emphasis on marriage and similarly structured families, family scientists overlook the differences this institution has on queer couples who are low socioeconomic status (SES), of color, and more (Berkowitz, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2013; LaSala, 2007). For instance, the incentivization of marriage has been critiqued for its use for insurance, citizenship, and hospital visitation rights for marginalized queer families who would otherwise not have chosen married life (Hopkins et al., 2013; La Sala, 2007) on the basis that these are basic human rights (Butler,

2004; Halberstam, 2012). Halberstam (2012) instead proposes alternative intimacies (p. 109) which observes the incentivization of the marriage model and takes into account its status as an exclusionary institution not only for queer families as a homogenous group, but for the many identities residing within queer families.

Axiom 4

Lastly, queer families should “practice creative nonbelieving” and question religious and other historically oppressive structures (Argüello, 2016; Sedgwick, 1990; Foucault, 1978;

Halberstam, 2012, p.28), such as governmental policies promoting the politics of respectability.

Halberstam (2012) recalls how marriage was once an exclusively white privilege and argues that it will forever continue to exclude a group even if it is not based on race or sexual identity. Here,

Hertz and Johnson’s (2015) top-down version of heteronormativity is applicable, as macro-level institutions further heteronormativity and continue to marginalize queers (Butler, 2004;

Halberstam, 2012; Matsick & Conley, 2015). Even medicine, almost exclusively considered an objective science, can be queered. For instance, seropositive men are deemed less intelligible QUEER THEORY 19 than those HIV-negative given larger cultural respectability discourses around the nature of the

HIV and the behaviors of those who contract it (Argüello, 2016). One such behavior is multiple sex partners between among queer men, as opposed to those in monogamous relationships, and the categorization of those who engage in this behavior (Argüello, 2016; Stacey, 2004). Within family science, marriage and partnerships resembling marriage are considered the standard

(Matsick & Conley, 2015). The marking of monogamous dyadic relationships as the constant within research is reinforced by legalization policies (Halberstam, 2012) and increased resources

(Bermea et al., in press). In undoing heteronormativity in structural functions, such as medical care, families who have been traditionally oppressed by these organizations and policies may increase access to resources. However, through these long histories of oppression, institutions, such as the state, often hinder the process of doing family for queers (Butler, 2004; Foucault,

1978; Halberstam, 2012).

These four axioms allow for a new conceptualization of queer theory in a way that has yet to be seen in family science. They provide a different perspective than those laid out by

Oswald (2005; 2005) as they are influenced by queer theorists who view queerness as active, yet are influenced by a heteronormative culture (e.g., Butler 2004; Halberstam 2012). The confluence of their work are able to change the way queer families are viewed.

Queer theory can be a useful tool for understanding queer families within family science.

The use of any theory that does not take into account the power differentials in the way queer families are currently studied furthers existing oppression through heteronormativity. Some scholars have begun to use queer theory; however, it has been widely underused in our field.

Further, when it has been used, it has often been represented through a heteronormative lens. The present paper provides a perspective of queer theory in family science that shifts from QUEER THEORY 20 heteronormativity in order to understand how queer families do and undo family. Specifically, we moved from traditional perspectives of families that have been utilized, such as that in

Oswald’s (2005; 2009) work, and used more active concepts, such as undoing (Butler, 2004) and the principles of Gaga Feminism (Halberstam, 2012). From these principles we derived four axioms that guide the use of queer theory by acknowledging that family is an active process; sexually is fluid; families are changing and some are granted legitimacy in these contexts and others are not; and, finally, queer families should question formal structures. By viewing family in this way, we are able to propose a new perspective of queer theory for family science.

QUEER THEORY 21

References

Allen, K. (2016). Feminist theory in family studies: History, reflection, and critique. Journal of

Family Theory and Review, 8, 207-224. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12133

Alumit, N. (2017). Media advisory: Fact sheet on guidance protecting over 350,000 transgender

youth and young adults from discrimination. Retrieved from

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/media-advisory-fact-

sheet-on-guidance-protecting-over-350000-transgender-youth-and-young-adults-from-

discrimination/

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute

Books

Argüello, T. M. (2016). Fetishizing the health sciences: Queer theory as an intervention. Journal

of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 28, 231-244. doi: 10.1080/10538720.2016.1191407

Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. M. (2005).

Theory and theorizing in family research: Puzzle building and puzzle solving. In V. L.

Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson & D. M. Klein (Eds.),

Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp.3–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Berkowitz, D. (2009). Theorizing lesbian and gay parenting: Past, present, and future

scholarship. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 117-132. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-

2589.2009.00017.x

Berkowitz, D. (2011). Maternal instincts, biological clocks, and soccer moms: Gay men’s

parenting and family narratives. Symbolic Interaction, 34, 514-535. doi:

10.1525/si.2011.34.4.514. QUEER THEORY 22

Bermea, A. M., Rueda, H. A., & Toews, M. L. (in press). Queerness and dating violence

among adolescent mothers in foster care. Affilia: A Journal for Women and Social Work

Biblarz, T. J. & Savci., E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of

Families, 72, 480-497. doi: 0.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x

Biblarz, T. J. & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage

and Family, 72, 3-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x

Bos, H., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2014). Lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families:

Adolescent–parent relationship quality and adolescent well-being. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 24, 1031-1046. doi: 10.1007/s10826-014-9913-8

Bunch, M. (2013). The unbecoming subject of sex: Performativity, interpellation, and the politics

of queer theory. Feminist Theory, 14(1), 39-55. doi: 10.1177/1464700112468569

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carrington, C. (2002). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay

men. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Chevrette, R. (2013). Outing heteronormativity in interpersonal and family communication:

Feminist applications of queer theory “beyond the sexy streets.” Communication Theory,

23, 170-190.

Chrisler, A. (2017). Understanding parents reactions to coming out as lesbian, gay, or bisexual:

A theoretical framework. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9, 165-181. doi:

10.1111/jftr.12194 QUEER THEORY 23

Das, A. (2014). The dildo as a transformative political tool: Feminist and queer perspectives.

Sexuality and Culture, 18, 688-703. doi: 0.1007/s12119-013-9205-2

Few-Demo, A. L. (2016). Queer theory, intersectionality, and LGBT Parent families:

Transformative critical pedagogy in family theory. Journal of Family Theory and Review,

8, 74-94. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12127

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume 1. New York, NY: Vintage Books

Goldberg, A. E., Allen, K. R., Ellawala, T., & Ross, L. E. (2017). Male-partnered bisexual

women’s perceptions of disclosing sexual orientation to family across the transition to

parenthood: Intensifying heteronormativity or queering family? Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 1-15. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12242

Goldberg, A. E. & Smith, J. Z. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed

adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual children. Journal of Family

Psychology, 27, 431-442. doi: 10.1037/a0032911

Gurevich, M., Bailey, H., & Bower, J. (2009). Querying theory and politics: The epistemic

(dis)location of bisexuality within queer theory. Journal of Bisexuality, 9, 235-257. doi:

10.1080/15299710903316539

Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke Univserity Press

Halberstam, J. (2003). Reflections on queer studies and queer pedagodgy. Journal of

Homosexuality, 45, 461-464. doi: 10.1300/J082v45n02_22

Halberstam, J. J. (2012). Gaga feminism: Sex, gender, and the end of normal. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press

Head, S. & Milton, M. (2014). Filling the silence: Exploring the bisexual experience of intimate

partner abuse. Journal of Bisexuality, 14, 277-299. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2014.903218 QUEER THEORY 24

Herz, M. & Johansson, T. (2015). The normativity of the concept of heteronormativity. Journal

of Homosexuality, 62, 1009-1020. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1021631

Hopkins, J. J., Sorenson, A., & Taylor, V. (2013). Same-sex couples, families, and marriage:

Embracing and resisting heteronormativity. Sociology Compass, 7, 97-110. doi:

10.1111/soc4.12016

LaSala, M. C. (2007). Too many eggs in one basket: A queer critique of the same-sex marriage

movement. National Association of Social Workers, 52, 181-183.

Lavee, Y. & Dollahite, D. C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(2), 361-373. doi: 10.2307/352905

Livingston, G. (2015). It’s no longer a “Leave It to Beaver” world for American families- but it

wasn’t back then either. Retrieved on March 7, 2017 from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/30/its-no-longer-a-leave-it-to-beaver-

world-for-american-families-but-it-wasnt-back-then-either/

Knapp, S. J. (2009). Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal

of Family Theory and Review, 1, 133-145. doi: /10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00018.x

Knapp, S., & Williams, C. (2005). Where does queer theory take us? In V. Bengtson, A. Acock,

K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and

research (pp. 626–628). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 14, 251-254. doi:

10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00375.x QUEER THEORY 25

Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and

sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories. Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 168-180. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000098

Matsick, J. L., & Conley, T. B. (2015). Maybe “I do” and maybe “I don’t”: Respectability

politics in the same—sex marriage ruling. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy,

15, 409-413. doi: 2048/10.1111/asap.12085

Ohnstad, A. (2009). If I am not straight or gay who am I? Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 357

– 369. doi: 10.1007/s10615-009-0210-8

Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A model for

family studies. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D.

M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143-165). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage

Oswald, R. F., Kuvalanka, K. A., Blume, L. B., & Berkowitz, D. (2009). Queering “the family.”

In K. R. Allan, A. L. Few, & S. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (43-

55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62, 1052-1069. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01052

Patterson, C. J. & Riskind, R. J. (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay

and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 326-340. doi:

10.1080/1550428X.2010.490902

Peplau, A. L. & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

In C. Hendrick and S. S. Hendrick (Eds.). Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111-

123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage QUEER THEORY 26

Riggle, E. D. B., Wickham, R. E., Rostosky, S. S., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. E. (2016).

Impact for civil marriage recognition for long-term same-sex couples. Sexuality Research

and Social Policy, online first doi: 10.1007/s3178-016-0243-z

Sedgwick, E. K. (1991). Epistemology of the closet. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Showden, C. R. (2012). Theorizing maybe: A feminist queer theory convergence. Feminist

Theory, 13, 3-25. doi: 10.1177/1464700111429898

Singh, A. A. (2013). Transgender youth of color and resilience: Negotiating oppression and

finding support. Sex Roles, 68, 690-702. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0149-z

Stacey, J. (2004). Cruising to familyland: Gay hypergamy and rainbow kinship. Current

Sociology, 52, 181-197. doi: 10.1177/0011392104041807

Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The role of sexual orientation in school based

victimization: A meta-analysis. Youth & Society, 48. 176-201. doi:

10.1177/0044118X13483778

Vaccaro, A. (2010). Toward inclusivity in family narratives: Counter-stories from queer multi-

parent families. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 425-446. doi:

10.1080/1550428X.2010.511086 van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Malloy, K. & Benson, K. (2016). Gay men’s (non)monogamy ideals

and lived experiences. Sex Roles, 75, 43-55. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0566-x van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Martell, C. R., Williams, M., & Preston, M. (2011). Same-sex

relationships and dissolution: The connection between heteronormativity and

homonormativity. Family Relations, 60, 562-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-

3729.2011.00669.x QUEER THEORY 27

Wright, J. (2013). “Only your calamity”: The beginning of activism by and for people with

AIDS. Public Health Then and Now, 103, 1788-1798. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301381