'Queer Debates' : An analysis of the LGBTQ historiography

G. Miminoshvili

Historical writing from the 1980s on changed in the way that it became influenced by culture studies. Historians later dubbed this the 'cultural turn'. Apart from the earlier use of social theories in their studies, historians more extensively combined these with theories formulated in cultural studies. As a result of that, most historiography, and thus the attention of these historians, predominantly focused on matters such as linguistic analysis and gender. Important tools/sources are that of oral sources, and text analysis. US queer historiography naturally did not remain untouched by these trends. In following the dominant three publications in LGBTQ history, namely: John D'Emilio's "Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities", Jonathan Ned Katz's "Gay American History" and Toby Marotta's "The Politics of Homosexuality" we see signs of the influence of social theory and cultural studies. And since many LGBTQ histories have followed these three authors frameworks in developing their own narratives, it is safe to say that this "cultural turn" is the case for most LGBTQ histories. As a consequence of my own fascination with the sixties and me being gay, I became interested with the gay liberation movement. Initially I believed to be writing a historiography on the latter topic, yet I realized that in the process of writing, I focused mainly on the years prior to Stonewall. This is not so strange, given that the earlier three mentioned publications dominate queer historiography, and that their narratives mainly emphasize the years prior to Stonewall. Since the publication of what historians usually deem as the first American publication calling for homosexuals to organize and unite as a group, "The Homosexual in America. A Subjective Approach" under the pseudonym of D.W. Cory, the majority of queer historiography engages with resistance in one way or another. I this essay I present my findings.