Analyzing Talk in a Long-Term Literature Discussion Group: Ways of Operating Within LGBT-Inclusive and Queer Discourses

• Published in: Reading research quarterly 2011-07, Vol.46 (3), p.222-248
• Main Authors: Blackburn, Mollie V., Clark, Caroline T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: adolescence; Adolescent Literature; Adolescents; American literature; British & Irish literature; Children; Classrooms; Conversation; Discourse Analysis; discussion; Discussion Groups; English literature; Female homosexuality; Gay and lesbian studies; Gay literature; Gays & lesbians; Gays and lesbians; Gender Issues; Hawthorne, Nathaniel (1804-1864); Heteronormativity; High Schools; Homophobia; Homosexuality; learner; LGBT; LGBTQ People; Literacy; Literary criticism; Literature; Literature Appreciation; Lowry, Lois; Middle School Students; Middle Schools; multicultural; Newsgroups; oral language; Power Structure; Queer studies; Queer theory; Reader Response; Reading; School districts; Sex Role; Sexual Identity; Sexual Orientation; Sexuality; Shakespeare, William (1564-1616); Social aspects; Student Diversity; Students; Studies; Study and teaching; topic; type; Williams, Tennessee (Thomas Lanier Williams) (1911-1983); Young Adults
• ISSN: 0034-0553; 1936-2722
• DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.2

Scholars have argued for reading and discussing children's and young adult literature containing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or questioning (LGBTQ) characters and related themes with youths. Yet, we know very little about how to do this among LGBTQ people and their allies. This study examined 18 transcripts of talk from a literature discussion group of 32 adolescents and adults, including the authors, using 24 texts over 3 years in an LGBTQ youth center. The goal was to identify the nature of the talk and the ways it was liberatory and/or oppressive. A Foucaultian analysis of the talk, combined with ethnographically collected information, was conducted, identifying discourses, uses, and ways of operating to reveal possibilities and limitations of LGBT-inclusive and queering discourses. Findings suggest a complex, reciprocal process among texts, talk, and context in which no discourse is monolithically liberatory or oppressive. Complementary and competing discourses in conversation with each other around diverse texts and in complex contexts, however, provide opportunities for conflicts and potential for change.