Strange Bedfellows

From first glance at the description of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality (WGS) in the student handbook, it’s clear that this concentration is trying to do too much: “Cultural and historical differences in femininities and masculinities, transnational sexualities, women writers, gender and media studies, lesbian/gay/bisexual studies, transnational feminisms, gender and environmental movements, philosophies of embodiment, queer theory, women’s history, transgender studies, gender and religion, the political economy of gender, feminist theory, race/class/gender politics, technology and gender, gender and science, and masculinity studies are just a few of the areas of study that fall within this concentration’s purview.”

Unfortunately, as interesting as all those topics are, in its attempt to cover such vast intellectual ground, the WGS concentration forces together some subjects that don’t have enough in common to warrant coexistence in the same program. In large part, it is the lack of complete cohesion between the separate parts of the concentration’s title—women and gender studies versus studies of sexuality—that is particularly troubling.

The study of sexuality tends to be heavily focused on issues of sexual orientation and its origins and implications, with the aforementioned topics like queer theory and lesbian/gay/bisexual studies falling under its often controversial umbrella. Women and gender studies, on the other hand, touches upon subjects like women’s history and literature, masculinity, and feminism. Obviously, at many points, the study of gender and the study of sexuality will intersect, largely because gender is the main lens through which sexuality is examined in our society. As a result, it can appear difficult, if not impossible, to disengage them into neatly compartmentalized fields.

It is important, however, to recognize that as natural as it may seem to throw the discussions of gender and sexuality into one program, doing so has the potential to force superficial connections between topics whose relation to each other is tenuous at best. In particular, on the women and gender studies end, issues such as women’s suffrage and female contributions in the realm of wars, politics, and science have little, if anything, to do with sexuality, and instead are primarily concerned with the historical influence of gender roles on larger society.

Conversely, topics that might arise in the study of sexuality, such as same-sex marriage, historical suppression of non-heterosexual lifestyles, and aspects of the more physical and scientific concerns surrounding sexuality, can certainly be well understood without discussion of gender issues.

In reality, trying to find connections between the two sides in every instance runs the risk of fostering confusion rather than enlightenment, as is often the case when extraneous side-notes are thrust too eagerly toward the center of discussion.

It appears as though WGS recognizes this to an extent, as students are encouraged to develop a focus on either gender or sexuality within the concentration rather than consistently being obliged to study them together. However, this does not go far enough, as gender and sexuality are still contained within the same program.

Another considerable issue is that after taking a few broad introductory courses within WGS itself that provide foundations in both gender and sexuality studies, concentrators are essentially farmed out to other departments, thanks to the nebulous requirement of “five half-courses within a specific discipline or group of related disciplines within humanities or social sciences.” The combination of too many different topics, together with the requirement that concentrators essentially seek out whatever they can find on their own outside WGS, creates an outside perception of a concentration that is at once bloated and unfocused.

Additionally, some students have expressed frustration and feelings of alienation from WGS, as they perceive it as targeted toward liberal undergrads. Students, who otherwise would have been eager to explore the study of gender and women’s history, have acknowledged being turned off by the connection with the study of sexuality. For some, the issues that can arise in sexuality studies go against their personal beliefs. Others are simply uninterested. While it certainly would be remiss to say that students should be encouraged to be narrow-minded in the subjects they approach and engage with in their studies, tangentially related issues should not be forced upon them unnecessarily.

Ultimately, as interconnected as they sometimes may be, women and gender studies and the study of sexuality are separate issues and should be treated as such. A fair degree of overlap does not in itself justify the combination of two different topics into one concentration. With the creation of two separate programs—with a sprinkling of cross-listed courses, to be sure—students will be less likely to shy away from these often difficult subjects, as they’ll finally be given the opportunity to engage in a truly focused learning experience that speaks to their specific interests.



Ashton R. Lattimore ’08 is an English concentrator in Dunster House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.