Content uploaded by Lance Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lance Smith on Sep 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Vermont]
On: 15 September 2014, At: 08:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Homosexuality
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
Queer Blindfolding: A Case Study on
Difference “Blindness” Toward Persons
Who Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
and Transgender
Lance C. Smith PhDa & Richard Q. Shin PhDb
a The Graduate Program in Counseling, University of Vermont,
Burlington, Vermont, USA
b College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, USA
Accepted author version posted online: 10 Dec 2013.Published
online: 02 May 2014.
To cite this article: Lance C. Smith PhD & Richard Q. Shin PhD (2014) Queer Blindfolding: A Case
Study on Difference “Blindness” Toward Persons Who Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender, Journal of Homosexuality, 61:7, 940-961, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.870846
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.870846
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Journal of Homosexuality,61:940–961,2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.870846
Queer Blindfolding: A Case Study on Difference
“Blindness” Toward Persons Who Identify as
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
LANCE C. SMITH, PhD
The Graduate Program in Counseling, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA
RICHARD Q. SHIN, PhD
College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
The purpose of this article is to introduce and explore the narrative
strategy of queer blindfolding. Utilizing psycho-discursive qual-
itative methodology, the authors will draw from a case study
to demonstrate how some beneficent, well-intended persons who
identify as heterosexual adopt the narrative strategy of queer blind-
folding as they negotiate the discourse of heteronormativity. We will
map this narrative strategy, compare and contrast it to racial col-
orblindness, and unpack the accompanying intra-psychic conflict
and defense mechanisms that are utilized by the participant in the
case study. We will also demonstrate how this discursive strategy
positions participants within systemic heterosexism.
KEYWORDS queer identity, psycho-discursive, qualitative
research, difference blindness, sexual minority, modern
heterosexism, heteronormativity, social justice
The purpose of this article is to introduce and explore the narrative strat-
egy of queer blindfolding.Wedefinequeer blindfolding as a discursive
position adopted by some well-intentioned heterosexual identifying indi-
viduals that results in the disappearing of queer identities, as well as the
minimization and even denial of the oppression experienced by those who
identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and transgender. We will demon-
strate how the narrative strategy of queer blindfolding positions subjects
Address correspondence to Lance C. Smith, The Graduate Program in Counseling,
University of Vermont, 102 Mann Hall, 208 Colchester Ave., Burlington, VT 05405, USA. E-mail:
lance.smith@uvm.edu
940
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 941
within heteronormativity and will identify the accompanying intra-psychic
conflict and defense mechanisms that support it.
Heteronormativity has been defined as the systemic processes in the
United States that clearly operates to the advantage of heterosexuals and to
the disadvantage of those who identify as LGB or transgender (Chin, 2004).
This study is grounded in the assumption that heteronormativity generates a
ubiquitous narrative force within cultural messages and institutional policies
that perpetuate heterosexual and cisgender supremacy while working to dis-
appear queer identities (cisgender individuals are those who are comfortable
with the gender they were assigned at birth). In other words, the discourse
of heteronormativity exercises power over its social subjects, engendering
heterosexual and cisgender privilege for those who subscribe to dominant
sexual and gender norms, while concomitantly fomenting the invisibility,
devaluation, and marginalization of those who transgress.
These poststructuralist assumptions (Derrida, 1997 [1967]; Foucault,
1978; Parker, 1992) have been captured by studies that have found that
heterosexual and cisgender identifying persons who express positive dis-
positions toward LGB and transgender persons often also display implicit
prejudice and hold covert, yet discriminatory attitudes (Croteau, Lark, &
Lance, 2005; Barrett & McWhirter, 2002; Kimber & Delgado-Romero, 2011;
Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010; Pearson, 2003; Smith, 2009). Moreover, while
there have been numerous studies within the last decade that examine overt
heterosexism and negative value formation among heterosexuals (Dworkin,
2002; Herek, 2000; Korfhage, 2006; Stotzer, 2009), there is much less research
examining the implicit biases of heterosexual/cisgender persons who iden-
tify as egalitarian and positively disposed toward LGB and transgender
individuals. There is also a need for research that identifies the potential
behavioral manifestations of implicit bias among well-intentioned heterosex-
ual identifying individuals. Drawing from qualitative data, this case study
will demonstrate that the narrative strategy of queer blindfolding—although
intended as an expression of egalitarianism on behalf of well-intended
heterosexuals—is a manifestation of implicit minimization of heterosexism
that contributes to the invisibility of queer identities.
ETIOLOGY OF QUEER BLINDFOLDING: DIFFERENCE BLINDNESS
We use t h e ter m queer, drawn from queer theory (Wilchins, 2004;Yep,
Lovass, & Elia, 2003), to encompass identities that do not adhere to the
heterosexual and cisgender binary: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, trans-
sexual, pansexual, intersex, genderqueer people, transsexuals, etc. While the
construct of queer blindfolding has yet to be identified by other scholars, we
suggest that queer blindfolding as a rhetorical device can be positioned prox-
imally to the construct of color-blindness or difference blindness.Becausethe
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
942 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
term blindness, when used in a pejorative sense, is inherently oppressive to
those who thrive without being sighted, we choose the less offensive term
blindfolding. We also prefer the verb blindfolding as a subtle indication that
this discursive position is in some sense a choice; either consciously or sub-
consciously, subjects adopt this particular narrative strategy over others that
are available.
Difference-blindness has been defined by the philosopher Charles
Taylor as a social approach to the other that “grows organically out of the
politics of universal dignity” (Taylor, 1994, p. 39). Charitably speaking, dif-
ference blindness can be framed as an ideology that constructs all persons,
simply by being human, as worthy of dignity, respect, and equality. These
liberal ideals are then put into practice by underscoring the similarities of
the human experience of individuals, while eschewing the variances and
distinct experiences associated with difference (e.g., race, ethnicity, ability
status, sexual orientation). Manning (2009) notes that taking up this posi-
tion entails the assumption that any acknowledged inequalities and injustices
associated with difference may be resolved through education, knowledge,
and sensitivity. Grounded in the politics of universal dignity, the proponents
of difference-blindness expect to be understood as beneficent. With regard
to racial difference, difference-blindness can be succinctly captured by the
cliché, “There’s just one race, the human race.”
Critical scholars or those who share an interest in how power perme-
ates professional and societal discourses have a less charitable perspective
on the politics of universal dignity. The predominant form of difference-
blindness is known as color-blindness. Indeed, critical scholars who focus
their analyses on the systemic and institutionalized nature of racism argue
that color-blindness dominates all political discourse about race within the
U.S. (Ernst, 2010). In accordance with the politics of universal dignity, criti-
cal scholars agree that in the post–civil rights era, the color-blind discourse
situates subjects within liberal positions of equity and equality, even produc-
ing opposition to individual acts of overt racism. However, color-blindness
is ultimately understood as a pernicious discourse, primarily reinforcing
one hegemonic culture by positioning its subjects to deny White privilege,
abnegate structural and macro-systemic racism, and discredit the powerful
influence of systemic racism on individuals’ lived experiences (Bonilla-Silva,
2003;Ernst,2010; Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001). In other words,
color-blindness renders systemic racism invisible. It “disappears” the issue.
As our data will demonstrate, we suggest that queer blindfolding operates in
a similar manner:
●Positioning subjects to minimize heterosexual privilege
●Eschewing the egregious negative effects of heteronormativity
●Buttressing the invisibility of queer identities
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 943
QUEER BLINDFOLDING AND MODERN HETEROSEXISM
Unlike studies that examine overt heterosexism within heterosexual per-
sons who identify as negatively disposed toward LGB and transgender
individuals, this study explores the discursive positions of heterosexual per-
sons who identify as positively disposed. Scholars have observed a general
trend toward a higher level of acceptance of LGB individuals in con-
temporary U.S. society (Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2011). For example,
research studies surveying the current generation of college students—
the “millennials”—have documented more positive attitudes toward sexual
minority persons than ever before (Coomes & DeBard, 2004; Strauss & Howe,
2003). Clearly, this societal trend stands in contrast to the many ways in
which LGB and transgender individuals continue to be marginalized in U.S.
society. LGB and transgender individuals are excluded from meaningful cit-
izenship in society through various cultural and institutionalized forms of
discrimination such as increasing levels of harassment and violence (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2010; Greytak, Kosciwk, & Diaz, 2009; Kosciwk,
Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010), disparate levels of educational attain-
ment (Barrett, Pollack, & Tilden, 2002), and the denial of marriage equality.
These societal developments have created a paradox between the clear evi-
dence of heterosexual/cisgender supremacy and the widespread support for
egalitarianism (Norris, 1991). This context has also set the stage for the evo-
lution of traditional, overt heterosexism into the more subversive modern
heterosexism.
The construct of modern heterosexism has evolved from the concepts
of modern racism and modern sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995),
which are trends toward more subtle and covert forms of discrimination
directed toward, respectively, people of color and women (Cowan, Heiple,
Marquez, Khatchadourian, & McNevin, 2005). Individuals who operate from
the modern heterosexist perspective assume that LGB persons no longer
experience discrimination or unequal treatment and therefore have no right
to be angry or dissatisfied with their status in society (Cowan et al., 2005).
It has been theorized that this belief system stems from modern heterosex-
ists’ unwillingness to express their outright anti-gay attitudes in a cultural
context that no longer condones such proclamations. Instead, in an effort to
maintain an egalitarian sense of self, they subvert these attitudes into a lack
of support for LGB and transgender civil rights, while simultaneously affirm-
ing their belief in the value of LGB and transgender persons (Cowan et al.,
2005). Research and literature examining potential predictors of this form of
heterosexism, such as person–organization incongruence, social dominance
orientation, and acceptance of structural violence, has begun to emerge
(Eldridge & Johnson, 2011;Seelman&Walls,2010; Walls, 2008).
With modern heterosexism serving as a backdrop, the primary pur-
pose of this inquiry is to contribute to the small but growing literature
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
944 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
focused on the ways in which dominant societal discourses associated with
heteronormativity are made manifest by persons who identify as hetero-
sexual. As opposed to previous research on modern heterosexism, the
researchers employed a qualitative inquiry and analysis to explore this
process in greater depth. Also, while previous studies have used gen-
eral samples of heterosexual participants, the inclusion criterion for the
current study was that individuals needed to identify as well-intended
“straight folks”—those who identify as heterosexual and positively disposed
toward queer-identifying persons. By interviewing this unique sample, the
researchers hoped to identify even more subtle and covert manifestations of
heteronormativity. One finding uncovered by this exploration is the narrative
strategy of queer blindfolding.
METHODOLOGY
Theoretical and snowball sampling (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998) were employed
to locate self-identified heterosexual/cisgender individuals who stated
and/or demonstrated a positive disposition toward persons who identify as
LGB or transgender. An invitation for informants was disseminated among
graduate students and colleagues known to the first author. Furthermore, a
description of the study, along with a query for research informants, was
posted on various e-mail Listservs. The sample for this specific study con-
sisted of 17 informants who self-identified as heterosexual and cisgender.
Informants’ ages ranged between 22–78 years of age at the time of the
first interviews. Table 1 provides a summary of informant demographics and
additional information to assist the reader in contextualizing the results.
Grounded in poststructuralism, this study treats both the informants and
the authors as participants. Reflexivity—sensitivity to the manner in which
the researchers and the process have shaped the collected data and anal-
ysis (Mays & Pope, 2000)—is an acknowledged component of this study.
In short, interrogating our bias was crucial to this work. Reflexivity as a tool
is particularly valuable to critical qualitative research in that it promotes both
the critical consciousness and empowerment of both the participants and the
researchers (McCabe & Holmes, 2009). We the authors can attest to advances
in our own critical consciousness and continuing emancipation as a result of
this research.
RESEARCHERS
The first author identifies as a White, heterosexual, cisgender, non-disabled
male from a rigid, working-class Protestant Christian background. His self-
description is as follows:
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 945
TABLE 1 Participants’ Social Locations
Name Gender Age Ethnicity Education Ability Status
Frederick M Mid 30s Euro-American B.S. non-disabled
Emmaline F Early 40s African-American M. Ed. non-disabled
Ellen F Early 50s Ukrainian/Polish-
American
M.A. student non-disabled
Teofilo M Mid 40s Cuban-American Ph.D. non-disabled
Derek M Mid 40s Euro-American M. Ed. non-disabled
Natalie F Early 40s African-American Doctoral student non-disabled
Elda F Late 70s Euro-American B.A. non-disabled
Daniel M Late 20s African-American M.A. non-disabled
Anna F Mid 20s Italian-American M.A. non-disabled
Ben M Mid 20s Biracial African/Euro-
American
M.A. non-disabled
Dave M Mid 20s Euro-American M.A. student non-disabled
Yori F Mid 20s Indian/Filipino-
American
Doctoral student non-disabled
Elizabeth F Early 40s Euro-American M.A. non-disabled
Nichole F Mid 20s Jewish-American M.A. non-disabled
Nancy F Late 50s Euro-American A.A. non-disabled
Nate M Late 30s Euro-American M.A. visually
impaired
Lane M Early 30s Native American M.A. non-disabled
My father is a clergy member in a conservative Protestant denomina-
tion. Early in my development, I internalized a disposition that was
overtly fearful and prejudiced towards sexual and gender-variant minori-
ties, grounded in a literal, patriarchal, and heterosexist interpretation of
the Bible. Abandoning such an oppressive religious paradigm in early
adulthood was the first step in what has evolved into a long, at times
painful but fulfilling journey as an aspiring ally towards persons who
identify as queer. I currently hold a professorial post at a state univer-
sity in the northeastern United States. With regards to the findings of this
manuscript, I distinctly recall a point on my journey of taking up the
narrative strategy of queer blindfolding. While I no longer primarily use
this narrative strategy to negotiate heteronormativity, I feel an affinity to
towards those who do.
The second author identifies as a Korean American, heterosexual, non-
disabled male from a middle-class background. His self-description is as
follows:
My journey toward becoming an LGBTQ activist is inextricably tied to my
experiences with racial discrimination and oppression. Ironically, I recall
becoming angered at the injustices faced by sexual minorities before I
gained a critical consciousness of issues associated with race and racism.
By reflecting on this process, I have come to the conclusion that my
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
946 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
subconscious feelings of anger about living in a white supremacist soci-
ety as an Asian American were too threatening at that point in my life.
Therefore, I displaced these feelings toward individuals and institutions I
viewed as heterosexist. Despite an early awareness of the harmful impact
of heterosexism, I readily acknowledge a slow and reluctant process of
fully understanding my privileges as a heterosexual man living in a het-
erosexist, heteronormative society. I was the chair of the dissertation for
which this data was gathered. I currently hold a professorial post in a
large, public, university on the east coast.
PROCEDURE
The authors screened informants for dispositions and behaviors that are indi-
cators of positive positions toward queer-identifying persons. Based on the
critical consciousness literature, seven dispositions were identified: hetero-
sexuals (a) who have relationships with persons who identify as queer, (b)
who have an interest in queer studies and culture, (c) who act with intention
against heterosexist acts, (d) who exhibit empathy regarding the oppression
of queer persons, (e) who identify as socially pluralistic and egalitarian,(f)
who see unity in the human experience, regardless of sexual orientation or
gender expression, and (g) who advocate for the queer community. Given
that there is no consensus in the literature regarding how to precisely opera-
tionalize “positively disposed” heterosexuals, drawing from our own process
of reflexivity we determined that informants had to exhibit four of the seven
positive dispositions in order to qualify for the study.
When it was determined that an informant was positively situated
toward queer identifying persons, informants were asked to sit for an inter-
view. Interviews were conducted over a period of two years. Prior to the
initial interview, informants read a consent form outlining the nature of the
study and specifying the safeguards. The aims of the study were then dis-
cussed, confidentiality and how it would be protected were explained, and
voluntary participation was highlighted; participants were informed that they
should feel free to refuse any questions during the interview, and that they
were also free, at any point in the process, to withdraw their consent to par-
ticipate. All informants signed the consent form before beginning the initial
interview.
All interviews were conducted by L. Smith, recorded with an audio
device and transcribed. During the interviews, notes were taken regarding
the informant’s body language and perceived nonverbal impressions. To do
justice to the depth and complexity of the informants’ processes, most infor-
mants were interviewed at least twice. During the interviews, I (L. Smith)
was very deliberate in my efforts to foster a context of openness, equality,
empathy, and respect. First, informants were asked demographic questions
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 947
to determine how they identify their social locations. Next, informants were
asked open-ended questions regarding their experiences and perspectives
related to persons who identify as queer. Informants were encouraged to
respond with stories and free associations whenever possible. Finally, infor-
mants were asked to provide a biographical sketch of their life experience.
Throughout the telling of their life story, they were asked to relate various
developmental milestones to their identity as a heterosexual, and to their
perspectives on queer issues.
The initial interviews lasted between 1 and 3 hours. Informants were
then invited to participate in a follow-up interview. Eleven of the seventeen
informants participated. The purpose was to obtain elaboration, clarifica-
tion, and further depth regarding stories and responses given during the
initial interview. Each follow-up interview lasted from 30 to 90 minutes. The
combined total audio data for each informant was between 1 and 4 hours.
ANALYSIS
In this study, a psycho-discursive approach to qualitative inquiry and analysis
was employed. This approach is informed by the poststructuralist assump-
tions of Derrida (1967) and Foucault (1978), which consider language as
not merely descriptive but constitutive. Also, in alignment with traditional
discursive analysis, we are interested in the productive power of discourse
in the construction of social reality (Parker, 1992; Willig, 2008). According
to Robinson (1999), discourses write “[t]he ways in which people act on
the world and the ways in which the world acts on individuals” (p. 73).
Dominant discourses “are so structured to mirror power relations that we
can see no other ways of being” (Parker, 1992, p. xi). As such, discourses
reinforce systems of power and privilege by providing justifications for cul-
tural and institutionalized forms of discrimination such as racism, classism,
sexism, heteronormativity, and ableism. By applying a form of discourse
analysis, we hope to identify the discourses in which our informants take up
positions: specifically, the positions that allow beneficent, well-intentioned
heterosexual/cisgender persons to negotiate heteronormativity.
While traditional discursive analysis addresses the questions of what
discourse is adopted, the various methods of psychoanalytically informed
analysis address why participants invest themselves in certain discourses
rather than others (Frosh, Phoenix, & Pattman, 2003; Garfield, Reavey, &
Kotecha, 2010;Georgaca,2005; Gough, 2004,2009; Henwood & Procter,
2003; Hollway & Jefferson, 2005; Midgley, 2006). A psychodynamically
informed method is also particularly helpful when working with toxic mate-
rial such as prejudice and oppression (Garfield, Reavey, & Kotecha, 2010).
Drawing on the work of Hollway and Jefferson (2005), we are interested
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
948 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
in what produces the specific “choice” of discourse investment a particular
individual makes from among the available narrative choices.
Grounded in the more general yet fundamental tenets of psychodynamic
theory (Freud, S., 1927; Freud, A. 1936; Klein, 1932; Kohut, 1977), we hold
that the choice of discourse investment is tied to a dynamic subconscious
that is constantly at work to maintain integration and emotional equilibrium
through the construction of a well-defined, internally consistent sense of self
(Mohr, 2002). That is to say, one chooses to position oneself within particular
discourses when a discourse fortifies and buttresses one’s sense of self (or
ego). For our participants, this means investing in discourses that protect and
reproduce a beneficent, pluralistic, and egalitarian sense of self. Conversely,
one rejects or struggles to maneuver through discourses that interfere with or
threaten one’s sense of self. These maneuvers are often accomplished with
the aid of ego-defense mechanisms (Freud, 1936). Therefore, by seeking to
understand how our participants work to enhance, make more secure, and
protect their egos from threat, it is possible to formulate a theory as to why
they invest in certain discourses over others.
Furthermore, the work of Jacques Lacan (1977[1957]) allows us to inte-
grate a psychoanalytic approach with discursive theory without binding
ourselves in an epistemic paradox (Gough, 2009;Parker,1992). Rather than
viewing the subconscious as an essentialized phenomenon that resides in
the minds of persons, we agree with Georgaca (2005) that
the unconscious is located in texts and not in the minds of individuals.
The unconscious is a language speaking through the speaker, by virtue of
speech saying something more, or something less, or something different
than the speaker intends it to. (p. 84)
In other words, we recognized that the psychoanalytic constructs utilized in
this study—the subconscious, self, and ego—are themselves discursive con-
structions that are not epistemologically immune to de Saussure’s linguistic
turn, nor do they escape Derrida’s deconstructionism.
Furthermore, accounting for the subconscious within qualitative data
means that we assume (a) all persons are more or less subconsciously selec-
tive about what they will, or can, recall, (b) participants may not know why
they experience or feel things in the way that they do, and (c) participants are
unconsciously motivated to disguise the meaning of some of their feelings
and behaviors (Hollway & Jefferson, 2005).
Engaging in a psycho-discursive methodology, like implementing most
methods of textual analysis, does not follow a recipe-like process and “can-
not be molded into a set of procedures” (Madill & Barkham, 1997, p. 234).
With close adherence to the psychoanalytic-oriented procedures set out by
Hollway and Jefferson (2005), and following guidelines for discourse analy-
sis research (Willig, 2008), we engaged in an iterative process. I (L. Smith)
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 949
immersed myself in the data, reading each transcript numerous times, until
a great and extensive familiarity with the data was attained. Next, I wrote
biographical pen portraits of each informant (Hollway & Jefferson) to allow
for the integration of the informant’s life story into the analysis. At this point,
the analytic process of linking, as outlined by Hollway and Jefferson, was
practiced in order to arrive at an interpretation.
Interpretations were guided by inquiries into the following:
●Constructions of the informant’s self in the story: the informant’s social
location as heterosexual, cisgender, and his or her other social identities
●Discourses drawn upon to locate the informant’s struggle against
heteronormativity and the positioning of the informant’s sense of self
within such discourses
●The informants’ biographical data: how their constructions of early life
experience in their formative years inform their positioning with discourses
●Defensive strategies used to negotiate and produce heteronormative
discourse—e.g., denial, projection, reaction formation
●The authors’ subjectivities and internal responses to the informant’s story—
i.e., countertransference to the story.
After I arrived at preliminary interpretations, the second author of this study,
R. Shin, read all of the transcripts independently and served as an audi-
tor, questioning or affirming the preliminary interpretations, and offering
alternative analyses.
RESULTS
In order to present a rich, in-depth, and nuanced analysis, the data from
this study will be presented in case study form, focusing primarily on nar-
rative data from one participant given the pseudonym of Elizabeth. While
the narrative strategy of queer blindfolding was demonstrated in the data by
a number of participants, Elizabeth’s transcript is particularly emblematic of
the complexity of this narrative strategy. Through a case study analysis of
Elizabeth’s data, we demonstrate how taking up a queer blindfold allows
subjects to occupy a social location wherein queer identities are no more or
less noticeable, greater or less conspicuous, and provoke no more or less of
an emotional or behavioral response than heterosexual and cisgender iden-
tities. In other words, they are as invisible as heterosexual and cisgender
identities. This narrative strategy fosters the construction of a social contact
reality: a reality where, when one comes into social contact with another
person, of the many personal characteristics and social locations about that
particular person that one would consciously entertain, queer orientation is
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
950 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
not one. Moreover, this form of social contact is scripted as a conscious,
positive disposition toward LGB and transgender persons. That is to say,
participants suggest that donning a queer blindfold is a benevolent way of
being.
What we find distinctly arresting about this narrative strategy is that
incongruity, discrepancy, and dissonance are integral components. In other
words, a constituent component to taking up the queer blindfolding narrative
is the conflict between the subject’s conscious intention and subconscious
disposition. Taking an in-depth case study examination of Elizabeth’s tran-
script allows us to highlight the intra-psychic conflict that accompanies an
investment in this narrative strategy.
ELIZABETH: INTRODUCING THE BLINDFOLD
To begin, we will examine excerpt 1.2. This excerpt begins very early in
the interview with Lance asking Elizabeth what feelings present themselves
when she encounters someone who identifies as lesbian or gay. She replies:
E: Not [many]. I don’t really think of that as being any kind of exception.
A little bit like you. Again, how do you feel about that person with blue
eyes [chuckle]. It doesn’t evoke anything that this person is any different
from myself.
L: Mm hmm.
E: So I don’t know if that’s always been true. I guess I might look at it as
an opportunity to befriend someone who is different, or perceived as
different, but it’s really not such a big part of consciousness either.
L: So when you say not a lot, ... uh ....
E: It’s not something you dwell on. Like, if you were to introduce me, ‘May
I introduce you to my neighbor Ms. Robinson?’ Well Ms. Robinson has
five kids, she’s a sculptor, she’s been divorced, her heterosexuality is just
one of the many factors that plays into her being. It’s not something that
you’re going to carry away and say, ‘Well Ms. Robinson is heterosexual.’
You’re not going to dwell on that over and over again when you think
about this new person I introduced you to.
L: Mm hmm.
E: It’s just one of many things you’ll remember that will bring somewhat of
the whole person, Ms. Robinson. Is that clear?
When Elizabeth comes into contact with someone who identifies as
lesbian or gay, she consciously anchors her positive disposition within the
narrative that one’s queer identity is as insignificant to her as one’s eye color.
As she states in line 1, she doesn’t “really think of [their orientation] as being
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 951
any kind of exception.” After saying this, she looks at me (Lance)—her blue-
eyed gaze meeting my blue eyes—grins and adds in line 2, “It’s a little bit like
...‘How do you feel about that person with blue eyes?’” and she chuckles.
The assertion Elizabeth is making is clear, but just in case I missed it, she
clarifies in line 3: identity as a sexual minority “doesn’t evoke anything that
this person is any different from myself.” Elizabeth then intimates in line
9 that her minimal recognition of one’s lesbian or gay identity is “not such a
big part of consciousness,” and then she supports this assertion by drawing
a parallel to her heterosexual neighbor, Ms. Robinson. Elizabeth says that if
I were to meet Ms. Robinson, her heterosexual identity would receive no
greater emphasis in my awareness than her line of work or family structure.
Within this story that is intended to support Elizabeth’s narrative strategy
of queer blindfolding, the kind of social invisibility enjoyed by heterosexual
identities is underscored. Elizabeth articulates perfectly that upon meeting a
heterosexual like Ms. Robinson, of the many characteristics and social loca-
tions about this person that one would consciously entertain, heterosexuality
is not one. This is a heterosexual privilege. Those who are heterosexual
never need to think about, worry about, or negotiate hurdles related to their
own sexual orientation identity.
Elizabeth is attempting to convince me (Lance) that she equates queer
identities with heterosexual identity. There is an undercurrent of beneficence
in her claim. Indeed, sexual and gender-variant minorities will endure far less
oppression when queerness is granted social invisibility for the same reasons
that Ms. Robinson’s heterosexual identity is invisible. But Ms. Robinson’s
heterosexual identity goes unnoticed by Elizabeth because it is taken for
granted: structured by society as the blasé social norm. As will be demon-
strated within the data, Elizabeth’s claim that queer identities go unnoticed is
in conflict with her intrapersonal and interpersonal lived experience. We will
see that as she and I further explore her narrative, queer blindfolding is
exposed as a discursive strategy that fosters a form of social invisibility that
serves to repress the painful acknowledgment of queer oppression (for more
on queer [in]visibilities, see Acosta, 2011; Arend, 2005; Steinbugler, 2005;
Tucker, 2009). We will demonstrate that Elizabeth’s claim is a good intention
that has become subconsciously packaged as reality.
AWARENESS OF OPPRESSION
As mentioned earlier, Whites who invest in the discourse of color-blindness
position racism as an inconsequential social phenomena and deny the per-
vasive problem of systemic and institutionalized racial discrimination (Ernst,
2010; Neville et al., 2001). While some participants in this study follow
a parallel path regarding queer blindfolding—minimizing heterosexism—
Elizabeth’s narrative strategy is unique.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
952 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
Elizabeth is very aware of systemic prejudice toward persons who iden-
tify as LGB, has very close relationships with queer persons, and speaks
clearly about institutionalized discrimination. At later points in her tran-
script, she conveys with passion that same-sex “couples should be entitled
to any right that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Right now they are
not” (excerpt 1.3). This state of affairs leaves her emotionally affected. She
feels “sad [...] because basic legislation isn’t in place” to give same-sex “cou-
ples the same rights as heterosexual couples” (excerpt 1.4). She feels “angry
at times” that the majority of “people just don’t understand” and perceive
queer persons as “very different from heterosexual[s] ... so different that
they aren’t entitled to the same rights” (excerpt 2.4).
Elizabeth elaborates that when difference is a part of the social land-
scape, “you think one is lower than the other [...] there’s a hierarchy there”
(excerpt 2.4). This societal hierarchy that positions heterosexuals at the top
leaves her with a “sad feeling. It’s a shame, more shameful than anger”
(excerpt 2.4). As I (Lance) sit with Elizabeth in this moment as she speaks of
shame, I do not experience her as attributing dishonor or a loss of dignity to
the heterosexual community, but rather that she feels a regrettable loss for all
parties. She supports my intuition when she says afterward, “I think it must
hurt everyone. It must hurt homosexual people because they feel alienated,
marginalized, and it must hurt the heterosexual community because of what
we miss out on” (excerpt 2.4).
For Elizabeth, the narrative of queer blindfolding is clearly not grounded
in minimization of queer oppression nor lack of empathy toward sexual
minorities; rather, it stems from (1) a conscious desire of how she would
wish for the world to be, (2) the beneficent image of herself that she seeks
to maintain while bringing about such a world, and (3) the subconscious con-
flicts she experiences when coming into contact with the malevolent force
that is heteronormativity. As much as Elizabeth would like queer identities to
be an invisible social phenomenon, she is extremely aware that for a great
many, queerness is very conspicuous and triggers marginalization and prej-
udice. In psychodynamic terms, the narrative strategy of queer blindfolding
is a projection: if queerness isn’t as invisible and as insignificant to the world
as it should be, Elizabeth can make it so within her own reality. As the inter-
view continues, she lets her ego defenses down, and it becomes apparent
that as much as she would like it to be, queer identities are not invisible to
her either.
CONFLICT EMERGES
If the reader will return to excerpt 1.2, one will notice the first example
of Elizabeth’s conflictual experience with sexual minorities when she tells
me (Lance) in lines 7 and 8 that meeting someone who identifies as a
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 953
sexual minority is “an opportunity to befriend someone who is different.” To
befriend someone based on a difference is to acknowledge that she registers
the difference. On some level, this statement presents an internal conflict,
because without a breath or a pause Elizabeth quickly qualifies in line 8
“or perceived as different”—suggesting that her awareness of this person’s
difference is predicated upon society’s perception of difference. Perhaps
due to an awareness that she has begun to tread on ice that has become
thin with inconsistency, she immediately clarifies in line 9 that this oppor-
tunity to befriend someone that is different is “really not such a big part of
consciousness either.”
I (Lance) can feel Elizabeth struggling to build a bridge from her aware-
ness of systemic inequality to her investment in the discourse of queer
blindfolding, as she tells me: “If you think of [queer identities] politically,
and you think of causes that need to be fought and won and furthered, then
it’s something that is worthy [to be] a part of” (excerpt 2.3). In other words,
in the context of politics, queer identities are not invisible. Elizabeth then
resecures to the narrative of queer blindfolding by telling me: “[J]ust like
other causes ... when you meet a person I don’t think politics is the first
thing that comes to mind” (excerpt 2.3). That is to say, as one doesn’t usu-
ally perceive another’s affiliation with the Democratic or Republican Party in
everyday contact, Elizabeth doesn’t take note of one’s queer identity.
As we continue the interview, and I (Lance) ask questions that encour-
age free-association, Elizabeth can no longer hide the intra-psychic conflict
that comes with taking up the narrative of queer blindfolding. Perhaps it is
due to the safety that was established, or the warmth and regard she feels
toward her friends who identify as queer; in any case, when she and I discuss
her relationships with her dear friends who identify as lesbian, she discloses
that when meeting someone who identifies as a queer, “ideally” she would
like their queer identity to register no more than their eye color. Elizabeth
and I then have the following dialogue (excerpt 2.14):
L: Earlier you said that now you experience a same-sex couple, their sexual
identity, ... tell me if I’m wrong, but I think I hear you say that it no
more hits your radar screen than someone’s eye color?
E: Ideally.
L: Ideally, that’s where you’d like to be ... ?
E: Yeah ...I think I still get a little fascinated.
L: Fascinated?
E: Yeah, but that’s a positive and a little bit giddy and fun: ‘Wow this is a
gay couple.’ You know, I want to be friends because it’s maybe hip, you
know it’s a neat thing. But I don’t even want to feel that. I just want it to
be normal. I think if I knew more [same-sex] couples it would be easier,
but ...but [...] it’s fascinating [...] in a unifying way.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
954 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
L: So what’s fascinating? Tell me more about what you think is fascinating
at this point in your life?
E: Exposure to something new for me. I can climb any mountain, seeing
a different view you’ve never seen before. People with interesting per-
sonalities, something that I wasn’t encouraged to be around for a good
part of my life, and now I know that I missed out on, and so it’s ...it’s
fascinating. It’s new fodder for thought. New things to think about [big
smile].
While her ideal response to an awareness of another’s queer identity
would be an innocuous response, her authentic reaction has been identified
as a microaggression. Microaggressions are the behavioral manifestations of
oppressive discourses, which include frequently occurring insults, indignities,
and unintended discriminatory messages toward non-dominant groups (Sue,
2010). Research and literature examining this form of discriminatory behavior
has focused primarily on cross-racial interactions. Microaggressions associ-
ated with LGB and transgender individuals and groups have begun to emerge
(Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2011). Nadal et al. (2010) have documented
some of the negative consequences of sexual orientation and transgender
microaggressions, which include chronic stress, depression, anxiety, lower
self-esteem, and an increased number of sick days. Nadal et al. and Sue have
also developed a taxonomy of microaggressions that are uniquely directed
toward sexual and gender-transgressive minorities. These include heterosex-
ist terminology, the endorsement of heteronormative or gender normative
behaviors, and the denial of societal heterosexism, to name a few.
The microaggression that Elizabeth engages in has been identified by
Nadal et al. as “exoticization” (p. 227, 2010). Exoticization is a common narra-
tive distortion internalized by some individuals from dominant and privileged
groups. Exoticization occurs when individuals focus on what they perceive
to be the “fun” and “exciting” aspects of a cultural group and sometimes
seek ways to participate with members of the group by accumulating knowl-
edge about their cultural “artifacts.” Although well intentioned on Elizabeth’s
part, viewing queer identifying persons as “a little bit giddy and fun ...
it’s maybe hip, you know it’s a neat thing” (lines 13–14) is demeaning and
problematic. This is because individuals from dominant groups who engage
in exoticization have the privilege of “celebrating” cultures without having
to acknowledge or take on the burdens associated with being part of the
devalued and marginalized group.
Finally, this exchange highlights once again the conflict between the
subject’s conscious intention and the subconscious disposition that lies at
the heart of queer blindfolding. Even though Elizabeth may not be aware
of her participation in the microaggression of exoticization, there is clearly
something distasteful to her about the disclosure: she poignantly states in
line 15 that she doesn’t “even want to feel that.” As I (Lance) explore
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 955
her understanding of “fascinating” a bit further, her use of the metaphor
of “climbing a mountain” (excerpt 2.14, line 22–26) is striking:
Exposure to something new for me. I can climb any mountain, seeing
a different view you’ve never seen before. People with interesting per-
sonalities, something that I wasn’t encouraged to be around for a good
part of my life, and now I know that I missed out on, and so it’s ...it’s
fascinating. It’s new fodder for thought. New things to think about [big
smile].
An avid backpacker or climber is very familiar with the arduous challenge
of slugging up a mountain for the payoff of a majestic view. This metaphor,
in addition to her disclosure of “missing out on” something (excerpt 2.14,
line 25), opens up an explanatory window into the dynamics of Elizabeth’s
investment into the discourse of queer blindfolding. What heteronormative
mountain has Elizabeth been climbing? What did Elizabeth miss out on?
Within these statements, is she alluding to the ego-driven motivation that
informs her desire to mask queer identity? Using the psychodynamic assump-
tion of the defended subject as a guide (Hollway & Jefferson, 2005), we will
argue that Elizabeth’s investment in the discourse of queer blindfolding is
a defense mechanism informed by her family’s position toward her lesbian
older sister.
QUEER BLINDFOLDING: A DEFENSE MECHANISM
Key to Elizabeth’s negotiation of heteronormativity was the moment in
her childhood when her parents disclosed her sister’s queer identity
(excerpt 2.6):
E: And then I remember clearly one day my parents telling me that my
sister was gay. And it was in a very derogatory way: ‘Well, your sister’s
gay,’ kind of tone. Very um ...‘can you believe this’ sort of accent.
Excerpt 2.7
L: And you recall your parents’ telling you that your sister was gay. Do you
recall if that was the first conversation you had with them about [queer
orientation]?
E: Mmm hmm. It was, and it wasn’t a conversation at all; it was just a
comment that was swept under the rug and pretty much has been ever
since.
From that moment in her childhood, her sister’s sexual identity has never
been acknowledged or discussed by the family. The lesbian component
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
956 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
of her sister was completely erased—“disappeared.” During her interviews,
Elizabeth connects her parent’s dismissal of her sister’s sexual orientation to
her sister’s troubled adolescence and her choice to live a great distance from
the rest of the family. Recall from excerpt 2.4 Elizabeth’s speaking of the
loss that the heterosexual community experiences by marginalizing sexual
minorities.
Warren J. Blumenfeld, in his biographical article “How Homophobia
Hurts Everyone” (2000), writes of his experience of becoming aware of the
oppression and suffering his younger heterosexual sister endured due to his
identity as a gay man. Elizabeth never speaks of experiencing direct preju-
dice resulting from her older sister’s orientation, but one can hear a striking
echo of Blumenfeld’s article in Elizabeth’s statement that sexual prejudice
“hurts everyone” (excerpt 2.4). As a defended subject, Elizabeth’s intent of
perceiving queer identities with the same regard as eye color would be
an understandable subconscious response—not rationally logical, but emo-
tionally logical—to the tensions within herself and within her family system
regarding her sister’s lesbian orientation. There would be a powerful desire
within Elizabeth for her sister’s queer identity to be received by her family
in the same manner in which they respond to variations in the human iris.
What Elizabeth’s subconscious conflict exemplifies is that the anxiety
and dissonance of heterosexism within the lived experience of compassion-
ate and pluralistic heterosexual-identifying individuals can be a significant
force in their investment in discourses of struggle against heteronormativity.
The general tenets of psychodynamic theory promote our interpretation that
the reason “why” Elizabeth invests in the discourse of queer blindfolding is
due to a conflict between the beneficent image she has of her heterosex-
ist family and the concomitant suffering endured by her queer older sister.
The resulting dissonance manifests itself as an investment in the narrative of
queer blindfolding in order to render the egregious pain of queer oppres-
sion invisible. What would it be like for Elizabeth to open herself to the
acknowledgment that her generous, virtuous, moral, kind, and loving family
have behaved with acute prejudice toward her sister and that they propa-
gate the oppression of queer persons? Would this be an intolerable belief to
hold toward one’s own beloved family? Without having come to this place,
Elizabeth protects her family by insisting to herself that queer identities are
not that big a deal, and she models to her family the way it should be—her
sister’s sexuality should not matter any more than her eye color.
LIMITATIONS
Psycho-discursive methodology is an intensive, exploratory research modal-
ity with the goal to identify discursive structures and investments, not to
test inferences nor develop theory. Establishing generalizability in a statis-
tical sense is neither the goal nor the aim of qualitative research (Bogdan
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 957
& Biklen, 2002). Readers would be remiss to generalize the case study of
Elizabeth to all persons who identify as heterosexual and positively disposed
toward LGB and transgender persons. However, the rich quotations and deep
examination of the data will allow readers to determine the transferability of
this data to their own experience, while fostering a more complex discussion
of what it may mean for some heterosexuals to negotiate heterosexism.
For a social constructionist study such as this, credibility is established
by the reader. In other words, credibility is constituted through the reader’s
ability to access and engage with the participants’ stories (Giorgi, 1994).
We consider each reader to be an auditor regarding the validity of this study.
Within a social constructionist paradigm, it is the reader’s responsibility to
determine whether or not the analysis is consistent with the data and merits
knowledge construction. As readers seek to make meaning of this study, the
authors invite them to consider the authors’ subjectivities. Acknowledging
the process of reflexivity in this study means recognizing that our own social
locations and biases have inevitably influenced this research. Ultimately, if
the study is not presented coherently and in a form that allows for open
analysis and evaluation of the data, then it is limited in its use to the field.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we drew from a case study to identify and analyze the nar-
rative strategy of queer blindfolding. The data gathered from interviews
with Elizabeth provide an excellent window into how and why some
heterosexual-identifying persons who acknowledge having a positive dispo-
sition toward LGB and transgender individuals invest in the narrative strategy
of queer blindfolding. Perhaps one of the most important findings of the cur-
rent study is the fact that intra-psychic dissonance is a component of queer
blindfolding. The conflict between Elizabeth’s subconscious disposition and
conscious intentions were revealed using a psycho-discursive qualitative
method. Other participants in this study expressed the narrative of queer
blindfolding in statements such as, “I can’t say a specific thing that I think or
don’t think about” when coming into contact with queer identifying persons,
that another’s queer identity “doesn’t even register” and when learning about
another’s queer identity, “it’s just the same as if it’s a heterosexual.”
Recent high-profile developments in the U.S. associated with the pursuit
of justice for LGB persons (e.g., the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the
legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state) should engender both
optimism and fear. These accomplishments clearly demonstrate a positive
shift in the tide of public opinion regarding the rights of LGB individuals.
However, there are a number of inherent dangers associated with advance-
ments in ways that societies treat devalued and oppressed groups—namely,
the emergence of modern racism and modern heterosexism.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
958 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
Take, for instance, the pervasive and destructive consequences that
continue to be manifested within modern racism and the accompanying
“post-racial” rhetoric. In a recent study surveying a national sample of adults
(N=417) in the U.S., researchers found that the disappearing of racism
has been so successful that Whites have now come to believe that anti-
White bias is a larger societal problem than bias directed toward Blacks
(Norton & Sommers, 2011). In similar fashion, modern heterosexism might
be expressed as the denial of macro-systemic discrimination toward LGB
and gender-nonconforming individuals along with disdain or lack of interest
toward the gay rights movement (Eldridge & Johnson, 2011).
Critical scholars committed to the stuggle for justice and equality for LGB
and transgender individuals must remain vigilant. The current study repre-
sents a contribution to the literature on heteronormativity by demonstrating
how dominant societal discourses may be expressed by well-intentioned
heterosexual-identifying individuals. Discourses that seek to disappear the
very real individual and systemic forms of discrimination that are part of
the everyday experiences of LGB and trangender individuals by blindfold-
ing heterosexuals may serve to slow down the process of creating a more
just and equitable society. Therefore, it is imperative that further research be
conducted to document the nuances and the pervasiveness of this narrative
strategy.
REFERENCES
Acosta, K. L. (2011). The language of (in)visibility: Using in-between spaces as a
vehicle for empowerment in the family. Journal of Homosexuality,58, 883–900.
Arend, E. D. (2005). The politics of invisibility. Journal of Homosexuality,49,97–122
Barrett, A., & McWhirter, B. T. (2002). Counselor trainees’ perceptions of clients
based on sexual orientation. Counselor Education and Supervision,41, 219–232.
Barrett, D. C., Pollack, L. M., & Tilden, M. L. (2002). Teenage sexual orientation,
adult openness, and status attainment in gay males. Sociological Perspectives,
45, 163–182.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000). How homophobia hurts everyone. In M. Adams, W. J.
Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.),
Reading for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-semitism,
sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 267–275). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2002). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post civil rights era.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the per-
sistence of racial inequality in the United States.NewYork,NY:Rowman&
Littlefield.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 959
Chin, J. L. (Ed.). (2004). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Bias based
on gender and sexual orientation (vol. 3).Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (2004). A generational approach to understanding stu-
dents. In M. D. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds.), Serving the millennial generation:
New directions for student services (pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cowan, G., Heiple, B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin, M. (2005).
Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward hate crimes and hate speech against gays and
lesbians: Old-fashioned and modern heterosexism. Journal of Homosexuality,
49(2), 67–82.
Croteau, J. M., Lark, J. S., & Lance, T. S. (2005). Our stories will be told:
Deconstructing the heterosexist discourse in the counseling professions. In J.
M. Croteau, J. S. Lark, M. A. Lidderdale, & Y. B. Chung (Eds.), Deconstructing
heterosexism in the counseling professions (pp. 1–16). London: Sage.
Derrida, J. (1997[1967]). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dworkin, S. H. (2002, August). LGBT identity, violence, and social justice: The psy-
chological is political. Paper presented at the 110th annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Ernst, R. (2010). The price of progressive politics: The welfare rights movement in an
era of colorblind racism. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Eldridge, J., & Johnson, P. (2011). The relationship between old-fashioned and
modern heterosexism to social dominance orientation and structural violence.
Journal of Homosexuality,58(3), 382–401.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (vol. 1). New York,
NY: Vintage Books.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2003). Taking a stand: Using psychoanalysis
to explore the positioning of subjects in discourse. British Journal of Social
Psychology,42, 39–53.
Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1927). The ego and the id 1923. London: Hogarth.
Garfield, S., Reavey, P., & Kotecha, M. (2010). Footprints in a toxic landscape:
Reflexivity and validation in the free association narrative interview method.
Qualitative Research in Psychology,7, 156–169.
Georgaca, E. (2005). Lacanian psychoanalysis and the subject of social constructionist
psychology: Analyzing subjectivity in talk. Critical Psychology,14, 74–94.
Giorgi, A. (1994). A phenomenological perspective on certain qualitative methods.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,25, 190–220.
Greytak, E. A., Kosciwk, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh realities: The experiences
of transgender youth in our nation’s schools.NewYork,NY:Gay,Lesbian,and
Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Gough, B. (2004). Psychoanalysis as a resource for understanding emotional rup-
tures in the text: The case of defensive masculinities. British Journal of Social
Psychology,42, 245–267.
Gough, B. (2009). A psycho-discursive approach to analyzing qualitative inter-
view data, with reference to a father son relationship. Qualitative Research,
9, 527–545.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
960 L. C. Smith and R. Q. Shin
Henwood, K., & Procter, J. (2003). The “good father”: Reading men’s accounts
of paternal involvement during the transition to first-time fatherhood. British
Journal of Social Psychology,42, 337–355.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions
in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society,9,
19–22.
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2005). Doing qualitative research differently. London:
Sage Publications.
Kimber, S., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions:
The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer clients in psychotherapy.
Journal of Counseling Psychology,58, 210–221.
Klein, M. (1932). The psycho-analysis of children. London: Hogarth.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self . New York, NY: International Universities
Press.
Korfhage, B. A. (2006). Psychology graduate students attitudes towards lesbians and
gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,51, 145–159.
Kosciwk, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The
2009 School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender youth in our nation’s schools.NewYork,NY:Gay,Lesbian,and
Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Lacan, J. (1977 [1957]). The agency of the letter in the unconscious or reason since
Freud. In A. M. Sheridan (Trans.), Ecrits: A selection (pp. 146–178). London:
Tavistock/Routledge.
McCabe, J. L., & Holmes, D. (2009). Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and
emancipation: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing,65,
1518–1526.
Midgley, N. (2006). Psychoanalysis and qualitative psychology: Complementary or
contradictory paradigms? Qualitative Research in Psychology,3, 213–231.
Madill, A., & Barkham, M. (1997). Discourse analysis of a theme in one suc-
cessful case of brief psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,44, 232–244.
Manning, K. (2009, May–June). Philosophical underpinnings of student affairs work
on difference. About Campus.doi:10.1002/abc.284
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical
Journal,320, 50–52.
Mohr, J. J. (2002). Heterosexual identity and the heterosexual therapist: An iden-
tity perspective on sexual orientation dynamics in psychotherapy. Counseling
Psychologist,30, 532–567.
Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Sexual orientation and transgender
microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality (pp.
217–240). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Norris, W. P. (1991). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: The paradoxes of
homosexual experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality,22,
81–120.
Neville, H. A., Worthington, R. L., & Spanierman, L. B. (2001). Race, power, and
multicultural counseling psychology. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, & C.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
Queer Blindfolding 961
M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 257–288).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that
they are now losing. Perspective on Psychological Science,6, 215–218.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual
psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pearson, Q. M. (2003). Breaking the silence in the counselor education classroom:
A training seminar on counseling sexual minority clients. Journal of Counseling
and Development,81, 292–300.
Robinson, T. L. (1999). The intersections of dominant discourses across race, gender
and other identities. Journal of Counseling and Development,77,73–79
Seelman, K. L., & Walls, N. E. (2010). Person—organization incongruence as a
predictor of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and
heterosexism. Journal of Social Work Education,46(1), 103–122.
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions:
The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and aueer clients in psychotherapy.
Journal of Cousneling Psychology,58, 210–221.
Smith, L. C. (2009). The anxiety of affirming heterosexuals when negotiating
heteronormativity. Human Services Education,29,49–58.
Steinbugler, A. (2005). Visibility as privilege and danger: Heterosexual and same-
sexinterracial intimacy in the 21st century. Sexualities,8, 425–443.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Straight allies: Supportive attitudes toward lesbians, gay men,
and bisexuals in a college sample. Sex Roles,60, 67–80.
Strauss, N., & Howe, W. (2003). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new gen-
eration on campus: Recruiting, admissions, campus life, and the classroom.
Washington, DC: American Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old
fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68(2), 199–214.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender and sexual
orientation.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.
Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Tucker, A. (2009). Queer visibilities: Space, identity and interaction in Cape Town.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Hate crime statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Walls, N. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional understanding of heterosexism: The
changing nature of prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality,55(1), 20–70.
Wilchins, R. (2004). Queer theory, gender theory: An instant primer. Los Angeles,
CA: Alyson Books.
Willig, C. (2008). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A
practical guide to research methods (pp. 160–185). London: Sage.
Yep, G. A., Lovass, K. E., & Elia, J. P. (2003). Introduction: Queering communication:
Starting the conversation. Journal of Homosexuality,45, 1–10.
Downloaded by [University of Vermont] at 08:45 15 September 2014
