This is the second of the articles that drove me to track down this collection (though, as it happens, I suspect the last two articles will also be of interest). Andreadis has written on this theme before and you can see the concept develop accross several publications. (But, of course, I'm not reading them in the order they were produced, so I get some of the ideas out of order.) While it's dangerous to try to understand historic attitudes by analogy to modern ones, it might be useful to consider the wide range of approaches to "respectability" within modern LGBTQ communities. People's public presentation doesn't necessarily align with their personal identity. People can disagrwee about the best way to create meaningful art while sharing similar inspirations. Andreadis addresses the reasons why early modern discourse around lesbian sexuality might diverge into two contrasting camps, but those differences don't necessarily tell us anything about private behavior. I think it would be a mistake to posit that avoiding explicit sexual language in one's writing implies avoiding explicit sexual activity in one's bed. I like that Andreadis connects her analysis with Terry Castle's analysis (which I really do need to read and blog one of these days), and the ways in which the permitted public expressions of desire between women work to make it possible to doubt the fact of that desire. The combination of a public discourse of female same-sex desire and the dynamic shifts in how it was expressed and received are part of why I'm attracted to writing fiction in the later 17th century. It expands the options for how one's characters might think, speak, and behave around their desires and offers intriguing sources of conflict.
Comments