Why do sexologists 1 AL nt political and cul- int to the Ta cs rt eo leaxuclity CUTer aT ae) rethink contemporary discourses of sexual lea Mite en bes x ay eb “This is a powerful and impressive work of scholarship. Angelides shows that ‘bisexuality cannot be considered as merely an afterthought, or as an effect of the hetero-homosexual binary, but rather, it must be the founda. elm od A MTL ate Sol Mtoe Laas Cire] a —STEVEN SEIDMAN, AUTHOR OF DIFFERENCE TROUBLES: QUEERING SOCIAL THEORY AND SEXUAL POLITICS STEVEN ANGELI s ere, ust it - . Council postdoctoral fellow at the Australia Derg _an honorary fellow at ISBN-13: 978-0-226-02090-7 ISBN-10: 0-226-02090-8 ATT) iii 780226 IMPROPER ADVANCES: RAPE AND HETEROSEXUAL SEX AND THE GENDER REVOLUTION, VOLUME 1: CONFLICT IN ONTARIO, 1880-1929 HETEROSEXUALITY AND THE THIRD GENDER IN 4 by Koren Dubinsky ENLIGHTENMENT LONDON by Randolph Trumbach A PRESCRIPTION FOR MURDER: THE VICTORIAN su at HE YOUNG STE A HISTORY OF BISEXUALITY SERIAL KILLINGS OF THOMAS NEILL CREAM TAKE THE YOUNG STRANGER BY THE HAND: SAME-SEX by John Donald Gustav-Wrathall THE LANGUAGE OF SEX: FIVE VOICES FROM NORTH- ERN FRANCE AROUND 1200 CITY OF SISTERLY AND BROTHERLY LOVES: LESBIAN by JohWn. Baldwin AND GAY PHILADELPHIA, 1945-1972 by Marc Stein CROSSING OVER THE LINE: LEGISLATING MORALITY AND THE MANN ACT THE POLITICS OF GAY RIGHTS by David J. Longum edited by Craig A. Rimmermon, Kenneth D, Wald, and Clyde Wilcox SEXUAL NAT/U SREXEUA L CULTURE edited by Poul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton OTTO WEININGER: GENDER, SEXUALITY, AND SELF } IN UAPERIAL VIENNA LOVE BETWEEN WOMEN: EARLY CHRISTIAN by Chandok Sengoopta RESPONSES TO FEMALE HOMOEROTICISM by BernadettJe. Brooten SAPPHO IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND: THE HISTORY OF A FEMALE SAME-SEX LITERARY EROTICS, THE TRIALS OF MASCULINITY: 1550-1714 POLICING SEXUAL BOUNDARIES, 1870-1930 by Harriette Andreadis by Angus McLaren THE INVENTION OF SODOMY IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY by Mark D, Jordan SITES OF DESIRE / ECONOMIES OF PLEASURE: SEXUALITIES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC edited by Lenore Manderson ond Margaret Jolly STEVEN ANGELIDES THE CHICAGO SERIES ON SEXUALITY, HISTORY, AND SOCIETY EDITED BY JOHN C. FOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AND LONDON STEVEN ANGELIDES isan Australian FOR ELLA AND CRAIG Research Council postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University and an honorary fellow at the Australian Centre, University of Melbourne. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2001 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2001 Printed in the United States of America 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 OL «861 2345 ISBN: 0-226-02089-4 (cloth) ISBN: 0-226-02090-8 (paper) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Angelides, Steven. A history of bisexuality / Steven Angelides. p- cm.— (The Chicago series on sexuality, history, and society) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-02089-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-226-02090-8 (pbk, : alk. paper) 1. Bisexuality. 2. Homosexuality. 3. Hetero- sexuality. |. Title. Il. Series. HQ74-A54 2001 306.76'5—dc2r1 00-013141 ©The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48- 1992. CONTENTS Acknowledgments Introducing Bisexuality PART [1) Science and the Invention CONSTRUCTING of (Bi)Sexuality 23 een an “The Unsolved Figure in the Carpet” 49 The Pink Threat 71 PART [2] The Repressed Returns 107 psstseiianieiendaieea Sexuality and Subjection 132 SEXUAL IDENTITY The Queer Intervention 162 Beyond Sexuality 190 Notes 209 Bibliography 259 Index 277 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the Department of History at the University of Mel- bourne, the place where this study began as a doctoral dissertation, as well as the university's Faculty of Arts and School of Graduate Studies. The transition from dissertation to book was aided by a postdoctoral fellowship in the Adelaide Research Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Adelaide, a traveling fellowship from the Australian Acad- emy of the Humanities, an honorary associateship in the University of Mel- bourne’s Australian Centre, and the Department of History at the Aus- tralian National University. 1 would also like to thank Henry Abelove, Craig Bird, Marion Campbell, Kate Constable, Joy Damousi, John Fout, Sarah Griggs, Sally Hussey, Wei Leng Kwok, Vera Mackie, Doug Mitchell, Robert Reynolds, and Christina Twomey. Finally, | am extremely grateful to Marion Campbell for her suggestion of the book’s eventual title. Although it might seem an obvious choice, I have to say that in my deluded attempts to invent a title that 1 hoped would capture the book’s argument and methodology, A History of Bisexuality is one that never once occurred to me. Lam glad it occurred to Marion. {ix| INTRODUCING BISEXUALITY In any case bisexuality merges imperceptibly into simple inversion. —Havelock Ellis 1901 BISEXUALIT—Ya state that has no existence beyond the word itself —is an out-and-out fraud, involuntarily maintained by some naive homosexuals, and voluntarily perpetrated by some who are not so naive. —Edmund Bergler 1956 It is my opinion that while the word bisexual may have its uses as an adjective ... it is not only useless but mendacious when used as a noun. —John Malone 1980 I’m not sure that because there are people who identify as bisexual there isa bisexual identity. —Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick 1991 Doubts about the veracity of bisexuality as an identity are not new. Vari- ously characterized within dominant discourses of sexuality as, among other things, a form of infantilism or immaturity, a transitional phase, a self- delusion or state of confusion, a personal and political cop-out, a panacea, a superficial fashion trend, a marketing tool, even a lie and a catachresis, the category of bisexuality for over a century has been persistently refused the title of legitimate sexual identity.! Yet, as is all too familiar to scholars of sexuality, the same cannot be said with regard to homosexuality. Since its invention as a peculiar human species in late-nineteenth-century scientific discourse, the homosexual as a modern identity has been the object of a rig- CHAPTER ONE [2] INTRODUCING BISEXUALITY [3] ofous, frenetic, indeed paranoid, discursive essentialization. Far from hav- sexuality in general. The lesson, according to Vice Versa, is that the ‘nature’ ing doubt cast incessantly upon its veritable existence, the homosexual has of sexuality cannot be located in the fixed identities of gay and straight. It is, been mapped, measured, and monitored in what can only be described as an rather, mobile and mutable: The “nature of sexuality . . . is fluid not fixed, a interminable and insane reiteration of the supposed ‘essence’ and ‘truth’ of narrative that changes over time rather than a fixed identity, however com- its being. On a much smaller scale, but with as much scientific zeal, has plex. The erotic discovery of bisexuality is the fact that it reveals sexuality been the cataloging of myriad other psychosexual ‘deviations’. From the to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and perverts invented by nineteenth-century sexology to the seemingly endless knowable state of being” (66).° Garber urges us to dispense with the hetero/ list of twentieth-century paraphiliacs, Western science has placed sexuality homosexual opposition as our starting point for understanding sexuality. in a privileged relation to truth with regard to human subjectivity.? As Fou- Why not begin just with the category of sexuality? she asks. Proposing a cault put it: “Between each of us and our sex, the West has placed a never- framework based on the Mobius model, Garber visualizes sexuality in terms ending demand for truth: it is up to us to extract the truth of sex, since this of a three-dimensional figure. This kind of “topological space” makes re- truth is beyond its grasp; it is up to sex to tell us our truth, since sex is what dundant any concept of sexuality as either/or, as “two-versus-one” (30). No holds it in darkness.”3 longer radically distinct, the categories of heterosexuality and homosexual- Curiously, however, the category of bisexuality seems to have been ity flow in and through one another. spared the rigors of this “never-ending demand for truth.” Bisexuality con- Garber goes even further to suggest that, far from being a third sexual tinues, in fact, to represent a blind spot in sex research.4 This apparent identity, bisexuality is a sexuality that “puts into question the very concept oversight by our all-consuming regime of sexuality is particularly puzzling of sexual identity in the first place” (15).” The logic behind this idea, as I in view not only of the rather long history of research suggestive of the mentioned above, is that she identifies the nature of sexuality to be a kind of prevalence of bisexual practices in most human cultures, but also of the unpredictable fluidity, uncontainable within the fixity of hetero/homosex- emergence, in many Western countries within the last two decades, of bur- uality. However, this unpredictable fluidity, this ‘sexuality’, is for Garber geoning and highly politicized bisexual movements. On the surface this none other than bisexuality. That is, in constructing her Mobius model, she may Come as no surprise, given the common association of bisexuality with actually conflates sexuality with bisexuality, and substitutes the notion of (self) deception and unreality. Perhaps bisexuality is unnatural, without ‘sexual identity’ with that of bisexual eroticism.® The concepts of hetero- ‘essence’ after all? Is it the antithesis of truth, an untruth? Or is it an imagi- sexuality and homosexuality are thus subsumed by a bisexuality she argues nary or nonexistent state? And what would it mean to answer in the affir- “is neither the ‘inside’ nor the ‘outside’ but rather that which creates both” mative to these questions: Would bisexuality therefore be without history, (526; my emphasis). even outside of history? And might this explain why so little ink has been Anything but immature, peripatetic, erroneous, illusory, unnatural, bi- spilled establishing its veracity, historicizing its (lack of ) meaning? Opting sexuality in this scenario is human sexuality itself. By extension, then, bi- for this explanatory path is for me, however, wholly unsatisfactory. For one sexuality is coterminous with human ‘nature’, with ‘truth’ itself. The effect thing, if so little critical attention has been accorded to bisexuality, how of Garber’s intervention is thus not so much a disruption of what Foucault can anyone so confidently assume anything about its meaning, let alone ar- would call the scientia sexualis—the “procedures for telling the truth of bitrate its ‘truthful’ existence? sex”? —although she certainly wants to deconstruct ‘truth’ in the form of Marjorie Garber’s Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life fixed and oppositional sexual identities. Rather, and working within this is one of the first comprehensive studies of bisexuality to engage some of regime of truth, Garber effectively inverts the terms of the scientia sexualis: these questions.? In an encyclopedic account of eroticism within a wide the untruth becomes the sole truth. Such a move of reversal is, of course, range of cultural and literary texts, Garber sets out not just to put bisexual- not without its uses. Like the first part of any deconstructive movement, it ity on the sexual map, but to challenge common assumptions that have is essential to effect a strategic reversal of any binary opposition in question. long structured its meaning. Her concern is not with theorizing or politiciz- It is equally important simultaneously to displace the negative term of this ing bisexuality as the latest identity “now finding its place in the sun” (65— opposition from its position of dependency on the positive and to situate 66), Instead, she seeks to inquire into what bisexuality can teach us about the former as the latter’s very condition of possibility.!° This much Garber CHAPTER ONE [4] INTRODUCING BISEXUALITY [5] hus done, and the concept of ‘sexual ident ity’, and thus the binarism of het- “holds in place a binary framework of two basic and diametrically opposed ero/homosexuality, may appear on the surface to be momentarily disrupted. sexual orientations.” !3 Yet it is this very move that leads her to claim bisexuality’s status as inher- On the other hand, however, these claims of bisexuality’s political impo- ently deconstructive. Bisexuality, proclaims Garber, is but a “sexuality that tence compete with a chorus of theorists and activists who have been argu- threatens and challenges the easy binarities of straight and gay” (65). In or- ing that the politicized category of bisexuality represents a fundamental der to make this claim, however, Garber remains reliant upon the very op- challenge to the gendered structure of hetero/homosexuality. Bisexual the- position which underpins that of hetero/homosexuality: (sexual) identity orist Amanda Udis-Kessler, for instance, argues not only that bisexuals “un- versus (fluid) difference. The only difference is that the hierarchical rela- intentionally” threaten the “meaning systems by which lesbians, gay men tionship between the two terms is reversed, difference (which in Garber’s and heterosexuals live,” but that bisexuality as a category “inevitably” poses model is fluid bisexuality) now elevated at the expense of identity (hetero/ “crises of meaning” for our binary epistemology of sexuality.!4 Like Garber, homosexuality). To leave the deconstructive project at this point is a little Udis-Kessler figures bisexuality as inherently deconstructive, subversive, frustrating, however. In reifying bisexuality as a sexuality, Garber has given revolutionary, and undermining of the binarized logic and structure of gen- it a positive ontological or truth content, even if this content is viewed as der and (mono)sexuality.!° fluid, uncertain, and in constant flux. Merely inverting bisexuality’s status ~ [have never been comfortable with the ‘impotence’ model of bisexuality within conventional figurations of sexual identity, Garber redeploys het- and its rather tidy political prognosis. Nor am I satisfied with the opposing, eronormative logic and thus remains squarely within the terms of the het- and rather utopic, position that bisexuality is somehow inherently subver- ero/homosexual opposition she seeks to deconstruct. sive.!© Aside from the seemingly obvious fact that within Western culture At this point it would appear that Garber's reinvocation of an essential- in general the “easy binarities” of which Garber speaks appear anything but izing oppositional logic comes dangerously close to fulfilling the prophesy under threat, it strikes me as equally premature to discard the category of bi- of which Eve Sedgwick lamented in an internet discussion list only months sexuality to the scrapheap of theoreticopolitical sterility; especially in view before the publication of Vice Versa. In just such a discussion of bisexuality’s of its long history of critical neglect within discourses of sexuality. In my politicodeconstructive potential, Sedgwick wrote: view, framing the analysis of bisexuality in binary terms represents a false antithesis. It serves to mystify rather than elucidate the complexity of bi- There are ways in which the political concept of ‘bisexuality’ seems to offer a sexuality’s discursive and political intervention in the 1990s and beyond, consolidation and completion of an understanding of sexuality that can be de- scribed adquately [sic], for everybody, in terms of gender-of-object-choice . . . just as it misrecognizes the ambiguous and contradictory epistemological as though, once you've added “goes for both same and Opposite sex” to “goes history of bisexuality itself. So instead of remaining within the terms of this for same sex” and “goes for opposite sex,” you have now covered the entire existing political dispute, I would like in this book to refuse its dichotomous ground and collected the whole set. |! framing and subject it to critical examination by turning to this epistemologi- cal history. Just as our political and theoretical analyses of homosexuality re- These comments of Sedgwick’s rehearse, indeed intensify, the seemingly quired the historicization of the very concept of homosexuality, so too would irresolvable debate as to whether the concept or identity of bisexuality re- I suggest that any political and theoretical analysis of bisexuality is impov- inforces or ruptures our binary epistemology of sexuality. Both sides of the erished (if not useless) without an adequate account of its historical con- political divide have received sufficient airing since the mid-1980s.!2 And struction.!” Yet a sustained and contextualized account of the history of Sedgwick is certainly not alone with her characterization of what I call the sexuality and bisexuality’s place in it is absent not just within the debate, ‘impotence’ model of bisexuality. Donald Hall, coeditor of a recent collec- but within our entire archive of historical knowledge. tion of essays, RePresenting Bisexualities, agrees: “I. . . especially dislike the Bisexual theorist Michael du Plessis has argued recently that in the cur- term ‘bisexual’,” he says, “for it inescapably encodes binarism” (11). On the rent climate of sexual theory and politics it is crucial to examine how no- basis of this kind of logic Elisabeth Daumer urges us to resist constructing tions of bisexuality and bisexual identity have “come to be unthought, bisexuality as another sexual identity. For, “rather than broadening the made invisible, trivial, insubstantial, irrelevant.”!® This imperative is the spectrum of available sexual identifications,” she too argues that it merely starting point for this book. A History of Bisexuality explores the complex CHAPTER ONE [6] INTRODUCING BISEXUALITY [7] conjunction of issues framing the discursive relationships between bisex- hetero- or homosexuality. The identity paradigm is thereby reified and uality and modern sexual identity, between bisexuality and figurations of bisexuality is completely erased from the historical record. Chris Cagle human ‘nature’, and between bisexuality and the construction of sexual describes this approach as “monosexual gay historiography.”2° Where bi- ‘truth’. The question of how bisexuality and bisexual identity have been sexuality does rate a mention, it is almost always rendered an epistemo- erased is, I suggest, inextricably bound up with the broader history of bi- logical and incidental by-product, aftereffect, or definitional outcome of sexuality as an epistemological category. I will analyze how bisexuality as the opposition of hetero/homosexuality. It is therefore not seen as in any an epistemological category has functioned both to foreclose the articula- way significant to the diachronic construction of this opposition. For in- tion ofa bisexual identity and to reproduce the hetero/homosexual oppo- stance, as historian George Chauncey has noted in his most recent work, sition, “Even the third category of ‘bisexuality’ depends for its meaning on its intermediate position on the axis defined by those two poles.”*! Erwin Hae- WRITING A QUEER HISTORY OF (BI)SEXUALITY berle, in his introduction to the recent anthology Bisexualities, reaches a similar but more historically inflected conclusion: the modern concept of As indicated by the subtitle, the project of writing a queer history of (bi) sex- bisexuality “did not arise,” indeed, “could not come into existence,” he argues, uality draws heavily on the interlocking fields of gay and lesbian history and until after “the simple opposition” of homo/heterosexuality had been in- queer theory. So what might this form of history writing look like? In order vented,2? to expound the methodological contours of this approach, it might first be ~~ Within the field of queer theory bisexuality is also figured as rather inci- useful to examine how bisexuality has been figured until now within these dental to the hetero/homosexual structure, this time in terms of synchronic interlocking disciplinary formations. deconstructive analysis. Queer theorists such as Eve Sedgwick, Diana Fuss, Throughout the last two decades or so, the field of gay and lesbian his- and Lee Edelman, among others, have produced many useful studies that tory has expanded rapidly. Histories of sexuality—of homosexuality, and serve to work the hetero/homosexual opposition, as Fuss puts it, to the increasingly of heterosexuality—have been and continue to be published “point of critical exhaustion.”’? Powered by a desire to expose the rela- at an astonishing rate. Yet, for the most part, bisexuality scarcely figures tional construction of identity, one would expect an analysis of bisexuality within this burgeoning historiographical field. At first glance it would ap- —hovering as the category does somewhere around the two poles of hetero/ pear, then, that bisexuality has said very little, and has very little to say, to homosexuality—to form a part of this rigorous deconstruction. Yet in spite this historical archive. However, I would argue that one of the primary rea- of occupying an epistemic position within this very opposition, the category sons for bisexuality’s apparent insignificance might be the fact that the of bisexuality has been curiously marginalized and erased from the decon- defining mark of gay and lesbian history writing has been a methodological structive field of queer theory. In many ways this appears to mirror the mar- reliance on an identity paradigm. Central to this paradigm has been a dis- ginalization of bisexuality within gay and lesbian history..On the surface, it tinction between sexual behavior and sexual identity. Constructionist his- ~ seems that one of the reasons for this is the assumption that, as Lee Edelman torians, cautious of conflating homosexuality and homosexual identity, have notes, the hetero/homo binarism is “more effectively reinforced than dis- found it useful to examine the history of sexuality through this distinction. rupted by the ‘third term’ of bisexuality.”24 However, it would seem that As a guiding methodology, this has been effective, as Jeffrey Weeks has ob- this idea functions as a corollary of the historical assumption that bisexual- served, as a way of distinguishing “between homosexual behaviour, which is ity is a by-product or epistemic aftereffect of homo/heterosexuality. Just as universal, and a homosexual identity, which is historically specific.”!9 bisexuality is seen to be of little interest or use to the historicizing project, For reading bisexuality, however, this approach introduces conceptual within queer theory the implication of Edelman’s claim is that bisexuality is problems of its own. While homosexual identity is not universalized, a ho- seen to offer little critical leverage in deconstructions of the hetero/homo mosexual act is. The problem of identity is thus only deferred and displaced. polarity. But I suggest that there is more structuring this assumption than Neither an act nora palpable cultural identity—at least until the late 1960s appears at first sight. It seems to me that the marginalization and erasure of in the case of the latter -— bisexuality merely vanishes into the categories of bisexuality within queer theory is not just a theoretical question, just as bi- ~ CHAPTER ONE [8] INTRODUCING BISEXUALITY [9] sexuality's marginalization and erasure within gay and lesbian history is not indeed derivative of, constructionist analyses that traced the historical in- just a historical question. These particular figurations of bisexuality are, im- vention of the hetero/homosexual dualism in the first place. So the neglect portantly, symptomatic of the relationship of gay and lesbian history to or “condescension” Duggan points out in queer theory’s (lack of ) engage- queer theory. And, as I will demonstrate in this book, such figurations oc- ment with gay/lesbian history framed squarely around the identity para- clude much more than they illuminate. digm is all the more puzzling, especially given queer theory’s rigorous The queer intervention in critical theory and cultural studies has cer- attempts to dismantle such a paradigm. Yet what appears to have happened tainly held out enormous promise in its deconstructive critique of identi- is that ‘history’ has been in some ways bracketed out as the proper object tarian frameworks. With its emphasis on demystifying the shifting and of constructionism, and ‘theory’ the proper object of deconstruction, with relational construction of identity categories, and of exposing the rhetori- little critical reflection on their complicitous interlacings.?? cal and ideological functions that these categories serve, queer theory I hasten to point out that a reliance on constructionist history is not a seems aptly situated to strengthen and revitalize the historicizing project of bad thing by any means. Social constructionist history has been, and is, an gay/lesbian history. Yet, as Lisa Duggan has suggested, these queer “cri- extremely positive development, without which I and the many other tiques, applied to lesbian and gay history texts, might produce a fascinating scholars in gender and sexuality studies would not be able to do the work we discussion—but so far, they have not.” Outlining the “strained relations” are doing. Constructionist historians have produced many brilliant histo- between the fields of queer theory and gay/lesbian history, Duggan goes on ries that have been informed by a desire to denaturalize and historicize to argue that the former has too often failed to acknowledge its debt to the those categories of sexual identity long assumed to be ahistorical and uni- latter; while the latter “have largely ignored the critical implications of versal. On the other hand, no historical account is ‘complete’; no one work queer theory for their scholarly practice.”25 The editors of Radical History is able to address the many and varied ways of approaching questions of his- Review’s queer issue mention something similar, detecting a “sense” that the torical method and interpretation. Constructionist history has been con- respective methods of gay/lesbian history and queer theory are thought to cerned primarily with tracing the emergence of homosexual identities, less “exist in sometimes uncomfortable tension.” This appears to reflect the fact often with tracing the epistemological processes informing their produc- that “there has been remarkably little dialogue between these two presum- tion. One of the effects of this, as I have mentioned, is that bisexuality has ably related projects.”26 This strikes me as rather odd. Despite queer the- made only a fleeting appearance in the historiography of sexuality. The em- ory’s overarching desire to deconstruct Identity in all of its forms, both phasis on identity and the fact that, as far as we know, bisexuality has been queer theorists and gay and lesbian constructionist historians are indeed barely (if at all) visible as a palpable cultural identity until recent decades united in the quest to denaturalize categories of sexual identity in order to have meant that in constructionist histories bisexuality is mentioned only reveal the contingency, the historicity, and the political processes of their in passing by a few theorists of sexuality. It has also meant, I will argue, that production. In spite of this obvious affinity, however, fruitful dialogue be- the identity paradigm, and thus the hetero/homosexual opposition, have tween the two fields has not been forthcoming. been unwittingly reproduced in a queer deconstructive theory derivative of Expanding on Duggan’s analysis, then, I would suggest that what in part such constructionist historical accounts. This will be examined more fully informs the relationship between the two fields is an implicit and unpro- in chapter 7. My reason for preempting this argument now is not simply to ductive distinction between social constructionism and deconstruction; set out the structure of A History of Bisexuality, but to reveal one of the pri- this, despite the fact that it is history or, more specifically, an understanding mary assumptions of this work: Although queer theorists and lesbian and of the historical specificity of Identity, that conditions both of these fields, gay historians have made a relentless assault on essentialist notions of iden- Put another way, deconstructive critique of all kinds presupposes the his- tity, their efforts to denaturalize and deconstruct the hetero/homosexual toricity of identity categories. Historicization and deconstruction ought, structure and its concomitant notions of identity have not gone far enough. therefore, be part of the same process. One might thus expect the two fields And it is around the question of bisexuality’s relationship to figurations of to form a mutually enriching historicotheoretical relationship. After all, sexual identity that both queer theory and gay/lesbian history have in some queer theory’s prized deconstruction of sexual identity is reliant upon, and important ways fallen short.