Queer Futures: Chosen Families and Alternative Intimacies

  • Lulu Le Vay
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science and Popular Culture book series (PSSPC)


This chapter examines the endings in all of the texts under analysis in relation to the participants desire to see alternative endings and new definitions of womanhood. This will be followed by a discussion of the participants’ rejection of the myth of the instant mother–baby bond which is portrayed in the texts, alongside their resistance to the conventional notions of family that are overwhelmingly evident. The concept of love will also be debated here, in relation to kinship formations within gay and black communities that are not so dependent on the genetic tie. Through this the overriding theme of heteronormativity as the ideal, which involves the reproduction of normative family through heterosexual love, is exposed and challenged.


  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Sara. 2010. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ang, Ien. 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ang, Ien. 1995. Living Room Wars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, Emily A., and Marlon M. Bailey. 2009. “Constructing Home and Family: How the Ballroom Community Supports Africa American GLBTQ Youth in the Face of HIV/AIDS.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 21 (2–3): 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, Michèle, and Mary McIntosh. 1991. The Anti-social Family. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Barry, Kathleen. 1985. Female Sexual Slavery. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berlant, Lauren. 1994. “America, ‘Fat,’ the Fetus’.” Boundary 2 21 (3): 145–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berlant, Lauren. 2008. The Female Complaint. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Birke, Lynda, and Joanna Hockenhull. 2012. Crossing Boundaries: Investigating Human-Animal Relationships. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  11. Birke, Lynda, and Joanna Hockenhull. 2016. “Moving With(in) Affect. Horses, People and Tolerance.” In Affect, Space, and Animals, edited by Jopi Nyman and Nora Schuurman. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briggs, Laura. 2017. How All Politics Became Reproductive Politics—From Welfare Reform to Foreclosure to Trump. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Browne, Kath, and Catherine Nash. 2010. Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Burr, Vivienne, and Christine Jarvis. 2007. “Imagining the Family: Representations of Alternative Lifestyles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Qualitative Social Work 6 (3): 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Calhoun, Cheshire. 2000. Feminism, Family, and the Politics of the Closet: Lesbian and Gay Displacement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Carsten, Janet. 2004. After Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cavalcante, André. 2014. “Anxious Displacements: The Representation of Gay Parenting on Modern Family and The New Normal and the Management of Cultural Anxiety.” Television & New Media 1 (18): 454–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charles, Nickie. 2014. “Post-Human Families? Dog-Human Relations in the Domestic Sphere.” Sociological Research Online 21 (3): 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charles, Nickie. 2016. “‘Animals Just Love You as You Are’: Experiencing Kinship Across the Species Barrier.” Sociology 48 (4): 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charles, Nickie, and Charlotte Aull Davies. 2008. “My Family and Other Animals: Pets as Kin.” Sociological Research Online 13 (5).Google Scholar
  22. Chauncey, George. 1995. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, Cathy J. 1997. “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3 (4): 437–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Demory, Pamela, and Christopher Pullen. 2013. Queer Love in Film and Television. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Edelman, Lee. 2003. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Epstein, Helen. 2008. The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West and the Fight Against AIDS. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, Mary. 2003. Love: An Unromantic Discussion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. Dialectic of Sex: The Case for a Feminist Revolution. New York: Naomi Wolf.Google Scholar
  29. Fiske, John. 1989. Reading the Popular. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Folger, Tom. 2008. “Queer Nuclear Families? Reproducing and Transgressing Heteronormativity.” Journal of Homosexuality 54 (1–2): 124–149. Scholar
  31. Franklin, Sarah. 1990. “Deconstructing Desperateness’: The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies” In The New Reproductive Technologies, edited by Maureen McNeil. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fudge, Erica. 2008. Pets (The Art of Living). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Gorton, Kristyn. 2009. Media Audiences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Halberstam, Judith. 2013. Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender and the End of Normal. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Halbert, Deborah. 2004. “Shulamith Firestone.” Information, Communication & Society 7 (1):115–135. Scholar
  37. Haraway, Donna. 2007. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Klepfisz, Irena. 1999. “It Is Not a Child I Wish to Mother, It Is Myself.” Reproductive Health Matters 7 (13): 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lam, Carla. 2015. New Reproductive Technologies and Disembodiment. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Lehr, Valerie. 1999. Queer Family Values: Debunking the Myth of the Nuclear Family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lugones, Maria, and Pat Rosezelle. 1995. “Sisterhood and Friendship as Feminist Models.” In Feminism and Community, edited by Penny Weiss and Marilyn Friedman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  42. MacDowell, James. 2013. Happy Endings in Hollywood Cinema: Cliché, Convention and the Final Couple. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Merck, Mandy, and Stella Sandford. 2010. Further Adventures of the Dialectic of Sex. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, Tina. 2005. Making Sense of Motherhood: A Narrative Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Naficy, Hamid. 1989. “Television Intertextuality and the Discourse of the Nuclear Family.” Journal of Film and Video 41 (4): 42–59.Google Scholar
  46. Oliver, Kelly. 2012. Knock Me Up, Knock Me Down. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Park, Shelley. 2014. Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  48. Radway, Janice. 1983. “Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text and Context.” Feminist Studies 9 (1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Radway, Janice. 1992. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: University North Carolina.Google Scholar
  50. Rich, Adrienne. 1979. “‘Disloyal to Civilization’: Feminism, Racism, and Gynephobia.” Chrysalis 7: 9–27.Google Scholar
  51. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631–660.Google Scholar
  52. Roberts, Dorothy. 1995. “The Genetic Tie.” The University of Chicago Law Review 62 (1): 209–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roberts, Dorothy. 1996. “Race and the New Reproduction.” Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1154.Google Scholar
  54. Rubin, Lilian. 1993. Just Friends: The Role of Friendship in Our Lives. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  55. Schlichter, Annette. 2004. “Queer at Last? Straight Intellectuals and the Desire for Transgression.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10 (4): 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood. 2008. “The Labour of Transformation and Circuits ‘Around’ Reality Television.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22 (4): 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smart, Carol. 2011. “Ways of Knowing: Crossing Species Boundaries.” Methodological Innovations, 6 (3): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stacey, Jackie. 1993. Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Tincknell, Estella. 2005. Mediating the Family: Gender, Culture and Representation. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  60. Waitress. 2007. Directed and Written by Adrien Shelly. Film. Los Angeles, CA: Fox.Google Scholar
  61. Walters, Suzanna. 1996. “From Here to Queer: Radical Feminism, Postmodernism, and the Lesbian Menace (or, Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Fag?).” Signs 21 (4): 830–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walters, Suzanna. 2001. All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Weston, Kath. 1991. Families We Choose. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  65. What to Expect When You’re Expecting. 2012. Directed by Kirk Jones. Written by Shauna Cross, Heather Hach, Heidi Murkoff. Film. Santa Monica, CA: Lionsgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lulu Le Vay
    • 1
  1. 1.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations