The history of anthropology and sex studies has also been largely dependent on other disciplines and ideas. Because anthropology has failed to devise its own theory of homosexuality, much of the literature produced contains traces of ethnocentrism (Davis and Whitten, 1987). Moreover, the study of female homosexuality in anthropology was virtually non-existent until the 1980s and 90s. One of the pioneers in homosexual studies in anthropology, Evelyn Blackwood, undertook research on homosexual behavior cross-culturally from the early eighties until the present. Some of her works include: The many faces of homosexuality: anthropological approaches to homosexual behavior (Blackwood, 1986) and Female desires: same-sex relations and transgender practices across cultures (Blackwood, 1999). Through her efforts (and others), the importance of gay/lesbian studies in Latin America surfaced.

Academic Source Analysis

Research on homosexuality appeared in several forms including specific and multidisciplinary journals, ethnographic books, and edited volumes. Unfortunately, only five major anthropological journals (in my search) published information on homosexuality. Those journals include Annual Review of Anthropology (1987, 1993, 2000), American Ethnologist (1997), Anthropology Quarterly (1998), Anthropological Linguistics (1980), and Anthropology Today (1997). Murray explains that,

more recent generations of anthropologists - including openly gay and lesbian anthropologists - have been even more reluctant to research homosexualities ... nothing about 'modern gay' (egalitarian) homosexuality appeared in anthropology journals before the mid-1990s, and nothing about its globalization has appeared to date in them (1997, p. 2).

A significant number of relevant sources (7) appeared in the interdisciplinary journal, Latin American Perspectives (LAP). Florence E. Babb, a participating editor of this journal, praises LAP for its commitment to women's issues and more recently to "interdisciplinary research and writing that considers the interconnections of globalized economies, cultural conservatism, and struggles for sexual democracy and self-expression" (Babb, 1987, p. 29). Other relevant theoretical transformations within the journal occurred in the special issues on "Women in Latin America" in 1995 (Issue 85) and 1996 (Issue 88). Some of those new topics include economic restructuring, neoliberal policy, democratization and citizenship, interrelationship of gender, race, and class, personal-like issues, cultural-identity-based struggles, and multiple feminisms (Babb, 1987, pp. 28-29). Babb notes that though LAP is not the forerunner among Latin American Studies journals on gender and sexuality, the journal is a prominent force on sexuality in the late twentieth century.

Other journals that provided information on anthropology and homosexuality include gay/lesbian journals, symposium publications, and sociological journals. Three significant gay/lesbian journals include the Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of Lesbians and Gay Studies, and Journal of Gay-and-Lesbian Social-Services. Two of these three provide information on Puerto Rico (gay and lesbian) and the other on ethnographic entanglements. Other applicable journals include Social Problems, Sexual Cultures and Migration in the Era of AIDS: Anthropological and Demographic Perspectives, and the Economist.

The bulk of material emerges from ethnographic books (12) and volumes (5) edited by anthropologists. Men still outnumber women in sex ratios for both that of the researcher and of the subject. Among these anthropologists and/or researchers on sexuality, fourteen are women and 21 are men. From this source analysis several fundamental questions for the discipline of anthropology arise. Why the lack of published research on sexuality (specifically homosexuality) in major anthropological journals? Why are more men than women researchers and subjects of research in anthropological studies on sexuality? What ethical dilemmas and fears do anthropologists face when conducting fieldwork on homosexuality? Indeed, several gay/lesbian anthropologists explore possible answers and rationales for these respective questions.

Gay and Lesbian Anthropologists
and Ethical Dilemmas

On the whole, minorities frequently study minorities in most disciplines. Anthropology is no exception. Homosexual anthropologists produce most of the small amount of research done on homosexuality. However, both homosexual and heterosexual anthropologists face dilemmas when conducting research in this field. Anthropologists fear discrimination and/or academic non-acceptance from the disclosure of one's sexuality or from guilt by association. For instance, Leap (1998) notes that lesbian/gay studies is still sparse either because anthropologists do not like to be mistaken as gay or else real gays in the field do not want to risk disclosure. In relation to discrimination among gay anthropologists, Murray states that,

Since the 1970s, gay North American anthropologists have undertaken long-run ethnography on Latin American men who have sex with other men. None has been able to get a job in a North American anthropology department. Neither lesbians nor other female anthropologist have undertaken comparable research (1997, p. 2).

In the same light, Johnson (2000) writes of homophobic and heterosexual imperatives of funding agencies for anthropological work on homosexuality.

Lewin and Leap in, Out in the Field: Reflections of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists (1996), provide excellent examples, documentation, and valuable personal perspectives on gay participation and ethics within anthropology. They chronicle the history of lesbian- and gay-identified anthropologists in relation to the American Anthropological Association (AAA), from a 1970 resolution supporting gay and lesbian rights and the study of gay and lesbian topics to the founding of the Anthropological Research Group on Homosexuality in 1974, and its replacement by 'Lesbian/Gay and Identity and Fieldwork' at the 1990 AAA meetings (Johnson, 2000). Lewin and Leap illustrate the importance of political contexts, stigmatized identities, and equal rights and opportunities within the discipline for gay/lesbian anthropologists.

Gay/lesbian anthropologists also face fundamentally different aspects of the fieldwork experience in comparison to heterosexuals. Rite of passage fieldwork and identity management are two pertinent examples. In fact, Lewin and Leap describe "Out in the Field as part of the 'continuing experience of coming out' where 'the field' signifies both anthropological fieldwork and the discipline of anthropology" (Johnson, 2000). In many ways, the gay/lesbian anthropologist is linked to his/her subjects through sexuality. Some contend that she or he has the advantage of insider status among potentially marginalized groups to render a more truthful account based on intimate knowledge (Johnson, 2000). Likewise, Roscoe writes that gay and lesbian anthropologists are well placed to develop these models not only because they are boundary crossers par excellence, but also because they themselves have often been subjected to the invasive gaze and exoticized representation of 'science' (Johnson, 2000).