Dissertation by Lital Pascar
This dissertation spotlights key moments in which new forms of couple-based non-monogamous relati... more This dissertation spotlights key moments in which new forms of couple-based non-monogamous relationships (CBNM) have gained heightened public attention in American culture. Examining three case studies, I explore how, between 1870 and 2019, proponents of CBNM attempted to carve out discursive spaces for these relationships, working against a public opinion which framed non-monogamy as immoral, primitive, racialized, and misogynist. Analyzing these proponents’ rhetorical work to justify and explain CBNM, I hypothesized that across eras, these discourses were bound up with notions of the couple and its relationship to American society, as well as to race and gender.
I found that peaks in the public attention to CBNM paralleled moments of cultural anxiety over the white middle-class couple’s stability as a social institution. During these moments, speakers normalized non-monogamous relationalities by framing them as “experiments” in relationality and as having the potential to create stronger marriages. Since these relationships’ legitimacy was established through their potential to protect the couple, the ethics that governed them was connected to regulation and control- framed as protection against the destabilizing potential of sexual relations. I also found that over the span of these three moments, the locus of this control moved inward: starting at the state/community level, moving to the spousal level, and finally becoming internalized and self-regulated by the individual.
I further claim that in response to women’s increasing demand for equal rights and growing participation in public life, some CBNM discourses paid robust attention to women’s consent; a tendency I also connect to “common sense” assumptions that saw non-monogamy as harmful towards women. I additionally found that speakers for CBNM relied on consent, rationality, and strict rules of conduct to build a discursive separation between kinds of intimate relations; a hierarchical division between positive, progressive forms of non-monogamy and negative and regressive ones. This reliance, I claim, was established on racialized assumptions, as speakers for CBNM consistently constructed racialized non-monogamies as the foil to “newer” more “progressive” forms, inadvertently shoring up whiteness. This separation hinged on individuals’ ability to control and contain the dangerous/unruly effects of sexuality- to conduct relationships rationally and logically. Over time, then, speakers for CBNM consistently framed the ability to create and sustain rational, responsible, contained, and non-harmful CBNM relationships as available only to some individuals and not to others. The centering of consent in discussions on CBNM therefore constructed the “right” intimate relationship as one conducted by rational, calculated (white) individuals, while any other relationship was framed as less moral, ethical, or responsible.
Papers by Lital Pascar
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication
Historically, organizations and individuals have (un)consciously produced safe spaces out of vari... more Historically, organizations and individuals have (un)consciously produced safe spaces out of various backgrounds and in myriad ways. Specifically, queer safe spaces represent a significant construct within queer discourses and practices that articulate the need for physical, psychological, rhetoric, virtual, and imagined safety. In this context, safety means being protected from heteronormative and patriarchal violence that shapes the everyday lives and subjectivities of queer and LGBT+ individuals in public and private spaces. Whether these are offline, online, physical, or educational settings, queer safe spaces are defined as relational and deliberative spaces in which unsafety cannot be completely undone. Queer safe spaces then provide refuge for activism, social and personal transformation, facilitation thereof for productive spaces of dialogue, and identity construction. Even though the term “queer safe space” is commonly used, it remains undertheorized and no comprehensive un...
This book chapter expands the debate about same-sex marriage and normalization by looking at anot... more This book chapter expands the debate about same-sex marriage and normalization by looking at another relationship form: consensual non-monogamy. Communications scholar Lital Pascar analyzes contemporary media representations of non-monogamy, primarily in the U.S., to trace how they compare to representations of same-sex relationships during the same-sex marriage debate. Pascar discusses some of the negative stereotypes associated with non-monogamy in the U.S., and she shows how sympathetic media portrayals have attempted to distance consensual non-monogamy from those stereotypes. At the same time, some people within non-monogamous communities have criticized these “polynormative” representations because of their exclusions, much as queer thinkers criticized homonormativity. Pascar thus sees some similar dynamics around normativity in non-monogamous communities as were seen in same-sex marriage debates—but this time with the same-sex marriage debates themselves serving as both an inspiration and a cautionary tale.
This book chapter expands the debate about same-sex marriage and normalization by looking at anot... more This book chapter expands the debate about same-sex marriage and normalization by looking at another relationship form: consensual non-monogamy. Communications scholar Lital Pascar analyzes contemporary media representations of non-monogamy, primarily in the U.S., to trace how they compare to representations of same-sex relationships during the same-sex marriage debate. Pascar discusses some of the negative stereotypes associated with non-monogamy in the U.S., and she shows how sympathetic media portrayals have attempted to distance consensual non-monogamy from those stereotypes. At the same time, some people within non-monogamous communities have criticized these “polynormative” representations because of their exclusions, much as queer thinkers criticized homonormativity. Pascar thus sees some similar dynamics around normativity in non-monogamous communities as were seen in same-sex marriage debates—but this time with the same-sex marriage debates themselves serving as both an inspiration and a cautionary tale.
Queering Safety? An Introduction Concepts and ideas about the construction of safe(r) spaces have... more Queering Safety? An Introduction Concepts and ideas about the construction of safe(r) spaces have been around for decades; the labor of creating social space as a safe space within queer communities is a task of great importance (Hanhardt 2013). This special issue of borderlands offers an interdisciplinary investigation of the ongoing discussion on queer safe spaces, seeing them as a contemporary and radical understanding and practice. The idea for this special issue developed as a result of the III Geographies of Sexualities Conference in Rome, in which we held a triple session on queer safe spaces in the summer of 2015. These sessions enabled an academic discussion on the topic, highlighting and starting to fill in the gaps in theorization and the numerous dilemmas it raises—both in academic and activist arenas. This special issue presents a collection of papers that aim to improve our understanding of the construction of safety within queer spaces, discourses, and realms, and the challenges such spaces face. This introduction presents a general theoretical framework of queer safe spaces, focusing on two dimensions: first, the logics that are produced through discourses of queer safe space and second, the practices that produce spaces as safe. Logics In order to give the reader a general introduction into our discussion of queer safe spaces, we would like to first discuss one of the ways in which the rhetoric, constructions, and expectations connected to queer safe spaces might result in unsafe spaces. In other words, we will examine one of the ways in which, paradoxically, the logics of queer safe spaces work to undo or restrict the sense of safety within queer
This paper critically engages with the concept of queer safe spaces in the borderland urban setti... more This paper critically engages with the concept of queer safe spaces in the borderland urban setting of West-Jerusalem. Based on an analysis of the case study of safety within the Israeli queer community, we argue that queer safe spaces offer a specific formation of space and suggest that hegemonic discourses (re)produce power structures into critical arenas, resulting in unsafety for queer individuals. This analysis is grounded in ethnographic accounts of the authors' participation in the Israeli queer community. The discourse of safety, which is central to Israeli culture, and its effect on local queer discourse, are applied here to inform a discussion of personal experiences of queer safe space. Israel, as a place of unsafety, and West-Jerusalem as a borderland space, are used to examine the construction of queer safe space as an embodiment of the unsafety, non-belonging and alienation in West-Jerusalem more generally.
Conference Presentations by Lital Pascar
Traditionally, non- monogamy is constructed in the US as non-white. However, polyamory is current... more Traditionally, non- monogamy is constructed in the US as non-white. However, polyamory is currently constructed as a “white” practice. I engage with this contradiction, tracing how polyamory is simultaneously but differentially constructed as both white and non- white. Based on archival research and contemporary popular media, I suggest that the conceptualization of polyamory as white raises the possibility that 20th century forms of consensual non monogamy were created in an act of racialized boundary making with other, abjected forms of non- monogamy.
The paper examines the rhetoric of polyamorous discourse, as demonstrated in popular self- help b... more The paper examines the rhetoric of polyamorous discourse, as demonstrated in popular self- help books about consensual non monogamies. I show that while polyamory constructs itself as mainstream’s other, it in fact engages in neo liberal discourse. The books’ relationship advices and the border work done in relation to monogamy and to other forms of non- monogamy uses a rhetoric of individualism, personal growth and freedom, practices normalization politics and reflects certain mainstream values.
A few years ago, as I started to identify as a lesbian, I started searching for every lesbian tex... more A few years ago, as I started to identify as a lesbian, I started searching for every lesbian text I could lay my hands on: books, movies, magazines and online content. As I remember, it always seemed to me like these texts were few, rare, and often hard to get. One of those days, I complained to a new lesbian acquaintant that I couldn't find a certain well-known lesbian book I was interested in reading. The next time I met her, she was holding a pile of lesbian books; as she handed them over to me, she said: "you should take them; I don't have anything else to do with them". As she walked away, I remained standing for a minute, holding my new books and wondering how my friend could have given up this precious, rare literary treasure.
Organizing events by Lital Pascar
The first part of the event is a critical examination of the concept of safe space that would be ... more The first part of the event is a critical examination of the concept of safe space that would be presented by Lital Pascar. The second part is an open discussion if this concept of safe space is useful in the contexts of disability and if so, then how its meanings may changed and transformed.
edited volumes by Lital Pascar
Borderlands - queer safe spaces special issue, 2018
Queering Safety? An Introduction Concepts and ideas about the construction of safe(r) spaces have... more Queering Safety? An Introduction Concepts and ideas about the construction of safe(r) spaces have been around for decades; the labor of creating social space as a safe space within queer communities is a task of great importance (Hanhardt 2013). This special issue of borderlands offers an interdisciplinary investigation of the ongoing discussion on queer safe spaces, seeing them as a contemporary and radical understanding and practice. The idea for this special issue developed as a result of the III Geographies of Sexualities Conference in Rome, in which we held a triple session on queer safe spaces in the summer of 2015. These sessions enabled an academic discussion on the topic, highlighting and starting to fill in the gaps in theorization and the numerous dilemmas it raises—both in academic and activist arenas. This special issue presents a collection of papers that aim to improve our understanding of the construction of safety within queer spaces, discourses, and realms, and the challenges such spaces face. This introduction presents a general theoretical framework of queer safe spaces, focusing on two dimensions: first, the logics that are produced through discourses of queer safe space and second, the practices that produce spaces as safe. Logics In order to give the reader a general introduction into our discussion of queer safe spaces, we would like to first discuss one of the ways in which the rhetoric, constructions, and expectations connected to queer safe spaces might result in unsafe spaces. In other words, we will examine one of the ways in which, paradoxically, the logics of queer safe spaces work to undo or restrict the sense of safety within queer
Uploads
Dissertation by Lital Pascar
I found that peaks in the public attention to CBNM paralleled moments of cultural anxiety over the white middle-class couple’s stability as a social institution. During these moments, speakers normalized non-monogamous relationalities by framing them as “experiments” in relationality and as having the potential to create stronger marriages. Since these relationships’ legitimacy was established through their potential to protect the couple, the ethics that governed them was connected to regulation and control- framed as protection against the destabilizing potential of sexual relations. I also found that over the span of these three moments, the locus of this control moved inward: starting at the state/community level, moving to the spousal level, and finally becoming internalized and self-regulated by the individual.
I further claim that in response to women’s increasing demand for equal rights and growing participation in public life, some CBNM discourses paid robust attention to women’s consent; a tendency I also connect to “common sense” assumptions that saw non-monogamy as harmful towards women. I additionally found that speakers for CBNM relied on consent, rationality, and strict rules of conduct to build a discursive separation between kinds of intimate relations; a hierarchical division between positive, progressive forms of non-monogamy and negative and regressive ones. This reliance, I claim, was established on racialized assumptions, as speakers for CBNM consistently constructed racialized non-monogamies as the foil to “newer” more “progressive” forms, inadvertently shoring up whiteness. This separation hinged on individuals’ ability to control and contain the dangerous/unruly effects of sexuality- to conduct relationships rationally and logically. Over time, then, speakers for CBNM consistently framed the ability to create and sustain rational, responsible, contained, and non-harmful CBNM relationships as available only to some individuals and not to others. The centering of consent in discussions on CBNM therefore constructed the “right” intimate relationship as one conducted by rational, calculated (white) individuals, while any other relationship was framed as less moral, ethical, or responsible.
Papers by Lital Pascar
Conference Presentations by Lital Pascar
Organizing events by Lital Pascar
edited volumes by Lital Pascar
I found that peaks in the public attention to CBNM paralleled moments of cultural anxiety over the white middle-class couple’s stability as a social institution. During these moments, speakers normalized non-monogamous relationalities by framing them as “experiments” in relationality and as having the potential to create stronger marriages. Since these relationships’ legitimacy was established through their potential to protect the couple, the ethics that governed them was connected to regulation and control- framed as protection against the destabilizing potential of sexual relations. I also found that over the span of these three moments, the locus of this control moved inward: starting at the state/community level, moving to the spousal level, and finally becoming internalized and self-regulated by the individual.
I further claim that in response to women’s increasing demand for equal rights and growing participation in public life, some CBNM discourses paid robust attention to women’s consent; a tendency I also connect to “common sense” assumptions that saw non-monogamy as harmful towards women. I additionally found that speakers for CBNM relied on consent, rationality, and strict rules of conduct to build a discursive separation between kinds of intimate relations; a hierarchical division between positive, progressive forms of non-monogamy and negative and regressive ones. This reliance, I claim, was established on racialized assumptions, as speakers for CBNM consistently constructed racialized non-monogamies as the foil to “newer” more “progressive” forms, inadvertently shoring up whiteness. This separation hinged on individuals’ ability to control and contain the dangerous/unruly effects of sexuality- to conduct relationships rationally and logically. Over time, then, speakers for CBNM consistently framed the ability to create and sustain rational, responsible, contained, and non-harmful CBNM relationships as available only to some individuals and not to others. The centering of consent in discussions on CBNM therefore constructed the “right” intimate relationship as one conducted by rational, calculated (white) individuals, while any other relationship was framed as less moral, ethical, or responsible.