Is bisexuality invisible?

A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015

Surya Monro, Sally Hines, Antony Osborne

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article provides a review of sexualities scholarship within the social sciences between 1970 and 2015. It takes an innovative approach by focusing on the way in which bisexuality is addressed in this body of literature. The article reveals the marginalisation, under-representation and invisibility of bisexuality within and across the social sciences in relation to both bisexual experience and identity. Reasons for this varied across the different eras, including the heterosexist nature of the literature, the impact of gay and lesbian-focused identity politics, and queer deconstructionism. In addition, patterns of bisexual erasure and invisibility were uneven, with some scholarship taking inclusive approaches or criticising prejudice against bisexuality. The initial findings of the review were enriched by critical commentary from key relevant sociologists and political scientists. The article concludes that future sexualities scholarship could be enhanced by greater consideration of bisexuality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)663-681
Number of pages19
JournalSociological Review
Volume65
Issue number4
Early online date1 Feb 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

bisexuality
sexuality
social science
political scientist
prejudice
sociologist
politics
experience

Cite this

Monro, Surya ; Hines, Sally ; Osborne, Antony. / Is bisexuality invisible? A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015. In: Sociological Review. 2017 ; Vol. 65, No. 4. pp. 663-681.
@article{961cedc35b2343859d8e8102c925812a,
title = "Is bisexuality invisible?: A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015",
abstract = "This article provides a review of sexualities scholarship within the social sciences between 1970 and 2015. It takes an innovative approach by focusing on the way in which bisexuality is addressed in this body of literature. The article reveals the marginalisation, under-representation and invisibility of bisexuality within and across the social sciences in relation to both bisexual experience and identity. Reasons for this varied across the different eras, including the heterosexist nature of the literature, the impact of gay and lesbian-focused identity politics, and queer deconstructionism. In addition, patterns of bisexual erasure and invisibility were uneven, with some scholarship taking inclusive approaches or criticising prejudice against bisexuality. The initial findings of the review were enriched by critical commentary from key relevant sociologists and political scientists. The article concludes that future sexualities scholarship could be enhanced by greater consideration of bisexuality.",
keywords = "biphobia, bisexuality, gay, lesbian, political science, queer, sexuality, sociology",
author = "Surya Monro and Sally Hines and Antony Osborne",
note = "No full text or accepted date on ePrints. SH. Full text added to eprints 02/01/18",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0038026117695488",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "663--681",
journal = "Sociological Review",
issn = "0038-0261",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Is bisexuality invisible? A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015. / Monro, Surya; Hines, Sally; Osborne, Antony.

In: Sociological Review, Vol. 65, No. 4, 01.11.2017, p. 663-681.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is bisexuality invisible?

T2 - A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015

AU - Monro, Surya

AU - Hines, Sally

AU - Osborne, Antony

N1 - No full text or accepted date on ePrints. SH. Full text added to eprints 02/01/18

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - This article provides a review of sexualities scholarship within the social sciences between 1970 and 2015. It takes an innovative approach by focusing on the way in which bisexuality is addressed in this body of literature. The article reveals the marginalisation, under-representation and invisibility of bisexuality within and across the social sciences in relation to both bisexual experience and identity. Reasons for this varied across the different eras, including the heterosexist nature of the literature, the impact of gay and lesbian-focused identity politics, and queer deconstructionism. In addition, patterns of bisexual erasure and invisibility were uneven, with some scholarship taking inclusive approaches or criticising prejudice against bisexuality. The initial findings of the review were enriched by critical commentary from key relevant sociologists and political scientists. The article concludes that future sexualities scholarship could be enhanced by greater consideration of bisexuality.

AB - This article provides a review of sexualities scholarship within the social sciences between 1970 and 2015. It takes an innovative approach by focusing on the way in which bisexuality is addressed in this body of literature. The article reveals the marginalisation, under-representation and invisibility of bisexuality within and across the social sciences in relation to both bisexual experience and identity. Reasons for this varied across the different eras, including the heterosexist nature of the literature, the impact of gay and lesbian-focused identity politics, and queer deconstructionism. In addition, patterns of bisexual erasure and invisibility were uneven, with some scholarship taking inclusive approaches or criticising prejudice against bisexuality. The initial findings of the review were enriched by critical commentary from key relevant sociologists and political scientists. The article concludes that future sexualities scholarship could be enhanced by greater consideration of bisexuality.

KW - biphobia

KW - bisexuality

KW - gay

KW - lesbian

KW - political science

KW - queer

KW - sexuality

KW - sociology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029549699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0038026117695488

DO - 10.1177/0038026117695488

M3 - Review article

VL - 65

SP - 663

EP - 681

JO - Sociological Review

JF - Sociological Review

SN - 0038-0261

IS - 4

ER -