Another long reply

John-

I didn't mean to come across so pedantic in my response or in class. 3 hours of sleep sometimes has that effect on me. My gripe is with the fact that many in the community often overlook the other side of the term "jazz scholar". In class, mostly everyone was emphasizing the fact that Sherrie Tucker is not a jazz player/historian/etc. Understood. However, the other part of that term (jazz SCHOLAR) is equally important in my opinion. To simply be associated with jazz from a playing/composing/historian/etc. perspective does not give one the upper-hand in a discussion such as "jazz and sexuality." John Murph's description of Tucker's article in his JazzTimes article is a very inaccurate representation of her work. It seems to me that he is academically irresponsible in his statements. I have a particular pet peeve about writers who have an agenda who distort the message of someone else's work in order to get their own point across. It appeared to me that John Murph was guilty of doing just that.

In reading the passage from Tucker that you cite, I don't really see her statement as indicating what you are suggesting (that she's looking for a barometer by which to assess and label aspects jazz culture as 'queer' or 'straight'). This statement by Tucker, to be sure, is a convoluted one. What exactly is "intersectional analysis"? I looked it up, and that idea in itself is a whole post (or a book!). Intersectional analysis (also called intersectionality), pretty much, is the recognition that oppression against different genders, races, classes, etc. "interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality" (wikipedia!).

So with that understood, now I think I get her 3 clauses:

1- "to analyze heterosexual norms as social constructions" MEANING, being 'straight' isn't inherent in the human condition. Same-sex relations have always been present but weren't always shunned.

2. "to understand intersectional analysis as a network of actively changing and contingent categories" MEANING the multiple causes for oppression (in this case, against homosexuals) are not consistent throughout history and evolve as social norms morph

3. "to attend to dynamics of 'queering' and 'straightening' in historically and culturally specific moments." MEANING to recognize those times where the lines between what is 'straight' and what is 'queer' are transformed (NOTE: straight and queer here do NOT simply refer to homo- and heterosexual behaviors).

I think one major reason why it's so easy to misread Tucker is because she plays with the language freely. Heterosexuality and straightness are not synonymous throughout the article. The meanings of various terms morph in relation to the material she's discussing. QUEER does not mean the same thing in every instance. When she speak about "white queer 'slumming'," she doesn't mean gay whites going into Harlem. She's referring to the segment of white society that goes into Harlem as a whole as being the queer element.

More than anything, I feel Tucker is trying to get the reader to contemplate queerness—i.e. non-normative behavior—as having a distinct presence in jazz in spite of the image of jazz as straight. She brings examples where a greater population than just homosexuals exhibit "queer" behavior (whites going into black neighborhoods, audiences enjoying the cross-dresser, etc.).

Tucker seems to suggest the need to do away with traditional lines in how we approach the past. She's not looking for a way to 'out' the secret gayness in jazz history. She's also not suggesting a "siding scale" to measure straightness and queerness (again, any time she refers to queering and straightening, I hesitate to believe she is solely speaking about homo- and heterosexuality!).

Hopefully the following quote will clarify Tucker's agenda:

Despite the “when” in its title, this paper will not provide a periodization of the sexual orientations of jazz—but will, instead, reflect on analytical orientations from recent queer theory that I find useful as directions for a range of jazz studies scholarship—and not only for jazz studies scholarship on out or “outed” queer artists. This paper will not out individuals. This paper will not provide a lavender list of queer jazz musicians, audience members, musical styles, or time periods. This paper will look at straightness as a theoretical tool for continuing to re-think the historical tangles of sexuality, race and gender in jazz studies. (Tucker, "When did Jazz go Straight?")