From Chess to Queergaming: ‘Play’ing with and disrupting heteronormative assumptions in the performance of gender and sexual orientation

ABSTRACT

The conceptual framework presented in this paper draws on metaphors of ‘Game’ and ‘Play’ to illustrate how tacit and invisible heteronormative assumptions and gendered power dynamics pervade organizations. In this way, it illuminates how such assumptions and restrictions impact and marginalize LGBTQ* people that do not conform to heteronormativity. Using metaphors of Chess and MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), the paper explores limits of prescriptive dualistic understandings of gender and sexual orientation, specifically from the perspective of lesbian women, as basis for disruption and to start opening space for LGBTQ* difference through queergaming.

We argue that the concepts presented are a useful vehicle to increase inclusivity within HRD research and examine its practices more critically. In doing so, the paper seeks to answer calls from within the field of critical human resource development (critical HRD) to diversify HRD scholarship by expanding and challenging prevalent notions of heteronormativity.

KEYWORDS:

• LGBTQ*
• diversity
• queer game studies
• gender performativity
• critical HRD

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Heteronormativity defined as ascribing ‘heterosexuality a normative and privileged status by reinforcing a heterosexual/homosexual binary’ (Rumens 2010, 957). This heteronormativity in the following is understood as: ‘The practices and institutions that legitimatize and privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as fundamental and “natural” within society’ (Gusmano 2010, 33).

2. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer identities that are not heterosexual and/or cisgender (people whose gender identity aligns with the binary sex that they were assigned at birth). The asterisk used draws on Halberstam (2018, 4) in the intent to ‘open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance’, that is to include non-normative identities beyond binarized labels such as homosexual/heterosexual, woman/man, female/masculine.

3. Emphasis by Williams, Giuffre, and Dellinger (2009) which does not include any identities outside of binary conceptions.

4. This terminology may imply the possibility to look at the Game board through a race lens. However, this particular paper focuses on sexual orientation and gender, though we recognize potential for the use of this metaphor as well as the need to problematize organizational experiences of lesbians beyond sexual orientation and in relation to other queer and diverse experiences such as, for example, race.

5. It is important to recognize that in our metaphor the pieces (despite semantics) carry no gender, rather the value to the overall game and the capacity of movement within a set of pieces resembles gendered power dynamics.

6. It is worthwhile here to note that the term ‘force’ carries a somewhat masculine connotation of power. As such it is deemed rather pertinent as it supports the argument of pervasive masculinist values that illustrate privilege and dominance of ‘One’ over ‘Other’.

7. Considering that these genital attachments can be purchased suggests how neoliberal and capitalist systems have been applied by users and infiltrated the free form of ‘Play’.

8. Note how the papers do not extend beyond binary thinking to include queer(er) identities.