Ommunicating sexuality - Essay Example

?Essay Question: Outline the history of the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. What does this history tell us about the development of our society’s understanding of human sexuality in general? Why are these terms acceptable to some groups but not to others? Prior to the early part of the twentieth century sexuality was primarily a subject of study for population and biomedical studies. For the greater part of the nineteenth century sexuality appeared to be loosely connected to social and political studies. However, at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century and onward, social sciences turned increasing attention to human sexuality with the result that sexuality has morphed into a popular field of study for cultural and social studies alike. Ultimately, sexuality has emerged as a field of inquiry that helps to shed some light on the way in which the world is changing (Parker and Aggleton 2007, p.1). In this regard, an analysis of the historical developments of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality will provide some insight into society’s understanding of human sexuality in general. These developments inform that sexuality is intimately tied to gender identity and has thus informs of our understanding of human sexuality in general. These developments also reveal why specific human sexual identities are accepted by some and rejected by others. A. Heterosexuality Until 1985, the definition of heterosexuality inferred that to be a heterosexual was natural. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of 1970 defined heterosexual as “pertaining to or characterized by the normal relations of the sexes” (Sullivan 2003, p. 119). In its 1985 publication, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defined the term heterosexual as involving and relating to “or characterized by a sexual propensity for the opposite sex” (Sullivan, p. 119). All indications are that the roots of prejudice against bisexuals and homosexuals are tied to the presumption that heterosexuality by definition is normal. By implication, the definition of heterosexuality means that any sexual identity that is not heterosexual in nature is decidedly abnormal. Despite this modification of the definition of heterosexuality, Western society for the most part continues to adhere to the belief that heterosexuality is the “norm” with the result that “homosexual relations are stigmatized” (Caplan 1987, p. 2). Caplan explains: Nonconformity to the norms of heterosexuality threatens the dominant ideology’s view of sex as ‘innate’ and ‘natural’ (Caplan 1987, p. 2). Therefore both historically and culturally, we live in and are exposed to a heterosexually driven world which forms the basis of the popular understanding of human sexuality. Essentially, that understanding for the most part is that heterosexuality is the ideal sexual identity. The construction of this normative heterosexual world was tested by Kitzinger (2006, p. 169) who analysed a series of conversations harvested by conversation analysts over approximately twenty years. The result was that co-conversationalists took for granted that the world was predominantly heterosexual. Regardless of their own sexual preferences or sexual identity, the co-conversationalists reflected and reproduced “a profoundly heterosexual social order” (Kitzinger 2006, p. 169). It would therefore appear that even homosexuals and bisexuals have resolved that heterosexuality is the norm. As a dominant norm, heterosexuality is “ageless” (Katz 2007, p. 8). In other words, historically, heterosexuality marked the underpinnings of sexual identity. Essentially, the male dominated institutions previously functioned to align heterosexuality with masculinity. This heterosexual masculinity is hegemonic and functioned to perpetuate an ideology which not only defines, but also sets standards for the sexuality of both young women and men (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe and Thompson 1998, p. 13). This historical and cultural background accounts for the bias and prejudice directed toward non-heterosexual. Children are as such indoctrinated by male/heterosexual dominated institutions in such a way as to set standards informing that heterosexuality is the most appropriate sexual identity. Sociologists Andersen and Taylor (2007) argue that according to social construction theory, sexual identity occurs as a result of influences from diverse cultural norms and standards. For heterosexual identity, conforming to the dominant expectations of a culture will develop a propensity toward heterosexuality. As a result, individuals developing “heterosexual identities” will “have experiences and receive supports that reinforce heterosexuality” (Andersen and Taylor 2007, p. 343). In other words, social construction theory adheres to the belief that sexual identity is learned rather than inborn. Since the dominant culture has historically espoused the belief that the ideal family is made up of heterosexual partners, heterosexuality emerged as the norm. As a result, presumably, heterosexuality is the norm against which other forms of sexual identity are perceived (Okun 1998, p. 107). In other words, by taking the position that heterosexuality is natural, anyone who is not heterosexual is going against the norm. Some feminists refer to this method of developing heterosexual identity as “compulsory heterosexuality” as there is no real choice involved (Andersen and Taylor 2007, p. 343). In fact, some feminists take the position that dominant heterosexual societies use constructs that ensure that heterosexuality is the only recognized sexual identity and use methods for enforcing this ideology by the perpetuation of social standards, norms and sanctions. This may include pressure from peers, socialization, law and a variety of policies (Andersen and Taylor 2007, p. 343). Based on the dominant position that heterosexuality has always held in Western society, it is clear that persons in those societies, who choose or feel compelled to choose heterosexuality do so as a result of Western cultural influences. The same can be said of all non-Western societies where heterosexuality is the dominant culture. The fact is, regardless of the sexual revolution and movements toward accepting homosexuality and bisexuality, heterosexuality is popularly regarded as normal and natural and therefore acceptance of heterosexuality is not problematic. Heterosexuality is accepted without reservation. As will be demonstrated below, the same cannot be said of homosexuality and bisexualism. B. Homosexuality There is little or no ambiguity surrounding the definition of the term homosexuality. The commonly accepted definition is “same gender” sexual relations (DeYoung 2000, p. 193). In the 1965 edition of Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, homosexuality is defined as “sexual relations between individuals of the same sex” (DeYoung 2000, p. 193. In the 1971 edition of the same dictionary, the definition evolved to include “practice” and “activity” (DeYoung 2000, p. 193). Therefore, the meaning of the word homosexuality has not changed in substance. It continues to recognize sexual relations between same genders as homosexual. Our understanding of human sexuality is therefore informed by the fact that heterosexuality is natural and normal. By necessary implication, homosexuality which is quite different from attraction to the opposite sex, is not natural and not normal. This accounts for why some disparage homosexual identity. Conversely, those refusing to accept that heterosexuality is natural will be more accepting of homosexuality. According to Caplan (1987) the term homosexuality is a relatively new ideology. The term itself was only framed in 1869 and became a common term during the 1880s and 1890s. Caplan (1987, p. 5) cautions however, that the recent introduction of the word does not mean that homosexuality was not practiced prior to the introduction of the term. It was just that it had not previously constituted “an identity” . Livia and Hall (1997) maintain that the recognition of homosexuality only after it obtained a name is demonstrative of the power of linguistics. Essentially, since “same-sex genital relations” did not have a name somehow rendered the activity “meaningless” (Livia and Hall 1997, p. 10). For example, prior to the turn of the nineteenth century, if two women cohabited, it would automatically be presumed that they were merely friends. Obviously, linguistics denied these living arrangements any other description and basically limited the manner in which the two women’s living arrangements could be described. This is indicative of the taboo attached to homosexuality, particularly during the 19th century. However, by the turn of the nineteenth century, with the introduction of the term homosexuality, it was more likely that women subjected to those kinds of living arrangements would be perceived as lesbians (Caplan 1987, p. 5). Essentially what this means is that increasingly, society began to accept homosexuality. Having giving same sex unions a name, there was something liberating about it. It allowed for openness and honesty, paving the way for wider acceptance of homosexuality. This openness and honesty may explain why some would accept homosexuality. Even as homosexuality became a recognized form of sexual identity, researchers committed a lot of time and resources into attempting to determine what factors contributed to the development of homosexuality. All indications are therefore that, homosexuality was abnormal and thereby informing our understanding of homosexuality. For instance one study conducted in 1973 surveyed 84 female homosexuals and a corresponding group of 94 heterosexual women. Another survey was conducted with 127 male homosexuals and a corresponding group of heterosexuals. The purpose was to determine whether or not parent-child relations was a predictor for the development of homosexuality (Thompson, Schwartz and McCandless 1973, p. 120). Perceptions of homosexuality as an abnormal phenomenon were abundantly evident in studies conducted during the nineteenth century. These studies attempted to categorize homosexuality as a disease and to ascertain its causes. By the 1960s homosexual studies were objectifying the homosexual and investigating “every nook and cranny of lesbian and gay life”(Stein and Plummer 1994, p. 179). The attention to homosexual studies alone reveal how homosexual as a sexual identity is understood. Previous attitudes toward homosexuality are adequately reflected in a letter Sigmund Freud wrote to a mother in the US in 1951. The letter was in response to her embarrassment and despair over the fact that her son was displaying homosexual tendencies. Freud’s response to the letter not only reflected popular condemnation of homosexuality, but also how misguided those thoughts were. Freud’s comments might also be reflective of how attitudes toward homosexuality might change in the future. Freud wrote: ‘I gather, that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why you avoid it?’ (Abelove and Barale 1997, p. 381). Freud clearly recognized the stigma with which the American mother had attached to homosexuality. This was particularly manifested by her refusal to give her son’s condition a name. It was clearly a condition for the American mother as she consulted the world renown psychiatrist Freud. As Rothenberg (2006, p. 604) maintains, homosexuality is entirely taboo for the most part in American culture and the stigma is so deeply entrenched that “even discussion of homosexuality are taboo”. All indications are therefore that, not much has changed in the context of perceptions of homosexuality since 1951 when the American mother turned to Freud for assistance. Freud’s response goes further to explain why these perceptions of homosexuality are formed and why they are misguided. He writes to the distraught mother: ‘Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness, we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development’ (Abelove and Barale 1997, p. 381). Freud’s response therefore informs that homosexuality is primarily regarded as a disease and something to be ashamed of. This explains why homosexuality was and continues to be stigmatized. However, as Freud explains that homosexuality is not a vice, and it is not a disease and not something to be ashamed of, this kind of thinking may explain why others in society might be indifferent to homosexuality or might embrace it as a normal sexual identity. Freud reinforces the point that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of by telling the mother in his 1951 letter: ‘Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too….By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it’ (Abelove and Barale 1997, p. 381). In other words, contrary to popular belief, homosexuality is perfectly normal and does not alter the human psyche. Homosexual men have made valuable contributions to philosophy, politics and the arts. The demonization of homosexuality is entirely misguided and most likely a result of blind adherence to cultural norms and standards. The fact is post-modern times have turned increasing attention to the victimization of homosexuality. This turn around has transformed the derogatory term “queer” into a study known as queer theory which targets the constraints imposed on homosexuals as a result of stigmatization (Sullivan 2003, pp. 1-22). Historical developments indicate that the scrutiny of homosexuality has evolved over time. Previously, with the introduction of the term homosexuality studies focused on trying to understand what compels homosexuality. Eventually, scrutiny turned toward attempting to understand the difficulties that homosexuals confront in a primarily heterosexual world. It therefore follows that while cultural norms and standards continue to accept heterosexuality as the dominant culture, homosexual is beginning to lose most of its negative connotations as human rights and liberalization gains momentum in modern societies. As a result, increasingly, homosexuality is being accepted. III. Bisexuality James (1996, p. 218) defines bisexuality as: ‘The sexual or intensely emotional, although no necessarily concurrent or equal, attraction of an individual to members of more than one gender’. James intentionally inserts the word “emotional” in his definition of bisexualism to ensure that bisexuality goes beyond the physical condition known as hermaphroditism. The fact is, in modern times, bisexuality is a term of reference denoting an individual who engages in sexual activities or is sexually attracted to both genders. However, in ancient times, when sexual identity was dictated by express cultural norms, bisexuality referred to an individual with hermaphroditism, or with both female and male genitals (Brisson 2002, p. 1). Thus there was a distinction between bisexuality as a biological condition and an emotional condition. This distinction informs our understanding of bisexualism as sexual identity. While society is more inclined to accept biology since it is beyond human control, emotional bisexuality is less tolerable since it appears to be a matter of personal choice. Bisexuality has always been as problematic in terms of human acceptance as hermaphroditism since both tend to give way to confusion. Historically, and from a scientific perspective, bisexuality remains elusive. According to Angelides (2000, p. 46) “on the sexological chain of being”, the hierarchal constructs places the heterosexual male at the top of the chain representing “the human” and “culture itself”. Below the heterosexual male, sat the “lower and less-than-human forms of women, homosexuals and blacks” (Angelides 2000, p. 46). In other words, the bisexual and the individual with hermaphroditism had no place in the human chain. Perceptions of bisexuality continue to be characterized for the most part by confusion and lack of sexual identity. During the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, researchers could not agree on the predominant preferences of bisexuals. Some argued that bisexuals were primarily homosexual in nature and others argued that bisexuals were more attracted to their own genders (Angelides 2000, p. 46). Eventually, popular belief leaned toward the belief that bisexuals were merely confused and could not be prescribed sexual identity because they had not yet made a choice (Fox 2007, p. 56). Essentially, it is commonly believed that bisexuality is a transitory phase from which the individual will eventually emerge with a more concrete and affirmative sexual identity. Even so, bisexuals continue to remain alienated in the sense that they are not part of the heterosexual culture and are likewise not a part of the heterosexual culture, reject by both as belonging to the other (De Cecco and Shively 1984, p. 61). Also problematic for the bisexual is the issue of monogamy. Since the bisexual is attracted to both genders it is presumed that the bisexual cannot be satisfied by one partner (De Cecco and Shively 1984, p. 61). However, as society becomes more permissive, bisexuals as well as homosexuals are gaining acceptance. Even so, the dominant culture which is characterized by heterosexuality continues to influence perceptions of and standards for sexual identity. Bisexuals, although gaining in acceptance continue to remain marginalized by both heterosexual and homosexual norms. Conclusion Western societies have adhered to rigid and fixed ideas about sexual identity. While sexual revolutions and liberalization movements have contributed to greater tolerance and understanding of homosexuality and bisexuality, heterosexuality continues to remain the dominant culture. Homosexuals are no longer largely regarded as criminal or deviant or suffering from some mental malady. Even, so it is obvious, that Western society is not yet prepared to elevate homosexuality to the same status of acceptance as that of heterosexuality. While bisexualism is gaining acceptance, it continues to be shrouded in confusion. The most that can be said, is that in modern times, there is less discrimination and alienation of homosexuals and bisexuals. Total acceptance and tolerance remains elusive as we continue to adhere to conventions and traditions that inform our understanding of sexual identity. Bibliography Abelove, H. and Barale, M. 1997. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. London: Psychology Press. Andersen, M. and Taylor, H. 2007. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. New York: Thomson Wadsworth. Angelides, S. 2000. A History of Bisexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brisson, L. 2002. Sexual Ambivalence. California: University of California Press. Caplan, P. 1987. The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. London: Psychology Press. De Cecco, J. and Shively, M. 2000 Bisexual and Homosexual Identities: Critical Theoretical Issues. Psychology Press. DeYoung, J. 2000. Homosexuality. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic. Fox, R. 2007 Affirmative Psychotherapy with Bisexual Women and Bisexual Men. London: Psychology Press. Holland, J.; Ramazanoglu, C.; Sharpe, S. and Thompson, R. 1998 The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power. London: The Tufnell Press. James, C. 1996. Denying Complexity: The Dismissal and Appropriation of Bisexuality in Queer, Lesbian and Gay Theory. Cited in Beemyn, B. and Elianon, M. eds Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Anthology. New York: New York University Press. Katz, J. 2007 The Invention of Heterosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kitzinger, C. 2006. Speaking as a Heterosexual: How Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? cited in Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. Eds. The Language and Sexuality Reader. New York: Taylor and Francis. Livia, A. and Hall, K. 1997 Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Okun, B. (1998) Understanding Diverse Families: What Practitioners Need to Know. Guilford: Guilford Press. Parker, R. and Aggleton, P. 2007 Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader. London: UCL Press. Rothenberg, P. 2006. Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. London: MacMillan. Stein, A. and Plummer, K. July 1994 ‘I Can’t Even Think Straight’ ‘Queer’ Theory and the Missing Sexual Revolution in Sociology. Sociological Theory, 12(2), pp. 178-187. Sullivan, N. 2003. A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University Press. Thompson, N.; Schwartz, D. and McCandless, B. 1973. Parent-Child Relationships and Sexual Identity in Male and Female Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(1), pp. 120-127. Read More