Male Heterosexuality in Discourse Critique - Essay Example

? Playing the Straight Man: Displaying and Maintaining Male Heterosexuality in Dis by S. F. Kiesling. In his article Playing the Straight Man: Displaying and Maintaining Male Heterosexuality and Maintaining Male Heterosexuality in Discourse, Kielsling (2006) offers some insight into heterosexual discourse. Kiesling (2006) targets a specific group of men and uncovers how these men “define, police, and display heterosexual relationships” among the group (p. 118). Kiesling (2006) also explores how these factors contribute toward the creation and exhibition of inter-male relations (p. 118). What emerges are relationships characterized by “homoscoial desire and dominance” and “power and dominance over women, gay men, and other straight men” (Kiesling 2006, p. 118). Hirammoto (2010) states that Kiesling’s work is demonstrative of the constructs that reproduce the dominance of heterosexual male models not only outside of a specific group but how they are used to “claim power in a same-sex social group” (236). Hirammoto (2010) also states that Kiesling’s work is reflective of the findings in the literature relative to theories about heterosexual masculinity. Kiesling informs that the way that men display their heterosexuality is deeply connected to communal practices that segregates heterosexuality and other sexual orientations. This assertion finds currency with McEhinny (2004) who argues that theories about relations among heterosexuals typically err when they take position that gender is an attribute and ignore the fact that it is likewise a practice (150). For McEhinny (2004) Kiesling’s study lends greater weight to heterosexual studies in that it emphasizes heterosexual practices as evidenced by language and speech patterns. To this end, Kiesling (2006) takes the position that heterosexual practices together with “rituals of speech events” and communal activities contribute toward establishing homosocial and heterosexual identity (p. 118). Keisling (2006) demonstrates this assertion by reference to the Greek alphabet and the concept of Greek sororities and fraternities. As Kiesling (2006) informs: The ‘greek’ letter society system is arranged through an ideology of sexual difference, such that fraternities are all-male, sororities are all-female (p. 118). Even events arranged by the Greek society are predicated on the sexual differences and power differences that emerge as a result. For instance mixers and open parties are designed to distinguish between males and females and emphasize the significance of “heterosexual desire” and “sex and alcohol” (Kiesling 2006, p. 119). Kiesling (2006) demonstrates the point by providing an excerpt of a dialogue from a male participant at one of these parties. The excerpt reveals a rather high regard for heterosexual sexual activities. As Kiesling (2006) reports: This high evaluation of heterosexual activity creates a social context in which heterorsexual sex is glorified as an end in itself, thus creating an ideology of heterosexual desire as an important social goal (p. 119). In the dialogue excerpt sexual activities such as “hook-up” were identified (Kiesling 2006, p. 119). Kielsing (2006) explores these speech activities further by seeking clarification by conducting an interview with another member the male group. During the course of this interview, Kiesling was able to identify a number of heterosexual driven speech activities such as, “throwin’ raps”, “scamming” , “a drunk thing and a do your commitment thing”(p. 121). The last two speech activities demonstrate how men categorize the difference between their heterosexual desires in terms of instant or long-term sexual gratification. The “drunk thing” is not only for instant sexual gratification but is also a male bonding affair in which these men express their “sexual prowess” (Keisling 2006, p. 121). The long-term sexual gratification desires are treated differently among the members of the fraternity. It demonstrates that that the male involved not only likes the female but rather enjoys her “companionship whether or not sex is involved” (Kiesling 2006, p. 121). Keisling (2006) further explains that males who were involved in long-term relationships with women were actually the subject of ridicule by other male members. The bone of contention was that these males sacrificed their time with other male members by “spending too much time with their girlfriends” (Kiesling 2006, p. 121). Kiesling (2006) conducts additional interviews with the aim of demonstrating how language, sexual identity and speech patterns and corresponding displays of sexuality not only create but also formulate a model for heterosexuality. The additional interviews were designed to illustrate the extent to which heterosexuality dictates homosociability. In this regard, a rather similar trend continues to manifest itself. Within the male fraternity there is a reluctance to place too much value on monogamy (Kiesling 2006, p. 124). The suggestion is therefore that male heterosexual desire is a greater display of masculinity if males have multiple female partners. In this regard, females are largely viewed as instruments of male sexual satisfaction rather than substantial partners for their male counterparts. According Kiesling (2006) terms of references used by males within a specific fraternity of heterosexuals demonstrate not only “power and solidarity” is indexed, but also the extent to which: Specific cultural models which are part of speakers’ knowledge, and which interact with context to create local relationships between speakers (p. 125). Speakers typically adhere to the same “cultural models and scripts” in which terms of address are commonly accepted (Kiesling 2006, p. 125). For instance, when a man is regarded as “subordinate” he is referred to by reference to a feminine term. This is more clearly demonstrated within the fraternity pledge system in which males pledging to become members of the fraternity are typically given names designed to humiliate them and to highlight their insubordinate positions. In one example, Kiesling (2006) informs that one pledgee was named Hazel and relegated to domestic duties (p. 126). All indications are that this episode symbolizes the male heterosexual’s view that women are subordinate to men and are best suited to household duties. Even more astonishing, this male heterosexual perception of women also indicates that for a man to be viewed as exhibiting any of these ascribed female attributes, is degrading and humiliating for the male in question. Drawing on an excerpt of a conversation between two fraternal brothers, Kiesling is also able to demonstrate how female terms are used by one male to insult or degrade another male. In this excerpt, the word “bitch” is used by one male to refer to another male in a disagreement over an issue calling for a vote (Kiesling 2006, p. 126). The word bitch calls attention to the “social ideology of female as subordinate” (Kiesling 2006, p. 127). Taking the insult a bit farther, the term “bitch boy” is used to describe a seemingly homosexual male (Kiesling 2006, p. 128). However, beneath the surface the term has deeper meaning in that it recreates the normative value of male dominance and female subordination and the sexual role of women from the heterosexual male perspective. Clearly, the use of the term boy in the phrase “bitch boy” has some significance. It identifies a dual role of the male addressed, and thus is an attack on the male by reference to the male heterosexual model. However, the term boy also indicates that the male is not dominant enough to be referred to as a man. He is suppressed by the heterosexual male hierarchal constructs. In other words, the bitch boy is the younger male and not yet fit for power and dominance. There is also a subtle reference to a more powerful and more dominant male. For example if a male is termed a bitch boy, he must be subordinate to a more powerful and dominant male (Kiesling 2006, p. 128). In a similar study among heterosexuals in Chile, Balder (2005) draws on Kiesling’s assertions and concludes that comments made by heterosexuals relative to sexuality and gender are calculated to render subordinate, those who do not comport to established and perpetuated norms. Balder takes her conclusions a bet farther than Kiesling, and concludes that dialogue among heterosexuals is a strong influential factor in passing heterosexual norms on to future generations. Bibliography Balder, S. (2005) “Marginalization of Alternative Gender and Sexual Identities: The Role of Normative Discursive Practices in Chilean Society.” Research in Linguistics, 18(1): 1-11. Hiramoto, M. (2010) “Anime and Intertextualities: Hegemonic Identities in Cowboy Bebop.” Pragmatics and Society, 1(2): 234-256. Kiesling, Scott, F. 2006. “Playing the Straight Man: Displaying and Maintaining Male Heterosexuality in Discourse”. Cited in Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (Eds) The Language and Sexuality Reader. New York, NY: Routledge, Ch. 10. McElhinny, B. (2004) “Language and Gender”. Cited in Ember, C. R. and Ember. M. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. New York, NY: Springer Publications. Read More