Sexual Orientation and Inequality - Term Paper Example

?Sexual Orientation and Inequality By Historically, gender inequality has always been based on perceptions that men and women are different from one another (Okin, 1996). Sexual orientation presents challenges to the perceptions of gender identity and while it should challenge the perception that men and women are different, it only adds another threshold for scrutinizing gender identities and justifying gender discrimination (Standfort, 2005). This paper examines historical discourse on sexuality and gender identity how this history informs perceptions of sexual orientation and gender inequality. This paper traces the history and development of the conceptualization of gender roles and gender identity and how sexual orientation is dictated by those roles and identities. Therefore this paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper examines the history and development of heterosexuality as a social construction of gender roles, gender identity and sexual orientation. The second part of this paper examines the history and development of non-heterosexual identity and how traditional gender roles and identity influence how non-heterosexual identities are treated by the dominant heterosexually constructed society. Sexual Orientation and Inequality Introduction Gender inequality on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply rooted in social constructs that dictate gender identity and gender roles (Tomsen & Mason, 2001). Historically, sexuality was informed by a perception that heterosexuality is the norm and sexuality is understood by reference to heterosexual norms and standards (Kitzinger, 2006). In this regard, heterosexual norms typically link heterosexuality to nature and thus being heterosexual means being normal or being normal (Sullivan, 2003). Therefore homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality are judged by reference to the dominant heterosexual norm. This paper examines the definitions and historical developments informing sexual orientation and gender identity and identifies why sexual orientation forms the basis for gender inequality. It is argued that although, non-heterosexuals have made significant gains in terms of political, legal and social acceptance, preconceived notions of non-heterosexuality continues to be a basis of social marginalization. It would therefore appear, that marginalization on the grounds of sexual orientation may never be fully eliminated. It would appear that as long as cultural institutions formally alienate non-heterosexuals, it can be expected that social alienation of non-heterosexuals will be perpetuated. This research paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper examines the history and development of heterosexuality and what this means for conceptualizing non-heterosexual identities. The second part of this paper examines the history and development of the conceptualization non-heterosexuals and how this conceptualization has changed over time. Heterosexuality Up to the 1980s, heterosexuality was defined in dictionaries as natural sexual relations. It was only during the 1980s that dictionaries defined heterosexuality as sexual relations between persons of the “opposite sex” (Sullivan, 2003, p. 119). It therefore follows that historically heterosexuality was defined in a way that distinguishes non-heterosexuality as abnormal and thus formed the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Despite a revised dictionary definition of heterosexuality, attitudes toward heterosexuality as natural sexual relations remained unchanged for the most part. As Caplan (1987) observed, any indication that individuals did not conform to heterosexual norms was perceived as a threat to normative perceptions of sexuality and what should be normal. Although prejudice against non-heterosexuality has declined persistently since the 1990s, prejudice continues to remain prevalent throughout the US (Herek, 2000). In the US heterosexism and religious fundamentalism” together “have been prominent historical influences in fostering” negative perceptions and attitudes toward homosexuals, lesbian and bisexuals via a “belief in the moral superiority of institutions and practices” typically linked to “heterosexuality” (Smith, 2010, p. 156). In this regard, heterosexism is defined as: A systematic process of power and privilege by heterosexuals over homosexuals, based upon the notion of that heterosexuality is normal and ideal (Smith, 2010, p. 156). Heterosexism has also been defined as an “ideological system” constructed around the denial, denigration, and stigmatizing of “any non-heterosexual from of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Smith, 2010, p. 256). According to Herek (1995), despite political and social gains in the US, particularly since the 1990s, heterosexism continues to be present in culturally and individually. From a cultural perspective, heterosexism is similar to institutional heterosexism in that it is characterized by “racism” and “sexism” and is reflected in social customs, practices and policies (Herek, 1995, p. 322). The result is twofold: either homosexuals are driven underground, or subjected to prejudices and/or mistreatment if they are openly gay (Herek, 1995). Historically, heterosexuality has always been linked to the idea of masculinity in a male dominated world. The idea of masculinity not only defined but also established standards for normative sexuality for both genders (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharp, & Thompson, 1998). Social construction theory explains how these historical and cultural norms have survived despite legal, social and political gains on the part of non-heterosexuals. According to social construction theory, sexual identify is influenced by cultural norms and the underlying standards (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Heterosexual identities are more commonly supported and reinforced than non-heterosexual identities (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Feminists have argued that historically, heterosexual identity has for the most part been virtually mandatory. The social contexts in which heterosexuality is the dominant norm is preceded by a rich past and enduring future in which heterosexuality is presented as the only acceptable sexual orientation and social and legal norms and practices enforce and perpetuate this perception (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). It is these kinds of social contexts that give birth to heterosexism and ensures its continued existence. Although times have changed and society has become more tolerant of non-heterosexual identities, influences from the past as explained by social construction theory provide support for the continued belief that heterosexuality is natural and an ideal sexual orientation. Thus heterosexism and cultural norms facilitate continued rejection and marginalization of non-heterosexual identities and orientation. Non-Heterosexual Identities Homosexuality and bisexuality are often referred to collectively as non-heterosexuality (Bohan & Russell, 1999). Homosexuality and bisexuality depart from the heterosexual perceptions of the ideal sexual orientation and the social construction of gender roles. Homosexuality and bisexuality are discussed on greater detail below. Homosexuality Homosexuality which is by definition, a same sex attraction between males or between females was not formally introduced as a term of reference until the late 1800s. This does not mean that homosexuality was unknown to man at the time. It only means that homosexuality was not given a formal identity until the late 1800s (Caplan, 1987). Moreover, by denying same sex relations a formal identity, there were limits to the way that two persons of the same sex cohabiting could be described (Caplan, 1987). It therefore follows that up to the late 1800s there was a conscious attempt to deny the existence of homosexuality. This not only suggest that mainstream society refused to accept that non-heterosexuals existed, but also suggested that homosexuality and non-heterosexual orientations were largely looked down upon. Caplan (1987) argues that once homosexuality was given a formal name, this was a baby step toward tolerance. Once mankind demonstrated an ability to recognize and name the existence of non-heterosexual orientation, it was an indication that non-heterosexual identities could eventually be accepted. However, recognizing the existence of non-heterosexual identities and orientation does not signal the kind of acceptance that would confer upon non-heterosexuals equality with heterosexuals. Homosexuals simply became an identified minority group. Adding to the perception that heterosexuality was normal and non-heterosexuality was not normal, researchers set about conducting research inquiries that served to confirm and validate the dominant heterosexual perceptions of non-heterosexual. For example, Thompson, Schwartz, and McCandless (1973) conducted four surveys among homosexual men and straight men, and lesbians and straight women. The purpose of the surveys was an attempt to identify whether or not relationships with parents in childhood contributed to women becoming lesbians and men becoming homosexuals (Thompson, et. al., 1973). Studies such as the study conducted by Thompson, et. al., (1973) strongly suggests that homosexuality and non-heterosexual orientation were abnormal and thus needed some explanation as a means of identifying possible solutions to the problem. In fact, Herek (2010) informs that up until the 1970s, homosexuality was listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders indicating a long history of regarding non-heterosexual orientation as a mental illness. Thus as Herek (2010) observes, “cultural institutions play a central role in legitimating stigma” (p. 883). Herek (2010) also observes that in the 1970s the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexual from its diagnostic manual and encouraged members of the profession to work together to contribute toward removing the stigma that has been attached to homosexuality. According to Herek (2010) these developments indicate that just as society and culture institutionalize stigma giving it legitimacy, “cultural institutions” can in turn “work effectively to undo its harmful effects” (p. 883). Herek’s (2010) vision for the abrogation of stigmatizing homosexuality via institutional reform is slowly coming to fruition. In more recent times there has been a global movement for the formal recognition of same sex relationships and in particular same sex marriages. More and more same sex couples are gaining rights previously denied them. The extent to which institutional legitimating of same sex identities have influenced a reduction in mainstream heterosexism remains to be seen. As Jones-Smith (2011) suggests, although many countries around the world are increasingly conferring upon same sex couples the right to marry, lesbians and gays continue to experience discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation globally. The fact is academics and in particular the psychology profession has a lot of stigma to undo, as the American Psychiatric Association suggested they do. 19th century research studies presented homosexuality as an unnatural enigma requiring closer examination. Studies increasingly presented homosexuality as a disease that researchers felt compelled to understand so as to lead to a cure. The persistent thought was, if researchers can identify the causes of homosexuality, then the medical profession can use this information to identify cures (Stein & Plummer, 1994). The negative conceptualization of homosexuality is deeply rooted in mainstream society and it continues to influence the way that sexual orientation is viewed and how non-heterosexuals are treated. Sanchez, Greenberg, Liu, and Vilain (2009) report that: …societal conceptions of masculinity affect the self-image and relationships of many gay men in the United States (p. 73). Many gay men reportedly struggle to adopt masculine ideals and avoid coming across as “effeminate” for fear of marginalization and isolation (Sanchez, et. al., 2009, p. 74). As Sanchez, et. al. (2009) explain: …most of the characteristics that are associated with masculinity and femininity are socially constructed…Social groups define what is and is not masculine and feminine. More specifically, scholars have noted that the dominant group typically defines what are appropriate behaviors for a given gender, and that subordination and marginalization of those who violate these norms are used to sustain the constructs (p. 74). According to Sanchez, et. al. (2009) in the US, the masculine idea is entrenched in a strong convention in which there are images of what a man should be and what a man should not be. In this regard, masculine ideology in the US commands that real men are not effeminate; real men command respect and admiration; real men do not exhibit fear; real men take risks and are adventurous (Sanchez, et. al., 2009). In socialization men and identifying how men should function in society, heterosexual masculinity commands that men have to be successful, have authority and status, be competitive with other men, should not show emotions, should not be show affection toward other men and should work continuously (Sanchez, et. al., 2009). It therefore follows that since homosexuals demonstrate affection toward other men and are because of their non-heterosexual orientation are intrinsically effeminate in nature, they are stigmatized as not satisfying the traditional masculine mold and are as such regarded as and treated as outcasts and rejects (Sanchez, et. al., 2009). Obviously, homosexuality has lost much of its stigma with the gains made in legal and academic discourse. Historically, homosexuality has moved from disease of the mind status to the status of normalcy. Homosexuals have also gained the right to be married in some jurisdictions demonstrating a gradual reversal of stigma. However, social construction of the masculine ideal remains a prevalent theme in society and continues to impact the way that homosexual orientation is treated. Bisexuality Bisexual orientation occupies a unique place in gender identities. Previously, the term bisexual was generally associated with hermaphroditism or an individual with both male and female sexual organs (Brisson, 2002). The perception that bisexual orientation was a physical condition made it more tolerable. However, once it was accepted that bisexuality was an emotional choice and not confined to hermaphrodites, it became an issue for the social construction of sexual identity (Brisson, 2002). Historically, bisexuality, like hermaphroditism was difficult to accept because it is linked to confusion. In the sexual construction of mankind, there is a hierarchal structure with the heterosexual man occupying the top spot and symbolizing mankind and culture. According to Angelides (2000), in the hierarchal order, women, blacks and homosexuals occupied the lower echelons of human sexuality and human identity. Bisexuals and hermaphrodites were not part of the hierarchal order (Angelides, 2000). Bisexuality is difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept. This is primarily because, it does not have a specific sexual identity and is typically confusing to mainstream society. During the 20th century, there was much debate among researchers as to bisexuals’ dominant sexual preferences. Some researchers argued that bisexuals were largely homosexual and other researchers argued that bisexuals were more inclined to prefer relationships with their own gender (Angelides, 2000). In time, researchers appeared to settle on the notion that bisexuals were confused over what their preferences were and could not be assigned a sexual orientation since they do not choose between the two genders (Fox, 2007). There are those that believe that bisexuals are in a state of indecision and will at some point make a clear choice in terms of choosing a decisive sexual identity. Regardless, bisexuals arguably have a more difficult time finding acceptance in mainstream society than homosexuals do. This is because, bisexuals not only confront occlusion and alienation from mainstream society, but they also confront alienation from homosexuals. The popular belief is that mainstream heterosexual society rejects bisexuals on the basis of a belief that they fit more comfortably with homosexuals. On the other hand, homosexuals reject bisexuals on the basis that bisexuals fit more comfortably with heterosexuals than they do with homosexuals (De Cecco & Shively, 1984). Bisexuals are also rejected by heterosexuals and homosexuals because of the general perception that bisexuals have difficulties being committed to one-on-one relationships. It is generally believed that since bisexuals are attracted to both genders, they are never going to be satisfied with one partner since one partner typically has only one gender (De Cecco & Shively, 1984). As Guidry (1999) explains: …Because bisexuals lack pure loyalty and connection to either group, the social marginalization by both the heterosexual majority and the homosexual minority can be of considerable concern to the individuals struggling to come to terms with their bisexual identity (p. 22). It is difficult to understand why the homosexual minority would feel compelled to alienate a group when social alienation is an experience that homosexuals have fought against and have campaigned against steadfastly. Regardless, if the media is to be believed, there has been a significant alignment of common complaints between gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender identities in recent times as they have come together to fight for a common cause: the right to equal treatment. It is anticipated that despite the converging of causes and claims, the prejudices that divide homosexuals and bisexuals will continue to keep these groups separated in society in much the same way as the prejudices that divide heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Conclusion This research paper, attempted to conceptualize the factors and conditions that operated to influence the social alienation of individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. In order to conceptualize the factors and conditions this research study examined the history and development of concepts of heterosexuality and how this history influenced perceptions of non-heterosexual gender identities. This paper also examined the how the social construction of heterosexuality evolved over time and how its evolution influences current perceptions of non-heterosexuality. Research findings indicate that we live in a male dominated heterosexual world in which gender identity and in turn sexual orientation is socially constructed by reference to heterosexual masculinity. It therefore follows that despite the political, social, and legal gains made in favour of equality regardless of sexual orientation, the social construction of gender identity and gender roles by reference to a heterosexual masculinity is so deeply entrenched in mainstream society, that the social alienation of non-heterosexuals is far from settled. References Andersen, M. and Taylor, H. (2007). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. New York, NY: Thomson Wadsworth. Angelides, S. (2000). A History of Bisexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bohan, J. S. and Russell, G. M. (1999). Conversations About Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York, NY: New York University Press. Brisson, L. (2002). Sexual Ambivalence. California: University of California Press. Caplan, P. (1987). The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. London: 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. Guidry, L. L. “Clinical Intervention with Bisexuals: A Contextualized Understanding.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 30(1): 22-26. Herek, G. M. (February 2000). “The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice.” Current Directions in Psychology Science. Vol. 9(1)): 19-22. Herek, G. M. (1995). “Psychological Heterosexism in the United States.” In D’Augeli, A. R. and Patterson, C. J. (Eds.) Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Herek, G. M. (November 2010). “Sexual Orientation Differences as Deficits: Science and Stigma in the History of American Psychology.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 5(5): 883-889. Holland, J.; Ramazanoglu, C.; Sharpe, S. and Thompson, R. (1998). The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power. London, UK: The Tufnell Press. Jones-Smith, E. (2011). Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy: An Integrative Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kitzinger, C. (2006). “Speaking as a Heterosexual: How Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction?” In Cameron, D. and Kullick, D. (Eds.) The Language and Sexuality Reader. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Okin, S. M. (February 1996). “Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Families: Dichotomizing Differences.” Hypathia, Vol. 1(1): 30-48. Sanchez, F. J.; Greenberg, S. T.; Liu, W. M. and villain, E. (January 2009). “Reported Effects of Masculine Ideals on Gay Men.” Psychol Men Masc. Vol. 10(1): 83-87. Smith, S. D. (2010). “Sexuality Underrepresented Youth: Understanding Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Questioning (GLBT-Q) Youth.” In Chin, J. L. (Ed.). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Standfort, T. G. M. (December 2005). “Sexual Orientation and Gender: Stereotypes and Beyond.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34(6): 595-611. 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, NY: 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. Tomsen, S. and Mason, G. (September 2001). “Engendering Homophobia: Violence, Sexuality and Gender Conformity.” Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37(3): 267-273. Read More