Heteronormativity and Heterosexism - Essay Example

Heteronormativity and heterosexism are pervasive facets of the cultural context; heterosexuality remains the dominant mode of relating, the standard against which 'others' are measured. This has exerted pressure on individuals and families to assimilate to heterosexual norms and it is precisely because of the stated that the words marriage and family are central to of one of the most fiercely debated issues of our time. At stake is the very definition of marriage: Who controls the definition, and for what purpose Due to the pervasive cultural climate of heteronormativity, implications for the field of marriage and family include the need to actively re-define marriage as inclusive of gay and lesbian couples. Despite the increased visibility of gay men and lesbian women, there remains no definition of family in the public consciousness that refers to same-sex couples with children. In fact, in the not too distant past, the notions of lesbian mothers/homosexual fathers or lesbian/homosexual families would have been nonexistent. This culture of heteronormativity (Gamson, 2000) dictates that a viable family consist of a heterosexual mother and a father raising children together. Heterosexuality and heterosexual forms of relating are the norm.1 All other forms of relational experience are thus viewed in contrast. For example, the descriptive term "couples" means heterosexual couples, then, there are gay and lesbian couples. Families are nuclear and headed by two heterosexual parents, then, there are gay and lesbian families. Similarly, "woman" means a heterosexual woman, then, there is the lesbian. Heteronormativity supports the dominant norm of heterosexuality by marginalizing any relational structure that defies it.2 A review of the family therapy literature bears this out; until recently the concept of the gay/lesbian family has been virtually unheard of in the family therapy field. This fact was confirmed by two research studies. Allen and Demo3 and Clark and Serovich found that the marriage and family therapy fields generally ignored gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues. For example, Clark and Serovich surveyed 17 journals published from 1975 to 1995. Of the 13,217 articles published, only 77, or 0.006% focused on gay/lesbian issues, used a gay/lesbian sample, or included sexual orientation as a variable.4 Goodrich (2003) cited the availability of only two early texts on working with lesbian couples in family therapy as an indication of the intense homophobia in the field from the 1960s to the 1990s.5 Proceeding from the above stated, heteronormativity has determined that unless the word gay is attached, marriage implies heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuality is the norm. Indeed, as Warner (1993) pointed out, "humanity and heterosexuality are synonymous."6 This notion of heterosexuality goes far beyond the institutions that marginalize and punish any relationship viewed as other. In this vein, heterosexuality is, of itself, a social and political organizing principle.7 Intrinsically linked to the structures of male dominance, heterosexuality can be viewed as a dictatorial patriarchal institution.8 Rich described this culture of compulsory heterosexuality as a powerful cluster of forces within which women have been convinced of the inevitability of both marriage and sexual orientation toward men. Thus, there have been very few attempts to explain how an individual develops a heterosexual orientation.9 Research into the development of heterosexuality is limited by the belief that it is natural and when it focuses upon homosexuality, persistently views it as deviant. Thus, implicit in discussions about sexual orientation is the notion that heterosexuality is both normal and mentally healthy, and that non-heterosexuals are abnormal and psychologically disabled.10 In direct relation to the homosexual/heterosexual categories, Rothblum (2000) pointed out that in a categorical definition of sexual orientation behavior, desire, and identity are assumed to be congruent.11 This is disputed by research. The National Health and Social Life Survey, probability sampling was used to survey over 3000 adults; the results indicated a low correlation among sexual behavior, desire, and identity. Further, the longer the period of time covered in respondents' comments, the fewer respondents reported having sex with only same-sex partners.12 As a matter of fact, Rust found that bisexual behavior is more common than exclusively same sex behavior, especially for women. Importantly, she found that there is considerable overlap in the actual sexual experiences of individuals who identify as bisexual, lesbian, heterosexual, or gay. That is, sexual behavior did not correlate to sexual identity. She also found that women are more likely than men to use multiple identities at the same time.13 In another review of major scientific findings about women's' sexuality and sexual orientation, Peplau and Garnets found that female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality and is more likely to vary over the course of the life cycle.14 This is significant, since sexual behavior has been employed in the majority of research as the measure of one's sexual identity. Proceeding from the above stated, it is evident that heteronormative culture's persistent identification of a single sexual norm and its abnormal antithesis have culminated in the virtual exclusion of the phenomenon of bisexuality from public debate. Instead, because heteronormativity has identified heterosexuality as the only sexual norm and homosexuality as its perverted opposite, bisexuality which, from within this heteronormative perspective constitutes an impossible merger between the norm and the abnormal, has been rendered almost invisible. Even though it has received comparatively little attention, bisexuality is as much of a challenge to heteronormative culture as is homosexuality. Indeed, it may be classified as an even more intense and problematic challenge because it has, quite often, instigated the movement out of a heterosexual relationship/marriage and into a homosexual one. Indeed, according to the research literature, bisexuals, or those who tend to be undecided/vague/ambivalent about their sexual orientation may enter into a heterosexual union and may have a family. In other words, they quite often position themselves within the parameters of the norm. Subsequent to that, however, and after they have formed families, many have chose to move out of the norm and to engage in a homosexual relationship. This is an immediate and direct challenge to the norm and to the heteronormative culture. The study of moving out of heterosexual marriage is complicated by a number of factors, not the least of which is the fact that some of the people attracted to or acting upon same-sex relationships have labelled themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual before and during the marriage and some have not. Nonetheless, from the 1970s to the 1980s there were numerous studies published that explored the lives of gay and bisexual men married to heterosexual women.15 These studies focused on why gay men married in the first place, their experiences in marriage, and the effects of their actions on their wives. Some women viewed their lesbianism as a strong feeling about their essential nature, and interpreted past heterosexual experience as inconsistent with their seemingly real selves. Other elective lesbians did not experience contradiction with prior heterosexual experience, and did not feel the need to reinterpret or reconstruct their past.16 Blumstein and Schwartz found a similar group of women in their research. They interviewed a number of women who transitioned to lesbian relationships after "a very long and quite satisfactory period in the former category."17 As increasing numbers of bisexual males and females are moving out of heterosexual relations, embracing homosexuality and same-sex unions, the question of gay parenting has imposed itself upon society. The first studies of lesbian and gay parenting were published in the early 1980s and focused on evaluating the psychological well being of school-aged children with lesbian mothers. These women became mothers in the context of heterosexual marriages, later identified as lesbian, and managed to retain custody of their children following separation or divorce. Their children were compared to children brought up by single heterosexual mothers. Findings from the studies revealed no statistically significant differences between the children in the lesbian and heterosexual families on any of the interview or questionnaire measures of psychological adjustment. None of the children were confused about their gender identity and no differences in gender role behavior were found. On the basis of these studies it was concluded that children of lesbian mothers were not developmentally disadvantaged.18 The children of gay and lesbian parents are represented in the literature in a fairly consistent language that highlights similarity when compared to children of heterosexual parents. Stacey and Biblarz analyzed this tendency toward similarity in an article entitled "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter" Researchers, they contend, are bound by the presumption that healthy child development depends upon parenting by a married heterosexual couple. The pervasiveness of this climate exerts "a powerful policing effect on the basic terms of the psychological research and public discourse on the significance of parental sexual orientation."19 As anti-gay rhetoric argue harm to children, researchers that are sympathetic to gay parenting maintain the opposite. "With rare exception, even the most sympathetic proceed from a highly defensive posture that accepts heterosexual parenting as the gold standard and investigates whether lesbigay parents and their children are inferior."20 This means that gay and lesbian mothers and fathers to prove that they are no less successful than heterosexual parents. Thus, they must stress similarity. Heteronormative culture's insistence upon comparing homosexual to heterosexual families in order to argue the harms of the former upon the children involved has been tackled in a research by Clarke.21 In her analysis of how these gay families are portrayed she examines the normalizing strategy. This strategy consists of emphasizing sameness and downplaying difference through the use of specific language which is intended to counter negative depictions of lesbian and gay parenting. For example, the maxim that "Parents don't matter, so long as the child feels loved" emphasizes love and security over family structure. Emphasizing ordinariness highlights the similarities between the everyday lives of gay/lesbian and heterosexual families. This strategy suggests that gay/lesbian families are normal because they share the qualities associated with the day to day reality of family life, making gay/lesbian families more familiar and comprehensible. It also provides a powerful contrast to the stereotypes of gay and lesbian life as exotic and different. To address fears about the development of children, the strategy of highlighting compensations for deficits is employed. This entails listing the many available men or women to act as compensatory role models in the life of the child.22 Clarke not only critiques this normalizing construction but evaluates possibilities inherent in advancing lesbian and gay rights in the public domain. The benefits of this strategy, she asserts, include making gay/lesbian families recognizable in the world. In assimilating to the heterosexual norm rather than challenging it, normalizing strategies allow lesbian and gay parents to participate in public debates. However, the normalizing strategy is fundamentally defensive of heteronormativity as it reinforces the dominance of heterosexual families. To respond to concerns, for example, about the lack of a male in a child's life, lesbian mothers in the normalizing discourse offer compensation rather than a critique of men's contribution to family life.23 In other words, heteronormativity has imposed defensiveness upon gay parents and incited a determination towards normalization through the emphasizing of the similarities between homo and heterosexual parents/families. Proceeding from the above stated, and in conclusion to this essay, it is quite evident that heteronormative culture has brought the debate over homosexuality and same-sex parents to the public arena. Certainly, heteronormativity imposes negative connotations upon the stated life choice and, in brief, classifies it as something that is blatantly contradictory to the norm. In some ways, it may be argued that heteronormativity's aggressive stance towards gay relations is instigated by perceptions of the stated as a challenge to its vey foundations. While that may be true, it is equally true that heteronormativity has imposed a movement towards normalization upon gay families. Bibliography Allen, K.R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The families of lesbian and gay men: A new frontier in family research. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 57, 1-17. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1976). Bisexuality in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5, 171-181. Clark, W.M., & Serovich, J. M. (1997). "Twenty years and still in the dark Content analysis of articles pertaining to gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in marriage and family therapy journals." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 239-253. Clarke, V. (2002). Resistance and normalization in the construction of lesbian and gay families: A discursive analysis. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger, (Eds.), Lesbian and Gay psychology: New perspectives (pp. 98-1 16). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Gamson, J. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 347-365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goodrich, T. J. (2003). A feminist family therapist's work is never done. In T.J. Goodrich & L. Silverstein (Eds.), Feminist family therapy: Empowerment in social context (pp. 3- 16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kitzinger, C. (2005). The social construction of lesbianism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moser, C. (2001). Paraphilia: A Critique of a confused concept. In P. J. Kleinplatz (Ed.), New directions in sex therapy: Innovations and alternatives (pp. 91-108). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631-660. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patterson, C.J. (2004). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women's sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 329-347. Rothblum, E. D. (2000). Sexual orientation and sex in women's lives: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), p. 193-219. Rust, P. C. (2000). Bisexuality: A Contemporary paradox for women. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), p 205-236. Seidman, S. (1 996). Introduction. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 1 -29). Cambridge, MA.: Blackwell. Stacey, J. and Biblarz, T. (2001). (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter American Sociological Review, 66, 159- 183. Warner, M. (1 993). Introduction. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp.vii-xxxi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wyers, N.L. (1987). Homosexuality in the family: Lesbian and gay spouses. Social Work, 143-148. Read More