Homosexual Identity: Theorizing a Multi-Dimensional Concept - Research Paper Example

Homosexual Identity: Theorizing a Multi-Dimensional Concept Taking on a descriptive and critical analysis based on several models addressinghomosexual identity, this paper presents a multi-dimensional and dynamic model that considers various possible scenarios to explain the formation of homosexual identity among gay and lesbian self-identified individuals. The proposed model focuses on the following foundation aspects of sexual identity formation: biological sex, gender identity, compatibility or incompatibility in understanding social sexual roles and the recognition of being different. Hence, four different paths were followed, considering whether there is compatibility in understanding sexual social roles or not. If there is compatibility, two pathways follow: (1) direct internal and external acceptance of identity, or (2) identity tolerance with low levels of internalized homophobia, internal and external acceptance of identity. If there is incompatibility in understanding sexual social roles, two other pathways follow: (3) identity tolerance with low levels of internalized homophobia, internal and external acceptance, or (4) identity confusion, identity tolerance with high levels of internalized homophobia, identity tolerance with low levels of internalized homophobia, and finally, internal and external acceptance. This model can also be considered as an alternative to developmental stage models, which have traditionally been used to describe the process of identity formation as necessary to arrive at a healthy homosexual identity, since it integrates other components of sexual identity into the broader personal identity and it allows different possibilities for that construction. KEYWORDS: Gay, lesbian, homosexual identity. The homosexual identity has been called the third sex, an antipathetic sexual instinct, a perversion, an inversion, homosexuality, a homosexual outlet, a homosexual orientation (or preferences), and, more recently, the gay or lesbian lifestyle and the socially constructed gay identity. (…) Whatever the designation, the underlying assumption has been that the individual’s sexual identity constituted a core ingredient of spirit, body, mind, personality, or social relations (Shively and DeCecco, 1983). CONSTRUCTING IDENTITY What makes a person consider him or herself a homosexual? Although this is a unique process for each person, there are common aspects in developing a gay or lesbian identity. The formation of an identity is a process of self-classification from where the person recognizes and applies a label (Mondimore, 1998). It is therefore, very important to learn these labels and know where to categorize them. However, the first time that one is confronted by homosexual labels often turn out to be negative and pejorative. The question “Am I a homosexual?” is usually asked to oneself with extreme anxiety because the answer will most likely have direct implications on all aspects of that individual’s life. Still, when trying to answer this question, one must be able to distinguish the differences between homosexual behavior, love, desire, and the role cultural variables play in the formation of this distinction. For example, in Latin countries, the type of behavior is more of a determinant in the label attribution, especially penetration, whereas in Anglo-Saxon countries it is not the act itself that is of most significance, but the biological sex and the gender of the person who is doing the act (Castañeda, 1999). HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY MODELS There is considerable speculation and differing points of view regarding the means by which gay and lesbians achieve their sense of sexual identity. However, it seems that the course of action known as “coming out of the closet” is central to the formation of the homosexual identity. It involves a process of complex personal transformations that lead to the recognition of one’s sexual orientation (Davies, 1996). Since the 1970’s, a flurry of proposed models to explicate this process emerged. Most of these are considered stage-models, where identity development is construed as a process of learning to name one’s sexual self (Brown, 1995). This literature categorizes homosexual identity formation into distinct, sequential stages that end with the integration of homosexuality into the broader personal identity (Lemoire & Chen, 2005) but are often too constrained to explain the complexity and fluidity of the process (Robboy, 2002) since they support an overall linear trend from sexual attraction to sexual activity to self-identification (Rosario et al., 2006). The attention given to this topic, resulted in considerable literature (Cass (1979; Woodman & Lenna, 1980; Coleman, 1981/1982; Minton & McDonald, 1983; Troiden, 1989; Newman & Muzzonigro, 1993; Parker, 1994; Rybicki, 1994; Pett, 1995; Nicholas, 1995; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Morris, 1997; Nonn, 1997; Rubio, 1999; Elizur & Mintzer, 2001; Alderson, 2003). Although identity formation is a unique process for each individual, many of the models explored share common components. Listed on Table 1 are the stages for each proposed model. Table 1 –List of theoretical models of homosexual identity formation Authors Stages Cass (1979) (1) Confusion; (2) Comparison; (3) Tolerance; (4) Acceptance; (5) Pride; and (6) Synthesis Woodman & Lenna (1980) (1)Denial of one’s homoerotic feeling; (2) Identity confusion; (3) Bargaining; and (4) Depression leading up to healthy integration Coleman (1981/1982) (1) Pre-coming out; (2) Coming out; (3) Exploration; (4) first relations; and (5) Identity integration. Minton and McDonald (1983) (1) Egocentric interpretation of homoerotic feelings; (2) Internalization of the normative conventional assumption of homosexuality; (3) Critical evaluation of normative conventions; and (4) Achievement and maintenance of positive identity Troiden (1989) (1) Sensitization; (2) Identity confusion; (3) Identity assumption; and (4) Commitment Newman & Muzzonigro (1993) (1) Sensitization; (2) Awareness with confusion, denial, guilt and shame; and (3) Acceptance Parker (1994) (1) Awareness of difference; (2) Feelings of being gay; (3) First gay experience; (4) Self-identification as gay; (5) Disclosure to family, friends, work colleagues; and (6) Participation in gay community events Rybicki (1994), for gay male identity only (1) Feeling different; (2) Closeting; (3) Coming out; (4) Cruising; (5) Experiencing community; and (6) Making ideology Pett (1995), for lesbian identity formation only (1) Separation of sexual roles; (2) Comprehension of sexual orientation; (3) Reconstruction of sexual desire; and (4) Reconstruction of self-identity Nicholas (1995) (1) Feeling different; (2) Defining difference; (3) Identity acknowledgment; (4) Embracing identity; and (5) Advocacy McCarn & Fassinger (1996) (1) Awareness; (2) Exploration; (3) Commitment; and (4) Internalization or synthesis Morris (1997), for lesbian identity formation only (1) Sexual identity formation (encompassing the development of a lesbian sexuality and awareness); (2) Disclosure of sexuality to others; (3) Sexual expression and behavior; and (4) Lesbian awareness Nonn (1997) (1) Feeling different; (2) Exploration of homoerotic sexuality; (3) Identity affirmation; (4) Homosexual orientation affirmation; (5) Love and sex integration; and (6) Social identity Rubio (1999) (1) ‘Before self-definition’ (awareness of being different and homoerotic attraction); (2) Recognition and self-definition as a homosexual; (3) ‘After self-definition’ (acceptance of homosexual orientation and integration of homosexuality) Elizur & Mintzer (2001) (1) Self-definition; (2) Self-acceptance; and (3) Disclosure Alderson (2003) (1) Before coming-out; (2) During coming-out; and (3) After coming-out Taken together, these theoretical models describe a process of identity formation that consists of becoming aware of one’s unfolding sexual orientation, beginning to question whether one may be gay or lesbian, and becoming involved in sexual and social activities within their communities. These models, in general, present a narrow perspective on the conceptualization of human sexuality, taking on a linear progression and neglecting to take into account the larger social global context, thus undermining the value of sexual identity itself (Eliason, 1996). Also, it can be stated that gay and lesbian constructs of identity emerge based on differing circumstances and identity acceptance may not always follow predetermined stages. In fact, many of the developmental issues arise not from being gay or lesbian, per se, but from discovering how to assimilate being homosexual into one’s life pattern (Peacock, 2000). All of the models recognize that individuals may not progress through all of the stages in the suggested sequence, with an underlying negative implication that an individual who does not do so adopts an identity that would be described as fitting with the earlier stages of development, and is considered less gay or lesbian. IN SEARCH OF A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The notion of personal identity refers to the unity, consistency, and continuity of self-perceptions (Erikson, 1959). Most of the models explored come from an essentialist approach (Horowitz & Newcomb, 2001), and according to these theories, sexual orientation establishes itself early in life and defines the true self, conditioning the development of sexual identity (Troiden, 1988/1989). In this sense, choosing not to accept one’s homosexuality means a less legitimate outcome in the final process. In fact, it is possible that a person chooses or rejects to express his/her homoerotic feelings (or even label him/herself as a homosexual) because of societal oppressive and heterosexist attitudes (De Monteflores & Schultz, 1978). The social constructionist point of view argues that people actively construct their identities and perceptions based on their social context. Mary McIntosh (1968) was the first to use this theoretical framework stating that homosexuality should be faced as a social role to be performed, and not treated, as a condition. Cox & Gallois (1996), in their theory of gay and lesbian social identity, argue that the person interacts with his/her environment to construct his/her identity, i.e., adopts an operative role through social comparison and categorization processes. Social constructionism advocates that homosexual persons play an active role in the construction of their sexual identity through a continuous, recurrent interaction between themselves and their social environment. Therefore, learning to be a homosexual is, to a great extent, a matter of seeing yourself as such (Hart & Richardson, 1981) and logically, this apprenticeship occurs in a very specific social historical context. When compared to the essentialist point of view, the social constructionists attribute a more active role to the individual in the process of developing his/her sexual identity. According to this perspective, which we corroborate, the individual will have more options and won’t depend only on certain biological influences or oppressive environments. THE PROPOSED MODEL Our proposed model tries to present an alternative approach to the conceptualization of homosexual identity, one that is not linear and takes into account other important dimensions of the construct of sexual identity, such as the biological sex, the gender identity, sexual social roles, and sexual orientation. Also, it gives much attention to the influence of larger social global context, namely the quality of significant experiences, such as social support or homophobia. Finally, it acknowledges the fact that several pathways are possible for the development of an integrated sense of identity, and that these possibilities are, again, closely intertwined with influences. This new model attempts to present several dimensions in relation to the formation of a homosexual identity and departs from the Shively and DeCecco’s (1977/1993) model of sexual identity, which assumes that our sense of sexual selves is derived from the integration of four components: biological sex, gender identity, social sexual roles, and sexual orientation. Stage 1 – biological sex and gender identity conformity Firstly, the person will make an effort to integrate his or her gender identity, while at the same time, consolidating it with his/her biologically determined sex. Here, both biological and psychosocial determinants play a significant role, because gender identity constitutes the conviction of an individual as being a man or a woman. Also, it is essential to avoid eventual confusion with gender identity disorders. Stage 2 – Compatibility in understanding social roles Subsequently, the person is confronted with a set of homoerotic feelings (fantasies, desires or behaviors) and contradictory heterosexual models which will lead to disengagement in two possible directions: (1) Understanding of the compatibility of sexual social roles (understanding of the binary feminine/masculine beyond the heterosexual model); or 2) Not understanding the binary and therefore develop certain concerns regarding social roles, namely, what characteristics represent the masculine and/or feminine sphere. Stage 3 – Recognition of being different Whether there’s compatibility or not, the next step will be the emergence of feelings of recognition of being different in relation to others, and feelings of being an outsider leading up to eventual emotional isolation. Consequently, the continuing path to identity formation will depend on the existence of higher or lower levels of internalized homophobia, as well as on the influence of significant factors, such as: the support of family and friends, the frequency and quality of emotional and sexual relationships, the influence of societal discrimination and the degree of personal inner strength or resilience. Stage 4 - Confusion Pathways A and B When a person is confronted with feelings of incompatibility in relation to his/her social sexual roles, and at the same time possesses high levels of internalized homophobia, he or she may respond with confusion. These feelings may translate into the following: denial and avoidance of homoerotic feelings, guilt, shame, fear, or an effort is made to embrace a heterosexual identity. Pathways C and D Because the person in confronted with feelings of compatibility in relation to his/her social sexual roles and at the same time is more likely to have lower levels of internalized homophobia, chances are that no confusion takes place. Stage 5 – Identity tolerance Pathway A With appropriate social support networks and/or counseling, established confusion may diminish and give rise to identity tolerance in individuals who had difficulties in understanding the compatibility of social sexual roles. It is conceivable that individuals with higher levels of internalized homophobia recognize and accept that they are different. Pathway B Because of the influence of positive experiences, individuals who had difficulties in understanding the compatibility of social sexual roles may present lower levels of internalized homophobia thus presenting better tolerance of identity. Pathway C It is also possible to construct a path where a person doesn’t see any incompatibility in understanding social sexual roles but will directly recognize feelings of being different and with lower levels of internalized homophobia will experience identity tolerance. Pathway D In another possible scenario, through the recognition of being different without any confusion, a person may undergo a process of self -acceptance and thus skip the stage of identity tolerance. In circumstances A, B and C, the following signs should be present: 1) an individual will consider the ‘option’ of accepting his/her homoerotic feelings; and 2) will be able to negotiate his/her sexuality and begin a process of self-identification as gay or lesbian. Stage 6 – Private acceptance Except for individuals who are on pathway A (who do not reach this stage), depending on the quality of significant events, the person will be able to: manage his or her internalized discriminatory feelings; consolidate his or her self-identification as gay or lesbian; explore sexually and emotionally within an organized gay and lesbian community, separate from his/her global sphere, namely, the heterosexual context; or opt to omit his/her homosexuality and only disclose it to a few carefully selected friends and relatives. Stage 7 – Private and extended acceptance At a more final stage, except for those individuals who are on pathway A (who do not reach this stage), the individual will be able to accept privately and outwardly his or her identity and will be able to integrate his or her homosexuality as a lifestyle. He or she will reflect upon love and sexual choices in a relational context, and will have low levels of internalized homophobia and high levels of self-esteem. Homosexuality itself becomes less relevant and is viewed as only one more aspect of the global self. There will be no omissions of the homosexual identity. Not to exclude the possibility of a person simply being able to accept the recognition of being different and to immediately project this reality, inwardly as well as outwardly. This of course, will depend on the nature of significant events. It is also possible for a person, departing from recognizing his being different, and depending on the nature of significant events, to immediately accept his or her identity on a private sphere, and eventually, also externally (pathway D). For each of the above mentioned steps there are several factors that need to be taken into consideration in order to properly examine the possible outcomes: levels of internalized homophobia, family and friend’s support, self-esteem, sexual and emotional relationships, discriminatory events, health concerns and affiliations to organizations or religious entities. This proposed model can be better understood on Table 2. Table 2: Model of Homosexual Identity Stage Pathway A ↓ Pathway B ↓ Pathway C ↓ Pathway D ↓ Stage 1 – biological sex and gender identity conformity Biological Sex ↓ Biological Sex ↓ Biological Sex ↓ Biological Sex ↓ Gender Identity ↓ Gender Identity ↓ Gender Identity ↓ Gender Identity ↓ Homoerotic feelings / confront with heterosexual model Stage 2 – Compatibility in understanding social roles Incompatibility in understanding social sexual roles ↓ Incompatibility in understanding social sexual roles ↓ Compatibility in understanding social sexual roles ↓ Compatibility in understanding social sexual roles ↓ Stage 3 – Recognition of being different Recognition of being different ↓ Recognition of being different ↓ Recognition of being different ↓ Recognition of being different ↓ Homophobic events /higher or lower levels of internalized homophobia (IH) Stage 4 – Confusion Confusion ↓ Confusion ↓ No confusion ↓ No confusion ↓ Significant events: family and friend’s support, relationships, discrimination, strength of self, health concerns Stage 5 – Identity tolerance Identity tolerance with high levels of IH Identity tolerance with low levels of IH ↓ Identity tolerance with low levels of IH ↓ No identity tolerance ↓ Significant events: family and friend’s support, relationships, discrimination, strength of self, health concerns Stage 6 – Private acceptance No acceptance Private acceptance of Identity ↓ Private acceptance of Identity ↓ Private acceptance of Identity ↓ Significant events: family and friend’s support, relationships, discrimination, strength of self, health concerns Stage 7 – Private and extended acceptance No acceptance Private and extended acceptance of Identity Private and extended acceptance of Identity Private and extended acceptance of Identity CONCLUSION We have presented a model of homosexual identity formation that represents an advantage in understanding this process, since it gives special attention to its complexity and variance. It argues that not a single outcome is available for all individuals; rather, it states that different outcomes are possible, depending on the influence and quality of significant experiences that take place in the social context. In this sense, it assumes its social constructionist position in the field of homosexual identity theorization. Also, it represents a broader approach to the understanding of this process because the model derives from the conceptualization of multi-dimensional components, such as the biological sex, gender identity, the social sexual roles, and sexual orientation. Apart from this rupture of linearity, the presented model gives great consideration to the influence of significant events that can be determinants in developing an integrated sense of identity as being gay or lesbian, namely, social support (family and friends), internalized and/or institutionalized homophobia, health concerns leading to stigmatization around AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, self-esteem or resilience. Such a dynamic interpretation of the process of homosexual identity formation can also be very useful in the clinical practice, specifically in counseling or psychotherapy, because it gives the mental health professional a tool to assess and orientate to his or her practice, and also because better mental health functioning is associated with higher levels of identity acceptance and lower levels of internalized homophobia. While being fit for both genders, this model should recognize that gender, as a social construction, influences the process of identity formation. This means that the categories available for this construction with regards to what is being a man or a woman, masculine or feminine, gay or lesbian, can create socially rigid stereotypes that emphasize the fact that identity in general is the social construction we make as we interpret reality. That is, according to the presented model, when a person is identifying him/herself as gay or lesbian, that person is also labeling him/herself as male/female, man/woman, masculine/feminine, and non-heterosexual. The process of labeling can be understood as process identity attribution, and is the result of the integration of the above mentioned components. Let us not give rise to a certain identitary fundamentalism, as we can see from the common intolerance towards sexual diversity. This is to say that other identity categories, such as bisexuality, should also be addressed. Nonetheless, it is not yet clear whether the construct of bisexuality should be addressed as an independent identity category (Cass, 1990; Fox, 1995), or simply a strategy of transition towards a gay or lesbian identity (Stokes et al., 1997). As we recognize bisexuality as a valid identity category, we argue that it should be understood as a separate phenomenon, and therefore, our model does not apply to it. Therefore, we support the need for reformulation of the criteria of classification of bisexuality, probably based on independent dimensions, and not belonging to a bipolar continuum where bisexuality fits in the middle. Although it is fundamental to theorize the plan of identity formation in a certain social context, the next step should be to evaluate this model empirically. Having identified stages and pathways, it is our intention to survey individuals who identify themselves as gay or lesbian, or who are in the process of doing so. Through structural equation modeling, it is our objective to fundament this theory with the collected data. The constructionist vision in which our model is embedded, invites the recognition of different possibilities of homosexual identity affirmation in a complex world. There is not a clear boundary definition of homosexual identity, and this ambiguity reflects the nature of the process that is more psychosocial than biological. This model should also be considered as a means to act around social change. It’s not enough that a society tolerates or protects sexual diversity, but is also essential that it instills mechanisms of positive integration at all levels: personal, social, ideological, political and scientific. In fact, when society allows homosexuality as a category to disappear as a criterion for the classification of individuals, the construct of homosexual identity should be ready to be deconstructed. Read More