Partial Sexual Citizenship - Literature review Example

Title: Partial Sexual Citizenship Name: Course: Instructor: Date: Partial Sexual Citizenship Citizenship According to Heijden (2014) a citizen is a member of a political society or community. Citizenship is used to distinguish between citizens and aliens in the society. Citizenship entails responsibilities, rights, roles, and entitlements. The citizen assumes duties of member in the community and enjoys rights within the community setting. Citizenship can be analysed using three dimensions or status that is legal, civil and political and social rights status. A citizen is a legal person since he/she has a right to get protection from the law written down by the community. A citizen is free to practice the law as deemed right by the society/community. Citizens are political and civil agents as the citizen has a right to actively participate in the community’s political institutions such as resource allocation, education, healthcare among other institutions. Citizens are social agents since they achieve their true identity through social integration of community norms, values and beliefs (Claussen, 2002). Sexual Citizenship Sexuality and citizenship is a relation by which a citizenship status can be defined. Sexual citizenship in a social belonging concept is the juncture of claiming pleasure, recognition, justice, self-identity, self-determination, space, and cultural transformation. Sexual citizenship is defined as the extent to which a person or a citizen gets a full membership in the community constructed by their conformity to a set of specific norms which are encoded into the law. Sexual citizenship is the corpus of norms and laws that deny or recognize a citizen’s liberties and rights based on their sexual conduct and sexuality. Sexuality is a major characteristic player in culture. Sexuality and sex is a medium in which individuals use to define their identities and personalities (Cheah, 2000). Sex is a private matter but it is customarily and formally incorporated and institutionalized in the public. Sexual citizenship in the erotic world is a new player in the cultural and political arena. Traditional thoughts on definition of citizenship are a habitable ground for the social modern theory. The traditional definition of citizenship gives insufficient attention to sexuality and gender. This paper will discuss the relationship between citizenship and sexuality with focus on social exclusion and inclusion of polyamorous individuals and those who practice non-normative sexual activities. This paper will also discuss how sexual citizenship rights have been institutionalized through cultural industries such as the media (Ritzer, 2011). Partial sexual citizenship Partial sexual relationship is concerned with the citizenship status of sexual minorities. Partial citizenship refers to lack of individuals with queer sexuality to enjoy fundamental social rights. Sexual citizenship separates sexual minorities from how it is said and who says it. This paper will use queer theory to analyse the concept of partial citizenship and its belonging in the society (Santos, 2013). Queer Epistemology Queer is defined an existential and political stance, a decision, an ideological commitment to live outside the normal social norms practiced by a particular community. Queer theory explains that gender is distinguishable from sex and is a social construction. Queer is not based on gays and homosexuals only rather queer is based on gender whether straight, tranny queers, fisting queer, swingers, tranny queers, S&M queers, lez queers among others. Individuals in the traditional society associated sexuality with gender. However, social theorists such as Michel Foucault explain that sexuality is not a natural urge but a discursive construction (Santos, 2013). The Hegemonic Heterosexuality of Citizenship Authors such as Halsaa et al (2012) and Santos (2013) analyse transformations of how sexuality and intimacy are being lived in the modern world and the sexual politics surrounding intimate or sexual relationship. They explain that literature on sexual citizenship show that citizenship is highly focused on the male, heterosexual and the whites. According to Santos (2013) citizens are construed as sexual/heterosexual subjects and some of these subjects have been excluded from full citizenship grounded on institutionalization of heterosexuality. Traditional description models of citizenship are based on heteronormative basis. The traditional citizenship model excludes non-heterosexuals from citizenship and views them as strangers to the society (Canaday, 2009). The non-heterosexuals are viewed as partial citizens who do not have a right to enjoy some social rights such as full civil rights. A good example of traditional citizenship model is the Marshallian Concept of Citizenship that includes social, political, and civil rights but fails to recognize the complexities of sexuality and gender. The model denies the civil rights of the same sex marriage. Traditionally most marriages are legalized to heterosexuals only. Non-heterosexuals are sometimes discriminated and have less power to enjoy political rights. Ryan-Flood (2009) notes that non-heterosexuals such as the lesbian and the gay people are often discriminated when it comes to health issues, tax benefits, inheritance, and the general welfare of the associated parties. Despite the non-heterosexual citizens being legal citizens they are often excluded form nation narratives. Ryan-Flood (2009) states that individuals who are absent from the national narratives and national imagery cannot be full citizens of the nation even if they are granted all the political, social, and political rights. Citizenship is mostly associated with humanity and the contradictory characters of non-heterosexual are deemed as inhuman and unnatural. However, recently non-heterosexuals such as lesbians and gays are gaining more representation and inclusion in the media and culture. Despite these there is still a gap in the society regarding the full acceptance of such individuals in the society. Links between Rubin’s hierarchy and sexual citizenship Santos (2013) explains that Rubin 1984 discovered that sexuality is more that sex and it is an important topic in the society. Rubin discovered that hierarchy of sexual behaviour acceptable in the society is subject to social interpretation and historical change. The traditional method of defining citizenship requires accommodation of both non-normative and normative behaviours of the society. Rubin argues that citizenship should be broad enough to accommodate sexual stratification including prejudices and taboos swirled around sadomasochists, fetishists, transsexuals, and transvestites as well as sexual workers. Rubin came up with the radical theory that examines the politics of sexuality and citizenship. Rubin discusses the theory based on the sex wars in the society. Rubin states that it is inevitable for the society not to accept change since sexuality in the society at any given place or time is a result of human activity. The realm associated with sexuality has inequalities, oppression, and internal politics. These politics invoke a conflict of interest among individuals leading to sex wars which need to be negotiated in the long run (Halsaa et al, 2012). The radical theory explains the transformation of sexual orientation from the 1950’s and argues that sex is a natural force that shapes institutions and that sex for an individual exists before an individual participates in social life. Therefore, sexual oppression such as partial citizenship of non-heterosexual individuals should be denounced (Ritzer, 2011). Rubin uses a sexual value system diagram to explain between good and bad sex. The sexual value system draws a line between bad and good sex. Good sexuality is regarded as sex for the marital, non-commercial, monogamous reproductive, and heterosexual. Bad sex is considered as sex by the promiscuous, unmarried, commercial, homosexuals and non-procreative. Bad sex also involves use of sex toys and unusual roles during sex. The line between bad sex and good sex tries to establish the human sexuality that is politically and legally correct. However, sex conflict is taking place in the world, and the some bad sexual behaviour is crossing the line between good and bad sex such as unmarried couples staying. Rubin therefore states that some of the good sex behaviour is not as good as the society construes. It is in this light that Rubin states that judgement on non-heterosexual individuals should not be embedded in citizenship since it would look like an ideology of racism and discrimination rather than morality (Ritzer, 2011). Morality that is democratic should examine sex by the level of mutual consideration, that is the way partners treat each other, quality and quantity of pleasure provided, and the absence or presence of coercion. Ethical concerns such as whether a person is straight or gay, sexual acts are for free or commercial, coupled or groups, in underwear or naked should not affect the citizenship of a person in any way. The politics of non-normalisation and normalisation In pursuit of social rights for non-heterosexual individuals, political movements have been formed. This has led to more disclosure of citizenship liberation through the media. This has led to the politics of normalisation and non-normalisation. In the politics of normalisation, the non-heterosexual people want to be included in the citizenship models and they want to enjoy the same right as straight people in social institutions such as marriage. The gays and the lesbians fight for the same rights as heterosexual people and want the society to tolerate them and accept their social differences. The non-heterosexual individuals want to be treated as normal citizens rather than partial citizens. However, the social construction of the societal intimacy requires the non-heterosexual individual to emulate the heterosexual ways of intimacy in order to be considered normal. Normalisation politics therefore decry the differences in gender identities, sexual activities and intimate arrangements of non-heterosexual people. Non-normalisation politics criticize the normalisation agenda by stating that even good citizenship as defined by the society is capable creating space for bad citizens in the society such as thieves and murderers (Bell & Binnie, 2000). The sexual hierarchy of bad and good sexual citizens create a division in the society, where good citizens enjoy certain rights and bad citizens do not enjoy specific rights. There are three approaches to the politics of equal social rights between the non-heterosexual and heterosexual. The first approach is inclusion of the non-heterosexuals in the heterosexual’s mainstream. This requires the non-heterosexual individuals to be given the same rights as the heterosexual individuals. The supporters on non-normalisation argue that the society needs to eliminate the construction of non-heterosexual individual’s image as bad in the society. Effects of bad citizenship do not reflect positively on sexual intimacy and expression of gender identities (Currah, 2006). Secondly the efficacy of non-heterosexual approach needs to be questioned. The general assumption bad citizenship is associated with queer sexual behaviours has also affected the production of bad citizenship in the society. Thirdly, a rights based political approach should be used to guide the society in leading a political and social change in order to accept different sexual orientations in the society. Sexual politics and rights require an assessment of how space and issues of citizenship intersect. Santos (2013) states that basic rights of an individual citizen include the use of specific space and access to that space within a given area. Membership to a community is either excluded or included as citizens depending on the boundaries (Lewis, 2010). Sexual conflicts may occur as individuals seek to identify their sexualities. The sexual orientation system is not an omnipotent or monolithic structure. There are constant wars over the costs, evaluations, privileges, arrangements, and definitions of sexual behaviours. Sexual conflict is also fuelled by the definition of a legal sexual conduct. Sexual Rights through the cultural industries While a lot of literature is concerned about sexual citizenship on the basis of heteronormative ideology, there is substantive literature concerned with sexual rights in social belonging context. Sexual rights refers to the enjoyment gender identity, sexual orientation, potential for pleasure, intimacy, autonomy, bodily integrity, reproduction, health, and erotic practices. Sexual rights in the cultural industry can be framed in three frameworks namely in relation to relationships, identities, and practices (Bell & Binnie, 2000). Practice based sexual rights involves the rights to enjoy sexual pleasures, to have self-control, reproductive autonomy, and to participate in sexual activity, identity sexual rights are concerned with the right to have self-identification and definition as well as self-realization and expression. Relationship social rights are concerned with the right to consent to a sexual partner and practices, to chooses a sexual partner, to enjoy civil rights accompanied by these relationships, and to have these relationships acknowledged .Traditionally and historically, sexual rights have been aligned with reproductive health, international fields of population, and violence against women (COSSMAN, 2007). The media has played a key role in highlighting the plight of non-heterosexuals and the need for them to be treated as equal society members. Today sexual rights are closely linked to citizenship. A good example is the conference carried out by the UN in 2004. The UN Commission of Human Rights drew a draft resolution on sexual orientation. The commission supported the inclusion of sexual orientation when discussing human rights violations. The HIV/AIDS has also led to expansion of human rights organizations that fight for the rights of people infected with the disease (Santos, 2013). This has seen the organizations fighting for not only straight people but also non-heterosexual individuals. However, inclusion of the non-heterosexual individuals in the fight for human rights has not fully eliminated discrimination of non-heterosexual individuals. Most individuals in the society view the sexual orientation of non-hero sexual individuals as negative. Conclusion The institutionalization of the sexuality in a social belonging has led to denial of rights to citizens regarded as partial citizens. These partial citizens are often referred to as the transgender and non-heterosexuals. The concept of social belonging and who can rightfully claim sexual rights raises issues over causes of sexual conflicts and reproduction differences. This brings in the politics of non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals (Historický Ústav, 1991). Literature on heterosexuality also raises concerns on the inclusion of some of non-normative sexualities such as unmarried couples staying together in the heterosexual framework. Sexual citizenship requires rethinking and restructuring in relation to citizenship awarding. A broader approach in the society needs to be absorbed in order to accommodate cultural practices, norms, and beliefs of all individuals in the society. Exclusion of citizenship in the society require a broader thinking on who exactly should be excluded from the society in order to create a clean atmosphere of belonging in the society in the society (Lewis, 2010). References BELL, D., & BINNIE, J. (2000). The sexual citizen: queer politics and beyond. Cambridge [u.a.], Polity. CANADAY, M. (2009). The Straight State Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton, Princeton University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=537655. CHEAH, P. (2000). Cosmopolitics: thinking and feeling beyond the nation. Minneapolis, Minn. [u.a.], Univ. of Minnesota Press CLAUSSEN, D. S. (2002). Sex, religion, media. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. COSSMAN, B. (2007). Sexual citizens: the legal and cultural regulation of sex and belonging. Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press. CURRAH, P., JUANG, R. M., & MINTER, S. (2006). Transgender rights. Minneapolis, Minn, University of Minnesota Press. HISTORICKÝ ÚSTAV S. , ÚSTAV ORIENTALISTIKY (SLOVENSKÁ AKADÉMIA VIED), & SLOVENSKÁ AKADÉMIA VIED. (1991). Human affairs. Bratislava, Historical Institute, Institute of Oriental and African Studies, Dept. of Social and Biological Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, VEDA, Pub. House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, CSFR. HALSAA, B., ROSENEIL, S., & SÜMER, S. (2012). Remaking citizenship in multicultural Europe: women's movements, gender and diversity. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan HEIJDEN, H.-A. V. D. (2014). Handbook of political citizenship and social movements. http://public.eblib.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=1826583 LEWIS, C. H. (2010). Prescription for heterosexuality sexual citizenship in the cold war era. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=605919. RITZER, G. (2011). The Wiley-Blackwell companion to sociology. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. RYAN-FLOOD, R. (2009). Lesbian motherhood: gender, families and sexual citizenship. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. SANTOS, A. C. (2013). Social movements and sexual citizenship in Southern Europe. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Read More