The Etiology of Homosexuality: Queer Theory and Social Construction of Sexuality - Coursework Example

The Etiology of Homosexuality For a long time, homosexuality was not talked about at all. Then it was considered to be a mental health condition that could be cured. Religious leaders treated it with exorcisms. The name homosexuality was first found in the late 19th century when a German psychologist, Karoly Benkert began to use the term. The term may be fairly new but discussions about sexuality and same-sex attraction have been found in philosophical writings as far back as Plato’s Symposium. In the western countries, social feeling about homosexuality has been that it is breaking a natural law that forbids homosexuality. One still sees references to this natural law in present day debates. More recently, debates have been driven by the Queer theory vs. the Natural Law theory. It was not until this theory was made public by the homosexual population that the etiology of homosexuality began to take on importance (Zata 2002). For the first time, it was being considered that perhaps homosexuality was not just a breaking of social law but rather there was a cause and effect that could either be manipulated for a “cure” or understood for social acceptance. Presently, etiology of same-sex romantic attraction is usually thought to involve three different areas, social influences, genetic influences and/or hormonal influences. Queer Theory and Social Construction of Sexuality This theory is saying that sexuality is socially constructed. They would say that no natural sexuality exists. They point to the ancient Greeks who believed a man can be sexually aroused by viewing either a man or a woman. Since we are all a product of this culture it is difficult for us to understand this as we are culturazied to only become aroused by the opposite sex. To become aroused in any other way brings about the negative cultural feelings one have been taught so arousal can not happen. So, in this theory, culture trains biology. Our culture then trains the individual to fit into one of two categories, aroused by the opposite sex or aroused by the same sex. It is also understood that the heterosexual population can not be aroused by their own sex. The homosexual population may or may not be aroused by the opposite sex and in such cases we would label them bisexual (Zalta 2002). It would seem that this social learning as described in the Queer theory but they seem to think that we learn to become aroused by the opposite sex by the use of cultural punishment. Culturally, you are treated differently if you become aroused by both sexes so the individual learns quickly if you do not want the negative consequences of being laughed at or ostracized, you do not allow that reaction. Those that are in a culture where the punishment does not exist or the individual chooses to ignore it then could become homosexual or bisexual as is our basic nature as proven by the Greeks and other ancient societies (Zalta 2002). Social Influences on Sexual Orientation A more recent and perhaps more scientific look at social learning from a nurturing perspective is presented by both psychologists and sociologists. This is the belief that culture is pass on by society. If this is applied to sexuality, it implies that since we know that sexual expression is different in different societies, then sexual expression must be learned from the culture in which an individual is raised. Social influences such as sexual preference is seen as the product of social and historic forces that come together to gender identity, desire and scripted behaviors. What is considered erotic or an expression of erotic desires is then the consequences of specific socialization experiences. Therefore, same-sex preferences in a society is seen by social sciences as the result of differential socialization experiences( Allexander 2003). In the United States, sex-role socialization is likely to produce the individual’s sex-preference. We expect by adolescence the individual will be attracted to the opposite sex. What this means is that parents in playing or interacting with the child to subtly encourage gender appropriate behaviors and to negatively respond to gender inappropriate behaviors. This would include things like girls playing with dolls or boys playing with trucks. Studies have shown that even at the preschool level that boys who insist on playing with feminine things in a feminine manner are generally ostracized from play by the other boys. That is not quite so true of the “tomboy” girl at this stage but it does come into play by age eight to ten (Allexander 2003). Nurture theory of development Erik Erickson’s theory of psychosocial development is mainly a nurture theory of development. He believed every human being regardless of their genetic make up had to achieve eight tasks to development. If a task is not achieved then that individual is developmentally stuck at that point and can not move on until the task is accomplished. This will have ramifications in this individual’s daily life in their ability to create and maintain appropriate relationships. Caregivers and environment have the potential to facilitate this process in a positive way or to stop the process leaving the individual stuck (Michaels 2006). For example, if the individual stuck in initiative vs. guilt and has not mastered that ability to explore new things and plan their experiences they would be stuck there. That would sexually keep them in an immature place as well so perhaps their sexual attraction would remain to the same sex as well. This individual would know the same sex and not feel capable of deviating from that even when the hormones kick in. Freud too is a nurture theory but he believed the child must go through psychosexual stages. Freud thought that men try to hold on to the maternal relationship by identifying with their mothers, and they then choose love objects that are similar to themselves. These men appear effeminate and maternal. Another version of Freudian theory believes that homosexuality comes from a boy not wanting to give in to the competition he has for his mother’s love. A reaction formation occurs and instead of seeing men as rivals he sees them as erotic images (Bem 2006). So the nurture developmental theories minimally say the there is a stage in development where the caregiver can go wrong and `cause a change in the development of the child and indeed the result could be homosexuality. It also does not rule out the addition of social learning along with the glitch in the developmental stage could also be at work in the etiology of homosexuality (Baily 3003). Biological Theory First, it appears that genetics has something to do with homosexuality. Several studies have shown that homosexuality tends to run in families. The probability that a gay man will have a gay brother is four times higher than the probability that a heterosexual man will have a gay brother. The statistics are similar for lesbians, however, lesbians and gays tend to not run in families. Note that in identical twins that about 50% of the time the twins are both gay. If this were to be completely genetic then would it not be 100%? But if genetics has nothing to do with it then 50% is extremely high. Scientists think they have located the “gay gene”, XQ28 which is carried by the mother. Another reason to believe that homosexuality has some genetic factor is that it generally appears at a very early age so there has not been a lot of time for cultural learning. There are also indications that differences are found in the brains of homosexual. It is in the hypothalamus which regulates eating, drinking, temperature and sexual behavior. The same difference is seen in gay and lesbian brains. There is other research that shows the amounts of hormones available to the fetus can affect sexual preference. It is theorized that both identical twins are not gay because due to positioning they did not both receive identical quantities of hormones (Hammermeister, 2005). Nature Developmental Theories There are developmental theories that state that the individual is what he/she is due to genetics and not amount of learning, cultural pressure or punishment can change this basic nature. These theories rely heavily on DNA transmission of personality traits saying one should expect personality to be carried by DNA in much the say way as biological traits such as hair color, height and physical appearance are carried by DNA. The Biological research on homosexuality seems to be showing evidence that that could indeed be true (Michaels 2006). Nature and Nurture Researcher suggest that in the future there will be research that clarifies specific mechanisms that will explain the interplay between genetic s and environmental influences on not just homosexuality but also on psychological and social development. There are three findings that indicate there is hope for finding this synthesis. It is known that each of us is born with about 100,000 genes that do not change. These genes have a strong effect on behavior. Some genetic influences are seen early in life and others show up later. It is also known that genes can influence how an individual adjusts to his/her environment and the environment can bring out different adjustment patterns. Finally it has been proven that genetic influences are very malleable and they are very responsive to the social environment. It has been learned that the social environment may play both a necessary and a specific role in the developmental outcome or a specific gene. Studying this interplay will allow scientists to understand when in development and how in development these two elements work together. While this research is not specifically looking for the etiology of homosexuality, it is likely to shed a great deal of light on that question (FitzGerald 2000). Conclusion At this point in time we are back to the nature nurture question of development. Clearly much evidence has been formulated to support both possibilities of etiology for homosexuality. Clearly at this point in time neither can be ruled out and both need to be embraced as a possibility. This writer believes the Nature and Nurture theory will likely be the one that is most credible. The human body is very complex and to think that there is one answer to such a complex thing as sexual orientation does not make sense. It pleases this author to see that research is being done to coordinate what is nature and what is nurture and the timing at which each is important. This is likely to greatly change developmental theory and not just affect the etiology of homosexuality. References Allexander, G.M. (2003) An Evolutionary Perspective of Sex-Typed Toy Preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (10): 7-14. Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. (2003). A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (3), 217-223. Bem, D.J. (2006). Erotic Becomes Erotic” A Developmental Theory of Sexual Orientation. Psychological Review, 103 (20, 320-335. FitzGerald, W.A. (2000). Explaining the Variety of Human Sexuality. Medical Hypotheses, 55 (5), 435-439. Hammermeister, K. (2005), A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation. Science, 261(5119), 321-327. Michaels, A.M. (2006). Queer Counts: The Sociological Construction of Homosexuality Via Survey Research. PH.D Thesis, The University of Chicago. DAI, 58:07A, 2855- 315. Zalta, E. (Ed.) (2002). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 13, 2002 from http://plato.stanford.edu/. Read More