Homosexuality' and Social Theory

Homosexuality sexwithothermen,thishasoftenbeencon- tested and transformed given its clinical and GARY KINSMAN male-centered character by the gay, lesbian Laurentian University, Canada feminist, and what is often now referred to as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans), Social theory is the various ways in which or queer movements, through the use of a people have theorized how the “social” works range of other terms and identifications. In in the emerging and developing capitalist this entry, “homosexuality” is used in a broad social relations of the last few centuries. “Ho- sense to include all those who participate mosexuality” is a term that emerges in the in same-gender erotic practices no matter later nineteenth century in the “West” in the howtheysociallyidentifyandalsotoasso- midst of capitalist and state relations among ciate this with challenges to the two-gender psychiatrists and sexologists to describe the (male–female) binary system that includes “truth” of people’s beings (Foucault 1980) trans experiences. whohadsexwithmembersofthesamegen- der, especially men who had sex with other HETEROSEXISM, DEVIANCE, men. Bringing social theory together with AND SOCIAL THEORIZING “homosexuality” combines broader social analysis with the realm of bodies and eroti- The ideology and practices organizing the cism and how “homosexualities” are lived, oppression of homosexuals are often referred constructed, and analyzed. It joins together to as heterosexism – the assumption that only what has often been described as the “pub- heterosexuality is “normal” and “natural” lic” and “political” realms, often considered and therefore that homosexualities are not the proper terrain for social theory, with normal and are unnatural. Classical and whathasoftenbeenportrayedasa“private” modern social theory did not simply ignore realm of erotic desires and practices that was or forget about homosexuality but heterosex- not considered the proper terrain for social ist assumptions emerged at the very heart of theory. This linkage makes it clear that, as social theory in the nineteenth and twentieth the feminist method puts it, the “personal centuries. This included more socially critical is political,” making visible links between approaches such as that of Marx and Engels sexualities and broader social and political (Weeks 1975; Parker 1993), who accepted a relations and extending social theory into form of gender and sexual naturalism and terrains of bodies and desires. The bringing were unable to apply their critical historical together of same-gender eroticism with social materialist method to genders and sexualities theory creates an explosive and generative (Kinsman 1996). It is also very present in terrain for social theorizing that can only be more moderate and conservative approaches partly addressed in this entry. in the work of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Although, as mentioned, “homosexuality” and Talcott Parsons (Seidman 1996). This has been used to describe same-gender eroti- isthecaseevenintheratherdifferentwork cism, and more specifically men who have of Sigmund Freud, where “homosexuality” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory.EditedbyBryanS.Turner. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118430873.est0169 2 HOMOSEXUALITY often becomes problematized whereas het- Theothersideofthis“deviance”of“ho- erosexuality, with all of its contradictions, mosexuality” has been the construction of is “normalized.” Even sex radicals such as heterosexuality at the center of the social as Wilhelm Reich, who attempted to bring the“normal”sexuality.Atthesametime,the psychoanalysis and Marxism together in the focus on “deviance” hides this social making 1930s, and who supported early homosex- of “normality.” Under the conceptualization ual law reform, assumed that heterosexual of “deviance,” the tables are never turned in orgasms were superior to homosexual ones thesamewayon“sexualnormality.” (Ollman 1978). There is a major and active impact of this Mainstream social theory is not simply social theory on social life. Mainstream or descriptive but is also actively prescriptive hegemonic forms of social theory have con- in participating in making the relations of tributed to the oppression that homosexuals heterosexual hegemony as they also are put face. This construction of heterosexism in in place in state formation, social policies, social theory was also often drawn upon and been associated with the institutionalization and cultural production. This is most clear of heterosexuality in state and social policy in psychology and sociology, where the and the construction of homosexuality as conceptualization of “deviance” as a major a major national security threat during the way of accounting for “social problems” has “Cold War” (Kinsman and Gentile 2010), for been a central theoretical “contribution” and instance. has entered into media and broader social discourses. This has come from a number of different theoretical directions, ranging from THEORIZING HOMOSEXUAL mainstream work on “abnormal” psychol- OPPRESSION: THE LIMITATIONS ogy, to structural functionalism, to deviance OF HOMOPHOBIA approaches in sociology, and within cultural Earlier homosexual rights and homophile studies. Rather than examining the social organizing often drew upon more “liberal” organization of “normality,” the focus has and “tolerating” strands within psychol- beenonthosedeemedtobesocialtroubles ogy and sometimes sociology. With the who fall outside this “normality” (Brock emergence of the gay and lesbian liberation 2003). Constructions of “deviance” are often movements following the 1969 Stonewall used as a cutting-out device from regular riots in New York City, and their spread social interaction for those identified as across parts of the world, activists directly “deviant” and can mandate social courses of confronted the hegemony of heterosexism in action leading to name-calling, harassment, social theorizing, in scholarship, and the ways and even violence (Smith 1998). Both on the in which this informed popular cultures. This level of theorizing and how this has shaped led to important critiques of heterosexism in popular “common sense,” the paradigmatic social theory. examples of “deviance” have been homosex- Initially, the major theoretical contribution uals and sex workers. This participated in was “homophobia,” given the key part that actively organizing social relations against psychiatry and psychology played in the homosexuals. construction of homosexual oppression in However, demarcating the “deviant” – what that period, which required a major challenge oneisnottobelike–inarelationalfash- to conceptualizations of mental illness and ion is actually productive of the “normal.” “deviance.” Homophobia (Weinberg 1972) HOMOSEXUALITY 3 was a very creative reversal of the hegemonic “natural.” Other more Gramscian-inspired conceptualization that homosexuals were theorizations of heterosexual hegemony mentally ill, instead shifting the focus onto attempted to address both repression and those heterosexuals who had problems with consent and the active construction of desire homosexuals. It was not homosexuals who as a shifting historical and social relation had a phobia but those heterosexuals who (Kinsman 1996). Most recently, heteronor- were bothered by homosexuals. This was a mativity has become common in queer very useful theoretical innovation in chal- theory, with an emphasis on processes of nor- lenging the regulatory regimes of psychiatry, malization regarding heterosexuality. Each psychology, and mental illness. This theo- of these approaches, in different ways, shifts rization was far less useful, however, when attention back to the social and institutional it was extended to become the major way character of heterosexuality as the problem of theorizing the social basis of homosexual that theorization and organizing need to oppression, which is how it was taken up in address. much gay organizing in the “West.” Oppres- sion was theorized in a particular way given that homophobia was based on the inversion THEORIZING THE HOMOSEXUAL of hegemonic psychological discourses and carried with it an individual and psycho- These theorizations also raised broader ques- logical focus. Although this allowed it to tions about how to theorize homosexuality have relevance when discussing individual more generally and also, by implication, responses to homosexuals, it did not cen- heterosexuality. ter on the social and institutional relations The hegemonic “commonsense” explana- producing “homophobia.” Instead, it located tion has been an essentialist one that assumes antihomosexual oppression as an individual that homosexuality is an essential character- and psychological problem that was to be istic of the individual usually rooted in forms addressedonthislevelandnotthroughchal- of biological determinism or reductionism lenging and transforming broader social and (Weeks 2010), establishing homosexuality as institutional relations. a minority sexuality in an ahistorical sense. Recognizing these limitations, other Despite the socially hegemonic character theories were put forward to analyze “ho- ofthisapproach,itisunabletoaccountfor mosexual” oppression with more of a focus the available anthropological, cross-cultural, onthesebroadersocialandinstitutional historical, and social evidence of widespread relations. This included Charlotte Bunch’s sexual and gender variation and diversity. (1975) early theorization

Load more