Homosexuality sexwithothermen,thishasoftenbeencon- tested and transformed given its clinical and GARY KINSMAN male-centered character by the , , 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 of institutionalized heterosexuality, which was at the center of Essentialism produces images of a static the oppression of all women, which became a and ahistorical homosexual (minority) and central tenet in lesbian feminism, and Adri- heterosexual (majority) when these are actu- enne Rich’s (1980) powerful theorization of ally historical and social creations. Across compulsory heterosexuality that focused on history and cultures, there was no transhis- the moment of coercion and repression in torical heterosexual or homosexual. Specific the social organization of heterosexuality but analyses of the social organization of erotic neglected the active incitement of hetero- desires and gender formation are required sexual desire and the active construction of in different historical and social contexts. As consent to heterosexuality as “normal” and Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) pointed out in 4 HOMOSEXUALITY her critical analysis of biological determin- the emergence of the homosexual and the ism, these approaches are not able to address heterosexual beyond the level of official the deeply social character of physiological discourse. Responding to the limitations developments. of this discursive emphasis, others have In response to biological determinist the- developed a more social relational and medi- ories that were initially deployed to argue ational analysis that includes the discursive. that homosexuality was a form of biological These approaches locate the emergence of the anomaly or degeneration, various social homosexual in the social spaces opened up by constructionist approaches emerged out of capitalist social relations beyond the different movements against gay and lesbian oppres- gender-based family “economy” (D’Emilio sion. These approaches, without denying 1983), in how people came to seize and use the physiological, stressed the social and these social spaces to develop their own erotic historical character of sexualities and sexual cultures, and in how they resisted policing identifications. This position was used to and state and social regulation (Kinsman challenge the social hegemony of institu- 1996). Others such as Jonathan Ned Katz tionalized homosexuality as “natural.” Mary (1995) have focused on how these social McIntosh (1968), early on, wrote about the transformations and struggles also set the social and historical emergence of the “ho- stage of the emergence of the heterosexual in mosexual role.” Jeffrey Weeks (1981), coming arelationalsocialfashion. out of the Gay Left Collective, developed a social constructionist critical analysis of sexual regulation. Michel Foucault (1980), in QUEER THEORY AND ITS his critique of the “repression hypothesis” of DISCONTENTS sexuality, developed a powerful critique of essentialist approaches, pointing to the recent More recently in relation to gay and les- historical invention of the “homosexual” bian organizing, including Queer Nation with the emergence of bio-power and the organizing in the United States and parts explosion of sexual classifications in the later of Canada against anti-queer violence and nineteenth century. queerinvisibility,andalsoincritiqueofthe There are a number of differing social con- narrowness of “homosexual,” there has been structionist approaches, with some having the generation of “queer theory.” In a broad amorediscursivefocusandothersamore sense,queertheorycanrefertotheoriespro- social relational and materialist character. duced in response to heterosexual hegemony In some of Foucault’s work, for instance, and the tyranny of the two-gender binary it is almost as if the homosexual emerges “system,”butinamorenarrowandspecific fullyformedoffthepagesofmedicaland usageitisassociatedwiththeworkofEve sexological discourse. What is not attended Kosofsky Sedgwick (1990) and Judith Butler to in the same way is what this official dis- (1990), and is more discourse focused and course was responding to in the emergence of influenced by postmodern and poststruc- networks of people engaging in same-gender turalist theorizing (Jagose 1996). The use desireandalsotheresponseofthepoliceand of “queer” has also been contested as some legal systems to this emergence. For some lesbian and trans activists and theorists have discourse-oriented approaches, there is an pointed to how “queer,” like “homosexual,” ontological problem since they are unable can be used to submerge gender relations to explicate the social relations leading to and the social experiences of women and HOMOSEXUALITY 5 trans people. Although there has been some histories and traditions of gender and sexual important work on connections of sexuality organization that do not conform to the with race and gender, and that people are hetero–homo binary that have hegemonized never just narrowly homosexual or queer, sexual and gender formation in the “West.” there has been a general eclipsing of class Part of the current process of capitalist glob- relations. Those with a more Marxist inclina- alization has been an attempt to impose tion have pointed out how currents in queer the heterosexual (majority)–homosexual theorycanbeusedtoseparatequeerstruggles (minority) binary on the rest of the world. from the social relations of class and class This has come to undermine indigenous struggles. gender and erotic practices in many countries Queer theory has made important con- that can include more than two genders and tributions in attempting to shift gay politics eroticpracticesthatcannotbemadesense away from being a “minority” politics to of through the heterosexual–homosexual putting heterosexuality in question once binary. Massad (2007), for instance, has chal- again. It troubles the normal and hetero- lenged the relevance of “homosexual” in Arab sexuality, but unfortunately largely only on countries, given the differences in gender and thediscursiveterrain.Itisoftennotvery sexual organization in these societies. While grounded in social relations and struggles. he may have put forward these arguments in Partly in response to these currents in a rather one-sided fashion, they raise major queer theory, a series of theorists, in differ- challenges to Western-centered homosexual ent ways, have been attempting to give the and queer theorizing. insights of queer theory a more grounded Forms of what Jasbir Puar (2007) described historical and social basis. Some of this work as homonationalism have also been gener- can be loosely grouped together as “Queer ated in the “North” and “West” that construct Marxist,” and this includes the work of Rose- these states as more “advanced” and “civ- mary Hennessy (2000), Kevin Floyd (2009), ilized” on homosexual rights than many Alan Sears (2005), Gary Kinsman (1996), and countriesintheglobalsouth.Thisinturn Peter Drucker (2014). This work links queer is tied up with class and racial formation in struggles more directly to transformations many Western homosexual/gay communities within globalized capitalist relations and where new middle-class forces have emerged with struggles over class and against poverty, that wish to accommodate themselves with racialization, and gender relations. capitalist relations and with the neocoloniz- ing and “civilizing” ambitions of their states NEW CHALLENGES: HOMOSEXUALITY, toward parts of the Global South. This raises GLOBALIZATION, AND crucial theoretical questions. Some of the HOMONATIONALISM burning questions in social theory are related to how to develop a broader international- A growing series of challenges have also ist critical gender and sexual politics that been made by activists and theorists about is rooted in a critical analysis of class and the “Western”–“Northern” character of racialization. This must be an approach that “homosexual” and “queer” and much of is able simultaneously to defend indigenous the theorizing based on this that has largely gender and erotic practices from attack while ignoredhistoriesandrelationsofcolonization also defending those who now identify as and imperialism. In the Global South, and homosexual and queer against sexual and among indigenous peoples, there are different gender oppression. 6 HOMOSEXUALITY

SEE ALSO: Compulsory Heterosexuality; Ollman, Bertall. 1978. SocialandSexualRevolu- Crime and Deviance; Heterosexism and tion: Essays on Marx and Reich. Boston: South Homophobia; Heterosexuality; Lesbianism; End Press. Queer Theory; Sexualities; and Parker, Andrew. 1993. Unthinking Sex, Marx, Transsexual Engels and the Scene of Writing. In Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, REFERENCES edited by Michael Warner, 19–41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Brock, Deborah R., ed. 2003. Making Normal: Puar, Jasbir K. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Social Regulation in Canada. : Thomp- Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, son/Nelson. NC: Duke University Press. Bunch, Charlotte, 1975. Not for Only. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. Compulsory Heterosexual- Quest, 2(2): 50–56. ity and Lesbian Existence. London: Onlywomen Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and Press. the Subversion of Identity.NewYork:Routledge. Sears, Alan. 2005. Queer Anti-Capitalism: What’s D’Emilio, John. 1983. Capitalism and Gay Iden- LeftofLesbianandGayLiberation?Science and tity. In Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexu- Society, 69(1): 92–112. ality,editedbyAnnSnitow,ChristineStansell, Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the and Sharon Thompson, 100–113. New York: Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. Monthly Review Press. Seidman, Steven, ed. 1996. Queer Theory/Sociology. Drucker, Peter. 2014. Warped: Gay Normality Malden, MA: Blackwell. and Queer Anticapitalism.Chicago:Haymarket Smith, George. 1998. The Ideology of “Fag”: The Books. School Experience of Gay Students. Sociological Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gen- Quarterly, 39(2): 309–335. der Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Weeks, Jeffrey. 1975. Where Engels Feared to NewYork:BasicBooks. Tread. Gay Left,(1):3–5. Floyd, Kevin. 2009. The Reification of Desire, Weeks, Jeffrey. 1981. Sex, Politics, and Society: The Toward a Queer Marxism.Minneapolis:Univer- Regulation of Sexuality Since 1800.Harlow,UK: sity of Minnesota Press. Longman. Foucault, Michel. 1980. The History of Sexuality. Weeks, Jeffrey. 2010. Sexuality. London: Routledge. Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage. Weinberg, George H. 1972. Society and the Healthy Hennessy, Rosemary. 2000. Profit and Pleasure: Homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism.NewYork: Routledge. FURTHER READING Jagose, Annamarie. 1996. Queer Theory, An Intro- duction. New York: NYU Press. Drucker, Peter, ed. 2000. Different Rainbows.Lon- Katz, Jonathan Ned. 1995. TheInventionofHetero- don: Gay Men’s Press. sexuality.NewYork:DuttonBooks. McCaskell, Tim. 2016. Queer Progress: From Kinsman, Gary. 1996. The Regulation of Desire: Homophobia to Homonationalism. Toronto: Homo and Hetero Sexualities.Montreal:Black Between the Lines. Rose. Parker, Andrew. 1993. Unthinking Sex, Marx, Kinsman, Gary and Gentile, Patrizia. 2010. The Engels and the Scene of Writing. In Fear of a Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, Sexual Regulation. Vancouver: UBC Press. edited by Michael Warner, 19–41. Minneapolis: Massad, Joseph. 2007. Desiring Arabs.Chicago: University of Minnesota Press. University of Chicago Press. Seidman, Steven. 1997. Difference Troubles: Queer- McIntosh, Mary. 1968. The Homosexual Role. ingSocialTheoryandSexualPolitics. Cambridge: Social Problems, 16: 182–192. Cambridge University Press.