The Formation of a Homosexual Identity: Moving Beyond Essentialism to Constructionism Philip Osteen SOWK 5002: Social Work and

Theory Fall 2003 Professor Walter LaMendola

Introduction Since the coinage of the term homo-sexual by the German physician Charles Gilbert Chaddock, Western societies have been debating an essentialist versus constructionist approach to the interpretation and explanation of the homosexual identity (Halperin, 1990). It is argued here that proscribing to an essentialist approach limits the discourse on homosexuality to questions of etiology and normality; where as interpreting homosexuality through the framework of constructionism allows for a dialectical discourse on the control and regulation of human sexuality through systems of polarized binary categorizations. It is further argued that, despite the limitations of Social Construction Theory, the application of critical thinking to a constructionist approach leads to the conceptualization and development of a postmodern emancipatory project. After beginning with a brief explanation of the essentialist versus constructionist debate, this paper will move beyond essentialism to further explore and interpret the social construction of the homosexual identity. A brief historical review of cultural interpretations of same-sex sexual behavior will be provided, beginning with Ancient Greek society moving to the de-moralization of same-sex sexual behavior in Medieval times and then to the vilification of homosexuality beginning in the mid-19th century through the present time. The social construction of homosexuality will be interpreted though the works of several theorists, including Critical Theorists, Horkheimer and Habermas, Poststructuralists, Foucalt and Derrida, Psychoanalytic Theory and Freud, Postmodernists, Fraser and Butler, and the social/cultural theories of Bourdieu and Giddens. The primary focus will be on the ways that sexual identities are constructed in relationship to models of coming out, the political and public sphere, capitalism, and the

media. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of a constructionist approach, particularly in reference to informing and shaping a postmodern emancipatory project. Clearly, this is an ambitious task, and the constraints of the assignment preclude the level of depth and scope deserved by such an attempt; however, as an initial foray into the social construction of the homosexual identity, this paper attempts to identify key concepts, theories, and theorists as a foundation for further exploration and critique. Essentialism Versus Constructionism British sociologist Jeffrey Weeks (1996) is credited as defining the debate over homosexuality identity as a difference between essentialism and constructionism. Essentialism is defined as the idea that sexuality is a basic and essential part of being human, and the essentialist view of homosexuality can be seen in the various biological and psychoanalytic theories of etiology of the 19th and 20th centuries (Seidman, 2003; Suppe, 1994; Thorp, 1992). Constructionism is defined as the idea that sexuality is a learned way of thinking and behaving, and this interpretation is a common concept across contemporary social theories (Seidman, 2003; Hall, 2003; Gergen, 1997). Although generally viewed as mutually exclusive approaches, there is also some consideration given to the importance of a combined theoretical approach, if not in a unified conceptualization, then at least in application and practice (Epstein, 1987). The Essentialist Approach An essentialist approach to sexuality, as specifically differentiated into heterosexuality and homosexuality, assumes that sexual orientation and sexual identity are naturally occurring and inherent phenomenon (Seidman, 2003). Primarily based in

biological and psychological theories of etiology, this approach identifies heterosexuality as the natural and normal human condition, and homosexuality, in contrast, is the result of faulty biology and/or pathological and maladaptive psychological development (Beard & Glickauf-Hughes, 1994; Thorp, 1992; Green, 1985). As evidenced here, the essentialist approach establishes homosexuality as a condition which is inherently inferior to the natural order of heterosexuality, and as such, homosexuality can be treated, or, at the very least, identified and contained. Furthermore, the essentialist approach equates sexual behavior with sexual identity; there is no difference between the two. Essentialist theories of homosexuality originate in the 19th century establishment of sexuality as a field of empirical research (Foucalt, 1980), and it is the personification of same-sex sexual behavior that places its study in the fields of medicine and psychology (Taylor, 2002). Biological theories of the etiology of homosexuality posit a wide range of beliefs ranging from genetic origins and hormonal imbalances to morphological differences in skeletal/muscular ratios and gender-specific configurations of pubic hair (Suppe, 1994). A major criticism of biological theories of homosexuality is that a century of research, spanning more than one thousand studies, has failed to establish an empirically proven biological mechanism for the cause or explanation of homosexuality (Suppe, 1994). The origin of essentialist psychological theories of the etiology of homosexuality is generally attributed to Freud and psychoanalytic theory (Beard & Glickauf-Hughes, 1994). Freud posits homosexuality as the natural, yet pathological, result of failed developmental processes (Freud, 1905, 1920; as discussed in Seidman, 2003, and Taylor, 2002). Sexuality is an outcome of the resolution of the Oedipal complex, in which the male child, out of fear

of retribution and castration by the father for the childs desire for the mother, comes to identify with the father and incorporates a libidinal interest in the opposite sex (Beard & Glickauf-Hughes, 1994). The failed resolution of the Oedipal complex results in an identification of the male child with the mother and a directing of libidinal energy towards members of her opposite sex, that is, men (Beard & Glickauf-Hughes, 1994). Although generally interpreted as planophysical theories, that is, the view that homosexuality is an error of nature (Green, 1985), many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) activists subscribe to an essentialist approach. The assumption of a planophysical approach is that homosexuals, regardless of their natural origins, are inferior to heterosexuals and incapable of carrying out the predetermined biological and psychological processes of human development. GLBT activists tend to redefine essentialism as a doliophysical theory, the view that homosexuality serves an unidentified purpose in nature (Green, 1985), as a means of establishing the normalcy and legitimacy of homosexuality (Bernstein, 1997). The use of the essentialist approach by GLBT activists as a strategic political process will be discussed in more depth in a later section. The Constructionist Approach In contrast to the essentialist approach is the position proffered by Social Construction Theory. Although there are different degrees of social construction of sexual identity, at a minimum, all constructionist approaches recognize that physically identical sexual acts may have varying social significance and meaning depending on how they are defined and understood in different cultures and historical periods (Vance, 1989). Historically, same-sex sexual behavior has been viewed as exactly that, behavior, and

behavior could be evaluated independently without value being assigned to the individual engaging in that behavior (Taylor, 2002). Thus, specific societies might approve or disapprove of engaging in same-sex behavior, the verb, without meaning or identity being assigned to the individual, the noun. A more radical interpretation of the constructionist approach views sexual desire itself as being socially constructed (Vance, 1989). Within this position, an individual may have feelings of attraction or desire for members of the same sex, but it is only through the process of socialization that the individual constructs these feelings as sexual and the signifier of a homosexual identity (Seidman, 2003). The identification of desire and attraction as sexual limits the ways in which these desires and attractions can be expressed and the meanings attributed to these expressions. This view incorporates a sense of predetermination, not in the inherent and natural confines of an essentialist approach, but, instead, as an obstacle that can be recognized and overcome. The social construction of sexual identity has resulted in the legitimization of binary categorizations of heterosexuality and homosexuality. Associated with the social construction of sexual identity is the social construction of gender identity. The complex social, economic, and political justifications for these dichotomous constructions will be explored in more depth in a later section, but it is important to the theory of constructionism to understand that these categories are not arbitrarily created. Identity is established through relationships of contrast (Epstein, 1987), therefore, there cannot be a heterosexual identity without a homosexual identity (Wilkinson, 1994). A confounding element in understanding the social construction of sexual identity is the lack of consensus over what actually constitutes homosexuality and heterosexuality

(Suppe, 1994). A review of literature identifies multiple conceptions of sexual identity (Suppe, 1994): biological sex the anatomical genitalia that an individual is born with gender identity ones basic conviction of being male or female sexual orientation a multivariate definition comprised of the following five components: o sexual behavior patterns of erotic bodily contact with others o interpersonal affection patterns associations involving various degrees of trust o erotic fantasy structure sexually arousing patterns of mental images o arousal cue-response patterns sensory cues that stimulate or inhibit erotic arousal o self-labeling labels of sexual identity one applies to ones self This multidimensional research approach for establishing the parameters of sexual identity further illustrates the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of a socially constructed binary categorization of sexuality. Thus, the creation of the label homo-sexual in 1892 began the process by which individuals have come to be assigned, and personally integrate, a socially constructed identity as defined by proscribed patterns of behavior. Whether interpreted from an essentialist or constructionist approach, the dominant discourse on homosexuality has been resoundingly negative. As indicated through the essentialist approach, homosexuality as a condition may be potentially treated or at least identified, and even if left unresolved, results in a less than desirable life experience. However, if viewed from the constructionist approach, there is the possibility of establishing an emancipatory project of critical consciousness, through which socially constructed identities are eschewed in favor of a more pluralistic reality. A historical exploration of same-sex behavior across cultures 7

illustrates that the way things are isnt the way that things have always been. This raises the question as to how and why individuals, including those oppressed by the current system, continue to produce and reproduce a system of polarizing, binary categorizations of human sexuality. A Historical Perspective on Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Identity As noted above, the word homo-sexual did not exist until 1892, and the word hetero-sexual did not come into established use until the turn of the century (Halperin, 1990). Is this to suggest that there were no instances of same-sex and opposite-sex sexual behavior? Obviously this is not the case, although it is argued that there were no same-sex and opposite-sex based identities before the creation of these terms. It is generally accepted that same-sex sexual behavior and relationships have existed throughout the history of human kind (Adam, 1985), and the first documented instances of same-sex behavior and relationships appears in the writings of Ancient Greek societies (Halperin, 1990; Thorp, 1992). One interpretation of same-sex behavior in Ancient Greece situates this practice as an initiation rite of pederasty, sex between an older and a younger male (Halperin, 1990); however, another interpretation, based on Aristophanes speech in Platos Symposium, suggests that there were men in Ancient Greece who formed and maintained life-long, same-sex partnerships, although these relationships were generally dissuaded because of the lack of age asymmetry (Thorp, 1992). It is around the middle of the 14th century when writings appear documenting the negative view of the Church towards same-sex sexual practices, and there is a concerted effort on the part of the Church to repress same-sex sexual behavior (Taylor, 2002). Between, the 14th and 19th centuries, an estimated hundreds of thousands of men were

executed in Europe and the Americas for engaging in sodomy, and this genocide was legitimated by the Church through its positioning of sodomy as an unspeakable sin (Taylor, 2002). The association of sodomy with non-procreative sex and the anus, and later, with homosexuality, has fashioned it as a symbol of disorder, disintegration, and decay; the same discourse which led to the Nazi extermination of approximately 50,000 homosexual men and the AIDS hysteria of the mid-1980s (Taylor, 2002). Kristeva (1965, as cited in Taylor, 2002) interprets the positioning of sodomy and homosexuality in modern society as an enactment of abhorrence with the anus, its misappropriation, its repellent excreta, and their symbolization of death and decay. During the 18th century, many European cities witnessed the emergence of molly houses, taverns specifically catering to men who engaged in sodomy (Taylor, 2002; Bray, 1982). Molly houses were the architectural manifestation of an emerging community of mainly effeminate and cross-dressing men who associated on the basis of preferred sexual behaviors (Bray, 1982). At this time, sodomy was already constituted as an attack on masculinity, patriarchy, and the institution of marriage, and the further blurring of previously delineated gender roles raised the negative valuation of sodomy to an extreme (Bray, 1982). In America, these men who engaged in sodomy and flouted the established gender roles of society were called inverts; it should be noted, however, that their identity wasnt assigned on the basis of their sexual behavior, but instead on their engagement in cross-dressing behaviors (Taylor, 2002). Foucalt (1980) establishes the emergence of the homosexual as a unique species towards the end of the 19th century through pseudo-medical taxonomy, which served to legitimately establish a stigmatized and transgressive identity as the boundary between

permissible and impermissible sexual conduct. Foucalt (1980) offers two arguments for why a discourse on sexuality would need to be created. First, the late 1800s were a source of emerging disciplinary societies, and disciplinary control relies on the power of normalizing ideas to control peoples bodies and actions by controlling their sexual thoughts, feelings, and identities (Foucalt, 1980). Thus, the homosexual was invented for the purpose of defining, stigmatizing, and ultimately regulating otherness as a means of establishing and reifying procreative sexuality and the subservient role of sexuality to capitalism; in this sense, homosexuals are unique, as few groups of people have been created for the sole purpose of vilification. Second, migration patterns across Europe were resulting in rapid population growth, and a new emphasis on understanding bodies and procreation emerged; it was discovered that by controlling sex, one could also control the behaviors of both individuals and populations (Foucalt, 1980). The link between the social construction of homosexuality, reproduction, and capitalism will be explored in more depth in the next section. For most of the 20th century, Western societies have prescribed to an essentialist theory of homosexuality. As discussed above, this view has led proponents of heterosexuality to view homosexuals as deviant, inferior, and pathological; interestingly though, GLBT activists have also used the essentialist approach to further the political causes of GLBT people by asserting that GLBT people are products of nature (planned or otherwise), just like everyone else (Bernstein, 1997). The 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City are generally accepted as the origins of the modern GLBT movement in the United States (Hall, 2003; Seidman, 2003), and it this emergence of a collective identity among GLBT people which has provided the foundation for current

10

social and political discourses within and about the GLBT community (Bernstein, 1997). The relationship between the social construction of identity and the role of a collective GLBT political identity will be explored in more depth in the next section. One final contrast can be drawn between modern Western conceptualizations of homosexuality and the views towards same-sex sexual behavior among primitive, defined here as pre-capitalist, societies. Adam (1985) provides an extensive review of anthropological and ethnographic research focusing on the role of kinship codes in moderating same-sex sexual behavior. In societal systems as diverse as Melanesia, Amazonia, central Africa, and Siwa, kinship rules regulate same-sex behavior the same as opposite-sex behavior (Adam, 1985). These kinship rules prescribe tabooed and preferred categories of sexual combination, including frequent evidence of asymmetrical age-related same-sex sexual behavior and even instances of long-term same-sex relationships (Adam, 1985). These examples demonstrate that same-sex sexual behavior occurred across cultures and across historical periods, and within parameters, this behavior was recognized and accepted without any assignment of sex-related identity characteristics.

The Social Construction of the Homosexual Identity There are many ways in which the homosexual identity has been socially constructed, and each of these assigned meanings meets some specified purpose. This section seeks to explore social constructs of the homosexual identity as interpreted through different sociological theories. It is through the application of these theoretical frameworks that it is possible to develop a deeper understanding of the impact and implications of

11

social constructionism on GLBT people. Specifically, this section will look at the intersection of social constructionism with: developmental stage models of coming out the politics of sexual identities capitalism, procreation, and gender identity cultural capital and the media Developmental Stages of Coming Out Much of the literature on homosexual identities concerns itself with the importance of coming out through a series of developmental stages (e.g. Harrison, 2003; Elizur & Mintzer, 2001). Coming out is generally defined as a two-part process through which individuals recognize, accept, and internally integrate a homosexual identity and then come to externally represent the homosexual identity (e.g., Cain, 1991; Cass, 1984). Although different models contain varying numbers of developmental stages, there are basic steps common to all models (see specifically: Troiden, 1989; Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982): a self-description GLBT people self-concept an increased acceptance of the term homosexual as an increasingly positive view towards this identity increased personal and social contact with other a growing desire to disclose ones sexual orientation the integration of a homosexual identity into overall

One of the major criticisms of these developmental models is that they do not take into account other important factors such as history, geography, and culture (Elizur & Mintzer, 2001). It is further argued here that these developmental models are, in and of themselves, social constructions which limit and constrain identities to rigid and exclusionary categories. As suggested previously, individuals may come to recognize feelings, attractions, and desires for members of the same sex, but it is the sexuality, and 12

thus the homosexuality, of those feelings which is socially constructed. It could be argued that these developmental models merely illustrate the social construction of a homosexual identity; however, there are also two ways in which these models can be interpreted as the tools of construction themselves. First, the development of these models was based on respondents answers to discreet categorical questions (Troiden, 1989; Cass, 1984), and thus, there were structural limitations in the development tools themselves which precluded responses outside of narrowly defined categories. Second, the widely-accepted status of these developmental models serves as a tool of social construction as professionals and laypeople alike come to apply these models to reality, thus constructing discreet, exclusionary categories of identity. The social construction of homosexual identities through developmental stage models of coming out also creates categorical differences between healthy homosexuals and unhealthy homosexuals. The healthy, psychologically adjusted, and normative outcome of these developmental models is the integration and subsequent social disclosure of a homosexual identity (Cain, 1991). The intra-psychic wellness of those who proceed through the prescribed stages is designated as superior to the intrapsychic wellness of those who do not proceed through the stages (Troiden, 1989; Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982). No potentially positive, or even neutral, consideration is given to the historical, cultural, social, or internal forces which might preclude coming out; healthy homosexuals self-identify and disclose their status and unhealthy homosexuals do not (Cain, 1991). Great importance is given to the formative adolescent years in these developmental stage models (e.g., Harrison, 2003; Kivel & Kleiber, 2000). Situated in an essentialist

13

framework and informed by psychoanalytic theory, these models emphasize the inherent and concrete nature of sexual identity that must be addressed and resolved through the formative childhood and adolescent years, and which remains constant and fixed through out life. It is argued here that this essentialist framework is actually a socially constructed view of sexual identity. There is no consideration given to the possible fluid nature of sexual identity, nor is the individual imbued with any sense of personal agency. Individuals constantly produce and reproduce their (sexual) identities, and at any point, an individual might come to embrace and portray a different (sexual) identity as evidenced in Giddens (1992) account of the 65 year old widower who develops a homosexual relationship even though he has never experienced same-sex sexual behavior or fantasies. The essentialist framework of models of coming out actually constructs the limited choices and expressions of sexual identity available to individuals. The Politics of Sexual Identities The use of the homosexual identity as a centralizing concept in the establishment of a collective political identity can be traced back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969 (Bernstein, 1997). The collective GLBT political identity, formulated around the shared experience of oppression on the basis of a non-normative, i.e. homosexual, lifestyle, has become an increasingly visible force in contemporary Western society. The fight over equal rights and protection and the acknowledgment of a socially acceptable identity is debated in the public sphere on a daily basis (e.g., Sullivan, 2003). The political strategies employed by the GLBT collective can be categorized as normalizing or anti-normalizing (Meeks, 2001); and the choice of one strategy over the other is primarily driven by the specific

14

elements, at a given point in time, that are required to establish and maintain organizational forms that promote participation and empowerment (Bernstein, 1997). Normalizing strategies are those which seek minimize the differences between heterosexuals and sexual minorities; these strategies share three basic characteristics (Meeks, 2001): 1) They position sexual desire as a key marker of the self; 2) They use sexual identity as the key means of differentiation between self and the social; and 3) The stigmatized can appeal to normalization for acceptance and tolerance. Advocates of these strategies typically employ an essentialist framework in trying to minimize differences between the dominant and subordinate population along these socially constructed assertions about sexual identity. Normalizing strategies can be used to meet two specific goals. First, these strategies seek to use identity for empowerment, in which a collective identity is established through consensus in the public sphere of the oppressed population(s) (Habermas, 1992, as cited in Meeks, 2001), on the basis that a unified identity is required for political action to be feasible (Bernstein, 1997). Second, these strategies seek to use identity for education, in which the dominant cultures perceptions of the oppressed population are challenged and differences between the two groups are minimized (Bernstein, 1997). It is through the continued production and reproduction of the status quo that the binary categories of sexual identity become further legitimized and solidified. A further application of this concept of normalizing strategies can be read in Alexanders (1992) discussion of the establishment of citizens and enemies through moral codes. Alexander (1992) posits that every society has a moral code by which it

15

distinguishes between citizens, pure and civilized individuals who deserve rights and inclusion, and enemies, polluted and uncivilized individuals who are undeserving. Regardless of how these categories are constructed, every contestation between the two groups serves to further affirm the binding character of the moral code. The only way to cross the citizen/enemy barrier is through normalizing strategies of communicative political action to legitimize the position of the enemy as an integral part of the society as a whole (Alexander, 1992). In sharp contrast to the normalizing approach is the use of anti-normalizing strategies. The function of anti-normalizing strategies is to challenge the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant culture (Meeks, 2001), and this approach hinges on the emphasizing and celebration of differences (Bernstein, 1997). Like their counterpart, antinormalizing strategies share three basic characteristics (Meeks, 2001): 1) They challenge the dominant discourse on sexual morality and normalcy, seeking to decenter these considerations; 2) They are less concerned about a politics of identity and more focused on a population of multiple voices and desires; and 3) They engage in the productive contestation of normative dominance concerning sex, desire, and pleasure. These characteristics situate the anti-normalizing strategies in line with the poststructuralist theories of Derrida, who philosophized about the need and importance of deconstructing symbolic categorizations like homosexuality/heterosexuality, masculinity/femininity, male/female, and natural/unnatural (Derrida, 1970; as cited and discussed in Seidman, 2003; and Turner, 2000). Through the deconstruction of these core concepts, it is revealed that a sexual identity can be constructed in any way imaginable precisely because it can never mean what it intends to mean and will always be open to contestation, renegotiation, reversal, and incoherence (Meeks, 2001).

16

Anti-normalizing strategies can be used to achieve two purposes. First, identity as goal is the process of challenging stigmatized identities, seeking recognition of new identities, and deconstructing restrictive social categories (Bernstein, 1997). Again, the influence of Derrida is clear, but there is also the presence of the postmodern philosophies of Butler and Fraser and their insistence on casting off the identity labels of sexuality and allowing ones self to be unnamed (Butler, 1997; Fraser, 1997). Both Butler and Fraser, self-proclaimed poststructuralists and postmodernists, draw heavily on the work of Foucalt, and to a lesser degree Derrida, but they imbue their actors with a sense of free agency and even a responsibility to eschew modernistic categories of identification (Butler, 1997; Fraser, 1997; Smith, 2001). Second, identity as critique confronts the values, categories, and practices of the dominant culture (Bernstein, 1997). Fraser (1992), drawing on Habermas (1989, as cited in Fraser, 1992), suggests that there exists along side the modern public sphere any number of subaltern counter-publics, which she defines as: Parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter-discourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs. It is through the existence of these subaltern counter-publics that identity as critique is carried out. A major criticism of Frasers approach is that regardless of what occurs in these subalterns, they must ultimately give in to normalization because a collective voice is required to reengage the dominant discourse, and this collective voice will inevitably exclude certain identities, interests, and needs in order to reach a consensus (Meeks, 2001). By contrast, the development of a critical consciousness, as formulated in critical theory, is a means by which subjects can come to grasp the meaning of their actions and concepts

17

within the historical construction of their social world and establish new ways of meeting human needs (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1973; as cited in Ray, 2003; and Calhoun, 2000). Only through critical consciousness can one come to an understanding of the historical, cultural, national, and directly interpersonal contingency of identity, and therefore, its lack of any enduring nature (Hall, 2003). Identity politics must be considered in the context of an emancipatory project, and it is argued here that in order to move beyond gay politics, which seek to minimize the differences in the socially constructed sexual identities of heterosexual and homosexual, there must be the emergence of queer politics, which seek not to affirm difference as different from heterosexuals, but instead affirm the multitude of voices and the plurality of identities that exist with a queer community (Meeks, 2001).

Capitalism, Procreation, and Gender Identity The process of labeling and stigmatizing behavior facilitates the work of institutions in creating bounded categories (Simon & Gagnon, 1967), and in the case of sexual identity, this is essential because without homosexuality, there could be no heterosexuality. Opposite-sex behavior has always existed, although its meanings and social organization has varied throughout history as is evidenced by the immense social variation in patterns of intimacy, marriage and family (Seidman, 2003). The question becomes, what does it mean to be heterosexual in modern Western society? Seidman (2003) argues that to be heterosexual today simply means that one exhibits sexual attraction towards members of the opposite sex; there is no need to be motivated to be married or have a family in order to be heterosexual. This, however, is not a historically

18

supported definition of heterosexuality. In 19th century America, opposite-sex behavior, which was termed heterosexual around the turn of the century, was centered on the idea of a reproductive drive and the need to procreate, not sexual attraction or identity, and it was the creation of the category heterosexual that decoupled opposite-sex desire from procreation (Seidman, 2003). The social construction of sexuality for pleasure not procreation became further substantiated with the rise of psychoanalytic theory in the early 20th century, and the primary question becomes, why did this shift in meaning occur? Seidman (2003) attributes this change in the meaning of heterosexuality to something of a gender identity crisis in both Europe and America. As noted in the earlier section on History, the emergence in Europe of aa, albeit small, community of men characterized by their effeminate manners and propensity for cross-dressing, began to radically challenge the previously well-order and delineated gender roles of society (Taylor, 2002). Interestingly, the same phenomenon seemed to be occurring in America around the turn of the century, and the appearance of these cross-gendered communities resulted in a near collapse of the social order as women were becoming more masculine and men were becoming more feminine (Sediman, 2003). Establishing heterosexuality as the norm became one way of asserting traditional gender differences and the normality of dichotomous gender roles (Sediman, 2003). Because identities are established in relations of contrast, for heterosexuality to be the norm, homosexuality had to be deviant. Of primary importance to the emerging capitalist society was the need to procure an ever-replenishing work force, a goal that relied upon the strict delineation of gender roles, the norm of heterosexuality, and the centrality of the family (Butler, 1997; Adam, 1985).

19

Based in the feminist works of the 1970s, Butler (1997) asserts that the family is a part of the mode of production, and the production of gender is necessary for the production of human beings, which is the central role of the family in capitalist society. Thus, the regulation of gender roles and sexual desire are requirements for the continued existence of the mode of production (the family), which is the defining structure of a political economy (Butler, 1997). By establishing the deviant status of the homosexual and the norm of the heterosexual, capitalism was served in two ways; entering into marriage and creating families ensured the continued production of a viable work force, and men with families had to work to support them. In contrast to this view of early capitalism, Fraser (1997) argues that modern capitalism has no need or interest in regulating sexuality. Fraser (1997) contends that if homosexuals represented an inferior class of menial workers whose continued oppression would benefit capitals interest, then Butlers argument would carry more weight in contemporary society; however, the modern day opponents to GLBT rights are not multinational corporations, whose interests are profits, but instead, are religious and conservative groups concerned with status. It is also argued that the expanding global market has resulted in an excess of workers in this country, and it is the release from the societal responsibility and requirement to reproduce that has resulted in the population growth of GLBT communities, as individuals, for the first time, have found the freedom to eschew the institutions of heterosexual marriage and family (Smith, 2001; Bernstein, 1997; Adam, 1985). Cultural Capital and the Media

20

In shifting the focus of capitalism from producer to consumer, it is possible to interpret the role of the homosexual in modern day capitalism in an entirely different way. As gay consumers have become more identifiable, reachable, and desirable as a target market, there has been an explosion in national ad-supported gay and lesbian media (Sender, 2003) and national corporate sponsorship for GLBT cultural events (Taylor, 2002). The contemporary homosexual has been aggressively constructed, marketed, and exploited as a consumer-based identity; one in which the acquisition of goods and the pursuit of pleasure are offered as compensation for social inequity and emotional deprivation (Taylor, 2002). The collective homosexual identity is therefore constructed as community through consumption, emancipation through accumulation, liberation through hedonism, and equality is equated with spending power, the pursuit of pleasure, and sexual plurality (Bronski, 1998). Senders (2003) research on gay and lesbian media raises an important issue, namely the sequestering or removal of sexual advertising and editorial content from gay and lesbian media, leading to the question of impact invoked by the paradoxical situation in which a market established solely on the non-dominant sexuality of its constituency can only be brought into being through the effacement of that sexuality. Sender (2003) identifies two societal preconceptions leading to the cloistering of gay sex in advertising. Concerns about gay mens sexuality, as embodied in the stereotypes of the hypersexual, predatory, and possibly pedophilic gay man and the promiscuous AIDS victim, has led advertisers and media producers to adopt strict rules about the visibility of gay sex, and through this process have constituted the ideal gay consumer (Sender, 2003; Taylor, 2002).

21

Sender draws heavily on the philosophies of Bourdieu, beginning with his discussions on tastes and how they simultaneously manifest and reassert cultural hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1984, as cited and discussed in Sender, 2003). Bourdieu identifies four types of capital (Bourdieu, 1986, as cited in Calhoun, 2003) cultural, economic, social, and symbolic and capital is reflected and reproduced through these tastes, which are signals of, and differentially afford access to, other kinds of power and privilege (Bourdieu, 1991, as cited in Sender, 2003). Sender (2003) extends Bourdieus conceptualization of tastes to include sexual tastefulness and its role in constructing the desirable and respectable image of the ideal gay consumer. To Bourdieus four types of capital, it is possible to add moral capital (Sender, 2003) and identity capital (Cote & Schwartz, 2002). Moral capital is a resource of both the dominant discourse and self-monitoring members of the gay media; it is through the accumulation of moral capital, by means of not advertising sex and sleaze, that homosexual media obtains access to the financial resources of national advertisers (Sender, 2003). In order to accumulate moral capital, however, strict restraints are placed on both the advertising and editorial content of gay and lesbian media. Sender (2003) categorizes these constraints in the following way: Advertising can not in any way offer an explicitly commercial exchange. Advertising may emphasize sexuality, but only if it is done in a generalized, homo-social, and artistic way. Editorial content about sex is limited to the cautionary tale of HIV and AIDS. Identity capital is a resource of those whose identity - sexual, gender, racial, or otherwise - is consistent with the dominant culture (Cote & Schwartz, 2002). Gay and lesbian media attempts to accumulate identity capital by emphasizing the ideal image of the

22

gay consumer as white, male, thirty-something, gender conforming, and sexually discreet (Sender, 2003). The social construction of the gay consumer in such a way has meant the exclusion of large parts of the GLBT community, as this image doesnt accurately reflect either the readerships of GBLT media or the GLBT community as a collective. Thus, gay commercialism becomes the basis for an entire identity, further alienating those who do not fit the prescribed image and reenacting the dominant discourse of social control and oppression of sexual minorities (Taylor, 2002). The Limitations and the Potential of Social Construction Theory Perhaps the greatest potential derived from an application of social construction theory is the development of a critical consciousness in which it is understood that if sexual identities are socially constructed, then they can also be deconstructed. Through critical consciousness, it is possible to eschew the assignment of socially and historically constructed sexual identities, and instead, embrace the fluidity of sexuality and gender, allowing for the appropriation, transcendence, and deconstruction of sexual categories (Epstein, 1987). However, if individuals are constituted by the discursive formations which are embedded in the cultures in which they live, if they are bodies inscribed by social practices, and, if they, through a process of identification, experience their subordination as autonomy (Leonard, 1997), then how is it possible to achieve emancipation? Before embracing the emancipatory potential of a constructionist framework and setting forth a path of action, the limitations of social construction theory should be acknowledged and addressed. Criticisms and Limitations

23

The most serious criticism of the constructionist approach is grounded in questions of determination (Epstein, 1987) and agency (Vance, 1989). Epstein (1987) argues that constructionism is unable to theorize the issue of determination at either the societal or individual level. Constructionism predicts an infinite array and variety of sexual identities, acts, and scripts, but in practice, only the smallest fraction of these possibilities are realized (Weeks, 1981). Every society seems to employ a limited range of sexual scripts, and constructionism is unable to address how this range of potential comes to be so limited (Epstein, 1987). Constructionism also implies a lack of determinism in the sexual histories of individuals; sexual scripts are assumed to be in a constant state of revision, and while this may be true, most people experience relatively fixed expressions of sexual identity (Epstein, 1987). Butler (1994, as cited in Hall, 2003, and discussed in Clough, 2003) also argues that deconstructing identities is not solely sufficient for change; sexuality cannot be made and unmade, and constructionism is not identical to freedom. Vance (1989) addresses this issue by emphasizing that, although infinite possibilities exist, complex historical and social factors preclude individuals access to multiple constructions and constrains their ability to reconstruct themselves multiple times in adulthood. Another criticism of constructionism is that this approach trivializes sexual identity and implies that, because they are socially constructed, they arent real or important (Vance, 1989). Originating in the essentialist framework, this criticism posits biological explanations of social behavior as more important than social explanations. In response, constructionists reiterate the importance of constructionism in being able to illustrate the paradox between the lived experience of a seemingly stable reality and the variable historical, cultural, and societal constructs that create that reality (Vance, 1989). A third

24

major criticism of social constructionism is that this framework is more receptive to the possibility of, and even implies the likelihood of, change, discontinuity, and rupture in behavior and subjective meaning; however, if this is true, then any demonstration of historical or social continuity proves that construction theory is wrong (Vance, 1989). In response, Vance (1989) suggests that being able and willing to recognizing differences in behavior and subjective meanings in no way commits the researcher to finding them, nor does it preclude the discovery of similarity. Potential for Transformation and Emancipation Having identified some of the major criticisms of the application of social construction theory to sexuality, the focus is now turned towards the transformative and emancipatory potential of the constructionist framework. The key process is the development of a critical consciousness, in which the individual and the collective Other begin with a willingness to engage in a dialectic discourse with the dominant culture over definitions of sexuality, identity, and gender, and end with an ability to redefine themselves, not in terms of their similarity to or difference from the dominant culture, but instead, along an infinite array of pluralistic categories and conceptualizations. It is through challenges levied against the dominant discourse that freedom from historically and socially assigned identities and characteristics is achieved. The question, then, is what path of action(s) leads to this transformative and emancipatory project? One action, originating out of queer theory, is to reject current civil rights strategies, for example, the political debates over same-sex marriage, in exchange for a politics of carnival, transgression, and parody, leading to anti-assimilation through actions such as cross-gendered drag performances and sexual plurality (Stein &

25

Plummer, 1996). Seidman (2003), also advocates caution in relying on a politics of identity, stressing that rights are different from liberation. The attainment of rights may lead to reductions in stigma and social discrimination, but it also perpetuates a system of sexuality that sexualizes peoples desires and attractions, forces the choice of a mutually-exclusive sexual identity, and divides sexual behavior into normal and abnormal (Sediman, 2003). Giddens (1992, as cited and discussed in Hall, 2003) concepts of plastic sexuality and radical pluralism, in which sexuality becomes malleable, are means of offering agency to the individual in making and remaking sexual identity as different interperson possibilities arise and new potentials are encountered. As noted, a sense of agency is somewhat lacking from the constructionist approach, and the freedom to act is an important part of the emancipatory process; fortunately, this freedom is founded in Giddens approach, although it bears recognizing that choosing to alter ones selfidentification or mode of expression does not necessarily translate into an altered sense of sexuality (Hall, 2003). Although no one can exert control over the nature of their sexual desires and attractions, it has not been established and proven that these desires are fixed and foreclosed early in life (Hall, 2003). Any emancipatory project must begin within the non-dominant culture of sexual minorities, starting with a critique of modernity and leading to the collective expression of anger over social injustice (Leonard, 1997). Within this view is an insistence on refusing to identify and appeal to the monolithic culture of domination, but instead, challenging the moral, political, and cultural characteristics of contemporary society and the authority under which they are assigned (Leonard, 1997). As seen in the philosophies of

26

poststructuralism, critical theory, and postmodernism, the course of action is not to minimize differences between dominant and non-dominant cultures, but instead, to question and challenge the categorizations of difference and at the same time exaggerate and emphasize those differences. Conclusion The ongoing debate over sexual identity as interpreted through essentialist and constructionist frameworks is an important starting point in attempting to conceptualize and realize the potential for moving beyond the contemporary categorical oppression of sexual minorities. If confined to the essentialist approach, as characterized by psychoanalytical and biological theories of etiology, there is little hope of breaking free of the negative dominant discourse on sexuality. At best, the essentialist approach terminates in the identification and containment of sexual differences, and at worst, leads to theories of treatment for sexual difference as evidenced in the reparative/conversion therapies of the religious right. It is only by exploring a social construction framework of identity formation that the potential for transformation and emancipation becomes possible. The means by which sexual identities come to be constructed, as well as the varied purposes behind such constructions, were explored in this paper through the application of varied theorists and theoretical frameworks, and in particular, the use of poststructuralism, critical theory, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, structuration theory, and the theory of cultural capital. The social construction of sexual identities results in rigid, binary categorizations of sexuality and gender, which are then used to support and reproduce the social, cultural, political, and economic interests of the dominant culture. However, the emergence of a critical consciousness which challenges the historically and socially

27

constructed categorizations sexual identity may lead to the opportunity to reject constricting and constraining identity labels. Through the deconstruction of dominant categories of sexuality and gender, the possibility of recognizing the infinite array of human characteristics becomes a reality.

28

References Adam, B.D. (1985). Structural Foundations of the Gay World. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 27(4), 658-71. Reprinted in P.M. Nardi & B.E. Schneider (Eds.) (1998). Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, (pp. 220-229). New York: Routledge. Alexander, J. (1992). Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic Classification: On the polarizing discourse of civil society. In M. Lamont & M. Fourier (Eds.), Cultivating Difference: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, (pp. 289-308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beard, J. & Glickhauf-Hughes, C. (1994). Gay Identity and Sense of Self: Rethinking Male Homosexuality. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 2(2), 21-37. Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Use of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531-565. Bravmann, S. (1996). Postmodernism and Queer Identities. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer Theory/Sociology, (pp. 333-361). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Bray, A. (1982). Homosexuality in Renaissance England. London: Gay Mens Press. Bronski, M. (1998). The Pleasure Principle. New York: St. Martins Press. Butler, J. (1997). Merely Cultural. Social Text, 15(3,4), 265-277. Cain, R. (1991). Stigma Management and Identity Formation. Social Work, 36(1), 67-73. Calhoun, C. (2000). Social Theory and the Public Sphere. In B.S. Turner (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (2nd Ed.), (pp. 505-544). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. ----------. (2003). Pierre Bourdieu. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, (pp. 274-309). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual Identity Formation: Testing a Theoretical Model. The Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143-167. Clough, P. (2003). Judith Butler. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, (pp. 333-352). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental Stages in the Coming-Out Process. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(4), 469-482. Cote, J.E. & Schwartz, S.J. (2002). Comparing Psychological and Sociological Approaches to Identity: Identity Status, Identity Capital, and the Individualization Process. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 571-586. Elizure, Y. & Mintzer, A. (2001). A Framework for the Formation of Gay Male Identity: Processes associated with adult attachment style and support from family and friends. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(2), 143-167. Epstein, S. (1987). Gay Politics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Constructionism. Socialist Review, 93/94, 9-54. Reprinted in P.M. Nardi & B.E. Schneider (Eds.) (1998). Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, (pp. 134-159). New York: Routledge. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, (pp. 109-142). Cambridge: MIT Press. ----------. (1997). Heterosexism, Misrecognition, and Capitalism: A Response to Judith Butler. Social Text, 15(3,4), 279-289.

29

Gamson, J. (1996). Must Identity Movements Self Destruct?: A Queer Dilemma. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer Theory/Sociology, (pp. 395-420). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Gergen, K.J. (1997). Social Psychology as Social Construction: The Emerging Vision. In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society, (pp. ). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Green, R. (1985). Potholes on the Research Road to Sexual Identity Development. Journal of Sex Research, 21(1), 96-102. Hall, D.E. (2003). Queer Theories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Halperin, D.M. (1990). Sex Before Sexuality: Pederasty, Politics, and Power. In Hidden from History: Exploring the Gay and Lesbian Past, (pp. 37-53). New York: Penguin. Reprinted in J. Corvino (Ed.) (1999), Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, (pp. 203-219). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Harrison, T.W. (2003). Adolescent Homosexuality and Concerns Regarding Disclosure. Journal of School Health, 73(3), 107-113. Kivel, B.D. & Kleiber, D.A. (2000). Leisure in the Identity Formation of Lesbian and Gay Youth: Personal, but Not Social. Leisure Sciences, 22, 215-232. Leonard, P. (1997). Postmodern Welfare: Reconstructing an Emancipatory Project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meeks, C. (2001). Civil Society and the Sexual Politics of Difference. Sociological Theory, 19(3), 325-344. Ray, L. (2003). Max Horkheimer. In A. Elliot & L. Ray (Eds.), Key Contemporary Social Theorists, (pp. 162-167). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Seidman, S. (2003). The Social Construction of Sexuality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Sender, K. (2003). Sex Sells: Class and Taste in Commercial Gay and Lesbian Media. GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, 9(3), 331-365. Simon, W. & Gagnon, J.H. (1967). Homosexuality: The Formulation of a Sociological Perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 8(3), 177-185. Sinfield, A (2002). Lesbian and Gay Taxonomies. Critical Inquiry, 29(Autumn), 120-138. Smith, A.M. (2001). Missing Poststructuralism, Missing Foucalt: Butler and Fraser on Capitalism and the Regulation of Sexuality. Social Text, 19(2), 103-125. Stein, A. & Plummer, K. (1996). I Cant Even Think Straight: Queer Theory and the Missing Sexual Revolution in Sociology. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer Theory/Sociology, (pp. 129-144). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Sullivan, A. (2003, October 8). American Conservatism: The State of Our Unions. The Wall Street Journal, p. A24. Suppe, F. (1999). Explaining Homosexuality: Who Cares Anyway? In J. Corvino (Ed.), Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, (pp. 167178). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Taylor, G. (2002). Psychopathology and the Social and Historical Construction of Gay Male Identitites. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and Gay Psychology: New Perspectives, (pp. 154-174). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Thorp, J. (1992). The Social Construction of Homosexuality. Phoenix, 46(1), 54-65.

30

Troiden, R. (1989). The formulation of sexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(12), 43-73. Turner, W.B. (2000). A Genealogy of Queer Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Vance, C.S. (1989). Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality. In A. van Kooten Nierwark & T. Van Der Meer (Eds.), Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?, (pp. 13-34). Amsterdam: An Dekker. Reprinted in P.M. Nardi & B.E. Schneider (Eds.) (1998). Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, (pp. 160-172). New York: Routledge. Weeks, J. (1981). Disclosure, Desire, and Sexual Deviance: Some Problems in a History of Homosexuality. In K. Plummer (Ed.), The Making of the Modern Homosexual, (pp. 94-95). Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble. ---------. (1996). The Construction of Homosexuality. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer Theory/Sociology, (pp. 41-63). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Wilkinson, S. (1994). The Social Construction of Heterosexuality. Journal of Gender Studies, 3(3), 307-317.

31