Heterosexism And Homophobia Research Paper

1. Attitudes And Expressions Of Homophobia

One common stereotype is that homosexuality is related to gender-role nonconformity. It is assumed frequently that lesbians manifest characteristics defined as masculine and gay men exhibit behavior associated with feminine characteristics. For many people, this presumed gender nonconformity is reason enough to be suspicious and intolerant of homosexuals. Gay men are also often assumed to be hypersexual, animalistic, promiscuous, overly visible, and conspiratorial. Lesbians are assumed to be manhaters, aggressive, socially nonconforming, and sexually cold (Herek 1995). Until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality to be a form of mental illness. Many people continue to hold this belief and also believe homosexuality to be immoral and antisocial. Expressions of homophobia include verbal assaults and derisive joking, negative stereotypical media representations, discrimination in employment, education, housing, medical research, legal defense, and custody rights, physical attack, and tacit approval of all forms of discrimination, including gay bashing. Various studies, including surveys of gays and lesbians based on probability samples, indicate that nearly half of all respondents have experienced some form of discrimination in employment or housing based on their sexual orientation. A meta-analysis of 24 questionnaire studies showed that a median of 44 percent of the respondents have been threatened with violence and 80 percent have been verbally harassed (Berrill 1992). All of the respondents attribute these discriminatory actions to the perpetrators’ perceptions that the target was homosexual. In 1987 the US Department of Justice reported that homosexuals are the most frequent victims of hate violence.

1.1 Containing Sexuality

Several theorists have observed that homophobia is an expression of a culture that is confused and inconsistent about sexual behavior. Attitudes and actions reflect both obsession with and repression of sexual desire. One basis of tacit agreement is that sexuality is something that must be contained. Homosexuality, along with adultery, prostitution and pederasty, mark the boundaries by existing outside culturally approved forms of sexuality—what poet Rich (1980) refers to as compulsory heterosexuality. Social historians (e.g., Boswell 1980, D’Emilio and Freedman 1988, Katz 1976) note that the emergence of a sexual binary in the nineteenth century posits heterosexuality as natural and socially desirable by contrasting it with homosexuality, which is characterized as unnatural and immoral. This binary represents the general tendency in modern western thought to conflate morality and nature. According to this cultural equation, sexual desire is a manifestation of a natural drive to reproduce. The moral, disciplined individual contains this desire within the bounds of heterosexual monogamy. These attitudes are reflected in clinical, social and religious definitions of the homosexual as cursed, perverted, sexually obsessed, and evil and, until recently, mentally and physically sick.

2. Institutional Heterosexism

Pervasive negative stereotypes regarding lesbians and gay men suggest that these attitudes and beliefs are rooted in cultural ideologies and social practices. All of these attitudes and expressions reflect the prevailing belief that sexual desire for the opposite sex is expected and normal; sexual desire for someone of the same sex is abnormal and problematic. The lingering belief that homosexuality is dysfunctional and that it constitutes a state of anguish for the individual can be traced to the medicalization of homosexuality and its treatment as an illness. Many medical practitioners and clinicians continue to offer treatments intended to ‘cure’ lesbians and gays of their ‘affliction.’ These practices reflect the cultural belief that individuals will be unhappy and maladjusted if they do not experience sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex. Medical assessments that treat homosexuality as a form of disease reinscribe the notion that sexuality is primarily physiological and that heterosexuality is the healthy manifestation of human physiology.

Most contemporary religions also treat homosexuality as problematic. In some cases a distinction is made between homosexual feelings and homosexual acts (e.g., Catholic Catechism 1989). The experience of homosexual inclinations may be considered an affliction—a ‘cross to bear’—but to act on one’s homosexual feelings is considered a sin. Many religious leaders advocate celibacy for those ‘afflicted’ with homosexual tendencies. Some religious organizations sponsor intensive therapy programs intended to help the individual who is ‘suffering’ from homosexuality to recover. Similar to medical institutions, religious institutions take heterosexuality for granted as the normal and desired form of sexual organization and treat homosexuality as deviant, undesirable, dysfunctional, and, additionally, sinful.

Legal practices also reflect a cultural ideology that supports heterosexuality as normal and denigrates homosexuality as abnormal. The most prevalent indication of compulsory heterosexism is the widespread lack of legal protection from antigay lesbian discrimination. Lesbians and gays who experience discrimination in employment, housing, education and immigration frequently find it difficult to obtain justice. In the US it is still legal to ban lesbians and gays from various public institutions including service in the military and employment in various educational domains. Another indication of cultural heterosexism is public resistance to attempts by lesbians and gay men to reduce discrimination and to seek justice. In the 1990s US citizens in several states voted against ballot initiatives that would ensure equal legal protection for lesbians and gays. The rhetoric employed to defeat these initiatives was that lesbians and gays were seeking ‘special rights and privileges.’ The logic underlying this argument was that the US constitution already guarantees every individual equal protection under the law. While this is the case in theory, advocates of the equality initiatives point out that in practice this protection is often not extended to lesbians and gays. In fact, many social officials, including employers, housing agencies and health care providers actively refuse to grant lesbians and gays equal rights and openly cite deviant sexual orientation as the basis for this discrimination. US courts have routinely upheld these decisions

Not only does the law fail to uphold the rights of lesbians and gays, but it has been enforced differentially as a means of punishing lesbians and gays. One example of differential enforcement is the enactment of sodomy laws. A majority of states still have laws that proscribe oral or anal sex. In most cases, these laws refer only to the behavior and not to the gender of the participants. However, the only recorded arrests in the past several decades based on these archaic laws have been gays and lesbians. When challenged, several states (Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas) have ruled sodomy laws as unconstitutional. However, in 1986, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the US Supreme Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law in a narrow vote of 5 to 4. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger expresses the general legal failure to separate the expression of private individual sexual behaviors from perceived cultural expectations. In his brief he writes: ‘To uphold that homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching’ (quoted in Singer and Deschamps1994).

Court decisions such as Bowers vs. Hardwick galvanized many US citizens who were concerned with the implications of court-mandated moral behavior and invasion of privacy. As a consequence, in the 1990s lesbians and gays have fought actively against discrimination. Several gains have been made, but these gains have been matched in intensity by antigay and antilesbian legislation. The intent of initiatives such as Colorado’s Amendment 2 (enacted in 1992) is to legally prohibit lesbians and gays from seeking legal protection for discrimination based on their status as homosexuals. This is the first proactive legislation in the history of US law that actively denies the pursuit of civil rights based on a single specific category— homosexuality. In an address to Congress regarding legislation intended to protect persons from discriminatory violence (hate crimes), Senator Dannemeyer makes clear this categorical prejudice. He notes: ‘(I)t is a Federal responsibility to ensure the equal protection of all citizens regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic origin. It is not a Federal obligation to protect citizens in their sexual orientation’ (US Congress 1988, p. 12).

2.1 Permissible Prejudice

The extent to which homophobia is an institution is indicated in the decisions of law enforcement officials and judges who consider homosexuality sufficient grounds for justifying acts of prejudice, discrimination, and violence. This tacit approval constitutes a form of permissible prejudice. Persons presume their prejudices to be legitimate or permissible when these prejudices are condoned by persons in positions of authority. Not only do the words of Justice Burger and Senator Dannemeyer reveal the extent to which heterosexuality is considered normal and legitimate, they suggest that homosexuality is a form of deviance that is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. These institutional practices buttress individual feelings of fear and hate and send the message that discrimination and violence will be tolerated. In contrast, legal and cultural practices in many countries and some states in the US reflect the intent to extend equal rights to all citizens. Gay and lesbian marriages are legally recognized in Denmark and the Netherlands, for instance, and of the 16 countries that comprise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, only the UK and the US ban lesbians and gays from service in the military.

2.2 Internalized Homophobia

In a climate of permissible prejudice, many lesbians and gays live in a continual state of fear. The entrenchment of heterosexist expectations and the corresponding active prejudice against homosexuality also induces feelings of ‘internalized homophobia.’ Internalized homophobia is a form of self-disgust and hatred experienced by many lesbians and gays. The phrase ‘internalized homophobia’ suggests that individuals who are trying to come to terms with their homosexual desires absorb or take in attitudes of cultural prejudice and use these attitudes as a basis of self-judgement. If the prevalent cultural story-line is one of intolerance and debasement, then individual lesbians and gays are likely to have to deal with this in formulating their own sense of themselves. In a culture that presumes heterosexuality, gays and lesbians must decide continually whether or not to voice information indicative of a deviant sexuality. ‘Coming out’ is an ongoing process. This process involves wrestling with and reconciling family, peer and religious expectations with personal feelings and experiences. Many lesbians and gay men fear negative consequences for revealing their sexuality. The majority experience rejection by their families, friends and religious and working communities when they reveal their homosexuality. Fear of rejection and a lack of positive role models can lead to confusion and self-hatred. Information compiled by the US Department of Health and Human Services in 1989 indicates that lesbian and gay youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. Gay and lesbian youth account for 30 percent of all completed youth suicides. In contrast, religious and community organizations that endeavor to understand and support gay and lesbian youth have been successful in reconciling family conflict and in integrating these youth into their schools and communities.

3. Explanations For Homophobia Heterosexism

Adam (1998) delineates three theoretical approaches to understanding homophobia. Each approach is distinguished by a conceptual term denoting a specific theoretical orientation to anti-homosexual prejudice: Homophobia, Heteronormativity, and Heterosexism. Adam links these concepts to specific disciplines: Psychology, Cultural Studies (literary), and Sociology, respectively. The distinguishing aspect of each approach is the analytical unit: Personality, Discourse, and Social Structure. Explanations can be grouped accordingly. Within the field of psychology, Herek (1995) reviews the ‘functional’ explanations (‘people hold and express particular attitudes because they derive psychological benefit from doing so’). Herek proposes three principle functions underlying attitudes about homosexuality: experiential, social identity, and ego-defense. A person’s attitude may be a consequence of personal experiences (positive or negative); a prejudiced attitude may be intended as an expression of allegiance to a particular social group; or it may be a defensive response to personal psychological conflicts (such as gender expectations). He emphasizes that it is important to recognize the nexus between these functional attitudes and cultural heterosexism. The source and expression of these attitudes directly reflects a person’s perceptions of cultural expectations.

The development of literary cultural studies in the 1990s has generated several interrelated theories which come together under the term, ‘queer theory.’ Queer theorists (e.g., Butler 1999, Sedgewick 1990, Seidman 1997) emphasize discursive practices that promote certain lines of thought and action and discourage or punish others. Heteronormativity is one of the most prevalent discourses in contemporary western culture. These theories focus on the manifestations of heterosexuality in art, media, education, legal discourse, religion, and so forth. According to these theories, the dominant cultural discourse is saturated with images and ideals that promote heterosexuality and condemn homosexuality (or anything that does not fit the expected monogamous, heterosexual, family idea). Queer theorists have particularly focused on the experience of the ‘closet’—physical and discursive practices intended to keep homosexuality hidden and contained in separate spheres.

Adam subsumes the psychological and cultural studies approaches within the sociological. This approach emphasizes social structure, particularly the ways in which psychological attitudes and the values revealed in cultural discourses are manifest and maintained through institutional structures and practices. Change, he suggests, will be a result not only of education against prejudiced attitudes and transgressive acts intended as critiques of taken-for-granted cultural practices, but the extent to which this education and alternative expression permeates and unsettles existing institutional arrangements (such as the family, law, and religion). Seidman et al. (1999) suggest that recent gay and lesbian social movements have not only served to challenge some of these existing arrangements, but that they may have the paradoxical effect of ‘decentering’ lesbian and gay identities. According to their logic, the conditions of the closet may compel individuals to make their homosexuality a primary focus and thus, to solidify it as a primary identity. Paradoxically, normalization of homosexuality may enable individuals to de-emphasize this aspect of their behavior.

3.1 Gender

Understanding homophobia is complicated by the strong link between gender and sexuality in this culture. Gender is the basic criterion by which we select sexual partners. The violation of expected gender behavior elicits taunting, prejudice, and physical and social abuse. Frequent targets of this prejudice include the mannish lesbian and the effeminate gay male. Both evoke stereotypes that represent violations of gender expectations and hint at sexual transgressions. Transgendered persons are frequent targets of violence. It is difficult to know if attackers are provoked by what they assume to be a sexual aberration or a gender violation. Given the tight connection between gender and sexuality, it is likely that any deviation is perceived as a threat to heterosexuality. In the 1990s Lamba Legal Defense documented several cases in the US of murdered transgendered persons in which the murderer was released by the courts. The rationale offered in each case was that to arouse sexual desire in another under ‘false gender pretense’ was to invite violent ‘self-defense’ when the pretense was revealed (Singer and Deschamps 1994). This rationale can be interpreted as a manifestation of homophobia; individuals who do not conform to the expected norms of gender and sexuality do not deserve social justice.

4. Social Movements

The social protests and political activism associated with lesbian and gay history can be interpreted as a response to widespread, organized manifestations of homophobia. Several observers have suggested that the struggle for gay and lesbian rights was the civil rights issue of the 1990s. This history represents a fight for rights that are constitutionally guaranteed to all Americans but frequently withheld from homosexuals. Many local and national lesbian and gay movements have been organized as a direct response to political initiatives designed to legalize discrimination against homosexuals. The Defense of Marriage Act introduced into US federal legislation in 1996 is one such case. Marriage between same-sex couples poses no legal threat or loss of benefits to heterosexual couples. It is difficult to interpret the urgency with which states have pursued legislation to restrict same-sex marriages as anything other than a display of mass homophobia. In the early 1990s antigay lesbian legislation appeared on the ballots of 41 states and the District of Columbia. This sort of legislation is indicative of the extent to which homophobia is culturally legitimated as an institutionalized form of prejudice. Critics who suggest that antidiscrimination laws are ‘special rights’ fail to comprehend the extensive reach of homophobic actions into the everyday lives of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.

Bibliography:

1. Adam B 1998 Theorizing homophobia. Sexualities 1: 387–404
2. Berrill K T 1992 Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview. In: Herek G, Berrill K (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence against Lesbian and Gay Men. Sage, Newbury Park, CA pp. 19–45
3. Boswell J 1980 Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
4. Butler J 1999 Gender Trouble. Routledge, New York
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1989 Article Six: Offenses Against Chastity. Paulist Press Mahwah, NJ, pp. 566–7
6. D’Emilio J, Freedman E 1988 Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in the United States. Harper and Row, New York
7. Herek G 1995 Psychological heterosexism in the United States. In: D’Augelli A, Patterson C (eds.) Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities over the Lifespan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 321–45
8. Katz J 1976 Gay American History. Crowell, New York
9. National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice 1987 The Response of the Criminal Justice System to Bias Crime: An Exploratory Review
10. Plummer K 1992 Speaking its name: Inventing a lesbian and gay studies. In: Plummer K (ed.) Modern Homosexualities. Routledge, London, pp. 3–28
11. Rich A 1980 Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5: 631–60
12. Sedgewick E K 1990 Epistemology of the Closet. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
13. Seidman S 1997 Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
14. Seidman S, Meeks C, Traschen F 1999 Beyond the closet? The changing social meaning of homosexuality in the United States. Sexualities 2: 9–34
15. Stein A, Plummer K 1994 I can’t even think straight: Queer theory and the missing sexual revolution in sociology. Sociological Theory 12: 178–87
16. Singer B L, Deschamps D 1994 Gay and Lesbian Stats. New Press, New York
17. US Department of Health and Human Services 1989 Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide
18. US Congress 1988 Hate Crimes Statistics Act. Report from the Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Congress, 2nd Session. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC