This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney] On: 29 August 2014, At: 13:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity Gust A. Yep PhD
a
a
San Francisco State University , 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco , CA , 94132 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Gust A. Yep PhD (2002) From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 163-176, DOI: 10.1300/ J155v06n03_14 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_14
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity: Toward the Development of a Model of Queer Interventions in the University Classroom Gust A. Yep SUMMARY. By examining homophobia and heterosexism within the larger context of heteronormativity at the intersections of race, class, and gender, I propose, in this article, a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. The article is divided into three sections. First, I describe the conceptual terrain of homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity, and their potential limitations. Second, I present an integrative model, using heteronormativity as the central site of violence, to examine homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender within the larger social and cultural domain (macroscopic level) and interpersonal context (microscopic level) and illustrate this model with specific classroom activities. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model for teaching and theorizing about homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth
Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Gust A. Yep, PhD, is Professor of Speech and Communication Studies and Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 (E-mail: [email protected]). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity: Toward the Development of a Model of Queer Interventions in the University Classroom.” Yep, Gust A. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 163-176; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 163-176. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
163
164
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
KEYWORDS. Gay, heteronormativity, heterosexism, homophobia, lesbian, pedagogy, queer
In my life I have experienced the effects of homophobia through rejection by friends, threats of loss of employment, and threats upon my life; and I have witnessed far worse things happening to other lesbian and gay people: loss of children, beatings, rape, death. Its power is great enough to keep ten to twenty percent of the population living lives of fear (if their sexual identity is hidden) or lives of danger (if their sexual identity is visible) or both. And its power is great enough to keep the remaining eighty to ninety percent of the population trapped in their own fears. –Suzanne Pharr (1988, pp. 1-2) During the 1970s and 1980s political lesbians of color have often been the most astute about the necessity for developing understandings of the connections between oppressions [based on race, class, gender, and sexuality]. They have also opposed the building of hierarchies and challenged the “easy way out” of choosing a “primary oppression” and downplaying those messy inconsistencies that occur whenever race, sex, class, and sexual identity actually mix. Ironically, for the forces on the right, hating lesbians and gay men, people of color, Jews, and women go hand in hand. They make connections between oppressions in the most negative ways with horrifying results. –Barbara Smith (1998, pp. 112-113) Educators, academic researchers, policymakers, activists, and individuals in the helping professions have become more attentive to understanding the dynamics and effects of homophobia and heterosexism in recent years (e.g., Anzaldúa, 2000; Blumenfeld, 1992; Pharr, 1988; Sears & Williams, 1997; Smith, 1998; Yep, 1997, 1998). Such body of work has generally focused on combating homophobia and heterosexism in various settings (e.g., school, work, church, etc.) and with various groups and populations (e.g., high school students, ethnic populations, etc.). Anti-homophobia education typically identifies the effects of homophobia and names individual acts of violence against lesbians and gay men (Eyre, 1997). The harmful effects of homophobia and heterosexism range from the less visible (e.g., queer youth experiencing a deep
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
165
sense of shame about their sexuality) to the extremely visible (e.g., gay bashing). They affect both lesbians and gays (e.g., living lives of fear, shame, and danger) and non-gays (e.g., homophobia inhibits an individual’s ability to form close and meaningful relationships with members of one’s own sex) in different ways and with various degrees of intensity (Blumenfeld, 1992). However, an exclusive focus on homophobia “diverts attention away from larger social forces that support and maintain the normalization of heterosexuality as well as away from the growing collective political activism of gay and lesbian groups” (Eyre, 1997, p. 199, my emphasis). Although anti-homophobia work has focused on communities of color, it generally does not address how homophobia operates when race, ethnicity, social class, and gender actually mix and intersect (Smith, 1998). By proposing a model of queer interventions in the university classroom, I attempt in this essay to partially fill these two gaps in the homophobia literature by examining homophobia and heterosexism within the larger context of heteronormativity, or the normalization of heterosexuality, at the intersections of race, class, and gender. To accomplish this, I first describe the conceptual terrain of homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity, and their potential limitations. Second, I present an integrative model, using heteronormativity as the central site of violence, to understand homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender within the larger social and cultural domain (macroscopic level) and interpersonal context (microscopic level). I illustrate and apply this model with specific classroom activities that I designed and tested in several university courses. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model for teaching and theorizing about homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. THE CONCEPTUAL TERRAIN OF HOMOPHOBIA, HETEROSEXISM, AND HETERONORMATIVITY Homophobia, as a popular term and a psychological construct, has been around for over three decades (Blumenfeld, 2000; Fone, 2000). For a thorough discussion of this concept and its history, see Fone (2000). Although a range of definitions of homophobia exists in the literature, it generally refers to irrational fear, abhorrence, and dislike of homosexuality and of those who engage in it. More recently, heterosexism and heteronormativity have appeared in academic and popular discourse. In this section, I discuss some of the problems with the concept of homophobia and the need to address larger, more inclusive, and underlying issues of heterosexism and heteronormativity in our social and cultural landscape.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
166
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Although it is of paramount importance to name violence–physical, psychological, or symbolic–directed at lesbians and gay men, there are several problems with the notion of homophobia. According to Plummer (1998), these problems include: (1) it reinforces the idea of mental illness; (2) it neglects women; (3) it ignores how sexuality intersects with other vectors of oppression, namely, race, gender, and social class; (4) it directs attention away from the larger landscape of oppression of sexual minorities in general, and (5) it ignores the underlying structural and social conditions leading to sexual oppression by focusing on individuals rather than the larger social and cultural system. First, the concept of homophobia reinforces and ratifies the notion of mental illness. While extreme expressions of homophobia–violent hate crimes against lesbians and gay men, for example–can be viewed as psychopathological, discomfort with homosexuality and inability to get along with lesbians or gay men may be, according to Plummer (1998), “better viewed as problems in living rather than sickness” (p. 89). Second, homophobia, as a term, generally refers to male homosexuality. As such, it contains misogynistic overtones as it neglects and ignores women and female homosexuality (Plummer, 1998). When we hear terms like homophobia, “the homosexual threat,” and “the homosexual agenda,” male homosexuality is invoked. Much less attention is paid to lesbians and the “lesbian threat” and this process perpetuates the male bias in gay research (Plummer, 1998). Ignoring women leads to erasure of female experiences and agency as Adrienne Rich (1983) reminds us, “Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through ‘inclusion’ as female versions of male homosexuality. To equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to deny and erase female reality once again” (p. 193). Third, the concept of homophobia ignores how individuals of different social locations–based on race, ethnicity, social class, and gender–might experience their sexuality and sexual difference in ways that are distinct from European American, gay, middle-class, and physically able men. Can we assume that the experience of homophobia for a poor European American lesbian is identical to an affluent European American gay male? Similarly, does a working class, heterosexually married, Latina lesbian face homophobia in the same way as a middle-class, immigrant, Asian American man who has sex with men? A number of writers (e.g., Anzaldúa, 2000; hooks, 2000; Lim-Hing, 2000; Smith, 1998) argue that the experience of homophobia is different for people from different social locations or, to put it another way, homophobia cannot be meaningfully understood without attention to the dyamics of race, class, and gender. For example, hooks (2000) notes that homophobia directed at some African American lesbians is rooted in a religious belief that women defined their
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
167
womanness through child-bearing and the assumption that to be lesbian meant no child-bearing. On the other hand, homophobia expressed toward some African American men is mediated by material privilege (e.g., money). Fourth, homophobia, as a term, directs our focus to hatred, oppression, and attack of homosexuals at the expense of attention on sexual oppression in general (Plummer, 1998). What about oppression of individuals who choose celibacy or are in polygamous relationships? Homophobia, in this sense, can become a myopic view of sexual negativity in society. Finally, the notion of homophobia, by focusing mostly on the individual (such as homophobic attitudes and traits), diverts attention away from the larger underlying social and cultural conditions that maintain the fear, hostility, and hatred toward human sexual difference. At the core of such underlying conditions is heterosexism and heteronormativity. Although these terms are related, heterosexism generally refers to the belief and expectation that everyone is or should be heterosexual. Heteronormative thinking assumes that heterosexuality is the indisputable and unquestionable bedrock of society; heterosexuality appears as a “given”–natural, coherent, fixed, and universal (Richardson, 1996; Warner, 1993; Wittig, 1992). It presumes that “heterosexuality is the original blueprint for interpersonal relations” (Richardson, 1996, p. 3) and in Western political thought, the heterosexual couple has come “to represent the principle of social union itself ” (Warner, 1993, p. xxi, my emphasis). More simply stated, heteronormative thinking, in theory and in practice, assumes that heterosexual experience is synonymous with human experience. The equation “heterosexual experience = human experience” renders all other forms of human sexual expression pathological, deviant, invisible, unintelligible, or written out of existence. Focusing on heteronormativity as a foundational source of human oppression (Warner, 1993, Wittig, 1992), I propose a framework for understanding daily acts of violence against individuals and groups who do not conform to the “mythical norm” (Lorde, 1990, p. 282) of heterosexuality. I now turn to a discussion of this model. TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL OF QUEER INTERVENTIONS IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM Based on the assumption that “to reduce public hostility to homosexuality [or other ‘deviant’ forms of human sexual expression] cannot simply be seen as a matter of more education or more information” (Plummer, 1998, p. 90), I propose a model that is both affective and cognitive. In other words, the model provides people with an opportunity to feel and experience (affective) and to
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
168
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
think and understand (cognitive) daily, unrelenting acts of violence against individuals or groups assumed or perceived to be outside the “charmed circle” (Rubin 1993, p. 13) of normative heterosexuality. The “charmed circle,” according to Rubin (1993), refers to U.S. societal conceptions of “good,” “normal” and “natural” sexuality characterized by heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, “non-kinky” (without using sex toys or pornography) and private sexual activity involving two individuals, of the same generation, in a committed relationship. My model attempts to identify, label, and name these acts of violence, and it resonates with the spirit of Kathleen Barry’s words (cited in Rich, 1983, p. 189), “Until we name the practice [of violence against non-heteronormative individuals], give conceptual definition and form to it, illustrate its life over time and space, those who are its most obvious victims will also not be able to name it or define their experience.” At the core of the model is the interrogation of heteronormativity, the presumption and assumption that all human experience is unquestionably and automatically heterosexual. Heteronormativity is a form of violence deeply embedded in our individual and group psyches, social relations, identities, social institutions, and cultural landscape. Monique Wittig (1992) reminds us that “to live in society is to live in heterosexuality” (p. 40) and “heterosexuality is always already there within all mental categories. It has sneaked into dialectical thought (or the thought of differences) as its main category” (p. 43). The power of heteronormativity as an ideology is its invisibility disguised as “natural,” “normal,” “universal”–its “it-goes-without-saying” character. Interrogating heteronormativity demystifies its mechanisms of power by making it visible and bare for critical analysis (for excellent discussions of heterosexuality, see: Jackson, 1999; Richardson, 1996; Wittig, 1992). The model identifies heteronormativity as a central site of psychological, psychic, social, cultural, discursive, physical and material violence for individuals and groups outside the domain of Rubin’s “charmed circle” (1993, p. 13). Heteronormativity creates, nurtures, maintains, and perpetuates such daily acts of violence. This model focuses on both macroscopic (e.g., institutional heterosexism) and microscopic (e.g., individual acts of homophobia) levels of violence against individuals deviating from the heteronormative ideal, and examines homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Borrowing from Wilber (2000), the model consists of two interdependent dimensions: (1) interior-exterior, and (2) individual-collective. Interior-exterior, the first dimension, focuses on affect, cognition, and sensations that are potentially experienced by the individual (interior) and those behaviors and actions that are acted out in the social world (exterior). Individual-collective, the other dimension, emphasizes the person (individual) and his or her relationship to the social group (collective). Taken together, these two dimensions form four
Gust A. Yep
169
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
quadrants to which I now turn. They are (1) Interior-individual, (2) exterior-individual, (3) interior-collective, and (4) exterior-collective. Interior-Individual: Soul Murder and Internalized Homophobia At a very young age, people learn that homosexuality is a powerfully shameful “condition,” a stigma with all its associations with social deviance, cultural outcast, character defect, psychological blemish, and immorality. Individuals quickly learn that “homosexuality is a problem” from interactions with others like family members, friends, peers, teachers, and from the mass media. Messages about the stigma of homosexuality are virtually everywhere ranging from the subtle (e.g., the absence of happy, well-adjusted lesbians or gays in our high school curriculum) to the extremely visible (e.g., the conflation of HIV/AIDS with homosexuality). These pervasive messages promote and maintain the ideology of heteronormativity, that is, if “you are not heterosexual, there is something wrong with you.” When such messages are internalized and incorporated into one’s conception of selfhood and identity, they become internalized homophobia and they constitute soul murder. Originally used to understand the dynamics and the traumatic nature of child abuse and torment, Shengold (1999) defines soul murder as the “apparently willful abuse and neglect of children by adults that are of sufficient intensity and frequency to be traumatic . . . [so that] the children’s subsequent emotional development has been profoundly and predominantly negatively affected” (p. 1). Shengold (1989) further elaborates, “soul murder is neither a diagnosis nor a condition. It is a dramatic term for circumstances that eventuate in crime–the deliberate attempt to eradicate or compromise the separate identity of another person” (p. 2). One can immediately see how treatment and socialization of children and young adults in a heteronormative society are forms of soul murder. When children are called names like “dyke” and “sissy” regularly “to keep them in line” and to regulate and control their gender role behaviors, psychological abuse is performed. When children and adults are subtly and continuously told, either verbally (e.g., words) or nonverbally (e.g., facial expressions), that they are expected to follow the “heterosexual contract” (Wittig, 1992, p. 34) or engage in “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich, 1983, p. 178), psychological violence is enacted. When children and adults are threatened with physical and/or psychological violence or actually beaten because they do not conform to gender role expectations, soul murder is committed. When lesbian and gay children are discovering their own attractions to members of their own sex, they become aware that “they are not OK” and “they are fatally flawed.” These children’s souls have been murdered; their
170
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
emotional developments have been severely compromised with feelings of self-hatred, self-doubt, and self-destruction including suicide. Exterior-Individual: Externalized Homophobia and Hate Crime Although public expressions of racism, sexism, and classism are becoming less acceptable in U.S. American society, public pronouncements of dislike and hatred toward lesbians and gays are made daily and without much hesitation. The use of name-calling and derogatory terms toward lesbians and gays is common in everyday interaction. Fuelled by heteronormative thinking, externalized homophobia is commonplace. Externalized homophobia can be directed to any person who is perceived or assumed to be lesbian or gay and can be manifested in multiple ways: avoidance, verbal abuse, differential treatment and discriminatory behavior, and physical violence. All of these actions are harmful. The most extreme expression of externalized homophobia can be seen in hate crimes against lesbians and gay men. Antigay violence is increasing (Fone, 2000) and homophobic murder is, as Donna Minkowitz (2000) put it, “still open season on gays” (p. 293). Reports on gay bashing appear regularly in the media. Take Matthew Shepard’s murder, for example: On October 6, 1998, two young men lured twenty-one-year-old Matthew Shepard–a gay college student at the University of Wyoming in Laramie– into their truck and drove him to a remote spot on the Wyoming prairie, pistol whipped him, and shattered his skull. They then tied him, still alive, to a wooden fence as if he were a lifeless coyote, where he was bound for over eighteen hours in near freezing temperature. The message from his attackers seemed quite clear: to all LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people, stay locked away in your suffocating closets of denial and fear and don’t ever come out into the light of day. (Blumenfeld, 2000, p. 262) Interior-Collective: Discursive Violence In everyday discourse, lesbian and gay people are not only treated differently, they are talked about differently. From everyday conversation to media images, lesbian and gay experiences are represented differently from the invisible “heterosexual norm.” For excellent discussions of LGBT representations in the media, see Gross and Woods (1999). The words, tone, gestures, and images that are used to differentially treat, degrade, pathologize, and represent lesbian and gay experiences is what I refer to as discursive violence.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
171
It is not unusual in everyday conversations for seemingly lesbian and gay-affirmative individuals to ask the most intimate, intrusive, and inappropriate questions (e.g., “what do lesbians do in bed anyway?” “who is the ‘man’ [in a lesbian relationship]?”). While these invasive inquiries into the lives of lesbian and gay people are deemed as demonstration of interest in “the lesbian or gay lifestyle” and therefore socially acceptable, such questions are rarely considered appropriate among heterosexual couples. Similarly, references such as “her current partner” when discussing a long-term companion in a lesbian relationship presumes that such relationship has no lasting future. This is an act of violence. Exterior-Collective: Institutional Violence Undergirding all social institutions is heteronormative ideology (Richardson, 1996). Hegemonic heterosexuality permeates the family, domestic life, education, organizations, social policy, the mass media; in short, heteronormative thinking is deeply ingrained, and strategically invisible, in our social and collective consciousness. The process of normalization of heterosexuality in our social system methodically disadvantages and disempowers individuals who do not conform to the heterosexual mandate. For example, few institutions provide domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples while such benefits are taken-for-granted by heterosexually married couples. AN APPLICATION OF THE MODEL IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM To illustrate my model, I created, designed, and tested a classroom activity called “Beyond the charmed circle.” This exercise is designed to engage the student in affective, cognitive, and behavioral learning. That is, the activity brings up potentially intense emotional responses, sensations, and thoughts that can be used to develop deeper awareness of the daily acts of violence committed against LGBT individuals. Such awareness can be the foundation for the development of a more critical consciousness regarding heteronormative ideology and potential ways to engage in acts of resistance (Yep, 1998). “Beyond the charmed circle” can be used in about any university course where the subject of (homo/hetero)sexuality is discussed. Before the activity starts, discussion of instructions and ground rules (e.g., non-judgmental responses, no ridiculing) is critical. About 4-6 students are placed in a group. The activity, borrowing from Griffin and Haro (1997), consists of four basic groups. Although the exercise is designed for classes with 16-24 students participating, it
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
172
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
can easily accommodate more students by creating multiple basic groups. The four basic groups are designed to illustrate (1) Group A (soul murder and internalized homophobia), (2) Group B (externalized homophobia and hate crime), (3) Group C (discursive violence), and (4) Group D (institutional violence). Instructions for each one of these four groups follow. Group A Imagine a sixteen-year-old European American woman living in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. She is attracted to her best friend, the most popular student in her high school and voted “most likely to succeed in college.” Her family is extremely uncomfortable with discussions of sexuality in general. She is not sure whether she can trust her friends with the secret. 1. Now imagine what this young woman might be experiencing–her feelings, thoughts, sensations. Describe in detail. 2. What if the above situation involved a young man who is attracted to his best friend and teammate, the captain of the high school football team? Describe in detail. 3. What if the above situation involved an African American young woman? An African American young man? A Latino? A Latina? An Asian American young woman? An Asian American young man? A Native American woman? Add other social groups if you can. Describe your reactions in detail. Group B Imagine you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person living in Denton, Texas. You are the victim of a hate crime–you were called names when you were brutally beaten up and you were repeatedly told that you don’t have the right to live because of your presumed sexuality. There were witnesses but no one attempted to intervene or help. You are seriously injured. What do you do? 1. Do you report it to the police? Will they take the incident seriously? 2. If you go to the hospital, how will you explain what happened if you are not “out”? 3. Will your name be in the newspaper? 4. How will your sense of freedom to move around and go places change? 5. What if the above situation involved a person of a different gender, race, or social class? Describe your reactions in detail.
Gust A. Yep
173
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Group C Imagine you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person living in San Francisco, California. You and your partner are in a committed relationship of five years. You are out to your family who is uncomfortable about your “lifestyle.” You and your partner visit your parents in Bakersfield, California, for the holidays. This is the first time that they asked you to bring your partner. They insisted that you stay with them for the entire two weeks you are visiting and you agree. Imagine what feelings, thoughts, and sensations you and your partner might experience in the following situations. 1. When you arrive, your mother shows you to the room where you will be staying. This room has two single beds separated by two night tables. Your sister and her new husband are staying in the adjacent room with a king-size bed. 2. Your sister, who is the closest to you and most accepting of your “lifestyle,” introduces your partner to her new husband as your “current” girl/boyfriend. 3. When your nieces, nephews, and other family members arrive for the holiday dinner, your sister’s new husband is introduced as “uncle” and your partner is introduced as a “friend.” 4. After the holiday dinner, the adults sit around and talk about memorable moments in their intimate relationships–your parents reminisce about their first date, your sister and her new husband recall how she asked him out, your brother and his wife remember their first kiss, your aunt and uncle recall how he proposed to her. Everybody is taking turns to recall and re-live those memories. Although everybody knows about you and your partner, nobody asks you to do the same. 5. What would the above situation be like if your partner is of a different race and/or social class? Describe in detail. Group D You and your same-sex partner, living in Greenville, North Carolina, have decided to become parents. Imagine your feelings, thoughts, and sensations in the following situations. 1. How will you do it–alternative insemination, intercourse, adoption? 2. How will you tell your families?
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
174
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
3. Which partner will give birth (if you are women)? How will you decide? If you choose adoption, how will you deal with the agency’s failure to recognize lesbian/gay couples? 4. How will you work out custody arrangements in the event of separation, death, or challenge by one partner’s family? 5. Would the above situation be different if your race, class, and gender were different? What if your partner is of a different race and/or social class? Describe in detail. After each group has completed their responses to the above scenarios, they are asked to summarize and share their reactions with the entire class. After all groups have presented their responses, a discussion of their experiences and the applicability of the model can follow. Debriefing is critical and students should be given ample time to identify, process, and share their feelings and thoughts.
IMPLICATIONS In this essay, I discussed some of the problems associated with an exclusive focus on homophobia and I proposed a model that focuses on heteronormativity as a site of social, cultural, and interpersonal violence and oppression for LGBT persons. Developing a critical consciousness about the pervasive and oppressive nature of heteronormativity in all spheres of society necessitates educators, researchers, policymakers, counselors, and activists to interrogate, highlight, and demystify the often invisible ways that heterosexuality, as a concept and as an institution, influences and affects the daily lives of individuals and communities (Yep, 1998). For LGBT individuals, heteronormativity creates the conditions for homophobia, soul murder, psychic terror, and institutional violence. In addition, such violence is experienced and negotiated differently based on the individual’s race, class, and gender. For heterosexual individuals, interrogation of heteronormativity means understanding their unearned privileges and perhaps seeing how sexual hierarchies limit personal freedom, human creativity, and individual expression. With a more complete understanding of the oppressiveness of our current sexual hierarchy, everyone can celebrate their own form of human sexual expression rather than having “LGBT Pride Day” once a year against the backdrop of “Everyday is ‘Heterosexual Pride Day’” (Carbado, 1999, p. 442).
Gust A. Yep
175
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
REFERENCES Anzaldúa, G. E. (2000). Interviews/entrevistas (A. Keating, ed.). New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). Homophobia: We all pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press. Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000). Heterosexism. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 261-266). New York: Routledge. Carbado, D. W. (1999). Straight out of the closet: Men, feminism, and male heterosexual privilege. In D. W. Carbado (Ed.), Black men on race, gender, and sexuality: A critical reader (pp. 417-447). New York: New York University Press. Eyre, L. (1997). Re-forming (hetero)sexuality education. In L. G. Roman & L. Eyre (Eds.), Dangerous territories: Struggles for difference and equality in education (pp. 191-204). New York: Routledge. Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York: Metropolitan Books. Griffin, P., & Haro, B. (1997). Heterosexism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 141-169). New York: Routledge. Gross, L., & Woods. J. D. (Eds.). (1999). The Columbia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics. New York: Columbia University Press. hooks, b. (2000). Homophobia in Black communities. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 283-287). New York: Routledge. Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. London: Sage. Lim-Hing, S. (2000). Dragon ladies, snow queens, and Asian-American dykes: Reflections on race and sexuality. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 296-299). New York: Routledge. Lorde, A. (1990). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. In R. Ferguson, M. Gever, M-H. Trinh, & C. West (Eds.), Out there: Marginalization and contemporary cultures (pp. 281-287). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Minkowitz, D. (2000). Murder will out–but it’s still open season on gays. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 293-295). New York: Routledge. Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Plummer, K. (1998). Homosexual categories: Some research problems in the labelling perspective of homosexuality. In P. M. Nardi & B. E. Schneider (Eds.), Social perspectives in lesbian and gay studies: A reader (pp. 84-99). London: Routledge.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
176
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Rich, A. (1983). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 177-205). New York: Monthly Review Press. Richardson, D. (1996). Heterosexuality and social theory. In D. Richardson (Ed.), Theorising heterosexuality: Telling it straight (pp. 1-20). Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press. Rubin, G. S. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 3-44). New York: Routledge. Sears, J. T., & Williams, W. L. (Eds.). (1997). Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press. Shengold, L. (1989). Soul murder: The effects of childhood abuse and deprivation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shengold, L. (1999). Soul murder revisited: Thoughts about therapy, hate, love, and memory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Smith, B. (1998). The truth that never hurts: Writings on race, gender, and freedom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Warner, M. (1993). Introduction. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. vii-xxxi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala. Wittig, M. (1992). The straight mind and other essays. Boston: Beacon Press. Yep, G. A. (1997). Changing homophobic and heterosexist attitudes: An overview of persuasive communication approaches. In J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Yep, G. A. (1998). Freire’s conscientization, dialogue, and liberation: Personal reflections on classroom discussions of marginality. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 3, 159-166.
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity Gust A. Yep PhD
a
a
San Francisco State University , 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco , CA , 94132 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Gust A. Yep PhD (2002) From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 163-176, DOI: 10.1300/ J155v06n03_14 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_14
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity: Toward the Development of a Model of Queer Interventions in the University Classroom Gust A. Yep SUMMARY. By examining homophobia and heterosexism within the larger context of heteronormativity at the intersections of race, class, and gender, I propose, in this article, a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. The article is divided into three sections. First, I describe the conceptual terrain of homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity, and their potential limitations. Second, I present an integrative model, using heteronormativity as the central site of violence, to examine homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender within the larger social and cultural domain (macroscopic level) and interpersonal context (microscopic level) and illustrate this model with specific classroom activities. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model for teaching and theorizing about homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth
Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Gust A. Yep, PhD, is Professor of Speech and Communication Studies and Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 (E-mail: [email protected]). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity: Toward the Development of a Model of Queer Interventions in the University Classroom.” Yep, Gust A. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 163-176; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 163-176. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
163
164
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
KEYWORDS. Gay, heteronormativity, heterosexism, homophobia, lesbian, pedagogy, queer
In my life I have experienced the effects of homophobia through rejection by friends, threats of loss of employment, and threats upon my life; and I have witnessed far worse things happening to other lesbian and gay people: loss of children, beatings, rape, death. Its power is great enough to keep ten to twenty percent of the population living lives of fear (if their sexual identity is hidden) or lives of danger (if their sexual identity is visible) or both. And its power is great enough to keep the remaining eighty to ninety percent of the population trapped in their own fears. –Suzanne Pharr (1988, pp. 1-2) During the 1970s and 1980s political lesbians of color have often been the most astute about the necessity for developing understandings of the connections between oppressions [based on race, class, gender, and sexuality]. They have also opposed the building of hierarchies and challenged the “easy way out” of choosing a “primary oppression” and downplaying those messy inconsistencies that occur whenever race, sex, class, and sexual identity actually mix. Ironically, for the forces on the right, hating lesbians and gay men, people of color, Jews, and women go hand in hand. They make connections between oppressions in the most negative ways with horrifying results. –Barbara Smith (1998, pp. 112-113) Educators, academic researchers, policymakers, activists, and individuals in the helping professions have become more attentive to understanding the dynamics and effects of homophobia and heterosexism in recent years (e.g., Anzaldúa, 2000; Blumenfeld, 1992; Pharr, 1988; Sears & Williams, 1997; Smith, 1998; Yep, 1997, 1998). Such body of work has generally focused on combating homophobia and heterosexism in various settings (e.g., school, work, church, etc.) and with various groups and populations (e.g., high school students, ethnic populations, etc.). Anti-homophobia education typically identifies the effects of homophobia and names individual acts of violence against lesbians and gay men (Eyre, 1997). The harmful effects of homophobia and heterosexism range from the less visible (e.g., queer youth experiencing a deep
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
165
sense of shame about their sexuality) to the extremely visible (e.g., gay bashing). They affect both lesbians and gays (e.g., living lives of fear, shame, and danger) and non-gays (e.g., homophobia inhibits an individual’s ability to form close and meaningful relationships with members of one’s own sex) in different ways and with various degrees of intensity (Blumenfeld, 1992). However, an exclusive focus on homophobia “diverts attention away from larger social forces that support and maintain the normalization of heterosexuality as well as away from the growing collective political activism of gay and lesbian groups” (Eyre, 1997, p. 199, my emphasis). Although anti-homophobia work has focused on communities of color, it generally does not address how homophobia operates when race, ethnicity, social class, and gender actually mix and intersect (Smith, 1998). By proposing a model of queer interventions in the university classroom, I attempt in this essay to partially fill these two gaps in the homophobia literature by examining homophobia and heterosexism within the larger context of heteronormativity, or the normalization of heterosexuality, at the intersections of race, class, and gender. To accomplish this, I first describe the conceptual terrain of homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity, and their potential limitations. Second, I present an integrative model, using heteronormativity as the central site of violence, to understand homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender within the larger social and cultural domain (macroscopic level) and interpersonal context (microscopic level). I illustrate and apply this model with specific classroom activities that I designed and tested in several university courses. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model for teaching and theorizing about homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. THE CONCEPTUAL TERRAIN OF HOMOPHOBIA, HETEROSEXISM, AND HETERONORMATIVITY Homophobia, as a popular term and a psychological construct, has been around for over three decades (Blumenfeld, 2000; Fone, 2000). For a thorough discussion of this concept and its history, see Fone (2000). Although a range of definitions of homophobia exists in the literature, it generally refers to irrational fear, abhorrence, and dislike of homosexuality and of those who engage in it. More recently, heterosexism and heteronormativity have appeared in academic and popular discourse. In this section, I discuss some of the problems with the concept of homophobia and the need to address larger, more inclusive, and underlying issues of heterosexism and heteronormativity in our social and cultural landscape.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
166
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Although it is of paramount importance to name violence–physical, psychological, or symbolic–directed at lesbians and gay men, there are several problems with the notion of homophobia. According to Plummer (1998), these problems include: (1) it reinforces the idea of mental illness; (2) it neglects women; (3) it ignores how sexuality intersects with other vectors of oppression, namely, race, gender, and social class; (4) it directs attention away from the larger landscape of oppression of sexual minorities in general, and (5) it ignores the underlying structural and social conditions leading to sexual oppression by focusing on individuals rather than the larger social and cultural system. First, the concept of homophobia reinforces and ratifies the notion of mental illness. While extreme expressions of homophobia–violent hate crimes against lesbians and gay men, for example–can be viewed as psychopathological, discomfort with homosexuality and inability to get along with lesbians or gay men may be, according to Plummer (1998), “better viewed as problems in living rather than sickness” (p. 89). Second, homophobia, as a term, generally refers to male homosexuality. As such, it contains misogynistic overtones as it neglects and ignores women and female homosexuality (Plummer, 1998). When we hear terms like homophobia, “the homosexual threat,” and “the homosexual agenda,” male homosexuality is invoked. Much less attention is paid to lesbians and the “lesbian threat” and this process perpetuates the male bias in gay research (Plummer, 1998). Ignoring women leads to erasure of female experiences and agency as Adrienne Rich (1983) reminds us, “Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through ‘inclusion’ as female versions of male homosexuality. To equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to deny and erase female reality once again” (p. 193). Third, the concept of homophobia ignores how individuals of different social locations–based on race, ethnicity, social class, and gender–might experience their sexuality and sexual difference in ways that are distinct from European American, gay, middle-class, and physically able men. Can we assume that the experience of homophobia for a poor European American lesbian is identical to an affluent European American gay male? Similarly, does a working class, heterosexually married, Latina lesbian face homophobia in the same way as a middle-class, immigrant, Asian American man who has sex with men? A number of writers (e.g., Anzaldúa, 2000; hooks, 2000; Lim-Hing, 2000; Smith, 1998) argue that the experience of homophobia is different for people from different social locations or, to put it another way, homophobia cannot be meaningfully understood without attention to the dyamics of race, class, and gender. For example, hooks (2000) notes that homophobia directed at some African American lesbians is rooted in a religious belief that women defined their
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
167
womanness through child-bearing and the assumption that to be lesbian meant no child-bearing. On the other hand, homophobia expressed toward some African American men is mediated by material privilege (e.g., money). Fourth, homophobia, as a term, directs our focus to hatred, oppression, and attack of homosexuals at the expense of attention on sexual oppression in general (Plummer, 1998). What about oppression of individuals who choose celibacy or are in polygamous relationships? Homophobia, in this sense, can become a myopic view of sexual negativity in society. Finally, the notion of homophobia, by focusing mostly on the individual (such as homophobic attitudes and traits), diverts attention away from the larger underlying social and cultural conditions that maintain the fear, hostility, and hatred toward human sexual difference. At the core of such underlying conditions is heterosexism and heteronormativity. Although these terms are related, heterosexism generally refers to the belief and expectation that everyone is or should be heterosexual. Heteronormative thinking assumes that heterosexuality is the indisputable and unquestionable bedrock of society; heterosexuality appears as a “given”–natural, coherent, fixed, and universal (Richardson, 1996; Warner, 1993; Wittig, 1992). It presumes that “heterosexuality is the original blueprint for interpersonal relations” (Richardson, 1996, p. 3) and in Western political thought, the heterosexual couple has come “to represent the principle of social union itself ” (Warner, 1993, p. xxi, my emphasis). More simply stated, heteronormative thinking, in theory and in practice, assumes that heterosexual experience is synonymous with human experience. The equation “heterosexual experience = human experience” renders all other forms of human sexual expression pathological, deviant, invisible, unintelligible, or written out of existence. Focusing on heteronormativity as a foundational source of human oppression (Warner, 1993, Wittig, 1992), I propose a framework for understanding daily acts of violence against individuals and groups who do not conform to the “mythical norm” (Lorde, 1990, p. 282) of heterosexuality. I now turn to a discussion of this model. TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL OF QUEER INTERVENTIONS IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM Based on the assumption that “to reduce public hostility to homosexuality [or other ‘deviant’ forms of human sexual expression] cannot simply be seen as a matter of more education or more information” (Plummer, 1998, p. 90), I propose a model that is both affective and cognitive. In other words, the model provides people with an opportunity to feel and experience (affective) and to
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
168
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
think and understand (cognitive) daily, unrelenting acts of violence against individuals or groups assumed or perceived to be outside the “charmed circle” (Rubin 1993, p. 13) of normative heterosexuality. The “charmed circle,” according to Rubin (1993), refers to U.S. societal conceptions of “good,” “normal” and “natural” sexuality characterized by heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, “non-kinky” (without using sex toys or pornography) and private sexual activity involving two individuals, of the same generation, in a committed relationship. My model attempts to identify, label, and name these acts of violence, and it resonates with the spirit of Kathleen Barry’s words (cited in Rich, 1983, p. 189), “Until we name the practice [of violence against non-heteronormative individuals], give conceptual definition and form to it, illustrate its life over time and space, those who are its most obvious victims will also not be able to name it or define their experience.” At the core of the model is the interrogation of heteronormativity, the presumption and assumption that all human experience is unquestionably and automatically heterosexual. Heteronormativity is a form of violence deeply embedded in our individual and group psyches, social relations, identities, social institutions, and cultural landscape. Monique Wittig (1992) reminds us that “to live in society is to live in heterosexuality” (p. 40) and “heterosexuality is always already there within all mental categories. It has sneaked into dialectical thought (or the thought of differences) as its main category” (p. 43). The power of heteronormativity as an ideology is its invisibility disguised as “natural,” “normal,” “universal”–its “it-goes-without-saying” character. Interrogating heteronormativity demystifies its mechanisms of power by making it visible and bare for critical analysis (for excellent discussions of heterosexuality, see: Jackson, 1999; Richardson, 1996; Wittig, 1992). The model identifies heteronormativity as a central site of psychological, psychic, social, cultural, discursive, physical and material violence for individuals and groups outside the domain of Rubin’s “charmed circle” (1993, p. 13). Heteronormativity creates, nurtures, maintains, and perpetuates such daily acts of violence. This model focuses on both macroscopic (e.g., institutional heterosexism) and microscopic (e.g., individual acts of homophobia) levels of violence against individuals deviating from the heteronormative ideal, and examines homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Borrowing from Wilber (2000), the model consists of two interdependent dimensions: (1) interior-exterior, and (2) individual-collective. Interior-exterior, the first dimension, focuses on affect, cognition, and sensations that are potentially experienced by the individual (interior) and those behaviors and actions that are acted out in the social world (exterior). Individual-collective, the other dimension, emphasizes the person (individual) and his or her relationship to the social group (collective). Taken together, these two dimensions form four
Gust A. Yep
169
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
quadrants to which I now turn. They are (1) Interior-individual, (2) exterior-individual, (3) interior-collective, and (4) exterior-collective. Interior-Individual: Soul Murder and Internalized Homophobia At a very young age, people learn that homosexuality is a powerfully shameful “condition,” a stigma with all its associations with social deviance, cultural outcast, character defect, psychological blemish, and immorality. Individuals quickly learn that “homosexuality is a problem” from interactions with others like family members, friends, peers, teachers, and from the mass media. Messages about the stigma of homosexuality are virtually everywhere ranging from the subtle (e.g., the absence of happy, well-adjusted lesbians or gays in our high school curriculum) to the extremely visible (e.g., the conflation of HIV/AIDS with homosexuality). These pervasive messages promote and maintain the ideology of heteronormativity, that is, if “you are not heterosexual, there is something wrong with you.” When such messages are internalized and incorporated into one’s conception of selfhood and identity, they become internalized homophobia and they constitute soul murder. Originally used to understand the dynamics and the traumatic nature of child abuse and torment, Shengold (1999) defines soul murder as the “apparently willful abuse and neglect of children by adults that are of sufficient intensity and frequency to be traumatic . . . [so that] the children’s subsequent emotional development has been profoundly and predominantly negatively affected” (p. 1). Shengold (1989) further elaborates, “soul murder is neither a diagnosis nor a condition. It is a dramatic term for circumstances that eventuate in crime–the deliberate attempt to eradicate or compromise the separate identity of another person” (p. 2). One can immediately see how treatment and socialization of children and young adults in a heteronormative society are forms of soul murder. When children are called names like “dyke” and “sissy” regularly “to keep them in line” and to regulate and control their gender role behaviors, psychological abuse is performed. When children and adults are subtly and continuously told, either verbally (e.g., words) or nonverbally (e.g., facial expressions), that they are expected to follow the “heterosexual contract” (Wittig, 1992, p. 34) or engage in “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich, 1983, p. 178), psychological violence is enacted. When children and adults are threatened with physical and/or psychological violence or actually beaten because they do not conform to gender role expectations, soul murder is committed. When lesbian and gay children are discovering their own attractions to members of their own sex, they become aware that “they are not OK” and “they are fatally flawed.” These children’s souls have been murdered; their
170
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
emotional developments have been severely compromised with feelings of self-hatred, self-doubt, and self-destruction including suicide. Exterior-Individual: Externalized Homophobia and Hate Crime Although public expressions of racism, sexism, and classism are becoming less acceptable in U.S. American society, public pronouncements of dislike and hatred toward lesbians and gays are made daily and without much hesitation. The use of name-calling and derogatory terms toward lesbians and gays is common in everyday interaction. Fuelled by heteronormative thinking, externalized homophobia is commonplace. Externalized homophobia can be directed to any person who is perceived or assumed to be lesbian or gay and can be manifested in multiple ways: avoidance, verbal abuse, differential treatment and discriminatory behavior, and physical violence. All of these actions are harmful. The most extreme expression of externalized homophobia can be seen in hate crimes against lesbians and gay men. Antigay violence is increasing (Fone, 2000) and homophobic murder is, as Donna Minkowitz (2000) put it, “still open season on gays” (p. 293). Reports on gay bashing appear regularly in the media. Take Matthew Shepard’s murder, for example: On October 6, 1998, two young men lured twenty-one-year-old Matthew Shepard–a gay college student at the University of Wyoming in Laramie– into their truck and drove him to a remote spot on the Wyoming prairie, pistol whipped him, and shattered his skull. They then tied him, still alive, to a wooden fence as if he were a lifeless coyote, where he was bound for over eighteen hours in near freezing temperature. The message from his attackers seemed quite clear: to all LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people, stay locked away in your suffocating closets of denial and fear and don’t ever come out into the light of day. (Blumenfeld, 2000, p. 262) Interior-Collective: Discursive Violence In everyday discourse, lesbian and gay people are not only treated differently, they are talked about differently. From everyday conversation to media images, lesbian and gay experiences are represented differently from the invisible “heterosexual norm.” For excellent discussions of LGBT representations in the media, see Gross and Woods (1999). The words, tone, gestures, and images that are used to differentially treat, degrade, pathologize, and represent lesbian and gay experiences is what I refer to as discursive violence.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Gust A. Yep
171
It is not unusual in everyday conversations for seemingly lesbian and gay-affirmative individuals to ask the most intimate, intrusive, and inappropriate questions (e.g., “what do lesbians do in bed anyway?” “who is the ‘man’ [in a lesbian relationship]?”). While these invasive inquiries into the lives of lesbian and gay people are deemed as demonstration of interest in “the lesbian or gay lifestyle” and therefore socially acceptable, such questions are rarely considered appropriate among heterosexual couples. Similarly, references such as “her current partner” when discussing a long-term companion in a lesbian relationship presumes that such relationship has no lasting future. This is an act of violence. Exterior-Collective: Institutional Violence Undergirding all social institutions is heteronormative ideology (Richardson, 1996). Hegemonic heterosexuality permeates the family, domestic life, education, organizations, social policy, the mass media; in short, heteronormative thinking is deeply ingrained, and strategically invisible, in our social and collective consciousness. The process of normalization of heterosexuality in our social system methodically disadvantages and disempowers individuals who do not conform to the heterosexual mandate. For example, few institutions provide domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples while such benefits are taken-for-granted by heterosexually married couples. AN APPLICATION OF THE MODEL IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM To illustrate my model, I created, designed, and tested a classroom activity called “Beyond the charmed circle.” This exercise is designed to engage the student in affective, cognitive, and behavioral learning. That is, the activity brings up potentially intense emotional responses, sensations, and thoughts that can be used to develop deeper awareness of the daily acts of violence committed against LGBT individuals. Such awareness can be the foundation for the development of a more critical consciousness regarding heteronormative ideology and potential ways to engage in acts of resistance (Yep, 1998). “Beyond the charmed circle” can be used in about any university course where the subject of (homo/hetero)sexuality is discussed. Before the activity starts, discussion of instructions and ground rules (e.g., non-judgmental responses, no ridiculing) is critical. About 4-6 students are placed in a group. The activity, borrowing from Griffin and Haro (1997), consists of four basic groups. Although the exercise is designed for classes with 16-24 students participating, it
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
172
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
can easily accommodate more students by creating multiple basic groups. The four basic groups are designed to illustrate (1) Group A (soul murder and internalized homophobia), (2) Group B (externalized homophobia and hate crime), (3) Group C (discursive violence), and (4) Group D (institutional violence). Instructions for each one of these four groups follow. Group A Imagine a sixteen-year-old European American woman living in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. She is attracted to her best friend, the most popular student in her high school and voted “most likely to succeed in college.” Her family is extremely uncomfortable with discussions of sexuality in general. She is not sure whether she can trust her friends with the secret. 1. Now imagine what this young woman might be experiencing–her feelings, thoughts, sensations. Describe in detail. 2. What if the above situation involved a young man who is attracted to his best friend and teammate, the captain of the high school football team? Describe in detail. 3. What if the above situation involved an African American young woman? An African American young man? A Latino? A Latina? An Asian American young woman? An Asian American young man? A Native American woman? Add other social groups if you can. Describe your reactions in detail. Group B Imagine you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person living in Denton, Texas. You are the victim of a hate crime–you were called names when you were brutally beaten up and you were repeatedly told that you don’t have the right to live because of your presumed sexuality. There were witnesses but no one attempted to intervene or help. You are seriously injured. What do you do? 1. Do you report it to the police? Will they take the incident seriously? 2. If you go to the hospital, how will you explain what happened if you are not “out”? 3. Will your name be in the newspaper? 4. How will your sense of freedom to move around and go places change? 5. What if the above situation involved a person of a different gender, race, or social class? Describe your reactions in detail.
Gust A. Yep
173
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
Group C Imagine you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person living in San Francisco, California. You and your partner are in a committed relationship of five years. You are out to your family who is uncomfortable about your “lifestyle.” You and your partner visit your parents in Bakersfield, California, for the holidays. This is the first time that they asked you to bring your partner. They insisted that you stay with them for the entire two weeks you are visiting and you agree. Imagine what feelings, thoughts, and sensations you and your partner might experience in the following situations. 1. When you arrive, your mother shows you to the room where you will be staying. This room has two single beds separated by two night tables. Your sister and her new husband are staying in the adjacent room with a king-size bed. 2. Your sister, who is the closest to you and most accepting of your “lifestyle,” introduces your partner to her new husband as your “current” girl/boyfriend. 3. When your nieces, nephews, and other family members arrive for the holiday dinner, your sister’s new husband is introduced as “uncle” and your partner is introduced as a “friend.” 4. After the holiday dinner, the adults sit around and talk about memorable moments in their intimate relationships–your parents reminisce about their first date, your sister and her new husband recall how she asked him out, your brother and his wife remember their first kiss, your aunt and uncle recall how he proposed to her. Everybody is taking turns to recall and re-live those memories. Although everybody knows about you and your partner, nobody asks you to do the same. 5. What would the above situation be like if your partner is of a different race and/or social class? Describe in detail. Group D You and your same-sex partner, living in Greenville, North Carolina, have decided to become parents. Imagine your feelings, thoughts, and sensations in the following situations. 1. How will you do it–alternative insemination, intercourse, adoption? 2. How will you tell your families?
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
174
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
3. Which partner will give birth (if you are women)? How will you decide? If you choose adoption, how will you deal with the agency’s failure to recognize lesbian/gay couples? 4. How will you work out custody arrangements in the event of separation, death, or challenge by one partner’s family? 5. Would the above situation be different if your race, class, and gender were different? What if your partner is of a different race and/or social class? Describe in detail. After each group has completed their responses to the above scenarios, they are asked to summarize and share their reactions with the entire class. After all groups have presented their responses, a discussion of their experiences and the applicability of the model can follow. Debriefing is critical and students should be given ample time to identify, process, and share their feelings and thoughts.
IMPLICATIONS In this essay, I discussed some of the problems associated with an exclusive focus on homophobia and I proposed a model that focuses on heteronormativity as a site of social, cultural, and interpersonal violence and oppression for LGBT persons. Developing a critical consciousness about the pervasive and oppressive nature of heteronormativity in all spheres of society necessitates educators, researchers, policymakers, counselors, and activists to interrogate, highlight, and demystify the often invisible ways that heterosexuality, as a concept and as an institution, influences and affects the daily lives of individuals and communities (Yep, 1998). For LGBT individuals, heteronormativity creates the conditions for homophobia, soul murder, psychic terror, and institutional violence. In addition, such violence is experienced and negotiated differently based on the individual’s race, class, and gender. For heterosexual individuals, interrogation of heteronormativity means understanding their unearned privileges and perhaps seeing how sexual hierarchies limit personal freedom, human creativity, and individual expression. With a more complete understanding of the oppressiveness of our current sexual hierarchy, everyone can celebrate their own form of human sexual expression rather than having “LGBT Pride Day” once a year against the backdrop of “Everyday is ‘Heterosexual Pride Day’” (Carbado, 1999, p. 442).
Gust A. Yep
175
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
REFERENCES Anzaldúa, G. E. (2000). Interviews/entrevistas (A. Keating, ed.). New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). Homophobia: We all pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press. Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000). Heterosexism. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 261-266). New York: Routledge. Carbado, D. W. (1999). Straight out of the closet: Men, feminism, and male heterosexual privilege. In D. W. Carbado (Ed.), Black men on race, gender, and sexuality: A critical reader (pp. 417-447). New York: New York University Press. Eyre, L. (1997). Re-forming (hetero)sexuality education. In L. G. Roman & L. Eyre (Eds.), Dangerous territories: Struggles for difference and equality in education (pp. 191-204). New York: Routledge. Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York: Metropolitan Books. Griffin, P., & Haro, B. (1997). Heterosexism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 141-169). New York: Routledge. Gross, L., & Woods. J. D. (Eds.). (1999). The Columbia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics. New York: Columbia University Press. hooks, b. (2000). Homophobia in Black communities. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 283-287). New York: Routledge. Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. London: Sage. Lim-Hing, S. (2000). Dragon ladies, snow queens, and Asian-American dykes: Reflections on race and sexuality. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 296-299). New York: Routledge. Lorde, A. (1990). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. In R. Ferguson, M. Gever, M-H. Trinh, & C. West (Eds.), Out there: Marginalization and contemporary cultures (pp. 281-287). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Minkowitz, D. (2000). Murder will out–but it’s still open season on gays. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 293-295). New York: Routledge. Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Plummer, K. (1998). Homosexual categories: Some research problems in the labelling perspective of homosexuality. In P. M. Nardi & B. E. Schneider (Eds.), Social perspectives in lesbian and gay studies: A reader (pp. 84-99). London: Routledge.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 13:34 29 August 2014
176
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Rich, A. (1983). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 177-205). New York: Monthly Review Press. Richardson, D. (1996). Heterosexuality and social theory. In D. Richardson (Ed.), Theorising heterosexuality: Telling it straight (pp. 1-20). Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press. Rubin, G. S. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 3-44). New York: Routledge. Sears, J. T., & Williams, W. L. (Eds.). (1997). Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press. Shengold, L. (1989). Soul murder: The effects of childhood abuse and deprivation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shengold, L. (1999). Soul murder revisited: Thoughts about therapy, hate, love, and memory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Smith, B. (1998). The truth that never hurts: Writings on race, gender, and freedom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Warner, M. (1993). Introduction. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. vii-xxxi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala. Wittig, M. (1992). The straight mind and other essays. Boston: Beacon Press. Yep, G. A. (1997). Changing homophobic and heterosexist attitudes: An overview of persuasive communication approaches. In J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Yep, G. A. (1998). Freire’s conscientization, dialogue, and liberation: Personal reflections on classroom discussions of marginality. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 3, 159-166.
