An exploratory study of identity construction amongst married gay men in same-sex marriage: a discourse analysis

Full text

(1)An Exploratory Study of Identity Construction amongst Married Gay Men in Same-Sex Marriage: A Discourse Analysis. by. Bruce Laing. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Magister Artium in Clinical Psychology in the Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg. February 2013.

(2) I, Bruce Laing, declare that this research report is my own original work. Secondary material has been carefully acknowledged and referenced in accordance with departmental requirements.. ii.

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I would like to thank the following people for their contributions to my research:. My supervisor, Dr Prevan Moodley: You have guided me intellectually and emotionally through this journey. You opened my eyes to the world of critical insight and critical thinking. I am incredibly indebted to you for your guidance and support. My partner, Steffen: You gave me space to explore and to be. You held me emotionally and listened attentively. You questioned my assumptions and encouraged me to become more curious. I am eternally grateful for your love and generosity. My therapist, Dean, who gave me a space to discover the parts of myself I feared most. Finally, my participants: You are all so brave and bold and true pioneers. You allowed me into your home, into your life to share your stories – Thank –you.. iii.

(4) ABSTRACT Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in South Africa and thereby casting gay men as acceptable sexual citizens. Gay men who choose not to marry are subject to further sexual discrimination. To explore the constructions and social meanings of gay men in same-sex marriage, four self-identified gay men who had been married for at least a year were interviewed. Guided by a social constructionist epistemology, discourse analysis of these interviews exposed the effects of language in the shaping of identities. The analysis found that the married gay man positions himself as a ‘decent’ sexual subject and assumes the heterosexist ideology of marriage, which discriminates the single gay man as amoral and ‘deviant’. The married gay men used the discourses of healing, othering, protection, rights and playing straight that entrenched heteronormativity as a moral and sexual authority thereby reinforcing homophobic prejudice. Policy and socio-political recommendations were made to address the legal concept of equality from a Queer Theoretical perspective and for the training of psychologists to include critical engagement with gay subjectivity and the gay cultural world.. Key words: Discourse analysis, Foucault, Gay men, Heteronormativity, Queer Theory, Same-sex marriage. iv.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 1.1 CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................................................1 1.2 AIM AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY ............................................................................3 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION .............................................................................3 1.4 REFLEXIVE PREFACE: THOUGHTS FROM AN EX-CRIMINAL .......................................4 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................................6 2.1 PARADIGMATIC POSITIONING AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................6 2.2 CRITICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND QUEER THEORY ...............................................................7 2.3 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM ..................................................................................................9 2.3.1 Deconstructing the knowable subject ..............................................................................................9 2.3.2 The role of language ........................................................................................................................9 2.3.3 Knowledge and power ...................................................................................................................10 2.4 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................13 3.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................13 3.2 SUBJECTED IDENTITIES – A FOUCAULDIAN PERSPECTIVE .......................................14 3.3 QUEER BODIES AND IDENTITY .............................................................................................20 3.4 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ..............................................................................................................26 3.4.1 The transformation of same-sex marriage .....................................................................................26 3.4.2 The legal and practical benefits of same-sex marriage..................................................................28 3.4.3 Enhanced social support ................................................................................................................29 3.4.4 The queer family ...........................................................................................................................30 3.4.5 A formative sexual identity ...........................................................................................................31 3.4.6 Relationship satisfaction and attachment security .........................................................................31 3.4.7 A departure from traditional marriage…? .....................................................................................31 3.5 QUEER REFLECTIONS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ..........................................................33 3.6 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................36 CHAPTER 4: METHOD .....................................................................................................................38 4.1 RESEARCH PARADIGM ............................................................................................................38 4.2 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................39 4.2.1 The view of language ....................................................................................................................39 4.2.2 Discourse .......................................................................................................................................39. v.

(6) 4.2.3 Text................................................................................................................................................40 4.2.4 Discourse and identity ...................................................................................................................41 4.2.5 Discourse and power .....................................................................................................................42 4.2.6 Discourse and Agency ...................................................................................................................43 4.3 RECRUITMENT AND DATA GATHERING ............................................................................44 4.3.1 Participants ....................................................................................................................................44 4.3.2 Ethics .............................................................................................................................................45 4.3.3 Data collection...............................................................................................................................45 4.4 ANALYTIC GUIDELINES...........................................................................................................46 4.4.1 Phase one: Analysis .......................................................................................................................46 4.4.2 Phase two: Discussion ...................................................................................................................49 4.5 QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................51 4.5.1 Context ..........................................................................................................................................51 4.5.2 Epistemological reflexivity ...........................................................................................................51 4.5.3 Methodological reflexivity ............................................................................................................52 4.5.4 Personal reflexivity........................................................................................................................52 4.6 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................53 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................54 5.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................54 5.2. REALIZING THE TEXT .............................................................................................................54 5.2.1 Graham ..........................................................................................................................................54 5.2.2 Vaughn ..........................................................................................................................................55 5.2.3 Jason ..............................................................................................................................................56 5.2.4 John ...............................................................................................................................................57 5.3 FREE ASSOCIATION .................................................................................................................58 5.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OBJECTS IN THE TEXT ....................................................58 5.4.1 Wedding ........................................................................................................................................59 5.4.2 Wedding ring .................................................................................................................................60 5.4.3 Wedding Speeches ........................................................................................................................61 5.4.4 Engagement ...................................................................................................................................61 5.4.5 Religion .........................................................................................................................................61 5.4.6 The South African Constitution.....................................................................................................62 5.4.7 Legal Rights ..................................................................................................................................63 5.4.8 Sex .................................................................................................................................................64. vi.

(7) 5.4.9 Cape Town ....................................................................................................................................64 5.4.10 Journey ........................................................................................................................................65 5.4.11 Gym .............................................................................................................................................65 5.4.12 Rules ............................................................................................................................................65 5.4.13 Gay bars.......................................................................................................................................65 5.4.14 Dinner parties ..............................................................................................................................66 5.4.15 The System ..................................................................................................................................66 5.4.16 Work ............................................................................................................................................66 5.5 THE SUBJECTS IN THE TEXT.................................................................................................67 5.5.1 The decent married gay man .........................................................................................................67 5.5.2 The flawless spouse .......................................................................................................................70 5.5.3 The ‘normal’ married gay couple ..................................................................................................71 5.5.4 The deviant single gay subject ......................................................................................................72 5.5.5 The rigid heterosexual male subject ..............................................................................................73 5.5.6 The prim and proper heterosexual female .....................................................................................74 5.5.7 The patronizing family ..................................................................................................................74 5.5.8 The negating father........................................................................................................................74 5.5.9 The ambivalent government ..........................................................................................................75 5.5.10 The eccentric marriage officer.....................................................................................................76 5.5.11 The genetically envisioned child .................................................................................................76 5.6 THE NETWORKS OF RELATIONSHIPS OF THE SUBJECTS............................................77 5.6.1 The moral hierarchy ......................................................................................................................77 5.6.1.The Stud and the Slut ....................................................................................................................78 5.6.2 Good gay vs. Dangerous queer......................................................................................................79 5.6.3 A normalizing gaze .......................................................................................................................80 5.7 OBJECTIONS ................................................................................................................................80 5.8 CONTRASTING FRAMEWORKS .............................................................................................83 5.8.1 A heterosexist framework .............................................................................................................83 5.8.2 A liberal human rights framework ................................................................................................85 5.9. AUTHOR AND LISTENER.........................................................................................................87 5.10 DISCOURSES ..............................................................................................................................88 5.10.1 A healing discourse .....................................................................................................................89 5.10.2 A discourse of othering ...............................................................................................................90 5.10.3 A discourse of protection ............................................................................................................92. vii.

(8) 5.10.4 A discourse of rights....................................................................................................................95 5.10.5 A playing straight discourse ........................................................................................................97 5.11 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................101 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................103 6.1 A CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF IDENTITY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE .....................103 6.2 THE INSTITUTIONS OF MARRIAGE AND HETEROSEXUALITY .................................104 6.3 POWER AND THE PRODUCTION OF THE MARRIED GAY SUBJECT ........................107 6.4 THE IDEOLOGICAL EFFECT OF MARRIAGE...................................................................110 6.5 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................112 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION OF RESEARCH .......................................114 7.1 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................114 7.2 REFLEXIVE EVALUATION OF THE STUDY ......................................................................115 7.2.1 Personal reflexivity......................................................................................................................115 7.2.2 Epistemological reflexivity .........................................................................................................115 7.2.3 Methodological reflexivity ..........................................................................................................116 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................117 7.3.1 Research recommendations .........................................................................................................117 7.3.2 Recommendations for therapeutic practice and policy reform ....................................................117 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................119 Appendix A .........................................................................................................................................130 Appendix B..........................................................................................................................................132 Appendix C .........................................................................................................................................133 Appendix D .........................................................................................................................................136 List of Figures and Tables Table 1: Research participants..…………………………………………………………………………………43 Table 2: Free association..………………………………………………………………………………….……56 Figure 1:Hierarchy of power and sexuality………………………………………………………………….76. viii.

(9) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH The South African constitution recognizes the rights and equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people. In 2006 the Civil Union Act was passed into law providing the legal and formal recognition of lesbian and gay couples. These married couples are now afforded the same rights as heterosexual married dyads. Identifying as gay through same-sex conduct - once considered illegal under apartheid laws - is now considered legal (Reddy, 2009). However, this newly awarded equality and its contribution to the construction of identity has been criticized and questioned in intellectual strands such as Queer Theory. Queer Theory argues that same-sex marriage is a domestication of gay identity and an assimilation of heteronormativity (Riggs, 2007). Furthermore, same-sex marriage appears to create further division within the gay community. Those homosexual dyads who marry are then legitimized by the State and are cast as acceptable sexual citizens, whereas those who choose not to marry are subject to further sexual discrimination (Butler, 2002).. Marriage is an intrinsic part of State and religious institutional architecture. Traditional heteronormative definitions of marriage view it as a necessary site for procreation (Reddy & Cakata, 2008). Marriage as an institution affords citizens a legal status of the civil relationship. The re-defining of marriage to include same-sex marriage has shifted the traditional heterosexual patriarchal perspective. Reddy (2009) construes this decriminalization of homosexuality as a symbolic victory. The Civil Union act has aided in the development of a post-apartheid queer identity which positions LGBT individuals and couples as legitimate and productive subjects of the State. In the judgment granting same-sex marriage rights, Justice Albie Sachs wrote that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit the norm of society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone… given the centrality attributed to marriage and its consequences in our culture, to deny same-sex couples a choice in this respect is to negate their right to self-definition in a most profound way. (Sachs, 2009, p. 258) In addition to the legal and economic benefits that same-sex marriage is believed to grant the same-sex couple, psychological well-being, greater self-confidence and an enhanced self-esteem through decreased. 1.

(10) stigmatization and discrimination are also considered important (Clarke, Burgoyne, & Burns, 2007; A. Sullivan, 1995).. Since the 1980s, depathologizing homosexuality has led to non-essentialist and alternative views of homosexual identities (Shefer & Potgieter, 2006). The notion of identity being shaped through ideology contained within the social norms is a central concern for Queer theorists. Queer Theory, following Foucault, is a critical theoretical lens which explores the effects of institutional and ideological power on subjectivity (Clarke, Ellis, Peel, & Riggs, 2010). Butler (1988) maintains that gender is not a stable identity but is constructed by historical and cultural time; it is a performative accomplishment situated in a social context. The decriminalization of homosexuality and State recognition of same-sex marriage re-scripts the performativity of homosexual identity. Decriminalization of homosexuality has brought equality and social justice - its legitimization creates a visible queer identity (Reddy, 2009).. Riggs (2007) challenges discourses of equality and argues that equality can only ever be considered when marginalized groups are granted ‘equality with’ the dominant group. Equality is defined by the dominant group. The only way the oppressed group can gain entry is through assimilation with those norms. Heterosexual marriage continues to be the standard against which queer relationships are measured. Institutions are structured upon principles of heteronormativity, and discrimination will remain the problem of the marginalized (Riggs, 2007). Butler (2002, p. 17) refers to same-sex marriage as an “ambivalent gift” and questions whether this offer from the State intensifies a normalization of homosexual identity. She suggests that legitimization of same-sex marriage creates a hierarchy within the LGBT community where alternative kinships and radical sexual culture become further marginalized. Marriage has the potential to create difference within the LGBT community and construct a divide between the socially accepted “good gay[s]” and the “dangerous queer[s]” (Clarke et al., 2007, p.191). Warner (1999) argues that this discourse is ultimately State regulation of morality through which the State exerts a control of normalcy. Legitimized marriage is a performative act in which individual personhood is ultimately dependent upon the definitions of that legitimization (Butler, 2002). This desire for State sanctioned same-sex marriage is granted on the terms of the State which recognizes existing forms of relationships instituted by heteronormativity (Riggs, 2007).. By presenting marriage as a norm, queer communities of the single, unmarried, divorced, uninterested and non-monogamous become less privileged and more marginalized. This is relevant to the discipline of psychology as Riggs (2007) argues, because psychology has played a role to both perpetuate and challenge. 2.

(11) oppression. He suggests that it is now imperative that the discipline acknowledges the complexities of queer identity and examines queer differences.. On the one hand same-sex marriage is celebrated as a victory for LGBT and human rights. It has legitimized and granted equality to this historically oppressed community. On the other hand, in the acceptance of the State’s offer of marriage, queer identity becomes fragmented in its assimilation of heteronormative morality and ideology. In a South African context of the legitimization of same-sex marriage, gay men construct new identities. This study addresses the contextual influence of the reconfiguration of identity and how same-sex marriage entrenches discriminatory homophobic attitudes. 1.2 AIM AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY The research aimed to explore gay men’s constructions and social meanings of participating in same-sex marriage.. The accounts were delimited to white South African men, from middle class backgrounds, who selfidentify as gay and had been married to another man for at least a year. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION This study is contained within a Critical Psychology framework and engages a social constructionist epistemology. The approach critically explores the discursive constructions of gay men in a same-sex marriage. Foucauldian and Queer Theory are used as a theoretical lens to gain critical insight into these constructions. Chapter two introduces this theoretical framework. Chapter three offers a concise discussion of the literature of gay subjectivity and same-sex marriage. Chapter four provides an overview of the research approach i.e. discourse analysis. Chapter five is an extensive analysis of the interviews with the married gay men. Chapter six is a critical discussion with an emphasis on the institutional, ideological and power/knowledge effects. Chapter seven concludes the research, outlines limitations and proposes recommendations. Preceding each chapter is a reflexive script/journal that tracks my journey through the research.. The reflexive ‘journal’ is inserted as film ‘scenes’ between each chapter. These scenes represent my personal reflexive journey in the research process. The scenes follow my personal discoveries, debates and questions I have encountered along the way. This research is contained within a qualitative post-modern epistemology and the scenes offer a reflexive insight to demonstrate research quality. This process of reflexivity is influenced by autoethnography which claims that the researcher’s experience, culture and. 3.

(12) context have an impact on the research analysis and findings (Patton, 2003). Bochner and Ellis (1996, p. 18) argue that the researcher cannot be separated from the research context, viewing the researcher as “an involved, situated and integral part of the research and writing process”. Although this study does not follow an autoethnographic approach, the film scenes act as a proxy for self-conscious reflexivity. The interrogation of my own experience allows me to gain insights into the gay intelligibility of which I am a part (Patton, 2003). 1.4 REFLEXIVE PREFACE: THOUGHTS FROM AN EX-CRIMINAL Up until 1994, I was, in the eyes of the State, a criminal. Homosexuality was a crime in South Africa and though I had never been arrested, I had always heard stories of police raids on gay clubs and bars. In addition, I was brought up in a strict Catholic household and was ‘taught’ from an early age that homosexuality was a sin. Coming out and identifying as gay was not easy; I had internalized feelings of rejection and shame in in my first few years of living out a gay identity. I had a brittle and vulnerable sense of self. I had desperately yearned for a relationship, but felt that I could not commit to a relationship as I was haunted by feelings of guilt and shame about being gay.. In 1993, I joined the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality, when I realized that my gay identity was a political one. For decades, Apartheid South Africa had constructed an ideology based on privilege for white heterosexuals. It was in these years of the historic change that I began to perceive identity as inexorably linked to power and politics. Post 1994, South Africans were in a state of euphoria, celebrating democracy and the establishment of an inclusive constitution.. Seventeen years later, I now find myself in a committed same-sex relationship. However, as I observe gay culture in South Africa, my experience is that gay men are still haunted by tyrannical ghosts of past oppression. The journey for this research began in an honours paper using discourse analysis, in which I explored body image and gay male identity. I found that white middle-class gay men, in an attempt to overcome discriminatory stereotypes of the weak and effeminate gay body, overcompensate by constructing a hegemonic muscular physical appearance (Laing, 2009). This body type is unachievable for many gay men and contributes to further discrimination within the gay community.. Gay rights organizations use the term ‘equality’ to demand ‘equal rights’ with heterosexuals. However, within the gay community, I may experience latent forms of inequality and oppression. There is a paradox in the meaning of equality. Gay communities have been historically oppressed and should be given equal rights. These equal rights, however, are the rights of the privileged and so are defined within a heterosexist. 4.

(13) culture. For gay men to be accepted, they have to conform to the norms of the dominant culture. I have been interested in what is lost and who is marginalized in this acceptance and gaining of ‘equality’.. As a white, middle-class, English speaking gay South African man in my early 40s, to truly explore and question concerns around what it means to be gay in South Africa, I decided to select a research question and topic which has been personally meaningful. My partner and I have been discussing marriage, and at the beginning of this research my response to marriage was quite simple – I wanted to do it. After all, many gay rights organizations have been fighting for this privilege. However, as I progressed with the research, I realized intellectually and emotionally the complexity surrounding same-sex marriage particularly about who is privileged and who is not.. I have been strongly influenced by the work of Foucault in the examination of subjugated identities. Queer theorists have ignited and expanded upon Foucault’s ideas and as such have guided my thinking and theoretical framework. Parker’s (1992) critical outline of discourse analysis, which is also strongly informed by the theory of Foucault, seemed to me to be a natural extension of my theoretical perspective and offers a critical analytical research approach.. This research assumes that there is no one claim to truth, but rather ‘truth’ is discursively framed within the political, historic and cultural context. The film scenes, as an autoethnographic account of my journey of this research, allows me to locate myself in the research and reveal how my subjective experience both impacts on the findings and challenge my own assumptions.. 5.

(14) CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 PARADIGMATIC POSITIONING AND ASSUMPTIONS The human being constructs an identity through the interaction of human culture, context and history. These historic representations located in historic time and place enable the individual to speak and act as certain kind of person – the human being is a subject who takes up a position (Wilbraham, 2004). This construction of the individual is a radical reworking of positivist and essentialist positions of identity and lies at the core of critical psychology. This critical psychological research is guided by a social constructionist framework which is born out of postmodernism. This epistemological position is an intentional critique of modernist and traditional psychology research as it questions individualistic assumptions of identity and places an emphasis on how the social context plays an integral role in the construction of identities. The role of language in framing and constructing social worlds and subjects is at the center of social constructionism. Traditional psychology led by empirical research has created knowledge that has attempted to generate a knowable and objective understanding of human behaviour. Social constructionism argues that concepts such as truth, universality and objectivity are impossible, and it intentionally challenges these assumptions arguing for many ‘truths’ derived through human interaction specific to social context (Gergen & Gergen, 2007).. The empiricist argues that the researcher is neutral and value free and personal identity plays no role in the research findings. This paradigmatic positioning holds an ontological position that considers reality to be stable and external. This position suggests that the researcher can hold an objective epistemology in which the observer remains detached (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 2006). Social constructionists vehemently argue against this claim and contend that the researcher’s identity does impinge on the research findings. Central to social constructionist research is the notion of reflexivity through which the researcher accounts for personal investments and biases that affect research outcomes (Gergen & Gergen, 2007; Parker, 1998).. Social constructionism does not only differ from the empirical and positivistic paradigm. It also differs from the interpretive paradigm which embraces humanistic qualitative approaches. Whereas the interpretive paradigm assumes that language reflects reality, the social constructionist paradigm views language as being constitutive or productive of reality. The interpretative paradigm focuses on the subjective understanding of social worlds and the ontological emphasis is on the internal reality of subjective experience (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 2006). The humanist tradition views the individual as having autonomy over their thoughts and feelings. Conversely, the social constructionist approach views. 6.

(15) subjective thoughts and feelings as being influenced and informed by dominant social systems (Terre Blanche, Kelly, & Durrheim, 2006).. This research locates itself within a framework of critical psychology. It contests taken for granted assumptions and investigates the operations of knowledge, power and their impact on identity. Hook (2004a) calls for South African psychological research to “be operative as a form of political practice” (p. 22), which: needs to do more than critically deconstruct and evaluate psychology as a system of knowledge and values, without formulating alternative ways and means of seeing and acting in the world…a South African critical psychology needs to address and engage as central and primary the sociopolitical concerns of its location. (p. 21) This exploratory research heeds Hook’s (2004a) call to address sociopolitical concerns. Homosexuality has been both pathologized and criminalized. Gay men in South Africa have only recently been afforded the right to marry. The effects of the ‘abnormal’ homosexual are still witnessed in conservative ideologies and institutions and as such these effects are visible in the construction of gay male identity. Social constructionism offers a theoretical framework to observe how these insidious mechanisms play out in this framing of the self. It is an intentionally critical and political perspective that offers emancipation and understanding of oppressive constructions. Social constructionism paves a way for the re-thinking and reimagining of social identities such as sexuality, gender and ethnicity (Burr, 1998). 2.2 CRITICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND QUEER THEORY Within psychology social constructionism is a theoretical perspective taken within the sub discipline of critical psychology. Critical psychology thus provides a paradigm or framework to explore and deconstruct the relations of power contained within the conventional forms of psychological knowledge and tradition (Hook, 2004a). Psychology has been used as a powerful tool in the subjugation of individuals and identity (Rose, 1996). Homosexuals, women and various racial identities have all been historically marginalized because of the disciplinary mechanizations of empiricist based psychological research. Critical psychology is a political and transformatory tool which intentionally critiques and addresses these historic defamatory identity constructions (Hook, 2004a). Rose (1996, p. 106) argues that traditional psychological knowledge is “a servant of power…disguised as objectivity” which has historically attempted “to master persons better in order to better manipulate them”. Therefore, critical psychology is not simply a device to highlight oppression and discrimination, but should utilize and introduce alternate theory to counter ideological biases and offer new forms of explanation (Parker, 2004a). Once such alternate theory is Queer Theory.. 7.

(16) Queer Theory is a resistance to the idea of normative behaviour (M. Warner, 1999). Queer Theory holds a similar purpose and aim to that of critical psychology; both are concerned with the deconstruction of power and the influence of dominant ideology on subjectivity (Downing & Gillett, 2011). In this way, both social constructionism and Queer Theory follow similar projects. Both intend to expose the workings of power on identity (Downing & Gillett, 2011). Sexuality from this perspective is an identity category imbued with ideological power. The constructions of identity preexist sexuality (D. N. Warner, 2004). Categories of sexual identity contain knowledge which define a social script. Human subjects are born into this script and to be rendered intelligible, they adhere to the narrative in the script (Butler, 1990). Heterosexuality is the privileged and dominant category of sexual identity whereas alternate forms of sexual identity are viewed as deviant. Heteronormativity becomes the beacon of what is considered normative behaviour. To be considered acceptable, human subjects conform to this idea of normative behaviour. Brown (2009) argues that even within homosexual culture, there is an assimilation of heterosexual norms. To gain entry into the social world, homosexual identities are reconfigured to achieve recognition. Queer Theory investigates and exposes the effects of normalization of subjectivity.. Using the tenets of Queer Theory this study contests categorization of gender and sexual constructions. Brooker (1999) describes Queer Theory as a critical challenge to the essentialist beliefs of homosexuality and heterosexuality contained within the dominant discourses in a binary sexual regime. Queer Theory defies this rigid view of sexuality and proposes an understanding that emphasizes ambivalence and fluid boundaries that transform depending on the cultural and historical context (Brooker, 1999). Queer Theory places the voice of the ‘alien’ and the ‘other’ in the center (Clarke et al., 2010).To ‘queer’ is an intentional challenge of the essentialist belief of heterosexuality as a naturalized gender and sexual norm. Butler (2002) introduced the concept of ‘performativity’ arguing that individuals are born into dominant social discourses and through the repetitive performance and reenactment of prescribed acts, subjectivity is shaped. Identity then is a performative expression of dominant social norms. In this research, the institution of marriage is regarded as a heteronormative institution and Queer Theory is used as a theoretical lens to explore the effects of this institution on identity construction. Queer Theory, as it relates to same-sex marriage is taken up in more detail in Chapter three, the literature review.. Following the transformatory and critical ideals of critical psychology, this research aims to expose the discriminatory effect of the pathological construction of the gay subject. Goodley and Parker (2000) believe that critical psychology needs to expose how psychology has privileged certain subjects over others, challenge essentialist psychological theory, examine the way in which psychology has regulated and. 8.

(17) controlled identity and uncover ideological assumptions that have come to be regarded as psychological ‘truths’. 2.3 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM 2.3.1 Deconstructing the knowable subject Social constructionism “refers to a tradition of scholarship that traces the origin of knowledge, meaning and understanding to human relationships” (Gergen & Gergen, 2007, p. 461). The argument holds that human subjects are the product of social processes of human interaction and relationships (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999). This meaning of identity and construction of the self is bound up in language which is central to how human knowledge is gained. Language is organized into discourses and these discourses construct frameworks which formulate subject positions (Parker, 1998). Foucault (1979) drew attention to the technological mechanism of discourse in how it binds subject positions in the construction of identity that serves ideological means and conceals the operation of power. Empirical and traditional psychology have attempted to locate an individual and objective self with universal properties, that is, a “knowable subject” (Gergen, 1992, p. 19). Traditional psychology presents a normative ideal self primarily constructed around hegemonic and patriarchal ideals and any subject who does not conform to this ideal has been considered abnormal and pathological (Foucault, 1979). The human sciences were guided by modernism which sought to objectify a knowable subject with universal properties that could be generalized across context and time (Gergen, 1992). The empirical research methods focused on defining truth through controlled experimentation to establish value-free truths. The social constructionists later contested these truth claims which appeared to be based on specific interpretations and subjective perspectives (Gergen, 1992). Empirical science simply constructed a language which encoded social meaning, and this led to marginalization and oppression of those subjects that did not satisfy normative criteria saturated in the truth claims. Diverse groups such as women, homosexuals and ethnic groups were treated as pathological and abnormal. Feminists and Queer theorists have found a voice in social constructionism and turned to the deconstruction of language to observe its ability to formulate oppressive constructions of the self. 2.3.2 The role of language Social constructionism contends that social worlds are composed in language and that language should be the focal point of study (Terre Blanche, Kelly, & Durrheim, 2006). Social meaning is understood through language. It is the symbolic form which contains the description of how human subjects make sense of their social world. It is the communication device through which this meaning is conveyed and as such relies on human interaction which constitutes worldviews (Gergen & Gergen, 2007). The structuring effect of language is known as discourse which provides the mechanism through which human subjects are able to articulate an understanding of their world and identities (Parker, 1999).. 9.

(18) Language then has a structuring effect on how subjects are composed. However, language is historically derived, contextually based and the dominant carrier of social meaning and categorizations. Human subjects are born into a language, and subjectivity is constructed through the ways of speaking particular to culture and context (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999). Homosexuality is understood and gains a ‘reality’ based on how a culture talks about it as a category. Foucault (1978) offers a genealogy of homosexuality depicting how this categorization has shifted through history. Until 1994 in South Africa, homosexuality was considered a criminal offence. The Civil Union act, which grants same-sex marriage, allows for religious institutions to refuse performing the ceremony if it differs with its ideological values (Sachs, 2009). So, while the homosexual subject may be free, he is still regarded as unacceptable by certain religious institutions. These ways of speaking about the homosexual subject, by both the State and religious institutions have indelible effects on how identity is constructed.. Social constructionism examines the origins of the ways of speaking about a subject and the functions they serve (Parker, 1999). This epistemological positioning opens up ways for investigating how these subject positions have been construed (Hook, 2004a). Language is deconstructed and decentered to observe how subjects have been marginalized. Traditional psychology has used language to perpetuate its claims of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ to generate an objective knowledge of the world. However, this knowledge has been dominated by Western, hegemonic and patriarchal views of the world, and those categorizations which do not conform to this mould have been marginalized. 2.3.3 Knowledge and power Knowledge and power are inexorably linked. Truth claims derived from empiricist research have formulated a particular view of the world. These psychological claims under the guise of an objective science have perpetuated descriptions of the self which consequently have been used as instruments of power (Hook, 2004a). Empiricist knowledge assumes that factual experience leads to an objective knowledge of the world, whereas social constructionism exposes how this knowledge is a construction of reality rather than an ontological reflection of it (Willig, 2008). Human experience is never a direct reflection of environmental interaction, but rather a specific reading of this interaction (Willig, 2008). Language constructs this understanding of experience which formulates knowledge. Truth and reality are then claims which are made by a particular community and these claims are based on values inherent in that community (Gergen & Gergen, 2007). Knowledge is selected to confirm socio-cultural beliefs. It is these claims of knowledge that have implications on social lives in social worlds.. 10.

(19) This deployment of knowledge is observed in the construction of the homosexual ‘personality’. Following the industrial revolution, the homosexual subject was categorized and pathologized by scientific and medical technologies. Empirical research dominated by male heterosexual science attempted to understand and objectify the homosexual subject and cast this subject as abnormal (Foucault, 1978). Psychology played a role in the production of ‘scientific’ knowledge of bodies and made truth claims about these subjects. These scientific claims of knowledge manufacture “taken for granted assumptions” which is “produced by a certain group, in certain ways for certain interests” (Hook, 2004a, p. 16). Knowledge was specifically constructed to encompass operations of power held in place by dominant institutions and ideologies.. As the power dynamics inherent in the dominant institutions and ideologies shift, so too does knowledge. Knowledge of reality is never fixed. Reality is built upon presumptions held by communities and are culturally and historically located (Gergen & Gergen, 2007). Through the deconstruction of language, social constructionist research explores the operations of power in knowledge claims and articulates how these function to “open up or close down certain forms of action” (Parker, 1999, p. 34).. Social. constructionism opens up pathways to observe how subjectivity has been called into being, rather than adopting scientific claims which generate taken for granted assumptions.. Social constructionism posits that there is no singular truth but many ‘truths’, and that the interpretation of ‘truth’ is subjective and mediated through context and history. The social constructionist researcher is not neutral or value free because personal subjectivity has an effect on interpretation (Parker, 1999). The researcher’s life experience and theoretical position affects both the interaction with participants and the interpretation of literature and research findings. In social constructionist research objectification is not possible and an inherent power/knowledge relationship exists with the participant (Macleod, 2004). A reflexive stance forces the researcher to consider the way in which he/she is implicated in the research and the findings (Willig, 2008). The acknowledgment of reflexivity enables the researcher to reflect upon and evaluate the impact of taken for granted assumptions and claims of truth. 2.4 CHAPTER CONCLUSION This research is an intentional exploration of language and how language forms and shapes the identities of married gay men. It is both a critical and political study drawing on radical Queer Theory and Foucauldian theory to debate traditional and assimilationist beliefs. Psychological research in South Africa has been dominated by heterosexist research and there has been a noticeable lack of research which critically explores the construction of non-heterosexual bodies (Shefer & Potgieter, 2006). This research is an. 11.

(20) attempt to address the imbalance in psychological research and explore the sociopolitical consequences of gay identity.. 12.

(21) CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 INTRODUCTION The inception of same-sex marriage is new in South Africa and is also currently being debated internationally. On the 30th of November, 2006, the Civil Union Act signed into law by the Deputy President of South Africa, formally recognized the legal partnership of same-sex marriage. This was a symbolic and economic victory for gay and lesbian rights both locally and internationally. Prior to 1994 in South Africa, same-sex acts had been considered a criminal offence and even deemed by conservatives and traditionalists to be ‘un-African’ (Reddy & Cakata, 2008; Wynchank, 2006). The intensive campaigning and advocacy by LGBT activists was hailed as a legal triumph and the subsequent policy reform has afforded same-sex couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts (Reddy & Cakata, 2008). Whether same-sex marriage could be considered a psychological victory, however, is controversial. For example, assimilationist proponents argue that marriage brings stability to the same-sex couple while more radical Queer Theorists argue that it reinforces heteronormative power relations (Green, 2010a; Grindstaff, 2003).. An assimilationist perspective embraces the ideology contained within a human rights and liberal discourse. The emphasis in this liberal-humanist discourse is on the rights of the individual and it argues that LGBT individuals should not be discriminated against, but accepted by society and granted the same rights as heterosexuals (Clarke et al., 2010). This perspective is fully supportive of same-sex marriage which can offer equal rights, a stable family life and consequently more acceptance in society (Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2003). The assimilationist perspective holds that same-sex marriage is an act of social transformation which seeks equality and acceptance for gays and lesbians (Clarke et al., 2007).. It is the concept of ‘equality’ and the subsequent effect of marriage on the shaping of identity that Queer theorists find problematic. Queer Theory positions itself as a critique of heteronormativity and deconstructs the ideological effects of hegemonic power on queer subjectivity (Clarke et al., 2010). Queer Theory is born out of the work of Foucault (1978) who theorized that sexual identity is subjected through the workings and effects of institutional and ideological power. Like Foucault, Queer Theory recognizes that power is everywhere and attempts to control subjectivity; this radical theory attempts to work against power. Queer Theory positions itself not simply as an act of normative resistance, but as a protest against “the idea of normal behavior” (N. Sullivan, 2003, p. 51). From this perspective, the institution of marriage is at the core of heteropatriarchy and signifies an idealized construction of intimate relationships (Yep et al., 2003). Queer Theorists view marriage as reinforcing gender inequality and attempting to discipline and. 13.

(22) domesticate queer bodies (Green, 2010a). The concept of marriage as equality with heterosexuals means that equality is defined by the dominant group and queer subjects are accepted on those terms (Riggs, 2007).. Queer Theorist, Judith Butler (2002, p. 17), refers to the concept of same-sex marriage as an “ambivalent gift” and explores whether same-sex marriage forecloses on homosexual liberation and serves to further isolate queer bodies. Butler (2002, p. 20) asserts the importance of “keeping the tension alive between keeping a critical perspective and making a political legible claim”. A political stance needs to incorporate a critical understanding. An assimilationist stance can serve to create a sexual hierarchy implying that those bodies that do not ascribe to marriage are regarded as socially deviant (Yep et al., 2003). The radical Queer theoretical position may ignore the difficulties of the lived experience endured by many same-sex couples and the freedom and acceptance they gain through the act of marriage (Green, 2010a).. Following the preceding concepts this chapter therefore addresses the ambivalence and tension around same-sex marriage. A Foucauldian lens exploring the genealogy of the homosexual body illuminates the ways in which institutional power has discursively constructed gay men and provides a “history of the present” (Foucault, 1978, p. 12). This lens gives insight into the reasons why the choice of the State’s ‘gift’ is welcomed by the assimilationists. The concepts of performativity and interpellation, used by Queer theorists, extend and deepen the understanding of the self as that which is discursively formed. Phenomenological research of same-sex marriage has found that gay men believe that marriage reduces homophobia and homonegativity and numerous legal and emotional benefits are gained (Alderson, 2004; Lannutti, 2005; Porche & Purvin, 2008). However, a critical investigation into the systemic framework proposes that same-sex marriage is a form of heterosexual control which limits homosexual agency (Grindstaff, 2003). Social and cultural regulation has informed both the meaning of sexuality and individual identity. This chapter explores how the institution frames gay men in a same-sex marriage and through a Foucauldian and Queer Theoretical lens, critically investigates the cost of this “ambivalent gift”. 3.2 SUBJECTED IDENTITIES – A FOUCAULDIAN PERSPECTIVE Sexuality from a Foucauldian perspective is experienced through an individual’s interaction with the historical and cultural landscape (N. Sullivan, 2003). Homosexuality has become defined and constructed within the framework of these social parameters. Bodies have a history and their characteristics are shaped and determined through cultural practices (Oksala, 2011). The conceptualization of the ‘homosexual’ is a relatively recent one. Prior to the advent of the industrial revolution in the 19th century this categorization was unknown. The concept of sexual difference was discussed in terms of sexual acts rather than sexual. 14.

(23) personalities. The sexual ‘personality’ was not of use in human discourse. Rather, deviant sexual acts (such as the act of sodomy) played a role in the construction of sexuality (Halperin, 1998). In the wake of the industrialized era, this act of sodomy was transposed from verb to noun as Foucault (1978) states, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their author was nothing more than a juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage – a past, a case history and a childhood, a character, a form of life; also a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology. Nothing in his total being escapes his sexuality. Everywhere in him it is present: underlying all his actions, because it is their insidious and indefinitely active principal; shamelessly inscribed on his face and on his body, because it is a secret that always gives itself away. It is consubstantial with him, less as habitual sin than as a singular nature… Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite was a temporary aberration; the homosexual is now a species. (p. 43) A discursive framework was constructed around the homosexual. Homosexuality came to be discussed as a pathological and abnormal identity rather than a transgressive behaviour (Taylor, 2002). The practice of medicine and psychology had become the legitimate modes of ideological apparatus that sought to regulate societal norms and practices. To make sense of and understand the deviant act of sodomy, the homosexual ‘personality’ was constructed and this had multiple effects on subjectivity and social structures (Taylor, 2002).. Theorizing about the body is central to understanding sexual identity. Foucault (1978) observed how the key focus in the industrial era was the regulation of bodies. Reproductive sexual identities were vital for the industrial production and capitalism. Developed society needed bodies to produce goods and those bodies had to be controlled and regulated for economic survival and growth (Mills, 2003). Foucault (1978, p. 25) writes that the emergence of “population” as an “economic and political problem” was one of the essential innovations in the practices of power. An individual’s sexuality was strictly scrutinized under the gaze of institutional power. Foucault referred to this mechanism of power as disciplinary power and bio-power. Both forms of power work interchangeably; disciplinary power operates through micro-technologies of institutions like schools, prisons and hospitals, whereas bio-power functions on a macro level working through the State (Taylor, 2011).. In disciplinary power, bodies were scrutinized and compared to others, and attempts were made to either discipline or treat the offending subject who did not fit the societal norm (Hook, 2004b). Disciplinary power sought to make the body “more obedient as it becomes more useful” (Foucault, 1979, p. 138). Foucauldian theory argues that the concept of discipline was modern because the manipulation of bodies was previously controlled through violent acts. Disciplinary power was more insidious because bodies were now reconstructed through disciplinary technologies (Oksala, 2011). The effect of disciplinary power is. 15.

(24) normalization. There was a conscious effort to control and eliminate social and psychological abnormalities as the society sought to produce subjects who were useful and docile (Hook, 2004b). Through the operation of surveillance and later confession, disciplinary power sought to enable a “normalizing judgment” (Hook, 2004b, p. 227). Bodies that did not adhere to this normalizing gaze were considered deviant, pathological and abnormal. The ‘abnormal’ homosexual then became defined as a body that did not fulfil the State’s requirements as a procreative and subservient subject (Taylor, 2002). It was a threat to dominant ideologies and constructions of sexualities and bodies.. Like disciplinary power, bio-power functions through norms and operates through the State. Bio-power in Foucauldian terms is a power which controls the human body (Taylor, 2011). Foucault (1978) states that bio-power focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population. (p. 139) The modern census, formulated during the industrial revolution, where the State required demographic data to manage and control the population, was to a large degree the blueprint for bio-power (Foucault, 1978). The State was concerned with the demographic forecasts which gave an indication of its economic strength. Demographic factors such as the average age of the population, mortality rates and birth rates were key to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the labour force (Taylor, 2011). The human ‘body’ became a site where power was either restricted or enacted. The body was considered useful depending on its ability to contribute to the economic strength of the State (Mills, 2003).. Non-reproductive sex was considered as both a sinful act and a threat to the economic potential of society (Taylor, 2011). The State needed to manage this undesirable aspect and this population group needed to be understood. Bio-power focused on the sexual activities of its population and the body was regulated. Foucault (1978, p. 143) uses the term “bio-history” to infer how the species body was now under the scrutinizing gaze of the State. In the 19th century individual sexuality was “sought out in the smallest details”; the entire childhood and imagination of the body was inspected with the ultimate aim to discipline the subject and regulate the population (Foucault, 1978, p. 146). The objective of bio-power was to increase the State’s political capacity and biological strength (Foucault, 1978). Bio-power worked interchangeably with disciplinary power. Bio-power operates through the macro technologies through which the State employs statistical measurements and assessments of its population, whereas disciplinary power operates through the micro-technologies which attempts to regulate the body through medical surveillance and disciplining apparatus such as schools, psychiatric institutions and prisons (Hook, 2004b).. 16.

(25) Disciplinary technologies and the construction of sexual bodies involved “formal discursive practices” around the nature of sexual practices (Halperin, 1998, p. 97). The sexual personality who performed acts which were “contrary to nature” was not only considered morally and criminally reprehensible but now was deemed pathological (Halperin, 1998, p. 97). The individual was now regarded as a perverse species in need of treatment and the homosexual subject was called into being. The medical discourse of this ‘depraved’ personality constructed an essentialization of the homosexual subject, that is, it was regarded as having fixed properties or an essence which is unchangeable (Taylor, 2002).. Prior to the industrial revolution, deviant sexual acts were seen as a criminal offence, and the offending subject was given a criminal, usually violent sentence. Sodomites were often placed at the bottom of the burning stake. The term ‘faggot’ was used to refer to the offending criminal, in reference to the burning wood pile (Taylor, 2002). The shift to the concept of the homosexual as a subject with a medical disease was formally identified by psychiatrist Richard von Kraft-Ebbing and placed into medical discourse (Clarke et al., 2010). Kraft-Ebbing, in his text Psychopathia sexualis published in 1886 depicted the homosexual as a subject whose non-reproductive sexuality was a disease (Clarke et al., 2010). KraftEbbing’s text was originally intended as a forensic document for use in court, serving to depict that this perverse sexuality was not a crime or sin, but rather a disease (N. Sullivan, 2003). His claim was that homosexuals were considered to suffer from neurological degeneration, and from an evolutionary perspective they were less developed than heterosexuals (N. Sullivan, 2003). Kraft-Ebbing proposed that humans had once been hermaphroditic and had evolved into specific heterosexual masculine and feminine identities, whereas the homosexual was sexually ambiguous and therefore not as evolved and consequently a primitive being (N. Sullivan, 2003). In this way specialist medical knowledge of the homosexual emerged (Leatt & Hendricks, 2005).. Psychology added to this discursive framing of the pathological homosexual, notably through the work of Freud. Freud considered individual sexuality as a primary factor in the development of personality (Clarke et al., 2010).. Individuals are born with a polymorphous sexuality and heterosexuality is attained. developmentally through the psychosexual stages. Freud, however, rejected the popular notion that homosexuality was inborn and viewed individual sexual orientation as a result of interaction with the family environment (Clarke et al., 2010). Although Freud did not regard homosexuality as abnormal, the problem arose in the interpretation of his theory. Many psychoanalytic thinkers claimed his theory supported the notion of the pathological homosexual (Taylor, 2002). The homosexual was considered an individual, who through poor early object relations and repression of the death drive, had failed to resolve. 17.

(26) the Oedipal drive and fulfil heterosexual potential. Homosexuality interpreted through a Freudian lens precipitated “increasingly intolerant, pathologizing and damaging essentialist analytic accounts of homosexuality” (Taylor, 2002, p. 160). Psychoanalytic theory then suggested that homosexuality was not innate, but arrested development and thus could be cured through therapeutic processes (N. Sullivan, 2003). A medical discourse holds an essentialist view of the homosexual, and the psychological discourse suggests that the homosexual has failed to resolve early developmental stages. Foucault (1978, p. 43) writes that “nothing that went into his total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him”. This pathologizing of the homosexual was an intentional operation of the State in its aim for social control, and its disciplinary purpose was to construct a normalisation of human identity.. One of Foucault’s (1978) main themes in The History of Sexuality is how subjected bodies through disciplinary practices come to resist normalisation. For Foucault, power is both productive and resistive. Power, Foucault (1978) argues, is not simply a process where identity is repressed and constrained but rather an act of resistance to these discursive constructions. This pathological identity construction made possible the formation a “reverse” discourse: homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or “natruality”[sic] be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified. (Foucault, 1978, p. 101) The 19th century homosexual had been conceived through medical and psychological discourse as a pathological identity. The homosexual came to resist this categorisation in its determination to identify itself as normal (Feder, 2011). A top-down model of power implies that bodies are prescribed by societal norms and codes; instead Foucault is promoting a bottom up approach to power which views the body as a site which is both enacting and resisting institutional power (Mills, 2003). There was a conscious effort on behalf of 20th century LGBT activists to recast and depathologize the homosexual. However, their language was the same as the language used in the construction of the deviant identity. Homosexual identity was understood within the parameters of the heterocentric discourse that had initially cast and shaped this persona.. Foucault (1978, p. 101) refers to the concept of “reverse discourses” and draws attention to human rights organisations attempting to recast the homosexual as ‘normal’. However, this ‘normal’, is understood in terms of prevailing societal conceptualisations of normalcy. The liberal discursive reconstruction of the homosexual invented the term ‘gay’ to refer to homosexual men. This discourse intentionally attempted to assert the rights of gay men who are able to engage in same-sex relations and desire (Theuninck, Hook, & Franchi, 2002). The gay humanistic discourse endeavours to allow for a free expression of the self in ways that have previously been held exclusively for heterosexuals. Theunick and colleagues (2002) note that this. 18.

(27) gay identity has developed into a kind of brand, a life-style, in which the individual constructs the self according to where they shop, the kind of clothes chosen, places of entertainment and even individual philosophy; this gay identity, “embodies a persona, a social and moral stance, promoting itself as a forceful economic and political demographic” (p. 127). The gay individual in an attempt to recast the notion of an ‘afflicted individual’ has set up an alternative norm still contained within the grand narrative of heterosexuality.. This gay liberal discourse is still subjected to the technology of sexuality (Theuninck et al., 2002). The subject attempts to know the truth of self through the act of confession (N. Sullivan, 2003). Confession, Foucault (1978, p. 59) posits, is “at the heart of the procedures of individualisation”. This process of confession was inherited from religious practices, where individuals had to atone for their sins to be considered an authorised subject of the State (Mills, 2003). In contemporary culture, institutional practices such as psychology, advice columns and popular media forums like talk shows have replaced the confessional priest. For an individual to know the self, there needs to be a process of confession. The notion of ‘coming out’ implies that the individual needs to identify himself with a particular way of being (Theuninck et al., 2002). In the act of confession, the subject, it is assumed, comes to know its self. However, the confession is still caught up within a power dynamic based on the assumption that this act of self-expression is liberatory. Foucault (1978) argues that the subject is caught up within a truth-effect of power. Confession has a normalising function where the act of an individual proclaiming an identity is both an instrument and object of power (N. Sullivan, 2003).. The subject who self-identifies as gay comes to believe under the guise of normalisation that he is essentially gay (Leatt & Hendricks, 2005). The belief is that he has no control over his sexual desire and should not be punished for it. This essentialist position has played out in liberal religious institutions where subjects come to accept their selves because “God created them” (Leatt & Hendricks, 2005, p. 308). Furthermore, scientific discourse has argued the concept of a ‘gay gene’ supporting the essentialist position (Leatt & Hendricks, 2005). This position is further reinforced in South Africa where the constitution specifically decriminalised the homosexual subject and instituted anti-discriminatory laws on the basis of individual sexual orientation (Reddy, 2009). The gay subject is now a discursive construction in which certain liberal religious, scientific and State ideologies not only accept these as productive bodies but also encourage a process of self-acceptance and self-expression (Taylor, 2002). Sexual identity has become “constructed as a normative and regulatory ideal in the networks of power and knowledge” (Oksala, 2011, p. 95). Individual identity and behaviour are now understood as a natural and inevitable consequence of sexuality (Oksala, 2011).. 19.

(28) Throughout the previous century, institutional practices have set up a pathologising identity of the homosexual subject. Gay liberation and human rights organisations have actively fought to overcome these discriminatory representations of homosexual bodies. In this process, however, the gay subject has simply become a subtle re-interpretation of these oppressive constructions (Taylor, 2002). Foucault’s historical genesis of the construction of the homosexual body offers a theory that regards subjects as both effect and resistance to institutional and ideological power (Oksala, 2011). Foucault’s (1978) theory suggests that bodies are not reducible to biological entities but rather consequences of the mechanisms of power. Queer Theory, following in the slipstream of Foucauldian theory argues that through the networks of power and knowledge, individuals perform sexual identity by repeating behaviour which fits historic and cultural constructions (Oksala, 2011). 3.3 QUEER BODIES AND IDENTITY Queer Theory emerged in the 1990s as an intentional critique of heteronormativity and is influenced by the work of Foucault (Clarke et al., 2010). Heteronormativity sets up the notion that there are two specific genders, male and female, and that these genders in turn have predetermined roles (Steyn & van Zyl, 2009). This dominant hegemonic conceptualisation of gender permeates social discourses and sets up binary opposites such as man/woman or heterosexual/homosexual and creates disciplinary rules for those bodies that do not conform to heterocentric norms (Steyn & van Zyl, 2009). Queer Theory is constructed as a political practice that intentionally challenges normative assumptions concerning knowledge and identity (N. Sullivan, 2003). Halperin (1995) regards the notion of queer as a position rather than an identity that is not limited to lesbian and gay but can be applied to any marginalised or oppressed sexual bodies. He explains: Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ‘Queer’ then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative. (p. 62) Queer Theorists have reclaimed the word ‘queer’, historically used by heterosexuals as a discriminatory term to refer to homosexuals, which implied an abnormal and disparaging individual (Clarke et al., 2010). In the radical sense queer is used to “fuck with gender” (N. Sullivan, 2003, p. 44). ‘Queer’ is considered a political position rather than an essentialist identity (N. Sullivan, 2003).. The concept of queer from a Queer Theoretical perspective is considered as that which is both indefinable and indistinguishable. It actively defies a static definition and rather concerns itself with an antiassimilationist and transitive position (Salih, 2003). It seeks to deconstruct discourses of sexuality and. 20.

No results found