Discourse mediates within and between ourselves and others impacting the promotion, reinforcement and creation of social narratives (Foucault, 2019; Butler, 2006). However, it is important to understand that this mediation of discourse does not happen in a vacuum determined by metaphysical individualism and perfectly distinguishable sets of values. To adequately address ideas around the social construction of sexuality, this discussion will take an ontological approach of agental realism (Barad, 2007). By looking at the nature of subjectivity and relations between and around ‘becomings’ through a new materialist perspective we can see the power, and limitations, of discourse and how reality itself is constructed. It will also look at the work of Foucault on sexuality and discourse, Barad on new materialism and Anderson and De Boise on ‘inclusive masculinities’ in order to discuss how discourse constructs and is constructed in relation to sexuality, the supposed ‘decline of homophobia’, and the limitations of discourse alone to understand this supposed decline (Foucault, 2019; Barad, 2007; Allen, 2018; de Boise, 2015; Anderson, 2009).
The acceptance and perpetuation of discourse produces “truth” as Foucault notes, “Each society has its regime of truth, its general politics of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true” (Rabinow, 1984, p.73). This idea of the subjective nature of truth, how it evolves and its acceptance, create social narratives which can be linked to Bourdieu’s work on doxa and how we transition ideas socially from the universe of the undiscussed to the proactive conscious universe of discourse (Bourdieu, 1977, p.168-169). The power of discourse to shape and produce society is also tied to ideas on performativity and regulation as discussed by Butler (Butler, 2006). They do this by looking at ideal constructs and how they are consistently held in place through repetition and regulation in social relations (Butler, 2011). This ability to invent and produce the categories through which we create meaning allows us to see how sexuality is constructed and used within society.
For Foucault the social construction of sexuality through discourse is perpetuated through multiple “centers”; confession, silence, medicine, criminal justice and more (Foucault, 2019, p.23). For example, by centring sex within the heterosexual family, and within marriage, any deviations from this social norm require policing by the ‘centers’ that perpetuate discourse to regulate such behaviours. This approach to sex and sexuality is directly related to societies ability to manipulate and, “transform their sexuality into a perpetual discourse, to the manifold mechanisms which… incite, extract, distribute, and institutionalize the sexual discourse.” (Foucault, 2019, p.24). This control and direction of discourse to shape social norms equips institutions and governing bodies with bio-power through social regulation and control of sexual acts and desires (Foucault, 2019, p.143).
In order to analyse the supposed ‘decline of homophobia’ it is essential to understand how social norms on sexuality are changed. Butler tells us that the constant regulation of norms is essential to maintain their hold in society as they are susceptible to, “rearticulations that call into question the hegemonic force of that very regulatory law.” (Butler, 2011, p.xii). It is also important to define key concepts contextually such as the operation of homophobia within a heterosexual matrix and the positioning of masculinity as central to heterosexuality (Butler, 2006; Holland et al, 1998). When examining Anderson’s work on ‘inclusive masculinity’, in which Anderson claims that homophobia is the, “most important policing agent of masculinity”, de Boise examines this saying that homophobia is not necessarily about who has sex with whom but rather men acting increasingly feminine (Anderson, 2009, p.8; de Boise, 2014). However, it should be noted that this could better be defined as effeminophobia in relation to ideas on gender essentialism and the disturbance of, “the presumed link between biology and expected gender behaviours.” (Annes & Redlin, 2012, p.278; Richardson, 2016).
Foucault’s thoughts on the social construction of sexuality through discourse can help examine ideas on the ‘decline of homophobia’ by looking at the mechanisms through which homophobia is dispersed. What ‘centres’ are used to generate, propagate and regulate sexual discourses today and what are they saying about homophobia? Essentially, seeking to understand what makes up our discursive reality both through punishment and creation. When discussing the supposed ‘decline of homophobia’, Anderson (2009) points to the rise of ‘inclusive masculinity’ as an indication of its’ loss of normativity, a change in the discourse of sexuality. De Boise (2014) critiques Anderson’s view stating that there are three assumptions they make: levels of prejudice can be objectively established, the increase of public intimacy between self-identified straight men is related to attitudes on, or is tied to, sexualities and that homophobia is now insignificant (McCormack & Anderson, 2010; Anderson, 2009). De Boise also highlights the focus ‘inclusive masculinity’ gives to archetypes of persons and its use of words like ‘orthodox’ which imply a historical point at which the perspective of masculinity became ‘fixed’ (de Boise, 2014). Anderson’s view of gender as psychologically predisposed and internal does not account for, “arrangements of social power” and the performativity of gender socially (de Boise, 2014; Butler, 2006).
Some scholars have criticised the academic fixation on discursive practise and champion a wider ontological approach. Barad (2007) introduces the concept of agential realism as a way to help push through the final layers of restrictive anthropocentric approaches to discursive practice and ideas on performativity. This shift from the traditional approaches of realism and social constructivism, which is often focused on a cartesian duality of the nature/culture divide and a presumed distinction between subject and object, allows for a focus on ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ relationally through diffraction rather than a purely reflective, “correspondence between descriptions and reality” (Barad, 2007, p.135-140). Barad is examining the way we draw lines between things as a method of separating, isolating or categorizing the responses between them and what we miss in the process. They explain that the very act of delineating is not separate and objective but instead is suspended in a soup of ‘being’, it is ‘in-phenomena’, and that this in turn makes up reality (Barad, 2007).
While an analysis of shifting discourse around sexuality may account for some changes in the perception of homosexuality it would further benefit from attention to the material aspects as well. As de Bois notes there is a lack of attention given to the, “web of gendered configurations” in Anderson’s position on the ‘decline of homophobia’ (de Bois, 2014). If we apply agentic realism this allows a flexibility for us to reflect on discourse and it’s regulation of sexuality in relation with the materiality of the ‘becomings’ of bodies. By thinking of discourse as an intra-acting agency within the “sexuality-assemblage” we can see how this intra-action, rather than separate and distinct, “shape[s] the eroticism, sexual codes, customs, and conduct of a society’s members, as well as the categories of sexuality.” (Fox & Alldred, 2014).
References:
Allen, L. (2018) Sexuality education and new materialism: queer things [online]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Accessed 18 May 2021].
Anderson, E. (2009) Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of [online]. New York: Routledge. [Accessed 18 May 2021].
Annes, A. & Redlin, M. (2012) The Careful Balance of Gender and Sexuality: Rural Gay Men, the Heterosexual Matrix, and “Effeminophobia”, Journal of Homosexuality, 59(2), pp. 256-288. [Accessed 18 May 2021] Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2012.648881
Barad, K. (2007) Meeting The Universe Halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. London: Duke University Press. [Accessed 18 May 2021]. Available from: https://smartnightreadingroom.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/meeting-the-universe-halfway.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline Of A Theory Of Practice [online]. English Language Edition: Routledge. [Accessed 18 May 2021]. Available from:
Butler, J. (2006) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity [online]. London: Routledge. [Accessed 18 May 2021].
Butler, J. (2011) Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex [online]. London: Routledge Classics. [Accessed 09 March 2021]
de Boise, S. (2014) I’m not homophobic, “I’ve Got Gay Friends”: Evaluating the Validity of Inclusive Masculinity, Men & Masculinities, 18 (3): 318-339. [Accessed 18 May 2021] Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X14554951
Fox, N.J. & Alldred, P. (2014) New materialist social inquiry: designs, methods and the research-assemblage, International hournal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), pp. 399-414. [Accessed 18 May 2021] Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Foucault, M. (2019) The history of sexuality.: (The will to knowledge) [online]. Oxon: Routledge. [Accessed 18 May 2021].
McCormack, M. & Anderson, E. (2010) ‘It’s Just Not Acceptable Any More’: The Erosion of Homophobia and the Softening of Masculinity at an English Sixth Form, Sociology, 44(5), pp. 843-859. [Accessed 18 May 2021] Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038510375734
Rabinow, P. ed. (1984) The Foucault Reader. New York: Random House. [Accessed 18 May 2021]. Available from: https://monoskop.org/images/f/f6/Rabinow_Paul_ed_The_Foucault_Reader_1984.pdf
Richardson, N. (2018) ‘Whether you are gay or straight, I don’t like to see effeminate dancing’: effeminophobia in performance-level ballroom dance, Journal of Gender Studies, 27(2), pp. 207-219. [Accessed 18 May 2021] Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09589236.2016.1202105
Image credit used in header: David M. Boje
Thought and or reflections 