Money sex and power 2011 12
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 18

Money, Sex and Power 2011-12 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Money, Sex and Power 2011-12. Term 2. Week 13 Discourses of heterosexuality. Outline. Introduction Heterosexuality as the cornerstone of patriarchy Deconstructing heterosexuality --heterosexuality as lifestyle --heterosexuality as identity --heterosexuality as discourse

Download Presentation

Money, Sex and Power 2011-12

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Money sex and power 2011 12

Money, Sex and Power2011-12

Term 2. Week 13

Discourses of heterosexuality


Outline

Outline

  • Introduction

  • Heterosexuality as the cornerstone of patriarchy

  • Deconstructing heterosexuality

    --heterosexuality as lifestyle

    --heterosexuality as identity

    --heterosexuality as discourse

    --heterosexuality as sexual practice

  • Conclusions


Introduction

Introduction

Two analytical/ political perspectives on heterosexuality

As Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott say in their new book, Theorizing Heterosexuality (2010) institutionalized heterosexuality is implicated both in the perpetuation of gender hierarchy and in the marginalisation of alternative sexualities (p.75)

In this module we will take these aspects of heterosexuality in turn.

1) This week feminist critique, concentrating on

heterosexuality as a gender relation, a power relation between men and women. Look at heterosexuality through the lens of gender.

2) Week 19- Marginalisation of alternative sexualities, and a theoretical framework which has evolved to understand this. Queer Theory problematises the foundational categories of second wave feminism. In particular it sees gender not as the lens through which to examine social or sexual life, but rather as something which is itself produced through -- necessitated by- heterosexuality.


Theorising heterosexuality as the cornerstone of male power

Theorising heterosexuality as the cornerstone of male power

  • Feminist critiques have seen heterosexuality not mainly as a personal, individual sexual orientation, but as an aspect of social organisation- on that maintains male dominance. Analogous to other institutional arrangements which organise social life and labour, sexual relations of course, aspects of social life that are associated with sexual relations, such as child-bearing or child-rearing, but also work and politics.

    Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one's own, yet most taken away. C. McKinnon Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State Signs, 1982, 7 (3): 2.


Heterosexuality and patriarchal power

Heterosexuality and patriarchal power

  • The American poet Adrienne Rich-- Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1978), excerpt in Jackson and Scott, eds Feminism and Sexuality (and many other places).Her term compulsory heterosexuality recognises the

    'constraints and assumptions that, historically, have enforced or ensured the coupling of women with men and obstructed or penalized our coupling or allying in independent groups with other women. 216


Rich on compulsory heterosexuality

Rich on compulsory heterosexuality

  • Not all women in heterosexual relationships are or feel oppressed but as an institution heterosexuality does not foster their interests or autonomy:

    of course there are differences in the qualitative experience of individual women in relation to men, but this depends on chance or luck; women lack the collective power to determine the meaning and place of sexuality in their lives. (237)

  • Developed notion of the lesbian continuum-- recognises continuities in intense female friendship, whether or not it is sexual.


Other related ways of conceptualising the institutionalisation of heterosexuality

Other, related, ways of conceptualising the institutionalisation of heterosexuality

  • Heteropatriarchy (Wilkinson and Kitzinger 1993) --heterosexuality as the defining characteristic of patriarchy as a social system

  • Heteronormativity (Richardson 1996) the cultural norms of normative heterosexuality that signal the asymmetry, institutionalisation and regulatory power of heterosexual relations (Holland, et al The Male in the Head, p. 171), Still much used to describe assumptions about sexual practices, identities, etc. but without assuming it is all-determining.

    Both of these see heterosexuality as organising social life, not just sexual relations.


Newer theorisations ask is renegotiating heterosexuality possible

Newer theorisations ask: Is renegotiating heterosexuality possible?

  • Recent approaches challenge the totalising picture of heterosexuality put forward by Rich and others. Is it really a unified package? Dominant culture perpetuates this idea (we all assume we know what being a heterosexual means) but we shouldnt reproduce it in our critique. Therefore better to examine distinct aspects of heterosexuality to see whether they are really totally integrated/ interdependent and whether there is potential to destabilise the package.

  • Challenge picture of heterosexuality as coherent, natural, fixed and stable category, as universal and monolithic (Richardson 1996:2)


Distinct aspects of heterosexuality

Distinct aspects of heterosexuality:

  • heterosexuality as life style

  • heterosexuality as a subjectivity or social identity

  • heterosexuality as discourse

  • heterosexuality as sexual practices and experience

    How far are these separable in practice? Can one aspect change without change in the others?


1 heterosexuality as life style now offers a range of choices

1) Heterosexuality as life style- now offers a range of choices?

  • Extent to which can equate heterosexual life style with marriage has changed quite a lot since Richs original publication in 1978. See especially Hawkes on the uncoupling of marriage, sex and reproduction.

  • Forms of power or male access to women outside marriage- medical power, sex tourism, pornography

  • Still more importance than many think, e.g. marriage no longer the linchpin of heterosexuality. But patterns of life in the post-divorce family need to be examined (Carol Smart in A New Sociology of the Family? and other articles and books with Bren Neale)


2 heterosexuality as a subjectivity or social identity

2) Heterosexuality as a subjectivity or social identity

Is it difficult/ problematic to identity as a heterosexual? Why?

Should we recognise the existence of multiple heterosexualities?

Can we identify discourses that construct different heterosexualities/ heterosexual selves?


3 discourses of heterosexuality

3) Discourses of heterosexuality

  • Hollway (1984) identifies three key discourses that locate women (and men) in relation to heterosexual relations:

    1) male sex drive discourse

    When a bloke gets turned on, it takes a while to calm down again doesnt it?...where with a woman it takes a lot longerThey can stop, but they have to be told to stop(quote from teenaged girl, Holland, et al. The Male in the Head.


Money sex and power 2011 12

2) to have-and-to-hold discourse

3) permissive discourse

Women are active agents, not puppets of compulsory heterosexuality, and can manipulate these discourses to their advantage (e.g. invest in becoming an attractive object of male desire), act as moral guardians

Hollway argued that women could manipulate these discourses but had not yet constructed an alternative permissive discourse around female sexual pleasure in womens own terms.

Media postfeminist constructions of womens position within heterosexuality- do they re-circulate these older discourses or develop new ones that really empower women? Who is free to adopt them?


Other ways of understanding the construction of heterosexual selves

Other ways of understanding the construction of (heterosexual) selves

  • Materialist feminism

  • Symbolic interactionism

  • See Stevi Jackson, Theorizing Sexuality (on reading list) and other publications


4 heterosexuality as sexual practices

4) Heterosexuality as sexual practices

  • ,


Holland et al the male in the head

Holland et al The Male in the Head

  • Study started as a study of young men and womens (non)use of condoms to protect themselves from HIV but went on to look at the discourses and practices of heterosexuality that inhibited women from practicing safe sex. Found that most of the girl informants (aged 16-21) assumed that sex is for the man and that it is her responsibility to intuit and predict his wishes. The authors say they had assumed that there were male and female sexual cultures/ discourses that collided, and that the male culture was the more powerful. But found that even the female discourse was dominated by what they called the male in the head, the surveillance power of male-dominated heterosexuality. For the young women to be feminine was to construct themselves within male-dominated constructs. Young men were also guided in their behaviour and anxieties by presumptions about how men should act.

  • A few of the young women did express a more empowered sense of themselves in relation to men, usually as a result of bad experiences. But it had to be renegotiated with each partner, because it is not institutionalised.


Money sex and power 2011 12

  • I. Vanwesenbeeck(1997) The Context of Womens Power(lessness) in Heterosexual Intercourse readng list

  • Do women still expect to play a nurturing role, displacing their own erotic pleasure for the sake of male success? (M. Steedman [1987] Whos on Top? Heterosexual practices and male dominance during the sexual act in H. Buchbinder, ed. Whos on Top: The Politics of Heterosexuality Toronto: Garamond Press,


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Richardson argues that narrowing debate on heterosexuality onto erotic relations is limited. Rather than looking at how social life is shaped by heterosexist assumptions, which she argues feminist scholars and activists used to do, many commentators now concentrate on the rather narrower question of how sexual life is shaped by gender inequalities.

  • Even within this narrower question, how far are women now really active, independent sexual agents acting in their own interest?

  • What counts as empowerment?


  • Login