Alain Martinossi: Alain Martinossi is a Ph.D. candidate in the school of education at the University of Southern California. His dissertation is a qualitative analysis of the coming out experience of gay and lesbian high school teachers.
Edward Stein's edited collection of essays gives different views on the social constructionist controversy in relation to sexual orientation.
After a brief introduction by the editor, the book starts with chapter two of Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. Central to the debate and repeatedly cited in virtually every essay in this volume, Foucault's essay posits that sexuality in the modern world, far from having been repressed as has often been claimed, has actually been the very source from which discourses on power and knowledge have started. Society has become obsessed with the realm of the sexual. As a result, a variety of sexual meanings, sexual theories, and sexual “types” of individuals have been created and have become, according to Foucault, of an unprecedented importance. This argument by Foucault has been crucial in that it has grounded social constructionists with a historical basis on which to build their theories.
In chapter three, Mary McIntosh, introduced as the first proponent of the social-constructionist viewpoint in terms of sexual-preference matters, argues that the modern conceptualization of homosexuality as a medical condition is erroneous and that it should, instead, be viewed as a social role. This role is one of a stigmatized individual who, by symbolizing the dichotomy between what is sexually permissible and what is not, becomes a locus of perversion that allows the rest of society to be pure.
In chapter four, Robert Padgug's essay is the first of the three in this volume which focus on the differences between the past and the present “homosexual.” Padgug argues that he concept of the homosexual is a social construct that reflects the time period in which it was created. It is therefore erroneous and misleading to impose the modern construct onto other historic periods and to assume a transhistorical validity. As he points out, the behavior may be universal, but a concept such as “homosexual identity” is only a modern social reality.
Ian Hacking, in the following chapter, parallels Padgug's argument. However, whereas Padgug was grounded in history, Hacking's discussion is philosophical and abstract. He invokes “dynamic nominalism” to argue that a type of person comes into being at the same time the “type” itself is created. He illustrates his point with the metaphor of a glove that fits the hand so well precisely because it was made for that purpose.
In chapter six, Arnold Davidson builds on Foucault's work to argue for a fundamental difference between the modern concept of sex and sexuality. Sex, according to Foucault, refers to “the experience of the flesh,” whereas sexuality refers to the psyche. Using paintings and illustrations from different historical periods, namely before and after the mid-19th century, Davidson argues that applying modern conceptions to the representations of other historical periods will only lead to a misunderstanding of those periods and to an erroneous validation of our modern concepts as transhistorically universal.
The following three essays, by John Boswell (chapter seven), James Weinrich (chapter eight), and Wayne R. Dynes (chapter nine), offer different levels of criticism of the social constructionist model. John Boswell's essay is remarkably well articulated and cogently argues that while hard-core essentialists are scarce, constructionists keep attacking them as one would a ghost—instead of refining their own arguments. While it is true that concepts such as “homosexuality,” “sexual preference/orientation,” or even “sexuality” did not exist in the past, this does not mean that the behavior these terms refer to in tour modern minds did not exist then. To make his point, he discusses the existence of certain concepts in various cultures, even though the language of those cultures does not have a particular word to express it (i.e., the concept of shallowness in English and French: “shallow” in English, “not deep” in French). He goes on to provide ample historical evidence of individuals (some well known and celebrated) who expressed their sexual behavior as exclusively heterosexual, homosexual, or even bisexual, thus invalidating the theory that such individuals did not exist because the concept did not.
Often labeled an “essentialist” by constructionists, Boswell clearly shows that he is in agreement with many of the constructionists ideas and theories while the same time pointing to their limitations and his partial disagreement with them. While being a cogently articulated rebuttal of some of the most extreme views of constructionism, Boswell's essay serves as a good reminder of the tenuity of labels such as “essentialists” and “constructionists” and that it is easy for one to stand somewhere in the middle. Ironically, his position in that regard exemplifies some of the problems of the debate itself. Labels are never perfect, and when universally applied—contemporarily or transhistorically—they run the risk of missing many subtleties of thoughts and of misrepresenting the reality they try to describe.
James Weinrich, in chapter eight, echoes much of Boswell's argument but makes an even stronger case for the necessity of considering essentialist and constructionists views as complementary rather than opposing theories. His argument is very well organized and, at times, presented with humor, which has the duel effect of increasing the pleasure of the read while facilitating comprehension of concepts and theories that are not always clear to the uninitiated reader. He makes clear what was only suggested by other contributors to this volume, namely that the soundest and most intellectually productive position would be what he terms “interactionism.” This position includes weakened forms of the essentialist and the constructionists positions (stronger forms would be mutually exclusive), acknowledging that both are right and that much progress could come from a study of their interactions. In other words, Weinrich argues that human sexuality must be considered both socially and biologically.
In chapter nine, Wayne R. Dynes attacks social constructionists more fiercely than any other writer in this volume. According to him, social constructionism does not bring much that is new. He attributes its only appeal to its debt to historicism, which dates back to the second half of the 18th century. He refutes other arguments for social constructionism as well, calling them “intellectually irresponsible” PC aversions to biology. He also criticizes the notion of discontinuity, which imprisons ideas within a “single episteme” and are no longer viable outside it. Finally, he accuses social constructionists to be “selectively nominalist” by accepting certain labels as constant while arguing that others must be deconstructed.
In chapter 10, Steven Epstein considers the essentialist vs. constructionist debate in the political context of the development of a gay identity, particularly as an ethnic minority. He introduces the opposition, that, according to him, underlies the debate of “choice” and “sameness” (constructionism) vs. “constraint” and “difference” (essentialism). He argues that it is a false opposition that can be “transcended” by psychoanalytical theory, which posits that people are born with needs and desires that are mediated and shaped through social interaction. Within this perspective, he claims, identity “takes on a socially constituted reality” (my emphasis). Though his approach is different from Weinrich's, both agree that neither essentialism nor constructionism can satisfactorily explain what it means to be gay.
Eleanore Tiefer, in chapter 11, argues that the major obstacle to a social constructionist approach to sexuality is the domination of theory and research by the biomedical model, according to which the body is paramount. She outlines several causes for the primacy of the biomedical model, namely early researchers' hope that their work would eradicate the “orthadoxies of the past,” the influence of the mass media as sources of knowledge and reinforcement of physicians as “authorities,” the political and economic limitation of knowledge to a few elected professionals through legislation and academic elitism, and, finally, the tendency of the general public to seek advice and guidance from the ones they have been indoctrinated to see as the “knowers.” Also involved is the tendency by stigmatized groups to welcome what they perceive as “biological neutrality.” She concludes by advocating the need for a different approach to the construction of sexuality by focusing on its relational aspect. She offers a lengthy list of research questions that she hopes will lead researchers to uncover sexuality as a “result of expectations and negotiations, not something ‘inside' each of us.”
In the last chapter, Edward Stein reviews the major arguments on each side of the debate and underlines their complexity by pointing out that the simplistic dichotomy of nature/nurture is a very limited account of what the real controversy entails. The primary aspect of the debate focuses on the origin and validity of the categories used to describe and define sexual orientation. Stein concludes by suggesting that what is most needed a this point is an “empirical answer” to the question of whether our modern categories are indeed transhistorical, transcultural, and objective or if they are entirely culture-dependent. Throughout his inquiry, he seems to favor an “interactionist” approach much like the one expressed by James Weinrich. Indeed, I found this essay to be the most compelling in favor of the approach that seems, in the light of the debate, the most promising.
Most of these essays had been written prior to the conceptualization of this volume and are reprinted here (with permission). This presents a slight disadvantage as some of the articles reprinted are excerpted from entire books. Therefore, the authors frequently make references to other chapters not included, and it is sometime frustrating not to have a full understanding of an idea that has been fully explained in another chapter and is only partially alluded to in the one printed in this volume. However, this volume includes essays written by the most influential proponents of each side of the debate and, in result, sheds much light on the debate between essentialists and constructionists while suggesting new approaches. This is a great achievement since this debate is, indeed, quite complex and far from being resolved.
commenting closed for this article