Group 3

1. Group 3 Is Homosexuality a construction? DenisaFuchsová Matilda Funkquist Anders Jinderbrink LotteLitjens Thomas Marshall

2. Is Homosexuality a Construction? Is Homosexuality a personality question or only a sexual practice? Is it a creation of social, economical and ideological factors?

3. Jonathan Katz

4. “In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.”

5. A Social Construction • Heterosexuality, just like homosexuality, is a social construction. • Heterosexuality is not identical to the reproductive intercourse of the sexes • Heterosexuality is not the same as sex distinctions and gender differences • Heterosexuality does not equal the eroticism of women and men

6. A Social Construction • Freud – ideas about pleasure principle (compared to procreation) increased in the 20th century. • Havelock Ellis –sexual preferences is inborn and biologically determined. • Kinsley – society puts labels on people. • Gore Vidal – most people are a mixture of the two.

7. A Social Construction • Baldwin – the concept is tied to cultural connections between men and women. People invent categories in order to feel safe. ”White people invented black people go give white people identity.”

8. A Social Construction The Radical Feminists: The sexual-social categories cannot be abolished without freeing people from the economic classes (men/women, white/black, capitalist/wage workers etc.). Forces heterosexuality is made to ensuring that the smallest economic unit contains one man and one women. Forced heterosexuality also leads to antihomosexuality since heterosexuality means oppressing any homosexual elements.

9. The Myth of the Modem Homosexualby RictorNorton • Rictor Norton Ph.D.- Social and literaryhistorian and writer, specializingin gay history. • Born 25 June 1945, USA- lives in UK- • for more info: http://rictornorton.co.uk

10. Assertions that the modern homosexual and modern gay subculture are significantly different from the past are basedprimarilyuponignorance of that past. Arguments: • Distinctivequeer 'lifestyles' werepromotedlongbefore the development of commercial gay subculture and the periodicals that promoted it: culture, opera, theatre, music, interiordecoration and art. (about the marketing of gay culture)

11. America is a colonialconstruct. To drawconclusions from such a society abouthow a gay identitymightemerge in an indigenous or premodern society is ridiculous. It simplydid not develop as a society until the modern period, and its features are modern by definition. (about the parochialamericanviewpoint) • This is quite the opposite of the case in all European countries, because the earlycolonistsbrought with them to the New World the oldlaws and jurisprudence of the Old World, but not the queer subculture of the Old World. Whenone is trying to determine the 'origins' of homophobia or the homosexualsubculture, the American experience is largely irrelevant. (Katz´sanalysisbased on American experience)

12. The idea that the labelcreated that whichwaslabelled has littlehistoricalevidence to support it. My basic argument is not that this medicalization of the homosexualdid not takeplace, but that homosexualsalreadyexistedbeforetheywereforciblylaidupon this Procrustean bed. In otherwords, the genuine social construct is paramedicalhomophobia. (aboutFoucault'sbinarism) • The word ”Homosexualität” wasinvented by the German-Hungarian Karoly Maria Kertbeny as a neutral, legal, scientific term.

13. Labelclearlyfollowedratherthanpreceded the identity; it wascreated for the sake of achieving public tolerance of the behaviour of an identifiable group that the labelwasinvented, by that group themselves. The discourseabout'homosexualität/ homosexuality' cametowards the endratherthan at the beginning of the development of a gay consciousness. • The word 'homosexual' did not appear in English until 1891, in John AddingtonSymonds's A Problem in Modern Ethics; heused the phrase 'homosexualinstincts'. No oneseems to haveremarked on the irony that the first English person to write the word 'homosexual' was a homosexuallongbeforeheput pen to paper.

14. 1869 Watershed Norton’s reluctance to social construction. Unknown term in the society. • Slowness of medicalization Aspect of the political factors. • Myth of homophobia Inversions or not? Homosexual fears. • Subverting mirror Lack of historical evidence.

15. ‘Intergenerational’ and ‘egalitarianmodels’ • Development fromancientintergenerationalrelationshipsto modern egalitarianrelationships. • Norton: thiscleardevelopment “cannotbesupported without ignoring a host of exceptions.

16. ‘Intergenerational’ and ‘egalitarianmodels’ The tomb of NiankhkhnumandKhnumhotep (2600 BC)

17. Capitalismand the family • Somearguethatcapitalismcreated the gay identity. • Norton: - homosexualsexisted long before 1800.

18. Capitalismand the family • Importance of the family beforecapitalism. • From a self-sufficienthouseholdeconomoyto free-labourcapitalism. • Norton: it’snot the explanation of for the existence of modern homosexuals.

19. Capitalismand the family • Homosexuals are saidtobe non-procreativeandthereforerejectedbycapitalism. • Norton: youcan’trestricthomosexualotytologicalcategories, they are peoplewithexperiences. • Homosexualsspend more money.

20. Capitalismand the family • D’Emilio (1992) theoryabout the relationshipbetween free-labourcapitalismandhomosexuality. • The theoryexplains a facilitating factorand not a constructing factor.