The Results of Heteronormativity

Roderick Ferguson writes: "In the United States, monogamous, dyadic, and normative heterosexuality invented not only the intelligibility of gender but citizenship and white immigration as well." This statement implicates the vary nature of our society as one dominated by a white patriarchal powerhouse of privilege. This is not to say that there is some power mad board of directors whom control all of America and retain their own power, but merely that the so called "boys club" of America has managed to establish itself and maintain control inadvertently. Men of privilege do not often look at each other and say "We control this world." But they do none the less. Seemingly uninhibited White power, and heteronormative privilege was established some time in the distant past. This power privilege has come under fire for the last hundred and fifty years and now is most recently under fire in regards to queer life.

During the last few months in Queer theory the class has always fought to establish what is "queer" and some of this has been damaged by an inherent implication of inequality or negativity in the term queer. As we find in reverse discourse the term queer can easily be reclaimed and the negativity abolished. It is no mystery that calling a person queer can be a very hurtful insult. But as we sit back and examine heteronormativity and attempt to box in what is normal we find a very diverse and fairly normal definition for what is queer. In my experience I always associated the majority with the normatively and while the majority of our society is not gay or lesbian, we find that indeed the majority of America as she stands today is not inside the heteronormative nuclear family box. In Judith Butler's article Gender is Burning: Questions of appropriation and subversion the concept of "gender preformativity" comes into play with the description that according to your genitals you should act in a certain manner. This is to say that boys should be boys and girls should be girls. But who decides what is boyish and what is girlish? I would stand to reason that such strict and rigid gender roles merely result in an inherent insecurity amongst men and women and particularly amongst adolescents who have such a strong desire for acceptance by their larger peer groups. This would often lead to bullying and other damaging situations at any onset of gender-transgression amongst youth. This also results in the formation of different communities amongst adults, where people can go to be accepted and safe and at the same time maintains whatever roles they feel comfortable with. This results in the isolation of members of our society and the restriction of relationships based upon stereotypes and assumptions rather than anything of substance.

For example you often find members of the gay community isolated into so called gay bars where they can be free from persecution and open to their own persona. Some would argue that the gay bars are merely an opportunity for people who are gay to find other partners to date without the fear of hitting on a straight person. This concept has some truth in the area where some straight people would become offended or even violent if they were approached by a member of the same sex for anything other than friendship, but it also is a cop out in the sense that the majority of gay bars have some amount of straight people mingled in with them. This leads us to examine what causes the need for gay bars. Why can a man approach a woman and get denied based upon looks or some other superficial reason and it be considered completely normal, yet if a man were to approach another man and be denied on the basis of sexuality it would be seen as such an extreme and queer occurrence?

The quote from Ferguson inspires the concept of examining not how the normative standard was developed but by how it develops within individuals. In Butler's Queer Feminism Transgender, and the Transubstantiation of Sex we find the construction of gender examined more fully. Particularly the explanation Freud gives for gender performativity Butler seems to have problems with, Butler writes "If sex is "gender all along," not a prior ontological substance that gender interprets but rather gender is masquerade, how is it that gender comes to pass so effectively for sex?" (Butler, Queer 35). This is answered in short by the extreme standards to which gender performativity is reinforced. The majority of people make comments which reinforce gender roles on a daily basis without thinking about it. Guys hanging out drinking and telling each other to "Man up" or girls shopping and picking out clothes which are feminine and "girly" rather than any type of clothing which could be considered unisex. All of these are done at a very earlier age as well, and reinforced throughout every aspect of our society. For instance young boys often aspire to be firefighters or policemen, so call dangerous aggressive jobs. Girls on the other hand often aspire to be doctors or other jobs which would be within the traditional nurturing fields. This has ever so recently expanded within the last thirty years as women have managed to establish a seemingly acceptable position in the workplace for themselves. But they have established such as women, this leaves the question of where do people who transgress our gender norms reside within our workplaces? What jobs are considered acceptable for them?

The expansion of the heternormative privilege structure can be expanded upon even further by looking into the examples of homonormativity. Ferguson examines Homonormativity in that homosexual white males or females who follow fairly conservative views of homosexuality are considered homonormative. Thus two white men who are gay and have jobs and are successful and live the good life are seen as homonormative, but as examine din class if one of these men are black, or if one of them is a "twink" or if one gets aids then they suddenly fall outside the realm of homonormativity and thus all hope of living peacefully and openly within the heteronormative whole is completely lost. If you cannot be widely accepted by your own community how can you be accepted by the larger society? Is a question which Ferguson seems to examine more fully. Also dealing with this concept of homonormativity is E. Patrick Johnson and his article 'Quare' Studies Or (Almost) Everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother. Johnson finds that despite growth within the field of queer studies "much of the scholarship produced in its (queer studies) name elides issues of race and class." (Johnson, "Quare" 128). Thus expanding on the ideal of homonormativity Johnson finds that for Blacks the identity of queer is often undermined by the identity of black and that in an effort to validate one the other is often subdued. Johnson goes on to examine the field of "Black Queer Studies" and finds an overall lack of scholarship, this is in part due to the fairly recent growth of the field of Queer Studies and thus an inability on the part of researchers to develop intricate examinations of subgroups, but simultaneously a relatively short sided approach on the part of researchers in that the only queers being studied are those whom would be considered most acceptable by heteronormativity.

Ferguson's quote is also readily applied to the examples of gay marriage and gay parenthood. As we find today, the largest issue (debatably) concerning queers in America is that of gay marriage. The inherent inequality established by the U.S. Government when it prohibits equal distribution of rights and privileges based upon sexual orientation is a primary example of what Ferguson claims when he says "In the United States, monogamous, dyadic, and normative heterosexuality invented not only the intelligibility of gender but citizenship and white immigration as well.". Looking into the strategic vision on Beyondmarriage.org we find that indeed some groups are fighting for the rights of all those whom fall under the umbrella of queer, and in fact the fight for gay marriage is the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it comes to establishing rights and equality for all people. In Ruth Vanita's article Love's rite: Same Sex Marriage in India and the West, we find some interesting arguments for the legalization of gay marriage including but not limited to the rights of custody of children in the event of a separation or divorce. Currently gay parents can adopt but the process is held under much scrutiny by the government and the amount of time required before adoption is much greater than is usually they case with a straight couple. As seen in "Transnational adoption and Queer Diasporas" the adoption process can be increasingly complicated when children from overseas are being adopted by gay parents. This brings about a double change for the child, where on one instance they are changing cultures, and in the other instance they are changing family structures, often going from a situation with strict gender roles and patriarchal foundation, to an entirely different (and often more healthy) environment. This change would not be so drastic if the heternormative patriarchy which Ferguson describes had not spread globally, thus forcing today's gay parents from not only having to deal with complications when attempting to adopt, but if they adopt a child of any significant age then dealing with reversing the heternormative structure which will undoubtedly already be ingrained in the poor child's head.

In summary we find that indeed a power structure has been established within the world and with the empire building of the past and globalization of today heternormativity has managed to spread into all cultures regardless of their original preferences. This type of globalization has aided in the spread of the "Global Gay" but has also resulted in a restricted sense of gay in the course of homonormativity. Only with a continued spread of diversity and continued rebellion by all those whom would be labeled queer can we hope to break down the restrictive labels which heternormativity would place on us, "us" being all of humanity.

The Queer Family

The foundation of the queer family is fairly untraceable, but as homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable the queer family has emerged into the public space and is currently fighting for the rights and privileges which the heternormative family currently enjoys. Today queer persons struggle so greatly for acceptance that many of the forms of queer families or kinship are formed out of necessity and desire to be amongst similar people rather than biological or ethnographical foundations for families. As seen in the film "Paris is Burning" one aspect of queer kinship is the aspect of completely unrelated formations of communities which once established, act and exist as a family unit. However other forms of queer families include the more homonormative structures which range from two men living together, to a pair of lesbians becoming inseminated and birthing their own children to raise in a family setting.

In Jill Enteen's Tom, Dii and Anjaree: Women who follow the Unconventional Ways we see perfect examples of non-homonormative family structures in the queer community. Particularly examining the Hijras in India Enteen finds that the majority of Hijras live within established houses or areas where they can associate together and live together according to their own ways, free from persecution and cared for by those who are similar and understanding. Enteen finds that the relationships in India are incredibly different from those found in America and thus the concept of the global gay or homonormativity does not always ring true. Enteen sites several examples of young Indian men sleeping together or having bonds of friendship which would initially be seen as homosexual, but upon further examination are found to be merely platonic and thus more confusing when examined through the American gaze. The relationships shared by Hijras are only complicated when viewed by an outsider. As Enteen found when she would question the Hijras about their beliefs and actions, the actions and systems seem relatively uncomplicated for the Hijras and yet it took several months' even years for Enteen to understand them. The concept of religion amongst the Hijras was such a quandary, solved ever so slightly by the statement that "All Hijras are both Muslim and Hindu". This type cultural difference is one often seen between those inside of queer families and communities and those who remain outside.

In the course of answering the question "what makes a family queer?" we come back to this traditional nuclear family image and thus find that any family structure outside of such is queer, regardless of whether or not those within said queer family acknowledge themselves as being such. I know my Mother would never claim our family to be queer even though she is a widow and has been for the last 18 years. Simultaneously I know my aunt would not identify her family as queer even though she and her partner have been together for the last four years and have three children, two by artificial insemination, and the third by adoption. This establishes the negative stereotype behind the term queer. Upon questioning my aunt would respond that she has a family, and her and her partner happen to be lesbians, this would seem to play into the concept of homonormativity but it applies more so to a desire to be accepted. My aunt does not desire to separate her and her family from those identifying as queer but she wishes to have her family recognized as a normal family.

This concept of all nontraditional family structures being considered queer has created solidarity amongst the majority. Resulting in seemingly unconnected groups of people being bound together in order to achieve equal rights for all in the course of attempting to achieve such rights for themselves and their families. This can be seen in the publication Beyond Same-sex marriage: A New Strategic Vision for all our families & relationships on the website Beyondmarriage.org. The nontraditional family structure which is currently not protected by the U.S. government or at least as validated as traditional marriages is primarily a result of a merger between church and state, which much be abolished in order to truly spread equality. Some of the nontraditional family structures which beyond marriage is fighting for include adult children living with their parents, senior citizens who are primary caregivers to their grandchildren, close friends living in communal relationships (such as those seen in Paris is Burning). All of these could be seen as families and thus should have the protection and tax benefits that families bound in marriage receive. However, as a result of the Bush administration benefits have been denied to a fair amount of Americans based upon religious and superstitious grounds.

The foundation of the family seems to be any group of people who choose to associate themselves together and formulate bonds of close relationship. This would in turn result in a seemingly simple definition of the family as more of an umbrella term which covers a large variety of people and structures. Rather as it currently stands the family structure is restricted by law to a fairly heteronormative structure. This is of course different in other countries. In Farce for example the result of religious wars during the late 1700's and 1800's resulted in a complete separation of church and state. A separation so a severe that today the largest battle concerning church and state is the wearing of traditional veils by Muslim girls in public schools. In France the religious wars of the past have resulted in people keeping their personal lives primarily out of the public sphere or at least out of the governmental sphere.

The question may come up, as to what benefits I am talking about or why the family relationship should be extended to a variety of people's rather than the few groups which are currently covered. The answer is not short but a few examples can be seen in the instances of gay marriage. Two gay men cannot get married and thus are denied the tax breaks of a straight couple, the social security of their partner postmortem, the adoption rights of a straight couple, or the citizenship rights awarded to straight persons marrying U.S. citizens. Thus we see the problems when an inherently biased system becomes out of date. Originally the system was unjust but the lack of open diversity in the population did not result in a demand for justification. However as we have seen recently a growing acceptance of nontraditional family structure combined with a decrease in the nuclear family image has resulted in an ever increasing demand for an adjustment to the system of marriage. As suggested in class perhaps the best choice would be a complete abolishment of marriage as a governmental concept and a restructuring of the overall concept into an idea similar to civil unions which could be much more flexible and could be applied to a greater majority of people.

The family is a very diverse structure, unfortunately the majority of nations do not recognize a very diverse family image, as a result many go without the privileges that they rightly deserve. The idea of the queer family is one which spreads across almost all families and as a result in this society of heternormativity we find that very few, if any are what we consider normal.

Freud, Sigmung. [1905]2000. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Basic Books.

"Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A new Strategic Vision for all our families and relationships" July 2006 [beyondmarriage.org].

"Race-ing Homonormativity: Citizenship, Sociology, and Gay identity" Roderick A. ferguson, in BQS.

Eng, David. 2003. "Transnational Adoption and Queer Diasporas" in Social Text 76, Vol. 21, No. 3, Fall 2003.

Johnson, E. Patrick. 2005. "Quare Studies", Or (Almost everything I know about Queer Studies I learned from my Grandmother".

Enteen, Jill. 2001. "Tom, Dii and Anjaree: 'Women Who Follow Unconventional Ways" in Post-Colonial, Queer: Theoretical Interventions. John Hawley (ed). SUNY.