1.9: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Sexuality
Sociologists representing all three major theoretical perspectives study the role that sexuality plays in social life today. Scholars recognize that sexuality continues to be an important and defining social location, and that the manner in which sexuality is constructed has a significant effect on perceptions, interactions, and outcomes.
Structural Functionalism
Structural Functionalism sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. When it comes to sexuality, functionalists stress the importance of regulating sexual behavior to ensure marital cohesion and family stability. Since functionalists identify the family unit as the most integral component in society, they maintain a strict focus on it at all times and argue in favor of social arrangements that promote and ensure family preservation.
Functionalists such as Talcott Parsons (1955) have long argued that the regulation of sexual activity is an important function of the family. Social norms surrounding family life have, traditionally, encouraged sexual activity within the family unit (marriage) and have discouraged activity outside of it (premarital and extramarital sex). From a functionalist point of view, the purpose of encouraging sexual activity in the confines of marriage is to intensify the bond between spouses, and to ensure that procreation occurs within a stable, legally recognized relationship. This structure gives offspring the best possible chance for appropriate socialization and the provision of basic resources.
From a functionalist standpoint, homosexuality cannot be promoted on a large-scale as an acceptable substitute for heterosexuality. If this occurred, procreation would eventually cease. Thus, homosexuality, if occurring predominantly within the population, is dysfunctional to society. This criticism does not take into account the increasing legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, or the rise in gay and lesbian couples who choose to bear and raise children through a variety of available resources.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources between those who have (bourgeoisie), and those who do not (proletariat). Karl Marx is considered the founder of Conflict theory. From a conflict theory perspective, sexuality is another area in which power differentials are present, and a space where dominant groups actively work to promote and impose their worldview, as well as serve their economic interests. Recently, we have seen the debate over the legalization of marriage equality for all intensify nationwide, and in 2015 The Marriage Equality Act became the law of the land, ensuring any two people wishing to enter into a marriage contract could do so. In protest of this many states have adopted statutes or constitutional provisions preventing same-sex marriage. One of these provisions, the Defense of Marriage Act, states that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized; however the national law overrides these state policies. Unfortunately there have been many county officials refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples under violation of the federal law but nonetheless impeding couples rights, forcing them to seek legal recourse or go to another county.
For conflict theorists, there are two key dimensions to the debate over marriage equality—one ideological and the other economic. Dominant groups (in this instance, heterosexuals) wish for their worldview—which embraces traditional marriage and the nuclear family—to win out over what they see as the intrusion of a secular, individually driven worldview. On the other hand, many marriage equality activists argue that legal marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation and that, historically, there already exists a precedent for changes to marriage laws: the 1960s legalization of formerly forbidden interracial marriages is one example.
From an economic perspective, activists in favor of marriage equality point out that legal marriage brings with it certain entitlements, many of which are financial in nature, like Social Security benefits and medical insurance (Solmonese 2008). Denial of these benefits to same sex couples is wrong, they argue. Conflict theory suggests that as long as heterosexuals and homosexuals struggle over these social and financial resources, there will be some degree of conflict.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic Interactionism explores how we make meaning out of our interactions with one another in everyday life and how the specific roles we play affect these interactions. Interactionists may focus on the meanings associated with sexuality and with sexual orientation. Since femininity is devalued in American society, those who adopt such traits are subject to ridicule; this is especially true for male bodied people. Just as masculinity is the symbolic norm, so too has heterosexuality come to signify normalcy. Prior to 1973, the American Psychological Association (APA) defined homosexuality as an abnormal or deviant disorder. Interactionist labeling theory recognizes the impact this has made. Before 1973, the APA was powerful in shaping social attitudes toward homosexuality by defining it as pathological. Today, the APA cites no association between sexual orientation and psychopathology and sees homosexuality as a normal aspect of human sexuality (APA 2008).
Interactionists are also interested in how discussions of homosexuals often focus almost exclusively on the sex lives of gays and lesbians; homosexuals, especially male bodied, may be assumed to be hypersexual and, in some cases, deviant. Interactionism might also focus on the slurs used to describe homosexuals. Derogatory labels are often used to demean homosexual men by feminizing them. This subsequently affects how homosexuals perceive themselves. Recall Cooley’s “looking-glass self,” which suggests that self develops as a result of one’s interpretation and evaluation of the responses of others (Cooley 1902). Constant exposure to derogatory labels, jokes, and pervasive homophobia would lead to a negative self-image, or worse, self-hate. The CDC reports that homosexual youths who experience high levels of social rejection are six times more likely to have high levels of depression and eight times more likely to have attempted suicide (CDC 2011).
Read the following paragraph written in the United States in 1966:
In a collectivity (society) that has institutionalized military homosexuality, the stubbornly heterosexual individual is a sure candidate for therapy, not only because his sexual interests constitute an obvious threat to combat efficiency of his unit of warrior lovers, but also because his deviance is psychologically subversive to the others’ spontaneous virility. After all, some of them, perhaps “subconsciously”, might be tempted to follow his example. On a more fundamental level, the deviant’s conduct challenges the societal reality as such, putting in question its taken for granted cognitive (“virile men by nature love one another”) and normative (“virile men should love one another”) operating procedures (Berger and Luckmann, 1966).
What did you understand about what is written? Is this statement representative of the reality of U.S. cultural values regarding sexuality? In 1966, Sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote Conceptual Machineries of Universe Maintenance, A chapter in their book, The Social Construction of Reality. In this chapter they were highlighting how social norms and values get affirmed through shared meaning and when people stray from those norms two “Conceptual Machineries” operate to keep people from deviating from these norms. This understanding of society being socially constructed also known as a Social Constructionist understanding is something we will learn more about in Chapter 7, Bias and Discrimination in Human Sexuality. The authors flipped the norm and you can imagine how their example could be the norm. When we think about social norms around sexuality, there are very narrow sexual scripts we are conditioned to follow but what we know is that these social constructions can change.
Queer Theory
Queer Theory is a perspective that problematizes the manner in which we have been taught to think about sexual orientation. By calling their discipline “queer,” these scholars are rejecting the effects of labeling; instead, they embrace the word “queer” and have reclaimed it for their own purposes. Queer theorists reject the dichotomization of sexual orientations into two binary and mutually exclusive outcomes, homosexual or heterosexual. Rather, the perspective highlights the need for a more flexible and fluid conceptualization of sexuality—one that allows for change, negotiation, and freedom. The current schema used to classify individuals as either “heterosexual” or “homosexual” pits one orientation against the other. This mirrors other oppressive schemas in our culture, especially those surrounding gender and race (black versus white, male versus female).
Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argued against American society’s monolithic definition of sexuality—against its reduction to a single factor: the sex of one’s desired partner. Sedgwick identified dozens of other ways in which people’s sexualities were different, such as:
- Even identical genital acts mean very different things to different people.
- Sexuality makes up a large share of the self-perceived identity of some people, a small share of others’. We all vary in our level of how much sexuality shapes our self-perception and focus.
- Some people spend a lot of time thinking about sex, others little.
- Some people like to have a lot of sex, others little or none.
- Many people have their richest mental/emotional involvement with sexual acts that they don’t do, or don’t even want to do.
- Some people like spontaneous sexual scenes, others like highly scripted ones, others like spontaneous-sounding ones that are nonetheless totally predictable.
- Some people, homo- hetero- and bisexual, experience their sexuality as deeply embedded in a matrix of gender meanings and gender differentials. Others of each sexuality do not (Sedgwick 1990).
In the end, queer theory strives to question the ways society perceives and experiences sex, gender, and sexuality, opening the door to new scholarly understanding.
We will be looking at human sexuality from an interdisciplinary lens throughout this book. You will learn from a diverse amount of information and there will be competing narratives. When you start to think about how to figure out “what is right” in regard to your own sexuality, try instead to reflect on what makes sense and feels comfortable. There is not one way to be a human or express their sexuality. A sense of open mindedness is always a good tool in your toolbox when it comes to the world of human sexuality. Get ready to learn about things you don’t know much about and build your sexual literacy, a knowledge of your sexual health and well-being. Human Sexuality is as diverse as the world's population. So learn new things, maybe try something you’ve never done before, be safe, and don’t yuck my yum and I won’t yuck yours.