rothmann, jacques -- sociology as bridge over troubled waters- establishing a link between the...

8/17/2019 Rothmann, Jacques -- Sociology as Bridge Over Troubled Waters- Establishing a Link Between the Principles

1/22

South African Review of Sociology VOL 43 • NO 1 • 2012

ISSN 2152-8586/Online 2072-1978© South African Sociological Association pp 41–61

DOI: 10.1080/21528586.2012.678624

SOCIOLOGY AS BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS:

ESTABLISHING A LINK BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLESOF LESBIAN AND GAY STUDIES ANDQUEER THEORY

Jacques RothmannSociology, School of Social and Government Studies

North-West University, Potchefstroom [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Lesbian and gay studies emerged in the late 1950s and provided what several academics considereda homogeneous representation of the lesbian and gay community. Based on the critique of thisview, queer theory came to the fore during the early 1990s, as a political initiative to highlight thediverse nature of homosexual experiences. Both paradigms heralded indefatigable insights into thelives of these two sexual minorities, yet without a necessary bridge between the homogeneous andthe heterogeneous. The objective of the article is to provide a theoretical contemplation of how themanner in which the principles that lesbian and gay studies and queer theory respectively exude,may complement each other so as to offer a link between the ‘homogeneous’ and the ‘diverse’,pertaining to the lived experiences of gay men and lesbian women.

Keywords: homosexuality, lesbian and gay studies, queer theory, sexual orientation, sociology

THE HOMOSEXUAL CONTEXT OF AFRICA ANDSOUTH AFRICA: A BRIEF HISTORY

Homosexuality, even within what one could term a more liberal and progressive

contemporary society (including the African context), is still deemed a contentious

and ambiguous issue. The prevailing stigmatisation of same-sex attraction within a

contemporary heteronormative society has made it quite difcult to establish a fully

accepting and tolerant milieu for sexual minorities, in so far as it reinforces stigmas

associated with pathological views of these individuals (cf. Herdt 1992: 6; Weeks

1996). Michel Foucault (1981: 43) writes in his inuential The History of Sexuality

that ‘[w]e must not forget that the psychological, psychiatric, medical category of

homosexuality was constituted from the moment it was characterized’, citing German


2/22

42

Jacques Rothmann

physician, Karl Westphal’s 1870 article on ‘contrary sexual sensations’ as the source

of the category. Recent arrests in Malawi and Zimbabwe of gay men attempting to get

married, attacks on lesbian individuals and allegations of lesbianism in South Africa

(Scholtz 2010: 5), as well as homophobic gestures in Uganda to institute the death

penalty as punishment for homosexual conduct (Olukya & Straziuso 2010), highlightthe importance of an academic study on homosexual identity within the African context

in general, and in South Africa in particular. A publication of the International Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (hereafter ILGBTIA), entitled State-

Sponsored Homophobia, which chronicles a worldwide survey of governments which

criminalise same-sex behaviour, reinforces this point (Ottosson 2010). In a preface to a

discussion on the nature of same-sex legislation in Africa, Ottosson (ibid: 7) comments

that during ‘the last ten years the focus on equal rights, law reforms, community

cohesion, diversity, families and migrations for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered

and Intersexed Africans has gone from bad to worse’. Thirty-eight African countrieshave criminalised homosexual acts, with punishments ranging from imprisonment to

the enactment of the death penalty.

Foucault (1981) refers to reasons why ideologies oppose rights being afforded

to same-sex couples: ‘To imagine a sexual act that doesn’t conform to law or nature

is not what disturbs people. But that individuals are beginning to love one another

– there’s the problem’ – words which nd resonance in the infamous declaration of

Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, of gays and lesbians as ‘worse than dogs and

pigs’ (Ottosson 2010: 7). Recent cases of the ‘corrective’ rape and even murder of

lesbian women, based on assaults inicted on them in an attempt to convert them to

heterosexuality, have further fuelled a heated debate in South Africa. Regardless of thelegal rights afforded to the gay and lesbian community, from the abolition of the Law

Reform Movement (drafted in 1968)1 and sodomy, as well as the provision of adoption

and marriage rights,2 proponents of so-called traditional African culture – including

the National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL) and the Congress of Traditional

Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa) (Gevisser 1995; Mkhize 2008: 102; Reddy 2010:

201), as well as South African representatives at the United Nations (UN) – have voiced

alarmingly contradictory responses to the protection of gay and lesbian rights, in relation

to the progressive South African constitution. In terms of the rst, members of these

organisations as well as the broader community expressed concern and outrage at theambiguity and disarray that would characterise the traditional institution of the family

if gays and lesbians were afforded the right to marry and adopt children. Mkhize (2008:

103) argues that regardless of the possible advantages public hearings on the subject

matter could have provided, ‘they were rushed, disorganized and predominantly biased

against same-sex marriages and LGBTI-identities’.

In terms of the role of the UN General Assembly on LGBTI rights, several LGBTI

organisations expressed disdain about the South African government’s alarming

decision to vote in favour of removing ‘a reference to sexual orientation from a

resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’ in November 2010,


3/22

43

Sociology as Bridge over Troubled Waters ...

which in effect underlines the vulnerability of the LGBTI community in the country.

In support of the amendment, introduced by representatives of Benin on behalf of the

African Group, explicit reference to sexual orientation was removed from the UN’s anti-

execution resolution which, according to the Executive Director of the International

Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (cited in OUT 2010), ‘is a dangerousand disturbing development ... It essentially removes the important recognition of

the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – a

recognition that is crucial ... ’. Based on the negative response to this decision, South

African representatives later withdrew their support for the amendment.

In many respects, sociological studies, although insightful, may far too often provide

a homogeneous view of gay and lesbian experience on the one hand, whilst excluding

thorough investigations into queer lives, whether these are other sexual minorities (such

as bisexual, transgender, asexual, intersex or pansexual people) on the one hand, or

the transgressive and unrestricted uidity within each of these respective categorieson the other. This, in turn, may further fuel uniform and misconstrued interpretations

of what homosexual experience entails. Against this background, the author will

use this particular article as platform to argue that a link between uniform views on

homosexuality and diverse interpretations is imperative. In so doing, one may possibly

recognise the utility of binary sexual categories and yet celebrate sexual diversity across

and within them.

A CASE OF ASSIMILATION AND ESSENTIALISM:

LESBIAN AND GAY STUDIES IN MODERN ANDLATE-MODERN SOCIETY

Initial views of homosexuality within academic discourse (predominantly medical

models) were enmeshed in sexology, which emerged as a preeminent eld of study

in the late 1900s, in an attempt to provide a language for sexuality in general and

homosexuality specically. Foucault (1981) notes that although the use of ‘sodomite’ to

refer to homosexuals from the 17th century up to the 1900s was a ‘temporary aberration’,

the use of ‘the homosexual’ positioned these individuals as a separate ‘species’. This

provided new opportunities for self-articulation for sexual minorities, but also for

social investigation and further categorisation on the part of social and medical science(Foucault 1981: 43; Namaste 1996: 196; Weeks 1996: 48).

Through the work of Westphal and sexologist, Magnus Hirschfeld, homosexual

individuals were labelled so-called sexual ‘inverts’, in so far as their sexual orientation

contradicted their given biological sex and socially constructed gender expectations

(Meem et al. 2010: 44). As such, homosexuality was described as a mental disorder, an

abnormality – a view echoed by others such as German psychiatrist, Dr Richard von

Krafft-Ebing (1886), who originally likened homosexuality to other sexual perversions,

including masochism, fetishism and sadism, thus an ‘abnormal congenital manifestation

… to the extent of horror’ (cited in Meem et al. 2010: 47). Von Krafft-Ebing did,


4/22

44

Jacques Rothmann

however, provide a more moderate perspective by typifying it as one form of sexual

attraction. Their work – alongside that of, amongst others, Havelock Ellis – sought to

debate the anomaly that was homosexuality – congenital and harmless, as opposed to

mental disease (Weeks 1996: 51).

Originating from homophile movements in the 1950s, lesbian and gay studies sought to provide insights into the lived experiences of these two sexual minority

groups, which transcended a mere medical and pathological model of explanation.

Much of the origin of this eld is primarily associated with the Stonewall Riots of 27

June 1969, where a police raid at the Stonewall Inn – A New York gay and drag bar –

resulted in resistance and a weekend of riots courtesy of its patrons (Jagose 1996: 30).

This, according to D’Emilio (1983: 233) saw the rise of a ‘distinctively new culture of

protest’ which transcended the so-called ‘quietest position ... [in favour of a dedication]

to improving conditions for homosexuals’ (Jagose 1996: 30). Although exemplary in its

objective, much of the initial academic focus positioned gay and lesbian individuals in asphere distinct from the normative and dominant heterosexual society. This corresponds

with Rubin’s (1993: 11) reference to the bureaucratisation of heteronormative and

compulsory heterosexuality in relation to other peripheral sexual minorities – a thought

echoed in the work of De Lauretis (1993) and Rich (1993), who posit patriarchal

hegemony as the central ideological culprit in Western understandings of gender and

sexuality. Rubin (1993: 11) argues that modern Western society’s understanding of

sexuality manifests a ‘hierarchal system of sexual value’, which places reproductive

heterosexuals at the top of the erotic pyramid, followed by unmarried monogamous

heterosexuals, with gay and lesbian couples in stable relationships ‘verging on

respectability’. So-called ‘despised’ sexual castes at the bottom of the hierarchy includetranssexuals, transvestites, sadomasochists and sex workers, amongst others (ibid: 12).

The latter occupy the so-called outer limits of this hierarchy, whilst those on the higher

‘blessed’ levels occupy the charmed circle of sexuality. By drawing this ‘imaginary line’

between the two, several social and political institutions – including psychiatry, religion

and popular culture – create and maintain the notion ‘that there is one best way to do

it [sex, sexuality, gender], and that everyone should do it that way’, and as a result are

rewarded with positive sanctions and corresponding labels of ‘certied mental health,

respectability, legality, ... institutional support and material benets’ (ibid.).

Against this background, much of the initial sociological inquiry within the modern paradigm of lesbian and gay studies ‘viewed homosexuality as a social stigma to be

managed; [and] analyzed the ways homosexuals adapted to a hostile society’ (Seidman

1996: 7). Studies mostly posited homosexuals (gay men specically) as ‘part of a

deviant underworld of hustlers, prostitutes, prisons, tearooms, baths, and bars’ (ibid.).

These studies emphasised the binary categorisation of heterosexuality (as norm) and

homosexuality (as pathology), within the existing essentialist theoretical framework

(Lovaas et al. 2007: 4). Examples of contributions include Mary McIntosh’s (1998[1968]:

68) conceptualisation of ‘the homosexual role’. She underscores the need for gay men

to belong to other ‘like-minded’ people in a distinct subculture within a larger societal


5/22

45


‘vector of oppression’, which renders them ‘morally defenceless’ as regards their sexual

orientation (cf. Rubin 1993: 22). This results in societal prejudice, social exclusion and

explicit differentness. An inherent assumption here centres on the fact that homosexuals

take on a ‘discreditable’ stigma (Goffman 1963: 12) based on prejudiced and universal

assumptions within a heteronormative society (Sedgwick 1993: 56), and in fact mayconform to the characteristics of the group(s) of which they form part, as in Goffman’s

(1963) reference to the ‘with relationship’.3 Within this relationship, the homosexual

associates with a specic type of person (in this case another homosexual individual)

and in turn reects homogeneous behaviour. By adopting this approach, proponents of

lesbian and gay studies established homosexuality as a ‘new ethnic minority’ (Plummer

1996: 64), which legitimised ‘a model of lesbian and gay subcultures’ separate from

the perceived ‘normal’, ‘moral’ and ‘acceptable’ heterosexual culture (Rubin 1993:

25; Seidman 1993: 123). Such binaries, according to Fuss (1991: 1), serve as ‘central

organizing method[s] in Western society’ in which heterosexuality is viewed as thedominant and only acceptable sexual variant (Roseneil 2002: 29).

Seidman (1996: 14) argues that earlier sociological accounts of the subject

matter (unknowingly) reinforced the idea of likening homosexuality to this ‘other’,

which translates into the ‘subordinate, deviant, injurious’ subcultures in relation to

its ‘normal’, ‘normative’ and ‘moral’ heterosexual counterpart. As he argues, ‘[m]y

impression is that much of this sociology aimed to gure the homosexual as a victim of

unjust discrimination. Nevertheless, sociologists contributed to the public perception of

the homosexual as a strange, exotic human type in contrast to the normal, respectable

heterosexual’ (ibid.). Although incandescent in its initial objective, such studies within

the South African context may in fact have furthered an assimilationist, essentialist andminoritising view pertaining to homosexuality (cf. Jagose 1996: 8; Sedgwick 2008: 1).

Providing an in-depth discussion of the emergence of gay life, particularly in South

Africa, Gevisser and Cameron (1995) chronicle a myriad of congurations of this

distinct subculture, ranging from two stereotypical depictions of homosexuals as child-

molesters and drag queens in the mid-1950s (including the ‘Mofe Drag’ subculture in

Cape Town), to ‘relatively unharassed’ (ibid: 18) homosexual subcultures in major cities

such as Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town. The mid-1960s, however, brought with

them (as in the United States [US]) a police raid at the Forest Town party, which was

seen as an extension of the Nationalist apartheid government’s attempts to expel ‘fromthe laager anything that was deemed threatening to white civilisation’ (ibid: 31). Crous’

(2006) content analysis of ction which depicted gay Afrikaner men indicated the

exacerbation (whether intentional or as subtle comment) of the ethnic model amongst

gay men from the 1960s to the 1980s. Seidman’s (1996) reference to the ‘strange,

exotic human type’ found resonance in discussions of Koos Prinsloo’s novelSlagplaas

[Slaughterhouse] which focused on an openly transgressive urban gay man ‘at ease with

his sexuality and amenable to act upon his sexual desires in saunas and gay bars’ (Crous

2006: 50), as well as married men seeking casual sex in public toilets or leading lives ‘of

quiet desperation and repression’ while yearning ‘after men from a distance’ in Danie


6/22

46

Jacques Rothmann

Botha’s Die Soft Rock Club [The Soft Rock Club]. Other examples of such depictions

corresponded with studies in, amongst others, the US, with the 1970s characterised by

sensationalist exposés of ‘the sordidness and sadness of supposedly “gay life”, which

was seen to be both dangerous ... and decadent, particularly as the druggy and oversexed

club-scene blossomed’ (Gevisser 1995: 77).Studies on lesbian identity provided a contrasting account. Research has commented

on the seeming ‘invisibility’ of lesbianism in mainstream heterosexual or homosexual

culture and academia (Distiller 2005: 45; Dlamini 2006: 128; Fester 2006: 108; Gevisser

1995: 19; Kowen & Davis 2006: 80; Sanger & Clowes 2006: 38), due to the fact that

women were not afforded the freedom of choice relating to sexual intercourse with their

husbands or even other women, but found their experiences enmeshed in medical and/

or pathological models of inquiry or even initial exclusion from criminalisation because

of their ‘denied existence’ (Sanger & Clowes 2006: 39). Some researchers focused on

how lesbianism does not necessarily pose an immediate threat to heteronormativity,whilst others associated physical violence directed towards particularly black lesbians

as an outgrowth of both patriarchal and traditional African culture (Kowen & Davis

2006; Muholi 2004: 118; Ochse 2011; Smuts 2011). These studies identied factors

such as pathologisation, abandonment, corrective rape and accusations of witchcraft as

impediments in accessing lesbian respondents for research objectives.

Much of the focus on gay male and lesbian sexuality in the late 1980s, early 1990s

and 2000s sought to underscore the ght for legal and social recognition for all gays and

lesbians, regardless of race (Isaack & Judge 2004; Judge et al. 2008; Reddy 1998, 2001),

which culminated in a seemingly more liberated, yet not fully equal, sexual orientation

in contemporary South African society. Such group cohesion may prove invaluable formobilising civil and legal society in attempts to decriminalise homosexuality, eradicate

the invisibility of the lesbian community and establish shared experiences amongst

similar sexual minority groups (cf. Ndashe 2010: 6; Reddy 2006: 155). Although more

inclusive, much of the ‘ethnic’ gay subculture was still enmeshed in the mainstream

South African psyche, as evidenced in Reddy’s (1998: 66) reference to the role of

annual gay pride marches which serve as a ‘strategy to politicise gay sexuality and ...

challenge dominant perceptions of heterosexual masculinity’. Although progressive and

constructive, such depictions may exacerbate ‘minoritising’ and ‘exotic’ views of such

subcultures. Consider the words of a lesbian respondent in Kowen and Davis’ (2006:83) study pertaining to categorisation as lesbian:

It’s like a label. It shouldn’t be there. People should say gay ... It makes you feel funny [to be

called a lesbian] , like someone calling you ‘stupid’ ... it’s like an insult. ‘I mean haven’t you heard

the word “lesbian”, it’s disgusting.’ A lot of people say that.

A recent example amongst white Afrikaner men in particular, which necessitates

empirical investigation, nds resonance in the work of Connell (2005: 74), who echoes

the contributions of Rubin’s reference to sex hierarchies, with her work on the social


7/22

47


construct of hegemonic masculinity, i.e. the ‘most widely accepted form of being a man

in any given society’ (Bradley 2007: 47), which points to the ignorant conation of

gender and sexual orientation, critiqued by Butler (1993) and Jagose (1996), amongst

others. Connell’s (2005: 77) discussion of hegemonic masculinity positions men as

individuals who are thought to be ‘macho’, competitive, aggressive and tough. She statesthat ‘hegemonic masculinity is always constructed in relation to various subordinated

masculinities as well as in relation to women’, which include more empathetic and

‘softer forms of heterosexual masculinity’ (Connell 1987: 183), such as the so-called

‘New Man’ and homosexuality. An article in Rapport by former theologian and current

television producer and writer, Pieter Cilliers (2011: 3), illustrates this point. It highlights

the manner in which patriarchal control, positioned within the parameters of the

assumed morality of the heterosexual paradigm, is still evident amongst white Afrikaner

men. As producer of the Afrikaans variety show, Kwêla, Cilliers recalls receiving a

short video submitted as part of their ‘candid-camera’-like section of the show, Kwêla Funnies. This particular piece was lmed directly following one of Christian preacher

Angus Buchan’s Mighty Men gatherings for heterosexual men.4 Depicted in the

video is a group of young men who are acting effeminately in terms of their speech

and mannerisms, so as to resemble gay men. One could only assume what Buchan’s

sermon was about. Against this background, Cilliers posits the thought that much of

the assumed humour and passive adherence to Buchan’s messages may be associated

with the current marginalisation of white Afrikaner men in South Africa. Afrmative

action, retrenchments and changes in political power have led to a shift for these men,

from originally being the oppressor, leader and revered gure during the South African

apartheid era, to a position of (based on the foregoing discussion, contradictorily andironically) marginalised ‘seeker’ of identity, belonging and stability, a thought evident

in the research of Posel (2004: 62) and Reddy (2001: 84). Cilliers (2011: 3) attributes

their passive adherence to Buchan’s biblical messages to the fact that his messages

explicitly reect values such as patriarchy, sexism and homophobia, with which they

easily identify, based on their own conservative upbringing. Cilliers cautions against

what he terms ‘dangerous’ and ‘fundamentalist’ teachings which serve to reinforce

heterosexism and sexism across racial and ethnic boundaries. A possible solution may

be to have heterosexual men take a stance for so-called subordinate sexualities (cf.

Connell 2005: 78; Segal 2007: 127) in an attempt to further question sexist (men andmasculinity vs. women and femininity) and heterosexist (heterosexual vs. homosexual)

binaries, rather than reinforcing them (2011: 3).

Underlying heteronormative messages within the rationalisation of sexuality in late-

modern society (Jackson & Scott 2007: 127) are also useful in another consideration with

regard to South African sexual minoritising, based on the representation of particularly

the lesbian and gay community in advertising campaigns for major trademarks. As part

of the ABNSA consumer prole conducted in 2008 and updated in 2010, and billed as

‘the largest and most comprehensive survey of its kind, representing the South African

gay community’ (Lunch Box Media 2011), 92.5 per cent of the 15 000 gay and lesbian


8/22

48

Jacques Rothmann

respondents who took part in the study indicated that they would support advertisers who

explicitly targeted their market, whilst 96 per cent paid attention to gay advertisements

(ibid.). Yet, Nicola Kleyn (cited in Malan 2011: 5) indicates that ‘corporate homophobia’

inhibits progressive and sexually inclusive advertising practices, based on the fear of

losing heterosexual consumers – a thought echoed in the content analysis of Davies(2008: 193), in considering the stereotypical depictions of gays and lesbians on

American television. Based on the inclusion of independent variables such as race,

age, geography and sex in determining the best possible marketing initiatives for an

organisation or product, why not include sexual orientation? This question, courtesy

of Donovan Steyl, owner of Lunch Box Media,5 is further justied by the fact that gay

consumers are, according to him, more specialised in their product choices and usually

have more expendable income (cf. Downs 2006: 76), based on, amongst others, their

childless households (cited in Malan 2011: 5). Examples of subtle marketing for gay

consumers by mainstream brands include Spur ’s slogan of the ‘Ofcial restaurant ofthe South African family’, depicted by a muscular-looking man in native Indian-dress,

with pink stripes under his eyes. Steyl attributes the lack of explicit marketing for the

gay market to ignorance, fear of stereotypical depictions of this community (cf. Reddy

1998: 68), alienation of the heterosexual consumer, and possible harm to the specic

company’s name (Malan 2011: 5).

Regardless of legislative and social advances, the underlying ethos of lesbian and

gay studies, if adopted as such as essentialist and assimilationist (cf. Jagose 1996: 8–10),

renders individuals who exhibit such orientations powerless to curtail the marginalisation,

labelling, stereotyping and discrimination in society. Foucault’s (1981: 84) work is

worth noting in this regard, because he argues that ‘sexuality is a discursive productionrather than a natural condition’. He points to the reciprocal relationship between exerted

(heterosexual) power relations, whether ideologically and/or physically constructive or

repressive, and sexuality which does not necessarily manifest on the noted repressive

level, but also enables its perceived targets (Jagose 1996: 80). Foucault continues:

What gives power its hold, what makes it accepted, is quite simply the fact that it does not simply

weigh like a force which says no, but it runs through, and it produces, things, it induces pleasure,

it forms knowledge, it produces discourse; it must be considered as a productive network which

runs through the entire social body much more than as a negative instance whose function is

repression. (1979: 36)

Fuss echoes Foucault by emphasising the underlying contradiction inherent in the

perceived stability and dominance of heterosexuality in general, and the constructive

possibilities related to the negotiability and uidity of sexuality between and within

sexual binaries specically. She notes that ‘new (and old) sexual possibilities are no

longer thinkable in terms of a simple inside/outside dialectic’ (1991: 1) – the ‘inside’

occupied by heterosexuals, with sexual minorities as part of the ‘outside’. Such critique

is embedded in the basic premise and underlying principles ofqueer theory (Roseneil

2002: 29).


9/22

49


QUEER THEORY: TOWARDS INTERNALDENATURALISATION AND DIVERSITY

Proponents of queer theory in many respects devalue the work of modernist

perspectives such as lesbian and gay studies, in so far as they position themselveswithin a postmodernist paradigm. Citing Teresa de Lauretis as the originator of the

concept, Halperin (2003: 339) believes De Lauretis displayed courage and conviction in

linking the academic ‘holy word’ of ‘theory’ with the ‘scandalously offensive’ concept

‘queer’. In so doing, a political movement erupted in academia which wanted to disrupt

(yet not necessarily eradicate) existing categories of sex, gender and sexuality, but

rather sought to ‘dramatize incoherencies’ (Jagose 1996: 3) in essentialism and so-

called underdetermined monolithic empirical justications of natural and stable binary

categories associated with sex, gender and sexual desire (Connell 2009: 95; Roseneil

2002: 29). Queer theory acknowledges divergent, unique and ‘other’ identities withinexisting binaries which are socially constructed within a given historical, cultural and

contextual framework (Marinucci 2010: 34). Its proponents thus attempt to transcend

the basic premises of lesbian and gay studies by ‘denaturalising’ homosexuality as a

uniform, marginal and distinct group (Butler 1990: 137). Queer theory also sought to

serve as permanent rebellion against homophobia and universal views on homosexuality

and to reclaim the concept ‘queer’ (Epstein 1996: 153; Seidman 2010: 242) for, according

to Seidman (1993: 133), ‘[q]ueers are not united by any unitary identity but only in

their opposition to disciplining, normalizing social forces’ of a heteronormative society.

Although many proponents of lesbian and gay studies emphasise the importance of

creating a sense of community to facilitate, amongst others, a political mobility forequality, the articiality of such categorisation leads Altman (1972: 227) to reect that

‘if man/womankind reaches the point where it is able to dispense with the categories

of homo- and heterosexuality, the loss will be well worth the gain’. In keeping with

the central theme of the article, the author acknowledges the emphasis queer theory

affords to the invisibility associated with diversity within the binaries of lesbian and

gay identity, and thus primarily focuses on both the critique directed towards the

essentialist maintenance of the naturalised depiction of gay men and lesbiansin relation

to heterosexuals but also within their specic binary.6

Tong (1998) believes modern theories’ limitations (including the ‘white-middleclass’ focus of modern feminist theories) should be transcended by eradicating

unnecessary categories and constraints which characterise an individual’s sexuality

(and by implication sexual orientation). This ‘freeing up’ of sexuality may be necessary

to nd what Giddens (1992: 28) terms ‘the perfect relationship’ (and by implication

construct the perfect(ed) identity), even if the latter requires moving beyond sexual

boundaries – a thought echoed by Lorber (2005: 77). Through institutional reexivity,7

individuals are afforded the opportunity to reect on their personal experiences, needs

and expectations (Giddens 1992: 147), which posit them as active social actors who

construct their own identity separate from the normative expectations of, amongst


10/22

50

Jacques Rothmann

others, a heteronormative society. Diversity within the gay community includes a

myriad of congurations, including ‘lipstick lesbians, butches, femmes, ... muscle

marys, opera queens, those who identify as Black, Asian ... ’ (Roseneil 2002: 29).

Coupled with this is the work of Foucault (1981) and Sedgwick (2008: 10), who

emphasise the ‘transformative’ component that gay men and lesbians may want todevelop by deconstructing supposedly static binary oppositions of heterosexual/

homosexual (normative/deviant). This is closely associated with the work of Judith

Butler (whom Jagose [1996: 83] deems one of the most inuential queer theorists of her

generation) on performativity, which further exemplies the uidity of gender, sexual

orientation and sexuality. She echoes Foucault’s contributions on discursive practices

by negating the perceived essentialist and stable nature of gender categories in society,

based on the notion that gender is typied as ‘an ongoing discursive practice ... open to

intervention and resignication’ (Butler 1990: 33). This implies that one’s gender, and

by implication sexual orientation, are predetermined by cultural congurations withinspecic contexts, and that their performative qualities should not be deemed uid and

determinant on the behaviour of the individual exuding them, but rather as embedded

within cultural and social prescriptions of a heterosexual matrix (ibid, see also Butler

1993), constantly subjected to social construction, challenge, modication, negotiation

and assessment courtesy of others (Foucault 1979: 36; Johnson 2009: 66; Reddy 2006:

155; Rubin 1993: 12; West & Zimmerman 2002: 43). Butler (1993: 7) reinforces this

point by arguing that ‘the [heterosexualised] matrix of gender relations is prior to the

emergence of the “human”’ and intensied by a further ‘heterosexual hegemony’ and

processes of materialisation which seek to ‘gender’ (and per implication ‘sexualise’)

individuals through a constant repetition of acts (Butler 1993: 9; West & Zimmerman2002: 43). As such, the objective (and basis of queer theory) in this discursive

endeavour, according to Harold Beaver, is to highlight the fallacies associated with

theories which present heterosexuality as seemingly dominant and homosexuality as

subordinate. He notes that one should aim to

[r]everse the rhetorical opposition of what is ‘transparent’ or ‘natural’ and what is ‘derivative’

or ‘contrived’ by demonstrating that the qualities predicated of ‘homosexuality’ (as a dependent

term) are in fact a condition of ‘heterosexuality’; that ‘heterosexuality’, far from possessing a

privileged status, must itself be treated as a dependent term. (cited in Sedgwick 2008: 10)

De Lauretis (cited in Stein & Plummer 1996: 134) notes that one should no longer

position homosexuality as the marginal, subordinate form of sexual orientation in

relation to the stable dominance of heterosexuality. She refutes the work of those who

accept the binary oppositions of heterosexual/homosexual, stating that homosexuality

‘is no longer to be seen as transgressive or deviant vis-à-vis a proper, natural sexuality

... according to the older, pathological model, or just another optional “lifestyle”’ (ibid.).

By reinforcing this binary, further secrecy is facilitated on the part of particularly gay

men and lesbian women, who avoid a complete transcendence from the constrictive

parameters of the symbolically laden ‘closet’ which serves as protection against ‘[a]


11/22

51


distorting stereotype, ... insulting scrutiny, ... simple insult, ... forcible interpretation of

their bodily product’ (Sedgwick 1993: 46). Similarly, Sedgwick argues that the process

associated with ‘coming out’ into an existing proscriptive, over-heterosexualised and

rationalised late-modern society is repetitious, in so far as gay men and lesbians re-

enter and re-emerge from the closet based on the contextual allowances or restrictionswith which they are confronted (cf. Jackson & Scott 2007: 70–71). This, in turn,

necessitates greater self-reexivity on the part of sexual minorities who need to manage

the projections of their gendered and sexual nature, in an attempt to avoid possible

prejudice, isolation or retaliation (cf. Goffman 1963; Jackson & Scott 2007: 70–71),

for it denotes ‘the ways a hostile society labelled homosexuality, and in the way those

stigmatized saw themselves’ (Weeks 1977: 3). By adopting views heralded by, amongst

others, Beaver and De Lauretis, Stein and Plummer (1996: 135) believe homosexuality

may be normalised by queer theory, in effect positioning heterosexuality as unstable and

possibly deviant, no longer the independent sexual category which determines sexualnormalcy. As Fuss (1991: 1) states, much of lesbian and gay studies’ focus attempts to

dene what the homosexual experience entails, yet simply reinforces the divide between

heterosexuality and homosexuality, because individuals are then ‘classied as one or the

other’ (Seidman 2010: 243).

South African studies which provided a queer critique of homogeneous depictions

of gays and lesbians centre on, amongst others, Ochse’s (2011: 18) ndings of lesbian

respondents who took part in her study, who viewed their lesbianism as ‘an inherent

trait ... [they] need[ed] to normalise ... in the face of a heterosexist and homophobic

environment’ – a thought that not only reects on the ‘ethnic’ model of homosexuality,

but also comments on the inherent expectations of a normative form of lesbianism, pertaining to views within the lesbian community about their identities. The complexity

of debates on lesbian identity came to the fore in Smuts’ (2011) juxtaposed study of

lesbian identity formation in Johannesburg, which emphasises the importance social

scientists should ascribe to intersectionality (cf. Gevisser 1995: 50–58; Reddy 1998:

67), particularly as it pertains to a social context in South Africa characterised by an

incongruence between the country’s ‘enviable’ (cf. Ottoson 2010) constitution, and

intolerant and homophobic civil society. In utilising Cass’ (1984) model of homosexual

identity formation, Smuts found that several factors, ranging from each lesbian

respondent’s ‘intersecting multiple identities of class, race and religion’ to the fear ofstigmatisation, underscored the uidity of lesbian identity in so far as lesbians would

continuously move between and revert back to initial stages of identity formation (2011:

38). She attributed much of this uidity to each individual’s access to a ‘matrix of power

... and ... the extent to which [they] can tap into this power, and gain agency’ (ibid.) – a

notion associated with the work of Foucault (1979: 36).

Additional studies which underline the uid and transgressive nature of specically

gay sexuality resonate in references to ‘circumstantial’ or ‘situational homosexuality’

within the contexts of migrant labour and prison life. Associated with one of several

typologies of bisexual identity (Esterberg 2002: 215), ‘situational homosexuality’ posits


12/22

52

Jacques Rothmann

the opportunity for gay men to negotiate (Reddy 1998: 66) and deconstruct their perceived

‘naturalised’ and stable gay masculinity by engaging in same-sex activity within certain

contexts. Pertaining to the rst of these, Dlamini (2006: 128) points to the context of

mine compounds as evidence of homosexual activity between older men and younger

miners (‘boy-wives’) – a short-term socially sanctioned custom within African culture based on acts and emotions, not stringent categorisation as homosexual (cf. Summers

1995: xi, in Dlamini 2006: 130). On the other hand, Gear’s (2007) study of the expected

conation and ambiguity surrounding same-sex activity between male prisoners as

either violent rape or consensual homosexual sex further asserts the ux, complexity

and (by implication) queer nature of sexuality and sexual orientation. Her assertion

that same-sex activity does not necessarily necessitate identication as homosexual (cf.

Summers cited in Dlamini 2006) denotes the fact that violent and tyrannical sexual

acts between prisoners, which could be interpreted as male-rape, mirror the disdain

associated with deviation from the heterosexual norm in society (Gear 2007: 219). Menwho take on the more ‘dominant and masculine’ role in sexual intercourse do so in an

attempt to ‘parody ... the misogynist relationship between a man and woman on the

outside’ (Steinberg 2004: 43), affording them the chance, upon release from prison, to

‘conceivably slide back into being the “men” of outside society’ (Gear 2007: 223). Based

on the understood dominance of (African and/or Western) heterosexual prescriptions

of sexuality, Dlamini (2006: 131), Muholi (2004: 123) and Reddy (2001: 83) provide

an insightful (re)interpretation of the perceived ‘un-African’ nature of homosexuality,

attributing homophobic and intolerant gestures of African culture to colonialism and

Christian missionary inuences courtesy of the West. They underscore historical and

anthropological studies which identify examples of same-sex relationships, in additionto those alluded to, in northern and sub-Saharan Africa (Nkabinde & Morgan 2006;

Patanè 2010; Wallace 2010: 257–262), proving that homosexuality may not be that ‘un-

African’ after all. Dlamini (2006: 135) argues that regardless of the West’s abandonment

of the medical and pathological model of explanation, Africa has retained this damaging

view of homosexuality, as evidenced in current anti-gay proscriptions in Uganda,

Nigeria and the Ivory Coast, which further contradict calls for the protection of basic

human rights, nationally and internationally.

One of the most prolic academics to comment on the possible judicious contributions

sociology could make to lesbian and gay studies is Ken Plummer. In several books,chapters and articles, Plummer (1975, 1981, 1996, 1998, 2003) outlines debates that

centre on this amalgam of paradigms, both modern and postmodern. In accordance with

Nardi (2002) and Namaste (1996), he argues for a merger between the socially theoretical

and the empirical, to better document and comprehend the complexity (Plummer 1998:

613; Roseneil 2002: 29) of homosexual experience. Plummer underscores this point

by distinguishing between several phases gay men may progress through in an attempt

to ‘authenticate’ (cf. Downs 2006: 76) themselves as gay men, with pride (cf. Cass

1984: 116; Smuts 2011). Problematic in such an approach, as Plummer concedes, is

the fact that these phases and/or stages condone the homogenisation of homosexual


13/22

53


experience. To fully utilise the advantageous synergy between the theoretical and the

empirical, one should not only acknowledge the sexual diversity of sexual minorities

across the homosexual (read gay and lesbian) and heterosexual divide, but also consider

the inherent ‘richness’ of sexual experiences within these congurations as they may

relate to identity construction, for instance. Nardi (2002) offers recommendations andchallenges to sociologists in terms of this contested terrain of inquiry. An emphasis

should thus be placed on the ‘pluralization, individuation and multiplying choices

[which make] social life very different from any previous era ... [in which] [s]paces

start to emerge for new kinds of sexualities ... ’ (Plummer 2003: 520).

Yet, the political economy of gender’s (and by implication sexual orientation’s)

emphasis on establishing, reinforcing and maintaining a binary organisation and

conation of gender and sexual orientation, has led to Esterberg (2002: 225) proclaiming

that the eradication of binary thinking will not manifest in the near future, as proponents

of queer theory might hope. This aligns with Plummer’s (2003: 519) critique of queertheory by comparing it to the role of symbolic interactionism. Plummer argues that

although the latter displays an afnity for its postmodern inclination, it ‘does not wish

to lose its grip on the “obdurate empirical world” ... [whilst it still acknowledges] that

human sexualities [have] become destabilized, decentered and de-essentialized’ (2003:

520) within existing categories. Jackson and Scott (2007: 121) elaborate on this by

juxtaposing it with a seemingly overly sexualised society which, despite its evident

saturation with sexual content, still heralds somewhat of a ‘moral panic’ (cf. Rubin

1993) in terms of overt discussions of sexualities and their impact on ‘moral/cultural

taboos’ (Posel 2004: 60). If queer theory were to fully seek to campaign for dissident

forms of gay and lesbian sexualities, where would one draw the line in terms of morality,acceptability and decency within the parameters of gay and lesbian lifestyles? (Jagose

1996: 113). The mere mention of sadomasochism within lesbian lives results in severe

criticism from, amongst others, radical feminists who associate it with patriarchal

control (Rich 1993), whereas gay male pornography (and pornography in general) has

met with antagonism and disdain based on the ‘oversexualised’ depiction of (gay) men

(cf. Ellis & Whitehead 2004: 198–202). Much of this is embedded in what Medhurst

and Munt (1997: xi) and Morton (1993: 151) deem as queer theory being ‘elitistic’

and exclusive, which promotes individual self-realisation in terms of sexuality at the

expense of communal and collective identication and mobility.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Evident from the foregoing discussion is a denite tension between modern and

postmodern perspectives related to sex, gender and sexual orientation within current

academic paradigms. Lesbian and gay studies provided (and still provide) indelible

and invaluable insights into the experiences of these two sexual minorities, although

according to several academics (Epstein 1996; Namaste 1996; Plummer 1981, 1998;

Roseneil 2002; Rubin 1993; Sedgwick 1993; Seidman 1993, 1996) in a homogenised


14/22

54

Jacques Rothmann

manner as ‘ethnic minority’. Such an approach may reinforce the heterosexual/

homosexual binary. Based on this, queer theory has sought to critique a model which

reinforces dichotomous thinking in understanding contemporary sexuality.

Sociology, however, as is evident from the recommendations of academics such

as Nardi (2002) and Plummer (1998), could make constructive contributions to thistoo often marginalised niche in the social science repertoire. At the heart of such a

contribution is the establishment of a link of sorts between the theoretical and the

ideological (courtesy of lesbian and gay studies and queer theory) and empirical

worlds (through the application of sociological principles courtesy of, amongst others,

symbolic interactionism) to provide a comprehensive and detailed ‘thick description’

of the rich, diverse, plural and intersectional experiences of gays and lesbians as

well as other sexual minorities in South Africa, within and outside binary categories.

Within tertiary academia, several volumes have dealt with these themes (see Lovaas et

al. 2007; Richardson & Seidman 2002; Seidman 1996), yet one nds that gender andsexual orientation are still used ambiguously and interchangeably with each other, as

well as with the concept ‘sex’. Although these three are undoubtedly and unavoidably

intertwined, sexual orientation should be provided with and subsequently enjoy its own

rightful place in African and South African academia. As such, the differences and

afnities shared between lesbian and gay studies, queer theory and sociology call for an

in-depth study of this particular theme and collaboration between interested parties to

establish an autonomous LGBTIA eld in South African sociology. The progressive step

of the South African Sociological Association’s (SASA) inclusion of the Lesbian, Gay

and Queer Studies working group in 2011 has provided a platform for the submission

of an impressive 14 papers on the subject, from contributors in South Africa, Australiaand Indonesia. This created awareness of the topicality of the subject matter and the

need to redirect such an initiative to the classrooms of tertiary institutions, as well as the

textbooks which are used to inform and educate.

One would expect, based on the preceding discussion of the current state of debates

on homosexuality within contemporary South African and Western academia, that

exclusive texts and courses on LGBTI issues would be considered not only important,

but a denite necessity within tertiary education. Yet, based on a content analysis of

prescribed under- and postgraduate sociological texts in the US (Warren 2008), inclusion

of such issues has mainly been positioned as a background variable to discussions onsocial themes such as gender, social stratication, race, class and identity studies, as

well as its place in social institutions including religious settings and families. Current

international sociological publications that serve as introductory texts to the discipline

display the same tendency, or provide only précis-like discussions (see Anderson &

Taylor 2009; Brinkerhoff et al. 2008; Ferrante 2008; Haralambos & Holborn 2008;

Kendall 2010). International interdisciplinary textbooks have attempted to ll this void,

including The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Studies (Giffney & O’Rourke

2010), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies (Richardson & Seidman 2002), Finding


15/22

55


Out – An Introduction to LGBT Studies (Meem et al. 2010), LGBT Studies and Queer

Theory: New Conicts, Collaborations, and Contested Terrain(Lovaas et al. 2007), as

well as books which highlight the need for a sociological focus on the subject matter,

Queer Theory/Sociology (Seidman 1996).

In addition to textbooks, few courses on this particular specialisation eld areevident within the South African context. Several international universities such as

Yale and Harvard in the US offer exclusive programmes (for non-degree purposes) on

postgraduate level (as well as supervision on research projects), whereas the majority

of international universities position lesbian and gay studies within courses on gender,

sexuality and identity. In South Africa, sociology departments have followed suit,

with current South African sociology under- and postgraduate courses centring on

social issues and institutions including diversity, family, feminism, gender, HIV/AIDS,

identity, social exclusion, social change and women’s studies, amongst others. Much

of the apprehension in introducing and maintaining such courses may be based on thenegative stigma associated with them, as discussed in the work of Henslin (1972 cited

in Warren 2008: 136), who underscores the application of the ‘peculiarity’ or ‘deviance’

label to such academics. Yet, in addition to the provision of an academic climate for the

purpose of knowledge dissemination and assimilation, such courses may establish a safe

haven for both LGBTI academics and students alike (cf. Kirsch 2007). Munt (1997: 98),

emphasises this notion:

I know that my personication with the subject is something I can exploit. For the one or two gay

or lesbian looking students out there, my lecture is for them. I love the way, sooner or later, they

all make it to my ofce. We pass in the corridors and smile. The way we recognize our need for

that acknowledgement is a statement of community.

Signs that point to worrisome pro-homophobic national and international inclinations,

whether governmental, legislative or civil, necessitate an immediate and concise

determination as to whether a queer approach should be deemed applicable, necessary

or even viable within the contentious, controversial and (some may argue) ‘dangerous’

context of specically African culture. Categorisation, but with acknowledgement of

diversity within those categories, seems to be a necessity and prerequisite in order to

safeguard so-called sexual minorities – particularly the more visible gay and lesbian

subcultures. Isaack and Judge (2004: 75) emphasise this by arguing that the ‘voice [ofgay and lesbian community] as a collective aspiring to human rights for all is compelling.

This is even more pressing as we embrace the diversity we represent, along racial, gender

and class lines.’ Since ‘queer’ may be interpreted as only a very abstract notion and given

its preference to unique, individualistic and ideocentric inclinations, its use may curtail

efforts to constructively mobilise legislative, social and individual stakeholders who

seek to further human rights in general, and same-sex rights specically. This thought is

exemplied in the words of Sedgwick (1993: 55):


16/22

56

Jacques Rothmann

Far beyond any cognitively or politically enabling effects on the people whom it claims

to describe, moreover, the nominative category of ‘the homosexual’ has robustly failed to

disintegrate under the pressure of decade after decade, battery after battery of deconstructive

exposure – evidently not in the rst place because of its meaningfulness to those whom it denes

but because of its indispensableness to those who dene themselves as against it.

Against this background and the seemingly unthinkable realisation of a deconstructive,

denaturalised, unbounded and, by implication, fully edged ‘queer’ interpretation of

gay and lesbian sexuality, Weeks’ (cited in Kirsch 2007: 35) assertion of celebrating

diversity within existing categories seems all the more imperative when he states

that ‘[t]he recognition of “sexual identities”, in all their ambivalence, seems to be the

precondition for the realization of sexual diversity’.

NOTES1 Background to the Law Reform Movement of 1968: Following a police raid of a predominantly

gay-themed party held in Forest Town in 1966, where several gay men ‘paraded’ as women, the

then conservative apartheid South African government, under the rule of Hendrik Verwoerd,

sought to legalise the Law Reform Movement in an attempt to criminalise homosexuality. This

did not happen, but three amendments were passed in an attempt to curtail homosexuality,

including raising the age of consent for men to 19, outlawing sexual toys (‘dildoes’ in particular)

and limiting social events where gay men would interact with each other (the Party Clause).

2 Same-sex adoption and marriage (Civil Union Bill) were legalised in 2002 and 2006 respectively

in South Africa (South Africa 2006).

3 Those who ascribe to this approach basically assume that an individual will take on or conformto certain traits or features of a specic individual or group with whom they associate themselves

(Goffman 1963).

4 These gatherings usually serve to motivate men (regardless of language and race) to use their

Christianity in such a way as to guide their families and guard against immorality in society – in

short, to return to traditional conservative values.

5 Lunch Box Media is a marketing organisation, formed in 2009, which specialises in targeting

and representing the LGBT community in advertising by involving major mainstream South

African brands, advertisers and marketing organisations (Lunch Box Media 2011).

6 The author acknowledges the importance proponents of queer theory attribute to the inclusion

of other excluded sexual minorities (bisexuality, transgenderism, transsexuality, asexuality,intersexuality, pansexuality), as evident in original Lesbian and Gay Studies theorising. But,

in keeping with the theme of the article, primary emphasis is afforded to diversity and critique

within gay and lesbian subcultures in relation to heterosexuality.

7 This offers individuals an opportunity to critically reect on the inuence and importance of

specic social institutions in their lives.


17/22

57


REFERENCES

Altman, D. 1972. Homosexual Oppression and Liberation. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Andersen, M.L. & Taylor, H.F. 2009. Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Bradley, H. 2007. Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brinkerhoff, D.B., White, L.K., Ortega, S.T. & Weitz, R. 2008. Essentials of Sociology, seventh

edition. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge.

Cass, V. 1984. ‘Homosexual Identity: A Concept in Need of Denition.’ Journal of Homosexuality,

9: 105–126.

Cilliers, P. 2011. ‘As die Verstoteling Sélf Uitsluiter Word.’ Rapport , 26 June: 3.

Connell. R. 2009. Short Introductions: Gender , second edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power. Cambridge: Polity.

Connell, R.W. 2005. Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Crous, M. 2006. ‘“En ek sê dis ’n Trassie”: Perspectives on Afrikaner Homosexual Identity.’ Agenda,

20(67): 48–56.

Davies, F. 2008. ‘Paradigmatically Oppositional Representations: Gender and Sexual Identity inThe

L Word.’ In R. Beirne (ed.). Televising Queer Women: A Reader. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

De Lauretis, T. 1993. ‘Sexual Indifference and Lesbian Representation.’ In H. Abelove, M.A. Barale

& D.M. Halperin (eds.). The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

D’Emilio, J. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in

the United States 1940–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Distiller, N. 2005. ‘Another Story: The (Im)Possibility of Lesbian Desire.’ Agenda, 19(63): 44–57.

Dlamini, B. 2006. ‘Homosexuality in the African Context.’ Agenda, 20(67): 128–136.

Downs, A. 2006. The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing up Gay in a Straight Man’s

World . Cambridge: Da Capo Press.

Ellis, S.R. & Whitehead, B.W. 2004. ‘Porn Again: Some Final Considerations.’ Journal of

Homosexuality, 47(3): 197–220.

Epstein, S. 1996. ‘A Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality.’ In S. Seidman (ed.).

Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Esterberg, K.G. 2002. ‘The Bisexual Menace: Or, Will the Real Bisexual Please Stand Up?’ In D.

Richardson & S. Seidman (eds.). Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: Sage.

Ferrante, J. 2008. Sociology: A Global Perspective, seventh edition. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Fester, G. 2006. ‘Some Preliminary Thoughts on Sexuality, Citizenship and Constitutions: Are Rights

Enough?’ Agenda, 20(67): 100–111.

Foucault, M. 1979. ‘Truth and Power: Interview with Alessandro Fontano and Pasquale Pasquino.’ In

M. Foucault (ed.). Michel Foucault: Power, Truth, Strategy.Translation: P. Patton & M. Morris.

Sydney: Feral Publications.

Foucault, M. 1981. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. New York: Vintage.


18/22

58

Jacques Rothmann

Fuss, D. 1991. ‘Inside/Out.’ In D. Fuss (ed.). Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York:

Routledge.

Gear, S. 2007. ‘Behind the Bars of Masculinity: Male Rape and Homophobia in and about South

African Men’s Prisons.’ Sexualities, 10(2): 209–227.

Gevisser, M. 1995. ‘A Different Fight For Freedom: A History of South African Lesbian and GayOrganisation from the 1950s to the 1990s.’ In M. Gevisser & E. Cameron (eds.). Deant Desire:

Gay and Lesbian Lives in South Africa. New York: Routledge.

Gevisser, M. & Cameron, E. (eds.). 1995. Deant Desire: Gay and Lesbian Lives in South Africa.

New York: Routledge.

Giddens, A. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love & Eroticism in Modern Societies.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giffney, N. & O’Rorke, M. (eds.). 2009. The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory.

Burlington: Ashgate.

Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Halperin, D.M. 2003. ‘The Normalization of Queer Theory.’ Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2–4):

339–343.

Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. 2008. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, seventh edition. London:

Harper Collins.

Herdt, G. 1992. ‘Introduction: Culture, History, and Life Course of Gay Men.’ In G. Herdt (ed.). Gay

Culture in America: Essays from the Field. Boston: Beacon Press.

Isaack, W. & Judge, M. 2004. ‘Ten Years of Freedom? Current Developments and Debates on

Marriage between People of the Same Sex in South Africa.’ Agenda, 18(62): 68–75.

Jackson, S. & Scott, S. 2007. Theorizing Sexuality. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Jagose, A. 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.

Johnson, J.A. 2009. ‘The Window of Ritual: Seeing the Intentions and Emotions of “Doing Gender”.’

Gender Issues, 26: 65–84.

Judge, M., Manion, A. & De Waal, S. (eds.). 2008. To Have & to Hold: The Making of Same-sex

Marriage in South Africa. Sunnyside: Fanele.

Kendall, D. 2010. Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials, seventh edition. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Kirsch, M. 2007. ‘Queer Theory, Late Capitalism, and Internalized Homophobia.’ In K.E. Lovaas, J.P.

Elia & G.A. Yep (eds.). LGBT Studies and Queer Theory: New Conicts, Collaborations, and

Contested Terrain. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Kowen, D. & Davis, J. 2006. ‘Opaque Young Lives: Experiences of Lesbian Youth.’ Agenda, 20(67):80–92.

Lorber, J. 2005. ‘Beyond the Binaries: Depolarizing the Categories of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender.’ In

T.L. Steele (ed.). Sex, Self, and Society. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lovaas, K.E., Elia, J.P. & Yep, G.A. 2007. ‘Introduction: Shifting Ground(s) – Surveying the Contested

Terrain of LGBT Studies and Queer Theory.’ In K.E. Lovaas, J.P. Elia & G.A. Yep (eds.). LGBT

Studies and Queer Theory: New Conicts, Collaborations, and Contested Terrain. New York:

Harrington Park Press.

Lunch Box Media. 2011. ‘Fact File.’ Retrieved from http://www.lunchboxmedia.co.za/factle.html

(accessed 1 July 2011).


19/22

59


Malan, M. 2011. ‘Gay-segment as Mark ‘Nog Misken’.’ Rapport , 5 June: 5.

Marinucci, M. 2010. Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection between Queer and Feminist

Theory. London: Zed Books.

McIntosh, M. 1998 [1968]. ‘The Homosexual Role.’ In P.M. Nardi & B.E. Schneider (eds.). Social

Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge.

Medhurst, A. & Munt, S.R. (eds.). 1997. Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Critical Introduction. London:

Cassell Publishers.

Meem, D.T., Gibson, M.A. & Alexander, J.F. 2010. Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBT Studies.

Los Angeles: Sage.

Mkhize, N. 2008. ‘(Not) in My Culture: Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage and African Practices.’

In M. Judge, A. Manion & S. De Waal (eds.). To Have & to Hold: The Making of Same-Sex

Marriage in South Africa. Sunnyside: Fanele.

Morton, D. 1993. ‘‘‘Radicalism”, “Outing”, and the Politics of (Sexual) Knowledges.’ Minnesota

Review, 40: 151–160.

Muholi, Z. 2004. ‘Thinking through Lesbian Rape.’ Agenda, 18(61): 115–125.

Munt, S.R. 1997. ‘“I Teach Therefore I Am”: Lesbian Studies in the Liberal Academy.’ Feminist

Review, 56: 85–99.

Namaste, K. 1996. ‘The Politics of Inside/Out: Queer Theory, Poststructuralism, and a Sociological

Approach to Sexuality.’ In S. Seidman (ed.). Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge: Blackwell

Publishers.

Nardi, P.M. 2002. ‘The Mainstreaming of Lesbian and Gay Studies?’ In D. Richardson & S. Seidman

(eds.). Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: Sage.

Ndashe, S. 2010. ‘The Battle for the Recognition for LGBTI-rights as Human Rights.’ Perspectives, 4(10): 18–23.

Nkabinde, N. & Morgan, R. 2006. ‘“This Has Happened Since Ancient Times ... It’s Something That

You Are Born With”: Ancestral Wives among Same-Sex Sangomas in South Africa.’ Agenda,

20(67): 9–19.

Ochse, A. 2011. ‘‘‘Real Women” and “Real Lesbians”: Discourses of Heternormativity amongst a

Group of Lesbians.’ South African Review of Sociology, 42(1): 3–20.

Olukya, G. & Straziuso, J. 2010. ‘Hang Gays – Uganda Paper.’ Retrieved from http://www.news24.

com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid (accessed 20 October 2010).

Ottosson, D. 2010. ‘State-Sponsored Homophobia: A World Survey of Laws Prohibiting Same-SexActivity between Consenting Adults: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

Report.’ ILGA Publications. Retrieved from www.ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mqsH5ek1ED

(accessed 12 July 2010).

OUT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Well-Being). 2010. ‘SA’s UN Vote Undermines

Constitution.’ Retrieved from http://www.out.org.za/articles.asp?art_id=210 (accessed 14

January 2011).

Patanè, V. 2010. ‘Homosexuality in the Middle East and North Africa.’ In R. Aldrich (ed.). Gay Life

and Culture: A World History. London: Thames & Hudson.

Plummer, K. 1975. Stigma. London: Routledge.


20/22

60

Jacques Rothmann

Plummer, K. 1981. ‘Homosexual Categories: Some Research Problems in the Labelling Perspective

of Homosexuality.’ In K. Plummer (ed.). The Making of the Modern Homosexual. London:

Hutchinson.

Plummer, K. 1996. ‘Symbolic Interactionism and the Forms of Homosexuality.’ In S. Seidman (ed.).

Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Plummer, K. 1998. ‘Afterword: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Sociology of Same-sex

Relations.’ In P.M. Nardi & B.E. Schneider (eds.). Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay

Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge.

Plummer, K. 2003. ‘Queers, Bodies and Postmodern Sexualities: A Note on Revisiting the ‘‘Sexual”

in Symbolic Interactionism.’ Qualitative Sociology, 26(4): 515–530.

Posel, D. 2004. ‘‘‘Getting the Nation Talking about Sex”: Reections on the Discursive Constitution

of Sexuality in South Africa since 1994.’ Agenda, 18(62): 53–63.

Reddy, V. 1998. ‘Negotiating Gay Masculinities.’ Agenda, 14(37): 65–70.

Reddy, V. 2001. ‘Homophobia, Human Rights and Gay and Lesbian Equality in Africa.’ Agenda, 16(50): 83–87.

Reddy, V. 2006. ‘Decriminalisation of Homosexuality in Post-Apartheid South Africa: A Brief Legal

Case History Review from Sodomy To Marriage.’ Agenda, 20(67): 116–127.

Reddy, V. 2010. ‘Identity, Law, Justice. Thinking about Sexual Rights and Citizenship in Post-

apartheid South Africa.’ Perspectives, 4(10): 18–23.

Rich, A. 1993. ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.’ In H. Abelove, M.A. Barale &

D.M. Halperin (eds.). The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

Richardson, D. & Seidman, S. (eds.). 2002. Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: Sage.

Roseneil S. 2002. ‘The Heterosexual/Homosexual Binary: Past, Present and Future.’ In D. Richardson& S. Seidman, S. (eds.). Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: Sage.

Rubin, G.S. 1993. ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.’ In H.

Abelove, M.A. Barale & D.M. Halperin (eds.). The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York:

Routledge.

Sanger, N. & Clowes, L. 2006. ‘Marginalised and Demonized: Lesbians and Equality – Perceptions

of People in a Local Western Cape Community.’ Agenda, 20(67): 36–47.

Scholtz, H. 2010. ‘Gay Vrou Aangeval: “ Ek sal Jou Reg Skop”.’ Rapport , 16 Mei: 5.

Sedgwick, E.K. 1993. ‘Epistemology of the Closet.’ In H. Abelove, M.A. Barale & D.M. Halperin

(eds.). The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

Sedgwick, E.K. 2008. Epistemology of the Closet , updated version. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Segal, L. 2007. Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Seidman, S. 1993. ‘Identity and Politics in a “Postmodern” Gay Culture: Some Historical and

Conceptual Notes.’ In M. Warner (ed.). Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social

Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Seidman, S. 1996. ‘Introduction.’ In S. Seidman, S. (ed.). Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge:

Blackwell Publishers.


21/22

61


Seidman, S. 2010. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today, fourth edition. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing.

Seidman, S. (ed.). 1996. Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Smuts, L. 2011. ‘Coming Out as a Lesbian in Johannesburg, South Africa: Considering Intersecting

Identities and Social Spaces.’ South African Review of Sociology, 42(3): 23–40.

South Africa. 2006. Civil Union Bill, Act 17 of 2006 . Pretoria: Government Printer.

Stein, A. & Plummer, K. 1996. ‘“I Can’t Even Think Straight”: “Queer” Theory and the Missing

Sexual Revolution in Sociology.’ In S. Seidman (ed.). Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge:

Blackwell Publishers.

Steinberg, J. 2004. Nongoloza’s Children. Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and

Reconciliation.

Tong, R. 1998. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.

Wallace, L. 2010. ‘Discovering Homosexuality: Cross-Cultural Comparison and the History of

Sexuality.’ In R. Aldrich (ed.). Gay Life and Culture: A World History. London: Thames &Hudson.

Warren, C.A.B. 2008. ‘Fieldwork in the Gay World: Issues in Phenomenological Research.’ Gender

and Research, 4: 133–145.

Weeks, J. 1977. Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the

Present. London: Quartet Books.

Weeks, J. 1996. ‘The Construction of Homosexuality.’ In S. Seidman (ed.). Queer Theory/Sociology.

Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. 2002. ‘Doing Gender.’ In S. Jackson & S. Scott (eds.). Gender: A

Sociological Reader. London: Routledge.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Jacques Rothmann is a lecturer in Sociology at the North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus.

His research interests include Gender Studies, Lesbian and Gay Studies and Queer Theory. The author

can be contacted at 11 Hoffman Street, Building F13, Ofce 120, Potchefstroom Campus, North West

University.


22/22

Copyright of South African Review of Sociology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

rothmann, jacques -- sociology as bridge over troubled waters- establishing a link between the...

Documents