Another Week, More Normalization

Against or for the normalization of one’s sexuality? That’s a question I’ve wrestled for a while now, and I dedicate this post to the exploration of such. Bear with me as I attempt to show my point.

Our American society has had a troubled history with groups that are seen as separate from a white heterosexual mainstream. The 1950s and 60s saw a resurgence of the fight for civil liberties- this extends to racial, economic, sexual, and other aims. This point in history is not an accurate origin of departure for the argument for gay rights, but it is an accessible one that shows the cultural present.

Mid-century gay social movements were a direct reaction to the marginalization and pollution of the gay identity. That is, the idea of the homosexual was a construct that was not only internalized but it also reaffirmed the heterosexual majority that created it, that is, it created a hierarchy based on a conception of natural laws rooted in procreation and heterosexuality.

It is during this time that the idea of a ‘closet’ was reinforced. Seen in films, and other culture pieces. The ideal homosexual citizen was one that blended into society, the one where the sexuality was solely in the private sphere. This was the normalization of the homosexual, and in the words of Steven Seidman, “Ultimately, normalization is a strategy to neutralize the critical aspects of a gay movement by rendering sexual differences a superficial aspect of self who in every other way reproduced an ideal of a national citizen” (Seidman, 6).

As a response to this claim (which is not exhaustive to queer issues, similar debates are raised in race, women, and class debates) queer theory proposed a new approach, that I inadvertently have used since I was a toddler. The ‘communicative’ approach says that instead of normalizing sex acts, identities, and experiences as deviant or place a moral judgement, one should see them in terms independent to their nature. That is, as a main concern focused on consent, individual responsibility and accountability, and intimacy. This approach calls for the total reject of identification, identification as gay, straight, lesbian. It is a radical standpoint, but a necessary one. It’s ultimate goal(s), if there’s one, is sexual autonomy, which if achieved would not only include the queer community, but would extend to such areas such as abortion, and women’s rights as the individuals would be unbiasedly judged.

In this line of thought, I would like to oppose the idea of coming out, or a closeted self. Not only because with this a gay identity would align better with the queer utopia of non-identification, but it would also expand aid to other expectations and misleading constructions that affect the day-to-day happenings of queer and non-queer individuals. Normalization is not as beneficial to marginalized communities as one may think. Normalized behaviors just mean that these norms have been accepted into mainstream society while still maintaining a social hierarchy. For example, gay marriage, although legalized, is still seen as deviant in some political parties, and gay people are still denied services, and not protected under the full spectrum of the law.

An idea that should be put forward can start with the family unit. For example, one’s parents, and in general, should stop assigning a sexual orientation on a child, where an understanding of the sexual-asexual spectrum should be in consideration. That is, a sexual or asexual assumption should be made, but to place heterosexuality as the default factory setting is negligent. As a personal note, this is what I have done since my early years. I have never had this gay self-realization, I have always been attracted to man, and I’ve never had a coming out. I recognize my own privileged status, to have parents that do not assume my sexuality, and just expect the development of my own sexuality at my own accords. But, this should be applied to the current and future generations of queer kids. As a concluding thought, normalization runs the risk of reinforcing the old hierarchies that have already been in place, therefore a critical understanding is needed, one where it sees differences as what they are, and is accepting of them.