Many cultures hold the belief that normative sexual behavior should be heterosexual in nature and any other orientation is construed as deviance. In most cases, gender, sex and sexuality are usually wrongly conflated. The conventional distinctions of gender as male and female have often assumed that males will fundamentally be attracted to females and vice versa. Such classification of sexuality is defined as the heterosexual matrix where “feminine, heterosexual females and masculine heterosexual males are normalized” (Tredway, 2013). Therefore, any deviation from such classification is characterized as an abnormality since an individual has stepped out of his or her given gendered role into a sexual interaction that is not construed as good sex (Rubin, 1992). The depiction of normalcy in human sexual behavior is an outcome of established conventional social norms; however, such norms are no longer applicable in the modern social dynamic that has morphed abnormal sexuality to normal and acceptable in social and educational institutions.
Heterosexual Matrix
Rubin (1992) examines the dynamic ways that the heterosexual matrix has shaped and propagated sexuality in history. She challenges the concept of sexual essentialism that assumes that sexuality is inherently natural, constant and innately developed throughout human history. Therefore, examination of gender and sex related issues through the application of essentialism as a core framework makes it difficult to challenge established norms that define sexuality since its precepts are unchangeable (Tredway, 2014). The application of such precepts makes people to perceive sexuality in the traditional male-female relationships context. However, the modern world dynamic has significantly shifted to the extent that such definitions are barely adequate in defining sexuality and gender-based issues. The emergence of sexual diversity has negated the established notions of normal sexual behavior and what would ordinarily be construed as deviant or abnormal sexual behavior is seemingly a normal phenomenon in the modern world context.
Rubin (1992) presents the concept of “sex hierarchy” that is presented through a “charmed circle” and “the outer limits” with the aim of explicating the implications of essentialism on human sexuality. The “charmed circle” depicts a representation of sexual acts that are privileged and accepted in society while the “outer limits” represents the sexual acts that are construed as deviant, abnormal and in most cases pathologized (Rubin, 1992). The representation of sexual behavior shows the presence of a permeable boundary that distinguishes good sex from bad sex. Though most people would like to equate their desires to those depicted in conventional social norms in order to feel acceptable or comfortable, the hierarchy of sexuality is progressively changing suggesting that sexuality is dynamic (Tredway, 2014). As such, it cannot be limited by traditional definitions of right and wrong sexual preference or behavior.
The consideration of sexual appropriateness between the older and younger generation demonstrates significant differences and variance in defining sexual appropriateness. For instance, homosexuality, lesbianism and transgender among others have increasingly become normalized and acceptable as non-deviant especially in the monogamous context (1992).
Though considerable progress attained towards acceptance of other sexualities especially homosexuality; however, it is still considered as an acceptable in some spheres include public institutions such as schools. Essentially, sex like racism is inherently a vector of oppression since people and society in general shuns things that are not understood and considering that human sexuality has increasingly become diversified, it is not wholly understood (Walcott, 2010). Therefore, some sexual acts, preferences and notions are construed as abnormal or lesser causing individuals that are different to be oppressed, bullied and stigmatized. According to Rubin (1992) “like gender, sexuality is political. It is organized into systems of power, which reward and encourage some individuals and activities, while punishing and suppressing others.”
Among the impacts of hierarchy of sex is the emergence and perpetuation of moral panic. Moral outrage and panic is response to deviant or abnormal sexual behavior such as homosexuality, infidelity and prostitution have been observed throughout history. Though these deviant sexual behaviors have considerable differences, they are bound together by a common theme of being outside the charmed circle or privileged circle of behavior. The moral outrage and panic is attributable to the fact that such deviant behavior is construed as a threat to established social and cultural norms of civilized societies. Therefore, if the negative, deviant, abnormal or abhorrent sexual behavior are allowed and contrived as normal, then even worse and more outrageous behavior will emerge. For instance, an examination of schools indicates that they are founded and managed on the basis of dominant social and cultural practices within the community. In some cases, religions such as Christianity and Islam influence the development of core vision and mission of such institutions; therefore, issues of deviant sexuality are not integrated in the development of policies and practices within such institutions. As such, when a student depicts deviant behavior, there is a high probability of being shunned, bullied and stigmatized by other students and even the staff.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality has been widely misconstrued as a moral disease which must be shunned in most societies. However, shunning or persecuting homosexuals might have irreversible impacts on society. While, homosexuality is perceived as negating the principle order of things, its impact cannot be ignored. Individual sexuality notwithstanding, society requires all individuals to participate in one aspect or other in its development and growth. Therefore, acceptance of homosexuality as an individual’s sexual dispensation and the way of life should not be allowed to impact negatively on social, economic and political progress (Gershick, 2016).
Consequently, the decision to adopt or shun homosexuality as a norm in society has subsequent consequences; however, whether the consequences are positive or negative towards the society’s well-being depends on the decision made. People who are homosexuals could be doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants, teachers, leaders and others among the various professions in the society. These individuals have a critical impact in society. Therefore, acts of segregation and discrimination against should be viewed as acts against the society’s wellbeing (Hester, 2006). While some may question the morality of homosexuality, it is essential to recognize that sexuality is an individual choice; therefore, should not be allowed to impact the wellbeing of other members in society. However, this aspect can only be realized if homosexuality is openly accepted and recognized in society (Hester, 2006). Utility is realized when homosexuality is accepted since individuals, are able to associate and work harmoniously with people subscribing to differing sexualities.
It is critical to note that where homosexuals are shunned, there are higher cases of discrimination, abuse and conflict. As such, homosexuals are unable to participate in social or economic activities, which they may be more qualified to undertake. In such situations society suffers inferior services, losses potential benefits and critical human capital. Therefore, accepting homosexuality should not be an individual’s choice but choices made by society through social and legal frameworks, which allows homosexuals to associate, affiliate or engage themselves in any societal functions including being offered jobs, services and acceptance in any forum like any other member of society.
Acceptance of homosexuals enables the creation of an environment where change is accepted. As a result, homosexuals are incorporated into societal activities including social responsibilities like child placement and adoption. It has been observed that, among most US families, same sex families have are happier and offer a more conducive environment for child development than traditional families (Tredway, 2014). In light of this, it is evident that homosexuality does not influence people negatively but creates content and happy individuals or families.
The consequences of accepting homosexuality are people who are content and satisfied with their choices, as a result, individual output in contributing to the society’s well-being is optimized. Meanwhile, a decision to shun homosexuals as is the case with racism, can only lead to a divided and discontent society where people avoid one another and are unable to associate or work together (West, 2004). In such a scenario, the society is the ultimate loser leading to a conflicted and degrading society.
Heterosexism in Education
The establishment of the United States sexual education system aimed at reducing the incidents of venereal diseases and promoting heterosexuality through “traditional” sexual expression within marriage. The implementation of this system in the 20th century extended to the 21st century, where it has continued to be harmful and contentious to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and students questioning their sexuality (LGBTQ). This preference dynamic promotes heterosexism through enabling hetero-normative values to persist in education systems and subsequently into adulthood (Wickens, 2010). This leads to a system that discriminates against those who do not subscribe to conventional sexual norms.
The exclusion of LGBTQ issues has pushed them into the margins, consequently, erasing them systematically. The prevalence of hetero-normative culture in education institutions has granted privileges and preference to heterosexual students while discriminating against LGBTQ students. Heterosexism is not only discriminative in educational institutions, but extends to the institutions such as healthcare, government and business. Heterosexism is significantly embedded into traditional and cultural values of society; as a result, deconstructing its instructions of such constricted values is daunting.
The materials that students are exposed to in their home and the context in which such materials are placed influences how they act and think. Media exposure and sensationalism of hate crime have become an integral component of modern news, a fact that students are widely aware. Discrimination on sexuality basis comes from various avenues; administrators and teachers can be perpetrators or victims. For instance, schools where a significant number of teachers are primarily prejudiced against LGBT there is an underlining tension which parents and students can feel.
Discrimination in schools influences students’ life and future profoundly. There are indications that schools continue to be segregated in many regions in the United States. Large numbers of children are constricted into their local public schools (Wickens, 2010). These children have no options or hopes to join private schools attended by their wealthy peers, since they cannot afford it; thus when it’s time for college, they are unprepared. Accordingly, such students are unable to enter into professions which have the potential to level their economic difficulty. Though these students may eventually graduate, they find themselves practically unemployable.
Addressing Heterosexism
Heterosexism is an endemic problem in society; however, in spite of the liberal attributes given to university environments, lower education institutions are not exempted from the wider social-political context in which they are entrenched. LGBT students often experience harassment, negative attitudes and violence on campuses. For that reason, a common school of thought that addresses such challenges is essential. Comprehensive education-wide policies and programs are essential in assessing and changing attitudes towards LGBT individuals (Wickens, 2010). Higher educational institutions have implemented various programs and policies that discourage the prevalence of heterosexism; consequently, significant efforts are required for a comprehensive overhaul of the hetero-normative attitude that has been adopted in most educational institutions.
These include the promotion of inclusiveness and equity for all individuals in the education system through recognizing teacher and student diversity and anti-heterosexism goals in selecting programs and priorities (Wickens, 2010). Essentially, promoting anti-heterosexism education is necessary, since the role of the education system is critical in developing positive societal change that addresses the realities of LGBT issues for parents, teachers and students. Inclusive education policies are premised on the belief that heterosexism assumes it is the only sexual orientation in the entire school system; therefore, denying LGBT students accommodation and affirmation (Gershick, 2016). These policies provide that LGBT students have the right to be represented and included through affirmation in a respectful and positive manner. Hence, they have a right to be treated with dignity, equitably and fairly without fear of violence, discrimination or harassment. In light of this, LGBT students should have recourse avenues without being reprised when they are harassed, abused or discriminated.
The development of anti-heterosexism is an integral objective of education that permeates materials, curriculum, pedagogy, practices, policies and programs. The elimination of heterosexism in school requires educators to embrace their responsibility to be enlightened and reflect on their individual behaviors and attitudes in modeling understanding, respect and affirmation of sexual orientation diversity (Gershick, 2016). The educational curriculum is a critical factor, which contains accurate information and positive images concerning culture and history that reflects the contributions and accomplishments of LGBT individuals.
The adoption of anti-heterosexism policies is critical in recognizing that heterosexism plays a contributory role in harassment and bullying in schools. Thus, counseling programs and counselors should not attempt to change the LGBT students through referral or use of reparative, aversion or conversion therapies (Gershick, 2016). Educators have a significant responsibility in ensuring that access to developmental programs is available for assisting the implementation of policies that address LGBT issues in schools and classrooms.
In light of this, developmental programs should entail curriculum, strategies and lesson plans that aid teachers in addressing LGBT issues in education environments. While the education system attempts to implement programs and policies aimed at mitigating and eliminating the impacts associated with heterosexism, governmental agencies such as the Department of Education must become discernible advocates of anti-heterosexism education through facilitation of adequate resources for implementing change in education system. The agency should also facilitate training, directives and curriculum documents that integrate anti-heterosexism perspectives.
Conclusion
In an effort to demonstrate how some sexual behaviors are treated as privileged over others, Rubin created the charmed circle. It demonstrated that society classified sexuality in the basis of male-female relationships and construed any other configuration or orientation as deviant and abnormal. In reality, society integrates dynamic layers of different and in some instances, competing identities. Consequently, the emerging matrix of interaction of different sexualities can balance out some behaviors or bring them together to emphasize on prejudices cast on individual sexual identities. Social dynamics are ever changing and some sexual behaviors that were considered as deviant or abnormal are in the modern context have become the norm. As such social institutions such as schools need to adapt and integrate social changes that redefine acceptable sexual behavior and orientation.
References
Gershick, T. J. (2016). The body, Disability and sexuality. In Seidman, S., Fischer, N. L. & Meeks, C. (Eds.). Introducing the New Sexuality Studies
(75-83). New York: Routledge.
The Chapter asserts that people with disabilities face challenges in establishing self-satisfactory sexualities. However, in spite of such challenges they are increasingly doing so. The chapter contextualizes disability and describes the experiences of people living with disability.
Hester, R. (2006). The Body as border. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/63ec/19e9bea2f6d0273bbfe135c58f28310ed75b.pdf
The article argues that the modern medical paradigm, biomedicine has led the creation of a relationship between race, gender and disease. It legitimizes violence against gendered and racialized bodies through creation of a health norm based on a universal subject that is white, male and heterosexual.
Rubin, G. (1992). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In Carole, S. V. (Ed). Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (267-293). London: Pandora.
The chapter explores the work of Rubin Gayle as she examines the realm of sexuality and its politics, inequalities and modes of oppression. It presents sex and sexuality is a core issue in society that influence behavior, attitudes and established norms of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Tredway, K. (2013). Judith Butler Redux – the Heterosexual matrix and the out lesbian athlete: Amelie Mauresmo, Gender performance and women’s professional tennis. Journal of Philosophy of Sport 41(2): 163-176.
The article asserts that Judith Butler’s heterosexual matric accounts on how people make assumptions on the basis of what they see. The theory explicates the experiences of people where gender and sex are known classifications; hence, a causal observers assumes a particular sexuality; however, this does not apply to people who depict deviant categories of sex and sexuality.
Walcott, R. (2010). Blackness, Masculinity, and the work of Queer. In Greig, C. J. & Martino, W. (Eds.). Canadian Men and Masculinities: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (191-204). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
The chapter what it means to be a black man in the late western modernity and asserts that in contemporary North America, Black boys live queer lives regardless of sexuality.
West, C. (2004). Prisons for our bodies, closets for our minds: Racism, Heterosexism and Black sexuality. In Collins, P. H. (Ed.). Black sexual politics: African Americans, Gender and the new racism (87-116). New York: Routledge.
The article examines the interplay between racism and sexuality in the United States. The author asserts that neither system of oppression makes sense without the other. As such, racism and heterosexism might be better viewed as sharing one history with similar yet disparate effects on all Americans differentiated by race, gender, sexuality, class and nationality.
Wickens, C. M. (2010). Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of education: a culture of fear, a culture of silence. International Journal of Qualitative studies in education 23(6): 651-670.
The article examines how broad heteronormative discourse circulate and become embodied, negotiated and resisted within high learning institutions and educators. The article finds that colleges maintain hostile environments for LQBTQ individuals and the education systems fail to examine issues dealing with sexuality.
