Sexual identity: reply to a reader

                                         
                                                       A reader asks...

Having been deprived of regular contact with the Scottish media for a while -not a great hardship perhaps- I've missed much of the detail of the fun about same sex 'marriage', Bishop Tartaglia etc etc. Lots I could blog about, but perhaps too much: the myriad possibilities of commenting on the theology of the body and the Olympics, historical research and the Church archives and so on whirl and dance before my well sunned brain and do not resolve into a compelling need to utter forth.

So a bit of tidying up instead. Patrick Wright left a substantial comment on my post about strategic essentialism which deserves more attention than it would get from a combox reply:

What you say is highly dubious.

You have confused 'identity' with innate human sexuality. Human sexuality is neither a choice nor can it be changed, and it has a biological, not socially constructed origin.

I agree that identity is socially constructed, and because of this the way in which sexuality is expressed varies according to social and cultural circumstances. 

You state that questioning and ultimately undermining homosexuality as a unifying identity relegates it to nothing more than a desire, not unlike other desires, which I presume could include pedophilic or zoophilic desire. 

Even if homosexual 'identity' is consciously adopted and a 'choice', homosexuality as a basic attraction is not. Homosexual desire is not a paraphilia or abnormality, and homosexual acts do not include non-consenting sex. Human desires do not sit on a common continuum- they all have very differing features, and for this reason some desires are criminalised while others are 'facilitated'. 

I can see how our case for marriage equality might even be improved and certainly not undermined by deconstructing homosexual identity- what basis is there to discriminate against a hard working, tax paying, law abiding couple whose only distinguishing feature is a minor variation in their sexualities?

Now the first thing to say in reply here is that the context of my original post is important. In it, I argued that the debate about same sex 'marriage' in Scotland was being conducted exclusively on essentialist lines: that is, that the dominant -indeed exclusive- public narrative was that there are two identities -gays and straights- and just as straights can marry who they want, so should gays. Moreover, failure to adopt such a position is tantamount to discriminating against another group with a clear identity (say) blacks or women. My point is primarily that such a narrative is not the only one -and indeed not the dominant one- outwith the specific debate on gay marriage in Scotland, and indeed, seems to have been adopted not because it accurately reflects best thinking in this area, but because it is a convenient political tactic.

So my main message -as so often it is in this blog- is that public debate in Scotland needs to be more nuanced and thoughtful than it currently is, and, in particular, in the area of same sex 'marriage', to take more account of queer theory and the construction or performance of sexual identity.

Now I'm not sure if Patrick would object to that general conclusion: I suspect he might simply on the grounds that the issue of same sex 'marriage' is clearcut and doesn't need these complexities. I'd simply reply here that, unless the public debate has really thought through the issues using the best intellectual tools that are available, then there's a good chance that something will go wrong in its conclusions. Crudely, until I see the First Minister publicly reflecting on Foucault's lessons for same sex 'marriage', I ain't going to even begin to trust the process.

Putting those contextual points aside, I suspect that Patrick would actually reject the sort of construction of identity that you find in queer theory:


You have confused 'identity' with innate human sexuality. Human sexuality is neither a choice nor can it be changed, and it has a biological, not socially constructed origin.

I agree that identity is socially constructed, and because of this the way in which sexuality is expressed varies according to social and cultural circumstances. 


So, two points here: a suggestion that I am wrong in regarding sexuality as an identity; and a suggestion that sexuality is biological, and not constructed. I'm not quite sure what to make of the first point: if someone says, 'I am homosexual (and give me my right to marriage)' that seems fairly straightforwardly to be an identity claim. I'm suspicious of such claims -which lie at the bottom of the essentialist narrative- and I can only assume that Patrick is too in some ways. (But I'm loath to attribute an absolute rejection of homosexual identity to Patrick as an implicit acceptance of homosexual identity seems to me to be at the core of his comment.) Anyway, assuming that we agree that homosexual identities are constructed, we then push on to the question of sexuality which Patrick suggests isn't constructed because it is biological.

Now a quick reply here would be that it is a standard claim in queer theory that biology and the body are also constructed or performed -so biology cannot be taken as unconstructed. Moreover, from something being biological or innate, it does not follow that it is permanent: all my children were born babies; none have remained so.

However, this still leaves open the question of what precisely sexuality is.

I tend to follow the three tiered analysis I've noted before, making the distinction between an identity, an orientation and an attraction. If we're not talking about identity here ('I am a homosexual') perhaps we are talking about orientation ('I am generally and predominantly attracted to my own sex') or to an attraction ('I am attracted (sometimes) to my own sex'). Now the first point to make is that even the most straightforward stage here is not that straightforward: an attraction to one's own sex is (of course) an inevitable part of human flourishing so 'sexual attraction' has to be replace 'attraction' tout court. But when is an attraction a sexual attraction? This is not clearcut, not self interpreting (an attraction doesn't spring into mind labelled 'sexual' or 'non-sexual') and not immune to evaluation (see previous post). But in any case, even if I have same sex sexual attraction, that doesn't make my orientation same sex: that's a further step. I'd assume that the most plausible analyses of this step would include a) the making of an act of will; and b) the assessment of the preponderance of my attractions as same sex. Neither of these are unproblematic if you're wanting to sustain an essentialist narrative.

So I'm still struggling here to make sense of a 'sexuality' which is not in some way constructed.

Even if homosexual 'identity' is consciously adopted and a 'choice', homosexuality as a basic attraction is not. Homosexual desire is not a paraphilia or abnormality, and homosexual acts do not include non-consenting sex. Human desires do not sit on a common continuum- they all have very differing features, and for this reason some desires are criminalised while others are 'facilitated'. 

If homosexual acts don't include non-consenting sex, then this would distinguish them from heterosexual acts. Some heterosexual acts are rape; some are not. It used to be a regular (and not totally foolish claim) of feminism that all men are rapists: even if this claim is evidently and literally false, it does emphasize the fact that part of the formation of a virtuous heterosexual agent is learning to express one's desires with respect for the other person. Men have to learn to relate to women without violence: it's not something that comes innately and without social pressure. Moreover, even putting aside extreme cases of paedophilia, sexual desire for fairly young girls is something that has been allowed in some societies: again, the fact that modern heterosexual men have learned not to rape and not to pursue very young women is indeed a matter of social construction. If homosexuals have somehow managed to learn these lessons innately -well, that's quite remarkable and frankly I don't believe it. (And note that the point here is not that someone with a homosexual orientation is a paedophile or a rapist, but rather that, as in the case of a heterosexual-but-not-paedophilic-or-rapist orientation, the homosexual-but-not-paedophilic-or-rapist orientation is constructed and canalized by society.)

All in all, I see nothing here a) to suggest that queer theory is wrong in suggesting that 'sexuality' is heavily constructed and b) a fortiori that, at the least, the sort of essentialism that both Patrick and the current narrative of same sex 'marriage' engage in is so unproblematic that no perspective from queer theory need even be considered.

Where does that leave the question of same sex 'marriage'? Well, as argued before, it leaves the essentialist arguments (gays are like blacks or women: stop treating them badly) highly problematic: sexuality just isn't uncomplicated biology or skin colour. Where the debate then should go is how we should construct sexuality and how the tool of the institution of marriage might or might not have a role in that. But here's where it gets interesting. Why should we want to create a homosexuality which mimics traditional heterosexuality: life long commitment, fidelity etc? For heterosexuality, there is a reason: it's what's required to raise children adequately. But absent such a reason, why does Scottish society think it important to encourage people with same sex orientation to form an identity which, frankly, seems unnecessarily disciplined?

Foucault I think says somewhere that liberalism has two aspects to it: a liberationist strand and a disciplinary one. (Even if he didn't, I'll say it.) Homosexual law reform up till now has been in the liberationist strand: freeing men and women to pursue their desires as they see fit. Now, with the imminent introduction of same sex 'marriage', we're entering into a disciplinary phase where homosexuals are being encouraged to see themselves as having set, consistent desires for only one person, one sex etc. Although this is being touted as a liberation, I suspect that, from the perspective of history, it will be finally seen, not as the logical outcome of sixties liberation, but as part of a twenty first century backlash of control and conformity. (And moreover, a an imposition of a conformity and discipline that serves no useful social purpose and indeed is positively harmful.)