Jacques Rothmann

‘Doing’ and ‘Using’ Sexual Orientation: The Role of Gay Male Pornographic Film in the Identity Construction of Gay Men

ABSTRACT The taken-for-granted dominance of heteronormativity in contemporary society has been well documented and critiqued in several social science studies. Acutely aware of its fragility and vulnerability (Butler 1991), its proponents constantly seek to reinforce its hegemonic influence through ritualised performances associated with ‘doing’, ‘using’ and performing gender and sexual orientation. The article will provide a theoretical contemplation on whether both the proscriptive and negotiable nature of gender roles can be applied to themes associated with gay male identity in South Africa. This will be done by emphasising the manner in which gay men may possibly ‘do’ and ‘use’ their sexual orientation (cf. Dowsett et al. 2008) through viewing pornography produced in predominantly the United States as well as South Africa. It will be argued that this mirroring of ‘doing’ and ‘using’ sexual orientation facilitated through gay male pornography is evident in three interrelated dimensions of the construction of gay mens gendered and/or sexual self – these being intrapsychic, interpersonal and cultural.

‘Othering’ non-normative sexualities through objectification of ‘the homosexual’: discursive discrimination by pre-service teachers

abstract Heterosexuality is associated with normative, ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ social and sexual relations. Concomitantly, those who do not conform to heterosexual standards are ‘othered’. Conforming to normativity creates the “heterosexual imaginary” (Ingraham, 1996) and perpetuates heteronormativity. This article focuses on the dangers of institutionalised heterosexuality, particularly the objectifying of non-normative sexual and gender diversities as anti-humanist. Snowball sampling was used to select 39 fourth-year pre-service teachers from three public South African universities, and focus group discussions revealed that the responses of many of these have heterosexist and homophobic undertones. The three main themes that emerged are objectification of ‘the homosexual’, conflation of ‘the homosexual’ and accommodation of ‘the homosexual’. In response to these findings, objectification and discursive discrimination highlight the way in which language reinforces a binary logic and further perpetuates heteronormativity. Possible ways of addressing discursive discrimination are suggested.

Human rights: protecting sexual minorities or reinforcing the boundaries of 'the closet'?

ABSTRACT In this article we problematise the fact that human rights legislation, whether intentionally or otherwise, reinforces binary categories such as ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’. This form of ‘othering’ highlights the incongruence between what the legislation offers and sexual minorities’ lived experiences. We argue that human rights thus constitute a double-edged sword that may discourage ‘coming out’. Our critique of human rights is based on the findings of a research project in which 1 086 pre-service teachers across six national public tertiary universities in South Africa participated in a survey and/or in focus-group discussions (FGDs). The survey findings suggested that participants see human rights as implying freedom, dignity and equality for all, irrespective of sexual identity. Yet, a closer analysis of the data revealed that gay and lesbian participants do not necessarily experience the freedom, equality and dignity entrenched in human rights documents. An analysis of the data from the FGDs supported this notion as it revealed homophobic ‘othering’ attitudes on the side of pre-service teachers. Finally, we reflect on the ways in which the boundaries of ‘the closet’ have been reinforced through the ‘othering’ of sexual selfhood and consider how pre-service teachers grapple with some of the complexities surrounding issues of sexual diversity in education contexts.

Sociology as bridge over troubled waters: establishing a link between the principles of lesbian and gay studies and queer theory

ABSTRACT Lesbian and gay studies emerged in the late 1950s and provided what several academics considered a homogeneous representation of the lesbian and gay community. Based on the critique of this view, queer theory came to the fore during the early 1990s, as a political initiative to highlight the diverse nature of homosexual experiences. Both paradigms heralded indefatigable insights into the lives of these two sexual minorities, yet without a necessary bridge between the homogeneous and the heterogeneous. The objective of the article is to provide a theoretical contemplation of how the manner 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.

The (de)professionalisation of the gay male academic identity: Locking the closet door on South African university campuses

ABSTRACT Considered as a principal method in organising forms of sexual orientation, the heterosexual/homosexual binary emphasises the centrality of heteronormativity in the everyday lives of social and sexual actors; thus, homosexuality is not only differentiated from heterosexuality, but potentially also rendered subordinate to its heterosexual counterpart. Using this as a point of departure, this article focuses on a critical qualitative sociological study undertaken into the influence of a binary logic on gay male academics on South African university campuses. The primary emphasis was on these men’s choice either to professionalise or deprofessionalise their gay male identity on their respective university campuses through engaging the contemporary research on the experiences of self-identified homosexual academics as well as the seminal contributions of Erving Goffman (1971) and George Herbert Mead (1962). It was evident from the findings that the participants conform to heteronormativity on their respective university campuses through consciously reflecting on the expectations of their generalised other.

Troubling the teaching and learning of gender and sexuality diversity in South African education,: by Dennis A. Francis. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2017. 156 pp., ISBN: 978-1-137-53026-4.

As the title aptly indicates, Dennis Francis’ new book seeks to “trouble” the ways in which teachers teach and learners learn about gender and sexual diversity in South African schools. Francis draws on research with lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth and teachers over a period of two and a half years in the Free State Province through in-depth interviews and observations. The book chronicles the ways in which current educational policies and ideologies reinforce a hidden curriculum in K-12 South African secondary schools, which may in fact favour compulsory heterosexuality. On reading the first two opening chapters, the book appears to merely serve to converge and repeat existing research on homosexuality in South Africa. Findings from such studies have mostly commented on the incongruence between, arguably, one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and the life-worlds of non-heterosexually identified individuals in civil society. But, as one soon discovers, this research investigation has much more on offer. Francis divides his book into three parts: A theoretical and methodological basis for his findings, a thematic analysis of these findings, and concluding recommendations to challenge compulsory heterosexist rhetoric in K-12 secondary school education. The first part comprises of three chapters. Chapter 1 chronicles the supposed “un-African” view of homosexuality, foregrounded by African traditionalists, religious leaders, politicians, and the regulatory power of school policies. Francis concisely critiques the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Revised National Curriculum Statement which both, in theory, advocates for the promotion of “...human rights, inclusivity and social justice” (p. 7) in primarily the Life Orientation curricula. This notwithstanding, Francis reiterates the findings from several studies which argue that a “...substantial disconnect between progressive legislation...and education policy and practice, from which gender and sexuality diversity is strikingly absent” (p. 7) remains. Chapter 2 continues in this vain, where Francis argues in favour of adopting Kevin Kumashiro’s (2002) research on anti-oppressive education through a critically detailed demarcation of the latter’s approach. In using this source, he adequately locates Kumashiro’s work in a South African school context by engaging the recent contributions of, among others, Thabo Msibi (2014) and Sylvia Tamale (2011). I therefore commend Francis for (inadvertently) underlining the necessity to establish a dialogue between “Northern” and “Southern” theory to retain and encourage a continuous theoretical and empirical dialogue between the two, rather than opting for a totalizing or grand theoretical narrative.