Jan Clarke

Understanding Multiple Sexualities

The language that we invent to describe experience tends to shape the experience. This is very clear with respect to human sexuality. To date, in part due to religious injunctions which still exist in many parts of the world, our languages of sexuality have been limited (see Weeks, 2011). The ways in which we describe our sexual selves to others, and think privately about our identities and desires, are often impoverished. How, for example, would a mid-30s man describe himself based on a series of same-sex relationships during his teens, a 10-year exclusive relationship with a woman, and bondage fantasies involving older, sexually ambiguous partners? Due to a host of reasons he might choose straight, but he might also select bisexual. Currently, an expanded list might include queer and BDSM-curious, but the choices are limited, and any term or set of terms selected might even be disputed. With respect to English, we operate with a relatively restricted terminology for sexual identities, desires, and experiences that can lead to confusion, anxiety, and even social conflict. This restricted use of language at times lags behind the dramatic changes in the sexual world that have occurred since the 1960s, although Scott’s (1998) research would suggest that the so-called Sexual Revolution was anything but revolutionary in terms of impact on sexual values and ethics. There were certainly some effects, and these social changes were well summarized by Weeks (2007):

Social Influence on Sexual Constructs

Social context, as mentioned in the Chapter 2, has been given relatively little explicit consideration in personal construct theory (PCT) to date. There is a formal recognition of social relationships in terms of the sociality corollary of the theory, or to the extent that people interpret the construction processes of others they are able to play roles in social processes involving others (Kelly, 1955). This theoretical corollary has inspired an entire book to make sense of social processes, individuals, and related topics (see Bannister, 1979; Stringer, 1979), as well as numerous attempts (already mentioned) to sort out the social side of PCT. In addition, Kelly’s commonality corollary—to the extent that one person employs a construction of experience similar to that employed by another person, their psychological processes can be seen as similar—seems to point to social factors to some extent. It remains unclear, however, what social processes and social context actually mean to individuals, self-identity, and especially to their understanding of sexuality. Additionally, the ontological status of various social factors is unresolved within the theory, which is odd and uncomfortable in a personality theory with clinical implications—social interaction and social conditions must be relevant, for example, to a psychotherapeutic encounter if only between two individuals. We feel the need here to consider the potential contributions to PCT, and especially a PCT-based understanding of sexuality, of sociology, social psychology (both psychological and sociological social psychology), and other social science disciplines.

The Nature and Implications of PCT

Sixty years ago, George Kelly, a clinical psychologist from the United States, published two volumes introducing a theory of personality that he called personal construct theory.

Sexual Commodification: Pornography, Prostitution, and Personal Constructs

Sexual desire is a personal, if not extremely intimate, aspect of most individuals’ lives. At the same time, it is an increasingly public part of everyday lives in the form of advertising and other components of global capitalism. In spite of periodic moral outrage and limited restrictive legislation, the sex industry continues to generate massive annual profits internationally. With the assistance of information technologies, this expansion continues with even fewer restrictions. Commercial sex is by no means unique to capitalist economies, but it takes on a particular form as a commodity with the massive reach of global capitalism. The market is not critical of what is bought, sold, and traded, as long as it generates a profit. The process of sexual commodification involves turning sexuality, in all its forms, from reproduction to bodies to sex acts, into objects of economic desire for exchange in the market. While sex as a commodity can be used to sell pleasant and benign objects like crimson lipstick through pictures of naked or near-naked bodies, the trouble with the commodification of sexuality is that sexuality can become detached from people’s experiences, intentionally exploitative, and downright harmful.

Changing Sexual Interests, Identities, and Behaviours

One obvious implication of a theory of human sexuality based on choice is that if something can be chosen it can also be rejected at a later time. The acceptance of a channelized choice, however, means that the rejection of an adopted and employed construct does not mean that the entire system reverts to its state immediately prior to the adoption of the construct. Constructs come and constructs go; they also evolve with system change. As construct system change occurs, there is a very good chance that self-identity, including a sense of the self as a sexual being, is modified. While this may be true for a PCT-based theory of sexual desire, changing sexual desires let alone sexual identity is easier said than done. We may want to alter our desires and sexual engagements but, aside from a sudden and massive alteration in our current system, any change is likely to be slow, difficult, and perhaps more likely to move backward than forward, especially if we attempt it on our own. While epiphanies can and do occur, they are very rare, and long and slow change is more common and often involves help and support, whether through professional or informal helping networks. Though some therapists may believe in the efficacy of their theories and techniques, the change that can occur through formal helping networks and professionals must be seen as slow, gradual, and incremental change.

Power Relations in Sexuality

Many writers from a range of disciplines have argued that all sexual relationships are first and foremost power relationships. Giddens (1992), for example, described sexuality as a social construct “operating within fields of power, not merely a set of biological promptings which either do or do not find direct release” (p. 23), and Brickell (2009) claimed that power “is intrinsic to sexuality” (p. 57). Following a series of interviews concerning sex within heterosexual relationships, Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, and Thomson (1998) came to the conclusion that both males and females collude in promoting a single standard of dominant heterosexual masculinity, the “male-in-the-head” (p. 11). Overall, the view that sexuality and power are intertwined is so common that overlooking the nature and effects of social power in sexuality would be very difficult to imagine. Understandings of power relations in different sexual contexts, complex though they may be, are central to comprehending fully various sexual expressions and sexual relationships. These understandings offer important social considerations for an expanded personal construct theory (PCT). Not only do individuals’ constructs require analysis but social factors such as oppression, privilege, social inequalities, social control, and resistance to power also demand attention. This chapter draws on theory and research from various social science disciplines on power relations in general, and sexuality in particular, to consider how power impacts sexuality and how PCT does and should accommodate social power.

Interpreting Sexualized Bodies

As we create our bodies, our bodies create us. Of course, such a statement carries the proviso that there are many factors, external (e.g., access to food sources, physical threats) and internal (e.g., endocrine system, genetics), that determine how the body takes form beyond intentional changes. The effect of the body, however, is not necessarily a direct effect that impacts the brain or the biochemical processes of the brain; rather, we experience the body’s influence via the construct system and our active and constant interpretation of our bodies. For most of us, regularly monitoring bodily processes and morphology, whether through high-tech devices like blood pressure monitors, or relatively low-tech devices such as mirrors or weight scales, gives us some idea of how we are doing in terms of health, attractiveness, or any number of other concerns. James (1890) saw the body and the other physical objects that we surround ourselves with as components of the material self, one of several aspects of selfhood. The main point that we emphasize is that constructs are required to interpret the information that we receive from whatever source or sources that we consult, and the body supplies us with constant experiences that require interpretation and anticipation.

Anti-militarism: Political and Gender Dynamics of Peace Movements

In Anti-militarism, Cynthia Cockburn critically analyzes anti-war, anti-militarism and peace social movements, and the interconnections between organizations, networks and movements with overlappin...

Contested Illnesses: Citizens, Science, and Health Social Movements

In Contested Illnesses, contributors from the Contest Illnesses Research Group tease apart layers of analysis in different social contexts to expose how environmental health dilemmas are contested....