Heteronormativity

David Sibilsky **Heteronormativity** The word heteronormativity was coined by Michael Warner, a literary critic, in 1993. He used the term to describe the way that society sees heterosexuality as the norm when it comes to identity, practices, and behavior. This is not only because heterosexuality is statistically dominant, but also because it is a self-perpetuating norm (Chambers 2007). To put it in much simpler terms, heteronormativity is why people are assumed to be heterosexual until proven otherwise. The term often takes on a much broader definition today, especially by opponents of the societal values that heteronormativity perpetuate. Heteronormativity can be seen as a classification system which dictates the natural order of human sexuality (Foster 2008). There are two distinct genders (complete with a whole list of established norms) which are meant to be attracted to each other and to procreate with each other. Men and women are supposed to date and enter monogamous relationships. This is the way it’s supposed to be. Anything outside this system may be tolerated, but is seen as strange; an anomaly (Lovaas 2007). It is important to make the distinction between heteronormativity and homophobia. A heteronormative culture may breed homophobia, but it is not outwardly anti-homosexuality (or any other type of sexuality). It is simply the idea that heterosexuality is what’s normal. Heteronormativity is ingrained in the idea of citizenship and the concept of family. The traditional family shows a male as the head of the household with a dependent wife. Heterosexual families are still privileged in political discourse (Johnson 2003). In the past, the assumption of a heterosexual norm has influenced many citizen rights and entitlements. Beyond the concept of marriage benefits, heteronormativity has influenced rules/laws surrounding rights to adopt foster children and partner visitation and decision-making in hospitals, to name a few (2003). Many look at heteronormativity as being a problem with society. The classification system automatically tags anyone who does not fit the norm as an outsider. It denies people the ability to define their own identities (Foster 2008). Many people in the LGBT community actively work to fight against this idea. In explaining why he catalogues his homosexual experiences, writer Myron Beasley explains that he believes his narratives can help to rewrite cultural norms and disrupt heteronormativity (Lovaas 2007). That is, he is helping to change the norms by getting his perspective out in a public forum, rather than hiding. By being cast as an outsider, individuals feel less important and less worthwhile (Yep 2003). Likewise, it puts those who are deemed ‘normal’ in a position of power. For a real world example, consider the idea of marriage. In most US states, heterosexual couples are still allowed special privileges that homosexuals are not. Many are clearly uncomfortable at the thought of marriage outside of the established religious norms. Values such as this are so ingrained into our society that they are difficult to break. The problem is self-perpetuating in a democratic society because the majority set the rules for the minority to follow. In this case, you see heterosexuals upholding pre-established societal values despite the fact that these values have very little relevance to their day to day lives. There is a certain privilege to being heterosexual. There is a certain “sense of rightness” obtained by meeting societal standards for “normal”. Individuals who do not meet these standards are often forced to conform or hide their suffering (Yep 2003). This would explain why so many LGBT individuals hide their status, and it’s why you hear stories about LGBT individuals living heterosexual lives. **Gender Roles** Heteronormativity can be damaging to heterosexual individuals as well because of the various norms required to be a man or woman beyond just being heterosexual. Women are expected to take care of most of the housework and work involving childcare. Women are channeled into relationships where they are supposed to take care of men (2003). At the same time, they are more likely to deal with violence in a heterosexual relationship than any other kind, and are reported to have lower psychological health than lesbians (2003). Heterosexual men are tasked with being ‘manly’. They must be physically strong, hide their emotions, and show a lot of self confidence. Femininity is seen as a form of weakness, and so men must take place in an “exhausting and unending performance” to prove themselves. Homophobia and a fear of being perceived as gay are common (2003). Differing from gender roles is looked down upon in the same way that alternate sexualities are. **Connection to Communication** Heteronormativity creates many obstacles for communicating. The idea of normalization stifles those who don’t fit in. Normalization is a “symbolically, discursively, psychically, psychologically, and materially violent form of social regulation and control” (2003). By worrying about our differences and ignoring the similarities, we struggle to find ways to connect with one another. Heteronormativity leads to a confusion of identity. As a society, we face a divide between whom we are supposed to be and who we truly are. Gay, straight, bisexual, or transsexual: we all face an identity crisis due to some sort of deviation from an imperfect norm. We shape our interactions with each other based upon these rules, and we tend to downplay any aspect of ourselves that is abnormal. Norms force us to communicate tentatively and seek approval. By doing this, we ignore what makes us unique and we purposely avoid reaching our full potential because of a fear of being labeled as an outsider. Examples of this are everywhere. A straight male might avoid buying a piece of clothing he likes because he’s afraid he’ll look too “gay”. A straight woman might laugh along with a sexist joke because she doesn’t want to look like an uptight feminist. A gay man might hide his status from his parents for fear of being exiled from the family. These sorts of activities only serve to validate the norm’s position in society. It’s a vicious cycle.
 * Definition and History**
 * The Citizen and Family**
 * Heteronormativity as a Problem**

Chambers, S. A. (2007). ‘An Incalculable Effect’: Subversions of Heteronormativity. //Political Studies//, 55(3), 656-679. Foster, E. (2008). Commitment, Communication, and Contending with Heteronormativity: An Invitation to Greater Reflexivity in Interpersonal Research. //Southern Communication Journal//, 73(1), 84-101. Johnson, C. (2003). Heteronormative Citizenship: The Howard Government's Views on Gay and Lesbian Issues. //Australian Journal of Political Science//, 38(1), 45. Retrieved from EBSCO//host//. Lovaas, K. L., & Jenkins, M. (2007). //Sexualities & communication in everyday life: a reader//. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 98-137. Yep, G. A. (2003). The Violence of Heteronormativity in Communication Studies: Notes on Injury, Healing, and Queer World-Making. //Journal of Homosexuality//, 45(2-4), 11-59. Retrieved from EBSCO//host//.
 * References**