Is heterosexuality "natural"?

Résumé du document

The most common definition of heterosexuality is that of a sexual identity of somebody who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. According to Richardson, “[Heterosexuality] is constructed as a coherent, natural, fixed and stable category; as universal and monolithic.” But what does “natural” mean? I think that in order to answer this question properly, we should start by examining the different meanings of the word “natural”. First, we will see how heterosexuality could be seen as “natural”, in the sense of “normal”, that is, in accordance with nature, neither determined socially, nor economically, nor technically, nor religiously etc.: heterosexuality being a “good thing” (heteronormativity). Secondly, we will see to what extent the adjective “natural” can be defined in opposition to culture, which is something acquired, artificial and sociologically constructed. Thirdly, we will have a look at mid 1970s feminist writings and how they tried, each in their own way, to challenge heterosexuality, because they perceived it as a compulsory institution. Finally, we will examine the impact of “Queer Theory” on the question of the ‘natural' status of heterosexuality and look at how it puts the very notion of sexual identity into question.

Extraits

[...] However, there might be another way of challenging compulsory heterosexuality. For Judith Butler, sexual identity is beyond the question of gender and as she points out in Gender Trouble, gender does not automatically follow from sex, there is no reason to believe that there are inevitably only two genders.” In her most influential book Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argued that feminism had made a mistake by trying to assert that 'women' were a group with common characteristics and interests. That approach, Butler said, performed 'an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations' reinforcing a binary view of gender relations in which human beings are divided into two clear-cut groups, women and men. [...]

[...] However, this might also be used as a proof that homosexuality, defined as the opposite of heterosexuality, is also natural: a male, who did not receive a high percentage of testosterone, may find himself, later in his life, attracted to other men. Nonetheless, heterosexuality biologically remains the norm. This dysfunction in the quantity of testosterone received does not change the norm. In his book Man and Woman, Ellis assumes that there exists a “natural harmony between the sexes which amounted to ‘cosmic conservatism', with each sex following laws of its own nature'-‘laws' most favourable for reproduction.” For Ellis, human relations are similar to animal behaviour: women are chased and then conquered by men. [...]

[...] Heterosexuality could therefore become natural as nobody would be forced into it. Therefore, gender power is at the centre of the speculation on whether heterosexuality is natural or not. In addition, we have got to bear in mind that Rich generalises a good deal and I think that especially now, in the twenty first century, many more men have come to understand that a love relation can no longer be based upon the enslavement of women . Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott point out in their Introduction to Gender, that “sexuality itself came to be seen as another axis of inequality, in that heterosexuality is the institutionalised norm, routinely privileged over lesbian and gay sexualities”. [...]

[...] Culture conditions us to think of heterosexuality is normal, but this has been deconstructed first by feminists, and later by queer theorists, such as Judith Butler, who gives us a glimpse of how society might be if each individual were allowed to relate to his/her biological sex as he/she wishes, and to define his/her gender and sexuality. Bibliography Jackson, S. and Scott, S. (2002) Introduction to Gender (Course pack) Rich, A. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (Course pack) Richardson, Rethinking sexuality 20) Wright, E. [...]

[...] cultural identity is considered an achievement.' Butler argues that sex (male, female) is seen to cause gender (masculine, feminine) which is seen to cause desire (towards the other gender). This is seen as a kind of continuum. Butler's approach (inspired in part by Foucault) is basically to smash the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors. This idea of identity as free-floating, as not connected to an 'essence', but instead a performance, is one of the key ideas in queer theory. [...]