Responses To

?’s In 100 Soc Essay, Research Paper

Exercise 1: Social Construction and Social Identity

The article ?The Social Construction of Social Identity? by Ruth Hubbard begins with the simple statement ?There is no ?natural human sexuality.? This is the basis for the entire article which outlines how society has constructed a ?right? sexual orientation, and a wrong one. To understand how this is done, we must first understand the concept of sexuality and sexual identity. Sexuality can be defined as one?s sexual preferences, or, the manner in which people experience sexual arousal and sexual pleasure. This is clearly different from what we refer to as sexual identity, which is one?s sexual object of choice and is bound up in a web of cultural attitudes and rules. Sexual identity, according to the social construction theory, was simply a feeling that one had for another person. Western Christian values then shaped this into something else, by imposing upon society that sex is only acceptable for procreation and thus heterosexuality is the only acceptable way. Although sex is not considered to be only for procreation in modern times, the concept that heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexual orientation has been objectified over the years into its own reality. Now, the idea has been internalized that heterosexuality is the ?right? way, and therefore homosexuality is bad. Over generations, prejudice against homosexuality perpetuates itself as parents teach their children that it is wrong to explore their sexuality until they ?are old enough to make babies,? (Hubbard 52). Even then, exploration of the opposite sex is taught to be dirty and wrong. Homosexuals who violate these social rules experience much discrimination, and it is in this way that the situations we define as real become real in their consequences.

As discussed in many of the readings, being homosexual is associated with various stigmas. We saw in ?Personal Politics : A Lesson in Straight Talk? by Lindsay Van Gelder, that homosexuals are alienated in much the same way as race minorities and the disabled. For many of these groups, they hear the world being described by society and they are not part of it ? as if they ?looked into a mirror and saw nothing,?(Van Gelder 99). Homosexuals are not accepted as a normal part of society, and for this reason, the first thought in the minds of many is to find an excuse for their ?problem.? In recent years, we have done so by ?biologizing? homosexuality ? or diagnosing it as innate. In doing so, we categorized homosexuals as people who are ?different by nature and therefore [they] should not be made responsible for [their] own so-called deviance,?(Hubbard 54). This makes homosexuality into more of a medical problem and allows society to view these people as a kind of victim, making their sexual orientation more acceptable.

Along these same lines, the assumption that sexual preference is biologically based makes it easier for many people to deal with the shock of finding out that someone is homosexual. One can look back into the past of the homosexual and retrospectively label them as ?different? from childhood. According to Ruth Hubbard, some gay men and lesbians feel that they were born different, however, what most people never talk about is the fact that many men and women who consider themselves to be heterosexual have in fact had strong feelings for a member or members of the same sex. The reason that homosexuality remains taboo in our culture is just that ? people deny their in order not to be ?deviant? in a world that has internalized such a lifestyle as unacceptable.

Because of the general inability to accept any sexual orientation besides heterosexuality, many people feel the need to change homosexuals into something that is acceptable. We saw an example of this in the article ?The Triangular Tube of Pink Lipstick,? by Gail Watnick. In the article, the author lays in bed, describing the heartache and emotional turmoil she faces after confronting her parents with her homosexuality. Her parents, in complete misunderstanding, feel that they must try to change their daughter into a heterosexual by buying her makeup, fancy shoes, and flowered sheets, as if making her appear more feminine would cause her to be attracted to men again. These attempts to change their daughter were done not only to try to convince her that she would be missing out on so much if she were gay, but they also expressed their fear of being discriminated against for having a homosexual daughter. In the end, we saw the parents objects as unrealistic: ?Women or men, pink lipstick or not,? (Watnick 339).

Regardless of how open minded many of us feel we are today, heterosexuals? perceptions of others do change when they find out someone is gay. A few years ago, a family friend (Michael) died of cancer from complications with AIDS. At the time I was too young to make the connection between the disease and its association with the gay community. It was not until a short time ago that many of us were told that Michael had been gay. Sadly, even though he was not even alive, my perception of Michael changed a great deal. It was as if his sexual orientation almost justified, or clarified his death ? this sounds horrible, but it is heartbreakingly true. Regardless of his sexual identity, Michael had been an incredible man and a close family friend. It was amazing, however, t