- - - - - - - - - • • •State, Power, Crime• • • ------~-

- - - - - - - - - - - Key Reading _ _ _ _ _ __ ...__."'"°"'-"'!

Connell, R.W. (1994) 'The state, gender and sexual politics: theory :and'-11
in H.L Radtke and H.j. Stam (eds), Power/Gender. London: Sage;
Hanmer, J. and ltzin, C. (eds) (2000) Home Truths about Domestic Vloleha!.
. 2
Routledge.
.. Kantola I· (2005) Feminists Theorise the State. Basingstoke: Palgrav~. ~ HEJ.EROSTATE: HEGEMONIC
Lupton: c. and Gillespie, T. (eds) (1994) Working with Violence. Basing~~ ' ,latriill•
Phoenix, J. and Oerton, S. (2005) Illicit and Illegal: Sex, Regulation and Soc:Jil; HlftRO;$E),(UALITY AND STATE POWER
Cullompton: Willan.
Lois S. Bibbings

....,.~~~ ...........-~~~~ 1n~oductlon----------

• 111t1!l'comltletH:be·operation of state power in relation to sexualities.

t (h~tydeveloped elsewhere (in particular, see Bibblngs,
Jn. tb!Cbdtext.of Hall et al.'s Polidng the Crisis (1978) and conslde
migbtWp-"U5'!Wlderstand the nature of the state and the moblliza
averrtBe.~years since the book was published. In so doing it als•
cllsaWlcm:df.~lillties, an area which has often been omitted or sld
malnstxeamtdf academic and, in particular, criminological debate.1
blrause 'mlUOderstandfug of virtually any aspect of modem western i
notmenQy1b.tomplete, but·damaged in its central substance to the
• nattbc:orJ:ldtate·a.crltical analysis of modem homo/heterosexual
lllflpvll$. !l610t 1)~ Moreover, as consideration of the state and state pov
been.~ from criminological thinking, this chapter be1
l llada of'tllse,1lbsem:es.
l' thatlBldtl!l:~:were talking about in the late 1970s was, amongs
't . amoralatmhYhtdi was1aken to mean (and/or to have caused) a brea:
dJsclpUn"tJndttdlng""a rise in crime, and was utilized to justify the P'
•I by an.~yauthoritarian state. Thus, Polidng the Crisis id£
ii
lnstltuUaah:bnstructtng ·a consensus around the idea that society wa:
.frmnr'1'i1Uiln by 'the emergence of a new permissiveness. The
-.clency.,...bf.a· collapse of supposedly traditional and comma
- the aufbnts, '.fdentlfied a series of anxieties about 'moral por
-..S). 'ffia~of.famlly life' and the decline of 'traditional mothe
13). SuCb:&cburses ·about degeneration also often identified the
 II
II I
I
- - - - - - - - - - •••State, Power, Crime••• - - - - -- ..,....._-
from a range of sources, including the likes of moral campaigners Mary Wlkltel'-
and Lord Hailsham, who called for society to be 'dean[ed] up' and Juxt31DOSl!llUlm
cems about permissiveness with the 'responsibility, decency and respectabllJW';iW
they argued were supported by right-minded people (1978: 159). Here the.medli'i
was particularly crucial in reporting different incarnations of these view$,
reinforcing their seemingly clear and straightforward truth. However, tlilS ~
moral consensus was not without its contradictions as, for example, whilsflmmordll\Y
denounced within the press, the same publications were simultaneowly SUll~•
an intensely sexualized view of the world through sensationcilist jou:rhallJlblan(l,
tographs of topless women ('Page Three' having begun in the Sun in the·ea.rJr.
This sexualization In tum served to replicate a sense that there was in~~~uuu•
ity and perpetuated a consensus around the need for increased coercion.
Despite this discussion of moral decline and Its associations with..mattm
sexuality, there was in Policing the Crisis no explicit consideration of the
of sexuality being employed, nor was there any attempt to theorize the rote.of
ality here. This, at least in part, was a product of the period In whlch·itbe
was written, as sexuality scholarship was less advanced; notably Fout!ault'«
volume of The History of Sexuality was published in French in 1976 and'..tne.:r.rua
translation was published in Britain in 1979 (Foucault, 1979)•. As a co~
this lack, it becomes necessary to re-cast Hall et al. 's work on morality~ theltgbt
subsequent scholarship.
From the perspective of the early twenty-first century the moral/cgpcems
J notion of state power depicted in Policiug the Crisis could all be said to.co
heterocrlsls, in which the parameters of commonsensical normality .are.~mosllll
I t under attack. In this context, it Is a monolithic notion of apprqpdate.ll~':emSUll
lty which is apparently threatened and requires shoring UI? by .an. aUtfiOli
I • (hetero)state. Consequently, anything which ls identified as being nonhetema
tive (including any behaviour which ls perceived to be a deviation.fro~.
ally constructed standard) tends to be denied, rejected and repres~lly. ine
apparatus. This heterosexual hegemony concerns sex and gender.as weILas
... and seeks to create and reinforce a moral consensus around the 'natural'~
of men and women In all things. Here, then, women and men should·~
l made to behave) In accordance with the roles that they were pllg?O~ bcn
by being appropriately passive or active, submissive or assertlvei llOll':seJDli
(hetero)sexually driven. Indeed, this version of heterosexuali\y. tendsd:a~
certain femininities and masculinities over others and it foregro~(b)Jll$
nance. Consequently, women are secondary and their status and treatJµenti
amongstother things, upon whether they are suitably feminine, espeda1l_y..tn
to matters sexual - thus, we have the idea of the madonna/whore dichott>~
those perceived to be virginal or virtuous (for example, faithful.1wlv,e$ ·and
mothers) women deserve respect whereas promiscuous females and
. • •- &- --........... 11 ... • .,.u.,.. -..t,....'""o" ur:=arr:ant HttlP.:.
• • . -,ffitarostate1 Heiemonlc Heterosexuality and State Power • • • -
:bt a~ges alhnen as, in particular, men Identified as bl, gay and
•bedaml((llltO be·desser entities here.3
tham.xelftlanyways of being un or nonheterosexual, and heteronor
aot JustJdX>Llt:~at behaviour, the practice of sex Is especially Import
Dltext.lllbwtM!Jj !lt-iismot just heterosex that is prioritized; It ls sex acts
vedat!belllg/'ilatural'which are truly heterosexual. Moreover, this v
• OSeJmldft;j1S.ofWrportrayed as being God-given - as The Right Rev. G
IJe BlSbqp.QB.~1e, explained: '[o]bviously the penis belongs In [or Ir
'to' OJ'.I fWlmQ'ihe:vagtna; that this is something fundamental to tl:
dtt'lllf ·{M!W.mlght; 16'.}une 2003).4 Here, then, procreative sex infon
oftBlt''mllUnilhyhen ltcomes to sex, sexuality and relationships. ~
ID Jreepbtg•wmttlliS"establlshment religion perspective, In this version
tbetdeatdbnn·o&61fferent-sex pairing ls marrtage.5
tbe.!DlOralh:dsis depicted by Policing the Crisis In the light of thes<
betelase•uillt)l;Jlleans that, for example, the attack on marriage, in the f<
tlDIPd&filvorce•and "the increase in single-parent families, along wt
111 tha~e:mt>tlier, can be .recast as dangerous wanlngs of tradition
~eroles;-women were no longer confined to being
ln.idie!llnme..tAlsoi 'the relaxation of abortion laws and the lntrod
rmmrcq~lq!WJin.the 1960s·offered greater (hetero)sexual freedom for\\
n and!C)ut€cie:marrlage, signifying that feminine virtue, along wltl
wailbllft& 11b&mtlned1 Similarly, the partial decriminalization ol
se1t:fttxflntll&te. l1960s (s:l. Sexual Offences Act 1967) can be seen
part~:attackupon heterosexuality (whether appropriate or not)
1111UmentS'.f~e<l.moves to police those women and men who transg
Engll~~..'For example, they helped perpetuate the continued
lftbose.:men:Rtentttrea as being homosexual. Thus, despite the appare
of fhe- ~Wj. 1lomO.PbObla and the harsh treatment of bl and ga}
In ~ tffte very legislation which granted male same-sex enco
ICtUall.J 1:1!1$brced heterosexuality because the decrimlnalizatiot
tdle ap af.ao~twas· set·at 21 rather than the long-established 11
~th<lecency and Importuning, continued to penallz<
ICtlvltlel·@ee:fUrther "below), Consequently, these measures in tum
potkla~g·of1ncile homosexuals and instances of homophob
• 'htdb.l!Q} 11991).
attenmfS!to.lfl:>llte, ·control! discipline and punish those who acted o
•ete:rs·af~y normal heterosexuality were common In the c
d11rme (Jfl$1$was: published. But it was not only within the crlmln
that no~sexuals<were persecuted. One notable area in whld
were..dISql)fltnt!tl.was•medlcine. Here, being a gay, lesbian or bl i
• rm!d u ,.IJl,iJUfte'SS;· whim medics and, in particular, the 'psy' profe
r...-......~~ft'l.'l'nncrn rn.>l't'lnn fln•:11mndnnh• tho non:atl"o offorh n

as well as within the criminal justice system and wider society It was.meb1Wbo.
ciated sexually with men rather than women who associated sexually·-.wit&'W
who were most likely to be targeted as such men have tended to be.~
Ing the greatest danger to the heteronormativity, with its prlorltlzationre>t':lfte
ero)male. As we shall see, this focus upon bl and gay men has persisted-.'
This chapter seeks to develop these ideas. In doing so it draws examplesfmdl
media, family, religion, medicine and education. However, the maJorlty.dftlil
cited are legal as 'law remains one of the central coercive lnstitutions,o~I;IUit~P•
state' (Hall et al., 1978: 17n, Also, while it is recognized that EuropeanJawat_ld.Jxlll
have increasingly played a role ln defining the direction and the. patainlllm
domestic changes, the focus here ls upon the changes implemented 1n.1Ulllfan6
Wales and their effects rather than the question of their origins. Tbls?ls,.a
matter of limited space, but ls supported by the fact that the decisio~
these measures, along with their precise shape and practical effects,,have1Ai-r r..nn1111
degrees) been a matter for the domestic state apparatus.
Taking a chronological approach and observing shifts ln the configuratftl
erostate power, the analysis below explores the heteroideologies wb1Ch1;.l~-u p
have underpinned both instances of state repression and reform from.tbaiflt&
through to the twenty-first century. The fundamental argument.here:tls'rtbatlil
first decade of the twenty-first century the idea of hegemonic. Jl.e· itm:it!KUll
remains just as crucial to understandings of state power as It was in 't4e U10S:
Polidng the Crisis was written. Indeed, despite apparent indicatlonstto;thJ.iton
(including possible shifts in the notion of hegemonic heterosexuallty)illPd:
to resist the heterostate, very little has changed.
l noa-smtal'assaults, their appatently dangerous homosexuality an
i In the 1980s the moral crisis discourses around sexuality to whichl'o1f4hf6:
l alluded in the 1970s were reconstructed and took on a new urgencywttllitfte'
of HIVI AIDS. Misinformation and propaganda from various qu~ ith
politicians, the media and religious groups described AIDS as the 'gay.glaglutlll1Cl
l this as a Justification for the persecution of bl and gay men in partictilalle
1987; Thomas, 1993).7 However, It was not only nonheterosexual memwln>owele
targets of discrimination, hatred, vilification and (actual or threatened)v- loltmL.I
i instance, ln 1987 a councillor in South Staffordshire 'called for 9096;0~
~ ICQftatiUJ1y-ofhomosexuallty as a 'pretended family relationship'.
gays to be gassed to prevent the spread of AJDS'.8
Thus, in the Thatcher years the trends which Polidng the Crisis ldendfld-
ued, with male homosexuality as one particular focus. Here, as Thomas-,@9t3)
argued, the ideology of the idealized and safe nudear family was juxta
threat of the diseased gay man. This binary drew and built upon p~
1
• • • • Heterostate: Hegemonic Heterosexuallty and State Power • • • -
nsti~·could.be.extreme. Most often quoted are the words of Sir Ja
Clllh!Bci?Onstable of Greater Manchester: '[e]verywhere I go I see increa
·o~5W.ldlng.around in.a human cesspit of their own making. We r
hom~~dreelyengage Jn sodomy and other obnoxious practices, kr.
dangaadhv.olvea':(Guanllan, 16 May 1987).
putiQUlluinxatnationof the moral crisis scapegoated gay men for HIV/1'
~Jt$lldesei:vfug punishment; thus, the criminalization and int•
·Df-~ualmen was Justified. Whilst the higher age of con
some:aaq1119:1fun1th1S) there .w ere two other offences which provided fur
esfan~pressiom gross indecency penalized gay and bl men for bi
In pU61nt 1~il3tsexual Offences Act 1956) and men were also liable tc
Im f9ttt$1Stently ••. (soliciting or Importuning) In a public placE
[bomORXWtlJl>urposes' (s.32 Sexual Offences Act 1956). The latter pr
most~tly-used.to prosecute 'cottaging' (anonymous male-male
to~
tb1~"1JtDt1o criminalize gay men, there was also a tendency not to
iblcllatll-dlfme seriously. For example, in the 1980s GALOP's (Gay Lon
lbdtor1ng,Gt.1ltm},.research questioned the role of the police both in targe
and rasmt~o.homophobic attacks upon them (see GALOP, 2005: 1
~~1Uld fears abo\lt the 'gay plague' meant that lt was com1
b Jaw- nnrotce.is to. exercise Informal coercive control over gay mer
tbem,U :dilmtniJswhllst also falling to serve them as victims.
~me ctlnilnlilizingtendency, along with homophobia and myths al
) ~te<t Most:notably, these all played their part in the infarr
(199lS);;l\\lhlcbtlnvolved the successful prosecution of a number of mer
mlNE~ 111&:!m~stic ·activities. Judicial comments about the activ
1111'homQPlmljlC.1liemes of the time and, despite the fact that the men ,
IDnDl!C#fan:i\1Yitll.HIVI AIDS were highlighted by the judiciary (see fur
and~ 1993: 358).
lpheret~6b. the.1980s and 1990s repression was evident. Most not
• af.tba1ioJ;il!.Govemment Act 1988 reinforced and legitimated hatre<l
.ftomiitlle<lbeteronorm. It provided that a local authority was
fntenoona11y~romottng homosexuality, publishing material with
al'pmmotfng-ltQmosexuaUty or promoting the teaching in any maintaJ
el tbe 1Jlm •Gonservattve government was dear and was fntendec
:by~ 1lUtborltles and through the state education syste1
• mullitfestWete·'to.Oe..dlscouraged (if possible), repressed and hated, ¥t
•mwOJJantJ~ was the real thing (see Thomas, 1993).
0
ldlStlc~, where it was more possible to behave in what appe.
1!!~![11Dtflleli!rosexual manner or to 'play' a flamboyantly camp chara
 - - - - - - - - - - •••State, Power, Crime•••----_..__ _,__
as FrankJe Howerd, Kenneth Willlams, Larry Grayson, John lnman,.:D~fal
George Melly, Elton john, David Bowie, Julian Clary and Stephen.F.qtllfutli'&r
1980s and 1990s for the most part presented very particular pubUU.'dinapl
nonheterosexuality which were (largely) unthreatenlng to dominant .be~ISll~
discourses and, therefore, could be incorporated into the malnstreanw.'Wttllout
rupting the dominant narrative that such people were problematic, t116!iRd 10
policed and have violence inflicted on them. Accordingly, the abillty.,o6std.u nen
flourish often meant their employing some degree of caution and treadingtaitPJ!tenllllll
hazardous borderline between pennittable abnormality and lntolerableJ&mance.
Jn addition, the supposed abnormality of the male homosexual tendedstb
with other forms of deviance and this too encouraged and legitlmated~rsecutll!
increasing the dangers of being openly bi or gay. Thus, the lmage,of:..theJBQ
paedophile and/or child kJJler was a recunent theme in the contexto~
furores and moral panics about abuse and murder. Such intensely homqphObl
tions or undercurrents were often present in stories expressing fears~
stranger male. Indeed, Collier examines these themes in relation,to[tlie.:DDrtrQal
Thomas Hamilton, who kJlled 16 children and a teacher (1997: 18~_1.'8&8l•
This focus upon male same-sexuality ls by no means to say that.otb.~fOti!~a
ualitles were not also sites of repression: For example, while no formaUllwlllHll!!ftlll
lesbian women from being the primary carers for their children, theyii:lSl~llll•
that role because of negative and stereotypical attitudes within the .faaillJ
they were unsuitable mothers who should be looked at carefully when.itt~
having responsibilities for minors (see Boyd, 1992; Thomas, 1993: 37-8)\
Trans people also lacked rights and recognition of their gender identity,
relation to marriage. The basis of this position, laid down in Corbett.v:>(RJi@dJQ
was that a marriage could only be contracted between a 'natural' maniand.
woman. Th1s precedent persisted through the 1980s and 1990s, agaln:ternft>ltinl
commonsensical moral model of the nonnal heterosexual family unltec:Unni1il
Meanwhile, supposedly errant women who failed to conform to a,pJ1roptlall
eronormative femininity, especially in relation to matters sexual, were:iliketY
scapegoated and subjected to a range of exclusions and discriminatioll$".."'lio
the laws that governed female prostitution directed their attention;~
nallzlng and controlling such women, focusing upon those who ..were.'lli'V!Sllk
ence on the streets. However, prostitution itself remained legal, whWlttlla:men
paid for sex were largely ignored by the law (see Childs, 2000). Such:matfsllftle.
all, merely obeying their 'natural' heterosexual urges and could not, conRQpen
blamed. In the case of the women, however, things were conceived. '.Yett
l as they were behaving In a manner which was unnatural and so desem!Qmllns4Xl
j punishment - although the idea that they were providing a neces$41)' ~
lsted with this condemnation (for example, see Sion, 1977).
. ...~'9
In a similar vein, rape laws, along with attitudes within the crimin81:11
· - -' ~..... -~•r-.na th"t wnmPn who straved bevondl!h~
• • ·~te:, Hegemonlc Heterosexuality and State Power•• • - -
, ISi~ concerns about the breakdown of the traditional family a
lllXletles l&ut!:lbcreases·:in tcrlme Identified in Polidng the Crisis contim
tbe 1980s and!hitottbe.J.9:90s. These discourses tended to blame single mo
••r. anKID8¢otberthlngs,.their immorality. In the 1980s Margaret Thatch1
a.a!tum~-values' focused attention upon how best to bring such w
...aa.Jwtojf)Je_Slmflarly,lin.thel990sJohn Major's call to go 'back to basics' ,
of earDmtQQCemS.about the decline of the family and, in particular, 1
dWDmlQI ~erieohen;.2002: xviii; McRobble and Thornton, 1995: 5
~ wtces from the Established Church often expressed sim.
~acy.of:marriage (for example, see House of Bishops, 19S
.cantfnue<htoibemoan an increased pennJssiveness, particularly whei
WQmen~~n.a retum to traditional morals and, therefore, still pla}
· nstruction:and maintenance of a consensus around notic
sexua1ltY (mu-example, .see.Cohen, 2002: xviii; McRobbie and Thomt•
567, ~!lloweve.r, 11galn its role was not quite this clear-cut. Indeed
c:tot:)'; lfan~11tlerwomen were so often being told to be more appro(
llDdne an6lllesf.exua:Uest; .for ~pie, they be raped, the tabloids slmul
*'ibb!a!fntdDJectifylng the female (but not the male) body and portray!
•bothlSsefttltJm;tthe.".Illale·and available for him. Most significantly, be
CDDtent:tml6e(L10:1'elnfotce.heterosexuality by encouraging agreement abc
ICteptible.iatli:lllilbonal'Whilst also privileging the male and policing f
ether bJ"!IS!ratbigm~supposed promiscuity, holding her responsible
'Y!l:tlmll!'.atlbthot'-telllng.her how to be in order to attract men).
tl,.111~.:that •the. 1980s and 1990s were bleak, oppressive ye
~immsmsalttte!irlWitH. their.association with moral and crime crises w
aabjec!t~Ction,.. discriminatlon, violence and punishment. Ho~e'
ID·saf'fliattflierer.were no attempts at resistance and, In some cases, t
orflbuftbg.:ofr<>ppression. For example, in 1982 GALOP was founc
the ~tesmltltttbarassment of the gay and lesbian communities by 1
to edtzeafeodemirabout their rlghts' (GALOP, 2005: 1). There were a
against zedtton .28,- including the lesbian women who abseiled in 1
lards an4wanage&w lriflltrate the BBC, disrupting the Six O'Clock Nt
1992}.. lbi lddltiont '1he. Greater London Council funded groups I
-U.C»P,, !OOit~'lUlcf.in-1985 South Wales miners joined the Pride march
thanltsJfouupport.duting the .1984-85 strike.!"
~-__._-...........,.,.,,.- ·ifhe 2'90s and 2000s - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - -•••State, Power, Crime••• - -- --+- - -
treatment of a range of nonheterosexualities. Indeed, many have. undlm11111Cllll
celebrated and taken up the opportunities offered by legal changes; partt~·
field of family and gender recognition law. 10 However, all is not as lt:seemstiS!'I
of paradoxes lie at the heart of these apparently liberatory refoans,.m
state ls still able to maintain hegemonic heterosexuality, while slmultaneauslY
porting to have moved beyond heteronormativity and homophobi~
continuance of a moral consensus around sexuality means that there.ts.a.39·
the rhetoric of rights and protection and the reality of discrlminatioremaiattat.
Perhaps most sweeping of all the recent reforms ls the prohlbltioruofi.
tion on the grounds of sexuality in relation to employment, goods,;fadll1let
and education (Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) RegulatiollS'.2008).
Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007) and on the grounds of~~K<llill
" '
ment In the context of employment and vocational training•(SextI·ll$itJmlrnal
(Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999). These extensions of; antl:~@lllO•
laws mean that unfair treatment may lessen In some spheres and wbete.lllhgll
crlmination occurs there ls the possibility of challenge. However, Whlle~ese
....
II sures appear to symbolize equality and rights, the reality can be1 'VeliJ'·
suggesting that a consensus about what ls normal continues and thatmH·uw: · l-•
being done to remedy this. Indeed, studies indicate that dlscrlmlnation1 llllrm..
and ill-treatment are widespread in relation to lesbian, gay, bl and!:trtm
(Stonewall, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Whittle et al., 2007).
In the criminal sphere, the status of gay male sexuality has also bet~:ratlmlll
thereby apparently lessening the scope for the legitimized targeting:ofrtlll<*nhl•
to be bi or gay. For example, the Criminal justice and Public Order..Acti!PM:
'J the age of consent for sexual intercourse between men down.from.U .ta11S
and subsequently the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000iset!ltl.~11i
In addition, the offences of gross indecency and importuning (whl~o
i encounters between men) have also been removed from the statute.'b®lnnd
ual offences are (on the surface) now drafted in such a way as notl1D
against nonheterosexuals. This reflects a general trend towards equalizti:ll'tll&l•
that sexual crimes are largely constructed in a gender-neutral :mannl!n.
example, consensual adult anal sex is now legal regardless oHb&'J~
participants (Sch. 7, Sexual Offences Act 2003). Despite this, the. creatJmt.af
'cottaging' offence has allowed police to continue to target and ·eg.msp gay
(s.71 Sexual Offences Act 2003). As Johnson (2007) argues, althouglllt!ib
a gender-neutral offence, it was enacted with the supposedly problleJ ' muti\!:lliallll
gay male sexual activity in mind and the evidence indicates that1the']?OlltBart
the offence as if it applied only to incidents of sexual activity betwtm.m.en.
context, too, little seems to have changed.
Now also, there has been some recognition of hate crime In relatlontto_...ulJ
Criminaljustice Act 2003 required tougher sentencing for offences.mo~
• • • ·• ··'-'"'-'~ ~nm•~I n.4a,...htinn (<: 141\\ and fn 2008 it wa5 p1rofJl()M:d1JltllJ
• • ·~te:·Hegemonlc Heterosexuality and State Power• • • - -
.seX\llll""1'entatlon as an,aggravating factor, it has not introduced specU
Ukeihae.WlUch.exlst'ln cases where race or.religion are Involved (althoug
llDe of'Wtffln8lin~20081 there were proposals to change this position). Thl
-IOltlnt~"53:)een~uccorded to homophobic than other forms of hate crimE
11.,mattl)ialso -some. evidence that the perspective of the enforcers h
• lnstea6idfd'alllng-1to deal ·effectively with crimes against gay and lesbi<
ponce fbmsinow-empbaslze the need to take such offences seriously and a
~ess of diversity Issues relating to sexual orientation. 11 Indee
sedtil~, gay;- bl'and trans employees12 and those appointed have tl
af1be4ayillblf<=e:Association.13 Now also, rather than just policing Pride at
~!Otneigay:officers very publicly join in the celebration, often wearil
~arty. 14 But, despite all this, there seem still to be issues
•the ~fihomophoblc violence. For example, research suggests th
.....,,Dll!SMb'U>ueJ?Ort such Incidents to the police because of 'previous b;
.~mesfulduded a case where '[t}he policeman let us know he at
wautd,~.outof.the area •. .' (GALOP, 2004: 15, 56, 64).
ca· GbaJ~· talcen 10 suggest that homophobia ls far from eradlcat1
lie cddffilitill$W:and·amongst those who enforce It. In wider society, to
moves fOWlU&'!tll~'trecognltlon of hate crime, surveys demonstrate that tl
Ids fom:imf,Cilm~'llle.high, suggesting that a consensus around the hetei
~mot: example, a survey conducted in two London boroug
6996 Cf~tttlents.a:eported having experienced homophobic violenc
barassnmutlt)lAbelr. llfetlme and 38% recorded such experiences in t
twelvemontbf·(GAI.OP,· 2004: 21, 10).
to :finndlb.igrostltution both the law and policy have changed. In p;
•sexmtl.(Of£ene)!s~ct2003 alms to protect vulnerable women and chlldr
~tegy (Home Office, 2006a) focuses upon welfare and mul
~. .U&til)Ok:Wltll"ttbe. objective of improving women's lives by helping th~
d.smt>WD&.,Thus, on the surface, the state Is no longer so Interested
IUch. WOm$ Nonetheless, the regulation and policing of (appropria
ty, a1bnplth other aspects of female behaviour and identity, conti
I mmrnoo11t&ead;here. Indeed, the moves towards protection and a w
bav~QulY·.serYed to increase the surveillance and coercive control
tes.~ !those women who refuse or fail to leave their allegec
bdblnd:ihl!m<ttod to be subjected to an increased use of prosecuti
and ~ 2005; Scoular and O'Neill, 2007). Meanwhile, the men w
prostitutes are. now also criminalized, although this too seems to res1
WO~ lWbct are. often placed In additional danger by clients' helgl
(Broo'b&Jrtfon and Gelsthorpe, 2003).
adpdQ~ been reformed, in part, In an apparent effort to chan
• lldsl$ndlb..(Olil.Plainantsi ·given what has been identified as an unjm
lttrltlon. ate-{for example, see Sexual Offences Act 2003; Wilson a
 - - - - - - - - - - •••State, Power, Crime•••- -- .........- - - -
views about women (see, for example, Temkin and Ashworth,.2~ al8t
HMIC, 2007). Further, Campbell's (ZOOS) work on rape prevention llter4flaa
another way in which appropriate female sexuality is policed.by .su1iRE!$$11'.t!Utl
texts still stress the importance of being 'ladylike' in order to avoid~
same time, however, there has been an intensification of the sexuaH.?Jtl>n
society with magazines like FJIM, Loaded and Nuts focusing 1upontJthai!ltJale
Increasingly explicit sexual materials which tend to objectify womenJtM!ttll'b!IDlllt
both on freeview digital television programmes and on dedicated teJavl!lblm•
The common element in this proliferation of sexual materials. ~lllOIS
increasing focus upon sex, but more specifically a tendency withlnl~;a.11wu:a
perpetuate longstanding heternonnative images of women and, fst,!Pll:tJtlllJI
female availability to men. Yet, simultaneously, the contradictions!ldenQDIGlH
decades remain as there is still a tendency to decry what is perceivedas;a . ilQCdllll
and, in particular, a lowering of female standards. Thus, In classicatYJ1'11MQ~~
Dally Mail reported that '[t]he traditional famlly unit is in meltdownriluemt
moral values and the rise of single parents' - and this according to •'a 51"\l,ef.'
(28 June 2006). 15 Indeed, there ls an almost continuous outpouring.oBcm:••
stories about women who binge-drink, fight, reveal or do not..'Wear-lUil'deaftag.
serial one night stands and are often criticized for behaving llice1men..
In the realms of the family there has also been change with the..re~Lnfmll
(s.122 and Sch.8, Local Government Act 2003). However, its effects'tUUL .
which lay behind It have continued into the twenty-first centuryz..'MbSO.:
they are reflected in the homophobic bullying which seems to be en
education system (Stonewall, 2007a). In the field of child law, tooFdaiflte
• heteronormatlvity lives on as, whilst there is some recognltiomo£'1Qil!:«dle
i same-sex social parent, there ls still a reluctance to see the latter. as'''831~1iltlm
I Re G, 2006). Also, although the Civil Partnership Act 2004 has-al101wettlifl:lltdllldll
l legal recognition of same-sex relationships, with accompanytng·righ~ lBme'
erocentric views endwe as civil partnerships stop short of being'~
and the distinction ls not merely one of nomenclature. Consequent:b';' ·
reserved for the ideal relationship between a man and a woman (to~
,
I
all othm) and civil partnership ls a form of 'pretended' family relation$1lli>
Stychin, 2006; Wilkinson v. Kitzinger, 2006; Harding 2007). More fundQIM&flall
introduction of.civil partnerships can be seen less as a liberatory.uneasura
i as a reinforcement of heternomatlvlty as it merely replicates •(albt!Iti;gao
marriage model (Auchmuty, 2004; Barker, 2006).
Similarly, 'reforms' In relation to trans people can be viewed 'W1t!l>!IJ10ll!
degree of cynicism as, although the legislation appears radical, agaiIUl~
~
. force and relfy 'normal' heterosexuality. For example, the Gendw~.CQgnltiOI
I. 2004, which allows a man or a woman to apply to be officially 1l~Wled ti
gender, adopts a mental illness model, foregrounding the supposed!.exttem~
.. _,_M~ ~i ...... nManrfar thrnn17h thp ffi0<:e0t Of 'dvsohoria'• In doing so,~
• • ·• lhe ...._te:.Hegemonlc Heterosexuality and State Power • • • - -
n (see::ftn:tbetiBllibings, 2004:. 230; Sharpe, 2007: 70, 72). The latt
lblft 1n-1ha conftgwation of .s tate power, with medics in this particu.
•ltfally..p mtnpnore..otnesponsibillty for judging and policing normali~
lme:lsnatfmlatthat'is .entirely new here, given the past role of doctors
mul.:aDDnlQ.lty1"1ld seeking to cure homosexuality, noted above.
an41.J1QPUlllO\culture:~ere are perhaps signs that the precarious a1
place..~'l>ytbelikes of Inman and Grayson in earlier times t
• sudt m1'X!etltu1s1to ·suggest that perhaps something significant t
for ~,QJ.waru(2005) notes·that trans people are 'everywhere',
~ent!I). Wlbaard advertisements, day-time and reality televisi
ap:~~.al$<>,1.il:Pi:lction, we find that Harry Potter's mentor, Profes!
Is gay"(Jl!&..Ci)b~ -21 October 2007) and even BBC's Dr Who has h
blcoaiQill1fon>and.1beJatter, hero Captain Jack Harkness, now featu.
~~...ClQtt"hwood).·But, despite this apparent acceptability ar
ty·dBmthet!rosexuals (or, at least gay and bl men), in the arts a
Mnrt111~deca4t!S"cnnstdered.here, underlying and pervasive suspicions abc
•m!XUilEJJ - lllft1em_ersist:Thus,lhomophobic constructions of the gay man
••ltln~llS'ltlie·case.of.magistrate and former Deputy Lord Ueutenant 1
, BymnilJtitls..suggests. When interviewed for a documentary abc
In Wal~ & ·~latned>tbat, 'probably it's a suspicion of the mainstrei
fllhaps-WUl!In~'With young people and so on and tliat's hlstorica
r ~1[8Jµtdherdo, don't they. That's the reality.'
16
Similar co
~fatl'orycoundllor, into the limelight In 200617 andgra1
of fbaIBtJ~Ji; 'Medical foumal ·in 2004 (lgbokwe, 2004). Such vie
pow~(l!.tesumably heterosexual) men reveal the sense of a contir
'kn~1:bllt1gaymen really are paedophiles.
~DJ..>tdo, heterosexuality remains the ideal and, for some, t
fmeQP:\tile;IJn·2003-the Rt Rev. Dr Peter Forster, the Bishop of Ches1
--~;u,:pess..~de;thatbomosexuals should seek psythiatric help ln or1
~mdjithus; be cured.18 Forster was a member of the All Souls [
amcR:mnattmtof'sexual immorality in 2002 extended to all such activ
.BdlotJyµhe.:taea of'a moral crisis utilized in Polidng the Crisis, tt
the tiQmodOl\f-and liberalism which they regarded as having lnfiltra•
IDCl.~ety..M'oreover, the Group pointed ominously to an unr
cdh~ruWl\R!h..1hey. warned was leading to a national crisis. 19
- - - - - - - - - •••State, Power, Crime••• ---~---
and its incorrect association with gay men, meant that such. treattmmf
and took new forms, although there were exceptions and challenges«othlt
phobia. Since 1997t under New Labow, notwithstanding-the facM!)ltatfmm
to have become the dominant theme, heterosexist ideologies still 1'1ft\llplD
measures. Indeed, the commonsensical ideas about normality and.11JJOri11LY
Policing the Crisis depicted persist, lurking behind measures and,attitutBnal
which seemingly belle their existence.
Thus, beneath the supposedly calm waters of decriminalization, antt=.tlfsllDI•
recognition and rights lies a hegemonic heterosexuality which. .stlUJ,ailbnlclli
similar notions of acceptability to those of the 1970s. At this level, •ilD>llli1liZlll
Oargely) symbolic (see Aubert, 1966), serving to legitimate ·th~ 11\~te
seeming to govern by consent. Meanwhile, the need for resistan~
20
state has apparently removed (and is removing) injustices. Moreover,-
liberalization also serves to bring nonheterosexual people into sodl!tt
doing allows for the state's increased monitoring, policing and' regUlilbl ti
lives. For example, legal changes allow for the registering: andi:o'1!dlg'llt
heterosexual relationships under civil partnerships law, ensure•themedl
trans people, control people's gender status, increase the survelllance.1111«:
of supposedly wayward women and continue to facilitate the uneq\SIJ'·GJJldDJlll
of gay men's sex lives. Thus, to some extent a different form ofautbo~
here, with the state increasingly constituting, regulating and dlsdp
and relationships, thereby allowing for an 'intensification of state conttoltln
of sexuality (Poulanti.as, 1978b: 203). Here, then, perhaps whatWel.\Sla1be
tion and layering of disciplinary modes of containment', with the:olCt:mrttm•
new (Carlen and Tombs, 2006: 339). Moreover, if this analysis hoUl:s,'SWaJ.,
is little to distinguish contemporary state responses to nonhetero~~
adopted towards terrorism and crime (discussed elsewhere in this vol.. · Stud11$}, 1~1)~.1S-:86.
all (albeit in different ways) tend towards a continuance and ampllflatatm cl
plinary measures and authoritarianism. Here, then, the heterostate-ihqnpClll
legitimacy not only as a result of a consensus around the need iorila\'&
morality, but also, ironically, because of its inclusion of nonhe~
apparent recognition of their rights (see Hall et al., 1978: 321).
As a result, any notion that the heterostate ls in decline ls misplaced~.COQ
hegemonic heterosexuality continue to underpin the reforms amt sutmoseft
shifts. As a result, heterosexuality is still prioritized and privilege<l,.~"tt$t
behaviour and identities peiceived to be nonheterosexual continue to .b e
discriminated against and in various respects controlled and regulated-dnitodt
and new ways. It seems, then, that the more things change, the more~aie
Nonetheless, a more optimistic but necessarily cautious perspectl\1e.i!Sipassllile
it comes to looking for the possibilities of resistance. Thus, it couldllbtt
reforms might be strategically conceived as counter-discourses rd•
nrPrlc;pJy wh11t theV SUDerficiallV OUn>Ort to deliver (and tO a degree dOll@!:l!M~
•••The.~ Hegemonic Heterosexuality and State Power• • • - -
bdem~Jfas already been breached within the law. For examph
pmpta CBIJ.'.~ 1n their gender21 and consenting adults can Iegall
lbeSl111a1JlD8"!~dtsex-acts-regardless of their sex/gender. More signiftcantl3
~dfJellllfonsli.lps, it is connubial heterosexuality that is accordec
ltatUs, sa~ c;ivil partnership which is next in this hierarchy and al
(~ottdlfferent-sex) lie at the bottom of the pile.
• 111i.Ul~tron• ofthe 'redrawing of the lines of acceptability, alon,
om ~Jte&emonic 'heterosexuality, suggests the possibility tha
lnaJn&a1ft:D!s.d';Para8oxes could be exploited 'in order to facilitate refom
(Slm..eNif~ !l'987: -49). However, it is crucial not to lose sight of the neet
Jn~. 'tQ..employ ·such arguments, and both to recognize th
d • retumsltolltha model of the overtly authoritarian heterostate whicl
ID the 1"~!1980S"&Ilcl (to a 'lesser extent) 1990s and to be wary of net
ma)"be-1'~ln order to continue policing the heterocrisis.
i - - - ----..-.::--- Key R e a d i n g - - - - - - - - - - -
<•
CIJIM) ~ualltyas·harm: fitting In', In P. Hillyard, C. Pantazls, S. Tomb
~ Crfmlnology:' Taking Harm Seriously. London: Pluto Press.
WKit'B"•·normal family: C.v. C (A Minor)?', Modem Law Review, 55(2)
CID07) 'BftlMalR•,R ottennd the protection of the traditional family: why same
Is (still))afft!rnlhlStlssue~, Feminist legal Studies, 15(2): 223-34.
0007) ~~~: lhe G'ender Recognition Act 2004 and the perslstenct
'*8gory!'J;Bff1tJrst'~afStudies, l5(1 ): 57-84.
CI006) ~l(CftJlte)' a horse and carriage: the Civil Partnership Act 2004'
(1993) ~: rn&:gleat.i ·r..mlly, Ideology and AIDS in the Thatcher years'
~ T.(itl);~.
dto1SfUl7fil~comments1 to Genevieve Uveley, Michael Naughton, to m)
sexuality .ttb4ents and, in particular, Geraldine Hastings, Kathy Pinney
llldcan~7..
Wliln!:. De' OX(in'd Handbook of Criminology (Maguire et al., 2007) ha!
llke accawd!ra~e-televance of gender (albeit a minor somewhat segre·
),. Wltft.illlbflftf.tt!centlncamation focusing upon this topic in chapte1
D (Helcledsdftn·:andi Gelsthorpe, 2007), sexuality falls to be speclficall)
-..--&~~""' . . Abo..a"n """ .-nn"t-an"r 1- ......,1...,..a ....- """' ...u ...... .-1.., IU... "",.....,-
 - - - - - - - - - - • • • S t a t e , Power, Crime••• ---=------ - - -

there h as not been important work on sexuaUty within the broad 'll'9!.u &ld.a:dlllll
and related fields - Indeed, some of this work is cited here.
2 Trans is an umbrella phrase referring to transgender, transsexucilJ .!IJ&_
people (e.g. see Whittle et al., 2007: 6). The latter are not consldere.{Utbtfifs
3 Of course, other factors, such as race, class, disability and natforlifi~ IJ'lll!ll•
the context of analysing heterosexuality. However, given Umttell ~~
allty ls not addressed here.
3
4 Dow was commenting upon Canon Dr Jeffrey John's (brief) appolntmenllas
openly but non-practising gay Anglican Bishop Oohn was eventyal!t M.GJS;M1.AN.D THE STATE:
withdraw hls acceptance of the Reading bishopric).
S Resolution I.10, Lambeth Conference 1998, www.lambethconferenHi.ritT11:rtll1ililll Al!ITl:IQ;llJ1tAR!I AN.I S.M AND CO ER C 1.0 N
1998/1998-1-10.cfm (accessed on 30/04/08).
6 This poses a stark contrast to the (past and continued) relative:inVIS1Dlllty.-
(and bl) women -see Weeks (1990: 87-111) and Smith (1992) ..
) .on Burnett
7 In contrast, Watney offers a different approach to moral panlcsJn'tbttaon
and lesbian sexuality and AIDS (1997: 38-57).
8 www.stonewall.org.uk/information_bank/hlstory_lesblan__gay789•• 3
on 30/04/08).
9 www.stonewall.org.uk/lnformatlon_bank/history_lesblan__gay/8!tlt$Pl3
on 30/04/08).
10 For example, by the end of 2006 18,059 civil partnerships were. fdnne4'In
(Office for National Statistics, 2007) and by November 2006, 1,66() .peqplil
awarded a Gender Recognltlon Certificate (Whittle et al., 2007.:47.)~
For example, see: www.avonandsomerset.pollce.uk/conununityjlifetj'}l\IU\J
of.D~~fCfiSls'ln 1978, primarily a study of the rise of 'muggin
11 fmaatnen.
of an·trtll
. e responses to it, was a pivotal document gamertng8
the_police_can_do.aspx; www.avonandsomerset.pollce.uk/dlverSttrlbiRm
(both accessed on 30/04/08). br,rond~~an· authoritarian state. Thirty years later its impor.
12 For example, see www.jobs.plnkpaper.com/ArticlePage.aspx?fid=68 (~'da tdth b1a ibeltiOtBtructfon of.a raciallzed moral panic about street crimes
13 See www.gay.pollce.uk/contact.html (accessed on 30/04/08). dds dt:JQlftliJi....,~thougli this ls not to deny the dynamism and deaJ
14 However, not all forces are.comfortable about the wearing of un1fonml Sile
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4640379.stm (accessed on 30/04/08). 18
ec':-dffft~Sfioo'k - ~d rests in the authors' analysis of the con.
15 See www.dallymall.co.uk/pages/llve/femall/artide.htrnl?Jn_artfde~J(t~r.MIS&lll on of nUctiatttl'~oclaI crisis. ·Policing the Crisis never set out to dissect
ld=1879 (accessed on 30/04/08). UQl$ ..n·
tbat't& 11ouths
. as folk devils in order to argue that· th ere was, in
16 See www.plnknews.co.uk/news/vlew.php?ld=7326 (accessed onaQ/.Ol/om. iQC1&..,.J1llillc-merety acted to embed a set of racist policies and
reportedly investigated by the police for these comments, althQ'1gatllbll hautA ~;'1lS the'authors argued, the consolidation of racism was
whether any further action has or will be taken. pptlll!d.:Jralln;t,.'lt assertea that through the 1970s there was Indeed
Willows was convicted of a public order offence (Daily Mail, lZ.Jllnmber
17
www.dallymail.co.uk/pages/live/artlcles/news/news.html?Jn_artl~
rlty.rev.et~~g.through~the British state, wherein 'there is an open,
page_ld=l 770 (accessed on 30/04/08). OD tftal\Vftdla:klea·of"equabty, a shameless advocacy of elitism and a
18 111e Dally Telegrupl1, 10 November 2003, www.telegraph.eo.uk/n:ews:tmMlll:r;ilMlll that hlng-dffflm!(a~a·of equillity' (Hall et al., 1978: 314). '
news/2003/11/10/nblshlO.xml (accessed on 30/04/08). Followfn(f"C?O tba a&tUR>r.t 6"ocumented discussed in detail how the 'post-1970
was a police investigation Into the comment but it ls not clear w~~turdlll WUpobl!dlP.an ''exceptfonal moment' {ibid.: 317). As they stated:
was taken.
19 See www.ceec.lnfo/library/positional/All%205ouls%20Day%20Statt!Qarlt
Group was part of the Church of England Evangellcal Coundlt.i ~
~of.andlfotr Bn~sh capltalis.~; t~e crisis, specifically, of an advanced
express a range of similar concerns about sex. See www.c.eec.lhflT/ i(Uoth : nadorr,. ~l<ing to stabd1se itself In rapidly changing global and
' ;..·~ 30/04/08). .on aa -e>c'ttemely weak, post-Imperial economic base. (ibid.)
J ~' 20 This ls not to suggest that all resistance has ceased. For. ~m_ple, S
~· GALOP. along with the trans pressure group Press for Change1,toJltlttue1D a alsB oJ,1ft~'~ations of social forces'; of ~rganlzfng alliances and
. ,• and resean:h. See: www.stonewall.org.uk/; www.galop.org.u~; ;1ln\li·:Mllw. of 'Drm6Ulh~egemonlc political leadershlp into and through "the
3!!*1.~~'ti.iitwas a crisis of the state throuJ?h whlch restruc-
0

.-=i!Jl!!..;