Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Previewpdf
Previewpdf
Previewpdf
Roudedge
270 MadisonAve,
NewYork NY 10016
Roudedge
2Park Square,Milton Park,
Abingdon,axon,OX14 4RN
All rights reserved.No part of this book may be reprintedor reproducedor utilized in any form or by
any electronic,mechanical,or other means,now known or hereafterinvented,including photocopying
and recording,or in any informationstorageor retrieval systemwithout permissionin writing from the
publishers.
Library of CongressCataloging-in-Publications
Data
Publisher's Note
The publisherhas goneto greatlengthsto ensurethe quality of this reprint
but points out that someimperfectionsin the original may be apparent.
For
Vagner de Almeida
and
Cathy Stein Greenblat
This page intentionally left blank:
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
INTRODUCTION
ConceivingSexuality 3
John H. Gagnonand Richard G. Parker
AFTERWORD
15 Culture, Structure,and Change 273
Sex Researchafter Modernity
Shirley Lindenbaum
Contributors 279
Bibliography 281
Acknowledgments
SEXUAL SCIENCE
In general,most researchersworking on sexuality have avoided the episte-
mological crisis by declaringtheir allegianceto positivist scienceand to the
assumptionsaboutsexualitythat have characterizedwhat might be called the
"sexological" period, dating from 1890 to 1980, in the study of sexuality
throughoutthe Europeanculture area. In the early decadesof this period,
"sexology" was the revolutionary attempt of a relatively small numberof
researchersand activists to bring sexuality under the control of what was
then understoodas "science."
Theorizing about sexuality as an enterpriseconceivedof and managed
by membersof the new secular,scientific professionsgained independent
force about this time. This does not mean that these new knowledge-
producingdisciplines or their secularideas about sexuality had no history.
In the prior one hundredand fifty years, perhapsbeginningin the middle
[4] Introduction
of the eighteenthcentury, ideasabout sexuality that were not entirely based
in Christian religious doctrine beganto emergein the nascentmedical
profession(see,for example,Foucault 1980; Weeks 1985).
The rise of the masturbationanxiety in the early decadesof the eigh-
teenth century in WesternEurope, for example,was basedon folk/medical
theoriesof the loss of vital bodily fluids through ejaculationon the part of
both men and women. This masturbationphobiahad continuoussupportin
medical communitiesuntil the twentieth century, though the medical theo-
ries underpinningit changedfrom era to era. By the end of the nineteenth
century the fear of masturbationhad been extendedto include all sexual
excitementassociatedwith arousaland orgasm, medicine'sconception
moving from that of a humoral to a nervousdisease.Medical professionals
prescribeda variety of treatments,devices,diets and nostrumsto add to self-
control in the managementof "lust."
In addition to the formulation of specific core beliefs about the natureof
sexuality, physiciansoffered a wide variety of advice on matters of public
policy (for example,the managementof the prostitution of womenand girls
or the containmentof sexually transmittedinfections) as well as advice of a
more personalsort on how to control the sexual impulse. Thesewere the
central texts of what Foucaulthas identified as the rising tide of "scientific"
sexualdiscoursein the nineteenthcentury (Foucault1980).
This body of discourseabout sex was of coursenot entirely freed of the
evolving religious discoursesand practicesthat had constitutedthe sexualin
earlier times. Indeed, the correct lifestyles suggestedby medical science
were identical with the lifestyles recommendedby the religious programsof
the new middle classes.Both Christianity and medicine viewed sex as a
basic drive that neededto be thwarted through self-control and environ-
mental purity-a drive that differed betweenwomen and men-andthat in
its socially correct manifestationresultedin sex betweenmen and women
in marriagefor the purposeof reproduction.However, being quasi-empir-
ical in their doctrines, the medical professionswere vulnerableto greater
explanatorytensionsthan were the dogmatic religious traditions that
precededthem. Thus, medical discoursesbecameincreasinglyinfluenced
by researchfindings, which suggestedthat the various diseaseoutcomes
attributed to masturbationand sexual excesswere causedby germs.
(Perhapsthe discovery of the bacterial origins of tuberculosiswas most
influential in this regard.)
It is important to point out that a more nuancedunderstandingis needed
of the increasingvolume and changingcharacterof sexual discoursein the
nineteenthcenturythan offered by Foucault(1980). In Foucault'sattemptto
correct the myth that the sexual reformersof the end of that century were
Conceiving Sexuality [5]
simply overthrowingVictorian prudery and leading an advancein human
sexualliberation, he has erredin denyingthe importanceof repression.The
creation of new sexual discoursesand practicesas well as the repressionof
traditional ones coexistedin WesternEuropeanculture all during the nine-
teenth century. The suppressionof sexual information among the new
middle classpopulationshas beenwell documented,and someof its behav-
ioral consequences are recordedin the twentiethcentury (Kinsey et aI, 1948;
Hall 1991). Less often recognizedare the ways in which the sexualpractices
and beliefS of various rural populationsas well as both old and new residents
of urban centerswere changedby contactswith representativesand institu-
tions of the new middle classes.Doctors, social workers, school teachers,
new social organizationsfor young and old (from the Boy Scoutsto Fabians)
offered new standardsof respectabilityto the "lower orders," standardsthat
included new definitions of sexual actors, new explanationsabout the
"causes"of sexualbehavioras well as a repertoireof propersex conduct. In
addition, increasedlevels of literacy offered accessto new sexologicallitera-
tures. Thesecontactssuppressedcertain views and practices,offered new
explanationsfor others, and finally offered new patternsof approvedsexual
conduct(D'Emilio and Freedman,1988; Weeks, 1981, 1985).
By the end of the nineteenthcentury, a new collection of "liberated"
thinkers were let loose on the new middle classes.All over the European
continent,new views of sexualitywere proposed,often as modesof opposi-
tion to what was experiencedas the repressivepracticesand doctrinesof the
Victorian period. Not only was sexuality an exemplaryfunction (Freud,
1935), it was an exemplarymode of social resistanceamongavant-garde
groups.No matterhow much we now conceivethesenew doctrinesas new
forms of oppressionand domination,the reformersand radicalsof the times
experiencedthem as liberating. The period was alive with men and women
(more of the former than the latter) who were eagerto reform sexuality. In
addition, outside of the domain of sexology, Europe and to a lesserextent
the United Stateswere alive with a modernistreactionto traditional morali-
ties which had sexualrestraintat their core.
It is in this period that we find the origins of modern "sexology." Its
heroic figures include Freud and his followers (though Freud looms much
larger as a social theorist), Ellis, Hirschfeld, Malinowski, Stopes,Sanger,
Guyon, Reich, Mead, Kinsey and his associates,and MastersandJohnson
(seeRobinson1976). As a result of the catastrophesthat befell all of Europe
from 1914 to 1945 (and EasternEuropeto 1989), the centerof sex research
movedfrom Europeto the United States.As a consequence, with the publi-
cation of what becameknown as the Kinsey Reports,both sexualtheory and
sex researchtook on a cultural cast that was more in the American tradition
[6] Introduction
(seeKinsey et al. 1948; Robinson1976). Even psychoanalysis,with its roots
in Europe, was unable to resist the more optimistic and individualistic
cultural traditionsof the United States.The sex survey quickly becamethe
paradigmaticresearchmethod,with an emphasison the autonomoussurvey
respondent.Each respondentwas given (in the democratictradition) equal
weight in determiningthe representationof the sexuallife of the society.
This processof relocating the sexologicaltradition culturally in the
United Stateswas associatedwith four other interrelatedtransformations.
The first transformationwas in the identity of those privileged to explain
and/or study suchphenomena.The partial transition from church to medi-
cine accomplishedduring the pre-sexologicalperiod remainedincomplete.
While an increasedvariety of certified expertswere privileged in the period
from 1890 to 1970, no one group of expertscame to dominatethe sexual
terrain. Although a numberof social sciencedisciplines have contendedfor
explaining rights (particularly sociology, anthropologyand psychology),
biologists (sometimesacting as such or in the role of socio-biologists),physi-
cians (usually psychiatristsand psychoanalysts),religious leaders,politicians,
andagentsof the state(for example,police officials or socialworkers) haveall
retainedimportantroles in the explanationof sexuality.
In the area of methods,the clinical interview and life history used to
study sexualityup to the 1930shavebeensupplementedby the surveyques-
tionnaire and field work of the 1940s to the 1960s. Still other methods,
primarily laboratory observationand experimentation,were addedin the
1960s and 1970s. Ethnographicapproachesbecomeincreasinglyinfluential
in the 1970s.Nearly all methodsusedin the social scienceswere being used
in sex researchby the beginningof the 1980s.
In addition, the populationsof interesthave expanded.In the earliestdays
of the sexologicalperiod the focus was on thosewho were then considered
the neurotic, the criminal and the perverted.Both who was being studied
and how they were definedwas transformedover the next sixty years.Even
when similar groups were studied (e.g., prostitutesor bisexuals),they were
thought of in different ways. Thus, while men who had sex with men and
women who had sex with women were objectsof inquiry from the earliest
day of the sexologicalperiod, the namesappliedto them have changedfrom
"sinners" and "criminals" to "membersof sexualminorities" or "individuals
with alternativelifestyles" (though the definition as sinnerand criminal have
not disappeared).In addition, the personswho Havelock Ellis describedas
"fairly normal people" have increasinglybeenaddedto the lists of those
studiedby sex researchers.
Finally, a critical changein the climate of sex researchoccurredin the
United Statesafter the SecondWorld War, when the massmedia becamea
Conceiving Sexuality [7]
major player in the representationof sexualityin all of its aspects.By the late
1970s, the media not only transmittedthe results of sex research,it had
becomethe major vehicle for the display and explanationof sexuality. As a
result, the sex researchfindings of the 1980s and 1990swere foregrounded
againsta more sexually explicit media system. Media-originatedstudies of
sexuality and amateursex experts enteredthe researchfield as well. Fake
researchnow contendedwith valid researchin the marketplacefor sexual
information.
In spite of the major changesnoted abovewhich characterizethe "sexo-
logical" period, a numberof important commonalitiesin Euro-American
cultural baggagecould nonethelessbe found during that period in virtually
all thinking aboutsex:
1. Nearly all theorists of this period agreed,for example, that sex was a
natural force that existedin opposition to civilization, culture or society.
While they differed on whethersex drive or impulse was a virtuous force
warpedby a negativecivilization (seeMastersandJohnson,Kinsey, Mead,
Ellis) or a negativeforce that requiredsocial control (see Freud and most
of his followers), they agreedon the profoundpower of sexuality.
2. This imperiousdrive or instinct was embeddedin the individual, and as a
result it was the conductof individuals that was central to research.
Societiesor cultureswere primarily responsiveto, rather than shapingof,
the sexualimpulse. In this sensethe individual and the drive were prior to
the social or cultural order.
3. While not universally agreeing,nearly all theoristsbelieved that there
were fundamentaldifferencesbetweenthe sexuality of women and men,
differencesthat followed upon the natural differencesbetweenthe femi-
nine and the masculine.
4. As a corollary of thesebeliefs in the natural differencesbetweenwomen
and men, theoriesof sexualitywere normativelydominatedby notions of
men'ssexualityand by heterosexualimagesand practices.
5. In this tradition, the justification for undertakingthe scientific study of
sexuality was to reducesexual ignoranceand to createa more balanced
relation betweenthe individual and the society. There were differences
betweentheorists on the degreeto which such a balancecould be
attained,with the Freudianshaving a more pessimisticvision. However,
nearly everyoneagreedthat knowledgewas better than ignoranceand
that sciencewas capableof producingan unbiasedversion of sexuality,
which, if generally understoodand applied, would result in human
betterment.
6. Finally, nearly all theoristsduring the period shareda belief in the privi-
leged characterof positive scientific knowledge. Such knowledgewas
[8] Introduction
viewed as both trans-culturaland trans-historical.While there might be
variationsin cultural practices,they assertedthat the underlyingnatureof
sexualityremainsthe samein all times and places.
(RE)CONCEIVING SEXUALITY
By the middle of the 1960s,it was clear that the sexologicalparadigmwas in
serioustrouble, particularly at the level of explanation(a paradigmis
composedof an interrelatedset of acceptedexplanations,methodsand
observations).The important criticisms came from social scientistswithin
sex researchand from activist groups who were attemptingto reconstruct
centralfeaturesof the paradigmthat were prejudicial to their interests.
Among sex researchers,the roots of this critical perspective(now labeled
social constructionism)can be found amongthose who were influencedby
the North Americantradition of symbolic interactionism(with the emphasis
on symbolic) and pragmatism,the dramatic and interpretativestrategiesof
KennethBurke, and the work of Kuhn, Fleck and Mannhemin the sociol-
ogy of knowledge.The crisis in sex researchwas part of a larger crisis in the
social scienceswhich is reflectedin the rise oflocal theory in anthropology,
in critical studiesin the humanities,and in the work of a successionof influ-
ential Frenchphilosophersand literary figures from Barthesto Baudrillard.
Within sex research,the first step was the reformulation of the general
body of knowledgeabout sexualitywithin a constructionistframework that
emphasizedthe similar characterof that conductas well as the culturally and
historically specific characterof the study of sexualconduct (see,for exam-
ple, Gagnonand Simon 1973; Vance 1991; Weeks 1985). This challenged
both the universalistconceptionof the sexualas well as the privileged status
of scientific inquiry. Further, the constructionistview was that sexualitywas
not basedon internal drives, but was elicited in specific historical and social
circumstances.The generaltheory of sexualscripting emergedas a specific
way of analyzingcultural, interpersonaland mental aspectsof sexuality (see
Gagnon1990; Simon and Gagnon1984).
Straddlingthe boundaryof the academy(including sex research)and
activism, the new fields of feminist studiesand lesbian and gay studieshave
servedto challengethe sexologicalorthodoxy in a variety of ways. The
recognition that genderwas a larger frame through which sexuality in
Westernsocietiesshould be interpretedwas a critical contribution, for
example,of feminist studiesto sex research.This recognition took many
forms: from issuesof who conductedresearch(men did most of the
research),to the models of sexual normality (the sexuality of men was the
norm), to the priority of genderlearning in human development(gender
learning occurredprior to sexuallearning), to the role of genderinequality
Conceiving Sexuality [9]
in shapingthe lives of women and men (the sexualpracticesof women and
men were determinedby inequalitiesin power). At the sametime, though
less recognized,it was clear that the relation of genderto sexuality was not
fixed and that what was being observedin the Euro-Americanculture area
was not necessarilythe only relation that could exist betweenthese two
domainsof action.
The developmentoflesbianand gay studieshasparalleledthe development
of feminist studies,and indeed there have beenimportant overlapsin both
participantsand theoreticaldevelopments.However, lesbian and gay studies
have challengeddifferent featuresof both social scienceand sexological
wisdom. Becausebeinggay or lesbian(to usethe modernnomenclature)is to
belong to a markedsexualcategory,the critiques oflesbian and gay scholars
have often been construedas primarily relevant to sex research.However,
thesecritiques, particularly the ones relevant to the relationshipbetween
identity formation, identity changeand patternsof overt behavior,havemore
generalimplicationsfor social science(see,for example,Plummer1992).
The issue of the relationshipbetweenpersonalidentity and behaviorhas
alwaysbeenproblematicfor researchersof what was once called "homosex-
uality." In the psychoanalytictradition, distinctions were often made
between"true" homosexuals(also called "obligatory" in someformulations)
and "situational" homosexuals.Particularly troubling were personswho had
incongruentpatternsof fantasy, desire,identity, and behavior(often labelled
bisexuals).A variety of specific solutionsto this problemhavebeenproposed
(including Kinsey's decision to eliminate the identity issue), but all have
foundered.More recently, it has been recognizedthat the relation between
identity and behavioris variable and complex in most cultural and historical
settings,that the categories"homosexual;'"bisexual," and "heterosexual,"
"gay," "queer," and "clone" are all social constructswhich are ambiguously
tied to behavior.Clearly, this view has implicationsfor such issuesas ethnic-
ity, religion, genderand class,in which public performancesare often tied to
private identities.
Another dimensionof the lesbianand gay critique of sexologicalwisdom
has been the increasedimportanceof self-identified lesbian and gay
researchersin doing researchon lesbian and gay issues.In the past it was
believedthat "homosexuals"could not study "homosexuality"becausethey
would be biasedor engagein specialpleading. It was not understoodthat
"heterosexuals"might be equally prone to bias and specialpleading-that
homophobiawas as dangerousas homophilia. Indeed, researchby "hetero-
sexuals"might be more biased,becauseheterosexualitywas thought to be
normal and thereforenot a specialform of conduct (here, heterosexuality
meansmore than men who have sex with women or women who have sex
[10] Introduction
with men). The challengeto the idea of the gay personas necessarilya
specialpleaderwas an important critique both of the positivist ideal of un-
biasedresearchand of the idea that same-gendersexual practicesare
abnormal.
Feminist/women'sstudiesand lesbian and gay studiesdo sharea number
of importantfeatures.The first is that their success,while primarily basedon
the efforts of their proponentsto define a new field of study, hasbeenaided
by the willingness of men and heterosexualsto cedethe territory of gender
and lesbianand gay studies.By yielding the territory thesedominantgroups
have beenable to avoid, at least in part, an analysisof men as genderedcrea-
tures as well as an analysisof the socially constructednatureof contemporary
heterosexuality.
In addition, much of the most interestingwork on sexuality in feminist
and gay and lesbian studies has been historical in characterrather than
devotedto contemporaryissues.This hasled to significant tensionsbetween
historical studieswhich emphasizecontinuity, often framing the past in
terms of current categoriessuch as genderor gay, and the presentoriented
social constructionismof sociological and anthropologicalapproachesto
sexualitywhich treat categoriessuchas women or gay as contemporarycate-
gories. A related issue is the degreeto which theorizing sometimes
reinforcescontemporaryrealities ratherthan analyzingthem. It is difficult to
be a constructionistwhen engagedin social resistancesince constructionism
emphasizesthe temporarycharacterof both oppressorsand the revolutionar-
ies. This difficulty itself may lead to historical studiessince the use of a
constructionistapproachto the pastdoesnot appearcritical to currentpolit-
ical challenges(e.g., it is easy to treat "sodomites"as a social construction).
Yet the importanceof the immediatecircumstanceand the needto act in a
domain that is increasinglyunderstoodas a field of power, domination, and
resistance,nonethelesspose a constantchallengefor the developmentof
theoreticalframeworkscapableof providing an effective foundationfor prac-
tical action, social interventionand public policy.
This need for robust constructionistsexual theory building has become
especiallyimportant over the courseof the 1980sand 1990sas a direct conse-
quenceof the emergingHIV / AIDS epidemic. As the relationshipbetween
sexualconductand HIV infection becameapparentand the global dimensions
of the epidemic beganto emerge,a fundamentallack of understandingof
sexuality and sexualconductcross-culturallybecameincreasinglyevident-as
did the direct practicaland political consequences of this lack of understanding
(see,for example,Daniel and Parker1993). Even after a significant increasein
funding for traditional sexologicalstudiesof behavior, attitudesand beliefS in
different settings,there is, in fact, only limited understandingof the dy.namics
Conceiving Sexuality [11]
of HIV transmission.Thereis evenmore limited supportfor the complextask
of respondingto HIV infection through health promotion activities, preven-
tion, or political activism (seeParker1994).
On the contrary, drawing heavily on the insights of social construction-
ism, feminist theory, and lesbian and gay studies,by the early 1990s it had
becomeapparentthat if sex researchwas to make an important contribution
to the fight againstHIV / AIDS, it would have to focus not only on the inci-
denceof particular attitudesand practices,but on the social and cultural
contextsin which sexualactivity is shapedand constituted.Researchatten-
tion would have to be drawn not merely to the calculation of behavioral
frequencies,but to the relationsof power and social inequality within which
behaviortakesplace, and to the cultural systemsin which it becomesmean-
ingful (seeParker1994).
In relation to HIV / AIDS, as in relation to genderinequality and sexual
oppression,an understandingof sexuality and sexual activity as socially
constructedhas thus refocusedattention on the inter-subjectivenature of
sexual meanings-theirshared,collective quality, not as the property of
atomizedor isolatedindividuals, but of social personsintegratedwithin the
context of distinct, and diverse, sexualcultures. This emphasison the social
organizationof sexualinteractions,on the contextswithin which sexual
practicesoccur, and on the complex relations betweenmeaningand power
in the constitutionof sexualexperience,has thus increasinglyshifted atten-
tion from sexual behavior, in and of itself, to the cultural rules which
organizeit. Specialemphasishasbeengiven to analyzingthe local or indige-
nous categoriesand systemsof classificationthat structureand define sexual
experiencein different social and cultural contexts(see Parker1991, 1994).
In a remarkablyshortperiod of time, it hasbecomeapparentthat many of
the key categoriesand classificationsusedin Westernmedicine to describe
sexuallife or epidemiologyare, in fact, far from universal-unshared by
peopleliving in the diversehistorical contextsthat have beena key focus for
feminist and lesbian and gay studies,or in the diverse cultural settingsthat
have increasinglybecomethe focus for HIV / AIDS research.On the
contrary, categoriesas diverse as "homosexuality,""prostitution," or even
"masculinity" and "femininity" may be altogetherabsent,or quite differ-
ently structured,in these societiesand cultures-whileother, local
categoriesmay be presentthat fail to fit neatly into the classificatorysystems
of Westernscience.By focusingmore carefully on local categoriesand classi-
fications, researchhas increasingly sought to move from what in
anthropologymight be describedas an "outsider" perspectiveto an
"insider" perspective-fromthe "experience-distant"conceptsof an
abstractsexualscienceto the "experience-near"conceptsthat the members
[12] Introduction
of specific culturesuse to understandand interpret their own sexualrealities
(seeGeertz1983; Parker1991, 1994).