Two Views on the Nature of Homosexuality

Homosexuality may be defined in a fairly simplistic way as individuals having sexual desire for, or sexual activity with, persons of the same biological sex. Such individuals may not, however, necessarily think of themselves or identify as homosexual. There is a strong body of opinion amongst sociologists that homosexuality as an identity is something that has emerged only recently (Schuyf, 2000). This view – a ‘social constructionist’ view – is in contrast to the ‘essentialist’ view that there has always been homosexuality at all times and in all places. Many ‘apologists’ have referred to same-sex relationships and sexual practices in societies throughout recorded history, often focusing upon Ancient Greece, in particular (Bravmann, 1994). These have frequently referred to emotional ties and affection, however, and not solely to sexual acts.

This essentialist–social constructionist debate is not one that attempts to explain the cause of same-sex attraction, though there was a connection with some recent studies which suggested a biological causation of samesex desire. The LeVay study (1991) claimed that there was a difference between gay men and heterosexuals in the size of the part of the brain (hypothalamus) that is linked to sexual behaviour. Hamer et al.’s study (1993), showed a greater presence of particular genetic markers in some gay men. None of these studies is conclusive, but they have strengthened the case for those who support a ‘biological determinism’ or essentialist view of homosexuality. It suggests that sexuality is not a matter of choice but is, in some way, pre-determined. This has an appeal in as much as the individual’s homosexuality is innate and is something over which he/she has no control; as a consequence, it strengthens the case against condemnation and for remedying inequalities (Halwani, 1998). Views on the causes of homosexuality have tended to polarize into a ‘nature versus nurture’ debate. Suggested ‘causes’ have included parenting styles, birth order, parental age, sex abuse in childhood, relationship with parents (dominant mothers and weak fathers) and unsatisfactory relationships with the opposite sex (Sandfort, 2000; Robinson, 2002). The question of the causes of homosexuality is, however, a separate issue from the essentialism–constructivism debate, though there is a tendency for essentialists to consider differences as innate and biological.

The social constructionist view (drawing upon symbolic interactionism) has been developed since the late 1960s by a number of individuals, including Foucault in France and McIntosh and Weeks in the UK. They relate the emergence of the concept of ‘the homosexual’ to the desire of 19th century psychologists and ‘sexologists’ to identify, categorize and ultimately to condemn some ‘categories’ as disordered. Homosexual acts have always existed but the identity of the homosexual is regarded as a 19th century invention (Weeks, 1992). The initial use of the word ‘homosexual’ is credited to the Austro-Hungarian, Kertbeny (1824–1882) in 1868–1869. The terms lesbianism and sapphism came into use between the 1870s and 1890s. They derived from Sappho, who was born on the Greek island of Lesvos, in about 630BC, and established a community of women there after the death of her husband.

Only since the 19th century have individuals been identified as, or have identified themselves as, homosexual. Any variation of desire or behaviour from the supposed norm, such as homosexuality, was labelled ‘aberrant’, ‘deviant’ or mentally ill. It was important to have criteria for identifying such an individual and this encouraged interest in ‘scientific’ bases for classification. Homosexuality, in effect, became a mental illness, with the consequent belief that homosexuals could be subjected to treatment in an attempt to ‘cure’ the disorder. The German psychiatrist Kraftt-Ebing (1840–1902) was foremost in attempting to categorize sexual ‘disorders’, and his initial view that homosexuality was caused by moral degeneracy or mental illness was widely accepted. The American Psychiatric Association did not de-classify it as a mental disorder until 1973, and the World Health Organization not until 1992 (Mind, 2002). ‘Cures’ for homosexuality have included electroconvulsive therapy, aversion therapy, surgery (including lobotomy), chemical castration and hormone treatment. It is argued that a person will only identify him/herself as homosexual if that concept exists in a society (Horowitz and Newcomb, 2001). The concept, however, has not always existed and it does not exist everywhere even now. A person may or may not be born with a same-sex emotional and physical preference, but identification as a homosexual is something a person chooses to do, or has forced upon him or herself. Essentialism is associated with an individual recognizing and accepting a given sexuality. Social constructivism entails a more fluid concept, where identity is the outcome of an interaction between the individual and the social environment, the outcome of which will depend on the specific social and historic context. Homosexuality becomes less a sexual category or sexual preference and more an identity.