CLGS

Patricia Beattie Jung, a Roman Catholic laywoman, is an Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University in Chicago. She has published many scholarly articles and co-edited with Thomas A. Shannon an anthology on Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate.

I had lived at the same address behind the drugstore for six years. I made it a point to use local businesses whenever possible and had been a regular customer at that drugstore. After my partner and I opened a joint checking account, I stopped at the drugstore to have a prescription filled. I wrote out a check for the amount of the prescription, but the clerk refused to accept my check, not because of any problem with my account, but because there were two female names on the check. In the clerk's words, "Two female names on the account just couldn't be right." 1

Heterosexism is a reasoned system of bias resulting in differential
treatment based on sexual orientation. It denotes privileged status for heterosexual people and connotes prejudice against bisexual, and especially, homosexual people. By describing it as a reasoned system of prejudice and privilege, we do not mean to imply that it is rationally defensible. Rather we mean to suggest that heterosexism is not grounded exclusively or even primarily in emotional fears or other visceral responses to variations in sexual orientation. Instead, heterosexism is rooted in a constellation of ideas.

Roots of Heterosexism

Human sexuality is thought to be
designed to foster individual fulfillment by drawing persons of different genders into relationship. As the saying goes, "a man without a woman" is believed to be like "a ship without a sail"—obviously incomplete and dysfunctional. (Corollaries are proposed for women.)

This theory of gender complementarity is reinforced by the belief that human sexuality is designed essentially (if not exclusively or primarily) for reproductive purposes. Within this framework, it is "reasonable" to question the personal maturity and sexual identity of men and women who do not serve the family, nation and/or species by having children, particularly if this is a matter of choice. Indeed, in some versions of procreationism, one's status as a "real" woman or "real" man hinges significantly upon one's reproductive potential and/or performance. Operating within this framework, it is also "reasonable" for society to confer status and privilege on heterosexuality and to respond to homosexuality either with homophobia or heterosexism or both.

There is a complex relationship
between this set of ideas and some common emotional responses to homosexuality. Some people might be homophobic because images of male same-sex activity suggest that men can be physically vulnerable, subject potentially even to rape. Images of female same-sex activity may suggest to some that women can be powerful, free of male control, potentially independent of men altogether. These images of male vulnerability and female strength evoke in some people feelings of terror and rage. In a heterosexist culture like ours, they make everyone uncomfortable because they challenge the heterosexist myth to which we have all grown accustomed.

Although heterosexism is often accompanied and reinforced by homophobia, no necessary connection exists between the two. They don't always go together. A gap is commonly found within persons between their ideas and feelings. We can be "out of sync," as it were, with ourselves. So, it is possible for people who are homophobic not to be heterosexist; and for those who are heterosexist not to be homophobic.

A Privileged Place

Heterosexism pervades most dimensions of our cultural life. This "system" of privilege and discrimination shapes our legal, economic, political, social, interpersonal, familial, historical, educational, and ecclesial institutions. 2 Heterocentrism lies at the heart of this system of prejudice. It is the conviction that heterosexuality is the normative form of human sexuality. Within such a framework, the potential for gender role complementarity and procreativity evident in heterosexual couples becomes the measure by which all other sexual lifestyles are judged. It also becomes the measure by which a place of greater privilege is granted to heterosexual persons and to those "closeted" as such.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being heterosexual. That is not the point. The problem lies with turning differences in kind into better or worse representatives of a single norm. If human sexual reality is pluriform in orientation, then the imposition of any uniform norm will produce dehumanizing patterns of discrimination for some and unfair privilege for others.

A closely related example may illuminate. Within traditional patriarchal cultures people believe that the normative form of humanity is male. This androcentrism produces a system of discrimination against females and generates a system of male privilege. Together these patterns of male privilege and prejudice against females create and sustain sexism.

Heterocentrism works in a similar manner. Interdependent patterns of privilege for heterosexual people and prejudice against bisexual and homosexual people generate an incredibly pervasive system of discrimination called heterosexism. Evidence of this system is everywhere. It is most obvious of course in the mounting violence against the gay community. It is also expressed in our ridiculing language about (and demonizing stereotypes of) gays. It is also expressed in civil statutes which discriminate against gays and lesbians in regard to military service, employment, housing, adoption, and insurance practices. Finally, it is expressed in ecclesial policies that deny gay and lesbian couples blessings for their unions and permit the ordination of only tightly closeted gay people committed to lifelong and total sexual abstinence. Indeed it is not an exaggeration to say that heterosexism seeks to erase gay people. It seeks to allow no privilege at all.

No Place at All

Cultures develop many structures to
keep people "in place" in various aspects of their lives. For example, in patriarchal cultures women have a rightful, albeit private, place of activity in their father's or husband's home. One might imagine that bisexual and homosexual people could have a similar "place" in heterosexism. Of course this place would have to be carefully circumscribed like every other kind of ghetto. It would have to reflect as well the subservience and inferiority of gay people to the heterocentric norm.

But the fact is gay people have no place within heterosexist cultures, except their "closet." Gay couples cannot safely celebrate their love in public. Indeed, their identity must be invisible in our public institutions. They may not enjoy their relationships—hold hands, for example—at school, at the local ice rink, at work, at supper clubs, or on the street. Those few places which allow such expression—openly gay neighborhoods and bars—routinely experience all manner of violence, from trashings to bombings. Heterosexism demands that gay people keep their sexual identity hidden. Why? Because no one should publicly parade what is not fully or normatively human (natural).

It is not enough that bisexual and homosexual people keep their sexual life private. Gay people have no safe haven in our culture, not even the protection and safety usually associated with the private sphere, the home. We also silence them in our circle of friends, as well as in other semiprivate spheres, such as the parish. The only acceptable, safe place for bisexual and homosexual people is the "closet." That is where heterosexist prejudice requires such "scandalous skeletons" be kept.

In contrast, most heterosexual people simply take the authenticity of their sexual identity for granted. Very little blocks their becoming self-conscious of their authentic sexual feelings to begin with and the culture reinforces their integral (if not always responsible) expression of these attractions. They also give no thought at all to the great range of privileges that come to them simply and only because they are heterosexual.

In our culture we invite heterosexual adolescents to an awareness of, a mature openness about, and even celebration of, their burgeoning sexuality. Straight people are rarely frustrated or demeaned by norms that would require they inhibit a celebration of who they are and/or whom they really love—unless these affairs are adulterous or incestuous. We do not provide such support and encouragement for teenagers or adults who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. At best we encourage them to closet themselves and to make announcements about their sexual identity that are not consistent with their sexual orientation and/or activities.

In his now classic text on discrimination, The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport noted over thirty-five years ago that the most deep-rooted prejudice in the United States was directed against homosexual people, who, if they could be more easily targeted, would suffer even greater violence. 3 This discrimination is widespread. It has been present since the early colonial period. "As early as 1656," writes Adrienne Rich, "the New Haven Colony prescribed the death penalty for lesbians." 4

A Challenge for the Church

The fact that North Americans accept
the tenets of heterocentrism so uncritically is, arguably, the most significant contributor to antigay prejudice and heterosexual privilege. Christian teachings contribute to the cultural climate in which these tenets flourish without serious question. Church tradition in effect sanctifies the routinization of this form of discrimination and reinforces the invisibility of heterosexual privilege.

Since all persons are made in the image of God, however, Christians also recognize that those who discriminate bear the burden of proof. The time has come for Christians to think critically about the credibility of heterosexism, the adequacy of traditional biblical

interpretations cited in support of heterosexism, and the social costs of heterosexism. The time has come for heterosexual Christians to look seriously at the unearned privilege that comes from their orientation. If this evaluation invites the renewal of church teaching, the faithful must accept this challenge and be prepared to confront, dismantle, and move beyond all the expressions of heterosexism found both in church and society.

Source

This article is excerpted and adapted from "Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge," by Patricia Beattie Jung and Ralph F. Smith. New York: SUNY, 1993. Used with permission. Ralph Smith died in a car accident in November, 1994.

Notes

1. This vignette is a true story.

2. Over two decades ago lesbian feminists recognized the institutional dimensions of heterosexism and began to describe the coercive nature of this system. See Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980)," in Blood, Bread and Poetry: Selective Prose 1979-1985 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986).

3. Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1954).

4. Rich, op. cit., p. 29.

About the author

Patricia Beattie Jung, a Roman Catholic laywoman, is an Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University in Chicago. She has published many scholarly articles and co-edited with Thomas A. Shannon an anthology on Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate.