Sexualities studies: The last 20 years

The last 20 years has seen an explosion of interest in sexualities studies. The field is rich and diverse, including micro-studies situated in specific social contexts (Heath and Goggin, 2009), accounts of practice in particular settings (Saunamaki et al., 2010), organizational sexualities (Hearn and Parkin, 2001), transnational analysis (Binnie, 2004), cultural approaches (Braziel, 2004) and theoretical analysis (Ahmed, 2011; Brickell, 2006). Each academic discipline has developed its own body of sexualities scholarship, for example sociology (Weeks, 2009) and political science (Smith, 2008).

Western sexualities scholarship in the 1990s built on social constructionist accounts (Gagnon and Simon, 1973; McIntosh, 1968; Plummer, 1981). Theory continued to develop through the 1990s, including the work of early queer theory scholars such as Sedgwick (1991), and Foucault's (1976) work was highly influential. The work of second wave feminists (Richardson, 2008) has also been important in the development of the field. Since the 1990s, sexualities studies has been characterized by increasing interdisciplinarity and by the emergence of sub-disciplines. As Plummer comments, ‘the generic field of sexualities is now a mass of diversities, with their own scholars and journals’ (personal communication 10 January 2016, cited in Monro et al., 2017a).

The broader social context is important in understanding the development of sexualities studies over the last 20 years. There was a normalization of varied sexual identities, specifically lesbian and gay identities, in many parts of the world over the 1990s and early 2000s (see Richardson and Monro, 2012). A related globalized human rights movement to support the rights of those with same-sex desires has emerged, but conflicts concerning sexual identities are also increasingly globalized (Altman and Symons, 2016). LGBTQ human rights breaches are challenged by international developments such as the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity (l.9/Rev.1) and the establishment of transnational LGBTQI activist networks (Jonas, 2013). At the same time, homosexuality is illegal in 78 countries and is punishable by death in 7 (Itaborahy and Zhu, 2014), and a backlash has developed against non-heterosexualities that could be termed ‘globalized homophobia and biphobia’. For instance, there is increasing criminalization, state violence, and public discrimination against LGBTQ people in many African countries (Nyeck and Epprecht, 2013). Other factors that structure sexualities have also become pertinent, including the increasing impact of climate change and related socio-political conflicts (see Richardson and Monro, 2012).

This short piece cannot do justice to the wealth of sexualities scholarship that has been produced over the last 20 years, or to the full range of theoretical insights that have emerged. Instead, it draws attention to a few key developments of relevance to understanding, in particular, non-heterosexualities. I cover only anglophone literature, but a wide range of other literature is relevant, for example Viveros (2006).

The first key development to consider is the western emergence of socially viable and recognized identities that are not cisgender. These included, in the 1990s, transgender and genderqueer identities (Monro, 2005) and more recently non-binary identities (Richards et al., 2016). Needless to say, gender variance existed previously, both cross-culturally and trans-historically, but there has been a cultural shift in the West towards what are in effect ‘spectrum’ models of gender. This impacts on lived sexual identities and on sexuality theories in interesting ways; it renders simplistic models of heterosexuality/homosexuality problematic. Instead, we see greater purchase of notions such as ‘pansexuality’ and of ‘queer’ as including all non-heterosexualities. These sit alongside more traditional gay and lesbian identity politics, and the efforts of other groups – notably bisexuals – to gain some visibility in a field that has historically marginalized and partially erased them (Monro et al., 2017a). Further developments will take place in the future, including attention to variations of sex characteristics, and the deficits in human rights and in social acceptance that intersex people have endured over the last 20 years and previously (see Kaggwa, 2013; Monro et al., 2017b).

Southern scholarship provides another vantage point from which to consider both the lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual identity politics of the West and corresponding sexualities studies. Whilst the importance of globalized human rights frameworks supporting LGBTQ people must not be underestimated, the categories of ‘LGBTQ’ are problematic in a globalized context. As many commentators have noted, these are western-originated terms that assume particular configurations of sexed bodies, gender identities, and sexual acts and identities. Other contexts have produced other configurations, for instance the Kothis and Hijras of India (Monro, 2007). Western scholarship seems, in general, not to have adopted broader, more southern-friendly terms such as ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ (SOGI). And, crucially, the provision of development and other aid to support non-heterosexual people is often tied to the use of the terms ‘LGBT’ at a local level in southern countries, and historically in countries such as Russia (see Richardson and Monro, 2012). This process has been criticized by authors such as Gopinath (2005) who analyses the hegemonic deployment of globalized, classed, capitalist relations in South Asian settings (see also Puar, 2007). Complex manifestations of what could be termed ‘homophobia, biphobia and transphobia’ occur in relation to the neo-colonial deployment of development processes and western-formulated human rights discourses. Typically, prejudice against non-heterosexuals and gender-diverse people is bound up with nationalist discourse, often manifested in state policies and/or informal patterns of stigmatization and abuse. This takes place in some countries in the global South (Nyeck and Epprecht, 2013), but also elsewhere, including several European countries (FRA, 2016).

The complexities and uneven power dynamics that are indicated in the foregoing two paragraphs can be interrogated in many ways. Two approaches that deserve further development are those provided by intersectionality theorists and those associated with sexual citizenship theory. Intersectionality theory, which as readers may know originated in Black American feminists' analysis of the marginalizing ways in which race, gender, and class interact (Crenshaw, 1989), has been adopted by sexuality scholars in a number of ways. It is particularly useful in enabling investigation of the structuring effects of specific social forces in combination. An adoption of intersectionality theory without an active commitment to anti-racist scholarship would be problematic however (see Carbado, 2013). In addition, further axes of inequality require more attention, for example national citizenship in relation to non-heterosexual migrants. Also, little intersectional work has been carried out in relation to non-heterosexuals in the global South and examination of the utility of intersectional theories in varied contexts is required.

Sexual citizenship approaches include those developed by Plummer (1995) concerning intimate citizenship, and approaches that foreground rights, discussions about the public/private divide, and debates about the assimilation (or not) of non-heterosexualities into mainstream society (see Monro, 2015; Richardson and Monro, 2012). Specifically useful concepts include ‘universalism/particularism’, which addresses the level at which analysis takes place. Universal human rights pertain to everyone, or to a specific large group such as LGBTQ + people, but risk erasing difference and/or becoming hegemonic. Particularist approaches focus on specific groups, such as bisexuals, enabling more depth of knowledge. However, like universalist approaches, they may risk ‘freezing’ people and identities into particular categories, through their focus on these very categories. This issue has also been raised by intersectionality theorists such as McCall (2005) who discusses ‘strategic essentialism’; the adoption of certain identities and identity categories at specific times, for example in order to support specific rights claims. Debates about sexual identity categories and rights will no doubt continue over the next period of scholarly activity.

This short piece has provided an overview of some of the developments in sexualities studies over the last 20 years, and has highlighted some key themes and concepts as areas for further development. The author takes an unashamedly normative stance in arguing that there is a need to ground academic work in the ‘real world’ of political struggles, alliances and reform to support the rights of non-heterosexuals and those whose sex and gender identities vary from social norms. The next 20 years may allow great opportunities for a more fair and liveable world, but there are also huge challenges ahead.