Heterosexism

Whereas homophobia has been understood as the overt hatred of, and discrimination against, gay men and lesbians, heterosexism can be understood as the assumption that heterosexuality is the only form of sexuality and/or is better than any other form of sexuality. Much of the literature on heterosexism has been developed in social psychology. Heterosexism is based on an understanding of the operations of power that contends that it is a result of social conditioning and upbringing rather than an individual pathology that is associated with homophobia. Heterosexism, heteronormativity (the normalization of gender and sexuality within heterosexual constructs of men and women), and homophobia tend to be conflated in geographic inquiry. However, although these are interlocking forms of discrimination, they have developed in different disciplines and offer different insights into the workings of heterosexual power. This entry outlines the presumption of heterosexuality in geographic inquiry and practice and the spatial manifestations of heterosexism.

Geographic inquiry began, in a number of ways, from heterosexist presumptions, for example, the use of the stereotypical family (a woman, a man, and children) as a unit of analysis. In perpetuating the myth of universal heterosexuality through the use of such categories, these analyses have overlooked/ ignored alternative sexual lifestyles. By assuming that those who do geography are heterosexual, geographic practices can also render nonheterosexual lifestyles and identities invisible. For example, those going on field trips can be heterosexist in presupposing that all students/staff will be straight and, therefore, in segregating on the basis of gender/sex in room allocations.

Another key aspect of heterosexism is the hierarchization of sexualities, in particular the belief in the inherent superiority of heterosexuality and thus its inherent right to dominance. Spatial heterosexism can be seen where space is presumed to be straight and other forms of sexuality are (re)formed inferior and out of place so as to maintain the artifice of normalized heterosexual space. Heterosexism often works in subtle ways, and apparent tolerance of difference may hide the processes that (re)make the hegemony of heterosexuality. Heterosexism does not necessarily include the assumption that nonheterosexualites are deviant, yet it can be seen where the presence of alternative sexualities are acknowledged but rendered less important and less desirable than heterosexuality. The everyday nature of these taken-for-granted assumptions renders heterosexuality allegedly better than other forms of sexuality.

Heterosexism is manifest spatially where commonsense norms often regard space as implicitly heterosexual, validating displays of affection between men and women. In this way, the dominant sexuality in everyday spaces often is assumed to be heterosexuality. Nonheterosexual displays are policed through verbal comments, stares, and so on such that difference is noted and degraded (e.g., when nonheterosexual displays are considered flaunting it). Through these processes of surveillance, along with self-surveillance, space is made gay or straight through relations of power that hierarchize sexualized performances. The[Page 209] repetition of heterosexual performances creates the illusion of space as preexisting and as “naturally” heterosexual, thereby “invisiblizing” the sexualized power relations, such as heterosexism, that make it as such. Discourses and practices that (re)make heterosexuality superior to its other (nonheterosexuality) might not be named and might fall outside the remit of “heterosexism.” However, heterosexuality continues to be naturalized and hierarchized in the (re-)creation of everyday spaces.

...