Literary Research / Recherche littéraire, nos. 41-42, 2004

LR/RL

Literary Research/Recherche littéraire 21.41-42 (2004): 314-317

Chrys Ingraham, ed., Thinking Straight. The power, the promise, and the paradox of heterosexuality. New York: Routledge, 2005; 232 pp.; ISBN: 041593273 (pbk.); $24.95

In this volume Chrys Ingraham compiles articles from various scholars that question the history, the validating practices, and the contradictions latent in the heterosexual model. Instead of regarding heterosexuality as a naturally occurring phenomenon, these authors question the basis of our ideological beliefs in heterosexuality by pointing out the challenges that arise when one fails to think within the ideological framework socially established. Instead of simply “thinking straight,” these essays challenge [end page 314] existing ideology and argue that, in most cases, heterosexuality is something learned. Some of the articles contend for a greater understanding of the divisiveness of a system that views men and women as separate and distinct beings. For instance, instead of viewing males and females as opposites, Stevi Jackson argues in “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” that the hierarchical relationship that exists between men and women should be eliminated. Hierarchical divisions of society and of gender roles reinforce a heterosexual binary that serves to maintain male dominance. In this binary, society views women and men as completely dissimilar beings that exist in opposition to one another. Hence heterosexuality becomes a natural and normal component of being. Men and women, however, should not be viewed as disparate beings. It is simply our dominant ideological conceptions that maintain such identifications. In “Crossing the Borders of Gendered Sexuality: Queer Masculinities of Straight Men,” Robert Heasley refines and expands Jackson’s arguments by questioning the definition of “male” in our society and the image of masculinity that dominates in accepted ideologies. Using examples of straight men who do not necessarily fit society’s definition of “masculinity,” Heasley argues that by giving legitimacy to the queer-ness that already exists in the straight world, society would be more apt to expand boundaries and challenge the concept of “male” in covert discourses.

For all of the authors in this collection, it is the presumed transparency and acceptance of heterosexuality as a normalizing principle that is most important. Several authors argue that the discourses that dominate society are imbued with meanings of heterosexual purity that serve to influence our decisions and perceptions. In “‘Someday My Prince Will Come’: Disney, the Heterosexual Imaginary and Animated Film,” Carrie L. Cokely shows how Disney pervades society and acts as a cultural production and reproduction educator. In this article, Cokely demonstrates that the majority of Disney plots revolve around the marriage theme and the white heterosexual wedding. Consequently, society learns lessons about marriage, heterosexuality, and patriarchy that are entombed within Disney’s allegories of magical, imaginary, and moral societal structures. Similarly, Steven Seidman examines mass media to show how heterosexuality acts as normalizing principle in his article, “From the Polluted Homosexual to the Normal Gay: Changing Patterns of Sexual Regulation in America.” Analyzing movies produced between 1960 and 2000, Seidman traces the development of homosexuality representations, which he shows to have evolved during this rather short period. Seidman argues that by the 1990s a shift occurred in America’s perception of homosexuals and that the idea of a “normal gay” emerged. The “normal [end page 315] gay” was different from the diseased homosexual inhabiting previous representations in that he was gender conventional and linked sex and love to monogamy in a marriage-like relationship. Such a “normal gay” served to enforce the heterosexual model by mimicking the actions of heterosexual family life and values. In other words, the “normal gay” learned to perform within a heterosexual construct while continuing to live his homosexual desires. In “The Production of Heterosexuality at the High School Prom,” Amy L. Best shows how the high school prom is, like the “normal gay,” a highly scripted performance of heterosexual desire. Best looks at teen films such as She’s All That, Never Been Kissed, and What Women Want that concentrate on the prom to institutionalize, secure, and naturalize heterosexual love and romance. It is apparent by now that Cokely, Siedman, and Best prove that mass media are used to securing and enforcing dominant gender norms.

The latter are also inflected by racial politics. Three authors anthologized in Thinking Straight highlight and scrutinize race in conjunction with heterosexuality. Chris Brickell begins his article, “The Transformation of Heterosexism and Its Paradoxes,” by examining cultural heterosexism and comparing it to the cultural racism that existed in Britain in the 1970s. He defines “cultural racism” as a racism in which non-white minorities were considered dangerous because they could contaminate white citizens and concurrently bring the downfall of civilization. Ultimately he posits that heterosexuality becomes an invisible driving force that seeks to normalize individuals and to reinstate racial purity. Mason Stokes argues in “White Heterosexuality: A Romance of the Straight Man’s Burden” that the history of heterosexuality embraces a concept of whiteness. Heterosexuality, according to Stokes, actually showcases American racism since whiteness needs heterosexuality in order to reproduce itself. Stokes analyzes Thomas Dixon, Jr.’s novel, The Leopard Spots: A Romance of the White Man’s Burden, to illustrate his ideas and concludes that blackness constituted a threat to white individuals and to sexuality and heterosexuality in general.

The remaining essays in this collection set out to deconstruct marriage by and large, as does Margaret Walsh in “Out of Wedlock: Why Some Poor Women Reject Marriage.” In “Claiming Citizenship? Sexuality, Citizenship, and Lesbian Feminist Theory,” Diane Richardson studies the privileges offered to heterosexual citizens. And in the final essay, “Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace: The Filming of ‘Wedding Advice’,” Karen Sosnoski demonstrates the changing perceptions of marriage through interviews with a variety of people and ages. As an epilogue to this collection, Sosnoski demonstrates that contemporary marriage views are changing and expanding. [end page 316]

The articles in this collection do not disparage marriage or heterosexuality, but they do demand an interrogation and examination of the views that promote heterosexuality as a dominant and normal principle. The wide range of articles in the collection makes obvious the broad and encompassing nature of the debate, and each article builds upon the previous articles to hone and expand the discussion. The only article that seems a bit out of place is the article by Laurie Essig, which examines mermaids and their relation to heterosexuality. By examining and uncovering the heterosexual bias in diverse social arrangements, however, the articles are able to challenge the accepted perceptions of heterosexuality without promoting homosexuality. Instead of endorsing new forms of intimacy and alliance by studying those individuals who exist on the margins of society, these articles want simply to understand and reveal the paradoxes and promises associated with heterosexuality. In doing so, the authors reveal the consequences, privileges, and limitations of continuing to “think straight,” subtly helping those who choose to live at some distance from heterosexual norms.

Lisa Travis

Vanderbilt University