CHAPTER 5: HETERO- AND HOMONORMATIVE INFLUENCES ON GAY AND
5.8 Conclusion
This chapter explored participant responses collected from in-depth interviews. The presented results included various codes related to the theory discussed in chapter 2 and 3, such as assimilating into or transgressing both hetero- and homonormative culture, reinforcing such normative expectations, gay and lesbian sensibility on campus, gender and sexual identities as fluid, and inclinations towards queer theoretical justifications.
The findings were presented in four sections. The first section focussed on reporting findings as they relate to how participants identified and navigated their own identities. Eleven participants
affirmed their identities as gay men. Likewise, 10 participants affirmed their identities as lesbian women. Six additional participants who did not identify as gay or lesbian were allowed to participate, of whom three identified as pansexual, two as bisexual, and one as bi-curious. This section further focussed on exploring the rationalisation for identifying with these labels, the relationship between participants’ sex, gender and sexual orientation, stereotypes associated with being gay or lesbian, and the sources of knowledge for doing gay, lesbian and straight.
Participants mostly reported the media, friends or peers, family, religion, school, personal experiences and personal searches online as sources of such knowledge. Interestingly, the findings indicate discrepancies in participant answers. For example, Mukwevho, a lesbian participant, acknowledged her stereotypical masculine portrayal typically associated with lesbians but disputed the link between her own sex, gender and sexual orientation. This indicates an openness to transgress this sensible link but still favouring (homo)normative behaviour (assimilating) – an inclination observable in other participant responses.
The second section similarly explored how participants navigated their identities in the larger contexts of straight, gay and lesbian communities on campus. While all participants responded having heterosexual or straight friends on campus, not all participants expressed having gay or lesbian friends on campus. There was no apparent inclination towards the importance of having straight friends. On the other hand, all but eight participants claimed that it was important to have gay or lesbian friends on campus. Fifteen participants experienced challenges when interacting with straight individuals on campus due to a fear of homophobia and pressure to stay in the closet.
Similarly, participants thought that straight individuals expected gay and lesbian students to act according to gay and lesbian societal stereotypes on campus – i.e., gay individuals portray femininity, and lesbian individuals portray masculinity, or completely inhibit their sexuality (act straight). Similarly, participants thought gay and lesbian individuals on campus also expected other gay and lesbian individuals to act according to gay and lesbian societal stereotypes and to not breach the boundaries of typologies such as being a feminine top or presenting both masculinity and femininity. These ideas resemble Duggan’s (2002) theory about homonormativity as being influenced and framed by heteronormative ideals and expectations.
The third section explored how participants experienced the campus climate as it related to the inhibition or exhibition of their identities. Nineteen participants indicated they would rather spend time off campus, more specifically at private homes, with their gay and lesbian friends rather than on campus. This was due to the perception that gay and lesbian individuals were less likely to experience discrimination. On the other hand, two participants thought it was safe to spend time on campus. Most participants felt comfortable exhibiting their identities around other gay and lesbian individuals on campus, where such communities on campus were described as accepting
and understanding. Four participants did not feel comfortable exhibiting their identities due to a fear of being judged or outed by other gay and lesbian members on campus. Additionally, participants mostly felt comfortable being out of the closet on campus but assimilating or liberating depended on specific contexts through daily activities.
The fourth section presented an account of participants’ experiences of discrimination from straight, gay and lesbian individuals on campus based on various factors. Participants experienced discrimination from straight students. Thirteen of the participants ascribed this discrimination to their sexual orientation, seven to their gender identity, four to their race, 10 to their appearance, three to their economic circumstances, and one to their nationality. Similarly, participants ascribed their experiences of discrimination from gay and lesbian individuals on campus to their behaviour as gay men or lesbian women (8), their gender (4), race (2), appearance (6) and economic circumstances (2). Again, participants reported such discrimination on campus stemmed from not conforming to gay and lesbian stereotypes, with expectations to be attractive, rich and masculine for gay men, and lesbian women to stick to labels and not have fluid presentation. Participants also expressed experiencing isolation (7), loneliness (5), anxiety (9), depression (6), low self-esteem (4), suicidal thoughts (3) and declining academic performance (3).
Chapter 5 provided the groundwork for further critical analysis in the following chapter. Theory and literature reviews discussed in the previous chapters were utilised to assist in analysing the reported data. Chapter 6 focusses on critically elucidating on how normative values (hetero- and homonormativity) influence how gay and lesbian students construct and navigate their own identities.