CHAPTER 6: I HAVE EXPERIENCED MORE HATE FROM MY FELLOW GAYS THAN
6.3 To assimilate or transgress: that’s the question
In this regard, Love (2009) argues that gay and lesbian individuals may gain access to the in- group if they disconnect themselves from the out-group, namely individuals of colour, non- monogamous individuals, individuals that are unemployed and poor, and those not conforming to hegemonic gender norms. In other words, privilege is awarded to those distancing themselves from the “radically queer” individuals (Epstein, 1998). Two participants saw homonormative typologies as the “rule books” of depicting expected behaviour – a sentiment echoed by Duggan (2002), Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan (2016) and Love (2009). Fourteen participants felt gay and lesbian communities expect others to act in a certain way, whereas 11 participants disagreed.
Participants indicated that gay and lesbian communities expect their members to portray stereotypical gay and lesbian depictions, fit the mould, and “to behave the same”. This relates to Altman (1982:148) and Rothmann’s (2014:88) arguments that assuming homogeneous and stereotypical gay and lesbian identities or “sensibilities” (i.e., stereotypical qualities innately associated with gay men and lesbian women) could suggest that gay and lesbian individuals may choose to assimilate into rather than transgress normative expectations to safeguard themselves.
hetero- and homonormative behaviour to fit in on campus (Croce, 2015; Duggan, 2002; Ryan, 2016; Van den Berg, 2016). Participants recalled acting straight both on- and off-campus, and most frequently amongst particularly straight men, in order to avoid homophobia, to gain respect, keep themselves safe, and to keep heterosexual students comfortable (i.e., doing it for “for other people’s sakes”) – a clear attempt to conform to narrow and accepted homonormative typologies to gain access to and inclusion into mainstream campus activities (Clare, 2013; Duggan, 2002;
Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, 2016; Love, 2009) while avoiding marginalisation that stems from not conforming (Clare, 2013; Love, 2009; Murphy et al., 2008).
Van den Berg (2016), supported by Eribon (2004), argues that finding acceptance in a heterosexual society through assimilation results in a “double-bind” by simultaneously disassimilating through encouraging others to integrate into the dominant social order (hetero- and homonormativity) while being forced back into the closet through subordination to the dominant social order. Participants stayed in the closet on campus because of fear of homophobia and being persecuted for not being heterosexual. These findings echo the work of Ghaziani (2017) and Gorman-Murray and Nash (2021), who speak to this “double-bind” gay and lesbian persons face opting for assimilating into mainstream (read: heterosexual) society in an attempt to
“build bridges” and gradually gain the acceptance of their heterosexual counterparts. On the one hand, based on their research on the so-called “degaying” of so-called gay villages or residential areas in Sydney, Toronto, and San Francisco, they attribute assimilationist approaches to the
“greater acceptance of gender and sexual difference” in mainstream society. On the other hand, they acknowledge that “others continue to be marginalized…as those living outside of the homonormative lifestyles” that reflect heterosexual values (Gorman-Murray & Nash, 2021:241).
Participants also offered various strategies for transgressing normative expectations. Most participants indicated acting like themselves, irrespective of the particular context. Their justifications for doing so included the following: “I would rather face judgement than not living”;
an unwillingness to “feed other people’s perspective of being normal” or putting up a façade; being
“deserving” of their place on campus without pressure to change and not needing people in their lives that have such expectations – “that’s their [heteronormative people] problem”. This indicates that these participants tended to present their sexuality openly across all contexts. Some participants additionally enjoyed obscuring the heterosexual imaginary (Ingraham, 1994) by informing straight students their way of thinking was not the only way. Participants further reported various methods of transgressing normative expectations and disrupting the heterosexual imaginary primarily by not identifying themselves with or organising their daily lives according to homonormative typologies, not hiding their sexuality, having acceptance as central to friendships and not needing to validate their sexual orientations. Some participants did not label themselves
or others according to homonormative typologies, as “we are already forced into so many boxes”
and know how diverse individuals in the communities are, where misinformed members are perceived to have such expectations.
This can indicate that gay and lesbian students on campus do not perceive themselves as just agents or victims because they present an understanding of hetero- and homonormativity at a systemic level and/or individual level (Francis, 2017); they also have an understanding of identity and human experience as diverse and complex and not just narrow (Francis, 2017; Shefer, 2016).
It is worth reiterating Francis’ (2017:100;102) statement in this regard. He notes that by
“positioning [oneself] exclusively as agent and victims in terms of their sexual orientation, ignores the multiplicity of identities they hold” and negates acknowledging the person’s “dreams, aspirations, and their ideas for the creation of a just world”. Participants accordingly decided not to hide their sexual orientation on campus due to accepting themselves, support received from their partners and friends, being active in lesbian and gay communities on campus, and being tired of societal expectations. As such, they felt they did not need to validate how “gay” or “lesbian”
they are or put on an act. Such behaviour can indicate attempts at resisting prejudice and (internalised) homophobia (Glassmann, 2012; Herek at al., 1998; Mathies et al., 2019). These strategies of the participants speak to their search for openness and freedom regarding sexuality as unrestricted by hetero- and homonormative expectations (Duggan, 2002; Van den Berg, 2016).
In short, their attempts at doing this highlight acknowledging and celebrating the “messiness” of sexual identification (Plummer, 1998:612) versus the “hardening” of distinct sexual identity categories (Epstein, 1998:135). The latter, according to Epstein (1998), Escoffier (1998) and Eskridge (2002), only run the risk of reinforcing the “us versus them” binary by further placing gay and lesbian communities into separate and homogenised categories (Stein & Plummer, 1996;
Van den Berg, 2016). De Wet et al. (2016) and Rothmann and Simmonds (2015) attest to this.
Rothmann and Simmonds (2015) note that, “[a]s objects, ‘the homosexual’ comes to be regarded as ‘the other’, and this reinforces a binary logic that stigmatises individuals that do not conform to heterosexual norms”. This, according to De Wet et al. (2016:104), “exemplify ‘othering’ through the objectification of sexual minorities and creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide”. In so doing, participants challenged attempts at providing so-called “organised consent” to be marginalised and excluded by heterosexual student peers (Atkinson & De Palma, 2009; Jagessar & Msibi, 2015a).
Although participants offered a myriad of strategies for assimilating into or transgressing homonormative typologies, some offered notions of mediating the visibility of their sexual orientation, depending on the context in which they found themselves. Participants showed a tendency to hide their sexuality (stay closeted) until they felt comfortable in a given context – a
finding to which Rothmann (2016) and Tshilongo and Rothmann’s (2019) research among self- identified gay and lesbian South African students attest. Participants would make their sexual orientation more visible when they knew other individuals in the context would be comfortable with them, accepting towards them and “no more a threat than usual”. Gay participants, in particular, showed tendencies of staying in the closet around heterosexual male students. When comfortable in a context, some participants noted a space to freely talk and the possibility of changing minds about LGBT communities. One participant noted the “literal insane” act of walking into gym locker rooms with his “gay” presence and the likelihood of ending up in “serious trouble”.
Some participants waited until people got to know them before disclosing their sexuality to lessen the severity of possible negative reactions. Participants noted less rigidity when doing their gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987) and sexuality (Dowsett et al., 2008) on campus between and in classes, but reported acting straight in student campus structures, residences and as employee of the institution in order to gain respect, fit in, and keep their jobs. Such narratives support Croce’s (2015) argument that presenting homonormativity seeks to integrate individuals in a heterosexual- dominated context. Participants accordingly did gay, lesbian and straight in an acceptable manner to receive a positive “gender assessment” (cf. West & Zimmerman, 1987) and avoid the marginalisation that could result from unacceptable performance (Butler, 1990; Dowsett, 1993;
Dowsett et al., 2008; O’Byrne et al., 2014). Of interest, in this regard, is how participants also noted differences in how they performed their sexuality differently around their heterosexual, gay and lesbian friends: they noted that they would engage on topics associated with same-sex attraction and romance and having more gay or queer conversational topics around their gay and lesbian friends. Participants’ continuous negotiation and re-negotiation of how they do their gender and sexuality indicate the fluidity of such social constructions (Croce, 2015; Santos 2013) between differentiating contexts on campus, but also indicating participants’ agency (Francis, 2017) and policing of their agency (Rothmann, 2014; 2017) to mediate different performance of identity across different contexts and their respective norms and expectations (Jackson & Scott, 2010).
6.3.2 Advantages and disadvantages of assimilating into and/or transgressing campus normativities
In addition to strategies for liberation and transgression, as well as the motivations for such decisions, participants highlighted advantages and disadvantages of both assimilating into or transgressing homonormative expectations.
Due to hiding their sexuality or acting straight, participants reported more acceptance from heterosexual, gay and lesbian communities, while having experienced less discrimination from heterosexual students. Through presenting a homonormative identity, participants recalled