Exploring Heterosexual Hegemony in Health and Social

Services: Critical Que(e)ries

Sher Knox
1

University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

Introduction
In this essay I will explore the concept of heterosexual hegemony, and how
this oppressive construction moves through the forces of heterosexism and
heteronormativity. For the purposes of this paper I define heterosexual hegemony as
the assumption of heterosexuality (Daley, 2003; Kinsman, 1991). As a vehicle for
carrying out this exploration, I will, in part, utilize a confluence of theoretical tools
gained through graduate school coursework and my curiosity and challenges regarding
the subject of oppression of queer identities. In addition, this topic is of salience to
my own area of research the support needs of queer women who experience
problematic drug use - and impacts my personal and practice life on a daily basis. In
order to research and write about heterosexism and oppression and the consequent
impacts on peoples lives, I must further theorize and understand particular concepts:
To begin to undermine oppression, one must be able to identify and challenge the
prevailing problems in otherwise unquestioned, taken-for granted prevailing ways of
knowing and acting (Campbell, 2003, p. 17). By placing my work under the umbrella
of social change, I feel compelled to investigate the threads weaving together the
matrix of oppression in the lives of peoples that are impacted in myriad ways by
heterosexual hegemony.
For this inquiry into the workings of heterosexual hegemony, I will attempt to
show through drawing out relationships between my observations and arguments
set out by Foucault, as well as concepts of poststructuralist and feminist theories
that the assumption of heterosexuality, as a consequence of discursive practices that
normalize heterosexuality, has a disciplinary effect on the lives of queer peoples. As
will be illustrated throughout the body of this paper, these effects take various forms:
for some it is invisibility, for others marked visibility, and by this I mean an

1
Sher Knox, 2006.
Variegations, Volume 3

2
inappropriate and inaccurate visibility based on dominant societal stereotypes (Daley,
2003).
For the purpose of identifying the context of my situated place in this
inquiry (Geertz, 1998, p. 5), I may locate myself as occupying various subject
positions in relation to the focus of this inquiry: queer-identified woman; social
worker; graduate student researching in the area of social justice for marginalized
queer communities. By occupying multiple subject positions (Davies & Harre, 1990) I
have an interest in taking up the concept of heterosexual hegemony in diverse ways
and for multiple purposes.
Foucault: The Historical Pathology of Queer Identities
Michel Foucault (1978, 1985 1997), in his various writings on the history of
the homosexual identity, illuminates the silencing of queer identity expression as it
functions through the performance of heteronormativity. Following Foucaults
scholarship, many academics poststructuralists and queer theorists among them -
base their explorations on his seminal works. The historical medical/psychiatric
discourse regarding the classification of the homosexual clearly pathologizes queer
identities (Foucault, 1985). As OBrien (1999) explains: Psychiatry and medicine
labeled homosexuality a perversion and gave the homosexual a case history (p.
141). For much of the past century, what is referred to as homosexuality has been
officially classified and treated as a mental disorder. Dominant social attitudes the
normalizing power of hegemony have developed within the context of the medical
and psychiatric pathology of queer identities (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Daley, 2003;
Foucault, 1978; Taylor, 1999).
An additional bequest of this historical backdrop is the trepidation and
mistrust that is present for many queer peoples with regard to institutional supports.
This mistrust may exist for good reason. Despite more recent advances of gay/lesbian
civil rights, and the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II (Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition) (American Psychiatric
Association, 1968) in 1973, there remain residual attitudes in the medical system and
in society from this historical context (Daley, 2003; Voorhis & Wagner, 2002). As a
result of this legacy, many service providers, particularly in the medical field, are
influenced by the former classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Homophobia and heterosexism extend into society and institutions in ways that result
in exclusionary practices and prejudices (Ristock & Julien, 2003) as well as reinforcing
the status quo. Against this formidable backdrop, speaking out regarding ones queer
identity becomes a powerful act of resistance. More common, however, is silence and
internalization of societal attitudes that are perhaps viewed as natural, given the
dynamic conditioning effect of heterosexual hegemony.
Deborah Brock (2003) discusses the construct of deviance as it plays out in, and
is defined by, the defiance of socially prescribed norms: any behaviours or
appearance that violates social norms, rules, or laws (p. 9). Brock explores Foucaults
ideas regarding the construction of sexuality (and as a result, homosexual and
Sher Knox

3

heterosexual identities) as a social and historical (p. 23) scientific brainchild.
Heterosexuality is understood as the natural and inevitable state of normal human
condition. The other, composed of varying gender identities and sexual
orientations, are subject to rejection and the label of deviance. Practices of
normalization are ubiquitous in all aspects of our societies. So deeply embedded are
normative attitudes and practices that such silence cannot be ended solely through
anti-discrimination policies and inclusive programming. Queer peoples may begin to
learn from a very early age that their identities are abnormal and deviant. Changes
to legal/civil rights and the gradual adaptations of social and health services toward
anti-oppressive ends are definitely moves in the right direction. However, undoing
oppression at a more visceral level is a very different and perhaps far greater
undertaking.
Internalization of Oppression
Queer peoples face the internalization of homophobia that surrounds their
heritage of pathology (Clare, 2001; Igartua, Gill, & Montoro, 2003). Eli Clare writes of
the experience of oppression coming to rest in the body: There are so many ways
oppression and social injustice can mark a body, steal a body, feed lies and poison to a
body (p. 362). Further, Clare explains that the aims of social justice are very often
framed as a refiguring of the external world; the external conditions of oppression are
marked as problematic perhaps solely responsible for social injustice. However,
external conditions, such as anti-discrimination policies and queer-inclusive
programming, are not always sufficient to end the silence of queer peoples regarding
their sexual identities. Bodies internalize oppression and bear its weight. The workings
of heterosexual hegemony depend on the bodies and spirits of the oppressed learning
silence. As such, queer peoples often learn to pass as heterosexual, or minimally
remain silent under to the pressures exerted by heteronormativity (OBrien, 1999).
Very rarely today, in institutional settings or social and health organizations,
does one see outward displays of homophobic hatred. The nature of institutional
heterosexism more commonly takes the form of dont ask, dont tell. Often the
heterosexist discourse in such settings states that people should be treated equally
and, therefore, the same. What this translates into is that everyone should be viewed
and treated as heterosexual (Chervin, Brotman, Ryan, & Mullin, 2003). Therefore,
according to the language of heterosexist hegemony, equal means heterosexual and
queer people are rendered invisible.
A closeted queer subject position constructed and maintained in the shadow
of heterosexual hegemony may not be the best atmosphere in which to develop a
positive sense of self (England, 1999). To illustrate how this works, the concept of
Foucaults panopticon may be useful as a metaphor for heterosexism (Davis, as cited
in England, p. 97). The panopticon is a design for a prison that keeps inmates isolated
and in constant view of their captors from a centered place of observation; yet
prisoners do not know if and when they are being observed (Mansfield, 2000). The
result is a tendency to self-regulate and self-govern. The panoptic heterosexist gaze
encourages self-monitoring of queer peoples, and acts as a force that silences and
Variegations, Volume 3

4
isolates (England). Rhoads (as cited in England, 1999) puts it this way: silencing
tactics revolve around power who controls discourse, who defines truth, who
determines what knowledge is relevant or irrelevant, who speaks, who listens (p. 97).
In the face of these functions of power, silence and invisibility of queer subject
positions and identities is perhaps inevitable rather than exceptional.
Functions of Exclusion
Feminist scholar, Karlene Faith (1994), writes of Foucaults inquiry into
functions of exclusion:
Foucaults work illustrates that, when a group of people are separated from
society, it is not a random affair. They are discerningly divided off from the
population, through discursive and exclusionary exercises of sovereign power,
and subjected to disciplinary techniques that classify and control them
through strategic power relations. (p. 10)
It is the referred to discursive and exclusionary exercises and disciplinary
techniques that most interest me. By examining the workings of such power relations
I may develop insight into how and why queer peoples may practice silence regarding
their sexual identities. This may occur even when there are governmental and
organizational policies that exist to safeguard against discrimination based on sexual
identity. What is at work, then, to enforce silence in such a context?
Feminist standpoint theorist, Sandra Harding (1995), illuminates the concept
that members of the dominant society do not have to work at creating inclusion for
themselves their identities and subjectivities in their histories and everyday lives.
She writes: Members of marginalized groups must struggle to name their own
experiences for themselves in order to claim the subjectivity, the possibility of
historical agency, that is given to members of dominant groups at birth (p. 128).
There is a very different sort of given history for queer peoples. Indeed, as has been
discussed above, our history is, at worst, one of pathology, maltreatment, and
ostracism. At best, it takes the form of silence and invisibility (Daley, 2003).
Queer peoples do not have a given support structure and familial mentors to
share in their experience of oppression. We must build community, find it and foster
it. The isolation and enforced silence created by heterosexual hegemony often keeps
queer people from identifying one another in public spheres. Daley (2003) elucidates:
What is not being said is loud enough to enforce silence (p. 105). As such,
heterosexist assumptions enforce silence and queer people are frequently kept from
the solidarity community affords. The power of community cannot be underestimated
in the role it plays for the resistance of marginalized peoples. Paula Gunn Allen (1992)
explains: community is what a human being must have to be human in any sense
(p. 29). Through the oppressive force of heterosexual hegemony, and consequent
isolation and silence, queer peoples are often denied the strength of community,
particularly in institutional/organizational spaces.
Sher Knox

5

For many, the practice of silence and denial of self and queer subjectivity takes
a toll that can be seen played out in the lives of queer peoples. Thinking through the
action of silence from a poststructural perspective, we learn to govern ourselves live
in the closet; remain silent and hidden - in collusion with hegemonic heterosexist
forces (White & Hunt, 2000). Marginalized people internalize, and often believe, what
the dominant group says of them (Harding, 1995). Thus, on some level the
internalization of the lies that queer people are told - the lies of alleged deviance and
abnormality - are deeply embraced and facilitate the function of heteronormativity.
Queer peoples are not seen as deserving the same voice as their binary counterparts:
normal and natural heterosexuals (Ristock & Julien, 2003). Enforced standards of
normalcy, stated and unstated, may form the context of silence surrounding the
difficulties faced by many queer peoples in claiming their subjectivities.
Foucault and Biopower
Foucault (1997) states: Sexuality exists at the point where body and
population meet. And so it is a matter for discipline, but also a matter for
regularization (p. 252). With the history of the constructed and pathologized
category of homosexual, and, in the process, the definition of heterosexual in
opposition to this category, a framework of normal/moral has been created
(Foucault, 1985). Foucault (1997) surmises: The norm is something that can be
applied to both a body one wishes to discipline and a population one wishes to
regularize (p. 253). Foucaults concept of sexual science, a form of
power/knowledge, is based within the medical/psychiatric discourses that says certain
(heterosexual) behaviours fall under the category of normal while others (homosexual)
fall under the purview of abnormal or pathological (OBrien, 1999). This history
provides a rich backdrop for the context of investigating the effects of heterosexual
hegemony on queer subjects.
Power/knowledge in the form of what Foucault (1978, 1997) terms biopower,
resulted in such things as the official designation of homosexuality as a mental
disorder. It also lives on today in the working of heteronormative silencing enforced
on and through queer peoples. Anne Fausto-Sterling (1997), a contributor to the body
of knowledge known as queer theory, describes the practices of normalizing
heterosexuality as working to use the infrequent to illuminate the common. The
former they call abnormal, the latter normal the abnormal requires management
management means conversion to the normal (p. 245). Silence is about passing as
heterosexual. Silence is an insidious product of biopower. And because of silence,
queer peoples are rendered invisible, both as professionals within the human services
and as service users. The human service professions have been constructed within the
context of this history of normalizing practices (OBrien, 1999). As such, queer people
have been, and are, inscribed with the label abnormal, and heterosexuality has been
normalized at the very core of our practices (OBrien).

Variegations, Volume 3

6
Forging Resistances
One of the effects of the homosexual acquiring a history was the response
of resistance to the pathology of our identities (OBrien, 1999). Foucault (1978)
termed this response, reverse discourse: homosexuality began to speak on its own
behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or naturality be acknowledged (p. 101).
Terry (1999) also writes of this bequest: One important effect of this process was the
generation of constraints and possibilities occasioned by the label of pathology (p.
325). Brock (2003) echoes Foucault: Where there is power there is also resistance to
power (p. 20). She offers, as one incisive example, the formation of queer politics
and the growing canon of knowledge that is known as queer theory. Non-
heteronormative identities have been labeled deviant, juxtaposed to the measuring
stick of heterosexuality as normal. In response, queer identities are named and
formed in what may be known as acts of resistance to the straight norm and
consequent power construction.
Societal homophobia and pervasive heterosexism create conditions in which
people pushed to the margins because of their deviant sexual identities frequently
require health and social services and support. Because of the invisibility of queer
service users, and the hegemony that seeks to silence our voices, I will continue to
work in this area of human service practice and education. In addition, queer and
straight students, academics, and professionals must continue to work together to
forge space for marginalized identities despite the institutional practices that silence
and isolate.
Conclusion
bell hooks (1994) espouses: Theory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or
revolutionary. It fulfills this function only when we ask that it do so and direct our
theorizing toward this end (p. 61). Queer theories theories that act in resistance to
the binary constructions of normal/abnormal, heterosexual/homosexual question
these oppositions and disturb the power relations that construct such things as the
assumption of heterosexuality as a consequence of normalizing practices (Warner, as
cited in OBrien, 1999). I will continue to work with such theories and concepts that
seek to undo the processes of normal. This exercise has helped me with the process
of thinking through possible theoretical perspectives that I may utilize for my future
thesis work. I have struggled with the challenge of devising ways to bring the subject
matter of this paper into my work as a graduate student because it has such an impact
on my personal life.
For the moment there are no obvious answers to the challenges I have voiced
in this paper: how do we move beyond the place of recognition of the needs of
marginalized peoples to an actual space where queer people, for example, are free to
express their identities? Perhaps it is useful to question hegemonic practices in our
professions, educational practices, and society, and thus continue to irrigate the
territory in which we practice human services. As I grapple with the challenge of
working in a territory that is so personal to me I often do not have any sense of
Sher Knox

7

progress, either in my theorizing of the subject or in the impact my study and writing
may have on my work. For now, perhaps I do not need to be so concerned with
getting it right or finding answers within my own critiques. Indeed, the concept of
having to find an answer itself promotes essentialist ideology and precludes my own
processes of theorizing as I attempt to make meaning of my work and study. Today I
will be sated with questioning, and accept the contribution this makes to my place
in all of this.
References
Allen, P. G. (1992). The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions.
Boston: Beacon Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental
disorders (2
nd
ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social
workers. Social Work, 42(4), 319-332.
Brock, D. (2003). Moving beyond deviance: Power, regulation, and governmentality.
In D. Brock (Ed.), Making normal: Social regulation in Canada (pp. 9-31).
Scarborough, ON: Thomson Learning.
Campbell, M. (2003). Dorothy Smith and knowing the world we live in. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(1), 3-22.
Chervin, M., Brotman, S., Ryan, B., & Mullin, H. (2003). Transforming schools of
social work into spaces of social action: A critical exploration of project
interaction, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and Two-spirit initiative of McGill
Universitys School of Social Work. Canadian Journal of Community Mental
Health, 22(2), 69-84.
Clare, E. (2001). Stolen bodies, reclaimed bodies: Disability and queerness. Public
Culture, 13(3), 359-365.
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43-63.
Daley, A. (2003). Lesbian health and the assumption of heterosexuality: An
organizational perspective. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22(2),
105-121.
England, K. (1999). Sexing geography, teaching sexualities. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 23(1), 94-101.
Faith, K. (1994). Resistance: Lessons from Foucault and feminism. In D. Currie & B.
MacLean (Eds.), Social inequality, social justice. Selections for the 32
nd
meeting of the
Western Association of Sociology and Anthropology (pp. 9-27). Vancouver, B.C.:
Collective Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1997). How to build a man. In R. Lancaster & M. di Leonardo
(Eds.), The gender sexuality reader (pp. 244-248). London: Routledge.
Variegations, Volume 3

8
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1985). The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality volume two. New York:
Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1997). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976.
New York: Picador.
Geertz, C. (1998). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Harding, S. (1995). Subjectivity, experience, and knowledge: An epistemology
from/for rainbow coalition politics. In J. Roof & R. Wiegman (Eds.), Who can
speak? Authority and critical identity (pp. 120-135). Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New
York: Routledge.
Igartua, K., Gill, K., & Montoro, R. (2003). Internalized homophobia: A factor in
depression, anxiety, and suicide in the gay and lesbian population. Canadian
Journal of Community Mental Health, 22(2), 15-30.
Kinsman, G. (1991). Homosexuality historically considered challenges heterosexual
hegemony. Journal of Historical Sociology, 4(2), 91-111.
Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway. Washington
Square, NY: New York University Press.
OBrien, C. (1999). Contested territory: Sexualities and social work. In A. Chambon,
A. Irving, & L. Epstein (Eds.), Reading Foucault for social work (pp. 131-155).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Ristock, J. L., & Julien, D. (2003). Disrupting normalcy: Lesbian, gay, queer issues and
mental health. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22(2), 5-8.
Taylor, B. (1999). Coming out as a life transition: Homosexual identity formation
and its implications for health care practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2),
520-525.
Terry, J. (1999). Agendas for lesbian health: Countering the ills of homophobia. In A.
E. Clarke & V. L. Olesen (Eds.), Revisining women, health, and healing: Feminist,
cultural, and technoscience perspectives (pp. 324-342). New York: Routledge.
Voorhis, R. & Wagner, W. (2002). Among the missing: Content on lesbian and gay
people in social work journals. Social Work, 47(4), 345-354.
White, M., & Hunt, A. (2000). Citizenship: Care of the self, character and personality.
Citizenship Studies, 4(2), 93-116.