Heteronormativity: A (very) brief introduction
Hello everyone. For my American subscribers, I hope you enjoyed your 4 July weekend. I spent a weekend in New York by myself which was a nice way to recharge and get back into the swing of things post-Pride! I ran every morningā¦ to the donut place down the street for donuts which were delicious.
This has been a busy week concerning gay rights. The Supreme Court decided in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that creating a website constitutes speech and, therefore, people can discriminate against LGBTQIA+ individuals if they disagree with gay marriage. You can read the full decision here. This case will lead to discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people and, sadly, was built on lies as the person suing was not actually asked to create a website for a gay couple. As I am not a lawyer, I will not be analyzing this decision, but you can read more about it here, here, and here. One of my favorite legal blogs, SCOTUSBlog, will probably have a symposium on this case at some point during the summer. It is too early to know the actual impact of this case on the LGBTQIA+ community (and other minority communities in general). But the Supreme Court has opened up the right to discriminate against LGBTQIA+ individuals in a time where homophobia and transphobia are becoming more acceptable in American society.
Heteronormativity
This week, I want to focus on the idea of āheteronormativityā. One central aspects of queer theory, heteronormativity was first defined by Michael Warner in his 1991 article āIntroduction: Fear of a Queer Planetā. In brief, heteronormativity is the assumption that puts heterosexuality and āthe heterosexual" (an idealized version of heterosexuality and gender roles) as the norm. Within a heteronormative structure, the assumption is that people have similar familial goals (marriage and kids), professional goals (socially acceptable work), clear and distinct gender (male/female), and the expectations that people will fit into traditional gender roles in that particular time and place. This impacts nonprofits because heteronormative structures lead to assumptions about the services people will want and how they should be delivered. Part of this is connected to compulsory heterosexuality, first discussed by Adrienne Rich. In compulsory heterosexuality, people are assumed to be straight and those who are not are āotheredā, forcing societal norms on those who are considered āotheredā. This could include marriage and having children. In her work, Rich focused mostly on heterosexuality and heteronorms within the United States, which is particularly influenced by Christian perspectives on gender.
Both heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality provide insight into why some LGBTQIA+ individuals may not feel comfortable in nonprofit organizations. For example, in my research with sex workers, I find that part of the reason sex workers donāt want to use nonprofits is because of the judgement that they receive, especially those not looking for a way out of sex work. The expectation that sex work is not within the ānormsā of society and is inherently exploitative (which, for some sex workers, it is) because sex is not seen as something which should be transactional in American society. But when nonprofits have a heteronormative environment, they may focus on what they think are important goals and not on what the individual wants.
This can be seen fairly explicitly in religious nonprofits, especially homeless shelters and food banks. Religious organizations (while receiving government funds) sometimes expect people to fit into their religious norms, sometimes requiring clients to attend some religious service or a religious talk aimed at conversion. Itās not just LGBTQIA+ people who are affected; many people donāt go to these organizations because they donāt feel comfortable within this religious paradigm. Indeed, from my own work as a social worker, I have heard from many clients that they do not like going to certain shelters or food pantries due to the religious messaging that is forced on them.
What can we do?
Heteronormativity is baked into American (and nonprofit) culture. This forces LGBTQIA+ people to fit into heterosexual expectations instead of being able to be themselves. As a nonprofit, continue to be aware of how queer culture can be different from straight culture (and how other ānonnormativeā cultures might be different from what is considered ānormalā), with the acknowledgement that every person is different. For example, while some queer people have decided to eschew marriage, others (myself included) have gone a more heteronormative route with marriage. Gay relationships may be different than straight relationships, with nonmonogomy more common. In my research, respondents talked about feeling judged by nonprofit professionals due to their nonmonogomy. Furthermore, understanding the clientās individual motivations in a nonjudgemental manner can help nonprofits better āmeet people where they areā. Fighting against heteronormativity and compulsive heterosexuality as a nonprofit can help your organization help people be who they want to be, not who society expects them to be. In summary, be aware of queerness not as just a straightness that is slightly different but instead as a range of perspectives on relationships and life that might differ from mainstream heteronormative routes.