Heterosexuality, Heteronormative

KALISSA ALEXEYEFF AND KAREN TURNER

University of Melbourne, Australia

In everyday usage, “heterosexuality” suggests innate sexual attraction toward the oppo-
site sex. Heterosexual sex is similarly often thought of as a natural act based in human
instinct with procreation as its goal. Non-reproductive sex and homosexuality may be
considered to be deviations from this norm and may be prohibited and marginalized in
particular cultural settings. The terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” used for clas-
sifying sexual acts and desires, did not appear in Europe until the end of the nineteenth
century. Before this time, sexuality was considered less a matter of personal identity
than a set of erotic behaviors that had little bearing on social and public standing.
The assumption of opposite sexes and distinct gender identities are relatively recent
in Western contexts and even more so in some non-Western societies. Anthropologists
have demonstrated historical and cultural variation in heterosexual practices includ-
ing reproductive sex, the organization of marriage, the rules of exogamy, and the incest
taboo.
With the rise of feminist anthropology in the 1970s, heterosexuality became a crit-
ical area of analysis. Although anthropology’s forefathers had analyzed non-Western
family and kinship systems and their differences from comparable Western ones, they
did not discuss “heterosexuality” as an explicit cultural system but rather assumed it to
be a universal norm. Key feminist thinkers sought to dislodge the assumption of het-
erosexual normativity, demonstrating that sexuality is a social product, not a biological
urge. Particularly from the late 1970s, feminist anthropologists and other social theo-
rists took a closer look at the cultural formation of heterosexuality in order to illuminate
how heterosexual institutions clearly benefited men and served to subordinate women.
Gayle Rubin (a North American cultural anthropologist and renowned anticensorship
feminist, poet, and feminist) and Adrienne Rich (a poet and radical feminist) were two
of the most influential scholars of this generation.
In the important essay “The Traffic in Women” (1975), Rubin developed an analy-
sis of the “sex/gender system,” which she identified as the cause of women’s subordi-
nation. This system both transforms and arranges biological sexuality. Every society
has a sex/gender system: “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw mate-
rial of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention and sat-
isfied in a conventional manner” (1975, 39). Rubin argues that, despite the similarities
between men and women, societies tend to emphasize the difference between them and,
furthermore, these differences are asymmetrically ordered. The sex/gender distinction
operates through marriage and the exchange of women between men, which serve to
generate systems and relations of kinship. In this way, women’s sexuality is regarded as
passive and available to serve the needs of men. Sex/gender systems reveal the economic
The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Edited by Hilary Callan.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1950
2 H E T E R O S E X U A L I T Y, H E T E R O N O R M AT I V E

and political dynamics of sexuality and how societies rely upon enforced and culturally
regulated heterosexuality.
In her later work, Rubin (1984) further investigates “sexual essentialism”: the idea
that sex is a natural force that exists prior to social life. Western society in particular
categorizes sexuality through moral hierarchies. “Good sex” is classified as heterosex-
ual, monogamous, and reproductive while “bad sex” encompasses non-reproductive
sexual acts and homosexual desires that are often considered deviant or pathological.
The social construction and organization of sexuality, however, suggests that the oppres-
sion of women is not inevitable and could potentially be transformed. Rubin argues
that, in order to create a nonoppressive gender order, heterosexuality, as the normal
arrangement of sexuality, needs to be radically altered.
The concept “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich 1980) builds upon Rubin’s insights,
in particular the power relationships embedded in mainstream institutions and prac-
tices. Heterosexuality, Rich argues, is not innate or chosen by an individual; rather it is
imposed to ensure male rights over women through physical, emotional, and economic
access. Like “patriarchy,” compulsory heterosexuality details how society is arranged in
such a way that men as a social group have advantages over women as a group through
control of economic, political, and ideological spheres. Heterosexuality is a key ide-
ology that shapes ideas about “natural” sexual inclinations toward the “opposite” sex;
romance and monogamy; maternal instincts and domesticity; and the appropriateness
of the conjugal unit. These ideas perpetuate the sexual division of labor, which relegates
women to the private sphere of the home or, alternatively, imposes a double workload
on women who engage in paid work. The gender pay gap and unequal representation
of women in positions of power and influence also reflect compulsory heterosexual-
ity. This system of inequality is managed and reinforced through institutions such as
religion, medicine, the law, politics, the media, art, and popular culture. All cultural
forms (such as marriage and family) and cultural expressions (such as romance), Rich
argues, need to be denaturalized and interrogated to break through the hegemony of
heterosexuality.
The sex/gender system and compulsory heterosexuality inspired and formed the
basis of a sustained interrogation of heterosexuality by “queer theorists” from the 1990s.
Comprising a diverse body of interdisciplinary scholars, their work has been highly
influential across gay and lesbian studies and in feminist scholarship more broadly. The
notion of “gender performativity” developed as a critique of fixed notions of gender
identity by describing how gender behavior is learned by and acted upon individuals
(Butler 1990). Bodies and psyches are habituated through “regulatory practices” aimed
at creating stable and seemingly natural gender identities. This occurs especially in
the socialization of children into “male” and “female” through the ordering of their
behavior, movement, dress, and comportment. The “heterosexual matrix” is a key
regulatory fiction that naturalizes bodies, gender, and desire. This matrix forms a “grid
of gender intelligibility” through which all bodies and practices are categorized and
defined in largely hierarchical and oppositional terms.
The hierarchical value system embedded in heterosexuality is also apparent in the
heterosexual/homosexual binary. Despite this binary appearing to be a natural division,
it is an opposition that originated in the late nineteenth century in the West (Sedgwick
 H E T E R O S E X U A L I T Y, H E T E R O N O R M AT I V E 3

1990). Indeed, the word “homosexual” both emerged and was popularized earlier than
the word “heterosexual.” Into the twentieth century, both homosexuality and hetero-
sexuality emerged as new taxonomic systems, which were adopted across medicine,
sexology, psychiatry, and psychology and were part of a scientific project that consid-
ered it necessary to assign fixed and oppositional sexual identity to male and female
genders. Heterosexuality depends on the marginalization of other sexualities, and queer
theorists have argued the heterosexual/homosexual binary elides sexual identities, acts,
and behaviors that exist on the continuum between the two terms. Much anthropologi-
cal work on third sex, transgender, and cross-cultural and historical variations in sexual
identities has contributed to understanding non-heterosexual and non-homosexual
sexual configurations as well as the fluidity of the sexual spectrum in practice.
The heterosexual/homosexual binary also serves as an oppositional map for other
Western cultural categories and hierarchies, such as male/female, public/private,
majority/minority, knowledge/ignorance, and disclosure/secrecy. Like heterosexuality,
the first term in the binary pair occupies an almost invisible position as the natural
and privileged term. In contrast the second term, like homosexuality, is marked as
marginal and of lesser value. In this sense, the heterosexual/homosexual binary limits
not only sexuality but also broader cultural understanding and freedoms.
The term “heteronormative” gained currency as a conceptual lens to understand
further how heterosexuality shapes and assigns value not only to sexual practices
but also in relation to policy and institutions that seemingly have little do to with
sex (Warner 1991). In broad terms, norms are the implicit values and beliefs that are
taken for granted or considered standard in a particular time and place. Across all
cultures, norms often mark the interests of dominant groups, be they men, upper
classes, castes, or ranks. These norms most commonly do not represent the interests
of groups that are subordinate in a community. Thus, “heteronormative” refers to
the dominant unmarked norm of heterosexuality that shapes practice, identities, and
structures. In contrast, “homosexuality” is constructed as that which is nonnormative
and unnatural.
Heteronormativity classifies sexuality and also determines what defines a normal way
of life. It is also referred to as “institutionalized heterosexuality” or “heterosexism” to
illustrate the links between the sexuality and institutions constituting the so-called pri-
vate and public spheres. For example, the predominance of the nuclear family in the
West is one example of heteronormativity. This institution is upheld by religious, legal,
and conservative normative ideas that suggest that it is the primary unity of society,
making it the most natural form of cohabitation between men and women. The nuclear
family is also seen as the ideal unit for raising children and social reproduction. Early
anthropologists, for instance, argued it was a universal phenomenon that fulfilled a
basic human need to have children, as well as forming the fundamental, most func-
tional building blocks of a society. While these claims to universality have now been
disputed in more recent anthropological and historical studies, the nuclear family as
the ideal still persists, demonstrating the ideological power of heterosexuality. In many
Western societies, the nuclear family has undergone significant alteration with the rise
of single-parent and same-sex families, the increase in people living alone, and the
increase in those choosing not to have children. Despite this growing diversity in living
4 H E T E R O S E X U A L I T Y, H E T E R O N O R M AT I V E

arrangements, the concept of the nuclear family as a normative category underlines

many other institutions and policy—in, for example, education and the workplace. It is
also written into legal definitions of marriage, taxation, and inheritance laws as well as
informing everyday assumptions. Variation from the nuclear family ideal is still largely
considered unusual, and often unhealthy or immoral.
Heteronormativity is further used to describe the norms against which
non-heteronormative people struggle. “Non-heteronormative” is an umbrella term for
individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI), as
well as people who eschew identity politics and label themselves via deliberately vague
terms such as “queer,” “curious,” “non-binary,” or “questioning.” Heteronormativity,
as it exists at all levels of society, is considered stigmatizing and discriminatory to
non-heteronormative individuals. Not only are non-heteronormative sexual practices
subject to negative evaluation but they are also part of political contests in more public
arenas. Nonconformist forms of sexuality and gender are marginalized in “accounts
of the world” as well as across employment, health care, legal sectors, and popular
culture. The normalization of heterosexuality means that heteronormativity operates
as a system of privilege. Heteronormativity is “unmarked, as the basic idiom of the
personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral
accomplishment” (Berlant and Warner 1998, 548). Heterosexual privilege is implicit
in the structures of knowledge and social organization, and it is also central to social
membership. Social, political, and economic options narrow for those who do not fit
the hegemonic sexual logic.
Out of these analyses and critiques of institutionalized heterosexuality and het-
eronormativity have emerged two distinct political responses from non-heteronorma-
tive individuals and activist groups. The first approach to heteronormativity has been to
aim for inclusion and recognition of homosexuality within mainstream institutions and
policy. These include civil and legal rights such as the recognition of LGBTI marriage,
rights to adoption, and antidiscrimination and employment laws. The contrasting
approach involves a sustained critique of heteronormative practices and institutions.
Under the broad banner of “queer,” one strategy to undermine heteronormativity
and the heterosexual/homosexual binary has been to deconstruct identitarian politics
based on sexual object choice. Thus, terms such as “queer” have become popular ways
of unsettling the categorization of sexual behavior as “naturally” aligning with sexual
identity. From the perspective of this second approach, fixed notions of homosexuality,
bisexuality, and heterosexuality contribute to the “identity politics” of heteronorma-
tivity, while in everyday practice sexual desire and identity are more flexible.
Debate over gay and lesbian marriage is a clear example of divergent approaches to
heteronormativity. While conservative groups may oppose gay and lesbian marriage as
unnatural and perverse, gay rights movements have lobbied to remove these barriers
and demand legal recognition of their relationships. From this perspective, rights
and recognition are a crucial step toward sexual equality. In contrast, queer groups
generally oppose gay marriage but for very different reasons than conservative groups.
Marriage is viewed as a key institution for upholding rather than challenging a het-
eronormative worldview. It perpetuates standards of sexuality and family composition,
thereby excluding and marginalizing other nonnormative relationship structures.
 H E T E R O S E X U A L I T Y, H E T E R O N O R M AT I V E 5

Queer struggles do not simply aim at tolerance or achieving equal citizenship status
but rather challenge those institutions and accounts.
“Homonormativity” was a concept developed to refer to lesbian and gay projects
that aimed at achieving mainstream acceptance in legislation. Homonormative assump-
tions, critics argue, potentially depoliticize LGBTI and queer projects by presenting
sexual orientation as an innate or a private sexual choice and by assimilating heteronor-
mative ideals into gay and lesbian culture (Duggan 2003). Acceptance and endorsement
of the notion of monogamy, the nuclear family, marriage, adoption rights, and other
liberal forms of political, economic, and social inclusion are examples of such homonor-
mativity. Furthermore, homonormativity normalizes certain forms of gay and lesbian
identities in mainstream cultural arenas. For example, in popular Western television
and film, gay men are “packaged” in ways that do not threaten heterosexuality; they
are usually white and middle class, and largely celibate or in long-term monogamous
relationships that mimic heteronormative couples (one feminine-acting while the other
is masculine-acting). In this way, homonormativity is considered to set up hierarchies
of value within non-heteronormative communities. “Straight-acting” gay men occupy
the top spots (like heterosexual men) while those whose sexuality does not conform to
their biological sex, such as intersex, bisexual, or pansexual people, are located at the
bottom of the hierarchy. Homonormativity therefore has the potential to further frag-
ment the LGBTI and queer communities as it endorses the “good” gay against the “bad”
queer, upholding mainstream heteronormative institutions, policy, and values.
Contests about heterosexuality and heteronormativity largely occur in Euro-
American contexts, although globalization has ensured these debates are not unheard
of in other cultural arenas. While forms of heteronormativity exist in practice across
many cultures, local sexual variation and gender politics can make the meanings
attached to heteronormative institutions and practices highly variable. As one example,
in many places, extended families rather than nuclear families are the norm. Grand-
parents, parents, and children as well as other relatives may live under the same roof or
in close proximity and it is common that grandparents rather than biological parents
have primary care roles for children. Variations such as these suggest that the value
accorded to the nuclear family is not universal. In anthropology, a considerable body of
research has been undertaken on non-heterosexual, transgender, and sexual diversity
but far less on heteronormativity as a marked institution in non-Western cultural
contexts.
Normative and regulatory hierarchies exist within heterosexuality and homo-
sexuality, intersecting with other forms of social categorization. Postcolonial and
black feminisms have importantly inserted understandings of race privilege into
heteronormative and homonormative critiques. Analysis of popular media, consumer
culture, and national and global politics suggests that the voices that are most visible
and acceptable are predominately white and middle class, regardless of their sexual
orientation. As an example, Jasbir Puar (2007) coined the term “homonationalism”
to describe the imaginary inclusion and celebration of sexual diversity within US
nationalism. This “civilized” sexual citizen is constituted against racial, sexual, and
religious “others” who are marked as backward and uncivilized, thus justifying imperial
projects in relation to the “war on terror.” Analysis of the naturalized gender binary
6 H E T E R O S E X U A L I T Y, H E T E R O N O R M AT I V E

and the project of heteronormativity not only needs to include understanding of sexual
hegemonies but also requires investigation of gender and sexuality that intersects with
class, race, and ethnicity in specific cultural and historical formations.

SEE ALSO: Bisexuality; Family; Feminism and Anthropology; Feminism, First-,

Second-, and Third-Wave; Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Sexuality; Gender and Race,
Intersectionality Theory of; Gender, Sexuality, and Caste; Gender and Sexuality:
Contested Relations; Gender, Structuralist Theories of; Gender Trouble: Judith Butler
and Anthropology; Homosexuality, Biosocial Theories of; Homosexuality, Ritualized;
Identity in Anthropology; Intersex; Masculinities; Masculinities and Militarization;
MSM (Men Who Have Sex with Men); Patriarchy and Male Dominance; Queer Theory;
Sex/Gender Distinction; Sex and Gender Roles, Critiques of; Sexuality; Transgender

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Berlant, Laurent, and Michael Warner. 1998. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry 24: 547–66.
doi:10.1086/448884.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge.
Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on
Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Puar, Jasbir K. 2006. “Mapping US Homonormativities.” Gender, Place and Culture 13: 67–88.
doi:10.1080/09663690500531014.
Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5: 631–60.
doi:10.1086/493756.
Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex.” In Toward an
Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna Reiter, 157–210. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Rubin, Gayle. 1984. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In
Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, edited by Carole Vance, 267–319. Boston:
Routledge.
Sedgwick, Eve K. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Warner, Michael. 1991. “Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet.” Social Text 29: 3–17. doi:10.2307/
466295.