June is Pride Month , or rather, LGBTQ+ Pride , and this month, Covid pandemic aside, we could have witnessed several street demonstrations that would have given new impetus to the actions undertaken by the LGBTQ+ movement. The acronym, for those wondering, stands for: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/sexual, queer , and other categories or "labels" that designate other conditions related to sexual orientation or gender identity. These actions aim to obtain greater legislative rights and to dismantle the oppression and stigma that weighs on people who identify with these classifications.
From a sociologist's perspective, these demonstrations are truly institutionalized actions . These actions , according to the Weberian tradition of social action, are informed by conscious intention; they are institutionalized because they demand civil rights and the construction of a normality that can be expressed around the concept of " variance " in human behavior, defined as sexual orientation and sexual and gender identities. However, these actions divide various segments of society who, for various reasons, resist this social change.
Let's delve deeper into these aspects, keeping in mind, however, the purpose that has underpinned this movement since its origins; it's generally appropriate to view manifestations of emancipation with suspicion , because discussing " freedom " is a bit like talking about nothing if we fail to specify the concrete actions that make LGBTQ+ action a social movement aimed at liberating individuals from social oppression . This process, this phenomenology , this historical series of developments in egalitarian institutions represent the crux of this analytical approach. While it's true that we're not at a backward stage of this phenomenology, but rather at one of its most advanced, the belief or belief that current manifestations have achieved the optimal level of liberation must be considered limiting. Therefore, suspicion is more than legitimate.
Coming out: between liberation and oppression
One of the tools used by what is called the "LGBTQ+ community" (even though it bears little resemblance to a real community) to combat discrimination is the so-called " coming out . " Be careful, however, because this action isn't aimed exclusively at revealing one's sexual or gender identity, as is often thought. Rather, more generally, it involves the act of revealing an intimate and hidden aspect of one's private life. Coming out —which literally means "coming out of the closet"—is not at all easy for those who find themselves in the indisputable situation of being attracted to people of the same sex and, therefore, unable to change it; and nor can it be changed, as was once believed, with the famous "reparative therapies" (with all the appropriate quotation marks) or with attempts at persuasion of any kind. In short, unlike what appears to be a widespread cognitive bias —that is, that one can become homosexual or, vice versa, heterosexual—sexual preferences, on the contrary, appear to be something innate within the individual and cannot be changed through experience or social influence. Beyond considerations about the initial modes of awareness, and the subsequent disclosure of these aspects that were once hidden from the public, the practice of " coming out " is widespread because, perhaps, no alternative has been found to the struggle to acquire rights and break down stigma. It is also believed that "visibility," "transparency," or "popularity" are the distinctive traits of a queer culture that highlights and supports what should be a process of emancipation, as well as the undermining of homophobic, transphobic, and biphobic culture . This isn't quite the case, or at least it should n't be presented this way.
Therefore, given these premises, we must reflect to resolve the dilemma of whether this demonstration constitutes a practice of emancipation or, conversely, whether it is an episode of "false consciousness" and, therefore, can be traced back to an (involuntary) subordination to the oppression of the heteronormative and cisnormative order. Essentially, we ask ourselves whether "emancipation" is synonymous with the "expression" of identities —sexual and gender—(a rather obscure concept, as identities—these identities—are a recent historical product born from the opposition between them), or whether this necessary obligation to fully express oneself is actually an imposition that, though coming from below, has a coercive effect as an institution "invisible" at first glance. To this end, we will later use a concept that will allow us to corroborate and better define the initial questions. But first, it is worth reviewing some considerations regarding the habits and customs of what appear to be general trends in a broader process affecting all spheres of social life.
Confession practices
Coming out and outing are considered "confession practices ," although there is a crucial difference between the two. While the former refers to the voluntary act of expressing an intimate aspect of one's private life, previously kept hidden for sometimes multiple and heterogeneous reasons, the latter refers to the act of "revealing" this aspect of an individual's private life by a third party, without the explicit consent of the interested party. These practices, which I prefer to call "confession practices," are paradigmatic of the management of private life and the relationship established between it and the public sphere. Indeed, if we immerse them in the socioeconomic context of modernity (assuming this term does not lead to ambiguities of conceptual significance; in short, let's take it lightly and seriously, considering that in sociological literature modernity is often associated with the birth of the nation-state and capitalism; we will be interested in this second concept later), they constitute a "beacon," or, better said, a "clue" to a more general phenomenon: the " colonization " of public space by the private. Discourses are constructed in the image and likeness of one's private life; the private, the privatization of spaces, is a complex body of events that contaminate the public agora of Greek tradition with one's own personal experiences.
In short, the prevailing imperative seems to dictate: "Hold nothing in, spit everything out." And all those "confession" programs, as the program hosted by Il Fatto Quotidiano journalist Peter Gomez has been called, operate along this same lines (but I won't go into further detail here, otherwise we'd be going too far).
Now, moving on to an analysis of the economy-society relationship, I will demonstrate how I seek to demonstrate that the phenomenology of LGBTQ+ action has a material basis. This means that cultural or ideational change (the worldviews of social actors) is largely attributable to economic change (the procurement and transformation of resources through the modes of production of material wealth). (At least, this is what emerges from these conjectural hypotheses.)
Neoliberalism and neoliberal culture
Who would have ever thought that there was a causal relationship between the expression of these sexual and gender identities and the economic basis (let's be clear: not a purely deterministic one!), at least not necessarily a unilateral one? Perhaps Marx . But, even without invoking the philosopher from Trier, we can simply refer to the " mirroring theory ," as it is often cited. According to Marxist theory, the underlying aspects of the structure—the economic-social relationships that underlie social dynamics—have an (almost) decisive influence on its superstructural aspects—the entire set, we might say, of rationalizations that "hide" or "mystify" the hard core of society, namely economic interests —accounting for many social phenomena, such as law, religion, philosophy, etc.
Now, with the neoliberalization of economic activity that began in the 1980s (think of Thatcher when she stated, "Society does not exist"), and the subsequent deregulation , several countries—especially Anglo-Saxon countries (the US and Great Britain)—have moved to a regime of free competition that has virtually favored the emergence of new oligopolies, transforming over time not only producers but especially consumers by shifting their roles: the former oriented toward production in the tertiary sector, in services; the latter toward the consumption of intangible, cultural, and mass-produced products. LGBTQ+ action occurs in a context in which heteronormativity is peddled, encouraged, prodded, and publicized as the dominant model, because the regime of free competition prevailing in Western Europe and, above all, in the United States of America was dominant. With the progressive expansion of liberalization in recent decades—and here, I am referring more specifically to the proliferation of new cultural production entities, such as private television broadcasters (in Italy: Mediaset and La 7, to name two) or the growth of the Internet—we have witnessed a growth in cultural pluralism, with many long-standing holders of cultural power in crisis (such as newspapers or state television) and other entities growing and, at the same time, competing with each other. In this case, it was a genuine competition for prestige and notoriety.
Let's say that these forces we've called "new subjects of cultural production" have played a prominent role in shaping people's choices, tastes, preferences, etc., and thus in the overall composition of cultural forms of appropriation and differentiation (I cite, and won't dwell on this, the construction of sexual identity as a mechanism and attempt to simultaneously appropriate and differentiate a trait that may be shared or unequal with others with that element of discrimination). Thus, we are witnessing new expressions of sexuality and gender that—it's worth remembering—were not previously nonexistent, but were in a state of latency and unexpressible, due to the state's massive infiltration into the private lives of its citizens, regimenting them (think of totalitarian regimes).
But until a few years ago, things were different regarding LGBTQ+ issues. What has changed in the meantime? What was so crucial in driving a shift toward greater openness to issues such as, for example, same-sex civil unions in Italy in 2016? Is it possible that, in line with my hypothesis, it was a shift in the economic basis—that is, the break with the past regarding the planned economy and the new deregulation imposed greater freedom in cultural expression as well? Well, the answer to these questions is very difficult to find. Therefore, we must address another issue regarding the power of culture on individuals; the challenge is to try to understand how normativity radiates throughout the social fabric, becoming a rather vigorous means of coercion, an institution, in short.
Heteronormativity and cisnormativity
These two key words refer to what Jürgen Habermas , in his sociological theory, calls the lifeworld ( lebenswelt ), that is, the world of values and norms we take for granted, which no one would dream of questioning. In reality, the concept of lebenswelt is not Habermas's; rather, lebenswelt is a concept present in the works of the phenomenological philosopher Edmund Husserl , who, by coining this expression, gave rise to a new way of understanding everyday life. If we integrate this concept with that of trust present in Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology , we have created a way of viewing the LGBTQ+ issue from a very likely innovative perspective: heteronormativity and cisnormativity, then, will be significant concepts to the extent that they are linked to these theoretical perspectives.
Moving a little further down our scale of abstraction: what do heteronormativity and cisnormativity actually mean ? Let's give a first, narrow definition. The first refers to the practice or set of rules that restrict sexual mores considered normative in a given society to relationships between people of different sexes ( heteros in Greek means "different," "opposite"). The second, however, pertains to the concept according to which normative gender identity is constituted exclusively by cisgender identity ( cis in Latin means "beyond"), that is, those people who identify with their biological sex at birth. However, it is legitimate to dwell on the issues surrounding the construction of that "natural" attitude (which, however, is not entirely natural) around heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which leads institutional actors and individuals to tacitly (and falsely) assume heterosexuality and cisgenderism as normal conditions of human nature . Contrary to popular belief, human sexuality can take on different forms of feeling and behavior, which, however, are "regulated" by the culture of the society in which they participate. Suffice it to say that in ancient Greece there were no univocal terms to distinguish relationships between people, as this was unnecessary, as the law of nature, or rather: that of Eros , prevailed . And that was all there was to it.
False consciousness and true emancipation
At this point, we will employ a concept already employed by Karl Marx in his theoretical framework to define (and subsume) any deviation from the economic determinism of the Trier sociologist. I will do the same, attempting to establish an association between the economic and social planes, or between ideas, as I have attempted to argue above. I begin by saying that I will use the concept of "false consciousness" to explain the more or less homogeneous phenomenon of " coming out " as an illusory expression of a full and complete freedom achieved; therefore, I will conduct a harsh critique of the widespread belief that this practice represents a mode of emancipation, if not the mode of emancipation of the movement par excellence.
In short, we could say that freedom of expression is a " freedom to " and not a "freedom from," just as, conversely, it is the " power to " and not the "power over" that shapes freedom within a scope of action that is sanctionable and recognized by others. But it is also true, after all, that the freedom of expression of the Self has repercussions on the level of the Alter to the extent that the expression of sexual preferences or one's gender identity can give rise—and often does—to identities as stable as these are defined by the situation. So, in other words, it is not the Self that defines itself, except in categorical modalities that society presents to it in the form of options to choose from.
Entering into the specifics of, respectively, sexual and gender identities , these creations – because we are talking about identities constructed by and with society (!) – are nothing more than the fruit of a process of construction-constitution of consciousness that takes part in and in society and cannot be separated from it.
So, my reasoning didactically reduced to the bare minimum:
- if it is in the company that the individual learns the code to self-define his own form, his own identity;
- and always in the company those processes of identity construction, of the Self and, therefore in this case, of sexual and gender identities take place;
- then we have to search in the company the causes of the creation-oppression of all those identities considered deviant from the symbolic-normative order present in the status-quo.
To wrap up the whole discussion and quickly reach a linguistic consensus: what do I definitively mean by the concepts of "false consciousness" and "true emancipation" in the hetero-cisnormative context? Ultimately, I would like to show how one can have a distorted sense of one's own emancipation and, in its place, delude oneself into thinking that a state of greater freedom has been achieved. Instead, what I seek to simultaneously reveal and encourage is a way of experiencing freedom of expression as a freedom of that uses a tool of liberation that does not follow the prevailing directives in hetero-cisnormative society, namely, that of taking for granted the sexual/gender conformity of the Alter to that of a presumed statistical majority.
This brings us to the next, and final, section on the modalities of liberation and to a more mature stage of emancipation within the movement. Because if our aim is to create a society that treats individuals more egalitarian than has already been achieved, then we must strive to deepen our critical thinking.
The final stage of liberation
Having reached this point in our reflection, we can still question the nature of the process, that phenomenology that soars from the past to align itself with a future that isn't yet here but that we can once again make predictable. I've used the verb "we can" twice because I want to insist that, despite the all-encompassing characteristics of the social system and the cultural complex of hetero-cisnormativity present at the level of the lebenswelt , our critical spirit does not prevent us from consistently and suspiciously discerning the lies told by those who claim to be bearers of the truth and, on social issues for any cause, by those who proclaim that "society is like this" tout court.
For this and other reasons I've cited above, LGBTQ+ movements, and more generally, efforts to institutionalize the well-being of LGBTQ+ people, lack, in my view, a stage for a liberation of Eros that, to recall Marcuse, involves those minorities (but perhaps, pardon my hyperbolic philosophizing, even this notion—"minority"—should be questioned, as it seems inappropriate and inconsistent with certain biological assumptions about human sexuality) embodying the new historical subjects capable of waging social revolution against the mechanisms of capitalism. It's a shame, as I've tried to show, that capitalism has "devoured" these subjects within its neoliberal logic; however, at the same time, it has favored the development of that slow and gradual liberalization that has constituted a link between the symbolic post-material well-being provided by the fight against stigmatization and the legislature of rights for the new subjects in the field. However, it's worth noting with a keen and attentive eye that the final and conclusive stage of this phenomenology does not, in my opinion, consist at all in "confession practices" as I called them earlier, nor in affirming that LGBTQ+ movements are the "alternative," the "variance," or even the "diversity." Rather, many of the battles waged by the movement must focus on the pride of substantively affirming Eros as the center of affective and educational relationships that lead to the establishment of a new "grammar" in order to generate a new normativity and overthrow that outdated sexual and gender normativity, the expression of a discriminatory and, much less, repressive institution: the hetero-cisnormative institution. Overthrowing this educational and imposing model will allow a "new course" for the morphogenesis of social relations.
Living equal in dignity and morality is the greatest civilizational achievement that Homo sapiens has achieved. Will we be able to live in diversity as a meeting point of cultures and a moment of exchange, a source of all intellectual richness? The challenge is to live equally and in difference : will we be able to do it?
