Social Construction Theory: Problems In The History Of Sexuality

In Carole Vance’s “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality,” some gay rights activist may find the social construction approach to sexuality problematic. One of Vance’s critiques of social construction is that it implies a gay or lesbian sexuality is unreal. To illustrate this, If I told my gay friends that their love is socially constructed, they would argue back that their love is indescribable, like an essentialist where they feel that their sexality is innate, biological and simply unexplainable. Therefore, they would argue that heterosexuality is socially constructed as well, which makes Vance believe this critique is invalid because she argues that it’s absolutely real to people. She argues that individuals have
different views of each situation and their view will determine how to react. And if that reaction seems incorrect to society, the consequences are as if one had correctly interpreted the situation. For instance, if a gay and straight person went through a heartbreak, they would both feel pain. Therefore, a gay person’s love has consequences just like a straight person’s love would have. Another critique that Vance mentions of social construction is that it implies that an individual’s identity is changeable. Gay activist will find this problematic because they cannot just change their sexuality. Similarly, a straight person cannot just be gay the next day. To emphasize, in the reading, a woman got a part of her genitals removed due to her involvement in a religion. The interviewer then ask her if she ever had an orgasm which reinforces the idea that we do not imagine a different type of pleasure --that sexual pleasures are a part of our functioning bodies as an essential right. Similarly, gay people feel that their sexual pleasures is natural and it’s their sexual urges that others cannot understand. Therefore, Vance would say that critique is invalid because gay and straight people cannot just reconstruct their own sexuality. To conclude this, many gay activist needed the essentialist perspective to bring to courts in order to receive equal rights. Social constructionists were keen on gays, but not the heterosexual identity. And when you don’t examine something, you help naturalize it, which is a problem for gay rights activists. Therefore, social constructionist need to stop focusing on the origin of gay identity and respond more appropriately to the emotions and identity of others.