The Invention Of Heterosexuality Katz Summary

Katz’ article The Invention of Heterosexuality was an interesting read, albeit in my view a somewhat baffling oversimplification of a very complex topic. While I admire him for putting himself out there in his postulation of how he supposes heterosexuality was “invented,” there, too, I am at a loss. His election of the term “invention” seems just as hair-brained as his hypothesis. Still, for the sake of argument, I will bite... I liked Katz’ introduction to his theories and particularly his use of the term “ahistorical”. I thought it provided an interesting platform from which to launch his views. He stated, “We suppose that heterosexuality is unchanging, universal, essential: ahistorical,” (Katz, 1990, p. 47). He followed this by saying, “Such privileging of the norm accedes to its domination, protecting it from questions,” (Katz, 1990, p. 47). The latter statement was admittedly brilliant, both conceptually and syntactically, even if (in my opinion) the grandiosity of its delivery only heightened the disappointment of the argument that was to follow. But not to jump ahead of myself….
Katz failed to take into account or address the weighty impact religion had on the formation, interpretation, and repression of ideas concerning sex, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and so forth. He seemed more concerned with discussing the etymology of the word “heterosexuality” than with the concept itself, including (and highlighting) the prohibitive and facilitative factors and mindsets that influenced the beliefs, ideologies, and application of such