Conflict on Multiple Levels: Gay Social Status and Mainstream Society, Essay Example

Abstract

Social groups and classes within American society exist in a variety of forms, just as the histories and presences of each are marked by periods of conflict. Such conflict arises exponentially; as the mainstream society views the group in an oppressive way, that society establishes laws and policies reinforcing the perceptions and further enabling the inequality. This is profoundly true regarding gays as a social group. Long reviled socially and legally discriminated against, gays have only recently been able to achieve actual standing as gays within the society. Nonetheless, the oppression here, in which power expresses deep-seated conflict in regard to gender roles, is no ordinary social challenge. Given the unique and deeply embedded causes for societal perspectives on gays that promote oppression, it is likely that gays as a social group will continue to be in conflict with mainstream society.

Introduction

Societies are inherently complex structures in which various social classes occupy certain tiers within them. This definition implies stability of a kind, and such stability is often the case; the working class, for example, typically remains in a position of less power and influence below higher economic classes. At the same time, it is crucial to note that the power relations in place between social groups may shift, and often because the group less powerful resists the societal order. This is true when, in the United States, an economic class coheres to present a unified presence and instigate social change, as in the recent 99 percent demonstrations of the middle class against corporate excess. It is true as well in regard to the social group of gay men and women, today asserting a demand for social recognition – and consequently elevated status – through the legalization of gay marriage on a national level. Even as progress is made, however, gays encounter persistent degrees of oppression, and of kinds marked by elements unique to the social group itself. Gays increasingly occupy more pronounced positions of status in the society, yet the forces once creating more widespread and extreme discrimination are too varied for genuine equality to be achieved. Given the unique and deeply embedded causes for societal perspectives on gays that promote oppression, it is likely that gays as a social group will continue to be in conflict with mainstream society.

Overview

As societies are complex, it follows that social perceptions, legal and economic status, ideas of privilege, and power relations are intrinsically interconnected. In simple terms, the poor working class, economically deprived, is denied social standing afforded to the wealthy, which then translates to lessened privileges and opportunities. Consequently, the conditions become cyclical; as privilege is withheld, the group is unable to move beyond the labor creating the economic inequality. In these cases, conflict is somewhat defined by the maintenance of a status quo, and one in place due to basic economic realities. The oppressed group is aware of the oppression, the dominant groups choose to facilitate the oppression, and the power of the latter to deny opportunity to the former enables the social structure to be maintained. Occasionally, such stability is threatened or destroyed when an economically oppressed group organizes to effect change. This has occurred in many instances, and globally. For example, the rise of education in 19^th century America – essentially a form of “privilege” – was the means by which the working class could expand its social status, even as the dominant classes opposed the progress (Rury, 2012, p. 17).

As complex as these social scenarios are, however, they nonetheless adhere to basic structures wherein social group standing influences, and is influenced by, economic factors. There are aspects beyond the economic but these, as in oppression generated by bias regarding human worth, tend to reflect the economic realities. With gays as a social group, and even as economics is an important factor in the oppression, a great deal more goes to the social positioning, and it may be argued that, in this instance, economic oppression is a by-product of a larger social bias. Moreover, this appears very much to be most represented in United States culture, as it is only very recently that homosexuality itself has been largely decriminalized. The actual trajectory of the social status of gays is one marked by extraordinary contrasts, in which both outright repression and mainstream societal dismissal have given way to increasing social acceptance and legitimacy. Nonetheless, the unique factors initially generating the social inequality, removed from traditional conflicts of economic status and/or social standing, are not likely to dissipate.

Background of Oppression

There can be no understanding of the nature of oppression as placed on the social group of gays without a recognition of how powerfully ideas of gender, masculinity, and femininity influence American society. This influence is not, of course, restricted to the United States, but it may be safely asserted that it reaches something of an apex in the U.S. American culture has always fiercely held to Westernized, traditional views of men and women in heterosexual terms, a social perspective or ideology probably rooted in a sense of American independence as removed from “decadent” European cultures. Then, it may be argued that a newly developing nation, as the U.S. was in its early years, is more concerned with establishing a foundation of population in order to strengthen itself. Added to this, not unexpectedly, is the significant factor of traditional religious feeling in the society as a whole, which viewed – and persists in viewing – homosexuality as an aberration and sin.

Whatever the underlying ideologies, however, there can be no disputing that, for the great extent of its history, the U.S. has consistently treated gays as a social outcast group. This oppression is marked by legal statutes which have reinforced the social bias, just as that bias has enabled laws targeting gays to long remain in place. In the early American colonies, severe penalties were enacted on those even suspected of homosexual behavior. Many such laws have only recently been overturned; in 2003, the Supreme Court finally addressed laws in 13 states demanding imprisonment for sodomy (Jiminez, 2009, p. 184). By the 19^th century, a certain degree of more enlightened thinking was easing oppression on gays, but it must be noted that this occurred only in elevated circles. In the mainstream society, the bias persisted, and being gay was so stigmatized that it was largely concealed by those members of the social group. To admit to being gay was not only dangerous in terms of legal response, it was virtually a guarantee of being shunned by the society itself. In terms of historical oppression, in fact, the courts of the U.S. have officially declared that, for the greater part of its existence, the nation and the society have blatantly violated civil rights in discriminating against gays (Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2009, 7-2). Ongoing efforts are in place to redress these injustices, even as states are gradually legalizing gay marriage. Nonetheless, gays as a social class remain marked by forms of bias which, if not overtly oppressive, derive from the same ideologies fueling the historical discrimination.

Discussion

To better comprehend why the oppression of this social group is likely to remain in force to some extent, it is helpful to view the subject in terms of conflict perspective. The theory, or thinking, is inherently broad in range, but it still reflects a key component within any scenario of social inequality: power. Even as conflict perspective may be based on an idealized view of a society in which conflict does not exist, such a view then holds to an extreme requiring that all power relations be completely equal. Power is the essential marker of conflict perspective (Hutchinson, 2010, p. 43) and, in no uncertain terms, it applies significantly to the issues of gay social standing as persistently subject to bias.

This critical factor of power becomes more evident when it is understood what actually defines gays as a social group or class. Gays exist in this form much as do economic classes, in that the distinction does not rely on race, gender, age, or creed; it is a social group based upon orientation of sexuality alone. Here, then, is the relevance of power, because sexuality, inextricably associated with gender and gender roles in American culture, is very much linked to ideas of power. For example, gay men, in terms of general social perception, violate an essential element of the larger social order: they surrender the privilege of the man as being dominant over the woman (Gerstenfeld, 2010, p. 192). Similarly, in not desiring the authoritative or dominant male, lesbians also irrefutably contradict the societal standard. Whether the power is stronger or weaker, the gay person is discarding the meaning as held to by the culture. Times and ideas have certainly changed to an extent, but it is unwise to underestimate how deeply rooted these perceptions are. It is true that gay men and women today are enabled to advance in mainstream society in ways unthinkable only decades ago, and this progress is most certainly due to consistent efforts on the part of the social group to resist longstanding oppression. Today, and supported by laws, gays are able to assert their orientation openly and still achieve high levels of success.

That these instances of acknowledged gays as being, at least ostensibly, within the mainstream are actual “occasions” noted as such, however, underscores the bias and oppressive belief systems still very much in place. In plain terms, exceptions remain only exceptions until they occur at such a rate that they are no longer remarkable, and it seems evident that no such process is foreseeable. This is supported by the undeniable degree of difficulty occurring in legalizing gay marriage, as well as by those measure taken to prevent it. On a fundamental level, and bringing the gay social class into the context of marginalized groups, legal marriage is a civil right as proscribed by law between consenting adults. This is a reality actually demonstrated by the “power struggles” created to deny it, which in turn emphasize the factor of power relations as generating gay oppression.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was famously passed, and is largely interpreted as a federal measure in place to prohibit gays from legally marrying. This is certainly true, but what is more interesting is the actual strategy behind DOMA; that is to say, rather than serve as a national statement or law denying gay marriage, it was essentially drafted to assert federal – and state – power over the rising tides of gay progress. By 1996, it was seen by Congress that this progress had created change, as it seems that the enormity of the change was too immense to be accepted by the national legislature. With DOMA, states have the right to ignore the legal gay marriages performed in other states, and consequently deny marriage benefits to gay partners (Mezey, 2009, p. 85). Even as President Obama has essentially eviscerated the power of DOMA, it is crucial to note just how recently this Act was devised, and how adamantly supporters of it fight to ensure its survival. This alone is potent evidence of just how power-based the struggle for gay social equality remains. More exactly, in a nation so recently having confronted issues of civil rights in regard to other groups, it is striking that denying of them to another should follow on the heels of those conflicts. In no uncertain terms, America faced a hard lesson in the black Civil Rights Movement, and that it is reluctant or unwilling to carry over this fundamental lessen in basic liberties reinforces just how stigmatized is the gay social class.

For the gays, it is very much about conflict as arising from power inequality, and a power inequality consistently enhanced by societal values firmly rooted. Given the success of gay rights activity in overturning hostile legislation and in making social strides, it seems that DOMA and responses like it are triggered to desperately maintain a societal resistance. Put another way, gays are permitted certain measures of power but, when actual equality is foreseeable, the society draws a liner and insists on reinforcing its convictions as to innate inequality. It is inevitable that, when an oppressed and/or marginalized social group seeks to advance its status, factions within the dominant group will respond to suppress this (Gerstenfeld, 2010, p. 193). Nothing more profoundly emphasizes this than the opposition to gay marriage, which serves to reflect broader concerns within the society as to the true “worth” of gay men and women. Definitions of worth as held to by a mainstream society must translate to degrees of power, as those deemed of less inherent value may not be permitted to share power equally.

As noted, progress has been made and certain perceptions regarding gays are changing. These changes, however, do not indicate a sense of acknowledging a reality long ignored, but rather a means of compensation. More exactly, if mainstream society today perceives itself as having been unjust to gays in the past, this by no means equates to a commitment to discard bias. Basic ideologies still hold sway in the culture: for a man to gain social rewards in America, he must fully embrace and represent the common ideal of the masculine heterosexual (Kendall, Martino, 2012, p. 12). Converse thinking applies to women, so what becomes evident is that, through gender role definitions, the social group of gays must remain stigmatized. In plain terms, society today is only minimally coming to terms with heterosexual roles deviating from traditional standards. Resistance then marks efforts made by the more powerful members of the society themselves, because ideas what men and women must be are so deeply ingrained. In such a terrain, and despite necessary and significant advances made in the law and through social opportunities, the likely scenario is that the social group of gays will face oppression for some time to come, if not indefinitely.

Conclusion

American history reveals few instances of a social group as facing virtually insurmountable oppression as that of gays. For the vast majority of its existence, the U.S. has consistently discriminated against gays legally and socially, with both aspects fueling one another. In recent decades, gay men and women have made extraordinary progress in gaining rights. Unfortunately, the greater efforts have resulted in increased opposition, and this reactive process clearly indicates the true obstacle facing gays. America is a nation and culture reliant upon fixed ideas of gender roles, and gays utterly contradict these ideas. The group that ignores the mainstream “needs” is not a group that may be accorded power so, even as gays advance, their real status is seen as inherently lessened. It is, in a very real sense, not fully that of the citizen, as laws still exist denying the civil right of marriage. It is to be hoped that gays as a social force will continue to challenge oppression, but it must also be anticipated that each challenge will be met by evidence of the gender/power perceptions so greatly in place. Given the unique and deeply embedded reasons for societal perspectives on gays that continue to promote oppression, it is probable that gays as a social group will continue to be in conflict with the mainstream society still viewing it as deviant.

References

Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2010). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hutchinson, E. D. (2010). Dimensions of Human Behavior: Person and Environment, 4^th Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jiminez, J. (2009). Social Policy and Social Change: Toward the Creation of Social and Economic Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kendall, C., & Martino, W. (2012). Gendered Outcasts and Sexual Outlaws:Sexual Oppression and Gender Hierarchies in Queer Men’s Lives. New York: Routledge.

Mezey, S. G. (2009). Gay Families and the Courts: The Quest for Equal Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Rury, J. L. (2012). Education and Social Change: Contours in the History of American Schooling. New York: Routledge.

Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. D. (2009). State Courts, Federal Courts, and Legal Scholars Have Determined That LGBT People Have Experienced a Long History of Discrimination. UC Los Angeles: The Williams Institute. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/33z8f2pf