Sociological Accounts of Same-Sex Marriage, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The debate concerning same-sex marriage has helped bring to light some of the underlying societal perspectives and tensions surrounding concepts such as marriage, family and the nature of society itself. On the one hand, we can understand the viewpoint of the opponents of same-sex marriage in terms of their opposition to a radical change in “traditional” norms: On the other hand, support for same-sex marriage can be interpreted within the context of an ever-evolving discourse on the meaning of human and individual rights: That is to say, societal obstacles to same-sex marriage are viewed as instances of discrimination. Furthermore, that the potential legalization of same-sex marriage is being debated primarily in Western countries suggests that the issue can be viewed as an outgrowth of the very centrality given to individual rights within the Occidental societies. The following essay shall attempt to frame the debate concerning same-sex marriage precisely in relation to the tension over the notion of individual rights. Accordingly, we shall present same-sex marriage as a development of the concept of individual rights, whereas resistance to same-sex marriage intimates a non-centrality conferred to individual rights within Western society. In both cases, however, what is operative is a distinct social construction that informs both opinions: essentially, each position is advanced according to a certain hierarchy of social values, social values that are defined by a given discourse. Therefore, in order to understand these various discourses, we shall summarize and analyze them according to prominent sociological approaches, such as the functionalist view, the conflict view and the symbolic interactionist view. By following such different approaches, the aim is to provide an account of how the structure of Western society itself informs this debate and moreover, what such a debate says about Western society.

The Same Sex Marriage Debate: Human Rights And Western Society 

It is pertinent to note that in the academic literature there is a pronounced emphasis on the issue of same-sex marriage within Western countries, while there is an absence of any significant discussion of the issue in non-Western countries. Accordingly, this suggests that same-sex marriage needs to be understood in the context of North American and European societies. It can be inferred that the contemporary prominence of the same-sex marriage issue within these societies is the logical outgrowth of a greater humanist tradition, in which individual rights and individual liberty are posited as a certain organizing principle of society. As Macionis and Plummer write, this development in the West can be traced back to political theorists, social theorists and other thinkers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Smith, who initiated “a distinct shift in focus from people’s moral obligations to remain loyal to their rules to the idea that society is the product of individual self-interest.” (14) According to Macionis and Plummer, the notion of individual rights therefore develops from a radical reversal of how people conceive of their role within society: the individual him or herself must be viewed as central to this society, and thus, society and politics must be organized according to this new ideology. Hence, there is the emergence of “key phrases in the new political climate [such as] individual liberty and individual rights.” (Macionis and Plummer, 14) Such ideas manifest themselves in particular historical moments, such as the French revolution of 1789 and the American constitution.

According to the Western emphasis on individual rights, we can consider same-sex marriages as a further development in this line of thought. Such continuity is evidently clear in arguments used in favor of same-sex rights, which either explicitly or implicitly appeal to this humanist and Enlightenment tradition of individuality. For example, during debates concerning the Australian Marriage Amendment Bill of 2004, the advocates of same-sex marriage “drew on human rights discourse in their attempt to discredit the legislation. They argued that the legislation was directly inconsistent with principles of equality and non-discrimination.” (McNamara, 148)

However, that the Marriage Amendment Bill did not include a legalization or recognition of same-sex marriage demonstrates that such individual rights, despite remaining a dominant feature of Western life, nevertheless exist alongside other norms. In other words, regardless of the apparent tradition of individual rights in countries with a Western-oriented tradition, there exist other prominent societal discourses of importance. However, the very potential for such legalization exists because of the tradition of individual rights. This demonstrates a certain dissonance within such Western societies themselves regarding their basic ideological orientation. For example, those opposed to same-sex marriage tend to not rely on an individual rights discourse, but rather on a disjunction between, on the one hand, notions of sexuality, and on the other hand, traditional views of marriage and family. For example, citing results from a survey and study conducted in the United States, Newman and Grauerholz note, “Gay and lesbian partners are typically thought of as individuals, not as family members, reflecting a pervasive belief that homosexuality and family are mutually exclusive concepts.” (Newman & Grauerholz, 15) Moreover, Newman and Grauerholz note that in the above study over 50% of the participants were opposed to gay marriage, thus reflecting a clear societal tension. This tension unfolds according to differing viewpoints on the prime values of society: that is, whether these values should be thought in terms of the rights of the individual or the rights of the traditional family. As Newman and Grauerholz write, the opposition to same-sex marriage suggests that the traditional conception of the family views the family as “not one lifestyle among many but the fundamental arrangement in society.” (15) This view, therefore, directly contradicts with the discourse of individual rights: Lifestyle is the key term here, precisely because it suggests individuality. The notion that the family is not a lifestyle choice – that it is not the product of an individual choice – underscores the notion that there is only a single possible arrangement of family, and moreover that this arrangement of family is crucial to the very possibility of society itself. What such debates concerning the essence of family and individuality suggest is that the structure of Western societies, from a sociological perspective, is heterogeneous as opposed to homogeneous.

Three Sociological Perspectives On Same-Sex Marriage: Functionalist, Conflict And Symbolic Interactionist   

Various sociological approaches can aid in the understanding of the division inherent to issues like same-sex marriage. Particularly, these approaches can explain how multiple meanings and viewpoints may be present within a single, apparently homogeneous society. This suggests that issues such as same-sex marriage themselves are reflections of particular organizations that exist both within a particular society and are constitutive of such a society.

From the functionalist perspective, the case of same sex marriage requires an emphasis on “how societies seek to influence or control the sexuality of their members through specific cultural norms.” (Kornblum, 207) Thus, crucial to the functionalist approach is the notion that various segments of society, such as institutions, control, in a hegemonic manner, various viewpoints on issues. Moreover, the control central to the functionalist account can be read as an unconscious control: these societal norms are intrinsic components of particular societal structures. However, what is interesting about the same-sex marriage question is that it immediately complicates the functionalist approach, insofar as there is a division within Western society regarding the issue itself. This suggests that there are a plurality of norms that exist within this very society: Accordingly, how can the functionalist emphasis on institutional control explain the different sides of the debate? For the functionalist approach to hold, it must acknowledge the possible heterogeneity within society itself.  That is, a particular society can be constituted by particular institutions that perpetuate particular norms. For example, legal and juridical norms may place a primary emphasis on the notion of individual rights, whereas other institutions such as church or the family will suggest different norms, thus construing same-sex marriage as a transgression. In this sense, a phenomenon such as the same-sex marriage debate can be understood as a symptom of the heterogeneous types of norms that may exist within a singular society.

Accordingly, the conflict approach in sociology would seem to provide a more accurate account of issues like same-sex marriage. David M. Newman writes, “conflict sociologists are interested in various sources of conflict and inequality.” (Newman, 19) Thus, for the conflict sociologist, the fact that a multiplicity of meanings replaces the perceived homogeneity of society is crucial to their very viewpoint. Same-sex marriage merely manifests the already heterogeneous constitution of society and allows it to be easily identified. Moreover, the further step for the conflict sociologists is to look for locations of hegemony and the very sources for such tensions. Thus, in the case of gay marriage, the conflict approach will implore that although an apparent discourse on individual liberty exists in Western democracy, the fact that in the majority of Western countries same sex marriage remains illegal suggests that there is a fundamental inequality present within these societies: In other words, institutions that produce norms not complicit with human rights discourse are in superior positions of power, for example, the Church. It is precisely because homosexuals do not occupy a position of power within society that such an inequality becomes manifested in the illegality of same-sex marriage: there is a clear hierarchy of values that produces such conflict. Nevertheless, one can critique the conflict approach to the extent that they seek out instances of inequality: such an approach would suggest a complicity with the very discourse of individual rights, which as we have shown, can be viewed as the product of specifically Western ways of thinking. That is, by examining inequality and moreover critiquing such inequality, this suggests that conflict theory remains within the parameters of an individual rights discourse, and is a sociological approach animated by a particularly Western viewpoint.

The symbolic interactionist approach perhaps provides a more thoroughly dynamic framework from which to analyze societal phenomena such as gay marriage debate. What is crucial to the symbolic interactionist view are “attempts to understand society and social structure through an examination of the micro-level interactions as individuals, pairs or groups.” (Newman, 19) Thus, as “structural-functionalist and the conflict perspectives…both analyze society mostly at the macro or structural level” (Newman, 19) symbolic interactionism takes seriously the “micro-level” (Newman, 19) where meanings are produced among individuals and groups constituting the society. As opposed to an over-arching narrative attempting to grasp the essence of society as a whole, symbolic interactionism posits the local manifestations of meanings, or “symbols that are created modified and used by people through their interactions with others.” (Newman, 19) Such symbols may be defined as “any kind of physical phenomenon – a word, object, color, sound, feeling, odor movement, or taste – to which people assign a name, meaning or value.” (Ferrante, 49) In the context of gay marriage, therefore, the possibility of multiple points of view within a singular society indicate that certain symbols of meaning, such as individual rights, or an emphasis on the family in heterosexual terms, generate and perpetuate the meaning of these perspectives. In this regard, symbols such as individual rights can become dominant symbols, for example, for those in favor of gay rights. For others, individual rights can be viewed as an important symbol up to a certain limit point, after which another symbol, such as the aforementioned belief in the thoroughly heterosexual nature of the family, achieves a hegemony of meaning within society. Moreover, what is important to this approach is that, as Newman, notes such “symbols don’t bear any necessary connection to nature. Rather, they’re arbitrary human creations.” (19) Thus, appeals from both sides of the debate to either human rights or the family are not appeals to any non-human, realist essence, but rather are indicative of a reliance on particular symbols. This approach helps explain the multiplicity of meanings, while simultaneously suspending any value judgment according to the particular symbolic content of a given society. Concomitantly, it allows for subsequent change within society, as central to the approach is “the simple recognition that human beings interpret each other’s actions as the means of acting toward one another.” (Blumer, 79) Accordingly, in the case of a debate over same sex marriage, there is a key interpretation between the two symbols at work, an interaction, despite symbolic differences, which explains how society can function as a singular structure.

Conclusion

The interpretation of same-sex marriage as premised on a discourse on individual rights is justified according to the presence of debate on the topic being primarily located in Western countries with a historical tradition of individual rights. However, such Western countries, in their substantial opposition to gay marriage demonstrate that the West cannot be broadly summarized as simply the seat of individual liberty. While an increasing number of Western countries begin to recognize or legalize certain forms of same sex marriage or unions, this trend suggests that the individual rights discourse remains an increasing force within such societal formulations. In this regard, to understand this development from a sociological perspective, the account from symbolic interactionism would seem to be the most sufficient. By positing the origin of meaning on a micro-level within a greater societal structure, this approach can successfully account for phenomena such as gay rights, the opposition to gay rights and moreover, how society can change in the future. From the symbolic interactionist viewpoint, society essentially is constituted by dynamic points of dialogue, in which old norms can either be maintained or eventually overturned.

Works Cited

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986.

Ferrante, Joan. Sociology: A Global Perspective. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2005.

Macionis, John J. and Plummer, Ken. Sociology: A Global Introduction. Essex: Pearson, 2005.

McNamara, Luke. Human Rights Controversies: The Impact of Legal Form. London: Routledge, 2007.

Newman, David M.  Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life.  London: Pine Forge Press, 2010.

Newman, David M. and Grauerholz, Elizabeth. Sociology of Families. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.

Kornblum, William. Sociology in a Changing World. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2007.