From: Miles Jackson
You're conflating two things here: 1. heterosexual sexual activity 2. the sexual categorization of people into stable types
As numerous societies throughout history have demonstrated, you don't need to have the stable sexual category "heterosexual" that we have today to ensure the survival of the human species. This is not a trivial distinction.
^^^^ CB: Ah yes "conflation". Lets just see whether or not I am confused on the distinctions between biology and culture.
Are you claiming that there were no sexual organizations of people into stable types before capitalism ? Since according to Foucault "homosexual", and therefore presumably "heterosexual", only originated as a stable sexual type at the end of the 1800's , how come the sexual stable type ,"heterosexual", was not necessary to most of the period of the development of capitalism, since you claim that socalled heterosexuality is integral to capitalism ? The answer is it wasn't ,and it is evidence that heterosexuality is _not_ integral to capitalism as you claim here.
Just saying that heterosexuality is part of the superstructure of capitalism and therefore is "caused" by capitalism is, as you, allude to, a pseudo, "vulgar" marxism ( in the bad sense of "vulgar"; I _am_ a vulgar marxist myself). In other words, you have to demonstrate it. You can't just assert that socalled heterosexism reinforces capitalism. I gave Kelley examples of where same-sex sex functions for capitalism. From this same sex stable personality types function for capitalism's stabilization.
The cross ( not conflation) between the cultural and the biological here comes in in population regulation questions. Homosexuality is something of a birth control mode. So, to the extent rulers might want to increase or decrease a particular population, they may encourage or discourage homosexuality.
^^^^^
Miles: Kel's recent post about her ex is a good example of the consequences here: once we produce and reinforce these rigid sexual categories, we facilitate derogation and stigmatization of people who don't "fit". It's important to keep in mind that the sexual preferences of K's ex would not raise an eyebrow in some societies, and people would not even think of pressuring him to have one stable sexual identity.
How does it link to capitalism? I'm pretty much a naive Marxist here: heterosexism is part of the superstructure of our actually existing capitalist society, and like the other superstructural components--family, religion, law, custom--heterosexism tends to reinforce and stabilize the capitalist social order.
^^^^^
Miles:A few examples:
1. Antagonism against gays and lesbians divides the workers (think Cox and his argument about racism, which CB notes in his post).
^^^^^ CB: This is a potential partial link, but by my experience and knowledge of history, this issue has not been anywhere near what other dividers of the working class like race and nationality and gender have been. Capitalism has not been depending this to disunite the workers.
To put it in the same category as racism in this regard is _very_ problematic, and very bad rhetoric , believe me. You really don't want to start saying to Black people that socalled heterosexism is on a par with racism (!)
^^^^^^^^
2. Gays and lesbians serve as scapegoats for economic and political frustration, redirecting hostility from the capitalist class.
^^^^^^ CB: This could be true of many prejudices: "fat" people, old people , young people. It doesn't make this into the same type as racism or sexism.
^^^^^^^
3. The need to be unambiguously straight or gay incites personal consumption to reinforce sexual identity (bubba buys a macho truck)--creation and expansion of capitalist economy.
^^^^^ CB: This just doesn't grab me. The social need to be sexually ambiguous could reinforce consumption, like increasing the demand for big , pink trucks or something.
^^^^^^^
4. Perhaps most subtly: the notion that people are stable sexual types reinforces the ideology of the unique individual (people are stable personality types, who act on the basis of their own unique constellation of traits and preferences). This more or less obliterates any consideration of how social factors shape human life, and encourages people in everyday life to individualize problems and social issues (e.g., poverty exists because people are lazy). This is ideology par excellence.
^^^^^^ CB: Yea, but to try to dump this very general pattern of individualism in as proof that stable sexual personality types is critical to capitalism isn't very convincing. No, I don't think capitalism is relying on socalled heterosexism to maintain a conception of the self as prior to the social. I can see capitalism, in general , promoting the notion of the self as prior to the social, and then sexual personality types are just grouped in the same way as other stuff.
This sounds similar to Foucault's basic error. Does he try to develop a whole new general social theory based on "heternormativity" analysis ? This has to be critiqued. ^^^^^^^
Could a capitalist society exist without heterosexism? Sure. However, just like racism and sexism, it's a piece of the ideological puzzle in our actually existing capitalist society.
Miles ^^^^^ CB: Well, no , that's what I am arguing against. It is _not_ of the same type , "order of magnitude", as a piece of the ideological puzzle of actually existing captialist society as racism and sexism.
A certain amount of hetersexual sex (not conflating the concept) is necessary to reproduce the working population, but that can be done while still accomodating a significant sector of same-sex or unstable sexual personality types, such as all male ,slave-capturing pirates on boats for long periods of time with no women.