Heteronormative Representations of the Family and Parenting in Public Policies: Implications for LGBTIQ+ Families

Abstract

This research analyzes the discourse of the Chilean State Program: “Chile Crece Contigo”, a program aimed at supporting the upbringing of children. We wonder about representation in the discourses of family and parenting, especially regarding LGBTIQ+ families. To do this, we compiled the materials available on the program website, which are particularly directed at the sphere of family and parenting. We carry out a documentary analysis, based on an approach to the post-structuralist analysis of public policy to identify how and what is the representation of the problem that public policies seek to solve. The results show only heteronormative perspectives to understand families, where sexual diversity within its constitution is almost invisible. At the same time, the exercise of parenting is represented as a materialization of sexist practices that reproduce stereotypes roles. Thus, this reinforces the idea that heteronormativity establishes an articulating axis of public policy that regulates the life of the subjects, maintaining differentiating parameters regarding the consideration of an expected behavior in society based on sex/gender. It is concluded that gender stereotypes supported by heteronormative models cause the marginalization of a significant percentage of families that do not fit into the imaginary of public policies under these heteronormative models, such as LGBTIQ+ families.

“We Need a Father and a Mother!” Rationalities around Filiation in the State: The Invisibility of LGBTIQ+ Families

“…This research is in line with similar ones that have exposed the heteronormative representations of subjects in public policies [13,14,16,68]. In this regard, other studies on the state of public policies on sexual diversity in Chile have reported heteronormative structures to think about sexuality and bodies, which limits the possibilities of agency of the subjects [11]; or how sexual diversity itself is homogenized, generating that the difference is amalgamated and therefore not represented in its entirety [13].…”

“…Thus, in the problem represented by the current legislation, and framed in the sociohistorical context briefly mentioned, children and adolescents who choose to be adopted are understood as vulnerable subjects, whose stay under the guardianship of the State 5 is transitory and is framed in the following cases: first, that the State will be a better rights guarantor than their original families and that the State institution or authorized by the State will have the power to define morally the suitability of a family, from expert knowledge, to maintain the guardianship of their child or a family they wish to adopt. These power-knowing dynamics show rationalities based on traditional family models, showing a position that makes LGBTIQ+ people who wish to become parents invisible [5,14].…”

“…These assumptions come into tension since a neutral perspective is not possible in relation to a moral judgment, which will inevitably be influenced by the sociocultural, political, and religious context in which discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people has been built, i.e. : heteronormativity [1,14,51,52].…”

“…In Chile, although there are studies that have addressed the experience of parenthood and family formation among LGBTIQ+ people 1 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], there are still few studies on LGBTIQ+ families and their relationship with the political actions of the State. Some of these investigations have focused on the study of LGBTIQ+ people from two perspectives: (a) one from a human rights point of view [8][9][10]; and (b) from a post-structuralist analysis of public policies [11][12][13][14], highlighting those related to the civil union agreement [15][16][17]. In this context, this research is positioned from the second group of investigations, seeking two objectives: (a) to describe the procedures, characteristics, and, above all, the rationalities present in three institutions of the State of Chile in matters of filiation; and (b) to analyze how these rationalities, positioned in heteronormativity, exclude families that are not represented in public policies, such as LGBTIQ+ families.…”