(Re)defining heteronormativity

Abstract

In this article, we examine definitions tied to the term heteronormativity. Taking a random sample of articles from Gender Studies and SociIndex, and a purposive sample of articles from various journals with the highest citation count and relevancy to the field, we analyze how meanings of heteronormativity transformed from the time of its conception until the present. We find that the word has deviated from its original meanings, with subsequently published articles relying on different theoretical frames. We delineate the different uses of heteronormativity into four discrete categories that each follow differing threads of theory, from that of Foucault and Warner/Seidman, Rich, Butler, and Rubin. To encourage clarification in future scholarship, we provide prefixes for each use of heteronormativity, which correspond to each theoretical trend: heterosexist-heteronormativity, gendered-heteronormativity, hegemonic-heteronormativity, and cisnormative-heteronormativity. This new language will allow researchers to continue to expose and unveil heteronormativity and foster clear dialogue on its multidimensional properties.

Perceiving gender while perceiving language: Integrating psycholinguistics and gender theory

“…Heteronormativity first emerged as a term characterizing the conditions under which specifically homosexual individuals are subordinated and excluded, but has subsequently been expanded upon to encompass the ways in which societal ideas about sex, gender, and sexuality in the West have been constructed to exclude numerous other groups as well, defining conventionally privileged expressions of sex, gender, and sexuality as uniquely acceptable (Marchia & Sommer, 2019). Broadly, heteronormativity indexes the concept of the gender binary, dividing human beings into two normative person‐kinds: those whose sex assigned at birth (SAB) to be female (AFAB), later developing into adult women with sexual attraction to men, and those who are assigned to be male at birth (AMAB), later developing into adult men with sexual attraction to women (Rubin, 1975; Ward & Schneider, 2009).…”

“…Broadly, heteronormativity indexes the concept of the gender binary, dividing human beings into two normative person‐kinds: those whose sex assigned at birth (SAB) to be female (AFAB), later developing into adult women with sexual attraction to men, and those who are assigned to be male at birth (AMAB), later developing into adult men with sexual attraction to women (Rubin, 1975; Ward & Schneider, 2009). To account for the complex relationships between societal power and the construction of both normative and deviant categories, Marchia and Sommer (2019) theorizes several distinctive forms of heteronormativity to describe how the conception and expression of sex, gender assignment, gender performance, and sexuality, each are policed under interlocking frameworks. To address how each is necessarily part of attempts to position European features and traditions as normative not only in adults but in children and adolescents, we adopt the term developmental heteronormativity to broadly characterize hegemonic beliefs about relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and child development.…”

Love is heterosexual‐by‐default: Cultural heterosexism in default prototypes of romantic love

“…Thus ‘cultural heterosexism’ and ‘heteronormativity’ have overlapping meanings, but very different intellectual histories. Heteronormativity has since come to take on a wider range of meanings in the interdisciplinary literature (see Marchia & Sommer, 2019). Our preference for ‘cultural heterosexism’ here reflects more the fact that this paper is psychological in its scope, than any particular difference between these two terms that both aim to name this oppressive ideology.…”

Generalized and Contingent Trust of Others Among Sexual Minority Individuals

“…In summary, the current findings provide evidence for the possibility that sexual minority individuals utilize a contingent trust approach significantly more than their heterosexual counterparts. This contingent trust orientation may be explained in part by the unique nature of being an invisible minority individual in a heteronormative culture (Marchia and Sommer, ). The complexities of being less visible may also provide explanation for similar levels of generalized trust between sexual minority respondents and their heterosexual counterparts, which was unexpected given the gaps in generalized trust typically seen between racial minority individuals and their white counterparts.…”