Carole Vance’s article, “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality,” explains how the social construction theory can be used to help understand LBGTQ+ identities. As discussed previously, essentialism assumes that all things, at the essence, are the same or share a similar experience. However, this does not take culture into consideration, and just how far humans are constructed socially. Vance explains that the LBGTQ+ community would benefit from identifying as a socially constructed group, because assuming that sexuality is finite or natural is an essentialist argument that completely undermines people who are sexually fluid and rejects the idea that one’s sexuality can change over time, under the right (social) circumstances (Vance 161). Most importantly, Vance talks about the various fallacies or misunderstood ideas of applying social construction theory to queer theory—that social construction trivializes or does not recognize gay or lesbian identities and that because LBGTQ+ identities are a social construction, they are easily changeable. This is false. In actuality, while society does influence and, in some circumstances create, sexualities, this does not make them any more false than society’s creation of heterosexual (or “traditional”) sexual identities (Vance 161). Taking out the naturalization of sexuality, and accepting the fact that all cultures, past and present, form their own ideas and practices of sexuality, can take away the idea of “sexual minorities” as an other. With that in mind, social constructivism can be used outside of the LBGTQ+ spectrum. At its base, social constructivism is a means to view the impact of debates on cultures within the context of their own societies.
Janet Hadley and Rebecca Tuthus-Dubrow wrote two different articles surrounding pro-choice; Hadley wrote from an Amsterdam perspective, and Tuthus-Dubrow, an American one. When applied here, it’s easy to see social construction in action. Hadley writes in “The AWFULISATION of Abortion” how pro-choice and pro-life individuals have the same line of thinking, only one supports abortion and the other opposes it. Hadley writes from a presumed insider’s (Amsterdam citizen) perspective, as she formulates her paper as an open letter to the Amsterdam government. She discusses how both pro-life and pro-choicers choose to demonize abortion, and shame women for getting one. The pro-choice people call it a “necessary evil,” a tragedy, and women who undergo abortions are desperate and this is their last choice. They also say they will never promote abortion as a viable contraception method (Hadley 1). The language is constructed so similar to pro-life, and it is intended to make women feel shame or guilt about having an abortion, or that having sex was a mistake. Her goal is to deconstruct the language used and mentality of shaming women, and give women the actual option to have a safe abortion, with a safe space to talk about it, free of guilt. In this particular example, Hadley reinforces social constructivism as shown by Vance through how a culture outside of the US views avortion drastically different. Societies construct their own ideas, which can be radically different from one country to the next.
In the US, Tuthus-Dubrow shows a side of pro-choice that is becoming quite popular in America. This refers to the practice of choosing the way ones baby will look. This is a whole new type of pro-choice, one that many pro-choicers are attempting to purposefully distance themselves from (Tuthus-Bubrow 40). The problem with this new sort of choice is that it is being referred to a modern form of eugenics—parents able to pick everything from gender to eye-color means that selection for societal desired traits rises while “natural” babies might fall. Furthermore, it is hard to reign in debate on this subject. While many pro-choicers would agree that choosing to select away from birth defects is acceptable, when it comes to picking the baby’s features, things get muddier. Are pro-choicers who argue against this baby eugenics arguing just as much against reproductive rights as pro-lifers are? According to Tutus-Dubrow, this is the biggest challenge to pro-choice rights activists since the 70s (Tuthus-Dubrow 41).
Social constructivism is a lens through which to view the other articles. Vance’s article is very thorough and attempts to explain social constructivism while debunking the natural myths involving sexuality. These concepts can be applied to the other articles. Hadley’s article on abortion comes from a different perspective than the dominating American one. This Amsterdam perspective shows a completely different attitude towards pro-choice. Unlike the American response that argues that abortion is not a sin, or an evil, the Amsterdam pro-choice voice says it is a sinful evil but a necessary one. Through social constructivism, it can be understood that these are both valid opinions and in their respected societies are equal. An American pro-choicer does not have the right to call the Amsterdam perspective less of a movement just because they do view abortion as morally wrong. Moving on to the Tutus-Dubrow article, we see a new type of pro-choice movement that has not existed previously in time. These baby eugenics, or designer babies (depending on who one speaks with), fall under the umbrella of reproductive rights but in an intensely debated gray area. Other cultures may not have this problem yet, it is one temporally and spatially separated by technology, but may soon spread to other societies in the future. Social constructivism explains that this exists in the United States in one form, but may change forms drastically when it moves to a new culture or people. Social constructivism is poorly understood by many, but has the potential to explain so much more.
Works Cited
Hadley, Janet. “The ‘Awfulisation’ of Abortion.” Gobal Network for Reproductive Rights, 1996.
Print.
Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca. “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement.” Dissent, 2007. Print.
Vance, Carole. “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality.”
Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality? A. Van Kooten Nierkerk and T. Van Der Meer, eds.
Amsterdam: An Dekker, 1989. Print.
