A multicultural feminist perspective on interpersonal violence against lesbians and gay men.

The Spectacle of Violence: Homophobia, Gender, and Knowledge. By Gail Mason. London: Routledge, 2002, 170 pages. Paper, $22.95.

In social science, increasing attention is being focused on sociocultural influences from a multicultural feminist perspective. One such application has to do with the impact of sociocultural influences on the expression of interpersonal violence within situational contexts. Gail Mason's thoughtful and provocative volume adds an important dimension to ongoing discussions that focus on hate crimes against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgenders.

Brown (1995) defines the goal of a multicultural feminist perspective as "the development of a multicultural, nonWhite, and non-Western feminist database on the varieties of women's experiences.... from a canon of scholarship that is diverse and multicultural in methodology and content" (p. 152). Mason has embraced this perspective and seeks to examine homophobia-related violence through the exploration of violence as a spectacle, as well as an instrument, that can be articulated as a question of knowledge. That is, violence can be a mechanism through which citizens in our society distinguish and observe one another.

The discussion that comprises this book is structured in six chapters:

1. A discussion of methodological issues, including findings emanating from a qualitative data set.

2. A discussion of how the interactions of gender and sexuality set the stage for how homophobia-related violence is a reflection of our dysfunctional perspectives of same-sex sexual expression as being disordered or dislocated (fours themes around questions of homosexuality are used to illustrate this reality: dirt, hetero-sex, butch, and boy/girl).

3. A stimulating discussion of how to conceptualize homophobia-related violence when we are dealing with the intersections of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation identity.

4. An exploration of the relationship between homophobia-related violence and the construct of sexual visibility.

5. An examination of the question, does violence actually infiltrate the very meaning of the construct of homosexuality?

6. A stimulating discussion of the viability of incorporating both feminist theory and Foucault in our attempts to better understand the relationship between violence and power.

In Chapter 1, Mason does a credible job of presenting the argument for relying on qualitative research strategies to document phenomenological experiences. Mason's data set, based on 70 women ranging in age from 14 to 57 years and residing in Australia, is used as an illustration of the usefulness of such an approach. It would have been advantageous if Mason had applied more concerted attention to systematically exploring the impact on her data of cultural influences within Australia. Mason asserts that a qualitative research strategy better explains previously unseen accounts of experience while simultaneously addressing issues of ecological validity. Through the exploration of experience, we may gain a clearer understanding of the individual, although such accounts of experience may not be totally reflective of objective reality. However, perception is reality, and as such is equally valuable to critique and process for its cultural meaning. Unfortunately, the potential value of mixed designs (combining quantitative and qualitative approaches; see Patton, 1990) is never entertained as a viable compromise in Mason's discussion of culturally sensitive methodological strategies in the social sciences.

Mason starts out Chapter 2 by clearly enunciating the reality that violence is always shaped by cultural contexts such that it is an interpretation of certain events. As a form of knowledge, it lends itself to interpretation. Similarly, homophobia-related violence makes a statement about certain attitudes and belief systems about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender subject. There also exist themes (i.e., linguistic and contextual patterns) within the accounts of experience that need to be examined. Qualitative data lend themselves to that type of thematic content analysis. For example, one of the most common words used to intimidate and insult is the word dirty (i.e., "dirty fag," "dirty lesbian"). Name-calling is a common phenomenon in schools, and the association between being "dirty" and being "sexual" is rather common within the United States. A person engaging in sexual acts is typically perceived as being dirty and possessing "impure thoughts." Likewise, the smells often associated with sexual activity are perceived as dirty. Thus, innocent people are "polluted" when they associate with dirty people. This perceived reality sets the stage for the expression of homophobia-related violence.

The second theme, hetero-sex, relates to the preoccupation of heterosexuals with "curing" lesbians and gay men by forcing them to engage in heterosexual sexual encounters. The belief here is that anyone experiencing such hetero-interactions will turn "straight." If that is not the case, then this unexpected reality can be perceived as rather threatening and disconcerting, especially to an emotionally vulnerable individual. This tension, anxiety, and internal conflict can be the catalyst for the expression of homophobia-related violence. Also, there can be confusion about whether same-sex sexual encounters involve novel or unique sexual activities that do not occur within the context of heterosexual sexual encounters. This myth can lead to a rather intense preoccupation with finding out what exactly lesbians and gay men do, which can lead as well to tension, anxiety, and internal conflict resulting in homophobia-related violence.

The third theme, butch, refers to the assumption that gender identity is the primary criterion for the selection of an attractive, sexually appealing female partner. It also refers to the belief that lesbians as well as gay men engage in elevated levels of gender-role nonconformity that is perceived as being physically attractive and sexually appealing by their partners. Thus, homosexuality is viewed within the mainstream United States culture as being a violation of established gender order which must be stopped to preserve the propagation of the human species.

Finally, with the girl/boy theme, compulsory heterosexuality is at the cornerstone of most discussions concerning the definition of gender in the United States. Women's primary identity is routinely centered on their relationship to men. Thus, the expression of same-sex sexuality is automatically perceived as being "deficient" and "inferior" since it doesn't involve men. Such confusion can also result in the expression of homophobia-related violence.

The eternally perplexing problem plaguing social scientists and practitioners alike is how to accurately document what the perpetrator actually perceives and processes prior to engaging in homophobia-related violence. We have a long way to go to achieve that goal. Mason makes that quite apparent in Chapter 4 where she focuses on issues of intersectionality and homophobia-related violence. Mason does an incredible job of raising the issue of how to conceptualize homophobia-related violence in the 21st century given the racially and culturally diverse populations inhabiting our globe.

We are seldom going to be in a position to fully understand the inner workings of the mind of a perpetrator, what is being processed and what is not just seconds prior to the initiation of a homophobia-related violent act. The picture becomes even more complex when one considers lesbians and gay men with "multiple minority identities" resulting in "multiple oppressions." It is becoming increasingly apparent that a reconceptualization of the hate crimes construct that combines homophobia-related hate crimes, racially motivated hate crimes, and gendered violence is clearly in order. These diverse, distinct literatures have yet to be combined conceptually into a more holistic, multidimensional construct. Mason does an excellent job of putting this issue out on the table for examination. She asserts that the first step is to replace the term intersections with the term interactions, believing that the intersection of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation identity does not do adequate justice to the dynamics and bidirectional influences that exist. In contrast, the term interactions does a more credible job of reflecting that reality. I commend Mason for stepping up to the plate and taking a rather controversial stand on this issue with no apologies.

Elsewhere in this volume, Mason raises the rather perplexing issue of the impact of homophobia-related violence on the perceived fear of possible homophobia-related violent incidents in the future. Specifically, she asks what impact the reality of homophobia-related violence has on the expression of risky behaviors (e.g., holding hands or kissing in public) in ambiguous situations. This reality keeps many lesbians and gay men "in the closet," attempting to pass as heterosexuals for fear of rejection from families and friends as well as physical reprisals from homophobic strangers. Mason speculates that it is plausible that homophobia-related violence shapes and molds the perceptions of lesbians and gay men about their physical bodies, physical spaces, and their external environments, which results in their taking certain precautionary measures. Unfortunately, there are no empirical data to document the negative impacts of these precautionary measures on the lifestyles of lesbians and gay men. Most likely, race and socioeconomic status play influential roles in being able to implement a wide array of precautionary measures within various situational contexts.

Along those lines, in Chapter 5 Mason focuses on the impact of taunts, insults, violent acts, discrimination, and prejudice on the perceptions of lesbians and gay men within contemporary society. To what extent does being fearful of homophobia-related violence and/or being a survivor of homophobia-related violence negatively impact one's perceived meaning of being homosexual? The relevant question here becomes, to what extent do these experiences impact one's level of psychological functioning? Do they result in the expression of psychiatric disturbance (e.g., affective disorders, substance abuse disorders), or do they result in the use of effective coping strategies and stress-reduction techniques that promote psychological health and well-being? Mason asserts that it appears that homophobia-related violence does impact the "what" but not the "who" that lesbians and gay men will become.

Finally, in Chapter 6 Mason explores violence and power from two theoretical perspectives: (a) feminist theory and (b) Foucauldian theory. Mason argues that tension exists between these two theoretical views with respect to violence and power. The core idea shared by both theoretical perspectives, according to Mason, is that violence is an instrument of power. The instrumental function of power is perceived to be as a question of knowledge. Specifically, violence has the capability of shaping and molding the ways we see and know certain things. A comparison of these two models is conducted through addressing the following four questions: Does violence oppress, what is power, who has power, and is violence power?

With respect to violence and oppression, it is clear that both models view violence as oppressive. The oppression is usually based on hierarchical distinctions based on difference (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation identity). Both theoretical models assert that violence is an oppressive practice, but it can also be a rather productive practice (at least according to Foucauldian theory). According to Mason, Foucauldian theory views power as a practice and an exercise rather than as a possession and an attribute. This conceptualization of power allows for the dynamic interaction of variables (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation identity) to shape various forms of violence. Feminist theorists assert that violence is a manifestation of male power designed to maintain some social order (i.e., the status quo). According to Foucauldian theory, violence is the opposite extreme of disciplinary power. Moreover, power is a mode of action that is in response to previous actions. Violence typically negatively impacts the subject by acting on it both directly and immediately to minimize any resistance or opposition. These rather narrow definitions of power and violence do not stand up well to the realities associated with interpersonal relationships that exist in the 21st century.

In summary, Mason has constructed a rather cogent argument about the necessary next steps for researchers and theoreticians interested in the fragmented literature focusing on homophobia-related violence. This body of literature is in need of surgery, and this volume does a credible job of making the first incisions necessary for the surgical patient to survive and thrive in the 21st century. My only regret is Mason's tendency to use the phrase sexual preference throughout this volume. Still, I strongly recommend serious consideration of this volume for professionals interested in the complex issues inherent in homophobia and sexual prejudice.

REFERENCES

Brown, L. S. (1995). Cultural diversity in feminist therapy: Theory and practice. In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143-161). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Carlton W. Parks, Ph.D., Alliant International University, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & CSPP, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 5, Bldg. 7, Alhambra, CA 91803; e-mail: [e-mail].