Speaking the unspeakable: a decade of research on providing recreation to sexually diverse populations. (Research Update).

It was exactly ten years ago that Arnold Grossman (1993) wrote in this column about the need to provide leisure services for lesbians and gays, and yet, a decade later we are still entrenched in the struggles of liberation for sexual minorities, and our reaction as a profession has been slow. (I use "sexual minorities" to refer to those individuals who don't identify as heterosexual in relation to their sexual identity I use this term to be inclusive of gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other "queer" persons, though I recognize that most of my discussion is grounded in the work around gay men and lesbians.) Though political activism, visibility and increased understanding have shifted us toward the goals of equality, sexual minorities remain stigmatized, marginalized, repressed and oppressed. Take, for example, the consequences for Matthew Shepard of being a gay man in today's society:

   A kid who his father says didn't know
   how to make a fist until he was 13-lured
   out of a bar by two "rednecks" [and]
   hijacked to a lonely spot outside of town,
   strung up like a scarecrow on a buck
   fence, bludgeoned beyond recognition,
   and left to die without his shoes, his
   ring, his wallet or the $20 inside it.
   (Wypijewski, 1998, pp. 61-62)

While Shepard's punishment for violating heterosexual norms was severe, sexual minorities are punished every day for their non-conformity The purpose of this research update is to review the current research related to recreation and sexual minorities to provide suggestions that can enable leisure service providers to end practices of exclusion, discrimination, abuse and violence toward sexual minorities, and begin to address the leisure service needs of an underserved population.

Understanding Gay/Lesbian Identity

Foucault (1978) theorized that homosexuality was constructed as a modern invention created by the medical profession to define a person by the sexual acts in which he or she participates (Jagose, 1996; Rubin, 1984/1993). Notwithstanding arguments over language use, homosexuality has commonly and widely been used to describe same-gendered sexual behavior. In fact, historical arguments indicate that the designation of homosexuality, and consequently the identity categories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, have been constructed only during the past century (Jagose, 1996, Laumann, et al., 1994/1997).

Even though homosexual activity was subject to sodomy laws in England before 1885, "homosexual" was not labeled as an identity category until the end of the 19th century. At that time, the medical profession began to explain same-gendered sexual behavior, thus creating the designation of homosexuality (Foucault, 1978; Jagose, 1996). Since then, researchers of all disciplines have used a variety of determinants in an attempt to identify "homosexuals." These determinants include behavior, desire and self-identification. Although homosexuality as a behavior seems to require sexual activity, the determinants of homosexuality as desire or identity are considered more complex. Homosexual "desire," for instance, encompasses a spectrum--from finding the same gender appealing, to becoming emotionally involved with individuals of the same gender, to an uncontrollable attraction for same-gender sexual activity.

Homosexual "identity," on the other hand, seems to indicate the ability of the individual to self-report that he or she ascribes to some label of same-gender sexual orientation (e.g., gay, lesbian and bisexual). This self-identification often demonstrates an affinity for grounding personal politics in relation to an individual's sense of personal identity. The politics of sexual identity allow individuals to determine or negotiate a common ground where they might construct visible and active communities. That common ground provides an organizational and political framework for individuals to become part of communities and create distinct cultures in need of the attention of leisure service providers.

Compulsory Heterosexuality

Understanding that homosexuality itself is a modern categorical construction also suggests that heterosexuality is a modern categorical construction. Heterosexuality, however, has been normalized and viewed as unproblematic; it seems to require no explanation or justification for its existence (Jagose, 1996). Maintaining the idea of a "normal" heterosexuality takes considerable investment on the part of the dominant culture, but is necessary to create and enforce the perceptions of a radical and demonstrable difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. These categorizations conceal power relationships by bringing issues of anatomy, biology and sensations of pleasure together in an "artificial unity" through the act of sex (Foucault, 1978). This artificial unity not only permits, but also encourages heterosexual desire to be called "natural" and perpetuated as compulsory. "Compulsory heterosexuality," then, is the portrayal or enactment of a heterosexual identity, which is perceived as the only correct or normal way to be, coercively encouraging individuals to live their existences according to heterosexual norms and standards.

It's exactly because of compulsory heterosexuality that we haven't given much attention or consideration to sexual minorities in our recreation and leisure studies research. And while there's a notable absence of scholarly work from a non-heterosexual theoretical perspective in the North American recreation and leisure studies literature, there has been some attention given to it since Arnold Grossman (1993) called for it a decade ago. These studies have, in varying degrees, explored and explained how mainstream inequality and institutional injustice privilege compulsory heterosexuality in leisure and provide us with important information for providing leisure services for sexual minorities.

Recent Research on Gay/Lesbian Recreation and Leisure

One recent article that addressed sexual minorities in the leisure studies literature was an exploratory study on the leisure behaviors and experiences of youth who identified as lesbian, gay male, bisexual or questioning their sexual identities (Caldwell, Kivel, Smith, & Hayes, 1998). This study focused on a broad spectrum of sexual identity issues and concluded that leisure experiences may not always be positive for sexual minorities.

Findings indicated that lesbian, gay, bisexual and questioning youth are aware of their differences from the dominant culture, and the authors argue that these youth are often excluded or exclude themselves from sport and leisure based on these differences. This study, similar to some of the earlier work by Kivel (1994), highlights interesting connections to the problems that non-heterosexual youth encounter in their free-time--problems the authors identify as linked to a compulsory heterosexual society. Consequently, the authors are able to offer useful and strategies for inclusion--practices that create more positive leisure experiences for non-heterosexual youth. However, their suggestions do little to challenge the stability of compulsory heterosexuality in leisure.

Several other studies identified in the literature are more effective in their ability to challenge compulsory heterosexuality. The work of Kivel (1996) and Johnson (2000) demonstrate that lesbian and gay young adults and adolescents are similar to heterosexuals in their leisure, but that these individuals have the added challenge of battling homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Kivel's and Johnson's studies convey how society's heterosexist values are created, enacted and reinforced in leisure, as well as the ways leisure is used by gay men and lesbians to resist heterosexist values. Yet these studies use an approach that focuses almost entirely on the individual. Consequently, the discussions are limited to individual identity development, and offer little insight into the cultural forces and structural inequality that create compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia.

Although the aforementioned studies illustrate how homophobia serves as an obstacle for lesbian and gay adolescents and young adults in pursuit of personal growth, creativity, self-expression and camaraderie provided by leisure, there are some studies that have identified examples of a larger ideological resistance to compulsory heterosexuality, both implicitly and explicitly. Studies conducted by Bialeschki and Pearce (1997), Jacobson and Samdahl (1998), and Kivel and Klieber (2000) speak to the interaction between individual and society. These studies move us toward a more critical perspective of compulsory heterosexuality, looking at how it's both resisted and reinforced by gay men and lesbians as they negotiate a culture that rarely questions the privilege offered by heterosexuality.

In their study on leisure in the lives of lesbian mothers, Bialeschki and Pearce (1997) examined how leisure was understood and assigned meaning when both parents were lesbians. Most important, this study demonstrates how lesbians' leisure and family responsibility were negotiated in a society where heterosexual gender roles guided typical family responsibilities. On the basis of their findings, Bialeschki and Pearce (1997) argued that social messages about heterosexuality are both explicitly and implicitly conveyed throughout cultural discourse, and those messages and meanings about alternative family structures are excluded from that discourse. By interviewing lesbian mothers and making interpretations based on their lives, Bialeschki and Pearce illuminate how leisure might serve as an exit point from heterosexuality, where lesbian mothers design and negotiate strategies and make conscious decisions around household and child-care responsibilities.

This process helped these lesbians develop their own sense of family and challenge compulsory heterosexuality by being socially visible, and it provides a good example of how compulsory heterosexuality is confronted in and through leisure.

Jacobson and Samdahl (1998) focused their investigation on how compulsory heterosexuality operates in sexual minorities' efforts to resist or negotiate dominant heterosexual ideologies. In their investigation of lesbians over the age of 60, the authors found that the women's experiences with discrimination produced negative feelings but also motivated their involvement with activist organizations. Unable to find a public space where they could be free from harassment, these women created their own spaces where they could control, negotiate and possibly resist heterosexual traditions. Jacobson and Samdahl, encouraged and surprised by their findings, suggested that leisure studies scholars examine how leisure is used to resist and reinforce heterosexual ideologies by looking at leisure in the context of people's everyday lives.

The most recent work on sexual minorities was a study focusing on how lesbian and gay adolescents use leisure to establish a positive self-identity. Kivel and Kleiber (2000) found that lesbian/gay young people used leisure to help them establish a personal identity (core characteristics of the individual), but didn't use their leisure to experiment with or solidify their social identity (how the individuals see themselves in relation to others). They found lesbian/gay adolescents "felt compelled to monitor their choices for public leisure ... [which] may have led some participants to pursue more individual, private leisure activities such as reading or watching TV and films" (p.229). This is important information for professionals to consider as we look to who is and who isn't involved in and benefit from our programs.

Continued Efforts in New Directions

While Bialeschki & Pearce (1997), Jacobson & Samdahl (1998), Kivel & Klieber (2000) all do an excellent job of examining and to some extent critiquing compulsory heterosexuality, we must continue and expand our efforts to advance the empirical work on sexual minorities in leisure studies. We need to look at non-heterosexual populations not as a homogeneous group, but recognize that non-heterosexuals, like heterosexuals, construct and manage multiple identities. Addressing the differences among sexual minorities serves as a way to disrupt the perception of sexual minorities as monolithic people, and encourages us to study them in ways that demonstrate their diversity.

My discussion of the research on sexual minorities in leisure studies pushes leisure studies scholars and leisure service providers beyond additive and inclusive theorizing, and instead encourages us to look at the way knowledge about leisure is created from a heterosexual perspective. A non-heterosexual theoretical perspective requires a shift in thinking beyond studies of those individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, toward the deconstruction of a compulsory heterosexuality and how it takes shape in the contexts of leisure and the provision of leisure services.

Let me be clear: It's not my goal to endorse or condemn one sexual orientation over another, but to encourage discussion and exploration around topics that expand the opportunities and resources for non-oppressive interaction by critiquing the underlying ideology that surrounds dominant heterosexual attitudes, values and beliefs. Sexual identity is already present in our daily life through individual actions, institutional practices, media representations and interaction with people in the community. Leisure studies scholars and service providers must move beyond the resting place of tolerance and inclusion, and prepare for a world where there can be a celebration around difference.

References

Bialeschki, M. D., & Pearce, K. D. (1997). "I don't want a lifestyle-I want a life": The effect of role negotiations on the leisure of lesbian mothers. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(1), 113-131.

Caldwell, L. L., Kivel, B. D., Smith, E. A., & Hayes, D.M. (1998). The leisure context of adolescents who are lesbian, gay male, bisexual and questioning their sexual identities: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(3), 341-355.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Grossman, A. (1993, April). Research Update: Providing leisure services for gays and lesbians. Parks and Recreation, 19-90.

Jacobson, S. A., & Samdahl, D. M. (1998). Leisure in the lives of old lesbians: Experiences with and responses to discrimination. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 233-255.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. Washington Square, N.Y.: New York University Press.

Johnson, C. W. (2000). Living the game of hide and seek: Leisure in the lives of gay and lesbian young adults. Leisure, 24(2), 255-278.

Kivel, B. D. (1994). Lesbian and gay youth and leisure: Implications for practitioners and researchers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(4), 15-28.

Kivel, B. D. (1996). In on the outside, out on the inside: Lesbian/gay/bisexual youth, identity, and leisure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia.

Kivel, B.D. & Kleiber, D. A. (2000). Leisure in the identity formation of lesbian/gay youth: Personal, but not social. Leisure Sciences, 22, 215-232.

Laumann, E., Gagono, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994/1997). The social organization of sexuality. In W. Rubenstein (Ed.), Cases and Materials on Sexual Orientation and the Law. (pp. 19-28). St. Paul: West Publishing Co.

Rubin, G. S. (1984/1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove & M. A. Barale & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The Lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 3-44). New York: Routledge.

Wypijewski, J. (1998). A boy's life: For Matthew Shepard's killers, what does it take to pass as a man? Harpers.

Programming "Safe" Places for Sexual Minorities

Research on leisure in the lives of sexual minorities demonstrates that one of the most effective control tactics of compulsory heterosexuality is to treat non-heterosexuals as outsiders or ostracize them when it's vital to be accepted. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to a view where there's little or no possibility for friendship, companionship or other social interactions among people with different sexualities. As a result, many sexual minorities begin to enclose themselves to a small network of friends and create alternative supportive spaces where they might gather acceptance from their peers, raise their self-esteem and work toward a positive lesbian/gay self-identity.

In leisure, sexual minorities need spaces that are free from homophobia and where they can be autonomous, safe, supported and unconstrained by heterosexual domination. Sexual minorities need peers and role models with whom they can talk about the unique challenges and opportunities that confront their lives. Finally, sexual minorities need to be told that they're not abnormal, but individuals with something valuable to offer.

Heterosexual conversations, intimacy, media, policies, procedures and legislation dominate the lives of sexual minorities. In an effort to resist the dominant heterosexual norms that pervade their lives, sexual minorities will look for "safe" spaces. These spaces offer a perspective from which to see, create and imagine an alternative reality--a reality where sexual minorities can construct and reconstruct their identity, express themselves o pertly and find social support away from heterosexual-dominated society.

It's easy to see how segregated safe places offer up a position (or perceived position) of power to resist compulsory heterosexuality. However, consequences exist; segregated spaces limit leisure choices and prevent interaction among sexual minorities and heterosexuals. Although separate space is necessary and beneficial in some instances, sexual minorities shouldn't merely maintain segregation, but also be socialized into leisure that results in relationships with significant and generalized others. Knowing a self-identified gay, lesbian, asexual or bisexual is one of the best defenses in ending discrimination against them. It's imperative for us to understand the necessity of these safe places in our society and work toward a society where they're not necessary. Ask yourself: Does your leisure service agency provide any safe space for non-heterosexuals?

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES IN LEISURE SERVICES

Here are a few considerations for how political advocacy, encouraged by gay and lesbian theory, might mobilize leisure scholars and leisure service professionals beyond a tolerance of sexual minorities and instead move us toward a celebration and equality found among our differences.

Individual Justice for Sexual Minorities

Make explicit your commitment to opposing racial, gender, class and ability-based inequalities and injustices: Inequality based on sexuality is only part of the picture. Realize that marginalization, inequality and discrimination exist in many forms across culture. Identify the ways in which you're privileged by our social systems and strive to eliminate those injustices as well.

Come out of the closet and support those who do. Being visible as a sexual minority (or a visible supporter) provides a "window" from which to view the privilege of heterosexuality. By creating a consciousness that surrounds non-heterosexuals, you can take steps toward ending our collaboration in marginalization and discrimination of others. By being "out" or being a "visible supporter," you'll have more opportunities to engage in discussion, debate and social activism. Don't be afraid. Make connections, talk about ideas and encourage others to do the same. Make yourself available to teach others about what you know and support those who show interest in making a difference.

Stop making heterosexual assumptions: Heterosexual assumptions reinforce compulsory heterosexuality, meaning those who don't conform to heterosexuality are labeled as abnormal or socially deviant. Eliminating heterosexual assumptions moves us to support and nurture alternatives to heterosexuality.

Communicate as much as you confront: Speak up about the issues that face sexual minorities and encourage a dialogue that's as supportive as it is political, Ignorance and intolerance aren't the same thing, though one can often lead to the other. Do what you can to eliminate ignorance in a supportive way.

Institutional Justice for Sexual Minorities

Create a focus group on issues that directly impact sexual minorities: Suggest that your leisure service agency learn about communities beyond those already being served, evaluate heterosexual assumptions, provide financial and promotional support for groups in the community that already support non-dominant sexual minorities, and start new programs by building alliances with organizations interested in eliminating oppression and inequality on local, state, national and global scales.

Create policies that protect sexual minorities: Although policies and legislative actions aren't solutions to the problem of compulsory heterosexuality as it exists in our society, they do encourage supportive environments where individuals feel free to take action to confront homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality.

Recognize the necessity of segregated/supportive environments: Sexual minorities can often experience intense isolation, discrimination and other social problems as a result of not conforming to heterosexuality. Providing segregated, safe and supportive environments allow discussing and disseminating information that focuses on the consequences of living in a society where sexual minorities are marginalized, oppressed and abused.

For more information about how you can help end homophobia, question compulsory heterosexuality and create a more supportive environment for sexual minorities, contact the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org). They can also put you in touch with other advocacy groups in your local area.

Corey Johnson, Ph.D., is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at East Carolina University in Greenville. His scholarship explores issues of gender and sexuality as they intersect in the contexts of leisure. He can be reached at [e-mail].