Ƶ

An open access publication of the Ƶ
Spring 2007

Frameworks of desire

Author
Anne Fausto-Sterling

Anne Fausto-Sterling is professor of biology and gender studies in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and Biochemistry at Brown University. She has written “Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Men and Women” (1985) and “Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality” (2000). Her current work focuses on applying dynamic systems theory to the study of human development.

Genes versus choice. A quick and dirty search of newspaper stories covering scientific research on homosexuality shows that the popular press has settled on this analytic framework to explain homosexuality: either genes cause homosexuality, or homosexuals choose their lifestyle.1

The mischief that follows such a formulation is broad-based and more than a little pernicious. Religious fundamentalists and gay activists alike use the genes-choice opposition to argue their case either for or against full citizenship for homosexuals. Biological research now arbitrates civil legal proceedings, and the idea that moral status depends on the state of our genes overrides the historical and well-argued view that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . . ” Moreover, rather than framing research projects in terms of the whole of human desire, we neglect to examine one form, heterosexuality, in favor of uncovering the causes of the ‘deviant’ other, homosexuality.

Intellectually, this is just the tip of the iceberg. When we invoke formulae such as oppositional rather than developmental, innate versus learned, genetic versus chosen, early-onset versus adolescent experience, a gay gene versus a straight gene, hardwired versus flexible, nature versus nurture, normal versus deviant, the subtleties of human behavior disappear.

Linear though it is, even Kinsey’s scale has six gradations of sexual expression; and Kinsey understood the importance of the life cycle as a proper framework for analyzing human desire. Academics –be they biologists, social scientists,2 or cultural theorists–have become locked into an oppositional framework. As a result, they are asking the wrong questions and offering intellectually impoverished accounts of the emergence and development of human desire.

.  .  .

Endnotes

  • 1I used the keywords ‘genes’ and ‘homosexuality’ in the Lexis-Nexis academic database and searched general newspaper articles for the past two years. In well over one hundred articles, this is the framework for analysis.
  • 2I except some anthropologists from the broad-brush claim.
To read this essay or subscribe to æ岹ܲ, visit the æ岹ܲ access page
Access now