Thinking through Sexuality

Abstract

• Summary: This article is a discussion piece on the idea of `sexuality' within social work. The author discusses dominant models of sexuality — including those within anti-discriminatory practice theory — before going on to raise a number of problems with this perspective. The article draws upon queer, feminist and Foucaultian theories to suggest less restrictive ways of thinking through sexuality and social work. • Findings: Social work has a tendency to define `sexuality' as an essential identity with a fixed set of characteristics and social welfare `needs'. This article argues for a reflexive account of sexuality within social work, and for the investigation of the production and use of sexuality categories within everyday professional settings. • Applications : The author discusses the assessment of sexuality in cases of foster care or adoption applications by lesbians or gay men in order to highlight the practical application of these ideas. The article discusses why new ways of thinking through sexuality may be productive for social work.

‘It's All a Bit Pantomime’: An Exploratory Study of Gay and Lesbian Adopters and Foster-Carers in England and Wales

“…Whilst there has been a major shift in legislation and policy that can help to remove obstacles for gay and lesbian applicants, it is evident that further work needs to be done to dislodge the social work application process from its hetero-gendered bias. There is an ongoing need to draw upon critical perspectives, such as those located within wider poststructural, queer, and feminist theory as it is these which seek to disturb heterosexual hegemony and essentialist notions of gender (Brown and Cocker, 2011;Hicks, 2008aHicks, , 2013Hicks, , 2015Cocker and Hafford-Letchfield, 2014).…”

Out and Proud? Social Work's Relationship with Lesbian and Gay Equality

“…More recently, the resurgence of interest in radical social work presents an opportunity for debate; however, so far, engagement in issues of sexuality has been limited (see Ferguson and Woodward, 2009). Hicks (2000Hicks ( , 2008Hicks ( , 2009) is also highly critical of the anti-discriminatory practice (ADP) and anti-oppressive practice (AOP) frameworks so prevalent in social work. Drawing instead on the work of Michel Foucault, Mark Philp and others, he argues that social work needs to analyse its categorisation of sexuality and examine how various discourses have defined and specified the development of ideas about many areas of social work, including sexuality.…”

“…This move towards personalised services must include sexuality, but also requires an appreciation of the values, connections and desires that bind LGB social networks together so that there are parallel commissioning and service developments (Cant, 2009). We need to move away from fixed identities (Hicks, 2008;Featherstone and Green, 2009) towards engaging with the more complex, multiple and fluid identities of LGB people, reflecting their individuality and their social and economic context. There is a role for specialist as well as generic provision, including the development of effective partnerships to deliver the personalisation agenda to meet the needs and desires of the LGB community.…”

“…LGB people still have low expectations of social care services based on prejudice, stereotyping and invisibility (Brown, 1998;Fish, 2006;Hicks, 2008). Building a deeper understanding of the exact impact of discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity is a growing priority for the education of professionals (Logan et al, 1996;Trotter and Leech, 2003;Van Den Berg and Crisp, 2004;Hafford-Letchfield, 2009), for the orientation of social work practice (Dugmore and Cocker, 2008;Bywater and Jones, 2007) and for delivering personalisation through the 'transformation' of care services (Fish, 2006;Brown and Cocker, forthcoming).…”

Moving beyond homonormativity in teacher training: experiences from South Australia

“…These myths were then refuted on the basis of social scientific research. Then, following Hicks (2008), the 'evidence game' that this form of refutation evokes was examined, with the premises of both the social scientific research and the myths themselves subjected to critique. This included a specific focus on how the category of 'the child' is depicted within both the myths and the research, and how this highly normative image is problematic both for its perpetuation of the abhorrence of talking about children and sex in the same sentence (see Robinson, 2005; 2008; Martino and Cumming-Potvin, 2011), and how this perpetuates the assumption that all children are heterosexual (Bond Stockton, 2004;Riggs, 2008).…”