Young children, gender and the heterosexual matrix

Abstract

In this paper I consider the adult focus of current mainstream gender theory. I relate this to how the concept of the heterosexual matrix originates in a social contract which excludes children from civil society. I argue that this exclusion is problematic both for theoretical reasons and from the perspective of children themselves. I start by discussing the nature of the heterosexual matrix and its foundations. I consider the implications for participation which arise from being named as a child, how that affects children's attempts to claim participation in civil society, and how this is related to children's naming of themselves as gendered. I then briefly consider the possibility that, because of their exclusion, children might also be considered to be exempt from the heterosexual matrix. However, I argue, there is considerable evidence that children are actively sexual beings who also work hard to claim inclusion in local practices of heterosexuality. I end by suggesting that there are three key reasons for this: that the discourses of normative sexuality provide children with a language to express sexual feelings; that self-insertion in the heterosexual matrix is a way for children to claim rights to participation; and that taking up heterosexual formations is a means whereby children can experience the power of naming themselves as part of the social world.

Intergenerational touch in physical education in relation to heteronormativity: Female students’ perspectives

“…The research presented above clearly shows that heteronormative ideals predominate in society and school (Azzarito, 2009; Coates, 2013; Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Larsson et al, 2009, 2011; Paechter, 2017). In addition, male teachers seem to feel more at risk of being suspected of improper behaviour than their female colleagues (Foster and Newman, 2005; Jones, 2004; Munk et al, 2013; Öhman, 2017).…”

“…Heteronormativity is deeply rooted in society (Azzarito, 2009; Butler, 1990; Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Larsson et al 2009, 2011; Paechter, 2017) and is difficult to escape from. As Hook (2001: 522) puts it: ‘the effect of discursive practices is to make it virtually impossible to think outside of them’.…”

“…Our analysis is informed by a similar concept of heteronormativity as that suggested by Larsson et al (2009: 4), namely as ‘a tendency in our culture to interpret social interaction from the given standpoint that everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexual desire is related to boys and girls being different and “opposite”’. We could even say that, regardless of age, the majority of the population (in western society) heavily invest in heteronormative discourses (Coates, 2013; Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Paechter, 2017). In order to understand this investment in heteronormative discourses, Butler’s concept of the ‘heterosexual matrix’ can be useful.…”

“…Previous research has shown that the heteronormative discourse is common in a school context (Cockburn and Clarke; 2002; Larsson et al, 2011; Paechter, 2017) and that it can affect the levels of equality amongst and between students (Amade-Escot, 2017; Larsson et al, 2009). At the same time, studies focusing on intergenerational touch have shown that the no-touch discourse complicates the educational encounters between teachers and students in PE (Fletcher, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Öhman, 2017; Piper et al, 2013).…”

Jahrbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft: Weiblichkeit – Ansätze zur Theoretisierung

“…This would both give us a basis for theorising femininities and allow us to see the extent to which hegemonic masculinities and femininities in a particular context operate in opposition or in parallel, and what features they have in common or fundamentally different. I think that it is also important to have a definition that applies as well to children as to adults, as many previous approaches to gender, particularly when rooted in adult heterosexuality and heterosexual desire, become theoretically problematic when applied to children (Paechter, 2017) Following Francis et al (2016), who suggest that we might have a more faithfully Gramscian approach to hegemonic gender performances, I propose a more general definition: Hegemonic gender performances are those which act, within a particular context, to uphold a gender binary and maintain traditional social relations between genders.…”