Foucault (1976) speaks of sexuality as a discursively constructed concept, resulting in differing discursive constitutions throughout differing spaces and times. This Discourse exists in a circular power relationship of replication and reinforcement, reflecting the specific social conditions from which they originate. Such power contests form the basis of our ideas of normativity, and of how normative behaviours within society are managed, encouraged, or enforced. Heteronormativity is generally understood to refer to a worldview that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or
38 preferred sexual orientation (Warner, 1991). By casting heterosexuality as normative, this concept reinstalls and reaffirms gender divisions within society (Yep, 2003). Sociologists have sought to extract ‘gender’ from a mere biological marker to a set of socially constructed conventions which divide ‘men’ from ‘women’. Butler writes of the ‘unity’ of gender as “the effect of a regulatory practice that seeks to render gender identity uniform through a compulsory heterosexuality” (1999, p.42), concluding that gender constitutes “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being” (ibid. p.43). This “highly rigid regulatory frame” includes patriarchy, which constitutes “a system of social structure and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” (Walby, 1989, p.214). Through these frameworks, these repeated acts establish norms and conventions for both sexual acts and for gender identity, as “what it means to be a woman, man, gay, heterosexual, bisexual and so on is culturally, spatially and temporally contingent” (Yip & Page, 2013, p.6).
The following subsections examine the issues of embodiment, sexual regulation and legislation, before discussing how the sexuality of spaces previously discussed at 2.3 intersects with heteronormativity and patriarchy to shape the digital landscape of the cyberspace environment, upon which this study will focus.
2.4.1 Embodiment
Embodiment refers to the “physical and mental experience of existence” (Cregan, 2006, p.3). On a simple level, it involves how we perceive and regulate the bodies we have and the bodies that we desire. It is through our notions of embodiment that the sexed body and the gendered body are performed, and the social construction of the body has received much scholarly attention. Of particular concern has become the ways in which the body is valued and categorized in
39 accordance with (or in contestation with) dominant sexual and gender ideals. Social and legal regulation of these aspects is thus construed through the prevailing Discourse on embodiment. Such hegemonic Discourses, however, often leave little scope for embodiment outside of binary structures, as dividing human kind into binary oppositional categories (man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual, and so forth) negates a plethora of other valid and visible gender and sexual identities (e.g. transgender, genderqueer, pansexual) (Hines, 2007; Valentine, 2007; Edelman & Zimman, 2014).
Turner argues that “bodies may be governed, but embodiment is the phenomenological basis of individuality” (2008, p.212), suggesting an inextricable link between embodiment and the concept of self. Discussing the construction of female sexual identity in what has been termed the ‘post-feminist’ era, McRobbie (2009) argues that the development of “an overarching framework of capacity, freedom, change and gender equality” (p.51) has, in actuality, had the effect of shaping “a distinctive new modality of gender power” (ibid. pp.51-52) through which female sexuality is regulated.
Van Doorn (2011) argues that embodiment must also include a vital virtual component, since “the experience of one’s material body depends on a multitude of incorporeal (e.g. psychological, cultural, artistic and spiritual) practices and thus cannot be located within a stable ‘natural’ body” (2011, p.534). This corresponds with Jackson and Scott’s assertion that “a body can never be just a body abstracted from mind, self and context” (Jackson & Scott, 2010, p.146, emphasis in original). The ideas of embodiment illustrated through the work of these scholars and others (Yep, 2003; Campbell, 2004; Edelman & Zimman, 2014) offer an important theoretical lens for this project: how do consumers of differing genders and sexualities read and respond to ‘embodiment’ within the texts? And how does this interact with/influence/contest their notions of embodiment of their own gendered and sexual bodies? These issues, and their relationship with the new media
40 environment (see 2.6.3) will be explored throughout the empirical chapters of this thesis.
2.4.2 Regulation and legislation of sexuality
Chambers summarises that heteronormativity is “the assemblage of regulatory practices, which produces intelligible genders within a heterosexual matrix that insists upon the coherence of sex/gender/desire” (2007, p.667). From this, one understands that heteronormativity is a pervasive social force—given that heterosexuality is “everywhere and nowhere”61 (Hockey et al., 2007, p.4)—and one
can readily observe the psychological effects this framework can exert upon individuals who either do not identify as heterosexual, or who locate themselves outside of the gender-binary (or both). Yep (2003, p.25) thus accuses heteronormativity as being a site of “unrelenting, harsh, unforgiving and continuous violence for queer individuals”. Seidman (2001, p.322) refers to this process as “strategies of cultural pollution and censorship, criminalization and civic disenfranchisement, sequestration and violence” towards (and in respect of) non- normative sexualities. This manifests itself in a variety of ways, many of which involve visible tactics, such as the reinforcement of negative stereotypes, or denial of civil rights and political representation. Yet outright displays of discrimination may not, ironically, be the most salient markers of heteronormativity. Guided by the work of Dennis (2004) and Jackson (2006), Yip and Page (2013) argue that, despite its pervasiveness and entrenchment, it is heteronormativity’s silence and invisibility that demonstrates its true power as a system and structure, hegemonizing heterosexuality and “by default, [rendering] variant sexualities wrong, even immoral; or at best, inferior” (ibid, p.7. See also Jackson, 1999; Ward, 2015).
41 Alternatively, guarded tolerance of homosexuality (or of any other non- normative sexual identity) on the basis that ‘what goes on behind closed doors does not concern me’ can also be seen as a manifestation of heteronormativity and of latent homophobia. If a citizen’s acceptance into society is only granted on the condition that part of their identity remain ‘behind closed doors’, then that person can never be seen as a full citizen. The creation of this kind of second-class citizenship reinforces the privileged status of heterosexuality and the hegemony of heteronormativity, and preserves the distinction between the ‘pure’ heterosexual and the ‘polluted’ homosexual by creating a moral hierarchy of good and bad sexual citizens (Rubin, 1993; Seidman, 2001; Richardson, 2000a, 2000b; Richardson & Monro, 2012).
2.4.3 Heteronormativity in cyberspace
If offline society is heteronormative, and online and offline worlds are interconnected (Wilson & Peterson, 2002; Bromseth & Sundén, 2011), then it would logically follow that heteronormativity will also pervade online spaces. Therefore, the implications of heteronormativity and its influence over queer identity and expression is vitally important for any study of Chinese cyberspace. The Internet, as a discussion medium, problematizes the issue of public versus private space, especially when one considers issues of anonymity and performance that are inherent in such a form of communication. The Internet allows people to redefine or edit aspects of their identity (Roberts & Parks, 2001; Fraser, 2010; Bromseth & Sundén, 2011; Sundén & Sveningsson, 2012). By creating an online persona (or personas), netizens can interact online with the security of disguise and anonymity. This in turn problematizes the issues of representation and consumption of online information. As stated at 1.2.4.1, research has found that the majority of online BL/Slash fiction is written by young self-declared heterosexual women for other young self-declared heterosexual
42 women. Referring to themselves as funü62, these female fans of male homoerotic
fiction also contribute to the complex issue of authorship and representation; as noted by Cristini (2005, p.9), “no one can tell you for sure whether behind a ‘gay novel’ there isn’t a heterosexual Shanghai housewife.” Therefore, the nuances of online identity and the construction thereof play a significant role in Discourse on queer issues in Chinese cyberspace. This concept interweaves tightly with the theoretical literature on the sexuality of online spaces, discussed at 2.3.1.
Online communities provide queer or sexually marginalized individuals with a relatively safe ‘space’ in which they can fulfil their need to belong, whilst sheltering such individuals from discrimination and stigmatization that they face in the offline world (Hillier & Harrison, 2007; Baams et al., 2011). Queer commentators and scholars from China have attested to the pervasive heteronormativity which exists within Chinese society (Fann, 2003; He, 2009; Ho, 2010; Jun, 2010). This study will therefore examine the way in which online respondents (whether queer-identified or not) construct and negotiate their lives from within this heteronormative patriarchal social framework. Although some studies of heteronormativity in Chinese society have been undertaken (He, 2009; Ho, 2010; Wei, 2010), only a few have looked specifically at the effect on online expression, and none have yet done so through the microblog medium. This study will therefore contribute to this research area through qualitative semi-structured interviews with producers and consumers of microfiction.