Transcripción encuesta Virginia Rodríguez

In the second part of this chapter, material practices represented by “it” and the discursive effects this representation draws on and substantiates, are unpacked

through an interpretative deconstruction of the second segment of Jo and Jan’s text. A series of allied discursive effects reveals an idealised vision of sexuality from which worker’s assistance is derived. How this ideal is constructed and regulated through worker talk is examined in detail. Importing other textual extracts substantiates this deconstruction.

“If you say sexuality I think about…”

After the “no-ones terribly sexual” remark, the “relationships” prompt provides a significant descriptor of the term “sexuality” as located within the parameters of key allied discursive effects that prioritise a series of social as much as physical

interactions. Yet the next statement re-defines the parameters of this term within specific combinations of allied power/knowledge effect positions. ”Straight” (male and female) and “gay” (male and male/female and female) re-sites “relationships” within a series of discursive assumptions whose effects regulate what two physical

bodies can do together. “Straight” indicates the hetero-normative codes of conduct (Warner 1999) these allied effects create and draw on, while the placement of the term first within the straight/gay binary signals that this assumption as the favoured, “hegemonic one in the culture” (Vance, 1989, p. 14). Wider discursive effects that quantify and uphold the hetero-normative assumption that guides these remarks are further amplified through other talk statements.

Unpacking Hetero-Normative

The statement below describes the content of a video a young intellectually disabled woman was shown at a local day service.

They were trying to sort out the difference between the things, of closeness, of

parents, of friends and partners. So I do think they need to have more of those but not porn, natural lovemaking and that stuff. More natural like say in a relationship situation yeah, maybe a couple doing normal. They have tea and they have dinner and some wine and, like they have a bath and candles around or whatever, you know. A video that is more natural. It’s got to be a really natural thing and I think it should only be for people that are actually in a relationship. And in an obvious relationship, in the appropriate places, like in your own room with the door closed. That’s ok (S 2005, p. 11).

Here, the “stuff” that indicates “a couple doing normal” evokes a central social truth that ensure that “natural” in this setting comprises a series of key antecedent choices of behaviour (Carahine, 2001). These choices sanction certain behaviours as

‘ideal/acceptable’ for members of euro-western society (Lapinsky & Rimal, 2005). These acts are initially verified in relation to a global set of bad sex “porn” effects not elaborated on in this statement, but echo Warner’s (1999) ‘good sex/bad sex’

inventory. However, ‘good choice’ effects of the preferred “natural” series of social actions are stated. These include key aspects of hetero-normative behaviour defined as “a couple”. These effects include monogamy as in “actually in a relationship”; in pairs, as in “partners”; privacy, as in “in your own room with the door closed”; penetration, as in” a natural thing”; and blood-kin appropriateness, as in “the

2005). All elements come together to create “a relationship situation” that echoes the euro-western model of practice that “naturally” differentiates “good sex from bad” (Warner, 1999, p. 25).

Significantly, this set of descriptions does not directly indicate the gender of “the couple” referred to. This omission may indicate the custom in agency service settings, of talking about intellectually disabled people without reference to their gender (Burns, 2000). However, it may also indicate that the choice of hetero-sex is so normative and the resultant image so strong that the gender of the couple does need to be mentioned. The following text excerpts endorse the latter assumption.

Unpacking “The Ideal Couple”

In this statement the lack of difficulty a particular worker would have broaching the subject of sexuality with those they support is indicated.

If they, say for instance you came up to me and said ‘Look I need you to talk to Joe Blogs about his relationship he’s having with Mary James’. You know, ‘What sort of things do you want me to talk about?’ whatever. I wouldn’t have a problem with that (V 2005, p. 14)

At one level this statement appears to contradict the earlier line of discussion, that women workers can find talking about sexuality difficult. However, uncovering the hetero-normative placement on which the “couple” are founded indicates how far this discussion might be able to contain behaviours that lie beyond any aspect of the ideal. In the next statement, heterosexuality-as-preferred is also suggested, through the “young lady” and “young man” descriptors.

We have a young lady in ______. We have a young man here. They’ve been together for years. She’ll often come for weekends and stay at the house that he’s in, but they don’t sleep in the same room [pause] so I often wonder if, you know, they have cuddles and kisses and things like that but as far as sex goes I’m very unsure (C 2005, p. 9)

Wider social locations of meaning relating to sex/sexuality that enable conformation of this scenario to the ideal include the two people being of similar age and in an already established partnership, both key proscribed normative binary code behavioural markers. Why the worker might be “unsure” whether the people concerned might be having a sexual relationship relies in part on a lack of

conformation to a key aspect of this idea, seen in the “don’t sleep in the same room” norm-slippage. Doubt is created in the absence of this significant marker.

In the next example, the (hetero)couple normative is centred through a robust image of domesticity that secures these behaviours as generally favoured, despite some misgivings.

David goes and stays the night at their place and Ann goes and makes up this big double bed for him and she [Ann’s mother] said “When it’s all made up, Ann sneaks off to her bedroom and goes and grabs her nightie and tries to hide it under his pillow”. And Mum says ‘I don’t actually encourage it but what they do when I’m asleep I have no idea’ (C 2005, p. 9).

In the next statement, the socially favoured effects of “the couple” are substantiated through the production of a strongly emotive domestic/private image conveyed through the “dinner” descriptor. In turn this descriptor links to wider social

assumptions that uphold the notion of sexuality-as-sexually-active within a scenario that includes a man and woman “going into her bedroom” at the end of the evening.

He’d go in and have dinner at her home and they’d go into her room and they were having a sexual relationship. We had to give them privacy you know, it’s their place as well. It was his first relationship and he loved it (J 2005, p. 17)

This statement also prioritises the in-private normative code marker (Warner 1999) substantiated by the workers concerned. These text statements reveals that the ideal “relationship” will include a clean, wined and dined male and female, engaging in a series of culturally intelligible behavioural activities in a double bed, behind closed

doors, illuminated by the natural lighting necessary to smooth out the transgressive impact of any bodily defects.

However, in Jo and Jan’s text this ideal is interrupted by an overt placement of a disruptive straight/gay binary. While “gay” relationships can now be considered more usual in some social areas, it is still unusual for this position to be so openly stated (Richardson 2000). The descriptor “gay relationships” disrupts the idea of the

straight/heterosexual/man-woman image as the dominant unmarked, socially favoured position.

Exploring the Slippage

It is not clear whether the use of the term ”gay” also encompasses the experiences of women’s bodies, as the word ‘lesbian’ is not directly used, although perhaps implied in the unfinished “or a” phrase. In New Zealand, it is a convention that “gay” relationships, when stated, are usually taken as including both men/men and women/women relationships. Yet lesbian is available for use. That this term is not used testifies to activation of the linguistic “occlusion that covers over difference” (Shildrick, 2004, p. 1) that masks the variety of sexual behaviours that can take place in the wider socio-cultural context. In addition the terms ‘transgender’ or ‘bisexual’ do not appear, yet perhaps the idea remains, also implied in how the “or a” phrase might have been finished. However, these occlusions elide the idea that sexually- related behaviours might be fluid rather than fixed.

Summary

Discursive effects isolated in worker’s talk reveals that the term ‘sexuality’ equates to a socially favoured ‘ideal ‘practice enacted by pairs of specifically gendered

individuals. However, to what degree these sets of social meanings influence worker’s support response has yet to be quantified. Although the (hetero)”couple” can be said to represent the ideal material practice, this term can also include “gay” relationships, suggesting that aspects of this ideal position are not necessarily fixed within worker’s understanding.