“Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance”

Reading:
1. John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman. 1997. “Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance.” Pp. 15-38 in Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Question:
1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?

The Puritan approach to sexual desire was a simple one. Their ideals were based on religous, economic and moral priniciples. The idea of sex was supposed to be reserved for the married and those that were soon to be so. The idea of marriage was to unite to individuals so that they could simply procreate. It was believed to be a woman's sole duty to procreate and bore children. Sexual desire initially was punishable to those that displayed such behaviors in public. Early Americans tried to channel sexual expression into its "proper" setting and purpose: as a duty and a joy within marriage.Religous beliefs and economic interets supported their family-centered sexual system. A young person growing up in colonial America learned about sexuality from two primary sources: observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church. Thesee sources of information were conflicting but it transmitted expectations that sex must be within marriage, it must be aimed toward reproduction and it would be apart of normal adult life. In the agricultural society because of the way housing and living quarters were set up, childhood observation of sexual activity was very common. Children learned about sex in the home. Issues with buggery (having sex with animals) caused both the animals and the individual some sort of punishment such as whippings and even death. To regulate the boundaries, the church in combination with community members, and courts worked in effort to impose sanctions in response to sexual offenses. They continually worked to reaffirm the boundaries of "acceptable" behavior. Public humiliation, public confession, repentance and whipping post were a big part of this regualtion system. And these were used to restore the individual to the congregation and confirm the propriety of sexual rules.


Reading: 2. John D’Emilio. 1983. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Pp. 100-113 in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Tompson. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Question: 2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

He argues that the relationship between capitalism and the idea of the nuclear family are contradictory, because on one hand capitalism is the reason or at least part of the reason why homosexuality in our nation was able to develop an identity and on the other hand this causes problems because of the decline in our population. Capitalism he says, weakens the material foundation of family life, making it possible for individuals to live outside of family life but lacks the ability to push men and women into families long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers. Capitalism in itself has become a social problem. Capitalism broaden opportunities to live outside the traditional heterosexual family unit. There is a social instability in this system and this has helped propell homosexuality. Homosexual desire he claims coalesced into a personal identity-- an identity based on the ability to remain outside the heterosexual family and to construct a personal life based on attraction to one's own sex.

Even though I have my own personal feelings and views toward homosexuality, I can completely see how D'Emilio came to his conclusions. Our nation has always been foocused and centered around the "nuclear" family for religous, economic, and procreational reasons. I think that capitalism could have definitely served as a pedalstal or a base for the national "identity" and acknowledgements of homosexuality in America. I am not sure if it may be the sole cause. His argument was presented very well and I can see how everything as far the family, economic needs, and different belief systems coincided around capitalism and in turn brought light to something that had been going on for centuries. Capitalism I think made our society simply more aware of what was going on.