VIEWPOINT

On "Compulsory Heterosexuality and

Lesbian Existence": Defining the
Issues

Ann Ferguson, Jacquelyn N. Zita, and Kzthryn

Pyne Addelson

Ann Ferguson: Patriarchy,Sexual Identity,and the

Sexual Revolution
Adrienne Rich's paper "Compulsory Heterosexualityand Lesbian Exis-
tence"' suggests two important theses for further development by
feministthinkers.First,she maintainsthatcompulsoryheterosexualityis

EDITORS' NOTE: Marianne Hirsch suggestsat theconclusionof her review

essaythatthephrase"lesbiancontinuum" mayservetoliberateusfrommasculine
theoryand languageintogenuinelyfeminine speculationon thenatureofwomen's
and women's
sexuality mothering.As ithappens,thequestionofwhetherthephrase
can infactdo so is at thecenterofthedebatebetweenAnnFerguson, JaquelynN.
Zita,andKathryn PyneAddelson. Philosophy,linguistics, and historical
sociology,
theoryall becomeelements in theexchange.
An earlier versionof thispaper was read at a philosophyand feminismcolloquium at
the Universityof Cincinnati,November 15, 1980. I would like to acknowledgethe forma-
tive aid of Francine Rainone in the ideas and revisionof thispaper, as well as the helpful
comments made by Kim Christensen,Annette Kuhn, Jacquelyn Zita, and Kathy Pyne
Addelson on earlier draftsof thispaper (Ferguson).
1. Adrienne Rich, "CompulsoryHeterosexualityand Lesbian Existence,"Signs:Jour-
nal of Womenin Cultureand Society5, no. 4 (Summer 1980): 631-60. Unless otherwise
indicated,page numbers referredto in textand footnotesare fromthis article.

[Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society1981, vol. 7, no. 1]

? 1981 by The Universityof
Chicago. All rightsreserved. 0097-9740/82/0701-0013$01.00

158

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 159

the central social structureperpetuatingmale domination. Second, she

suggests a reconstructionof the concept lesbianin terms of a cross-
cultural,transhistoricallesbian continuumwhich can capture women's
ongoing resistance to patriarchal domination. Rich's paper is an in-
sightfuland significantcontributionto the development of a radical
feministapproach to patriarchy,human nature,and sexual identity.Her
syntheticand creativeapproach is a necessaryfirststep to furtherwork
on the conceptof compulsoryheterosexuality.Nonetheless,her position
containsserious flawsfroma socialist-feminist perspective.In thispaper
I shall argue against her main theses while presentinga different,his-
toricallylinked concept of lesbian identity.
Rich develops her insighton the concept lesbianfromde Beauvoir's
classictreatmentof lesbianismin TheSecondSex where lesbianismis seen
as a deliberate refusal to submitto the coercive force of heterosexual
ideology,a refusalwhich acts as an underground feministresistanceto
patriarchy.From thisbase Rich constructsa lesbian-feminist approach to
lesbian history.As she writeselsewhere:"I feel thatthe searchforlesbian
historyneeds to be understoodpolitically, not simplyas the search for
exceptional women who were lesbians,but as the search for power, for
nascent undefined feminism,for the ways that women-lovingwomen
have been nay-sayersto male possession and controlof women."2
To use such an approach as an aid to discover"nascent undefined
feminism"in any historicalperiod, the feministhistorianhas to know
what she is looking for.We need, in otherwords,a clear understanding
of what is involvedin the conceptlesbianso as to be able to identifysuch
women. Rich introducesthe conceptslesbianidentity and lesbiancontinuum
as substitutesfor the limitedand clinical sense of "lesbian" commonly
used. Her new concepts imply that genital sexual relations or sexual
attractionsbetween women are neither necessary nor sufficientcon-
ditionsforsomeone to be thoughta lesbian in the fullsense of the term.
If we were to presentRich's definitionof lesbian identityit would there-
fore be somewhatas follows:

1. Lesbian identity
(Rich) is the sense of self of a woman bonded
primarilyto women who is sexuallyand emotionallyindependentof
men.

Her concept of lesbian continuum describes a wide range of "woman-

identifiedexperience; not simplythe factthata woman has had or con-
sciouslydesired genitalsexual experience withanotherwoman." Instead
we should "expand it to embrace manymore formsof primaryintensity
between and among women, includingthe sharing of a rich inner life,
the bonding against male tyranny,the givingand receivingof practical

2. Quoted byJudithSchwarz,"Questionnaireon Issues in Lesbian History,"Frontiers

4, no. 3 (Fall 1979): 1-12, esp. p. 6.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
160 Fergusonet al. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

and politicalsupport; if we can also hear in it such associationsas mar-

riage resistance. . . we begin to grasp breadths of female historyand
psychologywhich have lain out of reach as a consequence of limited,
mostlyclinical definitionsof 'lesbianism'" (pp. 648-49).
Rich, in short, conceives of lesbian identityas a transhistorical
phenomenon, while I maintain,to the contrary,thatthe developmentof
a distinctivehomosexual (and specificallylesbian) identityis a historical
phenomenon, not applicable to all societies and all periods of history.
Her idea thatthe degree to which a woman is sexuallyand emotionally
independent of men while bonding withwomen measures resistanceto
patriarchyoversimplifiesand romanticizesthe notion of such resistance
withoutreallydefiningthe conditionsthatmake forsuccessfulresistance
ratherthan mere victimization.Her model does not allow us to under-
stand the collectiveand social nature of a lesbian identityas opposed to
lesbian practicesor behaviors.Although I agree withRich's insightthat
some of the clinicaldefinitionsof lesbian tend to create waysof viewing
women's lives in which"female friendshipsand comradeship have been
set apart fromthe erotic: thus limitingthe eroticitself,"I thinkher view
undervalues the importanthistoricaldevelopmentof an explicitlesbian
identityconnected to genitalsexuality.My own view is thatthe develop-
ment of such an identity,and with it the development of a sexuality
valued and accepted in a communityof peers, extended women's life
options and degree of independence frommen. I argue thattheconcept
of lesbian identityas distinctfrom lesbian practicesarose in advanced
capitalistcountriesin WesternEurope and the United States in the late
nineteenthand early twentiethcenturies from the conjunction of two
forces. In part it was an ideological concept created by the sexologists
who frameda changing patriarchalideologyof sexualityand the family;
in part it was chosen by independent women and feminists who
formedtheirown urban subculturesas an escape fromthe new,mystified
formof patriarchaldominance thatdeveloped in thelate 1920s: thecom-
panionate nuclear family.3

Defining"Lesbian"
theoriststo suggest a
Radicalesbians were the firstlesbian-feminist
reconstructionof the concept lesbian.4Their goal was not merely to

3. Cf. Michel Foucault, The Historyof Sexuality,vol. 1, An Introduction,

trans. Robert
Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978); JeffreyWeeks,ComingOut:HomosexualPolitics
in BritainfromtheNineteenth Centu7yto thePresent(London: Quartet Books, 1977); Mary
McIntosh, "The Homosexual Role," Social Problems16, no. 2 (Fall 1968): 182-92; and
Christina Simons, "Companionate Marriage and the Lesbian Threat," Frontiers4, no. 3
(Fall 1979): 54-59.
4. Radicalesbians,"Woman-identifiedWomen," in Radical Feminism, ed. A. Koedt, D.
Levine, and A. Rapone (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1973).

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 161

locate some centralcharacteristicof lesbianismbut also to finda way to

eliminate the standard, pejorative connotation of the term. They
wanted, that is, to rid the term of the heterosexistimplicationsthat
lesbiansare deviant,sick,unhealthybeings-a taskimportantnot merely
as a defense of the lesbian communitybut of the feministcommunity
and, indeed, of all women. The problemis thatRadicalesbiansas well as
Rich do not clearly distinguishbetween three differentgoals of def-
initionalstrategy:first,valorizingthe concept lesbian;second, givinga
sociopoliticaldefinitionof the contemporarylesbian community;and
finally,reconceptualizinghistoryfrom a lesbian and feministperspec-
tive.These goals are conceptuallydistinctand may not be achievable by
one concept, namely,the lesbian continuum.
In the remainder of this section I will criticizethe definitionsof
lesbian thathave been offeredin the literatureand in common usage; I
will argue that none succeeds completelyin achievingany one of these
tasks.(In fact,the truthmaybe thatthefirsttaskcannot be accomplished
at all in the opinion of those espousing values of the dominantculture.)
In subsequent sectionsI will give myown suggestionfora sociopolitical
definitionof the contemporarylesbian communityand some thoughts
about transhistoricalfeministconcepts.
What then are some proposed definitionsof the concept lesbian?
First,let us consider the meaning the concept mighthave in 1981 foran
average lay person not deeply engaged in gay,lesbian,or feministpoli-
tics:

2. Lesbian (ordinarydefinition)is a woman who has sexual attrac-

tions toward and relationshipswithother women.

One problemwiththe use of definition2 as the instrumentfordelineat-

ing membersof the contemporarylesbian community(the second goal)
is thatits meaning does not exclude practicingbisexual women. In fact,
manycommonsenseusages of the termlesbian do not make the lesbian/
bisexual distinction.Many women who have loved men and had sexual
relationshipswith them come later to have sexual relationshipswith
women and to thinkof themselvesas lesbians withoutbotheringto con-
sider the metaphysicalsignificanceof the distinctionbetween being a
bisexual who loves a woman and a lesbianwho loves a woman. What does
thisambiguityin the applicationof the concept lesbiansuggestabout the
usefulnessof definition2?
One thingit suggestsis thathomosexual practicesby themselvesare
not sufficientor definitiveconstituentsof a homosexual identity.A cer-
tain kind of politicalcontextis required. Therefore, when considering
sexual identity,we should be waryof attemptsto make oversimplified
cross-culturalparallels. Most known societies have had some form of
legitimate,or at least expected, homosexual practices in spite of the
widespread persistenceof culturallyenforced heterosexuality;but from
This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
162 Fergusonet al. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

this we cannot conclude that individuals within those societies had

homosexual identitiesin our modern understanding of the concept.
Thus, among the Mohave Indians, those of either sex who so wished
could choose to become socially a member of the opposite sex. The
"woman" male might simulate pregnancy and menstruation,and the
"man" female play the fatherrole to her chosen partner's child by a
biological male. Nonetheless the societydistinguishedbetween the two
partnersin such a homosexual pair. The social but nonbiologicalmale or
female was deviant, while the social and biological males and females
were unfortunatebut normal membersof society.This distinctionis not
present today in society'sconcept of homosexual identitythat would
equally stigmatizeas deviant both partnersin a sexual relationshipbe-
tween two people of the same sex.
We could tryto correctdefinition2 while stillseekingsome ahistori-
cal descriptivecomponent of lesbian and say that:

3. Lesbianis a woman who is sexual exclusivelyin relationto women.

This definitioncertainlycaptures one importantuse of the concept les-

bian in contemporarylesbian politics,in thatit describesidentifiedmem-
bers of the lesbian subculturein such a way as to exclude women who
engage in bisexual practices.But it also cuts fromlesbian historymany
women like Sappho, Vita Sackville-West,and Eleanor Roosevelt,whom
most lesbian feministswould like to include. Yet should a woman be
accepted as a lesbian if she engaged in bisexual practicesonly if she is a
historicalpersonage and is not presentlydemanding to be included in
the lesbian community?Surely,thisis ratherad hoc!
The problem is thata strictdistinctionbetween lesbian/homosexual
and bisexual rules out many commonly accepted historicalsituations
involvinghomosexual practices,for example, those of Greece and Les-
bos, because the aristocraticmen and women involved (including Sap-
pho) had same-sex love relationsbut also formed economic and pro-
creativemarriageswiththe opposite sex.
One furtherdefinitionalstrategywould eliminate genital sexual
practices as relevant to the concept lesbian,thus at once avoiding the
standard,pejorativeconnotationsof the termand extendingitsmeaning
to include celibate women who are otherwiseexcluded by definition3
from the lesbian sisterhood.5It is the trivializingof lesbian relations
throughemphasis on genitalpractice,many feel,thatcontinuesto stig-
matize lesbianism.Instead, we should substitutetraitsvalued highly,at
least by the intended audience of feminists,and thuscleanse the concept
of its negative implications.
This is the definitionalstrategysuggestedby Blanche Weisen Cook

5. See Susan Yarborough, "Lesbian Celibacy,"SinisterWisdom11 (Fall 1979): 24-29.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 163

fromwhichRich, Nancy Sahli, and other recentwriterstake theircues.6

The resultingdefinitionis based on Cook's quoted words but with a
clause added on the possibilityof sexual love betweenwomen as a chal-
lenge to people's negativefeelingsabout such love:

4. Lesbian(Cook) is ".... a woman who loves women, who chooses

women to nurtureand support and to create a livingenvironment
in whichto workcreativelyand independently,"7whetheror not her
relationswiththese women are sexual.

My main criticismof definition4 is a politicalone. This extension

and reconstructionof the termlesbian would seem to eliminatewomen
like Virginia Woolf,Gertrude Stein,and so on-in fact,all women who
were sexuallyattractedto women but who workedwithmen or in a circle
of mixed male and femalefriendssuch as the Bloomsburygroup. When
juxtaposed to Rich's idea of a lesbian continuumas an indicatorof resis-
tance to patriarchy,thisdefinitionsuggeststhatfemalecouples likeJane
Addams and Mary Rozet Smithor women like Lilian Wald whose com-
munityof friendswere almostentirelyfeministare more importantrole
models for lesbian-feminists than women like Gertrude Stein or Bessie
Smith.
This approach also leaves out the historicalcontextin whichwomen
live. At certainhistoricalperiods,when thereis no large or visibleoppo-
sitionalwomen's culture,women who show that theycan challenge the
sexual divisionof labor-that is, who work withand performas well as
men-are just as importantfor questioningthe patriarchalideology of
inevitable sex roles, including compulsory heterosexuality,as are the
woman-identifiedwomen described by Cook. At certain periods even
women who pass formen-such as those adventurersDona Catalina De
Erauso, Anny Bonny,and Mary Read8-are just as importantas models
of resistanceto patriarchyas the celibateEmilyDickinsonmayhave been
in her time.
For these reasons I rejectthe politicalimplicationof radical feminist
theorythatthereis some universalway to understand"true"as opposed
to "false" acts of resistanceto patriarchy.Consider that implicationas
expressed in thisquote fromRich's interviewin Frontiers: "We need also
to researchand analyze the livesof women who have been lesbiansin the
mostlimitedsense of genitalsexual activitywhileotherwisebonding with
men. Because lesbianismin thatlimitedsense has confused and blocked

6. Nancy Sahli, "Smashing: Women's RelationshipsBefore the Fall," Chrysalis,

no. 8
(1979), pp. 17-28.
7. Blanche W. Cook, "Female Support Networksand PoliticalActivism,"Chrysalis,
no.
3 (1977), pp. 43-61.
8. See Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch, eds., WomenRemembered: A Collectionof
Biographies(Baltimore: Diana Press, 1974).

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
164 Fergusonetal. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

resistanceand survival."9I wonder, for instance,whetherit is not racist

or classist to urge third world women to bond with white women in
"Take Back the Night" marches, rather than with thirdworld men in
protestagainstrepressiveracial violencetowardminoritymen suspected
of violence against white women. On the other hand, Emily Dickinson
may have bonded withotherwomen,but it is not clear to me thather life
is not the sad case of a victim,ratherthana successfulresister,of patriar-
chy. Feministsmindfulof the differentformsof patriarchalhierarchy,
includingdiscriminationbased on class and race, ought to be verywary
of positing universal formulas and strategiesfor ending it. Hence, I
reject the notion of a lesbian continuum because it is too linear and
ahistorical.
My final objection to the reconstructionof the concept lesbian
suggested in definition4 is that the definitionignores the important
sense in whichthe sexual revolutionof the late nineteenthand twentieth
centuries was a positive advance for women. The abilityto take one's
own genital sexual needs seriously is a necessary component of an
egalitarianlove relation,whetherit be witha man or a woman. Further-
more, I would argue thatthe possibilityof a sexual relationshipbetween
women is an importantchallenge to patriarchybecause it acts as an
alternativeto the patriarchalheterosexual couple, thus challengingthe
heterosexualideology thatwomen are dependent on men for romantic/
sexual love and satisfaction.Therefore, any definitionalstrategywhich
seeks to drop the sexual component-of"lesbian" in favorof an emotional
commitmentto, or preference for,women10tends to lead feministsto
downplay the historicalimportanceof the movementfor sexual libera-
tion. The negative results of that movement-by which sexual ob-
jectification replaces material objectification,the nineteenth-century
concept of woman as a "womb on legs" becoming the twentieth-century
one of a "vagina on legs"-do notjustifydismissalof the real advances
thatwere made forwomen,not the leastbeing the possibilityof a lesbian
identityin the sexual sense of the term."
I conclude that none of the definitionsgiven above succeeds in
accomplishingthe tasks which those interestedin lesbian historyhave
put forward:first,freeingthe concept lesbianfromnarrowclinical uses
9. Quoted by Schwarz,p. 6.
10. See Joyce Trebilcot's discussion of related development of the concept of
woman-identifiedwoman in "Conceiving Women," SinisterWisdom11 (Fall 1979): 43-50.
11. Historical and political reasons lead me to reject Annabel Faraday's suggestion
that we should get beyond the theoreticaltask of defininglesbian to the more important
taskof researchingmale methodsof theorizingand controllingwomen's sexuality.We do
indeed need to do this,but understandingthe historicaldevelopmentof a lesbian identity
and of a lesbian communityas a potential resistanceto male control is one part of this
broader task. See Annabel Faraday, "Liberating Lesbian Research," in The Makingof the
Modem Homosexual,ed. K. Plummer (London: Hutchinson PublishingGroup, 1981), pp.
112-29.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
signs Autumn1981 165

and negative emotiveconnotations;second, aiding the developmentof

feministcategories for drawingclear lines among contemporarysexual
identities;and finally,illuminatingwomen's historybydeveloping trans-
historicalcategoriesthatgive us a betterunderstandingof women's his-
toricalresistanceto patriarchaldomination.

An Alternative
Approach:TheNew LesbianIdentity
SomeMethodological
Considerations
The major problem with definitions1 through 4 is that they are
ahistorical;thatis, theyall implicitly
assume some universalwayto define
lesbianism across cultures,classes, and races. But this approach, as I
hope I have shown, is bankrupt. Nonetheless, I thinkwe can offera
historicallyspecificdefinitionof lesbian foradvanced industrialsocieties
thatwillmeet the second goal listedabove. But firstwe need to consider
the prior social conditionsnecessaryfor one to be conscious of sexual
orientationas part of one's personal identity.
Our contemporarysexual identitiesare predicated upon two con-
ditions.First,and tautologically,a person cannot be said to have a sexual
identitythat is not self-conscious,that is, it is not meaningfulto con-
jecture thatsomeone is a lesbian who refusesto acknowledge herselfas
such. Taking on a lesbian identityis a self-consciouscommitmentor
decision. Identityconceptsare, thus,to be distinguishedfromsocial and
biological categorieswhichapply to persons simplybecause of theirpo-
sitionin the social structure,forexample, theireconomic class,theirsex,
or their racial classification.For this reason, labeling theoristsmake a
distinctionbetweenprimaryand secondarydeviance: One can engage in
deviant acts (primarydeviance) withoutlabeling oneself a deviant,but
acquiringa personal identityas a deviant(secondarydeviance) requiresa
self-consciousacceptance of the label as applying to oneself.
A second condition for a self-consciouslesbian identityis that one
live in a culturewhere the concept has relevance. For example, a person
cannot have a black identityunless the concept of blacknessexistsin the
person's culturalenvironment.(Various shades of brownall get termed
"black" in North Americanculturebut not in Caribbean cultures,partly
because of the greater racism in our culture.) Connected to this is the
idea, borrowed from Sartre, that a person cannot be anythingunless
others can identifyher or him as such. So, just as a person cannot be
self-conscious about being black unless there is a potentially self-
conscious communityof others prepared to accept the label for them-
selves,so a person cannot be said to have a sexual identityunless thereis
in his or her historicalperiod and culturalenvironmenta communityof
otherswho thinkof themselvesas havingthe sexual identityin question.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
166 Fergusonetal. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

Thus, in a period of human historywhere the distinctionsbetween het-

erosexual, bisexual, and homosexual identityare not presentas cultural
categories(namely,untilthe twentiethcentury),people cannot correctly
be said to have been lesbian or bisexual, although theymaybe described
as having been sexually deviant. This point is emphasized by Carroll
Smith-Rosenbergin her classic treatmentof the particularlypassionate
and emotionallyconsuming friendshipsof nineteenth-century middle-
class women for other women.12
The definitionof lesbian that I suggest,one that conformsto the
two methodologicalconsiderationsabove, is the following:

5. Lesbian is a woman who has sexual and erotic-emotionalties

primarilywithwomen or who sees herselfas centrallyinvolvedwith
a communityof self-identifiedlesbians whose sexual and erotic-
emotional ties are primarilywithwomen; and who is herselfa self-
identifiedlesbian.

My definitionis a sociopoliticalone; thatis, it attemptsto include in

the termlesbian the contemporarysense of lesbianismas connectedwith
a subculturalcommunity,many membersof which are opposed to de-
finingthemselvesas dependent on or subordinate to men. It defines
both bisexual and celibate women as lesbians as long as they identify
themselvesas such and have theirprimaryemotional identification with
a communityof self-definedlesbians. Furthermore,for reasons I will
outline shortly,there was no lesbian communityin which to ground a
sense of selfbefore the twentiethcentury,a factwhichdistinguishesthe
male homosexual communityfromthe lesbian community.Finally,it is
arguable that not until this particularstage in the second wave of the
women's movementand in the lesbian-feministmovementhas it been
politicallyfeasible to include self-definedlesbian bisexual women into
the lesbian community.13
Many lesbian feministsmay not agree withthisinclusion.But it may
be argued that to exclude lesbian bisexuals fromthe communityon the
12. Carroll Smith-Rosenberg,"The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations be-
tween Women in Nineteenth-CenturyAmerica," Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand
Society1, no. 1 (Autumn 1975): 1-29; Weeks (n. 3 above).
13. Some responses to the recent"vanguardism"of politicallesbianismin the wom-
en's movementhave suggested thatwe avoid such labels as "heterosexual,""bisexual,"and
"lesbian feminist"and begin to framea bisexual or pansexual politics(see Beatrix Cambell,
"A FeministSexual Politics,"FeministReview5 [1980]). While I agree thatwe need new ideas
to get beyond existing labels, it would be utopian to ignore the ongoing strengthof
heterosexism,whichcontinuesto stigmatizeand deprive lesbians more than heterosexual
women. We need, then,a clearlydefined lesbian oppositional cultureof resistance,but as
feministswe need also to find ways to strengthenour women's communitywith other
feministsas well as to recruit new members into the feministcommunity.One way to
accomplish both these tasks in part is to accept the inclusivedefinitionof lesbian I offer
above.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 167

grounds that"theygive energyto men" is overlydefensiveat thispoint.

Afterall, a strongwomen's communitydoes not have to operate on a
scarcitytheoryof nurturantenergy!On feministprinciplesthe criterion
for membershipin the communityshould be a woman's commitmentto
givingpositiveerotic-emotionalenergyto women. Whetherwomen who
give such energy to women can also give energy to individual men
(friends,fathers,sons, lovers) is not the community'sconcern.

of theSexual Identity
The HistoricalDevelopment Lesbian
In consideringsome reasons whythe culturalconcept lesbiancame
to existin the United Statesand WesternEurope onlyin the earlytwen-
tiethcentury,we must ask what particularpreconditionsunderlay the
development in the later nineteenth century of the concept of a
homosexual typeor personality.If we take a socialist-feminist perspec-
tiveon preconditionsfor radical social change-the general assumption
is (to paraphrase Marx) that people can change their personal/social
identitiesbut not under conditionsof theirown choosing-we can focus
on three factors:material(economic), ideological, and motivational.
In other papers I have developed the argumentthatthe "material
base" of patriarchylies in male dominance in the familyand extended
kin networks.14However brutal its economic exploitation,nineteenth-
centuryindustrialcapitalismdid have one positiveaspect forwomen in
that it eventuallyweakened the patriarchalpower of fathersand sons
and, thus, the life choices of women increased. This relative gain in
freedom was not an instanteffectof capitalism,of course; early wage
labor for women gave most women too littlemoney to surviveon their
own. Nonetheless,acquisition of an income gave women new options,
for example, sharing boardinghouse rooms with other women; and
eventuallysome workdone bywomen drew a sufficient wage to allow for
economic independence. Then, too, commercial capital's growth
spurred the growthof urban areas, which in turn gave feministand
deviant women the possibilityof escaping the confinesof rigidlytradi-
tional, patriarchalfarm communitiesfor an independent, if often im-
poverished,life in the cities.
Yet as the patriarchalfamily'sdirect,personal controlover women
weakened, the less personal control of a growing class of male pro-
fessionals(physicians,therapists,and social workers)over the physical
and mental health of women grew in strength.At the same time, a
growing percentage of women were being incorporated into sex-
14. See Ann Ferguson,"Women as a New RevolutionaryClass in the United States,"
in BetweenLabor and Capital: The Professional-Managerial
Class, ed. Pat Walker (Boston:
South End Press, 1979), pp. 279-309; and Ann Ferguson and Nancy Folbre, "The Un-
happy Marriage of Patriarchyand Capitalism,"in Womenand Revolution,ed. Lydia Sargent
(Boston: South End Press, 1981), pp. 313-38.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
168 Fergusonet al. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

segregated wage labor for longer and longer periods. Ehrenreich and
English argue that the shiftfrom a patriarchalideology based in the
male-dominatedfamilyto a more diffusemasculinistideologywas in no
sense a weakeningof patriarchy,or male dominance, but simplyrepre-
sented a shiftin power fromfathersand husbands to male professionals
and bosses.15
It is myview,on the contrary,thatthe weakeningof the patriarchal
familyduring thisperiod created the materialconditionsneeded forthe
growthof lesbianismas a self-consciouscultural choice for women-a
choice that in turn helped to free them froman ideology that stressed
their emotional and sexual dependence upon men. Accelerating the
process were the studiesin human sexualitymade around the turnof the
centuryby Freud, Ellis, Krafft-Ebing, and Hirschfield.The ideological
shiftin the understandingof human nature thattheirfindingsinvolved
set the stagefora new permissivenessin sexual moresand the realization
that both men and women have sexual drives. This change legitimated
the demand of women to be equal sexual partnerswith men. It also
suggested that women could add another dimension of joy to their
already emotionallyintense friendshipswith women. As it developed,
the concept of a lesbian identitychallenged the connection between
women's sexualityand motherhoodthathad keptwomen'seroticenergy
eithersublimatedin love forchildrenor frustratedbecause heterosexual
privilegeoften kept women fromgivingpriorityto theirrelationswith
other women.
Noting the ideological changes thatmade possible the development
of a lesbian identity leaves the deeper motivational questions un-
answered. First,what lies behind the creation of a new dominant ideol-
ogy, creating,in turn,a new way of viewinglegitimateand illegitimate
sexual behaviorand changingthe previousdistinctionbetween"natural"
and "unnatural" sexualityto thatbetween "normal" as opposed to "de-
viant" sexuality and sexual identity?Second, what motivation leads
women to accept a deviant label and adopt a lesbian identity?
The answer to the firstquestion is suggested by Michel Foucault's
Introduction to theHistoryofSexuality.16The risingbourgeois class gradu-
ally creates a new ideologyforitselfthatshiftsthe emphasis fromcontrol
of social process throughmarriagealliance to thecontrolof sexualityas a
way of maintainingclass hegemony.Jacques Donzelot documents how
the developing categoryof sexual health and itsobverse,sexual sickness
(e.g., the hystericalwoman, the psychoticchild, the homosexual invert),
15. See Barbara Ehrenreich and Deidre English, For Her Own Good (New York:
Doubleday & Co., 1979); and Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology(Boston: Beacon Press, 1978), chap.
7. Other work that agrees withand supports this perspectiveis Stuart Ewen, Captainsof
Consciousness (New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1976); and Heidi Hartmann,"The Un-
happy Marriage of Marxismand Feminism:Towards a More ProgressiveUnion," Capital
and Class 8 (Summer 1979): 1-33.
16. Foucault (n. 3 above).

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 169

allow forgrowinginterventionin the familybytherapists,social workers,

and male professionalsas mediatorsforthe capitalistpatriarchalwelfare
state.17By providinga clear-cut,publicizedline betweenpermissibleand
illegitimatebehavior, these categoriesenforce the social segregationof
"deviants" from"normals,"thus keeping the normals pure (and under
control).l8
One thingthatFoucault and Donzelot as male leftistsfailto empha-
size is thewaythattheideological reorganizationtheyspeak of servesnot
only the bourgeois class but also men reorganizingpatriarchy.Christina
Simons'simportantarticledocumentsthe factthatself-styled progressive
thinkersand humanistsof the 1920s and 1930s who developed the ideal
of the sexuallyequal "companionatemarriage"did so in order to protect
theirnewlymystified formof the patriarchalfamily(in whichthe male is
instrumentalbreadwinnerand the female is the expressive,nurturant,
but sexy mom-housewife)by protectingyoung people fromthe lesbian/
homosexual threat.'9
Foucault also failsto emphasize popular resistanceto the ideas and
forces of social domination. As Rich points out, women have always
resistedpatriarchy,but whydid women choose the particularavenue of
lesbianismin the face of intense social stigmaattached to it? A general
answer is found in the sociologyof normal/deviantcategories. Once a
particulardeviationis identifiedin popular discourse,those dissatisfied
withthe conventionaloptions have the conscious possibilityof pursuing
the deviantalternative.We could thenexpect thatamong participantsin
the first-wave women's movementsa growingresentmentof male domi-
nation in the familyand the economymayhave led some women to turn
fromsexual relationswithmen to sexual relationswithwomen.
There is some evidence thatin both the United Statesand Western
Europe the growthof lesbianismamong middle-and upper-classwomen
was as closelyconnectedwiththe firstwave of the women'smovementas
the growthof lesbian feminismis withthe second wave of the movement.
Marcus Hirschfieldclaimed that in Germany 10 percent of feminists
were lesbian.20In England, Stella Browne, the Britishpioneer in birth
controland abortionrights,defended lesbianismpublicly.21Upper-class
women like Vita Sackville-West,Virginia Woolf, and Natalie Barney
involved themselvesin lesbian relationships.The fact that the lesbian
subculturedid not develop extensivelyuntilthe 1930s in mostcountries,
however,indicateshow difficultit stillwas for most single women to be
economically independent of men. With the rise of somewhat better
wage labor positions for women in the 1920s, 1930s, and onward, the

17. Jacques Donzelot, The PolicingofFamilies(New York: Pantheon Books, 1979).

18. McIntosh (n. 3 above).
19. Simons (n. 3 above).
20. Weeks (n. 3 above).
21. Weeks (n. 3 above).

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
170 Fergusonet al. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

gradual rise of an independent subcultureof self-definedlesbianscan be

seen as a pocket of resistanceto marriage. The second-wave women's
movementin the 1960s and 1970s made possible a furtherextensionof
that subculture and a clearer definition of its counterpatriarchal,
stronglyfeministnature.

Ideologyas a CoerciveForce
Heterosexual

Rich makes two basic assumptions in her defense of the lesbian

continuumas a constructforunderstandingfemaleresistanceto patriar-
chy. First,she assumes thatthe institutionof compulsoryheterosexuality
is the key mechanism underlyingand perpetuating male dominance.
Second, she implies that all heterosexual relationsare coercive or com-
pulsory relations. No argumentsare given to support these crucial as-
sumptions, an omission which I take as a fundamental flaw. While I
agree that lesbian and male-male attractionsare indeed suppressed
cross-culturallyand that the resultinginstitutionof heterosexualityis
coercive, I do not think it plausible to assume such suppression is
sufficientby itselfto perpetuate male dominance. It may be one of the
mechanisms,but it surelyis not the singleor sufficient one. Others,such
as the control of female biological reproduction,male control of state
and political power, and economic systemsinvolving discrimination
based on class and race, seem analyticallydistinctfromcoercive hetero-
sexuality,yetare causes whichsupportand perpetuatemale dominance.
Targetingheterosexualityas the keymechanismof male dominance
romanticizeslesbianismand ignores the actual qualityof individual les-
bian or heterosexualwomen's lives.Calling women who resistpatriarchy
the lesbian continuum assumes, not only that all lesbians have resisted
patriarchy,but thatall true patriarchalresistersare lesbiansor approach
lesbianism.This ignores,on the one hand, the "old lesbian" subculture
thatcontainsmanynonpolitical,co-opted,and economicallycomfortable
lesbians. It also ignores the existence of some heterosexual couples in
which women who are feministsmaintain an equal relationshipwith
men. Such women would deny that theirinvolvementsare coercive,or
even that they are forced to put second their own needs, their self-
respect,or theirrelationshipswithwomen.
Part of the problem is the concept of "compulsoryheterosexuality."
SometimesRich seems to implythatwomen who are essentiallyor natu-
rally lesbians are coerced by the social mechanismsof the patriarchal
familyto "turn to the father,"hence to men. But if a girl'soriginallove
for her motheris itselfdue to the social factthatwomen, and not men,
mother,then neitherlesbianism nor heterosexualitycan be said to be
women's natural (uncoerced) sexual preference.If humans are basically
bisexual or transsexualat birth,itwillnot do to suggestthatlesbianismis

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Signs Autumn1981 171

the more authenticsexual preferencefor feminists,and thatheterosex-

ual feministswho do not change theirsexual preferenceare simplylying
to themselvesabout theirtrue sexuality.
The notion thatheterosexualityis centralto women's oppression is
plausible only if one assumes that it is women's emotional dependence
on men as lovers in conjunctionwithother mechanismsof male domi-
nance (e.g., marriage,motherhood,women's economic dependence on
men) which allow men to control women's bodies as instrumentsfor
theirown purposes. But singlemothers,black women,and economically
independent women, for example, may in their heterosexual relations
withmen escape or avoid these other mechanisms.
Rich's emphasis on compulsoryheterosexualityas the key mecha-
nism of male domination implies that the quality of straightwomen's
resistancemust be questioned. But thisignores other equally important
practicesof resistanceto male domination,for example, women's work
networksand trade unions, and welfaremothersorganizingagainst so-
cial service cutbacks. The (perhaps unintended) lesbian-separatistim-
plicationsof her analysisare disturbing.If compulsoryheterosexualityis
the problem, why bother to make alliances with straightwomen from
minorityand working-classcommunitiesaround issues relatingto sex
and race discriminationat the workplace, cutbacks in Medicaid abor-
tions, the lack of day-care centers,cutbacks in food stamps,and ques-
tions about nuclear power and the arms race? Just stop sleeping with
men, withdrawfrom heterosexual practices,and the whole systemof
male dominance will collapse on its own!
A socialist-feminist
analysisof male dominance sees the systemsthat
oppress women as more complex and difficultto dislodge than does the
utopian and idealist simplicityof lesbian separatism.They are at least
dual systems,22 and more likelymultiplesystems,of dominance whichat
timessupportand at timescontradicteach other: capitalism,patriarchy,
heterosexism,racism,imperialism.We need autonomous groups of re-
sistersopposing each of these formsof dominance; but we also need
alliances among ourselves. If feminismas a movementis trulyrevolu-
tionary, it cannot give priority to one form of male domination
(heterosexism)to the exclusion of others. One's sexual preferencemay
indeed be a political act, but it is not necessarily the best, nor the
paradigmatic,feministpoliticalact. Naming the continuumof resistance
to patriarchythe lesbiancontinuumhas the politicalimplicationthatitis.
To conclude, let me agree withRich that some transhistoricalcon-
cepts may be needed to stressthe continuityof women's resistanceto
patriarchy.Nonetheless,the concepts we pick should not ignore either
the politicalcomplexityof our presenttasksas feministsnor our histori-

22. Iris Young, "SocialistFeminismand the Limitsof Dual SystemsTheory,"Socialist

Review 10, no. 50/51 (March-June 1980): 169-88.

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
172 Fergusonet al. On "Compulsory
Heterosexuality"

cally specificpoliticalconsciousnessas lesbians. Rich's argument,on the

one hand thatcompulsoryheterosexualityis the key mechanismof pa-
triarchy,and on the other hand that the lesbian continuum is the key
resistanceto it, has both of these unfortunateconsequences.

Philosophyand Women'sStudies
of
University Massachusetts-Amherst

Jacquelyn N. Zita: Historical Amnesia and the Lesbian

Continuum
Ann Ferguson'spaper "Patriarchy,Sexual Identity,and theSexual Revo-
lution"is a welcomeportof entryintoa conceptual arena thatmanyof us
have encountered in our personal and communitylives,but one which
fewof us as philosophershave givencareful studyand attention.23 The
discussion is long overdue, and since many of our philosophical di-
alogues have been sparked by the poetic insightof Adrienne Rich, we
have once again to thank our poet-philosopher for generating yet
another multitudeof thoughtsand words withinthe newlyexpanding
communityof feministphilosophers.In myown workI have returnedto
Rich manytimesfora regenerationof ideas and forthe courage to move
withhintsof thingsonlydimlyseen, whichwe as philosophersshape bya
differentkind of language, inscribinga differentintentioninto the
words of our craft.The differencein styleand language betweenAdri-
enne Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexualityand Lesbian Existence" and
Ann Ferguson's response demonstratesthisdifferencein intention:The
firstis poetic and literary;the second, philosophical and analytic.Both
worksshare a personal commitmentand passion whichbelongs to good
feministwriting.Both pieces are meant to persuade us, but it would be
misleadingto suggestthatthe issue is one of definitionsalone. The issue
centralto these two papers goes much deeper. It concerns the livingof
lesbian lives and the kind of social and politicalinterpretationthatwe as
women bring to our lesbian existence. Involved is a long process of
exploration,dialogue, and communityexchange.
The dangers of discussion such as this one are obvious enough.
23. Like others involved in feministwritingand research, I am indebted to many
women who found it worthwhileto discuss and criticizethe developmentof these ideas. I
would like to give special thanksto Naomi Sheman, VickySpelman, Janet Spector, Susan
Rogers, HilarySandall, Susan Bernick,Hazel VanEvera, Marilou Good, and above all Toni
McNaron for their generous exchange and support. Also many thanksto Alison Jaggar,
whose workin organizingthe PhilosophicalIssues in FeministTheory Conferenceheld in
Cincinnation November 13-16, 1980, was instrumentalin bringingthis discussion into
existence,Finally,I wishto extend myappreciationto Ann Ferguson,whose worknotonly
inspires this commentarybut also provides an articulateand intelligentbalance for the
discussion at hand (Zita).

This content downloaded from 130.133.008.114 on March 09, 2017 22:04:14 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).