These are the questions we will discuss in class Wednesday.
1. Prior to the coining of heterosexuality as a term, what qualities described “true” women and men? How were these qualities specific to race and class?
2. How did an economic and labor shift in the late 19th century result in a change of how we relate to our bodies? In what ways did this lead to a medicalization of “Normal Love”?
3. We have discussed discipline and deviance in relation to ascribed identity norms. How does the invention of the category of heterosexuality intersect with how we have talked about deviance?
4. What were the specific communicative impacts of a new heterosexual category?
5. At the beginning of the article, Katz uses the word “ahistorical.” Near the end of the essay, he talks about the importance of a “historical” view of the hetero- and homo- labels attached to sexuality. What is going on here? What is an ahistorical view of heterosexuality compared to a historical view? Why does it matter?
Comments
Post a Comment