Legal prohibitions on disclosure punish sexuality without appearing to ban it outright.
Evidence
In Sedgwick’s (1990) interpretation, the two separate rulings in Acanfora demonstrate the double binds that serve as organizing structures of sexuality, power, and oppression in heterosexist society at large. While both courts stated that Acanfora’s sexuality “itself” could not be grounds for removal, they effectively punished the dissemination of such information. From this, Sedgwick posits that sexuality is located in labeled speech acts, and coming out is not an inherently liberatory act, but one that often produces and enforces dichotomous categories. — James D. Kirylo (ed.), Reinventing Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1244
Categorization
- DEFINE: Introduces Sedgwick’s ‘double bind’ concept and the claim that sexuality is located in labeled speech acts.
- XREF: connects to: Openly gay teachers often perform palatable identities that reinforce dominant norms. — James D. Kirylo (ed.), Reinventing Pedagogy of the Oppressed:…, 1258; Prohibition laws work as normative signals, not criminal sanctions — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 10897; Misogynist diatribes justify legal codes rather than cause them. — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 211 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Interracial marriage bans protected white male sexual monopoly, not racial purity per se
#exemplifies(0.78) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 212 - Prohibition laws work as normative signals, not criminal sanctions
#expands(0.75) — , The Rod and the Child, 10897 - Misogynist diatribes justify legal codes rather than cause them.
#complicates(0.72) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 211 - Islamist dress rules protect men’s sexuality, not women’s, from public exposure.
#exemplifies(0.72) — Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety, 790