Dixon et al. highlight the unintended consequences of an orthodox prejudice reduction model of intergroup relations founded on fostering a sense of harmony between groups in conflict. The issues they raise are particularly salient for understanding the impact of prejudice on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people, three groups considerably affected by oppressive attitudes and behaviours. Whilst there has been substantial progress in reducing prejudice against such marginalized groups, in the West at least, there is a continuing and ongoing struggle to reduce both overt and subtle forms of discrimination (see, for example, Badgett et al. Reference Badgett, Donnelly and Kibbe1992; Tilcsik Reference Tilcsik2011).
Coming-out has been positioned within the psychological and sociological literature as a key move in reducing discrimination against people who are LGB (Lewis Reference Lewis2011). The argument invariably revolves around an orthodox model of prejudice reduction based on increasing contact between people from LGB minorities and those from the heterosexual majority. Pettigrew and Tropp's (Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006) meta-analysis of contact theory revealed that contact with LGB people typically has stronger effects than contact with other marginalized groups. Whilst the impact is smaller for political conservatives and evangelical Protestants, it appears that even here there is evidence of positive impact through contact alone (Lewis Reference Lewis2011). It is believed that anti-LGB prejudice is particularly susceptible to intergroup contact because of the possibility of LGB people “passing” as heterosexual and heterosexuals learning that a person is LG or B after a relationship has already been established.
However, the complex and pernicious nature of prejudice, alongside the dangers of naïve intervention strategies, become apparent when we consider psychological models of “coming-out” in the context of the arguments forwarded by Dixon et al. Dominant models of sexual identity development (Cass Reference Cass1979; Coleman Reference Coleman1981/1982; Woodman & Lena Reference Woodman and Lena1980), widely in use amongst psychologists, counselors, and psychotherapists today, invariably incorporate a belief that successful coming-out involves a move towards quiet acceptance of the wider social world. For instance, the Cass (Reference Cass1979) model, which remains one of the most dominant, involves six stages of development from identity confusion through to identity synthesis. The model is based on interpersonal congruency theory (Secord & Backman Reference Secord and Backman1961), which proposes that individual stability and change are dependent on the degree of congruence or incongruence between an individual and his or her environment. Movement through stages therefore occurs as a result of an attempt to resolve an inconsistency between the perception of self and others. The penultimate stage (“Identity Pride”) not only involves pride at one's sexual identity, but also anger at an apparently homophobic society, whilst the final stage (“Identity Synthesis”) involves recognition that this “them and us” strategy is mistaken, with the LG or B person accepting that there is considerable similarity between him or herself and heterosexuals. Whilst there has been some empirical support for this model (Cass Reference Cass1984; Halpin & Allen Reference Halpin and Allen2004), there has also been criticism concerning the failure to differentiate male/female and homo/bisexual experience and problems with the fit of this model to the lives of many LGB people (see, for example, Horowitz & Newcomb Reference Horowitz and Newcomb2001). Regardless, this model remains powerful in shaping expectations about the developmental progression of LGB people, being anchored into academic discourse and everyday representations of the coming-out process. The sixth “Identity Synthesis” stage, in particular, resonates with concerns over the need for LGB people to act in ways appropriate with being a “good homosexual” citizen (Smith Reference Smith1994).
When thinking through the sociopolitical implications of extant coming-out models in the light of Dixon et al.'s arguments, what emerges is the implicitly conservative and individualistic character of such psychological models of sexual identity development. That is, coming-out as a political act is transformed into a social move designed – through positive contact – to effect change in attitudes amongst the heterosexual majority towards LGB people. The question that needs to be raised concerns the appropriate endpoint of “successful” coming-out and whether this should not necessarily be quiet contentment with oneself and one's social world, but appropriate and justifiable anger, at the continuing and endemic heterosexism and homonegativity faced by LGB people in the contemporary world (Langdridge Reference Langdridge and Moon2008). That is, has the desire to encourage people to like each other more fuelled a passive model of development that may actually reduce political action on the part of LGB people? If collective action is vital for effecting social change, then we might arguably want to abandon such stage models, or at the very least the final “identity synthesis” stages, and instead encourage greater pride, militancy, and even anger, as necessary conditions for the in-group solidarity and passion needed to engage in coordinated and concerted collective political action.
If psychological and sociological work on intergroup relations is to play a role in further effecting sociopolitical change, then recognition of the subtle ways in which orthodox models of prejudice reduction may now entrench rather than challenge existing lines of oppression is vital, as Dixon et al. state: “In so far as prejudice reduction undermines the already tenuous possibility that subordinate group members will develop the kind of insurgent consciousness that fuels resistance to inequality, it may ultimately reproduce rather than disrupt the status quo” (sect. 4.2., para. 7). Without the appropriate anger necessary to fuel sociopolitical change, it may well be the case that ideas from orthodox prejudice reduction models, alongside quietly “accepting” LGB communities, paradoxically act against the desire for further social justice that motivates most working within this field.
You have
Access
Dixon et al. highlight the unintended consequences of an orthodox prejudice reduction model of intergroup relations founded on fostering a sense of harmony between groups in conflict. The issues they raise are particularly salient for understanding the impact of prejudice on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people, three groups considerably affected by oppressive attitudes and behaviours. Whilst there has been substantial progress in reducing prejudice against such marginalized groups, in the West at least, there is a continuing and ongoing struggle to reduce both overt and subtle forms of discrimination (see, for example, Badgett et al. Reference Badgett, Donnelly and Kibbe1992; Tilcsik Reference Tilcsik2011).
Coming-out has been positioned within the psychological and sociological literature as a key move in reducing discrimination against people who are LGB (Lewis Reference Lewis2011). The argument invariably revolves around an orthodox model of prejudice reduction based on increasing contact between people from LGB minorities and those from the heterosexual majority. Pettigrew and Tropp's (Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006) meta-analysis of contact theory revealed that contact with LGB people typically has stronger effects than contact with other marginalized groups. Whilst the impact is smaller for political conservatives and evangelical Protestants, it appears that even here there is evidence of positive impact through contact alone (Lewis Reference Lewis2011). It is believed that anti-LGB prejudice is particularly susceptible to intergroup contact because of the possibility of LGB people “passing” as heterosexual and heterosexuals learning that a person is LG or B after a relationship has already been established.
However, the complex and pernicious nature of prejudice, alongside the dangers of naïve intervention strategies, become apparent when we consider psychological models of “coming-out” in the context of the arguments forwarded by Dixon et al. Dominant models of sexual identity development (Cass Reference Cass1979; Coleman Reference Coleman1981/1982; Woodman & Lena Reference Woodman and Lena1980), widely in use amongst psychologists, counselors, and psychotherapists today, invariably incorporate a belief that successful coming-out involves a move towards quiet acceptance of the wider social world. For instance, the Cass (Reference Cass1979) model, which remains one of the most dominant, involves six stages of development from identity confusion through to identity synthesis. The model is based on interpersonal congruency theory (Secord & Backman Reference Secord and Backman1961), which proposes that individual stability and change are dependent on the degree of congruence or incongruence between an individual and his or her environment. Movement through stages therefore occurs as a result of an attempt to resolve an inconsistency between the perception of self and others. The penultimate stage (“Identity Pride”) not only involves pride at one's sexual identity, but also anger at an apparently homophobic society, whilst the final stage (“Identity Synthesis”) involves recognition that this “them and us” strategy is mistaken, with the LG or B person accepting that there is considerable similarity between him or herself and heterosexuals. Whilst there has been some empirical support for this model (Cass Reference Cass1984; Halpin & Allen Reference Halpin and Allen2004), there has also been criticism concerning the failure to differentiate male/female and homo/bisexual experience and problems with the fit of this model to the lives of many LGB people (see, for example, Horowitz & Newcomb Reference Horowitz and Newcomb2001). Regardless, this model remains powerful in shaping expectations about the developmental progression of LGB people, being anchored into academic discourse and everyday representations of the coming-out process. The sixth “Identity Synthesis” stage, in particular, resonates with concerns over the need for LGB people to act in ways appropriate with being a “good homosexual” citizen (Smith Reference Smith1994).
When thinking through the sociopolitical implications of extant coming-out models in the light of Dixon et al.'s arguments, what emerges is the implicitly conservative and individualistic character of such psychological models of sexual identity development. That is, coming-out as a political act is transformed into a social move designed – through positive contact – to effect change in attitudes amongst the heterosexual majority towards LGB people. The question that needs to be raised concerns the appropriate endpoint of “successful” coming-out and whether this should not necessarily be quiet contentment with oneself and one's social world, but appropriate and justifiable anger, at the continuing and endemic heterosexism and homonegativity faced by LGB people in the contemporary world (Langdridge Reference Langdridge and Moon2008). That is, has the desire to encourage people to like each other more fuelled a passive model of development that may actually reduce political action on the part of LGB people? If collective action is vital for effecting social change, then we might arguably want to abandon such stage models, or at the very least the final “identity synthesis” stages, and instead encourage greater pride, militancy, and even anger, as necessary conditions for the in-group solidarity and passion needed to engage in coordinated and concerted collective political action.
If psychological and sociological work on intergroup relations is to play a role in further effecting sociopolitical change, then recognition of the subtle ways in which orthodox models of prejudice reduction may now entrench rather than challenge existing lines of oppression is vital, as Dixon et al. state: “In so far as prejudice reduction undermines the already tenuous possibility that subordinate group members will develop the kind of insurgent consciousness that fuels resistance to inequality, it may ultimately reproduce rather than disrupt the status quo” (sect. 4.2., para. 7). Without the appropriate anger necessary to fuel sociopolitical change, it may well be the case that ideas from orthodox prejudice reduction models, alongside quietly “accepting” LGB communities, paradoxically act against the desire for further social justice that motivates most working within this field.