Category: Homophobia

Introduction

Gradually, there are fewer homophobic sentiments in the world, and yet there is much misunderstanding towards and rejection of the LGBT community. About eighty countries have prohibited homosexuality by law, and in many states, it is punishable by imprisonment. However, even in countries that have legally allowed same-sex marriage, and that are the flagships of world democracy and liberal values  such as the USA  inciting xenophobic sentiments in society, discrediting human rights defenders, and promoting the ideology of traditional values provokes violence and discrimination against sexual minorities. This is primarily due to societal processes determining the specifics of modern society, which requires the study of the above phenomenon primarily on the basis of empirical research.

Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis

Modern society is highly differentiated, and the process of division accelerates in many directions. Moreover, some spheres of life and institutions are undergoing structural changes that make the system of social interactions even more difficult to perceive and explain. One of these areas is the area of sexual and gender relations. In cases where people are faced with new patterns of gender behavior, the perception of these patterns and the formation of ideas about new gender roles can be difficult or influenced by stereotypes. In particular, this statement is true for homosexuality as one of the manifestations of gender differentiation.

In order to find out how adequately stereotypes correlate with actual practices, it is not enough to determine their degree of influence on what the ideas about homosexuality in society are and how these notions are formed. Undoubtedly, understanding the mechanisms of building a system of relations and connections between the sexes will make it possible to clarify the vector of gender issues development and clarify the ways to resolve emerging contradictions.

If one talks about the attitude of modern society towards homosexuals, first of all, it should be noted that it is extremely ambiguous and largely politicized. Despite the publicly declared tolerance and permission for same-sex marriage following the high-profile case of Obergefell vs. Hodges, many LGBT people have to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity in everyday life for fear of negative reactions at school, work, community, or family. It is obvious that the phenomenon of modern homophobia in American society needs further understanding and the development of new theoretical and methodological approaches to its study, in order to develop and implement the appropriate social policies. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that raising the level of education of the population on issues of gender and gender identity will help reduce the level of homophobia in the communities.

Literature Review

Since the middle of the last century, in the context of the struggle for civil rights and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, together with the reassessment of basic social values, the attitude towards people of non-traditional orientation has also changed. Homosexuals were recognized as full members of society. Moreover, manifestations of homophobia are now prosecuted by law, and representatives of minorities are positioned by public and human rights organizations as the most liberal and progressive social group.

It becomes more difficult for a homosexual to be fired or expelled from a university; an employer will think thoroughly before imposing an administrative penalty on a homosexual employee. However, ordinary people do not always show tolerance towards representatives of the LGBT community. Just as the struggle for civil rights has legally equated white and black US citizens, while latent racism still flourishes in American society, the legalization of same-sex marriage did not eliminate homophobia, which is, unlike racism, not only latent but sometimes even rather frank.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that homophobia in the United States today has a moderate character compared to the past century. The criminal prosecution of homosexuals in the United States, which continued in a number of states until the early 21st century, was accompanied by aggressive persecution of LGBT people by the state. The year 1969 is considered a turning point in this system. First, the strict Protestant morality upon which America was built should be mentioned. Second, the fact that for a long time gays were considered a threat to national security for reasons not only of society but also political nature, is important. A decisive contribution to this was made by Senator McCarthy  the same fighter against the communists, through whose efforts the hunt for red witches was unleashed in the United States (Weiss & Bosia, 2013). Although sanctions against LGBT people varied from state to state, in some places they were downright brutal, even by Soviet standards. Since homosexuality at the official medical level was considered a form of sociopathy that breeds a propensity to crime, in the now liberal California it was possible for the rest of life to be placed in a closed mental hospital, where patients were treated with an electric shock.

Today, largely, many Americans are generally of little interest in the presence of gay people in society. Homosexuals are perceived by the majority of the population not as criminals, but as sick people suffering from certain psychophysical disabilities, but nothing more (Martos et al., 2017). The idea of homosexuality as a norm of sexual behavior has not taken root among the majority of American inhabitants: the attitude towards them remains calm, but at the same time, rather wary and partly disgusted.

American sociologist David Greenberg cites the spread of modern bureaucratic structures since the late 19th century as the basis for the emergence of stereotypes about homosexuality in Western societies. The manifestation of emotions could contribute to the destruction of these structures. To prevent this, a prohibition was imposed on emotions between men within the framework of not only bureaucracies but also entire societies with similar systems (Greenberg as cited in Rivers, 2011). As a result, in the process of raising boys, parents taught them, first of all, to be wary of manifestations of positive emotions from other men. Thus, the taboo on intrasexual intimacy began to be absorbed as part of the bureaucratic personality, which led to increased anxiety and its manifestation in homophobia.

Homosexuality was struck off the International Classifier of Diseases almost 30 years ago. It does not disrupt the normal life of the body, does not depend on the state of metabolism or on the morphological integrity of the person. Since 1992, homosexuality has not been officially recognized as a disease and has been deleted from the International Classifier of Diseases. However, stereotypical representations continue to exist, changing only in part.

One of these stereotypes is the attribution of homosexuals to a group of increased social risk, which contains several indicators. First, homosexuals are believed to be more suicidal than heterosexuals. Data from several surveys partly support the relationship of homosexuality with suicidal tendencies (Faderman, 2015). However, the results of qualitative interviews conducted in recent years allow concluding that homosexuals who have fully accepted their orientation does not demonstrate suicidal tendencies (Jardina, 2019). Second, the results of a 2015 sociological study show that, despite their high sexual activity, homosexuals are not deprived. For example, the survey did not find significant differences in the interests of homosexuals and heterosexuals towards erotic and pornographic products that could be considered depraved (Martos et al., 2017). Thirdly, one of the most widespread stereotypes regarding homosexuals  a high degree of susceptibility to HIV infections precisely because of their sexual orientation  can be refuted by the fact that HIV infection is facilitated by a number of factors inherent in both homosexual and heterosexuals: frequent change of partners, refusal of contraception, prostitution, etc.

Homophobia can be viewed as a part of xenophobia  the experience of fear or hatred and mistrust towards people who, in some way, differ from a person who is a xenophobe. Such experiences are characteristic of members of closed societies. This applies to communities based on the infringement of the individual, in the absence of respect for individuality, who have a rigid notion of normality, favor homogeneity, and punish unswervingly for deviations from declared norms. In such an environment, a person who is different from others is more likely to cause such a reaction: Other  alien  dangerous  enemy (threat to survival) in contrast to: Different  interesting  in this we are different, but in this, we are similar  neighbor (no threat) (Hunt, 2014). The difference between reactions is due to the worldview.

In one of the sociological studies conducted in the traditionally conservative southern states of the United States, respondents were asked questions about their attitudes concerning homosexuals, the level of their adoption and comprehension of the nature of homosexuality, what is propaganda of homosexuality, and what should be rights of sexual minorities (Cervini, 2020). A relative majority of the respondents claimed that homosexuality represents a disease that must be treated (34%) (Cervini, 2020). At the same time, those respondents who consider homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation are more tolerant and educated. This suggests that fear and aggression arise from ignorance, and the authors of the study come to the obvious conclusion that the only effective way to combat homophobia is education, public discussion, and debunking of myths.

It seems evident that there is a need for structured and formalized theoretical and empirical research to study the attitude of American society towards homosexuality and the reasons for the persistent existence of the phenomenon of homosexuality in various communities. It is necessary to develop a methodology to measure the perception of homosexuality, based on which it is possible to find out the attitude of the population towards people with non-traditional sexual orientation. Social constructivism, which affirms the approach according to which every cognitive activity of a person is a construction, can become a philosophy and a conceptual tool of such research. It is an alternative to any metaphysical ontology and epistemological realism (Tarziu, 2016). By building a constructive system and formulating constructive definitions, it is necessary to ensure not so much the formalization of the pre-system and everyday areas of knowledge, but rather creative explanations.

Methodology

The study will be based on the methodological principles of a constructivist approach to understanding the nature of the homophobia phenomenon. The interdisciplinary orientation of social constructivism provides additional resources for a complete understanding of the phenomenon under study. The use of the social constructivist paradigm is relevant in the context of mastering strategies for working with a social stock of knowledge. In addition to certain theoretical reconstructions based on the analysis of secondary sources, directly in the space of scientific and cognitive activity, the use of social constructivism is advisable for conducting an empirical study of the causes and degree of homobophia in American communities.

It is proposed to conduct semi-structured interviews with representatives of the LGBT community, members of right-wing public organizations, as well as ordinary people. The interview questions will be aimed at clarifying the attitude of the respondents towards LGBT people, same-sex marriage, and corresponding social policy. The estimated sample size is 100 people.

The processing of research results will be carried out using categorization methods within the framework of the grounded theory of Charmaz. In contrast to the first authors of this theory  Corbin and Strauss  Charmaz (2006) distinguishes between positivist and constructivist grounded theory and offers epistemological foundations to detach grounded theory from its positivist roots and connect with the perspective of interpretive social science. It should be noted that the popularity and demand for a grounded theory are primarily due to the fact that of all private qualitative approaches, it offers the most precise procedure for collecting and analyzing data and reflects the ways of validating the results. The grounded theory approach proposes a serious methodology for generating theories from an empirical field (an inductive approach in which a theoretically loaded interpretation is derived from data).

Charmazs (2006) constructivist version of grounded theory is not about discovery but about constructing a theory. Grounded theory is seen as a fundamentally interactive and interpretive method. In the process of constructing a theory, the researcher interacts not only with the respondents, research participants, but also with the data; he interprets the data using different levels of analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Studying all the variety of social phenomena  social interactions, social conflicts, social control, and social organizations, at each stage of the study, a sociologist can give his own vision and interpretation of social processes, which other researchers and scientists will then rely on. The success of social transformations, the ability to resolve social conflicts, and the preservation of social stability largely depend on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided by the sociologist.

When conducting research, a sociologist must proceed from the principles of objectivity, be guided by high professional standards, and not allow distortion of the truth under any circumstances. The ethical norms of sociological work are recorded in a number of normative documents  for example, in the International Code of Procedure for Marketing and Sociological Research ICC / ESOMAR, the Code of Ethics of the International Sociological Association (ISA), etc. Their main provisions are based on the principles of decency, honesty, social and professional responsibility of the interviewer. Respect for human rights, dignity and individuality of the respondent, the medical principle Do no harm in relation to him/her, concerning issues of confidentiality, the privacy of personal life  these are the main aspects of the ethics of the interviewer.

Ethical issues concern not only the status of the respondent but also the observance of the principles of professional ethics of the sociologist throughout the entire research process. When legislation is unclear or inconsistent, basic ethical principles should be followed and it should be remembered that keeping the respondent safe and protecting him/her is essential, which is especially important when working with vulnerable groups.

Conclusion

Given the composition of the sample of respondents, it can be assumed that the answers of the respondents may be biased and be affected by emotions. However, as the study uses a constructivist paradigm, defining categories in processing the interview transcripts is aimed namely on the identification of biases and stereotypes. The proposed methodology for studying attitudes towards homosexuals, taking into account a number of cognitive and affective categories, obtained on the basis of a grounded theory, makes it possible for a deeper understanding of the nature of public opinion and social attitudes prevailing in society towards sexual minorities. It contributes to a more accurate interpretation of the results of mass polls of the population on this problem. It is assumed that integrative research results obtained by combining context-based literature analysis, reports of non-governmental organizations, consulting companies, within the framework of secondary research, and categories obtained in the process of primary empirical research using the interview method with processing the results based on grounded theory, can contribute to information basis for the development, substantiation, and implementation of social policy aimed at combating modern manifestations of homophobia.

References

Cervini, E. (2020). The deviants war: The homosexual vs. the United States of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

Faderman, L. (2015). The Gay Revolution: The story of the struggle. Simon & Schuster.

Hunt, J. (2014). Homophobia: From social stigma to hate crimes. Mason Crest.

Jardina, A. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.

Martos, A., Wison, P., & Meyer, I. (2017). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health services in the United States: Origins, evolution, and contemporary landscape. PloS One, 12(7), 1-18.

Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Tarziu, G. (2016). Social Constructivism and Methodology of Science. Synthesis Philosophica, 64(2), 449-466.

Weiss, M., & Bosia, M. (2013). Global homophobia: States, movements, and the politics of oppression. University of Illinois Press.

What is political homophobia?

The debates about homosexuality have been of interest and causes of conflicts in many cultures across the globe throughout history. The rise of the Nazi in Germany was instrumental to politicization of homophobia.

Political homophobia can be described as the ways or strategies in which political figures, governments, religious and business organizations discriminate systematically on the basis of sexual orientation.

These organizations develop negative feelings and attitudes towards gay people, lesbians, bisexual, and the transgender (LGBT) people. According to Bosia’s presentation (October 3, 2009), homophobia is a toxic import.

Cases of homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are misinterpreted by people depending on their cultural or religious groups (Bosia’s presentation 70). The victims of these cases face severe challenges considering that they are discriminated in their societies.

Individuals particularly the homosexual people come out openly to demand that their rights be respected. The three Yemen Men are punished because of having sexual intimacy.

For example, they demanded protection from the French government against assaults of sexual minorities. Many governments have adopted homophobic policies and language, and they have their reasons for doing it.

Why do some countries adopt homophobic policies and language?

Some countries adopt homophobic policies and language for various reasons. The major reasons include selfish political interests, religious attitudes, cultural beliefs, and pressure from other countries, among others.

Since the government figures are influential, they collaborate with other political giants and influence members of the legislature in adopting homophobic policies.

Some government statesmen politicize homophobia with intentions of arousing emotions to gunner votes from potential voters who are also homophobic. This is illustrated in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak. Some political figures used homophobia to gain votes from potential voters (Slackman 1).

Religious attitudes and beliefs are also instrumental to countries adopting homophobic policies and language. Most of the countries that adopt homophobic policies and language are dominated by religions that preach and teach anti-homosexual practices.

Despite the fact that there might be people who view homosexuality positively, most of the world religions are homophobic (Whitehead 477). The Christians condemn same-gender sex relations and base this on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Catholic Church campaigns against the rights of LGBT. With religious people at the top government positions, it is easy for them to influence a country to adopt homophobic policies. Muslims also forbids homosexuality (Sanjakdar par. 2-4).

Since homosexuality is a criminal offense under the Sharia law, countries dominated by Muslims must adopt homophobic policies and language. Some Muslim communities particularly those in Afghanistan used to kill homosexual individuals under the Taliban regime.

After their fall, the government adopted similar policies and language. This led to fines and prison sentence punishments.

Cultural beliefs are also instrumental for countries adopting homophobic policies and language. Some governments particularly the North Korean Government are opposed to the Western gay culture and condemn it.

This clearly shows that, traditionally, homosexuality has been viewed as a vice in this country. Countries that are opposed to homosexuality argue that, before colonization, their citizens never engaged in homosexual acts.

The government figures of North Korea, Iran, Jamaica, and Uganda among others have always campaigned against LGBT rights (Chase 151). Countries dominated by people with cultural beliefs against homosexual relations are likely to adopt homophobic policies and language.

Some countries adopt homophobic policies and language because of pressure from other countries that are developed. Some underdeveloped countries, which greatly depend on established homophobic countries, are easily influenced to adopt homophobic policies.

The fear of losing support from them if they support homosexuality makes them adopt the policy.

Works Cited

Bosia, Michael J. “AIDS and Postcolonial Politics: Acting Up on Science and Immigration in France.”French Politics, Culture & Society 27.1(2009): 69-90. Print.

Chase, Thomas. “Problems of Publicity: Online Activism and Discussion of Same-Sex Sexuality in South Korea and China.”Asian Studies Review 36.2(2012): 151-170. Print.

Sanjakdar, Fida. “Educating For Sexual Difference? Muslim Teachers’ Conversations About Homosexuality.”Sex Education 13.1(2013): 16-29. Print.

Slackman, Michael. Islamist Group Is Rising Force In a New Egypt. 2011. Web.

Whitehead, Andrew L. “Gendered Organizations and Inequality Regimes: Gender, Homosexuality, and inequality within Religious Congregations.”Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52.3 (2013): 476-493. Print.

The variety of intrapersonal relationships presupposes diverse forms of organizing behaviour and communication between individuals. Over the course of history, it has been customary to view heterosexuality as the primary and the only correct means of constructing sexual behavior. However, human nature is more complicated, with other patterns of romantic connections being prevalent. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that has been scorned across the cultures, yet it constitutes an essential proportion of human relationships.

The modern age bore witness to the change of mainstream views on homosexuality, with many countries accepting it as a viable form of organizing families. However, many societies still harbor negative attitudes toward same-sex relationships. In her book “The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America”, Margot Canady raises the question of homophobia in the United States (1). Diversity is one of the core American values, yet for a country that prides itself on the synergy of different groups, behaviors, and lifestyles, Americans exhibit much disdain for homosexual relationships. Not only is it showing the lack of respect for individual expression of their sexuality, but it may also be characterized as an encroachment on human rights.

The central argument of Canaday’s writing is that homophobia is rooted in the development of the American state over the course of the 20th century. The evidence for her explanation is based on correspondence as well as governmental and court archives. She argues that the military changes and the development of policies on welfare solidified the status of homosexuals as second-class citizens. However, while providing evidence, Canaday puts too much emphasis on homosexuality overstating its impact on the formation of the legal system.

The beginning of the 20th century was the time of growing awareness of sexual nonconformity. Canaday argues that world wars made millions of men serve with each other, bringing the issue of same-sex fraternization under the commanding’s attention (57). Initially labeled as sexual perversion, homosexuality was described as an expression of psychopathic deviation. Military justice set a precedent for managing homoerotic behavior by court-martialing soldiers suspected of acts of sodomy, which carried over to the civil law.

Numerous cases of sodomy concurred with sexual violence between the comrades. Canaday posits a controversial idea that “these cases are a window less into sexual culture than into sexual regulation” (84). She proceeds to frame the prosecution of homoerotic sexual acts as officers’ exercise in state violence. This argumentation is not convincing as it implies that military command was more concerned with regulating the sexual life of military personnel rather than eliminating perversion and psychopathy. A more precise explanation would attribute violence to personal disorders of soldiers. It would also explain why officers showed such severity of judgment – they wanted to punish the homosexuals for perverting their subordinates but not because they wanted to control their sexuality.

Another evidence points to the years of the Great Depression and the extremes that people would go to trying to survive. Canaday appears to believe that severe economic conditions forced men to engage in homosexual practices for food and money (100). She argues that federal agencies reacted to same-sex offenses by adjusting the welfare system to mitigate the conditions that force people into perversion. However, it should also be noted that sodomy was just one expression of sexual crimes. It would be more appropriate to view the state’s policies as attempts to eradicate the overall use of sexual services for survival rather than homosexuality.

Gi Bill was a milestone in implementing social welfare policies for war veterans, but it excluded personnel that was discharged because of homosexual acts. Once again, Canaday explicitly views this as an expression of homophobic sentiment: “homosexual exclusion was deliberate, built into the very foundation of the welfare state” (140). Such reasoning would indicate that the government neglected to provide benefits to homosexual families via Gi Bill based on its loyalty to heterosexuality. A more plausible explanation would be that the decision to stimulate straight families was motivated by their ability to procreate, which cannot be handled by same-sex partners.

Therefore, governmental policies discouraging homosexual behavior appear to be based on rationality and calculations, which favor heterosexuality for the development of society. Canaday is right in pointing out the inferior status of gays and lesbians within the civil framework, but she oversimplifies the issue. From her perspective, homophobia was purposefully instituted in military justice, afterwards, it carried over to civil law and then became codified in the welfare system.

More likely, the obstacles that homosexual couples face today are the result of consistent steps of promoting heterosexual families as primary drivers of societal growth. Negativity to homosexuals itself is not woven into the legal system and antihomosexual sentiments are not supported by the government. Nevertheless, the lesser role of homophobia in articulating state policies does not alleviate the position of homosexual individuals. Same-sex couples experience pressure from both heterosexuals and the state that accentuates their second-class citizenship. Regardless of the origin of sexual intolerance, it should be overcome to create a just society with freedom of sexual expression.

Work Cited

Canaday, Margot. The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Introduction

Gradually, there are fewer homophobic sentiments in the world, and yet there is much misunderstanding towards and rejection of the LGBT community. About eighty countries have prohibited homosexuality by law, and in many states, it is punishable by imprisonment. However, even in countries that have legally allowed same-sex marriage, and that are the flagships of world democracy and liberal values – such as the USA – inciting xenophobic sentiments in society, discrediting human rights defenders, and promoting the ideology of “traditional values” provokes violence and discrimination against sexual minorities. This is primarily due to societal processes determining the specifics of modern society, which requires the study of the above phenomenon primarily on the basis of empirical research.

Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis

Modern society is highly differentiated, and the process of division accelerates in many directions. Moreover, some spheres of life and institutions are undergoing structural changes that make the system of social interactions even more difficult to perceive and explain. One of these areas is the area of sexual and gender relations. In cases where people are faced with new patterns of gender behavior, the perception of these patterns and the formation of ideas about new gender roles can be difficult or influenced by stereotypes. In particular, this statement is true for homosexuality as one of the manifestations of gender differentiation.

In order to find out how adequately stereotypes correlate with actual practices, it is not enough to determine their degree of influence on what the ideas about homosexuality in society are and how these notions are formed. Undoubtedly, understanding the mechanisms of building a system of relations and connections between the sexes will make it possible to clarify the vector of gender issues development and clarify the ways to resolve emerging contradictions.

If one talks about the attitude of modern society towards homosexuals, first of all, it should be noted that it is extremely ambiguous and largely politicized. Despite the publicly declared tolerance and permission for same-sex marriage following the high-profile case of Obergefell vs. Hodges, many LGBT people have to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity in everyday life for fear of negative reactions at school, work, community, or family. It is obvious that the phenomenon of modern homophobia in American society needs further understanding and the development of new theoretical and methodological approaches to its study, in order to develop and implement the appropriate social policies. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that raising the level of education of the population on issues of gender and gender identity will help reduce the level of homophobia in the communities.

Literature Review

Since the middle of the last century, in the context of the struggle for civil rights and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, together with the reassessment of basic social values, the attitude towards people of non-traditional orientation has also changed. Homosexuals were recognized as full members of society. Moreover, manifestations of homophobia are now prosecuted by law, and representatives of minorities are positioned by public and human rights organizations as the most liberal and “progressive” social group.

It becomes more difficult for a homosexual to be fired or expelled from a university; an employer will think thoroughly before imposing an administrative penalty on a homosexual employee. However, ordinary people do not always show tolerance towards representatives of the LGBT community. Just as the struggle for civil rights has legally equated white and black US citizens, while latent racism still flourishes in American society, the legalization of same-sex marriage did not eliminate homophobia, which is, unlike racism, not only latent but sometimes even rather frank.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that homophobia in the United States today has a moderate character compared to the past century. The criminal prosecution of homosexuals in the United States, which continued in a number of states until the early 21st century, was accompanied by aggressive persecution of LGBT people by the state. The year 1969 is considered a turning point in this system. First, the strict Protestant morality upon which America was built should be mentioned. Second, the fact that for a long time gays were considered a threat to national security for reasons not only of society but also political nature, is important. A decisive contribution to this was made by Senator McCarthy – the same fighter against the communists, through whose efforts the “hunt for red witches” was unleashed in the United States (Weiss & Bosia, 2013). Although sanctions against LGBT people varied from state to state, in some places they were downright brutal, even by Soviet standards. Since homosexuality at the official medical level was considered a form of sociopathy that breeds a propensity to crime, in the now liberal California it was possible for the rest of life to be placed in a closed mental hospital, where patients were “treated” with an electric shock.

Today, largely, many Americans are generally of little interest in the presence of gay people in society. Homosexuals are perceived by the majority of the population not as criminals, but as “sick” people suffering from certain psychophysical disabilities, but nothing more (Martos et al., 2017). The idea of homosexuality as a norm of sexual behavior has not taken root among the majority of American inhabitants: the attitude towards them remains calm, but at the same time, rather wary and partly disgusted.

American sociologist David Greenberg cites the spread of modern bureaucratic structures since the late 19th century as the basis for the emergence of stereotypes about homosexuality in Western societies. The manifestation of emotions could contribute to the destruction of these structures. To prevent this, a prohibition was imposed on emotions between men within the framework of not only bureaucracies but also entire societies with similar systems (Greenberg as cited in Rivers, 2011). As a result, in the process of raising boys, parents taught them, first of all, to be wary of manifestations of positive emotions from other men. Thus, the taboo on intrasexual intimacy began to be absorbed as part of the “bureaucratic personality,” which led to increased anxiety and its manifestation in homophobia.

Homosexuality was struck off the International Classifier of Diseases almost 30 years ago. It does not disrupt the normal life of the body, does not depend on the state of metabolism or on the morphological integrity of the person. Since 1992, homosexuality has not been officially recognized as a disease and has been deleted from the International Classifier of Diseases. However, stereotypical representations continue to exist, changing only in part.

One of these stereotypes is the attribution of homosexuals to a group of increased social risk, which contains several indicators. First, homosexuals are believed to be more suicidal than heterosexuals. Data from several surveys partly support the relationship of homosexuality with suicidal tendencies (Faderman, 2015). However, the results of qualitative interviews conducted in recent years allow concluding that homosexuals who have fully “accepted” their orientation does not demonstrate suicidal tendencies (Jardina, 2019). Second, the results of a 2015 sociological study show that, despite their high sexual activity, homosexuals are not deprived. For example, the survey did not find significant differences in the interests of homosexuals and heterosexuals towards erotic and pornographic products that could be considered depraved (Martos et al., 2017). Thirdly, one of the most widespread stereotypes regarding homosexuals – a high degree of susceptibility to HIV infections precisely because of their sexual orientation – can be refuted by the fact that HIV infection is facilitated by a number of factors inherent in both homosexual and heterosexuals: frequent change of partners, refusal of contraception, prostitution, etc.

Homophobia can be viewed as a part of xenophobia – the experience of fear or hatred and mistrust towards people who, in some way, differ from a person who is a xenophobe. Such experiences are characteristic of members of closed societies. This applies to communities based on the infringement of the individual, in the absence of respect for individuality, who have a rigid notion of “normality,” favor homogeneity, and punish unswervingly for deviations from declared norms. In such an environment, a person who is different from others is more likely to cause such a reaction: “Other – alien – dangerous – enemy (threat to survival)” in contrast to: “Different – interesting – in this we are different, but in this, we are similar – neighbor (no threat)” (Hunt, 2014). The difference between reactions is due to the worldview.

In one of the sociological studies conducted in the traditionally conservative southern states of the United States, respondents were asked questions about their attitudes concerning homosexuals, the level of their adoption and comprehension of the nature of homosexuality, what is “propaganda of homosexuality,” and what should be rights of sexual minorities (Cervini, 2020). A relative majority of the respondents claimed that homosexuality represents a disease that must be treated (34%) (Cervini, 2020). At the same time, those respondents who consider homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation are more tolerant and educated. This suggests that fear and aggression arise from ignorance, and the authors of the study come to the obvious conclusion that the only effective way to combat homophobia is education, public discussion, and debunking of myths.

It seems evident that there is a need for structured and formalized theoretical and empirical research to study the attitude of American society towards homosexuality and the reasons for the persistent existence of the phenomenon of homosexuality in various communities. It is necessary to develop a methodology to measure the perception of homosexuality, based on which it is possible to find out the attitude of the population towards people with non-traditional sexual orientation. Social constructivism, which affirms the approach according to which every cognitive activity of a person is a construction, can become a philosophy and a conceptual tool of such research. It is an alternative to any metaphysical ontology and epistemological realism (Tarziu, 2016). By building a constructive system and formulating constructive definitions, it is necessary to ensure not so much the formalization of the pre-system and everyday areas of knowledge, but rather creative explanations.

Methodology

The study will be based on the methodological principles of a constructivist approach to understanding the nature of the homophobia phenomenon. The interdisciplinary orientation of social constructivism provides additional resources for a complete understanding of the phenomenon under study. The use of the social constructivist paradigm is relevant in the context of mastering strategies for working with a social stock of knowledge. In addition to certain theoretical reconstructions based on the analysis of secondary sources, directly in the space of scientific and cognitive activity, the use of social constructivism is advisable for conducting an empirical study of the causes and degree of homobophia in American communities.

It is proposed to conduct semi-structured interviews with representatives of the LGBT community, members of right-wing public organizations, as well as ordinary people. The interview questions will be aimed at clarifying the attitude of the respondents towards LGBT people, same-sex marriage, and corresponding social policy. The estimated sample size is 100 people.

The processing of research results will be carried out using categorization methods within the framework of the grounded theory of Charmaz. In contrast to the first authors of this theory – Corbin and Strauss – Charmaz (2006) distinguishes between positivist and constructivist grounded theory and offers epistemological foundations to detach grounded theory from its positivist roots and connect with the perspective of interpretive social science. It should be noted that the popularity and demand for a grounded theory are primarily due to the fact that of all private qualitative approaches, it offers the most precise procedure for collecting and analyzing data and reflects the ways of validating the results. The grounded theory approach proposes a serious methodology for generating theories from an empirical “field” (an inductive approach in which a theoretically loaded interpretation is derived from data).

Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist version of grounded theory is not about discovery but about constructing a theory. Grounded theory is seen as a fundamentally interactive and interpretive method. In the process of constructing a theory, the researcher interacts not only with the respondents, research participants, but also with the data; he interprets the data using different levels of analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Studying all the variety of social phenomena – social interactions, social conflicts, social control, and social organizations, at each stage of the study, a sociologist can give his own vision and interpretation of social processes, which other researchers and scientists will then rely on. The success of social transformations, the ability to resolve social conflicts, and the preservation of social stability largely depend on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided by the sociologist.

When conducting research, a sociologist must proceed from the principles of objectivity, be guided by high professional standards, and not allow distortion of the truth under any circumstances. The ethical norms of sociological work are recorded in a number of normative documents – for example, in the International Code of Procedure for Marketing and Sociological Research ICC / ESOMAR, the Code of Ethics of the International Sociological Association (ISA), etc. Their main provisions are based on the principles of decency, honesty, social and professional responsibility of the interviewer. Respect for human rights, dignity and individuality of the respondent, the medical principle “Do no harm” in relation to him/her, concerning issues of confidentiality, the privacy of personal life – these are the main aspects of the ethics of the interviewer.

Ethical issues concern not only the status of the respondent but also the observance of the principles of professional ethics of the sociologist throughout the entire research process. When legislation is unclear or inconsistent, basic ethical principles should be followed and it should be remembered that keeping the respondent safe and protecting him/her is essential, which is especially important when working with vulnerable groups.

Conclusion

Given the composition of the sample of respondents, it can be assumed that the answers of the respondents may be biased and be affected by emotions. However, as the study uses a constructivist paradigm, defining categories in processing the interview transcripts is aimed namely on the identification of biases and stereotypes. The proposed methodology for studying attitudes towards homosexuals, taking into account a number of cognitive and affective categories, obtained on the basis of a grounded theory, makes it possible for a deeper understanding of the nature of public opinion and social attitudes prevailing in society towards sexual minorities. It contributes to a more accurate interpretation of the results of mass polls of the population on this problem. It is assumed that integrative research results obtained by combining context-based literature analysis, reports of non-governmental organizations, consulting companies, within the framework of secondary research, and categories obtained in the process of primary empirical research using the interview method with processing the results based on grounded theory, can contribute to information basis for the development, substantiation, and implementation of social policy aimed at combating modern manifestations of homophobia.

References

Cervini, E. (2020). The deviant’s war: The homosexual vs. the United States of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

Faderman, L. (2015). The Gay Revolution: The story of the struggle. Simon & Schuster.

Hunt, J. (2014). Homophobia: From social stigma to hate crimes. Mason Crest.

Jardina, A. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.

Martos, A., Wison, P., & Meyer, I. (2017). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health services in the United States: Origins, evolution, and contemporary landscape. PloS One, 12(7), 1-18.

Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Tarziu, G. (2016). Social Constructivism and Methodology of Science. Synthesis Philosophica, 64(2), 449-466.

Weiss, M., & Bosia, M. (2013). Global homophobia: States, movements, and the politics of oppression. University of Illinois Press.