ABSTRACT
What is this chapter about? In the literature two terms are used that might be seen as interchangeable: sexuality and sexual orientation. Is there a difference? Skidmore (2004: 231) deals with a notion of sexuality in the workplace that ‘relates to the corporeal desires, attractions and erotic behaviour which are sewn into the fabric of everyday working life’. Some might see this as of marginal relevance in the average workplace. For how often does such desire, attraction and erotic behaviour arise? To what extent is it embedded in everyday workplace interactions as opposed to being spontaneous and exceptional or confined to the informal spaces of the organization – flirtations at the office party and the like? To Skidmore (2004, see also Williams et al. 1999), the answer would be to a very large extent. He argues that the work of women, in particular, is often sexualized – subject to sexualized discipline and gaze (see also Fleming 2007). On this view the work of flight attendants, receptionists and those who serve us in banks and restaurants might be sexualized, even when there is no overt sexual activity involved. This view of sexuality in the workplace emphasizes embodiment. As we see another person we may see them as sexually attractive or not. As we experience our body ourselves, we may experience desire for the other or not. This presumably rests largely on visible clues – and not just the visible appearance of the body in question but how the body is positioned, moves and is dressed. However, this view of sexuality in the organization is extremely broad and for the purposes of this chapter I have chosen to focus on what I shall refer to as sexual orientation. By sexual orientation I mean a set of sexual preferences or gendered identities
that may have implications for work (even when no overt sexual activity is involved). In referring to sexual preferences I am thinking in particular of heterosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual orientations but I also consider transsexuality here,
which might more accurately be described as an issue of gender identity. Transsexuality is included because the literature and the social movement that represents those of diverse sexualities brings them together – often using the acronym of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender – or sometimes LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual and Queer). Because all these distinctions rest on conceptions of gender and within-gender or between-gender relations there is an intimate connection between this chapter and that on gender. However, focusing on the issue of gay, lesbian, bisexual as well as heterosexual and transsexual orientations in the workplace is to give voice to issues that have been put on the agenda by LGBT people, and is a recognized element in considering diversity in the workplace. Since these issues are big enough in their own right I have decided not to deal with the wider issue of sexuality in the workplace if by that we mean the broad issue of how specifically sexual attraction, desire and behaviour operate in the workplace. One reason for considering sexual orientation in a book on identity at work is
that it can be a profound part of who one considers oneself to be. To be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or heterosexual goes to the heart of who we are as individuals. Of course, for people whose orientation or gender identity is outside the norm – gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual – this can be a profound challenge. Can one be oneself at work when this might be associated with stigma or homophobia, or plain puzzlement? For many gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals the answer might be to conceal this aspect of themselves – but this itself is interesting and a form of inequality at work that deserves to be considered. And if the person ‘comes out’ at work, again, this is worthy of attention: how is it done, when is it done, to whom is it done and with what consequences? All this might suggest that the issue is one of bringing a pre-formed gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transsexual or heterosexual identity to the workplace. However, the relevance of the topic might also lie in the workplace as a site for the making of such sexual orientations (and, possibly their remaking). The meanings and evaluations we attach to these terms, and the very emergence of such orientations, might arise in and through workplace interactions. They might arise through the feelings of attraction that arise (consider the film Brokeback Mountain), or the experience of discrimination, tolerance or acceptance. The movement of LGBT people for ‘liberation’ that to a large extent followed, and is modelled on, second-wave feminism and the civil rights movement (see Seidman 1997: 139 and Armstrong and Crage 2006) is the inspiration for much of the academic work on the topic, but the topic is, of course, also highly significant for the everyday experience of LGBT people in the workplace. For these reasons it deserves to be considered. A further reason for considering the issue is that it brings to the fore the rela-
tionship between our formal workplace persona – the ‘job’ – and our private and personal lives and feelings. If we want to understand people at work this, I would suggest, is important. And it is so for those self-identifying as heterosexual as much as for those of other sexual orientations. For this reason I consider here not just gay, lesbian and bisexual orientations but also set these in the context of the
dominant heterosexual norm – a norm that is often portrayed as ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ but which itself can be seen to be a socially constructed orientation which is not a simple neutral expression of desire but shapes desires and behaviour and can be used to render other orientations abnormal and deviant. The existence of the dominant heterosexual norm, with clear roles for men and women, is often experienced as a difficulty for those who feel differently. Van Zyl (2015: 145), for example, quotes Simone, a lesbian brought up in a religious home: ‘For ten years I went through the whole belief that I could change, and the church could change me… until I was 30 when… I thought, actually this is not working. So I accepted myself, and that was possibly the best gift I gave myself.’ This example suggests that for the individual there is a ‘real’ identity that is different from that which is socially given to them. This is what was struggling to find expression, either because of religious beliefs or externally imposed definitions of gender identity. The example also shows someone working on their identity, seeking some readjustment in how they see themselves and others see them – transgressing the heterosexual norm. However, we might also raise the possibility of more radical movements between different statuses: one might not ‘be’ gay until certain contingencies bring this about – and one might move in either direction between a ‘gay’ or heterosexual identity, partly on the basis of who one forms a relationship with at the time. In discussing sexual orientations I want to move beyond a position that deals
with a simple binary relationship between the heterosexual norm and the homosexual ‘minority’. Instead I want to consider a more complex pattern of difference, for the experience of lesbians is not the same as gay men, or bisexual men. I will not be able to explore these differences in much depth here, but I will at least provide some pointers to them. The chapter is structured in three sections. The first considers issues of visibility
and invisibility, the second inequality and exclusion and the final section considers the idea of ‘gay-friendly’ organizations.
