Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T00:40:28.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Queers and Provocateurs: Hegemony, Ideology, and the “Homosexual Advance” Defense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Michael A. Smyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This exploratory article relies upon a historical-interpretive approach to understanding the relationship between legal narrative and popular consciousness in particular historical moments, focusing especially on “troubled times,” in which the legitimacy of a hegemonic worldview embodied in law comes under challenge from a newly ascendant ideology in the popular domain. To discern the nature of that relationship and its implications, I offer a three-pronged analysis, drawing on two original data sets. Initially, each data set is analyzed individually to elaborate the nature of, and changes in, (1) representations of homosexuals circulating in popular culture, and (2) constructions of homosexuals in defendants' narratives in “homosexual advance” homicide cases between 1946 and 2003. Findings from these two analyses are thereafter combined to explore the relationship between the two constructions of homosexuals across that time period. In combination, these three analyses provide empirical evidence that, rather than mirroring changes in popular discourse about homosexuality, the changes revealed in the defense narratives actually opposed them. I use these findings to argue that, in what Swidler (1986) has called “unsettled times,” ideological pluralism is pronounced and may be discerned in the complex and sometimes counterintuitive relationships that exist within and between legal narrative and popular discourse.

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 903 - 930
Copyright
© 2006 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association. I am especially grateful to Valerie Jenness, Kitty Calavita, and Susan Coutin for their input on this project and for their ongoing support of my research interests. I also thank Herbert Kritzer and the anonymous reviewers who provided critical and constructive comments on earlier versions of this article, as well as Laura Grindstaff and Gray Cavender for their input on methodological issues.

References

References

Calavita, Kitty (2001) “Blue Jeans, Rape and the ‘De-constitutive’ Power of Law,” 35 Law & Society Rev. 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. P-L. (2000) “Provocation's Privileged Desire: The Provocation Doctrine, ‘Homosexual Panic,’ and the Non-Violent Unwanted Sexual Advance Defense,” 10 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 195.Google Scholar
Comaroff, Jean, & Comaroff, John (1991) Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness in South Africa, Vol. 1. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, John M., & O'Barr, William M. (1990) Rules Versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., & O'Barr, William M. (1998) Just Words: Law, Language, & Power. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Evan (2004) “Decoding Will and Grace,” 46 Sociological Perspectives 513–33.Google Scholar
Coutin, Susan Bibler (1994) “Enacting Law through Social Practice: Sanctuary as a Form of Resistance,” in Hirsch, S. & Lazarus-Black, M., eds., Contested States: Law, Hegemony and Resistance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L., & Rabinow, Paul (1983) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Tim (1994) Erotics & Politics: Gay Male Sexuality, Masculinity and Feminism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1995) “Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales: Toward a Sociology of Narrative,” 29 Law & Society Rev. 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fone, Byrne (2000) Homophobia: A History. New York: Picador USA.Google Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishert.Google Scholar
Halperin, David M. (1995) Saint=Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Henry, Stuart, & Milovanovic, Dragan (1999) Constitutive Criminology at Work: Applications to Crime and Justice. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Susan F., & Lazarus-Black, Mindie (1994) “Introduction: Performance and Paradox: Exploring Law's Role in Hegemony and Resistance,” in Lazarus-Black, M. & Hirsch, S. F., eds., Contested States: Law, Hegemony and Resistance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunt, Alan (1990) “Rights and Social Movements: Counter-Hegemonic Strategies,” 17 J. of Law and Society 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Alan (1993) Explorations in Law and Society: Toward a Constitutive Theory of Law. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klare, Karl (1979) “Law-Making as Praxis,” 40 Telos 123–35.Google Scholar
Lipjart, Arend (1975) “The Comparable—Cases Strategy in Comparative Research,” 8 Comparative Political Studies 158–77.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth (1988) “The Uses of History: Language, Ideology and the Law in the United States and South Africa,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 661–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milovanovic, Dragan (1994) A Primer in the Sociology of Law, 2d ed. New York: Harrow & Heston.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. (1996) American Gay. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria (1997) “Passion's Progress: Modern Law Reform and the Provocation Defense,” 106 Yale Law J. 1331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Scott, & Grattet, Ryken (2000) “Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning-Making, and the Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law,” 34 Law & Society Rev. 567–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, Vito (1987) The Celluloid Closet, revised ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, & Kearns, Thomas R., eds. (1993) Law in Everyday Life. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin, et al. (1998) “The Concept of Boundaries in the Practices and Products of Sociolegal Scholarship: An Introduction,” in Sarat, A. et al., eds. Crossing Boundaries: Traditions and Transformations in Law and Society Research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan (1985) “Ideals and Practices in the Study of Law,” 7 Legal Studies Forum 79.Google Scholar
Stake, Robert E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Swidler, Ann (1986) “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” 51 American Sociological Rev. 273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, Jennifer (1999) An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Robert K. (1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 1st ed. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

People v. Cain, Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7242 (Ct. App. 2002).Google Scholar
People v. Chavez, Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12011 (Ct. App. 2002).Google Scholar
People v. Cornett, 165 Cal. App. 3d 752 (Ct. App. 1985).Google Scholar
People v. Estrada, Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9616, (Ct. App. 2002).Google Scholar
People v. Green, 47 Cal. 2d 209; 302 P.2d 307 (Sup. Ct. 1956).Google Scholar
People v. Lang, 49 Cal. 3d 991; 782 P. 2d 627 (Sup. Ct. 1989).Google Scholar
People v. Long, 38 Cal. App. 3d 680 (Ct. App. 1974).Google Scholar
People v. Neal, Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2414 (Ct. App. 2002).Google Scholar
People v. Reyes, 12 Cal. 3d 486; 526 P. 2d 225 (Sup. Ct. 1974).Google Scholar
People v. Stoltz, 196 Cal. App. 2d 258 (Ct. App. 1961).Google Scholar
People v. Tapia, 25 Cal. App. 4th 984 (Ct. App. 1994).Google Scholar
People v. Taylor, 189 Cal. App. 2d. 490 (Ct. App. 1961).Google Scholar
People v. Turner, 50 Cal. 3d 668; 789 P.2d 887 (Sup. Ct. 1990).Google Scholar
People v. Zatzke, 33 Cal. 2d 480; 202 P.2d 1009 (Sup. Ct. 1949).Google Scholar