What do you think?
Rate this book
A Invenção da Heterossexualidade
Este livro original reexamina a distinção básica feita por nossa sociedade entre heterossexual/homossexual - concentrando-se na evolução do termo heterossexual que, como demonstra esse estudo, só foi incorporado à nossa linguagem há pouco mais de cem anos, introduzindo um novo modo de dividir e julgar a sexualidade e as pessoas.
Examinando a história surpreendente do conceito heterossexual, Jonathan Ned Katz revela que até a década de 1920, a heterossexualidade ainda era definida como paixão sexual mórbida por uma pessoa do sexo oposto. Foi apenas através de um lento processo que a heterossexualidade tornou-se a norma dominante
desta sociedade. Analisando a obra dos primeiros estudiosos da sexualidade, como Sigmund Freud e Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Katz reflete a respeito dos efeitos das ideias deles sobre a primazia sagrada da heterossexualidade na literatura científica e na cultura popular.
O resultado é uma demonstração audaciosa e polêmica de como os nossos conceitos sobre a sexualidade humana - e portanto sobre a heterossexualidade - se originam, não de uma natureza imutável, mas de diferentes métodos. históricos de organizar os sexos e os seus prazeres. No meio dos debates atuais sobre a
predominância dos heterossexuais em nossa sociedade, A Invenção da Heterossexualidade estabelece novas bases para uma discussão
profunda e esclarecedor .
Examinando a história surpreendente do conceito heterossexual, Jonathan Ned Katz revela que até a década de 1920, a heterossexualidade ainda era definida como paixão sexual mórbida por uma pessoa do sexo oposto. Foi apenas através de um lento processo que a heterossexualidade tornou-se a norma dominante
desta sociedade. Analisando a obra dos primeiros estudiosos da sexualidade, como Sigmund Freud e Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Katz reflete a respeito dos efeitos das ideias deles sobre a primazia sagrada da heterossexualidade na literatura científica e na cultura popular.
O resultado é uma demonstração audaciosa e polêmica de como os nossos conceitos sobre a sexualidade humana - e portanto sobre a heterossexualidade - se originam, não de uma natureza imutável, mas de diferentes métodos. históricos de organizar os sexos e os seus prazeres. No meio dos debates atuais sobre a
predominância dos heterossexuais em nossa sociedade, A Invenção da Heterossexualidade estabelece novas bases para uma discussão
profunda e esclarecedor .
272 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1995
43 people are currently reading
2002 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
June 11, 2021
People often take as a given that straight people have always existed across time. However, “prior to 1868, there were no heterosexuals” writes historian Dr. Hanne Blank in her book Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality. While people have certainly engaged in heterosexual intimacy, the idea of anchoring an identity around it is a recent historical phenomenon. As Dr. Blank argues, it just hadn’t occurred to people yet that they might be “differentiated from one another by the kinds of love or sexual desire they experienced.” Historian Dr. Jonathan Ned Ketz elaborates, “the operative contrast was between fruitfulness and barrenness, not between different sex-and same-sex eroticism” (38).
In the late 1860s, Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The earliest known use of the word “heterosexual” in the US was in an article published in a medical journal in 1892 by Dr. James G. Kiernan. In this work heterosexuality was actually discussed as a form of perversion. Dr. Kiernan linked heterosexual to “one of several abnormal manifestations of the sexual appetite” and include heterosexuality in a list of “sexual perversions” (20). Heterosexual was used as a slur to demean people who were interested in sex for pleasure, not just for reproduction. A normal sexual appetite was seen as the desire to reproduce, not “abnormal methods of gratification” (20).
In 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted attitude toward the opposite sex.” In 1923, Merriam Webster defined heterosexuality as the “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” It was only in 1934 that heterosexuality assumed its contemporary definition: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.” How did society transition from an understanding of heterosexuality as inappropriate to revering it as an ideal norm?
In the late 19th century, Austro-German sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing began to describe a sexual love where “the propagation of the species [did not] enter into consciousness.” Dr. Katz argues that this created a “small, obscure space in which a new pleasure norm began to grow.” Increasingly, a new awareness that sexual desire could be decoupled from reproduction began to spread. Dr. Krafft-Ebing’s use of the term heterosexual came to signify “a different-sex sexuality completely free from any tie to reproduction,” and thus his use of the term moved away from “the Victorian reproductive ideal toward the modern different-sex erotic norm” (28).
Dr. Katz argues that the heterosexual “came out” as a middle-class phenomenon in the first quarter of the twentieth century. In 1924 “heterosexual” was first published in the New York Times (in a comment on Sigmund Freud). With the influx of working class people and immigrants into urban cities, the sexual and gender practices of BIPOC people / migrants / working class people increasingly became labeled as “degenerate” whereas the sexual practices and family structures of white middle-class people were labeled as “normal” and “heterosexual.” Middle class white people were seen as capable of “true love” as opposed to the “animalistic lower class” who was seen as just sexually motivated (44). In this way, heterosexual identity was established not only as a sexual identity, but a classed and racialized one.
A couple of decades the term “straight” started to be used. This actually came from queer culture. In 1941 the glossary of a book about “sex variants” proclaimed that “straight” was being used by homosexuals as meaning not-homosexual: “To go straight is to cease homosexual practices and to indulge – usually to re-indulge – in heterosexuality” (95).
All identities are historically constructed. That doesn’t make them any less real or legitimate. It’s just that power makes certain identities appear universal and ahistorical.
In the late 1860s, Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The earliest known use of the word “heterosexual” in the US was in an article published in a medical journal in 1892 by Dr. James G. Kiernan. In this work heterosexuality was actually discussed as a form of perversion. Dr. Kiernan linked heterosexual to “one of several abnormal manifestations of the sexual appetite” and include heterosexuality in a list of “sexual perversions” (20). Heterosexual was used as a slur to demean people who were interested in sex for pleasure, not just for reproduction. A normal sexual appetite was seen as the desire to reproduce, not “abnormal methods of gratification” (20).
In 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted attitude toward the opposite sex.” In 1923, Merriam Webster defined heterosexuality as the “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” It was only in 1934 that heterosexuality assumed its contemporary definition: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.” How did society transition from an understanding of heterosexuality as inappropriate to revering it as an ideal norm?
In the late 19th century, Austro-German sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing began to describe a sexual love where “the propagation of the species [did not] enter into consciousness.” Dr. Katz argues that this created a “small, obscure space in which a new pleasure norm began to grow.” Increasingly, a new awareness that sexual desire could be decoupled from reproduction began to spread. Dr. Krafft-Ebing’s use of the term heterosexual came to signify “a different-sex sexuality completely free from any tie to reproduction,” and thus his use of the term moved away from “the Victorian reproductive ideal toward the modern different-sex erotic norm” (28).
Dr. Katz argues that the heterosexual “came out” as a middle-class phenomenon in the first quarter of the twentieth century. In 1924 “heterosexual” was first published in the New York Times (in a comment on Sigmund Freud). With the influx of working class people and immigrants into urban cities, the sexual and gender practices of BIPOC people / migrants / working class people increasingly became labeled as “degenerate” whereas the sexual practices and family structures of white middle-class people were labeled as “normal” and “heterosexual.” Middle class white people were seen as capable of “true love” as opposed to the “animalistic lower class” who was seen as just sexually motivated (44). In this way, heterosexual identity was established not only as a sexual identity, but a classed and racialized one.
A couple of decades the term “straight” started to be used. This actually came from queer culture. In 1941 the glossary of a book about “sex variants” proclaimed that “straight” was being used by homosexuals as meaning not-homosexual: “To go straight is to cease homosexual practices and to indulge – usually to re-indulge – in heterosexuality” (95).
All identities are historically constructed. That doesn’t make them any less real or legitimate. It’s just that power makes certain identities appear universal and ahistorical.
April 10, 2022
If you are considering Jonathan Ned Katz’s The Invention of Heterosexuality (Paperback) there are several minds sets that will keep you from understanding what this is about. Think of it as willful suspension of disbelief, or being open minded. After you read it, you may resume what for you was ‘normal’ thinking or you may realize that the topic is more nuanced than binary. I do not agree with all that he has written, but I believe I have more understanding than I would have had without it.
First, there is very little about the biological requirement that a man and a woman have sex in order to maintain the specie called humans. Much of what is said about procreation is almost dismissive of the process and as we shall see, it is thought of as being a matter of technology rather than evolutionary pressure. Katz implies that the effects of X and Y chromosome combinations are no more important than the existence of the genes that yield blue eyes or left handedness. Possession of particular genitalia is not destiny. Most certainly not when human engage in sex for pleasure or comfort.
The Invention of Heterosexuality is a meta-analysis of the literature that created the presumed social norm of heterosexuality and later, more broadly critiques the notion of sexuality as a cultural artifact. Sex as a biological activity is not the topic. Only sexuality as an expression of the desires and needs of the individual. Lastly this is almost entirely about the American scholarship on this topic. Almost no effort is made to address this topic across cultures and other parts of the planet.
This leads to my first criticism. The entire book can be dismissed as “First world problems”. America, much of Europe and the more well to do parts of Asia has reached, if only for a moment a time when being LGBTQ can be a matter of being respected, or at least polite ignorance in interpersonal relations, job opportunities and the like. There remain large areas and some areas of push back, where open self-identification as being in any of these categories is an existential risk, and a life-threatening secret.
Emphasizing this weakness is the repeated suggestion that sex for making babies is an outmoded activity. Children can be made via a variety of technical applications such that sex for procreation is at best quaint. For many people and large parts of the world, these various, chic methods of making a family are expensive if even available. Again, the book can be shrugged off as “First World Problems”.
The book begins with the notion that the term heterosexuality was originally invented, about 100 to 200 years ago. It was intended to mark out as perverted any desire to have sex for pleasure. That is anything a person did that was intended to be sexually pleasurable was perverse. It went against the will of God and was a threat to the productivity, moral strength and future of any society who tolerated these activities. Anything included masturbation, prostitution or sodomy. Sodomy being a way to hint at what later came to be called homosexuality, without giving it a specific name. In this same time, any notion that a women’s sexual identity could be or needed to be addressed, was at minimum, impolite, and in general, ignored.
The term shifted to mean what men do for fun is said to have happened as contraception became more reliable and available among the middle class. It was at this point that it became useful to have terms in general use that differentiated ‘us’ from ‘them’. That is our culture, for reasons assumed rather than described, needs to have us and them. We, the majority are normal and normal is heterosexual, and the statistical minority must be by definition, abnormal and therefore perverse. For males, being homosexual was a matter of being at best, a social outcast, at worst the victims of the violence too often visited to any person deemed to be ‘The Other”.
The next important change in how we are asked to consider the topic arises with the advent of the radical lesbians. Their scholars proposed that, at least for women, the fundamental issue is choice. That is, for women the absence of a language for lesbian sexuality, had the effect of closing off women from having the idea that they could turn to each other for comfort or pleasure. Women are/were so completely dominated by the patrimony that lesbian sex could not be imagined. The term was not in common use, but an implication of this argument is that many if not all people are gender fluid; if given freedom to choose. At different times or days anyone might turn to the same sex or the other either to express who they are in that moment, or with whom they need to be in a given intimate moment.
In concluding his analysis draws on this implication to suggest that from the perspective of sex as a personal experience of pleasure or need for comfort: What we think of as the homosexual/heterosexual exclusive, and biologically determined duality is a false narrative. Our cultural teaches this as fact. He is of the opinion that humans chose their identity and can change it as they feel the need. This is a very politically significant argument. For years the argument for equal rights across sexual identities is that they are biologically determined. Gays and Straights are what they are and need to respect each other as living out their sexual lives driven by their particular genetic combinations. If the author is correct, we have no fixed thing as a sexual identity and choose, based on the exigencies of the moment.
Having sexuality as a preference rather than a pre-determined identity should be a matter of no social importance. What consenting adults do should not be a matter of public policy. That is only one possible opinion.
If sexuality is a choice, what do we make of conversion therapy? A person is gay or straight and thinking it is a choice seeks to be converted. Or parents thinking they know better for their children, force them into conversion therapy.
What of those who sincerely believe that having chosen any of the LGBTQ life styles, that person is threat to the good people and by corrupting example to the children. In this case being LGBQT are rightfully, indeed righteously the targets of legal and social ostracism. A person chooses to be a thief, they go to jail, how much more reasonable is it to punish those who choose to be LGBQT?
Having finished The Invention of Sexuality, every reader is free to conclude as they will. By this I look to those who are most likely to: object to, reject the thinking in , or simply not read this book. Your opinion is your own, the question to you is: How informed is your opinion?
First, there is very little about the biological requirement that a man and a woman have sex in order to maintain the specie called humans. Much of what is said about procreation is almost dismissive of the process and as we shall see, it is thought of as being a matter of technology rather than evolutionary pressure. Katz implies that the effects of X and Y chromosome combinations are no more important than the existence of the genes that yield blue eyes or left handedness. Possession of particular genitalia is not destiny. Most certainly not when human engage in sex for pleasure or comfort.
The Invention of Heterosexuality is a meta-analysis of the literature that created the presumed social norm of heterosexuality and later, more broadly critiques the notion of sexuality as a cultural artifact. Sex as a biological activity is not the topic. Only sexuality as an expression of the desires and needs of the individual. Lastly this is almost entirely about the American scholarship on this topic. Almost no effort is made to address this topic across cultures and other parts of the planet.
This leads to my first criticism. The entire book can be dismissed as “First world problems”. America, much of Europe and the more well to do parts of Asia has reached, if only for a moment a time when being LGBTQ can be a matter of being respected, or at least polite ignorance in interpersonal relations, job opportunities and the like. There remain large areas and some areas of push back, where open self-identification as being in any of these categories is an existential risk, and a life-threatening secret.
Emphasizing this weakness is the repeated suggestion that sex for making babies is an outmoded activity. Children can be made via a variety of technical applications such that sex for procreation is at best quaint. For many people and large parts of the world, these various, chic methods of making a family are expensive if even available. Again, the book can be shrugged off as “First World Problems”.
The book begins with the notion that the term heterosexuality was originally invented, about 100 to 200 years ago. It was intended to mark out as perverted any desire to have sex for pleasure. That is anything a person did that was intended to be sexually pleasurable was perverse. It went against the will of God and was a threat to the productivity, moral strength and future of any society who tolerated these activities. Anything included masturbation, prostitution or sodomy. Sodomy being a way to hint at what later came to be called homosexuality, without giving it a specific name. In this same time, any notion that a women’s sexual identity could be or needed to be addressed, was at minimum, impolite, and in general, ignored.
The term shifted to mean what men do for fun is said to have happened as contraception became more reliable and available among the middle class. It was at this point that it became useful to have terms in general use that differentiated ‘us’ from ‘them’. That is our culture, for reasons assumed rather than described, needs to have us and them. We, the majority are normal and normal is heterosexual, and the statistical minority must be by definition, abnormal and therefore perverse. For males, being homosexual was a matter of being at best, a social outcast, at worst the victims of the violence too often visited to any person deemed to be ‘The Other”.
The next important change in how we are asked to consider the topic arises with the advent of the radical lesbians. Their scholars proposed that, at least for women, the fundamental issue is choice. That is, for women the absence of a language for lesbian sexuality, had the effect of closing off women from having the idea that they could turn to each other for comfort or pleasure. Women are/were so completely dominated by the patrimony that lesbian sex could not be imagined. The term was not in common use, but an implication of this argument is that many if not all people are gender fluid; if given freedom to choose. At different times or days anyone might turn to the same sex or the other either to express who they are in that moment, or with whom they need to be in a given intimate moment.
In concluding his analysis draws on this implication to suggest that from the perspective of sex as a personal experience of pleasure or need for comfort: What we think of as the homosexual/heterosexual exclusive, and biologically determined duality is a false narrative. Our cultural teaches this as fact. He is of the opinion that humans chose their identity and can change it as they feel the need. This is a very politically significant argument. For years the argument for equal rights across sexual identities is that they are biologically determined. Gays and Straights are what they are and need to respect each other as living out their sexual lives driven by their particular genetic combinations. If the author is correct, we have no fixed thing as a sexual identity and choose, based on the exigencies of the moment.
Having sexuality as a preference rather than a pre-determined identity should be a matter of no social importance. What consenting adults do should not be a matter of public policy. That is only one possible opinion.
If sexuality is a choice, what do we make of conversion therapy? A person is gay or straight and thinking it is a choice seeks to be converted. Or parents thinking they know better for their children, force them into conversion therapy.
What of those who sincerely believe that having chosen any of the LGBTQ life styles, that person is threat to the good people and by corrupting example to the children. In this case being LGBQT are rightfully, indeed righteously the targets of legal and social ostracism. A person chooses to be a thief, they go to jail, how much more reasonable is it to punish those who choose to be LGBQT?
Having finished The Invention of Sexuality, every reader is free to conclude as they will. By this I look to those who are most likely to: object to, reject the thinking in , or simply not read this book. Your opinion is your own, the question to you is: How informed is your opinion?
November 26, 2022
Katz’s central idea holds up well. There can be no heterosexuality without homosexuality, so it is rather odd how little critical attention has been put on the former as opposed to the latter. This is a function of heterosexuality, which Katz calls an ‘invented tradition’. It presents itself as timeless and self-evident, making it difficult to talk about. I was most interested in the first four chapters, which show, in a sense, the birth of heterosexuality at the end of the nineteenth century, and its emergence in scientific discourse and its influence in the US and Britain. Katz sees pleasure as the most key idea within the formation of heterosexuality, moving away from a purely reproductive model he sees as being dominant for most of the nineteenth century. Though this perhaps also shows a weakness of the book. It is a sort of intellectual history, focusing, in these early parts, on scientific writers such as Krafft-Ebing and Freud, and then into similar territory for the parts on the twentieth century, in which Katz examines works by feminists like Friedan, Wittig, and Rubin. I’d like to know more about the experience of heterosexuality, or people’s negotiations of this monolithic idea. I’m sure much has been done on this since.
January 20, 2022
This is a foundational work and I probably should have given it five stars, but I didn't understand all of it, and I don't have the time at the moment to read it more carefully. Basically, the concept of the homo/hetero divide is modern (about the 1890's) and we should probably just get rid of the concepts altogether. Also, the foreword by Gore Vidal is hilarious.
September 12, 2017
I have not read anzthing by Jonathan Katz before, so I cannot say that I know his work very well. But it is quite clear to me that he has done his research and his homework, though it seems like a work about this topic could span many volumes, and not so much as 200 pages. This is more of a skip through notable historic episodes in the evolution of (Western) sexuality, and less a tracking of the subtle development of heterosexuality.
However he DOES do that. He charts the inception of the word "heterosexuality" to a medical journal in 1892 where, shockingly, it represents a medical condition that was UNdesirable (!). The sufferer of "heterosexuality" was possessed of an overwhelming erotic sensation (daresay, the word "obsession" be used) for the opposite sex, just as the sufferer of "homosexualitz" was possessed of an overwhelming erotic feeling for the same sex.
It's a curious alternate history scenario to wonder what might have happened had these words not been invented. The 1890s happened just as the world was taking some major shifts into the modern era. The 1920s saw the invention of the flapper, who was a flaunting of the heterosexual woman. For the first half of its existence, this term "heterosexuality," and its siamese twin "heterosexuality," represented erotic states of pleasure and love, coming out of a time in general and a time in particular (the Victorian era) where pleasure, especially erotic pleasure, was something to be ashamed and horrified by. Only during second-wave feminism, the inception of identity politics, and the rise of the Religious Right did "heterosexuality" evolve into its present standard of a "normal" and "good" sexuality through which procreation is engaged, as opposed to the until recent "abnormal" "homosexuality."
People can become quick to attack work that may serve to dismantle pieces of their identity. Since so many people identify as "heterosexual," a word which never saw the light of day until 1892, many of the premises of Katz's work can be upsetting at best, and downright disturbing at worst. It's hardly a controversial thing to pinpoint and identify historical trends, especially ones that are easily identifiable in most University libraries, but the conclusions that Katz comes to, that our sexuality is as invented as our nation-states, and are often times just as old or young as them, is to some just as disturbing as an attack on their national identity.
To me, a student of language and concepts, this book is an important work to show not only how language memes develop, spread, and evolve over time, but also the sheer power they can have over such large segments of the population. It becomes downright scary to consider that most of this happens invisibly, as well, that it occurs in a subliminal space of language possessed by its speakers but wholly out of their control.
For that reason, if not for the history of sexuality itself, this book is important.
However he DOES do that. He charts the inception of the word "heterosexuality" to a medical journal in 1892 where, shockingly, it represents a medical condition that was UNdesirable (!). The sufferer of "heterosexuality" was possessed of an overwhelming erotic sensation (daresay, the word "obsession" be used) for the opposite sex, just as the sufferer of "homosexualitz" was possessed of an overwhelming erotic feeling for the same sex.
It's a curious alternate history scenario to wonder what might have happened had these words not been invented. The 1890s happened just as the world was taking some major shifts into the modern era. The 1920s saw the invention of the flapper, who was a flaunting of the heterosexual woman. For the first half of its existence, this term "heterosexuality," and its siamese twin "heterosexuality," represented erotic states of pleasure and love, coming out of a time in general and a time in particular (the Victorian era) where pleasure, especially erotic pleasure, was something to be ashamed and horrified by. Only during second-wave feminism, the inception of identity politics, and the rise of the Religious Right did "heterosexuality" evolve into its present standard of a "normal" and "good" sexuality through which procreation is engaged, as opposed to the until recent "abnormal" "homosexuality."
People can become quick to attack work that may serve to dismantle pieces of their identity. Since so many people identify as "heterosexual," a word which never saw the light of day until 1892, many of the premises of Katz's work can be upsetting at best, and downright disturbing at worst. It's hardly a controversial thing to pinpoint and identify historical trends, especially ones that are easily identifiable in most University libraries, but the conclusions that Katz comes to, that our sexuality is as invented as our nation-states, and are often times just as old or young as them, is to some just as disturbing as an attack on their national identity.
To me, a student of language and concepts, this book is an important work to show not only how language memes develop, spread, and evolve over time, but also the sheer power they can have over such large segments of the population. It becomes downright scary to consider that most of this happens invisibly, as well, that it occurs in a subliminal space of language possessed by its speakers but wholly out of their control.
For that reason, if not for the history of sexuality itself, this book is important.
December 2, 2012
Book generally summarized by:
Nice dreams of simple solutions...Katz can't decide if he's critiquing heterosexuality, its invasion into society as a term for something natural for some people which has evolved into what we know as modern heterosexuality, or simply the word itself. While many LGBT writers talk about LGBT issues as they effect upper and middle-class white people only as though poor people and people of color don't exist/aren't queer, Katz makes explicitly clear that he's aware of the existence and at leas some issues for poor people and people of color, and then says that here he will not talk about those issues, thus reinforcing the assumed validity of the actions and opinions of the white middle class; quoting Baldwin, Lorde and Foucault isn't enough to fix that. Chapters 2 and 3 are worth reading for a quick history, but you're probably better off reading the Wikipedia article, where most of the important information from this book was used; the rest is self-promotion (it's worth noting the number of citations to other works of his, or at least to one of them) or poorly-done critique of others.
Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable. With the abolition of the slave system, the relations of domination signified by the terms master and slave lost their immediate salience and gradually became archaic, though racism continues on. With the abolition of the heterosexual system, the terms heterosexual and homosexual can become obsolete.
Nice dreams of simple solutions...Katz can't decide if he's critiquing heterosexuality, its invasion into society as a term for something natural for some people which has evolved into what we know as modern heterosexuality, or simply the word itself. While many LGBT writers talk about LGBT issues as they effect upper and middle-class white people only as though poor people and people of color don't exist/aren't queer, Katz makes explicitly clear that he's aware of the existence and at leas some issues for poor people and people of color, and then says that here he will not talk about those issues, thus reinforcing the assumed validity of the actions and opinions of the white middle class; quoting Baldwin, Lorde and Foucault isn't enough to fix that. Chapters 2 and 3 are worth reading for a quick history, but you're probably better off reading the Wikipedia article, where most of the important information from this book was used; the rest is self-promotion (it's worth noting the number of citations to other works of his, or at least to one of them) or poorly-done critique of others.
February 6, 2017
Overall, I enjoyed Katz's analysis, but it was a bit tough to get through. His overall thesis, that heterosexuality is seen as a universal norm based on an objective biological determinism, and that has allowed it to escape criticism or analysis, is pretty solid. As is his analysis of heterosexuality as primarily a social construct that has only really been around for 150 years or so.
Unfortunately, this book falls in the "books that could have been a blog post" category. Though, considering it was written in 1995 I guess that could be forgiven. One of the strengths of the book was also a weakness. Katz cited and quoted a significant number of great essays and books on the subject and provided his own commentary, because of that I have an ever-growing list of books to read on the subject. But, that made many chapters feel like long book reports. It was almost overly academic. There were many sections that I underlined and wrote furiously in the margins, which is usually a good sign, but there were also entire chapters that I found very little of value in.
It was good, though, and enlightening, but it could have been shorter and still expanded beyond an analysis of just western sexual relationships post-1800's. Sexuality was viewed very differently in Ancient Greece (for example) and expanding into other cultures would have been beneficial. Ironically, one of Katz consistent criticisms of other's works is that they failed to directly confront the issue of heterosexuality, but in a way Katz did that as well by limiting his analysis to a small point in time (but maybe that was the point, that heterosexuality really has only existed in a small point in time).
Unfortunately, this book falls in the "books that could have been a blog post" category. Though, considering it was written in 1995 I guess that could be forgiven. One of the strengths of the book was also a weakness. Katz cited and quoted a significant number of great essays and books on the subject and provided his own commentary, because of that I have an ever-growing list of books to read on the subject. But, that made many chapters feel like long book reports. It was almost overly academic. There were many sections that I underlined and wrote furiously in the margins, which is usually a good sign, but there were also entire chapters that I found very little of value in.
It was good, though, and enlightening, but it could have been shorter and still expanded beyond an analysis of just western sexual relationships post-1800's. Sexuality was viewed very differently in Ancient Greece (for example) and expanding into other cultures would have been beneficial. Ironically, one of Katz consistent criticisms of other's works is that they failed to directly confront the issue of heterosexuality, but in a way Katz did that as well by limiting his analysis to a small point in time (but maybe that was the point, that heterosexuality really has only existed in a small point in time).
June 2, 2013
In The Invention, written back in 1995, Jonathan Ned Katz argues that heterosexuality is a "historical social convention, rather than [a] natural and eternal given" (pg 193). The book, which reads like a very detailed literature review, focuses on analyzing the work of others in depth throughout certain time periods and from certain groups, such as feminists, in order to argue, in occasionally semantic fashion, against the unassailable nature nature of heterosexuality, and for the removal of the homosexual/heterosexual division and some sort of alternative, label-less or less label-centric 'eros' or common sexuality, which the author leaves to future readers to develop and define. Katz argues that the term, or concept of the heterosexual came into being around 1892, and that before that there were different sexual terms and foci. For example, for most of the 19th century, he argues that the focus was on procreation, and homosexuality was not really defined other than 'buggery,' which could be applied to men with women or men with men. I find this interesting, though I think for good chunks of history, including the 19th century, 'sex for procreation' had much in common with 'heterosexual,' and I feel that in some respects Katz's focus on the term 'heterosexual' is all-consuming.
Katz doesn't really look to far into history before the 19th century, such as the Greek and Roman periods, particularly interesting cultures such as Sparta, or much of anything else -- though he does touch on a Greek concept of earthly (the act) vs. heavenly (an appreciation for the beauty of boys) love, through Foucault, which is quite fascinating -- but instead concentrates the vast bulk of his historical and research analysis on the 19th and 20th centuries. To be more specific, he speaks a bit about general 'Greek' culture, and then jumps to the New England colonies (where he highlights the death penalty for sodomy as being indicative of the extreme need for procreation to grow the colony, and not as a hetero/homo division) as his only other pre 19th century, pre-heterosexuality example.
I enjoyed his discussion of 'true love' in the 19th century, (eg pgs 44-45), whereby he posits that true love was used as a sexual ideal to define and separate American/British middle classes from "promiscuous upper classes and animalistic lower classes." I also enjoyed his idea the 19th century focus on penis/vagina intercourse along with documentary evidence demonstrates that there was probably a lot of 'non-sexual' touching and sexual activity going on in 19th century relationships (pg 47).
He has a whole chapter on Freud and his role in the creation of 'heterosexual' identity, including an interesting bit on Freud's transformation of sexual instinct from a reproductive instinct to an un-centralized need for satisfaction (pg 61). So Katz praises Freud for his development of concepts of sexuality and libido, for his description of heterosexuality as a learned characteristic rather than innate (pg 74), and also chastises him for his denunciation of homosexuals as people stuck at an immature stage of development (pg 72), which is good, as a good chunk of Freud is balderdash in most academic's opinions.
His examination of the American 'Tough Guy' and labelling, through Baldwin (pgs 100-106) is fascinating, what with the posited creation of the tough-guy image, the threat of homosexuals towards innocent masculine heterosexual, Christian ideals and so forth.
Likewise, his examination of Ti-Grace Atkinson (a self-described radical feminist militant Amazon) and her work on 'love' is neat. He describes, in his literature review style, how Atkinson sees love as the reason why women stay with men, and how love is both the chain that binds women to men and a 'pitiful attempt by women to attain the human by fusing with a man blurring the male/female role dichotomy (pg 124). Additonally, his look at Gayle Rubin and her 'three foundations of the social sex system' was cool: "Gender is a socially imposed division of the sexes, the sexes are different but not naturally opposite, opposite sexes are constructed socially by the suppression of natural similarities -- men repress whatever the local version of feminine traits are and women repress whatever the local version of masculine traits are" (pg 133).
I found his seventh chapter, on 'lavender feminism,' boring and difficult to follow and largely skipped through it.
Ditto for his final chapter, which was quite mind-numbingly boring until his end discussion of the new freedom of sexuality, which has sex no longer constrained to procreation and has heterosexuality with much more in common with homosexuality than previously thought - it's fine for heterosexuals to have lots of sex for non-procreative reasons now too, and the middle class has commodified sexual pleasure (pgs 184-186).
To conclude: the book was a struggle for me -- a fairly open-minded, left-wingish 30-something male with a vague need to further liberate and expand his sexuality; taking me three weeks to pick through and involving a fair bit of skimming. His style of writing is very academic, at times very, very dull, and employs lots of 'nu' words and semantic micro-arguing. It is, as I have stated, like a giant literature review, which has clearly influenced the style of my review, which originally was going to be three paragraphs (pros, cons, conclusion). That said, as evidenced by my previous section quotations, there is significant value in the text for someone like me. I imagine folks really into the study of sexuality would love this book, and those with more of a lighter or part-time/background interest should still find some potentially mind-expanding tidbits within.
True Rating: 3.4 Stars
So what do I think about heterosexuality after all this? I'd have to agree it is socially constructed, but I cannot deny a biological impulse to procreate, which in our case, involves sex between a man and a woman. That said, our genes are mindless and don't know if you're doing it with a man, woman or sheep, though there are certain sexual features which cause arousal in some and not in others. In nature, there does seem to be sexuality in various forms, taking certain apes or monkeys as an example, whereby many of the males masturbate and I believe bugger males willy-nilly all the time. I think it's a short life, and it's probably best to have fun and explore your sexuality while you can, labels be damned, other than the argument that we do need some labels in society in order to have silly things like language and accurate communication.
December 5, 2017
This work is fairly dry and academic. It seems to focus more on the word heterosexual than on the set of behaviors and societal norms, rules and laws. It is interesting that the first use of the word was in describing a psychosis: an excessive fixation on the opposite sex. This apparently predates the use of homosexual to indicate an excessive fixation on the same sex.
It mentions societies that were less binary - homo vs. hetero, even suggesting that the early differentiation on sexual interest as being only for procreation and therefore condemning acts that "wasted" a mans "seed" (masturbation, and homosexual sex), did not overtly condemn female-female relationships, which could be quite strong even romantic.
The switch to seeing sex as enjoyable (for men at least), while it rules out a major argument against homosexuality, first emphasized that it was acceptable only within the purity of marriage.
Arguments over the pleasure principal become more heated in the days of women's lib, though they often consciously excluded lesbian discourse. It was OK for women to like sex now, and to join in the "sexual economy", but only for heterosexual women.
Heterosexuality is redefined largely by the fight for gay rights. The book argues, if that isn't too strong a word for it, for a less either-or duality or binary view of sexual orientation. Sexuality orientation can only be determined along a spectrum, though even that seems to suggest a lack of fluidity and an assumption of some sexual identity. Some people who are asexual, or se their sexual identity as fluid will still be left out of this model.
It mentions societies that were less binary - homo vs. hetero, even suggesting that the early differentiation on sexual interest as being only for procreation and therefore condemning acts that "wasted" a mans "seed" (masturbation, and homosexual sex), did not overtly condemn female-female relationships, which could be quite strong even romantic.
The switch to seeing sex as enjoyable (for men at least), while it rules out a major argument against homosexuality, first emphasized that it was acceptable only within the purity of marriage.
Arguments over the pleasure principal become more heated in the days of women's lib, though they often consciously excluded lesbian discourse. It was OK for women to like sex now, and to join in the "sexual economy", but only for heterosexual women.
Heterosexuality is redefined largely by the fight for gay rights. The book argues, if that isn't too strong a word for it, for a less either-or duality or binary view of sexual orientation. Sexuality orientation can only be determined along a spectrum, though even that seems to suggest a lack of fluidity and an assumption of some sexual identity. Some people who are asexual, or se their sexual identity as fluid will still be left out of this model.
December 31, 2017
Jonathan Ned Katz argumenta que as categorias heterossexual e homossexual são históricas, e portanto, mutáveis. Katz explica em vários capítulos como a separação entre o "normal e aceito" da heterossexualidade foi construído ao longo dos anos, muito com o apoio da psicanálise de Freud, que considerava a homossexualidade como algo "anormal e inaceitável", como por exemplo em seus relatos sobre os desejos sexuais de sua paciente Dora. Percebemos que tanto a heterossexualidade quanto a homossexualidade são construções sócio-culturais. Embora uma dela seja mais difundida e incentivada do que a outra para garantir o controle, o poder sobre massas cada vez maiores, e que as gerações se sucedam. Como Michel Foucault já havia explicado em seu A História da Sexualidade, a heterossexualidade serve ao capitalismo e ao poder, gerando mão de obra e servos para os mestres do mundo. A fabricação da heterossexualidade encontra eco no discurso das feministas, que acreditam que sem essa separação de modalidades sexuais, as mulheres teriam um papel de maior destaque na sociedade e ,as lésbicas, sejam elas feministas ou não, teriam respeito e não invisibilidade. Um baita livro que resume e deglute bem as teorias e história do estudo da sexualidade até os anos 90. Palmas para Jonahthan Ned Katz!
April 16, 2021
**Read for my 2021 gender and sexuality comprehensive exams**
Not a bad book, had some interesting ideas but not that interesting to me... I appreciated the arguments at the start of the book about the shifting in language and medical terms, and then the feminist analyses of heterosexuality that were discussed but the middle part of the book dragged a bit for me. I'm also just really, really tired. I've been reading too much non-fiction and sociology.
Not a bad book, had some interesting ideas but not that interesting to me... I appreciated the arguments at the start of the book about the shifting in language and medical terms, and then the feminist analyses of heterosexuality that were discussed but the middle part of the book dragged a bit for me. I'm also just really, really tired. I've been reading too much non-fiction and sociology.
January 16, 2021
This is definitely a thought provoking book. I never thought to research the history of heterosexuality and how/why it was constructed. I view society differently after reading this book, which means it expands your brain.
April 30, 2020
straight people you're over!
May 22, 2022
咬文嚼字 有点儿牵强 还是有启发
August 3, 2022
So many things I hadn't thought of. Great book.
Read
July 10, 2025Too modern a take for me. More focusing on 1800s onwards
June 15, 2013
Utterly amazing, controversial and thought-provoking book! I strongly recommend everyone read it. Katz’s premise is straight forward enough, heterosexuality and its counterpart homosexuality are completely arbitrary and constructed labels that have endured to the detriment of all. Now that does not mean that heterosexual or homosexual relationships do not exist or have no value, but that society (at least the western portion of it) has been encased in a completely unnecessary dichotomy whose starting point can be narrowed down to the last decade of the 19th century. Katz goes on to make an argument that will give cause to members of both camps to want to object, a true mark of a revolutionary idea. Throughout the book, Katz then takes the case with a mixture of historical research and literary criticism, uncovering the origins and underlying causes for the evolution of these terms as well as their acceptance into mainstream society throughout the 20th century. Along the way Katz gives insightful commentary on such matters as Victorian sexuality, Freudian ideas and the second wave of feminism. To add to Katz brilliant discussion, Gore Vidal provides an enticing introduction while Lisa Duggan gives a wonderfully appropriate afterword, ending with the suitable call for the debate to commence. This was truly a book that is well worth reading and discussing!
March 28, 2009
different cover c1995 new preface c2007
short review:
I read this from the library and it is so important to understanding the sexual minorities issue that now I own my own copy. This book makes it clear that history, print media and other media, and present culture are interactive, each affecting the other. There was no identity as heterosexual or homosexual before Freud and his contemporaries. There were people who did what they did. That is not the same thing. Behavior is NOT identity. This is a lesson that public health is just recently (hopefully) learning.
short review:
I read this from the library and it is so important to understanding the sexual minorities issue that now I own my own copy. This book makes it clear that history, print media and other media, and present culture are interactive, each affecting the other. There was no identity as heterosexual or homosexual before Freud and his contemporaries. There were people who did what they did. That is not the same thing. Behavior is NOT identity. This is a lesson that public health is just recently (hopefully) learning.
Read
July 2, 2014As a (nominally) heterosexual male, I remember having some arguments with some of JNK's tenets & positions. All I can remember is trying to formulate a spectrum of distinctions (?) confronting the construction of hierarchy within heteronormativity...seeing as how there is a new take on the topic-- historicizing the definitions of heterosexuality, whether as a 'sexuality' or inserted in a gendered totalizing of normative behavior-- by Hanne Blank-- I am overdue for a more careful rereading-- along with picking Blank's book up!
October 5, 2016
It was a thought-provoking read. Usually we are so busy wondering if gender and homosexuality are social constructs that we forget heterosexuality is not something "natural", and is just as much a construct of our society.
This slight change in perspective made a big difference - would recommend to anyone who is studying or interested in the development of heterosexuality. Katz also does a brief review of relevant literature which is helpful in contextualising the book.
(I also enjoyed the Freud bashing :P particularly in the Foreword)
This slight change in perspective made a big difference - would recommend to anyone who is studying or interested in the development of heterosexuality. Katz also does a brief review of relevant literature which is helpful in contextualising the book.
(I also enjoyed the Freud bashing :P particularly in the Foreword)
July 3, 2008
If Evelyn ever returns it to me, I will finish reading it. from what I have read thus far, this book contains, again, a very well researched analysis of a very touchy subject:sexuality, specifically, heterosexuality. very rarely does the "Norm" come under the microscope.
March 27, 2010
The afterword pretty much sums up the whole point of the book. And in more clear, concise language. However, if you do want to enjoy some (well-deserved) Freud-bashing, or the nuances of Victorian-era sexuality, just flip through the chapters.
October 25, 2015
A fascinating analysis of the not-at-all inevitable preeminence of heterosexual desire. Katz is clear and concise in his arguments, providing ample context for the lay reader curious to learn about the sociosexual structures many take for granted.
Read
April 1, 2009Reviewed here.
September 17, 2011
The topic is intriguing and important. The book itself failed to intrigue me as much as I had expected. I'm not sure why.
October 4, 2016
Interesting and easy to follow. Katz gives great and believable examples to suggest that heterosexuality is as much a social construction as homosexuality.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews