Social Equity, Homonormativity, and Equality: An Intersectional Critique of the Administration of Marriage Equality and Opportunities for LGBTQ Social Justice

Q1 Social Sciences
C. Daum
{"title":"Social Equity, Homonormativity, and Equality: An Intersectional Critique of the Administration of Marriage Equality and Opportunities for LGBTQ Social Justice","authors":"C. Daum","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"115 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.
社会公平、同性性与平等:对婚姻平等管理和LGBTQ社会正义机会的交叉批判
本文首先讨论了当前的社会公平学术,并主张更多地使用交叉工具,以使那些因主导规范而变得不可见的个人清晰可见。文章接着对美国最高法院的Obergefell诉Hodges案(576 U.S.___[2015])的决定以及随后在各州实施的婚姻平等,以评估决策者和管理者是否通过其政策和实施战略促进了社会公平。特别关注州和地方政策是否促进LGBTQ个人与异性恋者和符合性别的个人之间的公平和/或LGBTQ社区内的公平。一项关键的跨部门分析表明,政策制定者和行政人员倾向于对同一格式的个人和关系给予特权,并将其同化为非规范机构,这有助于促进平等,但不利于公平,因为这些政策实际上对跨部门识别的LGBTQ个人不利。文章最后建议扩大社会公平的支柱,以涉及社会正义问题,从而使学者和行政人员能够认识到并积极解决LGBTQ社区内的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Administrative Theory and Praxis
Administrative Theory and Praxis Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信