Answering the Questions

43 One is not born a bride

How weddings regulate heterosexuality

Chrys Ingroham

STATE UNIVERSITY O F N E W YORK AT PURCHASE

All aspects o f our social world — natural or otherwise — are given meaning. Culture installs meaning in our lives from the very first m om ent we enter the social world. O u r sexual orientation or sexual identity -- or even the notion that there is such a thing - is defined by the symbolic order o f that world through the use o f verbal as well as non-verbal language and images. Heterosexuality as a social category is much more than the fact o f one’s sexual o r affectional attractions. W hat we think o f when we talk about heterosexuality or refer to ourselves as heterosexual is a product o f a society’s meaning-making processes. In reality, heterosejcuality operates as a highly organized social institution that varies across nations, social groups, culture, history, region, religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, lifespan, social class, and ability. In America and elsewhere, the wedding ritual represents a major site for the installation and maintenance o f the institution o f heterosexuality.

The title o f this chapter pays homage to French feminist M onique W ittig whose classic and provocative essay “ O ne is N o t B om a W om an” examines what she calls the political regime o f heterosexuality and its requisite categories o f man and woman. She argues that the category o f woman and all o f the meaning attached to that category would n o t exist were it not necessary for the political regime o f (patriarchal) heterosexuality. For the purpose o f this chapter, the same holds tm e o f the taken-for-granted category o f bride. While it may seem obvious to most that one is not bom a bride, in reality many women see themselves as following a naturalized path toward heterosexual womanhood.

But how did this contrived and constructed social practice become naturalized? T he task of examining this taken-for-granted social arrangement requires a conceptual framework capable o f revealing how heterosexuality has become institutionalized, naturalized, and normalized. Any attempt to examine the institution o f heterosexuality requires a theory capable o f understanding how this institution with all its social practices such as dating, proms, and Valentine’s Day, is often viewed by many of us as natural.

The heterosexual imaginary French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s concept o f the “imaginary” is especially useful for this purpose. According to Lacan, the imaginary is the unmediated contact an infant has to its own

303

Chrys Ingraham

image and its connechon with its mother. Instead o f facing a compHcated, conflictual . contradictory world, the infant experiences the iUusion o f tranquihty. plenitude, and other words, infants expenence a sense o f oneness with their primary caretaker Louis A i r ' the French philosopher, borrowed Lacan’s notion o f the im ajn ary for his neo-marxist foe 1 eology, d e f ^ n g ideology as “ the imaginary relationship o f individuals to their real condidl^^ o f existence.” The “imaginary” here does not mean “folse” or “pretend” b u t rather 1 ^ n e o r lUusory relationship between an individual and their social world. Apphed to a s o Z theory o f heterosexuality the heterosexual imaginary is that way o f thinking that relies romannc and sacred notions o f heterosexuahty tn order to create and ma.ntafn the iUutio„ „"f well-being and oneness. This romantic view prevents us from seeing how institutionalizeti heterosexuality actually works to organize gender while preserving mcial, class, and s ^ t i

erarchies^The effect o f this illusory depiction o f reality is that heterosexuahty is taken for m l " '“ e gender is understood as something people are sodahzed mto or leam ^T he heterosexual imaginary naturahzes male to female social relations, rituals and organized practices and conceals the operation o f heterosexuahty in stmcturing gender across race, class, and sexuahty. This way o f seeing closes off any critical analysis o f heterosexuality as n orgamzmg institution and for the ends it serves (Ingraham 1994, 1999). By leaving hetero-

sexuahty unexamined as an institution we do not explore how it is learned, how it may control us and contnbute to social inequalities. T hrough the use o f the heterosexual imaginary, we hold up the mstitution o f heterosexuahty as fixed in time as though it has always operated the same

I t does today. This imaginary presents a view o f heterosexuality as "just the way it is” while se a tin g obligatory social pmctices that reinforce the illusion that, as long as one comphes with his n a t u n ^ e d structure, all will be right in the world. This illusion is commonly L o w n as

romance Rom ancing heterosexuality is creating an illusory heterosexuality for which wedding culture plays a central role.

The hved reahty o f institutionalized heterosexuahty is, however, not typicaUy tranquil or safe, he consequences the heterosexual imaginary produces include, for example, marital rape,

domestic violence, pay inequities, racism, gay-bashing, femicide, and sexual harassment. Insti- t u t i o n ^ e d heterosexuality and its organizing ideology - the heterosexual imaginary - estabhshes hose behaviors we ascnbe to men and women - gender - while keeping in place or producing

a history o f contradictory and unequal social relations. The production o f a division o f labor at results m unpaid domestic work, inequalities o f pay and opportunity, o r the privileging of

m am ed couples in the dissemination o f insurance benefits, are examples o f this Above all the heterosexual imaginary naturalizes the regulation o f sexuality through the

mstitution o f mamage ntual practices such as weddings, and state domestic relations laws.

b l r o f ' v T " ® ° ? " ’'i ’L l ' *'=“>*care, and housing benefits on the e l l f ^ d “ L ' ' ' by nineteenth-century marriage reformers and e r f y second-wave feimnists - laws and public- and private-sector poHcies use marriage as the p n ^ r y requirement for social and economic benefits and access rather than istnburing

s o m e l e f t. I t “ to Z e r to r ° T * e date o r wedding rehearsal Z l a t e h e 7 I “ sex, aU serve to stTctured a = highly p ra c tle m u r T ™ “ 'r a “ ‘T " ^ o participate in these L w l l T o I f bom with a wedding fhese t L g s W orn T d ^ng! They were taught to want

ga. omen didn t enter the world w ith a desire to practice something callrf dating or

304

One is not born a bride

s desire to play with a “M y Size Bride Barbie,” they were rewarded for desiring these things. Likewise, men did n o t exit the w om b knowing they would one day buy a date a bunch o f flowers or spend two months’ income to buy an engagement ring. These are all products that have been sold to consumers interested in taking part in a culturally estabHshed ritual that works to organize and institutionalize heterosexuality and reward those w ho participate.

Heteronormativity A related concept useful for the study o f the heterosexual imaginary and o f institutionalized heterosexuality is heteronormativity. This is the view that institutionalized heterosexuality constitutes the standard for legitimate and expected social and sexual relations. Hetero­ normativity represents one o f the main premises underlying the heterosexual imaginary, again ensuring that the organization o f heterosexuality in everything from gender to weddings to marital status is held up both as a model and as “normal.” Consider, for instance, the ways many surveys or intake questionnaires ask respondents to check off their marital status as either mar­ ried, divorced, separated, widowed, single, or, in some cases, never married. N o t only are these categories presented as significant indices o f social identity, they are offered as the only options, implying that the organization o f identity in relation to marriage is universal and n o t in need of explanation. O r try to imagine entering a committed relationship w ithout benefit o f legalized marriage. W e find it difficult to think that w e can share commitment w ith someone w ithout a state-sponsored license. People will frequently comment that someone is afraid to “make a commitment” if they choose not to get married even when they have been in a relationship with someone for years! O ur ability to imagine possibilities or to understand what counts as commitment is itself impaired by heteronormative assumptions. W e even find ourselves chal­ lenged to consider how to marry w ithout an elaborate white wedding. Gays and lesbians have maintained long-term committed relationships yet find themselves desiring state sanctioning o f their union in order to feel legitimate. Heteronormativity works in all o f these instances to naturalize the institution o f heterosexuahty while rendering real people’s relationships and commitments irrelevant and illegitimate.

For those who view questions concerning marital status as benign, one need only consider the social and economic consequences for those who do not participate in these arrangements or the cross-cultural variations that are at odds w ith some o f the Anglocentric o r Eurocentric assumptions regarding marriage. All people are required to situate themselves in relation to marriage or heterosexuality, including those who regardless of sexual (or asexual) affiliation do not consider themselves “single,” heterosexual, or who do not participate in normative hetero­ sexuality and its structures.

O ne is not bom a bride, and yet to imagine oneself outside o f this category is to live a life outside o f the boundaries o f normality and social convention. To live outside this contrived and constmcted social practice is to live on the margins o f society, excluded from the social, legal, and economic rewards and benefits participation brings. To resist membership in the hetero­ normative social order - as bride o r as groom - is to live with the penalties and challenges to all those w ho resist. It means Hving a life where you have to defend your sexual loyalties on a daily basis - are you straight or are you gay?

Weddings To demonstrate the degree to which the heteronormative wedding ritual regulates sexuality we must begin with an investigation into the ways various practices, arrangements, relations, and

305

Chrys Ingraham

w h a u s kept in place, and what consequences are p r o c e e d To e“ r i ” T ” ® out those instances when the illusion o f tranqnih,^ is c re a td and at h many other rituals o f heterosexual relpKr.H ^ u ^ ^ beddings ]iU Day, become synonymous r r h e t e r o e ^ ^ operation o f heterosexuality both historicaUy illd m a S y . w Z ^ s l conceal the for example, weddings work as a form n f J i • professional settings o f tuling as weu as fo ^ e « ^elatiT . erosexuahty and prevents us from s e e h J J h o w ^ ^ o ™ n L 'd '™ d '™ '! l oMutalizes het- behef or ideology that heterosexuality n n o L a ^ e t a T h ” ' ’ f ” tale romance is universal. It is this a L m p tio n that a llo i^ 7 America o f a $35 billion-oer-vear • j ^ ^ development and growth in the sale o f a diverse range o f products 'm any r f ^ h ^ h " ^ niuItibiUion dollar industry includes

w eddinggow ns,diam onds.honeym oon’travelLdaDD ^ die USA- the production o f these goods frequentiv ner household equipment. IronicaUy, facturets rely on a non-traditional female workforce" 'f" tion to heterosexuality and ftmily In Mexico C r’ l j ^^enng cultural norms in rela- has been to shift the jo b o p p o r t u n i L ^ a C V ’ " " levels o f domestic violence and femicide. S e J i a r " ” consequence o f significant to the gendered division o f labor working to n ^ 7 ^ 7 locations is directly related erosexual imaginary. Veiled in the guise f support the American het- ceal from view t h ^ t r o u b l e l l t n ^ ^ con-

W hen you dunk o f w e T ^ g s“ o „ ° r n : : " ^ begins with children. By targeting girls a n d ̂ naturaHzation the wedding market and the opportunity t o ^ e v e t r ^ ^ " ’ have seized on variety o f wedding toys, featuring the “Ua ' ” û- ^y producing a whole morning children’s television shows Tov r wedding, and sold during Saturday glomerates that also own r l d c T m l/d - " T ’ multmadonal con- markets for all their p r o d u t 7 7 c toymaker and a major m ultinationaltoruo' Mattel, the world’s largest and seHs products in 150 nations Th ^ facilities in thirty-six countries -Ics. is t L Barbie doU o f their facilities are located in China, Indonesia, Ita'ly m X ^ sL '' P ™ ^ y manufacturing o f color and at substandard wages. Annually ’Mattel ’ T u ^™P'°y‘"S women earns revenues o f $1,9 billion for the C a l'f ' ' k ̂ million Barbie dolls and female w orker whose jo b 7 " t “ - - g e young Chrnese w i^ J a n g e ro u s chemicals, works long hours and earns $ m works

m a ^ rin e reports on celebritT w fddT i^" s p o rtin g on weddings in the press,

heterosexual imaginary, the m e d k ' cloak *<= application o f the

- - - t a p e d , and

306

One is not born a bride

reguiates their sexual lives and identities along with those o f the laborers w ho make their wedding possible.

The contemporary white wedding under multinational capitalism is, in effect, a mass-marketed, homogeneous, assembly-Hne production with litde resemblance to the utopian vision many participants hold. T he engine driving the wedding market has mosdy to do w ith the romancing of heterosexuality in the interests o f capitalism. The social relations at stake — love, community, commitment, and family - come to be viewed as secondary to the production o f the wedding spectacle.

The heterosexual imaginary circulating throughout the wedding industry masks the ways it secures racial, class, and sexual hierarchies. W om en are taught from early childhood to plan for the “happiest day o f their Hves.” (Everything after that day pales by comparison!) M en are taught, by the absence o f these socializing mechanisms, that their w ork is “other” than that. If they are interested in the wedding it is for reasons other than what w om en have learned. The possibilities children learn to imagine are only as broad as their culture allows. They are socia­ lized to understand the importance o f appropriate coupling, what counts as beauty, as appro­ priate sexuality, what counts as w om en’s w ork and m en’s work, and how to become “ good” consumers by participating in those heterosexual practices and rituals that stimulate their interests and emotions and reap the most rewards.

One is not bom a bride. O ne learns to comply with the social and cultural messages that flow to and through the wedding ritual. It is the rite o f passage for appropriate heterosexual identity and membership. It is everything but natural.

References Ingraham, Chrys. 1994. “T he heterosexual imaginary’’. Sociological Theory 12 (2); 203—19. ■----- 1999. W hite Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture. N ew York: Routledge.

307