Betydningen av seksuell erfaring, tiltrekning og identitet for ...

impression that [the informant’s] dismissal of the conventional categories of
sexual identity is a politically and theoretically motivated project, rather than
being intrinsically related to his actual experience’ (Kristiansen and
Pedersen, 2004 p. 4). They claim that rather than solving any problems, the
abandoning of categories contributes to further typification and invisibility.
In rejecting being categorised as gay, ‘Roger’ in their study, was perceived
by others as attempting to retain the position of a ‘normal’ heterosexual man,
of ‘passing’ as straight, making him incomprehensible and thus invisible.
Is this also a risk for Michael? He says:
238
The grounds for my saying that I am gay today are that I still like boys.
[…] I used to say [‘I am gay’] very early on in my relations with people.
Now I try to hold back, kind of. And I’ll instead try to behave like an
ordinary person. […] It used to be very important for me to tell people
what I was and what I stood for fairly quickly, but now I would rather
hold back a little (my emphasis).
While ‘trying to behave like an ordinary person’, and holding back the
information of what he ‘is’, is Michael in danger of being interpreted as
trying to pass as heterosexual? Is his understanding of ‘being’ gay in
accordance with his claim that he is just being ‘himself’ without labels? Or,
is this rather an example of a late adolescent man’s need for individualism,
authenticity and detachment from labels?
The analysis of Michael’s ‘coming out’ story reveals what a young
‘gay’ man may have come into in the first decade of the 21 st century,
stepping in and out of constructions of homosexuality and ‘gayness’ and
earlier sexual identity categorisations. Stereotypes, essentialist, gay and
queer discourses seem to inform the gay identities found in Michael’s story,
constructed through interplay with his personal experiences and biography.
As a subject of discourse, he is presented with possibilities as well as
experiencing constraints. It remains to be seen whether a rejection of
categories represents new possibilities of agency.
The author wishes to thank Prof Ph.D Dag Album, Ph.D Hans W. Kristiansen,
University of Oslo, Pd.D Tone Hellesund, University of Bergen, Prof. Ph.D Annick
Prieur, University of Aalborg, Denmark and Ingrid Smette and other colleagues at
NOVA for valuable comments to earlier drafts of this paper. The study was
supported by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council.
– NOVA Rapport 1/07 –