Sexuality and Family Revolutions，East and West

Judith Stacey　　

China first inspired my research on family revolutions when I was a graduate student in the early 1970s.I remember attending a rousing public lecture about women in China delivered by Carmela Hinton，daughter of ex-patriot American journalist William Hinton，the author of Fanshen（1966），a classic study of revolutionary land reform in a rural Chinese village.Speaking in Chinese-accented English，Carmela reported that the PRC recognized that“women hold up half the sky”and was liberating them from centuries of Confucian patriarchy.As an enthusiastic participant in the grass roots women’s movement that was sweeping the U.S.at the time，I was impressed and deeply curious.Soon after，I began to investigate the sources，limits，and effects of gender and family transformation in 20^th century China，which became the subject of my doctoral dissertation and my first book，Patriarchy and Socialist Revolution in China（Stacey 1983）.

Although China was the empirical subject of that research，the book was motivated by questions about the relationship between gender，family and social change in the West that I have continued to study ever since.Ethnographic research on diverse aspects of family transformation in the U.S.led eventually to my current work on gay and lesbian family issues.Drawing on my understanding of family revolutions，East and West，I want first to sketch the broadest contours of increasingly global processes of family transformation that have transpired in industrialized societies over the past few decades，and second to reflect on their implications for sexual diversity，equality，and family policy.

Dramatic changes in economic and family systems inevitably go hand in hand.Just as the emergence of modern industrializing societies preoccupied the founding figures of sociology in the West，so too the development of the modern nuclear family dominated the agenda of the discipline’s first century of theory and research on family transformation. Sociologists like Talcott Parsons（1944）and William Goode（1967）claimed that the streamlined family composed of a male breadwinner，a female homemaker，and their children suited the needs of rapidly industrializing societies as well as the presumed different，heterosexual，and complementary natures of men and women themselves.The modern nuclear family structured around a romantic concept of heterosexual love and of free choice，companionate marriage represented what sociologist Anthony Giddens（1992）terms the“transformation of intimacy.”It signaled the historic trajectory from a regime of obligatory family，kinship，and sexuality taken to be“natural”to the unleashing of increasing levels of individual emotion，choice，and diversity that characterize our personal lives today.Or perhaps it is more accurate to suggest that modern free choice marriage launched the modern concept of intimacy itself，with its emphasis on the individual quest for eroticized love and emotional authenticity.

Contradictions inherent to the modern family system，such as between the ideal of free love and the reality of gender inequality and laws against sodomy，or between personal desires and market forces，consigned to the closet the pursuit of any form of intimacy that challenged male-dominant patterns of heterosexual marriage and parenthood.Over the course of the twentieth century，continuing processes of economic development in advanced industrial societies，sometimes described as post-industrialization，exacerbated these contradictions and ultimately uprooted the foundations and stability of the modern family itself.Postindustrial economic forces altered the basic demographic features of modern marriage and family norms.The most prominent，and often controversial，changes unleashed included increasing percentages of women and mothers in paid employment，rising age of marriage，lower fertility rates，escalated divorce and remarriage rates，along with rising rates of single motherhood and step-families，and the development of new forms of contraception and reproductive technologies.

In place of the normative modern nuclear family pattern，family and sexual diversity is now the norm in the U.S.and most other advanced industrial（or post-industrial）societies.I have called this the postmodern family condition（Stacey 1990）.No single family structure enjoys statistical dominance or cultural security.The meaning and practices of gender，family，and sexuality can no longer be taken for granted or be presumed to be natural.Instead of obligatory participation in heterosexuality，procreation，or the family，“we are obliged to choose”if，how，and with whom we will couple，parent，and form intimate bonds.As the meaning and purpose of sexuality expanded substantially beyond the bounds of procreative family life，minority sexual desires and practices became increasingly visible，self-aware，and socially organized.Most significantly，growing numbers of people with homoerotic desires emerged from the closet，began to identify themselves as gay or lesbian，and to seek dignity，respect，and full membership and rights in their societies.

From Family Exiles to Family Pioneers

Few features of the recent history of family and sexuality in the West are more striking or surprising than the rapid ascendance of an increasingly global campaign for same-sex marriage and parent rights. Just a short time ago most gays and lesbians felt compelled to flee their families and to construct their lives，relationships，and communities in opposition to legal family forms.Many presumed that they must forfeit access to these domains if they identified themselves as lesbian or gay.Others adopted a critical stance toward the institutions of marriage and parenthood and to the very concept of family.However，within a very brief historical period，vast numbers of lesbians and gay men shifted their priorities from escaping repression they had experienced in their natal families to embracing the goal of forming“families we choose”（Weston 1991）.

International progress for legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships has transpired with startling speed.In 2001（the same year that the Chinese Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official roster of mental illnesses），the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex couples equal access to legal marital status.In rapid succession since then，four more nations，Belgium，Canada，Spain，and South Africa，by no means the most predictable，followed the Dutch lead.It seems particularly worth noting that this vanguard group includes a predominantly Catholic country（Spain）and an impoverished，racially diverse nation from the Global South（South Africa）；both societies achieved peaceful transformations after a long period of rule by reactionary regimes.Several other nations will likely soon join this roster，but the United States is not among them.Same-sex marriage has become a highly politicized，deeply polarizing issue in the U.S. where rightwing evangelical Christian organizations possess considerable political power.Because the U.S.federal constitution reserves primary authority over marriage and family law to the states，states are free to enact wildly discrepant policies.At this point，only one state（Massachusetts）allows same-sex couples to marry，while thirty-nine have enacted statewide bans against same-sex marriage.

Although legal same-sex marriage rights remain rare，scores of nations，starting with Denmark in 1989，as well as many states，provinces and cities around the globe have recognized same-sex couples through domestic partnerships or civil unions.The steadily expanding ranks of such nations now include almost all of Western Europe as well as Slovenia，Croatia，Andorra，Israel，New Zealand，Iceland and Greenland，and likely soon even conservative Catholic Ireland.Likewise，same-sex couples now enjoy some legal status in locales as diverse as Tasmania， Buenos Aires，and the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul，and similar proposals have been introduced in localities from Taipei to Caracas. Here too，U.S.policy remains deeply divided and contradictory.Currently six of the fifty states grant differing levels of benefits to same-sex couples，and several others are actively considering such proposals，but at the same time several states are attempting to impose bans on any form of recognition or benefits to same-sex couples.One can safely predict that legislative and judicial struggles over the legal status and rights of gay and lesbian couples will continue in the U.S.and internationally into the long foreseeable future.

Although the global march toward legalizing same-sex couple relationships has captured the centerfold of media attention，in my view the advent of planned lesbian and gay parenting represents a far more innovative and consequential domain of contemporary family transformation. Throughout history，people with closeted homosexual desires and relationships have been parents，but until very recently，there was no such thing as openly lesbian or gay parenthood.In fact，parents in the West who in the 1960s and early 1970s began to come out of the closet and identify themselves as lesbians and gay men routinely lost custody of the children they had conceived within their heterosexual marriages.Likewise，childless adults generally presumed that to accept a lesbian or gay identity meant to relinquish the prospect of parenthood.Merely three decades ago，the notion of a gay parent seemed oxymoronic.

Thus，the Western“gayby boom”of the late 20^th century caught most family scholars，lawyers，citizens，and even gay activists unaware. Beginning slowly in the 1970s and growing exponentially since the 1980s，self-identified lesbians in the U.S.and a few other Western advanced industrial societies started to actively choose parenthood through such means as donor insemination（DI），domestic and international adoption，or even instrumental participation in heterosexual intercourse.They have done so as single parents，in couples，and in a variety of creative，cooperative arrangements with friends，relatives，and gay men.Perhaps a decade after the lesbian gayby boom，smaller numbers of gay men followed their lead，seeking parenthood primarily through adoption，foster care，and co-parenting arrangements with women，or in even smaller numbers by negotiating with paid and volunteer surrogates to bear children conceived with their sperm.

In my view，the emergence of lesbian and gay planned parenthood represents a genuine family revolution and epitomizes the character of the postmodern family condition.Openly lesbian and gay men who choose parenthood make starkly visible the world historic reconfiguration of the relationship between sexuality and the family that has been taking place in the era of globalization.They challenge and multiply conventional definitions of mother，father，and parent as well as traditional relationships between sexuality，gender，marriage，procreation，and parenting. Some lesbians and gay men experiment with vanguard possibilities of Assisted Reproductive Technology（ART），such as lesbians who exchange ova to separate and recombine gestational and genetic definitions of motherhood，or gay male couples who take turns inseminating eggs from the same donor so that children born to them through surrogacy will be genetic half-siblings.Because hired surrogacy is so restricted，expensive，and difficult，however，most gay men who seek parenthood in the USA adopt their children，and the children available to them are more likely to be from different racial，ethnic，or national origins than is true for other adoptive parents.Here too，gay parenting challenges conventional expectations of family homogeneity.

Initially lesbians and gay men pursued their quest for parenthood without any legal recognition or protection and against enormous social barriers.Just as gay and lesbian couples began to seek legal status for their unions，lesbian and gay parents are struggling to gain access to parenthood and to legally protect their children and the new forms of family they have created.Principal goals include access to ART，to domestic and international adoption，and to custody rights for non-biological co-parents.Although gays and lesbians have achieved some significant victories，international progress in the quest for legal parent status is slower and even more uneven than for couple recognition.Even among advanced industrial societies，very few nations yet grant equal parenting rights to gays and lesbians，while a majority still maintain discriminatory fertility，adoption，and custody laws.Gay men suffer even greater handicaps than lesbians，and not only because of biology.Most nations that allow international adoptions restrict eligibility to（heterosexual）married couples，and very few of the minority，like China，that accept applications from single women also allow single men to apply.

Although，once again，in the U.S.public policies are fractious and contradictory，lesbian and gay parents are more visible and organized there than elsewhere.Estimates place the number of lesbian and gay parents in the U.S.between two to eight million，and the 2000 Census recorded that the households of 34 percent of female same-sex couples and 22 percent of male same-sex couples included dependent children. Lesbian and gay parents and their children participate in numerous support groups，organizations，special camps and vacations，and sympathetic images and stories about them appear frequently in the popular media. Gay parents have also made great strides in securing legal rights in many states，although a significant backlash is working to overturn these where it can.One state（Florida）bans gay and lesbian adoption explicitly，several others do so indirectly，and opponents of gay parenthood have introduced proposals for such bans in several other states.However，a majority of the fifty states allow single-parent adoptions irrespective of sexual orientation，six（including the most populous）expressly allow same-sex couples to adopt children jointly，and many of the rest grant such adoptions locally.Perhaps unsurprisingly，the U.S.represents the vanguard in gay access to commercial ART services including sperm banks，egg donors，and paid surrogates.Lesbians helped to organize and operate several sperm banks in the U.S.，and Los Angeles is home to Growing Generations，the world’s first surrogacy agency founded primarily by and for gay men，which serves a global clientele of affluent gay men who desire biological offspring.

Paradoxes and Potential of Lesbian and Gay Family Goals

Looking backward over these dazzling international shifts in sexuality and family forms，lesbian and gay campaigns for marriage and parenting rights can seem as paradoxical as they were unpredictable.First，gays and lesbians began to strive for the right to marry at the very historical moment when heterosexual marriage evinced many symptoms of institutional decline.Heterosexual couples in most advanced industrial societies now cohabit outside marriage more frequently，marry later，if at all，divorce more often，and spend a greater portion of their adult lives unmarried than they did under the modern family regime.Where once free choice marriage meant being free to choose who you would marry，now it means being obliged to choose if，when，how，for how long，and how many times to marry as well.

The decline of nearly universal and life-long marriages among presumptively heterosexual couples raises significant policy questions about whether and how to recognize other forms of intimate adult relationships. Should domestic partnerships be available to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples？Must sexual unions be the basis for domestic benefits，responsibilities，and rights，or should these be extended to other forms of committed relationships？Would legalizing same-sex marriage undermine family and sexual diversity and further discriminate against single adults and their dependents？Advocates and opponents of samesex marriage alike hold varying views on whether allowing same-sex couples to wed will do more to strengthen or to weaken marriage as an institution.In this regard，it is striking that heterosexual marriage rates were already comparatively low in the first nations that opened the institution to same-sex couples，marriage confers few material benefits in these societies，and they do not discriminate significantly against unmarried couples.In other words，for the most part it has been easier for same-sex couples to achieve equal access to marriage where marriage bears comparatively little social，moral，and economic weight.

A second historical paradox is that the lesbian and gay baby boom emerged at the same time that heterosexual fertility rates in advanced industrial societies had declined below replacement levels.In other words，just when many heterosexuals were choosing not to have children or to have fewer than their own parents had，many lesbians and gays began choosing to join the ranks of parents.Of course，this is not necessarily paradoxical，because it represents another index of the decoupling of sexuality from procreation and marriage that I discussed above.An emotional rather than an economic calculus now governs parenting decisions，which represent a quest for enduring love and intimacy.In the context of the growing ranks of unmarried heterosexuals who choose parenting，whether single or coupled，it stands to reason that many lesbians and gay men would desire parenthood as well.

Stepping back a few paces from the heat of contemporary debates about the drive to recognize lesbian and gay family relationships，I am struck by an historical analogy that represents yet another paradox.During the period of the Cold War between the United States and the USSR，Western anti-Communists often portrayed Communism as a profound threat to the family because，they maintained，the Party demanded absolute loyalty and labor from its citizens at the expense of family bonds（e.g，Skoussen，1958）.My research on the Chinese Communist revolution led me to perceive quite a different relationship between its victory and the fate of Confucian patriarchy and Chinese peasant families.I argued that surprisingly，the Communist revolution in China had actually helped to rescue a failing marriage and family system from the ravages of the agrarian crisis by reforming it at the same time that it democratized participation in peasant patriarchy.Land reform，such as was depicted in Fanshen（Hinton 1966）helped to expand peasant access to marriage，and the People’s Liberation Army drew on family ties as a crucial revolutionary resource.

Similarly，while contemporary opponents of gay unions，parenting and family rights portray these as threats to marriage and family life，I foresee a different trajectory.Until recently，most gays and lesbians were forced either to remain in the closet or to become family exiles，both options representing genuine threats to many marriages and families.Indeed，the hypocrisy of a free love marriage system in which homosexuals were not free to pursue their authentic loves surely did little to strengthen the institution.However，now that vast number of self-identified lesbians and gays have embraced marriage and parenthood as central goals，they occupy a vanguard post of the postmodern family condition.GLBT family aspirations represent an integral component of the increasingly global shift from obligatory，heterosexual procreative families to the unavoidable challenges of creating the diverse families we choose.To paraphrase Marx（1852），we do not get to choose the conditions under which we are compelled to make history or our families.Consequently，a long，uneven course of struggle to achieve family and sexual diversity，equality，and harmony surely lies ahead，but the overall historical trajectory seems equally clear.

References：

Giddens，Anthony.1992.The Transformation of Intimacy：Sexuality，Love，and Eroticism in Modern Societies.Stanford：Stanford University Press.

Goode，William.1967.World Revolution and Family Patterns.New York：Free Press.

Hinton，William.1966.Fanshen：A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village.New York：Monthly Review Press.

Marx，Karl.1852.The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.（Marx/ Engles Internet Archive www.marxists.org）.

Parsons，Talcott.1944.The Social Structure of the Family.＠ Pp. 173-201 in The Family：Its Function and Destiny，edited by R.N. Anshen.New York：Harper.

Skoussen，Cleon.1958.The Naked Communist.Salt Lake City：Ensign Publishing Co.

Stacey，Judith.1983.Patriarchy and Socialist Revolution in China. Berkeley：University of California Press.

Stacey，Judith.1990.Brave New Families：Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late 20^th Century America.New York：Basic Books.

Weston，Kath.1991.Families We Choose：Lesbians，Gays，Kinship. New York：Columbia University Press.