Implicit homophobia in the Moral Maze

Since our last post, we have continued to work on the analysis of three episodes of the Moral Maze, in which the question of same-sex marriage is debated. This is our current focus, though future strands to the Discourses of Marriage project will include the analysis of how the debate has been represented in the print media.

From the Moral Maze broadcasts that we have analysed, we have concentrated to date on the strategies which are used by speakers taking an anti-same-sex marriage position to justify this stance without being explicitly homophobic. However, we have found that, typically, these strategies lead to implicitly homophobic discourse; the argument against equal marriage for gay and straight people is based, in these broadcasts, on the assumption that gay and straight relationships are different. Indeed, the arguments put forwards by those opposing same-sex marriage tend to rely on discursive strategies which position same-sex couples as deviant when compared to heterosexual couples; though words such as 'deviant' and 'normal' are not used, heterosexual relationships are defined in terms of biological complementarity, social cohesion and historical normalcy. Through these strategies, it is implied that same-sex relationships do not fit a 'natural' model, pose a threat to social order, and are 'other'. Importantly, this rhetoric enables marriage between same-sex couples to be defined as illogical, dangerous, risky and with unknown consequences - allowing marriage to be extended to same-sex couples is presented as being a slippery slope, based on the argument that the law would redefine marriage and thus could potentially endanger it.

Our current work is focused on the development of a clear framework for the analysis of implicit homophobic argument structure. This will focus on linguistic strategies but consider them in relation to the level of discourse, in order to understand how they may, in a given context, serve to position homosexuality as deviant or 'other'. We hope that this work will emphasise the fact that homophobia exists in often hidden ways; strategies which imply that same-sex relationships are not equal to opposite-sex ones are less visible or obvious than those which overtly demonize lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but they play an equally important role in the reproduction of homophobic discourse.

The Discourses of Marriage research group are:

Isabelle van der Bom (Sheffield), Laura Coffey-Glover (Huddersfield), Lucy Jones (Hull), Laura Paterson (Leeds) and Sara Mills (Sheffield Hallam).

Time to celebrate!

(image from http://www.stonewall.org.uk)

On Wednesday 17th July 2013, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was officially made law when it received Royal Assent from the Queen. We're delighted to be able to carry out our discourse analysis of the equal marriage debate from this perspective, though remain as motivated as ever to reveal the linguistic strategies of homophobia used by many opponents of the Bill during their discussions in the media.

Key issues that we're focusing on, in our analysis of the Moral Maze broadcasts, include the following:

- How is indirectness used as a strategy to produce 'disembodied' arguments? Opponents of the Bill are often reluctant to speak directly about the nature of same-sex relationships or why same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and so make quite significant use of imaginaries and imagery in order to produce what appears to be a more objective stance. In doing so, explicitly anti-gay statements can be avoided, though the implicit message remains clearly homophobic. For example, the likening of same-sex relationships to incest or bestiality.

- How is metaphor used to define marriage as fundamentally heterosexual, thus 'simply not an option for gay couples'? Marriage is represented as a frail, vulnerable object which is at risk of being 'unravelled' or 'eroded'; what weight does this offer to the argument that straight marriage should be 'protected' from homosexuals?

- What argumentation structures and tactics are employed by those who are anti-marriage equality? We believe stance-taking to be central to this, and that indirectly homophobic stances in particular are enabled by the use of imaginaries and metaphor. By investigating these stances via discourse analysis, we hope to show the means by which implicitly homophobic messages are presented as logical, moral, and normal. In turn, we hope to examine how such messages continue to carry weight in our society.

A moral maze...

The UK government is a significant step closer to marriage equality for same-sex couples, now that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill has passed through Parliament. It now has to be passed by the Lords to become law. The day after the Bill was overwhelmingly won in Parliament, there was a second edition of the BBC panel show The Moral Maze . We're now beginning to analyse this, as we've already been looking at the first edition, broadcast in February 2012 when the government put out a public consultation on the matter. In particular, we're hoping to find whether the themes that emerged in the 2012 debate are strengthened or modified in the 2013 one, particularly given that it is now apparent that there is significant public and political support for the change.

The case against same-sex marriage can largely be characterised, in the 2012 edition of The Moral Maze, by the following arguments:

• It's risky to try to redefine marriage - we don't know what it will lead to, and it could be a 'slippery slope'
• Marriage is fundamentally about biological complementarity, i.e. two people who are of the opposite sex to one another
• Marriage is the sacrosanct place where children are created

In contrast, the case for same-sex marriage 2012 debate can be characterised by the following:

• Society has changed, and so should the institution of marriage - we ought to extend it to same-sex couples to be a truly equal society
• Marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment
• Civil partnerships do not represent true equality

It is noteworthy that overtly homophobic discourses are avoided by those who oppose same-sex marriage in the 2012 debate - at no point is language used which characterises gay people as 'unnatural' or 'deviant'. Similarly, though religious discourses are consistently drawn upon throughout the debate, biblical language is never used and 'God's will' is never referred to. This is in quite a stark contrast to some of the discussions that were reported in the media at the time, such as the attack on the plans by Cardinal Keith O'Brien. In order to draw solid arguments from a logical, defendable standpoint, those against marriage equality in the first debate evidently avoid rhetoric that could be interpreted as extreme, archaic or bigoted.

We look forward to analysing the latest debate to see how the argument might have shifted, and are hoping to employ aspects of Fairclough and Fairclough's approach to assist us in doing this.

In other news...we're continuing to compile news articles since the debates surrounding marriage equality began, and will eventually be employing corpus analysis to analyse these.