The Social Organization of Desire: The Sexual Fields Approach by Adam Isaiah Green

In this article, Green details his theory of sexual fields, which is a sociological framework for analyzing how people with shared erotic identities or tastes interact with specific "erotic worlds", and how these worlds are structured in terms of what Green calls "erotic capital". Green uses a case study of gay black men in arenas such as gay clubs, bars, and bathhouses to analyze how certain qualities either reduce or increase a participant's erotic capital. Green also analyzes how sexual fields are split into "tiers of desirability", indicating how participants are stratified into categories of desirability based on physical or behavioral characteristics. Finally, Green explains the larger sociological implications of the sexual fields theory, and how it can be applied on a macro level in the study of sexuality.

Given that this week's focus on the syllabus is Queer Hierarchies, I read this article with that lens in mind, and personally found Green's framework for analyzing sexual situations useful not just for detailing how power relations play out for queer people within an erotic context, but just within interactions among the queer community in general. Especially interesting was Green's observation/suggestion that black gay men often "do race" (i.e. presenting themselves in a way that plays into some white gay men's fantasy of the thuggish, ghetto, or dangerous black male) to increase erotic capital, but do the exact opposite (play down their blackness) to be seen by white gay men as "relationship material". I feel like this instance speaks to Green's point that sexual arenas often apply a different set of rules or logic than general social arenas, but still manage to maintain the power structures we find in greater society. In the situations Green observed, gay black men may be able to increase their erotic capital by playing up their blackness (which Green points out often decreases socioeconomic capital), but they still must play down their blackness to be considered worthy of a long term relationship with white gay men- not to mention, of course, the mere fact that white gay men in these situations hold enough power that black gay men must be the ones altering their behaviors to cater to the rules of the environment.

I feel like the above described dynamic can be applied in a wider context to the conversation about who in the queer community dictates what acceptable queerness looks and acts like, and how others in the community must often alter their behavior and appearances to those standards to be accepted within and outside the community. Inevitably, the power structures that privilege whiteness, maleness, and higher socioeconomic status allow people in the queer community with those qualities to dictate what queer people "should" look like or act like, forcing members to either conform to those standards or risk being accused of not truly being queer (or just not being "queer enough"). For example, a society that privileges traditional masculinity has the double effect of putting masculine white gay men "at the top of the pecking order" (p. 41), as well as often treating femme lesbian women like they aren't queer or queer enough because they exhibit traditionally feminine traits.

1. How do you think sexual fields play out among groups not discussed in this article, such as queer women or trans women and men?

2. Green's article focuses on erotic and sexual situations, but how else do you think the observed valuing and commodifying of certain physical or behavioral qualities within sexual fields can apply to the queer community outside of explicitly sexual situations?