A social constructionist approach to resilience for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and/or questioning academics and students in South African universities

Jacques Rothmann

doi:10.4102/the.v3i0.34

Abstract

This article provides a theoretical contemplation on how reciprocation of an assimilationist, liberationist and/or transgressive approach by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and/or questioning (LGBTIQ+) individuals on university campuses may encourage transformation initiatives in South African universities. The author ascribe to the contributions of previous research studies on a social constructionist approach to resilience to debate how individuals potentially navigate the disparity between sexual structure and agency within their ideological and physical construction and enactment of their academic and student persona. A theoretical basis is provided for the influence of social resilience to emphasise the localised, intersectional and plural experiences of LGBTIQ+ individuals as opposed to a monolithic and universal ‘either/or’ account of their being solely docile victims or free agents in a heteronormative context.

Highlights

Cahill (2011:135) notes that sexual difference should not be viewed ‘...as a threat to be negotiated or a problem to be solved, but rather as the ... condition for the ... interactions through which the self develops’
In ascribing to the underlying principles associated with these paradigms, one could posit initiatives and recommendations in favour of LGBTIQ+ people to access sources of social resilience and particular protective factors to transcend a view of South African universities as solely heteronormative and patriarchal spaces (Francis 2017b; Ungar 2004a, 2004b; Van den Berg 2016)
The article seeks to consider the potential role of a social constructionist approach to resilience in encouraging the creation of a transformative university context for sexual minority academics and students

Summary

Introduction

Cahill (2011:135) notes that sexual difference should not be viewed ‘...as a threat to be negotiated or a problem to be solved, but rather as the ... condition for the ... interactions through which the self develops’. In ascribing to the underlying principles associated with these paradigms, one could posit initiatives and recommendations in favour of LGBTIQ+ people to access sources of social resilience and particular protective factors to transcend a view of South African universities as solely heteronormative and patriarchal spaces (Francis 2017b; Ungar 2004a, 2004b; Van den Berg 2016).

Results

Conclusion