COMPULSORY CLOSETS AND THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DISCLOSURE

Abstract

In this study I analyze the dynamics of the disclosure process, particularly the power contests in the disclosure of a lesbian identity . I found that when disclosure is conceptualized as an interaction, it becomes clear that both parties are active and that the successful completion of a disclosure depends on the degree of consensus and cooperation between the individuals involved. When I analyzed the dynamics of the disclosure of a lesbian identity, I found that many heterosexuals resisted a context of open awareness. They marshaled their heteronormative power and privilege to prevent, deny, or reverse a disclosure in order to maintain a context of closed awareness. The penalty for persistently refusing a compulsory closet was social death. Earlier social psychological studies of disclosure have focused on an individual's motivation for disclosing private information, such as to build intimacy (Runge and Archer 1981) or to increase trust and deepen a relationship (Archer and Cook 1986). The research studies of the disclosure of HIV infection (Ostrow et al. 1989; Perry et al. 1994; Tesoriero and Sorin 1992), childhood sexual abuse (Lamb and Edgar-Smith 1994; Sorensen and Snow 1991), incest (de Young 1994; Naples and Clark 1996), adoption (Miall 1989), abortion (Smith and Kronauge 1990), rape (Burgess and Holmstrom 1979), the expectation of death (Glaser and Strauss 1965), and homosexual orientation (Anderson and Randlet 1994; Cain 1991; Healy 1993; Kleinberg et al. 1986; Ponse 1978; Wells and Kline 1987) have focused on the individual taking the initiative to disclose. This focus on the psychology of the individual, that is, the individual's motivation, often neglects the social context in which a disclosure occurs. In their study of epileptics, Schneider and Conrad (1980) took a more sociological approach to disclosure. They contend that [t]he significance of 'having' epilepsy is a product of a collective definitional process in which the actor's perspective occupies a central place (Schneider and Conrad 1980:35). Similar to previous studies, the impetus for disclosing or not disclosing still rests on the actors, in this * Direct all correspondence to: Theresa Montini, IHPS-UCSF, Box 0936, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936; e-mail: montini@itsa.ucsf.edu. Sociological Perspectives, Volume 43, Number 4, pages S121-S132. Copyright © 2000 by Pacific Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.