The politics of space involving male heterosexuality

Abstract

The politics of space involving sexuality has been studied mainly from the perspective of women and of homosexual men. Women's studies of space make clear that space is not constructed for female sexuality but for that of males. Gay studies of space conclude that, though homosexual men are 'male', they are inclined to be alienated from spaces which are premised as being heterosexual. Otherwise, little attention has been given to the viewpoint of heterosexual men. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the politics of space involving heterosexual men in Japan.This study picks up one of the statements which was brought up in the Japanese political world in 1999. It is the Nishimura's statement, which was claimed by Shingo Nishimura (a member of the Diet)-at the time, a parliamentary vice-minister of the Defense agency-in an article in the 'weekly Playboy'. The statement was problematical because it contained positive statements regarding the nuclear armament of Japan and was also sexist. Sexism among Japanese politicians is not unfamiliar, but against this case there was an unprecedented opposition which came in the form of criticism by some members of the men's group in Tokyo. This paper clarifies this situation by analyzing some discourses on relevant texts, magazines and newspapers that reported the statement.First, I point out the spatial structure of sexuality through which Nishimura's statement is premised, in order to elucidate why the discriminatory aspects of the statement were put aside in public space. This is because, in public space, sexual matters are recognized as being a problem of dignity and are regarded as the domain of private space. Otherwise, in private space, sexual matters are thought of as being natural, so Mr. Nishimura and the affirmative people did not recognize the opposition of women and claim that their opinions are sympathetic towards them. Namely, it is made clear that the statement assumes that public space is non-sexual and private space is natural. However, the spatial structure of sexuality has relevance to the one that suppresses both women and homosexual men.Secondly, it is made clear how the spatial structure of sexuality is constructed. First, I indicate the place occupied by the 'weekly Playboy' magazine. The magazine has contents oriented towards both private space and the public space of discourse. Secondly, sexual content has a function in public space. The reason that we overlook sexual discourse in public space is that sexual discourses are regarded as natural. So it is thought that private space within which sexual matters are contained was constructed before the construction of public space. However, in actuality, such a private space is a fiction whose logic is hidden. Thirdly, it comes to light how male heterosexuality works in public space. Women tend to be judged by their attributes, while men tend to be judged by their actions. So male heterosexuality is not regarded as a form of action but as an attribute. So long as male heterosexuality is recognized as an attribute, it is not problematized and reproduced in public space.Thirdly, I explain the meanings of space for heterosexual men on the basis of discourses by heterosexual men who have an objective view towards Nishimura's statement. For example, members of the men's movement in Tokyo collected signatures against Nishimura's statement in a petition that was limited only to men. The reason behind it was not necessarily meant to exclude women, but was rather to stress the viewpoint of (heterosexual) men. They found that male members of the Diet did not accept their argument against Nishimura's statement. Though they recognized the sexual contents of the statement as a problem of public space, their argument was not recognized as a problem of public space. This case demonstrates that heterosexual men can also put into question the spatial structure of sexuality as their exclusive problem.