The Evolution and Marginalization of Sexuality in Sociological History

Common Misconceptions of Disciplinary History: There is a widely held belief within sociology that the field largely ignored the study of sexuality throughout most of its history. This traditional narrative suggests that a specific "sociology of sexuality" only emerged in the post-war period, specifically from the 1960s onward.
The Repression Argument: The common explanation for this historical gap is that sexual repression discouraged or even prevented sociologists from investigating human sexuality. It is often claimed that sexuality was a taboo topic, and strong social sanctions reduced the opportunities for scholarly inquiry.
The 1960s Liberation Theory: In this view, the eventual development of the subfield in the 1960s is credited to a less repressive society. Factors cited include the loosening of sexual mores in the 1950s and the sexual rebellion of the 1960s, which supposedly sparked interest and made research easier.
The Reality of Historical Inclusion: Contrary to the repression narrative, sexuality has been a central topic of Western thought and sociological debate since the 18th century. Sociological precursors and early figures addressed sexual nature well before the supposed liberation of the mid-20th century.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Marx addressed sexuality within the context of economic and social structures. He wrote specifically about the "alienated sexuality of bourgeois marriage." He described sex as a "natural species power" that had the potential to become humanized and socialized through social change.
Auguste Comte: Comte viewed marriage as a vital institution for moral education. He argued that the primary goal of marriage was to educate individuals toward "universal love" and served as the designated space to discipline and satisfy the "sexual instinct."
Herbert Spencer: Writing in the mid-19th century, Spencer sought to analyze the "irresistible power" of what he termed "the passion which unites the sexes."

The Institutionalization Period: Sociology became institutionalized within European and US universities primarily between 1880 and 1910. This coincided with a period of massive European and US imperial expansion.
Raewyn Connell’s Argument: Connell argues that the context of imperialism profoundly influenced sociology's theoretical frameworks, methods, and data. Imperialism provided sociologists with access to information regarding colonies, leading them to compare and contrast different societies and cultures.
The Concept of Evolution: Between the 1860s and the 1920s, "evolution" was the dominant theoretical framework. Sociologists used this to explain the differences between "civilized" societies and "primitive" societies, debating whether social evolution was physical, mental, or institutional.
Centrality of Sexuality, Race, and Gender: During this evolutionary phase (1880–1920), race, gender, and sexuality were not marginalized; they were central concerns under the broader umbrella of evolutionary theory.

The Decline of Evolution: The brutality of the First World War undermined the belief in constant progress and rational civilization, which in turn weakened the concept of evolution in sociology.
The Rise of Social Problems and Quantitative Methods: By the 1920s, US sociology moved away from cross-societal comparisons and toward studying internal social problems through quantitative methods, supported by government and corporate funding.
Specific Sexual Problems Studied: When sexuality was studied in this era, it focused on "solving problems," such as:
- Increasing premarital sexual activity among young people.
- Sexual adjustment issues for couples within marriage.
The Chicago School Contributions:
- W. I. Thomas: In his work The Unadjusted Girl, he analyzed the phenomenon of female prostitution.
- Graham Taylor: He focused on how a lack of sex education left young people vulnerable to the "temptations of illicit sexuality."

Disciplinary Weakness: In the 1930s, US sociology was criticized for being "atheoretical." This period saw research funding cuts and internal conflict within the American Sociological Association.
The Solution—The Canon: To stabilize the discipline, it was reconstructed around a "canon" or a set of privileged "classical sociology" texts. The interpretation of these texts defined what was considered legitimate sociology.
Post-WWII Spread: The mass higher education system in the US after World War II helped spread this classical canon. However, the interpretation of these core theorists was done in a specific way that excluded or constrained the analysis of sexuality.

Traditional Social Survey: This tradition focused on technical data regarding sexual behavior—who, when, where, and how. Key examples include the reports on US sexual behavior by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues in 1948 and 1953.
Functionalism: This tradition often utilized psychoanalytic theory to examine sexuality within the nuclear family. It emphasized:
- The function of sex for society (e.g., reproduction).
- The social control of sexuality to prevent disorder resulting from unregulated competition for "sexual favors."
Rise of Social Constructionism: By the early 1970s, criticisms of functionalism led to its replacement by "social constructionism," which remains a major theoretical perspective in the sociology of sexuality.

1. Deletion of Imperialism: As the discourse of imperialism was removed from sociological history, the issues of gender, race, and sexuality—which were central to evolutionary sociology—were also deleted. Texts by early writers that discussed these topics were the least likely to be canonized or used in teaching.
2. Redefinition of the Discipline: The rise of the canon led to a narrower definition of sociology. Significant works previously considered sociology, such as those by W. I. Thomas, Edward Westermarck, and William Graham Sumner, were retroactively redefined as anthropology or psychology, making the history of sexuality in sociology appear more meagre than it was.
3. Perceived Lack of Importance: Because topics like gender, race, and sexuality were missing from the privileged canonical texts, sociologists came to believe these topics were not worthy of study. By the 1960s, this hegemony meant very few sociologists in Britain or the US researched sexuality.
Persistence of This Exclusion: As late as 1994, The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, which claimed to state what the discipline was, did not even contain a major entry for "sex" or "sexuality."