Minority stress is first theorized by Meyer in 1995, in which Meyer describes it as psychosocial stress derived from minority status (Meyer, 1995). There are two hypotheses associated with Minority Stress Theory; one is Social Selection Hypothesis, and the other is Social Causation Hypothesis. Social Selection
Hypothesis holds that there is something inherent to being in a minority group (e.g..
genetics) that makes individuals susceptible to health problems. However, it is clear that genetic and dispositional factors do not fully explain the health disparities observed in minority groups. Social Causation Hypothesis suggests that minority group members face difficult social situations that lead to poor health (Dohrenwend, 1966). Minority Stress Theory extends the social causation hypothesis, which suggests that such difficult social experiences explain health differences between minority and majority individuals. According to Social Stress Theory, social situations do not lead directly to health for minority individuals, but that difficult social situations cause stress for minority individuals, which accrues over time, resulting in long-term health deficits (Meyer, 2003). Meyer also indicates that minority stress describes chronically high levels of stress faced by members of stigmatized minority groups. It may be caused by several factors, including poor social support and low socioeconomic status, but the most well understood causes of minority stress are interpersonal prejudice and discrimination. When the individual is a minority person in a stigmatizing and discriminating society, the conflict between him or her and the dominant culture can be onerous (Meyer, 1995). Thus, the concept is based on the premise that gay people, like members of other minority groups, are subjected to chronic stress related to their stigmatization. Such stress will, therefore, lead to adverse health outcomes.
‧
Minority stress distinguishes between distal and proximal processes. Distal stress processes are external to the minority individual, including experiences with rejection, prejudice and discrimination. Proximal stress processes are internal, which are presumed to occur following exposure to distal stressors; they include
concealment of one’s minority identity, vigilance and anxiety about prejudice, and negative feelings about one’s own minority group. Together, both stressors
accumulate over time, leading to chronically high extents of stress that give rise to poor health.
Proximal stressors are internal processes, examples of which include fear of rejection, rumination on previous experiences with prejudice, and distaste for one’s own minority group following a prejudice event (Meyer, 2003, 2007). An expanding body of research points out that exposure to distal stressors leads to proximal stressors in LGB populations. For example, LGB youth and adults who have experienced prejudice about their sexual orientation sometimes choose to conceal their sexual identity from others (Hamer, 2003; James M, 1996; McKee, 2000). Concealing such personal information result in significant psychological distress, including intrusive thoughts about the secret, shame and guilt, anxiety and isolation from other members of the minority group (Cole, 2006; Oswald, 2007; Pachankis, 2007).
In addition to anxiety of others’ awareness of their sexual identity, internalized homophobia is another proximal stressor prevalent among LGB individuals, which refers to the internalization of negative social views about homosexuality, leading to self-hatred and poor self-regard (Meyer, 1995, 2003; Sanchez, Westefeld, Liu, &
Vilain, 2010). Internalized homophobia refers to the direction of societal negative attitudes toward the self (Meyer, 1995). Long before gay individuals begin to realize their own sexuality, they are raised and cultivated with anti-homosexual attitudes.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
When they are aware that they are attracted to the same sex, they start to question their acquired heterosexuality and apply not only the label “homosexual” or “gay” but also negative attitudes to themselves. Thoits (1985) explains that “role-taking abilities enable individuals to view themselves from the imagined perspective of others”. It is unlikely that internalized homophobia completely abates even when the person
accepts his or her homosexuality (Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982; Eliason, 1996; Troiden, 1988). Professional psychologists who work with gay men have noted that traditional masculine ideals play a prominent role in the gay community whereby some endorse these traditional ideals and stigmatize effeminate behavior by other gay men, giving rise to negative feeling about being gay and high extents of body dissatisfaction. To combat those stereotypical effeminate, less masculine images, gay individuals commence to force themselves to work out in the gym, and some of them even take more drastic approach, that is to control their diets or even take steroid to curve out their muscular body physique (Boroughs & Thompson, 2002; Duggan & McCreary, 2005; Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004; Siconolfi, Halkitis, Allomong,
& Burton, 2009).
To sum up, gay individuals as a minority group experience discrimination, perceived stigma against them, anti-homosexual attitudes, which lead to internalize homophobia. This fear of unraveling their real selves to others is deeply internalized so that internalized homophobia will linger even though they come to accept their sexual orientation. They want to defeat the discrimination-related attitudes in this heterosexual-dominated society.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 3
Research Design and Method 3.1 Research Structure
This research is evolved from context, which concerns why gay men attend specific gyms and build muscles and why general public associate bodybuilding with gay men.
Through primary research, Bourdieu’s concepts of “habitus’ can be related to this context. Habitus here indicates a lifestyle and tastes. Once gay men cultivate this habitus, they live up to practice bodybuilding, the results of which cause enhancing their self-esteem.
Habitus is derived from the theory of practice. Gay men build muscles to gain popularity and accumulate capital. We can draw an analogy between gay community and capitalism. In capitalism, people gain respect if they acquire plentiful capital, and so do gay men. Gay men gain popularity through body capital, which can be
cumulated through practice of bodybuilding in the gym.
When gay men become muscular, they gain self-confidence and their gay identity is enhanced. Reflexive embodiment explains not only why gay men want to be muscular because they want to accomplish the self in others’ eyes but why general public relate bodybuilding to gay men. Minority stress can expound on gay men’s motivation to take up workout since gay men grow up in a straight-dominant society.
They were muscular to conceal their gay identity and fought against these patriarchal norms, and this muscular image is evolved into the mainstream aesthetic standard.
The concepts of this present research is presented as the figure 4.1 below:
‧
Figure 3.1 Research structure
3.2 Rationale
Ethnography field research engages in a particular community’s social organization and culture with an aim towards understanding their “daily lives” (Emerson, Fretz, &
Shaw, 1995). Since the present research aims to discover the meaning of workout for gay men and how bodybuilding influences their self-acceptance of gay identity, reaching and comprehending muscular gay community’s life pattern is indispensable.
Given this, ethnography is chosen as rationale to conduct my research.
To conduct ethnography fieldwork involves two distinct activities (Emerson et al., 1995). First, the ethnographer enters into a social setting and gets acquainted with people involved in it. The ethnographer participates in the daily routines of this setting, develops ongoing relationships with the people in it, and observes what is