Recently, scholars have used a Bourdieusian theory of practice to analyze systems of sexual stratification, including an examination of sexual fields and sexual (or erotic) capital. While the broad structural features of the sexual field have been a point of focus in this latter research, a systematic analysis of the interactional processes that operate within the sexual status order has not been performed. In this paper, drawing on original data from an urban gay enclave, I identify six key interactional processes that occur within sexual fields, including: 1) actors’ recognition that the sexual field is constituted by a set of relations anchored to competition and sexual selection; 2) the perception of a generalized other (Mead 1934) within the field, including knowledge concerning a given field’s collective valuations of sexual attractiveness; 3) a formulation of one’s own position within the sexual status order vis-à-vis intersubjective feedback and the development of a looking-glass self (Cooley 1902); 4) an assessment of others’ positions within the sexual status order; 5) knowledge of “the game” (Goffman 1959)—including how to conduct a successful self-performance (ibid.), the construction of an optimizing front (ibid.) and proper field-specific demeanor (Goffman 1967); and finally, ideally, 6) the ability to “save face.” In total, these interactional processes draw from and reproduce systems of sexual stratification, and are likely to generalize across sexual fields.
AlmaguerThomas. 1993. Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior. New York: Routledge.
2.
ArmstrongElizabethHamiltonLauraSweeneyBrian. 2006. “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multi-Level, Integrative Approach to Party Rape.” Social Problems53(4):483–99.
3.
BechHenning. 1997. When Men Meet: Homosexuality and Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BereketTarikAdamBarry. 2006. “The Emergence of Gay Identities in Contemporary Turkey.” Sexualities9:131–51.
5.
BersaniLeo. 1987. “Is the Rectum a Grave?” Pp. 197–222 in AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, edited by CrimpD.Boston: MIT Press.
6.
BlumsteinPhillipSchwartzPepper. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William, Morrow & Co.
7.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BourdieuPierre. 1980. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: University of Stanford Press.
9.
BrekhusWayne. 2003. Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs: Gay Suburbia and the Grammar of Social Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CarrilloHector. 2002. The Night Is Young: Sexuality in Mexico in the Time of AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
ChaunceyGeorge. 1994. Gay New York. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
CooleyCharles H.1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.
13.
CorbinJulietStraussAnselm. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
FarrerJames. 2010. “A Foreign Adventurer’s Paradise? Interracial Sexuality and Alien Sexual Capital in Reform Era Shanghai.” Sexualities13(1):69–95.
15.
FitzgeraldFrances. 1987. Cities on a Hill: A Journey through Contemporary American Cultures. New York: Simon & Schuster.
16.
GoffmanErving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
17.
GoffmanErving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
18.
GoffmanErving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. Chicago: Aldine and Doubleday.
19.
Gonzalez-LopezGloria. 2005. Erotic Journeys: Mexican Immigrants and Their Sex Lives. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
20.
GreenAdam Isaiah. 2006. “‘Until Death Do Us Part?’ The Impact of Differential Access to Marriage on a Sample of Urban Men.” Sociological Perspectives49(2):163–89.
21.
GreenAdam Isaiah. 2008a. “Erotic Habitus: Toward a Sociology of Desire.” Theory & Society37:597–626.
22.
GreenAdam Isaiah. 2008b. “Health and Sexual Status in an Urban Gay Enclave: An Application of the Stress Process Model.” Journal of Health & Social Behavior49:436–51.
23.
GreenAdam Isaiah. 2008c. “The Social Organization of Desire: The Sexual Fields Approach.” Sociological Theory26(1):25–50.
24.
HakimCatherine. 2010. “Erotic Capital.” European Sociological Review26:499–518.
25.
HanChong-suk. 2008. “A Qualitative Exploration of the Relationship between Racism and Unsafe Sex among Asian Pacific Islander Gay Men.” Archives of Sexual Behavior37:827–37.
26.
HennenPeter. 2008. Faeries, Bears, and Leathermen: Men in Community Queering the Masculine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
HerdtG.1992. “Coming Out as a Rite of Passage: A Chicago Study.” Pp. 29–67 in Gay Culture in America: Essays from the Field, edited by HerdtG.Boston: Beacon Press.
28.
KennedyElizabeth Lapovsky. 1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community. New York: Penguin.
29.
LaumannE. O.EllingsonS.MahayJ.PaikA.YoumY.2004. The Sexual Organization of the City. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30.
LaumannE. O.GagnonJ. H.MichaelR. T.MichaelsS.1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LevineMartin. 1998. Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone. New York: New York University Press.
32.
MartinJohn Levi. 2005. “Is Power Sexy?” American Journal of Sociology111:408–46.
33.
MartinJohn LeviGeorgeM.2006. “Theories of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital.” Sociological Theory24:107–32.
34.
MeadGeorge Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, edited by MorrisC. W.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
MurrayJamesAdamBarry. 2001. “Aging, Sexuality and HIV Issues among Older Gay Men.” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality10(3/4):75–90.
36.
MurrayStephen. 1992. “Components of Gay Community in San Francisco.” Pp. 107–46 in Gay Culture in America: Essays from the Field, edited by HerdtG.Boston: Beacon Press.
37.
PrieurA.1998. Mema’s House, Mexico City: On Transvestites, Queens, and Machos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
ReedIsaac. 2008. “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory26:101–28.
39.
TewksburyR.2002. “Bathhouse Intercourse: Structural and Behavioral Aspects of an Erotic Oasis.” Deviant Behavior23:75–112.
40.
ThoitsPeggy A.1999. “Self, Identity, Stress, and Mental Health.” Pp. 345–68 in Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, edited by AneshenselC. S.PhelanJ. C.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
41.
ThomasWilliam, I.2002. “The Definition of the Situation.” Pp. 103–15 in Self, Symbols, and Society: Classic Readings in Social Psychology, edited by RousseauN.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
42.
WattersJohn K.BiernackiPeter. 1989. “Targeted Sampling: Options and Considerations for the Study of Hidden Populations.” Social Problems36:416–30.
43.
WeberMax. 1949. “The Erotic Sphere.” Pp. 343–50 in Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by GerthH. H.MillsC. Wright. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
WeinbergM.WilliamsC.1975a. “Gay Baths and the Social Organization of Impersonal Sex.” Social Forces23:124–36.
45.
WeinbergM.WilliamsC.1975b. Male Homosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
WeinbergM.WilliamsC.2009. “Men Sexually Interested in Transwomen (MSTW): Gendered Embodiment and the Construction of Sexual Desire.” Journal of Sex Research19:1–10.
47.
WhittierD. K.SimonW.2001. “The Fuzzy Matrix of ‘My Type’ in Intrapsychic Sexual Scripting.” Sexualities4(2):139–64.
48.
WrightLes. 1997. The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture. New York: Haworth Press.
