Intolerance of ambiguity, gender stereotypes, and attitudes to sexuality

The premise of this thesis is that Western thought is characterised by the need to enforce binary classification in order to structure the world. Classifications of sexuality and gender both embody this tendency, which has been largely influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, it is argued that attitudes to sexuality, particularly homosexuality are, in part, a function of the way in which we seek to impose structure on the world. From this view, it is (partly) the ambiguity, inherent in gender and sexual variation, which evokes negative responses. The thesis presents a series of inter-linked studies examining attitudes to various aspects of human sexuality, including the human body, non-procreative sex acts (anal an oral sex) and patterns of sexuality that depart from the hetero-homo dichotomy. The findings support the view that attitudes to sexuality are significantly informed by gender-role stereotypes, with negative attitudes linked to intolerance of ambiguity. Male participants show large differences in their evaluations of male and female bodies, and of male and female sexual actors, than do female participants. Male participants also show a greater negativity to gay male sexual activity than do female participants, but males perceive lesbian sexuality similarly to heterosexuality. Male bodies are rated as being less 'permeable' than female bodies and male actors are more frequently identified as being the instigators of sexual acts. Crucial to the concept of heterosexism is the assumption that 'femininity' is considered inherently inferior to 'masculinity'. Hence, the findings provide an empirical basis for making connections between heterosexism and sexism, and therefore between the psychology of women, and gay and lesbian psychology.

Engaging autobiography:mobility trauma and international relations

This article outlines the possibilities of autobiographical stories to criticize status quo iterations of International Relations (IR). The article draws on the personal experiences of the author’s deportation order issued by the United Kingdom’s Home Office and its associated Border Agency (UKBA) to challenge the accepted assumptions of a cosmopolitan worldview as it relates to orderly international institutional design. It highlights the possibilities of trauma when border management and personal mobility collide. It suggests that mobility trauma ensues when the expectations of human mobility, outlined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, infringe the state’s role as security provider. It begins in part one with a challenge to the traditional role and understanding of international borders that sustain order within the international. It examines the unacknowledged role that human vulnerability plays within IR and institutional design while frankly engaging with human vulnerability and trauma in the second section. This section details the experiences of the author when her mobility rights were curtailed and the ensuing identity crisis prompted by such events. The final section investigates the ideas of critical cosmopolitan scholarship demanding that such discourses acknowledge and work through the possibility of failed agency when the demands of state security supersede individual mobility rights. It turns to the possibility of traumatic iterations of IR in order to probe such possibilities. The article suggests, in its conclusion, the possibility of storytelling and psychoanalysis to endorse unorthodox agency, and the possibility of a dynamic international institutional design, that challenges the status quo iterations of IR.