Dear LGBTQ Allies and Activists:

Beware of “Homonationalism”

文：Ethan

The concept of heteronormativity as an explanation for the historical and continued discrimination towards the LGBTQ community has been popularized in queer and feminist discourse to describe the way in which heterosexuality manifests itself in society as a hegemonic “common sense”. The term “heteronormativity” was popularized by Michael Warner in his book “Fear of A Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory” to describe the ways in which heterosexuality is deemed as the “normal” mode of sexual orientation. In recent years, the “homonormativity” has emerged as a framework and method to combat the pervasiveness of heteronormativity in discourse and the broader society. Then, the emergence of “homonormativity” as a concept in the social sciences has primarily taken place in western, capitalist countries in North America and Western Europe, which can be attributed to more progressive attitudes on LGBTQ issues in these countries. However, this association between LGBTQ acceptance and western capitalist nations has given rise to an ideology coined by Jasbir K. Puar as “Homonationalism”.

In her 2007 book, “Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times”, Jasbir K. Puar introduced the term “Homonationalism” to describe the tendency in which “convivial relations” between homonormativity, and LGTBQ acceptance broadly in western, capitalist societies and militarized nationalism characterized by aggression towards middle eastern and Muslim nations and migrants. Puar gives a couple of examples.

Puar argues that certain LGBTQ movements in the United States have been weaponized as justification for fervent nationalism, islamophobia and US involvement in the War on Terror. Puar points out in Terrorist Assemblages that US leaders often lobby against equal rights for same sex couples, and actively fight against legislation that outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation whilst simultaneously pushing for US imperialism in the middle east by invoking an ethos of American exceptionalism through the ideals of US progressivism and freedom. This discrepancy in ideology has often been noted by leftist commentators in response to centrist and liberal politicians. For example, mainstream politicians in the Democratic Party campaign on a platform pushing for socially liberal policies like the Equality Act, which would amend the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and sexual preferences. Simultaneously, these mainstream politicians are the same people voting for tax breaks and subsidies for military contractors, and the same people that are greenlighting US military action in the middle east. 

Similarly, multibillion dollar, multinational corporations that adorn their websites with rainbow flags during Pride month and tout their “inclusive” company culture in employee emails are the same corporations that contribute hefty amounts of political donations to right-wing, anti-regulation Republicans who are the same people that lobby tirelessly against protections for LGBTQ individuals and hawkish foreign policy. In real life, Homonationalism is best seen at pride events throughout the US - where American flags and other emblems of nationalistic pride are commonly displayed to convey a sense of superiority over developing countries. 

This analysis is not limited to an American-centric discussion - Puar also notes that far-right parties in Western and Northern Europe are increasingly adopting positions advocating for LGTBQ rights, using this model of European “progressivism” to pursue intolerant social policies rooted in islamophobia and xenophobia. 

For example, Populist Radical Right (PRP) parties in the Netherlands have campaigned on an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee platform to defend sexual equality against Islam. Many PRP parties across Europe pride themselves on their tolerant stance towards LGBTQ issues to further anti-Islam and xenophobic politics. The convergence of a socially liberal stance towards LGBTQ rights and a xenophobic platform on immigration stems from the utilization of age old, racist and Islamophobic tropes that describe middle eastern and Muslim countries being “backwards” and “uncivilized”. This is the same Eurocentric, orientalist ideology that historically, has been used by western nations to justify the colonization and continued imperial aggression and “state building” against African, Middle East and Asian nations. In fact, this same exact logic can be seen in western media as justification for western military presence in Afghanistan. Liberal pundits and commentators use the Taliban’s track record of oppressing women and sexual minorities as reasons for continued US and NATO-allied military presence in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Taliban ruled Afghanistan would result in materially worse, and even life-threatening conditions for Afghan women and sexual minorities, but fighting an already impossible war is certainly not the solution and will only make the situation on the ground worse. Homonationalism, in this context, can be seen as a ruse for imperialistic and militaristic aggression and foreign policy.

In the article “Rethinking Homonationalism”, Puar mentions Israel’s “Pinkwashing” as a method of furthering settler colonialism and human rights abuses against Palestinians. Puar explains that Israel’s promotion as a leader in LGBTQ rights in the Middle East and Asia serves to “reframe the occupation of Palestine in terms of civilizational narratives measured by modernity”. Israeli politicians and leaders often point to the persecution of LGBTQ individuals under Sharia law and Muslim-majority countries, touting Israel’s “supposedly” LGBTQ friendly policies. Benjamin Netanyahu, former far-right prime minister of Israel, has long been a supporter of LGBTQ rights and promoter of Israel’s LGBTQ friendly image. Despite this, he continues to court racist, homophobic, and ethnonationalist supporters and politicians within his right-wing Likud party. This is notwithstanding the fact that in reality, Israeli policies towards LGBTQ rights and same sex marriage is far from ideal. Even today, same sex marriage cannot legally be performed in Israel, and same sex couples still face numerous barriers and restrictions to adoption. Pinkwashing in Israel can then be said to tap into tropes of a western, liberal democratic crusade against the exaggerated threats of the emergence of “radical Islam” and sharia law” by contrasting the progressive, liberal democratic west and the backwards, homophobic middle east. 

By essentializing complex cultures and people, Homonationalism’s binary and dualistic thinking is in fact, unhelpful in the struggle for racial justice and queer liberation worldwide. In Puar’s words herself:

Instead of thinking of Homonationalism as an accusation, an identity, a bad politics, I have been thinking about it as an analytic to apprehend state formation and a structure of modernity: as an assemblage of geopolitical and historical forces, neoliberal interests in capitalist accumulation both cultural and material, biopolitical state practices of population control, and affective investments in discourses of freedom, liberation, and rights. Homonationalism, thus, is not simply a synonym for gay racism, or another way to mark how gay and lesbian identities became available to conservative political imaginaries; it is not another identity politics, not another way of distinguishing good queers from bad queers, not an accusation, and not a position. It is rather a facet of modernity and a historical shift marked by the entrance of (some) homosexual bodies as worthy of protection by nation-states, a constitutive and fundamental reorientation of the relationship between the state, capitalism, and sexuality. 

That being said, Homonationalism can be understood as nothing more but a justification for imperial, racial, and nationalistic violence. It has long assumed by the public, academia, and political commentators that support for LGBTQ rights is part and parcel of a “liberal” or left-leaning ideology. This is no longer the case, as right-wing leaders in western nations are starting to ramp up support for the LGBTQ inclusive policies in order to advance Homonationalist policies and rhetoric. 

Homonormativity as a framework and tactic to counter deeply entrenched heteronormativity can be, in a vacuum, productive and effective at pushing for more inclusive portrayals of the LGBTQ community broadly. But while carrying out the struggle for true equality for LGBTQ folks, academics and activists must be careful to not tread into xenophobic and nationalist talking points, as true social justice requires the empowerment of all the oppressed - queer, immigrant, and colonized people.

-

中文大意（非逐字翻譯）：

親愛的致力於LGBTQ平權議題的夥伴們：當心「同性戀國家主義」

LGBTQ平權運動長期致力於對抗「異性戀本位主義」，亦即社會將異性戀作為一個常態樣貌，而忽視其他性傾向的情況。到了近代，同性戀挑戰了以異性戀作為主流論述的現狀，在如歐美等資本主義國家的許多場域中逐漸被看見，與其相關的議題成為社會討論的中心。然而在這樣樂觀的氛圍下，另一個問題卻悄然而生：Jasbir K. Puar教授在其2007年的著作“Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times”指出，在西方社會中，LGBTQ平權議題、資本主義與國族主義結合後產生了一種新的意識形態：Homonationalism（同性戀國家主義），這是一個特別值得性別議題倡議者注意的現象。

Homonationalism是指西方國家藉由支持多元性別議題、宣稱自己社會開明寬容（儘管許多西方領袖實質上反對多元性別相關的平權法案），優於迫害多元性別的落後地區如中東、亞非等國家，這種進步/落後的二元觀點讓西方國家反伊斯蘭、反移民以及在中東地區的軍事行動得到合理的解釋，性別議題被用來為國家暴力與帝國主義背書。

在美國，Homonationalism讓總統可以合理化對中東發動的反恐戰爭，擴大自己在中東的影響力；在歐洲，右翼民粹主義（如荷蘭的Populist Radical Right）利用保護多元性別為由，反對伊斯蘭移民、難民進入歐洲社會，同時也藉此合理化在中東的軍事行動，例如在阿富汗戰爭中，宣傳塔利班政權對女性及性多樣社群的迫害；在以色列，僅管該國並未承認本地的同性婚姻（僅承認在國外完成登記的同性婚姻關係），同志伴侶收養小孩仍重重困難，以色列當局——極右派利庫德集團的總理納坦雅胡，還是會以支持多元性別議題、防備伊斯蘭極端主義為由加強控制以色列在巴勒斯坦的墾殖地，「教化」當地的穆斯林群眾。

我們可以看出，普遍被認為是「左翼」的多元性別議題，在當代社會中與不同光譜的議題交織成更為複雜的脈絡。通過平權法案消除性別歧視的美國政治人物，可能同樣也是大力支持美國在中東軍事行動的決策人物；在驕傲月掛上彩虹旗、宣揚自己包容文化的美國大企業，同樣也會贊助反同但主張放鬆對企業控管措施的共和黨。當性別議題面對國際政治與資本主義，右翼政治人物開始宣稱自己支持同志權益時，背後的權力關係是值得我們好好思考的。

最後，Jasbir K. Puar還是指出，他提出這個概念並非要探討身分政治或區分好/壞的酷兒論述。他認為Homonationalism讓我們得以觀察在新自由主義下，現代化國家如何控制對身體與文化的論述——藉由將同性戀形塑為一個有價值且需要保護的對象，西方國家建構並掌控一套對於自由人權定義——這樣的論述讓國家、性與資本主義之間的關係定位得以重新調整。文末，作者也提醒學術界及性別運動倡議者：Homonationalism過度強調進步/落後的二元觀點無助於喚起世界上不同國家對於性別議題的關心，無論是發動戰爭或迫害移民的政策，不但無法對性多樣社群產生任何幫助，甚至會使這些國家中的弱勢性別族群處境更糟。何況，所謂的社會正義應該是要保障所有弱勢族群，包含酷兒、移民、難民與被殖民者等，這點不論是在追求性別平權或LGBTQ平權時應該謹記在心。