LGBTQ politics and International.pdf

REVIEW ARTICLE LGBTQ politics and International Relations: Here? Queer? Used to it? ______________________________________________________________________________________________...

REVIEW ARTICLE LGBTQ politics and International Relations: Here? Queer? Used to it? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Markus Thiel Department of Politics & International Relations, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. E-mail: thielm@fiu.edu Kollman, K. & Waites, M. (2009) The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: An introduction. Contemporary Politics, Special Issues, 15(1). Kulpa, R. & Joanna, M. Decentering Western Sexualities: Central and Eastern European Perspectives. Ashgate: New York, 2011, 232 pp., £58.50/$108, ISBN: 978-1409402428 Lind, A. Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance. Routledge: New York, 2010, 211 pp., £ /$52, ISBN: 978-0415592628 Tremblay, M., Paternotte, D. and Johnson, C. The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State. Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship. Ashgate: New York, 2011, 234 pp., £ 58.50/$ 108, ISBN: 978-1409410669 Weiss, M. and Bosia, M. (eds.) Global Homophobia. Illinois University Press: Chicago, 2013, 268 pp., $25. ISBN: 978-0252079337 Abstract | The politics surrounding Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) claims have received increasing attention in the past few years. LGBTQ advocates pursue their diverse interests at the local, national, regional and global levels, in the course stimulating an interesting discussion about sexual rights in International Relations. The books that have emerged on this topic in the recent past show the promise of a nuanced and lively debate on this topic for years to come. International Politics Reviews (2014) 2, 51–60. doi:10.1057/ipr.2014.17 Keywords: sexual rights; LGBT; human rights; homophobia; advocacy Introduction 2015), I was astonished to notice not only the immense As the co-editor of a forthcoming volume on Sexual/ academic interest, but also the lack of literature on sexual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) rights and LGBTQ politics in IR.1 As Kollmann (2010) Politics in International Relations (IR) (Picq and Thiel, shows, a successive expansion of publications over the past INTERNATIONAL POLITICS REVIEWS IPR | VOLUME 2 OCTOBER 2014 51 | | © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  Thiel two decades dealing with LGBTQ politics in the domestic Ghoshal, a senior researcher in the LGBT rights program at spheres or on a theoretical level occurred, though much of Human Rights Watch in Nairobi cautioned in this regard: it in sociology and law.2 The general dearth can mainly be ‘As the US- and Europe-based LGBT movements accom- attributed to the fact that sexuality was once considered a plish a lot of what they’ve been working for at home, private affair, relegating it outside of the public remit of they’re discovering the rest of the world and trying to help politics. The first attempt to place sexuality firmly in the – and that kind of commitment doesn’t necessarily mean public sphere, and to encourage research on its diverse they’re developing their engagements in the most con- expressions, came from Magnus Hirschfeld, who founded structive way.’ (IRIN, 2014). The following works all the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in Germany in explore how LGBTQ claims have moved to the forefront of 1897, which of course came to an end with the rise of fas- (inter)national politics, and investigate the repercussions of cism (Kollmann and Waites, 2009). Kinsey in the 1950s, those hotly contested rights for LGBTQ individuals, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the gay liberation societies, states and the international community. movements of the 1970s with the founding of the Interna- A terminological clarification is in order: all of the tional Gay and Lesbian Association (ILGA), and HIV/Aids works recognize the centrality of the LGBTQ movements in the 1980s all left indelible marks on the historiography in the struggle for equality rights, but the field lacks a uni- of sexual rights. form application of what is sometimes colloquially termed Following the blazing trail of gender equality claims ‘the alphabet soup’.3 Some authors prefer to use an exten- and policies, the politics surrounding sexuality have ded version including intersex and/or allies that results in received an astonishing degree of public and international LGBTQIA, whereas others limit themselves to gays and attention in recent years. No matter if related to health lesbians – arguably the most dominant forces in the strug- policies, family support, labor structures or neoliberal con- gle for sexual rights. This open and ongoing debate in the sumption patterns, non-traditional sexualities and gender field reflects not only an implicit yet contested hierarchy in expressions are connected to every public policy imagin- which bisexual and transgender individuals are often ren- able. Many governments now try to provide non-dis- dered invisible, but is also the result of a deeper epistemo- crimination policies and equality rights domestically while logical discussion about the value of assigning fixed labels simultaneously attempting to preserve their electoral sup- (such as gender or sexuality), as opposed to living with the port. Gender provisions and sexual rights – in particular for tensions of a fluid personalistic expression of sexual- and LGBTQ individuals – have become points of contention, gender-identity. It also points to the generally accepted eliciting domestic culture wars and international diplomatic statement that sex and gender are socially constructed, rather rows. As a thoroughly competitive battleground of ideas than primarily biologically determined (Parker et al, 2014). about sexuality and gender expressions, LGBTQ rights are Moreover, LGBT categories are neither universally recog- inherently political. In some ways, however, the subject at nized as many cultures do not subscribe to these Western hand is less about globalized sexual politics per se than identitarian concepts, nor do they capture the full range of about transnational advocacy politics, particularly when sexual diversity – ‘sexual orientation’, for instance, neglects LGBT movements or civil society groups are involved. bisexual oscillation in its binary outlook on sexual attraction. Seventeen countries have legalized same-sex marriage, Important for politics is that the alphabet soup forces people many more recognize some form of same-sex relation- with different aims into one broad group – think of sexual ships, and Nepal, Pakistan and India officially acknowl- rights claims of gays and lesbians (for example, marriage edge third gender categories, despite a generally reticent equality) versus gender identity issues (health care, legal public opinion at home, and, in the Indian case, a recrimi- recognition) of transgender individuals. Thus ‘the relation- nalization of homosexuality in 2013. But 76 countries still ship between essentialist and/or fixed conceptions of sexual criminalize homosexuality (a few with the death penalty), and gender identity and the political discourses and strate- and international fora such as the United Nations (UN) and gies employed by LGBT movements in global human rights other regional or functional bodies – with the exception of struggles is therefore a vital topic of academic and political regional human rights courts – have been rather muted on debate’ (Waites, p. 142). the topic of sexual rights. That changed somewhat in 2008 Queer individuals, in contrast, subscribe to queer the- with the appointment of South African Navy Pillay as UN ory, which is a diverse body of literature and research High Commissioner for Human Rights, a vanguard in pro- opposing normative and binary notions of sexuality (het- viding legal-constitutional sexual rights. Yet in the inter- ero/homo), gender (male/female), class (rich/poor), race national community, there remains a disconnect not only (white/non-white) and so on. Queers opt for alternative between more progressive and more conservative as well views and practices that are critical of mainstream society, as religious countries, but also a similar division exists including but not limited to many socio-political institu- between advocates in these disparate settings over the best tions such as mainstream liberalism, neoliberal capitalism, strategy to promote LGBTQ rights (inter)nationally. Neela regulatory citizenship and so on. Queer movements are | | 52 OCTOBER 2014 VOLUME 2 www.palgrave-journals.com/ipr © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  LGBTQ politics and International Relations thus less apt to exploit political opportunity structures and, culturally conservative states in the UN and also led to fis- consequently, play a less prominent role in (inter)national sures among activists about the appropriate strategy to LGBT advocacy politics. Though they can be influential on advance ‘LGBTQ human rights’. While there is increasing the local level, some analysts have even attributed the suc- recognition at the UN institutional level, as well as among cess of LGBT politics to the ‘de-queering’ of homo- the Human Rights Council and working groups, that sexual sexuality for political purposes (Hekma and Duyvendak, orientation needs to be on a firmer footing in international in: Tremblay, Patternotte and Johnson, 2011, p. 103). ‘The human rights law, ‘unequivocal and broad support at the anti-assimilationist character of queer activism and its intergovernmental level is still far away’ (Swiebel, 2009, breaking down of pre-existing categories would present a p. 27). Differences in rights attainment in the various perhaps insurmountable challenge to human rights dis- international organizations is explained through variances course, which requires stable categories and, given oppo- in the capacity of mobilizing structures, issue framing and sition to anything perceived as a claim for “special rights”, in regards to the receptiveness of the political opportunity an emphasis on the similarities between people regardless structures (inter)nationally. of their sexuality and the “normality” of LGBT people’ With regards to the linkage of LGBTQ claims to human (Sheill, 2009, p. 56). This inherent tension is one that rights, the editors of this special journal issue posit that the makes for an interesting analytical comparison, particularly broad international consensus on the pursuit of such rights is when applied to IR and its theories (Picq and Thiel, 2015). stronger in countries that came out of authoritarianism In the following discussion, however, I avoid identitaerian (Spain, Argentina, South Africa are notable examples). Yet reasoning (refusing to cite the ever-present Foucault or such an association is also wound up with a lack of specifi- Butler) in this field and concentrate instead on what the city, a Eurocentric outlook on the universality of liberal– literature states about the linkage between politicized sex- democratic rights policies, and an increasing interventionism ualities and trans/international governance. in the name of LGBTQ human rights. Feminism, they make clear, initially raised most of these issues with regards to gendered power relations already. In an effort to further Theorizing LGBT Politics: How Non-Traditional theorize the emergence of LGBTQ politics in the interna- Sexuality and Gender Morphed into ‘Human Rights’ tional system, the editors note that the end of the Cold War Kollman & Waites’ edited special issue of Contemporary together with the rise of transnational activism led to the Politics in 2009 is a ‘must’ for the reader who wants to emergence of constructivist-inspired human rights research more closely examine the impact of LGBTQ Politics in IR. (such as the boomerang pattern or the norm cascade), which Not only because it was one of the first major research similarly applies to transnational LGBT advocacy politics. productions focusing on the international repercussions of Two of the articles in this issue explicitly apply queer sexual politics in an interdisciplinary manner, but also theory, but most contributors notably refrain from con- because of the comprehensive and balanced way in which sidering queer theory as a main lens of analysis. This is not this admittedly broad umbrella-topic is approached. They surprising given the rather narrow disciplinary and dis- also make clear that in the case of LGBT politics both, ciplining focus of political science outlets, and points to the political will and action in the shape of sexual equality laws fact that political science/IR discovered the relevance of and judgments, and activism from LGBTQ individuals and LGBTQ politics rather late, comparatively speaking. And groups is required. Without support from the state institu- there is even less of an understanding for queer interna- tions and international organizations, demands by activists tional theory in parochial mainstream IR (Weber, 2014). will not be heard or implemented, whereas without claim- While the contributors acknowledge the relevance of queer making by advocacy groups, political stakeholders do not approaches in deconstructing essentialist understandings of have the awareness or the pressure to rectify existing poli- gender and sexuality, they recognize that in practice ‘law, cies or create new equality statutes. Historically, Scandi- policy and states appear to need identifiable categories to navian countries have led in the creation of LGBTQ rights combat discrimination’ (p. 13) – a fundamental tension policies: ‘Without the pioneering legal developments of the between the theory and practice of LGBT advocacy. The Nordic and Benelux countries in Europe, for example, it article contributions run the gamut from policy-tracing probably would not have been possible for either the EU analysis of, for instance, the EU’s recognition of same-sex (European Union) or the ECtHR (European Court of unions (Kollmann), the establishment of the aspirational Human Rights, added) to incorporate sexual orientation ‘Montreal Declaration’ on LGBT Human Rights or the protections into their treaties and/or decisions. These deci- adoption of the largely normative ‘Yogyakarta Principles sions have in turn helped shape the human rights practices on the Application of International Human Rights Law in of the rest of continental Europe’ (p. 6). The Scandinavian Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ to countries remain the frontrunners in international LGBT more critical examinations of the impact of politicization advocacy, to an extent that more recently has unnerved and regulation of sexual rights as an international human INTERNATIONAL POLITICS REVIEWS IPR | VOLUME 2 OCTOBER 2014 53 | | © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  Thiel rights. These critical approaches are nicely concretized in, way in which LGBT groups relate to the state, as the for example, the problematization of intersectional (that is, post-authoritarian (Poland, Argentina) or developmental cross-cutting) international lesbian rights, transgender (Brazil, India) state examples show. Some interesting issues and the forcing of the politics of recognition for comparative findings are contained that defy simplistic people outside LGBT identifications in the non-Western expectations regarding those mutual interactions between world (Sheill, 2009). These issues, the contributors high- stakeholders: leftist parties do not always support gay/les- light, are always connected to the societal stratifications of bian rights as the case of Australia shows, nor did the class, gender and race in which sexual rights are advanced. emergence of HIV/Aids result in the problematization of Overall, this special issue is highly recommended as a pri- the LGBTQ movement, as it had the opposite effect in mer on the theoretical as well as practical-political issues Brazil and the Netherlands. Moreover, the growth of civil associated with the promotion of LGBT rights as interna- society in general does not always foster LGBT rights, as tional human rights. Given that this collection of articles Christian groups (in Poland) or Muslim-based ones (in appeared relatively early, there are few suggestions con- Indonesia) often counter sexual rights advances in newly tained about how to move forward in a manner reconciling democratized countries. political needs and critical, or even queer, considerations in One of the recurring themes of the chapters in this volume the analysis of LGBTQ rights. is that, particularly in the case of sexual rights, political cul- ture plays a significant role in how political stakeholders respond to the claims of LGBT groups. The ways in which LGBTQ Individuals, LGT Advocacy Politics and the states continue to consolidate their (deomcratic?) governance ‘Straight State’ or economies and treat social and ethnic factionalization and While the LGBTQ label subsumes a number of diverging socio-cultural diversity, has led to the development of a dis- and differently represented sexual minorities, in practice tinct set of norms and practices that mirror the recognizable one can only recognize LGT politics (with a just-emerging dominant political culture in each state. LGBT advocates focus on transgender rights). These subgroups often have have to respond to those if they want to be successful. More- different opinions on objectives from heteronormative over, the state is often portrayed as a ‘permeable’ one, in ‘normalization’, including same-sex marriage advocacy, to which multiple channels of exchanges between political sta- a more radical-queer contestation of assimilationist patterns keholders exist. The resulting organizational diversity of of societal integration and neoliberal consumption. Even LGBT civil society groups and legal statutes provides for though they seem to have little in common, they all face the many political opportunity structures, (but also makes for a ‘straight state’, that is, heteronormative socio-political strenuous read at times when trying to keep the central argu- environments and a political system that is tendentiously ments in mind). The centrality of the state institutions in pro- cautious when faced with such a potentially contentious viding rights to LGBTQ individuals and groups based on the issue. The work most closely examining the central venues initial decriminalization of homosexuality leads governments in which these interactions play out in national politics is to treat their divergent claims in a similar manner, despite the edited by Tremblay, Paternotte and Johnson (2011). In it, different needs (from access to health care to same-sex mar- the contributors whose backgrounds stem mostly from riage equality). Thus the book presents well-composed, political science or sociology, tackle the central question of coherent contributions about the necessary balance of move- how gay and lesbian advocacy groups relate to the state and ment strengths and political opportunity structures at the state its institutions. Thirteen chapters from all over the world level that are succinctly synthesized in the conclusion. (from Australia to the United States) investigate in local, The editors succeed at bringing together the main points national and international contexts questions of federalism, raised in the different chapters, providing a comprehensive inter-institutional competition, and most importantly, civil yet nuanced picture of the complex state-lesbian/gay move- society–state relations. This volume necessarily empha- ment interactions through time and space. They establish sizes the individual state level, albeit with a reference to the that (i) states respond differently depending on its spatial international movement (the ‘Gay International’, as (federal-unitary) configuration, (ii) states change their LGBT Massad (2007) calls it) or intergovernmental levels policies with political transformations that can be gradual or throughout. Being firmly embedded in the domain of poli- abrupt, (iii) states consist of a wide array of potentially tical science, most contributors apply a historical institu- helpful institutions and actors, (iv) while they are the most tionalist analysis, detailing how the gay and lesbian important, they are not the only important institution movements of the countries under observation claimed and involved in the regulation of sexuality. Lastly, that they gained rights in exchange with sympathetic elites, domes- cannot be viewed as closed and hermetic entities, but as tically allied parties, civil society groups, governmental actors that exchange with and are exposed to other countries, branches or international organizations. The notion of transnational actors and intergovernmental influences. It is the ‘straight state’ somewhat oversimplifies, however, the notable that no unidirectional relation between the state and | | 54 OCTOBER 2014 VOLUME 2 www.palgrave-journals.com/ipr © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  LGBTQ politics and International Relations lesbian/gay movements is posited, but instead an interactive and outcomes. The contributors, with expertise in various model is proposed that allows for the reconfiguration of the disciplines, and often with a practitioner background, state and its policies through continuous pressure from ‘query development, globalization and global governance below, by lesbian and gay advocates. In conclusion, the through a range of approaches and on various scales’ (p. 4). ongoing debate over diverging interests by the LGBTQ Such a mix should be welcomed for the plurality of views communities is problematized both domestically and expressed to avoid an overly normative vantage point, but internationally: ‘challenging the exclusion of lesbians and it also poses the familiar challenge of coherence of themes gays from the same rights and entitlements that hetero- and approaches. Yet the subdivision in three parts provides sexual couples enjoy has recently been seen by the Western for a sequential logic that complements the theoretical gay and lesbian movement as the most fundamental form progression of arguments made. The first, theoretical part of heteronormativity to be challenged’ (p. 223) – an offers a critical reconceptualization of a number of basic approach that scholars of the queer persuasion, or non- assumptions underlying sexual politics and development – Western scholars, would regard cautiously because of the from the invisibility of certain sexual minorities to a mis- implicit heteronormativity in ‘trying to keep up with the characterization of sexual and gender roles. The second straight Joneses’. The referencing of international human part focuses on individuals in development agencies and rights standards in the domestic arena by LGBT advocates organizations, and on how they mediate and represent the is a recurring motive as well, highlighting the considerable objectives of these institutions. The last part looks to the level of intermestics in such low-politics issues today. future and asks how alternative views can be integrated into existing hetero/homo-normative or other binary or hegemonic neoliberal development policies. Sexual Rights as International Human Rights? Some parts tackle the topics of the volume more closely, An element that has become central to LGBT advocacy that is, the queering of development. The second part in par- politics is the strategic linkage of sexual rights claims to ticular focuses on the LGBTQ constituency in international notions of globalized human rights. A solid human rights development institutions and organizations such as the World regime has been firmly established in the international Bank, International Monetary Fund and Non-governmental system in the wake of the Second World War with the Organizations (NGOs). The link between human resources Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as such, an policies, employees’ ‘homosociality’ (p. 87) and the advo- association with such a successful concept is politically cacy of development professionals and the discourses and promising as it creates symbolic capital. It also engenders policies of their employers cannot easily be traced, and the discussions surrounding citizenship, however, making characterization of the proliferation of such sites in broad- LGBT rights claims more urgent and ‘natural’. ening the transnational space for more sexual rights seems Amy Lind’s carefully edited volume is particularly obvious. As such, this part appears somewhat weaker com- relevant, as today’s LGBTQ politics play out in seemingly pared with the theoretical challenges and practical implica- different ways in the Global North, where pluralist interest tions raised in the other parts. Yet the project is to be groups are strongly represented, as opposed to the more commended for its two-fold attempt to not only problematize volatile Global South. There, a two-fold dynamic makes heteronormativity in development approaches, but also to social justice for these individuals much harder, as on the empirically provide evidence how ‘multilateral development one hand LGBTQ individuals experience a higher degree institutions are important policy agents involved in the refor- of either invisibility (transgender, lesbian individuals) or mulation of normative forms of heterosexuality’ (p. 110). harassment (gays), and on the other hand, developmental It also, importantly, broadens the notion of sexual rights policies originating in the North can sometimes have a from sexual minorities best known as LGBT individuals to detrimental impact. Lind’s book precisely problematizes other alternative family models – be they single-mother these issues and foregrounds the problematic neoliberal, households or MSM/WSM (men who have sex with men/ heteronormative ‘narratives, policies and practices’ (p. 2) women who have sex with women, but do not necessarily in transnational development work under the auspices of identify as gay or lesbian). Hence the contributors critique global governance institutions. Aside from these more heteronormative – in some cases, consumption-oriented, policy-relevant issues, the book also pursues the ambitious non-political homonormative – models of development goal of offering a tentative queer theory of development (or with regards to land rights, access to family assistance and at a minimum, aims to queer conventional development so on. In this regard, one of the most insightful chapters prescriptions stemming from traditional, patriarchal or (Chapter 8) argues that ‘organizing strategies and develop- neocolonial origins). Just as queer approaches at times do ment interventions around sexual orientation and gender not easily align with traditionally advocated prescriptions expression need to shift away from common categories of in development policy, so too feminist, gay and alternative identity toward a broader context of struggle’ (p. 132), views on best practices often have contradictory objectives aiming to achieve a human right to expression of sexuality, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS REVIEWS IPR| VOLUME 2 OCTOBER 2014 55 | | © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  Thiel however varyingly defined. Such change of paradigm, one that ought to be carefully calibrated in each particular which moves away from identity-based categorizations, group- or cultural context. also stimulates a wider discussion of related areas such as human security, global governance and social justice. This entails repercussions in the field of education, health and Lost in Translation: From the ‘West’ to the Rest? justice, to name a few. ‘De-centering Western Sexualities’ is not so much a cri- The third part of the book provides more or less concrete tique of Eurocentric ‘Western’ sexual rights advocacy in suggestions as to how a more inclusive, but also a more cri- the global sense, as it is an interrogation of standard hetero- tical interaction of development organizations and local normative assumptions and, interestingly, a critique of populations as well as culture can occur. Issues of particular Western queer theory dealing with sexual expression in local, religious and cultural contexts make it necessary to Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). In addition to aiming for strengthen local coalitions with other civil society actors and/ a de-centering of Western mainstream progressive and queer or politicians while at the same time being linked to interna- theories, they ‘take up the question of relations between tional sexual rights organizations. With regards to the latter, it post-colonial and post-communist studies, showing how the seems from the examples in the book that the support from cross-contamination of theories is one of the best queer stu- largely Northern-based human rights NGOs is necessary to a dies practices’ (p. 13). In this context, this volume also posits certain extent, no matter its application to the Middle Eastern that the Western/Eastern-binary is problematic – a somewhat or African context. This, however, relativizes the autono- precarious undertaking given its title. The ten contributions mous-radical theoretical approach of the book decrying the in this volume are provided by a diverse group of social Eurocentric and/or neocolonial intervention in local Global- theorists, ranging from human geographers to women’s stu- South contexts on several occasions. The reality of a queer dies scholars. Yet they all have similar experiences: the rapid development approach probably lies somewhere in the mid- implosion of socialism and its authoritarian economic, dle, as acknowledged when stated that ‘local groups “indi- social, cultural and political structures in 1989 suddenly genize” or hybridize Northern knowledge and mechanisms’ confronted LGBTQ movements in CEE with sexual rights (p. 165). This makes it difficult to prescribe concrete mea- promotion policies of the West developed over decades. sures as each case is different, and it is also the affirmed anti- Depending on the progress of socio-economic transforma- normative goal of this volume to not fall prey to generalizing tion and democratic stabilization, individual countries in the presumptions that resemble well-known anti-colonial or region responded differently to the varying claims made by feminist positions. At the same time, the book raises a num- LGBTQ communities without adopting a linear, progressive ber of important questions (how to integrate non-traditional stance on both ends. Simultaneously, CEE countries were sexual and gender expressions without exposing them fur- ‘othered’ by labeling them a post-communist ‘contemporary ther; how to counter neoliberal and Eurocentric policy pre- periphery’ contrasted with the idealized metropolitan/liberal/ scriptions that further sideline the already marginalized; how supposedly pro-gay West (in the more narrow EU or wider to conceive of queer development studies), which are impli- hemispheric sense). They remind us of the stereotyping we citly evaluated at various points in the volume. A conclusion all engage in when communicating with others, or even would have probably aided in better synthesizing the many when conducting and publicizing research. useful contributions to this important yet broad debate. While being more eclectic than the other books in its This book, as well as the others, highlights the issue application of differently sourced queer theories, as opposed of the ‘private’ and the ‘public’ spheres that sexual and to political science/IR ones, certain political influences gender expressions invariably connect. Some sexual emerge strongly in the CEE context. One repeatedly occur- rights and expressions may be protected precisely because ring theme consists of the ambivalent influence of the EU, they are relegated to the private realm (be it through the while pressing for the adoption of supranational anti-dis- non-intervention at home or the invisibility existing in crimination legislation in the process of accession to the this area), but it is also there where oppression, margin- bloc, simultaneously creating, rather than diminishing, alization and disempowerment is prevalent. In this con- nationalist and anti-gay pushback reactions by state and text, the assumed universalist desire for visibility may not social institutions. Paradoxically, by doing so the EU several always be a possible or legitimate form of activism in times appears as an immoral intrusive force (Eurosodomy) non-Western contexts (Offord, in: Tremblay et al, 2011). against which the nationally pure, heterosexual nation has to And sexuality as a social marker of humanity is always to fight. This confrontation, as many of the chapters show, is as a certain degree public, even with attempts to hide non- much domestically directed against the emerging LGBTQ traditional sexual or gender expression. The question of communities, as it is internationally trying to evade EU non- how to best address this private-public balance in achiev- discrimination treaty obligations. In this difficult terrain, ing sexual rights publicly, as well as on an individual LGBT groups in those countries often re-appropriate their level in terms of the personal ‘deployment’ of sexuality, is connection to either the home country or the international | | 56 OCTOBER 2014 VOLUME 2 www.palgrave-journals.com/ipr © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  LGBTQ politics and International Relations human rights regime by holding pride marches on either a between being European insiders and outsiders, the con- national holiday or on the UN’s International Human tributors apply post-colonial and queer theories to the Rights Day. socio-political conditions as they exist in this particular The second part of the volume presents empirical chap- European area. While doing so, they do not criticize ters that explore the meanings and contexts of LGBTQ Western queer theories inasmuch they construct a non- individuals and movements in a mostly qualitative ethno- normative basis for the creation of cross-pollinated new graphic manner. These are stimulating because they dis- queer approaches from the CEE countries. Again, a con- play how, despite the forced association with ‘the West’, clusion would have provided for an even better overview of these people seem to be quite confronted with domestic the commonalities and differences among the countries homophobia, in the course almost internalizing feelings of observed. invisibility, inferiority and heteronormative orientations. One contributor called this constant renegotiation of public acceptance ‘the transparent closet’ – a process in which Global Homophobia – Preexisting Condition, individuals come out but are, once known, pushed back Anticipatory Counter-Movement or Reactive State into invisibility and non-acknowledgement to reduce Tool? society’s discomfort (p. 151). This becomes particularly Meredith Weiss and Michael Bosia’s (2013) edited volume apparent when legal and political instruments are changed ‘Global Homophobia’ articulates the point that resentments for the better (ranging from the introduction of anti- against LGBTQ individuals have to do not only with pre- discrimination legislation to same-sex relationship recog- existing cultural, heteronormative orientations, but are also nition), for instance in preparation for EU accession, but in essence politically charged: ‘We consider political the social and cultural homophobic traditions still produce homophobia as purposeful, especially as practiced by state negative consequences. The acquisition of ‘intimate or actors; as embedded in the scapegoating of an “other” that sexual citizenship’ is thus one in which LGBTQ indivi- drives processes of state building and retrenchment; as the duals have to weigh how much of their transgressive product of transnational influence peddling and alliances; sexuality they want to articulate, and how far they want to, and as integrated into questions of collective identity and in an effort to gain respect, silence those expressions and the complicated legacies of colonialism’ (p. 2). In this vein, follow heteronormative models and regulations. they view homophobia as an elite/state strategy of differ- One of the major contributions of this volume is to sen- entiation against a minority, to construct a national image sitize the reader as to the distinctiveness of LGBTQ com- in an Andersonian sense and to extract political support munities and advocacy politics in national contexts. Many from the supposed ‘majority’ à la Tilly. They compare examples evidence the forceful, sometimes conditional various theoretical approaches in their introduction, high- introduction of Western (often, EU) models of minority lighting how the study of homo- and to a lesser extent, rights in a way that do not resonate with preexisting his- transphobia is often either neglected in hopes of its over- tories, cultures and socio-economic conditions. The idio- coming through modernizing progress, or is politically syncratic timeliness of policy adoption and socio-cultural instrumentalized (often by LGBT advocates themselves) so change contingent upon ‘post-socialist’ transformation as to mutually and falsely reinforce assumptions of LGBT processes is, unlike Tremblay, Patternotte and Johnson’s rights with (homo)nationalism and Islamophobia (p. 10). more linearly conceived volume, problematized in a man- Homophobia is thus explicitly transnational and modular, ner that highlights the unique problematic legacies of the applied varyingly across the globe with similar objectives CEE countries in a powerful way. At the same time, in mind: ‘Central to this project is the maintenance of a I wonder if this uniqueness, and the resulting contrast to particular order entangled with sexuality and gender […] Western experiences, is at times over-emphasized? Many always readied for battle against mythical foreign dangers chapters use the imported LGBT and Queer terminology known as “LGBT activists”, who stand as surrogates for and chronicle the emergence of public visibility and inter- the financial capital and international institutions that have identitarian tensions, with the familiar invisibility of compelled social transformation and limited the regulatory bisexuals and transgender individuals that we know from capacity of the state’ (p. 21). ‘the West’. The critique of standard queer theories is also The contributors’ goal is to develop a theory of the noted, for example, in Poland where the ‘modern closet’ ‘modular’ deployment of (inter)national homophobia, a refers to the counterintuitive assumption that ‘undermining significant contribution to the rapidly emerging body of lit- the notion of a strict and coherent gender and sexual iden- erature on comparative sexual politics. They do so with a tity theory weakens the Polish LGBT movement’ (p. 97). political science focus, but also seamlessly integrate queer Yet at the same time, the book provides a critical assess- approaches, for instance in the way binaries (state-citizens, ment of hegemonic Western norms, discourses, practices Global South–North and so on) are problematized through- and policies from a distinct vantage point. On the border out. Bosia affirms state homophobia as an instrument of INTERNATIONAL POLITICS REVIEWS IPR| VOLUME 2 OCTOBER 2014 57 | | © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  Thiel nation-building and state governance, in times of war dichotomous relations (the West impacting on the rest; Non- (Bosnia, Iraq) or economic crisis (Malaysia, Zimbabwe), Western states being inherently homophobe) miss the nuan- respectively. In the latter case, government leaders attempt ces of mutual engagement and confrontation in establishing a to divert attention from domestic issues and/or to implicate dialog with resulting pro- or anti-LGBTQ stances (p. 190). the accused in a Western-based plot to undermine sover- It is particularly refreshing to see how two concluding eignty and identity. Surprisingly, he cautions that courts are chapters respond to the assertions and evidence provided often the ones used to legitimize sexual oppression or per- throughout, as they synthesize similarities across space and secution of individuals, in contrast to Tremblay et al who elucidate further how political homophobia has become a have highlighted the courts as important vanguards in globally used yet domestically calibrated application module lesbian and gay equality. to justify and enact pro-or anti-LGBTQ policies. In theorizing The contributions of this volume focus on different purportedly obvious phenomena, such as political homo- geographical and cultural settings (from advanced indus- phobia or -philia, this book not only disentangles complex trialized countries to post-colonial societies). They highlight global processes connected to the internationally raised status the role of states domestically as well as transnationally in of sexual rights, but also formulates a way forward for acti- fostering homophobia, either through direct export (think of vists and politicians in terms of how to appropriately and McCarthyism’s impact on the United States and even Wes- effectively situate themselves. tern international organizations, or neocolonial US evange- licals’ influence in Africa), or in the homophobic counter- mobilization to the encouragement of gay rights within the Conclusion: Avenues for the Future? international human rights framework (think of the United The works presented above make clear that the call for States or European push for international recognition of such more rigorous interrogations of the impact of LGBTQ rights at the UN’s Human Rights Council, for example). Yet issues in international politics has begun to be successfully the latter seems not to be uniformly applicable – or rather, answered. In terms of future LGBT politics and research, contains few exceptions. In fact, O’Dwyer’s chapter on there are multiple factors to consider: the progress of LGBT Poland convincingly shows that the EU has indeed had a advocacy politics is mainly limited to the West, and evokes positive impact on gay rights there, with little to no sig- domestic hetero- and homonormative and international, nificant counter-mobilization. His chapter and Lind’s con- colonialist contention. Hence many hurdles still exist on the tribution on the way sexual politics were constitutionally road to sexual justice. Referring to political progress in framed in Ecuador by homopositive as well as homophobe Western countries, if predominantly gay and lesbian rights discourses provides for a nuanced interrogation of the state- such as marriage and adoption equality are achieved while led processes that react to international pressures from above transgender groups are still lacking workplace protection or as well as domestic pressures from below to calibrate poli- health-care access, can one speak of true equality? And if the cies on sexual rights that fit the needs of state leaders, not the ‘normalization’ of non-traditional sexualities into privatized minority or majority populace. In her chapter on anticipatory and depoliticized constituencies, as well as the resulting homophobic counter-movements in Southeast Asia, Weiss co-optation of LGBT advocacy groups leads to a weakening advances this argument by highlighting how governments in of truly alternative or critical queer models of socio-political the regions have constructed ‘prejudices before pride’ coexistence and diversity, what long-term effects does this (p. 149) in anticipation of the larger globalizing processes of have on their empowerment? diffusion (of LGBTQ rights, of HIV/Aids), but not necessa- Similarly, in the international sphere, the advancement rily because these issues were raised by activists in the local of LGBT rights provokes backlashes by countries that feel or national context. The implications for the latter are that that a neo- or ‘homo’-colonial interference on behalf of LGBTQ advocates refrain from more aggressive mobilizing, those minorities by Western governments and inter- internalize self-censorship, and are ambiguous about the governmental organizations curtails their cultural and poli- acceptance of foreign labels and support. Moreover, it tical sovereignty. This becomes particularly apparent when results in ‘legitimacy on the religious right for what may transnational NGOs, such as ILGA or IGOs such as the amount to impressive-looking shadowboxing, a felt need to UN, the World Bank and the EU, advocate reforms in reti- shape or restrict right claims to reflect what terrain the cent countries while not realizing that their explicit counter-movement has already claimed or declared to be LGBTQ support accentuates the politicization of those critical, and pressure on gender-based organizations to con- minorities. To counter this tendency, LGBT advocacy front internalized fears of appearing queer if they speak to groups have linked their collective identity strongly to the sexuality’ (p. 167). international human rights regime in order to evoke uni- Together, the chapters in this book provide a more diverse versally valid human rights considerations under difficult picture of the transnational diffusion of LGBT rights, as well domestic circumstances, and to appropriate such con- as of state-supported homophobia: unidirectional or simplistic siderations for themselves as well. This attempt has been | | 58 OCTOBER 2014 VOLUME 2 www.palgrave-journals.com/ipr © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  LGBTQ politics and International Relations fostered by the debate surrounding sexual or intimate citi- a research endeavor in such a complex field such as the zenship that aims to locate the sometimes abstract notion of international politics of sexual orientation and gender human rights in the concrete laws for and rights of citizens identity be appropriately examined by one disciplinary (with all attendant potential problems of the regulation of focus alone? The emerging field of transgender studies, for sexuality through ‘duties’, for example, in a hetero- example, increasingly highlights the comparative intersec- normative vision of procreation, or the invisibility of the tion of transgenderism and ethnicity resulting in different ones not officially recognized as such). social and political repercussions (Zabus and Coad, 2014). Encarnación (2014) in Gay Rights: Why Democracy All books are marked by chronological (from state and Matters takes a more cautious liberal stance: given the movement evolution to the emergence of responses to international contention of the sometimes forceful push for LGBTQ rights claims) as well as spatial diversity (of LGBT rights, maybe the support of democratizing mea- LGBTQ movements, of states and ‘cultures’ globally). sures more broadly is a better way to indirectly aid LGBT These engender what some analysts called ‘a different, civil advocacy without inciting the kind of anti-LGBT uneven geotemporality’ from one case to the next (Kulpa & responses that occurred in the recent past. The literature Mizielinska, 2011). However, this does not mean that one reviewed here also responds to this discussion, aiming to cannot compare or better, contrast, these diverging experi- find more nuanced and truly ‘glocal’ solutions to the diffi- ences and relate them to the larger institutionalization of an cult global debate about sexual rights in non-Western international human rights regime; or what Puar (2013) has countries, often with different priorities than the ones pro- critically called ‘the human rights industrial complex’. As moted in the West. This could occur through fewer explicit refreshingly diverse as these books are in their epistemolo- connections with Western LGBTQ identities or expres- gical perspectives and methodologies used, they share an sions, but also through the advocacy of privacy rights, implicit tension in the application of, on the one hand, separation of state from religion and the highlighting of interest-representing LGBT groups and queer individuals democracy, rule of law and human rights (Zeidan, in Weiss and theorists who challenge established notions of integra- and Bosia, p. 204). A similar way forward is proposed tion. Despite the marked critical and relativizing influence of by Blasius in the same volume, who posits that ‘LGBT the latter, most contributors to these publications seem to movements (are successful when they) shape debate and share a basic liberal paradigm that presupposes equality, advocacy about their same-sex loving and gender diversity sexual and social justice and rights for all independent of across cultures through framing their specific cultural tra- sexual orientation, gender expression or belief, but that ditions within new ways of conceiving and enacting just exists in an often precarious coexistence with anti-gay socio- governance’ (Blasius, p. 220). How exactly these novel, political forces and institutions. This constantly evolving localized rights approaches look is yet unclear – mainly scholarly field increasingly pays attention to the presumed because many non-Western states still work through a success of international LGBT advocacy politics, as more counter-position to the westernized ideal of LGBTQ critical examinations surrounding the construction of mod- rights – but it will certainly provide for more comparative ernity (Rahman, 2014) or of Eurocentric liberalism (Ayoub theorization in the years to come. The thorny question that and Paternotte, 2014) remind us of the pitfalls of progressive remains is how to promote human rights transnationally assumptions and ideologies. and leave LGBTQ groups self-determination and agency when they are repressed and marginalized domestically. Notes As one can see from the literature presented here, 1 Sexual Politics generally includes also issues of sexual LGBTQ research is a collaborative effort. There are few health and well-being, though applied in the narrow single-authored works, as a single viewpoint in a field as rights focus here I concentrate sexual rights to LGBTQ diverse – some would say, even amorphous – would individuals and groups only. unnecessarily limit the range of expressions. It would also 2 Adam et al edited a groundbreaking volume on The preclude a healthy debate about the contents and forms of Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics in 1998, LGBT advocacy politics in IR. The implications of though it focused mainly on sociological theories and LGBTQ expressions in private and public life are mani- movements. Other important works such as Mark Blasius’ fold, and the best research seems to evolve from compara- (2001) Sexual Identities, Queer Politics remain wedded to tive and collaborative work conducted by scholars from an identitaerian outlook, and Denis Altman’s (2001) related but different disciplines, such as Political Science/ Global Sex primarily theorizes the globalization of IR, Sociology, Anthropology, Sexuality and Gender Stu- sexuality. dies and so on. If broad categorical concepts such as 3 In the following, I use LGBTQ for movements, com- democracy or security often fail to travel successfully to munities and rights that encompass, albeit unevenly, all other states or regions if not comprehensively and sensi- those individuals but reserve LGBT for the political tively attuned to the conditions and context there, how can stakeholders involved in advocacy politics. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS REVIEWS IPR| VOLUME 2 OCTOBER 2014 59 | | © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved  Thiel References Adam, B., Duyvendak, J.W. and Krouwel, A. (eds.) (1998) The Emergence of Parker, R., Petchesky, R. and Sember, R. (eds.) (2014) Sex politics: Reports Global Gay and Lesbian Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University from the front lines, sexuality policy watch, http://www.sxpolitics.org/ Press. frontlines/book/pdf/sexpolitics.pdf, accessed 19 August 2014. Altman, D. (2001) Global Sex. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Picq, M. and Thiel, M. (eds.) (2015) Sexual Politics in International Rela- Ayoub, D. and Paternotte, D. (eds.) (2014) LGBT Activism and the Making of tions. New York: Routledge. Europe: A Rainbow Europe? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rahman, M. (2014) Homosexualities, Muslim Cultures and Modernity. Blasius, M. (ed.) (2001) Sexual Identities, Queer Politics. New Jersey: New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Princeton University Press. Sheill, K. (2009) Losing out in the intersections: Lesbians, human rights, law Encarnación, O.G. (2014) Gay rights: Why democracy matters. Journal of and activism. In: K. Kollman and M. Waites (eds.) The Global Politics of Democracy 25(3): 90–104. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender human rights: an introduction. IRIN News (2014) UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Contemporary Politics, Special Issues, 15(1), March. pp. 55–71. LGBTI rights – Still not there yet, 14 August, http://www.irinnews Swiebel, J. (2009) LGBT human rights: The search for an international strat-.org/report/100487/lgbti-rights-still-not-there-yet, accessed 18 August egy. In: K. Kollman and M. Waites (eds.) The Global Politics of Lesbian, 2014. Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Human Rights: An Introduction. Jaspir, P. (2013) Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle Contemporary Politics, Special Issues, 15(1), March. pp. 19–35. East Studies 45: 336–339. Tremblay, M., Paternotte, D. and Johnson, C. (2011) The Lesbian and Gay Kollman, K. and Waites, M. (2009) The global politics of lesbian, gay, Movement and the State. Comparative Insights into a Transformed Rela- bisexual and transgender human rights: An introduction. Contemporary tionship. New York: Ashgate. Politics. Special Issues 15(1): 1–17. Weiss, M. and Bosia, M. (eds) (2013) Global Homophobia. Chicago: Illinois Kollmann, K. (2010) LGBT rights – From queers to humans. In: D. University Press. Robert (ed.) The International Studies Encyclopedia. New York: Wiley- Weber, C. (2014) Why is there no queer international theory? European Blackwell. Journal of International Relations. pre-published online first, 3 April Kulpa, R. and Joanna, M. (2011) Decentering Western Sexualities: Central 1–25. and Eastern European Perspectives. New York: Ashgate. Zabus, C. and Coad, D. (eds.) (2014) Transgender Experience. Place, Ethni- Massad, J. (2007) Desiring Arabs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. city, Visibility. New York: Routledge. | | 60 OCTOBER 2014 VOLUME 2 www.palgrave-journals.com/ipr © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved