Jasbir Puar, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, explained last Thursday at a lecture entitled “Homonationalism Gone Viral,” that homonationalism represents the relationship between nationship formation and queer sexuality. It emerges from the concept that homosexuality is always representative of an outlaw to the state, and therefore states that accept homosexuality are progressive. However, particularly after 9/11, the state began to use queer bodies to promote the war on terror. Through the concept of homonormativity, the homosexual “other” becomes normalized and perpetuates the concept that a new “other,” Arabs, are considered the enemies of the state.
According to Puar, the state co-opts gay rights in order to appear progressive while, in reality, it is oppressing other groups. What appears to be a progressive rights construction actually hurts another community. This can be seen in the post-9/11 Islamophobia as well as in the politics surrounding the formation of different laws.
Puar gave the example of how the same day in which Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the law banning homosexuality in the military, was repealed, the DREAM act, which would have legalized millions of undocumented students, was shot down.
Another example provided by Puar was the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added crimes motivated by a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to federal hate-crime law. It was attached to a military bill, further funding the war on terror. In fact, this legislation was opposed by many groups such as the The Audre Lourde Project, which cites the extended military funding, the lack of funding towards preventing violence and hate crimes and the disproportionate people of color who are affected by the criminal justice system as some of their reasons for not supporting the bill. Other queer groups opposing it include FIERCE and Queers for Economic Justice.
Homonationalism is often the trade off to protect homosexuality while funding a war or with the condition of taking away their rights if they advocate for other marginalized group’s rights. This creates a relationship in which the state uses queer bodies for war on terror and queer communities embrace the war on terror in order to be normalized.
Next, Puar discussed the role of pinkwashing in Israel. Pinkwashing is when gay rights are used to detract attention from other repressions such as Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
Israel is a good example of a country which has advertised itself within the tourism industry as the most progressive nation in the Middle East, as it has some of the most liberal legislations concerning gay rights in the world. However, Puar cited one resident of Israel: “Apparently, we have won all our rights and we should keep silent about injustices of occupation. We can’t support the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement without legal repercussions.” Some queer residents feel that they may have rights, but in order to maintain those rights they cannot advocate for other marginalized groups (such as speaking out against the occupation) or they risk losing their own rights.
Puar argues that homonationalism is not a form of racism or liberalism, but is a structure of modernity, implicating everyone.
Many students at the lecture had not heard of terms such as “homonationalism” or “pinkwashing” before but were fascinated by the experience and were able to relate it to their own fields.
Lily Bartlett ’13, an Environmental Studies major explained that “I don’t have a lot of background in this topic and I’ve never heard the term homonationalism before but I try to relate it to the work I’ve done. For example, pinkwashing is like greenwashing—instead of corporations creating “green” products, it is nations that are using “positive” qualities, like gay rights, in order to promote their own motives. It makes me think about how I can discuss these topics with other people with diverse viewpoints.”
Tahl Bin Mohsin ’14 is very excited about the discussion because he “had never heard the term homonationalism. I was overwhelmed by all the information in this talk.” Still, he explain that his favorite part of the lecture was Puar’s “refusal to subscribe to binaries and hierarchies even when people attempted to get her to conform” during the question session.
After the discussion students from the Same-Sex Sexuality History class along with students in related leadership positions were able to go out to dinner in Jasmine Thai with the lecturer Jasbir Puar, Professor Jen Manion and Professor Mab Segrest.
According to Alexandra Bolles ‘13 “this whole event—between dinner, the lecture and class—is a manifestation of what makes Conn unique. It combines the social, the experiential and the academic. Where else but a school like Conn are you going to go out to dinner with your professor and the author of a book we’ve been analyzing in class?”
Connor McCormick-Cavanagh ’14 explained that “we read her book in our History of Sexuality class and it made it all that much more gratifying to not just understand what she said also relate to it and put meaning to it.” Furthermore he felt that “dinner afterward was great because we were able to see her in a different light. Even though she’s very academic and scholarly she’s a real person and that brought her to life and grounded the lecture.” •
