Lund University Department of Gender Studies

SIMP25 Autumn term 2013

We are here. We are queer. Get used to it!

Citizenship, governmentality and identity politics
(4440 words)

Kypros Savva

Introduction

In recent years, issues pertaining to gay rights made the headlines both in Europe and the United States. I understand such discussions to be an effort to reclaim citizenship status on behalf of individuals with alternative sexualities1. This struggle evolved nowadays into a quantified reclamation of a list of rights. This is demonstrated, for instance, in ILGAEurope's Rainbow Map that presents the legal situation of the human rights of LGBT people in Europe, as classified in six categories of rights with 46 criteria in total2. I believe that there is more in this reclamation of citizenship and rights struggle, than a complex list of rights to be achieved. In this paper I want to explore how this struggle takes place and is accomplished. I address this issue through Foucaults perspective on governmentality. First, I will introduce the concepts citizenship and governmentality. Then, I will critically approach the questions how dominant discourses (re-)produced the identities of individuals with alternative sexualities, and how social rights movements used such identities as a vehicle for reclaiming citizenship. My aim is, then, to problematize these identity politics, and expand the discussion on identities and citizenship with the introduction of queer theory. I have tried to make use of most of the course literature. I selected ideas and discussions from the books and articles according to my needs. Some of them get more reference that others, while some did not qualify as relevant for my present discussion. Moreover, I expanded the discussion with other materials. Due to space and time considerations, this paper is more of a brief sketch of my thoughts on these issues, than an indepth analysis.

Introducing citizenship

An expansive body of literature related to citizenship developed recently, reflecting a variety of philosophical, legal, social and political framings (Meer, 2010: 8). In general, theories of citizenship fall into two categories. The normative theories attempt to set out the rights and duties a citizen ideally ought to have and the ideals of the good citizen (Bellamy, 2008:
1

I try to avoid formulations such as LGBT or queer intentionally. Instead I use the formulation 'individuals with alternative sexualities' throughout my text when I am speaking about individuals with sexual and gender expressions and desires other than the heterosexual. I assume that this is more attuned with my argument. Besides I believe that individuals should not be confined to a mere acronym. 2 ILGA-Europe is the European section of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, an umbrella international NGO first established in 1978. For the 2013 index see http://www.ilgaeurope.org/home/publications/reports_and_other_materials/rainbow_europe (access 21 October 2013).

27). The empirical theories seek to explain how citizens came to possess those rights and duties that they actually have, and the ways this citizenship status has been granted to different groups of people (Bellamy, 2008: 28). Alternative normative approaches were presented. The liberal perspective is based on the equality of rights of the individual as recognised by the state and protected by the law. Citizenship is understood in individualistic terms, defined as the set of expectations specifying the relationship between the nation-state and its members (Yuval-Davis, 1997: 69). The communitarian perspective focuses on the shared norms and values of individuals, and their mutual responsibilities in the pursuit of the collective good. As such, citizenship is seen as a status bestowed on all full members of a community, and this conception of citizenship stands both as a duty towards the community and as civil, political and social rights deriving from this status (Meer, 2010: 10-11). This communitarian approach is further expanded by republicanism which sees citizenship both as a status and a means of active involvement and participation in the common good (Yuval-Davis, 1997: 71). A definition that summarises such normative approaches, focuses on (a) the membership/belonging in a political community, (b) the collective benefits/rights associated with this membership, and (c) the participation in the community's political, economic, and social processes (Bellamy, 2008: 12). However, such approaches obscure the nuanced and highly personal ways in which many people, and especially members of historically disempowered or politically marginalized groups, experience citizenship in everyday life (Caldwell et al., 2009: 4). Thus in order to understand citizenship, one must see also the empirical aspect of it. Central in this aspect is the dialectical tension between notions of inclusion and exclusion, that is the citizenship of certain types of people and the non-citizenship of others (Meer, 2010: 9). In order to understand this exclusionary character, one should start from the foundations of citizenship in the creation of the state. Several empirical analyses were provided for the nature of the state, with positions varying from the Marxist approaches of the state as reflecting the interests of the ruling class, to approaches of the state as an independent institution which mediates between contending pluralist interest groups (Yuval-Davis, 1997: 13)3. In this paper I am interested in the foucauldian perspective on
3

One such feminist approach to the state focuses on the development of the state as a separate sphere, and aims at explaining the long exclusion of women from the status of citizenship and politics. This has its basis on the classical theories of the social contract which divide the sphere of civil society into the public and private domains, with the private domain rendered as politically irrelevant (Yuval-Davis, 1997: 12). Following Carole Pateman's reading of the social contract, we see the development of fraternity as a system where men get the

government, which I will introduce in the following section.

Governmentality

Central is this analytical and theoretical perspective is the state, that is the sovereign body that claims monopoly of independent territorial power and means of violence, [...] inheres in but lies behind the apparatuses or institutions of organized and formal political authority and [] is separate from the rulers and the ruled (Dean, 2010: 16). Government is defined as the conduct of conduct: it involves attempts to shape aspects of the individual's behaviour according to particular sets of norms and for different ends (Dean, 2010: 18). In his approach, Foucault rejected the idea of a unitary state (Yuval-Davis, 1997: 14). Instead, he sees a plurality of governing agencies and authorities, of aspects of behaviour to be governed, of norms invoked, of purposes sought, and of effects, outcomes and consequences (Dean, 2010: 18). Governmentality is concerned with the analysis of the different mentalities of government, the different regimes of practices in governing. The central question in this analysis is how (Dean, 2010: 33): how we govern and are governed within different regimes of practices? How do such regimes emerge, continue to operate, and are transformed? For explaining the idea of governmentality, Lewis identifies three embedded notions: (a) the modern Western state which strengthened itself by adopting a number of techniques other than the threat or use of force directly applied to the body; (b) the family which occupies a central place in governmentality; and (c) the demographic changes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe which lead to the formation of a population that became the telos of the government (Lewis, 2000: 22-23). The government now has the objective to recreate this population accordingly to fit to the present social policies, law, institutional arrangements and discourses. This mass of population is transformed into a people with national, gendered, classed and even raced specificities (Lewis, 2000: 24). This transformation is conducted with the use of disciplinary power as a normalising strategy for the creation of stable and domesticated subjects and subject positions (Lewis, 2000: 25). This perspective demonstrates how the modern state is not established for the totality of individuals. Different grounds for exclusion from the normalised population are identified,

right to rule over their women in the private domestic sphere, but agree on a contract of a social order of equality among themselves within the public, political sphere (Yuval -Davis, 1997: 79). This can be seen in relation to what Acker (2000), for example, explains as regimes of inequality of class, race and gender within organisations. For reasons of lack of space, I am not expanding this discussion in my text.

including gender, sexuality, class, race, ethnicity, religion (Meer, 2010: 10; Yuval-Davis, 1997: 84). Therefore, empirically one sees that the citizenship status is given to individuals exceptionally, and since it implies certain rights, it is a fair ground for struggle for minorities. I will further explore this in the following sections.

Subjects with alternative sexualities

In governmentality, both the government and the individuals act in a way to shape, sculpt, mobilize and work through the choices, desires, aspirations, needs, wants and lifestyles of individuals and groups (Dean, 2010: 20). So in my analysis I will focus on both levels. I will first explore the construction of discourses excluding individuals with alternative sexualities. Then I will see how such individuals came to reclaim their rights and the citizenship status with the politics of identity.

4.1

Discourses of punishment and discipline

In relation to my first aim, my intention is not to present a linear historical account of events, as if this is possible. I take into consideration Hemmings (2005) warnings about the Western feminism telling the story of its past, which ended up in presenting a narrative of progress and lose that oversimplifies its complexity. In my brief narrative I will try to employ the genealogical method. Genealogy can be seen both as a diagnostic of the present by problematising any taken-for granted assumptions, and also an anti-anachronistic refusal to read the past in terms of the present (Dean, 2010: 3). The origins and causal structures are not of interest here. Instead genealogy critically examines the traces that a certain concept left in history. Alternative sexualities have potentially existed from the ancient times, and so did the different discourses framing them. In the ancient Greek Classical era there was a relative tolerance for some forms of same-sex sexual action and expressions of homoerotic desire in literature. This gave way to very harsh proscriptions against all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage during the Christian era (Hall, 2003: 27). The Church as the sovereign of the era had a specific negative understanding toward the sin of sodomy. The sodomite was punished with castration and incarceration (Hall, 2003: 28). Especially from the beginning of the 13th century, any pre-existing homoerotic literature disappeared, and the suspicion of sodomy could lead even to execution (Boswell, 1981: 295). The medieval man engaging in anal intercourse with other men was committing a crime against nature, that is a 4

crime against the church and the state (Hall, 2003: 28)4. With the development of the context of governmentality, any male same-sex sexual acts were criminalised, with legislation such as the Labouchre Amendment introduced in the British legal system in 1885, and other anti-sodomy laws elsewhere. Labouchre Amendment specifically outlaws acts of gross indecency between male persons (Jagose, 1996: 13), and could lead to many years of imprisonment5. A change in the regulation of sodomy is imminent now: instead of torturing the body, those arrested for sodomy were held in prison. In Foucaults words, [b]y the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the gloomy festival of punishment was dying out (Foucault, 1995: 8). In this new context, the strategy has been not to enforce a repression of their desires, but to compel their bodies to signify the prohibitive law as their very essence, style, and necessity (Butler, 1990: 134). In the new formulations of the people, such individuals became abjects, excluded from any status of citizenship, that needed to be corrected by a new whole army of technicians who took over from the executioner: warders, doctors, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists, educationalists (Foucault, 1995: 11).

4.2

Reclaiming identities and citizenship

Nevertheless, the story of alternative sexualities does not end in the disciplinary discourses of the government. As mentioned above, discourses are also developed by the same individuals. For instance, the practice of identifying someone with same-sex sexual relations as homosexual, emerged around 1870 (Jagose, 1996: 11), even before the word heterosexual. This reappropriation discourse was first proposed by Karoly Maria Kertbeny, a Hungarian journalist and human rights campaigner who raised his voice against the Prussian anti-sodomy law (Greenberg, 2007). The catalyst for the establishment of the homosexual identity was the historical development of capitalism. As D Emilio argues, gay men and lesbians have not always existed but rather their emergence as identities and groups is related to the development of the free labour system which allowed large numbers of men and women to call themselves gay, to see themselves as part of a community of similars, and to organize politically on the
4

One such story of the severe bodily regulation of sexualities and the punishment of sodomy was the case of the crusades order of Knights Templars. Mainly for political and economic reasons, the majority of the members of the order were arrested in France and elsewhere in 1307, and were executed by burn in the stake. The decision for these executions came from the king of France and the Pope symbols of total power in the age on the grounds of, among others, 'sodomy' (cf. Barber, 1978). 5 Female same-sex desire was excluded and not recognised in this discursive regulation of alternative sexualities.

basis of that identity (D Emilio, 1983: 102; cf. Drucker, 2011). Newly developed theories about homosexuality became an ideological response to a new way of organizing one's personal life, with men and women who had same-sex desires coming to define themselves by their erotic life (D Emilio, 1983: 105). These new forms of identity and patterns of life became more visible in streets, parks, and bars, especially at night (D Emilio, 1983: 106). Furthermore, the decisions of men and women to act on their erotic/ emotional preference for the same sex led to the formation of an urban subculture of gay men and lesbians in the States (D Emilio, 1983: 106), which grew and stabilised in the decades from 1940s to 1960s (D Emilio, 1983: 107) and let to the development of a mass movement. Brian Walker (1998) discussed the formation of different social movements, such as the gay and lesbian movements, in terms of cultural nationalism. These constituencies make up distinct peoples with cultures, public institutions, dialects, tastes, and social practices that set them off from the people or peoples around them (Walker, 1998: 1). For example, gay and lesbian movements came to have a flag, institutionalised annual gatherings, a subeconomy and also a network of gay institutions like community centres, bars, magazines, coalitions and NGOs (Walker, 1998: 5), as any nationalistic movement. In general, the establishment of a political movement is a crucial turning point for any minority as it helps move from existing in itself and bearing a historically ascribed identity, to mobilisation on its own terms and for itself in adopting a politically self-defined identity (Meer, 2010: 4). Such political movements help the formation of an inner group, constitute new forms of belonging and new positions from which to speak and organise around and through particularity and difference (Lewis, 2000: 2). The creation of a we as a vehicle for reclaiming the citizenship status and rights, addresses subordination and resistance at the subjective, as well as collective and institutional level (Caldwell et al., 2009: 4). Their identity politics helped celebrate their difference from heterosexuality. A new meaning in the everyday life of individuals identified differently from heterosexuality was given through this belonging, and also by focusing on the shared experiences, struggles and political, social and cultural aims. Struggle was made for visibility, pride and cultural existence. The gay and lesbian cultural institutions offered a shelter away from the homophobia of the society and helped gay and lesbian identified individuals to overcome a number of difficulties and obstacles they face, as for example the case of coming out (Walker, 1998: 12). 6

4.3

Homonormativity and exclusions

In many cases, these movements were successful in claiming visibility, recognition and citizenship status. For example, in many cases the sodomy laws were repealed, and the discussion on gay and lesbian rights became prevalent in the European context6. These developments are always celebrated as success stories in gay and lesbian movements. Nevertheless, homophobia, discrimination and crimes against individuals with alternative sexualities, still persist. Especially seeing these movements in terms of a cultural national project, one must be aware of the potential exclusions (cf. Yuval-Davis, 1997). Over the years, these identity politics evolved into an assimilationist strategy of the political gay and lesbian subject reclaiming rights of existence. The narrative of these movements shows a progressive and successful story of break with the repressive past towards liberation and achievement of a status of citizenship for their subjects. However, what they miss is what Butler said about gender: it becomes impossible to separate our gender from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained (Butler, 1990: 3). These political and cultural intersections of governmentality are based on the normalisation of some discourses and individuals over others. Such normalisation of the new cultural and political identities of gay and lesbian individuals is understood as homonormativity. This concept explains a politics that fails to contest the dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but rather upholds and sustains them, while in the same time promoting a specific gay culture (cf. Duggan, 2003)7. This homonormativity came to exclude individuals with alternative sexualities who were not considered to be gay enough. For example, bisexuals were considered (and still are) to be traitors to the common struggle, and they have to make up their minds. A clear instance where this homonormativity came to exclude others was the case of the regulation of sex workers in Vancouver's West End in the mid-1980s. Here, the civic crusade against prostitutes in the area of West End was led by a charismatic gay man (Ross, 2010: 250), and was seen as a great opportunity for middle-class gay men to achieve a measure of respectability, political and social capital, and residential entitlement in the West
6

Apart from the establishment of NGOs and lobbies, as the aforementioned ILGA-Europe, in the case of the EU, protection against discrimination expanded to include grounds of sexual orientation, and can be found both in the Treaties and case law of the EU. 7 This is obvious, for example, in the present discussion on gay marriage. Instead of challenging the grounds of heteronormative determination of the modes of kinship, the movement supporting marriage equality accepts the heterosexual concept of marriage and struggles to further normalise and regulate it with the participation of nonheterosexuals in this norm.

End while prostitutes and their clients were subjected in a denial of their legal subjectivity and cultural existence (Ross, 2010: 253). A certain gay culture was promoted: middle-class, male, and white. Furthermore, this homonormativity entered the mainstream governmental politics, as an official discourse. Jasbir Puar introduced the concept homo-nationalism, which shows the collusion between homosexuality and [American] nationalism that is generated both by national rhetoric of patriotic inclusion and by gay, lesbian, and queer subjects. In this discourse, the acceptance and tolerance for gay and lesbian subjects becomes a barometer by which the right to and capacity for national sovereignty is evaluated (cf. Puar, 2006; 2007; 2013). The official government uses the level of gay rights and acceptance as an indicator of superiority over the others who still suppress individuals with alternative sexualities. And some LGBT movements become part themselves in this discourse, by advocating for pinkwashing and reaction of their government against the intolerant others8. One can conclude that such developments focus on the re-production of gay, lesbian and queer bodies that reiterate heterosexuality as a norm (Puar, 2006). The discourse of the gay liberation movements first, and LGBT movements later, concerning the repressive past and the need for cultural recognition is actually reinforcing the same regime that once suppressed such individuals. As Ross mentions in her discussion, gay men openly demeaned prostitutes as vulgar, lowerclass, and deviant the very pejoratives hurled at 'queers' a mere decade earlier (Ross, 2010: 256).

Problematising politics

Foucault reminds us that in fact sexuality previously was not repressed. Rather it was regulated by specific mechanisms of knowledge and power centred on sex, which from the eighteenth century, focused on the hysterisation of women's bodies, the pedagogisation of children's sex, the socialisation of procreative behaviour and the psychiatrisation of perverse pleasure (Foucault, 1978). Instead of the proclaimed liberation, the success story of such identity politics was to alter the model of organising sexuality. We are still part of a certain juridicial system of power which produces the subjects that subsequently comes to represent through limitation, prohibition, regulation, control and protection (Butler, 1990: 2).
8

Puar focuses her discussion of homo -nationalism in the case of the war against terrorism. As she noted recently (2013), homo-nationalism goes global. This could lead us to include other cases of homo-nationalism: the Western reaction against Ugandas bill against homosexuality or very recently against Russia's antipropaganda law. In any case, is important to be critical towards this rhetoric of homo-nationalism, but in the same time recognise the problematic situation in countries such as the aforementioned.

Both the government and these movements worked for the creation and normalisation of the new people according to the needs of the government itself. Furthermore, the reclamation of the citizenship status for individuals with alternative sexualities even though successful in many cases is still part of the technologies of the government which seek to enhance or deploy our possibilities of agency 9 (Dean, 2010: 196). And especially with the development of the neoliberal globalised regime and its implications on the economic, sociopolitical, spatial and personal relations (Perrons, 2004), these strategies, identities, regimes of practices and new regulations of sexualities become global (cf. Cruz-Malav and Manalansan IV, 2002). In this section I will try to problematize the identity politics, and expand the discussion with the introduction of queer theory.

5.1

Limitations of identity politics

One cannot ignore the powerful potential for social support and political mobilization that identity-based movements offer and their role in collective claims for rights and citizenship (Caldwell et. al., 2009: 6). However, as demonstrated above, these identity politics approach failed to challenge heterosexuality and the normative understandings of citizenship. One could argue that it rather reinforced them. For example, the binary opposition homosexuality heterosexuality, which forms the discussions basis, is among the things that plunge women and men [] into the discursive, institutional, and bodily enmeshments of gender definition (Sedgwick, 1990: 30). This identity politics strategy has certain limitations. For Butler, the insistence on a stable subject of feminism, understood as a seamless category of women, inevitable generates multiple refusals to accept the category (Butler, 1990: 4). The same can be said for the gay and lesbian politics. In Connells case studies, for instance, we see Australian men having same-sex sexual experiences with other men, but refusing to be identified as gay men (Connell, 1995). As Jagose notes, it is important to make a distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexual identity (Jagose, 1996: 15). Several attempts were made for the expansion of such identities. The introduction of intersectionality perspective, for instance, helped the accommodation of race, gender, and
9

These technologies of agency, also referred to as 'technologies of citizenship', comprise the multiple techniques of self-esteem, of empowerment and of consultation and negotiation that engage us as active and free citizens, as informed and responsible consumers, as members of self-managing communities and organizations, as actors in democratizing social movements, and as agents capable of taking control of our own risks (Dean, 2010: 196). The idea of empowering the disenfranchised, the marginal, the victims of social inequalities and discrimination, economic deprivation and political subordination was positively thought of since the 1960s in the liberal-democratic countries (Dean, 2010: 82).

other identity categories excluded from the liberal discourse (Crenshaw, 1991; cf. YuvalDavis, 2006). Crenshaw's focus on the intersections of race and gender highlights the need to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed (Crenshaw, 1991: 1245). In the case of gay and lesbian movements, one sees for example the recognition of other alternative sexualities and expressions, and the inclusion of bisexual, asexual, trans, intersex and others in the definition of the subject of these movements. Nevertheless, the assumption that the universal identity simply needs to be filled in with various components of race, class, age, ethnicity, and sexuality in order to become complete is wrong (Butler, 1990: 15). Especially the embarrassed etc. added in the end of the list of predicates to be included, strives to encompass a situated subject which fails to be complete (Butler, 1990: 143).

5.2

Performativity and the queer

Taking everything into consideration, this attempt to expand the identities should not be seen as the end story. For Butler, [t]his illimitable et cetera [...] offers itself as a new departure for feminist political theorizing (Butler, 1990: 143), and queer political theorising in that respect. Such a possibility is presented, for instance, in Butlers theory of gender performativity. This perspective subverses the fixed nature of the subject of the feminist and gay and lesbian politics by showing that the illusion of gender is constituted by different bodily gestures, movements, and enactments (Butler, 1988: 519), and thus is rendered to different possible styles of the flesh (Butler, 1990: 139). Following the notion of performativity, citizenship can be seen not as a normalised status that can be reclaimed by normalised subjects, but rather as a performance with different meanings and different possible reiterations (cf. Mikdashi, 2013). Furthermore, citizenship as gender can be seen as a strategy which has cultural survival as its end (Butler, 1990: 139). This means that (a) its reiteration guarantees the reproduction of the given culture (Butler, 1988: 524) and (b) performing it wrongly initiates a set of punishments both obvious and indirect (Butler, 1988: 528). The punitive consequences are there, but still such a theorisation of gender, sexuality or, in this case citizenship opens up the possibilities for action. All things considered, the political task is not to refuse representational politics, since there is no position outside the contemporary field of power (Butler, 1990: 5). Rather, a new sort of politics is desirable, one that will contest the very reifications of identities, and will take the variable construction of identity as both a methodological and normative 10

prerequisite, if not a political goal (Butler, 1990: 5). In such a political project, the identity of the subject need not be in the foundation (Butler, 1990: 6), as it was previously assumed (Butler, 1990: 142). Towards this end, Puar (2007) proposes the move from the intersectional model of identity to that of the assemblage. According to her, a queer assemblage is a collection which recognises other contingencies of belonging that might not fall so easily into identity politics. As such, the assemblage is more attuned to interwoven forces that merge and dissipate time, space, and body against linearity, coherency, and permanency (Puar , 2007: 212). This new approach expands the possibilities for organisation, discussion and reclamation of social change in many different ways from the traditional models of organisation. An example could be Boris and Parreas (2010) discussion on intimate labours. I understand the later as exactly one potential assemblage that breaks from the previous narrow understandings of labour as paid job in economic organisations, and opens a new discussion of a variety of labours across space, time, fields and agents.

Concluding remarks

In this short paper I tried to explore the construction of gay and lesbian identities and movements as a vehicle for reclaiming citizenship status. By following a critical perspective, my aim was to problematize these politics of identity and also the normalised notions of citizenship. In many cases it seems that I am nihilistic in my approach. This is not the case. My aim is to demonstrate the need of being critical towards our own actions as a fundamental part of our struggles for social change. As I presented, such politics acting in the modern governmental system came to exclude others and reinforce heteronormativity instead of challenging it, in the process of reclaiming the status of citizenship. This has negative consequences to individuals with alternative sexualities, gender expressions, ethnic origins, class background and other, as presented in the case of prostitutes regulation in Vancouver and elsewhere. Furthermore, the quantified reclamation of rights for LGBT people, as mentioned in the introduction, delimits the struggle to 46 acceptable rights, and can be seen as a liberal normative approach towards citizenship, which, in any case, comes to reregulate and redefine the discussion without challenging the present status quo. Nevertheless, as I briefly demonstrated, there is a possibility of break from such politics. As Dean mentions in his analysis, the government comes to be viewed as a kind of 11

intermediate region which is not purely one of either freedom or domination, consent or coercion (Dean, 2010: 58). This denotes that a space of freedom can exist for the construction of new social movements, feminist, gay, lesbian or queer, inside this very system of governmentality. A prerequisite is that the different agents to be aware of the regimes of power and avoid reproducing them. New theorisations on citizenship are possible, and gender and sexuality can be made differently and less violently. In this paper, I decided to make a brief outline of this potential, without getting into details. For example, I could have discussed further the transversal politics (Yuval-Davis, 1997) and the comparative feminist studies/ feminist solidarity model (Mohanty, 2002), two proposed models of action that could expand our understanding of feminist and queer politics. But I chose not to, mainly for two reasons. First, I had to consider the space and time limitations of this paper. Second, I agree with Halls statement that [q]ueer theories must themselves be queered often and energetically (Hall, 2003: 7), which means that any brief discussion on queer theories and their potentials, would not have made justice to the new developing field of the queer. Finally, I take full responsibility for the perspective I used for my analysis. I am aware that if I used different ways of approaching the question, and explored opposing viewpoints, I could have reached a different conclusion. As I mentioned in my introduction, the present paper can only be seen as an outline of my thoughts on these issues.

12

References10
*Acker, Joan, 2000. Revisiting Class: Thinking from Gender, Race, and Organizations, Social Politics, summer 2000, p. 192-214. Barber, Malcolm, 1978. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bellamy, Richard, 2008. Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Boris, Eileen & Rhacel Parreas (eds.) 2010. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Boswell, John, 1981. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago London: The University of Chicago Press. Butler, Judith, 1988, Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, Theatrical Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, p. 519-531. *Butler, Judith, 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London and New York: Routledge. Caldwell, Lilly, Kathleen Coll, Tracy Fisher, Renya Ramirez & Lok Siu (eds.) 2009. Gendered Citizenships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. *Connell, R.W., 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge, Polity Press. *Crenshaw, Kimberle, 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color, Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, July 1991, p. 1241-1299. Cruz-Malav, Arnaldo & Manalansan IV, Martin F., 2002. Queer Globalization: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism. New York and London: New York University Press. D Emilio, John, 1983. Capitalism and Gay Identity, in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell & Sharan Thompson (eds.) Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Feminist Library Series, p. 100-113. Dean, Mitchell, 2010. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London and California: SAGE Publications. New York:

10

The course literature is emphasised with an asterisk (*).

13

Drucker,

Peter,

2011.

The

Fracturing

of

LGBT

Identities

under

Neoliberal

Capitalism, Historical Materialism, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 3-32. Duggan, Lisa, 2007. The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack On Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. Foucault, Michel, 1978. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel, 1995. Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books. Greenberg, Gary, 2007. Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity. 2007-08[Electronic] 27

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/08/gay-choice-science-

sexual-identity?page=2. Download date 2013-10-20. Hall, Donald E., 2003. Queer Theories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. *Hemmings, Clare, 2005. Telling Feminist Stories, Feminist Theories, vol. 6, no. 2, 115-139. Jagose, Annamarie, 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press. *Lewis, Gail, 2000. Race, Gender, Social Welfare: Encounters in a Postcolonial Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Meer, Nasar, 2010. Citizenship, Identity and the Politics of Multiculturalism: The Rise Muslim Consciousness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mikdashi, Maya, 2013. Queering Citizenship, Queering Middle East Studies, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 45, p. 350-352. *Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, 2002. Under Western Eyes Revisited: Feminist through Anticapitalist Struggles, Signs, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 499-535. *Perrons, Diane, 2004. Globalization and Social Change: People and Places in a Divided World. London: Routledge. Puar, Jasbir, 2006. Mapping US Homonormativities, Gender, Place & Culture, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 67-88. Puar, Jasbir, 2007. Terrorist Assemblanges: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Puar, Jasbir, 2013. Rethinking Homonationalism, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 45, p. 336-339 *Ross, Becki, 2010. Sex and (Evacuation from) the City: The Moral and Legal Regulation of Sex Workers in Vancouver's West End, 1975-1985, in Eileen Boris & Rhacel 14 Solidarity of p.

Parreas (eds.) 2010. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 249-263. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. Walker, Brian, 1998. Social Movements as Nationalisms or, On the Very Idea of a Queer Nation, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary vol. 22. *Yuval-Davis, Nira, 1997. Gender & Nation. London: SAGE Publications. *Yuval-Davis, Nira, 2006. Intersectionality and Feminist Politics, European Journal of Women's Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 193-209.

15