With February being LGBTQ+ History Month, this briefing examines the evolution of homonationalism from the early 2000s to the present day. Writer Nicolas Valladolid and editor Ruyi Liu look at homonationalism and the War on Terror, and how homonationalist dynamics have evolved since.
Heteronormativity, Homonormativity, and Homonationalism
Heteronormativity is the assumption that binary gender distinctions (i.e. male vs. female), heterosexuality, and the accompanying constructed societal norms of gender identity are natural and thus normal. Heteronormativity, through presenting heterosexuality as natural, constructs homosexuality as an aberration and an affront to the natural order. It has been ingrained in global social and political institutions, such as limiting gender options to binary on government documents or using the term “gay marriage” instead of “marriage” to denote a same-sex union, as well as outright repression manifested in legislation which criminalises homosexuality.
Despite remarkable progress on queer rights, deconstructing heteronormative societal norms, throughout the West, for example, the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision in the US which legalised same-sex marriage, heteronormative tendencies have resurged. Trump’s first day executive orders targeted queer rights requiring the government to only recognise male and female as genders. Similarly, Hungary’s Victor Orban and Italy’s government have adopted measures to curb queer rights such as revoking birth certificates for children of same-sex couples.
Homonormativity emerged as a response to heteronormative repression. The goal is to present queer people as similar to or the same as heterosexuals, seeking to assimilate queer identities into mainstream heteronormativity. Homonormativity distinguishes “good gays”, who conform to state systems, from “bad gays”, who question the legitimacy of enduring social structures. Thus, homonormativity argues that queerness should not be a political movement with unique political demands and visions but be purely a private act.
Homonormativity allows queer folk to be co-opted into existing institutions, political, corporate, economic, etc. Queer identities have become a vehicle in which power hierarchies are recreated. Pride parades have begun eliciting substantial corporate sponsorships, perhaps most egregiously embodied by Lockheed Martin’s participation in Washington DC’s 2024 Pride Parade. This trend revises the grassroots nature of queer advocacy, transforming pride into a corporate marketing device serving the interests of the socio-economic elite.
In the political and security spheres, homonormativity has become more pronounced. Homonationalism, or homonormative nationalism, as described by Dr. Jasbir Puar, highlights the process by which queer rights and identities are folded into the objectives of the nationalist state. Puar, in the context of the US, views the proliferation of state protections of queer rights as representative of the cooption of queer communities into nationalistic projects. US exceptionalism has been recast as “US sexual exceptionalism”, presenting the US as a leader of unparalleled progress on queer rights and sexual freedom. Beyond the US context, homonationalism has expanded to encompass the “Responsibility to Protect”, an international norm which views a government’s legitimacy as contingent on the protection of human rights. If a state fails to protect human rights, then it is justified for the international community to intervene militarily to replace a “failed regime”. Regarding homonationalism, the degree to which states are sovereign is based on the level to which queer rights are protected domestically.
Homonationalism and the War on Terror
The clearest example of homonationalism in practice is the War on Terror in the early 2000s. Puar observes that queer communities have been strong supporters of the US’s post-9/11 military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, pride movements witnessed an embrace of US nationalism. US flags became increasingly common at parades and gay bars along with floats and performances dedicated to “national unity”. American queer communities perceived the war as key to “liberate” queer people from oppressive social and political environments in the Middle East. Although there was some marginal opposition to the War on Terror among queer communities, they were based on racial objections, such as opposition to the Patriot Act which targeted Muslim-American communities, rather than explicit sexual politics, defined as politics organised around sexual identities. The mainstream queer-centric discourse still aligned with US interventions.
Paradoxically, the rallying around queer rights occurred even when queer communities were under threat in the US. The Lawrence vs. Texas case was pending in the Supreme Court, which could uphold state level anti-sodomy laws . The Clinton Administration’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy which barred homosexuals from serving in the armed forces was still in effect. Moreover, immediately after 9/11, conservative commentators absurdly viewed the attacks as divine retribution for growing liberal elements within the US, including queer folk. The memory of domestic terrorism and widespread violence against queer communities throughout the 1990s made the rise in nationalist sentiment even more paradoxical.
How was queer advocacy co-opted by US nationalism? The 9/11 attacks offered an opportunity for the US to present itself as a beacon of progressivism and champion of human rights. Immediately after the attacks, obituaries and news articles emerged highlighting gay heroes of the attacks. Some queer heroes included Mark Bingham who diverted one of the planes and Mychal Judge, a firefighter who perished in the attacks. Alongside this discourse, US society became one of the first to liberalise, marked by the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas ruling decriminalising queerness and the Massachusetts Goodridge decision the same year which legalised same-sex marriage. The US military also began to relax the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy to increase recruitment. The subsequent proliferation of queer rights reconciled previous contradictions regarding queer repression, reinforcing the US’s image as a global leader in queer rights. Indeed, then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton repeatedly proclaimed the US as a global champion of queer rights pushing for global antidiscrimination.
The coverage of queer folk fighting against terrorism integrated queer communities into heteronormative structures such as the military, constructing a new homonormativity in which responsible “queerness” was tied to participation in the nationalistic mobilisation of the wider American society. Key to this construction was the alienation of queer voices against the War on Terror as anti-American and subversive. “Good gays” were patriotic and advocated for US involvement to “liberate” the Middle East. “Bad gays” were elements opposed to the US post-9/11 response.
This presentation of the US as “sexually exceptional” relied on framing Islam and Middle Eastern societies as culturally backwards, stemmed from Western perceptions of widespread homophobic attitudes in the region. This recreates us-vs-them dynamics, adding another layer to prevalent racialised distinctions between Western and non-Western societies. Sexual rights become a determinant of social progress placing US society hierarchically above Islam, justifying US military action to liberate oppressed groups from repressive social customs. This critique should not be construed to justify widespread abuses of queer communities in the Middle East. The main goal is to highlight the ways queer rights is commodified to reductionistically distinguish cultures based on racial and civilisational hierarchies.
The Retreat of Homonationalism?
The case of homonationalism and the War on Terror emerged out of a particular historical moment during a period of expanding queer rights and prescient national trauma. Are homonationalist dynamics still alive today given the seeming return to Western heteronormative discourses and politics?
Queer advocacy groups have increasingly distanced themselves from nationalism and the state. Since Trump’s first term in 2017, spurred by attacks on queer rights, queer communities have become more vocal in opposing government policies expressed. For example, before Trump’s second inauguration in January, queer communities gathered en masse against his executive orders which targeted trans folk. Similarly, queer communities in the US and Europe, have strongly opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza, integrating pro-Palestine activism into pride parades. Importantly, the alignment of queer communities and pro-Palestine groups demonstrates a rejection of Israeli “pinkwashing” , a strategy akin to the US’s homonationalist discourses after 9/11, in which Israel repeatedly presented itself as a queer utopia in opposition to Palestinian repressiveness. While pro-Israeli queer voices still persist even after October 7th echoing homonationalist discourses, pro-Palestinian queer voices have become more prevalent embodied by the 2024 “No-Pride in Genocide” movement which called for pro-Palestinian protests at pride parades.
While more queer opposition to nationalistic objectives has emerged, in some issue areas and geographies, homonationalist rhetoric has emerged. Following the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Nordic countries have begun reassessing their security situations vis-à-vis Russia. Sweden and Finland joined Nato in 2024 and 2023, respectively, marking a substantial shift away from previous neutralist international strategies. Homonationalist discourse has been key to this security realignment in domestic circles especially in Sweden. Like the US post- 9/11, it has presented itself as a “sexually exceptional” leader of queer rights and culture to justify us-versus-them distinctions and resulting revised security postures towards Russia.
Similarly, in Georgia, the Georgian Orthodox Church has begun to use homophobic rhetoric to unite cultural apprehensions towards Georgia’s European Union (EU) accession movements. The church has presented the EU’s requirement to accept “queer rights as human rights” as incompatible with traditional Georgian society. Pro-European groups have adopted homonationalist rhetorics to demonstrate alignment with European progressive ideals recreating East vs. West civilisational dichotomies.
Finally, the 2019-20 protests in Hong Kong against increased Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control, leveraged homonationalist discourse to highlight cultural differences between Hong Kong and mainland China. Protesters used Hong Kong’s queer rights as proof that CCP influence threatened liberal values. When combined with demands for greater Hong Kong political autonomy, these homonationalist discourses became key to mobilise queer voices against the CCP.
Conclusion
Overall, homonationalist discourse has expanded beyond the original context of the Western coalition in the War on Terror to encompass different nationalist movements across different cultures and geographies. These discourses are key to constructing us-vs.-them binaries which aid popular mobilisation in response to perceived security threats or new nationalist goals. Homonationalism has also been adopted by non-state nationalist movements such as the Hong Kong protesters and the Georgian pro-European movement. However, the same dynamic of positioning western cultural elements against non-western practices has persisted, representing the endurance of racialised and civilisational elements.
Commentaires