15 January 2023, NIICE Commentary 8493
Liam Jay Atienza
In recent times, discourses on representation and inclusion of individuals within the LGBTQIA+ community—which is an umbrella term for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual, among many others—have become rampant within international affairs, and even in the field of international relations. Narratives such as same-sex marriages and unions, equal rights, equal pay, and overall inclusion are only some of the issues that are being forged ahead in queer discourse, which is out of the normal subjects that are being talked about within the study of international relations—the state, sovereignty, and power, among many other themes. This article provides a glimpse of what Queer Theory is in international relations, and how important it is to be included in IR discourse, especially in the 21st century.
Queer Theory and LGBT Politics: A New Equation
Briefly discussing the core idea of inclusion and representation first, before addressing the Queer component Inclusion and representation have been the key themes of LGBT politics, where queer theory was formulated. The term ‘queer’ has been used back in the nineteenth century as a description for homosexuals, which are people who is attracted to the same sex. For quite some time, it has been used as a derogatory term to those who are not heterosexual (people who are attracted to the opposite sex). But now, concepts such as the Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) bring forth awareness not only to scholars, but also to mainstream audiences, on how to include everybody regardless of their SOGIE. It advocates for queer visibility in social spaces, wherein scholars such as Cynthia Weber wrote about how much queer representation is growing recognition within the field of international relations.
In an article Weber wrote for the International Studies Review back in 2014, four reasons why contentions debating on the distinction of queer theory is unsustainable: (1) queer studies and queer international theories aims to go beyond state-centric features of international relations theories, with the focal point being on the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of queer practices in states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and even international corporations; (2) it aims to know how genders, sexes, and sexualities matter in both domestic and foreign policies, which shows how the state handles issues and concerns concerning gay rights being human rights; (3) queer theory aims to drift away from the dichotomies existent within the study of IR—concepts such as “order vs. anarchy,” “normal vs. perverse,” “heteronormative vs. homonormative,” among many others; (4) the unique juxtaposition of queer theory in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology, in understanding and practicing international relations. In essence, it aims to analyse events through inclusion and intersectionality, as well as acknowledging the knowledge and ignorance in sexuality, and involve poststructuralist methodologies that seek to give the “truth” on sexes, genders, and sexualities.
Core Assumptions and Misconceptions
In 2018, Rahul Rao in “The State of ‘Queer IR’” provided a detailed and a vast view on the conception of Queer Theory in IR. Citing from different scholars who are expertising in queer theory, Rao provided various context making queer theory relevant within the study of international relations. It tackled gay rights, queer separatism, and even global homophobia, particularly within the Muslim world as an opposition to the Western influence on sexuality and gender. Weber’s article on queer theory has also been featured, wherein Rao concurred on the idea of ‘deconstructing’ the idea of sex, sexuality, and gender, and then translate it into the theorization of international relations. It also brought agreement to politicise queer representation, both in domestic and international politics, as well as providing consciousness on the idea of transcending disciplinary boundaries. However, Rao argued that Weber focused on specific geographical and historical settings, questioning why international relations is needed to solve such problems.
Marcus Thiel concurred to Weber’s argument on the lack of attention that queer theory gets in the field. His argument is also in line with Weber, in terms of deconstructing dichotomy ideas such as the ‘West/Rest,’ ‘State/System,’ and the others that were previously mentioned. However, the main concern of Thiel lies on the possible future of queer theory. One of the reasons for the progression of LGBT politics within the West, and the Global North, which may come off as a ‘(homo) colonialist’ and culturally intrusive with how LGBT rights are being promoted. Thiel also contextualized it through globalization and sexual equality in Europe. It was asserted that LGBT individuals should be treated equally, however since it is being assumed as a Western concept, adapting to it especially in political discourse is, considering how dominant neoliberalism is in Europe. The process to intertwine queer theory alongside IR scholarship is still in progression.
Conclusion
Indeed, scholarly discourse on queer representation in international relations has becoming more rampant. The author of this article argues that representation of individuals within the LGBTQIA+ community is essential not only in deconstructing normative dichotomies within the international system, but also to give further representation to these individuals in understanding social dynamics within both domestic and international realms. It can be argued that it will be a rather tedious process furthering such scholarship. But the author of this article, will look forward to non-Western queer representation in IR scholarship. It is still uncertain; however, that it will be a great feat to be able to transcend borders in under sex, sexuality, and gender, and how it can be a way towards absolute inclusion.
Liam Jay Atienza works as a research intern at NIICE.
