American nationalism is the kind that is concerned with asserting America on the international scene as a nation as well as promoting its culture and unity of purpose. This would imply the direct actions of the American government aimed at advancing the position and role of America on the international scene. It also entails the actions of multinationals whose mother country is America, movements, and non-profit organizations advancing their ideals, and the elements of American culture that inform their charters and terms of services on the international scene.
Orientalism is an outlook that emphasizes, projects, imagines, misrepresents and exaggerates the differences in terms of culture and the people of Arabic descent when compared to the culture and people of European and American descent. Arguably, this outlook is embraced more by the Europeans and Americans. Consequently, the European and American culture is seen and held as superior, evolved, civilized, and capable of a global influence. The Arabic culture, on the other hand, is seen as backward, exotic, and uncivilized. The oriental outlook on this culture has also changed to include the aspect of danger, especially in the period after the terrorist attacks on the United States in September of 2001. This outlook has further been fueled by the spate of terrorist attacks in other countries where the United States has interests and also European cities and installations.
Feminist movements champion for the rights of women while the gay movements are more inclusive to include the rights of the lesbians, the homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender, and people with no gender. These movements champion for the recognition of the rights of these groups of people, their recognition, equality, and liberation (Massad 361). Massad (361) argues that the reach of these groups is no longer limited by the national borders of the countries in which the movements were formed. Instead, the movements have an international outlook.
Orientalism, American Nationalism and gay and feminists movements are similar to one another on different levels. One commonality identified above is the centrality of the United States in the definition of the concepts. Another commonality is the global nature of the applications and the influence of the concepts. These are not arbitrary commonalities but elements that partially explain how these concepts relate to one another. This paper will explore the possibilities by applying commentary on the perspectives of different authors to give mandate to personal dispositions. The central argument is that in many ways, orientalism, and gay and feminist movements are manifestation and at the same time the result of American nationalism.
American nationalism is evident in many of its activities. This is especially the case because these activities usually have a global significance and influence. For instance, Massad (361) argues that the founding of the International Lesbian and Gay Association was founded in 1978. One significant occurrence during this period that was inspired by the principles of American nationalism was the human rights campaign that was championed during the Carter’s administration. The human rights campaign was to entrench human rights in the Third World enemies of the United States and the Soviet Union.
This is an apt example of American nationalism at play. The intervention of America in the affairs of other sovereign countries was due to their belief in their culture and cultural practices. When Massad (361) writes that the aim of the creation of the International Lesbian and Gay Association was to, “create a platform for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people internationally, in their quest for the recognition, equality, and liberation,” it is because of the fact that these values are cherished in the American culture. These disadvantaged groups have a forum through which they can be heard in the society. Even though they may not enjoy full liberation from prejudice, there is the belief that the American culture is more progressive with regards to accepting people despite their differences in sexual orientation.
It is arguable that this has the shades of orientalism. The intervention of America in the Third World countries and the Soviet Union in during the Carter’s administration was not just inspired by the ideals of American nationalism, but also by the belief that their culture, the value systems, and other elements in their culture were superior to the cultures in these regions. More specifically, it must have been that the Americans had a belief that the cultures in the Third World countries were uncivilized, especially in their open discrimination of the rights of the lesbians, transgendered people.
Massad (362) supports this argument when he finds that human rights groups that are based in the United States such as the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch and other feminist organizations in the Western world that are comprised of a majority which significantly focuses on the Muslim world. The scholar further argues that the focus on the Muslim world by these feminist and human rights organizations is not just limited to their discourse but also in the advocacy perspective. The focus on this part of the world is influenced by an orientalist notion that the human rights and feminist movements get from the prevalent representation of the Muslim world, and more precisely the Arab world in Europe and the United States (Massad 362). As a result, the various chapters of the human rights organizations are guided by this orientalist notion.
The discourse and advocacy of the human rights movements are more grounded because these organizations have been there longer that the gay and lesbian movements. However, Massad (362) finds that rather than charting an objective path, the gay and lesbian movements have caught up with the orientalist notions that dominate the advocacy and the discourse of the feminist movement. For instance, Massad (362) finds that the overarching mission of the gay and lesbian movements is to liberate the gays and lesbians living in the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world from oppression. In the conception of the gay and lesbian movements, the gays and lesbians in the Arab world cannot identify with their sexuality irrespective of the prevalent homoeroticism in these societies and cultures. Organized gay and lesbian movements are discouraged in these parts of the world.
Fueled by the belief that the longing for the gays and lesbians in the Arab world to live by their sexual beliefs without the stigma and labeling with which it comes, the gay and lesbian movements have taken it upon themselves to liberate these people. This is a complete circle that links the American nationalism, particularly the belief in the uprightness and progressive nature of their culture to attempt to cleanse the oriental cultures of some of the elements of their culture that they deem oppressive and backward through the work of the human rights, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements.
As argued earlier, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 added to the already inflamed oriental outlook. The Muslim and Arab world were seen as increasingly dangerous in addition to being backward and uncivilized. Islamophobia ensued, and with justifiable reasons in the eyes of the American public. Queer discussions are based on the knowledge and understanding that biology is linear, and that the culture is the one that shows a boundless malleability. However, debates which touch on non-linear biology exudates on the presence of non-reproductive heterosexual behavior homosexual tendencies, and transgender behavior (Hird 89). This is one argument that queer feminists can use in their scrutiny of Islamaphobia and the war on terror.
Puar (37) engages in a discussion that brings out the elements of sexuality in the American-led war on terror. Puar (37) argues that the normative script that characterized this script was based on among other things, the branding of terrorists as queers, individuals who were adversely radicalized, and nonnationals. It is also noteworthy that the public opinion was punctuated and influenced by the homophobic-racist images. These images were characteristic of the images that followed the orientalist-inspired wars preceding the war on terror. For instance, the image of the Empire State Building anally penetrating a caricature that looked like Osama Bin Laden in Manhattan following the attacks on the twin towers in 2001 sexualized the war on terror with notions of homophobia (Puar 37).
A queer feminist would find the homophobic-racist images unacceptable. Among others, the images are fueled by racist barb. In addition to the racist barbs that characterized such images, the likening of terrorism with homosexuality was harmful to the queer people, the homosexual and other people whose sexual orientation does not fit into the narrowly defined social standard. Furthermore, the prevailing metaphors in the branding the terrorists as queers would signify an attack on queer people, especially when the United States launched an offensive against the Islamist radicals and jihadists.
A queer feminist would find even more concerning the double standard by the American government in their expectations of the gays and lesbians in their country. Puar (39) finds that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, there was collusion between American nationalism and homosexuality. This collusion was the result of rhetorics on patriotism which encompassed the inclusion of the queer people and the gays in advancing of nationalism. However, it is arguable that the change in spirit was in recognition of the need for soldiers for the deployment of American nationalism in response to the terrorist attacks. Puar (39) argues that heterosexuality was the norm in America. However, there was the acceptance of the fact that the ammunition required to deploy and implement nationalist projects was provided by domesticated homosexual bodies.
A queer feminist would be perturbed by the fact that even in needing the ‘domesticated homosexual bodies’ to provided the fire power needed for the retaliatory attacks on Islamist radicals in Afghanistan, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would not be repealed to allow their open participation in the armed forces. In the perspective of a queer feminist, the war on terror facilitated and rubber stamped the discrimination of the queer people and the gay and lesbians. It openly stated that the discrimination of the gays and lesbians was not only acceptable but also enforced through a government-sanctioned policy.
Puar (41) highlights the utilitarian approach where the thought of suspending the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy in order to meet the needs for an increased recruitment into the military. Such a utilitarian approach demeans the gays and the lesbians. It further reduces them to utilities. Despite their clamor for recognition and rights, such a move would have communicated the message that the government was only willing to recognize and create an environment where their rights are recognized when they are needed to advance nationalist projects.
Islamaphobia is a concept that relates to the hatred and prejudice towards Muslims partly and significantly because of their religious and political beliefs. For a culturally progressive nation, the treatment of Afghani women by the Taliban might raise a lot of concerns. It might even fuel the prejudice that characterizes Islamaphobia. However, a queer feminist might draw comparisons with the behavior of the American government towards the gay and lesbians. Unlike a feminist, a queer feminist is not just satisfied by the progressive aspects of culture.
The fact that the discrimination against the gay and the lesbians is not as radical as it is in the some of the countries in the Arab countries is not satisfactory to a queer feminist. The opposition of a queer feminist against patriarchy and the discrimination of the people whose sexual orientation does not fit into the narrowly defined social standards are radical. In this regard, a queer feminist would critique the use of the sexual debates following the terror attacks to champion the pro-family agenda by the Bush administration. This is especially after the use of the gays and lesbians in the offensive in Afghanistan.
More precisely, a queer feminist would critique the provision of funding to facilitate research on “healthy marriages.” Puar (41) puts the phrase “healthy marriages” because it represents a subjective and heteronormative position of the government that does not necessarily represent an accurate and factual description of a heterosexual union as the embodiment of a healthy marriage. Additionally, this position by the government and the use of taxpayer’s money to advance the position amounts to the kind of discrimination against which queer feminists take action.
Even more importantly, the American government’s treatment of the families with same-sex partners for bereavement funds after the terror attacks is something with which a queer feminist would take issue. The bereavement funds were offered to the families made of heterosexual unions with ease. However, the initial actions of the government were to subject the same-sex partners who survived the terror attack and wanted the bereavement funds to a vetting process (Puar 41). Puar (41) argues that the government required these families to authenticate their relationships. The availability of the bereavement funds was predicated on the authentication of these relationships. Additionally, the bisexual men and the gays were also prohibited from donating the blood that was needed to save the victims of the terror attack.
Finally, a progressive queer feminist would consider the influence of biology instead of culture in the sexual orientation of people. The argument by Hird (89) provides a different perspective as to the occurrence of different sexual orientations. This argument argues that rather than the popular notion of a malleability of culture against a stubborn biological print, it is possible that the changes in the genetic makeup are responsible for the homosexual behavior. This consideration would provide the basis for a more tempered treatment of the gays, lesbians, and the queers, eventually leading to their unconditional acceptance by the society.
Works Cited
Massad, Joseph. Re-Orienting desire: The gay international and the Arab world. Public Culture, 14.2(2002): 361-385.
Puar, Jasbir. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Print.
Hird, Myra. Naturally queer. Feminist Theory. 5.1(2004): 85-89.
