Globalised Homosexual Identities: The Pros and Cons of Uncompromised Homosexuality

Within academic debates regarding subalternity and homosexuality there are two broad arguments: a) ‘modern’ homosexual identities are the product of ‘gay imperialism’ from the ‘west’ and therefore unsuitable for non-western climates; and b) ‘modern’ homosexual identities are rooted in a rights-based initiative for legal and cultural change. Yet both arguments are simplistic and require greater nuance for LGBT equality worldwide.

The search for (and proof of) a native homosexual identity is important for the most conservative elements of a subaltern society that may reject homosexuality on the basis that it is foreign to their culture and society. The ‘modern’ homosexual identity that has developed is somewhat problematic for these cultures where it is viewed as the only definition of homosexuality, but so are the ‘native' definitions that appear in academic debate. Hijras in India can be divided into kothi and panthi: the former takes the passive position in intercourse where the latter takes the active position and marries a female. The kothi will dress and behave as a female and live among other kothis, and those kothis that castrate themselves refer to themselves as ‘asli’ (authentic), and the un-castrated as ‘nakli’ (fake/inauthentic). While there is a case to be argued that this represents a greater tolerance in Indian society (historically) towards homosexuality, this should not be the form of homosexuality that is upheld in Indian society in the search of a native homosexual identity. It is rooted in compromise, it reduces homosexual relationships to sexual transactions and puts kothis, panthis and their wives at risk; it is predicated on the imitation of heterosexuality via the aforementioned binaries; it denies the right, particularly to kothis, of a stable loving relationship. This is particularly interesting as it seems that the more feminine of the kothi-panthi relationship has more to loose: they are not able to fulfil notions of hegemonic masculinity and be accepted as a part of wider society by hiding their sexuality and having a married life. Perhaps most importantly, this native form of homosexuality is silent on female homosexuality: implying that females should not, or do not deserve the right to sexuality.

Conversely, the example of Polari, a subdialect used in Britain by predominantly by gay men before the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Europe reveals the way in which a subculture and a native gay identity existed in Europe. It can thus be understood that with greater legal rights and social recognition as an acceptable orientation, native homosexual identities erode with the development of LGBT rights and equality on the basis of individualism and freedom. Conversely, the LGBT rights movement and this ‘modern’ globalised homosexual identity is rooted in rejection of compromise, and while geographically ‘western’ in origin, is not a ‘western’ gay cultural identity.

The context of this globalised homosexual identity is then problematic, not because it seeks to achieve parity with heterosexuality socially, but because it is rooted in the concept of individualism. In Indian society which is collective rather than individualistic, an uncompromised homosexual identity is somewhat problematic where heterosexuals often have to compromise on relationships regularly: marriage to someone within the same caste and religious group is likely to be expected, and a pre-marital boyfriend/girlfriend may not be a suitable marriage partner. Any analysis of gay liberation in India and the search for equality and parity both socially and legally must not be predicated on the rhetoric of individual liberty and rights alone. This is not to imply that India is not worthy of these concepts, but to deny the collective nature of many subaltern cultures is to do great damage to the search for LGBT liberation in those societies.

There is a risk then that the wealthiest in those societies are able to adopt this ‘globalised’ homosexual identity where they have little economic dependence on their families and do not have to worry about destitution if they are rejected and disowned. This leaves the poorest in society alienated from the LGBT rights movement and serves to fragment and dichotomise the LGBT community from within on class (and caste) lines: moving forward thus means the careful navigation between the ‘no-compromise’ principle and the nature of a collective society which expects compromise.