Why has neoliberal Capitalism led to the emergence of ‘homonormativity’? Does the merging of gay counter-public with a (heterosexual) dominant public inevitably lead to homonormativity?
Homonormativity has become a common and familiar word in debates concerning sexuality and gender. Homonormativity refers to the privileging of the different heteronormative constructs and ideas towards an LGBT identity and culture. In addition to this, it is predicated on the assumption that the values and norms of heterosexuality should be performed and replicated among homosexual people. It can be argued that the emergence of neoliberal Capitalism has led to the emergence of homonormativity, something which this essay embarks on proving through a thorough reviewing of literature (Röndahl, Innala & Carlsson, 2006). Capitalism needs biopower and sexual politics. The analysis of why neoliberal has led to the emergence of homonormativity can be argued through referring to the relationship between sexuality and state within capitalist communities. It can be argued that neither sexual identity nor sexuality is given naturally. However, they are as a result of the different apparatus of sexuality. In many capitalist communities, sexuality is the counterpart of a biopower a type of power that can be bent through generating different forcing, ordering them, and making them grow (Röndahl, Innala & Carlsson, 2006). In communities, sexual power refers to the means of obtaining access to a person’s life and to the lives of a complete population. Sexuality is a concern of the state which effectively governs its citizen’s reproductive activities, sexuality, marriages, and births practices through inciting self-operations and activities within the subjects. This factor translates to that sexual politics are not juts forced upon the set subjects for subjects to conduct and effectively govern themselves within their body of politics and sexual behavior through the application of technologies of power to rule themselves.
According to Foucault (1990), Capitalism needs biopower and sexual politics. Nevertheless, he effectively reminds people that the relationship between sexuality, biopower, and Capitalism is not a repressive and functionalist relationship. In many states, Capitalism not only needs force, repression, and discipline but also needs the different technologies of biopower, which incite the community to constantly optimize and enlarge its capabilities and forces. The connection between biopower and Capitalism cannot only be related to Capitalism for also racism within its modern statist form and biologging (Mathers, Sumerau & Ueno, 2018). The concept of biologging introduces and reconstructs race, which at this stage introduces the connections and censorship between people who their lives should be proliferated and optimized and those whose lives should not be done like that. Given the form that biopower is not a form of power at any stage of life which aims at optimizing some people’s lives, the death of other people is needed in order to effectively optimize some people’s lives in the process. There are different arguments which theorist has put into consideration concerning the interplay between the state of capitalist communities and sexuality (Carrillo & Hoffman, 2018). The assumption that modern and western communities’ states can be grasped as a given entity, universal within a liberal approach (Mathers, Sumerau & Ueno, 2018). On the contrary, people should understand that the state is a real practice where political rationalities effectively guide the different social practices which enable the existence of a modern state. It is only when the state is called coveted, desired, loved, rejected, and hated, which is a historical form of the state which is brought towards existence. However, the state needs to be built upon a strong consensus within the majority of the desired subjects to be a section of the particular historical method where these subjects integrate and act upon.
In 2005, German introduced the same-sex partnership policy. As a result, since 2005, same-sex people can effectively adopt partners children wherein 2014 gays, and lesbians couples got their adopt and the adopted children of their partners (Röndahl, Innala & Carlsson, 2006). Currently, the joint same-sex adoption of same-sex children is not permitted, but within going legal and political debates concerning the same issue highlights that in the near future, they will be included. It seems that in the near future, the Federal constitution will have to rule against the discrimination of same type sex partners (Cranny-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos & Kirkby, 2017). The legal changes within the capitalist nations are guided by political rhetoric with framers being placed at plurality, diversity, and tolerance as the hallmarks of the nationality of German. What follows from the entrapment of statehood with governmental sexual issues as broken down above, is that imagining the state as a defender or underwriter of security limits strange legislative issues’ emancipatory limit on the grounds that, as Foucault has shown us, the will and want to address the state is as of now an impact of intensity (Röndahl, Innala & Carlsson, 2006). Given that the plan of privatization and eradicating all types of choices add to the savagery of the neoliberal state, strange legislative issues that convey ‘singular opportunity’ and the ‘right to security’ additionally conform to neoliberal governmental issues. Rather than battling for the incorporation of a few, strange emancipatory governmental issues need to look for and develop new, unique aggregate types of sorting out society, social relations, self-relations, care, family relationship, and economy.
It is not only the realm of politics and laws were sexual politics have effectively changed for the economy has also had its say and has discovered a great and promising factor of success within it. Guys and particularly the lesbians have been identified and pointed out as bets consumers and have therefore been seen as a good group of people within the commercial sector. In addition to this, many organizations have, in recent years, started to effectively promote plurality and diversity as a mere guarantee towards creativity, success, and innovation (Cranny-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos & Kirkby, 2017). For instance, Telkom organization brought into consideration the aim and importance of including more openness and awareness for the diversity of organizations so that all partiers irrespective of their nationality, gender, religion, ethnic background, age, disability, identity, and sexual preference can feel highly appreciated. This premise brings up the idea and atmosphere of acceptance. From the above analysis, it is easy to say that along with the emergence of neoliberalism, the different apparatus of sexuality also underwent greater changes filled with the significant transformation (Cranny-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos & Kirkby, 2017). Currently, normal sexuality cannot be defined as the connection between matrimonial reproductions for some guises of homosexuality that have, in recent years, been introduced in the discussion, which many people have considered normal. With the emergence of neoliberalism communities, same-sex partners have been given the right respect as per their concern, and therefore, it is easy to conclude that the emergence of liberalism has caused and led to the emergence of homonormativity.
Homonormativity is a concept that has been developed by authors of development and has been referring to the concept of homonormativity experiencing the position of the only normal manner to live. When this happens, it gives an experience that does not allow the mold as the other (Cranny-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos & Kirkby, 2017). This factor of pothering can effectively take the form of the economic and social violence and exclusion, often a state-sanctioned even death and imprisonment. This factor enforces gender binary and the accompanying gender stereotypes. In this manner, it hurts and harms those who are limiting the available options for the (Carrillo & Hoffman, 2018). For instance, homonormativity males are expected to actively perform their gender in a particular way of being muscly and strong, where men who do not perform like this are deemed feminine. The other side of binary highlights the homonormativity where the idea applies to same-sex types couples imposing the template through performing the homosexual identity. This layout asks gay and lesbian individuals to credit to hetero social desires. They should demonstrate themselves to be “much the same as straight individuals” to access the equivalent or comparable rights and social benefits (Cranny-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos & Kirkby, 2017). These incorporate, for instance, the option to wed, embrace youngsters, and appreciate spousal advantages. There is nothing amiss with the craving to have your relationship perceived by the state, to receive youngsters, or have your accomplice get to advantages, for example, clinical guide or protection. Be that as it may, it turns into a difficult when it’s introduced as the main method of existing as either a lesbian, gay, swinger, transgender, intersex, agamic or strange (LGBTIAQ) individual on the planet. At the point when this occurs, avoidance follows. The individuals who don’t fit the standard are closed out of social spaces, and their issues don’t get a similar measure of consideration with regards to promotion work or campaigning (Reczek & Umberson, 2016). Their privileges and needs are disregarded or esteemed, not huge enough. This can be incredibly risky, as well. Homonormativity, similar to heteronormativity, benefits certain lives over others and makes it workable for society to disregard despise violations against eccentric and transgender individuals.
In South Africa, where I live and direct my exploration, homonormativity and exclusionary rehearses turn on numerous lines: race, sex, sexual character and sex personality articulation, handicap, and class. For instance, one of my understudies is leading an examination of gay male dating applications (Browne, 2016). The underlying unpublished information shows that white gay men, specifically, police each other in these spaces. Some unequivocally decline to visit with “fats” – bigger-bodied gay men – and “femmes,” gay men who are increasingly ladylike in introduction and articulation. This act of policing gay bodies reflects the male-centric practices in a more extensive society, where individuals are furnished with severe thoughts of what considers a fitting, attractive body. Fundamentally the gay network has come to embrace its own type of man-centric society, a “patriarchy”. Gay men propagate man centric society comparable to different characters. This training implies that the LGBTQ people group comes to uphold power structures as opposed to upsetting them. Gay and lesbian South Africans wind up oppressing different individuals from the LGBTQ people group.
Shades of this segregation reach out to the nation’s enactment. The Equality Clause in South Africa’s quite commended 1996 Constitution transcendently gave insurance to gay, lesbian, and swinger individuals from the LGBTQ people group who fit in with hetero standards, similar to marriage. Transgender, intersex, and eccentric individuals were, to a great extent, kept separate from this condition (Browne, 2016). The issue is that the requirements and encounters of transgender, intersex, and eccentric South Africans are tremendously extraordinary to those of their gay, lesbian, and promiscuous partners. For example, transgender individuals require specific wellbeing administrations that numerous hetero and gay individuals do not need to consider. Transgender individuals need to pay for hormones; the individuals who select to have sexual orientation avowing medical procedures must receive compensation for it themselves. Homonormativity regards this experience as if it is anything but an authentic worry for the LGBTQ people group everywhere, and in doing so, it comes to other previously minimized individuals from what ought to be a space of security and having a place (Mathers, Sumerau & Ueno, 2018). Homonormativity copies heteronormativity and related types of viciousness. By receiving legislative issues of similarity, gay and lesbian South Africans decrease their otherness. This encourages them to get to the benefits that stood to a hetero society. They do not challenge power structures. They, again and again, stay quiet when the individuals who have been othered by heteronormativity are the objective of abhorring wrongdoings.
This can be changed. Gay and lesbian South Africans can assist with provoking homonormativity by looking to comprehend who is made imperceptible by the benefits they presently approach. This implies recognizing the very force structures they profit by. At that point, they have to stand up when LGBTQ individuals are avoided, talked about, and rewarded as “other” inside the very network that ought to give them a space of wellbeing and having a place (Browne, 2016). Shades of this separation reach out to the nation’s enactment (Mathers, Sumerau & Ueno, 2018). The Equality Clause in South Africa’s greatly praised 1996 Constitution prevalently gave insurance to gay, lesbian, and promiscuous individuals from the LGBTQ people group who adjust to hetero standards, similar to marriage. Transgender, intersex, and eccentric individuals were, to a great extent, kept separate from this condition. The issue is that the necessities and encounters of transgender, intersex, and strange South Africans are endlessly unique to those of their gay, lesbian, and indiscriminate partners. For example, transgender individuals require specific wellbeing administrations that numerous hetero and gay individuals don’t need to consider (Browne, 2016). Transgender individuals need to pay for hormones; the individuals who pick to have sex avowing medical procedures must compensation for it themselves. Homonormativity regards this experience just as it is anything but a genuine worry for the LGBTQ people group everywhere, and in doing so, it comes to other previously underestimated individuals from what ought to be a space of security and having a place.
References
Browne, K. (2016). Queer Quantification or Queer (y) ing Quantification: Creating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Heterosexual Citizens through Governmental Social Research 1. In Queer Methods and Methodologies (Open Access) (pp. 231-250). Routledge.
Carrillo, H., & Hoffman, A. (2018). ‘Straight with a pinch of bi’: The construction of heterosexuality as an elastic category among adult US men. Sexualities, 21(1-2), 90-108.
Carrillo, H., & Hoffman, A. (2018). ‘Straight with a pinch of bi’: The construction of heterosexuality as an elastic category among adult US men. Sexualities, 21(1-2), 90-108.
Cranny-Francis, A., Waring, W., Stavropoulos, P., & Kirkby, J. (2017). Gender studies: Terms and debates. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction, volume I. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage, 95.
Mathers, L. A., Sumerau, J. E., & Ueno, K. (2018). “This isn’t just another gay group”: Privileging heterosexuality in a mixed-sexuality LGBTQ advocacy group. Journal of Contemporary ethnography, 47(6), 834-864.
Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2016). Greedy spouse, needy parent: The marital dynamics of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual intergenerational caregivers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 957-974.
Röndahl, G., Innala, S., & Carlsson, M. (2006). Heterosexual assumptions in verbal and non‐ verbal communication in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(4), 373-381.