A critique of Jasbir Puar's "Homonationalism"

I just found an interesting blog post (Jasbir Puar’s Homonationalism Talk: A Real Disappointment) that critiqued a talk by Puar from 2008, which brings up some of the same points as I did in my last post. The author is at McGill University (or was in 2008) and heard her speak about her book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times.

The author of the post, whose name was not given, began by criticizing the obscurity of Puar's language.

Well, why not [begin] with language. It feels like fishing in a barrel to complain about the words with which most post-structuralist/postmodernist theories are crafted, but i think it’s important to note. Telling, in more ways than one. What to say about a talk which is only comprehensible to people who have read Deleuze and Guattari, who know when you say “biopolitics” that you must mean it in the Foucoultian sense, and who can dangle more lines of flight from their affect than an ontology has epistemes???

I heartily agree. I've seen a transcript of Puar's talk at Vassar, and parts of it were incomprehensible to me because I didn't know the theoretical language she used. The term "prehensive" seems to be important in her argument, for example, and I could not figure out what it meant. She didn't define it, and even the Oxford English Dictionary couldn't help me.

The author of the post then went on to explain Puar's argument and critique it. Some excerpts:

Puar’s first point was that to criticize or work against homophobia or transphobia (and likely sexism, racism, and all kinds of other things too) within cultures, peoples, or countries which are victimized by imperialism, is to be complicit with imperialist oppression.

This explains the notion of "homonationalism" - if gay/lesbian people in the US or Europe criticize or work against homophobia in countries like Iran, it means that we're participating in "imperialist oppression" of these countries. She doesn't have a concept of solidarity across borders for gay people. I don't see why someone couldn't work to improve safety for gay men in Iraq, for example, in an expressly anti-imperialist way. Or, to work with queer people in Palestine without working with the Israeli government in any way (I imagine that in practice she would be in favor of this - but maybe not?)

This is a crude position, one which has been hinted at in other arguments people have made over the past years regarding Hezbollah, Hamas, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. (The only specific example given by Puar were  a series of protests held in 2006 to mark the first anniversary of the execution of two queer teenagers in Iran, a case i have already mentioned, and reposted criticisms of, on this blog.)

I've encountered this attitude myself. A few years ago, at the end of the semester in my modern Jewish history class, we were talking about antisemitism in contemporary Iran. This was when Ahmedinejad was president, and the first so-called "Holocaust Cartoons" contest was being held - and it produced cartoons that were obviously antisemitic. This particular class session was a follow-up to an earlier class that had talked about antisemitic ideology in the 19th and 20th centuries. One student, on the very last day, came up to me because she objected to my criticizing the Iranian regime in any way - even if the regime was pushing Holocaust denial. She of course did not agree with Holocaust denial (a good thing, since we had just covered the Holocaust a couple of weeks before this), but didn't think it was appropriate to criticize Ahmedinejad for propagating it. I was astonished, and furious, but I had sufficient presence of mind to ask her if she believed this for "anti-imperialist" reasons. She said yes. I went home and fumed to my friends. Fortunately, the semester was at an end, and I wouldn't have to put up with her in class after this unpleasant conversation.

In fact, without drawing any distinctions, acknowledging any other forms of solidarity activism, or providing any other examples to back up her charge, Puar accused the “Islamophobic Gay Left” of being complicit with imperialism, point finale. Rather than explain this in terms of political dynamics or material forces in the real world, without looking at the history/herstory that got us to this point, Puar stated that this imperialist bent was “constitutive” of queer identity as it has been constructed. (That she has also stated that “the rise of queer” is contingent, or dependent, on the rise of racism should be noted. Whether this is a contradiction in her thought, or a paradox she needs to explore, i do not know.)

What do you suppose this mythical "Islamophobic gay left" even is? Who belongs to it? I've never heard of it.

And it's outrageous to say that queer identity is "constituted" by Islamophobia. Queer identity doesn't have anything to do with Islamophobia. One important feature of queer identity for some people is the rejection of traditional religious homophobia - I've heard this expressed many times by people raised as Christians or Jews who are grateful to escape from the stiflingly homophobic communities they grew up in. What does that have to do with hostility to Muslims or Islam?

While there were a lot of esoteric catchphrases summing up the whys and hows of this, there was nothing – nada, zilch – in the way of actual historical or political explanations. It seems this judgment on a terrain of struggle was the product of a lot of mental energy and pure logic, no actual practical experience necessary. That would just get in the way. 

This is also a feature of her recent lecture at Vassar College. She did not provide any evidence for her accusations against Israel.

If you're interested in a more lengthy critique of the talk this author heard, click on the link above. While the post is not about Puar's recent Vassar talk, it does help one to understand the political world that Puar comes from and explains some of the difficult theoretical language.

Jasbir Puar at Vassar and a new justification for homophobia

Jasbir Puar, an Associate Professor of Women's and Gender Studies at Rutgers University, recently gave a speech at Vassar College called "Inhumanist Biopolitics: How Palestine Matters." She was invited by the American Studies Program and her talk was cosponsored by Africana Studies, English, International Studies, Jewish Studies, Political Science, Religion, and Women’s Studies. William Jacobson, a Cornell professor of law, who also publishes the blog Legal Insurrection, recently posted a long article about Puar's talk - Vassar faculty sponsored anti-Israel event erupts in controversy. He quoted extensively from a transcript of the talk, prepared from a recording made by a member of an alumni/parent group called Fairness to Israel. (There was a request made not to record the speech, but FTI did so anyway). (All quotes here from Jacobson's article).

Before I give my brief remarks, I would like to request that you silence your devices you brought with you so as not to disrupt the conversation with Professor Puar is conducting with us today. I would also like to request on her behalf and on behalf of the rest of the assembly that you refrain from recording this evening’s proceedings, in the spirit of congeniality and mutual respect, though it is not against the law, to record someone vocation professional labor without informing them, it is quite unseemly and violates the modest contract of trust essential to the exchange of ideas.

William Jacobson has eviscerated the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish features of Puar's talk, but here I discuss the introduction that the Vassar faculty member gave to her talk.

Professor Puar is a Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University who has established herself as one of the preeminent scholars of Queer Theory.

Having produced work on par with Judith Butler, Robyn Wiegman, Jack Halberstam, and Sara Ahmed. Her widely acclaimed book Terrorist Assemblages published in 2007 explores the ascendant phenomenon of homonationalism, arguing that the new sexual inclusiveness of Western nations is not so much a sign of social progressivism but rather a tactic to shore up and re-invigorate existing hierarchies of race, gender and sexuality toward the end of furthering military initiatives like the U.S. war on terror. This evening, Professor Puar returns to a site of inquiry that to her offers a particular example of how states re-engineer sexual cultures for the purposes of making war: the State of Israel.

I've written about this new concept "homonationalism," before on this blog, and about my objections to it. I view this notion as homophobia in another form, this time justified not by traditional religious teachings or contemporary anti-gay political movements, but by people who consider themselves to be radical leftists. Puar's argument, as summarized in this paragraph, sees the limited positive effects of the feminist movement and the movements for LGBT rights not as social progress but as a means to support US militarism. It's a kind of conspiracy-theory argument - the fact that the US Supreme Court struck down anti-same-sex marriage laws, and other countries around the world have legalized same-sex marriage is taken not as a laudable sign of progress towards making the lives of LGBT people better, but as a covert project to support military initiatives. I do not see how improving the lives of women and LBGT can be viewed in any way as supporting militarism (in any country). In what sane evaluation of the activities and successes of the LGBT rights movement can the legalization of same-sex marriage be regarded as "re-invigorating existing hierarchies of race, gender, and sexuality"? Doesn't the ability of a same-sex couple now to get married in the US actually diminish the previously-existing hierarchy which valued male-female relationships entirely above same-sex ones?

Of course, legalizing same-sex marriages is not the only goal of the LGBT rights movement - one of the really big unfinished tasks is the passage of a federal law making illegal anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation. A same sex couple can get married in every state in the US, but in many states it is still entirely legal to fire someone for being gay or lesbian or transgender, or to prevent someone from renting an apartment or buying a house or any number of other ordinary human activities.