An Analysis of Gender and Sexuality Outside of the Western White Gaze
By Adam Ropizar
Preface and Introduction
Early on in Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil, W.E.B. Du Bois writes about the modern discovery of personal whiteness, and how it has created a radical shift in the world.[i] To illustrate that point, he says, “I am given to understand that whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever & ever, Amen!”[ii], which many scholars have taken to be literal. If you look at the context in which Du Bois made the statement, having just mocked those praying to God to be “born white” one day, we can see it through a different lens.[iii] Whiteness appears to be mockingly compared to the overarching power of God, with the language referencing biblical text to make the point resonate stronger. For example, Matthew 6:13 of the New Testament reads, “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”[iv] Du Bois takes the “forever” language, but adds on the “and ever,” which has historically been an addition seen in the black community within the U.S. This allows for the crux of Du Bois’ statement to become apparent. He is not claiming that whiteness is forever, but that the same blind faith that makes individuals follow religion and pray for change, stimulates the idiosyncrasies of whiteness. These idiosyncrasies require the belief that it is all powerful and forever for the power structures to be upheld. In the same standard that people do not question “the word of the Lord,” Du Bois is creating a parallel which both questions and mocks the contention that whiteness is the most pinnacle state a human can achieve.
Understanding this parallel and pattern of human behavior, whether from Du Bois’ work or others, is critical to understanding modern gender and sexuality analysis from both a political and cultural lens. “Progressive” [1] gender and sexuality analysis relies on the assumption that there is a dichotomous, universalized, binary of male/female and heterosexual/queer. A deeper understanding is critical, because race, class, and other power structures—such as colonialism, imperialism, proselytism, and capitalism—complicates and renders this assumption negligible. Since the rise of the modern-day queer movement in the 1960s, the West, but more specifically the U.S., has intentionally worked to conceptualize these power structures as “necessarily homophobic.”[v] Despite this framing, the current understanding of gender and sexuality was born out of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements and sentiments. Rather than this understanding evolving over time, it has been inflated to simply be a fact of life.[vi] Gender and sexuality analysis has shifted away from its original framework of liberation to one that instead prioritizes defining its location on the hierarchy of whiteness.
An understanding of the history and weaponization of nationalism—specifically that of the colonized individual—reveals the factors that not only allowed, but necessitated, the shift in gender and sexuality analysis away from its original framework. Consciousness of the colonized individual is seen as one of the most powerful weapons against imperialism and colonialism, so any attempts to allow said consciousness to grow have historically been diverted or crushed. As Greg Thomas, Professor of English at Syracuse University and editor of Proud Flesh: New Afrikan Journal of Culture, Politics, & Consciousness remarks, the Black nationalist identify has been vilified to the point where it is “synonymous with any given evil,”[vii] even though the identity and modern concept of nationalism itself can be traced back to European origins. White nationalism, however, is not viewed in the same militaristic and hateful way. This therefore creates a paradigm where the white gaze is automatically perceived to be correct in its actions. As Frantz Fanon states in The Wretched of the Earth: “The very structure of society has been depersonalized on a collective level. A colonized people is thus reduced to a collection of individuals who owe their very existence to the presence of the colonizer.”[viii] If this power dynamic remains uncontested, then shifts in history and frameworks go uncontested as well.
The current gender and sexuality understanding is still framed within a desire to be closer to what is considered the “norm,” signified in modern times as being heterosexual and cisgender. This understanding has become a state-sanctioned push for assimilation into a universalized binary while being paired with the “queer rights” that are determined to be most appeasable to the masses.[2] This push, which is noted as gaining popularity first in the U.S., has begun to spread into the international human rights rhetoric with little regard for cultural practices, prior movements in the country, or even the desires of local communities.
In this paper, the modern framework around gender and sexuality analysis will be interrogated to be understood outside of its current Western lens, where it is influenced by the white gaze and the key stakeholders in promoting it. This paper will utilize the case study of Haiti in order to better understand the ways in which Western gender and sexuality constructs contrast with their societal movements and progression.
Queer Rights in the Western World
When individuals think about queer visibility and its origins, most immediately think about Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire. An example of this is seen with the infamous tale of Achilles and Patroclus, two warriors in the Trojan War oft-illustrated as lovers, including by Plato and Aeschines.[ix] Some common archetypes of a “heterosexual” relationship are used to describe this pair, with Achilles filling the dominant warrior role while Patroclus is seen performing more of the stereotypical submissive roles, such as cooking and caretaking. This sheds more clarity on the binary that relationships outside of the norm have historically been shifted into for as long as records exist.
The 16th century is when the conversation of queer rights arose with the emergence of codified discrimination laws in Europe. Prior to this period, there had been no specific legislature at play that outlawed “homosexual behavior.”[x] Instead, it was simply considered immoral and unspeakable. King Henry VIII passed the Buggery Act in the 1530s, which is the first clearly documented piece of legislation against LGBT individuals.[xi] Under this act, sexual relations between men were punishable by death. In 1885, around the time that Oscar Wilde gained notoriety in Britain, the offense of “gross indecency” was established to prosecute any same-sex male relations.[xii] The interesting notion at the time was that same-sex female relationships was considered so abstract that they did not bear including in any legislature that was being passed. Germany followed the same trend, establishing Paragraph 175 of the German penal code in 1871, which criminalized same-sex male relations.[xiii]
The end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th is when the advocacy side of queer rights gained prominence, starting with the creation of the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in Berlin. Founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, a German physician and sexologist, the SHC is regarded as the world’s first “gay rights” organization. Gay rights are specifically said in this situation instead of queer rights because, at the time, relationships between men were the only ones considered. The conversation around gender, specifically transgender individuals, was not yet imagined within the dominant thinking. There was a boom in Germany of gay and lesbian individuals becoming more tolerated with Paragraph 175 of the country’s penal code being mostly ignored by prosecutors.[xiv] It is noted that the number of gay bars and periodicals in Berlin in the 1920s was higher than that of New York in the 1980s, creating an environment that may have resulted in Germany becoming a possible champion for gay rights had Adolf Hitler – whose reign of terror prosecuted homosexuals and other marginalized groups along with Jews — not risen to power just a few years later.[xv]
The legacy of the two World Wars brought about the movement that would later manifest as the modern gay rights movement. The “homosexual emancipation” movement was carried on the backs of the soldiers who had fought in both wars and for the first time, argued from a different dynamic.[xvi] Against the argument that homosexuality was natural and should be recognized, which was the dominant narrative prior to the two World Wars, the argument was instead focused on what the obligation was to the soldiers who made sacrifices in each war.[xvii] This was a perspective that spread internationally at the time, as soldiers returned home to countries all over the world. Respectability politics were at the core of this, which has had lasting implications for the current gender and sexuality analysis. By framing the conversation at the time around homosexuality being respectable to the same degree people viewed heterosexuality, it created a dynamic where homosexuality would have to fit into a mold that reinforced the dominant, colonized perspective.
On June 28, 1969, queer rights exploded into the mainstream conversation due to a riot in New York City after an attempt by the local police to raid The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar. Often referred to as the “shot glass heard around the world,” the Stonewall Riots spurred a movement of queer rights in the U.S. that had international implications.[xviii] Suddenly, queer people were on television as queer people. Marches occurred in cities across the country, causing the conversation around sexual identity to become ingrained into daily life. This was only heightened by the AIDS epidemic in the ‘80s, with it being dubbed as the “gay disease” followed by support from the Democratic Party in 1980 with nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation as a party line.[xix] An important note is that the Stonewall Riots were started by three transgender women of color, yet they are often left out of the narrative. The changes that occurred because of the mainstream push for queer rights also left them out, purely centering on white, gay men. This is seen in the present, with the 2015 feature film “Stonewall” attempting to create a revisionist history where a white, gay teen from Indiana throws the first stone and starts the Stonewall Riots.[xx] The original struggles of those who championed the riots have been erased for much of history.
Despite this erasure, the conversation around queer rights was radically different in the West following these events. Ever privy to the changing times, governments and large NGOs worked to get ahead of the curve and place themselves in a position of authority for the coming movement. Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, ACT UP, and the International Lesbian and Gay Association were some of the organizations that started to advocate for queer rights internationally.[xxi] The lens shifted, as advocating for queer rights became a socially-accepted – and even trendy – form of advocacy.
The Intersection of Queer Rights and Colonialism
By the 2000s, countries in Africa started to feel the long-term impacts of imported homophobia. A reckoning occurred as international attention turned toward these countries. They were viewed as living in the past due to the anti-gay laws that still existed. In actuality, the anti-gay laws that they were being critiqued were brought over as a product of colonialization, as the actual historical records in some African countries prior to colonization show a more relaxed attitude towards sexuality and gender identity.[xxii] Many Indigenous and African tribes even recognize a third, non-binary gender to this day. As proselytism occurred in these African countries, the spread of Christianity was paired with homophobia and strict values that the countries in Europe upheld at the time. This forced conversion resulted in a stark loss of culture, and much of the preexisting tolerance of non-heteronormative relationships was lost. Yet, this is not the conversation that is discussed when gender and sexuality analysis is brought up in African countries. Despite the slow pace in the West to decriminalize and/or and legalize same-sex relations and open legal avenues for individuals to change their gender identity, the same gradual, community led movement is not respected in African countries. François Jullien, acclaimed French philosopher and sinologist, reflected on the international human rights regime in his work On the Universal, the uniform, the common and dialogue between cultures by saying:
Westerners pose them, and even impose them, as having to be universal, although it is obvious that these rights came from a particular historical condition; they claim that all people subscribe to them absolutely, without possible exception or reduction, although they cannot fail to state at the same time that over the world other cultural options are unaware of them or contest them.[xxiii]
Jullien is pointing out a simple, yet complex paradigm that is evident in the conversation around human rights. While the colonized countries are simply attempting to get regain their lost culture and assert control over their own affairs, the colonizer countries are working to advance their own “human rights.” Thus, once they get to a situation where they can move from a moral high ground, they then critique the colonized countries as not doing enough or as sanctioning violent human rights abuses. These claims are made with a revisionist mindset, as the colonizers are the ones that imposed homophobic and transphobic norms and policies in some of these countries the first place.
The emergence and weaponization of an international human rights regime have laid the groundwork for various countries to weaponize their own achievements. As human rights have shifted from actual rights to check-boxes for governments to mark off, there has been a steady depression in the intentionality behind sustaining change. It is impossible for the colonizer state to wipe away an entire generation of colonized mindsets through the simple creation and implementation of new policy promoting legal same-sex relations and gender change.
As Massimiliano Tomba, acclaimed author and Marxism theorist writes in Insurgent Universality, it is impossible to simply think of history as history, in terms of putting it and the actions associated with it purely in the past.[xxiv] If Europe itself isn’t de-colonized, the dominant perspective will always have an advantage in shaping the world.[xxv] As this is a goal far in the future, for those even thinking in such a deconstructionist way, the simple recognition of the damage that Europe has inflicted through colonization is critical for change. Sustainable change takes time; it requires buy-in from the populations who will be most impacted by it, and it takes a reckoning with the specific group or countries past. One must build the walls before the roof, or the entire structure around queer rights will simply fall apart.
Haiti: M Community versus LGBT
To understand Haiti’s current state when it comes to said violations and movements around gender and sexuality, an understanding of the country itself is vital. Since Haiti declared independence in 1804 from France, international powers have been violating the economic, social, and cultural rights of Haitians. Haiti was lined up to become a world power upon declaring independence; it was the richest island in the Caribbean, with the resources that were originally being exported by France equaling more than all of Britain’s exports from the region.[xxvi]
Unfortunately, this scared individuals. Haiti is a majority black country. This is in large part because Haiti was colonized to be a purely agricultural colony, and was therefore subject to direct exploitation by outside powers (as opposed to the Dominican Republic where Spanish colonizers settled and married with the indigenous population). Immediately after becoming the world’s first black republic, Haiti was placed under an embargo by France. They closed all the ports and locked the new Haitian government inside the country, forcing them to enter negotiations on France’s terms.[xxvii] The only exception to this embargo was the U.S., who, despite refusing to acknowledge Haiti as a country until 1862, continued to trade with the country when it benefitted them.[xxviii] Simply trading with the U.S. was not enough to sustain the newly emerging Haitian economy, leaving the country with no options except reaching an agreement with France.
While a deal was eventually made with France, it was one that forced Haiti pay an “indemnity to slave owners” at the expense of 150 million francs — or the equivalent of 20-30 billion dollars at modern exchange rates. They were also required to institute a 50% discount on all future import duties.[xxix] With France still being the biggest exporter from Haiti at this point, this stifled the economy and spurred resentment towards international cooperation among the Haitian people. What followed from here was a spur of events in Haiti’s history that caused the country to spiral deeper into debt and, into a chain of committing human rights violations against its own people.
The 1915 U.S. occupation and the 1937 Parsley Massacre were two events early in Haiti’s history that only exacerbated the movement against Western colonial traditions of gender and sexuality. The U.S. occupation of Haiti was a 19-year period where the U.S. exerted fiscal and governmental control over Haiti, under the guise of establishing order and quelling civil unrest after the assassination of President Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam.[xxx] In truth, they were fearful of other countries taking over Haiti and establishing a foothold in the region. This 19-year occupation saw several pro-U.S. Haitian presidents who attempted to adapt Haitian culture and policies to those which reflected U.S. values. While the U.S. was eventually pushed out due to protests and riots, the damage that they left behind sewed distrust in Haiti’s government that remains to this day.
During the 1937 Parsley Massacre, the Dominican Republic attempted to slaughter all the Haitians who were living along the border of the Dominican Republic and Haiti out of fear that they might revolt one day and try to invade the country.[xxxi] This included any Haitians who were of Dominican descent, since such a population was perceived as constituting a potential third column. There was no evidence of a revolt being in the works, but tensions had been high since Haiti withdrew from the Dominican Republic in 1856, so Dominican citizens saw their actions as justified. This created a sense of dread on the island, but also stoked black nationalism. With the Dominican Republic mostly consisting of mulatto and light-skinned individuals at the time, tensions skyrocketed between the mulatto ruling class of Haiti and the mostly impoverished black majority. This was the breaking point that facilitated the necessary factors for the Duvalier Regime to come into power.
The Duvalier Regime was a time in Haiti’s history marked by extreme human rights abuses, corruption, isolationism policies, and a loss of culture for some groups. François, also known as Papa Doc, ran on a platform of standing against foreign interference and bringing power back to the black majority of Haiti. At the height of his presidency, there were approximately 2000 executions being carried out every month, eighty-five percent of the government’s budget was going towards salary, and there was a 50% infant mortality rate.[xxxii]
This regime saw a mass exodus of Haitian scholars and intellectuals due to bans on the disbursement of information against the government and state-sanctioned assassinations and tortures. This created stagnation in Haiti’s educational advancements and subsequently, their development as a state. Vacant leadership roles ended up being filled by the various NGOs and ministries who traveled to the island to supply aid. The aid came with the unknown cost of having new generations brought up on with Western, white colonial values and mindsets. It is said that every family in Haiti has a connection to both a victim and a perpetrator of the crimes committed under the Duvalier regime. This created a situation where individuals wanted to push the events behind them, despite having the immediate economical and health issues from said events to deal with. This was due to the almost instinctual desire to keep cultural connections strong, due to the ingrained legacy wariness towards foreign interference into civil and cultural matters that the citizens had inherited from their ancestors.[xxxiii]
Unfortunately, this push to forget and leave the past behind also included any cultural behaviors or values that had been lost to the ancestor’s said past. Despite this though, some attributes have remained embedded in Haitian culture. For example, the island is referred to as being 100% Haitian Vodou and 90% Catholic, showing a deeply rooted respect for traditional religions despite the embrace of the faith imported from Europe. Haitian Vodou is often referred to as the religion born out of the struggle with slaves, which speaks to Haiti’s rich history with rebellion against the norm and carving its own path.[xxxiv]
Understanding that contextual framework allows us to view the current movement and conversation around gender and sexuality in Haiti through a different lens. The movement in Haiti has not stagnated, as much of the Western dialogue claims, but rather is going through the same process that all other queer rights movements have. Haitians, to an extent, have rejected the universal term LGBT, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. To the Haitian people, this term is simply another attempt at assimilation into specific categories and boxes from the international community. Instead, there is what is known as the M movement in Haiti.
The M movement stands for four things: Masisi, Madivin, Makomer, and Mix. This movement is heralded by Kouraj, the largest “LGBT” activism group in the country. The Western perspective for these has often been that they are a substitute for LGBT, with each lining up with one of the letters. The reality is anything but. The M movement rejects a lot of the specific norms that surround the LGBT movement and how people identify, which to some seem outdated. For example, Masisi is the term in the M movement that is usually thought to line up with gay. Instead, when translated from Kreyol, Masisi is “a person of the masculine sex who socially and/or sexually plays the feminine role.”[xxxv] This goes against the framework of gender identity that modern gender and sexuality analysis uses to categorize people and instead relies on the cultural behaviors that all Haitians recognize. The same can be seen within Madivin, which is often thought to line up with lesbian. Instead, Madivin is seen as “a person of the feminine sex who has homosexual relations, even episodically…otherwise stated, all heterosexual persons of the feminine sex having homosexual relations would also be considered as Madivin.”[xxxvi] In this situation, the language is again not rooted in the individual identity of the person, but rather by their behavior. Through both examples, one can see how the sexuality and gender aspects of the conversation are independent of each other, while modern and Western analysis combines both to form the whole identity.[xxxvii]
Masisi individuals are becoming more vocal advocates for themselves as Haiti redefines it’s democracy. Kouraj frames their work around resisting Western-imposed gender and sexual norms, while providing space for the Haitian people to identify with what makes the most sense for them.[xxxviii] The power dynamics in Haiti radically affect how open individuals can be about their gender identity or sexuality. These dynamics include anything from social status, profession, class, skin complexion, and religious identity.[xxxix] Depending on how high these rank for the individual person, they have a higher ability to engage in various behaviors versus those of a lower class. This comes from the fact that there is no publicly accepted M community in Haiti as there are in other countries, with most of the activities occurring underground unless state sanctioned.
While the hardships that the M community faces in Haiti are numerous, from physical to verbal abuse, the place that they are at must be respected by the international community. Haiti has felt the impacts of colonization for hundreds of years, and now they have a system of queer advocacy that is brought forward by the people, for the people. It must be allowed to grow organically. The Haitian people have not asked for assistance or help from Western powers when it comes to this conversation because only natural and accepted change will create a lasting sense of belonging for these communities. Imposing new policies and laws will only be swiftly rejected, as Haiti is a deeply familial and cultural society. Care, in this situation, is of the utmost importance.
Reckoning with The Past Towards the Future
As seen with the analysis of Haiti, modern gender and sexuality often has the hooks of white supremacy built into its structure. This statement is not to discredit the work that has been done in the movement for queer rights, but instead is a factual statement of the historical influences of the movement. The rejection of liberation with strings attached is becoming increasingly prominent in colonized countries. Care and time are necessary to determine what accepted notions of gender and sexuality look like to Haitians. The reckoning that needs to occur is simple: Western countries must be willing to cede control of the international human rights regime with respect to gender and sexuality to allow countries to progress down their own path guided by their own ethics. That is the most sustainable path forward.
[1] “Progressive” in this context is used intentionally in a mocking nature, to bring claim to the idea that the Western perspective of gender and sexuality analysis currently holds a monolith towards the understanding that is viewed as “correct and modern”.
[2] “Queer Rights” is used throughout the paper as an umbrella term for policy and actions taken to prevent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer+ human rights abuses and promote equity.
Endnotes
[i] Du Bois, W.E.B. 1920. Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe: 29-30.
[ii] Ibid, 30.
[iii] Ibid, 30.
[iv] The Church of Jesus Christ. “Matthew 6”. Retrieved December 13, 2021. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/6?lang=eng)
[v] Ferguson, Roderick A. 2018. One Dimensional Queer. Cambridge: Polity Press: 65.
[vi] Thomas, Greg. 2007. The Sexual Demon of Colonial Power: Pan African Embodiment and Erotic Schemes of the Empire. Indiana: Indiana University Press: 130.
[vii] Ibid, 130.
[viii] Fanon, Frantz. 2004. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press: 219-220.
[ix] See Fantuzzi, Marco. 2012. Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 227, for more.
[x] Britannica. 2009. “gay rights movement: political and social movement”. Retrieved December 7, 2021. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/gay-rights-movement)
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] Marhoefer, Laurie. 2017. “How WWI Sparked the Gay Rights Movement”. Smithsonian Magazine, May 15
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Redux Pictures. 2012. Pay It No Mind: Marsha P. Johnson. Film.
[xix] Britannica.
[xx] Centropolis Entertainment. 2015. Stonewall. Film.
[xxi] History. 2017. “Gay Rights – Movement, Marriage, and Flag”. Retrieved December 12, 2021. (https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/history-of-gay-rights)
[xxii] Stonewall UK. 2001. “African sexuality and the legacy of imported homophobia”. Retrieved December 12, 2021. (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/african-sexuality-and-legacy-imported-homophobia)
[xxiii] Jullien, François. 2014. On the Universal, the uniform, the common and dialogue between cultures. Cambridge: Polity Press: 100-101.
[xxiv] Tomba, Massimiliano. 2019. Insurgent Universality. Oxford: Oxford University Press
[xxv] Ibid, 11.
[xxvi] Henochsberg, Simon. 2016. “Public debt and slavery: the case of Haiti (1760-1915).” Paris School of Economics. 12
[xxvii] Ibid.
[xxviii] Crawford-Roberts, Ann. 2021. “A History of United States Policy towards Haiti” in Modern Latin America. Brown School of Education.
[xxix] Henochsberg, Simon, 12-13.
[xxx] Office of the Historian. “U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34.” Retrieved December 12, 2021 (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/haiti)
[xxxi] Garcia, Scherezada and Paulino, Edward. 2013. “Bearing Witness to Genocide: The 1937 Haitian Massacre and Border of Lights.” Afro-Hispanic Review 32(2): 111-113.
[xxxii] Wagner Jr, Robert F. 1963. “The Duvalier Regime.” The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved December 11, 2021 (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/6/3/the-duvalier-regime-paccording-to-haitis/)
[xxxiii] Belleau, Jean-Philippe. 2021. “For an anthropological approach to denial: Social bonds, pathophobia, and the Duvalier Regime in Haiti.” Pp. 45-49 in Denial: The Final Stage of Genocide, edited by J. Cox, A. Koury, and S. Minslow. London: Routledge.
[xxxiv] The Conversation. 2019. “What is Haitian Voodoo?”. Retrieved December 13, 2021. (https://theconversation.com/what-is-haitian-voodoo-119621)
[xxxv] Kouraj. On the Notion of LGBT versus M. Retrieved December 1, 2021. (https://www.kouraj.org/from-lgbt-to-m-community)
[xxxvi] Ibid.
[xxxvii] Ibid.
[xxxviii] Migraine-George, Thérèse. 2014. “From Masisi to Activists: Same-Sex Relations and Haitian Polity.” Journal of Haitian Studies 20(1): 9.
[xxxix] Ibid, 10.
Leave a Reply