Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Iran, Sexuality, and Intercultural Dialogue
By OMAR SARWAR
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
During his speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parried many of our direct questions concerning his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and his government’s pursuit of nuclear technology. However, he spoke clearly, if rather inaccurately, about the issue of homosexuality: “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.” His remarks evoked laughter in the audience. But our amusement pointed to a lack of reflection on whether such a response is underpinned by certain cultural assumptions with which we in the West have yet to fully grapple.
Of course, it is plainly untrue that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Though part of a minority, some Iranians view themselves as queer, have advanced the cause of gay rights, and have consequently had to endure the persecution of their government. The Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) is one manifestation of the efforts of queer Iranians to promote social justice under the banner of international human and gay rights. What we seem to have neglected are the historical significance and cultural specificity of our use of the terms “homosexual” and “queer” in describing same-sex desire and practice. What does it mean to posit that homosexuality has persisted throughout human history? With respect to Iran, do all or most Iranians who experience same-sex desire consider themselves “gay?” Does a history of sexuality in Persia reveal a “gay” identity as we understand it in modern times, one which is at once defended in the name of privacy and publicly expressed through a variety of symbols, images, and accouterments? Our own Professor Joseph Massad would reply in the negative. In his recent book, Desiring Arabs, Massad argues that civilizational worth and sexual desire have been closely interconnected in Orientalist thought, that the category of the “homosexual” is part of the culturally specific vocabulary of international gay rights organizations (the “Gay International”), and that nationalist and Islamist Arab intellectuals have assimilated distinctly European conceptions of the human since the nineteenth century.
Although Massad concentrates on the interface between Europe and the Arab world, his remains a broad commentary on the manner in which a particular penetrative Western discourse has interlaced sexuality, gay rights, human rights, Orientalist convictions, and social Darwinism in confronting the question of same-sex desire and practice in the non-Western world. He avers that “it is the very discourse of the Gay International, which both produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” For Massad, this discourse is oppressive because it brands those who pursue same-sex practices but resist universalist terminology as “homophobic” and because it rigidifies a heterosexual-homosexual binary, a potent tool for state repression.
I mention Massad’s work to underscore the possibility that many Iranians (and many non-Westerners in general) might conceive of sexuality in non-identitarian, non-universalist terms. These conceptions may take a range of forms, some of which betoken a dialectic between religious revivalism and Western norms, particularly in the context of the history of the modern Middle East. A denial of “homosexuality,” then, may indicate not an irrational refusal to accept the fact of same-sex desire and practice but rather a repudiation of a homogenizing albeit culturally distinct discourse on sexuality. I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s curt answer to the question of the persecution of homosexuals evinces such complex considerations. And I personally do not endorse punishing or killing people for their sexual desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. Nonetheless, President Ahmadinejad is not the sole representative or arbiter of the aspirations of the Iranian people, with whom we must engage in constructive dialogue on questions of sexuality. It will not suffice to presuppose that Iranians already conduct their sexuality in identitarian, universalist language or that, if they do not, they can somehow be benevolently (or peremptorily) taught how to do so. It is only by maintaining open lines of communication with the Iranians (and other peoples) that we can begin to understand what we share as human beings and what differentiates us. This will be the least we can do if we claim to be more tolerant and compassionate than the present Iranian government.
The author is a history Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 15)
Post a Comment
I found some years ago on the Web the very interesting essay, already written in 1995, about male sexual behaviours in India and the question of their sexual identity. It explains much about how we should leave behind us our Western perceptions of male sexuality, especially when we want to label it as "straight" or "gay" or even as "bisexual". It is very useful to read this essay as we want to know about how cultural restricted our perception of m2m sexual behaviours sometimes is.
This is the essay:
Cultural constructions of male sexualities in India
June, 1995
“The human mind cannot think a thought unless the words to express the thought exist”
Eighty Four, George Orwell
Sexual identities arise within the context of the psycho-social and historical dynamics that are mediated by culture and language. Differing cultures will have different meanings. The terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual identities as they are understood, arise from Eurocentric perceptions, values and meanings.
The fluidity of the Indian male’s sexual experiences and behaviours, the social invisibility of sexual behaviours, gender segregation, Indian male homosociability and homoaffectionalism, male ownership of public space, shame cultures, community izzat and family honour, compulsory and arranged marriage, and within that compulsory procreative sex, joint and extended families, a personal sense of self subsumed into a family sense of self, male and female social roles as definers of gender and adulthood, delayed marriage, all have a central impact upon the constructions of sexual behaviours that are framed by differing contextual identities.
Since the 19th century the medicalisation of sexuality and sexual behaviour in Western cultures has created a whole new discourse to describe sexual behaviours and evolved new concepts of sexual identities. A person expressing same-sex behaviours became a homosexual. Procreative “heterosexuality” became the normative process. The dichotomised, hierarchical and oppositional structures of what was deemed masculine and feminine framed these new concepts of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”. At the same time the relationship between sexual behaviours arising from procreative acts and sexual behaviours an sing from pleasure/”lust” also framed the debates around what was deemed “normal” or “abnormal” and “perverse”.
Here sexologists, both historic and contemporary, have played a key role in reducing the diversity of alternate sexualities, identities and behaviours into what for some was a pseudo-scientific discourse that invisibilises and demonises the rich cultural and social traditions of many differing sexual cultures. A form of sexual neo-colonialism has arisen whereby our countries have been invaded by this Western discourse and our own histories have been discounted.
The term homosexual does not have a direct equivalent in Indian community languages. This does not imply that same-sex behaviours do not exist. What it does mean is that these behaviours have different histories, different contexts, different social constructions and are thus framed by different identities. In terms of men who have sex with men, what language exists either reflect actual sexual behaviours, terms that are often extremely abusive and degrading, or identities based upon concepts of “not men”.
Here the act of sexual penetration is a definer of phallic power. The person penetrated is defined as “not man”, while the penetrator remains undefined. The Hindi tens gandu and khusra reflect this. However in some discourse they are often used synonymously with the term homosexual , but they are not the same They construct a person who is “not a man” and “not a woman”, a third gender. The penetrator remains a man. Likewise, the term hijra, a socially constructed role for a group of men with religious and cultural significance, whose primary belief is around the religious sacrifice of their genitalia and who act as women in exaggerated styles, has also been used to describe boys/men who are sexually penetrated. However, hijras are not transvestites, transsexuals, or whatever Western label has been given them.
The sexual world view as expressed in contemporary India, has been formed by the central concepts of Vedic Brahmanism, Islam, Christianity and also of Ayurvedic and Western medicalisation of the body and sexuality. What we have is gender segregation of social space and labour, boy children as capital, male control of social spaces and economic resources. Gender roles are strictly defined, not only in terms of the physical body but also in terms of social duties and obligations. Transgressions of these roles can be severely punished through stigmatisation, social exclusion, exile, physical abuse and even death. Post-pubescent boys on the other hand are not men, not adults, a state defined by marriage. In that sense they are the “beardless youths” of so much Arab and Mughal literature, sexually available to men. Malehood and femalehood are contextualised by genitalia and social duty. Adulthood contextualised by marriage and children. A boy becomes an adult male, a man, upon marriage, a girl a woman by marriage and children.
This leads to a culture that demands compulsory marriage and procreation, that gives no validity and space to autonomous women and men, that stigmatises unmarried individuals, and only confers adulthood, social status and responsibility to married men and women who produce children.
The only way to deal then with issues around sexual behaviours is to invisibilise them. This is achieved by not having any public discussion about sex, sexual behaviours and sexualities. Since they are invisible they do not exist. While traditions expressive of sexual diversity are seen as dirty, deviant and perverted and men who participate as the penetrated are seen as demasculinised, as partial women. Sexual behaviours cannot be brought into the public domain. To do so is to bring shame and dishonour to the family and/or community.
Sexual behaviour takes the place of sexuality. Women’s sexual behaviour becomes controlled and marginalised, if not denied. Male sexual behaviour becomes self-absorbed, and is reduced to one of discharge rather than based upon a desire for the other person.
Because of this terrible silencing and denial of these histories from various ideologies, an almost total exile situation has emerged. In trying to resist this exile, a closeted and schizophrenic state of being has emerged where the person tries to assimilate into society through marriage and having children, yet expressing alternate sexual desires in purdah, in darkness, shame and in silence.
There is a construction around male sexual behaviours which can be defined by the Hindi word maasti. It means mischief, and is often used in the context of sexual play between young men and boys. More often than not this does not involve penetration. This maasti arises at moments of sexual tension, as “body tension”, when sexual discharge becomes urgent, when sexual arousal arises during play or body contact, when opportunities are created for sexual contact, often under the blanket. Such opportunities are very frequent. Shared households in crammed conditions produce shared beds. There is social acceptance of males sharing beds, of male to male aftectionalism, both public and private. This often means that a significant amount of sexual behaviour occurs in family environments, between uncles and nephews, cousins, friends, and even at times brothers. This is not seen as real sex. It is maasti. Sex is between a husband and wife!
Sexual behaviours in this construction are not an expression of a personal identity. Rather it is one of opportunity, accessibility , context, and an urgent desire for sexual discharge. What we have are behaviours but not identities. Sexualities instead of sexuality. Homosexualities instead of homosexuality.
Personal identity is contextualised within the joint and extended family. The family identity is more important than personal desire and choice. Individuality becomes lost and subsumed within the family. Privacy does not exist.
The form of social control of behaviour is constructed through concepts of honour and shame. This is very different from Western cultures of guilt.
Honour here is a possession, not a quality. Shame arises from honour being lost. Both of these elements are an expression of public visibility. At the same time, public behaviour is bound within community and social acceptance, duty, obligation and honour. Not to fulfil these obligations, or to go against community values in a public way, is to bring shame, and hence dishonour, to family and community. It is the visibility of behaviour that is important, not the behaviour itself.
When an individual behaves in ways deemed to bring dishonour and shame to the family, extended family and/or community, the reaction can often be severe. Exile, excommunication, physical abuse, and sometimes death. Or there will be emotional or financial blackmail by family members to force conformity to family and community dictates.
Family honour is based upon the women of the household. The daughter’s virginity is a prized family possession and to be policed, Her virginal status before marriage reflects upon family honour. This often means that sexually active men have very little sexual access to women, other than female prostitutes. Or perhaps obliging neighbourhood wives when their husbands are away! And even the domestic servant.
Marriage is the central issue. It is a compulsory duty, both family and community and is part of the definition of adult. It is a liaison between two families and to go against family decisions for whatever reason is to bring shame to the families. To remain unmarried also reflects upon the honour of the family.
Children and filial duty. Sex as a family obligation. As one person in a sexual health workshop in Orissa told me, “I do duty to my wife”. While women have often said “I do work with my husband”. The wife is seen as an Honoured Partner, as Mother and Sister. The husband as Lord. Marital sex as duty and as work.
Sex for pleasure is what occurs outside the marriage. And as long as this behaviour is invisible, it brings no shame and dishonour to the family. If women are not accessible then other men or boys will do . This is not desire but discharge. A cultural framework of compulsory procreative sexual intercourse.
Whilst marriage is compulsory and arranged, India is also filled with intense romance. In the ubiquitous Bollywood films the hero and heroine sing romantic and chaste love songs to each other. They will go through the trials and tribulations that the four hours demand, and if their families agree to the match, they can get married and sexual fulfilment will follow. But if such romance cuts across race, caste, sub-caste, religion, economic group, then the likelihood will be that it remains unfulfilled. The family always wins.
But the public domain is a male social space. For women to enter that social space can often lead the woman to be sexually harassed, to be defined as “evening person”, a prostitute.
Physical affection between men and women in public is not socially acceptable and often can be dangerous for both. For many men, because women are just not accessible, romantic longings are at a distance, unfulfilled, chaste, and often filled with a sexual urgency.
All this emotional and sexual energy, this romantic longing, the affectional needs and desires, have very few socially acceptable outlets. However, intense male friendships are formed within homoaffectionalist frameworks which include extensive touching, holding of hands, body contact, and the sharing of beds. And this is socially acceptable!
The line between homoaffectionalism in such a homosocial environment and actual homosexual behaviour is a narrow one, and many men cross this line in situations that enable the behaviour to maintain its invisibility. Thus often two boys/men sharing a bed under the same blanket may find it easier to sexually touch each other without consciously acknowledging the fact. This is maasti. A lot of this sex is between relatives; uncles and nephew, cousins, in-laws, where space and time afford it.
Sex with another male is not seen as a permanent feature, even though it may be actually be so, but rather an additional, situational and opportunistic outlet. The constant expectation is that one day the person will be married and have children, and perhaps they may be able to afford sex with a female prostitute. Here sex is discharge.
There is a small, but growing movement, amongst those whose sense of personal identities and emotional and sexual desires are outside the socially constructed ‘normal” who are creating new forms of identities. Many of these may well call themselves lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and even heterosexuals. But in the main for so many men, sexual opportunity is what drives the urgent need for discharge.
Apart from the possibilities of sexual encounters with relatives and friends in the home and under the blankets, sexual encounters occur primarily in public spaces. There are no “gay” bars, clubs, discos. The street, the bus stand, the park, the public toilet, the railway or bus station. Contacts are made, and quick sex available, penetrative or otherwise.
Workers in public and domestic arenas join in the sexual networks. Whether just for sexual release, money, or actual desire for sex with other men, is perhaps a difficult question to answer. Taxi-drivers, rickshaw wallahs, malish wallahs, room service boys and housekeeping men in hotels, waiters at restaurants, shop assistants. The framework is ubiquitous. The glance, the second glance, the smile, the appropriate questions, sometimes “for a few rupees more”, sometimes just masti In Indian urban cultures, male to male sex does not exist in a few selected areas as in Western cities. It is anywhere, in the right conditions, the right time, the right space.
In the middle and upper classes, domestic servants can also make sexual availability easier, based upon power as much as desire and discharge. Sex between the young male sons and the young (and sometimes not so young) male servants is not as rare as people think it is.
Such behaviours are not just an urban phenomena. Sex between males also occur in village environments. In the fields, in the dark. In the home under shared blankets.
What we can say then is that amongst Indian males, sexuality is not singularly constructed and contextualised within personal identities. Rather sexual behaviours based upon discharge and availability predominate. There are high levels of male to male sex because of the homosociability and homoaffectionalism of Indian society and the restricted sexual access to women. Perhaps what we can is that Indian male sexualities are constructed within time and space!
Urban cultures and the growing middle class is beginning to develop social constructions of identities based upon specific sexual desires. These relate very much to economic and social spaces that enable access to privacy, access to Western literature and language, access to individuality.
Whether these emerging identities imitate Western constructions, only future history will tell.
References
Al-Khayyat, Sona : Honour & Shame - women in Modern Iraq, Saqi Books 1990
Blackwood, Evelyn edited by: The Many Faces Of Homosexuality- anhropological approaches to homosexual behaviour, Harrington Press 1986
Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab: Sexuality in Islam, translated by Alan Sheridan. Routledge & Keegan Paul Ltd, 1985
Caplan, Pa,t editor: The cultural construction of sexuality, 1987 Tavistock Publications Ltd
Greenberg, David F: The Construction Of Homosexuality, University of Chicago Press, 1988
Khan, Shivananda: KHUSH , a report on the needs of South Aian lesbians and gay men in the UK, Naz Publications, 1991
Khan, Shivananda, editor: History of Alternate Sexualities in South Asia, a report on a 3 day seminar, New Delhi, India, Naz Publications, 1994
Khan, Shivananda: Contexts - Race, Culture and Sexuality, a report and needs assessemnt on South Asian commnities, Naz Publications, 1994
Khan, Shivananda: Conference Report: Emerging Gay Identities in India - Implications for Sexual Health, Naz Publications,1995
Mane, Purnima and Maitra, Shubhada A.: AIDS Prevention - The Socio-Cultural Context in India, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1992
Parker, Andrew , edited by: Nationalisms and Sexualities, Routledge, 1992
Ratti, Rakesh, editer: A Lotus Of Another Colour , Alyson Publications, 1993
Schmitt, Arno and Sofer, Jehoeda, edited by : Sexuality And Eroticism Among Males In Moslem Societies, Haworth Press, 1992
Sharma, S K : Hijras - The labelled deviants, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, 1989
Swidler, Arlene, edited by: Homosexuality And World Religions, Trinity Press International, 1993
As far as I can tell, there are four types of people in the world:
1. Those who like to have sex with members of the opposite sex
2. Those who like to have sex with members of the same sex
3. Those who like to have sex with members of both sexes
4. Others (those who enjoy sex with animals, asexuals, pedophiles, etc...)
If there is something "orientalist" about this classification, I would love to hear about it.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Ahmadinejad meant to claim that there were no people of type "2" in Iran. Furthermore, I think it's a gross generalization (occidentalist, if I might say so myself) to claim that the term "homosexual" refers to a particular type of western cultural "identity" rather than just a sexual preference (if you are prepared to say that "sexual preference" is some type of cultural construct). It is true that there are homosexual activist movements that have developed in western countries to defend those who have homosexual preferences against various forms of persecution, but this says nothing about the reality of the sexual preference categorization I have identified above. Sure, you can claim that by laughing, the audience in front of Ahmadinejad failed to have the creativity to imagine him saying something like "we don't have any flamboyant Christopher Street types in Iran, only subdued closeted homosexuals," but I don't think this is the sign of something as sinister or hegemonic as you seem to imply.
Homosexual behaviour in Iran is quite common. What is no common is the idea that two men can live together as permanent partners. When Ahmadinejad said that homosexuality does not exist as it exists in America, he was absolutely correct. The most shocking thing in Iran is how easy it is for two men to meet and have sex. That of course does not mean that the two men are homosexuals. Let me add that it would be highly unlikely for Ahmadinejad never to have had sex with a man, especially being a man of letters as he is.
In America a category that lables men that have sex with men exists, but that often is not the case in many other cultures. Do you have a category for people who eat only apples? The answer is no, but most people eat apples in America. The same story applies to Iran and homosexuality. Yes their religious scripture forbids homosexuality, but so does ours. This has no bearing on what goes on. Further, as a person who has sex in Iran, you are expected to be cautious about your sexual behaviour.
No there are no homosexuals in Iran if by that you mean Gay men, but let me make it very clear that for men to have sex with other men in Iran it is very very easy, and yes that does not make you, or the man you are with, homosexuals. You are just a man, just like you are a man that can eat apples. Sorry no need to throw you into a category because you eat apples.
This is an excellent and insightful comment. It cuts to the core of Omar Sarwar's column with simple prose and accessible analogy.
Beautiful. Just don't get caught, however, because you will be hanged.
Hey, anybody try to find the transcript of the Ahmadinejad event.
Been online now for thirty minutes and no luck.
I'm thankful for all of the reports but sometimes I like to make up my own mind.
No offense, but it might have helped this piece if you'd better defined some of the terms. It might make sense to those in the field, but to me, it read like a post-modernist's wet dream.
Thank you all for your comments and criticisms. I'll make a few remarks in response:
First, to those who think that Massad himself is an Orientalist, it will not do to cite writers and scholars who have leveled this charge against him without explaining why you agree with them. One cannot substitute assertion for argument.
Secondly, though I did not directly address the issue of capital punishment for same-sex acts/relations in Iran, I did mention that I do not endorse the punishing or killing of people for same-sex desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. One need not ground an argument against the death penalty for same-sex acts/relations in human rights; one could just as easily make this argument on Islamic jurisprudential grounds. At any rate, I am not saying that people do not become "homosexuals" until they are persecuted or killed. I am suggesting that there are other modes of conceiving of sexuality which might be de-linked from public identity and which do not subscribe to a universal idiom of "queerness" or "homosexuality." If this is so, then we must have a dialogue with other peoples to learn about what we share as human beings and our differences.
Thirdly, to those who believe that I have constructed a "quasi-argument" and that I exhibit the "rantings" of someone yet to experience the real challenges of academia, I have nothing to say until it is explained why I have made only a "quasi-argument." To accuse someone of "ranting" without explaining why is to engage in an ad hominem attack, which is illogical.
Thank you again!
Omar
With respect to your 2nd point - notwithstanding the differences in public identity, I find it difficult to believe that Ahmadinejad didn't understand the nature of the question regarding why homosexuals were hanged in his country.
Here is the question:
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
Here is the convoluted, indirect answer, with the ultimate response that there are no homosexuals in Iran:
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation?
We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
So, clearly he knows the nature of the question - it is very expicit that the questioner is asking about the execution of Iranian citizens who are homosexuals - Ahmadinejad knows that the Western press has focused on these killings intently and he is not ignorant of the critique.
Your scholarly monograph on Iranian sexuality is interesting - but the differences in society is not why Ahmadinejad did not answer the question. He knew exactly what the critique was - he chose to obfuscate and not answer it head on. Please don't excuse him for his purposeful obtuseness by giving him an "out" that he was misinterpreted or that his response was actually acurate. That's just giving a version of "It all depends on what your meaning of "is" is".
I understand and agree with you regarding the complexity of sexual relationships in the Middle East and North Africa where the language of "homosexuality" does not always exists. I find it disheartening and irresponsible when people fail to contextualize the concept of sexuality that is different from their own standards, as was the case when the media and the individuals present during Pres. Ahmadinejad's speech thought the absence of "homosexuals" in Iran as laughable.
Same-sex relationships exist in the MENA but under specific contexts. Further, those who belong to a particular socio-economic class are more inclined to subscribe to the notion of identity in sexuality [sometimes termed as the alphabet soup of sexual identity - LGBT and counting], while others refrain or are even unaware of identity constructs but practice same-sex relationships nonetheless. Sexuality is a complex issue which, unfortunately, given the tendency of the US and some of its citizens to impress, nay force, their "hegemonic values" and ideas to others, I am not surprised by the lack of critical thinking and contextualizing of the word "homosexuality" as espoused by Pres. Ahmadinejad last Monday.
So - they're not homosexuals until they are hanged for being homosexuals or rather, for same-sex sex acts? You use a lot of pretty words to discuss the complex issue of identiy politics, but you completely avoid the death penalty issue for homosexuality and adultery. Ahmadinejad is not an idiot - he understands exactly what the questioner was asking about - it is no secret that Iran is correctly being excoriated for murdering people due to consensual sexual actions.
Don't believe everything you hear and see, either from the American media or some organizations. Read between the lines and always contextualize. Do not posit a crude argument. Do your research as I am not here to feed you with information. Further, by the construction of your quasi-argument, you "exhibit" the rantings of an individual yet to be exposed to a few more years in the academe and in the field [note: read between the lines].
Academe? We do not have this phenomenon in America. I do not know who told you that we have it.
Professor Massad's views have been, and continue to be, entirely orientalist, and frequently deny the agency, and even critical thinking ability, of Arabs in the Middle East. Three different reviewers of Massad's work, Jordan scholar Asher Susser, Jordanian journalist Jehad Al-Mheisen, and former Middle East editor of the Guardian Brian Whitaker, have all independently implied or openly charged Massad with being an Orientalist with respect to his book on Jordan, Colonial Effects, and his new book, Desiring Arabs. Massad is the Orientalist, and although Mr. Sarwar's broad point is provocative and worthy of consideration, his reliance on Prof. Massad detracts from his credibility, as does his over-reliance on narrow and unnecessary academic jargon.
Post new comment