Challenging the logic of progressive timeline, queering LGBT successes and failures in Ireland and Russia

Abstract

This article offers a critical view of progressive timeline that is a characteristic trait of composing LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans*) world maps and, in general, of thinking about queerness globally. I regard linear narratives of time as the manifestations of power that assign progress to the imagined ‘West’ and backwardness to the ‘East’. In this effort, I, therefore, advance critical scrutiny of spatio-temporal notion of progress, but centre on time rather than space which has been the focus of previous studies. The discussion of the work of Muñoz and Edelman helps to propose criticism of progress inherent even in queer approaches to time. Conclusions from the review of this discussion are then used to study developments of ‘LGBT progress’ in two countries, namely Ireland and Russia. My analysis shows that evaluation of the countries’ experiences on the progressive timeline fails to account for nuances and heteronormativity still present in both contexts regardless of their spatial polarisation.

Anti-gender politics in Finland and Romania

“…In the European context, these also benefited from the encouragement and support of various European Union (EU) institutions (Ayoub and Paternotte, 2014: 9-10;2020: 156). This notwithstanding, referenda on the topic have generally not led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, with Ireland being the notable exception (Kondakov, 2023). In fact, plebiscites have served as key instruments in anti-gender campaigns to legislate pre-emptively against equal marriage rights, especially across Eastern Europe (Kuhar, 2017;Mos, 2020;Vučković Juroš et al, 2020;Norocel and Băluţă, 2023).…”

Perverts or Heroes in the Post‐Socialist “Cold War”: Formula Stories of Lesbian/Bisexual/Queer Women and Transgender People in Ukrainian Media

“…In Europe more broadly, sexual politics are caught up in the geopolitical comparison in which Western Europe is often understood as more liberalized than presumptively conservative Central and Eastern Europe—a politics that deserves greater critical scrutiny (Juros 2022; Kulpa 2014; Liinason and Alm 2018; Mayerchyk and Plakhotnik 2019; Shchurko and Suchland 2022; Takács and Szalma 2020). Regardless of individual histories, post‐Soviet countries appear to be interpreted as either on the “successful ‘Western’ road to the ‘gay utopia’ or failing ‘Eastern’ collapse to the ‘dark ages’” (Kondakov 2021:8). Decolonial critiques of the Western progress narrative take on Western queer studies as a colonialist project in global context (Kao 2021; Kondakov 2021; Pagulich 2020).…”

“…Regardless of individual histories, post‐Soviet countries appear to be interpreted as either on the “successful ‘Western’ road to the ‘gay utopia’ or failing ‘Eastern’ collapse to the ‘dark ages’” (Kondakov 2021:8). Decolonial critiques of the Western progress narrative take on Western queer studies as a colonialist project in global context (Kao 2021; Kondakov 2021; Pagulich 2020). While some engagement with Western politics and academia has proven productive (Lelea and Voiculescu 2017), there is a dark side to global sexual politics turning on assumptions of Western utopias (Kao 2021; Mayerchyk and Plakhotnik 2019, 2021; Ye 2021).…”

“…The historical emergence of U.S. identities from “lesbian and gay” to “LGBT” to “queer” is of contested relevance outside of the “West.” The U.S./European timeline of queer politics has problematically been held out as an imperialist exemplar, ostensibly for other countries to follow—an example of the West exporting sexual politics to other countries in the so‐called periphery (Istodor 2022). Much post‐socialist and decolonial literature rightfully contests the usefulness of the West as the “model” of sexual politics, often re‐writing the chronology and value of Western LGBTQ+ politics outside the West (Kao 2021; Kondakov 2021; Liinason and Alm 2018; Mayerchyk and Plakhotnik 2019; Moussawi 2020; Puar 2007; Shchurko and Suchland 2022; Suchland 2018, 2021; Ye 2021).…”

Older LGBTQ People and Religious Abuse: Implications for the UK Regulation of Care Provision in Later Life

“…This may be contextual to both liberal countries, among the more conservative/traditional arms of the major religions, and in those countries where they continue to play a dominant role in informing law, culture, politics, and everyday life [10]. Further, LGBTQ people of all ages continue to experience religious persecution and resistance to LGBTQ rights, some of which amounts to abuse, in both liberal and illiberal countries [11][12][13][14][15][16]. As Super & Jacobson observe, …religious abuse may occur when a religious group or leader, whether intentionally or unintentionally, uses coercion, threats, rejection, condemnation, or manipulation to force the individual into submission of the religious views about sexuality [17].…”