Homonormative dynamics and the subversion of culture

Abstract

Queer critics talk more and more about a normalization process whereby early lesbian\ud and gay struggles against traditional values and institutions are being replaced by the\ud pursuit of inclusion within mainstream society. The ‘assimilation’ of same-sex practices,\ud critics contend, lowers the critical potential of homosexuals’ claims and marginalizes\ud other less acceptable forms of sexualities. The present article contributes to this literature\ud by tracing the roots and dynamics of normalization. It makes the claim that heteronormative\ud categories infiltrated homosexual culture well before the spread of\ud neoconservative gay movements and produced inner distinctions intended to exclude\ud those who did not fit intergroup classifications. It then maintains that this analysis casts\ud some interesting light on the current quest for gay rights, and in particular for same-sex\ud marriage. By doing so, this article aims to tackle the broader question of how to produce\ud societal changes able to circumvent rearguard reactions from the dominant culture

Inclusion in the homonormative world city: The case of gay migrants living with HIV in Barcelona

“…Queer scholars and activists have portrayed access to marriage and adoption as the main markers of homonormativity and the exaltation of heteronormative values (e.g. Croce, 2015;Santos, 2013). In this respect, the work of Wilkinson (2013) has shown how in the UK citizenship is based nowadays upon whether or not a person is in a coupled relationship, coupledom (both hetero and homo) being naturalized and privileged.…”

Fighting about (Sexual) Citizenship: Italy’s “Nature or Culture” Dilemma*

“…On the other hand, radical LGBTQ groups still criticize any demands for assimilation to hetero normative rights that exclude all forms of incompatibility with the nuclear, binary, monogamist couple and claim self--determination and civil and social rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and identity (Seidman, 2001;Croce, 2015).…”

“…The question of human rights has become the main frame of reference for this area of the LGBTQ movements, with the result that the conflict potential of sexual orientation and identity differences that lay at the heart of early LGBTQ movements has been eclipsed and has led to a sort of "homo -normative" process, especially with regard to the recognition of same -sex marriage (Polikoff, 1993;Brandzel, 2005;Croce, 2015). Indeed, the term "human rights" belongs to the semantic field of universality, which has historically been used by positivist theorists to define the abstract subject of rights -and science -in Western societies since the 16th century.…”

“…This universalization of LGBTQI subjectivities and related civil and social rights has been described as a sort of strategic "normalization" (Croce, 2015) of gender and sexual differences, aimed at recognizing equal civil and social rights for every citizen, regardless of specificities of gender and sexual orientation. The claims for integration and equality that Croce (ibidem) has called "conditional acceptance" of a "'homolingual' rights jargon" are typical of the universal citizenship framework.…”

“…Today, the strategic lexicon used by a part of the LGBTQ movements has shifted significantly, and is now directed towards the epistemic dimension of universality. This is a two -pronged strategy that seeks, on the one hand, to obtain recognition of the same rights of heteronormative individuals and, on the other, to be socially accepted for a supposed "naturalness" of differences that is common to all human beings (Croce, 2015).…”