Nationalism as competing masculinities: homophobia as a technology of othering for hetero- and homonationalism

Abstract

How are masculinity and nationalism intertwined? This question has received scant theoretical attention, and existing theories tend to focus on their shared ideals and are embedded in a heteronormative, homophobic, and patriarchal framework. Such views imply a static relationship between the two phenomena and are incompatible with the recent phenomenon of homonationalism and the incorporation of some homosexual bodies within the nation. Addressing this theoretical gap, this article develops a more holistic framework of the relationship between nationalism and masculinity. Drawing on relational sociology, it conceptualises nationalism as competing masculinities. It argues that the link between masculinities and nationalism is not found in their overlapping substantive ideals, but rather that the two phenomena are co-constructed through their overlapping Othering processes. The proposed theoretical framework does not only provide a more dynamic understanding of the link between masculinity and nationalism, but it also helps to overcome the apparent duality between homonationalism and heteronationalism. It is shown that both phenomena are in fact two sides of the same coin, with the main difference between them being the location of homophobia as a technology of Othering within different types of Self/Other relations. Overall, the article provides an analytical tool that allows for the contextualisation and understanding of seemingly contradictory features of nationalism and its relationship to masculinity.

Conceptualizing homonationalism: (Re‐)Formulation, application, and debates of expansion

“…In particular, studies of politics in wealthy, Western democracies highlight the use of gender and sexual tolerance as the basis of anti‐Muslim political agendas (Jennings & Ralph‐Morrow, 2020; Simonsen & Bonikowski, 2019). In their recent edited volume, Dietze and Roth (2020) highlight the centrality of gender and sexuality to understanding right‐wing populism, and note the promotion therein of an “‘ethno‐sexist' exclusion of racialized Others who are constructed as dangerous to the reproduction of the White national body” (p. 12; see also Slootmaeckers, 2019b).…”

“…For example, the definition of being "Modern European" is linked to the promotion of LGBTQ + equality, and friendliness toward LGBTQ + individuals has become a core part of establishing European Union identity (Slootmaeckers, 2019a). Who is and is not "European" thus reflects political stances, and this sorting simultaneously works as part of an Othering process that fits within broader homonationalist projects as outlined above (Slootmaeckers, 2019a(Slootmaeckers, , 2019b; see also Rexhepi, 2016). However, others have noted that although…”

Contesting Brexit Masculinities: Pro‐European Activists and Feminist EU Citizenship*

“…Hegemonic masculinity as defined by R.W. Connell ‘embodies the currently most respected/honoured way of what it means to be a man’ and is central to upholding the patriarchal order (Connell, 1998, p. 5; Slootmaeckers, 2019, p. 8). The Leave campaigns utilized militaristic language that glorified war as well as ‘tough‐talking’ rhetoric of the ‘business man's world’ (Slootmaeckers, 2019, p. 23).…”

“…Connell ‘embodies the currently most respected/honoured way of what it means to be a man’ and is central to upholding the patriarchal order (Connell, 1998, p. 5; Slootmaeckers, 2019, p. 8). The Leave campaigns utilized militaristic language that glorified war as well as ‘tough‐talking’ rhetoric of the ‘business man's world’ (Slootmaeckers, 2019, p. 23). Constructing Brexit around acceptable notions of the white ‘masculine’ citizen – rational, individualist, aggressive – the campaigns focused primarily on issues of ‘high politics’ – security, economy and immigration – that are traditionally associated with the public sphere (Guerrina et al ., 2018a, 2018b).…”

Safe spaces in the city: Security, scale and masculinity during the Geneva Summit

“…As feminist geographers, we have learnt to recognize framings that centre militarized masculinities and that associate statecraft with manliness; we also recognize violence and domination as intrinsically (Enloe, 1989;Slootmaeckers, 2019). These framings rely on elevating some masculinities over others, and over all femininities.…”