The Violence of Essentialism

Abeera Khan
{"title":"The Violence of Essentialism","authors":"Abeera Khan","doi":"10.1163/18785417-bja10004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the 2017 London Pride parade, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (cemb) marched with placards emblazoned with slogans such as “Islam is homophobic,” “Allah is gay,” “End Islamic Hatred and Violence to Gays”, “Islamophobia is an oxymoron” and “East London Mosque incites murder of lgbts” (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain 2017a). The organisation is the British branch of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims, a German association representing formerMuslims or “apostates”. cemb are a self-described group of “non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims” committed to “taking stand for reason, universal rights, and secularism” (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain 2017b). Deliberately provocative, the intervention was made in the name of lgbt people subjugatedby anti-homosexuality lawsby countries under “Islamic rule” andbyMuslim homophobia in the UK. More broadly, cemb’s political mobilisations are motivated by their staunch belief of the threat that Islam in particular poses to universal rights, particularly women and lgbt rights. There are obvious queer feminist criticisms to be made of cemb’s articulations of queer secularity (Khan 2020), the questionable locations of homophobia (Rao 2014), and the exceptionalisation of gendered, homophobic and sexualised violence within the amorphous “Muslim community” (El Tayeb 2013; Farris 2017; Haritaworn 2015; Puar 2017). I want to forgo this line of critique and dwell instead on the essentialisms at the heart of this mobilisation of the religion/secular divide: the politics it effects and precludes. What can the violence of essentialism— both the violence it fixates on and the violence it inflicts—reveal about the relationship between religion and gender? I suggest that investigating essentialist mobilisations of religion and gender, not as analogy nor as comparison but as relational politics, may complicate our analyses of gender, religion, and their interconnections. The following year, another spectacle unravelled at the same setting, one under a different political register but bearing kindred essentialist claims. A lesbian group,Get the LOut, carried banners stating slogans such as “transactivism erases lesbians” and protesting alleged “anti-lesbianism” (Gabbatiss 2018). The","PeriodicalId":92716,"journal":{"name":"Religion & gender","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion & gender","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18785417-bja10004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

During the 2017 London Pride parade, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (cemb) marched with placards emblazoned with slogans such as “Islam is homophobic,” “Allah is gay,” “End Islamic Hatred and Violence to Gays”, “Islamophobia is an oxymoron” and “East London Mosque incites murder of lgbts” (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain 2017a). The organisation is the British branch of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims, a German association representing formerMuslims or “apostates”. cemb are a self-described group of “non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims” committed to “taking stand for reason, universal rights, and secularism” (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain 2017b). Deliberately provocative, the intervention was made in the name of lgbt people subjugatedby anti-homosexuality lawsby countries under “Islamic rule” andbyMuslim homophobia in the UK. More broadly, cemb’s political mobilisations are motivated by their staunch belief of the threat that Islam in particular poses to universal rights, particularly women and lgbt rights. There are obvious queer feminist criticisms to be made of cemb’s articulations of queer secularity (Khan 2020), the questionable locations of homophobia (Rao 2014), and the exceptionalisation of gendered, homophobic and sexualised violence within the amorphous “Muslim community” (El Tayeb 2013; Farris 2017; Haritaworn 2015; Puar 2017). I want to forgo this line of critique and dwell instead on the essentialisms at the heart of this mobilisation of the religion/secular divide: the politics it effects and precludes. What can the violence of essentialism— both the violence it fixates on and the violence it inflicts—reveal about the relationship between religion and gender? I suggest that investigating essentialist mobilisations of religion and gender, not as analogy nor as comparison but as relational politics, may complicate our analyses of gender, religion, and their interconnections. The following year, another spectacle unravelled at the same setting, one under a different political register but bearing kindred essentialist claims. A lesbian group,Get the LOut, carried banners stating slogans such as “transactivism erases lesbians” and protesting alleged “anti-lesbianism” (Gabbatiss 2018). The
本质主义的暴力
在2017年伦敦骄傲游行期间,英国前穆斯林委员会(cemb)举着标语牌游行,标语牌上写着“伊斯兰恐同”、“真主是同性恋”、“结束对同性恋的伊斯兰仇恨和暴力”、“伊斯兰恐惧症是一种矛盾修辞法”和“东伦敦清真寺煽动谋杀同性恋者”(英国前穆斯林理事会2017a)。该组织是前穆斯林中央委员会的英国分支机构,这是一个代表前穆斯林或“叛教者”的德国协会。cemb是一个自称“非信徒、无神论者和前穆斯林”的团体,致力于“为理性、普世权利和世俗主义采取立场”(英国前穆斯林委员会2017b)。这种干预是故意挑衅的,是以lgbt人群的名义进行的,他们被“伊斯兰统治”下的国家的反同性恋法律和英国的穆斯林恐同症所征服。更广泛地说,cemb的政治动员是出于他们坚信伊斯兰教尤其对普世权利,特别是妇女和lgbt权利构成的威胁。cemb对酷儿世俗性的阐述(Khan 2020)、恐同症的可疑位置(Rao 2014)以及无定形“穆斯林社区”中性别化、恐同和性暴力的例外性,都有明显的酷儿女权主义批评(El Tayeb 2013;Farris 2017;Haritaworn 2015;Puar 2017)。我想放弃这条批判路线,转而关注宗教/世俗分歧动员的核心本质:它影响和排除的政治。本质主义的暴力——它所关注的暴力和它所施加的暴力——能揭示宗教和性别之间的关系吗?我认为,调查宗教和性别的本质主义动员,不是作为类比或比较,而是作为关系政治,可能会使我们对性别、宗教及其相互关系的分析复杂化。第二年,另一个奇观在同一个场景中上演,一个在不同的政治登记册下,但带有相似的本质主义主张。一个名为Get the LOut的女同性恋团体举着横幅,上面写着“交易主义抹杀女同性恋”等口号,并抗议所谓的“反女同性恋”(Gabbatiss 2018)。这个
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信