性和性别少数群体的“国际”和人权的多元主义途径

IF 0.9 2区 社会学 Q3 WOMENS STUDIES
Po-Han Lee
{"title":"性和性别少数群体的“国际”和人权的多元主义途径","authors":"Po-Han Lee","doi":"10.1177/01417789211015333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Queer theorists have considered the problems concerning the political strategy of using LGBT rights to justify racist xenophobia and using homo/transphobia to consolidate heterosexist nationalism. Their timely interventions are important in exposing state violence in the name of human rights and sovereign equality, but they have offered no alternative. They may also have reinforced the assumption of state science. This assumption is based on a trinity structure of the nation-state-sovereignty of ‘modern, self-determining men’, who are against each other and thereby co-built the so-called ‘international’. State-centric internationalism produces exclusionary effects that undermine the rights of sexual and gender minorities. To address this, I first consider the debate over ‘LGBT rights as human rights’, and identify two types of cultural relativism (epistemological and political) as the categories to formulate a decolonial response to the debate. In this article, queer political theorising is pushed forward to: 1) critically evaluate universalism, 2) differentiate cultural relativism (opposing the political version of it) and 3) revise the epistemological version with decolonial-queer praxis. I propose a pluralist approach to sovereignty and human rights; informed by this approach, the lack of international consensus is remedied by recognising the polyvocality within transnational queer activism beyond the monopoly of states’ representation of their own peoples. This proposal also aims to decentre modern statecraft from the political imagination of contemporary international studies scholarship.","PeriodicalId":47487,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Review","volume":"128 1","pages":"79 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/01417789211015333","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Pluralist Approach to ‘the International’ and Human Rights for Sexual and Gender Minorities\",\"authors\":\"Po-Han Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01417789211015333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Queer theorists have considered the problems concerning the political strategy of using LGBT rights to justify racist xenophobia and using homo/transphobia to consolidate heterosexist nationalism. Their timely interventions are important in exposing state violence in the name of human rights and sovereign equality, but they have offered no alternative. They may also have reinforced the assumption of state science. This assumption is based on a trinity structure of the nation-state-sovereignty of ‘modern, self-determining men’, who are against each other and thereby co-built the so-called ‘international’. State-centric internationalism produces exclusionary effects that undermine the rights of sexual and gender minorities. To address this, I first consider the debate over ‘LGBT rights as human rights’, and identify two types of cultural relativism (epistemological and political) as the categories to formulate a decolonial response to the debate. In this article, queer political theorising is pushed forward to: 1) critically evaluate universalism, 2) differentiate cultural relativism (opposing the political version of it) and 3) revise the epistemological version with decolonial-queer praxis. I propose a pluralist approach to sovereignty and human rights; informed by this approach, the lack of international consensus is remedied by recognising the polyvocality within transnational queer activism beyond the monopoly of states’ representation of their own peoples. This proposal also aims to decentre modern statecraft from the political imagination of contemporary international studies scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Feminist Review\",\"volume\":\"128 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/01417789211015333\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Feminist Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789211015333\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789211015333","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

酷儿理论家们考虑了利用LGBT权利为种族主义仇外心理辩护和利用同性恋/跨性别恐惧症巩固异质民族主义的政治策略问题。他们的及时干预对于揭露以人权和主权平等为名的国家暴力很重要,但他们别无选择。它们也可能强化了国家科学的假设。这一假设是基于“现代、自决的人”的民族国家主权的三位一体结构,他们相互对立,从而共同构建了所谓的“国际”。以国家为中心的国际主义产生排斥效应,损害性少数群体和性别少数群体的权利。为了解决这一问题,我首先考虑了关于“LGBT权利即人权”的辩论,并确定了两种类型的文化相对主义(认识论和政治)作为对辩论做出非殖民化回应的类别。本文提出酷儿政治理论:1)批判性地评价普遍主义,2)区分文化相对主义(反对其政治版本),3)用非殖民化酷儿实践修正认识论版本。我建议对主权和人权采取多元办法;在这种方法的指导下,国际共识的缺乏通过承认跨国酷儿激进主义的多元性来弥补,这种多元性超越了国家对本国人民代表权的垄断。该提案还旨在将现代治国方略从当代国际研究学术的政治想象中剥离出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Pluralist Approach to ‘the International’ and Human Rights for Sexual and Gender Minorities
Queer theorists have considered the problems concerning the political strategy of using LGBT rights to justify racist xenophobia and using homo/transphobia to consolidate heterosexist nationalism. Their timely interventions are important in exposing state violence in the name of human rights and sovereign equality, but they have offered no alternative. They may also have reinforced the assumption of state science. This assumption is based on a trinity structure of the nation-state-sovereignty of ‘modern, self-determining men’, who are against each other and thereby co-built the so-called ‘international’. State-centric internationalism produces exclusionary effects that undermine the rights of sexual and gender minorities. To address this, I first consider the debate over ‘LGBT rights as human rights’, and identify two types of cultural relativism (epistemological and political) as the categories to formulate a decolonial response to the debate. In this article, queer political theorising is pushed forward to: 1) critically evaluate universalism, 2) differentiate cultural relativism (opposing the political version of it) and 3) revise the epistemological version with decolonial-queer praxis. I propose a pluralist approach to sovereignty and human rights; informed by this approach, the lack of international consensus is remedied by recognising the polyvocality within transnational queer activism beyond the monopoly of states’ representation of their own peoples. This proposal also aims to decentre modern statecraft from the political imagination of contemporary international studies scholarship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Feminist Review
Feminist Review WOMENS STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Feminist Review is a peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal setting new agendas for the analysis of the social world. Currently based in London with an international scope, FR invites critical reflection on the relationship between materiality and representation, theory and practice, subjectivity and communities, contemporary and historical formations. The FR Collective is committed to exploring gender in its multiple forms and interrelationships. As well as academic articles we publish experimental pieces, visual and textual media and political interventions, including, for example, interviews, short stories, poems and photographic essays.
×
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