“酷儿身份”与“文化”的不幸联姻:沉湎于过去的当下含义

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Arti Gupta
{"title":"“酷儿身份”与“文化”的不幸联姻:沉湎于过去的当下含义","authors":"Arti Gupta","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2022.2140958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Navtej Johar v Union of India, decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activities by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that Section 377 was an embodiment of ‘Judeo-Christian’ morality and a colonial imposition. In providing that reasoning, the judgment does not stand alone. For a long time now, various revisionist accounts of religious texts and scriptures have been presented to argue that ancient ‘Indian culture’ had been tolerant towards non-normative sex and gender, and ‘homophobia’ was simply a British imposition. Such revisionist arguments had initially been put forth by Indian queer rights groups to nullify the orthodox homophobic attitudes which rested on the claim that homosexuality is alien to ‘our culture’. However, this article argues that there has been an increasing cooptation of such accounts by dominant Hindu Right groups for their political ends. This article also shows that this reliance on the past (through scriptures or otherwise) to confer legitimacy on the present can have the effect of constraining the radical potentialities of that past. At the end, this article argues for a turn towards the future, which, creating new solidarities, can become a horizon of possibilities.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"221 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unhappy Marriage of ‘Queerness’ and ‘Culture’: The Present Implications of Fixating on the Past\",\"authors\":\"Arti Gupta\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13200968.2022.2140958\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Navtej Johar v Union of India, decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activities by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that Section 377 was an embodiment of ‘Judeo-Christian’ morality and a colonial imposition. In providing that reasoning, the judgment does not stand alone. For a long time now, various revisionist accounts of religious texts and scriptures have been presented to argue that ancient ‘Indian culture’ had been tolerant towards non-normative sex and gender, and ‘homophobia’ was simply a British imposition. Such revisionist arguments had initially been put forth by Indian queer rights groups to nullify the orthodox homophobic attitudes which rested on the claim that homosexuality is alien to ‘our culture’. However, this article argues that there has been an increasing cooptation of such accounts by dominant Hindu Right groups for their political ends. This article also shows that this reliance on the past (through scriptures or otherwise) to confer legitimacy on the present can have the effect of constraining the radical potentialities of that past. At the end, this article argues for a turn towards the future, which, creating new solidarities, can become a horizon of possibilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 244\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2140958\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2140958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要2018年9月,印度最高法院在Navtej Johar诉印度联邦一案中,通过宣读《印度刑法典》第377条,将双方自愿的同性性行为合法化。法院推理的一个重要方面是,第377条体现了“犹太-基督教”道德和殖民强加。在提供这种推理的过程中,判决并不是孤立的。很长一段时间以来,各种对宗教文本和经文的修正主义描述一直被提出,认为古代“印度文化”对非规范性和性别持宽容态度,而“恐同症”只是英国强加的。这种修正主义论点最初是由印度酷儿权利组织提出的,目的是推翻正统的恐同态度,这种态度建立在同性恋与“我们的文化”格格不入的基础上。然而,这篇文章认为,占主导地位的印度教右翼团体为了其政治目的,越来越多地对这些说法进行合作。这篇文章还表明,这种对过去的依赖(通过经文或其他方式)赋予现在合法性,可能会抑制过去的激进潜力。最后,本文主张转向未来,创造新的团结,成为一个可能性的地平线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Unhappy Marriage of ‘Queerness’ and ‘Culture’: The Present Implications of Fixating on the Past
ABSTRACT In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Navtej Johar v Union of India, decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activities by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that Section 377 was an embodiment of ‘Judeo-Christian’ morality and a colonial imposition. In providing that reasoning, the judgment does not stand alone. For a long time now, various revisionist accounts of religious texts and scriptures have been presented to argue that ancient ‘Indian culture’ had been tolerant towards non-normative sex and gender, and ‘homophobia’ was simply a British imposition. Such revisionist arguments had initially been put forth by Indian queer rights groups to nullify the orthodox homophobic attitudes which rested on the claim that homosexuality is alien to ‘our culture’. However, this article argues that there has been an increasing cooptation of such accounts by dominant Hindu Right groups for their political ends. This article also shows that this reliance on the past (through scriptures or otherwise) to confer legitimacy on the present can have the effect of constraining the radical potentialities of that past. At the end, this article argues for a turn towards the future, which, creating new solidarities, can become a horizon of possibilities.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
×
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