The Queer Community: A brief look at Self and Security

 

(Source: Reader’s Digest) 

When I began writing this blog, my mind spun through several different ideas that I could bring in this heavy discussion. A realist standpoint would compel me to write about nuclear deterrence or perhaps even the cold war, but much like Ken Booth I would like to ‘personalize the international’ and make sense of what the concept of self and security mean to me. 

While scrolling through some queer sayings once I came across an authorless quote that discreetly begins to wrap the layers of identity and its revision. It goes something like this:

“We are defined by who we are, not who we are born as” 

Ken Booth in his Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist examines the concept of “I” ,“me” and “we”. For one, Booth understands that while me is an aggregation of social circumstances, I is the active agent that reacts. The quote by prominent writer Angela Anaïs `We see things not as they are, but as we are’ Nin gives a similar (to the quote mentioned above) and subjective perspective to the notion of the contested we, inferred as a collective yet socially constructed identity. It is with this understanding, and the fine addition of international relations addled thoughts that I begin to wonder about my own insecurity. 

Quite relevant to the current discussion, Peter L. Berger’s Role theory or the Role playing theory specifies the certain defined parts that humans have to play throughout their lives. But a sensible opposition to the thought is brought in by the queer theory among other critical security theories. As a person who does not fit into the conventional bounds molds, what is the identity that I conform to? There is also a mention of the choice of identification provided to meaning making human beings, and the lack thereof. For example, being a woman or an Asian does not leave any room for contention. Along the same lines, George Herbert Mead’s me and I differ distinctly. While the former shapes around social interactions and conditions, the latter brings in the ‘truer’ self, and further subjective playing of the assigned roles. Essentially what being queer has brought me is excessive questioning and dissociating with these characters, especially conforming to Mead’s definition of I. 

Women in general have had to face gender related security problems, and it is no surprise that they end up with the short end of the stick even amongst the queer community. Discussing this lesser talked about issue aligns with the Copenhagen School’s theory of moving away from the traditional understanding of international security, keeping in mind the women across the globe being affected as individuals and not just a collective. This theme is triggered through the systemised sexism and heterosexism present in the society along with frequent racism against colored queer women. In workplaces, sexual harassment touches gender harassment components that include sexist and sexual remarks, gender policing and even homophobia. In fact, there’s a notable coexistence of gender and heterosexist assault in this environment. This concept of intersectionality was brought in when black queer women in America faced double exclusion and felt devioid of the ability of voicing the insecurity they continue to face even till date (Johnson and Otto 2019). Interestingly, there are also instances of sexualisation faced by lesbians that go unnoticed among all the other concerns the queer community faces as one entity.

As Lene Hansen mentions in her The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School, there are two significant loopholes in the ‘speech act’ framework (that suggests making interventions in the world through speaking); ‘security as silence', an important flaw discussed above, and the ‘subsuming security’ problems. The latter often includes the other aspects of a person’s identity along with the gender, providing various contexts for why definite referent objects cannot be pointed out in security problems such as this one. It also provides emphasis on the individual rather than the whole or collective identity. 

It is worth noting that these various perspectives (the gendered and the individualistic lens) of security and self in international relations have helped me acknowledge and understand more of the complexities of the queer dynamics for my own acceptance, in ways that would not have been possible if I had left my focus on the common realist outlook that is fundamentally fixed on war and militarisation. The sense of self is constantly evolving and adapting, and it is with this blog that I have been able to highlight the crucial change there has been in mine.  It is my personal experiences that shape this entire concept for me, especially when it comes to identity. The idea of looking at queer issues through an individualistic perspective, but also through an emancipatory one, where the hindrance towards freedom of choice of identification prevents humans from exploring their potential gives us a fair visualization of why there is a dire need of redressal of structures and relationships. 

References

Johnson, Carolina, and Kathleen Otto. 2019. “Better Together: A Model for Women and LGBTQ Equality in the Workplace.” Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00272/full.

Booth, Ken.“Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist,” YCISS Occasional Paper Paper 26: October 1994.

Hansen, Lene. ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’. 2000. Millennium 29 (2): 285–306.

Shepherd, Laura J.  ‘Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies’. Political Studies Review 7. 2009. (2): 208–19.

Johnson, Carolina, and Kathleen Otto. 2019. “Better Together: A Model for Women and LGBTQ Equality in the Workplace.” Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00272/full.