Global Gaze: When Gay Rights Meet ‘Asian Values’
A few weeks ago, in my column on the gay rights struggle in Africa, I alluded to the fact that each region of the world presents unique challenges to the diffusion of gay rights throughout the international system. Among the various regions of the world, the Asian context is different in that objections to the creation of explicit rights for homosexuals are based on cultural rather than religious or legal arguments. What the case of so-called “Asian values” teaches us is that the rest of the world does not necessarily define or view homosexuality in the same way as Western countries and that those looking to implement human rights for sexual minorities in these regions perhaps need to be more sensitive to this fact in order to have these rights make sense in these contexts.
The general conflict and tension between international human rights and “Asian values” is one that has been well documented. Essentially, many East and South Asian countries reject UN-formulated human rights norms as they are seen as Western in nature and incompatible with Asian cultures. While Asia is obviously a vast and extremely diverse continent, many states choose to frame their objection to human rights in terms of a unified “Asian view,” which claims that rights should be “culturally specific” rather than universal, that Asian conceptions of the importance of the community trumps the rights of the individual and that each state should be allowed the sovereignty to provide rights to its citizens as it sees fit.
These debates, however, have fallen prey to generalization and hyperbole, and have been boiled down to what appears to be the West pushing a liberal democratic model while Asian countries promote conservative and traditional conceptualizations of rights. Unfortunately, this debate has also tended to get ugly and broad, according to scholars such as Diane Mauzy, who writes that this results in some people in the West claiming that “‘Asian values’ are little more than excuse for authoritarian government,” while some Asian critics have countered that “Western views and values on human rights and democracy are not necessarily suited for Asian states, and to try to impose them is neo-colonialist, racist, and a conspiracy to handicap Asian economic competition.”
This more general debate spills over and takes on a new context when rights for LGBT individuals are introduced. Essentially, the tension lies in differing views on homosexuality between East and West. In many Asian countries sexuality is seen as more fluid than in the West, especially within the United States. Many gay men and lesbians in Asian countries choose to get married and have children while continuing to discreetly engage in same-sex relationships. While this obviously occurs in the rest of the world, it’s generally not seen as problematic or as troubling in many Eastern countries.
Along the same lines, societal attitudes and preferences can be different. Erick Laurent is a scholar who writes a great deal about Asian attitudes on homosexuality and notes that “homophobia follows very subtle ways in Asian countries . . . Asian gays have to negotiate their freedom, lifestyle and identities in an atmosphere of heterosexism, and not the endemic violent homophobia prevalent in many Western countries.” What this means is that many Eastern societies are accepting of homosexual lifestyles as long as there is an effort made on the part of the individual to be discreet. This obviously clashes with many Western ideals which encourage LGBT individuals to be “out and proud” and also to define themselves first by their sexual orientation.
As Laurent points out, while “Asian countries are slowly (but surely?) finding their own means of expression for dealing with LGBT issues,” part of the reason for the slow progress may be that “the lesbian and gay rights movements are clearly dominated by activists,” who “tend to try to promote visibility, legitimacy, and equality, which are in the main ‘western’ patterns,” which fail to take into account Asian ideals of individuality and therefore are often resisted and rendered ineffective.
Simply because many of the rights adopted by the international community are viewed as coming from the West does not necessarily mean they are incompatible with Eastern cultures – it does, however, mean that they need to carefully tailored to the existing culture in a way that makes sense in each context. This is why human rights scholars propose that human rights advocates should carefully consider what are known as “secondary contextual conditions” when formulating human rights policies around the world. This means that local cultures and practices should be taken into account when advocating for gay rights policies, making them more nuanced and likely to be accepted by local politicians and LGBT individuals. While it is certainly a goal of human rights advocates to make non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the acceptance of sexual minorities universal characteristics of the entire international community, they must simultaneously recognize that we are living in a multicultural world.
That being said, the legalization of homosexuality in 2007 and of gay marriage recently in Nepal, a country which is known for having a very conservative society, indicates that there is the potential for official, if not necessarily societal, changes to be made rapidly. The idea that homosexuality is generally viewed as taboo by most Asian societies makes it unlikely that the matter will be discussed often in public, but there is definitely hope for the future.
All of this being said, I myself am not Asian and I have never lived in an Asian country, so anyone with “on the ground” experience should definitely add to the discussion in the comments below. Also, for everyone: What do you think about the need to adapt gay rights to particular cultures? Is it feasible and/or desirable? Are human rights for sexual minorities absolutely universal in nature or should cultural relativity play a role? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
I’ve done a lot of research on the issue of homosexuality in China and Japan, with most of my direct experience in Beijing. I’ll limit what I say to the topic of male homosexuality, as I’m not as familiar with the structure of China’s lesbian culture. I hope I can add something useful.
You’re right that in China, sex isn’t considered to be taboo or ritually impure, like it is in the U.S. If it were, a one-child policy would hardly be possible (think of Americans who deny themselves sex until marriage; think how many kids they often have.) Sex stores are ubiquitous, both in cities and in rural communities. While pornography is forbidden, all kinds of sex toys, stimulants, and contraceptives are readily available. The Chinese government and Chinese culture as a whole implicitly accept that recreational sex is unstoppable, and while they do not encourage it by any means, neither do they see it as a betrayal of a central cultural value.
This isn’t to say that China is good to its gays. The Chinese strictly maintain a collection of cultural traditions that they ascribe to Confucius. The content of these traditions (e.g. respect for/submission to one’s parents and elders; diligent study; masculine superiority) isn’t unique to China, or even to East Asia; in fact, much of it is reminiscent of American “conservative values.” What’s special about these traditions in China is how they are expressed: most of them begin with, “Thou shalt,” rather than, “Thou shalt not.”
This may sound like a petty, semantic distinction. But think: how many cases have there been in America of people being disgraced by the public’s discovery of their gay activity? These are often married, employed, temperate people — their trespass isn’t a failure to do something, but rather an inclination to do something extra.
Such disgrace isn’t so common in China. The Chinese contempt for homosexuality doesn’t focus on the sex act. Instead, it targets people who don’t fulfill their cultural, Confucian obligations. In broad, psychological terms, American gays feel guilt for having transgressed, while Chinese gays feel shame for having failed.
Chinese anti-gay sentiment has another important aspect. The Chinese word for homosexuality, ‘tongxinglian,’ sounds cold and medical. It was translated from German to Chinese in the early part of the last century, along with many other Western medical terms. The (unsuccessful) period of Westernization during which these words were imported is a sensitive subject in the modern Chinese consciousness. When a Chinese today says that he is ‘tongxinglian,’ he doesn’t sound like he would in English, saying, “I’m gay.” It sounds like he is expressing his loyalty to a foreign culture.
Modern Chinese nationalism has little tolerance for international movements. It (correctly) perceives them to have their roots and allegiances in Western countries. From this point of view, homosexuality and Catholicism (and human rights advocacy) are morally equivalent — they are inadequately concerned with the peace, prosperity and stability of the Chinese State, they are subversive; at worst, they are traitorous.
This is really interesting! I appreciated hearing both what Adam and Jolly reported. Jolly, I am particularly drawn to your reader-response questions at the end, and I think I’ve been working on drawing up a blog post that directly addresses ethical values and cultural relativity. Particularly, we need to consider: 1) what does it mean to say “x is wrong”? 2) what grounds values? and more specifically, what grounds rights for sexual minorities? 3) What is truth? and again, more specifically, is “truth” true for everyone?
Adding to what Adam said, Chinese culture historically recognized a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction, but this difference was not a basis to categorize people into different identities. It was a specific social role as opposed to an essential aspect of someone’s personality. Class, family and broader social relations were the foundations of your identity, not your sexual preference.
Before the usage of the word “tongxinglian” there was no generic term to describe sex between two people of the same sex. When activities were categorized, they focused on social roles, social relations or style. Even when referring to specific behavioral acts these actions focused on behavior that could involve everyone depending on the particular social relation.
If you’re interested in finding out more about this you should look through Tongzhi – Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies by Chou Wah-shan. It gives a good explanation of the cultural history of same-sex attraction/eroticism in China and then goes on to explain its development through Imperial, Republican and PRC China, as well as its development in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Wow – first rate discussion guys and girls. Often the way in which these debates are framed is overly-simplistic. I appreciate the commentary from all parties in this instance and in specfic their ability to expose the complexity behind this issue, and further applaud their ability to see beyond their own preconditioned conditions and approach things using different paradigms.
Sex and sexuality in Western society is not only a choice in type of intercourse one has, but more or less the systematic codification and deployment of an identity. To borrow from Neitzsche and Foucault, the West through very insidious ‘games of knowledge’ created a series of discourses – operating under of the guise of ‘science’ and ‘psychology’ that not only pathologised sexuality but monitored, surveyed and categorised the ‘truth’ about sex. With that said, Adams argument carries a strong degree of validity in that the Chineese hatred toward homosexuality is really a part of a broader package of hatred directed toward the specfic mode of thoughts or ‘order of things’ that the West short-sightedly use.
The Esst however (forgive my binary here) however came to see ‘pleasure’ as the constituative element of truth about sex. The endless constructs about sex and sexuality that fascinate the west are nearly non-existent in the east.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days