By Leonardo Arouca*
To participate in the ALMS Conference is undoubtedly a great experience for all those who study and are concerned with the preservation of Queer archives, memories and histories worldwide. An occasion of great power, exchanges and collective construction that aims to promote the global exchange of cultures, stories and memories of sexual diversity around the world.
I took part in some of the 200+ presentations that were exhibited at approximately 60 round tables at the event, not to mention the networking spaces, collection sharing and presentation of shows, films and other art activities provided by the conference´s organization. Moreover, a very well organized event that managed to conduct academic and political debates, presentations of memory centers and safeguarding institutions of queer archives, as well as art presentations and areas that enabled the exchange among participants. However, for Latin Americans, some contrasts were striking, among them, the massive representation of Europe in the Congress and the underrepresentation of our continent, as well as Asia and Africa. Out of more than 300 participants, only 6 were from Latin America. The same was happen for other territories besides Europe and North America.
Such underrepresentation, even if involuntarily, supported an imperialist atmosphere that inflated western pioneering narratives about sexual freedom. Given the limited space of other continents, the power of these discourses took on increasingly universal tones.
But what can be the impact of inflating these narratives at events that pretend to be a global event? Will this ensure Europe and United States as pioneers with regard to sexual freedom?
By no means does this analysis intend to deny the importance of the pioneering spirit of the Stonewall Rebellion, Karl von Ulrich and Magnus Hirschfeld, that ALMS Conference 2019 honored the centenary of the Institute of Sexology founded by Hirschfeld, located at the same location where the event took place at Haus del Kulturen der Welt in Berlin. On the contrary, this analysis understands the unique importance of these personalities and events. However, when thinking of a global perspective on dissident sexuality, it is important that other stories can manifest themselves.
I believe that forms of organization with underrepresentation of historically exploited territories reproduce a logic of power, which is also historically and structurally organized to marginalize LGBTQ + populations around the world. And perhaps, due to this carelessness, or simply due to the lack of value attributed to Latin, African and Asian narratives, events such as this, which are fundamental to exist, can create an environment of exclusion for regions and sectors that have historically been devoid of power and voice to manifest.
Impacted by these questions, two round tables enhanced my desire to talk about this problem; one of them was Ramy Khouili’s presentation on Article 230: A History of the Criminalization of Homosexuality in Tunisia. It addresses the formulation of the Tunisian Constitutions, emphasizing the insertion of the criminalization of sodomy in the 1913 Constitution, while the 1861 code was extremely permissive to homosexualities, even generating too much indignation from France during the process of colonization of the territory.
Is this permissiveness in relation to sexuality in Tunisia, long before Magnus Hirschfeld and Stonewall, embedded in a project or idea of Queer Global History? Is the history of homosexualities in Tunisia really considered in this light? I am not from Tunisia and am vaguely familiar with it, but perhaps these issues will be reflected throughout the East, Latin America, Africa and Asia when we think of a Queer Global History, where for many, these milestones are nowhere near our territories.
So to what extent is this Queer Global History is not an idea of western history? As simple and involuntary as it may be, the imperialism is possibly being reproduced in areas that instead should be promoting the inclusion and aim at a fair representation of the continents.
I was able to reflect on the same issues during Albert McLeod & Brett Lougheed’s presentation on the Two-Spirit community in Canada. To what extent are decolonial studies of indigenous, eastern, African and Asian sexuality getting the attention that they deserve? And to what extent do these stories not dismantle this western pioneering spirit and rearrange the frameworks of sexual diversity? What is the impact of decolonial studies on the reorganization of these milestones? Considering that some native communities that had a fluid sexuality, preserved or partially preserved, such as the case of the Two-Spirit in Canada, may have reflections on the culture of peoples still active in their territories. Just as there were indigenous people in Brazil, decimated in the colonization process who had a fluid sexuality and gender patterns that were not reflective of European culture.
But is the history of these cultures, even though they may influence contemporary communities, such as the case of Two-Spirit, in fact being aggregated into a Queer Global history or is it being ignored? Where did this history start? What is the beginning and what is the end?
How fundamental and political is it to insert the histories of dissident sexualities, of the peripheral territories, as was the territory where the Stonewall Rebellion broke out in the United States in 1969, so that we can actually move towards real inclusion?
Even if there is only a declassification of non-European territories, is this not the reproduction of imperialism, elitism and marginalization of our territories and our culture such as the power structures have always marginalized LGBTQ + populations?
Latin America, for example, has stories before Magnus Hirschfeld and Stonewall, just as Asia and the East and possibly Africa may have. How and why do facts like Mexico’s 41 in 1901 enunciated by Miguel Alonso during the conference or milestones such as the creation of the Argentine Homosexual Liberation Front, founded in 1971, two years after Stonewall, not have a fair, or minimally symmetrical, prominence in these spaces?
The same situation happened with Brazil, where there are important histories of sexual diversity, such as the Brazilian Carnival, the sexual fluid form of indigenous people express your cultures and the influence of african diaspora to create a very singular homosexual subculture in our country, as case of Pajubá, a language of trans community, influenced by the Yoruba dialect. But without parity this history can’t be present in this is spaces.
All of these topics could have been presented and discussed at the conference, but due to the aforementioned underrepresentation, such exchanges were not possible. If we are aiming for human and inclusive development, it is necessary to include these histories, otherwise the idea of diversity and inclusion will be just a fallacious discourse.
It is well known that there is a deficit in Latin America of works regarding dissident sexualities when compared to Europe and the United States. But to what extent should the next conference not concern itself with a broader invitation and insertion of non-European countries? Events that claim to be global need to have parity policies, especially at events of socially excluded groups that preach diversity and inclusion. Therefore, it is necessary to look critically at how the histories of these territories are being included in these cycles.
The lack of space for discussion and the lack of incentive for non-European speakers to participate in such events reproduce the same logic of erasure that historically, the culture of dissident sexualities faces in its territories. These crystallized borders, which at times, seem to be continually reproduced rather than sharpening a critical spirit of analysis, could end up underdeveloping the history of dissident sexualities in the world. I think this kind of things could build restricted groups that thinks in the same way and the debate, the most important thing to happen, could be restrict. This kind of thing is not a specific of this event, but this experience serves to punctuate this important discrepancies.
 |
| Closing table of the ALMS Conference 2019 |
Additionally, I believe that aside from these issues, the lack of concern with the territories of the periphery of power and “capitalism”, could symptomatically guide the conduction of this events. Influence, for example the accessibility of these participants in these events.
In conclusion, the purpose of this analysis is to shine some light on the issues pertaining to these events so that the organization of the next event, which may take place between the years 2022 and 2023, most likely in Canada, United States or Sweden is more global and inclusive. There is a need to look more closely at Latin America, Asia and Africa because these territories have so much to say and whether the intention is to build a Global Queer Story or a global solidarity network, these stories must be inserted in this cycle. Otherwise, we will be acting alongside the structures that historically oppressed our community.
*Presentation at the closing table of the event: Defending the future, about the current political scenario in Brazil.
