With reference to Grewal and Kaplan, discuss how politics are implicated in the formation of sexual subjectivities. Consider national and transnational dimensions/examples of the production and regulation of sexuality.

“Everything is politics.” –Thomas Mann

Before searching this quote, I must admit I was unaware of its context. I still am, as a brief Wikipedia skim only gets you so far. But interestingly enough, I do not remember a time when I did not know this phrase. “Everything is politics.” This quote seems especially accurate today, November 4, Election Day. As I write this, my phone illuminates constantly with the newest projection or final score. Who will be in government at the start of 2015? How will United States politics change and who will be privileged? Who will be oppressed? Who will be ignored completely?

Sexuality as a discipline, as a subject, is political as well, of course. In “Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality”, Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan explore sexuality as a transnational movement and the implications of transnationalism across modern disciplines. According to the authors, transnationalism is able to address the inequalities, or the “asymmetries” of globalization. In turn, a transnational approach allows a more “adequate” study of sexuality in the age of globalization. By dividing the study of sexuality in a transnational context into multiple spheres, Grewal and Kaplan outline precisely the role of sexual subjectivities today, specifically the current frameworks that hinder their advancement.

In all aspects, the traditional binary system of categorization and analysis is incredibly limiting. Everything is either this or that, the one or the other. How has it taken such a long time to destabilize this concept?

Traditionally, sexual subjectivities have been exclusively represented in the binary. The family model is seen solely as a means to reproduction, eliminating any sexual tendencies that deviate from this model. Recent movements have aimed to destroy this notion, particularly the second and third waves of feminism and the development of queer studies departments in academia. While the United States has seen a rise in acceptance of “non-traditional” families and means of sexual expression (I am thinking of laws enabling gay marriage and trans* rights, among other movements), many other Western nations are still woefully reactionary. Though individuality is developed as an inherent trait, the politics of society empower or prohibit self-expression. Depending on “politics”, sexuality may be repressed or celebrated, punished or liberated. Grewal and Kaplan write about the “tradition-modernity split”, referencing the “global feminist” and the “nexus of modernity” that is marked by the freedom of choice in coming out.

Transnationalism as applied to the study of sexual subjectivities, offers us (and by “us” I include anyone interested in sexuality, scholar or no) the means to address the role of sexuality in a multitude of areas. As Grewal and Kaplan write, “Since ignoring transnational formations has left studies of sexualities without the tools to address questions of globalization, race, political economy, immigration, migration, and geopolitics, it is important to bring questions of transnationalism into conversation with the feminist study of sexuality” (666).

Grewal and Kaplan’s article piqued my interest from the start—how can studies of sexuality be conceived when sexuality is so varied throughout the world? How is feminism viewed throughout the world? These questions, and many more, are why I find their argument (albeit rather wordy and technical) so interesting. Through further reflection, I found myself asking how anyone could not perceive sexuality through a transnational approach.

The authors focus much of their article defining the term “transnationalism” and its uses in the modern academic conversation. First, they write, the term is used to explain or depict migration. Additionally, it indicates “the demise or irrelevance of the nation-state”, as individuals identity less and less with the nation, and more with specific cultures (664). In terms of sexuality, this idea struck a chord with me, as I began to ponder the alienation of those who identify outside of the heteronormative binary. If the nation refuses to provide support, who acts as the unifier? “The binary gender model is so pervasive and universalized that it has become naturalized,” Grewal and Kaplan write (667).

The political movements that have traditionally boxed in sexual subjectivities are losing steam. Earlier this semester we discussed the Internet as being a major factor in the spread of transnational ideas and in sharing information throughout the world. Though the political tradition has previously focused exclusively on those who are white and middle-class, I sincerely hope that this will not always be the case. Politics may play an important role in the obstruction of personal freedom and self-expression, but it cannot prohibit the development of sexuality, despite all efforts.

PS: As an election update, I have just been notified that the Republicans have gained control of the US Senate.

Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan. “Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. Vol. 7, No. 4, 2001, pp. 663-697.