European Forum

Michael Brinkschroeder
„De-Centring Western Sexualities. Central and Eastern European Perspectives“
ed. by Robert Kulpa and Joanna Mizielińska (Farnham / Burlington 2011)

Spatial Imaginations and Localization
During the last two years, in the European Forum (EF) there was a sometimes open, sometimes subliminal debate on our spatial imaginations of Europe. At the AGM in Barcelona (2010) we took the decision to focus on „Eastern Europe“ and accepted the offer from the Open Church Group from Norway to financially support two additional members of the board with the special tasks of the coordination of the ongoing work of LGBT Christian groups in Eastern Europe and of fundraising for this work (although not only). But, it wasn’t made explicitly clear, what „Eastern Europe“ should mean, except for the already existing groups in the „Eastern European Forum“.
The Eastern European Forum’s conference in Kiev (Sept. 2010) saw as well a debate on the spatial idea of „Eastern Europe“. Proposals to define this Forum in temporal terms such as „post-communist“ or „post-Soviet“ states were refused, but it became clear that the majority of the participants (with exceptions from Poland and Romania) belonged to countries that were part of the former Soviet-Union. This could easily include Kyrgyztan, although geographically not being part of Europe. The workshop closed without changing the name „Eastern European Forum“, but with the sharpened awareness of its regional affiliations, which are somehow defined by practical and cultural reasons (e.g. long journeys produce high costs, Russian as common language, similar social and political situations for LGBT people), but without exclude others by drawing borders.
The AGM in Berlin (2011) approved the initiative „Save Our South“, proposed by two members of the board coming from Mediterranean countries who had the feeling that an exclusive focus on „the East“ could leave „the South“ and its specific needs invisible and forgotten. But what „S.O.S.“ has triggered in fact is a joint outreach to LGBT Christian groups in European countries which are not yet members of the EF whereever they geographically are located.

The book „De-Centring Western Sexualities“, edited by Robert Kulpa and Joanna Mizielińska, contributes to this ongoing reflections on spatial categories in the LGBT world. Focusing on Poland, Serbia, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Macedonia, the articles of the book can show that it is more apt to speak of „Central and Eastern European Perspectives“, because e.g. Poland or Czech Republic don’t regard themselves as Eastern European countries. Temporal categories like „post-communism“ or „post-Soviet“ are criticized as fixations on the past, while spatial categories like „Central Europe“ or „South East Europe“ (from the Macedonian point of view) deliver more helpful and differentiating imaginations.
The other side of the division, the „West“, needs reflection, too, because it tends to be unconsciously equated with the universal instead of being recognized as a specific context of its own. This is especially valid for Western approaches to sexuality, like LGBT identities or queer theory. They can only be understood from their historical and social backgrounds in the gay liberation movement (end of 60s and 70s) and in the radical activism against the political ignorance of the Aids crisis in the USA (end of the 80s and 90s).
A closer look reveals that also the „West“ is not uniform, but consists at least out of North America and Western Europe (EU) (while the UK belongs to the Anglo-Saxon world and to Western Europe).
The „Western“ approaches to sexuality came to Central and Eastern Europe through different trajectories: 1. through the hegemony of the US in the academic world, where most of the knowledge about queer theory is produced, 2. through the imposition of anti-discrimination laws demanded by the EU or 3. through transnational LGBT activism working with LGBT identity politics. Therefore, they are all loaded with the power of their transmitting institutions.
The book shows that transnational LGBT solidarity necessarily walks on an uneven path, which is always already shaped by power structures. This leads to the important question of editor Robert Kulpa: „How can we make sure that a good thing – to help others in need – will not become a manifestation of the ‚moral superiority’ of those capable of ‚helping’?“ (46) One of the answers to this question is the necessity to „localize“ queer / LGBT theories and politics. Otherwise they would impose nothing more than a normative path of modernization instead of being helpful for the solution of local problems. Localization is a process that according to the editors demands from people from the „West“ to give up control about their knowledge and the implicit claims for universalism and from people from Central and Eastern Europe critical evaluation of what is useful and what is not in combination with using this knowledge creatively in their own contexts.
LGBT Human Rights and the dialectics of „EUropeanization“
The European Union has done a lot to improve the rights of LGBT people in many countries of Europe and the broader Council of Europe has the same agenda. They struggled successfully for very important achievements on the level of law, primarily laws against discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. But these human rights for LGBT people were imposed on many states and societies in a process of EUropeanization as a demand to accept the whole package of EU laws in order to get access to the EU. So the shadow side of these achievements is that „the ‚Western’ insistence on the universality of human rights can function virtually as a diplomatic and political alibi for neo-colonial interventionism“ (Jelisaveta Blagojević 39).
Although they are now written law in those countries which already are or want to become members of the EU (e.g. Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Serbia), these laws are nearly not supported by civil society and politicians. They are not articulated within a culture of human rights or rich experiences of societies with LGBT people and groups. Therefore it is most likely that they are ignored by politicians, judges or the police. EU institutions and NGOs (like ILGA) reaction is constant observation if and how LGBT rights are violated.
In many countries, the hegemonic imposition of a neoliberal economy together with liberal freedom and equality-rights for LGBT people by the EU were the stumbling block that led to the formation of a homophobic coalition consisting out of conservative, nationalist or neo-fascist movements which were united in this issue with Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in order to organize homophobic campaigns or to attack gay pride marches.
Nationalist movements depend on fraternization and male homosocial bonding based on the subordination of women and the exclusion of gay men. They are obsessed with the growth of the national population and therefore want to strengthen families. Orthodox churches became especially furious about rights for LGBT people. Nationalism shares together with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church its structure of male bonding, where it builds the very foundation of the ecclesial power structure. So, their coalition does not only depend on the „West“ as an external enemy, but also on the internal needs of their organizations for a homophobic society.

A typical set of social expectations in Central and Eastern Europe is working with the distinction between private and public. The conservative mood wants lesbians and gays not to show up in the public, but to stay in the private sphere. As long as they respect the „law of privacy“, so an often heard argument, the homosexuals are not treated with verbal or physical homophobic violence. But this means that LGBT people are refused to have „the right to participate in the public sphere as sexual beings“, as Roman Kuhar (152) from Slovenia explains.
Kuhar uses the model of Benthams panopticon (made known by the French philosopher Michel Foucault) to describe the strict rules of appearance in public. While being in public LGBT people are always under scrutiny, every gesture or expression might be understood as a signal of a homosexual orientation or gender „disorder“. „Life implies a demand that gays and lesbians (and other non-heterosexuals) undress the ‚clothes of same-sex orientation’ each time they enter the public space.“ (ibid.) Dissimulation is regarded as necessary to prevent personal attacks. It is easy to imagine how this reaction to being constantly watched becomes an interiorized state of mind.
Because of the very high degree of homophobic reactions, the vast majority of LGBT people does not take part in LGBT marches or groups. Leaving the closet is simply too dangerous for them. For this reason, the LGBT movement is quite weak as a social movement. It has more the character of „hidden networks“ in the internet or in friendship circles. They may even claim their „right to remain outside the LGBT scene and movement“ (Shannon Woodcock 70).
Therefore, the political process of emancipation depends very strongly on individuals who have the courage to enter the public sphere and to speak out. But paradoxically, it is the widespread and controversial public discourse on homosexuality that makes the panopticon work, because it renders homosexuality a phenomenon that is expected to be everywhere.
Beyond Gay Pride Marches
Since 2001 gay pride marches in Central and Eastern European cities are symptomatic for the described contradictions between the legal situation and its lack of social anchorage, between international LGBT solidarity and the hidden life of many local LGBT people.
What can be done to leave this crystalized situation behind? One of the most promising approaches was developed in Poland and Serbia. Instead of organizing a single issue „Gay Pride March“, they built strong coalitions with other social minority groups to celebrate an „Equality March“. To me this seems to be „best practice“, because it strengthens democracy and solidarity in the civil society and it prevents LGBT people from becoming the sole target of their political opponents. Instead of pushing the button „gay pride“ again and again, time has come to strengthen the culture of human rights and to empower LGBT people and communities. Similar steps in this direction are the Queer Film Festival of St. Petersburg or the Euro Games which will be held in Budapest in 2012.