The Emergence of Political Homophobia

in Indonesia: Masculinity and National

Belonging

BY TOM BOELLSTORFF

WEEK 5
WGS300
 “Masculinity as Homophobia”’
by Michael Kimmel

Notice the distinctions Kimmel draws and the

relationship he uncovers between the individual and
his society.

Article is self-explanatory, though you may need to

use a dictionary.
Indonesia Archipelago
 Part 1: History of the Problem

Topic: Gay and Male-to-Female Transvestites

 Gay
 Waria, Banci, and Béncong
History of non-violence in Indonesia until recently
 Part 2: Masculinity and the Nation

Boellstorff argues that “historically, violence against

non-normative men in Indonesia has been rare”
(468).

He asks why there’s been a shift from non-violence

to violence recently.

Introduces his argument plus the counterargument.

The counterargument is that the violence against

gays and trans-women has been ongoing.
 Part 2: Masculinity and the Nation

Political Homophobia is

an emergent cultural logic linking emotion,

sexuality, and political violence. It brings together
the direct object of non-normative Indonesian men
with the indirect object of contemporary Indonesian
public culture, making enraged violence against gay
men intelligible and socially efficacious. (469)

DO answers the question “who?” or “what?”

IO answers the question “why?” or “how?”
 Part 2: Masculinity and the Nation

Malu ≈ the shame accompanying the awareness of

vulnerability in action in social situations.

In Indonesia, as well as in other countries,

the potential for the nation to be represented by non-

normative men challenges a nationalized masculinity,
enabling what has long been understood to be a
normative male response to malu – namely, the
masculine and often collective enraged violence known
in Indonesian as amok. (469)
 Part 2: Masculinity and the Nation

Nationalized femininity:
 “State Momism” in Indonesia
 “The New Mother” in Arab Muslim
countries
 “The Cult of True Womanhood” or
“The Cult of Domesticity” in
19th-century America

Nationalized masculinity:
 “State Fatherhood” in Indonesia
 “Boys in Guyland” in the United
States (Kimmel)
 Warriors, Soldiers, etc.
 Part 3: Homophobia and Heterosexism

Homophobia is a personal and psychological

experience, whereas heterosexism is a cultural and
social experience.

In a heterosexist society, internalized homophobia

“links Western conceptions of shamed self and
threatened society” (471).

Shamed Self ≈ Malu

Threatened Society ≈ Amok
 Part 4: Homophobia as Thuggery?

Boellstorff says,

The pivotal question of this article is not whether or not

official Islam disapproves of homosexuality (as a
heterosexist cosmology, it obviously does), but how and
why Islamic (male) youth groups have, at a certain
point in time and within the nation-state of Indonesia,
transformed this heterosexism into homophobia. (473)

What is “heterosexist cosmology?”

Heterosexism lays the foundation for Homophobia
and/or leads to the same eventual end: oppression.
 Part 5: Engendering Violence

Boellstorff says, “malu is nothing less than a key site at

which Southeast Asians become social persons” (475).
Then, “while women made malu are expected to become
withdrawn or avoidant, crying out of the sight of others,
men are expected to react aggressively” (475).

Males become social persons by reacting aggressively in

concert with other males (amok). Females never become
social, relegated to the private sphere to react inactively.
 Males become invulnerable.
 Females remain vulnerable.
 Part 6: Emotion and Masculine Sexuality

Homosex on the Down Low

 “Historically, successful Indonesian masculinity has not hinged
on a sole sexual attraction to women, so long as one eventually
marries” (477).

 Compulsory heterosexuality accomplishes through

shame (malu) the same goal that political
homophobia does through reactionary violence
(amok).

Coming out means you’re anti-nation.

 Conclusion

Indonesia has made the shift from subtle and

unspoken compulsory heterosexism to political
homophobia after the rise of democracy.

An argument could be made that the US experienced

this same shift during the Colonial period (16th-18th
centuries).

Heterosexist cosmologies support and encourage

political homophobia when religion and government
overlap.
 This week…

After reviewing this Lecture, you should read the two

articles for this week.
I suggest you read Kimmel’s first.
Allow time for multiple readings of Boellstorff’s
article, and have a computer or dictionary handy.
 Give yourself plenty of time! I’ll be reading your summaries
closely to insure you followed the article’s meaning.
 Make notes in the margins of ways Boellstorff’s article
responds to Kimmel’s (for your synthesis essay).
 The quiz will also assess the works as a pair, so take notes on
common themes they share to make the quiz easier for
yourself.
 Next Week’s Homophobia Synthesis

Introduction
 Give the names and authors of each essay you’ll summarize,
and state a general thesis that will help me navigate the logical
arrangement of your essay.
Summaries
 Summarize each article individually. Use direct quotation and
paraphrase sparingly.
Reflection: Your Own Homophobic Experience
 While you’re reflecting on the two weeks’ essays, please also
offer your own reflections on homophobia, including person
homophobic experiences. Challenge yourself to knowing how
you’ve personally been affected.
Conclusion
 Questions?

I’ll post a discussion board where we can discuss these

topics more thoroughly. Please ask questions about
the Indonesia article and respond to Kimmel’s ideas
about masculinity as homophobia.

Participating in this week’s DB in a thoughtful and

meaningful way will add 5 points to your synthesis
essay next week.