Global activism and sexualities in the time of HIV/AIDS

Hakan Seckinelgin

London School of Economics, UK

This contribution responds to the question of how transnational human rights networks affect
peoples politics in the global south and what is the role of the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex (LGBTI) category in claiming rights for others. The main concern
of the paper is to reect on the relationship between the people on whose behalf rights are
claimed and those who are claiming these rights from within a global context.
Theoretically, the argument locates itself within the discussions of politics of recognition
and distribution. It examines the implications of the use of internationally recognized
categories of LGBTI and men who have sex with men (MSM) for the voices of local
activists in India and sub-Saharan Africa and suggests that solidaristic categorizations can
silence difference as well as articulate it.
Keywords: LGBTI; human rights; civil society; identity; subjectivity
Introduction
How do transnational human rights networks and global norms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) rights affect peoples politics in the global south? This contribution
engages with this question, the third question posed by the editors in the introduction to this
issue, by focusing on the effect of global civil society groups within the global south. This is
done by the explicit problematization of practices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex (LGBTI) rights activism in a global context. The analysis is located within the discus-
sion of the politics of recognition and distribution. This debate has been taken up by many
eminent philosophers and political theorists in recent times, particularly following Charles
Taylors seminal work on the issue (Connelly 1990, Taylor 1994, Benhabib 1995, Brown
1995, Fraser 1995, Young 2000). The discourse is an attempt to conceptualize identity and
difference within modern multicultural polities. More recently, the debate between Nancy
Fraser and Axel Honneth (2003) on this division is important. This piece, by concentrating
on international activism on sexualities, contributes to the debate by suggesting that the hom-
ogenizing potential of a liberal solution to difference is not limited to the politics of difference
within Western democratic polities, but is also relevant to thinking about politics inspired by
universal human rights or other cosmopolitan values motivating global activism (Brown
ISSN 1356-9775 print/ISSN 1469-3631 online
# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13569770802674246
http://www.informaworld.com

Hakan Seckinelgin is a lecturer in international social policy in the Department of Social Policy at the
London School of Economics. His work focuses on the impact of international HIV/AIDS policies on
the disease in sub-Saharan Africa and in India. The empirical research is linked with questions of the
agency of international actors and their knowledge claims in designing policies. In this, he uses civil
society actors and discussions based on their agency as the entry point for his work. This multidisciplinary
research is also supported by his earlier work on the philosophy of Descartes, Kant, Heidegger and Foucault
and their implications for the politics of being human/personhood. His work at present is interested in
discussions of justice and global justice. He is the author of The Environment and International Politics:
International Fisheries, Heidegger and Social Method (London: Routledge, 2006) and International Poli-
tics of HIV/AIDS: Global Disease Local Pain (London: Routledge, 2008), and he has co-edited a number
of other books. He has also published widely in scholarly journals. Email: m.h.seckinelgin@lse.ac.uk
Contemporary Politics
Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2009, 103118
1995, pp. 141143, Seckinelgin 2004). I argue that global activism constitutes particular sex-
ualities that are justied according to a sexual ontology linked with the Western experience.
In order to reect on the boundaries of the discussions of sexuality, subjectivities and politics,
I also briey look at aspects of Judith Butlers and Michel Foucaults work that inform activism.
The contribution reects on the relationship between the people on whose behalf rights are
claimed and those who are claiming these rights from within a global context. The concern is
about the status of the claim in relation to the everyday experiences of people in their socio-
economic and political contexts. I will unpack this concern by looking at two cases: activism
around LGBTI issues and HIV/AIDS in India and sub-Saharan Africa. The aim is to illustrate
the political limitations of these movements at the global level.
In order to set out the discussion and establish the motivation for this move to rethink the
justication for international activism, I take two examples illustrated below from my research
on the international politics of HIV/AIDS (Seckinelgin 2008).
G We are the only LGBTI group in this country. We have been trying to establish our-
selves as a LGBTI group but no one wants to hear our case and are sending us between differ-
ent departments. We are meeting at homes and people hear about us from their connections.
I Can you tell us more about your work?
G We are trying to help other LGBTIs and provide them with support. It is not easy to be
LGBTI because men dont accept usually what they are even if they are having sex with
other men. They think that is something they do, most of them dont want to know about
us. For women it is easier because if they are like a man people usually look at them as
strong people. Being strong is valued in this society.
I How about the I-intersex in the LGBTI? Do you know any I-members?
(both G and M initially smile and M laughs)
M No we dont, I dont think they exist.
G What do you mean?
M I dont think anything like intersex is possible, they just dont exist.
I I noticed that you are using LGBTI to talk about your group but also about general issues
you have. Is this common, do people identify with this terminology?
(G smiles)
G Well I am using it because it is the international language. I have been going to regional
meetings and it is their language. [the language] Makes us part of the larger group [inter-
national] for the possibility of funding and support when we need it. But people, no, they
dont really use LGBTI, even men who are talking to us, it takes sometime before they
call themselves gay.

L Let me tell you about our culture, we are Hijra. We are accepted as a part of the culture.
We are the only sexually visible group and we pay for our visibility. As Hijra-tg [transgen-
der] we have particular needs but no one seems to particularly include us into the policy dis-
cussions as a part of the debate on HIV/AIDS. They [policymakers and funders] are not
looking at the issues culturally but want to look at them pragmatically. We founded a tg
organization in 1999. We are trying to address Hijra-tg issues and needs that are different
from MSM [men who have sex with men]. In the national HIV/AIDS plan we are included
under MSM and there are no specic concerns or attention paid to Hijra-tg issues. MSM is
about behaviour and Hijra-tg is a culture. We need the particular focus on Hijra and their
social environment. The needs are different and the implementations, spaces will be
different.
104 Hakan Seckinelgin
A I have a problem with your talk. Kothis are also visible, I am visible. Also, you cannot
use Hijra-tg as if there are no other tgs. Hijras are a sub-category of tg.
K I agree you [Hijra] are a sub-group of transgender and actually transgender is a subgroup
of MSM. The national plan addresses MSM and transgender issues.
The rst extract is from a set of interviews conducted in December 2007 to assess the gen-
dered and sexuality based patterns of vulnerability to HIV/AIDS in the Great Lakes Region of
Africa. The main interviewee is the leader of an informal and the only gay group in the country.
The exchange in the second extract took place between people who were coming from various
sexuality and gender positions in India at a workshop I organized in January 2007. It looked at
the relationship between HIV/AIDS, international policies, and their impact on sexual min-
orities. While these discussions took place in different spaces in different cultural milieu, they
reveal an interesting relationship between global discussions of sexualities as a part of HIV/
AIDS policies and the way these discussions inuence local activism and identity questions.
All personal and organizational names are anonymized throughout the text to protect the
privacy of the people who participated in these interviews and discussions. Research informing
this work was conducted under the Chatham House rules, which state that the information
exchanged can be reported, but neither the identity nor the afliation of participants can be
revealed.
Both cases are primarily about the political struggle for identity within particular contexts.
They present insights about the way particular sexual identities are rearticulated and represented
on the basis of various strategies at present. They also suggest that these articulations are intern-
ally contested and challenged. Both cases are about the emergence of global categories within a
particular policy strategy and the way their language becomes the common reference point for
both policy actors and their target groups (Seckinelgin 2008, p. 118). In this, as argued by the
philosopher Ian Hacking (1995, p. 351) in his work on looping kinds, categories that are
employed to designate people are taken up by individuals in the process and turned into acquired
identities. The rst extract demonstrates how the global sexuality category of LGBTI is linked to
everyday expressions of identity politics. In a similar manner, the second case highlights the way
in which what was developed as a medical category for public health policy interventions
(Young and Meyer 2005) to overcome identity-based discrimination, that is, men who have
sex with men (MSM), is repositioning various identities within social relations. This is due to
the way the category has become an entry point for identity politics in politically hostile environ-
ments for many international advocacy groups.
This double process frames and locates peoples recognition as the relevant actor for con-
sideration and their participation (or not) in the system. It mediates their ability to have
access to resources (material and political) within the HIV/AIDS context. Here the role of
civil society groups, both local and international, is interesting. International civil society
groups follow two ways of participating: advocacy around sexuality rights (recognition) and
by focusing on service delivery to vulnerable groups (distribution) such as MSM. There is a
difference in terms of scope and focus between the LGBTI activism that emerged in the late
1960s (Altman 1971) and the AIDS activism that emerged in the 1980s (Seckinelgin 2002),
which subsequently articulated the MSM framework. However, Cindy Patton (1984, p. 4) in
her early writings considers them to be interlinked: AIDS cannot be viewed outside the quest
for sexual liberation. She also pointed out recently that the intransigent associating AIDS
with sexual deviance in many contexts, in part allowed the strange acceleration of gay politics
(Patton 2002, 2003). Furthermore, Joseph A. Massad (2007, p. 174) in his recent work argues
that the spread of AIDS on an international scale is one of the factors that extended the
reach of the Gay International. This relationship between LGBTI activism and AIDS activism,
Contemporary Politics 105
as evident in the MSM approach, is also clear from the above extracts. Given the way the MSM
approach is utilized by LGBTI groups, arguably two activist paths have merged in many con-
texts. Ann Laura Stolers discussion of colonial liberalism is relevant to thinking about some
of these tensions. She argues that colonial liberalism opened the possibilities of representation
for some, while for others it set out moral prescriptions and afxed psychological attributes that
partially closed those possibilities down (Brown 1995, pp. 137139, Spivak 2002, Stoler 2002,
p. 111). Thus, from this perspective, both global LGBTI and MSM approaches can be seen as
opening up spaces while also closing down possibilities for some as they require a particular
kind of individual identication with these categorical positions for access to the spaces they
are opening up. Furthermore, even for those who are able to identify themselves, this act still
suggests a transformation.
The basic question is about the logic behind global activism on sexualities and the way it
engages with people. My concern is about the practices of claiming sexuality rights in a
global context. This concern identies a two-pronged problem: one is the globalization of a par-
ticular politics of sexuality; the other is the actual nature of this politics and the accuracy of its
claim for radical change. Patton (2002, p. 196) traces this situation in the case of Taiwans policy
to allow homosexuals to become soldiers and argues that [this] is the fatal irony of the late
modern homosexual citizens rights: he (in some cases, she) is allowed to serve in a military
that does not otherwise protect his (her) sexual interests. The issue here is about the double
movement of opening up spaces and closing down spaces, and the way this process engages
with localized subjectivities.
The following text is divided into three sections. The rst section looks at the international
activisms on sexualities and considers their ontological limits. The aim is to understand the
mechanism, highlighted by Patton above, that creates a problem for radical politics. The follow-
ing two sections look at the path through which rights are claimed, both as demands for recog-
nition and demands for distribution within the AIDS context. These two sections produce a
number of questions. The central questions are about the relationship between those people
on whose behalf these rights are claimed and the groups who are claiming the rights. The follow-
ing sections examine this relationship in the practices of political solidarity and in the way global
actors engage with the debates on LGBTI rights and the MSM strategy. I then conclude by
drawing attention to the tension between global activism and the implications of such practices
within particular contexts. It also raises questions about the relevance of global activism, which
is framed by Western ontology, and its conceptions of subjectivity, for people in diverse, histori-
cally constructed, socio-political contexts.
International non-governmental organizations, their LGBTI activism and
the limits of recognition
This section looks at the organizational context of the debate. There is no doubt that international
civil society groups and local civil society groups create a very diverse and dynamic environ-
ment. They also constitute a major advocacy network globally. In this diversity, there are a
number of organizations that seem to act as mediators between the international fora and the
local groups, in addition to being pressure groups on individual governments for the realization
of rights. Here I briey and non-exhaustively look at these organizations and the way they see
their role within this context. The aim is to understand the status of categories in these organiz-
ations approach to sexualities.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have included sexual orientation
and the question of rights within their framework due to their concern about overall human
rights and their involvement to stop human rights violations across many countries, while
106 Hakan Seckinelgin
other organizations have emerged from the concern for particular sexualities. According to
HRW, it works for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peoples rights, with activists repre-
senting a multiplicity of identities and issues (Human Rights Watch 2008). In a similar vein,
Amnesty International describes its role:
All over the world lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people are being criminalized, tor-
tured or ill-treated because of their sexuality. Amnesty International and our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender (LGBT) Network is working to expose these human rights abuses. We take action to
challenge governments and state authorities to full their responsibility to protect LGBT people
from such abuses. (Amnesty International 2008)
In the latter category, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) is a world-wide
network of national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual and transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people everywhere (ILGA 2008). In the same group,
the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)s mission is to secure
the full enjoyment of the human rights of all people and communities subject to discrimination or
abuse on the basis of sexual orientation or expression, gender identity or expression, and/or HIV
status (IGLHRC 2008). Although in its mission statement LGBTI language is not apparent, the
language is used both in its reporting of violations in Senegal and Cameroon and in its Human
Rights Report. For instance, in its annual report, the IGLHRCs six core goals speak of LGBTI
people (IGLHRC 2007, p. 4).
Another organization presents a different outlook. The Dutch organization Humanistisch
Instituut voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (HIVOS) focuses on human rights and HIV/AIDS
at the same time. In the context of the former, its focus is described as follows:
The rights of marginalized people are at the core of the programme Human Rights and Democratiza-
tion. Tackling the underlying causes of violations of human rights are the focal points of support to
organizations engaged with human rights in a wider sense of the term. One of the main goals is equal
rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. (HIVOS 2008)
However, in its HIV/AIDS-focused programme, the language of sexual minorities is used
(HIVOS 2008). They use the MSM language to talk about the situation in Latin America
and provide data on different groups. This is an interesting switch, as it seems to highlight
a difference between rights language and the language of developmental policy. The latter
in this context locates the discussion within the international HIV/AIDS policy frameworks.
In this, MSM language is more pervasive. For instance, the report on the state of the epidemic
published by United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2006, pp. 3, 110)
explicitly looks at the MSM category as one of the most vulnerable groups. The report
points out that only 9% of men who have sex with men received any type of HIV prevention
service in 2005 and fewer than 20% of MSM have access to resources. They link this situ-
ation to homophobia and the related stigma and discrimination against men who have sex
with men and also the contexts where sex between men is criminalized (UNAIDS 2006,
pp. 111112). They further argue that crucially, in many parts of the world, men who
have sex with men have no separate social identity (unlike self-identied gay men) and
sex between men is not commonly talked about or acknowledged, even by the men concerned
(UNAIDS 2006, p. 111).
The organizational outlook of these groups also allows global networks to be established
around their stated aims. For instance, ILGA is an activist organization that is based on
regional groupings and their participation in the ILGA World Conference, which is the highest
decision-making forum within the network (ILGA 2008). As a result, it is clear that ILGAs
aims and policies are shared and approved by a large number of groups globally. Therefore,
the work of many of these groups represents an ongoing relationship between local and global
Contemporary Politics 107
organizational fora. Here the policy language also represents a common ground for many groups.
The LGBTI acronym is used by groups in their political advocacy work for rights. According to
one activist working for an international advocacy group, it was a clear decision to use the
acronym in their work. This was after long internal discussions and the realization that it does
not cover all possible expressions of sexuality in many different socio-cultural contexts. Accord-
ing to the same person, they needed a simple common category. It is good for us in our work.
Similar views were also expressed by others working within the international networks. Of
course, this position raises an important question: whom is it good for and in what context?
There is no doubt that simplicity in advocacy work is important in order to be able to capture
the attention of policymakers. In other words, the language of LGBTI represents the grounds for
politics in claiming particular rights and in being recognized. However, the question of the status
of people recognized in relation to the category of recognition is an important political question.
Carolin Emcke (2000, p. 483) argues that the debate on recognition or tolerance of collective
identities tends to ignore exactly those individuals who are victims of racism and homophobia
and whose membership is imposed upon them and not chosen. This is about the political
relationship between the people who should be recognized and those people, activists, who
are claiming rights of recognition for them. It is about the status of the claim and how it
relates to peoples lives. It suggests a process whereby people construct identities in order to
be recognized by others. Here, the others are the activists. This is a layer which is usually not
visible in the confrontation between rights activists and authorities. This is also contentious,
as the relationship is enacted at a global level, as suggested in the extracts, in which activists
and the people on whose behalf rights are claimed are located in different socio-economic
and political spaces.
The question about this juncture is what people need to identify with to be part of this politics
of recognition that has international framing. Arguably, the LGBTI category sets out a frame-
work for such identication. On the one hand, the LGBTI politics of recognition requires
people to identify themselves with it to be part of the demand for rights, while, on the other
hand, public reaction to these categories is producing violent responses to those identifying
with the categories. Massad (2007, p. 188) argues that by inciting discourse about homosexuals
where none existed before, the Gay International is in fact heterosexualizing a world that is
forced to be xed by a Western Binary. Furthermore, it raises the issue of whether people
can have sex without being identied with one of the letters in the LGBTI category. If they
do, what happens to their rights to have a sexuality (and gender) that is not captured by the
LGBTI rights? This last question needs to be put on the table since it unpacks the ontological
assumptions on sexuality in the identity politics framing the global discourse in this debate.
Judith Butlers perspective on the rights of lesbians and gays and the reasons why they need
to take a particular form of politics allows these philosophical assumptions to be unpacked.
According to Butler (2005, p. 29), one of the central tasks of lesbian and gay international
rights is to assert in clearer and public terms the reality of homosexuality, not as an inner
truth, not as a sexual practice but as one of the dening features of the social world in its
very intelligibility. These comments suggest two important questions:
(a) Is the linking of homosexuality with lesbian and gay rights as identity politics a
reduction of what homosexuality may be about in many different social contexts?
(b) Why is social intelligibility linked to the categorical identities as opposed to the lived
social experience of sexual practices?
The question of intelligibility here is an important one as it grounds the possibility of
political discourse in this case, identity politics. There is no doubt that in order to be a political
actor there is a need to be intelligible within a particular political debate, struggle or activity.
108 Hakan Seckinelgin
Thus, the reality of homosexuality as sexual practices in everyday lives needs to be translated
into identities that are assumed to be politically intelligible. Butler (2005, p. 30) argues that
[T]o be oppressed you must rst become intelligible. To nd that you are fundamentally unin-
telligible (indeed, that the laws of culture and of language nd you to be an impossibility) is to
nd that you have not yet achieved access to the human, to nd yourself speaking only and
always as if you were human, but with the sense that you are not, to nd that your language
is hollow, that no recognition is forthcoming because the norms by which recognition takes
place are not in your favor. Here the politics of recognition requires people to claim a
certain identity that is suppressed from their politics for recognition that can then be articulated.
This kind of politics translates peoples experiences into narratives that are intelligible within the
global language of the LGBTI rights. This translation requires sexual practices to be rearticu-
lated by people within that global framework. As a result, people become subjects that are
actors within this framework.
This translation is about technologies of self (Foucault 1988). In this, the self is always in a
process of engaging with itself and with the social power within which the self seems to be
located. Here the idea is about the location of self within a social and historical process
whereby the individual constitutes and recognizes himself qua subject (Foucault 1988, p. 6).
Considering Foucaults (1978, pp. 9495) argument about power and its relations, it is clear
that the selfs relationship with itself is about a relationship with multiple dimensions
of power. It is also about resistance but, as he puts it, this is never a resistance from outside
(Foucault 1978, p. 95). This position explains Butlers statement about becoming oppressed
in two ways: rst as a position in relation to a power context from which sexuality rights
become intelligible. In other words, one rst needs to construct ones self as a subjectivity
that is linked with a particular politics. And, second, in this political participation in the struggle
for the possibility of rights, there is a need for people consciously and elaborately to think of
themselves in relation to the LGBTI category, even if that is not how they relate to themselves
in their sexual practices in everyday life. The position of G in the rst opening extract is a good
example of this situation. He uses LGBTI in order to be seen as the relevant actor in the eyes of
the global activists while this category does not seem to relate much to the everyday context.
They can then participate in the struggle for recognition. In this way, people also become part
of a struggle to be conceived as persons (Butler 2005, p. 32). The move is from sexuality as
a part of everyday practice to identity and from that to personhood in which political agency
is constructed. These processes of intelligibility also raise the question of who needs to be
aware and to whom are we being intelligible? This question is political, as being intelligible
is linked to becoming human, or constructing ones self, according to the perceptions of
reality and the inclusion criteria of a group.
This position, explicit in Butlers arguments and linked to Foucaults unpacking of the emer-
gence of modern subjectivity, makes the position of international groups more intelligible. It
locates their attitudes within an intellectual milieu that has developed in a particular social and
historical context. The critical issue here is whether Foucault and Butler are talking about subjec-
tivity in a socio-historical process with its particular politics, or whether the debate is about sub-
jectivity in general. The process of identity formation as a subjective engagement with sexuality
seems to indicate a particular politics of resistance within the modern discourses of sexuality. This
involves two issues: what is sexuality and what is political? The possibility of the political is con-
sidered as a resistance to the overarching morality that is regulated on the basis of sexuality, while
at the same time informed by it. Considering the historical and social location of this discussion,
the need to become intelligible to participate in this politics suggests the need rst to become a
modern subject. Understood in this way, what Butler is talking about as the possibility of being
oppressed is also about becoming a modern subject with an individuality that is constructed as
Contemporary Politics 109
a subject position that identies with a particular kind of categorical sexuality. Given cross-
cultural and social contexts where the history of subjectivity and sexuality are diverse, this pos-
ition creates a problem, as people associate themselves only according to one aspect of their lives
to become political. This can also be the point of reference for others in their own socio-political
contexts with meanings that create negative/violent reactions. The implications of this should be
considered from the perspective of what Jon Binnie (2004, p. 77) called the globalization of
homophobia. The issue is the politics of those processes that create a way of thinking and
acting on a self-identity that seems to abstract the person and reconstruct it as the subject of
politics under its individualizing power (Foucault 2000, p. 300).
In a relevant response to a question about the possibilities in and limits of identity politics,
Foucault states:
Well, if identity is only a game, if it is only a procedure to have relations, social and sexual-pleasure
relationship that create new friendships, it is useful. But if identity becomes the problem of sexual
existence, and if people think that they have to uncover their own identity and that their own iden-
tity has to become the law, the principle, the code of their existence; if the perennial question they ask
is Does this thing conform to my identity? then, I think they will turn back to a kind of ethics very
close to the old heterosexual virility. If we are asked to relate to the question of identity, it must be an
identity to our unique selves.. . .To be the same is really boring. We must not exclude identity if
people nd their pleasure through this identity, but we must not think of this identity as an ethical
universal rule. (Foucault 1997, p. 166)
This is informative because it points out the tension observed within the LGBTI politics of iden-
tity. The tendency of such politics to establish xed reference points around LGBTI as the possi-
bility of the political is a replication of politics of the modern subjectivity. In other words, the
solution that is sought through the LGBTI politics is replicating a form of subjectication that
has created the exclusion of certain subject positions from public recognition. This is the ten-
dency Patton (2002, p. 19) is warning against: [A]ny queering politic must always be critical
of the extent to which it hangs on to elements from the identity politics it believes it has
archly opposed. The cross-cultural and social nature of activism on this issue further compli-
cates the problem. Considering that Foucault is pointing out potential limits of identity politics
within the Western context when applied to different contexts, these limits create multiple binds.
On the one hand, by requiring identication, they abstract people from a given political social
context in order to become subjects at the LGBTI politics of international activism. On the
other hand, the political at this level ignores the possibilities of self and sexual existence
within particular contexts.
LGBTI activism and its challenges
In the rst extract at the beginning of this paper, G is using the LGBTI categorical positioning
as a way of having access to international resources. This practice seems, on the one hand, to
allow G to become an international activist who participates in meetings on HIV/AIDS and
sexuality across Africa and elsewhere; on the other hand, it seems to impede the struggle
within their country, as no authority wants to help them even though there is no legal barrier
for them to create a formal association. This raises the following question, what sort of politics
does the LGBTI approach operationalize for recognition? Associated with this is another import-
ant question, what does it mean for people to be recognized under the LGBTI category? While
the LGBTI approach and MSM-related activism are opening up spaces for political struggle to
be recognized from various angles and to be included in public life as equals, both approaches
have a clear transformative impact on the extant political struggles. This impacts in turn the way
everyday subjectivities are constructed, negotiated and renegotiated within social contexts.
110 Hakan Seckinelgin
This is a conictual and mostly violent process. It can also be seen as a relationship
between politics of rights based on LGBTI categories and the way those categories have
been historically and politically considered within particular contexts. Furthermore, it raises
a number of questions about the status of those for whom these rights are claimed and how
far they have contributed to the formulation of the claims that identify them with the particular
category of LGBTI. James Tullys (2000) argument is interesting here. He argues that the
identities of those seeking recognition, as well as those to whom the demand is made,
change in the course of negotiations and implementation of any resolution (Tully 2000,
p. 476). An identity put forward for recognition is the construction of two interacting processes
of negotiation. It is constituted and embraced (or rejected) by the members of a group, rst,
through their processes of democratic discussion and reformulation over time. They (or a
majority of them) must be convinced that the present recognition they are accorded is
unjust in some sense and then convinced that the proposed form of recognition is just and
worth the struggle (Tully 2000, p. 476). Although Tullys concern here lies within democratic
systems and mostly within an individual polity, his insights are relevant to the present discus-
sion. It allows us to focus on the relationship between international groups, their global cat-
egories, and people on whose behalf they claim rights. If we consider the LGBTI category
as the identity put forward for recognition in many contexts, then the issue is its construction
as the common ground. The rights claims based on this common ground assumes a general
agreement among all members of the group. It is important to ask in what ways the LGBTI
identity is constructed by the participation of people that can be seen as part of sexual and
gender minorities in a given context. In the contexts where LGBTI rights are demanded
from authorities by the international groups, this question is central. There are clearly three
levels of social relations that are being discussed:
(a) the political struggle of many sexuality groups in terms of deciding what matters for
them within their own groups,
(b) the relationship between international groups and some of these local actors, and
(c) the engagement of both activist groups, local and international, with the political and
social authorities.
Given this multilayered social context, the articulation of the unjust and expected resolution
of this condition can be formulated in different ways.
The LGBTI rights, as the international common ground, are demands from the socio-politi-
cal systems to resolve unjust conditions. These demands become the framework for the political
struggle at the global level and also set the boundaries of activism in particular socio-
political contexts. The common framework also sets the limits as to what can be reformulated
by the local activist. If they do not share the common ground, they might lose their voice
within the political struggle. One political outcome for the local activist is arguably the way
the LGBTI demands are put to the authorities in terms of both the framing of the category
and the strategies that may make people more vulnerable in particular contexts. This links
back to Emckes argument about peoples membership that becomes imposed on them both
by the demands of the international LGBTI politics and by the reaction of the authorities to
these demands. Another linked issue here is the construction of an idea about sexualities as a
result of the international demands. Emcke (2000, p. 485) considers this as an identity formation
that results from uninvited external construction. She argues that people react to this external
construction in a number of ways. One way of responding is to reconsider ones identity in that
new way, and this can be seen as an opening. Another way is observable in the case of MSM
category. It demonstrates that the negotiation is part of the resource relations between the inter-
national groups and local groups. Thus, G identies himself and his group with the
Contemporary Politics 111
international category, but this does not necessarily mean that all people in the group agree with
the identication.
Although I have been talking about the activists groups relationship with their grass roots,
their relationship with the global agenda setters is not a simple relationship given the diversity of
actors. The relationship between the global LGBTI groups and the local groups they engage with
has its politics, which does not usually come to the attention of the public. An occasion shedding
light on this emerged during the January 2007 Nairobi Social Forum, with a public statement
drafted by LGBTI delegates in the forum and signed by the representatives of 20 LGBTI
groups across Africa:
As Human Rights Defenders from across Africa, we strongly discourage the public from taking part
in any LGBTI campaigns or calls to action concerning Africa that are led by Peter Tatchell or Out-
Rage! . . . OutRage! has been acting in contempt and disregard of wishes and lives of African
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Human Rights Defenders. We have
made every attempt to address this matter with OutRage! personally and they have refused to
listen. (African LGBTI 2007)
This reaction by African activists is related to the international call by Peter Tatchell and
OutRage! to pressure the Nigerian government not to pass the Same-Sex Marriage (prohibition)
Act. They called for urgent action to press the Nigerian government to uphold international
human rights law and to drop this draconian legislation (OutRage! 2007a, Pink News 2007,
p. 2). The call was seen by signatories of the statements as unproductive. It was argued that
the resolution was introduced in 2006 but had been dormant, as local LGBTI activists were
trying to lobby informally. It was argued that the call by OutRage! might create a backlash
and allow the reintroduction of the bill (Friend 2007). The African statement also pointed out
that [a]s African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders, we are working toward the recognition of
our rights by our governments in Africa. We do not appreciate or accept the efforts of
Western-based individuals or organizations who try to make our work for liberation into an
ego-boosting publicity campaign for themselves (African LGBTI 2007). They then formulated
their message in very strong and political terms. They argued that the approach they observed in
the behaviour of this targeted group is neo-colonialism and it has no place in our struggle or in
Africa. They then reafrmed their internationalism: international collaboration can give
strength to already vibrant LGBTI campaigns in Africa (African LGBTI 2007).
In the face of this statement, OutRage! also published a statement to clarify their position.
They argued, This controversy has nothing to do with LGBTI liberation. It is all about certain
African LGBTI groups vying for power and funding, and their bid to damage other, more
radical and grassroots, African LGBTI groups, which they see as political rivals (OutRage!
2007b). Furthermore, they suggested that the statement was linked with the internal rivalry
among the African LGBTI groups. It was suggested that the rivalry was linked with the resource
relations. Kizza Musinguzi, African Affairs spokesperson for OutRage!, argued that:
Nigerian and Ugandan gay groups are divided, with different groups pursuing different agendas and
tactics. It is partly a divide between well-funded groups and volunteer grassroots activists, and
between reformists and radicals. OutRage! supports them all, but works most closely with the grass-
roots radicals. The more reformist groups resent this. They dont like the fact that we work with the
radicals, who they see as rivals. They want exclusive control of the gay rights movement in their
country. Many do little or no work with African progressive political parties and human rights
groups, whereas OutRage! and its African allies advocate cooperation between gay rights groups
and left parties, trade unions and civil society movements. Some of this dispute is also about
money. There is competition for funding. Certain organizations see others as competitors. They
want to be seen to be doing all the important work, so they can get the lions share of the funding
(OutRage! 2007b).
112 Hakan Seckinelgin
This reaction suggests that the local groups were challenging the global actors position. Tullys
(2000, p. 479) statement highlights the issue here: When an alliance of citizens seek to expose
and overthrow a demeaning form of recognition they suffer along similar aspect of their complex
identities . . . they also do not wish to be recognized and stereotyped exclusively under this
alternative description. There is no doubt that these groups can be seen as a part of an alliance
with the global actors. However, there is a clear resistance to a reinscription of limited identity
positions. In some way, this is analogous to Wendy Browns (2000, p. 232) argument that for a
woman to have a right as a women is not to be free of being designated and subordinated by
gender . . . it [right] reinscribes the designation it protects us and thus enables our further regu-
lation through that designation. The reaction of the groups for the advocacy of same-sex mar-
riage seems to be about resisting reinscription by a set of categories coming from outside the life
experience of people. Here what is also being contested is the particular concept of the political.
The idea of achieving rights in this way seems to ignore the changeability of identities and its
relation to other subjectivities.
There is no doubt that the global LGBTI identication opens new spaces for people, but also
closes others. It is possible to have access to international resources and to get support for loca-
lized political struggle. But the identication also constructs the local actors in a particular way
that challenges the local conditions. As Neville Hoad (2007, pp. 7577) argued, [A]ctivists
have used the language of universal human rights, which arguably reinforces notions of homo-
sexuality as excessive Westernization. Could this situation allow us, following Emcke (2000,
p. 485) to consider the global LGBTI construction of identities as, potentially, injurious external
description? Here the injured are those people on whose behalf rights are demanded. The injury
follows a number of paths. They are recognized as LGBTI people but do not seem to have much
of a chance to reformulate and rethink their own position within that framework. This is also
related to the global context where the relationship between global activist groups and the
local people is mediated by a limited number of activists that can speak the global language
and reformulate local situations for the global actors. As a result, while a certain unity of
purpose can be projected, agreement to it at the grass-roots level is usually contested.
However, given the distance between the global actors and this contestation, the change in
the politics of the international struggle due to this seems to be very limited. The LGBTI identi-
cation also allows people to be recognized by the larger political context and be targeted for
disciplining. It also leads to misrecognition of what the struggle might be about: is it about
being recognized and free to exercise rights that are set within the LGBTI framework, or is it
about being equal in practising whatever sexuality people have? Here I agree with Tully
(2000, p. 477) that any formal recognition at best will be a codication of the state of processes
of identity negotiation at a particular time, a reication of a moment of the more primary activi-
ties. Given the multilayered political relations and the positions of people who are the rights
claimants discussed here, even if the authorities engage with the LGBTI rights, their codication
will set limits to grass-roots political struggles for diverse sexualities. Following this political
move implicitly under other policy strategies, such as the one provided by MSM within AIDS
context, also has implications.
Strategy of employing men who have sex with men (MSM) in HIV/AIDS policies
MSM as a public health category represents both a way of targeting people without discriminat-
ing according to their identities and claiming rights for services within the international HIV/
AIDS policy framework. Here, in order to distribute services, a level of recognition is required,
but this recognition is linked with the HIV/AIDS context. It reects a condition of being vulner-
able as described by the public health experts. The MSM-related recognition constructs the
Contemporary Politics 113
equality of access for bridging populations within the HIV/AIDS policy framework, but it does
not go so far as to defend the right to be from a different sexuality. Since its implementation, the
MSMcategory has also become an entry point for identity politics. It can be seen as an entry point
for political debate by not directly challenging the existing discrimination among people on the
basis of sexual preferences. The idea of distribution can lead to the questioning and rethinking of
categories of recognition. It presents a different strategy from the LGBTI-rights approach, which
starts with recognition and then leads to distribution. Both LGBTI and MSM approaches can be
seen as attempts at political recognition that are applying divergent strategies as aspects of pol-
itical struggle (Tully 2000, p. 469). However, the use of MSM as an entry point has a problem.
According to an activist and health worker from East Africa, it was important for the community
to be recognized as MSM; this category allowed them to be part of the national prevention plans,
and brought their needs into the policy discussions. However, the two paths, LGBTI activismand
HIV/AIDS health interventions, had to be kept apart. He stated, We have to wear two hats and
change positions depending on the policy environment. Using LGBTI language and needs would
have been counterproductive in national policy circles. We were happy that MSM was con-
sidered a bridging population, a vector of the disease as in one night it allowed us to be part
of the national debate. Then we used the LGBTI language with the grassroots for activism. In
this view, there is clear strategic use of the public health category MSM as an entry point for
further discussion. The Senegalese case in January 2008, when a group of men were arrested
on the suspicion of homosexuality, highlights the precarious nature of the potential of such
engagement with public health as a strategic entry point (Ba and Fletcher 2008). The arrests fol-
lowed an article published in a local magazine about a marriage ceremony conducted for two
men. International advocacy groups that are mentioned above reacted to this situation immedi-
ately. Paula Ettelbrick, the IGLHRCs executive director, said that mass arrests of people simply
because they are gay terrorize the entire community and the inhuman treatment of gay men and
lesbians must stop. We call upon the world community to enforce international human rights law
(Pink News 2008). While homosexuality remains an illegal act in Senegal, the government has
included MSM as one of the vulnerable target groups in its HIV/AIDS policies since 2005.
Here the politics of recognition represents a complex picture and raises a question about
spaces that are opened and closed at the same time through global activism. It is clear that
the MSM category allows for discussions on distribution and inclusion of minority groups
into a general framework. But further deployment of the category for recognition is question-
able. While authorities provide recognition as a part of public health concern for HIV/AIDS,
the politics implicit within the MSM approach, which is supported by international organiz-
ations, is ultimately about the recognition of sexuality rights and equal access to resources
independent of sexual preferences. This kind of politics is a challenge to both governments
and societies. This challenge can be observed in the reactions to the release of arrested men
in Dakar, Senegal. According to the Reuters report on 15 February 2008, on the release of the
arrested men there were anti-gay riots in Dakar, and the police had to use tear gas to disperse
rioters. Comments from a number of protestors highlight the challenge:
We want homosexuals to be wiped out in this country. We will continue to ght for Senegal to
become a Muslim nation.
This practice does not conform to the religion practised in our country.
Yes, it is a world phenomenon, but the sacred texts are against it, Men of God dont tolerate it.
(Ba and Fletcher 2008)
Despite this social milieu, recognition under the limited MSM category can still be the desir-
able option for many. This allows people to have access to services in the context of HIV/AIDS
but does not improve their social standing or appearance within communities in the short term.
114 Hakan Seckinelgin
The MSM category deployed within the international HIV/AIDS policy frameworks as a tool
for targeting a vulnerable group could act as a mechanism to neutralize demands in the politics of
recognition. The policy frameworks carry resources attached to the targeting of vulnerable
groups, among them MSM. In this, the vulnerability is considered in relation to the possible
impact of this group within the larger society rather than targeting MSM as people with their
own particular needs. Therefore, the MSM-related policies maintain a distinction between
providing resources to those in need without actually recognizing the right to recognition and
equality within society that would have a direct impact on the vulnerability of minority sexua-
lities. This trend is observable in the second extract that opens this work. The position of K,
defending a hierarchy of categories that are under the umbrella of MSM, is a function of the
policy framework. Ks justication is related with funding opportunities, K states:
I want to get resources for my community, it is important for us to have access to funding and policy
environment. In the 1990s when we needed funding no one wanted to listen to us. I opposed to the
MSM language when it was rst proposed in Geneva 1992. But it now allows us to have access to
resources.
Here again Ks intentions as a long-time activist are to use this as a strategic entry point. The
position is linked with the available structure of international funding that is very much linked to
vulnerable groups as they are designated within the HIV/AIDS policy frameworks. Ks com-
ments generated challenging responses from the other participants. A lesbian activist, M, and
A argued that since HIV/AIDS funding has arrived it has changed the nature of politics. A
stated that since HIV/AIDS funding has arrived we have now NGOs and projects. Before,
we had the identity politics. No one has time for it now. M said that we are betrayed by
our brothers in the political struggle. HIV/AIDS funding shifted the attention only to men, if
you cannot link yourself with it, no one cares about your problems. Lesbians were already
isolated and now they are even more isolated and ignored. They [men] get their funding from
HIV/AIDS organizations and they dont want to know about us. These views highlight the com-
plicated strategy of using MSM as an entry point for identity politics. It seems, given MSMs
categorical location within the public health discourse as a part of the international HIV/
AIDS policies, MSM lters who can participate in the process of distribution and thus who
can voice needs. Contrary to James Tullys (2000, p. 471) argument that a struggle for distri-
bution usually involves an amendment to the prevailing norms of recognition, the case of
MSM seems to have allowed one group to emerge as the voice of a larger complex sexuality
politics and challenged the position of other groups in relation to their struggle for recognition
and equal treatment within the society. If, as Jon Binnie (2004, p. 68) argues, the homosexual
has been commonly pathologized within medical discourse, then utilization of MSM as an entry
point for LGBTI politics will face important challenges, as it will reinsert medicalized subject
positions to deal with people. While distribution no doubt opens up a new space for those
excluded by the system, it seems that the distributive process within which people are participat-
ing is setting the limits of this participation. Furthermore, it is creating an additional process that
inuences the way people construct their subjectivities.
In this section, I highlighted one pathway, MSM, which has emerged within the international
HIV/AIDS policies as a possibility for political struggle around sexualities. This path clearly
follows the politics of distribution, and people are engaged in this struggle. There are a
number of questions raised for this pathway in terms of politics both in relation to the authorities
and within the struggle itself. The reactions reported above also highlight the presence of an
already existing recognition about sexualities within the society. Therefore, the debate seems
to be about different ways of recognizing sexualities in a given context. There are a number
of sides to this debate: who is recognizing, who is misrecognizing (Taylor 1994, p. 25) or
Contemporary Politics 115
ignoring? Moreover, historically constituted and enforced attitudes to homosexuality ground
many of these negotiations in either LGBTI or MSM strategies.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that both the LGBTI politics and the MSM framework open spaces for politics
of identity. These openings are also linked with the general attention given to HIV/AIDS within
global political discussions. I have argued that the spaces that are opened are simultaneously
about spaces that are closed off. I have also argued that this relationship between opening up
and closing off spaces has serious implications for political activism and spaces available to
relevant people in particular contexts.
There is no doubt that the MSM category within the HIV/AIDS policy frameworks has
opened up many spaces for activism and for claiming resources from the system within the
HIV/AIDS interventions. However, as argued above, these gains and spaces are gendered.
Furthermore, there is no evidence for the claim that MSM identication, which is a medical
category, leads to identity politics with broader recognition within societies. Arguably, MSM
presents a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is a strategic move for accessing much
needed resources within the HIV/AIDS epidemic. On the other hand, it has moved the discussion
back into medicine. It seems to negate all difference under what appears to be a medically
relevant category for public health interventions without changing the underlying attitudes to
homosexual relations in various contexts.
It is also clear that LGBTI activism creates new opportunities for people to participate in the
politics of recognition. In this way, people are able to articulate an identity that can take part in
the public debate. This process is also about creating a politics of solidarity. This politics is an
attempt to claim a common ground for a particular identity that can unite people within a given
context as well as across different contexts. However, the same process also closes off political
possibilities within peoples everyday socio-political context. The solidarity around LGBTI
politics locates political claims within a particularly contentious space within local socio-
political processes. The resistance that uses the framework of global LGBTI identity politics
closes off any possibility of difference and different political change in different contexts,
which, as suggested by Silviano Santiago (2002, p. 18), may be because of its demand for
public exhibitionism. International organizations may have to go beyond the politics of identity
to create spaces for the possibility of difference and for a politics that is not limited to their own
politics of recognition.
The two interview extracts that are in the introduction present a complex social picture. It is
clear that people with different sexualities rely on different strategies to engage with their sub-
jectivities and needs. Global activism based on identity politics or health categories are not the
only processes with which people are engaging in their everyday lives. As Iris Marion Young
(2000, p. 102) argues, identity is a process in relation to ones engagement with oneself in the
context of others: She is only her identity, which she herself has made by the way that she
deals with and acts in relation to others social group positions, among other things. In this
sense, global activism is one of the processes that people in various locales engage with in
shaping their identities. This is clear from the extracts. In Gs case, his use of the language
of LGBTI, or in Ks case, the description of difference under MSM category, are allowing
subjectivities to be presented in a particular language. Ls claim about being hijra-tg and the
argument that followed it highlight a tension. She responds to her critics by arguing, OK I
am Hijra and I want to help my community and my culture. The tension in her argument is
the result of the multiple groups she is relating to and her attempts to build solidarity by locating
her identity in relation to others while also maintaining a culturally determined Hijra identity.
116 Hakan Seckinelgin
In both extracts, the resources that are made available within the global activist networks are
instrumental in the way people engage with them in building solidarity. Given that the politics
of recognition is taking place in multiple sites, these global-local linkages are mediated by those
who can identify themselves with both contexts and they become representatives of the local
politics at the level of the global solidarity. However, the kind of politics this creates between
these activists and the dynamic struggles within local contexts is based not only on sexualities
but also on gender, race and class. These factors become difcult to understand, as they are
subsumed under the international concern about rights. Furthermore, this situation creates a
difculty for many people to further their own political ends within their everyday contexts.
Their voices are gradually incorporated into generic claims about recognition and solidarity.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the nancial support of the London School of Economics (LSE)s India Obser-
vatory for research informing this work. Without the willingness of the interviewees to share
their life experiences with me, this paper would not have been possible; I am indebted to
them. I am grateful to Damien Fennell, Fiona Holland, Martha Mundy, the editors of this
journal, and anonymous referees for their comments on the paper. Thanks are also due to
Martha Mundy for inviting me to present this work at the LSE Anthropology Departments
research seminar series. I am grateful for questions and comments from the audience.
References
African LGBTI, 2007. African LGBTI human rights defenders warn public against participation in cam-
paigns concerning LGBTI issues in Africa led by Peter Tatchell and OutRage! Available from:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/increase310107.html [accessed 27 November 2007].
Altman, D., 1972. Homosexual oppression and liberation. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.
Amnesty International, 2008. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) network. Available from:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID876&ArticleID876 [accessed 28 January
2008].
Ba, D. and Fletcher, P., 2008. Senegal police re tear gas at anti-gay protestors. Reuters news. Available
from: http:africa.reuters.comwirenewsusnL15566414.html [accessed 18 February 2008].
Benhabib, S., ed., 1996. Democracy and difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Binnie, J., 2004. The globalization of sexuality. London: Sage.
Brown, W., 1995. States of injury. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brown, W., 2000. Suffering rights as paradoxes. Constellations, 7, 230241.
Butler, J., 2005. Undoing gender. London: Routledge.
Connelly, W.E., 1990. Identity and difference in liberalism. In: B. Douglass, G. Mara and H. Richardson,
eds. Liberalism and the good. New York: Routledge, 5985.
Connelly, W.E., 1991. Identity/difference: democratic negotiations of political paradox. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Emcke, C., 2000. Between choice and coercion: identities, injuries and different forms of recognition.
Constellations, 7 (4), 485495.
Foucault, M., 1978. The use of pleasure: the history of sexuality. Vol. 1. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M., 1988. The use of pleasure: the history of sexuality. Vol. 2. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M., 1997. Sex, power, and the politics of identity. In: P. Rabinow, ed. Ethics: the essential works.
Vol. 1. London: Allen Lane, 163174.
Foucault, M., 2000. Omnes et singulatim: toward a critique of political reason. In: J.F. Faubion, ed.
Power: the essential works. Vol. 3. New York: The New Press, 298325.
Fraser, N., 1995. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a postsocialist age. New Left
Review, 212, 6893.
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A., 2003. Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange.
London: Verso.
Friend, R., 2007. Nigerias same sexmarriage (prohibition) act. Available from: http://www.diversitymatters.
info/2007/03/nigerias-same-sex-marriage-prohibition.html [accessed 15 January 2008].
Contemporary Politics 117
Hacking, I., 1995. The looping effects of human kinds. In: D. Sperber, D. Premack and A. Premack, eds.
Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 351394.
HIVOS, 2008. Human rights: basis for development. Available from: http://www.hivos.nl/english/
english/themes/human_rights_democratisation [accessed 29 January 2008].
Hoad, N., 2007. African intimacies: race, homosexuality and globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2008. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Available from: http://
www.hrw.org/doc/?tlgbt [accessed 28 January 2008].
IGLHRC, 2007. Annual report 2007, p. 3. Available from: http://www.iglhrc.org/les/iglhrc/reports/
annualreport%202007.pdf [accessed 2 February 2008].
IGLHRC, 2008. About us. Available from: http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id23
[accessed 29 January 2008].
ILGA, 2008. Working to achieve equal rights on a global scale since 1978. Available from: http://www.
ilga.org/aboutilga.asp [accessed 29 January 2008].
Massad, J.A., 2007. Desiring Arabs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OutRage!, 2007a. African LGBTI smear campaign OutRage! refutes false, sectarian allegations, lies,
slurs, egos, power & funding nothing to do with queer liberation. Available from: http://www.
petertatchell.net/ [accessed 15 January 2008].
OutRage!, 2007b. Nigerias new vicious anti-gay law. Worlds most sweeping, draconian homophobic
legislation. Fear grips lesbian and gay community in Nigeria. Available from: http://www.
petertatchell.net/international/nigeriagaylaw.htm. [accessed 5 December 2007].
Patton, C., 1985. Sex and germs: the politics of AIDS. Boston: South End.
Patton, C., 2002. The globalization of alterity in emerging democracies. In: M. Cruz-Malave and M.F.
Manalansan IV, eds. Queer globalizations: citizenship and the afterlife of colonialism. New York:
New York University Press, 195218.
Pink News, 2007. Nigerian anti-gay laws about to pass. Available from: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/
news/articles/20053519.html [accessed 5 December 2007].
Pink News, 2008. Men arrested in Senegal over gay wedding photos. Available from: http://www.
pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/20056752.html [accessed 5 February 2008].
Seckinelgin, H., 2002. Time to stop and think: HIV/AIDS, global civil society, and peoples politics. In:
H. Anheier, M. Glasius and M. Kaldor, eds. Global civil society year book 2002. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Seckinelgin, H., 2004. Between aspirations and assimilations: the worlds poor meet the cosmopolitans.
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 29, 6988.
Seckinelgin, H., 2008. International politics of HIV/AIDS: global disease local pain. London: Routledge.
Spivak, G.C., 2002. Gender and international studies. In: L. Odysseos and H. Seckinelgin, eds. Gendering
the international. London: Palgrave, 1339.
Stoler, A.L., 2002. Carnal knowledge and imperial power: race and the intimate in colonial rule. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Taylor, C., 1994. Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. In: A. Gutmann, ed. Multiculturalism:
examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 107148.
Tully, J., 2000. Struggles over recognition and distribution. Constellations, 7 (4), 469482.
UNAIDS, 2006. Report on the global AIDS epidemic: a UNAIDS 10th anniversary special edition. Geneva:
UNAIDS.
Young, I.M., 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, R.M. and Meyer, I., 2005. The trouble with MSM and WSW: erasure of the sexual minority
person in public health discourse. American Journal of Public Health, 195 (7), 11441149.
118 Hakan Seckinelgin