The selected chapters by Najmabadi and El-Rouayheb both problematize the use of "homosexual" in History by focusing on conceptions of sexuality and gender in pre-19th century Arabic speaking Ottoman territories and Qajar Persia. Both argue that conceptions of innate, fixed homosexual orientation and binary gender have distinctly European origins and, prior to European influence throughout the Middle East, did not match elite male notions of sexuality throughout the Islamic world.
El-Rouayheb articulates a very direct historiographic critique of the use of "homosexual", noting that both on cultural and legal levels, distinctions between passive and active roles, infatuation and lust, as well as specific acts committed were important. The translation of many Arabic terms as "homosexual" ignores these distinctions and anachronistically imposes modern, Western conceptions of sexuality and gender non-Western historical subjects. Najmabadi offers a similarly alternative understanding, focusing more on gender. Her exploration of the role of amrad in Qajar art and literature reveals a distinct gender category that exceeds boundaries of man-woman binaries common in History. Najmabadi demonstrates how concepts of beauty applied universally to beloveds in Qajar Persia differ with modern interpretations of gender and sexuality, an important distinction for any further historical study of sexuality and gender. Furthermore, she distinguishes the distaste for sexual relations between adult men with the man-amrad love that was generally more accepted, deepening the understanding of amrad as a distinct gender category.
Both authors also carefully avoid and critique older Orientalist discourses on Muslim hyper-sexuality. El-Rouayheb notes how historians have attempted to explain prevalence of male homoerotic desire by both "oversatiated heterosexual appetites among the upper classes" (invoking understandings of harem culture) and, contrarily, frustrations caused by gender segregation. By mentioning this contradiction, El-Rouayheb demonstrates the insufficiency of previous historical understandings and distances himself from outdated discourses. Najmabadi also does this, mentioning that man-amrad relations were governed by its own set of values. She cites prohibitions against forcing adolescents into sexual relations as well as norms surrounding what class of persons (servant vs. ruler) could participate in sexual acts with whom. In doing this, she contests any notion that amrad culture was derived from racialized sexual deviance or moral deficiencies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCameron summarized these two articles very well. Both articles inherently argue that while in early Qajar and in the Arab-Islamic world throughout the 1500-1800s there were many acts/desires that would now be considered homosexual acts/desires, the term homosexuality is a Euro-American term that should not be imposed in a different context. Both claim that it is important to note that the concept of homosexuality and gender non-conformity is not an alien concept but are not exactly terms that apply to these specific contexts and times.
ReplyDeleteNajmabadi's article specifically shows the relationships between amrads (not to be named a "boy") and adult men. They state, "The manliness of the beard was not so much a sign distinguishing man from woman, as implied by the modern interpretation of beardless men as effeminate" and although effeminacy and woman are connected, they don't have a "neighborly affiliation." Additionally, pre-modern Islamic literature did not connect gender to love and beauty. As we can see in figure 2, notions of beauty were not necessarily gendered.
Cameron, you have absolutely done an amazing work on summarizing these two articles. These two pieces, reflect the notion of "homosexuality" and gender notion in Arab-Islamic literatures from 16th century until 19th century. In Najmabadi's article it is interesting to know how young beardless men were seen an "object of desire". There was an open explicit praise for such young men. It is interesting to know how notion of beauty was used to describe for male and female together in order to view and portray their physical being. At that time, only young, beardless men, were an object of desire for other older men. From one of the painting in the article, I just got this thought, that may be these "desirable" young men were seen close to women, young, beautiful, hard to differentiate young men from women,which made them so desirable, and erotic. Also, in El-Rouayheb's piece, it is clear that hetero sexualization and gender binary discourses is created by Europeans. Like, how a Moroccan scholar goes to Paris and notices that flirtation and love only existed for women and it was not graceful to express your love for young men. I just felt, how behavior versus representation of homosexuality can be seen through arabic literature and compared to present day through these both articles. It was very interesting to know about pre modern Arabic literature on homosexuality and its representation.
ReplyDelete