Discussion

G U E E R I N G OF Pe THEINTENDEDAND UNINTENDED

STATES/NATIONS (2013) . with courtesy appoi

versity of Arizona, Htments; t h e Un i S h e is t h e a u t h o ro f A Cr i t i ca ; R e e in

V. S p i k e P e t e r s o n is Professor o f Internat ional Relations at -o¢

Writte for LGBT Studies. (2003)d Virtual Economies (2003) uthor, with vmand co-auth ' d e r and W o m e n ' s Studies and Institu

the Department of Gen i ng o f G l o b a l Poli t ical Economy: Reproduct ive, Product ive an 010).

New Mi l lennium (2 Sisson Runyan, of Global Gender Issues in the

ul aspects of common-sense wer f e most Pois o n e of th g which denies history.

The appeal to the ?natural? g social relation (WEEDON 1987:3)

thinking, but it is a way of understandin

o characterize something as *natural? both politics. AS

denies its h is to ry and erases its a con t r ibu t ion to queering states/nations, I con- sider in th is essay the h is tory?hence p o l i t i c s ? o f

?sex,? ?sexuality,? and states. Reading early state

f o r m a t i o n ? t h e ?rise o f c iv i l izat ion??as constitut-

i n g and normal iz ing binary sex/gender difference

and he teropat r ia rcha l kinship relations, ] argue that ?making states is making sex.? Making both

involves m u l t i p l e , interactive transformations: in

se l f /sub ject and collective identities, symbolic sys- tems o f meaning, inst i tut ional arrangements, and

regulatory, coercive, and jur idical forms o f powel!. Once states are successfully ?made,? to ensure in-

tergenerational cont inu i ty they moni tor biologi- cal and social reproduction. This has historically

featured inst i tut ing 4 heteropatriarchal fami ly /

household as the basic socioeconomic unit, regu-

lating women?sb io l og i ca l reproduction, and polic- .ing sexual activities more generally.. a

I argue that the normal izat ion o f heteropatriar-

chal relations in early states ins t i tu ted?v ia bi r th-

r ight transmission o f membership/cit izenship and

property ownership claims?intergenerational

reproduction of inequalities w i th in and between polities. On this view, retaining nation-states and

.o hirthright citizenship and inheritance pat.

n effect sustains heteronormativity and jt, terns i litics (Peterson 1999; Stevens 1999 problematic po 2004, 2010). The latter includes dramatic and jp,

creasing inequalities of resource distribution

exacerbated byneol ibera l pol ic ies?and the globa]

insecurities these entail (Peterson 2010b). Yet at the

same time, neoliberal globalization alters the ay.

tonomy and arrangements o f states, and feminist nts challenge the ?givens? o f heter.

queer moveme nce, at this historical juncture queer

opatriarchy. He theory is 4 crucial, arguably imperative, component

of critically analyzing ?politics? w r i t large. It offers

not only the most tel l ing and informed critique of heteronormativity and its pol i t ical effects, but

also, potentially, the most transformative analysis

of power inequalities?actoss individual, interper-

sonal, group, national, and global levels. The objective of this essay then is to denatural-

ize identities, ideologies, and inst i tut ional practices

that were stabilized through early state forma-

tion, largely taken-for-granted in the transition to

(European) modernity, and continue todiscipline

our being, thinking, and doing i n ? a n d in response

to?contemporary local, national, and globalpoli-

tics. The point is less to offer a definitive history

?The Intended and UnintendedQueering Source: Republished with permission o f John Wiley and Sons from V. Spike Peterson. of States/Nations? Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism13:1, 2013, pp. 57-68; permission conveyed through CopyrightClearance

C e n t e r , I nc .

172

5

well different story?one that illuminates ha" to ?alityo f sex/gender and sexual i t ies in con-

ne t and reproducing structural inequalities. in

eu

ay states and S e x / G e n d e r a

p o l i t i c s

states have been the world?s largest and

werful organizations for more than most PO

5,000 years.

(TILLY 1990:1)

whi le clouded by the mis tso f t ime, social relat ions ¢ prehistory are no t ent i re ly opaque. We have a va-

? Wy of sources f rom w h i c h to speculate about the * h is tory of early h u m a n relat ions and social for-

rations. The convent ional story o f ?human evolu-

sion? took shape i n the mode rn era, author ized by

puropeans becoming more aware of and producing

knowledge claims about the i r ?own h i s t o r y and its

relation to that o f tempora l l y and spatial ly separate *others.? The power relat ions operat ing in th is his-

torical context inevi tably shaped wh ich questions were asked, by w h o m , and t o wha t p u r p o s e . . . .

The foundational narrat ive t ha t was s t a b i l i z e d ?

especially its presupposit ions regarding sex di f - ference, patriarchal structures, social hierarchies,

and ?progress t h rough a Western lens??has

become, for many, c o m m o n sense. But that story

too is being rewr i t ten as advances in research

(technologies, methods, new evidence) take place in the context o f increasingly p rom inen t crit ical,

feminist, queer, poststructural is t , and postcolo- nial interventions. Wha t matters here is a g rowing

awareness o f the long durat ion, hence viabi l i ty , o f

small, cooperative groups preceding agr icu l tura l

settlements, and o f the var iat ion, complexi ty, and

multidimensional aspects o f social re la t ions?pas t

and present. The emerging scholarship especial ly challenges ?common-sense? assumpt ions regard-

ing sex, gender, h u m a n nature, and (adversarial)

intergroup relations.?

Consider that accumula t ion processes were ir-

relevant for most o f h u m a n h is to ry (at least 40,000,

atguably 100,000 years), as groups subsisted o n a

ttemendous variety o f gathering, hunt ing, and fish-

Ng Practices. W i t h respect t o sex and gender, w h i l e

The In tended and Un in tended Queer ing 173

early humans were presumably aware of anatomi- cal and biological (reproductive) sex differences, it is unclear what this implied for gender or sexuality.

Dobres (2004: 213) observes that

archeologists cannot say w i t h any confidence or .agreement . . how many different genders may

have existed in any given time or place, much

less what were their part icular ly associated roles, . . .values, and so forth. {I]t is probable that di f -

ferent cultures practiced dif ferent sorts o f gender

configurations. . . No r is there any evidence to in-

dicate compulsory heterosexuality. The possibil-

ity o f third, fourth, or even f i f th genders is qui te . . . . . .likely. Fathers, brothers, uncles probably

shared in the caring o f chi ldren, f o r th is was l ike ly

considered a h ighly valued and cu l tu ra l ly impor -

tant task, as it is w i t h modern hunt ing and gather-

ing cultures.

The idea o f ?private property? and processes o f a c cumu la t ion at tend the gradual spread o f agr icul -

ture and settled commun i t i es , fo l l owed i n some

places by early state fo rmat ion . The la t ter entai led effective cent ra l izat ion o f accumu la t i on processes,

po l i t ica l author i ty, and m i l i t a r y exploi ts; central-

ized regulat ion o f social re la t ions t h r o u g h f o r m a l

laws ( in contrast to cus tomary practices); ins t i tu -

t i ona l i za t i on o f s t ra t i fy ing d iv is ions o f l abo r and

heteropatr iarchal household fo rmat ions ; reconfig-

u ra t i on o f i nd iv idua l and col lect ive ident i t ies; and

ideological l eg i t ima t ion o f these t ransformat ions,

stabi l ized t h rough the ?wr i t ten word? t ha t endured

th rough t ime and space. A l l o f these had p r o f o u n d

impl icat ions for social relations, as c i v i l i za t ions in-

s t i tu t iona l ized s t ructura l inequal i t ies.

These dramat ic t rans format ions were by no

means inevitable: they were w ide ly res i s ted?

perhaps fo r m i l l e n n i a (Bolger 2010; M a n n

1 9 8 6 ) ? a n d the i r rea l izat ion depended o n h is tor i -

cal ly cont ingent forms o f coerc ion and consent.?

Kinship-based groups varied, and some engaged

in sporadic ra id ing and feud ing t ha t emphas ized

ma le -domina ted endeavors. But state fo rma-

t ions engaged in organized m i l i t a r i s m as a rela-

t ively con t inua l aspect o f susta in ing centra l ized

rule, expand ing te r r i to r ia l contro l , and e n h a n c

ing accumula t ion in the f o rm o f b o t h mate r ia l

174 SEXUALITY

goods war b Slaves) a l i n support ofnonp labor (concubines state projects (construct nonproductive elites and

The multifaceted ?Hon military). social relations ty ical of I c o m e and nuanced

forded women( a n d m varia networks a f / en) various claims to respect,

authority, and resources. Effective centralization required a reconfiguration of social arrangements,

w h i c h typically involved states establishing rela- t ively independent heteropatriarchal ?family?/ households as the basic socio-economic unit;

the latter facilitated resource extraction, mil i tary

conscription, regulation o f property (including women), and centralized control moregenerally.?

This shif t eroded the authority and power o f lin-

eage networks (some o f which were matr i l ineal) , and as one effect, emphasized women's sexual/

reproductive role, at the expense o f otherprev ious ly

valued dimensions o f their identities and activities. To ensure a numerically adequate population, es-

tablish (inheritable) claims to property and mem-

bership, and promote ?in-group? allegiance, states exual relat ions.T y p i c a l l y , th is invo lvedv a n t e a e

regulated s we l l as legal codes disci- restr ict ive expecta t ions as t iv i t ies ande s t a b l i s h i n g

p l i n i n g women?s sexual ac duct ive)h e t e r o s e x u a l - a norm o f (piologically repro ern is t unders tand ings ity (without presumingm o d roscr ip t ions against

o f ?homosexual? identi ty or P. es faced greater homoerotic behaviors). That femal deepen ing sex/ restrictions than males alludes to

gender asymmetries. In these processes, states abstracted and cen-

tralized authority in a ?political (public) sphere?

that was thus distinguished from, while being dependent upon, 4 ?household (private) sphere?

focused on subsistence and social reproduction. Men?especially those with inherited claims

to property?acquired status, authority, and re- sources as patriarchal heads-of-households, and

some gained additional status through identifica- tion with military activities or religious OF political

authority. Women typically lost status, authority,

chy they became e e e transition to patriar- ain norms regarding ad tery of property

imen. Relatively ultery?property of ?their? y isolated in individual househuseholds,

dependent uponfather, w o m e n b e c a m e m o r e husbands, losing access to the countervail in nq

port o f extended k in networks. Thesealtereg ©

nts ampl i f i ed ma le - fema le disting; ak

rangeme ably cu l t ivated gender-differeng and presum ubject iv i t ies) . ateg

?identities? (s t r ad i t i on ( f l ow ing from ¢

I n t h e W e s t e r n ci ty-states), cent ra l i za t ion invo lved ?normaligi®

foundational dichotomies (public-private, teasn ,

affect, mind-body, culture-nature, civilize barbarian, mascul ine- femin ine) both materisn

(divisions of authority, Power labor, and resoure hy

as well as conceptually (justificatory ideolopie

collective belief systems). Not least becausesta

m a k i n g involved the invent ion o f writing, thes,

systemic transformations were codified, and tha

codification ( in Western ph i losophy, Politica)

theory, classical and religious texts) profoundly

shaped subsequent theory/pract ice. Early states are!i m p o r t a n t t hen , for the patterns

and institutions they stabilized: sex/gender asym.

metries (divisions o f labor and status; women as

perty; heteropatriarchal households), mascu- pro rule; patriarchal transmission linism (male r ight to o f property and membership claims), and inequal-

ities o f status, resources, and power (elite rule;

public over pr ivate; ?productive? or specialized

over reproductive or menial labor; citizens over

?Others?). Given the salience o f inherited claims to

property and membership status, (women?s) adul-

tery was severely punished, bu t nonreproductive

sexual behaviors?that did not threaten heteropa-

t r i a r c h a l s t r u c t u r e s ? d r e w f a r less a t t en t i on .

Modern European States/Nations and Heteronormative Pol i t ics

-[T]o understand the forces that . . make ? and ?them? comprising the

up the ?us ies of enduring intera f f in i t ies a n d e n m i t

state inequali ty and systemically violent .conflict, then we must move -- towards

rules that a deeper understanding of the hold toge ther the state as @ membership

o r g a n i z a t i o n .

( S T E V E N S 2 0 0 6 : 7 5 5 )

while patriarcha] dominance and gendered ideol- ogy were conteste an ° y eventually took shape in early state format ion, theywere largely taken for ranted in European state-making Pfocesses and

theif colonizing practices. In the intervening centu-

ries;patr iarchal author i ty was Toutinized in mono-

theistic belief systems and patriarchal kinship

reproduced and extended (unequal) divisions o f authority, POWeT, labor, and resources. The modern era's celebration o f rat ional ist/objectivist science

did complicate how author i ty was legitimated, bu t

not how it was gendered masculine.

B y d e f i n i t i o n , E u r o p e a n s ta te -mak ing rep l ica ted

earlier processes: c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f resources and

authority, o r g a n i z a t i o n o f m i l i t a r y Capacity, and

ideological c o n s o l i d a t i o n u n d e r e l i te con t ro l . Bu t

state-making i n t h e m o d e r n era was shaped b y

both the legacy o f ea r l i e r states a n d t h e emergence

o f new techn iques , m o d a l i t i e s , a n d ope ra t i ons o f

powel. vee

M o d e r n states r e q u i r e d far m o r e k n o w l e d g e

about t he i r subjects. Hence, t h e i r in te res t in a n d

cu l t i va t ion o f the soc ia l a n d h u m a n ?life? sciences

(to provide ?expert ise?) a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f ?bio-

po l i t i ca l ? strategies (censuses, stat is t ics, p r o g r a m s

to enhance t h e hea l th , educa t ion , etc. o f e x p a n d i n g

p o p u l a t i o n s ) ? a l l i n s u p p o r t o f p r o d u c i n g ?civi-

lized? subjects w h o w i l l g o v e r n a n d care f o r t h e m -

selves and ?exercise t h e i r c i t i z e n s h i p respons ib ly?

(Rose 1996:45). I n c o m p l e x a n d v a r y i n g ways, t h e

emerging ?art o f g o v e r n m e n t ? ( re )con f igu red cat-

egories a n d re l a t i ons o f sex/gender, sexual i ty , a n d

ethnicity/race.> Bu t w h i l e there are m a n y c r i t i ques

of sexism, o f h e t e r o n o r m a t i v i t y , a n d o f n a t i o n a l -

ism, h o w these ove r l ap a n d i n t e rac t has o n l y re-

cently become a focus o f i n q u i r y (e.g. Mo rgensen

2010; Puar 2007 ) . I t u r n t h e n t o b r i e f l y cons ider

how pervas ive ly n a t i o n a l i s m presumes a n d tends

to reproduce sex is t a n d h e t e r o n o r m a t i v e assump-

tions and practices.®

First, nationalist policies involve regulating under what conditions, when, how many, and whose chi ldren women w i l l bear. The forms taken

are historically specif ic?shaped by socio-religious

norms, technological developments, economic Pressures, and pol i t ical priorities. But states often seek to increase?or rep len ish?the i r numbers,

The Intended and Unintended Queer ing 175

and in the context o f pronatalist policies, nonre- Productive sexual activities are deemed threaten-

ing to national interests. States may restrict access

to contraception, cr iminal ize abort ion, reward

childbearing, demonize homosexuality, and/or

represent the p r imary purpose o f ?fami ly life? as

sexual reproduction. In general, potent ia l ly repro- ductive women w i l l be encouraged (pressured?)

to bear chi ldren ?for the nation? wh i le nonrepro-

ductive sexual activities w i l l be discouraged (pun-

ished?) for undermin ing national objectives. Second, states have an interest in whether chi l -

dren are ?appropriately? socialized, and therefore

in the constitut ion o f famil ies/households as pr i -

mary sites o f social reproduction. In part icular, states sustain sexist and heteronormative pr inciples

through legislation regarding marriage, ch i ld adop-

t ion and custody, and transmission o f proper ty and citizenship claims. Exclusively heteropatriar-

chal fami ly life ensures that heterosexual coupl ing

and gendered divisions o f labor /power /author i ty

are the only apparent options, wh i ch reproduces

sexist and heteronormative expectations. Wor ld -

wide, male parenting and care-giving take many forms, but ?homosexual? fami l ies/households are

rare and nowhere are men expected to parent and

care for dependents to the same extent and i n the same way that women are. Hence, some men who

want to parent are denied th is opt ion, and mos t

men who have the opt ion do no t engage it fu l ly . O f course this leaves women over-burdened, bu t i t

has other impor tant effects. Men?s systemic exclu-

sion from pr imary parenting and care-giving surely

affects their subjectivities and w o r l d v i e w s ? f o r in-

stance, by constraining their emot ional experience and circumscribing forms o f bond ing available

to them. Finally, heteropatriarchal marriage and cit izenship rules exclude nonheterosexuals f r om a

variety of benefits, rights, and privileges, no t least

w i t h respect to immigrat ion options.

Third, the symbol ic coding o f the nat ion car-

ties gender as wel l as sexuality. The metaphors o f

nation-as-woman and woman-as-nat ion suggest how women?as bodies and cul tural repos i to r ies?

become the batt leground o f group struggles. Nation-as-woman expresses a spatial, embodied fe-

maleness: the land?s fecundity must be protected

176 SEXUALITY

against invasi Vat o r a l Tnetaphor ~ e t It is also a tem-

only violates frontiersi s : re e t ing ut disrupts?by planting

al ien seed or destroying reproductivev iab i l i t y?

the maintenance of the community through time.

Rape has been practiced in countless wats and has

become a metaphor ofnational humiliation. Bu t

consider two assumptions in place before rape ca" ? m a k e sense? aS a n a t i o n a l i s t s t ra tegy : t h a t m e n

-ane . o r e a r e w i l l i n g (eager?) t o v i o l a t e w o m e n / t h e f e m i n i n

" i s a (heterosexU i n th is way, and that the ?target i ; 4

ing thea l ly) ferti le woman/body. ?belove

country? as 2 female child, 4 lesbian, 4

o t a postmenopausal wise woman different pictures and suggests 4 4

he boundaries o f (in-

and as symbols of cultural

men face avariety of pressures to con- a u t h e n t i c i t y d models of pehavior. This suggestsWO

form to idealize ficance often attached to women?s the political signi

Jor public behavior, as women? outward attire and sible for the trans- but not m e n ? a r e held ?respon. m e presumed mission o f culture? and at the same ti

xual} abuse, ?those most vulnerable to [heterose

? (Pet tman violation OT seduction by ?other? men 1992:5-6). Thisheterosexist ideology features pow-

erfully in nat ional ist pro jects?exempl i f ied when

European colonizers used not ions o f bourgeois ?respectability? (read: heteronormative, we l l -b red)

to legitimate their dominat ion o f ?Others? (whose sexual practices were deemed ?backward"), and

when any state power justifies foreign interventions

as ?rescue/civilizingmissions,? ostensibly t o ?save?

women from oppression by their ?own? men.? t theh is tor ica l?and

Fourth, these points sugges national ism, m i l i t a r i s m ,

con t inu ing? fus ion o f l in ism (e.g. Puar 2007).

and (heterosexist) mascu Europe was spurred pr i -Recall that state-making in

al cond i t ionsmarily by mi l i tary objectives: po l i t ic

propelled centralizing processes o f accumulat ion t o

Pay for men and equipment to f ight ongoing wars,

andone efieco f state central ization was po l i t ica l -

Table eupptPer ia l is t expansion that required a re- and a y e ma lesw i l l i n g to secure (as soldiers)

orlonial coy r (as civi l /publ ic servants) local and governments. Male bonding w i t h i n and

} ?fraternal? state/nation becam

crucial. And whilemascul inis 'pr ivi lege is not t t mogeneously shared, in theory a men (compare

to women) can identify wit the cu tural Valor n and (hegemonic) masculinity n y

men?s favored access tO public sphere activities

authority, 29 er. And in practice, militarizg

tion as am je-dominatedac t i v i t y encourages mer to bondpolitically and mi l i tar i lya s they play ony

the ?us VS- them? script o f protecting their own ing the e n e m y$ men/women. tn

ult ivate male homosocia]

linity?s cul tural valoriza.

) male pond ing across (actual)

decisively proscribing homo.

es. in modern states?and in most countries

coday??homosexuals? (and women) were excluded

from mi l i tary service. Recent challenges to this ex.

clusion expose how deeply heterosexist premises

underpin hegemonic masculinity. As a site of cel-

ebrated (because nonsexual) homosocial bonding,

the mil i tary affords men a relatively unique oppor- p e r i e n c e i n t i m a c y a n d interdependence,

t un i t y to ex especially with men, in ways that heterosexist iden-

tities and divisions of labor otherwise constrain.

Cohn (1998:145) argues that for many, the military eterosexual masculin-

is effectively a guarantee o f h

ity, affording a tare situation where

re al lowed t o expe r i ence erotic, sexual, amen s t h a t they w o u l d other-

and emotional impulse fo r fear o f be ing seen. .-

w i s e have t o c e n s o r . - -

as homosexual and therefore no t real men. They

are not o n l y escaping a nega t i ve? impu ta t ions o f

h o m o s e x u a l i t y ? b u t ga in ing a posi t ive, theabi l i ty

to be w i t h other m e n i n ways t ha t transcend the

l im i ta t ions on male re la t ionsh ips that mostm e n

l i ve u n d e r i n c i v i l i a n l i fe .

Finally, the heterosexist state/nation denies ho- mosexua l b o n d i n g t o b o t h m e n a n d women . But

whereas men are expected to bond pol i t ical ly (ho- n o f the state/nation.

mosocially) w i th other me the dichotomy of publ ic and private spheresdenies

women?s homosocial bonding as well. Rather, as 4?

effect o f heteropatriarchal households and jnheri- tance rules, women are l inked to the state through

ness husbands and are expected to bond nei fat ygh and with ?their men.? 1 e e hen ate not merely symbols or victims

ionalist struggles. Theyare also agents: sup-

w i i ? v airmen/nation, participating in militariza- e ine vncreasngly.tak ing up arms. To be effective, ?om an inhyper-masculinized arenas, women are b ower to appeal and reinforce heteronormative/

press fe iststrategies, including the cultural devalo-

mascot nd physical destruction of ?Others.? yizatlO

rhe Q u e e r i n g o f S t a t e s / N a t i o n s

xuality is at once necessary to theHeterose

state's ability to const i tu te and imagine

itself, while s imultaneously markinga site

ofits own instability.

(ALEXANDER 1997:65, cit ing Hart 1994:8)

1 have argued that thehierarchical binaries o f em-

podied male-female sex di f ference and cultural

masculine-feminine gender d i f fe ren t ia t ion w e r e

constitutive o f early state-making, and taken for nted in modern (nationalist) state-making and its

colonizing projects. Gradually, most people/nations have been incorporated into a wor ld system that

presumes heteronormative sex/gender/sexuality and heteropatriarchal transmission o f property and citizenship claims. Froma critical perspective, these

arrangements tend to (re)produce intergenerational

inequalities not on ly o f sex/gender and sexuality but also of class, ethnicity/race, and nationality. Yet these arrangements are also being transformed by

feminist challenges to sex/gender relations, queer

disruptions of heteronormative premises, and neo- liberal erosions o f state-based pol i t ical power.

These contradictory developments reveal the

instability o f heterosexual and state-centric ar-

Tangements. For present purposes, I suggest they reveal queering o f states/nations: in tent ional lya

by critics of heteronormativ i ty and un in ten t iona l l y by advocates o f neoliberal policies that alter state- based formations. More generally, these points il- luminate the central i ty o f sex/gender, sexualities, and kinship rules in const i tut ing and reproducing

structural inequalities. Heteronormat iv i ty is pol i t i - «al then not only because it oppresses those who

The I n t e n d e d a n d U n i n t e n d e d Q u e e r i n g 1 7 7

ident i fy as nonheterosexual but also because ( in

state-making processes) it is produced by and (re)

produces hierarchical sex/gender and the corol-

lary asymmetric valor izat ion that ?legit imates

dominat ion o f a l l ? w o m e n , ?effeminate men,

?Others??who are st igmatized as fem in ine . I draw two related conclusions. In f u n d a m e n t a l

ways (e.g. polar ized gender identi t ies, h e t e r o p a - tr iarchal fami ly /household forms, m a s c u l i n i s t /

m i l i t a r i s t /na t iona l i s t ideology), he te rosex i s t

polit ies achieve group coherence and con t i nu i t y through hierarchical (sex/gender) relat ionsw i t h i n

the group. As the b inary and coro l lary i nequa l i t y

that is most natural ized (read: whose h i s t o r y is

lost and politics erased), sex/gender di f ference is at

the same t ime invoked to jus t i fy h ierarch ica l (ad-

versarial) relations between groups. O n th is v iew,

the sex/gender/heterosexist hierarchy o f mascu- l ine over femin ine and the nat iona l is t d o m i n a t i o n

o f insiders over outsiders are doub ly l i nked . First,

(state-based) nat ional ism reproduces gendered/

heterosexist privi lege and oppression w i t h i n the

g r o u p ? a t the expense o f women a n d f e m i n i z e d

(nonheterosexual, racialized, ?under-class,? etc.)

males?regardless o f the group?s ?ident i ty? d i f fer -

ent iat ion (based on pol i t ical ideology, e t hn i c i t y /

race, religion, etc.) f r om o ther groups. Second, na-

t ional ism is sexed/gendered/heterosexist i n t e r m s

o f how the just i f icat ion o f adversarial re la t ions be-

tween groups ( through deva lor iza t ion o f f e m i n i z e d

?Others?) invokes and reproduces the ? founda-

tional? b inary o f sex difference and (depol i t i c ized)

masculine dominance. Sex/gender and heteronor -

mative sexuality are thus ?naturalized? and t h e i r

h is tor ies?and pol i t ics?erased. I n th is i m p o r t a n t sense, feminist and queer cr i t iques o f heteronor-

mat iv i ty are central to all cr i t iques o f s t ructura l

inequalit ies/hierarchies, i nc lud ing the p rob lemat i c

polit ics o f (heteropatr iarchal) nation-states.

In the f ina l analysis t h e social m o v e m e n t t h a t w i l l

be the vanguard o f a r e v o l u t i o n aga ins t a l l f o r m s o f

state boundar ies , t h a t c o u l d o rgan ize on b e h a l f o f

the u n h i n d e r e d m o v e m e n t and fu l l - f l edged devel -

o p m e n t o f capacit ies regardless o f one?s b i r t h p l a c e

or parentage, is a m o v e m e n t t h a t w i l l be queer.

(Stevens 2 0 0 4 : 2 2 5 )

1 7 8 SEXUALITY

NOTES 1. Briefly here: Heteropatriarchy combines the twin

vAleendes 1 9 9 ) a e and patriarchy :65); masculinism refers to the

system/structure o f masculine privilege and/or the ideological codes that normalize gender hier-

archy; gender operates intersectionally; and w h i l e

mascul ini ty is generally privileged over femininity,

context-specific masculinities may bedevalorized

telative to hegemonic masculinities. 1 understand

feminism as theoretical/practical efforts to transform

all structural hierarchies (e.g. racism, heterosexism,

imperial ist geopolitics) intertwined and natural-

ized by feminiz ing (devalorizing) the ?Other? (e-8-

Peterson 2005; Peterson and Runyan 2010).

2. As Cameron (1997:21) notes, Hobbes? depiction o f ?life in the state of nature as ?nasty, brutish and

short? was pure speculation.? Critiques of Euro- centric and masculinist bias in archaeological re-

search include Bolger (2006, 2010); Conkey (2003); Dobres (2004); Joyce (2008); Nelson (1997, 2006); Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon (2002); and Pyburn

(2004). e t o i n i t i a l c e n t r a l i z a t i o n asw e l l 3. There was resistance

r some s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f as cycles o f resistance afte state format ion (Feinman and Marcus 1998); and

o f course, nonstate format ions cont inued to exist

both dur ing and beyond the per iod o f early state

formation. My account draws especially f rom Cam-

eron (1997); Dobres (2004); Frader (2006); Lerner ~ ~

(1986); and Stearns (2006). This short essay cannot address complexities and debates bu t summarizes

from extensive research.and reflects wel l -developed

arguments in the relevant bodies o f scholarship. For references in support o f the claims and argu-

mentat ion presented h e r e ? a n d m y own attempts

to complicate them?see, ¢€.8-, Peterson (1988,

1992, 1997, 2010a). 4. Terms referenced here (family, household, public,

private) carry mul t ip le meanings and typ ica l l y overstate the formal izat ion o f such ?categories?

in early social formations. They appear here for

brevity and to h igh l igh t the signif icant contrast be-

tween k insh ip networks (w i thout r ig id d iv is ions)

and states (wi th their structural d iv is ions and new

?household? base).

5. On developing gender and race hierarchies and ide- ologies, see, e.g., Federici (2004); Hartman (2004); Landes (1998); McClintock (1995); Mosse (1985,

1996); Pateman (1988, 1989); Stoler (1995).

6. For e labora t ion and extensive re fe rence

terson (1999), f r o m w h i c h the f o l l o w i n g Sep

Seep

7. draws: ial wars a n dO n j u s t i f y i n g co lon ia obscurin

ist, economic, and heteronormative ; sa Chatter ee (1986); McClintock ( j 995 ) "

(1979, 1993); Spivak (1987); Stoler(1991), 1

?

8

alized (read: feminized) m e n more general?

subject to this crusading logic - i n c oloniay?

to ?modernize? gender relations, nati onalig W

to promote idealized (heteronormative) fan

wars on poverty that demoralize the (racial,

underclass, and battles against HIV/AIDsthay

monize gay men. a (

g. AsParker e tal. (1991:6)note : Typically represe,

as a passionate brotherhood, the nationfinds i

compelled to dist inguish itsproper? homosocia

from more expl ici t ly sexualized male-male . tions, acompulsion that requires the identificat,

isolation, and containment o f male homosex,

ity.? See also Sedgwick (1985, 1990). :

9. I n Alexander's (1997:64) words , ?women?s sexy

agency - - - and e ro t i c a u t o n o m y have always be -t roub lesome fo r the state. - pos f ing ] a challen

to the ideo log ica l a n c h o r o f an or ig inary nucle

.family, - - w h i c h perpetuates the f ict ion t h a t1

f a m i l y is the co rners tone o f society. Erotic auto

o m y signals danger t o the heterosexua l family ay

to the nat ion.?

REFERENCES Alexander, M. Jacqui. 1997. ?Erotic Autonomy as

Politics o f Decolonization: An Anatomy of Femini

and State Practice in the Bahamas Tourist Eco

omy.? In Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Der

ocratic Futures, ed. M. Jacqui Alexander and Chandi

Talpade Mohanty. New York: Routledge. Bolger, Diane L. 2006. ?Gender and Human Evol

tion.? In Handbook of Gender in Archaeology, &

Sarah Mil ledge Nelson. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Bolger, Diane L. 2010. ?The Dynamics of Gende

in Early Agricultural Societies o f the Near Bast.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35 Ul

503-31. Cameron, Rondo. 1997. A Concise EconomicHistor? 9

ethe World: From Paleolithic Times to the Present. 3*

New York: Oxford University Press. ought and ?lt

Chatterjee, Partha. 1986. Nationalist Th don: 224

Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? Lon