What is it about?
Colonialisms have played a crucial role in the global regulation of sexualities and genders. This article proposes and commences a research agenda for comparative analysis of colonialisms in relation to the regulation of same-sex sexualities and gender diversity, and the concerns of queer analysis. A systematic comparison of British colonialism in Kenya with Portuguese colonialism in Mozambique is offered, using newly discovered archival sources, via engagement with postcolonial and decolonizing approaches.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This article is the first to offer a systematic comparative historical sociology analysis of colonialisms in relation to same-sex sexualities and gender diversity. While previous history scholarship such as by Robert Aldrich has explored colonialism and homosexuality, the article engages both global historical sociology and decolonial approaches, to develop a more structured, systematic comparison of how different colonialisms regulated populations - both colonizers and colonized - and how this related to both legal regulation and wider social regulation. Important differences between British and Portuguese colonialisms are demonstrated.
Perspectives
This article brings decolonial approaches and global historical sociology into dialogue with queer analysis concerning sexualities and genders. It offers important new empirical data - especially statistics on sex offence crimes from the British Empire's annual 'blue books' that reported from each colonised territory. It is shown that colonial archives can offer glimpses of the voices of the colonized as well as colonizers, and that pre-colonial 'indigenous' practices of regulating same-sex sexualities varied between ethnic groups.
Dr Matthew Waites
University of Glasgow
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Comparative colonialisms for queer analysis: comparing British and Portuguese colonial legacies for same-sex sexualities and gender diversity in Africa – setting a transnational research agenda, International Review of Sociology, May 2019, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/03906701.2019.1641277.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
