According to Jyoti Puri in “Sexuality, state, & nation,” nationalism, which is defined as “the belief and practice aimed at creating unified but equal communities (nations) within a sovereign space (states),” is the social driving force behind the establishment of legal regulation of behaviors (Location 11821). The claim, though, that nations are founded on a condition of equality is proven by Puri to be false, as inequalities within the nation are institutionalized: “[the inequalities] are built into the national social and legal infrastructures...remarkably skewed in terms of class, gender, and race” (Location 11841).
Therefore, the nation establishes a foundational system of hierarchy based on the social edifices of nationalism. Puri finds the root of this system in nationalism’s definition of “what normal and abnormal, what is respectable and what is deviant” in which the “ideals or customs of dominant groups are endorsed as national ideals, and are socially and legally enforced” (Location 11841). Out of this definition comes the belief that heterosexual, procreative marriage is what is considered the “norm” and is accepted, whereas homo-, bi-, and other sexualities that deviate from this nuclear unit are considered abnormal and are “deviant” (Location 11841).
This social system, as Puri points out, is the foundation of both India and the United States, in which the nation places value on straight relationships while condemning “deviance.” Puri compares two instances of sexualized violence in India, one in which a young woman was walking with a friend late at night and was abducted and raped, another in which a gay man was murdered as a result of his sexuality. In both cases, the victims were seen as “at fault” for their own trauma, as their actions went against what the social constructs of nationalism determined as “acceptable” (Location 11861-11880). Justice for the young girl was contingent on the nation of India’s idea of “sexual respectability,” which ultimately deemed her promiscuous for being “from the northeast,” which is a stereotype in India (Location 11861). While the girl simply did not receive sympathy, the story of the man turned the tables on his trauma, as, although he was the victim and another man was the perpetrator, “[t]he police, in their turn, went on a witch hunt within the gay networks of New Delhi, surveilling gay men, browbeating, threatening, and tracking them” (Location 11880). In this instance, it can be inferred that homosexuality is being policed so vehemently that being gay is evidently a worse crime than murder. Because the institutions of the nation condemn homosexual citizens as not “respectable” and, effectively, not truly members of the nation, “nations are seen as heterosexual” (Location 11900).
Puri explains the omnipresence of the state in an allegory of a woman surrounded by national institutions (police, marketed products, university, communications, etc.) who doesn’t actively register these interactions. From this, Puri argues, “This…semi-invisibility, along with the more obvious institutions such as police, military, law, and government, is what gives the state tremendous power” (11920). Following is the example of how the state regulates sex, which Puri explores in totality, including each stage from who can have sex to what commercial products can be used to enhance that sexual encounter (Location 11920). Ultimately, Puri defines the state as “privileging and promoting certain sexualities,” including straight sexualities that are defined as abnormal, such as those engaging in sex work (Location 11959).
Puri also discusses specific laws, including Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which condemns certain sexual acts, which seems to specifically target LGBTQ+ people (Location 11920). Likewise, by setting up laws such as this that assume compulsory heterosexuality after the laws’ institution, Puri suggests, however, that while laws specifically target LGBTQ+ people, therefore directly condemning them, “gay, lesbian, and bisexual women and men are the objects of regulation by the state through denial” (Location 11939). Despite the state’s institution of laws that prohibit LGBTQ+ identities and their associated actions, the state/nation silences these voices and defines the state/nation as inherently heterosexual.
So, by creating laws/regulations based on the customs of the dominant group, institutions create a dichotomy between privileged and marginalized, which goes against the original platform of nationalism which promises equality. Since LGBTQ+ people are in the minority, institutions (including the law, the most effective institution of the state and nation) actively label these people as un-respectable and silence them under the law. Yet, the institutions likewise pretend that LGBTQ+ people don’t exist, which contradicts the establishment of laws actively working against them.
