For decades inherently liberal concepts like feminism and the acceptance of homosexuality has been primarily leftist in ideology. Right leaning ideologies emphasize religion, tradition, importance of norm, nationalism, and so forth. Feminism or homosexuality has always been absolutely counter to these values. Currently we are beginning to see the blurring and shifting of once concrete definitions of certain political ideologies. This is due to multiple factors such as older generations passing, the slow acceptance of various social changes, the liberal left becoming far more extreme regarding identity politics and censorship, the liberal left adopting modified religiosity, the right becoming less race sensitive, etc. This is a matter of thesis colliding with antithesis and forming a fascinating synthesis. Ideology is not static. Ideology is in constant flux, even if that flux be subtle and slow moving. One such interesting variation to emerge from this collision of oppositions and its merging into a unique phenomena is the possibility of the compatibility of general feminism and homosexuality with nationalist ideology.

The term ‘nationalism’ is encumbered with negative baggage and negative connotations. In its lowest form it is knuckle-dragging xenophobia and angry mob rule that attempts to scapegoat the alien for the sake of needing a scapegoat, resulting in mindless violence and the breakdown of culture. In its highest form it is the intellectual appreciation of the power of the collective whole, the advocation of the excellence of a nation and its people, the further pursuit of excellence, and the aspiring of a nation’s self interest. It is the citizen aspiring to their own individual excellence and the nation’s aspiring to national excellence. Whether this be called abstract, transcendent, or principles, it is a unifying grand narrative for the people which constitute the single nation. Often this is called patriotism, since nationalism has negative connotations. Personally I am not a stickler about which word is used, only that patriotism has taken on campy and flippant meaning, empty hokey rhetoric tied to superficial holiday celebrations rather than the deeper meaning I just described. Whichever word one may prefer, it should be noted nationalism is not restricted to the horror stories of the Romanian Iron Guard or other similar fascistic ideologies that swept the 20th century. Nationalism is alive and well today, particularly throughout Europe. Increasing Euroscepticism is beginning to balk the cosmopolitanism of the EU, such as the recent Brexit, and the rise of national identity in France. The ‘boogyman’ historical baggage of the word must be separated from the concept itself. And as a disclaimer I do not in any sense or way advocate violent xenophobia, racism, and ‘lowest common denominator’ mob rule or crowd impulsive which is self-destructive and antithetic to excellence. I also find the ideology of ‘white nationalism’, which in my opinion is a completely other ideology altogether, to be just as low brow and dimwitted.

With that preface stated, we are beginning to see an increase of educated powerful women in nationalism as well as less than phobic positions on homosexuality. Both right and left will certainly take issue with me putting someone like Marine Le Pen or Natalia Poklonskaya in the same sentence with the word ‘feminism’, but I must ask one to restate the essence of feminism; is a woman who is educated, has their own career, and in a position of power not qualify one as a feminist, or at least embodying some feminist qualities? It is certainly not something we would have seen a century or more ago. It is certainly something did not not become common until after the rise of feminist ideology and equal rights for women. So whether one agrees or disagrees that fits the term ‘feminist’ in the ideological sense, one must acknowledge it is certainly a result of the worldwide political movement and the rise of equal rights for women. The left tend to refuse to acknowledge an independent established woman as being a feminist or similar thereof if said woman does not share their leftist positions. I find this to be incredibly dishonest. Simply because one does not agree with an established woman’s positions does not mean that woman is any less established or independent, or cannot in be acknowledged as embodying at least certain feminist qualities. Likewise, those established women on the right are probably hesitant or outright against being labeled as feminist or being associate with feminist ideology in any way. This is altogether reasonable as the label as garnered negative baggage, but just as I stated regarding the left, they must at least acknowledge that themselves being a woman of equal rights, educated, and in a position of power is not something that would have readily or commonly happened before women’s movements and the influence thereof. Not to say their established independence is completely due to that movement, as women have had influence and positions of power to an extent before feminism occurred, but we must acknowledge that the rise of early ‘feminist’ or ‘equality for women’ movements did indeed have a powerful influence on much of the Western world. That being said, do famous and successful rightist and nationalist figures such as Natalia Poklonskaya, Marine La Pen, Elvira Nabiullina show the compatibility of women and nationalism? Or specifically, the aspects of feminism compatible with nationalism? With the above examples, I would answer with a resounding yes. While feminism or ‘women with equal rights’ politics begun inherently liberal and left, after decades of influence and collision, it is apparent there has been an interesting synthesis of the two that has occurred. Rarely if ever do we acknowledge this, but it is seen among voters as well as the women leaders in political positions with nationalistic or right leaning. I suspect this will only increase as events like Brexit occur, and there is a turn away from cosmopolitanism.

Second is the compatibility of homosexuality with nationalism. Again we find an originally liberal and leftist issue finding unique refuge in an ideology that as been traditionally against them. Leftist critics have dubbed this ‘homonationalism’, and recently we have seen an increase due to the rhetoric and leftist sentiment catered to Islam. The left has become so infatuated with its defense of Islam as a minority that it fails to acknowledge the rampant anti-LGBT position that Islam holds. Many homosexuals are aware of this and thus take up a nationalist counter to the widespread mass immigration and passive acceptance of Islam. Again this is mostly seen in Europe, though after the recent Orlando shooting by an radical Islamic terrorist it has brought the topic up in American discourse as well. From campy opportunists like the purposely ‘overly patriotic’ Milo Yiannopoulos to other LGBT individuals of like mind whom are sick of the extreme direction the liberal left has gone concerning identity politics and its ‘cozying up’ to Islam. Another example is the odd relationship between homosexuality and Israel national politics. On the one hand there are homosexuals who take up nationalist identity in defense of themselves from foreigners or in affirmation of the state’s position of LGBT matters. On the other hand, many criticize Israel for ‘pinkwashing’, that is using their support of LGBT matters to better their public image and distract from their injustice toward Palestinians. What is most unique is that the leftist criticism of ‘homonationalism’, that is the state sanctioning of LGBT individuals, in which the state not only legalizes LGBT issues but assimulates LGBT identity into mainstream conventions and to further bolster state authority/imperialism. This same critique, observed from a rightist position, only further confirms the compatibility of homosexuality with nationalism at large. Neither dismissing nor destroying traditional norms or conventions, but while also being fair and just to the small percentage of homosexual individuals as productive citizens. Traditional norms or conventions does not immediately entail the discrimination against homosexuality, nor does the acceptance of homosexuality entail the destruction of traditional norms or conventions. They can both coexist, and the assimilation of LGBT individuals can be utilized to affirm the cultural or state hegemony. The compatibility between homosexuality and nationalism is not altogether new. Indeed, looking back at 20th century movements, primarily fascism and similar, there were multiple homosexual males that were outspoken advocates. The Decadent Movement contained both nationalist or fascist sympathy as well as libertine sexual practices including homosexuality, as typified by Gabriele D’Annunzio, though he himself was not homosexual. In the contemporary is Jorg Haider or Pim Fortuyn, both homosexual and outspoken nationalists.. This may not be surprising as both fascism and the completely separate nationalism both are considered ‘masculine’ ideologies. At its most extreme it is downright hyper-masculine and androphiliac. Point being, whether historical or present day, male homosexuality easily finds compatibility with nationalism. What I do posit is that not just male homosexuality, but general LGBT could potentially become compatible with nationalism as well. Again a matter of ideological dialectics which I speculate will synthesis, in response to global issues, that will cause this subtle and slow increase of LGBT individuals leaning far more to the right, particularly if the liberal left continues its extreme course.

In conclusion, the hard lines of yesterday that defined political affiliations are being blurred and at times rewritten. As issues arise, collide, conflict, there will be an interesting rearrangement of allegiances. Where identity politics and universalism fails abysmally, people of younger generations will begin to look to other narratives to better define themselves and their interests. I believe the assumed incompatibility of ‘feminism’ and homosexuality, as well as general LGBT, will erode over time. Despite surface value disagreement over this by both left and right, I believe over time the factors and conditions will fluctuate in such a way that it renders this compatibility incredibly plausible.

Advertisements