Conclusion: LGBTQ Politics/Global Politics/International Relations

With their eye on the question of finding and understanding LGBT perspectives and LGBT politics in a global context, the editors of and contributors to this book look to perform nuanced analyses of subjects as diverse as Muslim homophobia (Rahman) and European Union Anti-Discrimination policies (Thiel), keeping in mind feminist and queer theorists’ emphasis on complicating gender and sexuality constructions, and working without slipping into a naïve, neoliberal interpretation of sex and gender (e.g., a; Weber, 2014). To this end, the book consists of diverse case studies from different regional and policy situations which both demonstrate the diversity of LGBTQ perspectives and the ability to dialogue across them. It deploys those case studies both to learn about LGBTQ politics, and to learn about the ways that understanding LGBTQ politics might contribute to re-reading and reinterpreting IR theories.
After reading these diverse chapters and becoming familiar with the impressive number of examples and theoretical frameworks offered by the editors and contributors, then, it becomes appropriate to evaluate what we, as readers, have learned and can learn from this endeavor to rethink the theory and practice of global politics, reliant on LGBTQ perspectives. This chapter, to conclude the volume, will consider different ways to take stock of, and different ways to look forward for and within, a research program on the theory and practice of LGBTQ politics in IR. It does so primarily through the exploration of three questions. First, it explores the utility of and information provided in the use of case-studies, particularly in terms of the way that they can be used to build, critique, and re-think IR theory – understood through the lens of the LGBTQ politics cases included in this book. Second, it explores the ways in which the authors’ and editors’ utilization of LGBTQ perspectives can be seen as unique, or distinct from the deployments of feminist theorizing and queer theorizing in disciplinary IR to date, asking particularly if there is a value-added to the inclusion and analysis of LGBTQ perspectives above and beyond current approaches to gender and sexuality in the discipline. Third, this conclusion draws inferences from the contributions to the book to suggest the ways in which its material might dialogue with, and function as a critique of, IR theorizing as traditionally understood. The chapter ends by suggesting some future directions for the recognition and study of LGBTQ politics in IR.