Peletz
Gender Pluralism: Muslim
Southeast Asia since Early
Modern Times
scholars and journalists in the west and elsewhere have
devoted a good deal of attention in recent decades to the ways in which
gender and sexuality are experienced, construed, and regulated in
Muslim societies and under Islamic law in particular.1 To date, however,
hardly any studies dealing with Muslims have focused squarely on longterm historical transformations with respect to gender or sexuality.2
One consequence is that scholarly and other public discourses foreground wildly contrasting imagery of gender and sexual realities in the
Muslim world. Further exacerbating the problems are time-honored
practices involving the use and abuse of terms such as traditional to
characterize social and cultural-political patterns among Muslims that
are often of relatively recent provenance and that do in any case vary a
good deal through time and space.
From the Middle Ages through the Victorian era, for example,
Western literature dealing with Muslims frequently addressed the
ways in which middle-aged and elderly men in some parts of the
Muslim heartlands were inspired by the beauty of pre-pubescent
boys and beardless young men with whom they sometimes engaged
in erotic if not explicitly sexual relations. This literature commonly
I am grateful to Perrinh Savang for research and editorial assistance and would also
like to thank Afsaneh Najmabadi and Rayna Rapp for their comments on an earlier
draft of this essay.
focused on what was taken to be religiously sanctioned lust, decadence, and perversion, often suggesting that at least for elite male
sectors of Muslim societies and polities, the reigningand traditionalethos with respect to gender and sexuality was essentially
one of anything goes. These impressions are usefully viewed in relation to stereotypes undergirding media and other public discourses
in the new millennium, which sharply invert their Victorian-era
predecessors. The inversion is particularly obvious when the media
deal with subjects such as the execution of allegedly gay men in Iraq;
pronouncements from leaders in Iran that there are no homosexuals
in that country, and that if there were they would be put to death;
and the constraints on women and female sexuality (heteronormative and otherwise) that are widely documented for settings such as
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The most general sense we
are left with is that Muslims are inherently conservative with regard
to matters of gender and sexuality, and that this conservatism is
somehow traditional or racial. The more specific impressions
are essentially threefold. There is no room in Muslim societies or
cultures for any kind of pluralism with respect to gender or sexuality;
Muslim men are invariably given to patriarchal excesses of various
kinds, if not misogyny, heterosexism, and homophobia; and all of
these dynamics are sanctioned and engendered in the first instance
by divinely ordained law (syariah) and attendant norms laid down in
the Quran and other sacred texts such as the Hadith (oral accounts,
later written down, of the teachings and actions of the Prophet
Muhammad).
How might we make sense of these contrasting depictions of
gender and sexuality? There are at least two ways of engaging the question. The first involves asserting that the tropes and stereotypes to
which I have drawn attention have little bearing on empirical reality,
and that they tell us more about those who traffic in them (Westerners)
and their (shifting) sensibilitiesalong with widespread processes
of Otheringthan those to whom they purportedly apply (Muslims).
There is some truth to these arguments, but they are too simplistic.
social research
social research
social research
social research
10
social research
11
12
social research
should we assume that the development of sanctions discouraging transgendered practices and same-sex relations were always of
the formal legal or explicitly religious variety. Far more common
were diffuse and informal sanctionsgossip, ostracism, etc.albeit
primarily when private activities were made public or when individuals involved in transgendering or same-sex sexuality failed
to honor basic expectations associated with marrying properly
and upholding other community norms. Put differently, an ethos
of Dont ask, dont tell pervaded many Muslim Southeast Asian
cultures of gender, sexuality, and jurisprudence until fairly recently,
owing partly to cultural premises keyed to the idea that talk about
illicit sex might be as socially destabilizing as its perpetration. This
is not a simple matter of prudery; the practice of avoiding potentially incriminating questions, and not sharing information about
indiscretions, is woven into the fabric of Islamic legal thought as
well as embedded in Muslim social norms (Ali 2006: 73).
These generalizations are important to bear in mind in light of
assumptions among some scholars that Islamic law, informed by Quranic
or other textual injunctions against same-sex sexuality (or at least anal
penetration; liwat) and an alleged emphasis on retributive as opposed to
restorative justice, was widely applied in Islamic areas of Southeast Asia
either during early modern times or in subsequent centuries. With a few
exceptions, such as seventeenth-century Aceh (northern Sumatra) and
Sulawesi (noted earlier), this was not the case. It is instructive too that
even in present-day Malaysia, which has seen high-profile scandals and
political crises associated with the sacking, imprisonment, and bogus
adjudication of charges alleging sodomy on the part of former Deputy
Prime Minister (and current opposition leader) Anwar Ibrahim, the laws
typically invoked to punish same-sex sexuality have nothing to do with
Islam. The relevant legislation, which dates from the colonial era, is of
thoroughly British origin and design. This is one reason why the wording and numbering of Section 377 of Malaysias National Penal Code,
which severely criminalizes sodomy and other sexual acts against the
order of nature, is more or less identical to its counterparts in the penal
13
14
social research
15
well. But this is not to suggest a transgender let alone gay or lesbian
paradise, particularly since, in sharp contrast to their Bugis counterparts, villagers found it altogether inconceivable that phenotypic
females might be involved in transgenderism or same-sex relations
(Peletz 1996, 2009).
This being the case, one could look at the proverbial glass as
either half empty or half full. I begin by considering the half-empty
perspective, briefly enumerating four broadly encompassing sets of
dynamics that eroded gender pluralism over the longue dure. First,
forces of political centralization, some of which involved the expansion and consolidation of state power at the expense of local polities.
Second, the development of nationalist and modernist discourses
emphasizing rationalized religion, science, technology, economic
progress, secular education, and mass literacy. Third, processes of
urbanization, bureaucratization, and industrialization, coupled with
the rise of capitalist market economies. These dynamics entailed
widely ramifying institutional and cultural rationalization that not
only undercut the moral bases of agrarian communities and the
pluralism-friendly cosmologies in which they were embedded, but
also undermined modes of comprehending the body in relation to
the cosmos, as Laqueur (1990: 154) put it for broadly analogous developments in the West. They simultaneously contributed to increased
social differentiation and stratification, along with new forms of
surveillance, discipline, and control geared toward producing heightened normativity in all areas of social life.
A fourth dynamic, which I discuss in a bit more detail, involved
the colonial-era (and postcolonial) encounter between Southeast
Asian Islam and European Christianity, especially Protestantism,
and the ways that engagement contributed to the specific directionalities in which Southeast Asian Muslims rationalized their
discourses, practices, and subjectivities. As political and religious
elites in Muslim Southeast Asia negotiated the cultural and political intrusions of mostly Protestant Westerners, they typically did so
in ways that involved adopting their strongly binary/dichotomous
16
social research
17
It should be clear in any event that we are dealing with dynamic not
static or fixed religious traditions whose entailments with regard to
gender and sexuality are highly variable both historically and crossculturally, and, perhaps more to the point, that the same religious
traditions (and Asian values) that help give rise to an expansive
gender pluralism in some historical and ethnographic settings may
provide the basis for its constriction in others.
More generally, because of the broadly encompassing sets of
dynamics outlined here, many rituals associated with dual-gendered
or female spirits and deities have fallen by the wayside. In addition,
transgendering, like femininity, has been stripped of many of its
positive associations with religion and the sacred. Its long-standing
centrality in state cults, royal palaces, and the reproduction of local
polities exists primarily in scattered memories and dusty archives.
And, as regards its contemporary loci, it tends to be most visible in
secular venues of fashion and entertainment, in the increasingly
scrutinized and disciplined private domain, and on the notoriously
ungovernable Internet. When viewed from a long-term perspective,
we see that most variants of transgendering and all types of same-sex
relations have been subject to processes of secularization, stigmatization, and medicalization, and that some of themmost notably in
contemporary Malaysiahave been heavily criminalized as well. We
also see that many transgendered individuals have been redefined as
contaminating rather than sacred mediators who, to paraphrase a
point made by Stallybrass and White (1986: 110) in another context,
are perversely if not treasonously muddling and enmiring the increasingly dichotomous terms of sex/gender systems long characterized by
pluralism.
If, on the other hand, we view the proverbial glass mentioned
earlier as half full, we need to ask a different question: Why is gender
pluralism still relatively robust in many Muslim Southeast Asian societies, despite the forces long arrayed against it? A partial answer is that
many Muslim Southeast Asian systems of myth, ritual, and cosmology
continue to be culturally salient, encouraging imaginative play condu-
18
social research
19
20
social research
not be the sexual patterningthe homosexualityof these relationships that would raise the specter of subversion vis--vis local taxonomies and hierarchies and the values and interests they serve. Rather,
the threat of subversion would come from the way they are gendered
the fact that they are homogender.
A second, related set of issues has to do with the concept of
heteronormativity. While I referred to this concept earlier (for example, at the outset of my essay, when I suggested that the decline of
gender pluralism since early modern times has entailed the rise of
certain kinds of heteronormativities), it is too ethnocentric to be of
much use to me. The prefix hetero- in heteronormativity refers
uncritically to heterosexuality, thus problematically privileging
sexual difference over gender difference. A key essay in the 2002
Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies, for example, defines heteronormativity as the view that institutionalized heterosexuality constitutes
the standard for legitimate and expected social and sexual relations,
insuring that the organization of heterosexuality in everything from
gender to weddings to marital status is held up as both a model and
as normal (Ingraham 2002: 76; emphasis added). Many who use
this term collapse or ignore the heterosexual/heterogender distinction altogether, assuming in the process that ostensibly bedrock
sexual(ized) difference is invariably the defining feature of personal
identity, the difference that matters most. This is unfortunate and
ironic insofar as it entails the suppression of culturally meaningful differences even at the hands of those who have helped develop
language intended to lay bare and critique various kinds of normalizing discourses and institutions. Note in any case that as commonly
defined heteronormativity is not appropriate as a gloss for the hegemonies bearing on bodily practices and social relations in Muslim
Southeast Asia in early modern times or subsequently, unless the
prefix hetero- is taken to refer to gender rather than sexuality.
The term heteronormativity also obscures and impoverishes our
understanding of significant dynamics in Muslim Southeast Asia
in recent years, one nexus of which involves the loosening though
21
22
social research
23
24
social research
Ali, Kecia. Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Quran, Hadith, and
Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oneworld, 2006.
Altman, Dennis. Global Sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Andaya, Barbara. The Changing Religious Role of Women in Pre-Modern
Southeast Asia. South East Asia Research 2(1994): 99-116.
Andaya, Leonard. The Bissu: Study of a Third Gender in Indonesia. Other
Pasts: Women, Gender, and History in Early Modern Southeast Asia. Ed.
Barbara Andaya. Honolulu: Center for Southeast Asian Studies,
University of Hawaii, 2000: 27-46
Beatty, Andrew. Changing Places: Relatives and Relativism in Java.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8 (2002): 469-491.
Blackwood, Evelyn. Gender Transgression in Colonial and Post-Colonial
Indonesia. Journal of Asian Studies 64 (2005): 849-880.
Boellstorff, Tom. The Gay Archipelago: Sexuality and Nation in Indonesia.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York:
25
Routledge, 1993.
Cohen, Shellee. Like a Mother to Them: Stratified Reproduction and
West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.
Conceiving the New World Order. Eds. Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995: 78-102.
Davies, Sharyn Graham. Challenging Gender Norms: Five Genders Among the
Bugis in Indonesia. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2007.
Day, Tony. Fluid Iron: State Formation in Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press, 2002.
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 15001800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York:
Vintage, 1978.
Geertz, Clifford. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Gibson, Thomas. And the Sun Pursued the Moon: Symbolic Knowledge and
Traditional Authority among the Makassar. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 2005.
Gombrich, Richard, and Gananath Obeyesekere. Buddhism Transformed:
Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1988.
Ingraham, Chrys. Heterosexuality: Its Just Not Natural! Handbook of
Lesbian and Gay Studies. Eds. Diane Richardson and Steven Seideman.
London: Sage, 2002: 73-82.
Jaspan, M. A. Traditional Medical Theory in Southeast Asia. Hull: University of
Hull, 1969.
Johnson, Mark. Beauty and Power: Transgendering and Cultural Transformation
in the Southern Philippines. London: Berg, 1997.
Kugle, Scott. Sexuality, Diversity, and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive
Muslims. Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism. Ed.
Omid Safi. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003: 190-234.
Laqueur, Thomas. Making Gender: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Lieberman, Victor. Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.
26
social research
27
28
social research