On the Horizon: Desiring Global Queer and Trans* Studies in International and Intercultural Communication

We must always be aware of the strengths and limitations of the intellectual traditions that we have been taught, in much the same way that we must be aware of the limits of our own cultural experiences. (Nakayama, 2008, p. 2)

Given recent discussion and activism around #communicationsowhite, it is now more important than ever to undertake concrete and sustained commitments and actions toward making the field and its journals more inclusive. We in international and intercultural communication are not immune from these critiques and calls for action. (Calafell, 2021, p. 1)

*****

Throughout my U.S.-based undergraduate and graduate trainings between 2001 and 2011, I did not feel fully at home majoring in “Intercultural Communication.” Topics such as intercultural transition; identity negotiation and relationships; language and performance; nonverbal codes and cultural spaces; migration and citizenship; and globalization and popular culture, represented my lived experiences of being an international student from Japan, who every day navigates the politics of difference in USAmerica. However, I always questioned and, quite frankly, did not understand why the field of Intercultural Communication had overlooked queer issues and concerns of sexuality, sex, and gender in its knowledge productions. As I live my queer of color life, I can neither easily separate nor conveniently compartmentalize intersectional, multidimensional aspects of who I am, what I do, and how I make sense of what I do in relation to people around me. My sexuality, sex, and gender are central to my cultural identities and orientations. Hence, bringing the personal to the political, I developed a love-hate relationship with Intercultural Communication.

However, my love-hate relationship with Intercultural Communication began to change when Chávez (2013) called for Queer Intercultural Communication to be published in this very journal. She explicitly opened up possibilities for disrupting the unspoken and unwritten circumferences of Intercultural Communication that privileged the logic of cisheterosexuality working with whiteness, patriarchy, capitalism, and more. Chávez (2013) stated, “Within what is recognizable as [I]ntercultural [C]ommunication scholarship, [Q]ueer studies have been marginal …  In this very journal, a search of all available issues reveals no mention of queer or transgender on its pages” (p. 84). Thus, Chávez’s call made space to showcase possibilities of what Queer Intercultural Communication looks like, along with the essays written by scholars such as C. Riley Snorton, Megan E. Morrisey, Julia R. Johnson, and Gust A. Yep. The call has clearly generated a number of successors’ works published in this journal (i.e., Abdi & Van Gilder, 2016; D’Souza & Rauchberg, 2020; Eguchi, 2015; Eguchi & Kimura, 2021; Goltz et al., 2016; Huang & Brouwer, 2018; Moreman & Briones, 2018). In additional publication platforms, my colleagues and I (i.e., Eguchi & Asante, 2016; Eguchi & Calafell, 2020) have also expanded Chávez’s call by showing how Intercultural Communication needs queer as an analytic for complicating ways of knowing about cultural identities, spaces, and places further. By this, I mean queer as a verb or practice that centralizes the minoritized sexual and gender politics to trouble, unsettle, and redesign the normative ideas, values, and practices that organize the present-ness (i.e., Muñoz, 1999, 2009).

Still, Queer Intercultural Communication does not emerge out of the blue. Here, Nakayama (2008) reminded me of how possibilities for change do not suddenly open up; possibilities for change always take place within the historical continuities of International and Intercultural Communication. For example, Bernadette Marie Calafell and I argue how Nakayama’s (1994) critique on the Hollywood film Showdown in Little Tokyo, published in the National Communication Association’s journal Critical Studies in Media Communication, pointed to the possible spirit of Queer Intercultural Communication (see Eguchi & Calafell, 2020). In addition, Tom Nakayama, Gust A. Yep, and Wenshu Lee gestured toward the significance of examining complexities of gender, sexuality, and the body in Intercultural Communication in this journal’s precursor International and Intercultural Communication Annual 24 (see Collier et al., 2001). Hence, the current landscape of Queer Intercultural Communication has greatly benefited from multiple sets of works previously published by a collection of scholars including but not limited to: Tom Nakayama, Gust A. Yep, E. Patrick Johnson, Wenshu Lee, Jacqueline Martinez, Frederick Corey, Bryant K. Alexander, Bernadette Marie Calafell, Stacey Holman-Jones, Karma R. Chávez, Aimee Carrillo Rowe, Karen E. Lovaas, Dawn Marie D. McIntosh, Shane T. Moreman, Amber Johnson (also known as Cypress Amber Reign), Jeffery Q. McCune Jr., C. Riley Snorton, Julia T. Johnson, Tony E. Adams, Keith Berry, and more. The historical continuities of Intercultural Communication, where many scholars have previously fought for dialoging about the queer and the intercultural, facilitated space for Queer Intercultural Communication.

Why calls for Global Queer and Trans* studies?

While acknowledging great historical labor done for building Queer Intercultural Communication as a field of inquiry, there seem to be some important questions that we are to continue asking. Some of the questions include but are not limited to: Why is Queer Intercultural Communication so USAmerican? Where are Transgender studies in Queer Intercultural Communication? and What kinds of topics remain overlooked in Queer Intercultural Communication? My continuing struggle to answer these questions has led me to propose this special issue on Global Queer and Trans* studies in International and Intercultural Communication.

The discipline of Communication is a field of the Western intellectual tradition rooted in USAmerican imperialism and Cold War interventionism (e.g., Chakravartty & Jackson, 2020; Dutta, 2020). It is no secret that the field of Intercultural Communication gained recognition in the post-World War II context of USAmerica as foreign service institutes mandated their agents for intercultural training before their oversea job assignments (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). Because of the field’s evolution of USAmericans predicting the (non-USAmerican, non-Western, and/or non-White) Others, Moon (1996) warned how the USAmerican conceptualizations of Intercultural Communication ignored, erased, and marginalized the Others theorizing Intercultural Communication. Moon’s argument implicated that “[a] disgraceful [W]hite boys’ club persists in the field of Communication. Those admitted to its felicitous circle find themselves sitting on the boards of scholarly associations, plucked for plum editorships of top-ranked journals in the field” (Mukherjee, 2020, p. 152). Hence, there have been and are active efforts to be inclusive of how the Others theorize Intercultural Communication in this journal in order to interrupt the historical developments of the field (see, for example, Calafell, 2021; Collier et al., 2001; Ganesh, 2011; Halualani, 2014; Nakayama, 2008; Sandel, 2017).

At the same time, ongoing histories of USAmericanism continue to colonize the academic knowledge productions of Intercultural Communication in this journal. Since the National Communication Association (NCA) based in USAmerica publishes this journal, it attracts Communication scholars affiliated with USAmerican institutions that value the NCA. Both domestic and international scholars who highly regard this journal are usually part of the USAmerican academic system that evaluates their employment status and tenure and promotion cases. Their “academic” successes and research programs are measured by their publication placements in this journal.

I am not saying that scholars affiliated with non-USAmerican-based institutions, non-Communication scholars, and independent scholars are not interested in publishing their works in this journal. My point is that the National Communication Association is very USAmerican. While there have been some discussions about internationalizing the NCA, the association’s academic knowledge productions, leadership, and governance mainly emerge from and speak to scholars affiliated with USAmerican institutions. The visibility of non-USAmerican scholars affiliated with non-USAmerican institutions is very limited in the NCA. Indeed, most “international” scholars who are the NCA’s active members are based in USAmerican institutions and are doing the research that makes sense within that system. Hence, the representations of the “Others” who theorize Intercultural Communication do not always unsettle the politics of USAmericanism that dominates the academic knowledge productions. Thus, the NCA’s USAmericanism shapes the intellectual and political landscape through which scholars, including me, theorize Intercultural Communication. The field definitely requires the decolonizing of knowledge productions.

Consequently, I choose the term global to make space for inviting diverse voices to pursue this special issue. My use of “global” aligns with Atay’s call (2021) for transnational and decolonial turns on USAmerican-centric Queer studies in Communication. While I often use the term transnational in my work, I also find that transnational can assume the boundaries of nations. Here, I am reminded of Anzaldúa’s (2012) theorizing of borderlands that denaturalizes the assumed borders. The boundaries among the local, the national, and the global are constantly shifting, ambiguous, contested, and often unnamable. Every day I observe what we know as the local in the state of New Mexico (USA) is indeed global because of its complex history suggesting the inhabitation of indigenous people, Spanish conquest, Mexican governance, and the ongoing USAmerican settler colonialism. Borders are always complicated and problematic. Hence, by emphasizing global, I intend to welcome diverse voices to unsettle the USAmericanism of Queer Intercultural Communication as a field of inquiry. This is the very reason why I initiated this special issue project for this very journal.

I intentionally name this special issue Global Queer and Trans* studies for inviting diverse voices. The reason I spell out trans* in the title is my desire for Transgender studies in International and Intercultural Communication. As Anzaldúa (1991) called out before, the term queer piles together multiple layers of differences such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, nationality, and the body under the label. Hence, queer can indeed ignore, erase, and marginalize the historical and cultural significances of differences that produce diverse assemblages of queerness in and across local, national, and global contexts. This is why LeMaster and Stephenson (2021) express their concerns for the way Queer Communication studies recenter the logics of cisgenderism. Theorizings of (nontrans)queerness in Communication silence both transness and trans-queerness that emerged from lived experiences of transgender people. Queer Intercultural Communication that focuses on theorizings of (nontrans)queerness is no different from LeMaster and Stephenson’s (2021) observation of the Communication discipline. Accordingly, to develop my vision for this special issue, I follow Johnson’s (2016) and Luibhéid and Chávez’s (2020) edited books, which created very inclusive spaces for both trans and nontrans queer perspectives. Because of my emphasis on global, I adapt Green’s (2016) and Halberstam’s (2018) uses of * (asterisk) added to trans in order to signal multiple ranges of meanings and acts of possibilities around gender variance, nonconformity, and deviance in and across the lines of differences. As Ibraham (2019) reminds me, “Transgender is a Western terminology of gender-diverse/expansive ways of identification” (p. 32). My emphasis on trans* in addition to global is my intended commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in this special issue.

Simultaneously, I remain concerned at the current state of Queer Intercultural Communication that also requires many kinds of topical examinations for its further development. Hence, in the special issue call, I explicitly articulated my intended desire to welcome submissions that examine, question, and/or critique the following topics, including but not limited to: Intersections with Asian studies, Arab/Middle Eastern studies, Black/African/Caribbean studies, Latinx studies; Mixed Race and Ethnic studies; Sexual Desire, Intimacy, and Relationality; Transnationalism, Migration, and Diasporas; Citizenships, Border Crossings, and Borderlands; Indigenous Genders, Sexualities, and Sexual Practices; Cultural Politics of Third Gender and Sex; Discourses around Gender Affirmation Processes; Religion and Sexuality; Futurism and Temporalities; Gay Modernity and Empire; Toxic Gay Masculinities and Cosmopolitanism; Colonialism, Postcolonialism, and Settler Colonialism; Military, Occupation, and Imperialism; National/Global LGBT organizations and campaigns; Transnational/Global South Feminism; Cisgenderism, Ableism, and Healthism; Transnational Coalitional Politics and Praxis; Digital Media and Platforms; Pornography and Cultural Industry; Sexual Technologies; and Theater, Film, and Performance. Keeping in mind these potential topics in addition to my emphasis on Global and Trans*, I entered into the process of editing this special issue.

Editing constraints

As soon as the call for papers is circulated, I begin to experience what Nakayama (2008) said about intellectual and political change; it takes place within ongoing histories of International and Intercultural Communication. I have explicitly called for submissions that methodologically centralize critical/cultural, interpretive, and/or performative approaches to Global Queer and Trans* studies. My methodological preference not only suggests the need to detail, question, and critique possible pathways to orient Global Queer and Trans* studies in this journal; it also once again interrupts the historical dominations of quantitative approaches that are equipped to predict the Others, privileging the White, Western scientific power and knowledge in International and Intercultural Communication. Said simply, I aim to create an additional space for “something different” in this journal. However, some Queer and Trans* studies scholars, especially from non-Communication disciplines, who are interested in submitting their works to this special issue, express their concerns to me with the stereotypical assumptions around International and Intercultural Communication. They feel “unequipped” and “uncomfortable” to enter into the conversations happening in the field. They perceive the field to be ancient and outdated. Here, I am reminded of how the conversation around decentering whiteness in the discipline of Communication has just become popular in the last couple of years (see, for example, Chakravartty et al., 2018). Because nothing happens without historical continuities in Communication and in this very journal (Calafell, 2021), I recognize that, despite my intention, the field potentially prevents some radical, creative, or artistic works being submitted to this special issue prior to the submission deadline. Still, I am so grateful to witness the competitive pools of full paper submissions made to this special issue that represent the diverse sets of topics and approaches.

Yet I immediately know my next challenge in making my decisions for these full paper submissions. While I am aware of alternative approaches to put together the special issue, I am also committed to conduct this special issue fairly close to the regular submission system in order to gain the respect this special issue (and its contributors) deserve(s) in the current academic system. In addition, I choose full paper submissions over abstract submissions because, in my editing experience, I have learned and relearned how abstract submissions do not necessarily guarantee the quality of the final product. Moreover, I trust the evaluating abilities of all of the reviewers I work with. My trust in the reviewers means that I cannot and do not simply accept some submissions just because the submissions touch on underrepresented topics about the queer and the intercultural. Contemplating the evaluations provided by the peer reviewers, I must carefully take into account multiple dimensions of the submissions to reach my final decisions that are fair and equitable. Furthermore, my editing commitment described above juxtaposes my continuing struggle as an author. Today I am still struggling with the peer-review processes for my own works. Some of my works have been ready for revisions and acceptances at the time of submissions. However, some of my works continue their journeys to find their homes. Hence, my constraints in editing this special issue point to both the historical progressions of International and Intercultural Communication as a field and the current journal article publication systems including peer-review evaluation processes. Again, nothing changes radically.

Setting the stage

Accordingly, I discuss some limitations of this special issue that hopefully point to futuristic possibilities of dialoguing about the queer and the intercultural before introducing the featured essays. I recognize that the original submissions made to the special issue represent diverse issues and concerns of minoritized sexualities, sexes, and genders in and across various geopolitical regions around the globe. While I desire to see Global Queer and Trans* studies done from various geopolitical regions in the future, featuring all geopolitical regions is literally impossible for this special issue because of its limited publication space. Hence, this special issue cannot be a comprehensive overview of all geopolitical regions. Simultaneously, because I originally intended to decenter the USAmericanism of International and Intercultural Communication, I still wish I could have received many submissions from non-USAmerican scholars affiliated with non-USAmerican institutions. Here, I acknowledge that works done by scholars affiliated with USAmerican institutions can advance the decentering of USAmericanism. Still, representations matter. This very journal that fronts the name “International” needs to do a better job inviting works of non-USAmerican scholars affiliated with non-USAmerican institutions.

Similarly, while I desire to be inclusive of trans* in this special issue, some submissions that examine topics on gender variance, nonconformity, and deviance do not make it to final lineups for multiple reasons associated with the peer-review evaluation processes. Because of this, I struggle to decide if I should change the title of this special issue to Global Queer studies. However, removing trans* from the title is disingenuous. As I originally set up my vision for both Queer and Trans* studies to pursue the special issue, keeping trans* in the title holds me accountable to be critically reflexive of this special issue’s limitation. I hope that my choice will sustain a precarious space of possibility for scholars to come forward to further develop Global Trans* studies in future issues of this journal. Indeed, LeMaster and Tristano (2021, online first) offer such possible spirit. Thus, this special issue is meant to be an additional point of departure for all the readers, the contributors, and me to collectively contemplate, reimagine, and develop Global Queer and Trans* studies for International and Intercultural Communication as an ideal destination for the future.

With the limitations mentioned above, this special issue begins with “Subverting Mainstream in Social Media: Indonesian Gay Men’s Heterotopia Creation through Disidentification Strategies.” In this piece, Endah Triastuti engages in a digital ethnography of Instagram as a social media platform through which gay-identified cisgender males perform their (im)possibilities of queerness that identify and disidentify with Indonesian social institutions constrained by cultural and religious values. Drawing on Muñoz’s (1999) theorizing of disidentifications, Triastuti details four strategies (i.e., queer literacy, identity disclosure, romantic relationships, and social community activism) that Indonesian gay men employ in creating the queer digital content. Then, “Know Your History: Toward an Eternally Displaceable Strategic Essentialism” follows Triastuti’s piece. In this essay, O.M. Olaniyan showcases how strategic essentialisms ironically offer a pathway to (re)imagine a queer anti-colonial practice. Specifically, Olaniyan argues that the risks of essentializing African identity ironically cultivate alternative (im)possibilities for queer Africans to reclaim their multiple minoritized identifications in and across historically colonized places and spaces. Following Olaniyan’s piece, Jenna N. Henchey writes an essay titled “The Self Is Embodied: Reading Queer and Trans Africanfuturism in The Wormwood Trilogy.” In this piece, Henchey develops an argument for the way queer, trans, and decolonial politics of embodiment implicate futuristic possibilities of transformation and (re)creation in and across Africa. Emerging from multiple geopolitical regions, these three essays collectively speak to possible spirits of Global Queer and Trans* studies in International and Intercultural Communication that require further developments.

Next, this special issue returns the attention to global and transnational productions of queerness happening in USAmerica in and across time, space, and context. In “U.S. Homonationalist Battle Portraiture and Queer Armed Archival Artifacts,” Evan Mitchell Schares revisits the collection of Evan Bachner’s photographs, representing homoerotic intimacies during World War II. Specifically, Schares critically details the way toxic White masculinities are always already the (historical) roots of promoting the structural incorporation of (male) homosexuality as a liberally exceptional sign of USAmerican nationalism. “Digital Transnational Queer Isolations and Connections,” authored by Ahmet Atay, concludes this special issue. Atay deploys autoethnography to demonstrate how he comes to develop, maintain, and (re)negotiate his own performances of transnational, accented queerness through digital media platforms as he dwells in a borderland space. Under the technological advancement of global capitalism that builds rapid transnational and transcultural connectivity, cyberspaces become major sites though which performances and representations of global, transnational queerness are constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed.

With these final lineups, I hope this special issue cultivates an alternative space of possibilities through which you (as the reader) and I together can move toward actualizing Global Queer and Trans* studies in International and Intercultural Communication for the future. As I have said earlier, this special issue is not perfect. Impossibilities of this special issue implicate the normal and ordinary of International and Intercultural Communication, in general, and Queer Intercultural Communication, in particular. At the same time, as Halberstam (2011) suggested, both you and I can learn from impossibilities of this special issue and collectively do something different for the future as a site of possibility. Impossibilities of this special issue are meant to generate “shared critical dissatisfactions” (Muñoz, 2009, p. 189) between you and me for making changes in the future. Thus, I titled this introductory essay “On the Horizon: Desiring Global Queer and Trans* Studies in International and Intercultural Communication” to signify the precarious state of hope for the field. I end this essay by sending you (the readers) with my queer love.

Acknowledgments

With lots of love, I sincerely thank the editor-in-chief Dr. Bernadette Marie Calafell for making space for and being very supportive of this special issue of Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. I also extend my appreciation to Jessica Ingle at Taylor & Francis for the support throughout this issue’s peer-review process. Moreover, I appreciate my scholar-friend Dr. Satoshi Toyosaki for helping me edit this introductory essay. Furthermore, I appreciate all of the contributors and submitters for working with me to put this special issue together. And, I dedicate my efforts on this issue to all readers who struggle every day to fight for globalizing (multidimensional) queer politics in and across personal, political, and academic contexts. Lastly, the journal office and I would like to thank all of our reviewers for their contribution and support during the process of putting this special issue together. High-quality peer review is essential to the success of the Journal and we greatly appreciate the dedication of all those who have contributed to this.