1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-3770
  • E-ISSN: 2211-3789
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We examine promotional materials produced by two organisations in Singapore, TrueLove.Is and Pink Dot, to investigate how these two groups employ discourses of love to support their opposing views regarding the reconcilability of Christianity and same-sex desire. TrueLove.Is is a Christian ministry that encourages LGB Christian Singaporeans to “come out, come home”, while Pink Dot is Singapore’s largest and foremost LGBTQ movement. We identify similarities and differences in their persuasive discourse strategies regarding ideas of love as discussed by lesbian Christian pastors. Although they position the idea of love similarly, their agendas are completely polarised. TrueLove.Is takes the position that non-heteronormative activity is ungodly and sinful, while Pink Dot offers a reconciliation between Christianity and same-sex desire. We employ Peterson’s (2016) approach to homophobic discourse analysis based on Systemic Functional Linguistics and a comparative discourse analysis to investigate the ideologies that inform the two organisations’ materials about the treatment of LGBTQ Singaporeans.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jls.20009.hir
2021-07-16
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdullah, Walid Jumblatt
    2019 Electoral secularism in Singapore: Political responses to homosexuality. Asian Studies Review43(2): 239–255. 10.1080/10357823.2019.1593945
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1593945 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertone, Chiara & Franchi, Marina
    2014 Suffering as the path to acceptance: Parents of gay and lesbian young people negotiating Catholicism in Italy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies10(1/2): 58–78. 10.1080/1550428X.2014.857496
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2014.857496 [Google Scholar]
  3. Borba, Rodrigo, Hall, Kira & Hiramoto, Mie
    2020 Feminist refusal meets enmity. Gender and Language14(1): 1–7. 10.1558/genl.40883
    https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.40883 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, Jianlin
    2013 Singapore’s culture war over section 377A: Through the lens of public choice and multilingual research. Law & Social Inquiry38(1): 106–137. 10.1111/j.1747‑4469.2012.01297.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01297.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Kuan-Hsing
    2010Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chong, Terence & Goh, Daniel PS.
    2014 Asian pentecostalism: Revivals, mega-churches, and social engagement. InRoutledge Handbook of Religions in Asia, Bryan S. Turner & Oscar Salemink (eds), 402–417. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chua, Lynette
    2012 Pragmatic resistance, law, and social movements in authoritarian states: The case of gay collective action in Singapore. Law & Society Review46(4): 713–748. 10.1111/j.1540‑5893.2012.00515.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x [Google Scholar]
  8. 2014Mobilizing Gay Singapore: Rights and Resistance in an Authoritarian State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018The Politics of Love in Myanmar: LGBT Mobilization and Human Rights as A Way of Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503607453
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503607453 [Google Scholar]
  10. Colla, Elliott
    2013 In praise of insult: Slogan genres, slogan repertoires and innovation. Review of Middle East Studies47(1): 37–48. 10.1017/S2151348100056317
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2151348100056317 [Google Scholar]
  11. DiStefano, Teresa M., Croteau, James, Anderson, Mary Z., Kampa-Kokesch, Sheila & Bullard, Melissa A.
    2000 Experiences of being heterosexual allies to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: A qualitative exploration. Journal of College Counseling3(2): 131–141. 10.1002/j.2161‑1882.2000.tb00173.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2000.tb00173.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Duggan, Lisa
    2003The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Edenborg, Emil
    2018 Homophobia as geopolitics: ‘Traditional values’ and the negotiation of Russia’s place in the world. InGendering Nationalism: Intersections of Nation, Gender and Sexuality, Jon Mulholland, Nicola Montagna & Erin Sanders-McDonagh (eds), 67–87. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑76699‑7_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76699-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Enguix, Begonya
    2009 Identities, sexualities and commemorations: Pride parades, public space and sexual dissidence. Anthropological Notebooks15(2): 15–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Finlay, Barbara & Walther, Carol S.
    2003 The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research44(4): 370–393. 10.2307/3512216
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3512216 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gabb, Jacqui
    2001 Querying the discourses of love: An analysis of contemporary patterns of love and the stratification of intimacy within lesbian families. The European Journal of Women’s Studies8(3): 313–328. 10.1177/135050680100800304
    https://doi.org/10.1177/135050680100800304 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ghaziani, Amin
    2011 Post-gay collective identity construction. Social Problems58(1): 99–125. 10.1525/sp.2011.58.1.99
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2011.58.1.99 [Google Scholar]
  18. Giddens, Anthony
    1992The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Go, Christian
    2019 Love is love is love: Politicizing affect in the linguistic landscape of the Metro Manila Pride March. (Paper presented at the26th Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference, University of Gothenburg, Sweden)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Golebiowski, Zofia
    2006 The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies8(2): 259–278. 10.1177/1461445606061796
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061796 [Google Scholar]
  21. Grant, Ruby, Beasy, Kim & Coleman, Bianca
    2021 Homonormativity and celebrating diversity: Australian school staff involvement in gay-straight alliances. International Journal of Inclusive Education25(8): 960–975. 10.1080/13603116.2019.1592249
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592249 [Google Scholar]
  22. Guo, Ting
    2020 Politics of love: Love as a religious and political discourse in modern China through the lens of political leaders. Critical Research on Religion8(1): 39–52. 10.1177/2050303219874366
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303219874366 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hiramoto, Mie & Teo, Cherise Shi Ling
    2015 Heteronormative love makes a house a home: Multimodal analysis of luxury housing ads in Singapore. Journal of Language and Sexuality4(2): 223–253. 10.1075/jls.4.2.03hir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.4.2.03hir [Google Scholar]
  24. Itakura, Kyohei
    2015 Making Japan ‘out-and-proud’ through not-yet-consensual translation: A case study of Tokyo Rainbow Pride’s website. Queer Cats Journal of LGBTQ Studies1(1): 3–30. 10.5070/Q511031149
    https://doi.org/10.5070/Q511031149 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ji, Peter, Du Bois, Steve N. & Finnessy, Patrick
    2009 An academic course that teaches heterosexual students to be allies to LGBT communities: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services21(4): 402–429. 10.1080/10538720802690001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720802690001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ji, Peter & Fujimoto Ma, Ken
    2013 Measuring heterosexual LGBT ally development: A Rasch analysis. Journal of Homosexuality60(12): 1695–1725. 10.1080/00918369.2013.834211
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.834211 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnston, Lynda T.
    2005Queering Tourism: Paradoxical Performances at Gay Pride Parades. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lazar, Michelle M.
    2017 Homonationalist discourse as a politics of pragmatic resistance in Singapore’s Pink Dot movement: Towards a southern praxis. Journal of Sociolinguistics21(3): 420–441. 10.1111/josl.12239
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12239 [Google Scholar]
  29. Leap, William
    2020Language Before Stonewall: Language, Sexuality, History. Cham: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑33516‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33516-8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meyer, Doug
    2014 Resisting hate crime discourse: Queer and intersectional challenges to neoliberal hate crime laws. Critical Criminology22(1): 113–125. 10.1007/s10612‑013‑9228‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9228-x [Google Scholar]
  31. Mikulak, Magdalena
    2019 Godly homonormativity: Christian LGBT organizing in contemporary Poland. Journal of Homosexuality66(4): 487–509. 10.1080/00918369.2017.1414501
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1414501 [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller, Shannon J. & Stack, Katie
    2014 African-American lesbian and queer women respond to Christian-based homophobia. Journal of GLBT Family Studies10(3): 243–268. 10.1080/1550428X.2013.825219
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2013.825219 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ministry of Community Development
    Ministry of Community Development 1995Singapore: A Pro-Family Society. Singapore: Ministry of Community Development.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ng, Yi-Sheng
    2017 Pride versus prudence: The precarious queer politics of Pink Dot. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies18(2): 238–250. 10.1080/14649373.2017.1313542
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2017.1313542 [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Grady, Gerard
    2019 SFL and critical discourse analysis. InThe Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds), 462–484. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.020 [Google Scholar]
  36. Park, Joseph SY.
    2009 Regimenting languages on Korean television: Subtitles and institutional authority. Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies29(5): 547–570. 10.1515/TEXT.2009.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.029 [Google Scholar]
  37. Peterson, David
    2011a Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citizens. Journal of Homosexuality58(6/7): 742–757. 10.1080/00918369.2011.581918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.581918 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2011b The ‘basis for a just, free, and stable society’: Institutional homophobia and governance at the Family Research Council. Gender and Language4(2): 257–286. 10.1558/genl.v4i2.257
    https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v4i2.257 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016 Homophobic grammar: The role of transitivity and phoricity in homophobic formation. Journal of Language and Sexuality5(1): 61–93. 10.1075/jls.5.1.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.5.1.03pet [Google Scholar]
  40. Phillips, Robert
    2008 Queering online: Transnational sexual citizenship in Singapore. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013 ‘We aren’t that different’: Globe-hopping discourse and queer rights in Singapore. Journal of Language and Sexuality2(1): 122–144. 10.1075/jls.2.1.05phi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.2.1.05phi [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014 ‘And I am also gay’: Illiberal pragmatics, neoliberal homonormativity and LGBT activism in Singapore. Anthropologica56(1): 45–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Puar, Jasbir
    2007Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822390442
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822390442 [Google Scholar]
  44. Radics, George Baylon
    2021 Challenging antisodomy laws in Singapore and the former British colonies of ASEAN. Journal of Human Rights20(2): 211–227. 10.1080/14754835.2020.1841608
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1841608 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ream, Geoffrey L. & Savin-Williams, Ritch C.
    2005 Reconciling Christianity and positive non-heterosexual identity in adolescence, with implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education2(3): 19–36. 10.1300/J367v02n03_03
    https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n03_03 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rowlett, Benedict & Go, Christian
    2021 “The amazingly fabulous tuktuk race”: Mobility and carnival praxis in the semiotic landscape of Phnom Penh Pride. (Paper presented at the11th Conference of the International Language and Gender Association, Queen Mary University of London [online])
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schuck, Kelly D. & Liddle, Becky J.
    2001 Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy5(2): 63–82. 10.1300/J236v05n02_07
    https://doi.org/10.1300/J236v05n02_07 [Google Scholar]
  48. Spencer, Leland G. & Barnett, Joshua Trey
    2016 Rhetorics of incommensurability: Disarticulating queer Christianity in mainstream news coverage of the Soulforce Equality Ride. Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture1(2): 141–158. 10.1386/qsmpc.1.2.141_1
    https://doi.org/10.1386/qsmpc.1.2.141_1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Tan, Chris
    2015 Pink Dot: Cultural and sexual citizenship in gay Singapore. Anthropological Quarterly88(4): 969–996. 10.1353/anq.2015.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2015.0058 [Google Scholar]
  50. VanderStouwe, Chris
    2016 “Straight-ish”: Constrained agency and the linguistic constructions of sexual identities, desires, and practices among men seeking men. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Yue, Audrey & Zubillaga-Pow, Jun
    2012Queer Singapore: Illiberal Citizenship and Mediated Cultures. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 10.5790/hongkong/9789888139330.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789888139330.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jls.20009.hir
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jls.20009.hir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error