Urban Utopias pp 247-267 | Cite as

Queerness’s Domain?: Queer Negotiations, Utopian Visions and the Failures of Heterotopias in Bangalore

  • Jacquelyn P. Strey
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Urban Anthropology book series (PSUA)


This chapter investigates José Esteban Muñoz’s claim ‘that the future belongs to queerness’ by focusing on middle-class queer women’s everyday experiences in contemporary Bangalore. As middle class, these women are co-opted into nationalist and neoliberal imaginaries as symbols of India’s rising power. As queer, these women are subject to normalized notions of both femininity and heterosexuality. Therefore, the strategies and tactics that queer women employ to create space in urban India signal multiple and continual rejections of heteronormativity and question if there is an idealized future in which these actions are unnecessary. In an evaluation of the implementation and reception to these tactics, this chapter will also highlight the failures of these spaces as and, following Muñoz, ask if the future really is ‘queerness’s domain’.


Middle Class Sexual Identity Public Space Shopping Mall Indian Woman 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anthias, F., and N. Yuval-Davis. 1989. Woman-Nation-State. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appadurai, Arjun, and James Holston. 1999. Introduction: Cities and Citizenship. Cities and Citizenship.Google Scholar
  3. Baviskar, Amita, and Raka Ray, ed. 2011. Elite and Everyman: The Cultural Politics of the Indian Middle Classes. New Delhi: Routledge India.Google Scholar
  4. Bhan, Gautam. 2005. “Challenging the Limits of Law.” In Because I Have a Voice: Queer Politics in India, edited by Gautam Bhan and Arvind Narrain, 40–48. New Delhi: Yoda Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bhaskaran, Suparna. 2004. Made in India: Decolonizations, Queer Sexualities Trans/national Projects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bose, B., and S. Bhattacharyya. 2007. The Phobic and the Erotic: The Politics of Sexualities in Contemporary India. In New York. Calcutta: Seagull Books.Google Scholar
  7. Chatterjee, Partha. 1990. The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question. In Recasting Women: Essays in Indian History, ed. Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, 233–253. New: Brunswick.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, Sealing, and Eunjung Kim. 2014. The Paradoxes of Neoliberalism: Migrant Korean Sex Workers in the United States and ‘Sex Trafficking. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 21(3): 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Boeck, Filip. 2008. “Dead Society in a Cemetery City.” Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, 297–308. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dehaene, Michiel, and Lieven De Cauter. 2008. Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Desai, Renu, and Romola Sanyal. 2012. Urbanizing Citizenship: Contested Spaces in Indian Cities. Thousands Oaks: SAGE Publications Pvt Ltd. Scholar
  12. Duggan, Lisa. 2002. The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, ed. Russ Castronovo and Dana D. Nelson, 175–194. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2012. The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Engebretsen, Elisabeth Lund. 2012. On Urban Anthropology in Contemporary China. In Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory, ed. Italo Pardo and B. Giuliana. Prato: Ashgate/Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Fernandes, Leela. 2004. The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India. Urban Studies 41(12): 2415–2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandes, Leela, and Patrick Heller. 2006. Hegemonic Aspirations: New Middle Class Politics and India’s Democracy in Comparative Perspective. Critical Asian Studies 38(4): 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foucault, Michel. 2008. “Of Other Spaces.” In Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, by Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter., trans. Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter, 13–29. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gandy, Matthew. 2012. Queer Ecology: Nature, Sexuality, and Heterotopic Alliances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(4): 727–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghosh, Apoorva. 2015. LGBTQ Activist Organizations as ‘Respectably Queer’in India: Contesting a Western View. Gender, Work & Organization 22(1): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. “Good as You Bangalore.” 2016. Accessed February 26.
  21. Grewal, I., and C. Kaplan. 2001. Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7(4): 663–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halperin, D.M. 1997. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, T.B. 1999. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inani, Rohit. 2015. India’s First Lesbian Ad Goes Viral. Time, June 11.
  25. “India’s Gay-Friendly Businesses Compete for ‘Pink Rupee.’” 2016. BBC News. Accessed February 29.
  26. Jaffrelot, Christophe, and Peter van der Veer. 2008. Patterns of Middle Class Consumption in India and China. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, Peter. 2008. The Modern Cemetery: A Design for Life. Social & Cultural Geography 9(7): 777–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, Angela. 2013. A Critical Inquiry Into Queer Utopias. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaur, Ravinder. 2012. Nation’s Two Bodies: Rethinking the Idea of ‘new’India and Its Other. Third World Quarterly 33(4): 603–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kochhar, Rakesh. 2015. A Global Middle Class Is More Promise than Reality. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. July 8.
  31. Kuldova, Tereza. 2014. Designing an Illusion of India’s Future Superpowerdom. The Unfamiliar 4(1).
  32. Majumder, Kunal. 2013. The ‘Miniscule’ Problem: Will India’s Sexual Minorities Not Get Their Due Rights Because They Do Not Constitute a Vote Bank? Tehelka, 10(52) (December).
  33. Mayo, K., and M. Sinha. 2000. Mother India. Univ of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mazzarella, William. 2015. Worlding Miss World, Bangalore, 1996. Identities: 1–13.Google Scholar
  35. Miguel Kanai, J. 2014. Whither Queer World Cities? Homo-Entrepreneurialism and beyond. Geoforum 56(September): 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Misra, Tanvi. 2015. In Stratified India, Who Gets Access to Queer Spaces? CityLab. May 1.
  37. Muñoz, José Esteban. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nair, Janaki. 2005. The Promise of the Metropolis: Bangalore’s Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Narrain, A. 2007. Rethinking Citizenship A Queer Journey. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 14(1): 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parameswaran, Radhika. 2005. Global Beauty Queens in Post-Liberalization India. Peace Review 17(4): 419–426. doi: 10.1080/10402650500374702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phadke, Shilpa, Sameera Khan, and Shilpa Ranade. 2011. Why Loiter?: Women and Risk on Mumbai Streets. New Delhi: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  42. Prakash, Gyan. 2002. The Urban Turn. Sarai Reader 2(7): 2–7.Google Scholar
  43. Puar, Jasbir K. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Radhakrishnan, Smitha. 2009. Professional Women, Good Families: Respectable Femininity and the Cultural Politics of a ‘New’ India. Qualitative Sociology 32(2): 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rao, Rahul. 2015. Global Homocapitalism. Radical Philosophy. December.
  46. Rao, Vyjayanthi. 2006. Slum as Theory: The South/Asian City and Globalization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1): 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runkle, Susan. 2004. Making ‘Miss India’. Constructing Gender, Power and the Nation. South Asian Popular Culture 2(2): 145–159. doi: 10.1080/1474668042000275725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shah, Chayanika, Raj Merchant, Shals Mahajan, and Smriti Nevatia. 2015. No Outlaws in the Gender Galaxy. New Delhi: Zuban Publishers Pvt.Google Scholar
  49. Shah, Svati P. 2015. Queering Critiques of Neoliberalism in India: Urbanism and Inequality in the Era of Transnational ‘LGBTQ’ Rights. Antipode 47(3): 635–651. doi: 10.1111/anti.12112.
  50. Sircar, Oishik, and Dipika Jain. 2012. New Intimacies/old Desires: Law, Culture, and Queer Politics in Neoliberal Times. Jindal Global Law Review 4(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  51. Sitapati, Vinay. 2011. What Anna Hazare’s Movement and India’s New Middle Classes Say about Each Other. Economic & Political Weekly 46(30): 39.Google Scholar
  52. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the Subaltern Speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271–313. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tellis, Ashley. 2012. Disrupting the Dinner Table: Re-Thinking the’Queer Movement’in Contemporary India. Jindal Global Law Review 4: 142–272.Google Scholar
  54. Thapan, Meenakshi. 2004. Embodiment and Identity in Contemporary Society: Femina and the ‘new’Indian Woman. Contributions to Indian Sociology 38(3): 411–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 2009. Living the Body: Embodiment, Womanhood and Identity in Contemporary. New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Hindu. 2015. Talking to the Pink Rupee. June 15.
  57. ———. 2016. Five-Judge Constitution Bench to Take a Call on Section 377. February 2.
  58. Upadhya, Carol. 2009. Imagining India: Software and the Ideology of Liberalisation. South African Review of Sociology 40(1): 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Venkataramakrishnan, Rohan. 2016. Everyone in India Thinks They Are ‘Middle Class’ and Almost No One Actually Is. Text. Accessed February 29.
  60. “WHaQ!” 2016. Accessed February 26.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacquelyn P. Strey
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Gender StudiesSOAS, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations