Zbornik Instituta za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 2025, Vol. 44, Br. 1–2, str. 89–108

Review Paper

DOI: 10.47152/ziksi2025125

UDK: 316.83

342.726-055.34

 

Radical Otherness and Global Solidarity: Integrating LGBTQ+ Experiences into Broader Struggles for Justice[1]

Lena Bogdanović[2]

Independent Researcher, Serbia

This study explores the intersection of radical otherness and global solidarity, focusing on the LGBTQ+ community’s experiences. By examining the ways in which LGBTQ+ individuals and communities navigate marginalisation, outlawed identities and subaltern positions, we can better understand how global solidarity movements can incorporate and support diverse struggles for justice. Drawing on case studies and theoretical frameworks, this study aims to highlight the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression and the potential for unified resistance across different marginalised groups. Through such examination, the study aims to offer a more nuanced understanding of global solidarity, advocating for the recognition and integration of diverse marginalised voices. This work underscores the importance of continuous dialogue and collaboration among various disenfranchised communities to build a unified resistance against oppression and advance the cause of global justice and equality.

KEYWORDS: LGBTQ+ community / radical otherness / global solidarity / social justice movements / queer theory

 

Introduction

 

Context of the Article

 

The marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals is deeply rooted in systemic frameworks such as heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which define and reinforce societal norms regarding sexuality and gender identity. These frameworks establish LGBTQ+ identities as deviant, relegating them to the periphery of cultural, political, and social life. This article situates LGBTQ+ struggles within both historical and contemporary contexts, examining how exclusionary mechanisms operate and how they have evolved over time. Central to this inquiry is the concept of radical otherness, which explains the ways in which dominant groups construct marginalized identities as inferior or deviant to maintain social hierarchies. The article also emphasizes the importance of global solidarity, arguing that alliances across diverse movements are essential for addressing the interconnectedness of oppressions and achieving systemic change. By integrating these theoretical concepts with practical insights, this article aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities for LGBTQ+ advocacy in a globalized world.

 

Objectives and Research Questions

 

The central objective of this article is to examine how systems of power construct LGBTQ+ communities as sites of radical otherness and to explore how practices of global solidarity can disrupt these exclusions. Rather than treating LGBTQ+ struggles as isolated or identity-specific, the article situates them within broader structures of oppression, including colonialism, racial capitalism, patriarchy, and authoritarianism, to highlight how processes of othering are embedded in both local and global dynamics.

Accordingly, this article pursues three interrelated goals:

1.         To analyze the ways in which radical otherness shapes the cultural, political, and social positioning of LGBTQ+ identities across diverse contexts.

2.         To investigate how activists employ strategies of resistance, adaptation, coalition-building, and digital engagement, and to examine how these strategies interact with both normalization and anti-normalization approaches.

3.         To assess the potential of global solidarity as a transformative framework for connecting LGBTQ+ struggles with those of other marginalized groups, while resisting the reproduction of Western hegemony in human rights discourses.

 

Structure of the Article

 

This article aims to provide an overview of the challenges faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community and the integration of their experiences into broader struggles for justice. Central to this inquiry is the question of how systemic exclusion and marginalization operate across different contexts and how they intersect with other forms of oppression. This article critically examines the mechanisms through which LGBTQ+ individuals experience different barriers, while also exploring the strategies they adopt to navigate and resist these constraints. By connecting these experiences to broader patterns of injustice, the article highlights the need for intersectional approaches that recognize shared vulnerabilities and solidarity across marginalized groups. Following this, this article examines the historical and contemporary struggles faced by LGBTQ+ community, including the mechanisms of exclusion and the strategies employed to navigate these challenges. At the end, this article analyzes collaborative strategies for achieving global justice, focusing on the potential challenges and opportunities. In doing so, this article moves beyond a descriptive account to emphasize the structural and relational dynamics that underpin exclusion and collective action, offering insights into future research and advocacy.

 

Theoretical Framework

 

Understanding Radical Otherness

 

Radical otherness is a theoretical construct that examines how individuals or groups are positioned as fundamentally distinct and separate from dominant cultural, political, and social frameworks. It encapsulates the processes by which hegemonic structures establish and maintain their authority by defining what is "normal" in opposition to an "Other" deemed deviant or inferior. In this process, two groups are created: a dominant in-group ("Us", the Self) and one or more subordinate out-groups ("Them", the Other), by emphasizing differences – whether real or imagined (Staszak, 2020).

Ahmed (2012) describes this phenomenon as the orientation of societal norms, where certain identities are rendered invisible, illegible, or unworthy, reinforcing the dominance of the normative center. This "othering" is not an inherent condition but rather a relational dynamic that arises through systems of power and privilege. This is especially important for understanding the conflict between the hegemon and the "Other", in which the "Other" is completely dehumanized and devalued. In such a conflict, destroying the other is justified and just. The most drastic and well-known example is the anti-Semitic movement and the suffering of Jews during the Second World War.[3]

Radical otherness operates at both material and symbolic levels, shaping not only how individuals are treated but also how they are imagined within the cultural and social fabric. Said's (1978) foundational concept of "Orientalism" exemplifies this, showing how the West constructed the East as an exotic, inferior "other" to justify colonial domination. Contemporary scholars, such as Puar (2017), extend this analysis to explore how otherness is produced and reproduced across global and local contexts, often intersecting with dimensions of race, gender, class, and ability. These intersections reveal the multiplicity of ways in which power constructs and reinforces boundaries between the self and the other. For instance, queer people of color may experience a compounded marginalization that simultaneously implicates their racial and sexual identities, rendering them particularly vulnerable to exclusionary practices (Ferguson, 2019). This dynamic is visible in multiple historical and geographical contexts: the codification of sodomy laws under British colonial administration in South Asia (Narrain, 2018), the portrayal of queer Africans as "Western imports" (Tamale, 2020), and the weaponization of sexuality in conflicts, such as the targeting of LGBTQ+ individuals in Chechnya under the guise of "moral cleansing" (Human Rights Watch, 2021).

Importantly, radical otherness also holds critical potential for resistance and reimagination. By exposing the constructed and contingent nature of these boundaries, radical otherness challenges the essential notions that underpin systems of exclusion. Braidotti (2013) posits that otherness can serve as a site of generative potential, offering alternative ways of thinking and being that disrupt hegemonic paradigms. Similarly, Collins and Bilge (2020) argue for an intersectional approach to understanding otherness, emphasizing the interconnectedness of various forms of marginalization and the potential for coalitional politics to dismantle oppressive systems.

Through its emphasis on relationality, constructiveness, and intersectionality, radical otherness provides a critical lens for interrogating the ways power operates and is resisted. It invites a rethinking of solidarity, not as an erasure of difference, but as an embrace of the complexities and contradictions inherent in diverse experiences. In doing so, the concept of radical otherness serves as a foundation for imagining more equitable and inclusive social structures.

 

The Concept of Global Solidarity

 

Global solidarity can be defined as a "collective effort that transcends geographical, cultural, and social boundaries to achieve common goals for the betterment of humanity" (Rachmad, 2017). Fraser (2013) conceptualizes global solidarity as a "transnational public sphere" where diverse actors collaborate to address systemic inequities while respecting their distinct positionalities. Drawing from postcolonial and critical theory, global solidarity challenges parochial or ethnocentric perspectives, advocating instead for a relational approach that recognizes the shared, albeit differentiated, nature of injustices (Spivak, 1988).

The concept resists reductionist or universalist frameworks that erase differences in favor of a homogenized collective identity. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of pluralism and intersectionality in forging meaningful alliances. Butler and Athanasiou (2013) argue that solidarity emerges not from the erasure of differences but from the recognition of mutual vulnerabilities and the interdependence of struggles. This perspective highlights the necessity of acknowledging asymmetries in power, resources, and histories among participants in solidarity movements, ensuring that such efforts do not reproduce the hierarchies they aim to dismantle. It is important to note here that this type of asymmetry often occurs between the dominant and the dominated group.

At its core, global solidarity is not merely a strategy for resistance but a fundamental reimagining of relationships across lines of difference. It requires a commitment to ongoing dialogue, reflexivity, and accountability, as well as an openness to reconfiguring alliances in response to emerging challenges and opportunities (Tsing, 2015). This theory operates by promoting active and equal collaboration among individuals and communities to tackle global challenges. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing mutual interdependence and fostering a shared commitment to advancing the common good (Rachmad, 2017).

 

LGBTQ+ Experiences and Marginalization

 

Outlawed Identities and Subaltern Positions

 

The marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals is deeply rooted in the systemic enforcement of heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which establish rigid norms around sexuality and gender identity. These norms construct LGBTQ+ identities as deviant, relegating them to the margins of social, cultural, and political life. Marginalization operates through multiple interconnected mechanisms, including legal discrimination, social exclusion, economic inequality, and cultural erasure. Warner (1999) conceptualizes heteronormativity as a pervasive cultural framework that privileges heterosexual relationships, rendering non-heteronormative lives invisible or unacceptable. This structural positioning of LGBTQ+ individuals as "Other" leads to their exclusion from societal institutions, such as marriage, family, and healthcare, further entrenching their marginalization.

Intersectionality adds another dimension to understanding these experiences, as LGBTQ+ identities often intersect with other forms of oppression, including race, class, and disability. Collins and Bilge (2020) emphasize that these intersections produce unique and compounded forms of marginalization that cannot be understood through a single-axis lens. This layered marginalization underscores the need to approach LGBTQ+ experiences not as monolithic but as diverse and contextually specific.

Additionally, the social and cultural dimensions of marginalization are reinforced through symbolic violence and erasure. Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of symbolic violence highlights how dominant cultural narratives delegitimize LGBTQ+ identities, framing them as unnatural or inferior. Media representations, for example, often perpetuate stereotypes or omit LGBTQ+ stories altogether, denying them visibility and validation (Ahmed, 2012). Such erasure extends to historical narratives, where the contributions and struggles of LGBTQ+ individuals are frequently excluded, further marginalizing their existence and reinforcing their subordinate status.

 

Historical and Contemporary Contexts of LGBTQ+ Struggles

 

The struggles of LGBTQ+ individuals and communities are deeply embedded in historical and contemporary contexts shaped by systems of power, cultural norms, and resistance. Historically, LGBTQ+ identities have been subjected to exclusion, criminalization, and pathologization, rooted in legal, religious, and medical discourses. Foucault (1978) illustrates how sexuality has been a central axis of control, with the rise of biopolitics positioning non-heteronormative identities as threats to societal order. Laws criminalizing same-sex relationships, such as the 19th-century sodomy laws in Western nations or colonial-era legal codes imposed globally, institutionalized this marginalization, while pathologizing frameworks in early psychiatry categorized LGBTQ+ identities as illnesses, reinforcing societal stigma (Sedgwick, 1990). Many of the world’s most enduring anti-LGBTQ+ legal regimes are direct legacies of European colonialism, which imposed heteronormative legal codes in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean (Human Dignity Trust, 2023). For example, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted under British rule in 1861, remained in force until its partial repeal in 2018, shaping over 150 years of queer criminalization (Narrain, 2018).

The mid-20th century witnessed a growing resistance to these oppressive frameworks, marked by pivotal moments such as the Stonewall Riots in 1969, which catalyzed the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Implementation and adoption LGBTQ+ rights policies are often seen as part of a wider corpus of human rights policies, which is why this issue very often comes later and is not a priority (Banović, 2011). Emerging from these struggles, grassroots activism sought not only the decriminalization of homosexuality but also broader recognition of LGBTQ+ rights as fundamental human rights. By contrast, in many non-Western contexts, the pursuit of rights has been intertwined with anti-colonial and anti-authoritarian struggles. In South Africa, for example, queer activism during the apartheid era aligned itself with the broader liberation movement, framing sexual freedom as inseparable from racial and economic justice (Hoad, 2007).

Recent decades have seen uneven advances. Legal victories, such as the recognition of marriage equality in numerous countries and the decriminalization of homosexuality in others, signify important milestones.[4] While over 35 countries now recognize same-sex marriage, 66 UN member states still criminalize consensual same-sex conduct, with at least 5 retaining the death penalty for such acts (ILGA World, 2024). The distribution of rights is highly asymmetrical: in parts of Europe and the Americas, legal protections coexist with rising far-right attacks on LGBTQ+ people, while in many African, Middle Eastern, and Asian states, criminalization and state violence remain embedded in law and policy. The global circulation of "LGBTQ+ rights" as a political project has thus often reinforced geopolitical divides — with Western states using rights rhetoric as a tool of foreign policy leverage, sometimes to the detriment of local movements (Bosia & Weiss, 2013).

 

Navigating LGBTQ+ Marginalization: Strategies and Challenges

 

Marginalization operates through interconnected mechanisms, including systemic discrimination, cultural erasure, and social stigmatization, which necessitate approaches such as resistance, adaptation, coalition-building, and digital engagement. These strategies, while essential for survival and empowerment, also reveal the challenges inherent in contesting entrenched systems of oppression and inequality.

To achieve their objectives, LGBTQ+ activists across various countries commonly employ either normalization or anti-normalization strategies against marginalization. Normalization strategies aim to reduce perceived differences between heterosexual individuals and the LGBTQ+ population by emphasizing shared characteristics while de-emphasizing or overlooking distinctions. Conversely, anti-normalization strategies seek to question and critique prevailing norms, values, and perceptions surrounding the LGBTQ+ community, advocating for their redefinition and reframing within societal discourse (Petković, 2015). These strategies are based on two different models of society. The first approach is the ethnic model, predominantly associated with the strategies employed by activists in the United States up until the 1970s. This model critically engages with the dominant understanding of sexuality, framing it within a binary structure that contrasts normative heterosexuality with non-normative gay identity (Seidman, 1993). Since the 1970s, the focus shifted away from seeking social recognition and the establishment of gay identity as a minority. Instead, efforts were directed toward challenging and rejecting social institutions that marginalized and pathologized gay orientation (Seidman, 1994).

Resistance has been a defining characteristic of LGBTQ+ struggles, exemplified by historical milestones such as the Stonewall Riots, which catalyzed the global LGBTQ+ rights movement. Resistance takes the form of organized protests, advocacy for legislative reform, and the disruption of dominant cultural narratives that perpetuate exclusion (Ahmed, 2012). It aligns most closely with anti-normalization strategies, as it seeks to unsettle dominant norms rather than gain acceptance within them.

Adaptation, often adopted as a strategy to mitigate immediate risks, includes practices such as concealing identities, conforming to societal expectations, or leveraging systemic loopholes. While these approaches may provide short-term safety or access to resources, they risk perpetuating dominant norms and undermining structural critique. Duggan’s (2002) critique of assimilationist tendencies in LGBTQ+ movements highlights the tensions between seeking inclusion within existing frameworks and advocating for transformative change. Adaption is often a pragmatic extension of normalization strategies, as it involves negotiating visibility in ways that minimize perceived deviance to dominant actors.

Coalition-building has emerged as a transformative framework for navigating marginalization by fostering solidarity across intersecting struggles. As articulated by Puar (2017), coalitional politics enable LGBTQ+ movements to address not only homophobia and transphobia but also the broader systems of oppression, including colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism, that underpin these exclusions. The integration of intersectionality, as advanced by Collins and Bilge (2020), allows for a nuanced understanding of the compounded marginalization experienced by individuals at the nexus of multiple oppressed identities. In one way, coalition-building reflects normalization strategies when LGBTQ+ groups frame their issues in universally palatable terms to gain allies but shifts toward anti-normalization when alliances aim to collectively transform structural conditions rather than merely expand existing rights frameworks. However, these coalitions often face internal power imbalances, especially when Western-funded organizations dominate agendas by prioritizing donor-friendly issues like marriage equality over urgent local concerns such as protection from police violence or access to housing (Choudry & Kapoor, 2013).

Digital technologies have become pivotal in enabling LGBTQ+ communities to navigate marginalization, offering platforms for visibility, advocacy, and transnational solidarity. Social media campaigns such as #TransRightsAreHumanRights[5], #LoveIsLove[6], and #NoNameCalling
Week[7] have amplified the voices of marginalized groups, facilitated resource sharing, and mobilized global support. Nakamura (2014) notes that digital spaces also allow for the disruption of hegemonic narratives by providing avenues for storytelling and cultural production. Nonetheless, these platforms are not devoid of structural inequalities; they often replicate offline dynamics of marginalization and expose LGBTQ+ individuals to cyberbullying, digital surveillance, and performative allyship.

 

Interconnectedness of Oppression

 

Linking LGBTQ+ Struggles with Other Marginalized Groups

 

The interconnectedness of oppression underscores how systems of marginalization intersect, linking the struggles of LGBTQ+ communities with other marginalized groups. This interconnectedness is rooted in structural inequities, such as racism, sexism, ableism, and classism, which operate in tandem with heteronormativity and cisnormativity to sustain hierarchical power relations. Systems of domination produce hierarchies by constructing multiple "Others" whose exclusion serves to stabilize the power of the dominant group. Theoretical frameworks such as intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) and assemblage theory (Puar, 2017) provide critical tools for understanding these interrelations and for fostering solidarity across diverse movements.

Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) reveals how oppressions overlap, but the concept of radical otherness extends this insight by highlighting the dynamic processes through which difference is politicized, surveilled, and controlled. For instance, Black queer and transgender individuals often experience heightened vulnerability due to the interplay of racism and transphobia, which manifests in disproportionate rates of violence, discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement (Collins & Bilge, 2020). Similarly, LGBTQ+ migrants and asylum seekers face dual marginalization: persecution in their countries of origin and systemic exclusion in host nations, driven by xenophobia and homophobia. Recognizing these intersecting oppressions necessitates an approach that moves beyond single-axis frameworks to address the full complexity of systemic injustice.

Assemblage theory expands on intersectionality by emphasizing the fluid and contingent nature of identities and oppressions. Puar (2017) argues that systems of power do not merely intersect but assemble and reconfigure in dynamic ways, shaping the lived experiences of marginalized groups. This perspective highlights the global dimensions of interconnected oppression, such as the impact of colonial legacies on both LGBTQ+ rights and broader systems of exclusion. For example, anti-LGBTQ+ laws in many postcolonial nations can be traced to colonial-era legal codes, which simultaneously imposed racial hierarchies and heteronormative norms. This shared history illustrates how struggles against colonialism and LGBTQ+ rights advocacy are inextricably linked.

 

Examples of Solidarity in Practice

 

Black Lives Matter (BLM).

The Black Lives Matter movement, co-founded by queer Black activists Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, exemplifies the integration of racial justice and LGBTQ+ activism within a framework of global solidarity. BLM has consistently advocated for the inclusion of queer and transgender voices, particularly addressing the disproportionate violence faced by Black transgender women. This solidarity is visible in events like the "Queer Liberation March for Black Lives and Against Police Brutality" held in New York City in 2020, which emphasized the shared struggle against systemic racism and anti-LGBTQ+ violence. By centering intersectionality, BLM has strengthened alliances between racial justice and LGBTQ+ movements, demonstrating the power of coalitional politics in addressing overlapping oppressions (Taylor, 2016).

 

Migrant Crisis.

During the European migrant crisis of the mid-2010s, LGBTQ+ organizations across Europe collaborated with refugee advocacy groups to address the unique vulnerabilities faced by LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. In Germany, for example, organizations like Schwulenberatung Berlin partnered with refugee-focused groups to provide safe housing and legal support for LGBTQ+ individuals fleeing persecution. These initiatives emphasized the intersection of homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia, working to ensure that LGBTQ+ refugees receive protection and inclusion within broader advocacy efforts (Murray, 2016). Similar collaborations were seen across Europe, such as Greece, where organizations like Athens LGBTQ+ Youth joined forces with refugee support networks to create safe spaces for LGBTQ+ migrants in camps (Rahman, 2020). These coalitions represent global solidarity in action, connecting local service provision with broader critiques of border regimes and the criminalization of migration.

 

Feminist Movements.

Feminist movements and LGBTQ+ advocacy are deeply interconnected, as both challenge patriarchal, heteronormative, and cisnormative systems of power. These movements share a history of solidarity, shaping the understanding of compounded oppressions faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly queer women and transgender people. Feminist and LGBTQ+ groups have often united to fight for reproductive rights, gender equality, and anti-discrimination policies, recognizing that these issues affect all individuals marginalized by patriarchal structures. For instance, during Poland’s Women’s Strike, feminist activists and LGBTQ+ advocates collaborated to resist oppressive laws, symbolizing their shared struggle against authoritarianism (Graff & Korolczuk, 2021). Such collaborations illustrate global solidarity at a European level, but they also highlight its limits: Western funding streams often push these movements toward liberal, rights-based messaging that may dilute more radical critiques of capitalism and patriarchy.

 

Building Unified Resistance

 

Collaborative Strategies for Global Justice and Their Challenges

 

The persistence of radical otherness across diverse contexts demonstrates why fragmented struggles are insufficient to dismantle entrenched systems of domination. The production of the “Other” is never singular: it simultaneously marks racialized migrants as dangerous outsiders, trans bodies as illegible, or Indigenous communities as obstacles to capitalist expansion. This multiplicity underscores the need for coalitions that engage not just identity-based concerns but also the structural foundations of exclusion.

As previously stated, global solidarity and thus global justice imply collective action that transcends singular identities and movements (Collins & Bilge, 2020). For a successful fight, a well-organized group that cooperates well with groups from the political and civil society spheres is essential (Petković, 2015). By aligning their goals and strategies, diverse movements can challenge the structural underpinnings of global inequalities while amplifying the voices of those most affected by these systems.

Although it represents an effective way of fighting, the unification of different groups brings with it a multitude of challenges. One of the primary challenges is the existence of divergent priorities and goals within the LGBTQ+ community, as well as among different marginalized groups (Petković, 2015). While some groups may prioritize issues related to economic justice, others might focus on gender or racial equality, leading to potential conflicts over resource allocation, strategy, and political framing. These differences are further complicated by the hierarchical structures that often emerge within movements, where more dominant groups may shape agendas, sidelining the needs of those with less power within the coalition (Morris, 2000). As a result, the struggle for inclusivity within solidarity efforts becomes a critical task. Coalitions must navigate these tensions to ensure that all voices, particularly those of the most marginalized, are heard and their specific struggles acknowledged. The challenge of achieving consensus within diverse coalitions requires constant negotiation and mutual respect (Haraway, 1988).

Additionally, the increasing reliance on digital platforms for organizing and advocacy presents a new set of challenges. While these platforms have enabled global solidarity and the amplification of marginalized voices, they also replicate existing social inequalities by privileging certain voices over others. Thus, while digital platforms offer an unprecedented reach, they also require careful attention to how solidarity is constructed, ensuring that it does not merely remain a symbolic gesture but results in meaningful, transformative action.

Taken together, these dynamics underscore that the pursuit of global solidarity must be attentive to the material and symbolic processes through which radical otherness is reproduced, even within movements and spaces that claim to resist it.

 

The Role of Continuous Dialogue and Advocacy in the Collective Struggle

 

Integrating LGBTQ+ struggles into the broader fight for global justice requires a sustained commitment to continuous dialogue and advocacy, emphasizing the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression and the need for collective resistance. Continuous dialogue fosters an environment where marginalized groups can share their experiences, amplify their voices, and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the global justice agenda. This process not only helps illuminate how LGBTQ+ struggles intersect with other movements but also strengthens solidarity by promoting mutual learning and collaboration among diverse communities (Crenshaw, 1991; Taylor, 2016). This reflects the central tenet of global solidarity: that alliances must be built on the acknowledgement of asymmetry and plurality, rather than on forced consensus. For example, transnational exchanges between queer activists in Brazil, South Africa, and the Philippines have created forums where strategies against police violence and economic precarity are shared without collapsing distinct historical and cultural contexts into a singular narrative (Puar, 2017).

Advocacy plays a crucial role in sustaining these dialogues, especially within the political and policy arenas where LGBTQ+ issues are often sidelined or misunderstood. LGBTQ+ organizations must continually push for the recognition and inclusion of their concerns in human rights discourse, particularly in international forums where global justice is being shaped. Advocacy efforts can take various forms, from grassroots mobilizations and social media campaigns to lobbying at governmental and intergovernmental levels. For instance, the inclusion of LGBTQ+ rights in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the advocacy for international protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are critical achievements facilitated by ongoing global advocacy (UN, 2015). While some of these initiatives have succeeded in expanding visibility, they also risk aligning queer struggles too closely with neoliberal development discourses (Reddy, 2020). By contrast, advocacy rooted in global solidarity seeks to reorient the conversation: Palestinian queer activists, for instance, frame their demands not only in terms of sexual rights but also as part of a broader struggle against occupation, settler colonialism, and militarized capitalism (Puar, 2017; Schulman, 2012).

Global solidarity requires that movements continually reflect on whose voices are amplified, whose priorities are advanced, and whose struggles are sidelined (Fraser, 2013). By centering the experiences of those most radically othered (ex. queer migrants, Indigenous Two-Spirit people, Black trans women) collective resistance becomes not only more inclusive but also more capable of addressing the structural foundations of oppression (Collins & Bilge, 2020; ILGA World, 2024).

 

Conclusion

 

Key Findings

 

The analysis presented in this article underscores that the marginalization of LGBTQ+ communities cannot be fully understood or addressed without engaging the dual concepts of radical otherness and global solidarity. The concept of radical otherness provides a critical lens for understanding how dominant groups construct marginalized identities as inferior or deviant, reinforcing exclusionary power dynamics. This relational process operates not only at symbolic levels but also through material consequences, dehumanizing LGBTQ+ individuals.

Strategies to navigate and resist marginalization have evolved, reflecting the complexity of LGBTQ+ experiences. Earlier approaches, such as the ethnic model, sought to normalize LGBTQ+ identities within existing societal structures by highlighting shared characteristics and minimizing differences. Over time, a shift toward anti-normalization strategies emerged, challenging the underlying norms that perpetuate exclusion. These approaches demonstrate a spectrum of responses, from seeking inclusion to reimagining societal frameworks altogether. Both strategies underscore the need to balance immediate goals of visibility and acceptance with long-term aspirations for systemic transformation.

Intersectionality plays a pivotal role in understanding the compounded marginalization faced by individuals who embody multiple oppressed identities. The intersection of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation produces unique vulnerabilities that demand nuanced approaches to advocacy. Global solidarity emerges as a crucial framework for addressing these interconnected oppressions. Successful examples of coalition-building, such as the alliances between LGBTQ+ and racial justice movements, demonstrate the potential for unified resistance against structural inequities. However, these collaborations are not without challenges. Diverging priorities, power asymmetries, and the risk of performative allyship often undermine the effectiveness of coalitions. Meaningful solidarity requires continuous dialogue, mutual respect, and a commitment to centering the voices of the most marginalized within these movements.

Addressing the complexities of marginalization requires moving beyond single-axis frameworks to embrace the diversity of lived experiences and foster collaborative, transformative resistance. This integrated perspective not only deepens the understanding of LGBTQ+ advocacy but also offers pathways for reimagining inclusive and equitable pipes. Through consistent dialogue and strategic advocacy, the integration of LGBTQ+ struggles into the broader global justice movement becomes not only possible but imperative for achieving lasting and inclusive change.

 

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

 

The article primarily theoretical, relying on secondary sources and existing frameworks to analyze LGBTQ+ marginalization and activism. This approach may limit the empirical applicability of the findings, as it does not incorporate firsthand data or case studies. Additionally, the scope of the research focuses predominantly on Western contexts, potentially overlooking the diverse experiences and strategies of LGBTQ+ communities in other parts of the world.

Future research should prioritize empirical studies that investigate the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals and communities across diverse cultural and geographical contexts. This could involve ethnographic research, interviews, or longitudinal studies to provide a richer understanding of how marginalization and resistance are experienced and enacted.

 

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395324

Banović, D. (2011). Seksualna orijentacija i rodni identitet u kontekstu ljudskih prava u Bosni i Hercegovini. U S. Gavrić, L. Huremović, & M. Savić (Ur.), Čitanka lezbejskih i gej ljudskih prava (str. 121–135). Fondacija Heinrich Bӧll.

Bosia, M. J., & Weiss, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Global homophobia: States, movements, and the politics of oppression. University of Illinois Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press.

Butler, J., & Athanasiou, A. (2013). Dispossession: The performative in the political. Polity Press.

Choudry, A., & Kapoor, D. (Eds.). (2013). NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. Zed Books.

Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Duke University Press.

Ferguson, R. A. (2019). One-dimensional queer. Polity Press.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon Books.

Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. Verso Books.

Graff, A., & Korolczuk, E. (2021). Anti-gender politics in the populist moment. Routledge.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Hoad, N. (2007). African Intimacies: Race, Homosexuality, and Globalization. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press.

Human Dignity Trust. (2023). Breaking the silence: Criminalisation of homosexuality in the Commonwealth. Human Dignity Trust. https://www.humandignitytrust.org

Human Rights Watch. (2021). “They don’t exist”: Arbitrary detentions, torture, and killings of transgender people in Chechnya. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org

ILGA World. (2024). State-sponsored homophobia report. ILGA World.

Morris, A. D. (2000). Reflections on social movement theory: Criticisms and proposals. Contemporary Sociology, 29(3), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653936

Murray, D. A. B. (2016). Real Queer? Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Refugees in the Canadian Refugee Apparatus. Refuge 32(2), 97–98. https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.40417

Nakamura, L. (2014). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the Internet. University of Minnesota Press.

Narrain, A. (2018). The sound of Section 377 falling: The queer movement in India and the battle for law reform. Alternative Law Forum.

Petković, S. (2015). LGBT aktivizam u savremenoj Srbiji: politizacija identiteta i strategije LGBT aktivista. Etnološko-antropološke sveske, 25(14), 49–88.

Puar, J. K. (2017). The right to maim: Debility, capacity, disability. Duke University Press.

Rachmad, Y. E. (2017). Global Solidarity Theory. YER E-Book Publication.

Rahman, M. (2020). Homosexualities, Muslim cultures and modernity. Palgrave Macmillan.

Reddy, G. (2020). With respect to sex: Negotiating hijra identity in South India. University of Chicago Press.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Schulman, S. (2012). Israel/Palestine and the queer international. Duke University Press.

Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. University of California Press.

Seidman, S. (1993). Identity and Politics in a ‘Postmodern’ Gay Culture: Some Historical and Conceptual Notes. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a Queer Planet (pp. 105–142). University of Minnesota Press.

Seidman, S. (1994). Symposium: Queer Theory/Sociology: A Dialogue. Sociological Theory, 12(2), 166–177.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press.

Staszak, J-F. (2020). “Other/Otherness”. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 25–31). Elsevier.

Tamale, S. (2020). Decolonization and Afro-feminism. Daraja Press.

Taylor, K. Y. (2016). From #BlackLivesMatter to Black liberation. Haymarket Books.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.

United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production

United Nations (UN). (2024). Criminalization. https://www.unfe.org/en/know-the-facts/challenges-solutions/criminalization

Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life. Harvard University Press.

 

Radikalna drugost i globalna solidarnost: Integrisanje LGBTQ+ iskustava u okvire šire borbe za pravdu*

Lena Bogdanović

Samostalna istraživačica, Srbija

Ovaj rad istražuje međupovezanost koncepata radikalne drugosti i globalne solidarnosti, sa posebnim naglaskom na iskustva LGBTQ+ zajednice. Analizom načina na koje pripadnici LGBTQ+ zajednice pregovaraju o društvenoj marginalizaciji, identitetima i subalternim pozicijama, otvara se prostor za dublje razumevanje načina na koji globalni pokreti solidarnosti mogu da inkorporiraju i podrže raznovrsne borbe za društvenu pravdu i jednakost. Oslanjajući se na odabrane primere i teorijske okvire, rad ukazuje na intersekcionalnu prirodu različitih oblika ugnjetavanja, kao i na potencijal za stvaranje objedinjene borbe među različitim marginalizovanim grupama. Takva analiza omogućava bolje razumevanje koncepta globalne solidarnosti, istovremeno zagovarajući priznavanje i integraciju različitih marginalizovanih glasova unutar transnacionalnih društvenih pokreta. Rad naglašava značaj kontinuiranog dijaloga, povezivanja i saradnje među ugnjetavanim zajednicama, sa ciljem izgradnje kolektivnog otpora protiv strukturalnih oblika represije i unapređenja borbe za globalnu pravdu i jednakost.

KLJUČNE REČI: LGBTQ+ zajednica / radikalna drugost / globalna solidarnost / pokreti za društvenu pravdu / kvir teorija

 

PRIMLJENO: 15.01.2025.

REVIDIRANO: 23.08.2025.

PRIHVAĆENO: 25.08.2025.


[1] This paper was originally presented at the International Scientific Conference “Critical Perspectives on the Emerging Forms of Global Solidarities”, held on November 8, 2024, in Belgrade, Serbia, organized by the Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research, and published as an abstract in the Book of Abstracts.

Bogdanović, L. (2024). Radical Otherness and Global Solidarity: Integrating LGBTQ+ Experiences into Broader Struggles for Justice. In S. Petkovska, A. Paraušić Marinković, & T. Gojković (Eds.), Book of abstracts – Critical perspectives on the emerging forms of global solidarities (p. 15). Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research. ISBN: 978-86-80756-71-4. https://www.iksi.ac.rs/izdanja/critical_perspectives_2024.pdf

Correspondence: lena.bogdanovic@yahoo.com

[2] ORCID  https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9429-1837

[3] Other examples of extreme "othering" include the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi (1994), the treatment of Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial contexts, and the persecution of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar. For additional examples and analyses of "othering" in different contexts, see Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press, and related literature on systemic marginalization.

[4] Freedom to Marry Global (2024) reports that nearly 18 % of the world’s population (over 1.34 billion people) now lives in countries where marriage equality exists, reflecting a substantial demographic shift.

[5] #TransRightsAreHumanRights is global campaign frequently used on platforms like Twitter and Instagram to affirm transgender inclusion within the human rights framework. It’s often activated around key moments like Trans Day of Visibility and Trans Day of Remembrance. For more information, see GLAAD. Transgender Day of Visibility. GLAAD, 2025. https://glaad.org/tdov/

[6] This slogan became a powerful symbol during the movement for marriage equality. It notably surged into public attention in the U.S. during the Supreme Court's deliberation on Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. For more information, see Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

[7] An established educational initiative founded in 2004 by GLSEN in collaboration with Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing, No Name-Calling Week centers efforts on ending name-calling and bullying across schools in the U.S. annually. For more information, see GLSEN. "No Name-Calling Week Planning Guide". GLSEN, 2020. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/NNCW_planning_guide.pdf

* Predloženo citiranje: Bogdanović, L. (2025). Radical Otherness and Global Solidarity: Integrating LGBTQ+ Experiences into Broader Struggles for Justice. Zbornik Instituta za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 44(1–2), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.47152/
ziksi2025125

 

©2025 by authors

 

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).