Search

This commentary comprises two parts. In the first part, different ways 'ideological manoeuvres' performed in and around Pink Dot discourses in Singapore and Hong Kong, as evinced in this special issue, are highlighted. 'Ideological manoeuvres' refer to the ideological actions and skilful management undertaken by social actors, explicitly or implicitly, to bring about or secure a tactical end in support of, or in opposition to, the Pink Dot LGBT social movement. In the second part, how the ideological manoeuvres are on-goingly shaped by, and shape, the geopolitics of gender/sexuality in Singapore and Hong Kong are discussed. In this regard, two areas are highlighted: the politics of Pink Dot's expressed apoliticism; and the transnational purchase of Pink Dot's mode of political organising. Both of these areas 'speak to' a critical project on the decolonisation of gender/sexual knowledge-making and practice in these two Asian contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article frames the Special Issue on 'Discourse, Gender and Sexuality from the Global South'. It does so by providing an overview of the notion of the South in the social sciences and the humanities. We engage, in particular, with current theoretical discussions around a set of concepts and approaches that have been labelled 'southern theories', 'theories from the south', or 'southern epistemologies'. Against this backdrop, we explain why southern perspectives are needed in the study of discourse, gender and sexuality, and sociolinguistics more broadly. We then offer a reflection on our (and our contributors') 'loci of enunciation' (Bhabha ), before concluding with a summary of the articles in this Special Issue and their relations to the points raised in this introduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT. This article analyses the co-presence of two potentially contending discourses of gender relations — the Discourse of Egalitarian Gender Relations, and the Discourse of Conservative Gender Relations — in the domain of parenthood in a Singaporean national advertising campaign. The difference between the two discourses is a question of symmetry and asymmetry, respectively, in gender roles and expectations. By undertaking a combined analysis of linguistic and visual structures in the texts, I will show how the two discourses are manifested within, and across, the advertisements in the series. I conclude by suggesting that the distinction between the two discourses is not a clear-cut one. Rather, on closer scrutiny, they work in tandem to maintain a largely unchallenged conservative gender order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]