The term inclusivity is now a buzzword used by many in politics to appear progressive. It has certainly gained currency in Malta, as the perception is that Labour won on branding such a concept, to the extent that now, there is a minority faction in thePN whichis working hard to embrace the same idea. While on paper, the term liberal inclusivity appears politically correct, the historical motives behind this term expose its moral flaws.
This principle is historically associated with the anxieties of national purity. In other words, it is a term that has arisen out of a colonial mentality resulting in contradictions. For this reason, it is no coincidence, that in most cases, those who support gender inclusivity will be the same individuals who will be opposing racial assimilation. A case in point was the recent reaction from the grass root levels of Labour in favour of the candidate who expressed xenophobic discourse against migrants. One would not expect that a Party, which brands itself in favour of gender inclusivity, will have a strong base which is xenophobic.
The situation is slightly different within the PN. Issues of gender inclusivity are more difficult to digest by its grass roots but then, the base is more open towards the "foreigner".
Such a diverse political reaction has its historical explanation: the PN was founded to combat the imperial hierarchies within the British Empire. Labour was created to accommodate them. In other words, the PN was brought into existence to fight the fake concepts of the British liberal inclusivity, which colonial rule was using to perpetrate its domination over Malta. While the British sought to be democratic at home, they ruled the island through military generals for whom "democracy" was the last word they wanted to hear. Thus, they came out with the concept of liberal inclusivity aimed at deluding their island colony that it paid to be part of an Empire. Those who continued to oppose this idea were labeled, among other things, as effeminate or queer.
In reality, this Imperial regime, whether ruling under the guise of democracy or through blunt dictatorship, was championing the new middle class interests that arose in Europe between the wars and started to take issues related to the persona, as an element of social inclusivity.
It was part of British imperial policy to promote the concepts of bodily fitness. In theory, this is a good thing as it promotes a healthier society. But the intention behind these programmes was not the good of the people but what Michele Foucault qualified as biopower. In other words, these programmes aimed at enforcing the political power of the colonizer. The Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy too were on the same wavelength. Physical education became an important component of their educational curriculum. It was seen as the right formula to express manhood and the means to create a strong nation, ready for war. Thus, male effeminacy was out of the equation, something that needed to be repudiated by the same concept of liberal inclusivity, as it went against the image of muscular power that the Imperial Powers wanted to portray.
This is why the British in Malta had continuously a variegated relationship with democracy. Democracy in the colonies was seen as something effeminate and an expression of weakness. The pro-Imperial lobby in Malta portrayed the leader of the Nationalist Party, Enrico Mizzi, as a dandy or a gay. The local Imperialistsdid it to ridicule him. In simple words,Mizzi was disloyal twice: first,because he was opposing Imperial rule and in turn, he was turning himself into an effeminate politician. Like the suffragettes, he was demanding political rights in this case for the Maltese.Is history not repeating itself here, when one considers thesexual identity Labour is constructing of Dr Simon Busuttil, through the social media,of an effeminate politician?
Like the issue of race, gender inclusivity is a middle class concept or preoccupation. Historically, it did not enter the working class vocabulary and I am sure that the situation has not changed. The lower classes tend to be "conservative" and this is why issues of family and marriage fidelity are of great interest to this section of the society, more than it is to the higher middle and upper classes.I don't want to mean that such "deviations" do not exist in the Lower Classes but in general, this class is more sensitive to such issues.
Then, issues of race are of lesser concern to the socially excluded of our society, unless, they do not start to perceive the "other" as an economic threat. The middle class does not normally perceive issues of race from an economic point of view but rather from a genetic perspective. They see the black migrants as a threat to the "purity" of the Maltese 'white' race.
Under British rule, the spirit of "liberal inclusivity" only worked until the Maltese remained within their Mediterranean world. Different wasthe British perception when the same Maltese moved to one of the British white colonies; now the British rulers put the Maltese migrant at par with the Blacks andthe Arabs.
Today, liberal inclusivity has become a convenient term to be used in support of the emerging neo-colonialism, which is now being termed as neo-liberalism. Few are now realizing that neo-liberalism is not only an economic vision but is embracing the issues of gender and racial identity in the same contradictory spirit as it was embraced in the past.
The worse thing that a political party could dois to have the termsof gender and equality mixed with political ideology. Where this has happened, as in the United States and in Spain, for example, the party concerned sustained a catastrophic defeat in the elections. The same is being forecasted for France and the UK. Even though the parties in governmentin these two countries are of opposing ideologies, it is foreseen that both are going to suffer a heavy defeat at the polls.
The only place where this is not going to happen is in Malta, as both parties are now falling under the spell of thiscontradictory neo-colonial spirit. Thus, the merit should not go to Joseph Muscat for being already on the march towards another electoral victory but to the unclear policies and lack of vision that are being expressed in this area by the Nationalist Party.
Labour's position on queer issues is already showing sign of ambivalence and what has happened recently in Parliament,during the budget reply by Simon Busutill exposes the falsity of these liberal precepts,as the mentality remains the same, that is,one wherewomen,gays and Lesbians are still perceived as inferior to'straight' individual. Labour poked fun at Simon Busuttil for mixing the identity of Minister's Mizzi'srelative, describing her as "il-mara ta' oħtu" or the wife of his sister. The general laugh from the Government Benchshows that sexual innuendos resulting from same sex relations elicit laughter among a section of our elected representatives.Irrespective of the rhetoric used, the Imperial message is still with us. In all its forms, masculinity will remain at the fore, until it ceases to mean a position ofmuscular power and superiority overthe female sex. The laughter resulting from this remark emblematically embodiesthemisogynist culture existing in Parliament. This reaction would have been perceived as an affront by any feminist group in Europe. The same holds for the inappropriate comment made by ourMinister of Education, EvaristBartolo, in comparing bad politics to the loss of female virginity.
The message that is going round Malta is that women are no longer needed and Labour's gender issue is now being reduced to a precept that gay men can start taking on the role of women. The message that Labour is sending is thatwhat we need are men, as men can satisfactorily assume both gender roles! For this reason, the identity bill is going to be the cherry on the cake. Soon politicians can start speaking about an inclusive society, as the statistical imbalancewill be artificially redressed through the fuzzy spirit of liberal inclusivity. Now we are risking of havinga pervert situation, where statistics will show that we have a perfect gender balance in Malta between male and females, when in reality, what we have is astronger male society.Statistics will cease to reflect biological diversity but only social constructs. The risk is that biological males will assume a more dominant role, whilethe statistics will be showing a perfectly gender-balanced situation where opportunities are falsely shown to be equal to both sexes.
Contemporary criticism has sustained, what is known as the queer theory, to question conventional ideas about the hetero family.These 'queer' gender positions are still capturing the imagination of the local political class without this same class realizing that the inherent contradictions within these positions of liberal inclusivity are leading it astray. Through a concerted attack,queer theoryachieved what came to be known as gender equality, which, per se, is and remains a misnomer. In the process, it acquired some strange bedfellows, whichexposed itsinherent contradictions.Thus, it stopped to be used as a tenet of political assessment.Instead, queer theoryis now something ofa quandary.