Fire and the "Queer Diaspora"

Gopinath discusses the term “queer diasporic positionality,” stating that it “contests the logic that that situates the terms “queer” and “diaspora” as dependant on the originality and authenticity of “heterosexuality” and “nation,” and that “it marks a different economy of desire that escapes legibility within both normative Indian contexts and homo-normative white Euro-American contexts.” Her exploration of the term itself it a bit confusing to me; however, my interpretation is this. The very terms “heterosexuality” and “nation” are often viewed as “places” from which people, behaviors, and nation hoods derive themselves from. This is heavily problematic because these terms themselves are societal constructions. They serve to validate the “normalcy” of heterosexuality and the idea of belonging to a “race/nation.” They serve to make inherent the idea that existing in a Diaspora community or having same sex desire is inherently different and wrong. She argues that queer and Diaspora are dependent on one another because queer sexuality does not know a “nation” or place of origin. She makes the point that the queer diaspora has a position as such that it cannot be defined by either the Indian culture, or through our legibility and interpretation of it as white Euro-Americans.
I fully agree with her presentation of this term, or at least so far as I understand it, and have hopefully correctly interpreted it. I find that two examples stick out to me in the film Fire that support her definition if this term, the first being the concept of the very film itself. The idea that homosexuality can take place within the realm of the conservative Indian household proved to be very upsetting at the films relase. It was banned and caused a large amount of controversy. The story itself was something that needed to be “told” through film in order for it to be “seen” and awareness and visibility for this kind of relationship to be raised. This references the concept that the very idea of the relationship was not legible and expressable through the Indian culture or language, and that white Euro-Ameriucans also could not define or interpret the relationship between the two women in the film. Sita even remarks in the film to Radha that “we don’t have a word in our language for what we are.” Secondly, I agree with the idea that the terms “queer” and “diaspora” can not be separated. The very idea that queerness can be constrained into a “nation” or place of origin is preposterous. Queerness itself is a term referring to sexuality and to make the assertion that it is derived from a certain location instead of a sexual desire residing with all culture and “nations” is ignorant at best. Lastly, the idea of the queer diaspora “disorganizes the dominant categories within the united States for sexual variance, namely ‘gay and lesbian’.” The film challenges the binary gender and homosexual gender constructions outlined and often imposed, if no other reason than ignorance, as the only homosexual definitions that exist. What was occurring between Sita and Radha is not a relationship that can be defined by either lesbian or gay, let alone through euro-american legibility. All of the terms discount and ignore the many complex layers to the women’s interactions and their own sexualities.
The following is a link to an interview with the director of Fire, Deepa Mehta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpyFmmwxcUM