Abstract
Alexander Sasha Kondakov’s Violent Affections: Queer Sexuality, Techniques of Power, and Law in Russia is, without a doubt, a very engaging read that contributes to a better understanding of the essence and dynamics of Russian socio-political pushback against non-heteronormative practices and identities. The book’s meticulous account of the affective rhetoric surrounding queer-phobic violence in that country presents a striking insight into how the state can impact anti-LGBT+ sentiments and actions among the public.
In his well-researched study, Kondakov offers a nuanced analysis of the Russian legal system and criminal justice. He explains how anti-LGBT+ legislation manipulates people’s emotions, instigating prejudice, mistrust, and hatred of queerness. His research is built on the analysis of court decisions on numerous cases of violence committed against queer people in Russia.
The book draws on Michel Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power, arguing that modern societies face the transition from disciplinary power to neo-disciplinary power, which is characterized by the changing role of law. In neo-disciplinary power relations, the law switches from the function of guiding and authorizing information to confining the reach of information withing legal boundaries. This way, law turns into one of many isolation chambers.
The first part of the book, titled “The Authority of Law,” examines the place of law in modern power relations and the role of politics in enforcing the law. The chapter discusses in intricate detail how Russian law and legal actors treat anti-queer violence. The most interesting result here is that, contrary to the popular western perception of Russian society as largely queerphobic, the reality is more complex. The book demonstrates that, while there are pressing issues of discrimination and intolerance, Russians are largely indifferent to LGBT+ issues. Following Pierre Bourdieu’s argument that the legal field maintains established societal structures and biases, Kondakov indicates that court decisions may reproduce prevalent social values and prejudices. As such, court decisions reflect public indifference toward queerness. Consequently, such indifference provides a fertile ground for politically influenced perpetuation of anti-queer violence.
The second part of the book, called “Unruly Sexuality,” undertakes a challenging but interesting endeavor to decolonize knowledge regarding sexuality. In that effort, the author dismantles queer theory, questioning the applicability of western notions on gender and sexuality to the Russian case. Kondakov suggests that changes in how society views and treats sexuality reconfigure power relations. Instead of the subversion of power argued for by queer theorists, power relations may adapt to changed realities. The Russian law prohibiting propaganda of “nontraditional sexual relations” perfectly illustrates that, in contrast to the expectations of queer theory, socio-political changes regarding sexuality may be non-progressive. In the context of increased queer visibility, the Russian state did not resort to the direct policing of non-heteronormative identities and practices. Instead, the power has focused more on regulating the availability of information about sexual and gender diversity. Part II proceeds with a discussion on how the complexities of sexuality may be understood and expressed in court decisions. Ultimately, the subtleties of these expressions reflect power relations, going beyond concerns of gender and sexuality.
The next part of the book, titled “Affects, Emotions and Law,” focuses on the mechanisms of power. As a mechanism, power establishes hierarchies and inequalities between various sexualities through affective encounters. The author discusses how emotions and affects work as power relations, which might lead to violence. Affects, as mechanisms of power, produce, among other types of impressions such as denial and exclusion, criminalized forms of violence upon victims. The book identifies a range of affects and emotions (e.g., shock, disgust, anger, and fun) that manifest as mechanisms of power and lead to anti-queer violence in Russia. The notion of “unpleasant feelings,” instead of the notion of “hate,” dominates as a judicial category of emotions that triggers such violence. The preferential use of the term “unpleasant feelings” in court decisions trivializes a crime against queer persons to a regular transgression that is unrelated to queerphobia and negates queer victims as a social group.
The book’s final part, titled “Techniques of Power,” is concerned with the circulation of violent affections. It discusses how knowledge of sexuality is conveyed to people in order to employ violent affections in their encounters. Kondakov claims that affections are often enacted as a lifespan of memes, which serves as a technique of neo-disciplinary power relations. Memes here are the legal concepts utilized by legal actors. Some people might dismiss and disregard the memes’ messages. Others might perceive such memes as a knowledge that, in turn, might provoke violent affections. The book investigates the circulation of a particular meme, that is, “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” The meme conveys a warning against the perceived threat that aims to corrupt peoples’ sexualities.
The issue of anti-queer violence is part of a larger picture of the polarized tensions regarding gender equality and LGBT+ rights that can be observed across the globe. Russia positions itself as a defender of heterosexual masculinity, which is reflected in a range of legislative changes adopted in the last two decades. The author does an incredible job of presenting the nuanced complexity of the Russian legal and criminal justice system and how it treats non-heteronormative identities and practices.
The great advantage of Violent Affections is that it reaches beyond criminology and the topic of queer-phobic violence and hate crime. The book would serve as a relevant reading for everyone interested in the interplay of power and law.