Introduction

The 21st century has witnessed heightened debates about sexuality around the globe amidst different perspectives and polarised thoughts from various individuals and social structures in different socio-political and cultural contexts. In Ghana, some legislators, human rights practitioners, chiefs and civil society groups have made competing and conflictual statements (Foucault 1972) about LGBTI+ identities and practices in the multiethnic and multicultural postcolonial society of Ghana.

In Western societies the discourse of sex is produced and regulated by power technologies and knowledge systems (Foucault 1972, 1998), so sex is not a totalising essence, and sexuality is a context specific and a historically contingent biopolitical concept (Foucault 2007). Consequently, sexuality discourse is entangled and deployed in power-knowledge relations leading to a classification of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ or heterosexual and non-heterosexual identities, relations and practices. In some countries, like Ghana, non-heterosexual identities, relations and practices are subjected to disciplinary power techniques, observation and normalisation practices. This study is inspired by Foucault’s (1998) understanding of sex, sexuality discourse and power-knowledge relations. The study investigates the discursive practices of cultural-political elites in contemporary multiethnic and multicultural postcolonial Ghana to provide a better understanding of the stances they take on LGBTI+ identities and practices. Some studies seem to have taken a conventional west-centric view on LGBTI+ identities and practices (Amoah and Gyasi 2016; Gyasi-Gyamerah et al. 2019; Janssen and Scheepers 2019; Nartey 2022) with limited emphasis on situated contexts and forms of knowledge, and the intersections of the western and non-western contexts that shape identities, social practices, power-knowledge relations in the multiethnic and multicultural contemporary society of Ghana. There is the need for a situated study of sexuality discourse, and power-knowledge relation, within the socio-historical processes, multiethnic and multicultural relations and practices of the people in context. Thus, this study provides holistic understanding of the discursive practices of cultural-political elites regarding LGBTI+ discourse in postcolonial Ghana.

The central argument of this study is that there are competing, conflictual stances on LGBTI+ discourse in postcolonial Ghana, but LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana must be understood in the complex situated socio-political, historical and cultural context. This study provides an improved understanding of cultural-political elites’ competing and conflictual discursive practices, and associated power-knowledge relations and stance on LGBTI+ discourse in contemporary Ghana. Hence, the study explores the discursive practices of cultural-political elites – some lawmakers, human rights practitioners, chiefs and religious leaders – in contemporary multiethnic and multicultural postcolonial Ghana to provide a better understanding of the stances they take on LGBTI+ identities and practices. In this study, bureaucratic institutions denote western patterns of socio-political organisations contingent on western forms of knowledge while civil society means traditional socio-political organisations and structures contingent on traditional forms of knowledge, kinship systems and practices (Apter 1972).

The data for this study comprise Ghanaian media texts realised from social actors’ actions, in relation to LGBTI+ discourse. The concept of discourse is situated in a socio-cultural context (Foucault 1972; Shi-xu et al. 2016; Keller 2018) that underpins this study. The methods and analytical procedures and principles correspond to cultural discourse studies (Shi-xu 2005; Shi-xu et al. 2016) and the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) analysis (Keller 2018).

The study context of Ghana

Prior to colonisation and colonial rule, Ghana was built on a traditionally oriented socio-political system (unique in each ethnic group), in which kinship systems were the foundations of family units, socio-cultural relations and knowledge formation and social conduct. Key traditional political systems included a highly centralised political authority among the Asante kingdom in the south, and a highly articulated system of chieftaincy among the Dagomba tribe in the north, but the Tallensi tribe and other smaller tribes in the North-eastern and North-western parts of Ghana seemed not to have recognisable formal political authority, other than family and clan heads (Evans-Pritchard 1946; Apter 1972; Nukunya 2016). In postcolonial Ghana, traditional practices persist with subtle or no changes in certain practices and relations. The traditional social system in contemporary Ghana is made up of many ethnic groups and cultural practices across the country, and there are different lineage and succession systems contingent on the two dominant descent systems, the matrilineal and patrilineal systems and kinship practices (Apter 1972; Nukunya 2016). In all, ‘one finds a high level of indigenous sophistication, manners, culture, and belief’ systems, which are specific to the different ethnic groups (Apter 1972, p. 81).

The traditionalFootnote 1 society described here has three key situated variables according to Apter (1972), and they include behavioural alternatives, goal orientations and social norms. Whereas behavioural alternatives denote and encompass the legitimised exercises of authority in socio-political structures such as chieftaincy and families or recognisable units within the socio-political system, the goal orientations aspects are founded on the traditional social system in which the directions of individual and social actions and practices are organised and accomplished, which are sanctioned by social norms. Also, the articulation of statements and forms of knowledge (Foucault 1972; Keller 2018) are embedded in African traditional religion, culture and proverbs, and are the guiding principles for social life, action and practices as well as social relations.

The importance of sexuality and sex in the traditional society cannot be downplayed in the sense that it constitutes and is constitutive of the foundation on which family units and the two lineage systems – matrilineal and patrilineal kinship systems are organised, and through which meaning making, social practices, relations and knowledge are deployed and sustained. Sex and sexuality in the traditional society of Ghana before and during colonialism was and is still closely monitored and controlled. Thus, sexual identities, relations and practices assume a measure of meaning for families within the symbolic ordering of ethnic groups in Ghana. Sexuality or sex does not only serve the purpose of procreation but like in the 19th century in the West (Foucault 1998), sex was and is still controlled for social, political and economic functions as among ethnic groups and kinships relations in postcolonial Ghana.

The impact of colonialism on all aspects of the traditional society of Ghana cannot be downplayed. However, it would be untenable for one to also downplay or rule out traditional social norms, patterns of behaviours, forms of knowledge and knowing in contemporary post-colonial society of Ghana. Consequently, the bureaucratic or west-centric socio-political organisation and the traditional socio-political organisation co-exist and the different forms of knowledge constraining and enabling sex are invoked in different situations. They internalise one another, yet they are irreducible to a single form of knowledge, knowing, social relation and practice. Notably, postcolonial Ghana is a hybrid, multiethnic and multicultural society.

Sexuality discourse in African societies

Anthropologists and historians have often described sexuality discourse in contemporary African societies in line with 19th century western civilisation, where sex was appropriated and controlled (Foucault 1998). Studies show that in many contemporary African societies, sexualities other than heterosexual relations suffer repression, rejection and are fraught with severe sanctions (Han and O’Mahoney 2014; Currier and Migraine-George 2017; Janssen and Scheepers 2019). In recent times there have been growing discussions in Ghana about sexuality amidst the discrimination against LGBTI+ people in the country (Nartey 2022). Also, there are discursive struggles, contradictions and ambiguities in national legal frameworks culture and traditions regarding LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana (Atuguba 2019).

Heterosexual and non-heterosexual discourses in Ghana

Culture and traditions, religion, morality and law, and national and international power-knowledge relations play key roles in interpretating and comprehending the complexities of both heterosexual and non-heterosexual discourses in contemporary Ghana. As mentioned above, a variety of cultures, traditions and kinship systems among different ethnic groups had social control mechanisms in place (Assimeng 1999; Nukunya 2016) to regulate non-heterosexual relations (Kaoma 2016). In Ghana, sex or sexuality discourse and practices are controlled (Assimeng 1999; Nukunya 2016) and non-heterosexual relationship is regulated and policed as in the provisions of Act 29, 1960. Both bureaucratic and traditional social organisations and structures proscribe non-heterosexual relations (Kaoma 2016). Also, social practices and institutions such as religion and culture whether in relation to the bureaucratic or traditional domain do reproduce and enact sexual proscriptions in everyday practices and discursive spaces (Amoah and Gyasi 2016; Janssen and Scheepers 2019) such as in the public sphere. Non-heterosexual relations and practices (Dankwa 2021) are outside bureaucratic and traditional socially sanctioned sexual relations.

Consequently, heterosexual relations and identities in the traditional society of Ghana as defined and contextualised above continue to exist in post-colonial Ghanaian society (Berry 1995) and gained popularity as the basis for kinship relations and socio-political practices such as authority and leadership among many ethnic groups and families (Apter 1972). Heterosexual identities and relations are preserved and controlled for procreation, economic and socio-political functions in families where the identity and lineage of individuals constitute or serve the basis for resource allocation and a source of political authority among members of both matrilineal and patrilineal descent systems.

However, same-sex intimacy exists in Ghana (Dankwa 2021) but on the margins and as deviations (Prempeh 2021), which legitimises normalisation, as people are classified on the basis of their sexuality as ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’. In post-colonial Ghana, heterosexual relations are recognised in the two major kinships or descent systems, but non-heterosexual relations or same-sex intimacy are not recognised. Not only are non-heterosexual relations or same-sex intimacy considered deviations from ‘normal’ traditional social, cultural and moral practices; bureaucratic national laws for example, proscribe such sexual relations, which appear to have socio-historical roots in colonialism (Morgensen 2012; Meiu 2015). This assertion is evident in the efforts of the British government’s open support to former colonies (Han and O’Mahoney 2014; Buchan 2018) such as Ghana, through its bureaucratic institutions, to amend laws proscribing same-sex intimacy, LGBTI+ identities and practices. However, the irreconcilable moral and legal interplay and arguments, as the basis for LGBTI+ identities and practices in Ghana, are on the rise. Advocacy groups are emerging in post-colonial African societies to promote LGBTI+ identities and practices through legislative amendments. One of such advocacy groups in Ghana is the ‘18 intelligentsia’– a group of academics, lawyers and some civil society organisations in Accra.

In postcolonial Ghana, aside explicit statements regarding gender discrimination and the protection of fundamental human rights of every individual as expressed in articles 12 and 17 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the country is also a signatory to many international protocols, especially, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) regarding the protection of fundamental human rights. Also, sexuality discourses are embedded in national policies and legal frameworks. For instance, Ghana’s gender policy highlights ‘the need to enforce the teaching of age-appropriate education to girls and boys on sexuality and reproductive health and rights in school curricula, including issues of gender relations and responsible sexual behaviour’ (Government of Ghana 2015, p. 25). However, it is important to note that Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act, 1960, (Act 29), section 104 prohibits ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’, which the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021 (the Bill) describes as ‘proximate reference’ to LGBTI+ practices in Ghana. However, the provision in ACT 29 is ambiguous because it does ‘not clarify the laid down parameters for sexual relations in an “unnatural manner”’ (Atuguba 2019, p. 113). Undoubtedly, the structural arrangements/systems of Ghana, the national constitutional policies and legislative frameworks and international protocols are concrete sources of discursive struggles among cultural-political elites regarding LGBTI+ discourse in postcolonial Ghana.

As discourses are sites of power and status struggle (Javed, Sun and Khurshid 2023), there are multiple, complex and competing power-knowledge relations at play in defining and establishing and shaping both heterosexual and non-heterosexual discourses in contemporary Ghana. Therefore, this study is not undertaken to confirm or dismiss the veracity of the ‘foreignness’, ‘indigeneity’ or non-existence of non-heterosexual relations or intimacy in post-colonial Ghana. On the contrary, the study aims at interpreting the complex socio-cultural processes, competing discursive constructions and conflicting meaning-making practices of social actors (Shi-xu 2005; Keller 2018) in relation to LGBTI+ discourse in contemporary Ghana to provide a better understanding of the stances they take on LGBTI+ identities and practices.

Theoretical framework

This study is underpinned by discourse and power as exemplified in Foucault’s (1972, 1991) archaeology and genealogy methods. In the archaeological method, Foucault (1972) described discourse as systems of thought and knowledge or discursive formations that are governed by rules, processes and practices and describe objects and subjects using signs and symbols in specific time and place. In so doing, discourse as knowledge systems and social practices are situated and context-bound. Knowledge systems, rules and practices are historically contingent, they change over time, and transition is accounted for in everyday mundane complex and conflictual practices, which Foucault (1991) described in genealogy. In the genealogical method, Foucault analysed the techniques of power in a specific period to show that history accounts for the changes in systems of thought and knowledge – discursive formations. The discursive formation of objects and subjects involves power relation and knowledge relation, that is, the deployment of force and the establishment of truth – disciplinary power – which results in the classification and qualification of people. The primary goal of disciplinary power is to normalise the abnormal through techniques of hierarchical observation and examination.

In addition to the practices of constituting subject and objects of knowledge and normalising practices, discourse denotes meaning making, language use (Fairclough 2015) and ‘a way of construing aspects of the world associated with a particular perspective’ using various ‘semiotic modalities’ including language, visual images and body language (Fairclough 2016, p. 87), which is important for the present study. Foucault’s (1972) and Fairclough’s (1992, 2016) notions of discourses suggest that discourses are culturally and historically specific and situated in context (Shi-xu 2005; Shi-xu et al. 2016; Keller 2018) in the sense that semiotic modalities, meaning making and social practices are not universal across contexts and history, but are situated, unique and power laden.

To emphasise the importance of the socio-culturally and politically situated contexts in investigating discourses, the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (Keller 2018) underscores and situates discourse in the social processes of meaning making, social relations of knowledge and knowing, and actors’ actions in sociopolitical contexts. In so doing, discourse is ‘used to identify specific instances of communication as being articulations, parts or expressions of particular patterns of serious speech and sign-using acts’ (Keller 2018, p. 17), which originate from situated social contexts. In this study, the approach enables us to investigate the statements, interpretations and understanding of actors in relation to social relations of knowledge and the politics of classifying and defining heterosexual and non-heterosexual identities, relations and practices within the multiethnic and multicultural socio-political context of Ghana. Also, in relation to describing discourse as the ‘construction of meaning through the use of (primarily) linguistic symbols in concrete cultural context’ (Shi-xu 2005), the interconnected relation between culture and discourse enables this study to investigate the ‘cultural’ interpretation and understanding of the ways postcolonial actors mobilise and deploy discursive practices regarding LGBTI+ identities and practices in the multiethnic and multicultural context of Ghana.

Methodology

The study is qualitative in methodological orientation and employs a combination of the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) focusing on the social relations of knowledge and politics of knowing (Keller 2018), and the cultural approach to discourse with emphasis on the cultural politics (Shi-xu 2005) to construct a socio-cultural discourse study of the cultural-political construction of LGBTI+ identities and practices in postcolonial Ghana. The sociocultural discourse analytic approach mentioned above aligns with discourse and power described in the theoretical section. Specifically, the analysis of the discursive construction of LGBTI+ identities and practices focus on the process of disciplinary classification, normalisation practices and meaning making in relation to the cultural symbolic ordering and practices in postcolonial Ghana. The key added advantage of the socio-cultural discourse strategy of this study is its amenability and focus on the local, meso and macro level of cultural plurality in postcolonial Ghana to shed light on the holistic understanding of LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana.

The data of the study are retrieved from Ghana’s mediascape. The Ghanaian media continue to flourish following the repeal of the criminal libel law in the year 2001 thereby broadening the frontiers of press freedom albeit with some restrictions (Darko 2022; Media Foundation for West Africa 2022). The data are empirical texts (news articles) purposefully selected from five prominent and widely used online news media portals (Citi news, GTVGBC, Daily Graphic, Ghanaian Times and Daily Guide). First, the researchers used LGBT in Ghana and same-sex relations as key words or phrases to perform the search with a limited time frame ranging 2017 to 2021. The proliferation of news articles on the subject matter gained momentum in 2017 following the President of the Republic of Ghana’s statementFootnote 2 about homosexuality in Ghana in an interview with Al Jazeera (2017) in 2017. Also, the LGBTI+ discourse pervaded the political sphere in the run-up to the December 2020 presidential and parliamentary elections and peaked in 2021 with the emergences of the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021 (Abdul-Rahaman 2021). The discourse was recontextualised in political statements, law and debates among legislators in Ghana’s parliament. Second, the search in the media portals outlined above generated two hundred and fifty (250) news articles out of which forty-five (45) news articles relevant to the purpose and objective of the study were selected for further scrutiny.

The analysis focuses on the cultural-political elites’ statements and discursive practices and performances in relation to the forms of knowledge and knowing as well as the cultural politics or struggle in the discursive field of LGBTI+ in the Ghanaian media sphere. The analytical method or procedure is dialectical (Fairclough 2016), and focuses on the relationship between the data (text) and sociocultural and political context as a repository of knowledge. The analysis of text focuses on statements and meaning in relation to the symbolic orders and knowledge forms specific to postcolonial Ghana. In this way, the data (texts) presented in the analysis section are analysed not independently, but they are analysed in relation to the interactional orders and sociopolitical context of their production to provide a contextualised understanding of the discursive phenomena – the LGBT+ discourse in Ghana. The analysis is performed under the following three relevant sub-headings structuring LGBTI+ discourse in the media: the construction of LGBTI+ in the media, LGBTI+ practice and discursive struggle, and the strive for cultural cooperation and harmony. Basically, the study performs a sequential analysis of core paragraphs selected from the news articles.

The construction of LGBTI+ in the Ghanaian media

The news articles and the core paragraphs of the texts selected for the analysis comprised statements (Foucault 1972) from different categories of cultural-political elites – three religious’ leaders (Islamic and Christian), a body of traditional rulers (from house of chiefs) and two lawmakers from the parliament of Ghana. These social actors represent different social domains or institutions in postcolonial Ghana. Thus, the discursive construction and meaning making of LGBTI+ identities and practices in the socio-cultural and political context of Ghana is not built on individual speakers’ intentional utterances, but discursive formations, systems of knowledge, cultural symbolic order, and power-knowledge relations as elaborated in the theory and methodological sections presented above

Excerpt 1: ‘Intensify teachings on adverse effects of LGBTQI+’ (By: Augustina Tawiah, April 30, 2021, 19:42)

1 : Thankfully, all the religious bodies in Ghana frown on 2 : LGBTI + I+ practices. Additionally, the traditional religious 3 : leaders also see it as an abomination. Ghanaians, for that matter 4 : Africans, cherish our rich and strong values on issues relating to 5 : LGBTI + I+ practices and our pulpit must not be silent (Rev. Ofori-Akyea April 30, 2021 Graphic online)

Ghana is a post-colonial society with complex western and non-western social organisations, structures and practices (Apter 1972; Shi-xu et al. 2016), diverse religious faiths and practices, and these are mainly categorised into three – Christianity, Islam and Traditional, which have sub-divisions and have leaders in charge of directing the spiritual lives of members. However, statements in respect of ‘values’ (line 4, excerpt 1) and culture as a scheme of defining ‘cherished’ identities and practices for ‘Ghanaians’ and ‘Africans’ in postcolonial Ghana is irreducible to any one form of religious body (lines 1 and 2, excerpt 1) or cultural symbolic order. Consequently, the ‘religious bodies” whether ‘foreign’ or ‘traditional’, practices cannot be totally detached from the Ghanaian and African cultures, identities and ‘values’ in postcolonial Ghana. Therefore, the emergence of the post-colonial subject in Ghana is contingent on sociocultural and historical processes and forms of knowledge, and power-knowledge relations (Foucault 1991, 2002). It suggests that the understanding of ‘LGBTI+ practices’ ‘as an abomination’ (lines 3 and 4, excerpt 1) must be a situated discursive construction of meaning rather than a limited religious opinion or attitude in post-colonial Ghana. Interestingly, any religious definition or meaning of LGBTI+ is not independent of the cultural meaning making practices and power-knowledge relations. However, the problem of the statements in the excerpt is the way the Christian religious leader attempts to draw ‘the traditional religious leaders” (line 1, and 3) voices into the construction of LGBTI+ identities and practices. Traditional religious leaders among the various ethnic groups have not made explicit statements about LGBTI+ in postcolonial Ghana. Also, the universalisation of ‘Ghanaians’ and ‘African’ values (lines 3, and 4) without attending to the specifics of values remains an ambiguous statement. It is important to point out that there are many ethnic groups and cultures in Ghana and Africa with varying values.

Excerpt 2: ‘Reject LGBTQI in your communities—Sheikh Abdul-Hamid’ (Sheikh Abdul-Hamid, March 2, 2021)

1 : Homosexuality is a moral aberration and perversion of the natural 2 : way by which God Almighty created us. It is a disgraceful form of 3 : sexual life contrary to our African culture as well as our 4 : religious values. Guess what? Section 104 of Ghana’s criminal code 5 : clearly prohibits any sexual intercourse with a person in an 6 : unnatural manner as well as sex with an animal. (Abdul-Hamid, March 2, 2021 Ghanaian Times)

Excerpt 3: ‘Accepting LGBTQI+ will be undermining nation’s culture, values’ (GNA, October 21, 2021)

1 : Just as the European standard is to marry one, so it is for 2 : Ghanaian culture, values and norms to reject homosexuality and its 3 : related community because it is not our culture, it is also a 4 : curse due to diseases some people are suffering from because of 5 : that, (Reverend Dr Lawrence Tetteh, Oct 21, 2021, Ghanaian Times)

In excerpt 2, the Islamic leader construed homosexuality as ‘a moral aberration’ (line 1) not only from the religious point of view but also from the interpretations of African culture and the legal code of Ghana (lines 3, 4, and 5). Conspicuously, in excerpt 2, the construction, meaning and understanding of LGBTI+ is located in-between cultures – western and non-western (Shi-xu 2005) forms of knowledge for instance, ‘our African culture’ and the ‘criminal code’ (lines 3 and 4) are not the same. For the Islamic leader, as specified in the legal code, ‘any sexual intercourse with a person in an unnatural manner’ (lines 5 and 6) is a deviation and an abnormality that is not only prohibited by law, but ‘a form of sexual life contrary to our African culture’. Evidently, proscriptions in relations to non-heterosexual relations, for example, same-sex intimacy are historically contingent (Foucault 1998) and not limited to non-western postcolonial societies such as Ghana. The actions of the religious leader in excerpt 2 above appear to classify and qualify normal and abnormal sexual relations for the purposes of normalising the abnormal. However, the provisions of ACT 29, 1960, which is the basis for moralising same-sex intimacy against ‘the natural way’ (lines 1 and 2, in excerpt 2) is ambiguous (Atuguba 2019). Similarly, the Bill, as mentioned earlier, purports to provide networks and parameters for observing and normalising sexuality discourses – practices and actions –in line with ‘normal’ or ‘Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values’ in the public sphere as stated in the Bill. However, as observed in excerpt 1, the attempt to universalise ‘African culture’ and ‘religious values’ is problematic.

Also, in excerpt 3, a Christian religious leader construed ‘homosexuality and its related community’ (lines 2 and 3) as ‘a curse’ (line 4). The Christian religious leader construed LGBTI+ practices and asserts ‘it is not our culture’, so the ‘Ghanaian culture, values and norms reject the practice (lines 2 and 3). As mentioned earlier, the traditional society of Ghana is an amalgamation of family systems and ethnic groups primarily based on matrilineal and patrilineal descent systems in which non-heterosexual relations or same-sex intimacies are unintelligible and prohibited. In the traditional society, an individual’s availability to traditional political position is dependent on normative sex categories (Apter 1972), male or female and heterosexual performances to the extent that non-heterosexual relations or same-sex intimacies appear to be a threat to continuous survival of traditional political authority.

However, the ‘Ghanaian culture’ cannot be reduced to the traditional (customary) system in postcolonial Ghana as the western and non-western cultural values coexist, and as mentioned earlier, it is difficult to define a totalising ‘Ghanaian culture’ in relation to LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana on the basis of law or morality (Atuguba 2019). Consequently, it appears that the ‘Ghanaian culture’ is assumed but that cannot be possible because Ghana is evidently a multiethnic and a multicultural postcolonial society. It is intelligible to talk about Ghanaian cultures rather than a single Ghanaian culture. For example, the Asante culture in the south and the Dagaaba culture in the north of Ghana are Ghanaian cultures and the two cannot be reduced to a single Ghanaian culture as construed by the religious leader.

Excerpt 4: ‘LGBTQI activities alien; we won’t condone such practices – National House of Chiefs’ (By Citi Newsroom, March 1, 2021)

1 : The National House of Chiefs has added its voice to the current 2 : debate on the activities of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, 3 : Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) in the country. 4 : It says unequivocally that traditional rulers will not throw 5 : their weight behind such acts they deem uncultured and 6 : non- Ghanaian. 7 : “It is pertinent to note that as traditional leaders and for 8 : that matter custodians of our lands, we will never support, 9 : accept or condone such practices”, the House of Chiefs said in a 10 : press release. Nananom expressed concern about 11 : the ongoing discussions on the subject saying nowhere 12 : in history does the Ghanaian culture subscribe to 13 : LGBTI + I which is “taboo, inhuman and alien to society”

The National House of Chiefs (a body of the traditional authorities – representative chiefs in Ghana) has openly rejected and resisted non-heterosexual relations in Ghana (lines 7, 8, and 9, excerpt 4). Also, the national body of chiefs in a media interaction, construed LGBTI+ identities and practices as ‘taboo, inhuman and alien to society’ (lines 13 and 14). As indicated, the control of sex and heterosexual relations for productive purposes in traditional society and post-colonial Ghana as evident in the legal code, proscribes non-heterosexual relations (Foucault 1998), thereby making it and related performances ‘alien’ in both the bureaucratic and traditional social domains of contemporary Ghana. In so doing, both traditional and bureaucratic forms of knowledge provide the basis for meaning making in relation to LGBTI+ discourse at the intersections of or in-between cultures such that proscriptions of non-heterosexual relations (Foucault 2002) and performances are neither limited to western or non-western power-knowledge complexes (Keller 2018) in post-colonial Ghana. Also, in relation to power-knowledge relations, it appears that the traditional chiefs’ classification and qualification of non-heterosexual relations is an attempt to define and differentiate between normality and abnormality to justify the normalisation of the abnormal (Foucault 1991), which is proposed in the controversial Bill, mentioned above.

The LGBTI+ practice and discursive struggle

As observed in previous sections, a discursive struggle between some members of parliament regarding the initiation of the ‘Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021’ has flourished in Ghana. For the proponents, the Bill is an agenda to save the cultural norms and values of the Ghanaian society, but the opponents, the ’18 intelligentsia’, construed the promotion of the Bill as a violation to the provisions in the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana especially, articles 12 and 17. The coexistence of both Western and non-Western socio-cultural practices and structures (Shi-xu 2005) and forms of knowledge (Foucault 2002) in post-colonial Ghana underscores the discursive struggle. In Africa and Ghana, the history of proscriptions of non-heterosexual or same-sex intimacies are irreducible to either western or non-western sexuality discourses. Both the universalisation of Ghanaian cultures and norms and the provisions of Act 29, 1960 do not provide adequate basis for a disciplinary or cultural normalisation of same-sex intimacy without ambiguities and contradictions. In this section, the analysis of core paragraphs and relevant statements in the news articles focuses on the discursive practices of the proponents of the Bill, and second, the opponents of the Bill.

Excerpt 5: ‘LGBTQI+ bill: proponents, opponents come face-to-face before Parliament’ (By: Julius Yao Petetsi, November 12, 2021)

1 : Ghana is Ghana and no nation can be like Ghana; so, if other 2 : nations feel that there are values that they wish to cherish 3 : protect we are Ghana and we feel that this is what makes us 4 : Ghanaians and this is what we want to cherish. We believe that 5 : after all these years in the post-independence walk, we have 6 : come of age to know what is good for us. So, we are not 7 : prepared to take anybody’s yardstick of how human rights is 8 : seen or known to be elsewhere as our yardstick. (Kuragu, Nov 12, 2021, Ghanaian Times)

Interestingly, in excerpt 5, a proponent of the Bill, unlike in the previous excerpts, interprets it as a collective action by the Ghanaian people who ‘know what is good for us’ (line 6) as a country and ‘this is what makes us Ghanaians’ (lines 3 and 4). Evidently, the use of ‘us’, ‘we’, and ‘them’ invokes nationalistic tendencies and a positive self-presentation of the Ghanaian people as against the negative presentation of the opponents of the Bill. In so doing it appears the proponent of the Bill construes the efforts of opponents of the Bill and ‘other nations’ (lines 1, 2, and 7) as a deliberate attempt to universalise explicit same-sex practice as a human rights issue in Ghana. The assertion is affirmed in the statement of a proponent of the Bill in lines 4 to 8 in excerpt 5 above. However, what is worrying about the politics of ‘us’ and ‘them’ statements of the proponent of the Bill in excerpt 5 is what appears to be the silent disregard of the many international non-discriminatory protocols Ghana signed over the years (Atuguba 2019). The discursive struggles, contradictions and politics of same-sex intimacy in Ghana goes beyond simple maintenance of the single ‘Ghanaian culture’ – which is undefined – to include a myriad of colonial and postcolonial experiences between the cultures of the West and the non-western society of Ghana. The LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana is not just a human rights issue, but it appears to be postcolonial hegemonic cultural struggles between individual identities, western and non-western societies and cultures. What is evident in this struggle is that a universal postcolonial Ghanaian subject is yet to emerge (Apter 1972).

Excerpt 6: ‘Our memorandum is not to legalise same-sex marriage’ (By: Ghana News Agency, October 28, 2021)

1 : We may do well to remember that some of the civil society voices 2 : calling for the protection of LGBTQI+ rights today have, in the 3 : past, championed other human rights that were not necessarily 4 : grounded in our culture or tradition, such as freedom of 5 : association and free media. The truth is, homosexuals are not 6 : asking for marriage or anything from Parliament and they are not 7 : hurting anyone, so let’s just leave them alone. (Ampaw, 2021 oct 28 Daily Guide)

Excerpt 7: ‘LGBTQI+ bill: proponents, opponents come face-to-face before Parliament’ (By: Julius Yao Petetsi, November 12, 2021)

1 : We are of the firm view and conviction that the provisions of the 2 : Bill violate almost all, if not all the provisions of the 1992 3 : Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights of Ghanaians and 4 : all persons who reside in or come to Ghana. For this reason, the 5 : provisions of the Bill by virtue of Article 1(2) of the 6 : Constitution is to that extent void. (Ampaw, 2021 November 12 Ghanaian Times)

In excerpt 7, the opponent of the Bill asserts that human rights must not necessarily be grounded in the cultures or traditions of Ghana but in the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (lines 3, 4, and 5) and of course, in the international protocols Ghana signed. Evidently, like in the ambiguities observed in the provisions of ACT 29 of 1960 regarding the lack of clear definition of ‘unnatural manner’, a clear definition of what constitutes ‘the culture or traditions of Ghana’ or ‘our culture and tradition’ is problematic. In postcolonial Ghana, the western and non-western culture coexist amidst a variety of ethnic groups and their cultures, traditions and kinship systems. In so doing, the opponents interpret LGBTI+ identities and practices in relation to the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which is an aspect of Ghana’s transition to constitutional democracy, which exists alongside – and it is assumed to reflect – the numerous cultures and traditions of the ethnic groups in postcolonial Ghana. Interestingly, the National House of Chiefs, the traditional political representatives, did not interpret or understand LGBTI+ identities and practices in relation to the Constitution of Ghana but by referring to the cultures and traditions of ethnic groups in Ghana. The fact that both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill attempt to universalise the cultures and traditions is quite problematic and a major source of the cultural-political struggle, but an appreciation of the cultures and traditions of postcolonial Ghana is important for cultural pluralism (Shi-xu 2005).

The strive for cultural cooperation and harmony

The analysis in this section focuses on the ways national and transnational political elites, as proponents and opponents of the Bill and LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana respectively, strived for cultural cooperation and harmony for common good. In so doing, the analysis focuses on relation-building rather than the ‘us’ and ‘them’ politics of positive and negative representation of identities as observed earlier. Core statements in paragraphs relevant to articles signalling ways national-transnational political elites cooperate towards building a cohesive society are presented and analysed below.

Excerpt 8: ‘LGBTQI is an abomination in Ghana - Bagbin to Australian High Commissioner’ (By: Graphic Online, April 03, 2021, 10:04)

The Australian High Commissioner (AHC) 1 : We believe that to protect human rights sometimes our culture 2 : needs to adapt and that doesn’t mean being a different culture, it 3 : means accepting people for who they are especially when they are 4 : not causing harm to anyone else. That is why on the LGBTI+ 5 : issues, Australia will really encourage Ghana’s Parliament not to 6 : pass legislation that would discriminate the LGBTQ+ community or 7 : remove their rights or to make it illegal for people to advocate 8 : for their Human Rights. Our laws abhor any forms of 9 : discrimination. The Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament (SGP) 10 : We also have the decision of the European Court on Human 11 : Rights to guide us in whatever we do…and so on the issue of 12 : LGBTI + I+ definitely we already have a legal framework within

13 : which to work. We will not legislate to infringe on the Human 14 : Rights of people, but we will legislate to ensure that 15 : culture and traditions are not violated. This is something that 16 : we see as an abomination, it is something that we abhor and 17 : therefore, we will continue to go according to our culture. (From: Graphic Online, April 03, 2021)

In excerpt 8, the AHC interprets the LGBTI+ practice, especially in the context of Australia as a right, indicating that LGBTI+ people have the right to practice and advocate it publicly. Also, AHC interprets the Bill as discriminatory, and urges Ghana’s parliament not to pass the Bill. However, to demystify and internationalise the actions of the proponents of the Bill and the purpose of the Bill as discriminatory actions and practices supported by the parliament of Ghana, the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament emphasised that the European Court on Human Rights also guides the actions of members of Ghana’s parliament and the process of the Bill. However, what is evident in the statements and actions of the two actors is the positive self-presentation of their nations as non-discriminatory, and advocates for human rights. However, culture is complex, so the presentations of both actors are problematic. As indicated earlier, a simple and totalising culture of Ghana is difficult to define, yet the ‘culture and traditions of Ghana’ appear to be the basic position from which the proponents interpret LGBTI+ discourse and practices in Ghana.

Despite the varying interpretations and understandings of LGBTI+ practices between the AHC and SPG, the two assured themselves and the public, locally and globally, that international or diplomatic relations between Ghana and other countries of the world would not be affected negatively. The interaction between AHC and SPG was timely and appeared to put in proper perspective the views of the opponents of the Bill that LGBTI+ people in Ghana were discriminated against, persecuted and lynched.

Excerpt 9: ‘Speaker signals law against LGBTQI’ (By: Nana Konadu Agyeman, June 30, 2021, 07:44)

1 : The Bill does not preach hate but the saving love of our Saviour 2 : to all those who are in need. And so we respect the human 3 : rights of practitioners of homosexuality to get a free and fair 4 : trial. However, their sexual orientation and choices cannot be 5 : deemed a human right, and this is in consonance with the 1992 6 : Constitution of Ghana. (From: Graphic Online June 30, 2021).

As a proponent of the Bill stated in Excerpt 9 above, the ‘Bill does not preach hate’ (line 1) as it ‘respects the human rights of practitioners of homosexuality’, but not ‘their sexual orientation and choices’ which the 1992 Constitution of Ghana does not consider a human right (lines 2 to 6).

Discussion

This section discusses two key findings of the study. First, essentialising ‘the culture and traditions of Ghana’ with little or without detailed concrete contextual definition of the complex multicultural and multiethnic post-colonial nation provides limited socio-cultural interpretation and understanding of the LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana, which leads to ambiguities and contradictions. Second, different social actors have different interpretation and understanding of LGBTI+ identities and practices in Ghana thereby leading to divergent positions in their interpretations and understanding of the subject matter.

Studies show the flourishing of sexuality discourse in contemporary African societies and have documented the impact of colonialism on sexualities in African societies (Han and O’Mahoney 2014; Janssen and Scheepers 2019). Whereas this study agrees with the studies above about the colonial factor in the interpretation and understanding of LGBTI+ identities and practices, it demonstrates that an essentialised national culture and traditions in postcolonial Ghana is problematic in the interpretation and understanding of LGBTI+ discourse. Some studies have devoted much effort to documenting discrimination against non-heterosexual relations or LGBTI+ practices (Nartey 2022) in relation to an assumed totalising culture and traditions, and legal frameworks of Ghana, which are not without contradictions and ambiguities (Atuguba 2019). However, (Dankwa 2021) provided a detailed contextual interpretation of same-sex practices among the Akan ethnic group in the south of postcolonial Ghana, which suggests that sexuality discourses and for that matter LGBTI+ identities and practices in postcolonial Ghana exist but not on the basis of a single, universal Ghanaian culture.

The socio-cultural realities of non-western African societies regarding sexuality and LGBTI+ discourse, especially in Ghana must not be marginalised, for two key reasons. First, sex and for that matter sexuality plays a central role in kinship structures and practices, before, during and after colonialism (Apter 1972). Second, western bureaucratic systems co-exist with Ghanaian traditional kinship social organisations and structures, yet they are not irreducible to any one of the two in contemporary post-colonial Ghana (Puorideme 2018). The ethnic groups of traditional (customary) society of Ghana had social control mechanisms in place (Assimeng 1999; Nukunya 2016) prohibiting non-heterosexual relations in families and their societies (Kaoma 2016). However, some studies show that laws proscribing same-sex relations in postcolonial nations have socio-historical roots in colonialism (Morgensen 2012; Meiu 2015), which suggests that such laws need modification in post-colonial Ghana.

This study demonstrates that different social actors have different interpretations and understanding of LGBTI+ identities and practices in Ghana thereby leading to divergent positions in their interpretations and understanding of the subject matter. For instance, the Christian and Islamic leaders interpret and understand LGBTI+ practices based on foreign religious discourse thereby taking a moral stance, but cultural-political elites and advocacy groups interpret and understand LGBTI+ identities and practices on the basis of national institutional and legal frameworks, with limited reflections on the cultures and traditions thereby leading to cultural political struggles (Shi-xu 2005) and stance-taking regarding LGBTI+ practice in postcolonial Ghana.

Consequently, the proponents of the Bill – religious leaders, chiefs and some lawmakers, and the opponents of the Bill – the ’18 intelligentsia’ pull in opposite directions. Whereas the proponents and opponents of the Bill insist on their stance regarding LGBTI+ identities and practices, this study found a common interest of protecting human rights, as Ghana is a signatory to many international protocols, which provides some checks against human rights abuses. Such common interests suggest a fostering of social harmony in a spirit of ‘live and let live’ for the common good of humanity.

Conclusion

Essentialising ‘the culture and traditions of Ghana’ with little or no detailed concrete contextual definition of the complex multicultural and multiethnic postcolonial nation is problematic. Thus, a socio-cultural interpretation and understanding of the LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana remain unclear. Different social actors have different interpretations and understanding of LGBTI+ identities and practices in Ghana. For example, whereas Christian and Islamic leaders interpret and understand LGBTI+ practices based on religious discourse, cultural-political elites and advocacy groups interpret and understand LGBTI+ identities and practices on the basis of national, institutional and legal frameworks.

The two key findings underscore the fact that an attempt at understanding sexuality, especially LGBTI+ discourse and same-sex intimacies in non-western societies from essentialised cultural, religious or legal stance is an attempt at imposing a particular cultural order on post-colonial Ghana, which breeds unnecessary local and global tensions and divisions. Ultimately, harmonious living among human beings from diverse cultural backgrounds must not preclude any group from enjoying fundamental human rights, which necessarily must be life-giving.

The findings contribute to a holistic and better understanding of LGBTI+ discourse in Ghana, which is necessary for local, global intercultural cooperation and harmonious co-existence. The continual enjoyment of human rights must rest on a combined teleological and philosophical understanding of life-giving value, which must be respected and appreciated by all cultures.

This study has three limitations in terms of data and scope of analysis, context, and theory: first, it used only data from online news portals, so the scope of analysis is limited to elites’ groups – religious leaders and politico-legal advocates – discursive practices and implications in postcolonial Ghana’s context. Secondly, it is centred on only Ghana as a non-western country context. Third, whereas the theoretical basis of the study may appear Eurocentric, it appears a better alternative for interpretation and understanding of the subject matter. However, African discourse theory for this study could have enhanced the strength of the findings above. Future studies involving multiple datasets with ethnographic methods in Ghana and other non-western African societies in combination with a situated African discourse theory could enrich the findings of this study.