Queer Marginalisation in Vietnam

The marginalisation of queerness in contemporary Vietnamese society traces back to several cultural influences throughout the nation's long history. First and foremost, due to the prolonged period of Chinese dominance, Confucianism and Taoism gained prominence in Vietnam as major ideologies that shaped social interactions and relationships. Confucianism is crucial in shaping societal notions of morality (Rydström Reference Rydström2001), emphasising patrilineal reproduction as a familial obligation (Horton and Rydström Reference Horton and Helle2019; Rydström Reference Rydström2006a). Similarly, Taoism conveys that life involves a balance of opposing yet inherently complementary forces known as “yin” and “yang”. It associates the “yang” element with men, superiority, and positivity, while attributing “yin” to women, passiveness, and inferiority (Rydström Reference Rydström2006a). Both philosophies promote a gender binary perspective, treating heterosexual unions as the standard and deeming sexual relationships and activities outside of this framework as “immoral” (Rydström Reference Rydström2006b: 295). Confucianism, in particular, holds a significant place in Vietnamese society: the state relies on its philosophical values to regulate intimacy and maintain social order (Charton and Boudreau Reference Charton and Julie-Anne2017).

French colonialism in Vietnam during the late 1800s represents another cultural force influencing the marginalisation of queerness. Specifically, we can attribute the use of homophobic terms like “pê đê” in the Vietnamese language to colonial legacies rooted in the French term “pédéraste” (meaning: a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy). As noted by Proschan (Reference Proschan2002b), colonial French literature often demonised the locals, portraying Vietnamese sexes and sexualities in opposition to the “normal” sexual and moral order associated with civilised Frenchmen. These writings often depicted the Vietnamese locals as vicious and immoral, who lured the otherwise innocent Frenchmen into pederasty, syphilis, drug use, and prostitution (Proschan Reference Proschan2002a). Consequently, the introduction of the term “pê đê” into the Vietnamese language via these writings was not merely linguistic; it also instilled a stigmatised perspective of homosexual acts, associating them with diminished moral values. In contemporary Vietnamese vocabulary, aside from terms such as “đồng” or “bóng” which can be traced back to mediumship practices and the spirit possession ritual “lên đồng” (Nguyễn Reference Nguyễn2016; Trần Reference Trần2022), “pê đê” is considered “the most enduring one in the Vietnamese cultural lexicon” to indicate queerness (Trần Reference Trần2014: 16). Often used in derogatory ways (Ly et al. Reference Ly, An Thanh, Wilson, Parker, Giang, Hirsch, Pham and Richard G.2020), the term is seamlessly adopted by the Vietnamese public to describe gender inversion and non-heterosexuality.

In 1996, the state campaign against “social evils” [tệ nạn xã hội] further marginalised LGBT+ individuals (Rydström Reference Rydström2006b). This campaign launched shortly after Vietnam's Reference Trần1986 economic reform, commonly known as Đổi Mới, marking the transition from a centrally planned to a market-oriented economy. While Đổi Mới was a success economically, its increased global integration also triggered notable shifts in Vietnamese culture, evoking general anxiety among the public. State-controlled media made frequent reports about the prevalence of a global and “poisonous culture” [văn hóa độc hại] (Rydström Reference Rydström2006b: 289), claiming that modernisation following the reform also led to the rise of “social evils” and the endangerment of Vietnamese traditional values. Following this, the state-launched campaign declared the need to eliminate all “social evils” due to capitalism excesses and Western moral degradation at all costs (Wilcox Reference Wilcox2000).

“Social evils”, however, had an arbitrary definition; the category seemed to encompass any “aspects of society considered unhealthy” by the state (McNelly 2003: 114). The state lumped several practices into this category, including but not limited to “premarital and extramarital sex, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, gambling, theft, abuse and violence” (Rydström Reference Rydström2006b: 284). This campaign constructed homosexuality as antithetical to Vietnamese traditional values, leading to frequent police raids of gay bars to eliminate “social evils” (Phạm Reference Phạm2022).

As the HIV-AIDS epidemic emerged in Vietnam during the 1990s, public discourse quickly linked sex between men and sex work with HIV-AIDS (Horton and Rydström Reference Horton and Helle2019; McNally Reference McNally, Drummond and Thomas2003). The influx of international funding aimed at addressing this public health concern compelled civil society groups engaged in queer advocacy to redefine their focus through the lens of HIV and men-who-have-sex-with-men to secure funding (Horton et al. Reference Horton, Helle and Maria2015). Consequently, diverse queer groups found themselves inadvertently lumped together into a single stigmatised category, facing increasing hostility and societal prejudice. In this way, the state-launched campaign against “social evils” and the HIV-AIDS epidemic actively linked queerness to discourses of public health and pathologies in Vietnam (Khuất et al. Reference Khuất, Dương Lê and Ngọc2009), framing queerness as a “social disease”.

During this period, while homosexuality faced severe social prejudice and discrimination, the laws did not mention it (Phạm Reference Phạm2022). In the absence of legal grounds, local authorities intervened in some gay marriage cases but did not prosecute them. A change in the law soon came in response: In 2000, Vietnam amended its 1986 Marriage and Family Law, prohibiting same-sex unions. Thus, this modification reinforced the exclusion of homosexuality through a process of legal outlawing (Horton and Rydström Reference Horton and Helle2019). Soon after, the 2005 Civil Code stipulated that an individual has the right to redetermine gender only in the case of birth defects or if their gender has not accurately formed (Bùi Reference Bùi2018). In other words, only individuals with atypical congenital sex anatomy could undergo sex reassignment surgery. Vietnam's legal frameworks in the early 2000s provide clear evidence of the state's hostile stance and unwillingness to accept its LGBT+ population.

Vietnam's LGBT+ Advocacy, International Development, and Civil Society

While the early 2000s witnessed significant prejudice against queerness in the Vietnamese constitution, it was also during this decade that a stream of international NGOs entered Vietnam to assist the country (Salemink Reference Salemink, Lewis and Mosse2006), which eventually paved the wave for LGBT+ advocacy (Phạm Reference Phạm2022; Rydström et al. Reference Rydström, Hương, An, Hansson and Weiss2023). Following Đổi Mới reforms, international aid agencies and NGOs brought their development models to Vietnam and funding to establish several advocacy groups based on Western concepts of democracy (Hannah Reference Hannah2007). Thus, this decade was closely linked to the formation of the neo-form of Vietnamese civil society (Norlund et al. Reference Norlund, Ngọc, Tân Sinh, Dũng, Ngọc, Bích, Mạnh, Thế Cương and Vũ2006; Waibel Reference Waibel, Waibel, Ehlert and Feuer2014).

Commonly understood as a realm of social life distinct from the state, civil society can be seen as an autonomous sphere capable of energising resistance against oppressive regimes (Seligman Reference Seligman2002) or bringing citizens together to foster cooperation (Putnam Reference Putnam2000). Non-state associations such as NGOs play an essential role in civil society functions; they are often seen as watchdogs that balance state power (Mohan Reference Mohan2002). However, civil society in post-Đổi Mới Vietnam does not truly fit into any definition of “civil society” characterised by autonomy from the state or resistance to state ideology (Hannah Reference Hannah2007). Given that Vietnam is a one-party, authoritarian state, civil society and the state in this setting are “enmeshed together in a complex and multilayered network of material transactions, personal connections, and organisational linkages” (Lewis Reference Lewis2013: 326). State restrictions and constraints on activities organised by non-state actors are also pervasive (Waibel Reference Waibel, Waibel, Ehlert and Feuer2014). An example of the Vietnamese state's pervasive control and restriction of civil society activities is the lengthy and costly bureaucratic measures that hinder the forming of citizen associations (Rydström et al. Reference Rydström, Hương, An, Hansson and Weiss2023). This convoluted process has led to several advocacy groups in Vietnam operating without legal registration, or registering as private companies or production cooperatives instead (Horton et al. Reference Horton, Helle and Maria2015).

Despite such state-imposed constraints, the arrival of international aid agencies and NGOs after Đổi Mới has led to the formation of several civil society groups in Vietnam. Prominent registered associations that promote LGBT+ rights, as Rydström and her colleagues (Reference Rydström, Hương, An, Hansson and Weiss2023) have identified, include The Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment (ISEE), Information, Connecting, Sharing (ICS), Institute of Social Development Studies (ISDS), Center for Studies and Applied Sciences in Gender–Family–Women and Adolescents (CSAGA), and Centre for Creative Initiatives in Health and Population (CCIHP). On the non-registered front, several more advocacy groups and networks are working on LGBT+ issues (Phạm Reference Phạm2022). Together, these groups have mobilised and advocated for progressive change, running successful campaigns that promote societal acceptance of the LGBT+ community (Nguyễn and Rydström Reference Nguyễn, Helle and London2022). In other words, the Vietnamese LGBT+ movement is a result of NGO-driven advocacy with support from international development initiatives.

In a decade, the movement has yielded significant progress. In 2012, initiated by an activist at the NGO CSAGA, the first Việt Pride parade was launched in Hà Nội with financial support from the Swedish and Canadian embassies (Oosterhoof et al. Reference Oosterhoff, Hoàng and Quách2014). In 2014, after several months of consulting with NGO activists, Vietnam's National Assembly voted to revise the Marriage and Family Law, lifting the ban on same-sex marriage (Phạm Reference Phạm2022). In 2015, Vietnam's National Assembly passed the Civil Code legalising sex-reassignment surgery. It granted those who had undergone such procedures the right to register their new gender and personal rights under the reassigned gender (Đỗ and Nguyễn Reference Đỗ, Thu and Van Nguyễn2020). The most recent win for the movement occurred in the summer of 2022 when Vietnam's Ministry of Health made the official statement that homosexuality is not a disease and thus does not require medical treatment (Snell Reference Snell2022). This statement helped nullify the discourse of homosexuality as pathological from the 1996 state-launched campaign against “social evils”.

Notably, these victories are not without setbacks. For example, while Vietnam no longer prohibited same-sex unions in 2014, it remains unrecognised in the laws (Horton et al. Reference Horton, Helle and Maria2015). In the new reality of “no prohibition” yet still “no recognition”, gay couples could live together or get married without fear of interference from authorities, yet such unions would not grant them legal rights or obligations (Phạm Reference Phạm2022). This legal revision thus reflects the Vietnamese state's ambiguous stance on LGBT+ issues: for Horton and colleagues (Reference Horton, Helle and Maria2015: 1066), through such “lax legislation”, the state could “sidestep” controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, resulting in a stalemate position. In a way, this ambiguous outcome is part of the trend of contradictory dynamics in LGBT+ advancement in Southeast Asia, whereby “great leaps forward in protecting the rights of LGBT people have occurred in parallel with substantial setbacks” (Wilkinson et al. Reference Wilkinson, Gerber, Offord and Langlois2017: 5).

Despite such setbacks, the changes in the laws and increased public support for LGBT+ in Vietnam show that opportunities for social change still exist even in a setting where civil society is legally and practically “entangled with the state” (Norlund et al. Reference Norlund, Ngọc, Tân Sinh, Dũng, Ngọc, Bích, Mạnh, Thế Cương and Vũ2006: 36). Namely, the mixed success of the Vietnamese LGBT+ movement demonstrates that even with the lack of autonomy, civil society groups in this authoritarian setting still retain the ability to affect social change when given international aid assistance. Scholarly investigations reveal that, in this context, Vietnamese activist networks pursue advocacy by framing issues through a human rights lens (Horton et al. Reference Horton, Helle and Maria2015), employing sentimental language to garner sympathy (Phạm Reference Phạm2022), and promoting positive portrayals of LGBT+ individuals in the media (Oosterhoff et al. Reference Oosterhoff, Hoàng and Quách2014). These strategies reframe queerness as a natural identity instead of a disease or corrupted lifestyle (Faludi Reference Faludi2016), thereby challenging the stigmatising frame linking queerness with “social evils”. Notably, these strategies represent an overall non-confrontational approach to social change, promoting cultural recognition through symbolic subversion frequently observed in international LGBT+ activism (see Taylor Reference Taylor and Gutmann1992; Whittier Reference Whittier, Goodwin, Kutz–Flamenbaum, Maney and Rohlinger2012; Wieringa Reference Wieringa2014).

Another useful framework for understanding Vietnamese LGBT+ advocacy strategies is in Young's (Reference Young2000) distinction between two sets of functions within civil society: “service delivery” and “public sphere”. While the “service delivery” function pertains to providing services to marginalised populations and facilitating mutual aid, the “public sphere” involves mediating institutions that gather interests and concerns from citizens, fostering autonomous spaces for diverse discourses. In authoritarian regimes, the state may perceive the “public sphere” as a threat; thus, it devotes considerable resources to restrict civil society's capacity to create public forums for discussion and labels overtly dissident voices as “regime opposition” (Thayer Reference Thayer2009). By contrast, civil society groups acting as service providers can help the state fulfil functions it cannot or is unwilling to perform. Dai and Spires (Reference Dai and Anthony J.2018: 75), investigating NGO work in China, refer to this as the “not blaming but assisting the government” approach, which can legitimise and even reproduce elements of authoritarian structures rather than challenging them (Jamal Reference Jamal2008). In other words, the authoritarian state does not see civil society's function in providing services as a threat to its hegemony.

Young's model aptly describes the push–pull dynamics in state–civil society relationships within authoritarian regimes, where cooperation and contestation coexist. This model also explains how civil society can survive and thrive in such contexts (Lewis Reference Lewis2013). Using examples from Vietnamese LGBT+ advocacy, this paper clarifies the role of activists as “service deliverers” in their efforts to promote LGBT+ equality, showing an informal pathway for social change (Wells–Dang Reference Wells–Dang and London2014) in settings where public displays of resistance can face severe repression. The findings also reveal the role of international development and NGOs in creating a repertoire for Vietnamese LGBT+ advocacy, problematising the effectiveness and implications of adopting NGO-driven approaches.

Methods and Data

This research employs in-depth interviews conducted with a diverse group of twelve activists advocating for LGBT+ equality. The informants include three female-to-male transgender individuals, two bisexual women, one bisexual man, two lesbian women, two gay men, one cisgender-heterosexual woman, and one individual identifying as genderqueer.

A registered association specialising in promoting LGBT+ equality in Vietnam facilitated the fieldwork for this research, which I choose not to name here to preserve confidentiality. Through this organisation, I connected with an activist gatekeeper who helped me enter a specialised training program for activists in Hồ Chí Minh City in December 2016. My participant observation in this four-day program allowed me to meet the activists interviewed later for this study. I interviewed seven activists at the program's end in December 2016, and five in July and August 2017. These activists belonged to smaller youth activist networks from different regions in Vietnam. While they had received support from civil society organisations such as ICS, ISEE, and CSAGA to implement their activist projects, these organisations did not formally employ them. In other words, these activists were volunteers in unregistered youth activist networks.

I conducted the interviews in a location of the informants’ choosing and obtained their consent to record and present their narratives. My interview data analysis followed the abductive coding approach with three steps proposed by Tavory and Timmermans (Reference Timmermans and Tavory2022). Step one, familiarisation, involved transcribing the interviews and becoming familiar with the data, which helped form the foundation for a deeper analysis. Following this step was defamiliarisation, which entailed examining assumptions I had taken for granted to remain open to new perspectives and unexpected insights. Finally, the last step allowed for reevaluating the same observations from alternative perspectives. I also incorporated my observation notes during the fieldwork into the analysis to help contextualise the findings.

The following sections present the results of my analysis, along with notes derived from my fieldwork observations. I assigned pseudonyms to all informants to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

Activism as service delivery

LGBT+ activism in the era of international development

In both examples above, strategies for change include translating content, broadcasting information through training workshops, social media, or public exhibitions, and sharing personal narratives to reach a broader audience. To offer different forms of support for the LGBT+ community, Vietnamese activists adopt what Young (Reference Young2000) referred to as a service delivery approach: trying to fill the roles and functions that the state could not address. In this role, they function similarly to social workers assisting the state, organising all public events that promote queerness, such as training workshops or photo exhibitions, within the boundaries of what the state deems acceptable.

Thus, this section critically examines the strategies employed in their service-delivery advocacy approach. I argue that these activists’ emphases on translating English content, broadcasting information and training align with the broader trend of utilising education as a venue for social change in international development practices (Mizzi Reference Mizzi and Mason2018). As Swidler and Watkins’ (Reference Swidler and Susan2009: 1182) maintained, “teaching a man to fish” has become a prevalent strategy among aid workers, reflecting the emphasis on capacity-building and awareness-raising in international development.

In the context of post-Đổi Mới Vietnam, the growth of local NGOs, largely funded by development agencies in North America and Europe, has a close link to LGBT+ activism (Rydström et al. Reference Rydström, Hương, An, Hansson and Weiss2023; Newton Reference Newton2012). The fact that NGOs often drive advocacy campaigns on LGBT+ issues in Vietnam (Phạm Reference Phạm2022) can explain the strong presence of educational elements and strategies similar to those used in international development. As Phạm (Reference Phạm2022) noted, NGO advocacy plays a major role in advertising the term “LGBT community” [cộng đồng LGBT], which aims to replace local expressions for queerness, often associated with stigma, such as “pê đê” or “bóng”. In other words, global LGBT+ human rights movements have largely shaped Vietnam's LGBT+ advocacy landscape, as exemplified by the adoption of the concept of “LGBT” and the use of the SOGIE system (Newton Reference Newton2012).

In this study, while the activists were not employed by donor-funded NGOs, they belonged to youth networks trained by these NGOs on conducting activism. Aside from SOGIE training, the LGBT+ activists at the training program where I conducted participant observation also learned how to write project proposals to obtain funding for their advocacy. Thus, this explains why translating, broadcasting, and teaching strategies were prevalent among the interviewed activists. However, the fact that these young activists adopted NGO-driven models in their everyday activism does not mean they do not recognise the limitations of their work. Several activists expressed the need to expand their activism and provide service in more areas, such as the following:

Châu frequently translated and broadcast content about the lesbian community and gave presentations at public awareness events such as Pride. However, she felt this was not enough. Having been trapped in her home as a teenager when her mother found out about her sexuality, Châu felt that LGBT+ youth needed a broader range of support.

Likewise, Duy's experience of becoming homeless after being involuntarily outed motivated him to launch an SOS helpline. He leveraged his social media network to find assistance for youth needing immediate shelter or a source of livelihood. Despite his efforts, he struggled to sustain the helpline due to funding and legal limitations. He explained:

To register as official associations in Vietnam, activist groups and networks must comply with a lengthy and most often convoluted process involving several certificates (Rydström et al. Reference Rydström, Hương, An, Hansson and Weiss2023). Without legal standing, small-scale groups cannot operate legally or apply for international donor funding (Pallas and Nguyễn Reference Pallas and Nguyễn2018). Thus, many grassroots groups depend on NGOs’ funds “trickled down” to implement their projects. Even so, as Newton (Reference Newton2012: 306) pointed out, these groups find themselves in a situation of “‘access denied’ to NGO resources” due to insufficient social capital, such as lacking educational qualifications, the ability to write grant proposals, or English skills.

In this study, the activists identified another lack of capital that severely restricted their advocacy. As Phong (transgender man) explained, youth activists are rarely taken seriously in the Vietnamese context. He explained the difficulty of getting doctors to participate in his group's training workshops, noting that the medical practitioners might have perceived his team of college students as inexperienced. He said, “The doctors probably thought, ‘Why do we have to listen to these kids’”.

In societies influenced by Confucian values, youth are traditionally placed in a subordinate position within the social structure (Trương et al. Reference Trương, Hallinger and Kabini2017). As a result, when youth networks operate independently, as Phong suggested, they may encounter scepticism about their credibility and authority. Youth activists thus seek collaboration with more established NGOs and leverage research-based knowledge to gain legitimacy and recognition. However, this also means that they become increasingly dependent on NGO-driven projects, which can restrict their autonomy and the ability to develop novel approaches. An experienced activist, having collaborated with NGOs for several years, expressed this concern:

Quyên stressed that despite the abundance of ideas among activists, funding and conditions from international development bodies often confine their activities. Most activists I talked to concurred with this notion, voicing concern about the lack of resources and freedom to implement what they needed. While small amounts of funding trickle down from well-funded NGOs to these unregistered youth networks, it most often applies to certain “project outcomes” with clear guidelines of what these activists must follow. Quyên worried that this funding structure does not nurture space for creative initiatives.

This concern aligns with broader scholarly observations. Scholars investigating the NGOisation process have pointed out how dependency on funding from Global North agencies can significantly disrupt social movements in the Global South (Moreau and Currier Reference Moreau, Ashley and Mason2018). Namely, the need to secure funding means that activists divert significant time and resources towards meeting donors’ demands (Oswin Reference Oswin2007), leading these local groups to frame their practices to mirror approaches adopted by mainstream NGOs (Currier Reference Currier2010; Dearham Reference Dearham, Ekine and Abbas2013). Thus, the fact that many LGBT+ advocacy strategies outlined in this article seem limited in scope and resemble international development's focus on awareness-raising and capacity-building (Mizzi Reference Mizzi and Mason2018) is not coincidental. Rather, it reflects how funding is something Southern NGOs “cannot not want” (Spivak Reference Spivak2009: 50): their activities are intimately tied to this funding scheme.

While international development practices can constrain and dictate activists’ strategies, opportunities for change still exist. In Vietnam, the gradual change in societal attitude and increasing legal acceptance towards the LGBT+ community shows that these advocacy strategies, while limited in scope, still garner positive influences. By taking on the approach of “not blaming but assisting” the state (Dai and Spires Reference Dai and Anthony J.2018: 75), activists can help provide services to marginalised communities while not being perceived by the state as “trouble-maker”. In this way, their approach resembles development agencies operating in authoritarian settings that prohibit political contestation (Morgan Reference Morgan2016).