Introduction

Sexuality is a multifaceted aspect of human identity that is intricately connected to nationality, religion, and culture. Nowhere is this connection more apparent than in many African countries, where prevailing norms and values shape the perception and portrayal of different sexual orientations. Homosexuality, a sexual orientation that deviates from traditional heterosexual norms, is frequently considered foreign or exclusively linked to Western values. In this context, the mainstream media play a fundamental role in perpetuating the dominant norms and upholding the status quo. However, the emergence of social media platforms, such as Twitter, has transformed the way information is disseminated, providing users with unprecedented access to public discourse and allowing them to bypass traditional gatekeepers. As such, this article explores how Twitter, as a primary platform, facilitates discussions on sexuality and national identities, shedding light on the impact of digital spaces in challenging or reinforcing existing norms.

The article employs two case studies to explore the intersection of national identity and sexuality in Zimbabwe. The first case involves Neal Hovelmeier, a Zimbabwean school teacher who came out as gay during an assembly at an elite boys’ school in Harare. The move was said to have been prompted by a private daily newspaper, the Daily News, which was allegedly working on exposing his homosexuality (Nyoka, 2018). The second case involves Somizi Mhlongo, a popular South African gay celebrity who was scheduled to perform at the reopening of an upmarket restaurant in Harare. However, a coalition of church groups wrote a letter to the Office of the President condemning the invitation, arguing that “according to our people’s driven constitution, Zimbabwe doesn’t tolerate homosexuality” (Maimela, 2021). These two events serve as important reference points for understanding the discursive intersections of national identities and sexuality in Zimbabwe. While the mainstream media covered these events, prior studies have exposed their inclination towards heterosexuality, primarily through referencing the homophobic remarks made by former President Robert Mugabe (Awondo, Geschiere and Reid, 2012). As a result, this article diverges by concentrating on social media, specifically Twitter, because of the significant traction and discursive momentum these events garnered online.

Articulating the “Nation’s Sexuality”

The research conducted in Zimbabwe and beyond, highlights the complex relationship between sexuality, religion, culture, and national identity (Hoad, 2007; Bajaha, 2015; Kaoma, 2016; Ndjio, 2016; Campbell, 2003; Santos & Ndhlovu, 2023). It is evident that religion and culture have played influential roles as moral guides, shaping societal perspectives on sexuality. Consequently, this has led to the normalisation of heterosexuality and stigmatisation of homosexuality. Throughout Africa, there is a prevailing argument asserting that homosexuality is a foreign concept. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that there is evidence of homosexuality existing prior to colonialism (Alimi, 2015), dispelling the myth that homosexuality is absent or insignificant and foreign in African societies. Dlamini (2006, p.132) notes that “the myth that homosexuality is absent or incidental in African societies is one of the oldest and most enduring”. Furthermore, within African contexts, the concept of manhood marginalises homosexuality, reinforcing patriarchy and heteronormativity (Msibi, 2011). However, it is essential to recognise that homophobia is not confined to Africa alone; it is a pervasive issue worldwide. Homophobic attitudes and behaviours also find justification and perpetuation through religion and conservative political and cultural practices among other factors. Understanding the profound influence of religion and culture on sexuality, we utilised the case studies of Somizi and Hovelmeier to gain insight into how Twitter users navigate the delicate balance between religious and cultural values to discuss homosexuality.

On the other hand, national identity, as a collective construct, also intersects with sexuality as a nation’s history, politics, and social fabric influence the prevailing attitudes and policies towards diverse sexualities. The construction of national identities often shapes the inclusion or exclusion of certain sexual orientations or gender identities within the broader societal framework. African societies exhibit a multiplicity of cultural struggles, tensions and contradictions in representations of sexualities within the polities. For instance, as much as Zimbabwe poses an image that aligns with the trope of a “homophobic Africa” (Awondo, Geschiere and Reid, 2012), there exists queer visibilities that assert the presence of sexual minorities that transgress dominant expressions. Awondo et al. (2013) inquired on multiple African countries to show varied ways in which states politicise same-sex desires through legal instruments and other means. They concluded that same-sex practices across Africa are complex and so are the diverse responses to them. Within countries that are regarded as homophobic, and virulently so, there exists counter discourses that have a more open approach to sexualities. Narratives of a “homophobic Africa” as they appear on international media are therefore not reflective of African experiences on two levels.

Firstly, at the level of state response to governing sexuality there exists multiple and varied formations of sexual politics ranging from state sanctioned homophobia to strategic silences that avoid addressing the rights of queer people. The South African constitutional guarantee of equality and inclusion of queer rights stands as an anti-thesis of dominant homophobic formations. Palmberg (1999, p. 282) argues that queer visibility in Zimbabwe has not necessarily followed dominant master narratives as “local community media, youth club magazines, women’s magazines, among other publications have all talked about homosexuality with an openness that shows that civil society in Zimbabwe is not swallowed up by the authoritarian power pyramid.” The existence of an association that promotes queer rights, the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) established in 1990, asserted queer presence and advocacy relatively early in postcolonial Zimbabwe. Since then, more organisations representing the interests of socially marginalised sexual minorities have emerged like the Trans Research, Education Advocacy and Training (TREAT), an initiative that seeks to address transgender rights issues (treatzim, 2018). Secondly, within the individual countries, homophobia coexists with counter discursive formations of human rights oriented queer advocacies. Beyond advocacies, there are queer quotidian practices (Spronk & Nyeck, 2021, p. 388) that are not necessarily part of organised civil society work of challenging dominant narratives, but are reflective of queer visibilities, experiences and struggles.

This paper submits that there exists an online queer archives on which cultures of silence are subverted through communicative events. Osinubi (2016, p. ix) calls for inquiries that delve into queer “vocabularies, sentiments and affects” in the everyday practices and expressions to help understand how queer bodies navigate spaces. It is imperative to explore the tensions and contradictions that “represent” queer presence in African contexts. In this case, the focus is on how social media affords diverse articulations in contemporary cultural struggles in what is conceptualised as “queer emergence” (Osinubi, 2016, p. ix). Queer emergence describes appearances that initiate conversations beyond the façade of heteronormative sexual unities. Postcolonial societies like Zimbabwe exist in a paradox of homogenising discourses that emphasise the political mobilisation of “unity of purpose” but are in sharp contrast with the “multiple assemblages and disjunctive synthesis” (Mbembe & Nuttall, 2004, p. 349) that constitute the realities of postcolonial subjectivities. Social media forms part of the alternative discursive spaces that exhibit the multiplicity of imaginations and assemblages of belonging.

Social Media and Multivocality

Previous studies show that the Zimbabwean mainstream media privilege hetero-patriarchal narratives. For instance, the state media narratives of sexuality, invariably intolerant of non-heterosexual expressions, have been vastly explored by researchers, understandably due to the prominence of former President Robert Mugabe’s homophobic tirades which showed up in global platforms, such as the United Nations General Assembly, encapsulating what has been stereotypically believed to be “a monolithic image of one homophobic Africa” (Awondo, Geschiere and Reid, 2012, p. 149). However, unlike previous studies, we focus on social media, particularly Twitter, because they enable users “to bypass traditional gatekeepers and contribute directly to the news process” (Papacharissi, 2015: 37). Social media thus enable users to discuss matters, such as minority sexuality, which are generally sidelined by mainstream media. Social media platforms have features that promote interactivity (Ariel & Avidar, 2015), and as such, they provide a platform for marginalised groups to counter hegemony. In fact, social media have been argued to facilitate meaningful engagement (Papacharissi, 2015). Thus, social media, unlike mainstream media, have been argued to promote multiple and diverse voices as they enable users to produce and distribute their own content. So, in light of social media’s interactivity and multivocality, we use the cases studies of Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi to examine how Zimbabweans use the platform to deliberate sexuality and national identities.

This article discusses Twitter discussions on minority sexuality because the platform’s potential to support emotional and rational debates. Papacharissi (2015) argues that social media platforms, particularly Twitter, facilitate feelings of engagement by enabling users to express their sentiments on a given issue. Similarly, we argue that Twitter enables its users to project their sentiments on sexuality and national identities. It is fundamental to analyse these sentiments as sexuality and national identity matters provoke intense emotions. While Twitter promotes sentimental-driven deliberations, such deliberations should “not be construed as being devoid of rational thought or reason” (Papacharissi, 2015: 134). It is, thus, possible for logic and emotion to co-exist (Papacharissi, 2015). Accordingly, we also examine the rationale offered by Twitter users to support their argumentative positions. In summary, this article uses the cases studies of Hovelmeier and Somizi to interrogate how Twitter interlocutors use emotions and logic to argue about sexuality and national identity in Zimbabwe.

Even though we acknowledge social media multivocality, we are cognisant of the platform’s limitations. For instance, others have argued about digital inequalities given that economically disadvantaged groups are excluded from these media platforms (Robinson et al., 2015). To that end, while we interrogate Twitter deliberations on sexuality and national identity, these deliberations cannot be argued to be reflective of offline discussions. Moreover, others have argued that social media disdain rational argument in favour of hate speech (Trottier, Huang and Gabdulhakov, 2020; Clucas, 2020). For instance, some online users post denunciatory and hateful comments (Trottier, Huang and Gabdulhakov, 2020). While these comments are derogatory and harmful to people with diverging opinions, we argue that they capture the sentiments of the users and as such they summarise their views on sexuality and national identity.

Discourse Theory

Informed by discourse theory, this article argues that Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi constitute discourses on sexuality and national identities. Since discourses provide a way of talking about and representing historical and cultural contingent knowledge (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985), we argue that the Twitter deliberations represent knowledge on minority sexuality and national identity in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, given that discourses influence our understanding of the world or an aspect of the world (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002), it is fundamental to examine how Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi try to influence our understanding of minority sexuality and national identity. Karlberg (2005: 19) argues that “the ways we think and talk about a subject influence and reflect the ways we act in relation to that subject”. Accordingly, we argue that Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi do not only influence how we understand minority sexuality and national identities but also influence how we relate with people of non-normative sexualities. In addition, it is fundamental to interrogate Twitter deliberations on minority sexuality and national identity as such discussions are capable of influencing policy making. Chun and Reyes (2012) observe that governments can use social media sentiments to craft policies that represent the views of their constituents.

Even though discourses influence our understanding of the social world, they are fluid as various meanings and interpretations can be derived from a particular topic. For instance, it can be argued that various interpretations of minority sexuality and national identity can be derived from Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi. This shows that “there is always room for struggles over what the structure should look like, what discourses should prevail, and how meaning should be ascribed to the individual signs” (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 29). Yet within this discursive struggle for meaning, a discourse assumes hegemonic position and its meaning is naturalised – accepted as common sense and uncontested (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). A discourse achieves this dominance through admitting only one contingent fixation of meaning and excluding other possible meanings (Muller, 2010: 11). Accordingly, this article interrogates Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi, as discourses on minority sexuality, to examine the perspectives given preferential treatment so that they appear normal and uncontested. At the same time, this article examines the perspectives that are excluded since excluding “alternative possibilities that otherwise could have presented themselves” is ideological (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 37). In the same manner, it can be argued that Twitter users can exclude certain perspectives in their discussion of Hovelmeier and Somizi. However, we argue that such exclusion is ideological as it would be aimed at promoting a unified reading of a discursive practice in a bid to advance or normalise a certain interpretation of sexuality and national identity.

Methods

We gathered tweets on Hovelmeier and Somizi using the keyword and specific date search operators. We first identified the dates within which the stories of the high school teacher and the church group’s outcry against the celebrity broke out in September 2018 and November 2021 respectively. Heated conversations on Twitter tend to have currency for a few days after an event, we therefore considered a week to be a reasonable time scope to gather tweets that capture the essence of the conversations. We gathered 250 tweets from Hovelmeier’s case and 270 from Somizi’s case, culminating in our initial reading from a dataset of 520 tweets that gave an impression of the nature of the conversation and the emerging broad thematic issues. We employed Gerbaudo (2016: 97)’s approach to digital hermeneutics to assist in paring the large social media dataset obtained from Twitter conversations by top sampling, that is, selecting tweets based on “popularity metrics, such as the number of tweets and likes.” We selected 5 popular tweets from both events, based on retweets, likes and quoted replies and replies. The analysis includes tweets and their quoted replies and replies. Selecting popular tweets provided us with a manageable dataset that enabled “close-reading” of the posts within their conversational location and the broader “cultural, social, and political context they navigate” (Gerbaudo, 2016: 97). However, this method has its limitations as popular tweets may not fully represent the entirety of the discourse on Hovelmeier and Somizi. To mitigate this bias, we further analysed the subsequent replies to gain a more comprehensive perspective. Additionally, we encountered a challenge in determining the geographical location of some Twitter users, as they did not provide geolocation information. Despite this limitation, their tweets were still valuable as they offered insights into a Zimbabwean issue.

We then inductively grouped the tweets into three framing categories – unmasking queer red-herring and imagining differently; same-sex, tolerance and social class, and the many (queer) takes on religion and culture. In using the inductive approach, we read the tweets, created three thematic categories and fitted each tweet in an appropriate category. We then analysed the sampled tweets using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis afforded us to link the thematic categories with “outside variables” (Spencer, Ritchie and O’Connor, 2003, p. 200), that is, establishing how Twitter discussions are hinged on social practices within the Zimbabwean polity to map the various articulations of queerness. Williams et al. (2017, p.1150) argue that the terms of service of Twitter state that posts are public and “will be made available to third parties, and by accepting these terms, users legally consent to this”. While we recognise tweets as public data, we chose not to directly quote or reveal usernames and pseudonyms to ensure the protection of user identities. This decision stems from the sensitivity surrounding homosexuality, which continues to be a contentious issue in Zimbabwe.

Results

The analysed tweets reflect a wide range of reactions and formulations of queerness within what is imagined to be normative identities in Zimbabwe. From dominant affirmations of queer hostility to destabilisations of a “heteronormative Zimbabwe”, the tweets exhibit multivocality, divergences and convergences on imagining sexuality in Zimbabwe. Queer struggles are tied to contemporary political and social struggles and Twitter users frame their responses in ways that show these intersections. Queerness therefore becomes, among other things, a site of resistance and speaking, and laughing back at power.

Unmasking Queer Red-Herrings and Imagining Differently

The analysed tweets reveal a correlation between discussions surrounding homosexuality and the broader socio-political and economic issues in Zimbabwe, particularly the country’s ongoing economic challenges. Within this context, users adopt two distinct approaches towards the discourse on same-sex relationships. On one hand, some individuals dismiss queer sexualities as the central focus, contending that the nation faces numerous pressing issues that demand immediate attention. This hierarchical approach reflects users’ impatience with regard to queer struggles, effectively undermining the importance of queer sexualities and relegating them to a position of insignificance within online conversations about Zimbabwe. On the other hand, the dismissive approach in the second instance challenges the political elite by accusing them of utilising queer bodies as a red herring and scapegoat to divert attention from critical political matters that Zimbabweans hold them accountable for, such as the widespread corruption prevalent among the ruling class. By presenting these contrasting perspectives, the analysed tweets shed light on the complex interplay between same-sex discourse, socio-political dynamics, and economic realities in Zimbabwe.

To begin, some users dismissed discussions on homosexuality as a smokescreen intended to divert attention from more pressing and substantial issues. To illustrate this, this section refers to five tweets that shed light on governance issues considered by some users as more significant than the discussions on Hovelmeier and Somizi’ sexuality. For instance, one of the users (Tweet 1) raises the detention of Makomborero Haruzivishe, an opposition activist widely believed to be a political prisoner. The user criticises the pastoral grouping for disregarding pressing concerns like political persecution and instead focusing on homosexuality. Another user (Tweet 2) highlights the dispossession and displacement of ordinary villagers by Chinese miners, who are accused of colluding with the political elite. The user specifically accuses the government of prioritising “non-priority issues” such as homosexuality. In Zimbabwe, the contentious matter of locals being dispossessed by foreign entities, particularly mining investors, involves the relocation of people from their “ancestral lands” to facilitate commercial interests. This issue has significant implications for identity, land ownership, and a sense of belonging, leading some, like the user in Tweet 2, to consider it more important than debates on queer sexualities. Consequently, the user dismisses discussions on sexualities as a preoccupation with an inconsequential issue. At a deeper level, this contestation of priorities unveils what Tamale (2013, p. 33) describes as “state-orchestrated ‘moral panics’ that effectively divert attention from more critical socioeconomic and political crises afflicting society.“ In this case, a religious group affiliated to the ruling elite mobilises homophobic sentiment, and paradoxically, those opposed to it, counter their efforts by trivialising queer struggles.

Tweet 3 cleverly utilises a meme to criticise the church’s response to Somizi, emphasising the intensity and immediacy with which it directs its efforts and political influence towards an issue that the user considers to be unwarranted in terms of attention. The tweet features an image of a roaring lion representing churches protesting against Somizi, juxtaposed with a sleeping cat symbolising churches’ lack of action against child abuse, looting, corruption, and human rights abuses. Through creative imagery, the tweet mocks the church’s hostility towards queerness while disregarding other pressing social and political challenges in society. This highlights the limitations of hegemonic institutions like the church in controlling queer narratives and shaping the perception of what it means to be Zimbabwean. Additionally, the meme can be interpreted as ridiculing the church for its passivity and lack of courage in addressing governance issues, while being vocal about matters that do not critically challenge the state, such as queer identities. The use of memes further supports the observation that Twitter often facilitates sentiment-driven discussions (Papacharissi, 2015). Moreover, the user in tweet 3 argues that government brutality is a much more substantive issue that religious leaders should prioritise over a gay celebrity. The user even makes a provocative claim that “some government officials are gay anyway,” implying that those often accused of perpetuating homophobia might be homosexual themselves. While the validity of this claim is not essential to test, it is significant in challenging the notion of exclusive queer subjectivity. This undermines dominant narratives that assign queer identities solely to “others” who allegedly act against the interests of Zimbabwe. The discursive value of the tweet lies in its destabilising insinuation that queerness can be found in “unlikely” places, thus demystifying the framing of queerness within the Zimbabwean political landscape as a marginal deviance serving foreign interests.

Another user (tweet 4), broadens the discussion to encompass a broader spectrum of social issues that contribute to the underlying hypocrisy surrounding hostility towards the queer community. The tweet, which was prompted by Hovelmeier’s coming out at a school assembly, criticises the government for displaying hypocrisy by neglecting to address significant problems like police brutality, sexual harassment, and domestic violence, while simultaneously adopting a staunch stance against homosexuality. This exposure of hypocrisy reveals the selective puritanical fantasies within nativist and Afrocentric frameworks (Ndjio, 2020) that shape the understanding of sexualities in Zimbabwe. It further reveals that “Zimbabwean morality policing” extends beyond religious institutions and the political elite to social homophobia in the country.

Another user (tweet 5) further questions those who portray homosexuality as un-African, particularly when they rely on the Bible, which according to the user, is not part of African historical culture. The user exposes the colonial and religious narrative tapestry that influences the construction of sexualities within the African context. By contesting the notion that homosexuality is “un-African,“ the user confronts and subverts one of the prevailing master narratives on sexualities that often appear in dominant political and religious spaces (Reddy, 2002; Nyanzi, 2013). This observation aligns with Tamale’s (2013, p. 40)’s postulation that the “unAfricanness” of non-heteronormative expressions is a “metaphor for conservative agendas” as religious and political interests coalesce in facilitating the “otherness” of non-conforming queer subjectivities. The tweet further reveals the diversity of sexual imaginaries. It acknowledges that outside the naturalised framework of “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich, 1980) in dominant cultural discourses, some Zimbabweans recognise the existence of non-normative sexual expressions and strive to deconstruct the hostile formations around same-sex desires.

Same-Sex, Tolerance and Social Class

Twitter conversations associate tolerance of same sex expressions with liberal middle-class environments, and the incident involving Hovelmeier best illustrates this social class consciousness on queer existence. The association is also contradictory as it draws some distinct affective responses from certain users, particularly the disapproval based on a conservative cultural outlook, critical of the minority elite accepting an “alien” phenomenon. On the other end, the liberal view, that is seen as more tolerant is labelled as “progressive” but only exclusive to the middle class. This distinction becomes evident when examining tweet 6 and tweet 7. In tweet 6, a user argues that the school where Hovelmeier taught, St Johns College, enjoys a reputation for being gay-friendly—a privilege accessible only to the rich. St Johns College, a private institution, is among the expensive schools in Zimbabwe. Thus, tweet 6 depicts homosexuality or queer visibility as a luxury afforded exclusively by the “super-rich” and absent from the everyday lives of the working class in Zimbabwe.

This perspective is further elucidated by the user in tweet 7, who posits that had Hovelmeier’s incident occurred in a ghetto or rural school, it would have caused uproar since parents in such schools take matters of homosexuality more seriously compared to those in private schools. This assertion underscores the disparity in attitudes and reactions towards queer existence between different socioeconomic backgrounds in Zimbabwe. Tweet 6 and 7 validate the possibilities of queerness in Zimbabwe within spaces that are much more open, but importantly, they also hint on repressed social orders elsewhere outside the visible, the “progressive” and the “protected.” Limiting queer visibility to certain spaces suggests existence beyond visibility in those spaces that are demarcated as hostile, and have to be navigated carefully and creatively, avoiding the moral policing gaze. There is a realisation of queerness among Zimbabweans, including the consciousness of the limiting factors such as social class, meaning that the complexity of being is articulated differently from the simplistic dominant narratives that regurgitate essentialised identity imaginations.

Twitter also facilitates dominant worldviews that appear on mainstream narratives that enforce erotic remapping, and assigning political and racial associations to same sex orientation and thereby, “crucially defining the other” (Hoad, 2007, p. 10). Tweet 8 demarcates belonging by stating that the use of words such as “homophobia” and “diversity” are “out of place” in Zimbabwe. This exhibits a conservative understanding of what it is to be in space and time within the Zimbabwean context, and also that there is a “disturbing” existence of alternative identities that are within a “bubble” in affluent Harare, the capital city, an urban space that embodies the supposed ill-fitting global neoliberal sensibilities. On the other hand, tweet 9, written in Shona, a local language, appeals to traditional sensibility by rebuking a queer friendly interlocutor. The tweet is translated to mean “…you are a native of where I hail from. In our community we don’t allow that (homosexuality). Don’t lose our morals and values in exchange of Western ways, my fellow.” This expression resonates with Ndjio (2016)’s assertion that there is “a growing tendency among the local population to equate heterosexuality with patriotism, localism, and Africanness, while homosexuality is generally associated with globalism and strangeness.”

To both users (Tweet 8 and 9), Harare, a metropolitan that is believed to harbour tolerance of alternative sexual expressions, is a location of “strangeness” that collides with an imagined purity of being. This characterisation of the metropolitan in contrast with the provincial rural ironically resembles Mosse (1985, p. 32)’s assertion on the 19th Century European notions of nationalism and respectability which framed the city as a centre of vice, particularly “breeding grounds of homosexuality,” and villages on the other hand, “symbolized those eternal values that stood outside the rush of time.” The parallels that can be drawn between the 19th Century European cultural notions and some contemporary Zimbabwean articulations can be explained by the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe, an association of LGBTI communities of Zimbabwe, which stated that “political leaders remain thoroughly colonised by Victorian dogma which they now have the audacity to claim is the backbone of our African cultural heritage” (Hoad, 2007, p. 59). The appearance of this characterisation of queers on social media exhibits those conservative dominant imaginations of being in Zimbabwe that find currency on social media.

The Many (Queer) Takes on Religion and Culture

Religion plays an integral part in how sexualities are perceived, articulated and governed (Tamale, 2014) in the broader Zimbabwean society, and the discursive practices reflect this social organisation. We observed that Twitter users heavily referenced Christianity to premise their views and outlook on queer sexualities. Some religious interpretations on queer sexualities suggest identitarian closure based on a sin hierarchy that places homosexuality at the top of affronts on Christianity and therefore threatening the social and religious fabric of society. This is noted in a post by a Twitter user who states that in Zimbabwe, we don’t want homosexuals as we fear God adding that “When we say no to homosexuals, we aren’t say all the other irregularities made by the government are correct. All that is wrong and homosexuality too”. The Twitter user refers to religious texts to justify his or her resentment of homosexuality. An analysis of the tweet reveals the emotional state of the user. This is noted through the use of “nooo!!!” In this case, the Twitter user emphatically expresses his disapproval of homosexuality.

Even though major religions condemn homosexuality, Halstead and Lewicka (1998: 53) argue that they “define it in terms of behaviour rather than orientation” However, most religious-oriented criticism of homosexuality disregard this distinction. This is noted in tweet 10 in which the user condemns Hovelmeier for trying to influence children on an issue that is deeply rooted in people’s beliefs and culture. The twitter user emotionally disapproves of Hovelmeier’s actions, which he or she argues to be contrary to “people’s beliefs and culture”. However, this is fallacious as previous studies show that homosexuality has existed in Africa even before pre-colonial times (Dlamini, 2006). Moreover, the user assumes that homosexuality is a learned behaviour as they argue that Hovelmeier’s actions will influence children to the extent of changing their sexuality. This is problematic since even scholars are divided on whether homosexuality is inborn or learned (Drescher, 2015).

However, such monotheistic conceptions of religion and culture are challenged by users who reject conservative religious puritan interpretation in favour of plurality and non-judgmental accommodating practices. Reference is made to tweet 11, which questions religious individuals who are homophobic when the “bible also tells us not to hate, and not to judge.” While the user is in agreement with the bible, they approve of Hovelmeier. They achieve this through arguing that while the bible classifies homosexuality as sin, it also disapproves hating or judging people. Interestingly, the user balances their support for religion and homosexuality. Moreover, tweet 12 tries to reconcile differences between religion and homosexuality. The user declares being a Christian and argues that sexuality is a private matter and even questions people who are homophobic if they will stop using certain products because of the homosexual status of those associated with those products. In this case, the user holds aloft religious values while also expressing approval for homosexuality. In fact, the user avoids linking homosexuality to morality but instead positions homosexuality as a private matter. In so doing, the user argues that people should not be concerned about Hovelmeier’s sexuality as it is a private matter. Some users are more critical of religious followers whom they accuse of being unquestioning consumers of biblical verses. This is noted in tweet 13 which accuses religious followers of being “idiots” that wield the bible to torment and punish others. The tweet also clearly identifies this practice as perpetuating exclusion, and by implication, it problematises notions of belonging that are contoured along static normative erotic mappings.

Conclusion

After analysing Twitter deliberations on Hovelmeier and Somizi, we conclude that the platform enables users to use emotions and reason to support conflicting interpretations of sexuality and national identity. In this case, we observed that Twitter users interpreted Hovelmeier and Somizi’s sexuality in relation to broader political developments, social class, religion and culture. However, users had diverse articulations in each of the emerging framing categories that we deciphered. For instance, on the category of homosexuality and broader political developments, differences were noted as some users identified the crisis of closure of civil space for alternative political voices as a substantial crisis that requires urgency and confrontation by civic groups such as the churches. They rejected the focus on queerness and queer bodies, which they regarded as an affront on the cultural fabric of society. However, other users addressed Hovelmeier and Somizi as embodying destabilisations of religious and social order in Zimbabwe. On religious framing of sexualities, there was a tendency to rely on “strict literal interpretations of the religious texts, and a culturally essentialist position which pathologises and denies the existence of queerness” (Ekine, 2013, p. 78). This literal interpretation of the bible is challenged by more open imaginations of Christianity that are hinged on acceptance and tolerance of difference. There is a clear divergence of interpretations of queerness within the religious context and the contingent nature of religious homogeneity is upended by non-puritan imaginations. Queer visibilities are also imagined to be classed and the articulations suggest open middle-class spatiality that accommodates diverse sexualities. The Twitter conversations on how sexuality, or queer being intersects with other categories of existence in Zimbabwe also reflect the mixed modes of argumentation in asserting different positions as the platform affords both rational and emotional expression. Queerness is a contemporary cultural struggle of Zimbabwean society that intersects with multiple struggles making it a frontier for incomplete identities that are constantly in the making (Nyamnjoh, 2017).