Family upholds social norms of gender-sexuality. Society relies on marriage and childbirth within familial systems to maintain social inequalities. Within that, women offer greater care than they receive. Family systems have also created a certain monopoly of care. This care comes with conditions. When ‘members’ are not heterosexual or their bodies or genders do not fit the social norms, families that may otherwise be a resource suddenly cease to be so. This article explores the possibilities that the Nominated Representative (NR) Clause of the Mental Health Care Act 2017 may have to offer to conceptualise and operationalise what care could look like outside of family systems for people who are queer.
Cite this article:
Shruti Chakravarty. ‘Nominated Representative’ and Queer Lives. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(4):371-373. doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00059.5
Shruti Chakravarty. ‘Nominated Representative’ and Queer Lives. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(4):371-373. doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00059.5 Available on: https://www.rjhssonline.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2020-11-4-18
1. American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients. American Psychologist, 55(12), 1440-1445.
2. Corrigan, P. (2018). The Stigma Effect: Unintended Consequences of Mental Health Campaigns. New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/corr18356
3. Creating Resources For Empowerment in Action (CREA). (2012). Count me IN!: Research report on violence against disabled, lesbian, and sex-working women in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal. New Delhi: CREA.
4. Mariwala, R. (2019). Bridge The Care Gap. Mariwala Health Initiative. Retrieved from http://bridgethecaregap.com/ resources/BCG_Kit.pdf
5. Menon, N. (2012). Seeing Like a Feminist. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
6. Meyer, D. (2015). Violence against Queer People: Race, Class, Gender, and the Persistence of Anti-LGBT Discrimination. Rutgers University Press. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bc53v7
7. Narrain, A. and Bhan, G. (2005). Introduction. In Narrain, A., Bhan, G. (Eds.) (2005). Because I Have a Voice: Queer Politics in India. New Delhi: Yoda Press.
8. Narrain, A. and Chandran, V. (2016). ‘It’s not my job to tell you it’s okay to be gay…’ Medicalisation of Homosexuality: A Queer Critique. In Narrain, A and Chandran, V (Eds), Nothing To Fix (pp. 3-65 ). New Delhi: Sage.
9. Ranade, Ketki and Shah, Chayanika and Chatterji, Sangeeta. (2016). Making sense: Familial journeys towards self-acceptance of gay and lesbian family members in India. The Indian journal of social work. 77. 437-458.
10. Ringen, S. (2007). What Democracy Is For: On Freedom and Moral Government. PRINCETON; OXFORD: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7ssrf
11. Rubin, G. (1992). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In Vance, C. S. (Ed). Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. (267-293) London: Pandora.
13. Mental Health Care Act 2017 (India) weblink-
15. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union Of India (2018) weblink-