A socio-cultural discourse study of cultural-political elites' stances on LGBTI+ identities and practices in Ghana

The study examines how cultural-political elites in postcolonial Ghana discursively construct LGBTI+ identities and practices, and the implications of these constructions. Motivated by Foucault’s concepts of sexuality, power-knowledge, and disciplinary normalization, the authors argue that sexuality is historically contingent and embedded in sociocultural contexts. In Ghana, non-heterosexual identities are subjected to regulation through both traditional and bureaucratic institutions. The research addresses gaps in West-centric analyses by situating Ghana’s LGBTI+ discourse within its complex, multiethnic, multicultural, and hybrid socio-political context, asking how elites’ discursive practices shape stance-taking and social meaning.

The paper situates sexuality discourse in African contexts within broader histories of regulation and normalization similar to 19th-century Western regimes (Foucault 1998), noting widespread repression of non-heterosexualities (Han & O’Mahoney 2014; Currier & Migraine-George 2017; Janssen & Scheepers 2019). In Ghana, legal, religious, cultural, and international regimes intersect to police non-heterosexual relations (Act 29, 1960; Kaoma 2016), with ambiguities in the law (Atuguba 2019). The authors review the persistence of traditional kinship-based social control mechanisms (Assimeng 1999; Nukunya 2016), the coexistence of Western bureaucratic and traditional structures, and the classification of sexualities as ‘normal’/‘abnormal’. They highlight competing narratives: essentialized claims of a single ‘Ghanaian culture’ rejecting LGBTI+ versus ethnographic evidence of same-sex intimacies existing contextually (Dankwa 2021). Transnational influences, colonial legacies in anti-sodomy laws (Morgensen 2012; Meiu 2015), and emergent advocacy (e.g., the ‘18 intelligentsia’) further complicate the discourse.

Qualitative socio-cultural discourse study combining the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD) (Keller 2018) and a cultural approach to discourse (Shi-xu 2005), aligned with Foucauldian discourse and power. Data source: Ghanaian online media texts (news articles) from five widely used portals—Citi News, GTV/GBC, Daily Graphic, Ghanaian Times, and Daily Guide. Search terms: ‘LGBT in Ghana’ and ‘same-sex relations’. Timeframe: 2017–2021, capturing a surge in coverage following President Akufo-Addo’s 2017 interview and debates around the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill (2021). Corpus: 250 retrieved articles; 45 purposively selected for relevance. Analytical procedure: dialectical-relational analysis focusing on the relationship between texts and sociocultural-political contexts; sequential analysis of core paragraphs around three themes—construction of LGBTI+ in media; LGBTI+ practice and discursive struggle; and the strive for cultural cooperation and harmony. The analysis attends to statements, meaning-making, and classification/normalization in relation to Ghana’s cultural symbolic orders and power-knowledge relations across local, meso, and macro levels.

- Essentializing ‘Ghanaian culture and traditions’ without context leads to ambiguity and contradiction in interpreting LGBTI+ discourse in a multiethnic, multicultural postcolonial state. - Social actors (religious leaders, chiefs, lawmakers, human rights advocates) adopt divergent stances: religious leaders frame LGBTI+ as moral aberration and cultural/religious taboo; traditional authorities declare it alien, taboo, and non-Ghanaian; proponents of the 2021 Bill invoke national sovereignty and cultural protection; opponents (e.g., the ‘18 intelligentsia’) center constitutional rights and international human rights commitments. - Legal frameworks are contested and ambiguous: Act 29 (1960) references ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’ without clear parameters; the proposed Bill seeks to codify normalization strategies but faces constitutional and human rights objections. - Discourses operate in-between Western and non-Western knowledge systems; both bureaucratic (state/legal) and traditional (kinship/chieftaincy) institutions participate in classifying and policing sexuality. - Despite polarization, there are gestures toward cooperation and harmony in diplomatic exchanges (e.g., between Ghanaian parliamentary leadership and foreign diplomats), emphasizing non-discrimination and human rights while asserting cultural considerations.

The findings address the research question by showing that elite discourse in Ghana constructs LGBTI+ identities through intersecting cultural, religious, legal, and geopolitical frames, producing competing normalizing strategies and stance-taking. Essentialized appeals to a singular ‘Ghanaian culture’ obscure the country’s cultural plurality and hybrid postcolonial condition, fostering contradictions in moral and legal arguments. Recognizing the coexistence of bureaucratic and traditional systems clarifies why normalization and classification of sexualities remain contested. The significance lies in reframing Ghana’s LGBTI+ debates as socio-culturally situated power-knowledge struggles rather than purely moral or legal disputes, underscoring the need for intercultural dialogue that accepts pluralism, reduces tensions, and aligns with constitutional and international human rights obligations.

Essentializing a single ‘Ghanaian culture’ is problematic for interpreting LGBTI+ discourse in a complex, multiethnic, multicultural postcolonial nation. Different elites interpret LGBTI+ identities through distinct lenses: religious discourses versus constitutional/legal frameworks. Attempts to understand sexuality in non-Western societies from any single essentialized stance risk imposing a particular cultural order and generating local and global tensions. Harmonious coexistence should ensure that all groups enjoy fundamental human rights. The study advances a holistic understanding of Ghana’s LGBTI+ discourse and calls for intercultural cooperation and context-sensitive, life-affirming approaches to rights.

Three main limitations: (1) Data limited to online news portals, focusing analysis on elite discourses (religious leaders and politico-legal advocates), thus excluding broader publics and other media forms. (2) Single-country focus on Ghana limits generalizability to other non-Western contexts. (3) Theoretical framing leans Eurocentric (Foucauldian/SKAD), and the absence of a situated African discourse theory may constrain interpretive depth. Future work should use multiple datasets and ethnographic methods across Ghana and other African societies, combined with African discourse theory.