EQUALITY’S LIMITATIONS, LIBERATION’S
CHALLENGES:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR QUEER MOVEMENT STRATEGIZING
Nick Mulé
For over 35 years, the queer movement has continued to strategize towards representation of our existence, the recognition of our specified issues and the acceptance of our communities on an equitable level in society. From its somewhat conservative beginnings in the US pre-Stonewall era of the Mattachine Society in the 1950s (Timmons, 1990) to the liberationist initiatives post-Stonewall in the late 1960s and 1970s (Duberman, 1993), there have been tensions regarding strategic means of ending the hostility and discrimination faced by sexually minoritized communities. This paper explores, in the current context of the Canadian queer movement, the tensions that arise in utilizing equality vs. liberationist strategies and their potential long-term effects.
The pursuit of equality usually results in assimilationist ends, for the rectification of a discriminatory problem, elevating the wronged to the level of the mainstream with little if any recognition of unique specificities. Seidman (1997) differentiates between assimilationists and liberationists. He describes a “politics of respectability” as the assertion of a common humanity in order to legitimate homosexuality. He describes a ‘politics of difference’ as “the unique social character and contributions of homosexuals” (p. 186). Queer politics exposes the disciplinary role of identity politics and disrupts the social controls placed on its communities by a heteronormative society. It values differences, multiple identities and hybrid coalitional subjects. Seidman considers this a new gay radicalism.
Altman (1971) describes liberation in broad terms, “Liberation entails not just freedom from sexual restraint, but also freedom for the fulfillment of human potential, a large part of which has been unnecessarily restricted by tradition, prejudice and the requirements of social organization” (p. 83). McIntosh (1968) discusses the recurring debates between assimilationists and the counter-cultural minority perspective; the latter promulgated by liberationists. Over 30 years later Canadian gay activist Tom Warner (2002) describes the essence of its ethos, “It means recognizing and fighting against the cultural conventions that reinforce and perpetuate inequities of power,” (p. 8.) demonstrating the continued tensions in the modern-day history of the movement.
Yet, liberationism does not have a monopoly on the queer movement. In fact, much attention within the movement of late has been on assimilationist objectives pursued via a neo-liberal legal rights strategy towards equality. There are limitations in the ‘gains’ made in a legal/legislative framework, as such battles are inevitably framed in a liberal equality discourse. The pre-existing human rights framework based on liberalism’s hegemony restricts addressing substantive political issues (Herman, 1994). Smith (1999) points out the limitations of rights talk as it seeks to challenge state policy as an end in itself, simultaneously equating legal change with social change. Bronski (1998) similarly challenges the limits of the equality-based legal rights claims, arguing that when such rights are achieved, they do not necessarily penetrate deep-rooted prejudices and fears.
Vaid (1995) argues that mainstreaming-integrating into the status quo – albeit speaks to the need for social acceptance – has limited effect. Civil rights victories lead to mainstream ‘toleration’, not the liberationist victory of making longstanding changes to social institutions. Mainstreaming is essentially pragmatic politics as opposed to liberation’s moral politics. It is an exercise in expediency. A liberation-oriented approach to queer power has two premises: ground-up power and its mission. Liberation movements ultimately seek fundamental social change through the challenging of dominant social codes.
According to Lehring (1997), “The guiding thread of gay liberation was a rejection of enforced heterosexuality, marriage, traditional gender roles and family arrangements, and sexual privacy all built upon an understanding of sexual identity as something other than fixed” (p. 174). He points out that achieving gay liberationist goals threatens to do away with the very society that gave birth to the gay liberation movement. He also cautions the contemporary movement “to listen anew to the voices of gay liberation” and be careful in its pursuit of “the essentialist-centred equal rights strategy” (p. 174). He unapologetically values the concept of difference, “…[I]f we buy wholesale into the idea that an equal rights ethos is the only legitimate progressive path, then we simply limit our ability to imagine ourselves differently, and differentiate ourselves imaginatively” (p. 194).
In the following
quote,
“Equal rights for lesbians and gay men inevitably means parity on straight terms, within a pre-existing framework of values, laws and institutions. These have been devised by and for the heterosexual majority. Equality within their system involves conformity to their rules. This is a formula for submission and incorporation, not liberation.” (p. 12)
Given such tensions, this paper will explore the emergence of three strategies experienced by the author in current grassroots queer activism in which I argue that the equality agenda dominates the movement’s focus to the detriment of liberationist ideals. Each strategy is linked to an issue exemplifying how the strategy is implemented, as well as its implications. The first strategy looks at normalization via desexualizing of queer communities, in which the proposed federal Bill C-2 and public consultations on solicitation laws exemplify a challenge to queer sexual practices and how the movement strategically responds to such issues. Secondly, the strategy of acceptance via assimilation is most clearly illustrated by the same-sex marriage debates that are taking place within queer communities, as opposed to the debates more heavily reported on by the media in mainstream society. Finally, the strategy of protection via omission will focus on the broad health and wellbeing issues of sexually diverse populations that get very little if any attention in the literature, media or gender and sexually diverse communities themselves. I will then argue that the implications of these explorations result in equality objectives having serious limitations and liberationist objectives having earnest challenges for the future of the queer movement. I will then introduce anti-oppressive practice perspectives and sexual citizenship rights as considerations for potential strategizing in order to more effectively address the multiplicity of oppressions experienced by diverse members of gender and sexual minoritized populations and their intersectionality in our pluralistic society.
It is acknowledged that language is fluid and constantly changing. Terminology usage can be based on numerous criterion including for currency, descriptive, inclusive/exclusionary, political reasons. Thus, it is important, for the purposes of this paper, to define the terms used throughout it. Equality is discussed in this paper as a concept in which gender and sexually diverse populations seek the same rights and responsibilities as the heterosexual populations, without necessarily changing the status quo, except for their very inclusion. Such equality can be achieved formally with legislative sanctioning or possibly more substantively at a social change level. Many, yet not all, who pursue an agenda of equality have assimilationist goals with the more dominant heterosexual populations. Liberationists, on the other hand, seek to define their identity and the life they live based on their own terms, creating alternative social codes that challenge and sometimes change the status quo. For the purposes of this paper, ‘gay’ and ‘gay movement’ are referred to as those who pursue equality as their strategy and ‘queer’ and ‘queer movement’ as those who undertake liberationist approaches. It is recognized that these terms can be problematic in that they each have a spectrum respectively and can be located on a continuum together. I will argue that individuals and groups often undertake both approaches. For some, ‘gays’ are associated with the male gender, while ‘queer’ is offensive to some, particularly to older sexually diverse generations. And ‘queer’ may not be in the title of organizations that engage in queer activism. The definitions above are meant to bring some clarity to this discussion on the complicated processes of activist strategies in addressing the complex issues presented in this paper, problems notwithstanding.
Strategies
and Issues:
Normalization via Desexualizing of Queer Communities (Bill C-2/Solicitation Laws)
Equality strategists have dominated the agenda both in the mainstream and within the queer movement with the issue of same-sex marriage, which is further addressed in the next section. This is true, despite the fact there was an opportunity to engage in serious discourse and strategizing around parliamentary consultations on solicitation laws and a federal bill that has a direct impact on an essence of our very beings – our sexuality and how, when and where we express it. Bill C-2: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable Persons) and the Canada Evidence Act sought to make amendments to a series of ‘sex laws’ in this country (Government of Canada, 2005), while the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Solicitation undertook public consultations on sex laws including those relating to bawdy houses and sex work. Such initiatives are of particular relevance to the Canadian queer community, given a history in which our sexual activities have been and continue to be targeted, regulated and criminalized in one form or another (CLGRO 2004a, EGALE 2005a, Kinsmen 1987). For example, Bill C-2 would address sections of the criminal code dealing with the exploitation of children and youth, child pornography and age of consent regarding anal intercourse, whereas the parliamentary consultations on solicitation laws discussed public space, indecent acts, common bawdy-house, keeping a common bawdy-house, transporting persons to a bawdy-house and prostitution (Sex Laws Committee, 2004).
Although both
EGALE and CLGRO ultimately provided much needed input into the government’s
public consultations regarding both Bill
C-2 and discussions on solicitation, it is the process that led up to it
for each of the organizations and the minimal attention paid to this issue both
within and outside the queer movement that raises questions. Prior to the bill being introduced, CLGRO had
struck a Sex Laws Committee made up of community members, sex workers,
activists, lawyers and academics to discuss laws governing sex in this country
in light of a series of raids on queer events and establishments in Toronto,
Calgary, Montreal and Hamilton. They set
up a listserv with active, yet moderate traffic and hosted regular meetings to
discuss matters such as focus, scope, proposals for change and varying
perspectives (i.e. age, gender, gender identity, sex work and sexual orientation). Meanwhile, EGALE set up a round table held in
For EGALE, these issues proved to be controversial ones, as some of its board members raised concern with the subject matter and thus could not come to consensus on EGALE providing feedback. Therefore, by not responding, EGALE would appease those board members uncomfortable with the issues and maintain an image of normalcy in the public eye by distancing itself from engaging in such discourse. Had it done so, it would have risked not providing input to issues affecting their very membership and contributed to the desexualizing of queer people through their silence. This internalized process within EGALE’s board of directors illustrates how a commitment to equality based on views of the mainstream can negate specificities that affect our communities. Exposure of this process in the queer media resulted in a shift in which EGALE produced a comprehensive brief on the solicitation laws (EGALE, 2005a), but did not make the submission deadline.
Although CLGRO and its Sex Laws Committee had initially worked off the same liberationist page on wanting to repeal the antiquated sex laws in the Criminal Code, a difference arose as to the extent of such change. The Sex Laws Committee urged a broader form of sexual freedom of expression than CLGRO, resulting in each working on a parallel, yet separate process. Although both can continue to be described as liberationist, the Sex Laws Committee is pursuing broader parameters than CLGRO.
There is much to be considered in why it is that the expression of our sexuality in the eyes of the law of this land has attracted the attention of few both within the queer movement and the mainstream media that report on our issues. Challenging legal conceptions of what ‘indecent acts’ are, what is determined to be a ‘common bawdy-house’, the right of consensual sexual activity at what age and between who, and where they can be expressed in terms of what is defined as public and private domains, all fly in the face of the fight for inclusion in the institution of marriage, acceptance into the normative society of heterosexuals and the hope for newly gained respectability for our communities. This can also produce polarities within the sexual minoritized movement as to where one places their energies. Are you one of the ‘good, clean, respectable’ gays seeking the benefits of marital status, or are you one of the ‘bad, dirty, promiscuous’ queers seeking sexual freedom? When both Bill C-2 and Bill C-38 on same-sex marriage were being reviewed at Senate, it was the latter that garnered most attention demonstrating the power of the heteronormative institution of marriage over the importance of freedom of sexual expression for sexual minorities. Such complexities are felt innately by organizations such as EGALE, which has contributed much to an equality campaign for access to the right to marry, and CLGRO, which needs to set a self-defined reasonable limit on the liberation of sexual expression. The dominating strategy for equality creates a propensity for normalcy, that highlights our sameness to heterocentric expressions of being, re-sexualizing our identities in the process. We need to be cognizant regarding our future as a queer movement, as to what it means that current queer and public discourse is dominated by the narrowed focus of one kind of relationship (read marital) over broader freedoms of sexual expression.
Acceptance
via Assimilation (Same-Sex Marriage)
Sexual minority activists have
increasingly demanded more than mere tolerance, but actual acceptance from
mainstream society as a sign of progress.
Yet, how such ‘acceptance’ is achieved is currently being played out in
the debates on same-sex marriage, not the more publicized ones between
equality-seeking proponents vs. traditional-minded opponents in mainstream
discourse, but the far more muted debates within sexually diverse communities
themselves.
Yep, Lovaas and Elia (2003) distinguish between the
assimilationist and radical positions. Those within the gay community who
sought access to the institution of marriage saw this as a strategy for
‘progress’, not only in the arenas of legal recognition, benefits (Auger,
2003) and social symbolism,
but also as a means of acceptance via assimilation (Eskridge,
1996, 2002; Sullivan, 1995a). From this perspective, same-sex marriage was
an issue of human rights and equality, without which blatant discrimination was
occurring. Although these latter points
are valid, they are valid within a limited framework of argumentation based
upon the traditional heterosexually structured institution of marriage. In contrast with equality strategists,
liberation strategists viewed this as a human rights issue narrowly defined
(read restricted to two-person intimate, conjugal relationships), that
ultimately seeks equality for some (read those in two-person intimate, conjugal
relationships who want to marry), while excluding all other types of
relationships (Butler, 2001a; Cooper, 2001; Ettlbrick,
1992; Warner, 1999b). The desire for access to this institution
speaks also to the psyches of same-sex attracted proponents, many of whom
attach their personal sense of inclusion and personhood to it, which is
underscored by a need for validation in their attempts to be accepted (Alderson,
2004; Auchmuty, 2004; Mohr, 1997; Rubin, 1993).
Whereas liberationists seek to create their own realities regardless of
the approval of mainstream society and unrestricted by the parameters of
heterosexist structures.
At the Canadian sexually diverse
activist level, this contrast in perspectives on the institution of marriage,
and where gays (assimilationists) and queers (liberationists) stand in relation
to it, is well demonstrated by the positions of EGALE and CLGRO.
EGALE has undertaken same-sex
marriage as an equality-based issue on the argument that denying access to the
institution of marriage is discriminatory.
With the incremental progress of seven provinces, one territory and then
the federal government legalizing same-sex marriage (The Toronto Star, 2005), EGALE sees these as important victories
with regard to the recognition of same-sex relationships, extension of rights
and benefits and the symbolism associated with the legal and social sanctioning
of these relationships. To assist with
the campaign to legalize same-sex marriages at the federal level, EGALE created
the organization, Canadians for Equal Marriage, a name that emphasizes the
equality strategy they have undertaken in pursuing this initiative. Nevertheless, EGALE points out it is fighting
to make the option available to same-sex couples who choose to marry and not
suggesting that all should.
The
liberationist position of CLGRO questions the institution of marriage, shifting
the systemic structure from the couple to the individual as the core unit, with
allowance made for dependents (e.g. children, the aged and people with
disabilities). Thus, they call for the
system to be reformed from the couple to the individual, who would choose who
they would register as their significant other.
This choice need not be restricted to relationships that are sexual,
conjugal or limited to two people. By
reforming the system to legally and socially recognize diverse forms of
relationships, CLGRO hopes to end the current two-tier system of relationship
recognition (CLGRO 2002), that hierarchically places marriage above common-law
and non-conjugal relationships (CLGRO, 2003).
It is from this broader analysis that goes beyond equality that
liberationists see the pursuit of same-sex marriage as contributing to the
privileging of those who choose to marry, while marginalizing those who do not.
CLGRO proposes that the state should
exit the business of marriage and that the institution of marriage continue to
exist under the auspices of religious institutions, resulting in marriages
having no legal implications, privileges or special status. Yet, should legal
recognition of couple relationships persist as a legal core unit, CLGRO
supports a registered domestic partnership (RDP) as a form of optional civil
union.
The race for inclusion of same-sex
relationships in the institution of marriage on the part of gay equality
strategists has provided a celebratory legal victory, a symbolic gesture of
‘progress’ and political expediency on the road to ‘acceptance’ via
assimilation. Liberationists (Kaplan,
1997; Maynard, 2000; Walters, 2001) and feminists (Auchmuty,
2004; Bevacqua, 2004; Boyd & Young, 2003; Cooper,
2001; Donovan, 2004; Fineman, 1995; Phelan, 2001;
Smart, 1984) step back from
the institution of marriage, applying a critical analysis to it, questioning
its relevance and privileged place in the hierarchy of relationships in our
society. In essence, how is this, an
issue of social justice when it benefits some and not others and potentially
further marginalizes the latter?
Given
that same-sex marriage is a reality in
Protection
via Omission (Health and Wellbeing Issues)
Perhaps what underscores the above two sections is our sense of self, who we are and how we identify and define ourselves, and how we relate to others and function in society. In other words, this is a question of our state of health and wellbeing, defined broadly to capture our mental, emotional, psychological, physical, social, spiritual, sexual and political state. Although a reflection upon such questions may be seen as an exercise in navel gazing, it would no less be a very important epistemological process that would shift thinking of health and wellness issues as being only about HIV/AIDS or to a lesser extent breast cancer to a broader, holistic and more encompassing perspective. How we treat and take care of ourselves speaks volumes about our sense of self and how we go about living both individually and collectively.
The literature
has documented an array of health and wellness concerns that are specific to gender
and sexually diverse populations. Lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, transgender and transsexuals (LGBTTs)
experience challenges to their health and wellbeing due to their distinct
cultural social location – that of having a minoritized gender identity and/or sexual
orientation in a heterosexually dominated society. There are many examples in the literature
illustrating how the health and wellbeing of LGBTTs
can be compromised due to their minority status, warranting the specific
inclusion of these populations in the development of health and wellbeing
policy. Ryan, Brotman & Rowe (2000)
provide comprehensive LGBTT coverage of substance abuse and addictions, mental
health, domestic, sexual and homophobic violence, LG parenting, and lack of
information on health issues outside HIV/AIDS in
Canadian
community-based needs assessment studies conducted across the country revealed
numerous systemic problems in how health care and social services are provided
to sexual minorities. A
Banks (2001)
undertook a comprehensive literature review of the health issues concerning LGBs in
Yet, despite the evidence in both formalized and grey literature, to what extent is the state of the queer communities’ health and wellness a part of the movement’s discourse? There have been controversial concerns that somehow focusing on broader health and wellbeing issues of sexual minorities may in some way be disrespectful to the very serious needs of those living with HIV/AIDS, or worse be a sign of ungratefulness towards its government funding. Few have questioned what message is being sent by accepting sponsorship dollars from alcohol companies for large events such as Pride festivities, allowing such companies to publicize their logos in sometimes overwhelming ways. And the historical notions that same-sex attraction is an illness, as it was at one time diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder (Conger, 1975; Herman & Duberman, 1995), can place a chill on progress, for fear that exposing the health and wellbeing challenges experienced by sexual minorities, risks re-pathologizing us. It is as if the queer community, at the larger level of discourse, has chosen the route of self-protection through silence. By not looking at or talking about these issues, it will give the straight world less to criticize us about. Yet, the price of this is the omission of sexual minorities from health and social service policy (Mulé, forthcoming) effectively denying us the infrastructure required to address our health and wellness needs, not to mention the continued suffering of people in queer communities.
There have been
equality-based arguments, usually proffered by the mainstream healthcare system,
that ensure access to all with the added claim, ‘we treat everybody the
same’. This fails to appease a growing
number of queer activists across the country, who from a liberationist
standpoint, are beginning to demand equity as opposed to equality, urging
informed, sensitive, accessible and effective health care and social
services. This perspective would be
based on the unique and specialized needs of queer communities as defined by
queer communities. For two
organizations, the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (CRHC) with a national
mandate and the Rainbow Health Network (RHN) localized in
Implications
and Considerations for Queer Strategizing
The three
examples highlighted in this paper, sex laws, same-sex marriage and health and
wellbeing, are just some of the issues the queer movement is currently working
on in
Altman (1971) provided a description of gay liberation as a movement at the height of its beginnings by highlighting changes in the consciousness of individuals and the development of new identities and lifestyles. Politics and culture are merged in affirming a right to live as one chooses and to work towards extending that right to others. Achieving such an existence is essentially the mission of the queer liberation movement. More recently Tatchell (2003) warns of the shortcomings of working within an equality framework, resulting in the surrendering of the uniqueness, distinctiveness of queer identity and its lifestyle and values.
Illustrated in Table 1.1 are the limitations in pursuing an equality agenda and challenges faced by a liberationist approach in current work undertaken by the modern-day gay and queer movements. Both strategies need to be given careful evaluative consideration not only for their pragmatic and potential effectiveness, but also their long-term implications. Also, the timing of using such strategies is important, particularly if both are being employed.
Table 1.1
|
Equality’s Limitations |
Liberation’s Challenges |
|
Emphasis on neo-liberal legislative rights, which does not necessarily extend to social rights |
Emphasis on social-cultural rights, which does not necessarily extend to legislative rights |
|
Goals are focused more so on attaining what others have, rather than creating what we define to be of meaning to us (heteronormative influences rather than queer-identified developments) |
Goals are focused on creating what we define to be of meaning to us (queer-identified developments rather than heteronormative influences) thus more difficult for others to understand and to implement |
|
Process is politically expedient with the ability to put forth simplistic messages understood by many in mainstream society (whether they agree or not) at the expense of the complexity of issues involved |
Process tends to be long term requiring extensive public education to address complexity of issues involved, yet lacks simplistic messages for public consumption and comprehension |
|
Addresses social values, beliefs and mores at surface levels |
Addresses social values, beliefs and mores in depth, thus far more challenging to mainstream society |
|
Assimilationist in nature towards public respectability, mainstream approval and validation |
Emancipatory in nature, based on resistance, towards self definition and societal change |
|
Outcomes of success elevates queers to the status quo only |
Outcomes of success distinguishes queers from, as well as challenges, the status quo |
Although the points on equality’s limitations and liberation’s challenges have been separated out and in many instances appear as opposites, they are not necessarily dichotomous strategies (hence the broken centre line). For example, although EGALE is generally identified as an equality-seeking group, they also undertake liberationist initiatives such as sexuality and the state, diversity and intersectionality and trans issues (EGALE, 2005b,c). Similarly, CLGRO, as a liberationist group, has sought equality as a means to an end, not as an end itself (CLGRO, 2004b), as when they successfully fought for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code (CLGRO, 2005). Therefore, the philosophical basis, political perspective and outcomes-based outlook on the future of the movement informs what strategy to undertake at what time. Complicating matters further is the necessity of taking into consideration the diversity of queer communities and the intersectional oppressions that exist therein. The equality concept has proven impotent in Canadian society, given the continued marginalization of various minorities and disenfranchised groups, and the liberationist perspective needs to incorporate a more intersectional approach. To this end, I introduce for consideration two perspectives that respect pluralism and can be linked in informing potential future strategizing for the gender and sexually diverse movement.
Anti-Oppressive
Perspective and Sexual Citizenship
Given our increasingly secular society and the unfulfilled issues, needs and concerns of the gender and sexually diverse community within it, the relevancy and effectiveness of the queer movement can utilize an anti-oppressive practical approach within a different-centred notion of citizenship framework that highlights sexual citizenship.
A prominent perspective and practice
intervention in the social work profession, anti-oppressive practice seeks to
secure social change for minorities, the disenfranchised and the oppressed. It identifies structural inequalities and works
to emancipate those oppressed by them.
It also takes a holistic approach encompassing culture, institutions,
legal frameworks, political systems, socio-economic infrastructures and
interpersonal relationships. “Anti-oppressive practice embodies a person-centred philosophy, an
egalitarian value system concerned with reducing the deleterious effects of
structural inequalities upon people’s lives” (Adams, Dominelli and Payne, 2002,
p. 6). Much of today’s
anti-oppressive practice borrows from all of these, particularly from radical
social work, and reconfigures social-systems theory by looking at power
imbalances and different interests within systems that lead to conflict, rather
than the traditional approach that consensus governs social institutions. It defines ‘praxis’ as a critical reflection
on reality and subsequent action upon it.
It sees the social-welfare system at the centre of contradictions
arising from dehumanizing consequences of capitalism. It recognizes the dialectical relationship
between people and their social environments, which in turn consists of systems
that are the source of both oppression and support. It believes in the individual’s own
consciousness of the role of social situations in his/her life. “Radical work,
we feel, is essentially understanding the position of
the oppressed in the context of the social and economic structure they live in”
(Bailey & Brake, 1975, p. 9).
In the context of larger structures
such as globalization and transnational capitalism, Shohat
(1998) attempts to bring feminism and multiculturalism in synch with
transnational movements. She does this
by desegregating social locations such as genders, sexualities, races, classes and
nations recognizing the intersectional relations between them. Crenshaw, Gotanda
and Peller (1996) view the axes of stratification
that capture varying social locations (including sexuality) as non-hierarchical
and having a ‘political intersectionality’ among
them. Neoliberalism
has a set of goals that impact directly on identity and cultural politics, as
exposed by Duggan (2003), through racial codes, populist campaigns, culture
wars and sex panics. She challenges neoliberalism’s presentation of multiculturalism as
neutral, arguing that it contributes to the marginalization of social movements
towards the sustenance of the current social order. She also identifies the schism in leftist
politics as implications of this, wherein gay activists pursue mainstreaming
agendas rather than disrupting the status quo. The insidious role of neoliberal
ideals formulate to create palatable, tolerable and assimilationist
goals towards equality – a kind of ‘homonormativity’
– as defined within heterosexist conditions, outflanking alternative queer
perspectives.
Locating such oppressions can be a
complicated process, particularly when considering the multiplicities of
people’s lived experiences that are best approached through intersectional
understandings. Rummens
(2003) posits that identities are arrived at via a process that is socially
constructed. She describes
identification as fluid, flexible, open to changes. Identities can overlap, intersect and may be
multiple and mixed. Gaining an
understanding of diversity issues, requires a multi-dimensional, intersectional
perspective that captures a holistic vision of personal and social identity
structures. Rummens
(2004) also points out that social inequities via power differentials need to
be considered when studying diversity intersections. Recognition of differing social locations
provides insight into differential impacts on social opportunities, life
circumstances and personal outcomes individually, as well as broader social
systems of marginalization and oppression.
Crenshaw (1994) notes that intersectionality
articulates the interactions and overlapping systems involving gender and race,
patriarchy and racism. It also
mediates tensions between group (identity-based) politics and assertions of
multiple identities. Feminist
perspectives on race, gender and sexuality see these aspects as integrated,
intertwined and inseparable (Hooks, 1981), yet also recognize differences among
equals as a means of moving forward with joint struggles towards enriched
visions (Lorde, 1984). These are but some examples of intersections
that can include other obvious markers such as disability (D’Aoust,
1994), Two-Spirit People (Brotman & Ryan, 2004),
and the less obvious such as region (Shields, 2003).
Thompson (1998)
posits the concept of the ‘PCS analysis’, that is the recognition that
discrimination happens on three separate, yet interconnected levels – the
personal, cultural and structural (PCS).
This is drawn from
A furthering of
Sexual
citizenship is a means of staking out one’s place in society based upon a
valued and acknowledged sexual identity.
To claim citizenship is an attempt at belonging (Weeks, 1998), a means
of establishing a legitimate place in society.
For queer communities, such claims represent a transition from a private
(closeted) existence to going public and challenging society to be more
inclusive while simultaneously protecting our private lives (Weeks, 1998). Citizenship can indicate a marker of
inclusion/exclusion, the shaping of economic and social power and their
distribution of who has access to political power (Taylor, 1989; Field,
2000). The public/private dyad is
extremely complex with regard to the concept of sexual citizen and is most
challenged by sexual dissidents, whom
Additionally,
concerns are also raised from a lesbian/feminist perspective regarding
traditional notions of citizenship being associated with patriarchy,
heterosexism and the nuclear family (
Seidman (2001) points out that gay identity movements have
pursued an agenda of inclusion via equal rights, anti-discrimination and an
argument of sameness, which is a politics of sexual citizenship that results in
a process of purification and normalization.
Contrary to this is queer politics which destabilizes normalization of
any identity. The queer perspective
recognizes the potential for good and bad sexualities, and thus, resists
normalizing social controls. “Queer
politics is about creating new norms of selfhood and intimate solidarity, and
reshaping a culture of eroticism. In
other words, queer politics is about both rethinking democratic citizenship and
remaking individual and collective life of imagining bodies, selves, and
intimacies that are formed and organized in a non-normalizing social order”
(pp. 327-328). Yet, even within the
realm of sexual citizenship,
Although
tensions exist between such perspectives, caution is expressed about creating
dichotomous sites of assimilation versus contestation, as sexual minorities
have a history of creating new meanings, understandings and experiences of
concepts such as marriage, family and citizenship (Giddens,
1992; Weeks, 1998; Stacey, 1998), thus, the potential consequences of gay
normalcy may be uneven (Richardson, 2004).
Indeed, it is important not to underestimate the transformative
abilities of sexual minorities upon entering new citizenship status. It is also
imperative not to overlook the structural parameters of the framework within
which change is being experienced, but remains limited to heteronormative
equality. Liberated, self-defined queers
can create their own sense of meaning and values beyond boundaries of equality. This may in effect expose the diversity of
sexual minority communities based on identities, philosophical perspectives and
political locations of the assimilationist gays, liberationist queers and other
sites. Thus, paradoxically, as gays gain
societal ‘tolerance’, they occupy new normative public space, yet simultaneously
social, economic and moral divides are erected relegating queers to the less
visible private spaces (
Field (2000) offers contested citizenship as a model that seeks to contest the boundaries of citizenship. This involves political actions and initiatives, through counter-hegemonic strategies, that urge the expansion of citizenship’s sphere of social justice to include the marginalized and excluded from its benefits. Contestation of the boundaries goes beyond mere legal rights, as social justice is the practice of citizenship:
“Hence, conflict is central to the dynamics of contested citizenship and is viewed in a positive light. In contrast, harmony (a situation of non-conflict) is considered as negative, for its presence signals the end of pluralism (or diversity). The condition for harmony is either assimilation of individuals considered “other” or the relegation of differences to a sphere considered non-political or private. Either way, this is considered counter to a politics which aims to accommodate diversity by denying, making invisible, or smoothing over impediments to full citizenship. Contested citizenship is a tool for the management of conflicts. It assumes that conflict is essential to move closer to the ideal of social justice.” (p. 5).
Hubbard (2001) challenges dominant notions of public space and sexual citizenship and the role of intimacy therein, arguing that dissidents have found ways to transgress public and civic spaces. “Heavily ironic, self-consciously postmodern and aggressively radical, queer has sought to redefine sexual citizenship in a number of ways” (p. 143). Inventing and re-inventing spaces is usually motivated by pathologization of sexual minorities in one form or another (Cooper, 1995) (i.e. moral panic, pedophilia).
Therefore, by acknowledging the limitations of equality, particularly through legalistic rights claims within a heteronormative context, a kind of contested citizenship can be developed that undertakes an intersectional anti-oppressive perspective which would be inclusive of the sexual/dissident citizen in pursuing queer oriented liberationism. Such an initiative would deconstruct the shifting divides between assimilationist gays and liberationist queers, as it would challenge the definitions and demarcations not only of society in general, but also within gender and sexually diverse communities. Establishing a sexual citizenry within society utilizing a contested citizenship approach within an anti-oppressive framework requires an intersectional conscience that acknowledges diversities such as disability, race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and age. Furthermore, it would also need to accommodate the political location of the citizenry, with a place for those who value assimilationism and those who challenge it, as a means of minimizing exclusions and redressing polarizations. By taking this approach, diversity is prioritized as an anti-oppressive perspective, and the sexual concept of citizenship is centralized (in response to its current lack of visibility) towards liberation in the contestation process.
In this paper, I have presented existing tensions within the Canadian gender and sexually diverse movement, particularly the increasing divide between assimilationist gays seeking equality and radical queers seeking liberation, even though this is not always clearly demarcated. Through frontline activist experience, I have shared my work in the three areas of Bill C-2/solicitation laws, same-sex marriage and health and wellbeing issues and my observations on the three respective emerging strategies of normalization via desexualizing of queer communities, acceptance via assimilation and protection via omission. Within each, I discussed the limitations of an equality and challenges of a liberationist strategy, that although appear divergent, I argue can and often do coexist. I then posited a combination of an anti-oppressive perspective with the concept of sexual citizenship as a means of incorporating intersectionalism in the strategic work of sexually diverse communities.
Activist work must proceed with caution so as not to be unconsciously enveloped by neoliberal concepts of homonormativity based on heterosexist notions (Duggan, 2003) of mainstream tolerance. Regardless of what strategies we choose to take, the true test of their effectiveness is ultimately whether heterosexism and any of the phobias associated with the gender and sexual diversities as manifested through prejudice and discrimination continue to exist (Bell & Binnie, 2000). Undertaking intersectionality in strategic work allows us to address a diversity of issues, needs and concerns based not only on oppressions defined by social location, but also political perspectives such as equality and liberationism.
Therefore, the tool of contested citizenship (Field, 2000) can assist us in our continued strategizing within the queer movement that would allow us to stake out space and a place via sexual citizenship. Through contestation, we can pursue equality, yet transcend its limitations that result in mere tolerance and assimilation. We can define for ourselves our own identities and lay claim to our unique and diverse realities and challenge society to be inclusive and accommodating of these realities, as the liberationists do. Most importantly, throughout such a process, true to an anti-oppressive practice, we are to constantly take into consideration the intersectionality of our many oppressions and strategic options toward an ultimate goal of social justice.
References
Alderson, K.G. (2004). A phenomenological investigation of same-sex marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13, 107 – 122.
Altman, D. (1971). Homosexual
Oppression and Liberation.
Andrews, G.
(ed.) (1991). Citizenship.
Antheas, F. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1992). Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender,
Colour and Class, and the Anti-Racist Struggle.
Auchmuty, R. (2004). Same-sex marriage revived: Feminist critique and legal strategy. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 101 – 126.
Auger, J.A. (2003). Passing Through: The End-of-Life Decisions
of Lesbians and Gay Men.
Bailey, R. & Brake, M. (1975). Radical Social Work.
Banks, C., Rochon Associated Human Resource
Management Consulting Inc. (2001). The Cost
of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia on
Banks, C., Rochon Associated Human Resource
Management Consulting Inc. (2003). The
Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review
on the Human Impact of Homophobia in
Bevacqua, M. (2004). Feminist theory and the question of lesbian and gay marriage. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 36 – 40.
Bloomfield, K. (1993). A comparison of alcohol consumption between lesbians and heterosexual women in an urban population. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 33, 257 – 269.
Boyd, S.B. & Young, C.F.L. (2003). “From same-sex
to no sex”?: Trends towards recognition of (same-sex) relationships
in
Bronski, M. (1998). The
liberation of pleasure in Bull, C. (2001). Come Out Fighting: A Century of Essential Writing on Gay & Lesbian
Liberation.
Brooks, D. & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147 – 157.
Brotman, S. & Ryan, B. (2004). An intersectional approach to
queer health policy and practice: Two-Spirit people in
Brotman, S., Ryan, B., & Cormier, R. (2003).
The health and social service needs of gay and lesbian elders
and their families in
Calhoun, C. (2000). Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of
the Closet: Lesbian and Gay Displacement.
Chasin, A. (2000). Selling Out: The Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market.
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in
Conger, J.J. (1975). Proceedings of the American
Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the
Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, (620 – 651) quoted in American
Psychological Association (Downloaded
Cooper, D. (1995). Power in Struggle: Feminism, Sexuality and the State. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cooper, D. (2001). Like counting stars?: Re-structuring equality & the socio-legal space of same-sex marriage. In R. Wintemute, & M. Andenaes (Eds.) Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study of National European & International Law, (pp. 75 – 77).
Crenshaw, K. W. (1994). Mapping
the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of colour. In M. A.
Fineman & Mykitiuk
(Eds.), The Public Nature of Private Violence. (pp. 93 -118).
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N.
& Peller, G. (Eds.) (1996). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that
Formed the Movement.
D’Aoust, V. (1994). Competency, autonomy, and choice: On being a lesbian and having disabilities. Canadian Journal of Women & the Law, 7, 564 – 578.
D’Augelli, A.R. & Hershberger, S. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 421 – 448.
Daling, J.R.,
Denenberg, R. (1995). Report on lesbian health. Women’s Health Issues, 5, (181 – 191).
Dibble, S.L., Vanoni, J.M., Miaskowski, C. (1997). Women’s attitudes toward breast cancer screening procedures: Differences by ethnicity. Women’s Health Issues, 7, 47 – 54.
Donovan, C. (2004). Why reach for the moon? Because the stars aren’t enough. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 24 – 29.
Duberman, M. (1993). Stonewall.
Duggan, L. (1995). Queering the state. In L. Duggan & N.D. Hunter (Eds.) Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political
Culture (pp. 178 – 193).
Duggan, L. (2003). The Twilight of
Equality?: Neoliberalism,
Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy.
Eaton, M. (1995). Homosexual unmodified:
Speculation on law’s discourse, race, and the construction of sexual identity. In D. Herman & C. Stychin (Eds.), Legal
Inversion.
EGALE. (2005a). Egale
EGALE. (2005b). Egale’s Committees
retrieved June 9, 2005 at http://www.egale.ca/printer.asp?lang=E&item=786&version=EN
EGALE. (2005c). Who we are and what we
do retrieved
Eskridge, Jr., W.N. (1996). The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual
Eskridge, Jr., W.N. (2002). Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the
Future of Gay Rights.
Ettlbrick, P.L. (1992). Since when is marriage
a path to liberation? In
Field, A. (2000). Contested Citizenship: Renewed Hope for Social Justice. Canadian Woman Studies, 20, 78 – 83.
Fineman, M.A. (1995). The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family, & Other Twentieth Century Tragedies….
Friess, S. (1997). Behind closed doors:
Domestic violence in The Advocate,
748, 48 – 52.
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern
Societies.
Godfrey, J. (2003). The lesbian, gay man’s and transgendered experience as users of healthcare service. In J. Dooher & R. Byrt (Eds.), Empowerment and the Health Service User (Vol. 2) (pp. 101-117). Wittshire: Mark Allen.
Gonsiorek, J.C. & Rudolph, J.R. (1991). Homosexual identity:
Coming out and other develomental events. In J.C. Gonsiorek & J.D. Weinrich
(Eds.), Homosexuality: Research
Implications for Public Policy (pp. 161-176).
Gopinath, G. (1996). Funny boys and girls:
Notes on a queer south Asian planet. In R. Leong (Ed.), Asian American Sexualities: Dimensions of the Gay and Lesbian
Experience.
Government of
Haynes, S. (1995). Breast cancer risk: Comparisons of lesbians and
heterosexual women. In D.J. Bowen, (Ed.), Cancer and Cancer Risks Among Lesbians.
Herek, G.M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: The Yale sexual orientation survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 24, 15 – 30.
Herman, D. (1993). The politics
of law reform: Lesbian and gay rights into the 1990s. In J. Bristow and A.R.
Wilson (Eds.), Activating Theory: Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual Politics. (pp. 246 – 263).
Herman, D. (1994). Rights of
Passage: Struggles for Lesbian and Gay Legal Equality.
Herman, E. & Duberman, M.
(1995). Psychiatry,
Psychology, & Homosexuality.
Herrell, R., Goldberg, J., True, W.R., Ramakrishnan, V.,
Hirschauer, S. (1997). The Medicalization
of Gender Migration. The International Journal of Transgenderism, (1) 1, retrieved
hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I A Woman?: Black Women and Feminism.
Hubbard, P.
(2001). Sex Zones: Intimacy, Citizenship and Public Space. Sexualities, 4, 51 – 71.
Hunter, N.D. (1995).
Marriage, Law and Gender: A Feminist Inquiry. In L. Duggan & N.D. Hunter (Eds.), Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political
Culture (pp. 107-122).
Kaplan, M.B. (1997). Sexual
Justice: Democratic Citizenship & the Politics of Desire.
Kinsman, G. (1987). The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in
Koblin, B.A., Hessol, N.A., Sauber,
A.G.,
Lehring, G. (1997). Essentialism
and the political articulation of identity. In
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Health Association. (1999). LGBT Health Care
Access Project.
Lister, R.
(1996). Citizenship Engendered in Dave Taylor (ed.) Critical Social Policy: A Reader.
Lister, R.
(1997). Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister
Outsider: Essays and Speeches.
Maynard, S. (2000, March 17). ‘Modernization or liberation?’ Capital Xtra!, 19.
Mays,
McIntosh, M. (1968). The
homosexual role. Social
Problems, 16, 182–92.
Meyer,
Meyer,
I.H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 797.
Mohr, R.D. (1997). The case for gay marriage. In
R.M. Baird S.E. & Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-Sex
Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. (pp. 84-104).
Nuttbrock, L., Rosenblum, A. & Blumenstein, R.
(2002). Transgender Identity
Affirmation and Mental Health, The
International Journal of Transgenderism, 6,
retrieved
Phelan, S. (2001). Sexual Strangers. Gays, Lesbians and
Dilemmas of Citizenship.
Rachlin, K. (2002). Transgender Individuals'
Experiences of Psychotherapy, The International Journal of Transgenderism, 6, retrieved
Richardson, D. (1998). Sexuality and Citizenship, Sociology, 32, 83 – 100.
Richardson, D. (2000a). Claiming Citizenship? Sexuality, Citizenship and Lesbian/Feminist Theory. Sexualities, 3, 255 – 272.
Richardson, D. (2000b). Constructing sexual citizenship: Theorizing sexual rights. Critical Social Policy, 20, 105 – 135.
Richardson, D. (2004). Locating Sexualities: From Here to Normality. Sexualities, 7, 391 – 411.
Robson, R. (1998). Sapho Goes to
Rochman, S.
(
Rubin, G.S. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the
politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove, M.A. Barale, D.M. & Halperin,
(Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. (pp.
3-44).
Rummens, J. A. (2003). Conceptualising identity and diversity: Overlaps, intersections, and processes. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 10 – 25.
Rummens, J. A. (2004). Overlapping and intersecting identities. Canadian Diversity, 3, 5 – 9.
Ryan, B., Brotman, S. & Rowe, B. (2000). Access to Care: Exploring the Health and
Well-Being of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Two-Spirit People in
Seidman, S. (1996). (Ed.) Queer Theory/Sociology.
Seidman, S. (1997). Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics.
Seidman, S. (2001). From Identity to Queer Politics: Shifts in Normative Heterosexuality and the Meaning of Citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 5, 321 – 328.
Sex Laws Committee. (2004). Criminal Code Sections ealing
with Indecent Acts and Bawdy-Houses.
Shakespeare, T., Gillespie-Sells, K. and Davies, D.
(1996). The Sexual Politics of
Disability: Untold Desires.
Shields, R. (2003). Intersections in cultural policy: Geographic, socioeconomic and other markers of identity. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 150 – 164.
Shohat, E. (1998). Talking Visions: Multicultural Feminism in
Transnational Age.
Skinner, W.F. & Otis, M.D. (1996). Drug and
alcohol use among lesbian and gay people in a southern
Skinner, W.F. (1994). The prevalence and demographic predictors of illicit and licit drug use among lesbians and gay men. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1307 – 1310.
Smart, C. (1984). The Ties that
Bind: Law, Marriage & the Reproduction of Patriarchal Relations.
Smith, M. (1999). Lesbian
and Gay Rights in
Stacey, J. (1998). Gay and lesbian families: Queer like us. In M. A.
Mason, A Skolnick & S.D. Sugarman
(Eds.), All Our Families: New Policies
for a New Century.
Stall, R.D.,
Stasiulis, D. and Bakan A.B. (1997). Negotiating Citizenship: The Case of Foreign Domestic Workers in
Stevenson,
N. (ed.) (1998). Cultural
Citizenship.
Sullivan, A. (1995a) Virtually normal. In R.M.
Baird & S.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-Sex
Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. (pp. 126-131).
Sum Quod Sum
Foundation Inc. (1997). A
Report on the Needs Assessment Survey of Senior Gays and Lesbians.
Tatchell, P.
(2003). Equality? No thanks. now
Taylor, D. (1989). Citizenship and Social Power. Critical Social Policy, 26, 19 – 31.
Taylor, D. (1996). Citizenship and
Social Power, in D.
The
Thompson, N. (1998). Promoting Equality:
Challenging Discrimination and Oppression in the Human Services.
Timmons, S. (1990). The Trouble
with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement.
Turner, B.
(ed.) (1993). Citizenship
and Social Theory.
Vaid, U. (1995). Virtual Equality:
The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation.
Valanis, B.G., Bowen, D.J., Bassford, T., Whitlock, E., Charney, P., Carter, R.A. (2000). Sexual orientation and health. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 843 – 853.
Valentine, F. & Vickers, J. (1996). Released from the Yoke of Paternalism and ‘Charity’: Citizenship and the Rights of Canadians with Disabilities. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 14, 155 – 177.
Waites, M. (2003). Equality at Last?
Homosexuality, Heterosexuality and the Age of Consent in the
Walby, S. (1994). Is Citizenship Engendered? Sociology 28, 379 – 395.
Walters, S.D. (2001). Take my domestic partner, please: Gays and marriage
in the era of the visible. In M. Bernstein, & R. Reinmann,
(Eds.), Queer Families, Queer Politics:
Challenging Culture and the State. (pp. 338-357).
Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory.
Warner, M. (1999). The Trouble with
Warner, T. (2002). Never Going Back: A History of Queer
Activism in
Weeks, J. (1998). The Sexual Citizen. Theory, Culture and Society, 15, 35 – 52.
Welch, S., Howden-Chapman, P.,
Yep, G.A., Lovaas, K.E., Elia, J.P. (2003). A critical
appraisal of assimilationist and radical ideologies underlying same-sex
marriage in LGBT communities in the
Young,