advice on "GLBT" paper please!

[daddysambiguity]

God. I have myself in a mess.

I am writing my Rhetoric paper on two competing discourses that have been identified to be present in the "GLBT" community or whatever. I'm looking at a rhetoric of assimilation vs. one of liberation

To help me with this, I will provide you with this quick, rough overview in case you don't know:

Assimilationists

Comments

[profgreen]

This dichotomy of assimilationism/liberationism is bunk its "subversivism" at its best.

Just because you're boring, doesn't make you a slave.

[daddysambiguity]

don't think anybody considers those in the assimilationist movement slaves, if that's what you're getting at. i'd think them quite the opposite actually.

[profgreen]

Liberation: antonyms - Captivity, Slavery.

The logic is thus:

1. Assimilation is the desire to be like the masses.
2. Assimilation is the opposite of liberation.
3. The desire to be like the masses is the desire for the opposite of liberation.
4. The desire to be like the masses is the desire for slavery.
5. Assimilationism is slavery.

[daddysambiguity]

ah, duh! :) hadn't thought about that implication. dunno where my head is today.

and, you know, i actually think those points are somewhat valid in an abstract way, but that's my own perspective from my own personal experiences.

i also think that since "assimilationist" tactics are much more widely successful in securing the interests of those whose interests are being represented that they're not actually so enslaved. they're doing a decent good job at achieving their goals -- at least as compared to GLBT people who wish to, say, abolish the idea of marriage to begin with or something like that.

anyway, i think it really depends on where you stand.

i also agree that there is a lot more complexity to people involved in these movements as well as the line between them and what each actually implies, but my paper is only looking at scholarship on the tension caused by what are often considered to be two opposing camps. so, basically, what scholars say about the movements and not what i say. :)

[derekja]

why are the three defining bullets of the "liberationists" all cast in terms of the "assimilationists"?

[daddysambiguity]

eh. good point! :)

no real reason, i guess. not sure why i framed them that way, though. i guess it's because i wrote up the assimilationist bullets first. lol. i may reframe them when i get back from the track.

i need to be careful about that. thanks!

slight rant, apologies in advance

[amphibian23]

No offense intended, but the dichotomy kind of annoys me. Reading your list I get this intention that basically, assimilationists are rubbish and liberationists are great. Even though marriage rights are very important to e.g. the terminally ill or couples of which one partner is an immigrant.

What does one's belief in the origins of sexual orientation (or lack of) have to do with one's activity in combatting racism (or lack of)?

There are shitloads of oh-so-edgy people who are guilty of exclusionary practices.

no apology needed! :)

[daddysambiguity]

Yeah, the dichotomy is simplistic, I agree. It's the one I 'm using, though, because it's the one identified in the literature.

Also, keep in mind that the bullet list does not include the pros and cons of each side. :) It only includes the primary assertions of each group.

It so happens that a lot of the scholarship does address the practical implications involved. The assimilationist approach is much, much more successful than any kind of liberationist approach has been or, honestly, probably ever would be. So in terms of, you know, gaining acceptance for mainstream gays and lesbians and protecting folks from discrimination, it's very useful and that shouldn't be ignored

Re: no apology needed! :)

[amphibian23]

I see your point more now (though I certainly think there is a good deal of overlap

Political revolutionaries always need a reminder that they aren't always good at being everything to everyone.

[jimmywitz]

Perhpas there is something of a false divide here. Do liberationist and assimilationist ideas have to be mutully exclusive.
For instance, the issue of gay marriage rights is rightfully an issue of civil rights which are being denied in contravention to the 1st and 14th amendments. But tht does not force anyone who doesn't believe in marriage to actually get married.
Likewise, the idea that sexual identity, and gender identity are biological doesn't also negate the idea that, even if it IS a choice, then that is also potected under the privacy rights found in the constitution under Griswold, and subsequently Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas.
Some people will naturally look at these issues under a more "pragmatic" (assimilationist) way, while others will approach them under a more "moral or constitutionalist" (liberationist) way.
It doesn't mean that one side or the other HAS to be wrong, does it?
The tragedy might be that the forces of bigotry and hate will use our divisions to defeat us.

[pikake]

from just one polisci geek's perspective -

i like your critiques. my critique of your critiques is that what you deem a pragmatic approach, and dylan calls an assimalationist apprach, is generally more of a "constitutionalist" approach, as well, IMO. especially in the sense that they are often based upon liberal enlightenment-style origins of "natural law" and "human rights" and the like.

i agree that the dichotomy is often a false one, at least in praxis, if not in theory. but then again i am not a dualist.

[daddysambiguity]

I agree with this assessment! :)

Think he actually does, too, since we talked about it some while going around the track today! :)

[pinkpolarity]

I think bisexuality is one area where blogging helps the more "liberationist" end of the continuum, because Bi people are often completely shut out of mainstream LGBT dialogue-- we break the whole "you're either born gay or born straight" idea with our very fluid sexuality, and that's bad for PR in some areas. I've seen a few cases where Bi organizing on blogs has helped make a difference in how some mainstream groups write/handle issues of concern to Bi people (for instance, organizing people to go back to X group and say "this campaign was biphobic for these reasons" and the group listens). Don't know if it's something you want to look into for your paper, but it's a thought.

[daddysambiguity]

thanks for the ideas! that said, i actually think i am altering my paper a bit to look at assimilationist rhetoric instead of liberationist rhetoric. there's a lot more literature out there on it! :)

think you're right about bi folks, though. i always think about the complexities of sexual attraction when i watch shows/read books about a gay gene and things like that.