Undergrad Thesis
Thesis. Because I needed a place to put it. Spring/2003
Introduction
In this essay I will construct a defense of identity politics as used specifically in the gay liberation movement. The concept of identity politics is, in itself, a very modern thing. This breed of politics is quite a recent phenomenon, designated specifically within the last two decades (Heyes). Even more recently, however, identity politics has come under fire as a viable means of political activism. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have spawned a new cry for unity. Moving focus away from internal differences between US citizens, this line of thought pushes America to a more homogenous national identity. Since identity politics seem to be based on differences alone, many people are speaking out against them. A think tank on gay and lesbian political issues has run a print campaign in many popular gay publications calling for gays to put away identity politics and embrace the larger context of unity in America (Goldstein). Essentially, people want gays and lesbians to abandon their identity as homosexual and focus on being "American." Their claim is that partitioning sections of citizens off is not the way to go in gaining civil rights for all. Breaking America off into factions creates alienation of those factions. Then, instead of America being one unified nation, it is a compilation of bickering subgroups.
What I want to argue, however, is that without identity politics, the gay liberation movement cannot move forward. It is an unfortunate result of the nature of the problem of discrimination that identity politics is necessary. This, however, assumes that the gay liberation movement is, in and of itself, important. It also indicates that the progress of such a movement is measurable. Both of these are rather problematic claims right off the bat. Let’s explain those first.
The first is the importance of the gay liberation movement. There is an intrinsic good found within this sort of activism. I say that it is inherently good because the propagation of civil rights and liberties for any group in America is upholding the foundational beliefs of the country. The importance doesn’t necessarily lie in the group itself, but in the overarching egalitarian goals of the movement. However this group is specifically relevant now because gays and lesbians explicitly do not posses the same rights as heterosexuals. America does not only exercise social alienation of gays and lesbians within the culture, but also in actual laws and political power. Currently, 17 states still have sodomy laws. Gays and lesbians find it difficult to adopt children. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage act was passed into law, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Employment can still be denied in most states based on sexual orientation (Public Agenda Online). These aren't simply things acted out by individuals who are heterosexist or homophobic; these are institutionalized practices that deny a group of Americans basic sorts of liberties. It is this fact that makes the gay liberation movement specifically poignant.
Next, by claiming that the practice of identity politics can further the gay liberation movement, it seems that this takes for granted that progress is measurable. The truth of the matter is that there’s no set bar the movement is trying to reach. It isn't a linear process in which goals are achieved and ticked off of some magical liberation chart. Gains in one area can easily result in loss in another. A more generalized example of this is the fact that, if the 60's and 70's can be characterized as the rise of social consciousness and civil liberties, then the time thereafter can be characterized as the rise of the New Right, and its reaction to the events of previous times. This backlash makes it difficult to speak of an all encompassing notion of the progress of the movement (Eaklor 290). When awareness of the group increases, those opposed to the group strive more violently against the group. Often times the problems seem to stem from the increased visibility of gays and lesbians, rather than just the fact that they are gays and lesbians. This creates a paradox. By bringing out issues concerning gays and lesbians, the opposition is forced to become stronger against those issues. While it is important to recognize this fact, it is also important to acknowledge a general improvement in the treatment of gays and lesbians in the current era. It might not be possible to give a specific report of melioration, but it is possible to say that such progress exists. When I speak of the progress o f the gay liberation movement, I am referring to a more generalized sense of accomplishment, rather than a delineated table of progress.
I'll begin with an explanation of identity politics. This section will include a definition and history of the term as well as its general application to the gay and lesbian community. Next I'll discuss the opposition to the use of identity politics. To defend identity politics, it is important to understand its perceived faults. In the next section, I intend to counter these arguments with the support found for identity politics. Lastly, I'll assert why identity politics is essential to the future of the gay liberation movement. Here, I don't want to simply express the current standards of identity politics (although I intend to do this as well), but take a more theoretical standpoint as to why identity politics is fundamentally bound with the gay liberation movement. In conclusion, I hope to arrive at an accurate defense of identity politics as activism and possible ways of improvement based on the theoretical foundations of the practice.
Foundations
To discuss, and more specifically to defend, identity politics it is necessary to delineate exactly what is meant by the term. Identity politics constructs the individual experience of a person into a type of political tool. Essentially, identity politics revolves around the notion of a social group, suffering injustice based on the nature of what defines them as a social group (Heyes). This works under the assumption that simply being a member of a specific social group, such as women, hispanics, etc., puts the individual in a more vulnerable position to exploitation by a dominant group.
The use of the word "identity" instantly brings up larger philosophical connotations. The word is loaded. To take something that initially seems so subjective and individual and turn it into a collective sort of consciousness is a slippery slope. Does this instantly limit identity politics to over generalizations of experience? Not necessarily. What it does do, is put personal experience into a political context. And from that coalitions between individuals who share similar experiences can be formed. This makes identity politics reactionary to the politics of the dominant group. Without the experience of injustice, these smaller groups wouldn't form. Identity politics also takes these groups a step further. Instead of appealing to the universalism of human rights rhetoric, these marginalized groups seek acceptance into society based on their differences. This is the antithesis of assimilation, where disempowered groups seek to make themselves like the dominate group, and on that basis be admitted into society. Identity politics makes the differences essential to acceptance.
To illustrate the above points further, take Group A as the dominant group of society. Group Z is the minority group. Group A constructs a stereotype of Group Z, and discriminates accordingly, denying them access to jobs, resources, etc. As a result the members of Group Z have experiences of injustice and bind together as a collective identity based on the similarity of those experiences. This similarity of experience is a result of who they are and what makes them different from the dominant group. This is the "identity" in identity politics. After Group Z has formed this coalition they can take back the stereotype originally placed upon them by Group A, and use it to create an awareness of their group. They have been marked with a stigma, but through identity politics this difference becomes a good thing. So instead of being denied rights because of this difference, Group Z is awarded specific protection against the denial of rights. They are accepted as different from Group A, and retain an identity separate from the dominant group, but are awarded the same rights.
The later part of the twentieth century saw a great deal of movements based on claims of previous social injustices. These include second wave feminism, Black civil rights, gay liberation, and the Native American movements. These are based on an identity politics model. We can date some of the theoretical roots of identity politics back to Mary Wollstonecraft. In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, she opens with:
In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answer will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted either by the words or conduct of men (21).
In the above example of Groups A and Z, I illustrated the importance of the reactionary quality of identity politics. Dominant society creates the structures in which their discriminations make sense. In Wollstonecraft, we see the philosophical beginnings of that notion. Women, for Wollstonecraft, were created inferior by society, and not by nature. She wanted to arrive at an a priori sense of woman's identity, free from the "various motives of action." Identity politics attempts to do this by taking the context given to it by dominant society and redefining it in such a way that brings it closer to a true identity, from which we can base opinions. If we are to understand that identity is socially constructed by the conditions of the dominant group, then identity politics is the remedy to break from that false consciousness that affects even the members of the specific group.
In this sense, a liberal democracy becomes a prerequisite for identity politics. When, in the face of a liberal democracy, oppression still exists people look more deeply at the sources of that oppression. Most theories of liberalism work under a notion of the basic sameness of political subjects. For example, in John Rawls' Justice as Fairness, political subjects participate from behind what is called the "veil of ignorance" in the original position. He explains:
In short, the original position is to be understood as a device of representation. As such it models our considered convictions as reasonable persons by describing the parties (each of whom is responsible for the fundamental interests of a free and equal citizen) as fairly situated and as reaching an agreement subject to appropriate restrictions on reasons for favoring principles of political justice (18).
Citizens are rid of specific identities to be able to make judgments of social welfare. Rawls makes way for a reasonable pluralism where these citizens from the original position can bind together based on principles and specific preferences. These groups are not defined by identity, but rather by a shared political interest. An example of such a group could be the NRA, or the Anti-Abortion movement. But the overarching idea is that these groups do not make up the liberal democracy itself, but rather are able to work within it.
But this imaginary citizen from behind the veil of ignorance has historically been a white, upper-class male. Time and time again throughout the course of American history we see outright oppression based on class, race, sexuality, and gender. We see the persistent historical failure of liberal democracies to achieve anything more than token inclusion in power structures for members of marginalized groups. Identity politics developed out of a need to recognize a deeper sense of what a political subject is, and thus allowing for a more meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups within the political power structure. This could not be achieved by assimilation because that merely accepted the dominant group as "right" and thus reinforced the inferiority of minority groups.
The gay liberation movement, however, presents a specific problem to identity politics. Unlike race which is readily apparent and unchangeable, sexuality is a much less apparent and possibly fluid sort of identity. It is still up for debate if sexual preference is genetic, or a choice, or a combination thereof. Not only this, but also the fact that sexual preference can exist in a wealth of other identities, makes it specifically difficult to create a coalitioned identity from which political action can sprout (Cruikshank 60). Does this then mean that homosexuality is not a real minority? If this is the case, identity politics has no meaning here. If homosexuals could not be truly differentiated from their heterosexual peers then there would be no need for political action. The idea of sexual preference would not be a political issue. But it is. The big difference is that gays have fewer civil rights than heterosexuals. This fact makes them a minority. And so identity politics is extremely relevant.
The gay liberation's movement towards the use of identity politics isn't explicit. The term "identity politics" itself has developed alongside the history of its practice. Also, it is difficult to create a grand narrative of the history of the gay liberation movement in which we could place the emergence of identity politics. Queer theory itself is a relatively new thing and as a result is constantly being reinvented. But Vicki Eaklor a gay/lesbian historian has characterized three periods of gay liberation movement history (291). The area of time with which I am most concerned is the post-Stonewall era up until today. It is here, if anywhere, I believe we can pinpoint the emergence of identity politics in the gay liberation movement.
On Friday, June 27th, 1969, a group of unconventional queens, gays, and lesbians started a riot as a response to mounting tensions after police attempted to close the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar. Raids were common a s most gay bars operated underground without a liquor license. This characterized the way gay society worked in general. Most gays and lesbians were closeted at this point, and when they were out they strove for assimilation with the homophile movement. We will discuss the movement in depth later in the essay. But the participants in the Stonewall riots had very little to lose in society. They were characterized as flamboyant outcasts. Anger increased when a police van arrived to take suspects to police headquarters. The riot ensued as the first violent rebellion against the things happening to them. In "Rat," an underground paper, a first hand account included:
The orgy was taking place. Vengeance vented against the source of repression--gay bars, busts, kids victimized and exploited by the mafia and cops. Strangely, no one spoke to the crowd or tried to direct the insurrection. Everyone’s heads were in the same place. Some chanted "occupy--take over, take over," "Fag power..." (qtd. in Marotta 73).
This participant's view seems to herald in a notion of victimization on the part of gays and lesbians. What's really interesting about this is the line "everyone's heads were in the same place." This conveys an inherent solidarity between the participants of that event, and is characteristic of identity politics. Admittedly, this participant's sense of political purpose wasn't necessarily shared by the entire group. This protest wasn't initially rooted in a gay political agenda. More accurately, this group of people me rely felt frustrated at official interference.
In the evenings that followed the initial Stonewall riot, Christopher Street in Greenwich Village was a hot spot of openly gay activity. Craig Rodwell, an activist striving for more open representations of gay life, passed out pamphlets about creating legal and open places for gays and lesbians (Marotta 75). While many activities that took place on Christopher street after the Stonewall riot weren't expressly political, they opened a flood gate for the New Left, who's political outlook was not homophile, but geared toward liberation. Thus, Stonewall became the beginning of a forum for specifically open gay politics, and homosexuality as an identity.
In the 1970's, this idea of homosexual identity solidified and was able to be politicized. One of the first slogans of the gay liberation movement was "gay is good" (Cruikshank 60). This is exactly what I was speaking of earlier with Groups A and Z. Heterosexuals characterize homosexuals as different and thus discriminate against them. At this point in history, gays and lesbians were able to bind together under this identity and start to redefine it. In fact, the term "gay," although coined in the 1920's, came into standard use at this time as well (Cruikshank 91). Much like the word "queer" today, "gay" was a way to reclaim identity from the hegemonic structure that created it. What I mean by that is that the use of the word "queer" is often derogatory. By taking the term and making it a positive self reference, the derogatory power is taken from it. So to say "gay is good" is to create a positive identity from a previously negative one. Simultaneously it expresses pride in the identity as well as defiance against those who would claim that being gay is a bad or abnormal thing. At this point, it is safe to say that identity politics as we understand it had manifested itself within the gay world.
Opposition
Obviously, identity politics has developed a great deal over the last 30 years. In that time an opposition to the use of identity politics has also developed. Herein I hope to accurately portray those arguments.
The first, and most basic argument against identity politics is its supposed reinforcement of the problems it wishes to solve. It seems that in the very act of creating an identity, gays and lesbians are singling themselves out. But we have seen that it is not the marginalized group that initially creates the identity; it is the dominant group. Still, centering activism around differences has the potential to create hostility between gays and heterosexuals. Since group identity is based upon previous injustice, there results a sense of victimization. The response to this has been strongly defensive and thus construed as counterproductive. The rise of the Right can be attributed to the threat posed from the New Left. This isn't necessarily progress, as gays and lesbians seem to have even stronger opposition than before. So by becoming visible, the gay liberation movement has not gained more acceptance, merely more vehement resistance (Eaklor 288). Identity politics becomes a rhetoric of blame from which a side of justice and moral correctness can be inferred. Instead of creating a working dialogue of political change and advancement, identity politics is infinitely divisive. It results in a strong separatism, which is counterproductive.
Another argument against identity politics is its tendency towards essentialism. Social constructionist theory, while initially opening up the gates for identity politics, has since turned in on it (Gergen). What I mean by this is that, the method of taking "truths" and deconstructing them into mere manifestations of society opened the door to the possibility of a socially constructed means of oppression of groups. This questioning goes back to my point about Mary Wollstonecraft, and how women were socially constructed to be inferior. Likewise, gays and lesbians were given a deviant identity by the dominant heterosexual group. But as postmodern thinking has progressed, identity has become more problematic. To make a claim for rights for gays and lesbians reduces them to that identity alone. Identity politics asserts that there is an essential quality that constitutes what it means to be homosexual. Instead of empowering individuals, this results in a prison of identity. Participation in identity politics then becomes a question of "gayness." As if there were people who weren't the right kind of gay, or gay enough, to be in the movement. Ironically, identity can be seen as a socially constructed notion alone, and so practicing identity politics is merely reifying the oppression of identity instead of breaking out of it. Social constructionist thinking makes identity a rather meaningless, problematic means of stereotyping and constraining the individual.
Not only is there a problem with essentializing a specific identity characteristic such as homosexuality, identity politics seems also to limit an individual to one group. What then becomes of an individual belonging to multiple groups? For the sake of example, I will consider the experience of a black lesbian. Take note that there are a multitude of categories that could also be considered, such as education, disability, income, etc. Much of the time, the political agenda of black identity politics does not coincide with that of gay politics. In fact, there is a great deal of mistrust on the part of African-Americans towards homosexuality as a "white thing" (Springer 182). Being a minority within a minority is a sticky situation. While the larger group of which the individual is a part is being oppressed by a dominant group, the individual herself is at odds with that group. In the case of the black lesbian, there is a triple oppression, in that she is black, a woman, and homosexual.
In the 70's, black women were discouraged from being a part of feminist movements because it seemed it would detract from the more important goals of race movements. Historically, feminist movements were thought synonymous with lesbian movements, which further discouraged black women from getting involved in feminist movements. By emphasizing all these identities as limiting, individuals had to choose which part of their identity was more important than the other if they were to participate in any of the political movements (Springer 188). This is discouraging because it creates divisions not only between the movements, but in the individuals themselves treating components of their whole identity as if they were parts independent from one another. It seems then that identity politics results in a misrepresentation of gay life. It comes across as a white movement in mainstream media because that is the essentialist view of what it means to be queer (Cruikshank 173). How then can the gay liberation movement be forwarded by a political strategy that limits its members in such a way? In the section "Support," I intend to explore this question in more depth.
To go further, if we are to use identity, which is inherently multi-faceted and personal what does that mean for the distinction of the public and private realms? Just being queer becomes a political act. Coming out of the closet is moved from the personal to the political. Perhaps the most interesting thing in this area is the idea that only gay people need to come out of the closet. It is only these people whose gender and sexuality requires explanation. The idea of non-transgender heterosexual people coming out is absurd. This idea is based on a model which suggests that traditionally gendered heterosexuality is normal and anything else is abnormal. Thus, heterosexuality is not a political issue, but queerness is. This puts pressure on gays and lesbians to be political. At the same time, it discourages heterosexual people from being involved in politics of gender and sexuality. Furthermore, this reinforces the idea that heterosexuality and traditional masculinity and femininity are normal and do not require discussion. As a result, gay identity politics reinforces the divide between gay and straight.
The above arguments are those that oppose identity politics based on the notion that it's harmful to the gay liberation movement itself. However this next argument accuses identity politics of being harmful to the entire political left. Todd Gitlin, in his book The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars, made an attack on identity politics as the cause of the fragments found in the New Left. He classifies these groups as being too concerned with maintaining identity rather than working for the political Left as a whole. This shattering of the Left has rendered it ineffective in the face of the more homogenous Right. Identity politics is so divisive as to have ruined an entire political spectra, reducing it to bickering sub-groups who are solely concerned with the furthering of their personal agendas, rather than finding a means to further human rights as a whole.
These smaller issues of race, gender, and sexuality take the focus away from what many Left-wing thinkers purport to be the meta-issue: class. This issue transcends the others and rises to top importance and a means of settling all human rights problems (Duberman). According to them, these issues of race, gender, and sexuality are only a part of the larger issue of class. By asserting identity politics, these groups are forced into an opposition with each other that doesn’t even exist. Like before, we see that rather than helping to quell differences into harmony, identity politics serves to incite more vehement division. To remedy this, many Left-thinkers assert that identity politics must be abandoned, and instead the many shards of the New Left must be reunified under a more general desire for political advancement and human rights. Once this occurs, they will be able to counter the rising Right as a whole rather than powerless sub-groups.
Support
But these arguments against identity politics only take into consideration a very basic form of the practice. Over the years, identity politics has grown much more nuanced. Rather than simply relying on the rigid group definitions it began with, identity politics has changed to accept a wider notion of identity as well as their relations with other groups. While the original thrust of identity politics remains in tact, it is not the staunch, seemingly close-minded, self-centered activism that the opposition makes it out to be.
To begin, I'd like to contrast the practice of identity politics against that of a previous movement called the homophile movement. I believe this will get at my first point of why identity politics is more suited to the gay and lesbian movement than other forms of activism.
In the beginnings of gay political activity was the homophile movement. Ironically, this movement based its activism on non-activism. It was an indirect form of politics, using education and research as a vehicle for change. It was covert, if anything. In the 1950's, the Mattachine Society of New York, was a chartered organization which focused strictly on writing articles and doing research about homosexuality. When called to take an explicit political action, leaders shied away (Marotta 14). While their goals included social reforms, to lobby as a homosexual group for political change was unheard of. A great deal of this can be attributed to the political climate at the time. Individual practice of homosexuality could land someone in jail.
But a lot of this political restraint was also due to the philosophy of the homophile movement. In this excerpt from an essay by Karmeny, a homophile leader, we can see reflected the goals of the movement.
To the heterosexual community, I say that we are full human beings--children of God, no less than you--with the same feelings, needs, sensitivities, desires, and aspirations. We are not the monsters that so many of you have been led to believe we are. We differ not at all from you except in our choice of those whom we love and wit h whom we relate intimately--in those ways, in their narrowest sense, but in no other ways (qtd.. in Marotta 67).
Very unlike identity politics, this sentiment emphasized the unimportance of the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The movement pushed towards an assimilation with the heterosexual community based on the fact that sexual preference was irrelevant. Many of the people opposed to identity politics today also suggest that this is the way to go. Since identity politics seems to accentuate the differences and thus making them more divisive, it would stand to reason that the differences be downplayed instead. However, even back then it was recognized that this simply wasn't enough to explain and include gays and lesbians in the larger political dialogue. There was a tension between those "homosexuals" who strove to include themselves in heterosexual society and those "gays" who lead a very different kind of lifestyle.
In March of 1962 an MSNY newsletter promoted a discussion with a panel of individuals from both sides of the homosexual/gay dichotomy (Marotta 68). A countercultural lifestyle had already sprung up in the 60's, pushing the gay movement towards a more identity politics structure. Part of the failure of the homophile movement to truly rally much support was its denial of difference. To desire acceptance into society is to reform ideas and practices to fit that society. Gays and lesbians of that time period recognized a difference from heterosexuals that the homophile movement wasn't addressing. Gay activism was moving sharply towards the use of identity politics as a means to account for that difference and gain rights without having to accommodate heterosexual thinking. The Stonewall incident, as described previously, brought these issues to the forefront.
Today we find the same types of problems. Identity politics remains necessary to create a political space for gays and lesbians. Namely, the reason for this is something called heterosexism. Like racism, and sexism, heterosexism invades everyday life in America. It is interwoven into traditions, and institutions. It functions from the standpoint of heterocentrism. This is the, often unconscious, ignoring of homosexuality (Cruikshank 102). Since being heterosexual is so ingrained into our society as the norm, homosexual issues are easily overlooked. The recognition of this most accurately fits into the category of social constructionist theory. All of these supposed heterosexual norms are simply constructions of society, and hold no truth.
Since this heterocentrism is so pervasive, it becomes necessary for gays and lesbians to use identity politics to get heard at all. This is key to the necessity of identity politics today. What it does is create a forum for gay and lesbian issues, that would otherwise be overlooked. In an essay about identity, Marlene Ellis a black bisexual woman talks about this notion while recognizing the argument that identity politics may serve to reinforce the divisions it tries to overcome.
Certainly, I have no desire to reify oppressive or political past patterns of behavior though I do believe that you cannot nullify painful feelings in isolation without first coming together. What defines your collectivity depends entirely upon that sense of isolation. But in a society that defines and controls sexuality boundaries for example, we simply cannot pretend to develop a radical approach to sexuality independent of those factors. History makes it quite clear that without a collective consciousness developing those areas in which we feel unable to express who we are, we will at worst be ignored and at best be trivialized (Ellis).
By the fact that Ellis is outside society's limited heterocentric view her specific political concerns will not be heard. Identity politics doesn't create that collective consciousness arbitrarily. Like in the retelling of the Stonewall incident, and the deterioration of the homophile movement, that collective consciousness was already there. Gays and lesbians do not fit into heterocentric America, and so cannot make political advancements in the struggle for gay rights without recognizing that fact and embracing it.
Admittedly, as time has progressed, the visibility of gays an d lesbians in everyday life has increased a great deal. Most likely, this has been the result of the constant workings of gay groups to reveal a more complete notion of what it means to be gay and lesbian. Making heterosexuals aware of heterocentrism is the first step in overcoming it. Part of the pervasive nature of heterosexism is that fact that it is perceived as the natural order of things. If visibility increases then slowly acceptance will increase. Initially, of course, opposition to gay and lesbian groups flares, but in many ways a great deal of progress is made simply by being upfront about gay and lesbian issues.
The Liberty Education Forum, the republican think tank on gay and lesbian issues I mentioned in the introduction, has taken this increased visibility and improvement of the quality of life of gay people to indicate a victory that renders identity politics irrelevant to the future of the gay liberation movement. On their web site, the LEF states:
Throughout the years, gay activists have relied on a paradigm of victimization to formulate their agenda for advancing our community’s interests. A divergence of reality began to take place, where our political leaders argued our lives were getting worse and worse while, in reality, we were gaining greater acceptance. In the end, gay politics became dominated by a "virtual victimization," with our own society full of enemies oppressing us. Obscured by this paradigm was the reality that, while we still have barriers to clear, life for gay Americans has never been better.
This virtual victimization" that the LEF speaks about isn't necessarily virtual at all. The people comprising the LEF seem to be upper-class white republicans, and so wouldn’t exactly understand the victimization that is still very poignant in the lives of the rest of the gays and lesbians that comprise the group (Goldstein). Yes, advancements have been made, but they're not enough. Simply put, the struggle is still ongoing, and if identity politics is abandoned now, the issues of gays and lesbians will be swept under the carpet once more.
But is the very existence of identity politics fragmenting the left? In the opposition section I mentioned the growing concern that the political Left is being rendered ineffective by the sub-groups created by identity politics. Many left-thinkers would have us look to the issue of class as a meta-issue through which to tackle the problems of social injustice. But creating a hierarchy of social issues only serves to further separate them, rather than bring them together under one overarching issue (Duberman).
If we look at the class labor movement itself we can see how all social issues such as race, gender, class, and sexuality are not only on the same level of importance, but how they interact together as well. An issue such as race for example within the labor movement was a hot debate. Before the 1930's, blacks were barred from union membership altogether. Even when they were allowed to be members, they were never fully accepted as part of the class movement. Whites were more prone to recognize issues of race rather than issues of class. While whites were more concerned with exerting that dominance over blacks, they themselves were being marginalized by the upper-class. Here we see that without confronting both issues of race and class we cannot move forward because everyone will always stand divided by some social injustice. If gays and lesbians cannot be out within the unions then their specific politics won’t be addressed, and it will serve to marginalize them further. All social issues need to be confronted as equal, not as a hierarchical scheme were class takes precedence.
Also, identity politics does not limit the individual to one cause. Accepting an identity and working through that identity in a political forum is not all encompassing. Identity politics does not require that the Left be fragmented at all. To believe that a liberal polity can be homogenized simply because it’s more convenient is ridiculous. You cannot be a part of a community and join together under Universalism if who you are isn’t represented by that community. This is why identity politics is important. It allows those parts of people who do not fit into the current sociopolitical norm to be included in the political dialogue of America.
Conclusion
I do not work under the assumption that all the arguments against identity politics as a useful tool to the future of the gay liberation movement are invalid. Identity politics is not a flawless sort of activism. In practice, identity politics can be prone to essentialism, and divisiveness. But these facts do not mean that it should be abandoned entirely. Just as the movement itself has changed and developed over the years, so should its use of identity politics. What's important is that this form of political activism is not exclusive or stagnant.
In the beginnings of the gay liberation movement one could easily see the necessity for a strong reclamation of the homosexual identity. Identity politics was useful to create that initial space for gay and lesbian issues to be confronted. It made possible a context of gay liberation movement rhetoric that pushed the movement forward.
But over time, did that initial label of "gay" become more binding than enabling? Possibly, yes. But that wasn't a result of the theoretical nature of identity politics. More likely it was the result of how strong that identity needed to be originally to break open the social space for homosexuality. Now that that space exists, identity can become more fluid, and encompass a wider sense of sexuality in general. To create an extreme such as "homosexual" does not mean that we have to fit into that extreme. But that label creates a context from which to work. Identity politics does not require a strict sense of definition.
Even if it did, that label doesn't have to be used to represent the whole of identity. It can be used strategically in a political way (Ellis). People find themselves so worried about pigeonholing themselves or other people, they fail to recognize the usefulness of those labels. In other words, post-modernist thought is so busy deconstructing everything, it pays no mind to the utilitarian function of labels. If the world was reduced to one big fluid mass of non-labels, we wouldn't get anything done. Things need to be recognized before they can be considered.
I'm saying that we need a specific group working for specific rights if we're going to get anything done because unless we are pinpointed in what we want, America isn't just going to give it to us on a platter. There is institutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. Identity politics offers us the types of groups that can work for individual group agendas in stopping this discrimination. But this by no means limits them from binding together with other groups to confront larger issues that affect the whole of America. What stands in opposition to identity politics isn't specific to it. One can find problems of division all over America and its political fronts without pinning it on identity politics. The gay liberation movement needs to use identity politics to keep the momentum of the movement flowing. It is possible to use identity politics in such a way as to keep an open mind about other issues, while still advancing one's own.
Introduction
In this essay I will construct a defense of identity politics as used specifically in the gay liberation movement. The concept of identity politics is, in itself, a very modern thing. This breed of politics is quite a recent phenomenon, designated specifically within the last two decades (Heyes). Even more recently, however, identity politics has come under fire as a viable means of political activism. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have spawned a new cry for unity. Moving focus away from internal differences between US citizens, this line of thought pushes America to a more homogenous national identity. Since identity politics seem to be based on differences alone, many people are speaking out against them. A think tank on gay and lesbian political issues has run a print campaign in many popular gay publications calling for gays to put away identity politics and embrace the larger context of unity in America (Goldstein). Essentially, people want gays and lesbians to abandon their identity as homosexual and focus on being "American." Their claim is that partitioning sections of citizens off is not the way to go in gaining civil rights for all. Breaking America off into factions creates alienation of those factions. Then, instead of America being one unified nation, it is a compilation of bickering subgroups.
What I want to argue, however, is that without identity politics, the gay liberation movement cannot move forward. It is an unfortunate result of the nature of the problem of discrimination that identity politics is necessary. This, however, assumes that the gay liberation movement is, in and of itself, important. It also indicates that the progress of such a movement is measurable. Both of these are rather problematic claims right off the bat. Let’s explain those first.
The first is the importance of the gay liberation movement. There is an intrinsic good found within this sort of activism. I say that it is inherently good because the propagation of civil rights and liberties for any group in America is upholding the foundational beliefs of the country. The importance doesn’t necessarily lie in the group itself, but in the overarching egalitarian goals of the movement. However this group is specifically relevant now because gays and lesbians explicitly do not posses the same rights as heterosexuals. America does not only exercise social alienation of gays and lesbians within the culture, but also in actual laws and political power. Currently, 17 states still have sodomy laws. Gays and lesbians find it difficult to adopt children. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage act was passed into law, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Employment can still be denied in most states based on sexual orientation (Public Agenda Online). These aren't simply things acted out by individuals who are heterosexist or homophobic; these are institutionalized practices that deny a group of Americans basic sorts of liberties. It is this fact that makes the gay liberation movement specifically poignant.
Next, by claiming that the practice of identity politics can further the gay liberation movement, it seems that this takes for granted that progress is measurable. The truth of the matter is that there’s no set bar the movement is trying to reach. It isn't a linear process in which goals are achieved and ticked off of some magical liberation chart. Gains in one area can easily result in loss in another. A more generalized example of this is the fact that, if the 60's and 70's can be characterized as the rise of social consciousness and civil liberties, then the time thereafter can be characterized as the rise of the New Right, and its reaction to the events of previous times. This backlash makes it difficult to speak of an all encompassing notion of the progress of the movement (Eaklor 290). When awareness of the group increases, those opposed to the group strive more violently against the group. Often times the problems seem to stem from the increased visibility of gays and lesbians, rather than just the fact that they are gays and lesbians. This creates a paradox. By bringing out issues concerning gays and lesbians, the opposition is forced to become stronger against those issues. While it is important to recognize this fact, it is also important to acknowledge a general improvement in the treatment of gays and lesbians in the current era. It might not be possible to give a specific report of melioration, but it is possible to say that such progress exists. When I speak of the progress o f the gay liberation movement, I am referring to a more generalized sense of accomplishment, rather than a delineated table of progress.
I'll begin with an explanation of identity politics. This section will include a definition and history of the term as well as its general application to the gay and lesbian community. Next I'll discuss the opposition to the use of identity politics. To defend identity politics, it is important to understand its perceived faults. In the next section, I intend to counter these arguments with the support found for identity politics. Lastly, I'll assert why identity politics is essential to the future of the gay liberation movement. Here, I don't want to simply express the current standards of identity politics (although I intend to do this as well), but take a more theoretical standpoint as to why identity politics is fundamentally bound with the gay liberation movement. In conclusion, I hope to arrive at an accurate defense of identity politics as activism and possible ways of improvement based on the theoretical foundations of the practice.
Foundations
To discuss, and more specifically to defend, identity politics it is necessary to delineate exactly what is meant by the term. Identity politics constructs the individual experience of a person into a type of political tool. Essentially, identity politics revolves around the notion of a social group, suffering injustice based on the nature of what defines them as a social group (Heyes). This works under the assumption that simply being a member of a specific social group, such as women, hispanics, etc., puts the individual in a more vulnerable position to exploitation by a dominant group.
The use of the word "identity" instantly brings up larger philosophical connotations. The word is loaded. To take something that initially seems so subjective and individual and turn it into a collective sort of consciousness is a slippery slope. Does this instantly limit identity politics to over generalizations of experience? Not necessarily. What it does do, is put personal experience into a political context. And from that coalitions between individuals who share similar experiences can be formed. This makes identity politics reactionary to the politics of the dominant group. Without the experience of injustice, these smaller groups wouldn't form. Identity politics also takes these groups a step further. Instead of appealing to the universalism of human rights rhetoric, these marginalized groups seek acceptance into society based on their differences. This is the antithesis of assimilation, where disempowered groups seek to make themselves like the dominate group, and on that basis be admitted into society. Identity politics makes the differences essential to acceptance.
To illustrate the above points further, take Group A as the dominant group of society. Group Z is the minority group. Group A constructs a stereotype of Group Z, and discriminates accordingly, denying them access to jobs, resources, etc. As a result the members of Group Z have experiences of injustice and bind together as a collective identity based on the similarity of those experiences. This similarity of experience is a result of who they are and what makes them different from the dominant group. This is the "identity" in identity politics. After Group Z has formed this coalition they can take back the stereotype originally placed upon them by Group A, and use it to create an awareness of their group. They have been marked with a stigma, but through identity politics this difference becomes a good thing. So instead of being denied rights because of this difference, Group Z is awarded specific protection against the denial of rights. They are accepted as different from Group A, and retain an identity separate from the dominant group, but are awarded the same rights.
The later part of the twentieth century saw a great deal of movements based on claims of previous social injustices. These include second wave feminism, Black civil rights, gay liberation, and the Native American movements. These are based on an identity politics model. We can date some of the theoretical roots of identity politics back to Mary Wollstonecraft. In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, she opens with:
In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answer will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted either by the words or conduct of men (21).
In the above example of Groups A and Z, I illustrated the importance of the reactionary quality of identity politics. Dominant society creates the structures in which their discriminations make sense. In Wollstonecraft, we see the philosophical beginnings of that notion. Women, for Wollstonecraft, were created inferior by society, and not by nature. She wanted to arrive at an a priori sense of woman's identity, free from the "various motives of action." Identity politics attempts to do this by taking the context given to it by dominant society and redefining it in such a way that brings it closer to a true identity, from which we can base opinions. If we are to understand that identity is socially constructed by the conditions of the dominant group, then identity politics is the remedy to break from that false consciousness that affects even the members of the specific group.
In this sense, a liberal democracy becomes a prerequisite for identity politics. When, in the face of a liberal democracy, oppression still exists people look more deeply at the sources of that oppression. Most theories of liberalism work under a notion of the basic sameness of political subjects. For example, in John Rawls' Justice as Fairness, political subjects participate from behind what is called the "veil of ignorance" in the original position. He explains:
In short, the original position is to be understood as a device of representation. As such it models our considered convictions as reasonable persons by describing the parties (each of whom is responsible for the fundamental interests of a free and equal citizen) as fairly situated and as reaching an agreement subject to appropriate restrictions on reasons for favoring principles of political justice (18).
Citizens are rid of specific identities to be able to make judgments of social welfare. Rawls makes way for a reasonable pluralism where these citizens from the original position can bind together based on principles and specific preferences. These groups are not defined by identity, but rather by a shared political interest. An example of such a group could be the NRA, or the Anti-Abortion movement. But the overarching idea is that these groups do not make up the liberal democracy itself, but rather are able to work within it.
But this imaginary citizen from behind the veil of ignorance has historically been a white, upper-class male. Time and time again throughout the course of American history we see outright oppression based on class, race, sexuality, and gender. We see the persistent historical failure of liberal democracies to achieve anything more than token inclusion in power structures for members of marginalized groups. Identity politics developed out of a need to recognize a deeper sense of what a political subject is, and thus allowing for a more meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups within the political power structure. This could not be achieved by assimilation because that merely accepted the dominant group as "right" and thus reinforced the inferiority of minority groups.
The gay liberation movement, however, presents a specific problem to identity politics. Unlike race which is readily apparent and unchangeable, sexuality is a much less apparent and possibly fluid sort of identity. It is still up for debate if sexual preference is genetic, or a choice, or a combination thereof. Not only this, but also the fact that sexual preference can exist in a wealth of other identities, makes it specifically difficult to create a coalitioned identity from which political action can sprout (Cruikshank 60). Does this then mean that homosexuality is not a real minority? If this is the case, identity politics has no meaning here. If homosexuals could not be truly differentiated from their heterosexual peers then there would be no need for political action. The idea of sexual preference would not be a political issue. But it is. The big difference is that gays have fewer civil rights than heterosexuals. This fact makes them a minority. And so identity politics is extremely relevant.
The gay liberation's movement towards the use of identity politics isn't explicit. The term "identity politics" itself has developed alongside the history of its practice. Also, it is difficult to create a grand narrative of the history of the gay liberation movement in which we could place the emergence of identity politics. Queer theory itself is a relatively new thing and as a result is constantly being reinvented. But Vicki Eaklor a gay/lesbian historian has characterized three periods of gay liberation movement history (291). The area of time with which I am most concerned is the post-Stonewall era up until today. It is here, if anywhere, I believe we can pinpoint the emergence of identity politics in the gay liberation movement.
On Friday, June 27th, 1969, a group of unconventional queens, gays, and lesbians started a riot as a response to mounting tensions after police attempted to close the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar. Raids were common a s most gay bars operated underground without a liquor license. This characterized the way gay society worked in general. Most gays and lesbians were closeted at this point, and when they were out they strove for assimilation with the homophile movement. We will discuss the movement in depth later in the essay. But the participants in the Stonewall riots had very little to lose in society. They were characterized as flamboyant outcasts. Anger increased when a police van arrived to take suspects to police headquarters. The riot ensued as the first violent rebellion against the things happening to them. In "Rat," an underground paper, a first hand account included:
The orgy was taking place. Vengeance vented against the source of repression--gay bars, busts, kids victimized and exploited by the mafia and cops. Strangely, no one spoke to the crowd or tried to direct the insurrection. Everyone’s heads were in the same place. Some chanted "occupy--take over, take over," "Fag power..." (qtd. in Marotta 73).
This participant's view seems to herald in a notion of victimization on the part of gays and lesbians. What's really interesting about this is the line "everyone's heads were in the same place." This conveys an inherent solidarity between the participants of that event, and is characteristic of identity politics. Admittedly, this participant's sense of political purpose wasn't necessarily shared by the entire group. This protest wasn't initially rooted in a gay political agenda. More accurately, this group of people me rely felt frustrated at official interference.
In the evenings that followed the initial Stonewall riot, Christopher Street in Greenwich Village was a hot spot of openly gay activity. Craig Rodwell, an activist striving for more open representations of gay life, passed out pamphlets about creating legal and open places for gays and lesbians (Marotta 75). While many activities that took place on Christopher street after the Stonewall riot weren't expressly political, they opened a flood gate for the New Left, who's political outlook was not homophile, but geared toward liberation. Thus, Stonewall became the beginning of a forum for specifically open gay politics, and homosexuality as an identity.
In the 1970's, this idea of homosexual identity solidified and was able to be politicized. One of the first slogans of the gay liberation movement was "gay is good" (Cruikshank 60). This is exactly what I was speaking of earlier with Groups A and Z. Heterosexuals characterize homosexuals as different and thus discriminate against them. At this point in history, gays and lesbians were able to bind together under this identity and start to redefine it. In fact, the term "gay," although coined in the 1920's, came into standard use at this time as well (Cruikshank 91). Much like the word "queer" today, "gay" was a way to reclaim identity from the hegemonic structure that created it. What I mean by that is that the use of the word "queer" is often derogatory. By taking the term and making it a positive self reference, the derogatory power is taken from it. So to say "gay is good" is to create a positive identity from a previously negative one. Simultaneously it expresses pride in the identity as well as defiance against those who would claim that being gay is a bad or abnormal thing. At this point, it is safe to say that identity politics as we understand it had manifested itself within the gay world.
Opposition
Obviously, identity politics has developed a great deal over the last 30 years. In that time an opposition to the use of identity politics has also developed. Herein I hope to accurately portray those arguments.
The first, and most basic argument against identity politics is its supposed reinforcement of the problems it wishes to solve. It seems that in the very act of creating an identity, gays and lesbians are singling themselves out. But we have seen that it is not the marginalized group that initially creates the identity; it is the dominant group. Still, centering activism around differences has the potential to create hostility between gays and heterosexuals. Since group identity is based upon previous injustice, there results a sense of victimization. The response to this has been strongly defensive and thus construed as counterproductive. The rise of the Right can be attributed to the threat posed from the New Left. This isn't necessarily progress, as gays and lesbians seem to have even stronger opposition than before. So by becoming visible, the gay liberation movement has not gained more acceptance, merely more vehement resistance (Eaklor 288). Identity politics becomes a rhetoric of blame from which a side of justice and moral correctness can be inferred. Instead of creating a working dialogue of political change and advancement, identity politics is infinitely divisive. It results in a strong separatism, which is counterproductive.
Another argument against identity politics is its tendency towards essentialism. Social constructionist theory, while initially opening up the gates for identity politics, has since turned in on it (Gergen). What I mean by this is that, the method of taking "truths" and deconstructing them into mere manifestations of society opened the door to the possibility of a socially constructed means of oppression of groups. This questioning goes back to my point about Mary Wollstonecraft, and how women were socially constructed to be inferior. Likewise, gays and lesbians were given a deviant identity by the dominant heterosexual group. But as postmodern thinking has progressed, identity has become more problematic. To make a claim for rights for gays and lesbians reduces them to that identity alone. Identity politics asserts that there is an essential quality that constitutes what it means to be homosexual. Instead of empowering individuals, this results in a prison of identity. Participation in identity politics then becomes a question of "gayness." As if there were people who weren't the right kind of gay, or gay enough, to be in the movement. Ironically, identity can be seen as a socially constructed notion alone, and so practicing identity politics is merely reifying the oppression of identity instead of breaking out of it. Social constructionist thinking makes identity a rather meaningless, problematic means of stereotyping and constraining the individual.
Not only is there a problem with essentializing a specific identity characteristic such as homosexuality, identity politics seems also to limit an individual to one group. What then becomes of an individual belonging to multiple groups? For the sake of example, I will consider the experience of a black lesbian. Take note that there are a multitude of categories that could also be considered, such as education, disability, income, etc. Much of the time, the political agenda of black identity politics does not coincide with that of gay politics. In fact, there is a great deal of mistrust on the part of African-Americans towards homosexuality as a "white thing" (Springer 182). Being a minority within a minority is a sticky situation. While the larger group of which the individual is a part is being oppressed by a dominant group, the individual herself is at odds with that group. In the case of the black lesbian, there is a triple oppression, in that she is black, a woman, and homosexual.
In the 70's, black women were discouraged from being a part of feminist movements because it seemed it would detract from the more important goals of race movements. Historically, feminist movements were thought synonymous with lesbian movements, which further discouraged black women from getting involved in feminist movements. By emphasizing all these identities as limiting, individuals had to choose which part of their identity was more important than the other if they were to participate in any of the political movements (Springer 188). This is discouraging because it creates divisions not only between the movements, but in the individuals themselves treating components of their whole identity as if they were parts independent from one another. It seems then that identity politics results in a misrepresentation of gay life. It comes across as a white movement in mainstream media because that is the essentialist view of what it means to be queer (Cruikshank 173). How then can the gay liberation movement be forwarded by a political strategy that limits its members in such a way? In the section "Support," I intend to explore this question in more depth.
To go further, if we are to use identity, which is inherently multi-faceted and personal what does that mean for the distinction of the public and private realms? Just being queer becomes a political act. Coming out of the closet is moved from the personal to the political. Perhaps the most interesting thing in this area is the idea that only gay people need to come out of the closet. It is only these people whose gender and sexuality requires explanation. The idea of non-transgender heterosexual people coming out is absurd. This idea is based on a model which suggests that traditionally gendered heterosexuality is normal and anything else is abnormal. Thus, heterosexuality is not a political issue, but queerness is. This puts pressure on gays and lesbians to be political. At the same time, it discourages heterosexual people from being involved in politics of gender and sexuality. Furthermore, this reinforces the idea that heterosexuality and traditional masculinity and femininity are normal and do not require discussion. As a result, gay identity politics reinforces the divide between gay and straight.
The above arguments are those that oppose identity politics based on the notion that it's harmful to the gay liberation movement itself. However this next argument accuses identity politics of being harmful to the entire political left. Todd Gitlin, in his book The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars, made an attack on identity politics as the cause of the fragments found in the New Left. He classifies these groups as being too concerned with maintaining identity rather than working for the political Left as a whole. This shattering of the Left has rendered it ineffective in the face of the more homogenous Right. Identity politics is so divisive as to have ruined an entire political spectra, reducing it to bickering sub-groups who are solely concerned with the furthering of their personal agendas, rather than finding a means to further human rights as a whole.
These smaller issues of race, gender, and sexuality take the focus away from what many Left-wing thinkers purport to be the meta-issue: class. This issue transcends the others and rises to top importance and a means of settling all human rights problems (Duberman). According to them, these issues of race, gender, and sexuality are only a part of the larger issue of class. By asserting identity politics, these groups are forced into an opposition with each other that doesn’t even exist. Like before, we see that rather than helping to quell differences into harmony, identity politics serves to incite more vehement division. To remedy this, many Left-thinkers assert that identity politics must be abandoned, and instead the many shards of the New Left must be reunified under a more general desire for political advancement and human rights. Once this occurs, they will be able to counter the rising Right as a whole rather than powerless sub-groups.
Support
But these arguments against identity politics only take into consideration a very basic form of the practice. Over the years, identity politics has grown much more nuanced. Rather than simply relying on the rigid group definitions it began with, identity politics has changed to accept a wider notion of identity as well as their relations with other groups. While the original thrust of identity politics remains in tact, it is not the staunch, seemingly close-minded, self-centered activism that the opposition makes it out to be.
To begin, I'd like to contrast the practice of identity politics against that of a previous movement called the homophile movement. I believe this will get at my first point of why identity politics is more suited to the gay and lesbian movement than other forms of activism.
In the beginnings of gay political activity was the homophile movement. Ironically, this movement based its activism on non-activism. It was an indirect form of politics, using education and research as a vehicle for change. It was covert, if anything. In the 1950's, the Mattachine Society of New York, was a chartered organization which focused strictly on writing articles and doing research about homosexuality. When called to take an explicit political action, leaders shied away (Marotta 14). While their goals included social reforms, to lobby as a homosexual group for political change was unheard of. A great deal of this can be attributed to the political climate at the time. Individual practice of homosexuality could land someone in jail.
But a lot of this political restraint was also due to the philosophy of the homophile movement. In this excerpt from an essay by Karmeny, a homophile leader, we can see reflected the goals of the movement.
To the heterosexual community, I say that we are full human beings--children of God, no less than you--with the same feelings, needs, sensitivities, desires, and aspirations. We are not the monsters that so many of you have been led to believe we are. We differ not at all from you except in our choice of those whom we love and wit h whom we relate intimately--in those ways, in their narrowest sense, but in no other ways (qtd.. in Marotta 67).
Very unlike identity politics, this sentiment emphasized the unimportance of the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The movement pushed towards an assimilation with the heterosexual community based on the fact that sexual preference was irrelevant. Many of the people opposed to identity politics today also suggest that this is the way to go. Since identity politics seems to accentuate the differences and thus making them more divisive, it would stand to reason that the differences be downplayed instead. However, even back then it was recognized that this simply wasn't enough to explain and include gays and lesbians in the larger political dialogue. There was a tension between those "homosexuals" who strove to include themselves in heterosexual society and those "gays" who lead a very different kind of lifestyle.
In March of 1962 an MSNY newsletter promoted a discussion with a panel of individuals from both sides of the homosexual/gay dichotomy (Marotta 68). A countercultural lifestyle had already sprung up in the 60's, pushing the gay movement towards a more identity politics structure. Part of the failure of the homophile movement to truly rally much support was its denial of difference. To desire acceptance into society is to reform ideas and practices to fit that society. Gays and lesbians of that time period recognized a difference from heterosexuals that the homophile movement wasn't addressing. Gay activism was moving sharply towards the use of identity politics as a means to account for that difference and gain rights without having to accommodate heterosexual thinking. The Stonewall incident, as described previously, brought these issues to the forefront.
Today we find the same types of problems. Identity politics remains necessary to create a political space for gays and lesbians. Namely, the reason for this is something called heterosexism. Like racism, and sexism, heterosexism invades everyday life in America. It is interwoven into traditions, and institutions. It functions from the standpoint of heterocentrism. This is the, often unconscious, ignoring of homosexuality (Cruikshank 102). Since being heterosexual is so ingrained into our society as the norm, homosexual issues are easily overlooked. The recognition of this most accurately fits into the category of social constructionist theory. All of these supposed heterosexual norms are simply constructions of society, and hold no truth.
Since this heterocentrism is so pervasive, it becomes necessary for gays and lesbians to use identity politics to get heard at all. This is key to the necessity of identity politics today. What it does is create a forum for gay and lesbian issues, that would otherwise be overlooked. In an essay about identity, Marlene Ellis a black bisexual woman talks about this notion while recognizing the argument that identity politics may serve to reinforce the divisions it tries to overcome.
Certainly, I have no desire to reify oppressive or political past patterns of behavior though I do believe that you cannot nullify painful feelings in isolation without first coming together. What defines your collectivity depends entirely upon that sense of isolation. But in a society that defines and controls sexuality boundaries for example, we simply cannot pretend to develop a radical approach to sexuality independent of those factors. History makes it quite clear that without a collective consciousness developing those areas in which we feel unable to express who we are, we will at worst be ignored and at best be trivialized (Ellis).
By the fact that Ellis is outside society's limited heterocentric view her specific political concerns will not be heard. Identity politics doesn't create that collective consciousness arbitrarily. Like in the retelling of the Stonewall incident, and the deterioration of the homophile movement, that collective consciousness was already there. Gays and lesbians do not fit into heterocentric America, and so cannot make political advancements in the struggle for gay rights without recognizing that fact and embracing it.
Admittedly, as time has progressed, the visibility of gays an d lesbians in everyday life has increased a great deal. Most likely, this has been the result of the constant workings of gay groups to reveal a more complete notion of what it means to be gay and lesbian. Making heterosexuals aware of heterocentrism is the first step in overcoming it. Part of the pervasive nature of heterosexism is that fact that it is perceived as the natural order of things. If visibility increases then slowly acceptance will increase. Initially, of course, opposition to gay and lesbian groups flares, but in many ways a great deal of progress is made simply by being upfront about gay and lesbian issues.
The Liberty Education Forum, the republican think tank on gay and lesbian issues I mentioned in the introduction, has taken this increased visibility and improvement of the quality of life of gay people to indicate a victory that renders identity politics irrelevant to the future of the gay liberation movement. On their web site, the LEF states:
Throughout the years, gay activists have relied on a paradigm of victimization to formulate their agenda for advancing our community’s interests. A divergence of reality began to take place, where our political leaders argued our lives were getting worse and worse while, in reality, we were gaining greater acceptance. In the end, gay politics became dominated by a "virtual victimization," with our own society full of enemies oppressing us. Obscured by this paradigm was the reality that, while we still have barriers to clear, life for gay Americans has never been better.
This virtual victimization" that the LEF speaks about isn't necessarily virtual at all. The people comprising the LEF seem to be upper-class white republicans, and so wouldn’t exactly understand the victimization that is still very poignant in the lives of the rest of the gays and lesbians that comprise the group (Goldstein). Yes, advancements have been made, but they're not enough. Simply put, the struggle is still ongoing, and if identity politics is abandoned now, the issues of gays and lesbians will be swept under the carpet once more.
But is the very existence of identity politics fragmenting the left? In the opposition section I mentioned the growing concern that the political Left is being rendered ineffective by the sub-groups created by identity politics. Many left-thinkers would have us look to the issue of class as a meta-issue through which to tackle the problems of social injustice. But creating a hierarchy of social issues only serves to further separate them, rather than bring them together under one overarching issue (Duberman).
If we look at the class labor movement itself we can see how all social issues such as race, gender, class, and sexuality are not only on the same level of importance, but how they interact together as well. An issue such as race for example within the labor movement was a hot debate. Before the 1930's, blacks were barred from union membership altogether. Even when they were allowed to be members, they were never fully accepted as part of the class movement. Whites were more prone to recognize issues of race rather than issues of class. While whites were more concerned with exerting that dominance over blacks, they themselves were being marginalized by the upper-class. Here we see that without confronting both issues of race and class we cannot move forward because everyone will always stand divided by some social injustice. If gays and lesbians cannot be out within the unions then their specific politics won’t be addressed, and it will serve to marginalize them further. All social issues need to be confronted as equal, not as a hierarchical scheme were class takes precedence.
Also, identity politics does not limit the individual to one cause. Accepting an identity and working through that identity in a political forum is not all encompassing. Identity politics does not require that the Left be fragmented at all. To believe that a liberal polity can be homogenized simply because it’s more convenient is ridiculous. You cannot be a part of a community and join together under Universalism if who you are isn’t represented by that community. This is why identity politics is important. It allows those parts of people who do not fit into the current sociopolitical norm to be included in the political dialogue of America.
Conclusion
I do not work under the assumption that all the arguments against identity politics as a useful tool to the future of the gay liberation movement are invalid. Identity politics is not a flawless sort of activism. In practice, identity politics can be prone to essentialism, and divisiveness. But these facts do not mean that it should be abandoned entirely. Just as the movement itself has changed and developed over the years, so should its use of identity politics. What's important is that this form of political activism is not exclusive or stagnant.
In the beginnings of the gay liberation movement one could easily see the necessity for a strong reclamation of the homosexual identity. Identity politics was useful to create that initial space for gay and lesbian issues to be confronted. It made possible a context of gay liberation movement rhetoric that pushed the movement forward.
But over time, did that initial label of "gay" become more binding than enabling? Possibly, yes. But that wasn't a result of the theoretical nature of identity politics. More likely it was the result of how strong that identity needed to be originally to break open the social space for homosexuality. Now that that space exists, identity can become more fluid, and encompass a wider sense of sexuality in general. To create an extreme such as "homosexual" does not mean that we have to fit into that extreme. But that label creates a context from which to work. Identity politics does not require a strict sense of definition.
Even if it did, that label doesn't have to be used to represent the whole of identity. It can be used strategically in a political way (Ellis). People find themselves so worried about pigeonholing themselves or other people, they fail to recognize the usefulness of those labels. In other words, post-modernist thought is so busy deconstructing everything, it pays no mind to the utilitarian function of labels. If the world was reduced to one big fluid mass of non-labels, we wouldn't get anything done. Things need to be recognized before they can be considered.
I'm saying that we need a specific group working for specific rights if we're going to get anything done because unless we are pinpointed in what we want, America isn't just going to give it to us on a platter. There is institutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. Identity politics offers us the types of groups that can work for individual group agendas in stopping this discrimination. But this by no means limits them from binding together with other groups to confront larger issues that affect the whole of America. What stands in opposition to identity politics isn't specific to it. One can find problems of division all over America and its political fronts without pinning it on identity politics. The gay liberation movement needs to use identity politics to keep the momentum of the movement flowing. It is possible to use identity politics in such a way as to keep an open mind about other issues, while still advancing one's own.