After Queer Nation Which Way Forward For Lesbian and Gay Liberation? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- by Alan Sears Socialist Worker (Canada) October 1992 This summer the small group of activists keeping Queer Nation Toronto alive decided to shut it down. Other Queer Nation groups, including the one in San Francisco, have also closed down in the past few months. Queer Nation Toronto was associated with a rebirth of lesbian and gay militancy in that city. Angry lesbian and gay demonstrations took to the streets for the first time since the 1981 protests against massive police raids on the gay baths. That militancy was an inspiring break with the polite reformism that dominated the lesbian and gay rights movement for the past 10 years. The focus through most of the 1980s was on "respectable" activities like lobbying politicians and building the institutions of the gay community. Queer Nation challenged that reformism, organizing protests in the streets. Yet now it has fallen apart. The right wing of the gay movement argues that Queer Nation failed because it was young and angry. Bob Satuloff claimed in the New York gay community magazine "Christopher Street (July 7, 1992) that the tactics of Queer Nation "discredit the efforts of more responsible gay men and lesbians for a step-by-step rapprochement with straight America in the areas of equal rights and equal justice." He challenges those "who believe it is politically efficacious to vent their rage in public." He argues that the youth of Queer Nation activists produced a "shortage of historical perspective." In short, Satuloff wants Queer Nation to calm down, listen to their elders and adopt a reformist politics. Similarly, Ken Popert, the editor of the Toronto gay and lesbian paper Xtra argued in September 1992 supplement XS, "When Queer Nation appeared, they had no knowledge of how to organize people. They could have learned that from an older layer of activists, but they chose to disown everything." This argument is wrong. Most of the "older layer of activists" Popert described became thorough-going reformists through the 1980s and lost all interest in organizing to fight back. Indeed, rather than offering lessons on how to organize, Xtra harassed and denounced Queer Nation until it was safely dead. Queer Nation had many weaknesses, but militancy was not one of them. Rather, this was the main source of its limited success. Queer Nation was able to mobilize a new generation of angry, young activists into protest on the streets. The problem was that Queer Nation lacked the political perspective to build on that anger and militancy. It is a very difficult period in which to build activist movements. The crisis of the system has created tremendous anger. But the absence of a serious fightback has sapped the confidence and organization of the left. This puts a real premium on politics in movements trying to build against the stream. Queer Nation Toronto was founded on a set of politics that was not up to the challenge. Angry and effective demonstrations were followed by boring inward- looking meetings in which nothing was accomplished. The demonstrations seemed to attract a steady core of 100 or less. At the heart of the problem was that Queer Nation was organized around identity politics. The focus of this political perspective is on the assertion of identity - the ability of people who are discriminated against to define themselves. If others define "queers" as bad, our job is to redefine ourselves proudly and confidently. A good example was the Queer nation slogan, "We're here, we're queer and we're not going away." Identity politics led to a tremendous focus inward on how we define ourselves, rather than on outward on changing the world. The meetings became attempts to develop a "perfect" anti-heterosexist, anti-sexist and anti-racist mind-set rather than organizing to fight actively against sexism, racism and anti-gay bigotry. There is nothing about identity politics that necessarily leads to activism. Indeed, there is no basis within identity politics for distinguishing between the relative political impact of a man wearing a pink dress on the street, a women making an explicitly sexual lesbian video, or a mass demonstration in the streets. All involve the assertion of "queer" identities, and all are therefore seen as equally subversive. Yet, Queer Nation Toronto did have an activist orientation. But identity politics is a very poor guide to action. It provides no standard for concentrating energies on activities which can be the crucial next step in building the organization and the cause. As a result, Queer nation tried to do everything. Identity politics is also tinged with separatism. After all, if it is a question of getting "queers" to redefine ourselves, there is not much of a role for "straights." Even though Queer Nation did attempt to reach out and make alliances, it developed no basis for mobilizing straight people who support lesbian and gay liberation. In short, identity politics dissipated the impressive activism of Queer Nation Toronto. Despite the efforts of many good activists, the organization could not overcome this deficiency. Socialist politics offers a different approach to building the struggle for lesbian and gay liberation. The starting point is not identities, but the way capitalist society is organized into conflicting classes. This means struggles against oppression must focus on changing class society as a whole. This leads to a focus on mass action, and looks to the working class which has a stake in challenging the system that thrives on exploitation. The aim of demonstrations is not to assert identities or shock straights, but to build a power that can challenge the system. This means building militant demonstrations aimed at strategic targets which can mobilize people, turning them into fighters as they can recognize their power. A movement built on mass action muct be organized around basic democratic procedures. After open debate, decisions are made by majority vote and the group as a whole engages in activity. Meetings should focus outward on activities to change the world, rather than inwards on creating a "safe space." Further, such a movement must have a strategy for building. The targets for action should be carefully chosen to mobilize the largest number, to make links with others fighting back, and to hit the system at its weakest links. This will often mean making demands on the state. The capitalist state plays the central role in organizing lesbian and gay oppression through censorship, policing and "family" legislation, and by defending the minority ruling class that attempts to scapegoat any one who does bot conform to a mythical standard of "normality." One of the keys in a strategy which attempts to challenge the state is building participation so that protests are as large as possible and the activist base can grow. This means connecting with the lesbian and gay caucuses forming in some trade unions and lesbian and gay campus groups. The next movement for gay and lesbian liberation must learn the lessons of Queer Nation, both positive and negative. After years of moderation and quiet deals, it was inspiring to see militant action for lesbian and gay liberation. For the next round of struggle, class politics, not identity politics, should point the way forward. Why Separatism Doesn't Work One of the places that gays and lesbians have made important gains in the past decade is in the workplace. Increasing numbers of unions are negotiating collective agreements which include non- discrimination on the basis of sexual discrimination and/or benefits for same sex partners. The establishment of a lesbian and gay caucus at the Canadian Labour Congress convention this year is one sign of these gains. Lesbians and gay men are going to be a minority in almost every bargaining unit. This means winning support among straight and gay co-workers to commit a unit to negotiating for non-discrimination or same sex benefits. Clearly, separatism is not going to work in the union movement. The goal of lesbian and gay liberation should be to equip straight and gay supporters to make persuasive arguments with opponents and to organize strategic initiatives. The traditional trade union slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" provides a far better basis for organizing the struggle than "we're here, we're queer, get used to it." What's In a Name? Don't Call it "Queer Nation" The next lesbian and gay movement should not be called Queer nation. The name is irretrievably connected to identity politics. First, ditch "Nation." It suggests separatist aspirations, the battle for our "own" place. Separatism will not solve the problems of the vast majority of lesbians and gay men, who have to work and live outside the "nation." Further, it implies a false unity among lesbians and gay men, even though some - such as business owners - are implacable foes of militant activism since they have an interest in maintaining the system from which they profit. Second, ditch "Queer." This is a trendy identity politics term, connected to the idea of redefining ourselves by turning around the ability to label us negatively. Instead, we are to proudly assert an "outlaw" identity. It is an example of an inward focus. It may make us feel good to proudly throw the term back in people's faces, but it is actually an obstacle to building links. Do we really want union locals, anti-racist groups or pro-choice groups adopting resolutions to support the "queers"? This could only amuse the bigots in the room while confusing the supporters, who have probably themselves told people that it is unacceptable to use that term of abuse. In the 1970s, when the modern gay and lesbian liberation movement first arose, the term "gay" was also a term of abuse. After decades of struggles linked to a period of rising movements internationally that included an upturn in union struggles in the workplaces, and the struggles for Black power, for women's liberation, and against the war in Vietnam, the term "gay" has become a term of pride and recognition. To assume that such a redefinition could occur again by declaration, in a period of very small and isolated struggles, is simply wrong. Today, the term "queer" is still one of abuse and disdain, not of pride and power. Our goal should be lesbian and gay liberation. Not just legal rights within the current system but genuine freedom in all aspects of our lives. If that's what we are fighting for, that's what we should call it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Letters November 1992 October Socialist Worker by Tom Patterson, member Queer Nation Toronto, Queer Planet Vancouver, Socialist Challenge "After Queer Nation" provides some useful criticism of right-wing attacks on Queer Nation, but fails in its analysis of what felled Queer Nation in Toronto. We were not limited to "assertion of 'queer' identities." We had class, race and gender politics, we worked with union solidarity, anti-racist, anti-police violence and feminist organizations, and tried to draw them into our actions. Queer Nation in Toronto was not separatist. Queer oppression denies our existence and experience. To overcome that, we organized autonomously to develop our own understanding of our oppression and how to fight it. We also worked with majority heterosexual progressive organizations continuously, had straights speak at our rallies, and sought to bring straights into our actions. But we did not involve straights in our organization, any more than the postal workers asked the Steelworkers or tha Ontario Coalition Against Poverty to organize its strike. Queer Nation failed to focus and follow through on clear issues in a way that could anchor and sustain our organization. But we did focus on the state, we did work with queers in unions and on campus. "Don't Call It 'Queer Nation,'" you admonish. In Toronto, as in cities across North America, we used 'Queer Nation' as a reference to militant queer activism, embodied by Queer Nation New York, inspired by ACT UP, and not to some nonexistent Queer nationalism or separatism. This radical example stirred to action people who had never organized before, a better test of an organization than almost any. Queer remains a powerful term. It was meant to include, without submerging lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites. It was immediately taken up by many people within the community, including many of those most opposed to Queer Nation. Is Socialist Worker more conservative than XTRA? Gay - and lesbian - are still used to insult and attack in workplaces, universities, schoolyards and streets, more frequently than queer. Queer was taken up because it challenges our own homophobia - and that of our (potential) allies. It reminds us that gay - and lesbian - are still terms of abuse, that we are still claiming and making lives we were taught to despise. That willingness to remember our surroundings, to make new lives and to challenge our allies is an essential part of "building a power that can challenge the system." - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter by Kelly Neal, Montreal Alan Sears' "What's In a Name?" suggested that the next lesbian and gay liberation movement should not be called "Queer Nation." Maybe it shouldn't. But the reasons Sears gives for scrapping the title are tenuous, in my opinion. Alan dislikes the name because it is "irretrievably connected to identity politics." He thinks that "nation" suggests "separatist aspirations," implying that the term itself will lead to disunity among lesbians and gays. Worse, according to Alan, is the negative effect that the word "queer" will have on building links with unions, anti-racist groups and so on which makes it a no-no. Moreover, he thinks that "the term gay has become a term of pride and recognition." On all accounts, I disagree. Let's give a bit more credit to lesbian and gay activists who do link up with their brothers and sisters, straights and "queer" alike, in struggle -despite the term "nation." Moreover, to assert that "gay" is acceptable to homophobes anymore than "queer" is certainly mistaken. Although there are those that claim pride under that term, I hear it used almost daily in a scornful and abusive sense by anti-gay bigots. Lastly, if we are really worried about negative symbolism, why call our paper "Socialist Worker" and plaster it in red and stars given that most people who see these terms and symbols have a knee-jerk reaction to them? The reason is because it allows us to engage people in debate about our ideas. To paraphrase Lenin, it really doesn't matter what you call yourself - your actions and ideas are what count. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter by Steve Korn, Toronto Socialist Worker December/January 1992-93 After the past two years of angry, militant Queer Nation Hallowe'en marches against homophobia, this year there was no such march. In fact, by Hallowe'en this year, Queer Nation had been dead for over four months and the absence was noticeable. Today, the absence of any militant organization fighting homophobia explains the need in debating the lessons of Queer Nation. Alan Sears began the dialogue in the September issue of Socialist Worker. The following month there were several letters in response. My letter must begin with a response to Tom Patterson's notions of autonomy which he raised last month. Tom misunderstands why Queer Nation why Queer Nation failed and ends up defending the identity politics that were precisely the main problem in Queer Nation. Though he claims that QN's main problems weren't political, pessimism was a guiding force in QN. We knew we could - and did pull off some brilliant actions, even support anti-racist and other struggles. But QN did not believe itself that winning our struggle was possible. Broad based unity - including with straights - which is a clear requirement for democratic social change, was viewed cynically by QN members. If we seek to build a movement that can smash oppression, we must challenge the narrowness of believing that only people who share a specific experience of oppression can by themselves, fight that oppression. Identifying as being queer does not line one up as an opponent to oppression. There are gay capitalists, homosexual Nazis, queer bigots. Not only will they not help us win the battle, but they will - and did - stand in our way. Socialists must point out the difference between identifying with people and having similar interests in fighting oppression. The problem with identity politics is that it forces us inward, into ever shrinking alliances. For QN this meant a linear path from organizing separately from straights, then to many lesbians leaving to organize separately, then Black queers and so on. Autonomy, separatism, and other forms of identity politics not only didn't help build the movement, but helped crush it. Cynicism thus became a self fulfilling political prophecy and QN slowly disintegrated. These are some of the lessons from QN, along with most of the points raised by Alan Sears. However, on one point I must disagree: on the use of the word queer. The simple fact is, whether we use the word queer or not is not a priority in discussing the way forward. It is true that we must challenge inward looking politics but the word queer is not indicative of those politics by any means. Unlike gay, queer is an inclusive name used broadly by many gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and others. Queers are students, unionists, anti-racists, and even revolutionary socialists. Alan claims that using the word queer is an obstacle to building a movement; that it could only amuse the bigots. However, gay is as much a term of "abuse and disdain" as queer. Bigots will find their ammunition whatever word is reclaimed and used. Our goal should be disarming those bigots. This can be done not by opposing the use of the word queer, but by building a broad based movement that is capable of challenging oppression. Socialists certainly have something to add to this debate. It is necessary for us to make the proper connections on who has a stake in challenging the bigots and their system: namely, working-class people who are queer, straight, Black, white, immigrants and so on. Our role should be cutting against the politics of division and cynicism so that the next fightback will be larger, more inclusive, and more sustainable. This must be the socialist argument first and foremost. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter by Gary Kinsman, Wolfville Nova Scotia Socialist Worker December/January 1992-93 In the October issue of Socialist Worker, Alan Sears, in the guise of a balance sheet of the QN activist experience, actually puts in question your paper's support for autonomous lesbian and gay organization by labelling it as "separatist." Separatism is, however, but one political/cultural tendency that exists within autonomous organizing. While I share much of Alan's analysis - including aspects of his critique of QN organizing and identity politics - it seems that he also uses his construction of what identity politics is about to undermine support for autonomous lesbian and gay organizing. A basic principle for socialists must be that the groups who directly experience oppression must be able to organize against it in the ways they decide to. It is in this context of support for autonomous movements that socialists can develop class struggle perspectives in these different movements which can link them up to broader class and social struggles. Instead Alan's article, by going after what he glosses as identity politics and separatism, undermines support for autonomous movement building and concludes by suggesting that class politics is the only solution. While I certainly support class struggle perspectives - including mass action and campaigns against state relations - the lesbian and gay movement cannot simply be reduced to a feature of class politics, especially when class politics as they are presently constructed in this country do not include a central challenge to heterosexist relations. The only concrete suggestion that is made is for "connecting with the lesbian and gay caucuses forming in some trade union and gay campus groups." While useful, this does not a socialist strategy for lesbian/gay liberation make. While I fully support organizing lesbian and gay caucuses in the unions and see them as a vital bridge between autonomous organizing and union organizing they developed historically through lesbian/gay movements organizing outside the unions which provided support for some union activists to come out and form such groups. The initiating dynamic has come from autonomous movement organizing itself. Other areas are also neglected in Alan's article. For instance, why are class struggles that occur within the lesbian and gay community formation neglected? Why are state policies enforcing heterosexual hegemony not targeted for attack? And what about organizing against anti-lesbian and gay violence? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- After Queer Nation: a response by Alan Sears Socialist Worker February 1993 In October 1992, Socialist Worker published an article I wrote assessing the legacy of QN. This response attracted by my article has included four letters printed in this paper and numerous informal discussions. It was good to see this response. The contribution of QN was an important one, mobilizing the most militant actions for lesbian/gay liberation in almost ten years. Open and honest debate about the strengths and weaknesses of QN can provide crucial lessons for the movement next time. The central point of my initial article was that QN combined a robust and creative activist impulse with the inadequacies of identity politics. Identity politics focus on asserting outlaw identities that are otherwise stigmatized. The present political climate makes it difficult to organize and sustain movements. There is certainly a lot of anger to tap into. But at the same time, many activists feel a sense of demoralization and resignation as a result of the low level of confidence and organization on the left. This climate means a movement has to be particularly sharp to avoid falling into pessimism and losing momentum. I argued in October that the identity politics of QN were not up to the task. Tom Patterson strongly disagreed, arguing that the politics of QN were not limited in the ways I described. "We had class, race and gender politics..." He responded to my argument that identity politics led to a fragmentation, stating "QN in Toronto was not separatist." Tom acknowledged that there was a problem. "QN failed to follow through on clear issues that could anchor and sustain our organization." Here is the difficulty. Tom would have us believe that the basic politics of QN were just fine, but somehow the organization could not find the right focus. Why not? Was it an accident? A lack of imagination? A personal failing? No, it was precisely the weakness of the basic politics underlying QN that led to the "failure to focus and follow through on clear issues." A movement can only establish that kind of clarity on the basis of basic democratic norms of debate and decision making, agreed upon priorities tested in action, and some degree of shared strategy. Identity politics stood in the way fo each of these. As Steve Korn put it in his letter "The problem with identity politics is that it forces us inward, into ever shrinking alliances." Gary Kinsman agreed with aspects of my critique of identity politics, but apparently very little else in the article. The thrust of Gary's criticisms is that my article "undermines support for autonomous movement building." He adds, "the lesbian and gay movement cannot be reduced to a feature of class politics." Gary is raising an important point. Probably the most common criticism that people on the left make of the International Socialists is that we reject what others see as the "principle of autonomous organization." We are therefore attacked for reducing a diversity of movements and forms of resistance to the single question of class politics. I want to start my response by saying this debate is not about whether there should be a lesbian/gay movement. It is a complete misreading of my original article to claim that I am opposed to building a dynamic lesbian/gay movement. On the contrary, the article attempts to draw out the lessons from the experience of QN so that next time we can do it better. Rather, at the heart of the debate is the question whether or not "autonomy" must be enshrined as the central organizing principle of the lesbian and gay movement. I say no. The key issue should be the politics of the movement and its ability to mobilize people. Those politics should be outward looking, seeking to make links and build a broader struggle to change society as a whole. I believe lesbian and gay movements built on such politics can and will attract straight participation. That should be welcomed, at every level. The "principle of autonomy" suggests that the measure for participation should be an individual's sexuality. In contrast, we argue that it should be their political commitment to the goals of the movement. The key divide in the struggle for lesbian/gay liberation is not between straights and gays. The oppression of lesbians and gays is deeply rooted in the capitalist system with its structured inequality, compulsory family system and coercive state. Genuine liberation means having the control over our bodies and our lives that can only come from overturning that system. This is where class politics come in, because the working class alone has the interests, the organization and the power to actually grind this system to a halt and start it anew under democratic self-management. Every liberation movement and struggle for reforms should be seeking out ways (however modest and partial) to link up with this potential power. But this does not for a second mean reducing every movement to an appendage of the trade unions. Rather, it comes down to using this understanding of the shape of society as a whole to inform movement strategies, including methods of organization, alliance building and the choice of priority activities. That is the job of socialist organizations like the International Socialists. We try to combine the specific lessons of past struggles with our general analysis of the shape of capitalist society to develop specific arguments about the way forward. We then democratically engage in movements, sometimes winning arguments, sometimes losing them. None of us can predict exactly what will spark the next round of lesbian and gay struggles. That is why I didn't go into detail about concrete issues that should be raised in the next round of mobilization. When that time comes, I think Gary and I will probably agree to a great extent on the central issues that should be taken up. One final note. Steve Korn, Kelly Neal and Tom Patterson all disagreed with me about the use of the word "queer." I will leave that debate aside for now, rather than distracting attention from more important questions. Thanks for writing and keep those cards and letters coming.   ======================================================================== 589 After Queer Nation Which Way Forward For Lesbian and Gay Liberation? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- by Alan Sears Socialist Worker (Canada) October 1992 This summer the small group of activists keeping Queer Nation Toronto alive decided to shut it down. Other Queer Nation groups, including the one in San Francisco, have also closed down in the past few months. Queer Nation Toronto was associated with a rebirth of lesbian and gay militancy in that city. Angry lesbian and gay demonstrations took to the streets for the first time since the 1981 protests against massive police raids on the gay baths. That militancy was an inspiring break with the polite reformism that dominated the lesbian and gay rights movement for the past 10 ------- End of Forwarded Message