å April 2017

Marlena Esposito, Gabrielle Pilagonia, Azel Kahan

In her essay, Cathy Cohen describes queer activism as a two-dimensional system that is harmful to the minorities within the queer community. In queer politics, there is no recognition of intersecting identities, due to interlocking forms of oppression that marginalize all minorities into one. Homosexuals of color are subjected to greater forms of oppression because of this system. Cohen argues that a left-wing point of view is necessary to understand the multi-layered oppressive systems and how to counter them. It is also necessary to understand black feminism in order to understand queer politics. Cathy Cohen documents that the AIDS epidemic had a large impact on the queer community, garnering equivalent treatment to queer communities with those suffering from the AIDS virus under the public eye. Previously, queer politics would only acknowledge queer and not-queer issues, and think of people as either straight or not straight, ignoring those who are queer and not exclusively homosexual. Another issue that impacted queer activism is the cultural assumption that there must be a stigma associated within queer relationships; there is a societal understanding that all queer relationships are inherently bad.A reason for this stigma existing is the belief that all homosexuals are impacted by the AIDS virus, and that the queer community is responsible for this. This also impacts queer people of color heavily, since the AIDS epidemic effected the black community and the queer community the most. The gay activist movement that took place in the 70’s did not have as big of an impact as it should have, which reflects on the faults within the queer activist movement. Cathy Cohen maintains that queer politics is currently focusing heavily on class and race politics, which causes people to turn a blind eye towards minorities within the homosexual community and the issues that must be addressed.

Cathy Cohen argues an excellent point for what holds back real action in any movement. The major issues are rooted in privilege and divisive behavior linked to sexual identity. The topic of privilege is an interesting one because it covers a lot of ground and highlights the vulnerabilities in many marginalized groups. Simply being marginalized is not enough to behave inclusively, many people find their personal struggle enough and do not wish to associate with people that will further ostracize them from a mainstream community, examples of this would be butch gay men, feminine lesbians and heterosexual non whites. The risk in this attitude is the perpetuation of oppressive behavior is sometimes for the purpose of changing ideas from inside. Another risk is that if you have the unfortunate luck of exile from your marginalized community for being too deviant you may not have the resources to succeed on your own. Radical change takes a huge exchange of energy to create movement and deviants passing under the radar as heteronormative do a disservice to all communities under the thumb of oppression.
Secondly, the issue of radical queerness for the sake of radical queerness is also a massive energy cost, but with almost no return on it’s investment. While it does have a place, it also distracts from what is at the root of queer activism. To be queer is to not subscribe to the dominant ideals of Western culture, specifically the nuclear family, but also opposition to marriage and could possibly include refusal to work in a traditional labor market or live in a house/apartment. Like the feminist movement, inclusivity is a necessity and disassociating from subgroup because the racial or gender privileges of a heteronormative society soften the edge of not quite fitting in. At the end of the day, if you are not one of them you are not one of them and until we are all free no one is free. For real radical change to occur in queer activism it has to be about more than about sexuality, including fringe society as a whole, and work with marginalized leaders to make more than just footnotes about queer politics.

Ivan Chang

One thing that has inhibited radical potential of queer activism is not enough people practice the ideas that are in the queer activism and that these ideas aren’t effectively challenging the norms that the government has set in society. By not being able to do this these queer activist aren’t able to go against the government (heterosexual) politics. Also the queer activist has many other groups such as lesbian, gay, race (African American), gender (male/female/transgender), etc… that deal with oppression by the government and it is possible that they have more than one idea to fight for against the government (essentially since there is so much ideas floating around in a group of people that has oppression they each person might want something like rights that the other person might not want, but some of the ideas are combined together to make it form a specific type of queer politic). Also since their is so much groups in one activist with different race/gender/perspective it will be harder to understand how for example the other group maybe feeling. For example usually male is dominant in society so females tend to be more oppressed than males. However African American have less rights and are usually more oppressed than white American, so how would those white Americans understand the African American? Another thing that is inhibiting the radical potential of queer activism is how society looks at these people who are part of the queer activist. Usually when you want to be successful in something you need a group of supporters which the queer activist has, but if society and people disagree with that then it will be harder to get your point across unless you continue fighting for it because those people that disagree tries to ignore the people of the oppressed. Also with the government who has power and they can pass laws to make oppression worser.

In Cathy J. Cohens piece Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens she discusses the ways in which the radical potential of queer activism has been inhibited. The major point that Cohen believes inhibits queer activism is there inability to focus on trying to transform the very systems that dominate them (Cohen, 1997). Many queer activists have devoted much of their time focusing on how heterosexuality is normalized and homosexuality is ostracized but they forget that the domination of the state affects both. I believe that Cohen believes that once activists realize that many people with different identities experience similar oppression from the state the sooner they will begin to change politics. It should not be homosexuals against heterosexuals but people who experience various forms of discrimination working together to correct all the flaws in politics that oppress them all.

The main goal of the queer activists is to put an end to discrimination and oppression faced by many homosexuals. However, focusing just on eradicating the oppression of homosexuals does not stop the multiple ways in which the state dominates its citizens. Even within homosexual groups there is discrimination that deals with race, class, etc (Cohen, 1997). I believe that the closemindedness of the activists is their major downfall. Regardless if you win the right for homosexuality to be “normalized” in the eyes of the state, what makes them think that discrimination amongst them will not exist. I believe that this is also a thought shared by Cathy J. Cohen. A certain gender, class, and race of homosexuals may very well have more privilege’s than other homosexuals within their group which will continue to keep the door for oppression open. Both Cohen and I believe that one issue should not only be targeted for adjustment but all forms should be targeted and activists should aim to change the laws and ideas the state aims to reinforce. Once those oppressive ways are changed the laws can then be structured to steer clear of dominating others and ostracizing certain people.

Cohen, C. J. (1997). Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens. Overseas
Association.

According to Cohen, the heteronormativity of society inhibited the development of queer activism. Queers found motivation behind their activism from living of a life of struggle. They wanted to be represented not only in the political sense, but also in American culture. Cohen references Michael Warner who notes that the real push for rights from queers was the lack of acknowledgement from society. Their concerns were not recognized by the dominant group of society, those being white heterosexuals, and are therefore either forced to pretend to be straight or be stigmatized for their sexual orientation. This difference in power between the heterosexuals and “other sexes” demonstrates the disparity between the two, which influences what is considered the norm in society. Queers not only wanted to fight for the right to do what they pleased within their own homes, but more importantly, for the right of freedom for all; including sexuality, marriage, identity, etc. This is how the foundation of queer politics started, as a response towards the freedoms that were not given to them by the dominant heterosexual group.

Another reason behind the inhibition of queer politics is that individuals in the group suffer from multiple oppressions due to different identities they hold. These identities come from an individual’s; race, socioeconomic class, and gender. In the case of Cohen, she was a black lesbian feminist, which meant that she suffered oppressions from being African American, a woman, and a lesbian. By having multiple sufferings, it can create inconsistency to which identity to prioritize for an individual. However, this multi-struggle can lead to a combination of efforts to solve issues throughout many dimensions of the world. This becomes beneficial because recognizing multiple struggles creates a joint force to take down a greater power. Essentially, the multiple systems of oppressions unite the people to fight against the institutionalized categories created by the dominant group.

Due Monday, April 17th, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text (from Ferguson’s work or anywhere else), you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

Drawing on examples from his text, how does Roderick Ferguson characterize the relationship between property, capital, and prostitution in his book, Aberrations? What bearing does this relationship have on his “queer of color” analysis?

Cathy Cohen’s essay, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens” showcases her opinion on what has inhibited the radical potential of queer activism. She states her main argument in her writing, “… I argue that a truly radical or transformative politics has not resulted from queer activism” (438). Cathy Cohen defines queer activism as a potential movement by antiassimilationist activists of today’s age devoted to questioning and changing the way people of their community or society understand and respond to sexuality. As queer activists, these individuals would find themselves challenging the norms set by society regarding sexuality and would radically change the politics in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities (437). The author believes that instead of eliminating assumed categories and binaries of sexual identity, queer activism has only been a way to strengthen the dichotomies between heterosexuality and everything queer. Queer politics were formed around the early 1990s to fight the “de-gaying” tendencies supported by AIDs activism and the non-existence of the lesbian and gay community in the traditional civil rights, triggered by the increase in physical assaults against the members of the LGBTQ community. The queer politics are more of an “in your face” set of politics established by the youth to introduce the word “queer” as not just an abbreviated term to identify individuals or their sexuality. But what seems to be different in queer activists is that they are able to address their own anti-normative characteristics and non-stable behavior (439). The problem that lies in all of this is that queer politics are not emerging as the challenge it should be to the many systems of domination and oppression, including the system that gives privilege to heterosexuals and makes heterosexual relationships seem as though the natural ones in society (440). Through the evaluation of the contemporary queer activism and politics, she hopes for the potential in the construction of a set of politics where the privilege in one’s political comrades comes from their relation to power, not their homogenized identity.

Hi everyone,

I have the flu and cannot make it in to our class today. Please complete the following written assignment on Cathy Cohen’s piece and post your response on our WordPress website. You can complete the assignment on your own or with another colleague from class. If you work with a partner, make sure that both names are listed at the top of your assignment. For full credit, make sure your response is posted by 5pm today. Your response should be at least 300 words or more, and everything should be written in your own words.

In her essay, Cathy Cohen argues that “…a truly radical or transformative politics has not resulted from queer activism.” Drawing on details from the text, what according to Cohen has inhibited the radical potential of queer activism?

I look forward to seeing you after the break.

Elizabeth

According to Collins, the “outsider within” status of Black women allowed for a unique perspective in society, as they were considered outsiders by the white families they worked for, but had an “insider” perspective as well from working this domestic occupation. This stems from discrimination based on race and gender, with Black women being on the low ends of both, in which these women were not seen as family even though they provided services such as taking care of the children and doing household work. They would even be outright ignored when they were in the room. This allowed them to see oppression on both sides, from the standpoint of the oppressors and as being the victims, revealing the truth about the discrimination.

Collins discussed three aspects concerning the significance of the “outsiders” within perspective that contributed to Black feminist thought. The first theme was that Black women had to create their own definition and validate themselves to strengthen their standing in society. This approach is a response to societal stereotypes that control, dehumanize and exploit the Black woman. By creating a self-definition and self-validation of themselves, it will create a sense of unity and help them reject the internalized oppression from society. The second theme Collins discussed was the understanding and acknowledgement of the oppression stemmed from race, gender and class. The unique experience of oppression face from Black women are different than those from Black men and white women because they face simultaneous discrimination from race and gender, as well as class if they are of the low socioeconomic status, which was typical for Black women. This multitude of oppression allowed them to recognize the struggles from all aspects and realize the importance of fighting against it. The final theme Collins discussed was the importance of Black women’s culture. In order to overcome the oppression, Black women have to know the history of their unique experience. By using this as a foundation, they can teach future generations about their experiences and help strengthen the conceptual ideas of black feminism.