A question for Anarchoqueers and other gay radicals

[Frank Zapatista]

When I first came out last year I had to face some inner demons, I had an extremely difficult time accepting myself. I wasn't ready, It was a forced coming out and I had a very difficult time to say the least (I might write a blog entry about it and how it affected my political views sometime, that's not what this is about). My best friend didn't want anything to do with me anymore and with the emotional troubles, I turned to my gay friends and gay culture. I went to my first gay pride parade in Toronto and loved it. Anyways, I got acquainted with queer radicalism lately and I have some questions: What does assimilation mean in relation to anarcho-queer ideology? Why do we need to avoid it? What are the goals of this ideology in relation to the future of the gay community? Are we even a community, should I identify a 'gay culture'? Why do radical queers always associate with anarchist thought as opposed to Marxist thought (I identify as a Trotskyist)? Any other info would be useful too, info on groups, anything really. Thanks in advance and sorry about the rambling.

[Lanky Wanker]

My best friend didn't want anything to do with me anymore

If (s)he rejected you for being gay then (s)he was never your best friend in the first place. I really lose hope in the human race when I hear about people like that though, but it's good to know you have other gay people to be around now though who you can obviously be yourself around.

[Sasha]

There are countless gay marxists, its just that they tend not to get involved with topic based activism/identity politics to the extent anarchists do, its not any different as with feminism.
Most "anarcho" queer groups call themselfs so though because it happens most of their members tend to identify as such but to my experience politics differ from actual anarcho-communism to post-modern individualism to sartre fanboys, the thing that unites them is the queer not the anarcho so as long as your not a dogmatic stalinist you should feel welcome to broaden their horizons.
queer radicalism rejects assimilation as it (correctly) identifies patriarchy, hetero-normativy and capitalism as the foundations of homophobia. Just as radical feminists understand that more female c.e.o's won't end patriarchy and radical blacks know that Obama wont end racism radical queers might welcome marriage equality and the end of DADT as an removal of discriminating legislation but at the same time still reject hetero-normative society, patriarchy, white supremicy and capitalism as they are the core foundation of all discrimination and inequality.

[Lucretia]

When I first came out last year I had to face some inner demons, I had an extremely difficult time accepting myself. I wasn't ready, It was a forced coming out and I had a very difficult time to say the least (I might write a blog entry about it and how it affected my political views sometime, that's not what this is about). My best friend didn't want anything to do with me anymore and with the emotional troubles, I turned to my gay friends and gay culture. I went to my first gay pride parade in Toronto and loved it. Anyways, I got acquainted with queer radicalism lately and I have some questions: What does assimilation mean in relation to anarcho-queer ideology? Why do we need to avoid it? What are the goals of this ideology in relation to the future of the gay community? Are we even a community, should I identify a 'gay culture'? Why do radical queers always associate with anarchist thought as opposed to Marxist thought (I identify as a Trotskyist)? Any other info would be useful too, info on groups, anything really. Thanks in advance and sorry about the rambling.

The term assimilation in gay politics means attempting to live the same kind of lifestyle that heterosexuals lead. Anarchists, who tend to subscribe to a lifestyle politics that sees power everywhere and therefore resistance everywhere (including in forms of dress and drum circles), find a heteronormative lifestyle a disturbing rejection of the unique culture of mutual support, honesty, and creativity fostered during years when gay subcultures tended to operate underground due to legal repression. They therefore reject attempts by gays to become "like straights" by fighting for things like monogamy, marriage, and other earmarks of heterosexual normalcy, believing that the disappearance of gay culture is effectively the disappearance of a culture of political resistance.

There are many, many problems with this view, including (as you suggest) the faulty view that "gay community" is a concrete reality rather than a vague abstraction. By isolating only one general aspect of somebody's personality or life, the concept of a gay community papers over divisions - especially class divisions, but also racial and gender differences - among gay people thereby obscuring more than it reveals about the supposed members of this "community." It also implies that all heterosexuals are the same and participate in the same culture (even sexual culture), which is laughably absurd.

The rejection of assimilation also frequently falls into the lionization of the marginal, the idea that something is good just because it is rejected by the mainstream. But this postmodern multiculturalism (we should celebrate all cultural differences) ignores the important reality that many things are rejected by the mainstream because they are, well, not good (serial murder, for instance). The fact is that being culturally marginalized resulted in a lot of unseemly and undesirable traditions and characteristics in gay subcultures that "assimilating" has done much to eliminate. One of these, if I might say so, is the practice of fixating obsessively on sexual desire as the most important aspect of who a person is and what they should be doing in life.

As for your last question, radical "queers" usually tend to identify as anarchist because, well, those who identify as queer rather than gay or lesbian tend to subscribe to queer theory, which is premised on a lot of anarchist rather than marxist assumptions, not least of which is the assumption I mentioned earlier that power is diffuse and has no concentrated center(s). But there are many radical gay leftists who do not identify as anarchists. Maybe the reason you are less familiar with them is tend not to be involved in youth subcultures.

[Sixiang]

What does assimilation mean in relation to anarcho-queer ideology?
I think Lucretia and Psycho pretty much summed that one up.


Why do we need to avoid it?
I think it's because a lot of radical queers think that assimilation would mean the loss of sexual freedom and expression and the fight for total equality with heterosexuals.


What are the goals of this ideology in relation to the future of the gay community?
I assume total equality with heterosexuals in society, the complete openness and acceptance of gay people in society, and sexual freedom (both freedom to have sex with any other consenting partner of reasonable age and mental health and the freedom of expression of sexuality in art and everyday life).


Are we even a community, should I identify a 'gay culture'?
I tend to think of culture as a sort of geographical thing. Or, that is, cultures come out of groups of people who live together in a certain location for a long enough time to develop their own languages, dialects of other languages, accents, (sometimes) writing systems, literature, poetry, folk tales, music, cuisine, dietary habits and customs, ceremonies and rituals, visual art, architecture, fashion, philosophies, religions, spirituality, superstitions, political and governmental structures, and probably other things I'm leaving out. When we talk about a specific "culture" it can be anything from continental down to national to regional to city and town based. We can talk about "Western culture", "North American culture", "American culture", "New England culture", "New York culture", and even specifics within New York culture down to "Bohemianism" or whatever else hipsters and trendsetters are into these days. In certain instances, gay people live together en masse in a certain part of a city. Certain neighborhoods in cities may be known for gay people. And they may have their own restaurants they go to and stores they shop at and neighborhood festivals and community organizing events. And a sort of culture can emerge out of that. The more I study culture, the more subjective I really see it all can be. Of course, different tendencies of Marxism seem culture in different ways. But it seems that we mostly regard culture as based off of and coming out of the mode of production and political and economy structure of that society. American culture is very much based on the capitalistic, imperialist economic structure it is under. But it is also heavily influenced in some regions by its past of slave holding and feudalistic sharecropping. And of course it is also a ethnically, politically, and religiously diverse nation. And all of the different groups of people who came here brought their cultures with them and infused that with a persistent "American" culture. And we can say the same for almost the entire world as all sorts of different peoples at least traveled through and traded with each other at some point in history, leaving some cultural footprint.


Why do radical queers always associate with anarchist thought as opposed to Marxist thought (I identify as a Trotskyist)?
I am a homosexual and a Maoist. I've never actually met another queer Marxist in person, but I've read about and talked to some online. Of course, most of the radical queers I know seem to subscribe to some sort of anarchism or far-left reformism, in favor of making the legal and political system feminist and queer friendly. Maybe anarchism appeals to the idea of sexual freedom. I personally see Marxist socialism and communism as coinciding with feminism, queer liberation, and all other sorts of liberation of oppressed and exploited peoples. Of course, an atheistic society based on scientific beliefs and analysis also is less likely to classify gay people in the way that religious societies have, so that helps.