Queer Nation
by John Lauritsen
The latest paradigm is Queer Nation, which
seems to combine the worst features of the Medical, Minority, and
Popular Front models, expressed through confrontational politics. [1]
Directly or through news reports most of us by now have observed Queer
Nation demonstrations: self-proclaimed “queers” in bizarre
costumes, screaming or throwing things at ordinary citizens, or
marching through the streets chanting: “WE'RE HERE! WE'RE QUEER!
GET USED TO IT!”
The use of the word “queer” as a
substitute for “gay” is central to the Queer Nation
ideology. My own reaction was immediately and intensely negative. I
could not conceive of people calling themselves “queer”
unless they were either self-hating lunatics or secret agents of some
kind who were out to destroy the gay movement.
However, in an effort to approach the issue
objectively, I conducted a small survey at the Gay Studies Conference
held at Rutgers in early November 1991. My method was simple. Tape
recorder in hand, I approached people and said: “I'm soliciting
comments on the use of the word ‘queer’. Is there anything
you'd like to say?” Interestingly, a few people seemed afraid to
be interviewed on the topic. But most cooperated, and I recorded some
very articulate comments.
Jonathan Katz of San Francisco said:
I see the word “queer”
as an ideologically moded descriptive term in that it speaks to the
possibility of political alliances with all the queers. Which is to
say, queerness not defined solely in terms of one's sexual identity,
and community not perhaps in terms of affection, or genitally
circumscribed, but rather a kind of community where other queers of all
stripes meet in political alliance.
JL: OK, how would you define the “other queers”?
JK: I think those who apply the
term “queer” to themselves are necessarily queer.
Jeffrey Escoffier, the Publisher of Outlook, said:
I grew up using that word for
myself before Stonewall — and I also like it because I think that
it's more inclusive. It includes identities that are marginal in lots
of different ways. So for me “queer” is a word that's being
reclaimed from history, and I think it's a good thing.
Neither Katz nor Escoffier elaborated on who the
“other queers” might be. Presumably, “marginal”
people of one sort or another.
Among those opposed to the use of the word “queer”, the long-time homophile leader and scholar, Arthur Warner, said the following:
I think the use of the word
“queer” — to adopt the words of opprobrium, that
homophobes have traditionally used — is ridiculous. It reflects,
to my way of thinking, a paucity of original understanding.
The New York poet, Richard George-Murray, commented:
“Queer” is a word like
“pansy” and “faggot”, a term of contempt that
was applied to us. “Gay” is a word that we chose ourselves,
and it's relatively neutral. We've called ourselves “gay”
for a good part of the century. I can't speak too highly of the origins
of the word “gay”, but it's still a word that we chose, and
not one that was bestowed upon us by people who held us in contempt. I
find I feel rather strongly about this.
A gay historian, who first declined to comment, told
me a day later: “This is confidential, all right? Well, I think
it's fascism.” (By this he meant the way the word
“queer” was being forced and foisted upon gay scholars.)
Last fall a forum was held in New York City on the topic, “Do you like being called ‘queer’?”
The only two panelists who unambiguously approved of using the word
“queer” were women, although until very recently
“queer” was always clearly understood as applying to gay
men, not to lesbians. Donna Minkowitz, the most vociferous advocate of
“queer”, was shocked and upset when asked whether she would
mind being called a “cunt” or a “kike”. And
yet, what is the difference? Have African-Americans chosen to describe
themselves as “niggers”, or Jews as “kikes”, or
Asian-Americans as “gooks”. What indeed is the difference?
The single most enlightening comment came from a man
in the audience, whose work had brought him in contact with many
prisoners. Over the years he had heard gay-bashers use many different
words, including “queer”, “faggot”, and
“cocksucker”. “Never once”, he said,
“have I heard a gay-basher use the word ‘gay’.”
We should not forget this point: our enemies have
consistently opposed our use of the word “gay”. Attacking
our movement from a Roman Catholic standpoint, Enrique Rueda writes:
“The importance of using the word ‘gay’ as opposed to
such better-suited words as ‘homosexual’ or ‘queer’ is universally acknowledged throughout the homosexual community.” Rueda continues:
“Queer”, which has as its first meaning “deviating from the expected or normal; strange”,
corresponds with the facts that homosexuals are a small minority of the
population and that their practices are considered by most people to be
in disharmony with the natural order.
Rueda laments: “In acquiescing without any
resistance to the use of ‘gay’, American society and
government have, in fact, bought into the homosexual movement.”
He argues:
Since “gay” is by
definition a word of celebration and affirmation, its very use makes it
difficult for the user to reject the implicit value that gay is good. [2]
At this point it may be helpful to review a
progression of attitudes towards male love — an odd progression,
in which a step forward is sometimes accompanied by two steps backward.
In classical antiquity, sex between males was just that, sex between
males; then, with the intrusion of Judeo-Christian morality, it became
an abomination and a sin. With the desacralization of the penal code it
became a crime (sodomy, buggery, unnatural lewdness, indecency, etc.).
Under the Medical and Minority Models it became a sickness, and then a
form of deviance — which is precisely what is implied by the word
“queer”. [3]
So then, what the Queer Nation ideologues are
proposing is an alliance of physical, psychological, and social rejects.
Deviants of the world, unite!
Is this really what we want?
Notes
1. See article by Michael Cunningham, “Queer/Straight”, Mother Jones, May-June 1992.
2. Enrique Rueda, The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, Old Greenwich, Connecticut 1982, pp. 63-68.
3. Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged offers the following meanings for queer: “sexually deviate”, “worthless”, “spurious”.
# # #
From: John Lauritsen, A Freethinker's Primer of Male Love, Pagan Press, Provincetown 1998. For a description and reviews of this book click here.
Back to Queer page.
Home