Socialism and the struggle for the rights of lesbians and gay men
New Course, 1997. 47 pp., $5.
Review by Rebecca Meckelburg
The release of this pamphlet, containing a resolution from the 1995 national conference of the Democratic Socialist Party, coincides with a historic moment for the lesbian and gay rights movement — the decision by the Tasmanian parliament on May 1 to repeal the state's anti-gay laws.
The struggle for the rights of lesbians and gays has clearly come a long way as a result of the campaigns of the '70s, '80s and '90s. The success of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras as an international event is another testimony to the real gains that have been won.
Yet many lesbians and gay men today experience real discrimination, violence and despair. Many feel that if you can't afford the Mardi Gras or to live in Oxford Street or Newtown (even if you wanted to!), then we're still a long way from liberation.
This resolution is a welcome addition to the literature that theorises the origins and nature of homosexual oppression, the history and emergence of "homosexual identity" and the emergence of the gay and lesbian social and political movements.
Its theory is intended as an aid to action: it attempts to tackle the key political and theoretical debates in order to clarify the politics and develop clear strategies for building a movement with the goal of achieving full civil and human rights.
The resolution identifies the origins of homosexual oppression in the emergence of class society and the rise of the family as one of its central institutions. It draws the links between the oppression of women and the control of sexuality, especially the sexuality of women.
This in turn implies the repression of any expression of sexuality which is not connected, at least potentially, with procreation. To accept homosexual practice as normal can lead to the conclusion that the nuclear family is not humanity's "natural" state and thus challenge the role of women in society and in the family.
The development of the nuclear family in capitalist society further codified women's subordinate role through law and social convention. At the same time, however, it opened up opportunities for lesbians and gay men to develop pairing homosexual relationships based on mutual desire, because women and men could be financially independent through paid work and were no longer dependent on the family unit for survival.
It was around this time that laws criminalising "buggery" and "indecent acts" between men began to be introduced.
The resolution traces the emergence of the lesbian and gay movements in the late 19th century and examines their links with other political and social struggles, including the socialist movement.
Most of the material in the pamphlet focuses on the modern liberation movement, dating from the Stonewall riot of 1969. It documents key moments in the political campaigns of the '70s and '80s, identifying and discussing the different trends that emerged.
Key here is the identification of the struggle for the democratic rights of lesbians and gay men as part of the broader struggle for a socially just, democratic and ecologically sound world. The resolution demands complete legal, economic and social equality for all homosexuals and argues that capitalism is unable to meet these demands, because the oppression of homosexuals is necessary in maintaining the ideology that justifies the family institution.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of the resolution is its discussion of the key debates and political trends that have emerged over the last two decades. For any activist wanting to do something about the oppression of lesbians and gay men, thinking through these issues is essential.
The resolution criticises the view that the movement is or should be about a "lifestyle" — meaning not just being able to express your sexuality without fear, but the idea that being gay or lesbian involves an "identity":
"... instead of this [coming out] being seen as the first step in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights, 'coming out' and identifying as a gay man or a lesbian began to be posed as an end in itself. Asserting one's sexuality as an 'identity' became defined as a radical progressive strategy. The logic of this view is that society can be changed through individual acts of defiance."
The lifestyle/identity arguments mirror the politics of some feminist writing, such as "do it yourself" feminism or Naomi Wolf's "power feminism". These theories fail to recognise that positive self-labelling does nothing to eradicate the real material ways in which people are oppressed.
The resolution takes up other debates around "lifestylism", separatism, postmodernism and queer politics. Queer politics tends to dominate the thinking today of young people radicalising around issues of sexuality who reject (justifiably so) the hold that politically conservative lesbians and gay men have on most of the committees, lobby groups and media.
Many have been attracted to queer politics as a rejection of the politics of exclusion and separatism that developed in the movements in the late '70s and '80s. While this is positive, queer politics has in many cases produced little more than identity politics could achieve.
"Queer identity" — the politics of outrage or challenging norms — like other forms of identity politics, ignores the real ways in which lesbians and gay men are oppressed, and that not all people can or wish to "choose" an "identity" based on their sexuality.
Finally, the resolution concludes with a brief summary of a strategy of struggle for the rights of lesbians and gay men.
This document is inspiring in its documentation of the rich history of lesbians and gay men in struggles, and challenging in tackling the difficult and contentious issues of how we continue the fight today. The discussion of different theories should provoke a serious and healthy discussion on how we can build a successful campaign for the rights of all lesbians and gay men.