Protection for WHOM?
An essay on Inclusion and Identity
Politics
By Mardi Clark
A
couple of articles I read recently brought increasingly familiar
images to my mind: those of "separatist" gays, looking to retain
whatever "focus" the gay movement ever had, at the accepted expense
of isolation from other "different" groups of people, and not simply
trans, either, but others as well (such as S&M;
practitioners).
But a separatist ideology, contained in this
"focus" and the resultant isolation, is where I see a mistake being
made in the context of today's, and especially future, political
landscapes. It is, I think, an error both in judgment as to political
effectiveness, and a mistake in what is really being fought
for here. I see tightly focused single issue/identity activism as
successful only in earning a "special rights for special groups"
tagwhich is exactly what it has
earned! Let's examine the issues a bit more closely.
All civil rights legislation concerning
discrimination in this century developed from the premise that there
was not significant unjust discrimination within our
society! This is why it began as being so specific; first, only women
were included, as an "Oh, yes, them too" class, deserving rights but
somehow overlooked. Then it expanded as other "injustices" were
uncovered: age, national origin, race, religion, etc. Today the
laundry list of "protected/included groups" and those seeking such
status, has grown so large that the general population has decided
that it is ridiculous and is therefore not having anymore of it.
Witness the wholesale failure rates of "special rights" legislation
(primarily GLBT) nationwide. What has happened is, it has become
obvious that there are many groups that
suffer discrimination within our society, and that they are so
diverse and numerous that any attempt to include them "laundry list"
style is just doomed to failure. And justifiably so! For it's
awkward, and bound to leave out significant and deserving groups.
This method of combating discrimination has reached its limit. It
must be replaced, and in order for that to happen, a re-thinking of
just what is being protected in the first place must happen: A
commonality must be sought out and identified!
Consider this: That the commonality we
all
share; GLBT, racial, creeds, sex, nationality, religion,
gendereveryone who is discriminated againstis exactly one
thing: We are all perceived as being simply "different" from the
majority. Period. That is all; just different. Beyond that it is
merely a matter of degree of that "differentness"between the
Goth and the gay youth, between the transsexual and the girl with
"too many" piercings. We have lost the right to be harmlessly
different from the majority.
There is a vast difference, already
recognized in our culture, between harmful behavior and that which is
merely "different." Generally, non-consensual acts are considered
harmful in some way whereas those activities which are consensual and
cause no "harm" to others are not. Indeed, "harm" could be defined
partly by this definition of consent.
So what I propose is a refocusing of
energyaway from the specific interests of any single group, and
towards the single interest all groups suffering unjust
discrimination have in common: the elimination of bigotry resulting
from a simple majority perception of difference.
The advantages of such a new direction are
primarily twofold: First, this provides a clear agenda: Elimination
of discrimination based upon perception of harmless difference as
defined by existing law. And secondly, enables an alignment of a much
larger, and therefore more powerful segment of the electorate. No
longer "one in (a debatable) ten," but a much, much more powerful
group, one almost defying the definition of "minority."
There are several steps that must be taken
towards this goal and they must be taken by each and every minority
group practicing identity politics today. The first of these is
recognition that it is indeed difference that is at the root of
prejudice, and not any other fundamental thingin fact that all
other aspects of prejudice stem from this fundamental root cause.
Recognizing this need not cause disintegration of the organizational
structures which required such spiritual and physical sacrifice to
build, however! No, what it will require is a strengthening of
existing coalitions and the creation of one umbrella organization
with representation of all groups suffering from difference
discrimination. This could be formed on a representational model such
as a congress, where strategies would be formed by a plenary
consensus.
Whatever form such a movement takes,
however, it is important that our commonalties be recognized by all,
and that work begin towards acting upon this knowledge in a concerted
effort. Coalition building is the most essential element of our
hopeful unified success and this must be made a first-order priority
by every single "different" individual in this country.
|