[Socialism Today, No 10, July-August 1996, p. 12-14]
Many businesses are turning to the lesbian and gay „niche market‘, as many in the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities turn their back on politics and opt for lifestyle‘ alternatives. Is this really the way forward? Mark Everden reports.
For many lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, the 1990s seem quite a good time to live in.
There has been an expansion of the gay scene and gay businesses, more „out‘ celebrities and increased sympathetic press coverage. Recent surveys have shown increased acceptance of homosexuality especially among young people. Even the police in some parts of the country are adopting a somewhat more tolerant attitude.
However, whilst these advances may go some way to undermine homophobia and prejudice, discrimination still exists. Lesbian and gay men are still sacked, discriminated against, and attacked (and even murdered).
There is discussion over the best way forward for equality. To analyse this it is necessary to look at current trends in ‚political gay thought‘ and trace how these ideas have developed.
In 1969, the Stonewall Riot proved to be a turning point in the struggle for equality. Over 4,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals took to the streets of New York, to fight back against police harassment and economic exploitation.
For years previously, gay politics had been based around limited reforms and assimilation into ’straight society‘. Yet the late 1960s was a period of intense social struggle with revolutionary movements taking place throughout the world. The Stonewall uprising sprang from this general radicalisation within society. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals began to see themselves as a community, brought together by the oppression that they faced.
The Gay Liberation Front (GLF), which formed shortly afterwards, identified the roots of gay oppression within capitalism. Their ‚Manifesto for Gay Liberation‘ showed how a class system discriminated in all aspects of gay life e.g. housing, education, employment. The movement developed close links with the wider radical and labour movement. Lesbian and gay issues were forced onto the agendas of trade unions and the Labour Party.
However. from the start the GLF was unclear on what sort of revolutionary movement was needed to change society. Much emphasis was put on the idea of ‚personal and lifestyle‘ politics. It was argued that collective action linked to wider struggles was often not as important as changing your own lifestyle or outlook; that ‚coming out‘ would end oppression itself.
There was also a trend towards separatism, with arguments put forward that only gay people could understand and fight homophobia. Separate groupings developed within GLF on the basis of gender, race etc. This fragmentation made it difficult to continue links with the wider labour movement. Disputes developed over issues of gender and sexism which eventually led to the GLF’s disintegration, This was also linked to the ebbing of the social struggles of the late 1960s.
However, even today the ideas of ‚lifestyle politics‘ still dominate the gay agenda. The roots of this can be seen in the events of the 1980s.
* *
*
The Thatcher decade saw a right-wing backlash against the working class. Vicious policies attacking wages, trade union rights and work conditions were introduced. The attack was also ideological and for lesbians and gay men this meant that they were firmly in the right-wing’s firing line. Clause 28, for example, sought lo promote the ‚ideal‘ nuclear family and inhibit local authorities from supporting the rights of lesbian and gay men.
A highly significant movement developed against Section 28 mobilising 40,000 on a demonstration at the height of the campaign. This was the biggest mobilisation on a gay rights issue to that date and led directly to an explosion in the numbers attending Pride. Sixty thousand marched that year compared to just a few thousand previously. Although the campaign failed it boosted the confidence of lesbians, gays and bisexuals to fight back. Significantly too, the movement sought the support of the trade unions and labour movement who were fighting the wider effects of the local government bill which contained Section 28. But the campaign was short-lived. The working class had already suffered defeats, in particular the year-long miners‘ strike; and this, combined with the collapse of Stalinism, led to a rightward shift in the labour and trade union leadership.
By the time the Tories introduced Clause 25, the Labour Party had given up all but nominal support for lesbian and gay rights. Kinnock had been advised that open support could ’scare the pensioner vote away‘! In this climate, it is no wonder that gay activists became disillusioned and turned away from building wider campaigns. As Peter Tatchell from „Outrage‘ said: ‚We have got nowhere in terms of getting the straight establishment to address the questions of lesbian and gay men. Nearly all the improvements in the lives of homosexual men and women have been due to the institutions that we have created ourselves‘.
The political vacuum was filled by direct action groups such as Outrage, Queer Nation and Lesbian Avengers, and lobbying groups such as Stonewall, while the Labour Party moved further to the right. Whilst Blair claims to be ‚gay friendly‘, he allows Labour MPs to vote against an equal age of consent. If these MP’s had only abstained the vote would have been carried. (He himself abstained in the vote to allow gays to serve in the military.)
All of these new gay groups adhere to the idea of lifestyle or identity politics. They believe that a common interest unites all lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, that our homosexuality is enough to bring together all gay people. The idea is put forward that creating a gay ‚lifestyle‘ for people to ‚buy into‘, combined with legal reforms, is enough to create equality.
However, this does not take into account the gulf of class interests which separate the rich and working class lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It is true that all gay people suffer from the general repression of sexuality, but the rich find it much easier to escape its impact. In the area of employment, the rich do not have to constantly worry about discrimination and getting sacked. They are far more likely to choose the sort of jobs they wish to do, whereas working class lesbians and gay men are in constant fear over losing their income. The rich do not have to live on housing estates where you have to hide your sexuality to avoid constant harassment and violence.
* *
*
The idea of uniformity of interests also lies behind the notion of a „pink economy‘. In the last few years capitalism has viewed gay people as a specialised niche market and many businesses have come over ‚gay friendly‘. Brewers have invested in expanding the commercial gay scene, and large companies sponsor the Pride Festivals. Many gay businesses have been set up – everything from plumbers to publishers! Groups such as Outrage advocate ‚Queer Spending Power‘ to ‚pressure businesses to adopt pro-gay policies‘. However the idea of the pink economy is based on the myth of high disposable incomes of gay people. Significantly, this is mainly aimed at gay men – fewer services and facilities are available for lesbians. Moreover, it does not take into account the reality that the majority of lesbians and gay men are working class and suffer the same low pay and mass unemployment as everyone else. For many it is less of a ‚pink pound‘ and more of a pink ‚overdraft‘.
A lower income means being less likely to have access to gay venues and businesses – the facilities are aimed at those with money. Big business has no concern over gay oppression, but sees only a select market to exploit. For the middle class, the commercial gay scene is a place where they can escape into a world of cafe bars and exclusive clubs, but for the working class access to such a lifestyle is difficult.
Many gay businesses now exist run by gay entrepreneurs, and are promoted as an advance towards equality. However, there are two issues here. As the GLF twenty years ago pointed out, despite the existence of separate gay pubs and clubs, oppression still exists. People use the gay scene (which also exploits them) because it is not possible to express your sexuality openly in other places. To do so could lead to abuse and violence.
Secondly, the same class interests separate gay entrepreneurs and their gay workforce. The workers still often have to work long hours for low pay. Just because a boss is gay doesn’t mean they would increase wages in solidarity with their gay staff. Their businesses are still run for profit. Other forms of discrimination can be found in gay workplaces, in much the same way as in ’straight‘ jobs, as the reports of sexual harassment of young gay men at Compton’s Bar in London graphically shows.
The middle class gay business men and women are quite happy for society to stay as it is. They often support law reform but just so long as their own interests aren’t affected. The gay business community holds a lot of sway in groups such as Stonewall.
Stonewall uses ‚respectable lobbying‘ on some key legal reforms such as age of consent and employment rights. Whilst we would support any step forward in this area we can have no illusions in legal reforms as the answer. After all, for decades there have been laws against racism and sexism but these forms of discrimination still very much exist.
* *
*
Certainly there is pressure from those sections of big business who see there is money to be made from the gay community and can see that a more tolerant attitude in society would enable them to do this more effectively. In addition there are those that argue, like Andrew Sullivan, author of the much-hyped book, Virtually Normal, that in our increasingly class polarised society there is little point in alienating those sections of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community who would be natural allies of capitalism when they could be brought on board with a few inexpensive concessions like legal gay partnership rights or gay marriage, inheritance rights etc.
Nevertheless, prejudice will continue to be a tool used by the ruling class when it suits them. For example, in the USA recently the right-wing populist politician Pat Buchanan attempted to mobilise support for his bid for the Republican’s presidential nomination by appealing to prejudices against abortion, gay rights etc. Although it is significant that he made little headway until he began to demagogically address economic questions like job insecurity, his campaign still showed how much of a constant battle it is against the right-wing to defend gains that are made.
More and more class issues will force themselves to the fore within the lesbian, gay and bisexual movement. A certain analogy can be made, within limits, with the situation of black people and women. Facing the growing militancy and radicalisation of these sections in Britain and America, conscious steps were taken to bring a small layer into the wealthy and privileged echelons. But this has done nothing to solve the problems of the majority of working class black people and women, who still face prejudice and discrimination. Their problems, like those of the majority of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, remain rooted in the failures of the capitalist system to guarantee permanent decent living standards for everyone.
Capitalism rests on division and inequality. Ideas are the most powerful weapon through which to maintain control, and the upper echelons of society will always use and manipulate prejudice in order to justify inequality and maintain divisions. It will take a complete transformation of society, along socialist lines, to create conditions of genuine equality under which prejudice and discrimination can be eliminated and lesbian, gay and bisexual liberation can become a reality.
Schreibe einen Kommentar