[Socialism Today, No 28, May 1998, p. 9-10]
For many lesbians and gay men, Gay Pride has become a traditional focal point in the calendar, However, the events of the last year have shown how far Pride has moved away from its roots to the idea of ‚pink pound liberation‘ – the misconception that gay consumerism and spending power is a route to liberation.
Problems started with the 1997 Pride festival, which was advertised on London radio as the Pride music festival, with no mention of the full title: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride. One in six of the festival goers was estimated as straight (according to an on-site survey). A number of homophobic incidents were reported.
The festival resembled an advertising convention as commercial sponsors competed for attention: snack food and fizzy beer were more prominent than any gay content. Worst of all, the principal sponsor was United Airlines (UA), embroiled in a homophobic law suit against San Francisco City Council, which requires contractors to provide full partnership rights, such as travel concessions for gay employees. Political comment and struggle were conspicuous by their absence; the march through central London was downgraded to a non-political ‚parade‘,
Pride ’97 was voted the ‚year’s greatest disappointment‘ in The Pink Paper’s annual readers‘ poll.
Pride ’97 was voted the ‚year’s greatest disappointment‘ in The Pink Paper’s annual readers‘ poll. The organisers, the Pride Trust, with decisions being made by three unelected ‚directors‘, were seen as having sold out to big business and as having ‚de-gayed‘ the event in their pursuit of ever-increasing attendance. Their contempt for community feeling was reinforced by the announcement that they would again approach UA for sponsorship in 1998.
However, this was not to be. Even after substantial funding from businesses, it emerged in November that the Pride Trust was £160,000 in debt, including £20,000 to Lambeth council for the festival venue. A number of gay organisations were also owed money for their expenses in providing services, such as disability access advice.
After failed attempts by the Pride Trust to cobble together a rescue deal with a straight businessman – who whilst owning a gay bar had never been to Pride – two contenders to run the festival emerged. These were the Pride Trust-backed ‚Pride Promotions‘ and ‚Freedom UK‘ (originally called ‚National Pride‘ until the Pride Trust issued a writ). Both mounted charm offensives in the gay press and community organisations. Freedom UK was seen as being competent and (marginally) more political, primarily because it was not associated with the past mess. At the end of March, it won permission from Lambeth council to stage the festival.
No one yet knows what the festival will be like, but the omens are not good: Freedom UK is a business consortium which aims to make a profit. Pride will be a ticketed event with an admission charge. In effect, a chance to celebrate your sexuality open to all if you can afford the admission.
The question is: what should Pride be? The consensus is that it should be ‚re-gayed‘, but a paid event cannot do this.
The question is: what should Pride be? The consensus is that it should be ‚re-gayed‘, but a paid event cannot do this. The ‚de-gaying‘ of Pride has been caused by its depoliticisation. Pride has to make a stand against homophobia, not paper over the facts of social oppression. If it is to do so it must be an explicit protest against the legal and state discrimination faced by lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Past years of ‚fabby, camp‘ events (to use the dumbed-down language of the gay press) have not done so and cannot do so. Pride can celebrate gay life as well, but not just the air-headed lifestyle pushed by gay businesses. Their only interest is in having their products bought and in representing being ‚gay‘ as a matter of buying these products.
A look at Pride’s history is instructive. The Gay Pride day originated in 1971 as a protest march inspired by the Stonewall riot and the founding of Gay Liberation Fronts in the US and UK. It took place against the background of the black civil rights movement and industrial struggles of the 1970s which had a radicalising effect on society. Numbers exploded beyond a few thousand in the late 1980s as the gay community united to fight the Tories‘ Section 28 (this was part of Thatcher’s attacks on left Labour councils and specifically outlawed the so-called ‚promotion of homosexuality‘ in schools). Pride’s history is therefore one of political action.
In countries where anti-gay repression is more severe, such as Mexico and the former Stalinist states, gay pride marches are developing as forms of protest, there being little call to win basic rights with a festival of Spice Girls imitators or boy bands.
At one stage, Britain’s Pride march seemed likely to be a casualty of the wrangles outlined above. In a telling phrase, the Pride Trust’s secretary said: „The march is not a massively important part of the day… it is not profitable‘. (The Pink Paper, 13 February, 1998) After pressure from a range of gay community groups it now seems that there will be a political theme to the march, calling for the still unrepealed Section 28 to be done away with.
There is a question mark over the long-term future of Pride: can it be re-politicised? The illusion of pink pound liberation is beginning to wane – the task now is to forge a new fighting movement. The Socialist Party’s Lesbian Gay and Bisexual group will be ready and willing to play a part in this: to re-gay Pride through its re-politicisation.
Bob Graham
Schreibe einen Kommentar