Beyond ‘Equality’
Over the past 15 years or so the LGBT movement has embraced ‘equality’ as a buzz word in its ongoing battles for rights and recognition. More importantly is the meaning behind the word ‘equality’ that requires some interrogation to reveal its misdirected implications, at least from a critical queer liberationist perspective. Equality is used as the antithesis to charges of discrimination. We have seen it used in campaigns such as the ‘Campaign for Equal Families’, ‘Equal Marriages Campaign’ to the ‘Equality Forum’ extravaganza held in Philadelphia each year. The message being, ‘we (LGBTs) are just like you (straights) and all we ask is to have the same rights, benefits and responsibilities you have. We want an equal opportunity to live our lives just as you live your lives.’
For many queer liberationists there is a concern that this can lead down a slippery slope to the assimilationist pit. Is our movement about becoming like straight people? Do we aspire to model our lives after the lives of straights? More disturbingly, is this the path that will lead us to acceptance and respectability? These are troubling questions that lead queer liberationists to trouble the concept of ‘equality’.
A couple of brief examples illustrate the dangers of moving in this direction. The hard fought for and high profile battle for same-sex marriage was put forth as an equality measure that ‘elevated’ those same-sex couples that opted to marry entry into the institution of marriage to become ‘equal’ to other straight married couples. Thus, they gained a privileged status in a society in which marriage is highly sanctioned. But why is marriage more privileged than other kinds of relationships? What about queers who opt not to marry? The ‘equality’ gained by those same-sex couples that married means the further marginalization of those who don’t, as the latter do not receive the same privileges and benefits. Where is the equality in that? Critical queer liberationists question the privileged status of marriage as an institution.
Another example is that of the annual Pride festivities. Earlier Pride events were driven by political protest for recognition and respect. There is no doubting the political power of declaring one’s pride in such a visible event and this individual ‘progress’ is extended communally for the fact that so many communities are now hosting Pride festivities. A closer critical analysis reveals that in essence these events of late are for the most part celebratory and less about political action to affect change. Increasingly, queer community groups (political, social, cultural and supportive) and businesses are replaced in the Pride parade procession by large profit-making capitalist ventures advertising their product (condos, liquor and beauty products). Some will argue this is a sign of success, as for-profit businesses are not afraid to participate in the Pride Parade and are demonstrating their support for our communities. Critical queer liberationists are left asking, who is being represented/recognized and for what purposes? How does giving access to capitalist ventures hawking products of questionable value to our communities about equality, when our own grassroots organizations are marginalized in the process?
Striving towards equality is a limited and limiting process. It will only take us as far as our heterosexually dominated society has gone. Queer liberation raises the bar beyond equality. It argues for equity, as it recognizes that we are a diverse society made up of different people (such as queers) who need to be differently recognized according to our varied realities. Queer liberationists think outside the box seeking creative ways of living that is not necessarily defined by societal norms and mores. Critical queer liberationists trouble the concept of ‘equality’ for at the personal and societal level of integrity, it may require a compromise that is disingenuous. ‘Equality’ in and of itself can be troubling.
- Nick Mulé - January 29, 2010
This essay is very relevent just now where one can sense an uneasy movement towards assimilation into a straight culture which,in itself, requires many revisions of its social aspirations.
Gay “marriage” exemplifies this trend. It attempts to achieve conventiontal respectability and prestige based on a religious formula. It displays to the world how bound we can be by the promises of fidelity and committment, both of which are dangerous and unrealistic expectations in any union.
Is this not an internalised homophobia at work – an attempt to deny the faggot in oneself rather than celebrating it?
Do we want to be “accepted” by conforming to a foreign ideal?
It’s time to renew our committment to who we truly are, skirting the traps that may be set to allow us our rights and stating unafraid and clearly who we want to be – not just what we sense will please a majority who dole out piece by piece what they consider our worth.
I am gay and married. There it is, my bias, exposed. Now, let me say that I don’t believe that the word marriage should be contained by anything, including quotation marks, just because it happens to follow the word gay. There are not different types of marriage, and a marriage between gay men involves all the same components as any marriage does. Of course, that’s what some people are so desperately opposed to… as if the participation in an institution that has, traditionally, been restricted to heterosexuals, is evidence of conformity or assimilation into a heterosexual lifestyle, to the abandonment of whatever one decides is the definition of a homosexual one. If this were true, then participation in obtaining a driver’s liscence or high school diploma would invariably mean the same thing. People who use that kind of logic are non-thinkers who define themselves, their lives, and others by the trappings of a media portrayal of what it means to be homosexual. I am gay, and my life is unique. Others are gay, too, and their lives are unique. Who is to say that we should all want or not want the same thing? I want to be married, and so I am. If you do not want to be married, then don’t be… but shut the hell up.
I believe that equality must take into account the very real differences between people, especially between hetero and queer populations. There is no denying that the experiences of being queer vary greatly from the experiences of being hetero. Equality in the sense of offering the same sort of services or status for queers as heteros have is not equality in my book since it denies the very real differences between these groups. Equality in my opinion often means offering different sorts of services or statuses that equally meet the needs of different populations. For example an issue that is of great concern to me is addiction and mental health treatment. As it now exists by some definitions heteros and queers have perfect equality in that the same services in these fields are available regardless of one’s sexual orientation. However this denies the very real differences that exist between hetero and queer people with addiction and mental health problems and offering the same services just doesn’t meet the needs of queer people in need of addiction and mental health services. It goes beyond the heteronormative nature of the vast majority of addiction and mental health treatment organizations though this is a major problem in and of itself. For example such populations, those with addiction and mental health problems, have a tendency to mistrust such organizations in the first place due to the nature of their problems and often past negative experiences. Establishing trust is essential before these populations can be helped but do to the heteronormative nature of such organization establishing trust is that much harder for queer clients right from the get go when forms ask for the client’s gender and only offer two options, male or female, or when they ask women about their boyfriends or husbands and men about about their wives or girlfriends. Such things are done, for the most part unconsciously by those in addiction and mental health organizations because their heteronormative is taken for granted. This is just one small example of how equal treatment of hetero and queer clients is a problem. CAMH provides some excellent help for professionals in this regard in their section on resources for professionals called “Asking the Right Questions” http://www.camh.net/Publications/Resources_for_Professionals/ARQ2/
Perhaps thought the biggest problem with treating hetero and queer people with addiction problems the same is that there are very real differences between the groups on how and why they became addicted and the sorts of things they need to do to overcome their addiction problems. for a brief example queers often develop addiction problems in response to growing up in an anti-queer world as well as the primary social spaces for queer folks being bars and the lack of other venues not connected to drugs or alcohol. There is also a very real problem of queer clients being too uncomfortable in a hetero dominated group to discuss the sorts of issues they need to discuss to help themselves, even if homophobia isn’t blatant amongst hetero group members, the perception of it is in itself a major problem. Sexuality, acceptance of ones sexual orientation and healthy drug/alcohol sex are not issues that come up in general groups which are in practice hetero groups yet they are very important issues for queer clients. Along with a whole host of other issues that simply are not relevant to the majority in general groups but are of extreme importance to queer clients.
This is just a very brief explanation of how equality, as in treating queers and heteros as the same, in addiction and mental health treatment is a failure for queer clients. What we desperately need to see is equality in getting needs met as opposed to equality of treatment as in treating heteros and queers as the same. What we need to see is addiction and mental health services that recognize the differences between heteros and queers yet offer each the sorts of services they need, in this case equality means treating different groups differently according to their needs. Sadly there is just one addiction and mental health treatment facility in all of Ontario that accomplishes this and treats queers according to their specific needs instead of offering them the same treatment as heteros, that facility is CAMH in Toronto, their Rainbow Services program exists to meet the particular needs of queers with addiction and mental health problems instead of treating us as being no different than heteros with addiction and mental health problems. That sort of equality is no equality at all since there are very real differences between queers and heteros that cannot be glossed over either through anti-homophobia work or any other efforts aimed at making it seem as if queers and heteros are the same.