Cohen “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?”

While reading Cohen’s “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” I immediately thought about Butler’s text entitled Gender Trouble. Butler’s analysis of identity helped me to understand the ways Cohen was discussing the need for an appreciation of identity fluidity in queer politics. Butler’s text, most simply, critiques the metaphysics of substance, suggesting that there is no “I” who brings forth a thought and determines what one thinks. Thus, gender classifications are not stable because there is no “I” or core on which to map them. Traditional, binary gender identities are not possible, and, rather, one must understand that gender is a continuum.

Cohen’s text seems to discuss a similar idea. Cohen discusses the idea of queer theory, noting how it:

[S]tands in direct contrast to the normalizing tendencies of hegemonic sexuality rooted in ideas of static, stable sexual identities and behaviors. In queer theorizing the sexual subject is understood to be constructed and constrained by multiple practices of categorization and regulation that systematically marginalize and oppress those subjects thereby defined as deviant and ‘other.’ And, at its best, queer theory focuses on and makes central not only the socially constructed nature of sexuality and sexual categories, but also the varying degrees and multiple sites of power distributed within all categories of sexuality, including the normative category of heterosexuality. (Cohen 438-439)

According to Cohen, queer theory involves an understanding that the hegemonic notion of sexuality is focused on the construction and constraint of sexual identities into rigid categories, and thus denying the fluidity of sexuality. Queer theory attempts to subvert this hegemonic understanding of sexuality, and rather understand sexuality as a fluid identity that does not operate in a binary way. Additionally, queer theory aims to produce an enhanced understanding of the ways in which various intersecting identities interact with the institutions of power. More simply stated, queer theory attempts to understand how power and the ways in which it impacts sexuality.

Cohen notes that queer politics, the political wing of queer theory, has become problematic because of its focus on one characteristic of a person’s identity–namely their queer identity. Cohen notes how, “my concern is centered on those individuals who constantly activate only one characteristic of their identity, or a single perspective of consciousness, to organize their politics, rejecting any recognition of the multiple and intersecting systems of power that largely dictate out life chances” (Cohen 440). Hence, queer politics is largely failing in that it is not recognizing the ways in which intersectional identities interact with institutions of power to produce, often times, different forms of subordination. The ways in which a white queer interacts with institutions of power will invariably differ, for example, from the ways in which a black queer interacts with these same institutions. What is problematic is that, even in this example, the identities have been reduced to only two intersecting identities. In reality, people are influenced by their race, class, age, gender, abilities, sexuality, etc.

Taking an intersectional approach in addition to an approach that values and recognizes the fluidity of sexual categories is invariably important. However, I became slightly unsure regarding the way in which Cohen critiqued the term “queer”. As Cohen notes:

Personally speaking, I do not consider myself a ‘queer’ activist or, for that matter, a “queer” anything. This is not because I do not consider myself an activist; in fact I hold my political work to be one of my most important constitutions to all of my communities. But like other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered activist of color, I find the label ‘queer’ fraught with unspoken assumptions which inhibit the radical political potential of this category. (Cohen 451)

Is Cohen suggesting that the queer political movement is fraught with issues that one cannot over come? Is this due to the dominant forces within the movement ignoring the ways in which intersecting identities impact the ways in which queer people interact with dominant institutions? Is Cohen advocating for a movement that does not use the term queer? What are the implications for coalition building? How can one rid the term privilege? Or, is there something problematic about naming something in concrete terms that is inherently fluid?

Duality and Domination — Anzaldúa

Gloria Anzaldúa’s piece entitled “La conciencia del la mestiza/Towards a New Consciousness” examines the dilemma faced by those in current society who are not part of a “pure” race. Anzaldúa notes how those who do not fit into the dichotomous structure are faced with “a cultural collision” (Anzaldúa 78). Society is currently constructed in a way in which there is always an oppressor and an oppressed. This binary mode of thinking not only reproduces white domination, but also renders invisible those who do not fit into the neatly established categories of difference.

Anzaldúa discusses the idea of a new consciousness, suggesting that “it is a source of intense pain, its energy comes from continual creative motion that keeps breaking down the unitary aspect of each new paradigm” (Anzaldúa 80). Hence, the mestiza consciousness, one that straddles multiple cultures, will attempt to “break down the subject-object duality” (Anzaldúa 80) and help to chip away at the dualist thinking that dominates current society. Anzaldúa notes how homosexual members of society have currently been the best example of the creation of a cross cultural consciousnesses aimed at linking people together.

What is most striking about this piece is the way in which Anzaldúa discusses a move away from duality towards plurality. When discussing la mestiza, Anzaldúa notes:

La mestiza constantly has to shift out of habitual formations; from convergent thinking, analytical reasoning that tends to use rationality to move toward a single goal (a Western mode), to divergent thinking, characterized as a movement away from set patterns and goals and toward a more whole perspective, one that includes rather than excludes. (Anzaldúa 79).

Anzaldúa seems to suggest that the mestiza consciousness requires one to move away from Western deemed modes of rationality, and embrace what would be considered, by the dominant groups in society, to be a divergent mode of thinking. In the process of looking at individuals and belonging through the lens of the mestiza consciousness, one will learn not to divide, but rather include and embrace various groups of people. Hence, the problem that is present in current society is the desire to divide people based on strict and rigid standards, rather than embrace difference. However, I am unsure how this mode of thinking will completely eradicate the dominant structure of duality. Is Anzaldúa advocating for a bottom-up approach wherein those who do not fit into the dualistic mode of classification and thinking challenge the notions of belonging by eschewing these categories? What does Anzaldúa mean when she advocates moving towards a more whole perspective? Is Anzaldúa suggesting that intersectional approaches to identity formation will invariably reduce the dualistic nature of society and produce an inclusion? Would this inclusion remove domination and subordination? How will this approach tackle the power of dominant groups?