The festival is misconceived by them as a liberationist piece of theater, perhaps an attempt to recapture the spirit of the Stonewall riots, an act of defiance or even hedonism. It has been represented as so by sections of the media. To characterise it thus is nonetheless to ignore the effervescence and then equally swift evanescence of dramatic protest: once the point is made, only something more outrageous can upstage it. If Pride were that, why is the purportedly Foucauldian petard hoist year after year? Why does it gain in strength with time, with new celebrations in places long ago inconceivable, and not die out as all other liberationist projects seem to have done?
Even arguing from within their frame of reference, the failures of projects such as the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debacle ought to be apparent to legitimationists, and the consequent paradox at the heart of their ideology manifest: if every LGBT person is expected to be undifferentiated from society, the political grassroots to pursue the goal of equality is non-existent. Pride is the start to claiming genuine political power because it uniquely crosses gender, race and class; it is uniquely open to any participant at any level from those who come to those who want to march, to those who want to help organize it.
There is therefore more to Pride than the dogma of the liberationist/legitimationist dichotomy. It is fundamentally a human event, a celebration of what in South Africa would be called Ubuntu–we are who we are because of our society–and I suspect that the majority of people go for the most human of reasons: so there are others like me. Personal beliefs, history and preferences are unquestioned, and legitimationists are indeed most welcome. Perhaps they ought to contemplate whether the norms that they would have us all conform to are founded on such a laudable foundation.
1 comment:
One thing I think you misconstrue is the legitmationist belief is the absence of a cosmopolitan nature. In fact I'd say at the core of both liberationist and legitimationist thought is the belief that cosmopolitan life will eventually emerge through the struggles of the LGBT community. But is it here already? Perhaps, but perhaps not. We are not alien to the harassment that other gays still face to this day. Nor is the exclusion of rights to homosexuals a foreign concept. I still hold the belief that the telos of society, at least when focussing on issues such as gay rights, has not been reached.
The process of reducing cultural friction will eventually be key to changing the thoughts of others and this can be achieved in a subtle manner, not the pageantry of circus animals in a Pride parade. This subtle change does not mean "conform your values to those of common folk," but rather to approach the cultural friction in a realist manner, instead of fanning a fire with idealism. As a legitimationist, one must not fall prey to over-appraising the values and norms of society. Doing so will land yourself into complacency. Instead, one must subtly move social thought and vanquish the fear of "the other" from the society.
Bit by bit, society has evolved. Though there have been setbacks, notably DOMA and the amendments of the early 2000s, but even "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" played a role. The army didn't fall to pieces, morale wasn't destroyed, the fears of its opponents were not realized. And of course it is natural to continue evolving and doing away with outdated legislation, but even so there was a role for "Don't Ask Don't Tell." It gave some measure of humanity to those who were rejected as demons. Legitimationist doctrine can be as accepting of small steps as it is of large steps, and there are few that would deny the wish for full rights. Liberationism has engrained the idealism of equality without the pragmatics of society.
That said, imagine that tomorrow, two events would occur. In one event, all socially conservative Islamic countries would not force women to wear veils. The other event would be full rights for all gays in all 50 states. While both events would be politically satisfying, their cultural impact would not be immediate. It took years for African Americans to acheive some level of cultural mobility even after their rights were guarenteed in the Constitution. Change needs to occur in both political and cultural realms.
Pragmatically speaking, when examining cultural friction in out society, Pride doesn't help in our journey to the telos of our society. In fact if anything, the a of legitimationist counteract That said, I believe in Pride as a political affair. I even believe it may have the calming "Ubuntu" effect, if you will. The ability to see others that share some modicum of your identity is a gift that modernity and post-modernity has granted our lives. For this alone, Pride should be allowed.
Post a Comment