Queer Nation

Defining a Queer Nation

The label “deviant” would likely be rejected by members of Queer Nation for the same reason that labels such as “gay” and “lesbian” were—they represent limited, exclusionary categories imposed on marginalized groups by those in power. Conversely, some queer nationals may also view a “deviant” label as a point of pride, for Queer Nation actively sought to be inclusive of the most marginalized and excluded segments of the lesbian and gay population, such as queers of color, lower- and [Page 571]working-class queers, bisexuals, and other sexual groups not well represented by more mainstream gay organizations (e.g., sadomasochists). This seemingly contradictory stance is characteristic of Queer Nation, whose very name offers its first contradiction: Queer signals difference, while nation suggests sameness. As Allan Bérubé and Jeffrey Escoffier suggest, Queer Nation was replete with these contradictions. On the one hand, members rejected identity labels, and on the other hand, they affirmed their queer identity. They rejected mainstream assimilation yet demanded the mainstream's attention with their radical tactics. They sought to include those who felt marginalized by society but threatened to marginalize those whose difference did not conform to the new Queer Nation. These internal contradictions may have been the cause of Queer Nation's rapid dissolution; by the mid-1990s, most chapters of Queer Nation were defunct.

However, these very contradictions are what made Queer Nation so queer. In embracing the term queer, Queer Nation was, in fact, trying to highlight difference and emphasize nonnormativity in stark contrast to more mainstream approaches to gay rights, which asserted that lesbians and gay people were just like heterosexuals and should be included in mainstream, heterosexual society. Queer Nation argued that queers were different from heterosexuals but that difference did not justify oppression. Moreover, queer nationalists took issue with the perceived white, middle-class identity of mainstream gay and lesbian organizations. To mobilize a large gay and lesbian movement, mainstream gay and lesbian organizations emphasized similarity on the basis of sexuality, which often elided differences of race, gender, class, and even sexuality within the movement. Queer Nation tried to remedy this marginalization by rejecting the labels associated with traditional gay and lesbian politics and instead forming a movement based on the affirmation of difference. Thus, “queer” was less an identity label than an announcement that one celebrated difference and rejected assimilationist politics. In many respects, then, Queer Nation was consonant with the new queer theory taking root in the academy at the same time. Queer theory was a poststructuralist critique of identity that sought to deconstruct the homo/hetero binary in Western culture and place sexuality at the center of cultural analysis. Like Queer Nation, queer theory actively opposed labels such as “gay” and “lesbian” because of its exclusionary connotations related to gay liberation. But also like Queer Nation, queer theory's refusal to name a subject or define what “queer” meant earned it much criticism. In the context of Queer Nation, the lack of clarity surrounding the word queer meant that some simply used it as a synonym for “gay and lesbian,” while others used it to signify a radical inclusion of all marginalized sexualities, and still others believed that “queer” was the basis for creating a more fluid concept of sexuality. This same lack of clarity found its way into Queer Nation's actions, as well, and sometimes resulted in messages that were not readily recognizable to the public.

...