Coming Full Circle: The History and Origins of Fluid Sexuality as a Movement (part 1)

I’m going to attempt to give a short overview of the history of the movement (by no means meant to be exhaustive, but aware of the situational biases of this blog, and reflective of the broader movement’s Western-centric tendencies… I hope I can explore non-Western activisms in the future). The previous post gives a little of the background and networks that underlay the contemporary fluid sexuality movement, most notably the sexual revolution and LGBT movements that mobilized in the late 1960s. Both of these extensively and effectively used rights discourses to develop political consciouness, also popular with the feminist and civil rights movements at the time. Activists, organizational resources, and knowledge flowed amoung the movements. Initially, an assimilationist approach was used, as networks and organizations formed around the growing gay subculture, as public perceptions on homosexuality shifted (the release of Kinsey’s studies), and laws concerning rights to consensual sex appeared in the 1950s and 60s. Litigation was used, and was successful in creating new legal opportunities through the passage of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (see Section 15).

A liberation discourse was also popular, and “gay liberationists did not conceive of themselves as a minority group seeking civil rights; rather, they were challenging conventional notions of sexuality… homosexuality was seen as ‘a natural and normal alternative sexuality that must be liberated from oppression imposed by the church, state, and medical institutions, rigid gender-role socialization, and the supremacy of the nuclear family” (Staggenborg 2007: 90). Initially there were strong ties to the New Left networks (and replication of radical political tactics such as demonstrations, dissemination of literature, legal and institutional battles) and a common goal of social revolution that included ‘free love’. But the need to present a cohesive identity for political reasons, as well as fractures in the movement (especially along gender lines) led to a weakening of the movement. Nevertheless, the movement was highly successful in creating communities, services, resources, cultural and political organizations, and for securing non-discriminatory practices in housing, employment and government services. All of these tend to concentrate at local levels and depend on context, and so successes vary widely from place to place depending on political institutions, available resources, political opportunities, and cultural support.

The importance of legislative change is over-emphasized in the literature. Yet without the supportive political climate resulting from cultural shifts secured through public consciousness-raising activism, these victories could never have occurred. These include other major moments in the movement, such as the galvanizing effect of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and 90s, and same-sex union victories (2005 in Canada). Confrontational tactics were often used, including the actions of ACT UP and Queer Nation. These organizations in particular led to a challenge of “the idea of a fixed sexual identity and the assimilationist approach of trying to ‘fit in’ to mainstream society” (Staggenborg 2007: 97). The formation of a ‘queer’ identity and the addition of bisexuality and trans politics to the agenda resulted. These movements began to work in coalitions on many issues, including anti-war, feminist, anti-racism, peace, etc., as Highleyman (2002) also notes. The rise of the internet and cyber activism has and continues to play a central role in this new convergence of movements, by building awareness of common underlying causes and a return to envisioning a social revolution that includes sexual liberation.

And so we come to the current state of affairs… shall we then?

 

~ by openthebox on March 23, 2008.