The Way We Are Now: Fluid Sexuality as a Social Movement (part 2)

What does the ‘fluid sexuality’ movement look like? How is it organized, what tactics does it use, how does it frame issues, what future directions or alliances is it pursuing? I’m not going to touch on too much history here, except to note that the movement (as I’ve defined it) rests on the movement foundations of the GBLT movement (and it’s successes, particularly in the areas of creating cultural communities and resources, and political gains such as in AIDS and legal recognition of same sex partnerships), as well as the sexual revolution and links to other new social movements of the 60s and 70s (see previous post) A small warning and apology here for the long, academic-y post ahead…

Though kink, BDSM and polyamory have long history, each area only gained a more cohesive identity and political face since the late 1990s, in large part due to increased internet access. The queer movement is much more established, and together, these additions to more long-standing LGBT movements constitute the broader agenda of sexual diversity the fluid sexuality movement seeks to forward, harkening back to the“key objective of lesbian and gay liberation is to make possible greater sexual freedom, a more fluid sexuality for everyone” (Warner 2002: 263).

The rich culture, resources and communities of LGBT is drawn on by this newer movement, as many of its constituents and concerns overlap. But the fluid sexuality movement is not as cohesive in the same way, because it does not draw so heavily on identity politics (as the LGBT movement has traditionally done). Instead, the emphasis on multiplicity and plurality of lifestyles, sexual choices, gender identity, sexual practices, family and relationship constellations leads to the abandonment of the presentation of a particular identity. Instead, common political goals are shared, and these often rest on a human rights framing- the right to sexual freedom of expression, and the duty of the state to recognize and provide for a diverse citizenry (see Miller 1999). Yet there is an interesting tension here… human rights frames are often based on LGBT sexual identity categories and have strong support from the political centre of the movement, and so does not reflect the self-critique of identity on the fringes of the LGBT communities and the broader fluid sexuality movement, and presents the danger of “accepting that gender and sexuality are socially constructed and fluid would challenge the identity-politics model that has long been a foundation of human rights activism” (Mertus 2007: 1063). Optimistically, “fluid sexuality has become a potent political issue and sexual communities have become bases for political mobilization, affirming diverse identities” (Weeks 1985: 189), and so its possible we can navigate the challenges of identity politics and human rights. This approach is more representative of the more radical elements of the movement, which uses new rhetoric to press for new priorities in re-imagined political and social landscapes in which we can take pride in fluid identities. Campaigns for sexual rights may ultimately prove more successful than existing LGBT rights strategies, as they focus on the behaviors that are being punished, prohibited, or limited, rather than on sexual identity categories. This is appealing because categories may be contested, but behaviors are more clearly identifiable.

As the movement gains cohesiveness and the political agendas draw closer together, the movement potentially presents an agenda easier to attack. But I imagine it will remain difficult to challenge maintain a multi-faceted, cyber-networked movement with strong foundations across many communities (kink, poly, queer, LGBT). Counter-movements stem from the Church and the state, and mainly engage in defaming the movement on moral grounds, drawing of social fears of sexual difference (such as fears of degrading the ‘traditional family’ heard during same-sex debates). Thankfully, I have not noticed strong counter-movements in the area of fluid sexuality; instead it seems mostly to be a cultural paradigm shift, requiring reexamination of mainstream assumptions (such as in the areas of monogamy, gender identity, etc). So, struggles for legal recognition and equity in various rights (including familial, health care, employment equity, housing, marriage and civil unions, child rearing, etc), as well as protection from hate crimes and social discrimination continue through advocacy organizations, court cases, the establishment of sexuality studies programs, public actions and events, and individual actions.

I began to think about a ‘fluid sexuality’ movement because of the common grounds shared by the diverse groups and people in it; as a useful catch-all concept to capture those groups striving to broaden society’s notions around sexuality. Resistance to these movements is often based on squeemishness around sex and fear of difference. Our social history and habits of placing each person or act in a (usually) dichotomous category remains one of the main obstacles to truly accepting more fluid definitions of sexuality and gender (not to mention reconceptualizing and deconstructing ‘race’, class, colonial histories, etc). But back to the common grounds of this movement:

Andrea Zanin’s lecture ‘(Un)Common Ground: Intersections of Kink, Poly and Queer’, during the Fetish: Working Out the Kinks conference, vindicated the impetus for this blog, which hopes to illustrate many of these links. Zanin spoke of how polyamory, kink and queer movements share: identity (claiming identity as a political act, share sexual deviance/sexual minority identity), similar histories, successful organization and the building of alternative communities. She also noted that the movement’s identity and actions are also influenced by external perceptions of these “others uniting”. The mainstream builds many of the movement’s alliances, which Zanin usefully illustrated using the concept of ‘jumping off the cliff’ (which also resonates with my own identity construction and personal history… but more on that in an upcoming post). Basically, once you transgress in one area (ie: you come out as queer), it is much easier for you to come out as poly, kinky, lefty, or whatever, because you’ve already made that personal leap, society has already lumped you in with the rest of the transgressive weirdos, and often you’ll begin to look for people who think the same way (joining online discussion groups, reading the literature, theorizing about it on a blog, etc).

In addition, the movements have a long history of supporting one another; just some of these relationships include how queer has supported non-monogamy (bathhouses, lesbian communes, etc), queer supports kink (leather men and dykes), kink supports queer (resisting normative pleasure and power structures), kink supports poly (different avenues/relationships to fulfill different kinks), and how poly supports queer and kink (poly allows space for experimentation). All share a common characteristics of inclusion, creativity, commitment to the reconception of relationships parameters, sexuality and gender, the erotic, identity construction, and share histories of political activism (AIDS, same sex, self defense, cultural production, etc.), experiences of ‘coming out’ (more common in queer communities than in kink and poly, as of yet… see this post for some discussion), and an interest in keeping boundaries and ideas open and fluid. The movements also share narratives, community building tactics (response-based activism, creation of groups and support systems, accumulating knowledge, etc), and left wing tendencies (for example, “don’t bring roast beef to a poly gathering”). These natural alliances open opportunities for strategizing and working together. 

There tends to be a large cross-over in population as well, (when Andrea asked everyone in the lecture hall to raise their hands if they identified first as queer, then polyamorous, and finally as kinky, the majority identified as part of more than one category… unfortunately, mulling over why this is the case is beyond the scope of this post). Also an interesting idea that if and when you do fall off the cliff, you end up being an activist (in personal defense/discussion on a personal level, and many become politicized in order to agitate for broader societal acceptance—the eventual goal being that the mainstream will ‘live and let live’). The old feminist adage ‘the personal is political’ definitely applies here!

The celebratory note and feeling of uniting in resistance is strong, felt at events such as Queer Publics and the conference, but also at events like Abnormals Anonymous and the Erotics Arts Festival Blender where inevitably someone will take the mic and give a rousing, rallying solidarity speech that generally sounds like: ‘we’re here, we’re queer, we’re damn proud of it, and it’s our right to have sexual freedom!’. Certainly, harnessing erotic energy garners attention, enlivens activism, and keeps activists motivated and engaged.

As for general fluid sexuality movement cohesion, I’m of the opinion that the LGBT, kink, BDSM, and polyamory movements are closely aligned and political (though Highleyman may disagree, 2002:112). I do think an important future direction will be aligning with the social justice movement, as “sexual, economic and social liberation must go hand in hand” (Ibid: 120), and as queer voices find expression in all movements. This has especially been the case of the ‘convergence movement’ of anti-neoliberal globalization activists. Radical queer factions are some of the most vocal groups with queer concerns making inroads and alliances (ie: with socialists, anarchists, and heterosexual activists that challenge hierarchy) within the social justice movement.

Overall, I’m happily surprised to have found common ground and rapidly evolving alliances across a fluid sexuality movement… and I can’t resist including a long quote:

“…the historicity and fluidity of sexual desire, the performative nature of gender, and the complex multiplicity of attractions, fantasies, impulses, and narratives that lie within us all… to understand how and why sexual and gender identities get socially constructed is to open up a new way of talking about politics, about how relations of power get established, (and) about the role the state in reinforcing and policing that set of relations in maintaining the stakes of the already priviledged.” (Duberman 1999, as quoted in Highleyman 2002: 119).

some-resources.pdf 

~ by openthebox on March 23, 2008.