Postmodernists do not believe there is a “single, universal analysis of what sex oppression consists of” and that sex oppression must be examined in context historically, socially, and culturally (Hackett 338)*. In practice, this means that unitary notions of identity are replaced with “plural and complexly constructed conceptions of social identity ” (Fraser qtd. in Hackett 351). To do this, postmodernists analyze discourse, or the “ideas, images and practices” that are associated with a “particular topic, social activity, or institutional site in society,” to discern how “power operates through ideas and representations” (Stuart Hall qtd. in Hesse-Biber 265). This deconstruction of language complicates the notion of identity and its usefulness while acknowledging how power resides within those categories. Overall, a strength of postmodernism is its overall goal. They seek to shift their “foundations from identity to one of the functions of oppression” that allows coalitions to form and dissolve around issues. This allows identity to be a result of “contesting those oppressions, rather than a precondition for involvement”. In other words, identity becomes an effect of political activism instead of a cause that is “fluid, rather than fixed” able to change with time (Wilchens 86).

Outside of language, in a world where our identities have physical and material implications, identities are often a source for mobilizing against oppression. Rooted in activism, politics of identity feminists generate their arguments from shared social identities opposed to shared values or party affiliations. They argue that “members of subordinated groups have a distinctive experience of injustice that is a valuable resource for challenging their marginalization and for establishing greater self-determination” (Hackett, 339). A strength in this approach is the solidarity that can emerge from the identity politics of shared experiences.

As a result of their opposing approaches, postmodernism and identity politics are often seen opposition to one another. For postmodernists gatekeeping, or defining who is part of an identity group and who is not, is contradictory to liberation movements. Instead of liberating the identity one is fighting for, identity politics are “ fixing and stabilizing” identity “more firmly than before” (Wilchens 83). In turn, this creates normativities. Normatives are statements that “make claims about how things ought to be, or how they in general are” (Shotwell 141). However, postmodernism is critiqued by politics of identity for undermining feminist goals as it tends to remove a sense of community within feminism because it deconstructs identity groups (Frost qtd. in Hesse-Biber 51). Without a sense of what is a collective experience, feminists struggle to grasp how to move toward collective social and cultural change. As a result, envisioning unity across difference is often a speculative project for feminists; yet, authors like Alexis Shotwell, Sara Ahmed, and Chandra Mohanty, theorize open normativities of ethics, feminism, and Third World women to offer visions solidarity.

In this paper, I will explore Shotwell’s concept of open normativities as a form of postmodern identity politics. Next, I will analyze how Shotwell’s uses open normativies in her book Against Purity (2016) to advocate for an ethics that uses “practices of open normativies to pursue visions and practices hospitable for worlds to come, to determine what deserves a future” (Shotwell 163). I will then apply the concept of open normativities to Sara Ahmed’s understanding of feminism and womanhood in Living a Feminist Life (2017) and to Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s conception of Third World women in Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity (2003). Then, I will analyze how viewing ethics, womanhood and feminism, and Third World women through the lens of open normativities enables us to think through a postmodern identity politic providing a roadmap for collective action and solidarity.

Alexis Shotwell, advocates for an ethical and political response that refutes purity politics which believes that a return to before harm is possible in her book, Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. While Shotwell does not explicitly identify as a postmodern feminist, her critique of normativities lends itself well to the ideas of postmodernism. Shotwell addresses norms as “constrictive and restrictive” forces that limit “the range of subjectivities one might inhabit of sexuality and gender” (Shotwell 142). This postmodern critique of the gatekeeping that occurs when boundaries of normal and not normal are defined is important for Shotwell; however, Shotwell is careful to not throw away normativies completely (Shotwell 144). Attentive to how normativities, in the context of oppression, force people to conform to whiteness, able-bodiedness, wealth, and/or straightness Shotwell concurs with the claims queer and postmodern theorists that normativities tend to be harmful. However, she is critical of how queer and postmodern theorists have predominantly made normativity “synonymous with ‘bad,’” and argues we need normanitivies. If we toss normativities completely, how do queers and feminists talk about the norms they want to make (Shotwell 143)? Conceptually, normativies are “the process by which people claim that a given way of being is good or beautiful, or to be endorsed,” where there can be any number of ways of being (Shotwell 143). Shotwell sees a clear distinction between supporting a way of being and forcing people to live that way as conceptually normativies are nonrestrictive. In turn, Shotwell advocates for open normativities in order “for finding our bearings even in the process of working to change the world” (Shotwell 154).  

Open normativities offer an alternative to how we understand normativities now. Simply, open normativities name “those normativities that prioritize flourishing and tend toward proliferation, not merely replacing one norm with another” (Shotwell 155). Flourishing, in this sense, is the goal of open normativities. In the context of oppression, normativities contribute to death and degradation when people fall outside of the current norms, but open normativies recognize and push limits that broaden participation in a normative resulting in liberation and flourishing. As lives become welcomed into normativies they move closer to the norm and consequently farther from death. Here, Shotwell offers a code of ethics in an attempt to address how to resist oppression by promoting flourishing. Acting morally, in her definition, is “holding in view how one’s actions open or close down the possibilities for others to unfurl their possibilities…” because our freedom is entangled and created in conjunction with other’s freedom (Shotwell 131). This code of ethics, as a result, is only successful in collaboration, as our freedom and, in turn, our flourishing- is dependent on other’s ability to be free and flourish.

Additionally, she is also is critical of the boundaries set within norms she calls for in her ethics. How we define groups, in this case, and who is allowed to flourish and have a future, must be critically examined. This code of ethics through the lens of open normativities, for Shotwell, does not have to mean completely new ways of being for flourishing to occur. Recognizing that we exist in a world with material implications, open normativities allows for ways of being, identities that have been suppressed, to exist as a way to promote flourishing. Our ways of being can reference marginalized traditions that are subordinate to current dominant and oppressive norms making room for them to exist and thrive (Shotwell 160). As a result, mobilizing around marginalized identities is still an option within open normativities as long as it is attentive to gatekeeping.

Beyond ethics, Shotwell’s claims that within almost any writing on sex and/or gender-based oppression and resistance will tend to be references to normativities (Shotwell 143). “To be queer and feminist,” to Shotwell, “is to resist norms” that are oppressive (Shotwell 143). Sara Ahmed, feminist scholar and activist, offers a look into this feminist resistance against norms in her book Living a Feminist Life. In her text, Ahmed views feminism as a work in progress where becoming “a feminist is to stay a student” (Ahmed 11). Part of feminism being a work in progress has been defining the normativity of women that feminism advocates for. Ahmed argues against the current normativity of women included within feminism. In order to do this, Ahmed acknowledges that throughout the history of feminism, Black and lesbian women had to “insist on being women before they became part of the feminist conversation” (Ahmed 234). Ahmed uses this example of how feminism historically was extremely white and heterosexual to propel her next argument for the inclusion of trans women. She claims, “Trans women have to insist on being women” so often in the face of violence, that for her, an anti-trans stance is to be anti-feminist (Ahmed 234). Ahmed supports her claim by stating it a “feminist project” to create worlds that dismantle the worlds that support “gender fatalism (boys will be boys, girls with be girls)” (Ahmed 234). Worlds of gender fatalism are deadly, not only in determining how cisgender women are supposed to be, but also for how trans women are supposed to exist or not exist.

Ahmed’s concept of women included in feminism presented is a form of an open normativity. Reflecting on how feminism has opened or closed down possibilities, Ahmed advocates for trans womanhood to be a valid way of being included in feminism (Shotwell 131). Noting the violence trans women face, Ahmed brings them into the conversation to promote their survival and flourishing. Importantly, she does not advocate that everyone has to live their life as trans, but simply notes it is a supported way of being. Here, Ahmed has made the space of womanhood in feminist more open and inclusive while also still working from a place of identity politics. Ahmed’s identity politics acknowledges that “if gender norms operate to create a narrow idea of how” women should be-white, small, not labored, delicate- then those who “who understand themselves as women, who sign up to being women, will be deemed not women” (Ahmed 234). For Ahmed, if feminism is not open to multiple ways of being a woman then women cannot mobilize.

However, Sara Ahmed is not the only feminist using forms of open normativities in her feminism. Chandra Mohanty in her book, Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, argues for a decolonization of the construction of Third World women by Western feminists to promote for “women of different communities and identities to build coalitions and solidarity across borders” (Mohanty 226). According to Mohanty, the term “Third World” refers not only to “geographical location and sociohistorical conjunctures” but also includes “minority peoples or people of color in the United States” (Mohanty 44). Establishing this identity group is crucial for Mohanty’s claims about who holds epistemic privilege for visions of justice and decolonization. In this sense, Mohanty can be read as arguing for identity politics due to her defending that the most “disenfranchised communities of women” are more likely to envision justice as they have the “most inclusive viewing of systemic power” (Mohanty 232). It is in this identity that Mohanty sees a potential in “demystifying capitalism and for envisioning transborder” justice (Mohanty 250). This social positionality serves as a resource for these women to mobilize against the experiences of injustice. By including women of color from affluent and/or Western nations in her definition of Third World women, Mohanty is opening space to recognize the difference of inequality that exists within this identity (Mohanty 116).

As a result, while Mohanty does not use the term open normativities, she is engaging in this concept by making room for women who often are lumped into the category of Western women who have their struggles erased in a global context. Hesitant to make her language static, Mohanty is critical of her own language choices in advocating for this identity. For her, our language is still imprecise and inadequate where she can only use what best captures what she is trying to say (Mohanty 225). Mohanty demonstrates this by revisiting her language choice of Third World versus First World women from her first chapter, to looking at using words such as One-Third and Two-Thirds World or North/South in her last chapter. This hesitancy shows that this category is fluid and able to change to make room for others as open normativities do. Notedly, Mohanty notes this should not be confused with “universal sisterhood” which “erases material and ideological power differences within and among groups of women” (Mohanty 116). In this identity, attentiveness to difference is key for Mohanty as she is concerned with the material, historical, and political power with this group.

By seeing Mohanty’s definition of Third World women, Ahmed’s visions of womanhood in feminism, and Shotwell’s code of ethics through the lens of open normativities it enables us to think through a postmodern identity politic providing us roadmap for collective action and solidarity in today’s world. Fluid and ever-changing, Mohanty’s identity of Third world women through the lens of open normativities creates room for marginalized identities from around the globe to unite. Aware of shifting language and understanding, but also to material implications, Mohanty draws on both postmodernism and identity politics to advocate for her goals. Her postmodern identity politics guides us to understand the collectivity of a group while also noticing the differences of power, history, and politics that exist simultaneously.  

In Ahmed’s visions of womanhood in feminism, she too is attentive to language and how it has been a barrier for those who are included in feminism. Who has been considered “woman enough” has been a defining factor in the subject of feminist advocacy and for Ahmed we cannot stop at including Black and lesbian women. She insists on the inclusion of trans womanhood as a womanhood that should be valued in feminism. This attentiveness to the gatekeeping that has occurred lends itself to postmodern identity politics as Ahmed acknowledges how if we define woman narrowly then people who identify or are deemed women will not be considered women. For Ahmed, this is crucial in the future of mobilizing for feminists causes collectively.

Ethically, Shotwell addresses how gatekeeping can act as a way to push people into the margins, to mark their way of life as non-normative and thus closer to death. This postmodern critique of identity politics, however, does not cause Shotwell to completely reject identity. Identity itself is entangled for Shotwell with others’ identities which are situated in a world of normativities. By “finding our bearings” in identity, particularly open normative identities, Shotwell believes we can engage in the “process of working to change the world” (Shotwell 154). Inspired by Robert McRuer, Shotwell calls for a politic that “acknowledges the complex and contradictory histories of our various movements, drawing on and learning from those histories rather than transcending them” (McRuer qtd. in Shotwell 171). Rather than foregoing identity completely, her attentiveness to material implications of oppression allows for mobilization around identity as a way to promote flourishing while also being attentive to how language shapes that flourishing in this postmodern identity politics.  

In retrospect, while all three authors’ different arguments can be seen through the lens of open normativities they all are promoting visions of solidarity. Mohanty gives us transnational solidarity based on the “recognition of common interests” of decolonizing work where we can aim to move from “essentialist notions of Third World feminists struggles” (Mohanty 7). Ahmed’s call for feminist solidarity where “we keep each other up” and “loosen the requirements to be in a world” makes “room for others to be” (Ahmed 232). Additionally, Shotwell offers us a praxis that is situated in the present, but is working toward speculative futures of recognizing and mobilizing around our own interdependence-socially, materially, and biologically- which co-constitutes our freedoms (Shotwell 172). In turn, these authors give us roadmaps of how to manifest unification in a world that has become divided by race, political parties, borders, gender, and class. Perhaps it is here, in the open normativies of identity that political action will unite those who often are seen in opposition.

Notes

*Note, postmodernism does not apply solely to ending sex oppression, it can be any type of oppression. This quote just happened to use the example of sex oppression.

(May 2018)

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara. Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press, 2017.

Hackett, Elizabeth, and Sally Haslanger. Theorizing Feminisms. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism Without Borders Decolonizing Theory, Practicing

     Solidarity. Duke University Press, 2003.

Shotwell, Alexis. Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. University of

    Minnesota Press, 2016.

Wilchins, Riki Anne. Read My Lips: Sexual Subversion and the End of Gender. Firebrand Books,

    1997.

     Durkin (2013)

The last seven years have marked many victories for LGBTQ people in regards to media visibility, presumably as a result of shifting public opinion and openness seen through changes in policy such as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 2011 and the passage of marriage equality in 2015. One case of this shifting public opinion is in Bud Light advertisements. In an early 2010’s Bud Light static advertisement, the company breaks traditional imagery of beer advertising that features women in revealing clothes, sports, and U.S. nationalism. Instead, two assumingly white men are featured in a half embrace holding a Bud Light beer. In the copy it states:

LET’S HEAD OUT.

Be who you are. Drink what you like. And turn any time into a great time with the just-right taste of Bud Light.

IT’S THE SURE SIGN OF A GOOD TIME.

HERE WE GO (Durkin).

     Despite efforts to reach a broader audience and capitalize on the buying power of LGBTQ people, Bud Light encodes a message that is decoded as the only way to have a “good time” as gay men is to drink perpetuating the social invisibility of LGBTQ people and justification of further discrimination.  

    Analyzing body language in conjunction with the text, one can discern that a “good time” is sexual in nature. The two men are positioned in the foreground in close proximity in a half embrace with soft smirks on their faces with only faint figures in the dark background. To further the sexual innuendo, Bud Light couples the image with phrases such as “Be who you are” and “Let’s head out” bringing clarity that this couple is, in fact, homosexual in nature. By telling the audience to live authentically they tackle a truth many queer people face in regards to not coming out, solidifying their intended audience; however, this advertisement goes beyond a sense of empowerment. The phrase, “Let’s head out” can be decoded as going out to the bar to meet people, but in relation to the prowling nature of the men it insinuates leaving to have sex; consequently, this acts to solidify the audience’s understanding of the sexual nature of this advertisement.

     Despite the visibility of two presumably gay men engaging in an insinuated sexual activity, it does more harm than good to LGBTQ community. As discussed in Sexual Identities and the Media by Wendy Hilton-Morrow and Kathleen Battles, “media representation is often a vital source of self-recognition and identity formation” (77). Placing queer representation through drinking and sexual conduct in this ad pushes the notion that LGBTQ people cannot enjoy themselves sexually without drinking as Bud Light can “turn any time into a great time”. This further eliminates queer visibility as the lack of representation signifies that the people who do engage with the advertisement may be presented with their first interaction with this minority group (Hilton-Marrow, 78-79). If this image was the only representation queer or straight people saw the message it teaches states that being gay is only fun when one is drinking. This present another set of complicated issues as alcohol consumption inhibits reasoning capabilities and often times means people cannot properly consent. These implications justify continued discrimination and internalized homophobia of LGBTQ people as their sexual life is seen as not pleasant, consensual, or is predatory in nature.

    Moreover, what might have been a progressive advertisement for beer companies and the United States at large, proper representation falls short. The “respectable” white gay men of an average build are depicted as masculine in regards to their gender identity, which eliminates the vast diversity of the LGBTQ community. These men are the quintessential image of “straight passing” and largely could avoid active discrimination in the public sphere if they choose to not be out. Additionally, queer people exist across all racial and ethnic backgrounds, yet the ones presented are understood to be white and assumingly middle class as they can afford to be at a bar. In retrospect, this ad’s intended audience at first seems to target the LGBTQ community at large, but through a closer analysis, it shows the limited racial, gender, and class dynamics.  

     Overall, advertisements such as these generalize the experiences of queer folk shifting the heterosexual perception of the LGBTQ experiences and reinforcing internalized homophobia. While queer visibility promotes inclusion, the implied sexual dissatisfaction as a result of sobriety in the context of this ad contributes to already oppressive and self-loathing realities many queer youth face. Additionally, limited racial representation contributes to homophobia within communities of color along with the perception that queer folk has affluence in regards to class. Being who you are should not be commodified to who is presented consuming an alcoholic beverage regardless if it is two homosexual men or women wearing a limited amount of clothing.

(October, 2017)

Works Cited

Durkin, Daniel. “Durkin – Concepts Spring 2013.” Queer Imagery in Advertising, 13 Feb. 2013,

     durkinconcepts.blogspot.com/2013/02/queer-imagery-in-advertising.html.

Hilton-Morrow, Wendy, and Kathleen Battles. Sexual identities and the Media: An Introduction.

     Routledge, 2015.

A sameness feminist argument can be distilled to a formula where X and Y are two groups that are the same in all relevant ways where they share the same characteristic C. Y gets some subtreatment T in virtue of C; therefore, X should get T, too (Hackett). In the case of “Same Love”, X is heterosexual people who seek marriage while Y is same-gender loving folk seeking marriage. Macklemore establishes that if he was gay, hip-hop would hate him, that “our culture…don’t have acceptance for ‘em (gay people),” and that “gay is synonymous with the lesser.” In this case, he defines heterosexual people, group X, as those who can legally marry, yet same-gender loving folk, group Y, cannot “be united by law” which is subtreatment T.

To express the similarities, or characteristic C, of these two groups Macklemore turns toward religion and love. The first inclination toward faith starts with the line, “God loves all his children, it’s somehow forgotten.” In turn, Macklemore expresses that all people are children of God and are loved, playing on Christian morals. In the last verse, Macklemore returns to the image of God by arguing “whatever God you believe in, we come from the same one” to expand his argument to all faiths. His validation of individual beliefs to support “humans that have had their rights stolen” capitalizes on the moralistic values most faiths hold around loving one’s neighbor due to their shared connection as children of God. This attention to faith addresses religious argument against marriage equality. This is not the only form of sameness Macklemore draws upon. In the last verse he sings, “underneath it’s all the same love” referring that heterosexual love and same-gender love is the same. He claims “human rights (marriage equality) for everybody” due to their being “no difference” in the type of love same-gender loving folk hold than heterosexual couples.

Macklemore does, however, express a dominance argument laced underneath his lyrics. A dominance approach tackles the root cause of oppression, or in this case, the reason why the legalization of marriage equality has not yet happened.  He claims “no law is gonna change us, we have to change us” and that “a certificate on paper isn’t gonna solve it all”. These lyrics hint at how the referenced homophobia throughout the song will not dissipate at the legalization of marriage. “To change us” expresses that the root of homophobia is at the core of who we are and that we have to go to the source not just create legislation. He acknowledges legislation that exists banning marriage equality is due to deep-rooted homophobia in “our culture”. Despite a subtle dominance approach, Macklemore concludes that a piece of paper is “a damn good place to start” to ending homophobia where he continues his argument that we come from the same god (Macklemore & Ryan Lewis).

Therefore, Macklemore’s “Same Love” approach to dominance is an extension of his sameness argument. Heterosexual and same-gender loving folk are the same as they are all children of God and their love is the same, thus same-gender loving folk should be able to marry too. His implementation of a sameness approach to promoting marriage equality in “Same Love” is effective; yet, his argument is stronger due to his acknowledgment that even though queer folk and straight couples are the same, culture does not see it that way. Consequently, this far-reaching song provides room for future activist work through a dominance approach.

(March 2018)

Works Cited

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. “Same Love Feat. Mary Lambert.” Same Love Feat. Mary Lambert,

     Macklemore/RyanLewis Studios, Seattle, WA, 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0.

The first image appears with the telling of a creation story where the narrator proclaims, “The First Woman became First Mother and had many children. She called them her rainbow family,” which would regather if First Mother needed protection. Without delay, the narrator then brings in the audience as a part of the rainbow family with her as an image of a rainbow is shown. Throughout the film, images of kinship continue to form in unexpected ways. In particular, the film cuts repeatedly to scenes of the narrator around a table of women, not unlike consciousness-raising circles of the early feminist movements, where discussions of how they are both, queer and heteronormative families are impacted by climate change, patriarchy, and faith. Despite these queer kinship models, they only mention the gender binary’s impact on faith. I imagine contentions would arise around discussions of non-binary individuals as connectedness through images of the vagina and menstruation are used as symbols of power. Nevertheless, the testimonies of these cisgender women act as a bond of kinship through their similar experiences despite different faiths. The narrator builds on this to progress the film, telling her own personal spiritual journey where she provides details of her own changing thoughts. She utilizes this to conclude the film with the realization that, “One truth stands out, no matter who we are or where we live we all stand on common ground,” which is coupled with the image of the rainbow again.

Furthering the interconnectedness of goddess traditions, background music emphasizes the individual accounts of the women. With each different account told, music with string, wind, and drum influences play. Additionally, the same occurs with the narrator’s explanation of history around goddess figures or the environment. Consequently, the choice to play similar types of music during discussions of different topics emphasizes the mutual importance and relationship of the topics. In contention, however, the only perspectives brought forth are those who concur that women’s spirituality is a powerful force.

While kinship and music enhance ties between women’s spirituality, the audience is invited to draw their own conclusions through open landscapes scattered through the film. These scenes typically feature natural background sounds and allow for a pause after an ideology is proposed. A majority of these scenes feature oceans or fields and pose a feeling of vastness in the world. This intervention allows the viewer to value their own experiences. Consequently, this allows the film’s idea of the “personal is political and the political is personal” to be felt not only by those interviewed but those watching to come full circle to the idea we are all connected. Inherently, this allows for pushback on the lack of discussion around gender and those who disagree as one can reflect on their own opinions of the women without bias.  

    All in all, this film introduces a unique perspective on how identifiable differences can be brought forth to find similarities within women’s spiritually, a topic often left out of mainstream discussions. It offers a multitude of perspectives, which illustrates how faith can influence the political platform of an individual while also being attentive to the viewer. While I recommend the film for these highlights, I do wish there was more dialogue around ideas that push back against the women’s spirituality movement seeing as the only male perspective agreed wholeheartedly with the power of the goddess-centered faiths. Additionally, gender is seen as a binary and is inattentive to those who fall outside that spectrum. Granted, for the time frame, this film provides genuine insight into the political lives of women spiritualists.

(February 2017)

Works Cited

“Full Circle (1993).” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

    In the summer of 1981, five gay men were announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be the earliest cases of AIDS in America. As time progressed, the disease impacted seventy-one thousand seven hundred fifty-one people globally by 1987. That same year, ACT UP, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, rose to being, taking action to end the concerns of people living with AIDS. Manifesting the anger and fear of people living with AIDS into confrontational street activism, ACT UP assisted with safe sex education, community care, policy reform, and the push for new combative drugs (Madson). Despite this, ACT UP soon fell under criticism for being a largely white, gay, middle class, group of men who claimed to be “a diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united” (Bateman; “ACT Up New York”). ACT UP’s political t-shirts push back on the criticisms presented by addressing the race, gender, and class of those affected by AIDS.

    While ACT UP is predominantly known as an LGBTQ organization against AIDS, its political shirts address more than sexuality. Reaching out to those outside the caucasian demographic, ACT UP’s shirt “Activistas Latinos” utilizes the iconic pink inverted triangle with the north and south American continents, sporting the claim, “Activistas Latinos Contra el Sida”, or Latino activists against AIDS (“Activistas Latinos”). Actively using language as a means of connectivity, ACT UP forged an image of inclusiveness and appealed to demographics usually ignored in previous queer social movements such as The Mattachine Society. ACT UP Chicago cultivated this image further by producing a shirt incorporating multiple languages stating, “Silence = Death”  surrounded by “AIDS is a global crisis” (“AIDS: A Global Crisis”). ACT UP went beyond including different minorities; it actively fought for policy reform for the safety and end of discriminatory practices. Policies led ACT UP demanding the end of HIV/AIDS testing, as ACT UP fought for the protection of immigrants by advocating that AIDS knew no borders. The group argued that those who tested positive should not be deported or denied entry on the basis of their HIV status (“AIDS Knows No Borders”). Through globalizing AIDS, ACT UP connected and fought for people from a multitude of backgrounds including immigrants or those whose first language was not English.

    Outside of racial identities, ACT UP played attention to the role that gender impacted those affected. In 1990, members of ACT UP Los Angeles gathered to form the Women’s Caucus to empower women combating HIV (Roth 130-131). Benita Roth, an attendee of ACT UP Los Angeles, asserts in “Feminist Boundaries in Feminist-Friendly Organization: The Women’s Caucus of ACT UP/LA”,  friendliness toward feminism in ACT UP gave women the power to design their own shirts, mindful of women’s bodily when it came to the layout (134, 137, 144). Out of this movement, ACT UP Chicago produced shirts promoting the use of dental dams, condoms, and latex gloves for same-sex relations between women. (“Mary Asked Sue to Come to Dinner”). As ACT UP aimed for visibility, allowing minorities within its own group to create t-shirts with their bodies in mind and with relevant information to them, opposed the idea that ACT UP was unattentive to those who were not gay men. Evident through their t-shirts, ACT UP acknowledged women’s voices and took steps to educate safe sex practices for women.

    Additionally, in light of these intersections, ACT UP was attentive to the class relations of those affected by AIDS. With trial medicines for HIV/AIDS costing thousands of dollars per year, ACT UP’s use of t-shirts is worth acknowledging. Opposed to The Mattachine Society, who required suits and tie for men and dresses for women, ACT UP had no formal required dress (Peacock). Collective t-shirts worn by ACT UP members meant an inexpensive way to unite individuals across identities. T-shirt themselves are easily distributed and are worn by all people in society. These shirts transcend time so that they can be handed down from person to person, unlike suits or dresses which can fall out of style. Taking small actions such as dress, ACT UP revolutionized its membership to be inclusive no matter one’s income. Attentiveness to income allowed for participation from those who were aiding those suffering from the effects of AIDS, those who were paying for possible drug treatments to prolong their lives, and those facing classism. Beyond dress code, messages of policy reform scattered across ACT UP’s t-shirts combatting its middle-class image by demanding education to be federally funded and a free, nationalized health care system to fight the disease (“ACT UP San Francisco”).  ACT UP challenged classism not only by its use of t-shirts themselves but for fighting for policy reform as well.

    Despite being seen as a gay, male, middle-class activist group, ACT UP’s archival t-shirts combat this image. Unlike its predecessor, The Mattachine Society, ACT UP veered from respectability politics and dawned its members with t-shirts. These shirts were fluid with each chapter of ACT UP, addressing classism, gender, and race at local levels. In turn, these local chapter t-shirts led to the inclusion of minorities, increasing membership. As a large and powerful group composed of women, men, immigrants, queer-identified people, and a multitude of races, ACT UP dominated street activism as they fought for policy reform becoming one of the most iconic and inclusive activist groups of its time.

(November 2016)

Works Cited

Activistas Latinos,” Wearing Gay History, accessed November 14, 2016,

    http://wearinggayhistory.com/items/show/1952.

“ACT UP New York.” ACT UP New York. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

“AIDS: A Global Crisis,” Wearing Gay History, accessed November 14, 2016,

    http://wearinggayhistory.com/items/show/855.

“AIDS Knows No Borders,” Wearing Gay History, accessed November 14, 2016,

    http://wearinggayhistory.com/items/show/3075.

Bateman, Geoffrey W. “Act Up.” GLBTQ Social Sciences (2015): 1-4. LGBT Life with Full Text.

    Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Madson, Nathan H. “The Legacy Of Act Up’s Policies And Actions From 1987-1994.” National

    Lawyers Guild Review 69.1 (2012): 45-64. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

“Mary Asked Sue to Come to Dinner,” Wearing Gay History, accessed November 14, 2016,

    http://www.wearinggayhistory.com/items/show/849.

Peacock, Kent W. “Race, The Homosexual, And The Mattachine Society Of Washington,

    1961-1970.” Journal Of The History Of Sexuality 25.2 (2016): 267-296. LGBT Life with Full Text. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

    Pride is seen a quintessential part of the LGBTQ experience, taking place every year on June twenty-eighth, since 1970 (Popova). Originally dominated by organized groups such as The Gay Liberation Front, pride was centered around community along with ending shame around homosexuality and internalized homophobia. In later years, academics, such as Deborah Gould, came to analyze the shift in the focus of pride. In Gould’s 2002 piece titled, “Life During Wartime: Emotions and the Development of ACT UP” she analyzes the effects of emotions in activist based communities, specifically ACT UP during the mid-1980s. In her piece she claims, “ACT UP dramatically altered the object of pride, dislodging it from its place within a politics of respectability and linking it instead to confrontational AIDS activism” (10). This shift in political motivation is made evident by the rise in political street fashion specifically through t-shirts.

     T-shirts often are viewed with a sense of community. Take, for instance, a club, sports team, or education group: what do they have in common? These groups often are united through collective identificational t-shirts. ACT UP, an AIDS coalition formed in 1986, does not fall exempt from this occurrence. One of their multitude of t-shirts states on the front of the shirt, “ACT UP,” in white inside an onomatopoeic representation of a shout. Underneath are the words in black are, “SAN FRANCISCO.” Found on the back of the shirt in black is the statement,

We believe that the AIDS crisis calls for a broad movement actively engaged in ending the epidemic. We recognize that AIDS has had a devastating impact on the lesbian and gay community. We further recognize that the AIDS crisis disproportionately affects men and women of color. Any strategies to fight the crisis must incorporate these understandings. We  demand: a massive funding to end the AIDS epidemic, a federally-funded education program, centrally coordinated research, a free nationalized health care system, public accountability, a worldwide culturally-sensitive funding program. We oppose: quarantine or mandatory testing for HIV exposure, discriminatory measures instituted by public or private organizations against any groups or individuals with AIDS or ARC, or who test positive for HIV exposure, all laws that contribute to the spread of AIDS or discrimination, spending cuts in any social service or health programs, the use of inflammatory isolating language (ACT UP San Francisco).

    As previously established, t-shirts instill community and would lead one to think that these shirts resemble the goals of pride that were previously established and in a way they do. T-shirts, themselves, are inexpensive and easy to distribute. During demonstrations, it would be easy to identify supporters and in the case of police interventions, they would be difficult to lose or be broken like picket signs or flags. As a result, t-shirts were a major success. Complicating previous thoughts of pride,  these t-shirts also exemplify Gould’s point of the shift to “in your face” politics. By directly stating the inherent goals of ACT UP this shirt acts to speak even when their wearers were silent. When one imagines a group marching in uniform shirts, a team of sorts, and it creates an intimidation factor. It gives an image of strength and solidarity opposed to a group of individuals. This was revolutionary in the shift to direct action from respectability politics.

    Aside from Gould’s perspective, these shirts additionally highlight a key critique of queer theory. The nature of confrontational politics stands clear in the wording of the shirt as it acknowledges that AIDS affects men and women of color more. By bringing attention to the intersections of race and AIDS, these shirts highlight the tension between queer theory and its often exclusionary work, in terms of race. These intersections challenge how people choose to identify due to how policy, heteronormativity, stereotypes, education blur the line on what it means to be a queer person during the AIDS epidemic. This is addressed through the oppositions and demands printed on ACT UP San Francisco’s shirts.

    All in all, the t-shirt from San Francisco’s ACT UP organization exemplifies not only Gould’s point that AIDS shaped the nature of pride, but points out that the nature of pride did not change completely. Notably, these shirts bring up the questions of how does confrontational political shirts affect how people view themselves in terms of their sexual and gender identity as a result of HIV/AIDS, how do intersections affect group uniformity, and how does this shirt shift ideas about queer theory?

(October 2016)

Works Cited

“ACT UP San Francisco,” Wearing Gay History, accessed September 19,

    2016, http://www.wearinggayhistory.com/items/show/3053.

Gould, Deborah. “LIFE DURING WARTIME: EMOTIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF

    ACT UP.” (2002): 10. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Popova, Maria. “After Stonewall: The First-Ever Pride Parades, In Vintage Photos.” Brain

    Pickings. N.p., 28 June 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

–
This semester has been extremely difficult from classes, family life, finally unpacking the trauma I’ve been denying, and coming out in a new sense all over again. I am grateful for all the people who have and will to continue to hold me, support me, ration ideas and feelings, bring me chocolate soy milk, and most importantly love me despite dealing with what feels like a rollercoaster of discovering who I am. –
I still struggle to articulate who I am to others, but I’m learning that a language exists that describes me. My mentor told me the other day I have to learn how to be the “other”. I’m guessing that starts with kindness and loving myself. To do this I’m vowing to live authentically. Happy Pride

(October, 2017)

Critiques

     If such a coalition is to be formed it must be careful to avoid the tenets of ecofeminism that ultimately led to its demise: universalism and essentialism. To understand these tenets one must first understand the primary types of ecofeminism: socialist and cultural. Notably, both of these facets of ecofeminism address the means of enacting social change, yet their means of doing so differ. Socialist ecofeminists use the destruction of nature as a result of capitalism to show how economic systems are environmentally destructive (Carlassare 92). Socialist ecofeminists argue that materialism is the force behind positive change within society (Carlassare 93). On the other hand, cultural ecofeminism focuses on manifesting change through “changes in culture and consciousness” which can be attributed to the creation of myths and language to reclaim women’s history and spirituality (Carlassare 95).

     As a result of the core values of ecofeminism, it has been critiqued for culturally appropriating indigenous cultures, essentializing and universalizing womanhood. By “reclaiming” indigenous people’s cultures through faith, myths and language, the homogeneous, white ecofeminist movement further suppressed and erased native cultures. Thus, by associating people of color with nature ecofeminism essentialized race. This “racial essentialism” romanticizes brown skin by associating it with “‘indigenous’ spiritualities” (Sturgeon 264). Consequently, ecofeminists utilized the parts of others’ cultures without including them into the conservation eliminating the voices of those of color and generalizing people of color’s opinions.

     Outside of race, cultural ecofeminists have been heavily critiqued for their use of essentialism where they embrace stereotypes associated with women through biological determinism. These stereotypes perpetuate that women are inherently intuitive, caring, nurturing, and emotional (Carlassare 95). Socialist ecofeminism contributes to this as well as it values “reproduction over production, both as a category of analysis and as a social and economic goal” (Carlassare 93). As a result, these stereotypes have alienated a wide variety of people including those who are not cisgendered women, those who fall outside the gender binary, women who do not hold these personality traits, and those whose anatomy is incapable of reproduction.

     Furthermore, those who do not fit neatly into the gender binary’s normative behaviors or expressions of gender are further excluded from the reclamation of women’s spirituality as their foundations are built on interconnectedness. Restoration of their spirituality, to ecofeminists, is “listening to the natural rhythms”, the worship of nature and fertility, and their inherent ability to menstruate. Consequently, ecofeminists see their reconnection with nature as connecting back to the “nurturing” and the internal way of being (Goddess Remembered 1989). Universalizing women to being nurturing, fertile, and connected to the Earth and each other erases the rich diversity of what womanhood is. Additionally, this is limiting to their own practice by reducing it to women who fit this particular mold. Interestingly enough, these self-proclaimed feminists further ideas of biological determinism through their essentialization of themselves to be inherently nurturing.

Attention to Faith

     These pitfalls ultimately led ecofeminism to decline in popularity after the 1970’s; however, before one can explore how the ecofeminist model provides a means to revolutionize current movements, one must understand another aspect which pushed ecofeminism away from mainstream feminism: faith. Often, ecofeminism is associated with earth-based spirituality as it seeks change through “personal transformation and changes in consciousness” (Carlassare 90). This association has been primary evidence by feminist academics of how essentializing and apolitical ecofeminism was, but this critique fails to address how faith informs individuals’ political actions (Gaard 39). Starhawk, a major contributor to the cultural ecofeminist movement, argues in her essay, “Feminists, Earth-based Spirituality and Ecofeminism” that “Earth-based spirituality influences ecofeminism by informing its values” (Starhawk 175). She presents three aspects of Earth-based spiritual practices that “can resurge in new cycles of political momentum” which includes immanence, interconnection, and compassion. These values “shift our definition of power,” “furnish the basis for our political understandings,” and help us “develop alliances with those whose interests and issues parallel ours” (Starhawk 177-181). Starhawk calls for coalition politics to not only complete “short-term bandages” but to also “support long-term recovery” so that there can be a political agenda enlightened by all issues (Starhawk 181). Through Starhawk’s work it is evident that faith plays a major role in why people take political action.  

     Understanding how exactly earth-based spirituality influences individuals provides the model that will change mainstream movements today. Paganism, a collection of non-Christian faiths that are collectively unified through their connection to the Earth and values for balance, reverence for life, and interconnectedness, was a major faith followed by ecofeminists. Centered around a goddess, many used their beliefs to support their activism. In a 2012 study, completed by Gwendolyn Reece, out of three thousand three hundred eighteen self-identified pagan respondents, fifty-five percent claimed that social justice work was a part of their spiritual practice. On the same note, forty-seven percent identified that political activism was a part of their faith (Reece 45-46). More important to note is the fact that each individual that responded manifests their political action in a different way, but they do it as a result of similarly held beliefs.

    The rich history of Paganism has led to multiple divisions among practitioners. Major sects of Paganism today include Wicca, Druidry, and Hellenism which inherently hold similar morals, but uphold them in various ways. Similarly, Ecofeminism contains a vast array of different influences due to the variety of earth-based practices that influence its means to best effect social change; however, ecofeminists are innately striving to dismantle oppression and end environmental destruction (Carlassare 89, 95). Reece’s data demonstrates this connection between paganism and political actions, more importantly, it demonstrates empirically that even among groups of extreme diversity within their own faiths that they are unified overall in their core beliefs. This attention to faith brought forth by ecofeminism provides a model for current environmental efforts to acknowledge that individuals have different motivations and beliefs, but collectively are fighting for the same goal.

Interconnectedness

Additionally, ecofeminism’s values of interconnectedness provides a means for the longevity of a movement by providing a form of analysis that is attentive to the interrelationships of oppression. Stemming from paganism, interconnectedness is the “ability to feel with and identify with others-human beings, natural cycles and processes, animals, and plants” (Starhawk 178). Interconnectedness, presented by Starhawk, a major cultural ecofeminist, is the foundation which fuels political understanding, but those who are in power seek to prevent us from seeing these connections (179-180). Once one sees the interconnectedness of the world one can see that political issues are not insuperable but are actually a connected in a web (Starhawk 179). This value of ecofeminism provides a lense for us to see our focuses may divide us “from those who might be our allies” if we “other” those who are different from us (Starhawk 180).

Understanding that we are all connected, through means of oppression or culture, presents us with an approach that can seek to tackle the interlocking web of domination. Consequently, interconnectedness can bring forth compassion. Once one understands our inherent connectedness through mutual oppression, we can begin to see the “multifaceted views of the world” and see problems “in their true complexity” (Starhawk 180). The awareness created by understanding the relationship between people, plants, animals, and nature contributes to our understanding of our individual actions affect those not directly in front of us. This model allows for collaboration that expands past individuals and allows them to form relationships that are stronger on a local, national, and global level. If we can understand how individual actions, in turn, affect those beyond us and can mobilize around this concept, the current environmental movement will be able to communicate its demands of protecting those disproportionately impacted who have the least say more effectively to elicit change.

Agential Earth and Nondualism

     This mobilization must also be attentive to the idea that the Earth has agency to fully understand that if we continue to disregard this idea, we further the logic of domination. Ecofeminists hold a nondualistic worldview which is the way “of conceptually organizing the world in binary, disjunctive terms, wherein each side of the dualism is “seen as exclusive (rather than inclusive) and oppositional (rather than complimentary), and where higher value or superiority is attributed to one disjunct (or, side of the dualism) than the other” (Gaard 115-116). Ecofeminists understand this notion and believe that the superiority of self is a result of viewing the differences between the self and others (Gaard 116). Consequently, due to seeing oneself as intertwined with the Earth, Ecofeminists believe that if one believes that they are “at odds” with nature or if one is trying to exploit it for its resources then they see only the differences with nature and not their shared connections furthering the domination over the natural world (Starhawk 178).

     Seeing the Earth with agency acknowledges our “ability to create dysfunctional relationships with the earth, with our ecological community, and with each other” by acknowledging that the earth continues on with or without humans (Ruether 147). If we continue to ignore this facet then the current environmental movement continues to use its privilege of intelligence. This privilege is one that allows humans to “alienate and dominate the world without concern for the welfare of all other forms of life” (Ruether 147-148). To begin to understand this privilege however we must first address how we subject other humans as lesser before we can restore value to nature. We equate marginalized people with nature such as people of color, women, and people of developing countries through dualistic thinking. While the environmental justice movement seeks to dismantle the oppression affecting marginalized people it fails to acknowledge the earth as one of those subjects. We must acknowledge the earth as an oppressed figure or we do nothing to acknowledge our dualistic thinking as we then choose a living being to be lesser.

Conclusion

     Overall, the falling out of ecofeminism due to essentialism, universalism, and appropriation have been justly critiqued; however, revisiting ecofeminism to understand how nondualism, interconnectedness, and the incorporation of faith within a movement can enhance the current environmental justice movement to aid in its longevity, inclusion, and effectiveness. Moving forward, current environmental groups must incorporate an ecofeminist line of thinking to bring forth change. The environmental justice movement must go beyond seeking justice just for human beings, but for the earth as well or it is hypocritical to say it is working to support the “social needs of human populations” (Pellow and Brulle 3). Humans are inherently tied to the ecological systems and processes of the earth.

     To help further understanding of an agential earth, the environmental justice movement must see our lives interconnected within and outside our species. Our actions affect more than just the human race. This value will protect the longevity of the movement as it allows us to understand who our allies are and that political issues are not separate from each other. This allows for collective organizing and support at the local, national, and global levels.

     In turn, however, while a national platform is a powerful unifier, it does not change the lives of those affected directly at an individual level. By creating a movement with a uniform identity that allows for the expression of individual’s beliefs and practices manifests a truly intersectional approach as it provides a platform for those from all intersections of identity to participate in whatever means they are capable. Acknowledging the different motivations such as faith within the environmental movement consequently will allow for a larger understanding that faith is not apolitical. Faith informs the thoughts and actions of many individuals and as environmental activists acknowledge this they can rally people from what motivates them best. This is not to say the environmental activism movement must be religious, but it must acknowledge that faith as a motivation to be attentive to individual communities.

     Ecofeminism, a model of the past, ultimately demonstrates key values that the environmental justice movement needs to take on to progress with support effectively over time. Climate change is not going to reverse itself or be fixed; yet, we must come together to combat the social stratifications that will occur as a result. Social, economic, and policy changes cannot occur without an overwhelming congregation of people tackling the issue of the future of the environment. Revisiting and applying parts ecofeminism to today holds the key to the future of activism.

(Spring 2017)

Works Cited

@realDonaldTrump. “I am committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that

economic growth enhances environmental protection. Jobs matter!.” Twitter, 22 April 2017, 5:49 p.m.,  https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/855901315305795584.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/climate/trump-epa-budget-cuts.html

https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision

BabyradfemTV. “NFB Women and Spirituality series Part 1: Goddess Remembered.” Online video

clip. Youtube. Youtube. 9 June 2016. Web. 6 April 2017.

Bullard, Robert D. The Quest for Environmental Justice Human Rights and the Politics of

Pollution. 1st ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 2005. Print.

Carlassare, Elizabeth. “Socialist and Cultural Ecofeminism: Allies in Resistance.” Ethics and the

Environment 5.1 (2000): 89-106. JSTOR. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a

Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23.2 (2011): 26-53. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Gaard, Greta. “Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.” Hypatia 12.1 (1997): 114-37. Web. 10 May 2017.

Mock, Brenti. “Mainstream Green Is Still Too White.” Color Lines. Color Lines, 2 Apr. 2013.

Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Monroe, Douglas. The 21 lessons of Merlyn: A Study in Druid Magic and Lore. St. Paul, MN.:

Llewellyn Publications, 2004. Print.

Pellow, David N., and Robert J. Brulle. Power, Justice, and the Environment A Critical Appraisal

of the Environmental Justice Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005. Print.

Reece, Gwendolyn. “Prevalence and Importance of Contemporary Pagan Practices.” The

Pomegranate, vol. 16, no. 1, 2014, pp. 35-54. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1558/pome.v16i1.20231.

Starhawk. “Feminists, Earth-based Spirituality and Ecofeminism .” Healing the Wounds: The

Promise of Ecofeminism . Ed. Judith Plant. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers , 1989. 174-85. Print.

Sturgeon, Noël. “Ecofeminist Appropriations and Transnational Environmentalism.”

Identities 6.2-3 (1999): 255-79. Web. 10 May 2017.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. “What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed E.P.A. Cuts.” The New York Times. The

New York Times, 10 Apr. 2017. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Warren, Karen J. The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. 3rd ed. Vol. 12. N.p.: n.p.,

1990. Print. Environmental Ethics.