Sameness

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 in that they share the same characteristic C. Y gets some treatment T in virtue of C; therefore, X should get T, too (Hackett). Within this approach, feminists utilize different shared characteristics and/or different, but equal, treatments in virtue of C.

For example, Sojourner Truth utilizes a sameness argument where men are X and women are Y. She claims their shared characteristic, C, is that men and women are equal in strength since she is as “strong as any man” (113). Men, in virtue of C, are able to vote. Truth argues, as a result, that since men and women are equally strong, women should be able to vote as men are. On the other hand, Susan Schechter uses a sameness argument based on the shared characteristic, C, being victims of violence. X, in this case, is victims of domestic violence and Y is victims of other crimes. Y’s perpetrators receive punishment while X’s do not. Schechter utilizes this argument to promote equal punishment for perpetrators of domestic violence against women. Additionally, Kimberlé Crenshaw uses a sameness argument where X is white women who are victims of violence and Y is women of color who are victims of domestic violence. As both are victims of violence, Crenshaw argues that victims of color should also receive access to resources, including multiple language options and shelters near them, that help them just as white victims. However, Crenshaw differs from previous utilizations of sameness as she advocates that the treatment victims of color receive should not be identical to the treatment white victims receive. She argues that the treatment they receive should be specific to their needs as people of color, just as the treatment white victims receive is specific to their needs.

While sameness arguments fit into a formula, the shared characteristic C can be anything as long as one group is receiving treatment T because of that characteristic and the other group is not; Truth uses strength as the shared characteristic, while Crenshaw uses being victims of crime. Furthermore, sameness arguments do not always argue for identical treatment such as Schecter does, but can advocate for different but equal treatment that is attentive to specific needs of a community as presented by Crenshaw. This acknowledges the need for equal treatment of groups X and Y, yet it also acknowledges that equal treatment for X and Y may be administered differently to address the different social locations of those groups. A strength of this approach is  it both addresses individuals and systems in that groups, and X and Y can be two people or dominant and subordinate groups. However, a weakness lies in valuing the dominant group’s associated qualities, such as women being measured according to their “correspondence with man” and their “equality judged by our (women’s) proximity to his measure” (Mackinnon qtd. in Hackett, 245).

Difference

Feminist difference arguments address valuing women’s proximity to men, and argue that the “solution to ending sex oppression is to revalue the feminine” (Hackett, 95). Difference feminists believe that sex oppression is a result of society failing to value femininity (Hackett, 95). Within this approach, authors such as Vandana Shiva utilize a difference argument. Shiva stresses that women are different from men as women are conservationists of biodiversity. Men, on the other hand, promote “monocultures, uniformity and homogeneity” through capitalism. Since women’s work typically falls “invisible” in a world defined by men’s ideas of production and consumption, Shiva revalues how women’s work is centralized in the completion of multiple tasks, their contributions to conserving biodiversity, and subsequently, “balance and harmony” (238). Despite this difference between men and women’s views of agriculture, Shiva clarifies that this difference is not due to sex. Shiva steers away from essentialism, or the assignment of a trait to one’s sex for the sole fact that one is that sex. She acknowledges that this difference is a result of how “labour and expertise has been defined in nature” despite this difference being grounded in influences of “culture and scientific practises” (240).

However, other types of different arguments equate difference not to social construction but essentialism. This gynocentric argument “argues for the superiority of the values embodied in traditionally female experience and rejects the values it finds in traditionally male dominated institutions” (Young qtd. in Hackett 174). Chittister presents this kind of difference argument in “Calling the Power of Women.” In light of the war in Iraq, Chittister argues that women are invisible victims of war where they must take their place at the negotiating table and assume roles that allow them to forge peace due to their inherent spiritual responsibilities of life-giving (36-37, 75). She makes this claim based on the belief that womanhood inherently entails having a connection to faith which allows women to best promote and maintaining peace (37). As a result, she is revaluing peace and its connection to divinity for women, which is associated as lesser than, to be a source of power for women in anti-war activism.

These types of arguments tend to promote collectivity and pride, but when people expect a sameness argument, people can be put off when they expect an argument based on a shared quality as opposed to acknowledging differences. Additionally, difference arguments such as Shiva’s are critiqued for accepting differences constructed by patriarchy to be revalued which do not address the subordination of women. The argument simply values what “women are or have been allowed to become” (MacKinnon qtd. in Hackett 245).

Dominance

In response to sameness and difference arguments, dominance feminist arguments believe that how men and women are the same or different is irrelevant (Hackett, 96). Rather, they diagnose and critique the systemic relations of dominance and subordination. It does not ask how differences arise, but identifies the solution to sex oppression as the eradication of subordination. Dominance arguments address the root of the issue and what is enabling and upholding subordination. Sandra Lee Bartkey diagnoses the root of sex oppression residing within the construction of femininity. For Bartkey, disciplinary practices, or the ways we police ourselves and others to conform to certain practices, through which the “feminine body-subject” is constructed are a result of femininity (Bartky qtd. in Hackett 283). Due to femininity, women’s physical bodies are shaped by ideas of size, posture, movement, and gestures which labels them as women and therefore subordinate. bell hooks, on the other hand, sees sexuality as the root of sex oppression. Since heterosexual women have not unlearned the eroticism “that constructs desire in such a way that many of us can only respond erotically to male behavior that has already been coded as masculine within the sexist framework” they are upholding sexism (hooks qtd. in Hackett 335). hooks sees sexuality and desire as a key component to upholding sex oppression.

These two authors demonstrate a key variation in a dominance approach, what is viewed as the key component to sex oppression that needs to end. A strength in this approach is that it focuses on the material impacts on people’s lives as it seeks to diagnose the very root of an issue. However, in comparison to sameness, which offers a very specific solution of changing language or equal rights, dominance does not tend to offer a solution. It simply states to stop doing the very thing that is upholding sex oppression.

Postmodernism

Contrary to the previous argumentative styles, 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 woman” 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 woman and its usefulness while acknowledging how power resides within that category. Judith Butler applies postmodernism to sex/gender in her essay “Gender Trouble.” Butler begins with exploring the category “women” as the subject of feminism, questioning “what it is that constitutes, or ought to constitute, the category of women” (353). The categorization of “women,” for Butler, raises political concerns of who is included in the category if the goal is liberatory. This seems contradictory to Butler, as inclusion and exclusion are imperialist and anti-liberatory practices. Consequently, this argument centers discourse as it explores the link between language and power.

Other authors see postmodernism beyond a philosophical standpoint and view it as a way to engage in political change. Stuart Hall uses parody to exaggerate racist stereotypes to note how these stereotypes are made up. This can be tricky, however, if people fail to understand the satire because it can end up reinforcing the stereotypes. Sharon Marcus, on the other hand, uses postmodernism to intervene in the language of rape. She analyzes the discourse of rape laws to point out the language used itself frames women as inherently rapable (Marcus qtd. in Hackett 371). She seeks to flip the script of rape by rewriting rape through “displacing the emphasis on what the script promotes-male violence against women- and putting into place what the rape script stultifies and excludes-women’s will, agency, and capacity for violence” (Marcus qtd. in Hackett 375). Here, Marcus provides a way to deconstruct language that oppresses women.

Overall, a strength of postmodernism is the goal of their movement. They seek to shift their “foundations from identity to one of 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).

As a result, postmodernists are critical of gatekeeping, or defining who is part of an identity group and who is not, which has undermined activism in the past. 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. Women of color are especially critical of this as it is easy to reject identity when one has always had one (Shantelle Donelly). bell hooks explores this in “Postmodern Blackness” where she states that “any critic exploring the radical potential of postmodernism as it relates to racial difference and racial domination would need to consider the implications of a critique of identity for oppressed groups” (365). Yet, hooks sees a powerful connection between others and Black folk who would now share “a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding even if it is not informed by shared circumstance” where they is space for “new and varied forms of bonding” (368).

Politics of Identity

Another approach skeptical of a universal understanding of sex oppression is politics of identity. 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). The Combahee River Collective sees identity politics as a site of “potentially the most radical politics” formed from “a healthy love” for themselves. This is a direct result of the collective seeing politics formed from one’s own identity opposed to “working to end somebody else’s oppression” as the best approach to tackling specific issues of their community as no other movement has considered their “specific oppression as a priority” (Combahee River Collective Hackett 414). Additionally, Chandra Mohanty can be read as defending identity politics for claiming 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).

Mohanty’s understanding of identity politics is similar to the Combahee River Collective’s as both see value in the perspective that results from a particular social location. While Mohanty describes this as the standpoint of  “poor indigenous and Third World/South women,” the Collective sees this position as Black, lesbian women (Mohanty 232, Combahee 414). Mohanty argues the epistemic privilege of Third World women serves as a framework for coalitional work that reads “up the ladder of privilege,” while the Collective argues that if Black women were free then everyone would be free (Mohanty 231, Combahee 415). In other words, the Collective believes that not everyone should utilize identity politics whereas Mohanty believes that thinking from the space of marginalized groups provides us with an understanding of how to advocate for a more just and fair world (Mohanty 231).

A strength in this approach is the solidarity that can emerge from identity politics of shared experiences, but when identity politics are implemented, the boundaries of the identity being mobilized are inevitably policed. Postmodernists push back on the gatekeeping that occurs in politics of identity. Furthermore, who is allowed to be a part of an identity can be limiting such as who is “Black enough”, or “woman enough”, or “lesbian enough” to join the Combahee River Collective.

Moving Forward: The Most Compelling Approach

In looking at all five of these approaches, to pick one as the best approach would fail to capture the potential of the rest of the approaches for being the most compelling in a particular social, cultural, and historical context. To analyze how these arguments hold potential in different contexts, I will examine two examples where they could be implemented.

First, in the case of a woman being fired for taking too much time off work after the birth of her child and suing her company, the most compelling argumentative approach would be sameness and difference. In a court of law, equality is a “matter of treating likes alike and unlikes unlike” (MacKinnon qtd. in Hackett 244). Thus, a sameness approach is needed to gain legal protection. In this case, X are men and Y are women, where they share the same characteristic of humanity, C. Men in virtue of C get subtreament, T, of being able to take off work when a medical procedure or event occurs and women do not. Since women and men both share humanity, women should be able to take off work for a medical procedure or event, in this case birthing a child. However, sameness, in this case, is not enough. A difference argument could provide a revaluing of women’s reproductive capability, which has been considered subordinate, to promote pride in motherhood and a culture that allows women to take off work for delivery. The other approaches, in this case, are not as compelling. Dominance, in this case, does not help this woman in a legal context as she is not trying to end sex oppression overall. A postmodern approach would not be as compelling because she is not seeking to change the script around pregnancy or the stereotypes. Finally, politics of identity is not particularly compelling because she is seeking individual repercussions; however, if this was a class action lawsuit mobilizing from motherhood would be a strong approach.

For my next example of when Donald Trump banned the word “transgender” from CDC’s communications, a postmodernist and dominance approach would prove most compelling. In this case, instead of trying to be successfully persuasive in an argument, an analysis of the discourse would be most useful. Analyzing the images, ideas, and practices around trans people in the specific institution of the CDC is a particularly postmodern task where rewriting how we discuss trans patients is crucial in providing adequate and quality care. This approach would lend itself well with a dominance approach as well as it looks at how power operates through the representations of trans people. Diagnosing transphobia in the federal government would serve as a foundation for future activism work in mobilizing trans rights and justice. The other approaches, in this case, are not as compelling due to the context of this issue. Sameness would prove useful in a court case or legal argument if one was trying to show the shared humanity of trans folk with cisgender folk. A difference approach would be useful in trying to curate pride of trans folk who had been psychologically disenfranchised by the Trump administration’s decision. Finally, an identity politics approach could be implemented if trans folk wanted to act collectively in response, but they would have to define if this included not only trans men and women but also non-binary, gender non-conforming, agender, and genderqueer folk. This could become troublesome as trans folk would have to define who is “trans enough.”

In conclusion, the approaches taken need be attentive to their audience if they are trying to have a convincing argument or analysis. The audience will shape the method of approach alongside the end goal. Advocacy work entails different goals than analysis. Providing support for victims of trauma and uplifting them would not be achieved by analyzing the language in legislation. In all, every approach proves compelling depending on the historical, social, and cultural context.

Works Cited

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

(May 2018)

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.

Economically, the impact of the future is uncertain. Farmers are unable to discern how crops with yield next year, but what they do know is a forty-six thousand employee industry has lost all of this year’s yield and investment. Estimates place the total loss of fifty to sixty percent; however, Hunt stays optimistic accrediting it to the resilience of citrus growers. McEvers asks Hunt about the loss of interest in orange juice and disease infections, but Hunt just replies with optimism (Florida’s Citrus Groves Hit Hard By Hurricane Irma).

While this is not the first devastating event in an agricultural sector I worry for these farmers. Traditionally, farmers receive economic assistance from the federal government, but with continued disinterest, in disaster relief, I fear farmers will be left on their own to recover from losing their entire source of income. Moreover, forty-six thousand people will be impacted with the no crops to harvest. These individuals are often immigrants with no governmental support and already face difficulties finding work, proper pay, and economic stability. Additionally, I worry about the future stability of crops. Future crop yields producing lower amounts will drive prices up in a market that has lost an interest in products such as orange juice. Furthermore, it is clear that climate change has forever changed the patterns of storms and hurricanes that hit Florida. What will future farmers and farm workers do in the case of multiple storms in one year such as we have already seen? What will become of farmers and farmworkers if back to back yearly crops are lost due to severe hurricanes? I can only hope that the optimism of citrus farmers keeps them adaptable to shift as the result of the impacts of climate change induced superstorms.

(February 2018)

Works Cited

“Florida’s Citrus Groves Hit Hard By Hurricane Irma.” NPR, NPR, 21 Sept. 2017,

     www.npr.org/2017/09/21/552708262/floridas-citurs-groves-hit-hard-by-hurricane-irma. Accessed 27 Sept. 2017.

     Foremost, Beyoncé manages to construct an experience that is “just so black”, as stated by Johnetta Elzie, curator of the Ferguson Protester Newsletter and organizer, manifesting a story of those impacted by state violence (Hudson). Stylistically, one can begin to see black culture through hairstyles which include natural hair, Bantu knots, box braids, Ghana braids, Havana twists, and cornrows. Additionally, lyrics such as “I like my baby heir with baby hair and afros. I like my negro nose with Jackson Five nostrils.” from “Formation” assert pride in “features that are so different from the European standards of beauty” (Griffiths). Coupled with archival footage from her own childhood, Beyoncé highlights the experiences of black children in what a voiceover claims as the “hood”. Forty-three minutes into the film the section “Resurrection” begins and last for the course of three and half minutes. In this time frame, a series of black women and girls are shown in historically southern belle style clothing in a garden in the background. A female voiceover plays and states, “Something is missing. I’ve never seen this in my life… They take our men, huh?” and the camera pans to a group of black girls and women. The voice-over goes on to say, “So how are we supposed to lead our children to the future? What do we do?” (Beyoncé). Following this, the song “Forward” begins and features the mothers of those who lost their sons to police brutality: Gwen Carr, Eric Garner’s mother; Lesley McSpadden, Michael Brown’s mother; and Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother. These images empathize that those lost to police brutality have experiences beyond the footage of their deaths seen on cell phone cameras and body cameras. Humanization in the form of this album occurs in a manner described by Adrian Parr, an Australian philosopher, as “coded and given a fixed use” as the experiences expressed are relatable to those in the black community (17).* Consequently, those lost are socially alive and individualized through their own culture.

     Secondly, through this album, the artist acknowledges the survivors of the deceased, a crucial element of memorialization. In studies completed by Roberts and Vidal (2000) and de Vries and Rutherford (2004), they acknowledge that “most memorials mentioned survivors” and that memorials “support continuing bonds between the living and the dead” (Graham 39). Additionally, “‘almost all memorial sites contain a picture of the deceased’” as stated by Tony Walter, one of the only professors of death studies (Graham 48). Explicitly, Beyoncé manages this by the footage at minute marker 44:28 where she introduces black women holding the photographs of men lost to systematic violence. She partners these images with dark backgrounds and wilted flowers at minute marker 44:33 and finishes with the footage of Michael Brown’s mother crying a single tear at minute marker 44:57 (Beyoncé). These images show the grief of those left behind physically and symbolically with the wilt of the flowers and dark imagery. This collective trauma faced by these women inherently positions them together. This video is “supportive of both the process of remembering someone has gone and being with someone as a continuing presence.” as people who are watching online can formulate their own memories (Graham 40, Parr 15).

     Furthermore, memorials are used to recall tragedy and offer a place of mourning. In Beyoncé’s song “Formation,” the scene shown at minute marker 1:00:15 features her atop a New Orleans police car that is submerged underwater. By minute marker 1:00:58, a young black boy is pictured in front of a line of white policemen in riot gear were when he lifts his hands up they follow suit. The camera then pans to a wall graffitied with the phrase, “Stop shooting us” (Beyoncé). While this footage does not memorialize any specific people as seen with the images previously mentioned, it highlights that those who are lost to state violence such police brutality and the lack of governmental response to Hurricane Katrina are gone, but their existence was important because the institutions that perpetuated their deaths still exist. (Graham 49). Using platforms such as YouTube and Tidal where Beyoncé has a minimum of 13,236,698 subscribers, she has created space for interactions between complete strangers whether this is through comments on the album, reaction videos, or sharing the video on other social media (BeyoncéVEVO). Beyoncé furthers this space even further by premiering the film on HBO (Home Box Office) drawing 787,000 viewers drawing out 696,000 tweets the night it debuted (Murdoch). These interactions allow for community formation and healing through shared lived experiences.

     Overall, Lemonade as a visual album goes beyond a music video. The weight of this album is effective due to the historical context of its release. Black Lives Matter as an organization had already gained traction, embedding the memories of those impacted by violence and associated them with particular places, images, and institutions. Beyoncé takes what some may have forgotten but still hits heavy for the black and brown bodies that face systematic oppression daily and applied it to film. She creates a space for black people to mourn and hold pride in their culture through her album. Arguably, one may question why to memorialize the death of these people, to begin with, yet as Sigmund Freud claims the effect of trauma, once pushed out of consciousness, goes away (Parr 20). It has become an inspiration for activism, a place of mourning, and a symbol of remembrance. Remembering the horrors of the experiences faced by communities of color through film extends our ability to commemorate a person, manifesting a new way to bring a community together. 

(December 2017)

¹ This number varies by organization reporting and their methodology with Mapping Police Violence reporting 1,049 deaths by police in 2017. 

² Parkwood Entertainment is owned by Beyoncé.

³Tidal is a music and video streaming platform owned by Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter, Beyoncé’s husband.

* Admittedly, I as a white writer can speak on this specifically. 

Work Cited

Beyoncé. Lemonade, listen.tidal.com/.

BeyoncéVEVO. “Beyoncé – Formation.” YouTube, YouTube, 9 Dec. 2016,

     www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDZJPJV__bQ.

Elzie, Johnetta. “Johnetta Elzie.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com,

     www.huffingtonpost.com/author/johnetta-elzie.

Graham, Connor, et al. “Gravesites and Websites: A Comparison of Memorialisation.” Visual

     Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 2015, p. 37. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/1472586X.2015.996395.

Griffiths, Kadeen. “This Is What Beyoncé’s ‘Lemonade’ Meant To Me As A Black Woman, &

     This Is Why It Needed To Win Album Of The Year.” Bustle, Bustle, 11 Sept. 2017, www.bustle.com/p/this-is-what-   

      Beyoncés-lemonade-meant-to-me-as-a-black-woman-this-is-why-it-needed-to-win-album-of-the-year-37653.

Hudson, Jerome. “Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Praises Beyoncé’s ‘Lemonade’: ‘It’s Just So

     Black’.” Breitbart, Breitbart News Network, 24 Apr. 2016, www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/24/black-lives-   

     matter-co-founder-praises-Beyoncés-lemonade/.

Murdoch, Cassie, and Kaitlyn Kelly. “’Jurassic World’ Pulled More Viewers Than Beyonce’s

‘Lemonade’.” Vocativ, Vocativ, 27 Apr. 2016, www.vocativ.com/313517/beyonces-lemonade-posts-disappointing-       

     ratings/index.html.

“Police shootings 2017 database.” The Washington Post, WP Company,

     www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/.

     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.

    Throughout the film, messages of the life cycle circulate, but beyond that, the film includes a cycle of imagery. Opening with an image of a dancing woman holding two snake figurines followed by the narrator stating, “the spiritual journey of Earth’s people started with a goddess”, the film features her rising with powerful music in the background. This image continues throughout the film, but shifts to her as figurine until the end where she appears again. This shift in the type of image follows the narrator’s claims that women were once revered but now are dominated by a “sky god” and patriarchy. Yet, at the end of the film, the woman appears again in flesh as the women discuss the return of goddess worship.

    Alongside these images, reproduction cycles run rampant. Every figurine that is shown of the woman and other art collections throughout the film feature images of the vulva or pubic triangle. The gynocentrism of these images is furthered as accounts of these women are shared. One woman goes so far as to claim that she “did not understand womanhood” until she had given birth and that part of the reproductive cycle connected her to every woman throughout time. Additionally, as these women explore history, they speak of efforts to reclaim their power through their bodies because of incidences like the story of Athena. They see the shift in her being the goddess of wisdom to war as a product of male dominance and that her birth from Zeus’ head was the cause. These women seek to unveil these influences of patriarchy through their connection back to the land and the moon, but this connection, in turn, is exclusive. Reproduction is not a qualifier to be a woman. The reclamation through one’s body becomes problematic when determining womanhood when one has atypical anatomy, chooses not to have children, is trans*, is infertile, or does not engage in heterosexual sex.

    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 these women is “listening to the natural rhythms”, the worship of nature and fertility, and their inherent ability to menstruate. These connections to Earth through their bodies is highlighted by images of caves which are claimed to be vulva shaped openings covered in red okra, the symbol of blood. This connection continues with stories of wonders influenced by the goddess throughout time found through cave drawings, pottery, and statues. Consequently, these women see their reconnection with nature as connecting back to the “nurturing” and the internal way of being. Universalizing women to being nurturing, fertile, and connected to the Earth erases the rich diversity of what womanhood is while additionally limiting their own practice 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.

    All in all, this film introduces an unique perspective of how identifiable differences can be diminished within women’s spiritually. It brings into question what true womanhood is and how we can connect through spirituality. Despite the inherent lack of intersectionality, I recommend the film. In retrospect the film is a product of its time; however, it is a great example of how those who are oppressed by the patriarchy are attempting to push back upon it. Additionally, it provides an example of how the universalization and essentialization of women limits the scope of a movement.

(April 2017)

Works Cited

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

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