Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens

The article, "Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?" by Cathy J. Cohen calls for a movement that basically is anti-assimilationist and that considers intersectionality while challenging heteronormativity. In the last paragraph on page 440, she discusses one of the reasons why queer theory has been inable to effectively challenge heteronormativity, stating that queer politics has often been built around a dichotomy between those who are queer and those who are straight. She states that "very near the surface in queer political action is an uncomplicated understanding of power as it is encoded in sexual categories: all heterosexuals are represented as dominant and controlling and all queers are understood as marginalized and invisible[;] thus...some queer activists have begun to prioritize sexuality as the primary frame through which they pursue their politics" (440). While acknowledging that, strategically, certain parts of our identity may be highlighted to call attention to a certain situation, she warns against activating only one characteristic of an identity or a single perspective of consciousness when organizing politics (440). This, she suggests, rejects "any recognition of the multiple and intersecting systems of power that largely dictate our life chances" (440).



I was especially intrigued by this paragraph as my mind was taken away to the current 2008 Democratic primary elections. Because we, Black women, are faced with the choice of a Black man candidate and a White female candidate, it has been extremely popular for any conversation concerning the elections to include a discussion of which identity characteristic is most important: gender or race? Although, personally, I think that this is completely irrelevant for choosing a candidate to vote for, I have found myself engaged in numerous conversations where many have presented their experience-based arguments as to why race overshadows gender and vice versa. Because of the background I have in Women's Studies, I know that gender, race, class, sexuality, age, ability, religion, and many other things intersect to shape our identities and how we experience our lives in this world. I feel that each element is as important as the other as they all have the power to impact a person's life. Cohen warns against activating one characteristic of an identity or a single perspective of consciousness when organizing politics. While it is okay to reflect upon experiences and discover how an isolated part of an identity may have more of an impact in certain situations, I feel that failing to recognize other parts of the identity which may further disadvantage or advantage an individual tells only part of that person's reality. Further, when one internalizes that a certain part of her/his identity is more important than another, it affects how she/he interacts with others and how she/he makes decisions (i.e. which presidential candidate to support). Expanding upon Cohen's warning, I would add that activating only one characteristic of an identity or considering that characteristic to be the most important at anytime is unrealistic and unjust. Nobody belongs to only one category; every part of everyone's identity is equally important; it is never okay to be oppressed whether its due to gender, race, sexuality, etc. So, to my sisters who are questioning which identity characteristic they identify as the most important or which they want to be loyal to, consider what I've mentioned.