Why the LGBTQ+ community must universalize in the United States today — and how
As we have seen over the past couple of months during the pandemic and subsequent BLM protests in response to George Floyd’s assassination, predictable reactionary public fears in the US-emblematic of the west as a whole- has been to perceive others as a threat, as opposed to those who share the same current predicaments to which they have a shared struggle. This panic has expressed itself in the public domain-social sphere-with permeations of catastrophic warnings; for example, ecological collapse, islamophobia, and defending conventional dominant culture against LGBTQ+ community. These types of reactions have manifested themselves in a number of ways: civil liberty violations against peaceful protesters, extreme nationalism with xenophobic demagoguery against the typical scapegoats (Jews, Muslims, gays, and so on), and attacks against LGBTQ+ members in public. Those last two examples contain an important implication; no matter the type of situation, those profoundly marginalized in society are continually attacked or partially blamed for societal issues or unforeseen impactful events, usually as a way for the predominant cultures to transpose the real causes/determinants unto the marginalized group in order to easily attack or other them further. However, one should not misinterpret this message and assert that there should be some sort of struggle for human survival that will include the LGBTQ+ in a new inclusive type of humanity in the process, one of unity brought about by the epidemic; nor should one go the white liberal left identity politic route of furiously asserting their identities (exclusively over others) in society — one becomes further marginalized as their identities are reduced to a single feature, and once you define another’s identity it becomes gone. It is important to note a correlative issue regarding a lack of critical thinking among individuals today, especially those who cannot recognize or refuse to admit the injustices faced by LGBTQ+ members. This has invariably been to the detriment of the LGBTQ+ movement, as many people cannot fathom or recognize their universal existence (as Kant put it: the public use of reason, or lack thereof in our current times). What is needed today more than ever for the LGBTQ+ movement is the radical emancipatory effort through strong solidarity as the ultimate imperative to progress from the excluded dimension to the included one in society-public domain-in order to entrench their own equal existence within it — the outcome of which would be their universalizing within the US.
In order to accomplish this task, we first need to look at human subjectivity, how it relates to the LGBTQ+ movement, and understand the reason it is imperative for all their identities. Jacques Lacan famously conceptualized hysteria — a condition indicating an excessive or ungovernable state of emotions- as an essential quality of femininity itself, whereby in order to explain or treat the hysteric, one must understand the core nature of femininity itself (because it predominantly appeared among women). He believed that feminine hysteria represents the highest form of subjectivity, to which an over-identity is exhibited, and which can be found in the ‘+’ of the LGBTQ+ movement (more on that later). But why hysteria? Well, it provides the investigation for some sort of epistemology into this fundamental nature of femininity itself, where a proper explanation of femininity can be found. Moreover, hysteria concerns questioning one’s own identity or the identity imposed on one by external influences. The basic question for hysteria is then why should one accept what another person labels them to be, e.g., a male or female, husband or wife, strong or weak, and so on. Hysteria thereby serves as a criticism of ideology itself; it opposes a master figure who wants to impose an identity unto someone, thereby enabling one to go against the identity imposed by ideology. We see members of the LGBTQ+ assert this notion and this doubt of their identity approaches universality. Now we see where hysteria necessarily find itself in the LGBTQ+ movement, but just as much emphasis and importance is found in the subject itself. What makes the notion of the subject so imperative for the LGBTQ+ is that it acts as the medium for members to universalize, for which we must turn to Rene Descartes to realize.
Descartes is beyond crucial for achieving universality, so much so, that ideals like egalitarianism, personal liberties, and self-agency would be nearly impossible to conceptualize without his contributions. The reason for this lies in his theory of the abstract subject, which would be later known as the Cartesian subject. Excluded/marginalized groups, since the age of enlightenment, have utilized the Cartesian subject-regardless if they realized it or not-to attain the goals they desperately struggled for. One must first understand that before the European enlightenment, there were no such standard or widespread models of equality in society. Mentions of egalitarianism itself did not take form until the age of reason, which philosophers like Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Wollstonecraft would build on. That is why it becomes so frustrating when there is strong condemnation for Eurocentrism, especially for the vast majority of the liberal left who incessantly denounce visions or ideas that originated from a white male source, such as an Anglo-Saxon theorist. They are unaware of the fact that the ideals they vehemently advocate for are precisely Eurocentric in nature, whereby the principle social or political freedoms and protections dearly held on to in liberal democratic societies stem directly from the works of the aforementioned enlightenment philosophers (one can simply read the Social Contract or Two Treatises of Government).
Of course, I am not naive here; when the ideals of human rights were conceptualized by the enlightenment philosophers, they appeared neutral to all people, but in reality, they secretly benefited white people (like the philosophers) the most. However, since universal human rights take an abstract form, the ideals began to proliferate throughout society since it protected everyone. Additionally, it’s abstraction is critical since it cannot become reified and therefore be taken away or excluded from certain members of society since it does not exist in a material form to which a state or capitalist owner can appropriate or dispossess others of. For example, at the end of the 18th century, Mary Wollstonecraft (founding feminist philosopher) proposed the inclusion of women to the idea of universal human rights, which would not have been possible if she hadn’t embraced the Cartesian subject because of its inclusive features. This is because Descartes theory of the cogito, which is the basis for his empty universal subject, was purposefully left sexless so that others like Wollstonecraft can identify with it. This demonstrates one of the great achievements of Europe and Descartes: placing human rights, or the struggle for equal human rights in the ideological sphere, for a more inclusive universality, one that the LGBTQ+ movement can utilize.
The distinct egalitarian model that contains the ideals which the LGBTQ+ movement strives for, cannot be formed without this Cartesian subject, so one must dissect it to understand why that is. At its most basic form, the Cartesian subject is an empty universal subject. In order for the LGBTQ+ movement to universalize it must pass or progress through this empty universal subject in order to gain their freedoms, i.e., any and all attempts at liberation or emancipation must inhabit this subject. Therefore, universalism becomes an ultimate justification that is of the utmost importance for marginalized groups. Someone who best understood this Cartesian subject-which the LGBTQ+ can learn from- was Malcolm X. He went through the process of the empty universal subject with his X identity since it represented a newfound area for freedom where one inhabits the universal subject with the new X identity. Malcolm opposed those who tried to place a specific identity unto him with his X; this X was not a longing for lost roots or going back to Africa to find their own (or ancestors’) identity, nor was it a new type of black identity, rather the X was a new universality. The terrible atrocities of slavery, brutality, and deprivation of culture against blacks were simultaneously the best opportunity for blacks to have the space open to create new universalities and freedoms. This approach is much more effective than the popular multicultural perspective we see today from the left; that is, don’t oppress blacks, they should be allowed their own specific identity. Black people don’t want this since they should be allowed to participate in others universality (universality is innately exclusive). Now in terms of pragmatic approaches, we already see members of the LGBTQ+ employing the same methods Malcolm insisted on: collectivism, solidarity, and self-determination, all of which seen in the LGBTQ+ ball culture movement throughout the 1980’s in NYC.
Asserting one’s universality can best be demonstrated by briefly mentioning the Haitian revolution. Correlative to Malcolm X’s desire to find a new universality, the slaves in Haiti shared a need for such by abolishing slavery and colonialism on the island, which displayed a sign of authentic emancipation since people with conviction imposed their freedom and equality. The outcome was successful practical action through revolting at a specific moment in their own world, resulting in the 1st black slave revolt fighting for inclusion within the emancipatory project of the French revolution. The French revolution provided the ideological framework for the Haitian revolution, i.e., liberating the country and establishing its independence — a consequence of European ideals. Now of course the era is different, and in no way should physical conflict be a way for the LGBTQ+ to accomplish their visions, rather it is in the unrelenting emancipatory struggle that members must assert their own universality to accomplish their visions.
Let’s transition to the ‘+’ of the LGBTQ+ movement mentioned earlier. This ‘+’ is by far the most important edifice belonging to them. The semiotics of the symbol is misunderstood by the liberal left today, which is a big factor in explaining the mainstream ideological turn of the LGBTQ+ towards identity politics, damaging their credibility. This political approach requires as a precondition, a possibility for an action/argument that identities exist, by which the ‘+’ would mean that there can be some identities not yet accounted for. Given this view, Traditional liberals or liberal theory aims to expand the purview of the ‘+’ to include those marginalized or excluded, which would achieve true universality. However, as previously mentioned, universality is inherently exclusive to some degree; which is a good thing. The authentic type of universality is one that does not support a humanist, all-inclusive kind. What should happen first is to use the ‘+’ as a starting point, an empirical one, and transition it into a speculative level. The empirical level is how the “+” is usually conceptualized, that there are more sexual identities (plurality) then the traditional binary ones, so “+” represents an open space for new people who don’t identify with any of the existing identified sexes. Liberals then worry about including all the different types of gender or sexual identities, as well as future new ones, so the ‘+’ means keeping the domain open up for others.
However, the point they miss is that identity precisely does not exist. One can, in a radical sense, directly inhabit or become this ‘+’, since the identity of human subjectivity is this ‘+’ at its most radical instance. Therefore, ‘+’ means a distance from identity itself — doubting your own identity. As previously mentioned, that is why for Lacan the basic form of human subjectivity is the hysterical feminine position because it best understands subjectivity, that there is no true identity and all of it is ideologically imposed. What this means is there is no such thing as the real self, only a deeply profound void. Hence, when a female embodies this state of the hysterical position, they achieve the highest form of authenticity that exists. Judith Butler once declared gender roles to be a performance (performativity) akin to a theater play, however this theory can be taken one step further; men are the actors on stage with no mask while women are actresses who wear masks, such as the one Jim Carrey wore in the film The Mask, which brings them closer to the realization that identity does not exist behind the mask since there is just that empty chasm. The point is that people’s sexual identity is not just plainly biologically determined; sex identity is strongly socially constructed/determined. This entire conception is impossible without the Cartesian subject since any person by nature does not occupy a specific identity like a man or women, rather people, begin at the abstract zero point of the Cartesian subject, which through socialization or culturalization can be utilized then to occupy a given social identity. Since gender is a symbolic choice, identity is therefore not determined at birth or else you would not have LGBTQ+ members to begin with who feel they are not only in the wrong body, but also have the inexorable need to express the true versions of themselves. This true version is what Immanuel Kant referred to as a genuine free choice, one that is invariably experienced as a necessity. This is why something like love is a dramatic choice. One can’t be forced to love, but if one falls in love it is never their choice to do so, it comes naturally to the person who discovers that they have fallen in love, demonstrating that the (unconscious) choice already occurs. This same logic appears for LGBTQ+ members; what they experience is an authentic transformation into the true versions of themselves-free determination- which goes against typical gender or sex injunctions.
To state the importance again of rejecting identity politics for the LGBTQ+ movement, let’s quickly examine an academic publication written by university lecturer Iris Ruiz in 2018, titled La Indigena: Risky Identity Politics and Decolonial Agency as Indigenous Consciousness. In it, she denounces neo-colonialism and advances the multiplicity of identities belonging to her. She states that Neo-colonialism is pervasive within the US educational system today, with its purposes being to socialize –especially people of color- students into a white-European perspective which erases the persons native history and forces them into an inferior position due to their race. Just like Gloria Anzaldua proclaimed in her influential essay How to Tame a Wild Tongue, Ruiz chooses to assert her own identity which challenges predominant western attitudes regarding one’s background, thereby entering a new stream of consciousness to escape such brainwashing sentiments. Now while I do agree that certain forms of education within the US present a skewed and altered image of western exceptionalism as well as a censored version of its brutal past, the approach she takes is misguided given that it takes the identity political route of asserting one’s identity as a means of subversion. As I mentioned earlier, identity does not exist, it merely functions as an ideological mechanism; indeed, if she wants herself and any people of color (such as a queer black person) to no longer be treated unequally or disregarded as the other, she must stop clinging unto specific social groups and embrace all social groups that experience oppression and inequality (such as poor whites). This task is crucial in order to have a constellation of unity/solidarity of like-minded people who all share the same plights and goals, such as demanding greater redistribution of wealth and power. Moreover, if Ruiz wants to eliminate the oppression she faces from western neo-colonialist apparatuses, she should embrace the aforementioned Eurocentric egalitarian model in order to engender a progressive stance which precisely rejects European ideals. Moreover, without the potential allyship from these other large sectors of the population who face the same struggles as herself, the goals for true emancipation are lost since there is no universality present among all these marginalized/excluded groups.
The Black Marxist philosopher Adolph Reed was ‘cancelled’ back in May by the liberal left when he was supposed to give a speech at the Democratic Socialists Association, but was removed by the organizers since he believed there was too much focus on race in the US and not enough on shared class struggles. Reed summed it up best when describing the left’s identity politics approach: “An obsession with disparities of race has colonized the thinking of left and liberal types… here’s this insistence that race and racism are fundamental determinants of all Black people’s existence”. This is what the LGBTQ+ movement must make sure not to get caught up in, as all their ambitions will become limited and self-defeating by this impotent ideological approach. It is when they strive for universality-ultimate purpose of their movement-that they can attain emancipation and justice, and are no longer inhibited by ideological constraints which enables them to assert their non-identity, i.e., authentic versions of themselves in the public domain.
