User talk:EEMalinoski
Reflection Paper for WS 240 – Activism project
To examine LGBT activism, we chose to watch a documentary on Gay Weddings, interview two LGBT activists, and attend a meeting of the University of Michigan LGBT Commission. All four people or groups employed similar strategies even though they had differing conceptions of the societal norms and pressures constraining the LGBT community and its members.
All of the activists framed their work in either liberal/reform or radical perspectives. The liberal approach to feminsm works more through existing policies and procedures, focusing on one issue at a time and patterning its behavior "in such a way as to mimic heterosexual society so as to minimize the glaring difference between us and them" (Cohen, 2004, p.499/cp 297). In direct contrast, radical feminism challenges the social construction of categories that keep power and oppression as the major determinates in today's society (DuBois, 2005, p. 635). All of the activists also worked with very specific audiences in mind - demonstrating that not only does the producer affect the audience, but the nature of the audience affects the production of a message (e.g. Lotz, 2004, p. 34).
The producers of Gay Weddings took a liberal (or reform) view. They saw the problem as one of people being denied equal rights due to an irrelevant social identity, and therefore they worked to get gays and lesbians access to existing social and legal arrangements. The producers as well as the subjects themselves took great pains to frame their experiences as things that all "normal" couples do when they are getting married, sending the sub conscious message that "we deserve the same as everyone else." The LGBT Commission also took a more liberal approach, framing the problem as the isolation and discrimination the LGBT community can face on the University of Michigan campus. Its stated goal is equality for the LGBT community, and it works within the framework of student government to reach that goal. In contrast, LGBT Coming Out Group facilitator Andrew McBride took a much more radical approach, challenging heteronormativity in general as well as society’s very foundation, which he saw as fundamentally flawed. As an activist, McBride sought to uproot society’s violence, injustice, and inequity on both a macroscopic and microscopic scale. Similarly, Jaya Kalra, the co-chair of Stonewall Democrats, framed the problem as being about issues regarding power and oppression and the subsequent marginalization of minority groups.
Not surprisingly, given its overall liberal strategy, the documentary Gay Weddings had the gay couples behave in "the same way that heterosexual couples would have." This is expecially unsurprising given that the majority of the audience is heterosexual and the goal of the documentary is to persuade this audience to empathize with the couples. From the beginning, where the lovers described how they had met one another, to the search for a place to hold the ceremony, to shopping for that all-important ring, to rehearsal dinners and finally the ceremony itself, the producers took sharp pains to frame every aspect of the couples experience as a valid and appropriate one, wherin two people experienced the exact same trials, tribulations, triumphs, and happiness that any couple would have been faced with. It is interesting to note that the documentary included men and women of varying races and socio-economic classes - most probably in an effort to include all aspects of the audience. Even if a heterosexual woman of color couldn't identify with some of the themes put forth in this documentary, perhaps she identified with some of the racism encountered by one of the couples. The couples that were included in the documetary were carefully picked and chosen as to appeal to as great an audience as possible in order to bring home the central message of equality and entitlement.
Likewise, the strategies the LGBT Commission used alligned with its overall liberal strategy. It uses the conventional tools of student government to create supportive social networks and raise the visibility of the LGBT community as normal people. It does this by putting on social events to help people meet each other in a comfortable environment. It also hosts picnics, movies, dances, speakers, and events such as Pride Week and Coming Out Week, which allow members of this community to celebrate their identity while becoming more visible. These strategies bear certain similarities to those used in Gay Weddings in that they portray LGBT identities as normal and acceptable. However, the LGBT Commission's efforts are primarily targeted at members of the LGBT community rather than at heterosexuals. Here conventional strategies are used not so much to persuade heterosexuals that LBGT individuals are just like them, rather they are used to make the community itself feel more comfortable and safe.
Surprisingly enough, given the different conceptions of the problem, the strategies of the two more radical activists were not that different from the strategies of the LGBT Commission. That is to say they were not using provocative and overtly confrontational strategies like those of ACT-UP. Instead, they were using conventional political strategies, but interpreting them in a more radical light. For example, Andrew is a facilitator of the Coming Out Group, which facilitates the exploration and coming out process for people who are or think they may be LGBT. This is somewhat similar to the LGBT Commission's efforts to make the campus a more LGBT friendly place, but Andrew interpreted the action as a political act; it leads people to have a different view of politics and support different candidates and issues. He also pointed out that although his goal may be to completely change society, sometimes it's only possible to make smaller, less radical changes. Jaya Kalra, co-chair of the Stonewall Democrats, also saw her work as affecting the local campus population, but eventually hopes that local changes will lead to larger state and political ones. Her target audience, though primarily the LGBT community, is really all marginilized groups, as evident through the Stonewall Democrats latest campaigns to rally for both the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the Raise the Minimum Wage Campaign.
On the whole, these different experiences tell us that the LGBT/Feminist movement spans the whole spectrum of ways to conceptualize the problem activists face. Despite those differences, their strategies did not differ all that much and were fairly liberal. This is a surprising result. Although we can't say for sure why this is the case, it may be that there are more barriers to using radical strategies (for example more hostility from other people) than there are to holding radical beliefs.
References Cited:
Cohen, C. (2004). Punks, Bulldaggers and welfare queens: The radical potential of queer politics. In L. Richardson, V. Taylor, & N. Whittier (Eds.) Feminist Frontiers, 6th ed. (pp. 512-14). Boston:McGraw Hill
DuBois, E.C. & Dumenil, L. (2005). Through Women's Eyes: An American History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's Press. Chtr 10, Feminism and Its Discontents, 1965 to the Present. (pp. 628-664)
Lotz, A.D. (2004). Textual (Im)Possibilities in the U.S. Post- Network Era: Negotiating Production and Promotion Processes on Lifetime's Any Day Now. Critical Studies in Media Communication: 21 (1) March 2004, pp. 23-43
Start a discussion with EEMalinoski
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with EEMalinoski. What you say here will be public for others to see.
