The Alternative Orange (Vol. 3): An Alternative Student Newspaper
Prev	We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Fabulous, Get Used To It!	Next

2

In fin-de-siecle late capitalist culture, "queer" has become an increasingly multiaccentual sign referring to a range of contesting possible shapes and directions for an emergent mode of queer (social-)sexual and (cultural-)political subjectivity. Conflict and struggle over what the sign "queer" means/is to mean therefore reflects and refracts struggle over what it means/is to mean in practice to be/to become a "queer" subject. What is immediately at stake in this conflict and struggle is the recuperation of "queerity" as "radical" political praxis into uncritical support for and complete (re)identification with a resurgent form of liberal-reformist gay and lesbian politics. What is ultimately at stake in this conflict and struggle is the question of what kind of "difference" queerity is making and what kind of difference queerity can make within "straight society," and, in particular within straight sexual culture, so as to contribute to general sexual emancipation through general social transformation. In order to resist recuperation of queer "radicalism" as simply (yet another version of) liberal-reformist (sexual) politics, it is necessary to develop a new, critical-oppositional form of queer radicalism, a form of queer radicalism which is critical of and opposed not only to anti-queer and traditionally "liberal humanist" forms of "queer" "identity" politics, but also critical of and opposed to "post-liberal post-humanist" forms of "queer" "post-identity" politics in the form of postmodern idealist queer theory and ludic anarchist queer practice. In other words, it is necessary to develop a critical-oppositional mode of (radical) queer praxis which combines an historical materialist form of queer theory with a revolutionary socialist form of queer practice. In the limited space of this essay, my aim is only to contribute towards the inauguration of this new, historical materialist and revolutionary socialist mode of queer praxis by focusing upon explaining what problems and limitations in existing forms of queer praxis make its development a matter of urgent necessity. Until this initial "negative" task has been adequately accomplished, through the work of this essay and that of much further work yet to come, it will be virtually impossible to articulate the "positive" elements of such a marxist-socialist alternative with any significantly compelling effect. In the immediately foreseeable future, an historical materialist queer theory and a revolutionary socialist queer practice can therefore only hope to operate—and should only strive to operate—as the critical-oppositional margin of both the dominant postmodern idealist form of (radical) queer theory and of the dominant ludic anarchist form of (radical) queer practice. This critical-oppositional intervention aims to contribute towards the production of the critical-theoretical conditions of possibility for the generation of a substantial marxist-socialist alternative to these dominant contemporary forms of queer praxis.

Nevertheless, it is important initially to mark out the fundamental—principled— philosophical and political presuppositions which distinguish an historical materialist and revolutionary socialist mode of queer praxis from a postmodern idealist and ludic anarchist mode of queer praxis. Let us begin with the question of what constitutes an historical materialist approach towards theorizing—explaining and accounting for—the shape and direction of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire within the postmodern culture of fin-de-siecle late capitalism. From an historical materialist perspective, it is impossible to understand either the formation or the constitution of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire as these take shape and direction within the postmodern culture of fin-de-siecle late capitalism without inquiring into both, on the one hand, the materially concrete social-historical conditions of possibility and forces of generation and, on the other hand, the materially concrete social-historical ends advanced and interests served by means of (the expression and satisfaction of) this (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire.

What do I mean by "materially concrete"? I mean the precise socio-economic and political-ideological structural determinants of how human (homo)sexuality is conceived and practiced, and the precise structurally determined socio-economic and political-ideological needs out of which (homo)sexual desires emerge and to which these desires respond. In this regard, I am in fact simply extending classic historical materialist premises concerning the structural organization and dynamic development of human history and society to account for what is the precise place of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire within fin-de-siecle late capitalism conceived as a dynamically structured global social totality, and to explain how this place in turn determines what is the precise array of conceivably possible and practically realizable (homo)sexualities and (homo)sexual desires as these take shape and direction within the postmodern culture of fin-de-siecle late capitalist society.

It is important for me to emphasize the fact that I am not basing "my" conception of "the historical" and "the material" on any obscure or esoteric section of/selections from marxism, but rather am simply accepting and carrying forward the principal conceptions of these categories in the most famous classic formulations of Marx and Engels on these matters, including: Marx’s elaboration of "the guiding thread" of his studies in "The Preface" to The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy; Marx’s similar account of his dialectical method in "The Postface" to the second German edition of Capital Volume I; Marx’s letter to Arnold Ruge where he calls for "a ruthless critique of everything that exists"; Marx’s critique of pre-existing critiques of religion in the "Introduction" to his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right; Theses I-VIII in particular from the "Theses on Feuerbach"; Marx’s and Engels’ discussion of the opposition between "the materialistic and the idealistic outlook" as well as their critique of the "idealism" of Feuerbachian materialism in Part I, and especially section A, "Ideology in General, German Ideology in Particular" from The German Ideology; Marx’s discussion of his "method" of socio-economic (and political-ideological) investigation (and presentation) in the "Introduction" to The Grundrisse; Marx’s and Engels’ "basic thought" "running throughout" The Communist Manifesto; and Engels’ explanation of the rudiments of the "scientific" approach to socialism in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Rather than engaging in a prolonged—potentially pedantic and antiquarian—tangent in which I cite and discuss all of these passages, I would simply like first to cite and then briefly to comment on the passage from the "Preface" to The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy in which Marx succinctly summarizes the essence of his approach towards understanding the organization and transformation of human history and society:

In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, the consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are in the process of formation. In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and the modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production—antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of human society to a close (503-504).

What I think is particularly important to note well in this passage are the following points: the fundamental priority Marx gives to production, and, in particular, to social production as the basis of his understanding of all human social relations and behavior; Marx’s contention that these production relations are both "indispensable" and yet simultaneously "independent" of human "will"; the way in which Marx connects relations of production with forces of production, and, in particular how he suggests the form taken by the former is conditioned by the level of development of the latter; Marx’s further contention that "the economic" not only constitutes the "foundation" upon which political institutions and cultural discourses take shape, but also exercises an ultimately determinant impact upon and influence over this shape and direction; the determinate priority Marx gives to social being over consciousness; the fundamental importance Marx assigns to the development of contradiction between the forces and relations of social production in making possible and thereby in explaining social change; the extent to which Marx sees "the ideological" realm of "consciousness" and "lived experience" as so densely mediated and overdetermined that it is impossible to explain what happens—and especially what appears to happen—at this level either by confining analysis to the ideological or by taking the ideological at face value; Marx’s insistence on tracing all changes at this "ideological level" to determinants at the level of "the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production"; and Marx’s opposition to voluntaristic and subjectivistic—including romantic and utopian—accounts of social change in his insistence not only that such change can happen "only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are in the process of formation," but also that the "new" society always develops directly "out of the old"—out of the concrete resolution of its concrete contradictions—rather than from an abstract projection into a disconnected utopic space where it becomes possible metaphysically to transcend "the old society" and its contradictions.

Historical materialist theory thus locates (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire as critical sites of social conflict and struggle—and specifies the stakes involved, the ends advanced, and the interests served in this conflict and struggle—across determinately connected levels of social reality. These levels range from the most superficially apparent to the most fundamentally essential, from the most thoroughly (over)determined (and, as such, least determinate) to the least thoroughly (over)determined (and, as such, most determinate). Theory which moves from the superficially apparent to the fundamentally essential—and back again—specifying the determinate connections which mediate between these different levels of social reality, is, in turn, from an historical materialist perspective, the movement of theoretical development: the movement, in other words, from the untheorized abstract to the theorized concrete. These levels, moving from the most superficially apparent to the most fundamentally essential, are as follows:

LEVEL 1: The level of the lived experience of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire within the "pseudo-concrete" reality of "the immediate" and "the everyday."
LEVEL 2: The level of the specific frames of intelligibility which shape the consciousness of lived experience and which are brought to bear to make sense of what and how (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire are understood to mean.
LEVEL 3: The level of the discursive representation of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire within systems of signification and within (as well as between/across) the various discursive fields into which these systems are segmented and within which, in turn, various arrangements of signs are differentially deployed.
LEVEL 4: The level of the ideological reproduction and transformation of (homo)sexual and (homo)sexually desiring subjectivities as these take shape within (homo)sexual and (homo)sexually desiring relations and practices as part of specific social institutions (such as, of particular importance in relation to (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire, "the family") and social enterprises (involving both the performance of various, concrete labors and the pursuit of various, concrete leisures, especially, in relation to (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire, those directly concerned with the production and consumption of "pleasure") as well as specific cultural (including subcultural) "communities" and "publics" (including "alternative" and "counter" publics).
LEVEL 5: The level of the politics of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire: how, in other words, (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire are effected by and in turn effect social conflict and struggle over the reproduction and transformation of differences and divisions in right of access and opportunity to exercise general social resources, powers, and capacities (or, in other words, conflict and struggle over the reproduction and transformation of differences and divisions in the effective control of the allocation and distribution of this social(ly produced) wealth). This focus on the politics of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire necessarily involves a central concern with the ways in which the state regulates and controls—and as such manages and contains—political conflict and struggle, and the ways in which the state in turn regulates and controls possible shapes of and directions for engagement within "the political imaginary" and upon "the political scene."
LEVEL 6: The level of intermediary kinds of systemic structures of social relations and forms of cultural practices such as, of particular importance in the instance of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire, "patriarchy" or "the gender system." These intermediary kinds of systemic structures and forms constitute the trans-formation and re-incorporation of (especially prior forms of) (social) class divisions from subordinant, and in particular residual/vestigial, modes of social production within (the processes required for the reproduction and maintenance of) the dominant capitalist mode of social production.
LEVEL 7: The level of the objective—class—places and the subjective—class— positions (including places/positions within class fractions and strata) (homo)sexual and (homo)sexually desiring subjects take up and occupy within the dominant—capitalist—mode of social production and the general—capitalist—form of organization of the totality of social relations.

An historical materialist inquiry into the problematics of (homo)sexuality and of (homo)sexual desire thus inquires into the place of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire in relation not only to struggle over the management and containment, in particular, of the (potential) impact and influence of a (potential) contribution from the (sexual) cultural margins to the development of counter-hegemonic (i.e. anti-capitalist and pro-socialist) critique, contest, resistance, opposition, and transformation of the hegemonic (late capitalist) culture, but also, ultimately, to struggle over the management and containment of the growing extent and the changing shape of the fundamental social contradictions between

the forces and relations of (capitalist) social production, and
the dominant capitalist mode of social production and the reproduction of the necessary general preconditions for continued (profitable) capitalist production.

What is especially important in this regard is to relate conflict and struggle at the site of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire to the concrete crisis (in fact, the crises) of contemporary late capitalism that have led, over the past approximately one and one-half decades, to the post-collectivist reprivatization of social welfare and to the post-collectivized reprivatization of the essentially distinguishing characteristic of late capitalism—i.e. to the post-collectivized reprivatization of the centrally organized regulation of the reproduction of both the general preconditions and the particular forces necessary for sustainable (i.e. profitable) capitalist production. This leads to a necessary further central focus upon relations between, on the one hand, conflicts and struggles over the conception and practice of (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire and, on the other hand, conflicts and struggles over the reproduction and transformation of dominant modes of political-ideological authority as these take shape in turn in relation to conflicts and struggles over the reproduction and transformation of dominant modes of social-economic power: in other words, to put matters crudely yet simply, to a focus upon the totality of relations between (homo)sexuality and (homo)sexual desire on the one hand and bourgeois hegemony on the other.

★

Home Prev	`http://www.etext.info/Politics/AlternativeOrange/` Up	Home Next
We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Fabulous, Get Used To It!	`2003-10-29`	3