How did the movement get here? What if lesbians oppose war? What if gay men don’t want to expand the prison system? What if marriage doesn’t address poverty? These are some of the questions raised by the Against Equality collective in its new book Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion published this year by AK Press.
The Against Equality collective is an archival project created by five queer and trans activists and writers. First and foremost, their new book is an anthology of critiques of the issues that have come to define gay and lesbian politics over the past 20 years. But it also proposes alternative paths for the movement, putting forth both prison abolition and transformative justice as distinctly queer political projects.
Waging Nonviolence recently sat down with Ryan Conrad, co-founder of the Against Equality collective, in the East Village to discuss the book and the politics behind his own work.
Tell us a little bit about yourself. How did you get here?
I’m from a small mill town in central Maine; it’s actually the second largest town in Maine. However, that doesn’t mean much by most people’s standards. I would blame a combination of the Boy Scouts and Emma Goldman for my orientation and my politics. My birthplace in Rhode Island was socially and economically quite conservative. I moved from there to rural poverty essentially, and that really informs where I come from — a place of non-urban poverty. My community is primarily poor white people and African refugees.
In urban centers, people try to out-critique each other or something as if there’s some kind of social capital to gain from being really critical. But where I’m from, there’s nothing to gain. Being critical actually makes you an outsider. I don’t come from that place of critique for the sake of critique. I believe in critique like your life depends on it.
Today, gay marriage is centered as the LGBTQ issue. But the first section of the book is an archive of critiques of gay-marriage legislation in favor of more broad-base policies like universal healthcare. Why?
At the first event I ever did, this woman from Athens, Maine, which is a town of a couple hundred people, came. She’s a down-home, DIY mama kind of person. She’s raising a disabled daughter and her partner at the time was disabled. One is an intellectual disability and the other one is a physical disability.
After she came up to me and said, “I’ve been with my partner for 20 years… We would never get married because he’s on social security income, and because my daughter is disabled I have secondary income from the state to support my daughter. If I got married, both my benefits and his benefits would be reduced because we would become a double income family.”
She was explaining that marriage doesn’t work for poor people, and that it doesn’t work for disabled people. Having really simple examples like hers are important.
There are two versions of the critique of marriage: one is cultural and one is materialist. That critique I just shared is materialist. There are other people who think that marriage will ruin the ability of gays to be alternative, and cruise and public sex and blah, blah, blah. And yeah, that’s cool and all, but people are dying. This cultural critique is fine, but it doesn’t hold much water if you are talking about the material realities that people face.
So if marriage isn’t materially beneficial for many people’s lives, how has it coalesced into the central LBGTQ issue? And where do we go from here?
There are lots of poor people who have been convinced that this is the way forward by a bunch of upper class gays that have rammed it down everybody’s throats.
I think that if we get back to people’s actual lives, we can find a way forward. If people want to make the argument that gay marriage will get more people health care, let’s talk about how to get all people health care regardless of marital status. Same thing for immigration. Same thing for having secure family law. Family law should not revolve around the ideology of the nuclear family. It should reflect people’s actual lives.
The law shouldn’t be designed to tell people how to live; the law should be designed to support people in the ways they already live.
The last third of the anthology includes many different LGBTQ perspectives critiquing hate-crime legislation and instead proposing prison abolition as an transformative approach to violence. Can you talk about where these writers are coming from?
The book is an inter-subjective critique. We are trying to come from all sorts of angles. There are trans people, people of color, women, rural folks, amongst others in the book. For me, this is really important in trying to build coalitions across difference.
The reason I focus on hate-crimes legislation specifically is because it’s an opportunity for some gay and lesbian people to think about prisons who might otherwise never think about prisons. I don’t need to convince most queer people of color or trans people or homeless queers that cops and prisons are fucked — many of them know that from their everyday experiences. But this text is an opportunity to open [many more] LGBT people’s eyes to the struggle of prison abolition through something that’s relevant to their lives.
I’m not interested in speaking to a generic population about prison abolition. I want to get gay and lesbian people on board with prison abolition. I feel both a responsibility and a commitment to that as a gay person who grew up with a considerable amount of safety, health and privilege.
Often, the prison abolitionist framework is particularly difficult for many people to swallow. How do you see it?
Everybody always starts with the question: What if you were attacked? Well, let’s flip it. What if you lost your shit and attacked someone? Let’s start there. How do you want to be dealt with?
Everybody always starts with a narrative of victimhood, and I think that it’s more useful to turn the conversation around. We aren’t infallible. We have to have the humility when dealing with people who have been accused of things to know that we have the capability to do similar things.
There’s got to be something more organic than the models that have come out of progressive communities that value the narrative of the accuser over the accused. Or the one who is harmed over the one who has caused the harm.
I feel committed to building a world where both of those people are heard, harm is addressed, and dignity of all involved is restored. This isn’t possible if we throw away people who cause harm and rely on punitive models of justice.
This author clearly has never worked to try to organize people to action, and she knows nothing about the forces that drive the dialog and the political priorities of grassroots activism. The LGBT community is not this unified mass of activists all acting with one mind, nor even the mind of a small group of elite thinkers. It is a mass of individuals with a teeny, tiny activist segment perpetually beating their heads against the wall trying to figure out how to convince the rest of the importance of getting involved in the fight for their own rights. There are three things that get ordinary people (of the non-activist variety) up and involved: 1) when they feel the the threat at a personal level coupled with a shared sense of adversity with others, 2) a charismatic leader who engages them personally, wins their trust, and comes to personify the cause for them, and 3) a series of successive victories lead toward an apparent major victory. If you can’t get people to feel it, they don’t show up. LGBT people sometimes, at rare moments of clear offense rising to the level of major news stories, turn out in numbers to do something. They don’t feel the issue of prisons. Yes the issue of the ridiculous abuse of incarceration in this country is a problem to be solved, but that is a rational argument for people whose lives have not been directly touched by it. Nothing happens until it is an emotional argument felt personally.
Marriage being front and center is not dictated by a small number of LGBT leaders. If you want to levy criticism against them it is that they are not leaders, they are followers. It is the media that is driving our priorities. Modern media does not report the news. They produce a current event based entertainment product. They glean real events for things that they can manipulate and package into a story that most grabs the audience’s attention so that they can sell that attention to advertisers. They couldn’t care less about what is most important and what impacts the most lives. It just has to be entertaining. Conflict is the heart and soul of a good story. This has been known and documented since the ancient Greeks created theater as we know it. Marriage is the primary issue because it is the thing that most enrages conservatives. It is the fight with conservatives that creates the conflict, it is the conflict that makes media report it, and it is the media reporting it that gets those generally disinterested LGBT folks to get up and do something on occasion. If you want to change the priorities, change the media. If you want to change the media, find some way to make bigger issues sexy. Good luck with that.
The real question is why someone hasn’t tried to organize all those many lives touched by the prison system into a force for change. The people who are and have been incarcerated, and more importantly, their spouses, children, parents, friends, neighbors, etc. If you want to change that situation, you need to identify and motivate the people who will feel the issue at an emotional level. Then you need to find a villain. You need to create a public conflict for the media to eat up. You need to wage the fight in the public square or no one will even notice it’s going on. When it comes to creating change in our modern media climate, your enemy is your best friend. The problem is that no one is motivating the constituency affected by the issue. It’s inconceivable that this author, instead of trying to learn from the successes of the LGBT movement and try to apply those lessons other issues, wants instead to take over that movement and make it do what she wants it to do. It doesn’t work that way. Those of us actually trying to make progress on LGBT issues can’t make it work the way we want it to. We have to follow the media because that’s the place where we can get things done. We don’t like it either, but if you want to make progress you go to where progress can be made.
You said it perfectly. I think the popularity and success of marriage equality is only because everyone seems to like the idea of it, conservatives included. It makes them feel good; as if they’ve done the world a favor. It’s not ideal, but it is still a step in the right direction. Seeing people whom otherwise hated the concept of anything queer 10 years ago, and are now very receptive to a new perspective is a good thing.
What if the left stopped talking down to LGBT people, and started acting like our issues matter rather than constantly implying that LGBT liberation is a distraction from the REAL issues.
: )
I disagree with the comments posted here so far.
Issues like prison abolition can be turned into big media issues. There are many examples of issues the media did not want to touch (and when did touch only presented a more conservative angle and an antagonistic framework). Whether you’re looking at struggles for people of color historically or even the more recent dialog Occupy movements encouraged.
If you’re talking about people affected by the prison system, you’re talking about an issue that can easily attract media attention and is relevant to huge segments of the population.. There is work being done in that area, though it’s slow to catch on because of decades of media saturation painting the issue in reactionary light (reactionary to the civil rights movement) [see The New Jim Crow] One can’t based their politics around the media because the inertia doesn’t provide liberation for anyone but those worthy of the spotlight and that’s not promising to the people the movement would claim to represent.
These issues are lgbtq issues because they disproportionately affect lgbtq people. Is this was less a media struggle for praise from Daddy and more a collective action to help those of us most in need in the lgbtq community, we could *make a life or death impact* on folk instead of complying to frames that will betray us in the end (the setbacks of nearly every mainstream political agenda).
What if you lost your shit and attacked someone? Then off to jail, pal.
Sorry, my heart doesn’t bleed for some asshole committing hate crimes. In fact I think more people should be sent to prison – all rapists and child molesters for example – and they shouldn’t be let out. Ever. If you conclusively rape or molest someone you’ve given up your right to coexist in society.
And they should have to work for their next meal like the rest of us.
Does prison need to be reformed? Yes. In some ways it’s too harsh and in some ways it’s too lax (why on earth are we giving special protection to child molesters?). Reforming prisons? Yes. Abolishing them? Are you kidding?
The “narrative” of the accuser versus the accused is more often than not reality and it’s a story made by the accuser. You want to change that how? What if the accuser gave the accused a big hug? There are consequences for violent actions and as far as I can see, the consequences aren’t severe enough.
I mean it’s a narrative made by the accused not the accuser. The accused can lose his shit and paint some angry paintings or punch a pillow. The second the accused harms someone else – he/she is setting into motion a series of consequences which too often allow the accused to walk back into society only to harm someone else.
Screw the violent people. Deport them to the arctic and let the rest of us have more safety. I’m not working hard to pay for some murderous mooch to get a free – albeit crappy – meal in prison while he sits around playing cards, working out, and getting more tattoos. He should be working for his next meal and pitching in for the roof over his head just like the family of the person he murdered. And he should have internet access and TV access the day the person he murdered can have it, and not a moment sooner.
I disagree – nuff said.
I could justify myself, but as you haven’t I won’t either.
Wow… the amount of vengeful and violent comments under a compassionate article on a non-violence website.
I hope the book is read widely.
I hope so too. The comments by “Somebody” are really disturbing, I guess they’ve never known someone who’s been in prison for survival crimes. I have and do, enough said.
I do think though that it’s a weak argument to just flip the script on “what if you were attacked”, although I do think that’s important. It’s crucial also talk about what happens when people fight back in order to survive hate crimes, and then are imprisoned, such as the NJ four or CeCe MacDonald. The flipside is not just “what if you attacked someone” but “what if you had to fight for your life and the courts turned against you”?
I was sorry to read that Ryan Conrad believes that “cops are f—–.” If he knew any police officers- or if he knew any people who have been helped by police officers after they have been attacked- he would know how much we owe to police officers, and how grateful we should all be to them for endangering their lives for us everyday. If he believes that police officers should be sensitive to gay, lesbian, and transgendered people, then I have a good solution. He should encourage more gay, lesbian, and transgendered people to join the police force.
Um, I’m a white guy, and unlike many activists I’ve never been in custody, so I can’t speak from personal experience. But I have heard plenty of stories – the infamous pepper spray incident from Occupy Berkley or whatever it was a couple of years ago is nothing out of the ordinary.
And as for getting more people lgbtqia people to join the police as a means of getting them to be more sensitive to lgbtqia issues – I’m afraid that really hasn’t worked for black and brown people so far, so why should we think it would work for anyone else?
there is a really interesting book called The Spirit Level which looks at income equality in different countries and how that effects various social and health problems. It says that more unequal societies have harsher criminal justice systems with higher proportion of convicted felons ending up in prison.
It might be that more equal societies deal with racism and homophobia better than the USA, which is the most unequal of the rich market economies.
So on the whole I agree with your comment that minorities being openly employed by the police does not make much difference to racist, or other discriminatory, policing, but I am left wondering if it might help in more equal societies?
To answer this I would have to poll some other countries experiences of their judicial systems, especially on marginalized communities.
I don’t know about this. I’m a gay PoC and I’m not afraid of police. You can’t really lump all PoC into the same bucket. PoC from Asia don’t face incarceration levels that black and even Latino PoC do.
Also, most people are more concerned with what affects them directly. In all honesty, prison abolition would not affect me directly but marriage equality does.