so i got this ask and i wanted to make it rebloggable so here it is. as a note, i wrote my response in word so it force capitalized everything so i deeply apologize to all of you who, like myself, appreciate the fact that i capitalize nothing in my writing ever. :) also its really long so i’m sorry for that but whatever its also great. props to unobject for helping me write this out.
ciscritcal-not-cisphobic asked: Oh, so, kinda-abstract kinda-classism-related-question: You mentioned some stuff about how “self-expression” is one of the things rich queers seek out queer scenes for. One of the things that I’m seeing as a site where, in queer circles, the staunchest resistance to the idea of gender abolition seems to include the idea of gender as a canvas of self-expression and a worry that abolition would take that away. Do you think these are related or am I wildly off-base here?
First off, thanks for the question. I think your understanding of my argument around class-privileged approach to queer community might be kind of off, but I’ll get to that in a minute. First I’ll say that yes, these things are related, but in a deeper way. Self expressionism is the conduit of late capitalism. It is the commodification of relations between people, the means by which capital has accelerated its ability to flow and change and recuperate all human relations by emptying their symbols and signifiers into a medium of social exchange, the introduction of management into one’s own presentation of oneself between peers and networks. This means that what we would at one point be able to recognize in each other as meaningful (hankycodes, being an example) loses that specificity and becomes a part of an interchangeable “self-creating” marketable identity.
You’ll see this happen in all sorts of ways, from appropriation of non-European cultures, to (radical) queer signifiers, to poor kid symbols. There is nothing sacred left. Any attempt at creating an identifiable meaning thru symbols will almost immediately fail thru these phenomena.
To relate this to queer analysis, and particularly class analysis, you have probably already noticed how queer community is more commonly based off how one markets oneself within a queer identity. This is what I was talking about in my other posts. The ultimate foundation for queer community as defined by the upper classes is “appropriate”, commodified self expression (a redundant phrase, mind you), essentially. Class-privileged queer people pull together specific queer symbols of self-expression, and those who do not fall within that do not meet the standards for queer community. Certainly everybody seeks out self-expression, poor queer people included, but it’s that self-expression became a value system and a litmus test for entry into queer spaces that falls along pre-existing lines of power.
Poor queer community is more about coming together to survive, and certainly, in the past that has meant creating ways of identifying oneself and others subtly so you know who to trust. But in the commodification of those symbols, and the emphasis on carrying those symbols at all times, has created a situation such that queer community does not actually form around common queer experience and need for resources, but around what symbols a person carries. Consequently, you will find a great deal of heterosexuals in queer spaces, cis people in trans spaces, etc, simply because they know how to look (and sound) like they fit, and that is the only requirement. It’s what makes (produces) our reality.
On the other hand, queer people who legitimately need queer community will be unable to enter into these spaces unless they market themselves well enough. But to complicate this further, really, self-expressionism is the upper-tier, or the final exchange, of individuals as commodities. Meaning that even though a poor person or a disabled person etc may find themselves able to fit these requirements, they must also first meet the requirements of “contribution” to community, ie how much resource or labor they are able to bring. Failing to meet these standards is to become an absence, or to “invite” suspicion.
But stepping back, this means that poor and poc queers who are unable to wear symbols of queerness because of money, safety, etc, will not be accepted as appropriately queer. I, for example, have walked past groups of ~fabulous glittery sparkle queers~ and have them look at me like I’m shit because they assume I am not queer enough. And yet, when I pass hood queers on the street, we tend to subtly recognize each other through other methods, knowing that our self expression is not possible.
On a more serious level, you will see queer spaces with resources that are supposedly available to queer people that are really just available to those who are able to market themselves (in terms of self-expression, resource, and labor value) well enough, including heterosexuals who take on queer signifiers. You will see in these spaces people who have no lack in resources be given full access while poor, homeless, disabled queers and queers of color are barred from them since they do not/are unable to appropriately market themselves.
As a quick note, the valued signifiers are defined by a number of influences, from class-privilege (availability of queer signifiers), to whiteness, to certain bodies, to ability, etc. and come in the forms of dress, presentation, language, spoken values, “contribution”, etc.
It needs to be said that self-expressionism is both a privilege and a control tactic of the upper classes. Which can be seen in the above examples. Essentially, self-expressionism is the nesting ground of the class-privileged. Self-expressionism requires money, resource, protection, and ultimately bars people from participation in networks based on the availability of these things in their lives.
To answer your question of how these above dynamics in queer community relate to anti-abolitionists who claim that the ability to express oneself will be destroyed… They are not inaccurate entirely in thinking that. In a sense, self expression is an opiate, to use the famous Marx metaphor. It is an addictive ability to move between spaces and identities at will, and one that allows people to accrue and abuse power. It allows for new avenues in which patriarchy can be enacted. So many folks who use that argument are really saying “my commodity will lose its power”. The ability to appear anti-patriarchy, for example, through “femme” signifiers will lose its power. Etc.
But there is also an understandable rejection of abolitionism that comes from trans women in particular reacting to cis abolitionism. Cis abolitionism obviously does not include itself because it does not see itself as a constructed identity. Cis people do not recognize that their sex is not inherent. So their analysis naturally leads to the annihilation of trans people and the freeing of constraints on cis self-expression. It is ultimately not abolitionism.
In addition to that, there is also the fact that we already must express ourselves, and queer people feeling that need to express themselves (especially differently from how we’re supposed to) is important. It can’t be simply criticized or shamed just because it is capital. Everything is, of course, within capital, but that doesn’t mean we should stop doing everything we do to feel okay. Non-expressionism is the equivalent to social death. We don’t have a choice but to identify ourselves, just with the weariness that it is an aspect of life under capital and not a revolutionary act. To simply appear may be an act of resistance, but the means to appear have become an act of value-creation and power.
So, yes, the general desire for maintenance of self-expressionism is a mixture of the maintenance of power relations and the survival within capital. So there isn’t a way to just opt out of this. Non-expressionism can become a form of self-expression just as easily as anything else. The all-black-everything hoodie-always-up-even-in-the-summer chipped-black-nail-polish queer is not so different than the hardfemme(oneword)glitterqueer.
I think one major problem that self-expressionism poses to anti-capital/anti-hetero struggle is that it is liberalism posing as radicalism. I once heard liberalism, in regards to white supremacy, described as “and they say desegregation was a big step forward / but integration only covered up a rotten core / the surface might’ve changed but the cauldron is still hot / now we more politically correct with less real talk” (Blue Scholars, before they got shitty). In that sense, liberalism’s primary effect is obscuring once obvious power imbalances. It has an appearance of self-liberation, but ultimately it just invisibilizes power. Expression may have ~radically~ expanded its field of possibilities (queer becomes glitter and patches and genderqueer just a means of ”fucking with” and creating new forms of gender presentation), but cishetero society is in no danger (plus it allows for heterosexuals and cis people to take on these identities). This is how self-expressionism functions in queer community.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question. If you send me an ask, I’ll recommend a couple other things that talk about this that are excellent (and more aesthetically pleasing too).
