The Solidarity Myth

Oppressed minorities do not always share the same concerns.

I enjoyed reading the most recent issue of HQ, Harvard's magazine for bisexual, gay and lesbian topics. My only problem concerned the telos towards which all of these literary efforts were directed, the theme of the issue: "race, ethnicity and sexual orientation."

Not content to champion gay rights, HQ bent over backwards to become even more politically correct than it currently is (quite a fear). The recent issue examines not only the experiences of those ordinary bisexuals, gays and lesbians, but the experiences of African-American, Mexican-American and Jewish gays and lesbians. A veritable cornucopia of "difference." Wow.

As the editors of HQ observed in an earlier issue, explaining the theme of this most recent issue, "The success of queer culture lies in our diverse heritage, born of the mingling of outcasts of all cultures." This statement takes all people who have ever had any thing bad done to them and brings them together in one big, happy family of the marginalized.

This issue of HQ perpetuates one of the greatest and most dangerous myths concerning persecuted minorities. I call this myth the "solidarity of the oppressed," the popular yet flawed idea that marginalized peoples everywhere enjoy some magical kinship--and therefore must always be on the same of every issue, united with their oppressed brothers and sisters.

William Tate Dougherty's article "Fighting Apathy" in the spring registration issue of The Crimson shows this idea in its most rabid form. Dougherty talks about how every oppressed group on campus should immediately rally to the defense of any other oppressed group that comes under attack.

"When Peninsula published its splashy double issue on homosexuality, where was the BSA? AAA? RAZA? La O?" Dougherty writes, posing rhetorical questions with great power.

It does not take a genius to see that Dougherty expected these groups to come to the gay community's defense. I would ask why this should be the case? Can't one be Black or Asian-American and also be opposed to homosexuality?

Simply because one group has been oppressed doesn't mean it can or should immediately identify with all other persecuted groups. To argue such a position fails to recognize the much-praised "difference" of the Left, in this case, the idea that each case of oppression is different and unique.

Minority groups often experience internal division. At a recent conference of the Association for Asian American Studies (AAAS), controversy erupted when a poetry award was given to Lois-Ann Yamanaka for her book Saturday Night at the Pahala Theatre. Some AAAS members felt Yamanaka's poetry perpetuated damaging stereotypes about Filipinos.

The Association found itself in a difficult situation. Instead of the familiar paradigm of Asian-Americans united against the forces of (white) evil, AAAS faced a case of conflict among its own. The incident demonstrates a simple truth: although we can wish for it and call for it with all our might, solidarity among oppressed peoples is nothing more than a dream that will never be realized.

This is not only the way things are and always will be, but the way they should be. The solidarity of the oppressed denies members of minority groups the right to decide each alleged case of persecution on its merits. It also denies that support for the rights of a disenfranchised group, if their cause is indeed just, must transcend boundaries of race and ethnicity.

David B. Lat's column appears o alternate Saturdays.