Queer Lounge Debates

Last semester there was a big fight between two groups over the use of the Queer Lounge at Monash. I was asked to help, so I wrote the below text, showing preference for side of the more political “rad-fems” and using mostly rhetoric common to Autonomous Departments. (Couldn’t indent my paragraphs, so they all have asterisks instead of ‘tab’ spaces.)

For a good (better) analysis of the situation, including addressing the left and others’ apparent need for the institution and the use of ’safe space’ rhetoric so commonly resorted to (including in my article below) see ‘Women’s Autonomous Organising, Queer room safety and the Post-VSU Student Union‘ on Barking Coins.

*

A Move Towards Autonomy

03/04/07

* In an attempt to address gender-imbalance and diminishing autonomy within the Monash Queer Collective, Tuesdays are now queer-wom*n only. This move is a natural step in an autonomous movement and one I wholeheartedly support.

* Autonomy means freedom from external authority. Autonomous groups have organized in dynamic collectives with the continuous struggle to remain autonomous – to organize free from state law, societal repression etc. Autonomous collectives are supposed to be dynamic so as to be able to address the inevitable influences of external law and custom. A space for political discussion free from external authority works to subvert social-relations in broader spheres. This ‘safe-space’ has been achieved, in the majority of cases, with exclusory and restrictive internal policy.

* In this case the Collective is responsible for the management of the Queer Lounge. This space is intended to be a safe, autonomous space – free from the external influences that may corrupt the movement. In an attempt to achieve this goal the Queer Lounge is ‘queer-only’.

* Exclusory policies such as this have long been recognized as necessary to create an inclusive environment – both in the Collective and within the group’s sphere of influence. To create an atmosphere of openness and a venue for the voice of queer students the existing social relations must be answered with the creation of a space free of its influence. Similarly, to exert an influence (on social-relations, public policy, the MSA, etc) proportional to the needs of queer students on campus, an autonomous arena is necessary to counter external social relations.

* The particular social relations that are generally considered the greatest threat to queer autonomy are hetero-normative, prejudiced ideologies from traditionalist, conservative and/or religious backgrounds. These are inescapably linked with the patriarchal structure of society – that Queer movements intrinsically challenge – and will influence the make-up of the active collective unless it is dynamic and responds accordingly.
* One method used to counteract the patriarchal influences on the queer autonomy in movement was to exclude non-queer students from the space and from organization. The next logical step was to adopt an affirmative-action approach to committee make-up.
* However, for a number of years queer students have struggled to achieve an autonomous space in the face of a growing apathy of empowered queer men towards a relatively disempowered queer wom*n’s movement. Having achieved many goals towards autonomy, the Monash Queer Collective has become stagnant, un-dynamic and self-compromising in the face of external authority and so is losing a battle it may not be aware of.

* Despite the label “autonomous” the Collective has continued to reflect liberal attitudes to societal structure. These attitudes permeate popular culture and society and view ‘equality’ as being the treatment individuals equally, regardless of their circumstance – for example: no special treatment for queers regardless of their needs and oppressed situation. This ideology is deeply rooted in social-relations allowing sexism, racism and queerphobia free reign without critical opposition (to reflect upon the situation of an oppressed group is – in a liberal ideology – to treat that group differently, unfairly, discriminatorily).
* However, the Queer Collective is fundamentally anti-liberal in nature, radical and discriminatory in that it excludes heterosexual identifying students. To allow liberalism any part in collective organising is to undermine its autonomy.

* Without actively generating autonomy and expelling patriarchal social relations the safe-space is useless. The resultant space replays social relations of the external world and so cannot be called autonomous (or safe).
* The struggle for the inclusion of wom*n in the queer space and therefore in queer collective organising on campus has been one of bitter defeat and is symptomatic of a dying autonomy.
* A non-liberal approach towards the inclusion of wom*n has been put forward. It is, like the group’s other policies that work towards inclusion, exclusory in nature: involving a wom*n’s-only day every Tuesday. I fully support this proposition as a small but significant step towards an effective autonomous space.