Tyler Scott
Professor Meg Wesling
CGS 105
1 February 2019
On Dichotomies in Queer Political Infusion
The influence of queer society and culture has been a taboo topic throughout history, yet
after the AIDS epidemic, Stonewall, and the modern resurgence of the LGBTQ+ movement, a
much more coherent understanding of human sexuality has emerged as a result, and these
definitions have become much broader than before. As a side effect of this movement, however,
governments—more specifically, the United States government—have had to consider
adjustments to previously standing rules and regulations all generated around the more
commonplace ideologies that the laws were founded on, and as such, created a debate as to how
this community stands within the structures of government. Cathy J. Cohen’s Punks,
Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics? offers an analysis on
attempts to integrate these queer ideologies into the political world and the mis-attempts as a
result. Cohen specifically describes how using the differences of the queer community versus the
heterosexual regime does not help in that it further splits the two worlds apart, but rather, the
ideas of intersectionality and community should be used in order to transform those core rules
mandated in the first place; to create a queer presence in politics, the heteronormative rulings
must be adapted to accept a queer presence. Within this essay, the idea of dichotomization is
brought up and put forward as a negative tactic with integration into the political spectrum, yet
the concept of blending into a heteronormative society via appealing to the norm is often thought
of as a way to show interconnectedness and to promote acceptance. This begs the question of
how much of a distinction between the queer and hetero landscapes there should be in trying to
integrate into normal political institutions. Rather than creating a strategy that picks a side,
integration should be worked towards via an ideology with a queer basis while trying to relate
towards those heteronormative standards.
A primary issue with brute force methods of integration is the intersectionality of
heteronormative structures with the queer agenda. In fact, as with many power struggles between
minorities and said structures, the main concern with discrimination is the idea of the dichotomy
between the two groups. This acts as a main argument for Cohen, putting forward that queer
politics tends to be built on the dichotomy basis which, in turn, destroys the idea of
intersectionality altogether. (440) This destruction, in turn, leans heavily into the inconsideration
of queer folk who do not belong to that of the white community. Although the intention for this
ideology is acceptance into these institutions in order to change their structure for the better—
what Cohen remarks as the ideal primary goal for queer political movements (459-460)—
keeping the dichotomy alive is key for distinction; however, being absorbed into the structure is
also necessary for total acceptance, meaning that said dichotomy should be minimized as much
as possible. The mall invasions in New York provide an example of how integration should
work; even if queers were distinct within the populus, they were hidden enough in plain sight to
be one with the considered normal life within the area. (Cohn 448-449) A “hidden in plain sight”
approach works best when considered as a “subtle blending technique”, showcasing distinctness
without complete separation. Being able to hold a queer core ideology keeps the essence of the
movement alive without leading to a total separation. If a total dichotomy were to occur, this
leads to the concept of separate groups, creating a situation that is vulnerable to exploitation and
xenophobia as with racial and gender movements; if no dichotomy were to occur, then the
distinction between queer and hetero would not exist, leading to just another label for something
superseding it. This leads to the necessity for a split somewhere down the line, a homogenous
mixture of both perspectives in order to lead to distinction without discrimination.
