Following is an interview in Wiretap magazine
with Mary Gray, author of Out in the Country: Youth, Media and Queer Visibility in Rural America, a new book on rural gay life. The author, a professor in the Gender Studies Department at Indiana University, is doing readings this fall in New York, DC, San Francisco, Philadelphia and other locations; full schedule and details are here. Although not about legal issues,the discussion opens a window onto an aspect of lgbt political and social life about which little is known.
The advice given to queer
and questioning youth by gay rights icon Harvey Milk was simple: Move
to the nearest city. Why is this statement a disservice to queer rural
youth?
This sentiment effectively tells rural
LGBTQ-identifying youth they can't be happily queer right where they
are and should expect -- perhaps deserve -- hostility if they do stay
in their communities.
Many of the youth I met struggled with
reconciling the deep connection or pride they feel for their hometowns
with the popular representation of their communities as backward,
ignorant and unlivable -- not just for queer folks, but for anyone with
taste or class. They feel they're not supposed to see their communities
as viable options, and are being told they need to choose between being
queerly out of place in the country and moving to a big city to find
legitimate visibility.
How does class affect the lives of LGBTQ folks in these areas?
Working
class and poor rural communities require citizen solidarity to weather
the neglect and marginalization from the nation-state. In this
environment, LGBTQ people must be seen primarily as "locals" and risk
too much advocating for their concerns as queer folks because
familiarity, not difference, ensures one's access to basic necessities.
Beyond
churches, there are few resources available in rural communities to
cover these basics should one's family be unable or unwilling to
provide them. The fact that rural queer youth feel they have to choose
speaks to the assumption that queerness not only resides in urban
settings, but only comes with social and economic mobility.
According to the 2000 Census, rural America is 82 percent white. How do queer people of color navigate their personal and political alliances in a space of overlapping marginalization?
Queer
youth of color are doubly estranged and, if they openly identify as
queer, have more to risk. While parallels drawn by white peers or
allies between the civil rights and LGBTQ rights movements might help
young people of color feel more connected to LGBTQ activism, this
uncritical argument also creates dissonance. As one young African
American man named Brandon noted, he could see the connections between
the two movements, but ultimately felt a greater responsibility to be a
leader among students of color because that's where his community was.
For
Brandon, the internet introduced another layer to racial divisions. He
went online to find other bi- or gay-identifying men in his region and
found almost exclusively white men, some of whom spoke about their
desire in ways that struck Brandon as incredibly racist. While Brandon
still felt the internet was an important part of allowing him to feel
his desire for other men was normal, it also demonstrated how hard it
would be for him to synthesize his racial and sexual identities.
How is the internet used by rural queer youth to shape or reinforce one's own queer identification?
The
internet's value to rural queer youth identification can't be
understated, but its impact cuts both ways. The internet offers an
opportunity to explore queer identifications and search for other youth
in the area, but it also make things more difficult by homogenizing
what LGBTQ life and people are like and erasing the rural from the
picture of queer life.
The internet also gives ideas for
organizing politically that have no viability in rural communities. A
door-to-door voter registration drive for LGBTQ issues won't work in a
place where people don't see LGBTQ issues as a local concern.
What should national organizations do to re-center rural queer youth needs in the larger gay rights movement?
We
need to re-examine our assumption that rural places are endemically
hostile to queer folks. The frequency of hate crimes in cities should
signal to us that rural and urban spaces are differently [but] not more
or less violent to queer people. Without rural communities and their
LGBTQ constituents, national and statewide advocacy groups will be
unable to advance basic civil rights issues on a national scale.
Assuming
LGBTQ life necessarily improves through securing the right to marry
without equally valuing, and in rural communities prioritizing,
accessible LGBTQ-specific healthcare and job protections will do very
little to change the lives of working class and poor rural LGBTQ youth.
Anyone who thinks rural queer kids are just a wedding ring away from
full citizenship and equality hasn't spent time looking for healthcare
or a living wage in rural Appalachia.
Your research was rooted in uncovering best practices for rural queer youth organizing. What strategies did you find?
The
importance of coalitional politics in rural communities and the need to
prioritize the "localness" of an issue is crucial. In some cases,
gay-straight alliances will work, but human dignity student clubs that
address homophobia alongside other discrimination may work better to
build community support. The argument that non-LGBTQ folks should care
about LGBTQ issues like marriage equality because it's "the right thing
to do" misses the complicated meaning of marriage and families to
people who depend on those institutions for both material and symbolic
support.
For more information, visit:
http://queercountry.fromthesquare.org/
Recent Comments