Conclusions

Around 1990, in ACT UP and Queer Nation “queer” began to be regarded politically as a sign of a coalition. It was the coalition of various agents united by their disapprobation of the U.S.

health politics and growing conservatism. “Queer” was used to unite various marginalized groups in common political goals. “Queer” was not a basis for identity, but it was a ground for a specific political agency. This agency was formed not so much by common interest but rather by protest and contestation of the current politics and its language.

“Queer” began to be used as a political concept by activists at the end of the 1980s and particularly between 1990 and 1993. For activists “queer” never had a single connotation and

the term was used in various ways. However, it would be an exaggeration to claim that “queer”

was an empty signifier that could mean anything. On the contrary, although its meaning was limited, it was nonetheless a flexible and inclusive term, so that, for example, it could also used by heterosexuals who were campaigning against U.S. AIDS politics. I would suggest that in the political context, the most important function of the concept of “queer” was to oppose social, cultural and political norms, particularly those related to sexuality. The meaning of “queer” was positional in relation to the norms defining human sexual behaviour. We can therefore think of

“queer” not as a fixed concept, but as an emotional attitude or a political strategy that can serve as a tool for social criticism and as a call for political transformation.

Beginning in the 1990s, “queer” was used by many simply as a synonym for “gay” and

“lesbian”, but for most activists, “queer” was not an identity concept comparable to the term

“gay”. Furthermore, “queer” was not a mark of a particular social position. On the contrary, we can see that in activists’ use of the term “queer”, it functions as an identification based on a contestation of social and political regimes that set up norms of agency and cultural citizenship.

Therefore “queer” does not fit into established oppositions between different identity concepts such as heterosexual versus homosexual, or White US citizen versus Latino immigrant. I would argue that if used like this, in certain contexts “queer” runs the risk of idealizing contestation as a position that might transcend power relations. Nevertheless, looking at the history of “queer”

as a political concept during the period 1990 – 1993, we can clearly notice that “queer” was politically effective. It strongly transformed the attitude of American society towards the HIV/AIDS crisis. Moreover, ACT UP and Queer Nation reshaped the whole scene of gay and lesbian activism. Internal criticism, particularly concerning race and gender conscious, became key elements of LGBT activism from the 1990s to the present.

The aggressively oppositional political attitude of people using the term “queer”

brought heightened visibility to LGBT communities. “Queer” was used by activists of the time to criticize the language and discourse of politics. These activists called into question the basic terms that were uncritically used in politics, such as public space, nation, community, rights and citizenship.

“Queer” as a political term was contingent upon the people who used it. “Queer” was a label that marked a specific oppositional stance towards U.S. politics, particularly targeting sex and the health care system. Moreover, “queer” was a label used to describe activists who protested against homophobia and the stigmatization of people with HIV at the beginning of the 1990s. Also, “queer” was often used as an umbrella term for various socially marginalized positions. It was likewise used as an internal critique of gay and lesbian communities, and it

was formative for new communities. And finally, from the 1990s onwards, many gay and lesbian people often referred to themselves as “queer”. The flexibility of this word was its main asset in its development as a political concept in the 1990s. But its flexibility was also the cause of the decline of the radicalism of “queer” from 1993 onwards. If I have to single out one feature of “queer” as a political concept, it would be an ability to function as a sharp critical tool in discussions, not only on non-normative sexuality, but also on race, class, gender and ethnicity.

I argue that from the early uses of “queer” as a political term there was a tension between on the one hand uses that emphasized community building, joint political action and on the other hand uses that connect this term to individual contestation of norms and a form of self-understanding as an alternative person. As I have shown in my analyses, for most activists

“queer” has been a sign of political engagement and the tension within the concept has been productive in opening up new ways of using this concept and further proliferating it.

When it was used as an oppositional and critical term, “queer” was occasionally even anti-utopian, and there are good examples of such uses of “queer” provided by ACT UP and Queer Nation. But it had its utopian dimension particularly when it referred to gay and lesbian communities, in a sense that it was a call to re-imagine and transform these communities, and it was also a call to search for a more inclusive and diverse community.

The AIDS crisis brought to the fore questions of representation of sexual minorities, of identity and of their place in U.S. society. “Queer” appears in this political context. My finding is that “queer” was used on three different levels. Activists engaged with extensive political debates, such as that concerning the shape of public space and access to it. Secondly, “queer”

was used in internal debates among sexual minorities that focused on problems of internal exclusion of some agents but also on profiles of LGBT organizations and their politics. Finally, some used “queer” to express their personal desire to live differently and to contest norms exercized by the mainstream.