Disrupting pride: reflecting on generations of queer activism

The evening after I attended a protest for Palestine last summer, my friend told me I was on the twitter feed of Rebel News journalist Alexa Lavoie, who had taken photos of myself and my friends as we stood in a "Queers for Palestine" contingent. The post had dozens of comments along the lines of ‘send them to Gaza to see them killed’ and a few references to the 'Chickens for KFC' analogy. It was unsurprising for a far-right outlet to deride pro-Palestinian activists, and it was telling that the guise of queer tolerance lasted only so long as those queers were patriotic; once unloyal to that idea, queerness returned to a weapon. I was part of the Faction Anti Génocidaire et Solidaire’s (F.A.G.S) Montreal Fierté’s Pride Parade disruption. We were opposed to the corporatization of pride, and Fierté’s sponsors that were contributing to Israel’s war on Gaza, including RBC. With our bodies and banners, we forced Fierté’s march to a stop for an hour, standing in streets and chanting "Avec nous! dans la rue!" (With us! In the streets!) to encourage parade-watchers to abandon their perch and join. We wanted to expand the concept of queerness to be in solidarity with other marginalized causes. Dishearteningly, we were subject to verbal harassment, mostly from older gay men, a clear demonstration of some of the distance between generations of queers.  

Queer liberation has always endeavoured to pry queerness away from incorrect but commonly held perceptions. In their own times, F.A.G.S. and the Mattachine Society’s aims and challenges are alike. Both striving for queer liberation amid a political landscape of criminalization and surveillance, both practice intra-community safety and attempt mass mobilization. 

This year, I read archival documents from the Mattachine Society, a group of mostly queer men founded in 1950 (and closing in the 1960s) with purported intersectional politics.  A close reading of these archives, especially the Mattachine Society in 1953 after its non-partisan, “non-confrontational” rebranding, can be a window into understanding the tensions between grandparents and grandchildren of the queer liberation movement. To unpack the antagonism from this demographic, and to identify paths forward, we must situate both groups – Mattachine Society and F.A.G.S. - in their historical moments. Particularly, how the influence of Fordist politics precludes the Mattachine Society from true solidarity, and, in a newly neoliberal age, how contemporary queers are unable to conceive of a community-first social movement. 

Assimilationism vs Liberation

Queer liberation has always endeavoured to pry queerness away from incorrect but commonly held perceptions. In their own times, F.A.G.S. and the Mattachine Society’s aims and challenges are alike. Both striving for queer liberation amid a political landscape of criminalization and surveillance, both practice intra-community safety and attempt mass mobilization.  

Because of F.A.G.S’s participation in direct action, criminal charges are a possibility for every organizer, and in the context of the war against Gaza, organizers are vulnerable to doxxing initiatives like Canary Mission. Whereas previously the Mattachine Society membership pledge included a promise to “guard the anonymity of all members of the Mattachine Society” for life, the newer, post-1953 version participated in traditional campaigning strategies, like letter writing, publications, and discussion groups.  The target audience of the F.A.G.S. is twofold; society at large and other queers. Similarly, just as the Mattachine Society had public campaigns, there were many documents geared to potential members. But while F.A.G.S tries to broaden the category of queerness, the Mattachine Society flattens it, encouraging everyone to be model civil servants in the name of queer acceptance.

This assimilationist rhetoric from the Mattachine Society fits into the characteristics of Fordism - to be successful, a member of society finds their place as a cog in a machine. An emphasis on community can flatten a diversity of abilities and opinions (Greenwood). In the Mattachine Society’s eyes, the plight of queers are not innate, but from “community harassment and social oppression”. This begs the question; why would the Mattachine Society want to integrate into such a hostile environment?  The effects of this philosophy on the Mattachine Society is evident. Their goal is to integrate queers, with their “enormous potential of valuable civic contributiveness”, to the community. As reasoning, they argue that queers are large in numbers, and so their exclusion from society is impossible. It is not an analysis that questions the fabric of an exclusionary society or advocates for a new one altogether. Mattachine Society members are loyal and patriotic to a mainstream society even as it harms them. Rather than reject a community, the Society wants to reform it, to stretch it so that they may be admitted, but not so much as to redefine concepts such as civic contributiveness or productivity.

Neither Fordism nor neoliberalism are able to accommodate intersectional identities. The ‘cog in the machine’ mentality of Fordism requires individuals to forgo aspects of themselves that complicate assimilation. The story of individual success requires isolation from community. These political backdrops create contradictions for the goal of queer liberation. 

As the Mattachine Society normalizes this framework, they also preclude the activism of disabled, racialized, and non-capitalist queers, who must now also fight against the idea of what queerness means. With a close reading of the Mattachine Society's politics, we can predict the defensive response that the pride disruption produced.  The intersectional commitments of the Mattachine Society are to respect the rights of minorities, and to allow minorities entry to the Society, regardless of their characteristics. The idea of the society itself moving to accommodate said minorities is precluded. The Mattachine society in the later half of 1953, responding to claims of holding a secret communist agenda, situate themselves as firmly “non partisan”. It makes them less threatening to a normative society, that only needs to reconcile its discomforts with queerness rather than its discomforts with the poor, disabled, racialized, etc. With its vision as queers "accepted as useful citizens" it foreclosed disability justice; with its vision of a queer population adding to the "social consciousness of our City, our State and our Country" it denied a response of state rejection. 

Today, this is the foundation of much of the confusion behind the angry comments, online and offline, about pro-Palestinian activism as a queer person: a rejection of the Western world as an intrinsically more progressive society, that we should long for membership in. This sort of rebellion is, in the would-be eyes of the Mattachine society, against communal values. However, F.A.G.S. has a different outlook on community. For us, it must include minorities currently not welcome in our community – migrants, Arabs, racialized people, etc.

Contemporary confrontation and individualism

F.A.G.S. is organizing in a post-Fordist world. Neoliberalism, its successor, valorizes individual achievements – it tells everyone to escape from ‘the system’ and create success for yourself (Greenwood). Of course, this is a false liberty, since the creation of success makes you a slave to capitalism. For young queers, the way to brand yourself as different is through consumption. 21st century queerness is centered around the individual – with our own unique coming out story, ‘moment of awareness’, etc.  Likewise, while the 2024 Pride Parade didn’t focus on national identity, pride was filtered through corporations. The normalization of breaking from established customs allows us to think creatively about challenging the rituals of an exclusive pride parade. Our idea of community - that queer liberation means liberation for all – is a redefinition that does not fit into the Fordist framework. However, our tactic of disruption, while more intersectional, and in my eyes at least, liberatory, is born of an individualist mentality. A few, dashing queers disrupt the parade. Much of contemporary queer activism is filtered through the efforts of a single spokesperson or activist. Where we falter is fostering safe spaces, practicing responsible onboarding of members, and envisioning a new world from the ashes.

Neither Fordism nor neoliberalism are able to accommodate intersectional identities. The ‘cog in the machine’ mentality of Fordism requires individuals to forgo aspects of themselves that complicate assimilation. The story of individual success requires isolation from community. These political backdrops create contradictions for the goal of queer liberation. As a caveat, I don’t believe the influences of Fordism and neoliberalism, and their compromise on inclusive advocacy, is symmetrical for the Mattachine Society and F.A.G.S.. Members of F.A.G.S. put considerable effort into dismantling normative societal constructs that might impede our politics. However, the reappropriation of some Mattachine Society philosophies, as a counter to our shared upbringing within neoliberalism, may help us bridge the intergenerational gap and embrace community over individuality. When the Mattachine Society wrote down its mission, its first goal was unity. A  reinterpretation of this value, configured to account for the Palestinian struggle for freedom, can act as a bridge between old and new.

Bibliography

1. Greenwood, Steven. “Audre Lorde”. McGill University, Feb 11. Lecture.

2. Interest Questionnaire”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Internal Documents, pg.4.

3. Lavoie, Alexa [@ThevoiceAlexa]. “ "QUEERS FOR PALESTINE". Along with the Trans and Pansexual flag. What are your thoughts? DeportHamas.com", 21 Apr. 2024.

4. “Membership Pledge”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Orientation Materials., pg.11. MS The Homophile Movement 1/4. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender

Historical Society. Archives of Sexuality and Gender.

45 “Missions and Purposes”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Internal Documents, pg.17. The Homophile Movement 1/1. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical

Society. Archives of Sexuality and Gender.

6. “Subject: Request for Information”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Internal Documents, pg.8. The Homophile Movement 1/1. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical

Society. Archives of Sexuality and Gender.

7. “The Story of the Mattachine Society”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Internal Documents, pg.16-21. The Homophile Movement 1/1. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical Society. Archives of Sexuality and Gender.

8. Walker, Jackson. "Netanyahu likens 'Gays for Gaza' to 'Chickens for KFC' in speech to Congress". WPMI, 24 Jul. 2024,

9. “Whether You Like It or Not”, Homophile Organizations Mattachine Foundation Internal Documents, pg.6-9. The Homophile Movement 1/1. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical Society. Archives of Sexuality and Gender.