Normativity—in all its forms—is a restrictive and oppressive force.
It sets the standard of what is considered “normal” and “natural” in our society, privileging those who fit within this rigid construction while dismissing all those who fall outside of it.
Heteronormativity is likely one of the most well-known of the “normativities.” It describes the assumption that at all levels—from the institutional to the interpersonal—heterosexuality is society’s “normal” and “natural” sexuality.
But if we’re to recognize that the issues facing LGBT individuals today are defined by their intersectionality then we must also confront the restrictive and oppressive nature of homonormativity.
As Laura Cacere explains, “Homonormativity explains how certain aspects of the queer community can perpetuate assumptions, values, and behaviors that hurt and marginalize many folks within this community, as well as those with whom the community should be working in solidarity.”
Homonormativity also describes the assumption that all LGBT individuals want to be included and assimilated into the dominant heteronormative culture.
It is this normativity that blankets the queer community, branding it as a group of homogeneous individuals that hold the same values and face the same struggles.
Importantly, homonormativity is to blame for the fact that the representative faces of the LGBT community are so often of white, gender-normative, middle class, gay-identifying people.
As gay acceptance has risen over the years, it has been the Ellen Degeneres’ and the Anderson Coopers’ of the world that have been placed at the forefront of the Gay Rights movement. This has erased the diversity that exists within the LGBT community, and has hidden the struggles that so many still face today on account of their intersectional identities.
This construction of a “normal” (aka. white, cis-gender) LGBT person has also shaped the representation and demands of the queer “community”.
The fight for marriage equality, for instance, has become the leading issue of the Gay Rights movement in the United States and elsewhere around the world. However, in positioning gay marriage as the issue of the LGBT community, this movement has reinforced a heteronormative standard of sexuality and family structure that not everyone conforms to.
As Cacere puts it, “By showing that people outside of the heterosexual norm want the same things that “traditional, straight America” wants, the marriage equality movement fights to gain access to this social institution by reproducing, rather than challenging, heterosexual dominance and normativity and using this as a basis for who deserves rights.”
Homonormativity has also aligned itself with capitalism, extending and deepening existing socio-economic divisions within the LGBT community.
Today, of the 500 Fortune companies, 216 provide domestic partner benefits to gay spouses. Many of these same multi-national corporations, including energy superpower Chevron and security giant Raytheon, have been praised by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for providing full protections for openly gay employees.
And while such policies are ever-so-slightly commendable, they do not erase the millions of dollars these corporations spend on supporting and lobbying anti-LGBT governments. Nor do they make up for the fact that people of colour (POC) are severely under-represented among their high-earning, executive employees.
Homonormativity’s alignment with capitalism has also manifested itself in the built environment.
Today, “gayborhoods” throughout North America—from Chicago’s Boystown to San Francisco’s Castro—are increasingly recognized for their swanky restaurants and sky-rocketing rents.
In NYC’s Greenwich Village—at the intersection of Christopher Street and Seventh Avenue South—a Starbucks and a handful of international banks now surround the Stonewall Inn: the birthplace of the modern Gay Rights movement.
In many cities, homonormativity has been a catalyst for gentrification.
Amin Ghaziani, an associate professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia, notes that today historically gay neighbourhoods are “straightening” as households are seeking out “inclusive” and “diverse” communities.
His findings are echoed by Richard Florida—the urban theorist popularized by his claim that tolerance spurs “urban revitalization.”
What these two, however, fail to recognize is that homonormativity’s gentrification of urban space is displacing marginalized households, including families of colour and other LGBT individuals.
With this, there comes a need to recognize that homonormativity is a restrictive force that exacerbates pre-existing inequalities in the built environment.
The question then is:
How can we challenge restrictive normativities that manifest in the built environment?
In many ways, the answer to this question lies in “queering” space.
As Doderer puts it, “queering urban space means building an emancipatory public and emerging from the shadows of a mainstream society which hitherto denied and negated urban-societal reality.”
It is about building resistance against the normativity of sex, gender, and heterosexuality, understanding that upholding such rigid constructions only serves to “other” people and exacerbate inequalities.
It is time then, for individuals within the LGBT “community” to truly “queer” their cities.
QUEERCITY 