Queer Politics vs. “Official” Gay Politics
A persistent conflict throughout The Trouble with Normal has to deal with the different goals of the queer movement and the “official” gay movement. The “official” movement, represented by such organizations as the Human Rights Campaign, is, according to Warner, primarily interested in being accepted by mainstream society. They prioritize such political goals as gay marriage, which offers gays and lesbians a form of respectability. In contrast, the queer movement does not prioritize being accepted by society through being respectable. Instead, it takes for granted that sex is always associated with shame, and its political goals have more to do with providing resources for people to live their lives how they want to live them. That includes fostering safe public spaces in which queer people can meet each other, increasing access to safe sex information and materials, and providing HIV prevention and treatment.
Shame v. Stigma
Warner makes a distinction between shame and stigma when it comes to sex in America. Shame is always present in sex, but some people deal with their shame by shaming others instead of acknowledging their own. This is why there is a sex hierarchy, in which some people claim the sex they have is good and the sex others have is bad, and that it is the bad sex that should be shamed. Warner argues that some forms of “bad” sex are shamed more severely than others, and the result is that those associated with this kind of sex are not only shamed, but stigmatized. Stigma refers to marking someone for life as a pervert or outcast. For stigmatized people, shame becomes an identity. Gays and lesbians, for instance, experience stigma in ways that Bill Clinton did not, because Clinton’s sexual indiscretions, though shamed, don’t form an identity in the way that homosexuality does.
Shame vs. Respectability
Connected to the conflict between the “official” gay rights movement and queer politics is a question of the relation between shame and respectability. Warner argues that respectability is a compensation for shame. People experience shame but feel they don’t deserve shame, and so they put on a respectable face in order to match how they feel they should be treated. The problem is that this also leads to coercing others to act according to a particular definition of respectable, too. Thus, the official gay community, in order to be respectable, expels or stigmatizes members of the community who have sex that they deem the most shameful kind of gay sex, such as sex with toys, BDSM, or commercial sex. This is a way of moving shame around. Instead, Warner advocates for acknowledging shame rather than trying to pretend it away or give it to someone else.
Moralism
A theme throughout American history, according to Warner, is moralism, which refers to how people create a hierarchy of “good” sex and “bad” sex. It’s not enough for people to have sexual preferences. Because of the shame attached to sex, people also have to view their preferences as morally superior. This is a way of justifying sex in order to compensate for the shame attached to it. In order to feel superior, however, moralism also requires that others be inferior. This is why moralism leads to an increase in shame. Its strategy for dealing with shame is to make sure that others always have more of it.
Individual vs. Social Change
Warner’s primary complaint with any form of respectability politics, including the official gay rights movement, is that it seeks to be integrated into society on society’s terms, instead of changing those terms. Its model of progress is primarily individual: it seeks for individuals to be accepted by society. Instead, Warner wants a kind of politics that is about the transformation of society. If society shames people, the answer should not be getting rid of people’s shame, but changing the society that produces it. Thus, a theme throughout The Trouble With Normal is the difference between individual and social change. This is the difference between whether individuals should change in order to be accepted by society, or whether society should change in order to benefit individuals. Warner wants the latter.
“Post-Liberation” Gay Identity
Writing in the 1990s, Warner isolates a recurring theme in contemporary discussions of gay rights. This is the idea that gays are already liberated. Many gay rights activists argue that, after AIDS in the 1980s, the gay community has grown up, and should have goals related less to sexual liberation and more to private rights like marriage. The issues that gays and lesbians faced in the past no longer apply. Warner disagrees with this, thinking there is still a lot of stigma associated with homosexuality, and that marriage won’t make it go away. Moreover, the 1990s has seen, according to Warner, a destruction of queer space, like gay bars and other gay institutions, which should signal that liberation is under threat rather than already accomplished.
Resources vs. Rights
A final theme to track in the conflict between queer politics and “official” gay politics is a difference in priority between resources and rights. Rights refer to privileges people are granted through the law and the government, such as the right to marry. With this particular right comes other benefits, some of them economic, like tax breaks. It is rights like these that the “official” movement fights for, and it means that they are looking to be accepted by the state—in this case, the United States—that supplies the rights. In contrast, queer politics advocates for resources that don’t have to be attached to a legal status like being married. When it comes to sex, these resources include space to have sex, information about safe sex, and access to HIV prevention and treatment. With these resources, people can have agency to live their lives how they want to.
