In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Where: Multiple Publics Introduction WE HAVE now had an opportunity to look at some of the when, who, what, and why of diversity-based politics’ potential contributions to new democratic theory. It is time that we address the question concerning where. Where do we see these newer, alternative, and potentially radical forms of politics taking place? What are their locations? What spaces might we need to attend to, imagine, open up, and/or create in order to facilitate a deeper engagement with democracy? How could attention to the geography, imaginative and physical, of politics enable more democratic modes of political praxis? How might an inquiry into the places of politics aid us in sorting through confusing facets of contemporary culture that appear contradictory? How might this inquiry aid us in acting more effectively in the face of these apparent confusions? One of those sets of confusing apparent contradictions may be found in media portrayals of clusters of the populace such as young people and queer-identified people. Douglas Coupland (1991) is credited with coining the term “Generation X,” used to name the generation of the U.S. populace born between 1961 and 1981.1 In using the umbrella term queer, I mean to refer to segments of the population, some even overlapping, including: homosexuals as an historical category, bisexuals, gays, lesbians , transsexuals, transgendered people, or those sexual minorities cast in culture as sexual outlaws.2 Depending on the level and scope of our analysis of these two clusters, we might emerge inclined toward cynicism and apathy, or we might develop clarity and insight and be inspired toward action. Developing robust, multifaceted, and nuanced theories of the public sphere and the potentially participatory political locations of a growing and changing civil society will be important if we 136 An earlier version of the argument in this chapter was originally prepared for delivery at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington, March 1999. are to walk the latter path to build on activism. My intention for this chapter is to offer the confusing portrait of the political standing of queers and Gen Xers today as an example, and then to present the basic contours of some of the issues and additional paradoxes in theorizing the public sphere that democratic activists and thinkers encounter as we work to clarify our analysis and act more effectively politically. Queers and young people present a significant challenge to many political analysts and theorists. Sometimes queers and young people are considered frightening, much of the time simply confusing. Both groups have been portrayed as quintessentially apolitical. Like many youth eras, Generation X is considered individualistic, apathetic, and disaffected . Gen Xers distinctly have the lowest proportion of voters of any age group. Conservatives lament their lack of values, respect, and direction . The more progressive-minded write them off as alienated slackers. Lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transsexuals, transgendered people, and other sexual outlaws are considered “queer,” generally deviant and not to be politically trusted. Queers are also a minority, the majority of whom do not identify as a group in their practice at the polls. Conservatives lambast their hedonistic lack of morals. In the old left they were seen as part of the potentially reactionary lumpen proletariat. Due to their apparent apathy, queers and Generation Xers have thus tended to share the slate of low esteem in political science analyses of various ideological slants. Are we, however, to accept at face value a media portrait of these groups as deviants and slackers? This is far from the only portrait to be painted. Are there other vantage points from which to look at the political states of these two groups? In order to nudge ourselves along to another vantage point, let us recollect one of the long-standing insights of radical democrats. Radical democratic political theorists have long criticized the limitations of Liberalism ’s relegation of politics to the specific spheres of rights discourses, legal battles, and the legislative arena. Concrete change in these spheres can be extremely important. However, radical democratic theorists have said that any attempt at radical social transformation focused only in the political realm (if understood as consisting of elections or in a fight for equal rights granted in law) will necessarily be stymied. Political movement that does not reach deeper layers—attending to the fundamental relationships between members of a polity and their prejudices, fears, hopes, and aspirations—will not become a liberation movement.3 Given Where...

Share