I want to start with a rad­ical depar­ture. I want to say that iden­tity itself is dan­ger­ous, that there is a pat­tern of iden­tity form­a­tion that relates to minor­ity com­munity form­a­tions and that this pat­tern is prob­lem­atic. I posit that there are vis­ible and invis­ible iden­ti­fi­ers of mar­gin­al­ity, that there is a common exper­i­ence of coming out, con­ver­sion, iden­ti­fic­a­tion with a mar­ginal com­munity whether itࢀ™s identi­fy­ing with your sexu­al­ity or your eth­ni­city or your reli­gion, that thereࢀ™s a crisis or split­ting of mar­ginal com­munit­ies when it becomes appar­ent that the pro­cess of iden­ti­fic­a­tion is imper­fect; that is, that no group is ever homo­gen­ous enough or per­fectly identical and that indi­vidu­als cannot per­form per­fect iden­tity. at which point the pro­cess com­mences anew at a more frag­men­ted level. But there is an under­ly­ing theme of purity, con­tam­in­a­tion, and the need for border poli­cing, and that the prob­lem of com­munity con­tinu­ity now being urgently nego­ti­ated in a number of spaces ࢀ” for example the Jewish com­munity, the Gay com­munity, indi­gen­ous com­munit­ies and in ethnic skir­mishes world­wide ࢀ” is inher­ently flawed. I argue that these ongo­ing debates stem from a fear of integ­ra­tion and the loss of dif­fer­ence and that there are com­plex con­nec­tions around ghet­tos, iden­tity main­ten­ance and oppres­sion. Unfor­tu­nately thereࢀ™s also ques­tions of how to address real dis­ad­vant­age without employ­ing these categories.

One of the issues I want to take up here is the pop­u­lar pro­pos­i­tion that hybrid iden­tit­ies are a poten­tial solu­tion. We are at birth marked with a number of dif­fer­ent signs, attrib­utes which are mul­tiple and inter­woven and whose dis­curs­ive power moulds, at least in part, who we will come to see ourselves to be. How­ever soci­ety assigns binary oppos­i­tions ࢀ” male/female, Chris­ti­an/not-Chris­tian, white/not-white, rich/poor, able/disabled and I wonࢀ™t quote you the lovely bits of Mas­sumi and other people who talk about aca­demic hybridity.

The rad­ical res­ist­ive pos­sib­il­it­ies of hybrid iden­tit­ies are also chal­lenged within cul­tural stud­ies. For examples in hybrid­ity and double-con­scious­ness Alberto Mor­eiras, while still address­ing only hybrid­ised eth­ni­city, begins to expli­citly cri­tique post-colo­nial the­or­ies of hybrid sub­jectiv­ity within a con­text of global cap­it­al­ism. Sub­al­tern­ity he says, is the site not just of neg­ated iden­tity, but also for a con­stant nego­ti­ation of iden­tity pos­i­tions. Iden­tit­ies are always the product of the hege­monic rela­tion, that is always the result of an inter­pol­a­tion and there­fore not an autonom­ous site for polit­ics. As with iden­tity, so with dif­fer­ence or hybrid­ity. His con­ten­tion is that the rad­ical pos­sib­il­it­ies of sub­al­tern­ity are domest­ic­ated as hybrid­ity or to use Deleuze and Guattariࢀ™s term, reter­rit­ori­al­ised. He spe­cific­ally cri­tiques Stuart Hallࢀ™s notions of ethnic hybrid­ity saying that the polit­ics of ethnic hybrid­ity seem to reach exhaus­tion in the poten­tial uni­ver­sal­ising of a res­ist­ance which the system itself pro­duces and can there­fore always poten­tially rein­stru­ment­al­ise. Dis­cus­sions of hybrid­ity are com­plic­ated by the mobil­isa­tion of hybrid iden­tit­ies in a vari­ety of con­texts. On the whole the terms African Amer­ican or Chinese Aus­tralian refer to hybrid cul­tures where there is not a hybrid eth­ni­city, so someone who has both par­ents being Chinese can still be Chinese Aus­tralian because their eth­ni­city is Chinese but their cul­ture is Australian.

With all the attend­ant inter­pol­a­tions of post-colo­ni­al­ity and migra­tion dis­course in that labelling, and then rais­ing issues around whatࢀ™s an authen­tic Chinese person, whoࢀ™s authen­tic in these con­texts and also of inter­cul­tural inter­ra­cial rela­tion­ships so then that the 2nd and 3rd gen­er­a­tion chil­dren fre­quently deal with both hybrid cul­tural iden­tit­ies and hybrid eth­ni­cit­ies and then end up in rela­tion­ships with white Anglo part­ners where this hybrid­ity then gets erased in some way through dis­cus­sion although more and more now we are start­ing to talk about eth­ni­cit­ies such as Aboriginal/Irish rather than just assum­ing that all of the Anglo halves or Anglo parts of those cul­tures are sub­sumed into the non-White marker. For example reports around Dawn Casey when she resigned from the National Museum. Thatࢀ™s talk­ing about eth­ni­cit­ies there. I just want to say that now in a sim­ilar way bisexu­al­ity and trans­gendered iden­tit­ies are hybrid iden­tit­ies in the sense that they are seen as being between straight and gay or they are seen as being between male and female so also there are notions of hybrid iden­tit­ies that are just as prob­lem­atic for me.

So too often reports about edge iden­tit­ies or hybrid iden­tit­ies rely on the idea of choos­ing one iden­tity over another with the unsur­pris­ing result that we exper­i­ence psy­cho­lo­gical isol­a­tion if we reject our ethnic iden­tity in order to move into some form of reli­gious or sexual iden­tity to help find ourselves within the Gay com­munity but weࢀ™ve rejec­ted our ethnic com­munit­ies. Lawrence Schimel described his dilemma that what would make him sexy to the queer com­munity is exactly what would make him an out­cast in the Jewish com­munity ࢀoeI have in fact never looked more Gay. The only thing I am miss­ing to be a per­fect 90s clone is a tattoo, some­thing tribal per­haps, on my left or right arm, but Iࢀ™m a Jew and Jews donࢀ™t do tattoos.ࢀ These demands to pri­or­it­ise should not be mis­taken as the sole domain of the dom­in­ant med­ical or soci­olo­gical discourses.

This hybrid-edge iden­tity Iࢀ™m talk­ing about seems to have three options. We can either aban­don some part of our his­tor­ical prac­tice in favour of a con­struc­ted self that is more accept­able to a chosen inter­pret­ive com­munity, we can learn to become a chameleon shift­ing who we are depend­ing on which group of people we are hanging around with, or we can attempt to reter­rit­ori­al­ise a com­munity based on an ever-smal­ler iden­tity base, the Black Gay Deaf Muslim club. Many of the approaches to examin­ing dia­sporic, exilic or global nomad iden­tit­ies are atav­istic appeals to a pre­vi­ously ima­gined idea of home, an attempt to create a new micro­com­munity of the dis­pos­sessed. This ques­tion of com­munity is key in the frag­men­ted uncer­tain world of cap­it­al­ist post-mod­ern­ity. The search for sta­bil­ity for com­munity, for the feel­ing of belong­ing, leads to reified national ima­gin­ings à la Ander­son. The desire for com­munity is sim­ilar to the desire for love, the extasis of dis­sol­u­tion, relief from the eternal solitude of indi­vidu­al­ity. The con­stant appeal for frac­tured nego­ti­ated sub­jectiv­ity is what makes the reter­rit­ori­al­ised micro­com­munity appeal­ing. Surely the young Gay Asian Menࢀ™s Group will let me be myself?

For example Kashala Bonagy writes, ࢀoeI find a need to create social spaces in which my aspects of my per­son­al­ity are not cen­sored and silenced. The sense of not belong­ing in either cul­ture seems to be a form of exile. Per­haps it is not the exile our parentsࢀ™ exper­i­enced, but is non­ethe­less a fun­da­mental fear of not having a real sense of com­munity or coun­tryࢀ. She goes on to talk about ways in which hold­ing on to her Indian les­bi­an­ism through a vari­ety of meth­ods is a way of deal­ing with feel­ings of exile. The only prob­lem is that ࢀ˜Asianࢀ™, ࢀ˜Gayࢀ™ and even ࢀ˜menࢀ™ are arti­fi­cial con­straints in them­selves, mask­ing numer­ous national ori­gins and eth­ni­cit­ies and a vari­ety of sexual exper­i­ences and prac­tices and gender iden­tit­ies. Nor does the exist­ence of the micro­com­munity pre­clude inter­ac­tions with the rest of the world: nego­ti­ated encoun­ters with exter­i­or­ity are still likely and des­pite sep­ar­at­ist rhet­oric, desirable.

The emer­gence of a micro­com­munity sim­ul­tan­eously threatens and delim­its the ethnic and sexual com­munit­ies in ques­tion. Michael Schem­bri in 2000 invited a detailed his­tory of micro­com­munity form­a­tions in Sydney and to a lesser extent in Mel­bourne and Iࢀ™ve got a huge list of them ࢀ” Jewish groups such a Chutzpah, Jews and Gen­tiles Together, Jews and Friends, Sydney Aleph, Aleph Mel­bourne, The Jewish Les­bian Group of Vic­toria, Dayenu, indi­gen­ous Queer groups such as Out Black and Gar­b­angi Lum, Asian and South Asian groups such as Silk Road, Asians and Friends, Galaba Mars­ala, Sydney Asian Les­bi­ans, European groups such as Greek and Gay and weࢀ™ve got the Italian Gay group out here as well and thereࢀ™s an Italian Les­bian Group that I donࢀ™t have in my list because I didnࢀ™t know you guys exis­ted, sorry.

I donࢀ™t know if Iࢀ™ve got time to both of these. I wanted to talk about the inter­net as an example of a space in which you can have these kinds of inter­ac­tions and move to some extent beyond the restric­tions of the micro­com­munity and my exper­i­ence of stand­ing in front of the first, Year 2000 Stars of David come out Mardi Gras float.

So Iࢀ™ll talk a little bit about the Mardi Gras float first. The march­ers were declar­ing their pres­ence in a vari­ety of com­munit­ies, the Queer and the Jewish com­munity. Dawn Cohen, one of the floatࢀ™s co-ordin­at­ors, told ABC radio in 2000, ࢀoeweࢀ™ve been involved in the Jewish Com­munity, weࢀ™ve been involved in the Gay & Les­bian com­munity, but weࢀ™ve always received the mes­sage that we should keep our other half hidden and now weࢀ™re saying No. Weࢀ™re saying weࢀ™re going to cel­eb­rate our whole identity.ࢀ This idea of a whole iden­tity, some­times referred to in aca­demic texts as an integ­rated iden­tity, is fre­quently invoked with regards to micro­com­munit­ies. Gelman says ࢀ” this is an Amer­ican person writ­ing about the float ࢀ” ࢀoethe memory that will stay with me the longest was of a man in his late 60s, stand­ing alone, cheer­ing us on and point­ing to his chest, to tell us that he too was a Jew and most likely one of usࢀ. It is this phrase ࢀoeone of usࢀ that scares me. One of us, not one of them. Even while claim­ing a space pre­vi­ously unavail­able due to pre­ju­dice, this new com­munity cre­ates bor­ders, iden­tit­ies, guards. Who is one of us? In what way?

At the time I wrote ࢀoeItࢀ™s hard to describe my own con­flict­ing emo­tions stand­ing in front of the Stars of David float. I have no interest in being in this float, identi­fy­ing myself with these people, even though I would fit their cri­teria. My sister is part of this float. The disco ver­sion of Shalom Alei­chem blares out from their truck. It stirs memor­ies from child­hood, memor­ies only there because of com­munity, common exper­i­ences I share with these people and not with the non-Jewish people I am stand­ing with watch­ing. The appro­pri­ation of the Star of David in pink, a merger of signs. The star, usu­ally blue, indic­at­ing Juda­ism. The pink from the pink tri­angle appro­pri­ated by Gay men, a sign taken from con­cen­tra­tion camps. This star once yellow used by the same guards in the same con­cen­tra­tion camps to mark these people as Jews. What about Gay Jews? Would it be exactly this symbol that now per­forms some strange tri­umphant self-labelling? Appar­ently Gay Jews wore a yellow star with a super­im­posed pink tri­angle, but it could easily have been a symbol such as this. I fear their labels.ࢀ

Iࢀ™m going to skip this bit but Annie Gold­flam star­ted a group in Perth of Jewish Les­bi­ans and she was sort of saying, well you know whoࢀ™s in, are bisexu­als OK, are they Les­bian enough, is a trans­gendered person a woman? What you are seeing on screen now by the way are some examples of the inter­net space Live­Journal that I think is one of the starts of the ways through this. This is a group called the Queer Hapo Mafia and there are some examples in here of just ways in which people can talk about iden­tity without neces­sar­ily cir­cum­scrib­ing it and because those spaces are much more open and fluid. By the way I just want to say I think weࢀ™re start­ing to move through this, weࢀ™re no longer having this thing as much where youࢀ™ve got to be part of the group or you canࢀ™t come, I mean I think we now know that pre­sum­ably in the Jewish Les­bian group in Vic­toria, I mean I donࢀ™t know but Iࢀ™m pre­sum­ing that people donࢀ™t always have Jewish Les­bian girl­friends, that some­times a Jewish Les­bian can sleep with a bisexual and some­times a Jewish Les­bian could sleep with a tranny, and some­times a Jewish Les­bian could sleep with a Chris­tian or a Muslim, so Iࢀ™m pre­sum­ing that these spaces are now much more open and that weࢀ™re start­ing to talk about allies and I think thatࢀ™s a really import­ant thing.

I will say that I think that one of the ways we can get around this is by talk­ing about prac­tice instead of about iden­tity, that we can talk about what we do rather than what we are, that we can instead talk about that instead of saying Jewish and Gay we can talk about sleep­ing with men and keep­ing kosher, talk about our prac­tices and shared prac­tices are much easier to talk with someone about than some­how an iden­tity which says youࢀ™re dif­fer­ent from me, weࢀ™re us and youࢀ™re them. If we talk about shared prac­tices ࢀ” how do we cel­eb­rate rituals, how do we cel­eb­rate holy days ࢀ” then thatࢀ™s a thing we can do.

So what is sig­ni­fic­ant here is the res­on­ance between the lived exper­i­ence of the inter­sec­tion of mul­tiple mar­gin­al­ity, the inter­sec­tion of the black and gay exper­i­ence, of Jewish and les­bian exper­i­ence, the exper­i­ence of deaf­ness and trans­gender in the same body or living in a blind Asian Abori­ginal body. These inter­sec­tions, this doub­ling and in some cases trip­ling or quad­rupling of con­scious­ness are artic­u­lated through sim­ilar aspects and cul­tural forms. The threads of the­or­ies sur­round­ing lim­inal sub­jectiv­ity woven together reveal common pat­terns that may lead to prac­tical sug­ges­tions for altern­at­ives for iden­tity wars. In effect since lim­inal sub­jects employ sim­ilar strategies to nego­ti­ate within and between cul­tural inter­pret­ive com­munit­ies and since these strategies fail in the same way and for the same reas­ons, it is prefer­able to develop a work­ing theory of sub­jectiv­ity where the cat­egor­ies can be exceeded without reprisal while still address­ing dis­ad­vant­age and oppres­sion and I want to very quickly end on a non-aca­demic note and read­dress a per­sonal rev­el­a­tion I had while writ­ing my thesis that a rewrit­ten Jewish prac­tice is only pos­sible iron­ic­ally with an immer­sion and under­stand­ing of tra­di­tional Jewish prac­tice which excludes so many of us who feel unwanted or unne­ces­sary as women and queers. Those of us who rejec­ted the reli­gion early now find ourselves tra­cing a cul­ture, want­ing to relearn Hebrew and other litur­gies in an effort to sub­vert what we learn. I am jeal­ous now of those who speak the lan­guages well enough to enact inter­ven­tion in its spaces while I remain excluded and speech­less. By leav­ing the Jewish com­munity we failed to trans­form it. By leav­ing the Gay & Les­bian com­munity we failed to trans­form it. These res­on­ances I now find moving between and within altern­at­ive Queer altern­at­ive Jewish and the vari­ous inter­sec­tions of these, allow for liens between these spaces, allow for these spaces to expand, to trans­form until they are seam­less. Not merged seam­lessly, not to say at all that they are now some­how identical but rather that it should be impossible to determ­ine at which point one has ended and another begins. Thank you.