Edited by Moe Meyer - Get a Free Blog

THE PROBLEM WITH JOAN
INTRODUCTION 5
There was a new presence in Chicago’s last mayoral election. In April 1991, the
race for city hall hosted an unexpected surprise in the figure of Joan Jett Blakk,
the first official Queer Nation candidate for municipal office in the windy city
(Plate 1). 3 Running a drag queen for the office of mayor did not set well with the
powers that be. Despite the flurry of activity and grass-roots support, Ms.
Blakk’s campaign (her slogan was, among others, “putting the Camp into
campaign”) was ignored by the gay press even though she attracted enough
attention to elevate her to international Superqueer status. Assimilationist gays—
many in editorial positions—were especially dismayed by Blakk’s campaign
strategy, one based on the practice of Camp. Taken for granted to be apolitical,
Camp was deemed flippant and demeaning as the foundation for a campaign.
Many thought that Blakk needed to be silenced, that her Camp strategy was not
serious work, and that the Queer Nation candidate would do damage to the gains
made by so-called legitimate caucuses. To delineate a basic division in gay
politics along the predictable lines of essentialist and constructionist philosophies
does not explain the reactions, because the way that Blakk’s campaign was
evaluated by both of the opposing positions was through an interpretation of
Camp. The role of Camp in the formation of these political factions superseded
any allegiance to philosophical theories of identity in favor of more immediate
issues of praxis, thus identifying this form of parody as a particularly cogent site
for an emerging queer critical theory.
The Queer Nation campaign raised some interesting questions. First, if Camp
is apolitical why was it appearing in an overtly political and activist situation?
Second, if Camp, as generally defined, is merely an aestheticized sensibility
characterized by triviality and lack of content, or simply an operation of taste,
then why did it so clearly divide gay political opinion, and in such a strongly
articulated way? Clearly there was a conflict. And this conflict was between two
constructions of Camp. Joan’s actions, identified as Camp by all parties, were
being interpreted quite differently depending on whether one believed that Camp
is political or apolitical.
Are we talking then about the possibility of multiple forms of Camp? The
answer is no. In the case of Joan Jett Blakk, each party to the debate identified
precisely the same actions as Camp. There was no deviation in formal
recognition. Thus the differences of interpretation could be attributed only to
variable analyses of content. But this leads to an even more provocative situation.
That is, Camp has often been defined as a sensibility devoid of content. The
mainstream gay politicos used that definition as the justification for silencing
Blakk. In other words, what we heard was the familiar discreditation of Camp
using the claim that it has no content. But this was a claim advanced through an
analysis of the content that isn’t supposed to exist.
When Joan decided her primary campaign strategy would be publicized and
highly theatrical shopping sprees in the glamor fashion stores of Chicago’s