The task of formulating visions of prolesbian society and of its means of achievement has been blocked by the seemingly incompatible aims and perspectives of the two major discourses on lesbianism – lesbianfeminism in its 1970s version and poststructuralist challenges to lesbian identity – that currently vie for the allegiance of white lesbians. While lesbian-feminism provided a powerful analysis and vision of the future, it was too often perceived and used as a “party line” from which individuals strayed only at the cost of a loss of membership in lesbian community. Deconstructive treatments of lesbian identity, on the other hand, have been leery of positive formulations. Thinkers such as Judith Butler and Diana Fuss have called for coalition politics, but even the most subtle and original thinkers have failed to flesh out what this coalition politics would mean.

Fuss has noted that politics is the “aporia in much of our current political theorizing,” and she has linked the popularity of the “politics of x” formula, such as “the politics of theory” or “textual politics” to this ambiguity; “politics” denotes struggle and activism, but so vaguely that it can satisfy a myriad of needs by its invocation (Fuss 1989, 105). As someone whose training is in political theory, I would go even further. The term “politics of x” has thrown political theory into a crisis, as we try to untangle the implications of new social movements that do not operate simply on a logic of self-interest or a fight for material goods. Nevertheless, the idea of a wider “politics” has also served those who resist large-scale institutional politics but who want to discuss power.