roderick ferguson describes how a modern 'one-dimensional' gay politics broke forth from an earlier queer politics that recognised the interlocking, multidimensional nature of counterhegemonic struggle because prominent figures in e.g. gay media were invested in figuring gay men

as actors that could both participate in and benefit from the free market. gay politics simply *couldn't* be anticapitalist if gay publications were to sell ad space, and so on. so when i read that a museum of LGBTQ+ history is apparently deeply indebted to a private bank,

that "if the country is going to get the LGBTQ+ museum it deserves, it's going to take allies and supporters in all sectors," i hear that LGBTQ+ history will be flattened, made one-dimensional. if a radical past is to be represented, it will be represented as a 'radical past'.

how else could an LGBTQ+ museum in the pockets of a bank tell the story of queer history other than as a story of the maturation of queer politics from an immature, grumbling anticapitalist past to a mature, neoliberal present?