“We still have a long way to go”: Exploring Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law
and Equality through Mixed Qualitative Methods
Annabel D. Roberts Keele University
Katie Wright-Bevans Keele University
Abstract
In the wake of a changing global context for the LGBTQ+ community and equality, it has become increasingly important to bridge the gap between psychology and politics. The present study achieved this by exploring understandings of the current and future state of legal equality for the LGBTQ+ community, using social representations theory and a politically-charged thematic analysis. Talk from three different groups were analysed: (1) government actors, (2) hetero-cisgender people and (3) LGBTQ+ identifying individuals. Analysis of data from these three samples allowed for an exploration into differences in power in society may impact the representational field. Overall, three themes were identified, with their respective social representations; (1) progress vs “a long way to go”, with an emphasis on (2) responsibility and (3) LGB triumphalism vs T. All of which are underpinned by the thema of us vs them. Overall, the present study aimed to counteract individualistic conceptualisations of LGBTQ+ oppression by exploring how social representations of law, at a meso-level, can be used to understand the issue in context while recommending possible avenues for social change, to ultimately bridge the gap between psychology and politics.
Keywords: social representations, social change, power, sexuality, equality.
i Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Currently, in the UK, despite the growing rhetoric that LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and others) individuals are equal to those of heterosexual, cisgender people (Ibhawoh, 2014) and positive law reforms such as the same-sex couples act
(GOV.UK, 2013), LGBTQ+ inequality is rampant. Government statistics, from a recent
(2018) nationwide survey of over 108,000 LGBTQ+ participants found that LGBTQ+ respondents were, overall, less satisfied with their life in comparison to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Life satisfaction was even lower for those who are transgender.
Furthermore, (Stonewall, 2017) found that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) hate crimes surged by 78% from 2013 to 2016. Therefore, unsurprisingly perhaps, half of LGBTQ+ people experience depression and feel that they cannot be open about their sexual or gender identity (Stonewall, 2018). These statistics illustrate the day-to-day oppressive reality for
LGBTQ+ people and demonstrates that despite the idea of LGBTQ+ triumphalism in the UK
(Adler, 2018), i.e. the reproduced rhetoric that the quest for LGBTQ+ equality is complete, that the current state for LGBTQ+ people remains negative and dangerous for those who identify as such.
Transgender people arguably face more challenges than LGB people. For example, a third of transgender people have been discriminated against because of their gender identity in the past year and 42% of transgender people who want to transition medically, have not done so as they fear the consequences it may have on their personal life (Stonewall, 2018).
These statistics show that when identities intersect, it can magnify oppression, and demonstrates the importance of recognising how sexuality and gender identity can intersect with other aspects of identity.
Although the UK is reasonably progressive in comparison to 70 other UN member states which criminalise “same-sex sexual acts” (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, 2019, p. 15), that is not to say that advancements do not need to be
2 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality made in those countries. However, pathways for social change can be recommended for UK policy as continual progression is needed in an ever-changing society.
Socio-Political Context in the UK In 2013, an international survey found that acceptance of homosexuality is primarily linked to countries within the European Union; in Britain, 76% agreed that homosexuality should be accepted within society, with an increase of 5% from
2007. However, gender, age and other individual differences affect the degree to which someone is accepting of LGBTQ+ people (Pew Research Centre, 2013). Research also found that LGBTQ+ acceptance is more polarised than ever, with only 57% of countries experiencing an increase in LGBTQ+ acceptance (Flores & Park, 2018).
In the UK, the Conservatives have been in power for around ten years (GOV.UK,
2019), Not only is conservatism seen as a dangerous barrier for LGBTQ+ rights
(International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, 2019), but current
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been suggested to hold the “most anti-human rights” cabinet in decades (Maurice, 2019). Whereby they have consistently voted against LGBTQ+ rights and human rights.
A backlash is evident, whereby, recently, protests by religious groups halted
LGBTQ+ inclusive education in schools (Duffy, 2019; Parveen, 2019; Hockaday, 2019), despite legislation making LGBTQ+ education mandatory in 2017 (Stonewall, 2017). This mirrors the broader global political backlash against the political left, liberalism and feminism, evident in universities whereby the number of conservative, right and alt-right societies are rising (Yorke, Mintz & Peters, 2019).
Previous Research of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality Previous research around the LGBTQ+ community has largely focused on identity, using social identity theory and has
3 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality consequentially taken an individualistic view of LGBTQ+ issues. This paper aims to present an alternative view of LGBTQ+ identities and current issues in the UK, by exploring the social representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality to ultimately to suggest pathways for social change. This approach allowed for a critical understanding of the topic while addressing power dynamics and using a theory which relates directly to social change
(Howarth, 2006).
Ibhawoh (2014) found that present-day exclusions to human rights are consistently overpowered by a triumphalist and universalist rhetoric, where the dominant idea is that equality has been achieved. Therefore, certain identities become invisible and fundamental human rights are then still denied, i.e. those who identify as bisexual are often entirely left out of LGBTQ+ equal rights discourse (Marcus, 2015). However, LGBTQ+ policy research found that LGBTQ+ rights and equality have progressed, and people are, overall, more accepting of the community; pro-equality policies and legislation reduce reported hate crimes
(Levy & Levy, 2017). The latter authors also found that equal rights within one country or area can ‘spill over’ and affect change in other areas; meaning that even local/small scale change can trigger larger-scale changes. Therefore, the progression of LGBTQ+ laws, their global reach and the overall achievements made in terms of equality have to be acknowledged and celebrated.
In contrast, others have argued that there are many contradictions in human rights, and we must focus our attention on the exclusionary aspects which threaten the UDHR
(universal declaration of human rights) with protection for all identities not just for some
(Marcus, 2015). This is especially evident for those who are transgender. Academics, policymakers and those with power in society must acknowledge the triumphalist proclamations of inclusivity, and use an alternative lens to uncover the invisible spaces where
4 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality these human rights are denied; this is one of the aims of this study, which is to elevate the voices of the oppressed and uncover pathways towards social change.
Policy and ultimately, laws, are difficult to shape and change as research suggests that
LGBTQ+ equality and policy serves as a way to gain money and power by pandering to the wealthy LGBTQ+ community. This then forms stereotypical archetypal gay rights, which influences reform on behalf of the powerful and wealthy LGB (usually not T) (Adler, 2018).
This ultimately may mean that legislation may be swayed to favour certain groups or identities. Heterosexism can also be regarded as a further barrier to equality. One recent study found that those with normative identities (cisgender and heterosexual) regard sex as fixed and binary, and gender or sexual orientation as a construction (fluid and continuous)
(Lloyd & Galupo, 2019). This is important when applied to the context of human rights and
LGBTQ+ law as these essentialist and constructionist beliefs could also explain attitudes towards groups (i.e. the LGBTQ+ community) and policies (Lloyd & Galupo, 2019).
Theory of Social Representations. Social representations theory (SRT) was utilised within the present study as it is suitable for addressing issues of power and whose knowledge is granted legitimacy over others (Howarth, 2006). SRT, unlike discourse analysis, is more appropriate when exploring understandings in relation to social change (Wagner, Duveen,
Themel and Verma, 1999). Since its development in Europe in the 1960s, SRT has become an established theory in social and political psychology (Sammut & Howarth, 2014).
Moscovici (1976) defined social representations as system of values, ideas and practices. This system can be regarded as common-sense knowledge (Lorenzi-Cioldi & Clémence, 2001).
Social representations (SRs) are dynamic (Duveen, 2000) in that they are of our current society; facilitated by culture, policies and mass and social media. Overall, SRT offers a theory of “political public opinion” (Elcheroth, Doise & Reicher, 2011, p. 745) and allows for
5 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality an exploration of common lay knowledge of socially relevant topics such as LGBTQ+ equality, which may add a critical alternative to the individualistic approaches around this topic. Also, SRT acknowledges the role of power and can bridge the gap between psychology and politics (Elcheroth, Doise & Reicher, 2011). Power is key for the present study, whereby the three phases reflect levels of power in society; (1) the government sample is that which reflects the group with the most power and social influence, (2) the non-LGBTQ+ sample holds more power than the LGBTQ+ sample as these identities are those which are the
‘default’ in society, (3) the LGBTQ+ sample is those with the least power, who are continually marginalised. The three phases illustrate that the present study actively explores power within SRs in the wake of criticism that SRT research fails to address issues of power
(Howarth, 2006). Thus, the present study and the use of SRT will contribute to a social representational approach to political psychology (Doise & Staerklé, 2002).
Themata. Moscovici (2011) suggested that SRs often have their roots in themata
(also referred to antinomies). Themata (plural) are dichotomous or binary oppositions which underpin all SRs and shape how we make sense of the social world (Smith, O’Connor &
Joffe, 2015), such as democracy versus injustice (Marková, 2017). These deep-rooted
“culturally shared primitive preconceptions” (Marková, 2000, p. 442) usually involve dyads or oppositions in thought, which therefore may be difficult to change. Themata facilitate the assimilation of past old ideas with new modern beliefs, and so underpin cognitive polyphasia
(Moloney, Williams & Blair, 2012).
Social representations and law. The relationship between social representations and law is complex. Foucault (1978) suggested that sexuality is constructed and constrained by the legal and is continually regulated by law, as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries and punishable by death. SRT emphasises the role of institutions and government
6 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality actors as they impact significantly on world views (Mérand, 2006), and since law can be considered an extension of governmental influence; supporting the rationale as to why representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality was chosen as the topic of this study. Earlier research in this area has explored SRs of human rights (Spini & Doise, 1998; Doise, Spini &
Clémence, 1999; Waters, 1996). However, there are few studies that explored the SRs of laws, one of which concluded that SRs can be regarded as a socio-cognitive mediator between society and law (Levin-Rozalis, 2007). Despite freedom of knowledge and action, laws are still the definitive social control (Levin-Rozalis, 2007). Law is “a complex social phenomenon that influences society but is also influenced by it” (Levin-Rozalis, 2007, p. 7) similar to how SRs are simultaneously the result of communication and are enacted in everyday communication. Law is especially important to explore in the context of SRT as individuals are influenced by cultural, social and group processes. When examining the SRs of law as a concept through analysis of 75 interviews with adult participants, Levin-Rozalis
(2007) found that SRs of law were; that law is the most effective tool in society yet does not serve the individual, that law should be universal (i.e. equality in law), and that law is inferior to personal moral values. This reflects how, often, SRs can be contradictory.
Research Questions and Aims
Our aim was to contribute to a critical political, social psychology of LGBTQ+ law and equality by exploring the social representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality in the UK. In addition to identifying pathways for positive social change. Therefore, two key research questions were formed to satisfy the aims of this study and direct the analysis (1) What social representations characterise understandings of LGBTQ+ law, equality and social change held by politicians, non-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ+ people (2) What implications do these social representations have for LGBTQ+ social change?
7 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Method
Three studies were conducted; a meso-level analysis, or institutional level analysis was conducted, in conjunction with a micro-level analysis, which included two groups of participants with differing power status in society. This allowed for a rigorous analysis of the social representations and underpinning thema of LGBTQ+ law and equality in the UK.
Additionally, as the three studies are grounded in a critical realist ontology and epistemology, it is important to note that social change, here, is viewed as changes which should produce real subjectively experienced effects i.e. changes to policy and law. Epistemologically, the authors take a critical stance grounded in intersectional feminism and postmodernism, which acknowledges how SR’s differ depending on context and power; all of which are reflected in the three studies and their respective methodologies.
Government Sample To understand the social representations of LGBTQ+ equality, a meso- level analysis of government talk was conducted. An investigation into the government’s talk on an issue such as LGBTQ+ equality allowed for an insight into the agenda that they have set in terms of the advancement or adjustment of LGBTQ+ rights. UK government debates were chosen as these proceedings directly relate to UK policy, and they presented a unique opportunity for all members of the House of Lords (HoL) and House of Commons (HoC) to come together and present arguments on topics. This allows for an analysis of ‘cross-party’ ideas and consensus on various issues, including LGBTQ+ equality. Other scholars have also advocated for the use of political speeches or debates, especially in relation to SRT.
Chimbarange, Takavarasha, and Kombe (2013) argued that a politician’s purpose, and by extension, the government’s, is to persuade the masses of the validity of their claims, therefore, actively shaping society’s beliefs, and their ideologies. Consequently, the
8 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality government, as an institution, with its various political actors is an important mechanism in altering SRs.
Government debates that took place between January 2016 and January 2019 were sampled for analysis. This scope was chosen due to the ever-changing political and social context. Specific debates were chosen based on keywords (such as LGBT) when searching within the UK Hansard (online) archive, any reports that were too brief to be of any relevance or focused on global LGBTQ+ rights, were excluded, and only those which pertained to
LGBTQ+ rights or equality in the UK were included. In total, 15 edited debates were analysed using a social constructionist thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013) to identify themes and social representations.
LGBTQ+ and heterosexual samples. At the micro-level of analysis, data was collected from LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ individuals, in doing so recognising socio-historic and cultural differences in power as hetero-cisgender individuals in society are of a privileged status in comparison to their LGBTQ+ counterparts (Simoni & Walters, 2001). A predominately qualitative questionnaire was created in order to access and elicit lay social representations of LGBTQ+ equality between these groups. Questions were developed by the authors but were, however, influenced by those used to gauge understandings or perceptions of human rights by Doise, Spini & Clémence (1999). After construction of the questionnaires, a cognitive interview was conducted to ensure that questions were accessible and read as intended (Willis, 2015).
Sixty-four non-LGBTQ+ university students were recruited for this study.
Participants, for this stage, needed to identify as non-LGBTQ+, which served as a screener question before participating. 73% were cisgender female, 16% were cisgender male, and
10% unknown. 71% white, with the remaining 29% consisting of Pakistani (15%), African
(5%), Irish (3%), Arab (2%), Bangladeshi (2%) and Indian (2%).
9 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Thirty-one LGBTQ+ university students completed the same questionnaire with added demographic questions (such as sexuality and gender identity questions). The sample consisted of 58% cisgender female, 25% cisgender male, 8% transgender man and 8% preferred not to use labels. In terms of ethnicity, the sample was 63% white, 18% Indian, 9%
Pakistani and 9% white and black African. In terms of sexual identity, the sample was 42% bisexual, 17% queer, 8% gay, 8% pansexual. 17% of this sample preferred not to state their sexuality, and another 17% described their sexuality outside of labels. The makeup of the sample here is not too dissimilar from that of the wider UK LGB population, in that younger people, both UK wide and within this study mostly identify as bisexual (Office for National
Statistics, 2017).
Analytic Procedure Thematic analysis (TA) was chosen as the analytic technique for this study as it is a flexible tool with which to analyse various types of data and can be utilised within different theoretical frameworks (Vaismoradi, Turunen & Bondas, 2013; Braun &
Clarke, 2006) such as SRT. The analysis used within this research is situated within a critical realist ontology, whereby the research worked under the assumption that there is a recognition of peoples real lived experiences and realities that are ‘shaped’ by the social context; which can also be regarded as a ‘contextualist’ method (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
To allow for a rigorous analysis, the TA framework outlined by Braun and Clarke
(2006: 2013) was utilised by the first author. When generating initial codes, datasets from each of the three phases were kept separate at this stage to understand how representations can differ depending on population group and power. This was the case until grouping all three phases to formulate the themes and to address the overall research questions.
Furthermore, inter-rater reliability checks were also conducted at stage two, three and five of the analysis. During stage two, generating the initial codes, the second author was consulted to code one page of the data, the coding was then compared to ensure that the data
10 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality was coded similarly. The second author agreed that the codes were appropriate and supported the identified themes.
Analysis
Three main themes characterised social representations of LGBTQ+ equality across all three data sets: (1) progress vs “a long way to go” with a focus on (2) responsibility and
(3) LGB vs T.
Progress vs “A Long Way to Go” Politicians consistently regard the UK as “one of the most progressive countries” (D01_92), with “one of the strongest legislative frameworks”
(D01_93). Here, LGBTQ+ equality is represented as persistently progressing due to UK efforts and its strong legislative framework, which makes equality possible. Triumphalist ideas around LGBTQ+ law and equality are also extended to the point whereby politicians say, “it is no big deal any more” (D01_185), representing the fight for equality as ‘over’. This invalidates the current statistics on LGBTQ+ oppression and their life experiences.
Heteronormativity is rife, which leads to statements such as those above, as identities and current issues are continually ignored as heterosexuality is the default in society. Despite calls that there is more to be done, the quote illustrates that avenues for conversation and change are closed. Therefore, change will not occur as many consider these issues as not worthy of debate. So, despite the statement that the government are “committed to doing more”
(D01_200), if the government are not willing to debate current issues, how can positive social change occur?
In addition, due to the apparent stagnation of LGBTQ+ law and equality, ‘progress’ is often referred to in the past tense:
“we have made real progress in advancing the rights of LGBT
people, but we should be inspired to maintain the momentum of
11 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
recent years to bring about positive change… We recognise the
importance of these issues and will continue to explore effective
means to improve the lives of LGBT people” (D01_559)
This quote represents LGBTQ+ law as effective in the past, whereas current rights are stagnant with no momentum to bring about social change. However, despite politicians’ promises to improve LGBTQ+ lives, there is no explicit mention of pragmatic actions to achieve this goal; suggesting that these promises are not backed by action but are simply tokenistic statements to gain support and to appear that they are actively pursuing equality.
In the non-LGBTQ+ sample, there were numerous references to the idea that
LGBTQ+ equality had been achieved and that there was nothing more to be done:
“they have the same rights as everyone else. I can’t think of any
rules that prevent them from achieving. if anything, the
diversity movement in the workplace is making someone in
lgbtq+ more attractive to employers” (D02_202).
The quote socially represents LGBTQ+ equality as accomplished, with reference to the fact that LGBTQ+ individuals have the same rights as everyone else. While also representing LGBTQ+ people as no longer marginalised by comparing the community to hetero-cisgender people. This minimises the oppression that the LGBTQ+ community faces by failing to acknowledge their daily struggles and that progress still needs to be made, as participants allude to the idea that LGBTQ+ people have the same if not better opportunities than their hetero-cisgender counterparts. This SR possibly aims to reproduce the idea that
LGBTQ+ rights have gone too far in that now, hetero-cisgender people feel they are not
12 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality privileged in society. The quote, therefore demonstrates that non-LGBTQ+ people do not approve of equity, want to remain the powerful and majority group in society, actively reproducing heteronormativity and unequal power relations.
In the LGBTQ+ sample, LGBTQ+ law and equality is simultaneously represented as both progressive and lacking: “I feel we have come such a long way and still have a long way to go” (D03_139), with many placing great significance upon same-sex marriage in progressing LGBTQ+ equality. This suggests that progress, for many, is rooted in legal equality in comparison to other progressive shifts such attitude change, contributing to the idea that positive law reforms are central to equality. However, many suggest that progress only exists in the West: “all the "progress" has only been done in Europe and North America”
(D03_125). This quote upholds the idea that Western countries are superior due to introducing laws such as same-sex marriage and is a prime example of the thema underpinning the diverse field of representations collated in this study; us vs them. Here, non-western countries are constructed as ‘the other’, which positions western countries as superior while demonising non-western countries.
The LGBTQ+ sample also suggests that “there is still much more that needs to be done in terms of equality, reducing discrimination and hate crimes and creating equal opportunities regardless of gender identity and sexuality” (D03_266). Despite laws already existing which make discrimination illegal, the emphasis is placed on society to make these social changes in regard to equal opportunities. By presenting this as a societal issue, rather than a governmental issue, this may mean that social change may need to be oriented around other avenues, such as through other institutions (i.e. education), rather than positive law reform alone.
Overall, there is recognition of the important progress that has been made in the UK but also that more needs to be done, and that law or governmental support may not be enough to
13 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
‘reach’ equality. The following subtheme, law vs culture will explore this social representation.
Responsibility This second theme consists of three subthemes; hegemony, the LGBTQ+ community and denial of responsibility. This social representation is underpinned by an us/them thema as the ‘other’ group is often posed as those which should be fighting for change, i.e. government posing that the LGBTQ+ community should be fighting for their own change.
Hegemony. The term used to describe this theme (hegemony) can be defined as the social, cultural, ideological or economic influence exerted by a dominant social group over another group (Rosamond, 2019), i.e. those in positions of power. This definition was used to title this theme as it is all-encompassing of organisations or institutions with power (e.g. the government) who have been regarded as those responsible for LGBTQ+ equality and social change. One example of this is when one politician stated:
“there is a lot to consider and to reflect on, in terms of both the
history and what we collectively, as a Parliament and as a
country, wish to achieve, not just on these islands but around the
world for which this Parliament bears some responsibility” (D01
248).
The quote is indicative of what all three samples believe; that the government is at least partly responsible for past wrongdoings, current issues and the future, in creating policies which benefit the LGBTQ+ community. The quote also illustrates that the government believe that they have a global influence and responsibility elsewhere to promote
LGBTQ+ acceptance and social change, despite them being responsible for imposing anti-
14 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
LGBTQ+ views through British imperialism. This creates an us vs them dynamic (thema), whereby we, Britain, position ourselves as world-leading on LGBTQ+ rights, while there are still unresolved issues in the UK, yet attempt to impose our values and views onto non- western countries using British imperialist rhetoric. Despite our role in instilling anti-
LGBTQ+ views in the past, the government are still, seemingly attempting to use their power to not only control LGBTQ+ individuals, using oppressive laws, but also control other countries.
Conversely, the government praises themselves for the work they have done for
LGBTQ+ rights: “this Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have done great things for equality for LGBT people, particularly with regard to gay marriage” (D01_32).
Politicians not only anchor their understandings of progression and equality in a heteronormative tradition such as marriage but use this as ‘proof’ of advocating for the
LGBTQ+ community and creating social change. However, many attribute past and present progressive legislative changes to that of the Labour party:
“It [action plan] is built on the foundations of the Labour party
manifesto—I am grateful for that. I am more than happy for the
Government to appropriate Labour’s ideas and policies because
the more we can work cross-party, the better legislation will be”
(D01_1008).
Here, Labour is represented as the group responsible for the progressive changes in legislature in the past, and that it should be Labour who should be proud of their achievements, not other political parties. Interestingly, the politician states that Labour values
15 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality and ideas will be ‘appropriated’, suggesting that the Conservative party is purely tokenistic in its attempts to be progressive; it adopts Labour’s ideas and utilises them as their own, as a way to gain votes and power. Although this is posed as a way of bettering legislation, it appears shallow on the Conservative’s part. Many LGBTQ+ people question the
Conservatives motives, as seen by the quote below, whereby the participant sees through the
Conservatives attempts to appear progressive and attributes any progression to merely tokenistic acts to gain power:
“I would never vote conservative because by their nature they
are not LGBTQ+ friendly, and I mistrust any promise from them
as a bid for votes or popularity. They would push through a law,
then not enforce it or offer any support relating to it”
(D03_447).
This calls into question how the government can be made responsible for making any positive social change when the LGBTQ+ community themselves do not trust them. Here too, there is an us vs them dynamic, whereby the government, especially the Conservatives, are represented as in direct opposition to the LGBTQ+ community and progression of equality.
In the non-LGBTQ+ sample, the role and responsibility of LGBTQ+ law and equality also fell to faith groups: “the church and the government will need to change certain rules and regulations regarding the lgtbq community” (D02_749). This representation was almost absent from the LGBTQ+ sample, whereby religion was represented as a barrier to equality.
The quote suggests that religion is not and should not be separated from political issues and should be consulted when amending legislature related to the LGBTQ+ community. This is
16 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality interesting as religion has, historically, always been a tool utilised to control and persecute
LGBTQ+ people, and so this idea of unity between church and state is an especially dangerous rhetoric when many religious groups still hold anti-LGBTQ+ views.
Furthermore, when faced with the responsibility of progressing LGBTQ+ law and equality, the government often highlighted the role of NGO’s (non-governmental organisations), to whom they ‘support’ by pledging funding: “we will also be making funding available to those groups because they need to be included in the work that is going on at national and local level” (D01_1032). This may serve to redirect responsibility away from the government, and onto organisations. However, the government are still somewhat responsible as they control the amount of funding these organisations receive and how the funding is used. This is also the case for participants who emphasise that the government has a “duty to protect…” (D02_1358). Which shows that above all else, responsibility lies with the government to enact social change. They have a duty to their constituents to protect them and give them the chance for a great life, not made worse by discriminatory laws, oppression or marginalisation.
The LGBTQ+ community. Within this theme, the LGBTQ+ community themselves are represented as those who are responsible, both past, present and future, for the changes in legislature which affect their own community. Politicians only represent the LGBTQ+ community as responsible for fighting for equality in the past tense:
“it [LGBT history month] offers us a chance to celebrate
those individuals, collectives and movements who fought
so hard for so long to win recognition and rights, and to
realise and respect the debt that we owe them. It gives us
17 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
the impetus to share their incredible stories of struggle and
progress...” (D01_393).
The quote above suggests that it is LGBTQ+ groups/ activists who are solely to thank for the positive laws that we see today, and the government commends the LGBTQ+ community for fighting for their rights despite the constant backlash and contestation.
‘Struggles’ for rights are represented as something to be proud of rather than acknowledging the resistance that LGBTQ+ people faced, especially when the government were one of the main institutions which criminalised and oppressed LGBTQ+ people. The framing of the
LGBTQ+ community’s involvement as past tense seems to allude to the idea that the fight for equality is over, that the aims of feminism have been achieved and that the community’s involvement is no longer needed. However, from the statistics outlined in the first section of this paper; it is evident that this is not the case.
It could also be suggested that the government do not focus on the role of the
LGBTQ+ community when talking about current social change as they may recognise that they, as individuals and a community, do not have the power to affect change on their own, that the responsibility is now, not solely theirs. This may serve as a way to reinforce the power of the government, i.e. that the LGBTQ+ community is not needed to inform laws or social change; that the government has the power to do this without input from elsewhere.
However, both non-LGBTQ+ people and LGBTQ+ people represent the LGBTQ+ community as an ongoing influence in terms of positive legislative change for the LGBTQ+ community. Both samples, at the simplest level, represent the LGBTQ+ community as a group of political identities with a cause: “it [the LGBTQ+ community] is a group of people fighting for equality no matter what their sexuality or gender orientation” (D02_55). Rather than the LGBTQ+ community being represented as merely a group of people who identify as
18 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality non-normative gender or sexual identities, the participant represents the community as one with an aim and a cause; politicising their identities. It is intrinsic, even within the acronym, that the community is one which continually fights for their own rights. This ‘definition’ is more similar to that of charity organisations’ mission statement, such as: “Stonewall works for acceptance without exception for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people”
(Stonewall, 2019).
This has substantial consequences as LGBTQ+ people are then expected to fight for acceptance in society despite not having any significant power, as a minority group, to effect any change. This social representation ignores the role of allies, placing excessive pressure on a marginalised group. Despite this, as seen through the previous subtheme, LGBTQ+ people are contradictorily represented as not involved in the progression of LGBTQ+ law and equality. Therefore, as social change seemingly cannot come from outside of the government, yet LGBTQ+ people are represented as needing to fight for their own equality, positive social change could be achieved by an increased LGBTQ+ representation in politics. This is supported by an LGBTQ+ participant who said:
"for any of those laws to change, the government should have
individuals which are part of the LGBTQ+ community, and that
are well informed about the topic, leading the changes”
(D03_384).
This quote shows, as above, that not only are the LGBTQ+ community continually represented as intrinsically needing to fight for their own acceptance in society but also that they want to actively be involved in the legislative changes that affect them, and should have a say in matters of LGBTQ+ law and equality. However, it seems that even if the LGBTQ+
19 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality community do fight for change, it is still negotiated by the government. One quote was particularly emotive about the dynamic roles of the LGBTQ+ community and the government:
“I feel that the LGBTQ+ community is usually heavily involved
in fighting for the safety of their members. It is sad but I imagine
what will have to happen for more change is something
happening that results in harm coming to an LGBTQ+ person”
(D02_743).
This quote embodies many people’s frustration at the stagnation of LGBTQ+ equality. The participant attributes LGBTQ+ law and equality not only to the responsibility of the LGBTQ+ community and the government but also that an LGBTQ+ person must suffer to gain the attention of the government. This shock will then seemingly humanise
LGBTQ+ people to the point where the government will act, despite numerous studies which demonstrate the oppressive reality for LGBTQ+ individuals. This illustrates that the
LGBTQ+ community does not have sufficient power in society to enact any social change, whereby without a tragedy, those responsible will not take notice and act.
Denial of responsibility. Within the social representation of responsibility, there is a denial of responsibility or accountability, which illustrates cognitive polyphasia in that the subthemes above, of responsibility falling to the government and the LGBTQ+ community, are contradicted here, with the same groups denying their responsibility. For example, one politician said: “laws and political leaders are just one side of the coin. It is not just about changing the minds of Presidents and Prime Ministers” (D01_695). This excerpt illustrates that the government, again, does not want to be the sole group responsible for delivering
20 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality social change, and that law and the government are ‘not enough’. This excuses them from not delivering or advocating for social change on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community; it allows them to divert responsibility and blame others for their inactivity. This denial is underpinned by a dynamic us/them thema, whereby, when it suits them or when the “Government are justly proud of recent milestones” (D01_1288), they can easily manipulate who is the ‘other’.
For example, when the government are proud of their achievements, they position other groups such as the LGBTQ+ community or NGO’s as not doing their part, whereas when the government are those who are inactive, they place blame elsewhere, to consistently reproduce the idea that they are progressing LGBTQ+ equality.
Non-LGBTQ+ people deny their responsibility in furthering equality by abstaining from commenting on the current state of LGBTQ+ rights and the future: “I am not a member of the LGBTQ, so I don't think its fair for me to speak on their behalf” (D02_669). Here,
LGBTQ+ laws and equality are represented as solely an LGBTQ+ issue, not covered by the umbrella of promoting human rights, whereby others cannot advocate for equality on their behalf or act in solidarity. Although there is value in letting a community speak for itself, there is equal, if not more value in projecting a marginalised community’s voice if you are in a position of power/ have a more valued status in society, as heterosexual and cisgender people are/do. This isolates the movement, which may be why many argue that LGBTQ+ rights have stagnated. The movement needs allies and those with power to support and lift the voices of the marginalised.
Also, silence on an issue can be attributed to complacency, as if one is not actively advocating or supporting a cause, and state that their position is “neutral because I’m straight” (D02_218), this neutrality can be viewed as similar to the position of the oppressor.
When privilege is not acknowledged by those in power, i.e. hetero-cisgender people, they have a role in the marginalised community’s oppression (Simoni & Walters, 2008). This may
21 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality contribute to the progression of equality being halted. This theme is underpinned by the thema of us vs them in that non-LGBTQ+ people position LGBTQ+ people as the ‘other’ even when solidarity is needed for the progression of equality.
Responsibility is also denied within the LGBTQ+ community especially when knowledge about LGBTQ+ law and equality is limited: “it [same-sex marriage] is not something that personally affects me so i hold no opinion against it” (D03_507). Here, it seems that if an issue or topic does not personally affect the person, then they do not care to know more about it or advocate for or against it, as seen above. Which contributes to the idea that the person who the issue or oppression directly effects, should be the one to fight for change.
In conclusion, this theme describes how different groups with differing levels of power in society are responsible for LGBTQ+ law and equality; this also includes how those
‘responsible’ also deny responsibility. The representations within this theme are underpinned by the us/them thema.
LGB triumphalism vs T. This theme details the divide evident in social representations of
LGB people and transgender individuals. One way that this is shown within the data is that
LGB people are represented as nearing full equality, i.e. triumphalism, in comparison to hetero-cisgender people: “homosexuality - is already something that has been integrated into society and is understood by most now” (D02_1024). Whereas those who are of non- normative gender identities are represented as those who are most oppressed in society and the furthest behind in terms of equality. One example of this is:
“I think that we have made great progress in terms of equal
marriage rights… There are still many issues to be addressed,
especially in terms of trans rights - trans people are deeply
22 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
discriminated against on an everyday basis, with high levels of
suicide and murder, and very little tolerance or understanding
from not only hereto-cisgender people, but also people within
the LGBTQ+ communities too” (D03_114).
The quote, from an LGBTQ+ participant, shows that LGB equality is represented as much more advanced than transgender rights, not only this, but they also suggest that transgender individuals face more barriers and oppression from both hetero-cisgender and
LGBTQ+ people. This suggests that not only is the thema of us/them evident as underpinning the SRs of transgender equality as lacking due to transgender people being seen as the ‘other’ by hetero-cisgender people, but they are also positioned as the ‘other’ by LGB people, further adding to their oppression. The marginalisation of transgender people is further exacerbated when non-normative gender identities intersect with race: “trans black women, are still the biggest victims within society… POC and black always end up being the bigger targets of discrimination and micro-aggressions compared to white LGBT+ individuals” (D03_40). The quote shows the importance of acknowledging the discrimination that transgender people face and how this may be impacted by other factors such as race. This has implications for positive social change, as to a degree, change can only occur to a certain degree until other social justice issues, such as racism are also ‘solved’.
This representation of LGB vs T also manifests in than now, the focus should be on promoting social change for transgender individuals:
“the rights I enjoy today are thanks to the people who fought so
hard for them, so it is incumbent on me as an LGBT member of
the community to stand up for those rights and to keep fighting
23 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
for transgender individuals and those who identify as non-
binary” (D01_379).
The quote further suggests that now, LGBTQ+ members should focus on fighting for transgender rights and equality, as LGB equality has been ‘achieved’. This is interesting in the wake of the fact that it was a black transgender woman who was one of the main instigators during the stonewall riots and thus a key figure in the LGBTQ+ rights movement
(Biography.com, 2019). This shows how the LGBTQ+ community act in solidarity and fight for those who are experiencing oppression, and many suggesting that the LGBTQ+ community is fragmented, that the LGBTQ+ community stand together to pursue the most urgent and important goals.
However, non-normative gender identities are still contested in society and consistently constructed as the ‘other’. One example of this is when transgender rights are discussed in relation to cisgender women’s rights:
“we do not intend to change the existing safeguards in the
Equality Act that protect vulnerable women. It will continue to
allow organisations to … exclude people identifying as
transgender provided that doing so can be convincingly
demonstrated to be a proportionate means of meeting a
legitimate aim” (D01_1468).
Despite previous exclamations that the government play an active role in promoting change for transgender people, the quote shows that the government positions transgender rights in opposition to ‘women’s’ rights. Here, transgender individuals are valued less than
24 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality cisgender women, as politicians argue that transgender discrimination is acceptable, if it is justified, i.e. protects women. This reproduces the rhetoric that transgender women/men are not ‘real’ women or men and that they are a danger to cisgender women, which may contribute to the oppression of transgender individuals. This highlights that there may be a cycle within representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality whereby society recognises that transgender people are treated less than compared to their hetero-cisgender and LGB counterparts, transgender equality is then advocated for, but ultimately rejected when discussed in relation to hetero-cisgender issues, possibly leading to further discrimination.
Transgender equality appears to be a controversial topic, especially with hetero- cisgender participants who deem that this cause is not worthy of prioritisation:
“If positive changes are being made to try and improve a
persons life then that should be encouraged. But I think the
government, for such a diverse group, should be trying to focus
on improving life for all persons who are experiencing issues,
within the lgbtq+ community” (D02_1330).
The quote suggests that transgender equality should not be the sole focus, which represents these issues as unimportant in comparison to other issues. However, the participant does acknowledge that changes should be made if they benefit a person’s life, yet it appears that it is the degree to which an individual or group is willing to support transgender equality is restricted in comparison to the support that LGB people receive or have received. Which again is illustrative of the thema of us vs them where transgender people are almost always positioned as the ‘other’, even when people or groups are attempting to advocate for positive social change for transgender people.
25 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Overall, transgender people’s law and equality is represented as being limited in comparison to LGB law and equality, whereby “there is a long way to go on trans equality”
(D01_492), especially as transgender identities are those which are most contested by others, inside and outside of the LGBTQ+ community. Those of non-normative gender identities are
‘othered’ by most groups in society, such as hetero-cisgender people as well as LGB individuals.
Discussion
The findings complement yet extend previous research in this area. For example, there were elements of the government using LGBTQ+ equality as tokens in addition to the representation that LGBTQ+ equality has been ‘achieved’ (Adler, 2018). Also, similarly, it was found within this study that certain identities have been ‘left behind’ in terms of law and equality, either intentionally or not (Marcus, 2015), which was especially the case for non- normative gender identities.
Thema: Us vs Them Social representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality outlined within this study were underpinned by a dichotomous idea (thema), which is the root cause of social representations. This dichotomous idea gives rise to cognitive polyphasia (Moloney,
Williams & Blair, 2012). The representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality were positioned in an ‘us vs them’ dynamic. For example, within the government sample, politicians often positioned Britain as a champion of LGBTQ+ rights while positioning non-western countries as the ‘other’. The non-LGBTQ+ sample, often positioned normative identities, like themselves, as ‘us’ creating an in-group, and positioned anyone of LGBTQ+ identity as
‘them’ and the ‘other’. Finally, the LGBTQ+ sample positioned more ‘accepted’ identities as
‘us’ and identities such as transgender and bisexuals as ‘them’ and the ‘other’; creating an
26 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality outgroup within the community itself. Overall, the thema of us vs them was present throughout each of the themes and respective social representations.
Strengths of these three studies lie within the fact that each examined differing power levels to understand the diverse social representations of LGBTQ+ law and equality, using a qualitative mixed-methods approach. The combination of these various elements allows for a rigorous study, which contributes to theory and topic knowledge while identifying meaningful avenues for social change.
This study addresses Castro’s three ways of social change: “the techno-scientific, policy-legal and public spheres” (Castro, 2012, p. 105). One, by simply conducting academic research on this topic, the publication of the present studies and the dissemination of findings will allow for significant impact. The current project also identifies pathways for social change, specifically those within the legal sphere, while also promoting social change by giving a voice to a minority group (LGBTQ+ sample). All of which have significant implications for promoting social change.
First and foremost, this piece of research yielded new and novel findings using a politically charged analysis to examine social representations which is not evident in previous literature. Despite the fact that LGBTQ+ focused research does appear to be seeing some much-needed attention within social psychology, as evident by a modest number of papers present at the 2019 British Social Psychology conference. The present studies and its findings have the ability to fill a gap within the field, contributing to a political psychology of
LGBTQ+ law and equality using SRT, with an explicit social change agenda. This serves to add to the body of knowledge and theory. The present studies have contributed to the development of SRT by successfully illustrating the role of themata in a study with multiple samples while exploring how different positions of power impact social representations.
27 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
In terms of broader implications, this study could be utilised in the effort to preserve human rights, as evidence suggests that Brexit has/ will have a significant impact on equality law (Fredman, Young, Campbell & May, 2018). Although fundamental rights are not affected under the ECHR, the issue arises when laws are passed to accommodate leaving the
EU. This is especially evident as the Government has outlined that existing EU law will be preserved ‘when possible’ and the most significant effects will probably be the loss of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights which includes some rights not included in the Human Rights
Act; including the general right to non-discrimination as well as ways of enforcing these laws/rights (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017). Brexit could also mean that the
Government could, in the future, pass laws that could repeal/ weaken current rights (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017). Therefore, findings of the present studies and the subsequent recommendations for social change could be utilised in Government or by NGO’s to fight for the preservation of LGBTQ+ rights as well as the progression of equality during
Brexit and afterwards.
The pathways for social change identified throughout may be used or beneficial in advising the social sector on policy, especially in the wake of Brexit and the possible repeal of laws. Sharing and raising awareness of the pathways for positive social change may lead to the implementation or use of the findings to improve LGBTQ+ lives.
Limitations. This research primarily utilised questionnaire responses from UK students to answer the research questions, and although the participants recruited were reasonably diverse in the student sample, findings may not be as valid as if the data was gathered from a completely diverse sample, especially as all participants were university educated. However, the study attempted to address this by examining multiple ‘levels’, i.e. politicians, hetero- cisgender people and LGBTQ+ people. One further limitation is that of addressing the communicative nature of social representations; as SRs are both enacted and formed during
28 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality communication (Marková & Linell, 2005). Therefore, participants in phases two and three completed a questionnaire, and so they only communicated with the researcher, not with others in a social context. If logistics had allowed, focus groups might have added additional insight.
Conclusions In accounting for the difference in power within three samples, the present studies allowed for an exploration of the SRs of LGBTQ+ law and equality, yielding novel findings, all with implications for social change. It is appropriate to argue that despite triumphalist rhetoric in the UK, both LGBTQ+ equality itself, and understandings of it are far from perfect; more needs to be done to provide the LGBTQ+ community with the legal equality that is needed, while also raising awareness of LGBTQ+ laws and the issues where certain rights are lost, i.e. for transgender people.
29 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
References
Adler, L. (2018). Gay Priori: A Queer Critical Legal Studies Approach to Law Reform (1st
ed.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Castro, P. (2012). Legal Innovation for Social Change: Exploring Change and Resistance to
Different Types of Sustainability Laws. Political Psychology, 33(1), 105-121.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00863.x
Chimbarange,, A., Takavarasha, P., & Kombe, F. (2013). A Critical Discourse Analysis of
President Mugabe’s 2002 Address to the World. International Journal Of
Humanities And Social Science, 3(9). Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/
journals/Vol_3_No_9_May_2013/30.pdf
Doise, W., & Staerklé, C. (2002). From Social to Political Psychology: The Societal
Approach. In K. Monroe, Political Psychology (pp. 151-172). Mahwah, NJ.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doise, W., Spini, D., & Clémence, A. (1999). Human rights studied as social representations
in a cross-national context. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 29(1), 1-
29. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199902)29:1<1::aid-ejsp909>3.0.co;2-#
Duffy, N. (2019). Nationwide protests against LGBT-inclusive education planned for
September. Inews. Retrieved from
https://inews.co.uk/news/education/nationwide-protests-against-lgbt-inclusive-
education-planned-september/
Duveen, G. (2000). Introduction: The Power of Ideas. In S. Moscovici, Social
Representations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
30 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2017). What does Brexit mean for equality and
human rights in the UK?. Retrieved 21 August 2019, from
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-
brexit-mean-equality-and-human-rights-uk
Flores, A., & Park, A. (2018). Polarized Progress: Social Acceptance of LGBT People in 141
Countries, 1981 to 2014. The Williams Institute: UCLA School of Law.
Retrieved from
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Polarized-Progress-
April-2018.pdf
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York, NY: Pantheon
Books.
Fredman, S., Young, A., Campbell, M., & May, A. (2018). The Impact of Brexit on Equality
Law. Oxford Human Rights Hub. Retrieved from https://www.edf.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/The-Impact-of-Brexit-on-Equality-Rights.pdf
GOV.UK. (2013). Same sex marriage becomes law. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/same-sex-marriage-becomes-law
Government Equalities Office. (2018). National LGBT Survey: Research report. Retrieved
from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-lgbt-survey-
summary-report/national-lgbt-survey-summary-report
Hockaday, J. (2019). Schools ‘intimidated’ into dropping LGBT inclusive relationship
lessons. Metro UK. Retrieved from https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/16/schools-
intimidated-dropping-lgbt-inclusive-relationship-lessons-10360538/
Howarth, C. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical
potential of social representations theory. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 45(1), pp.65-86.
31 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Ibhawoh, B. (2014). Human rights for some: Universal human rights, sexual minorities, and
the exclusionary impulse. International Journal, 69(4), 612–622.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702014544885
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2007). Playing by the Rules. Theory & Psychology, 17(1), 5-31. doi:
10.1177/0959354307073149
Levy, B., & Levy, D. (2017). When love meets hate: The relationship between state policies
on gay and lesbian rights and hate crime incidence. Social Science Research,
61, 142-159. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.008
Lloyd, A., & Galupo, M. (2019). What people with normative identities believe about sex,
gender and sexual orientation. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(3), 269-280. doi:
10.1080/19419899.2019.1614088
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Clémence, A. (2001). Group Processes and the Construction of Social
Representations. In M. Hogg & R. Tindale, Blackwell Handbook of Social
Psychology: Group Processes. Blackwell Publishers.
Marcus, N. (2015). BRIDGING BISEXUAL ERASURE IN LGBT-RIGHTS DISCOURSE
AND LITIGATION. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 22(2), 291-344.
Marková, I. (2000). AmÈdÈe or How to Get Rid of It: Social Representations from a
Dialogical Perspective. Culture & Psychology, 6(4), 419-460. doi:
10.1177/1354067x0064002
Marková, I., & Linell, P. (2005). Dialogue in Focus Groups : Exploring Socially Shared
Knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Marková, I. (2017). Themata in science and in common sense Ivana. Kairos: Journal Of
Philosophy And Science, 19(1), 68-92. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/
kjps-2017-0004
32 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Maurice, E. (2019). Boris Johnson cabinet is 'the most anti-human rights' in decades.
Retrieved 9 August 2019, from https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/07/24/boris-
johnson-cabinet-most-anti-human-rights/
Mérand, F. (2006). Social Representations in the European Security and Defence
Policy. Cooperation And Conflict, 41(2), 131-152. doi:
10.1177/0010836706063659
Moloney, G., Williams, J., & Blair, D. (2012). Cognitive Polyphasia, Themata and Blood
Donation: Between or Within Representation. Papers On Social
Representations, 21, 4.1-4.12.
Moscovici, S. (2008 [1976]). Psychoanalysis, Its Image and Its Public. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Moscovici, S. (2011). An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities. Social
Science Information, 50(3-4), 442-461. doi: 10.1177/0539018411411027
Moscovici, S., & Marková, I. (2000). Ideas and their development: a dialogue between Serge
Moscovici and Ivana Marková. In G. Duveen, Social Representations.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Parveen, N. (2019). Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest. The
Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-
stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests
Pew Research Centre. (2013). The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in
More Secular and Affluent Countries. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/
web/20150218111304/http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/Pew-Global-
Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-FINAL-JUNE-4-2013.pdf
33 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Rosamond, B. (2019). Hegemony: Political Science. Retrieved 22 August 2019, from https://
www.britannica.com/topic/hegemony
Sammut, G., & Howarth, C. (2014). Social Representations. In T. Teo, Encyclopedia of
Critical Psychology (1st ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2001). Heterosexual Identity and Heterosexism. Journal Of
Homosexuality, 41(1), 157-172. doi: 10.1300/j082v41n01_06
Smith, N., O'Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2015). Social Representations of Threatening
Phenomena: The Self-Other Thema and Identity Protection. Papers On Social
Representations, 24(2), 1.1-1.23.
Spini, D., & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and
their social anchoring in value
Stonewall. (2017). Hate Crime and Discrimination. Stonewall. Retrieved from
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_hate_crime.pdf
Stonewall. (2017). Key dates for lesbian, gay, bi and trans equality. Retrieved 15 August
2019, from https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/key-dates-lesbian-gay-bi-
and-trans-equality#2010s
Stonewall. (2018). Health. Stonewall. Retrieved from
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_health.pdf
Stonewall. (2018). Trans Report. Stonewall. Retrieved from
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-
_trans_report_final.pdf
Stonewall. (2019). About Us. Retrieved 20 August 2019, from https://www.stonewall.org.uk/
about-us/key-dates-lesbian-gay-bi-and-trans-equality
34 Social Representations of LGBTQ+ Law and Equality
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health
Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048
Wagner, W., Duveen., G., Themel, M. and Verma., J. (1999) The modernisation of tradition:
Thinking about madness in Patna, India. Culture and Psychology. 5, pp. 413-
445.
Willis, G. (2015). Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design. Oxford
University Press.
Yorke, H., Mintz, L., & Peters, C. (2019). Student Tory groups swell in backlash at Left-wing
activists. Retrieved 9 August 2019, from
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/student-tory-groups-swell-
backlash-left-wing-activist
35