CEU eTD Collection hardly came close to appropriating a collective identity as part of the “global LGBTmovement.” perceived the urgent how early whichillustrates havebeen these one how activistorganizations established and 1990s, aims of the community.In thelast I part, offer acase attitudes study andan activist’s of waysof organizational inactivity I also show thatin period. inof second they the movement the a deepde-politization unsuccessful, that resulted and the Russian movement, 1990swere in early the movement the topoliticize attempts that also Idemonstrate period. the in general, of transformation political and social of deep the an effect as I explain that simultaneously, country inorganizations of MoscowandLeningrad/St.Petersburg, appeared parts similar inother the groups known better periodhistory. in Besides movement’s secondthe post-soviet (current) the and first the between differences show and movement the structured that perspectives main three describeperiod. I in organizational the that leaders’ attitudetothe activity the andof specificity analysis of early the lesbiangay and press Ishow manners of their public self-presentation, agenda previouslynation-wide existed community.On the basisinterviews of with activists along with thethat public of organizations and initialthe groups realized agendaperiod andinterests of the of sexual minorities in Russia began in 1989.Ianalyze initial the of period arguing movement, the T After a long After aindividuals of period oppression of andtheabsence amovement of organizations, HE Submitted to Central European University Department of Gender Studies ofGender Department University European Submitted toCentral in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts in Gender Studies. inGender ofArts ofMaster the degree for in partialfulfillment E MERGENCE OF MERGENCE Supervisor: Professor Elissa Helms P OST Mikhail Nemtsev A Budapest 2007 S -S EXUAL Abstract OVIET By 1 M R INORITIES USSIA M OVEMENT IN CEU eTD Collection attentive supervisor. I want to thank the Department.I had to think so quickly here! First of all, I want to thank my supervisor Elissa Helms. She was a real tutor and extremely I alsowant to thank Nadezhda Nartova, who thoughtme touse the word “queer” for the first time, I want to thank Artyom Kosmarsky, just for the long anthropology discussion about literature.and Finally, Imust confess that without my family, especially Katherine, Valentina and Sergey and Eszter Timar, my second reader, who thought me what the term really meant. really term mewhatthe who thought my Timar,reader, second and Eszter I want to thank Natalia Kosmarsky, Natalia Kosmarsky, Petr Kosmarsky for their trust and Without selfless help of Nikolai Barashkov, this research simply won’t exist. (who won’t believe it), Iwould notbe able to do anything serious. Anna Kutuzova was a true friend all the time. Thank you! You’ve naturally mesaved Acknowledgements 2 friendship; CEU eTD Collection ieaueadsucs...... 79 Literature and sources...... APPENDIX. 78 The list ...... of the interviewees 75 Conclusion...... Sexual 58 Minorities’ Movement...... National Tradition and International LGBT Community in the Group Identity of Early Russian Chapter 3. Aspects of Russian sexual 49 minorities’ movement...... Theoretical 9 framework...... 4 ...... Introduction 3 Table of Contents...... 2 Acknowledgements...... 1 ...... Abstract ore...... 84 Sources...... Ethos of the movement’s activist. The case 65 of Olga Krauze...... Chapter 2. The emergence of the Russian sexual minorities movement 26 after 1989...... Chapter 1. Homosexuality in the Soviet Union 14 before its ...... de-criminalization Russian sexual minorities’ 49 movement and ...... national politics The first public homosexual organizations, 35 their interests ...... and aims The periodization of the movementin the context of late-Soviet 32 and Post-Soviet ...... Russia How to name the community? 26 The problem ...... of relevant naming Homosexual community in the USSR in late 19 Soviet Union...... The official discourse: criminalization and 17 medicalization...... “Sexuality” in 14 the Soviet Union...... Table of Contents 3 CEU eTD Collection the communitythe itself is being challenged by boostingthis homophobia of state as well, which partially suddenly have bymass become widely media disputed of and citizens country.the Simultaneously, suddenly nation-widereceived publicity. and status The condition gaysof andlesbians in the country were banned severely and by municipal dispersed Thereby,authorities. of concept “gay the pride” inMoscow, bynewLGBTleaders and organized side,projected gay From prides, other the recently. popularin country,the butthey have enteredthemaking about policy discourse the state only arerather law-making Homophobic attitudes in and homosexuals’ discussions. speeches public their stigmatize to began that politics conservative and right-wing by politicized been has homosexuality years, the political situation ofRussiancommunity LGBT has From changed. oneside, the form a social movement, utilizing particular social and cultural circumstances of a givenmay society. minorities sexual how see to possibility gives environment cultural particular in this movement tradition of “politics of identity”. Thus, the historical sociology and anthropology of LGBT transformation. social post-soviet of context the to relation their and relations social of system inner identity, its of shaping considering especially initial period? in its movement sexualminorities’ of Russian innerstructure and features characteristic distinctive were what is question research My country. the in possible been has sexualities non-normative communitypeople with noopen of previousin period, 1990s.In the SovietUnion (since 1989),and public emergence of sexual the community minorities’ inits and self-organization years late the of the There reasons areother study to no-normativesituation inwith sexuality Russia.Duringtwo last have a not does society Russian reasons. several because of be interesting This should topic To answer this question, ahistorical Ioffered description movement’sthe of development, In this research I describe the emergence of sexual minorities’ movement in Russia. I discuss Introduction 4 CEU eTD Collection the whole process of emergence was pre-definedby the conditions of the society that had been before named “trends.” They have been shapedin initial the butperiod are still discernible today. Iarguethat whichIhave organizations, the of self-determination of patterns Idiscern political repeated context. and social particular this in community minorities’ sexual the of self-establishment of process the of rational knowledge about the community legitimizes its claims for rights and acknowledgement. andin of terms helping advocate the community to their rights, becauseis it important productionthat is important both in terms of development of anthropology and gender sociology of Russian society, areIgorworks Kon’s in overviews Thus, mid-1990s. written Ithink that in everynew work field this and have notbeen known to the a wider audience; thus, up till now, the most popular and widely used dissertations where the community andbeen several have there (Essig,In Russia, tothesubject 1999). dedicated monograph anthropological public movement was described, but theypay not attention history to this of region (Adam al.,1999). Thereet is only areone social not systematic did often sexuality same-sex and sexuality non-normative of histories Detailed yet. properly studied transformation of the regime of sexuality. gradual in the participate effectively may minorities sexual The ingeneral. sexuality of regime normative helplotunderstand sexuality may normsthe which to ongoing a patterns supportthe and transformation of sexual politics and gender lesbigayperiod forentered publicthe community thefirst discourse time years (fifteen ago). politics in the country.discussions and a subjectpolitical to This decisions. ongoing may be situation compared with the The social attitude matter becameof year,suddenly a public sexuality I seethatduring non-normative last the to the non- As quickly. country the acitizen considerably of changes by approved community. situations The the wholly not is of self-presentation tactics whose gaypride, the of activity leaders the of reflects My research must offer a general view at the history of movementthe which may help figureto out The social history and anthropology of sexual minorities in the post Soviet Russia has not been The history in Russiaof is homosexuality the post-soviet apartof encompassing history of 5 CEU eTD Collection who have similarattributes, maintain identity a group potentiallyand are easilymay(or be)mutually of may be“community”people share asagroup defined experience.able a the Thus, same social to other, and have no feeling of solidarity, they have sufficient reason to unite with other people who are features allow themsolidarity andbelonging aresocially andby defined (by others one category. as themselves) to These to form a collective of group have asense informal formalrelations, by and are connected homoeroticism), and who identity. Even sexuality same-sex is the practice with, the deal I group the of case theparticular (in practice social if these people do“community” I mean an notanalytically defined set of individuals and theiractually groups who practice the same knowleastforBy potentially. have a community,at people necessary groupof this intaking to evidence each a sexual isorientation which considered “abnormal” “outlaw” thereby and in is givensociety.the It possible use to this wordin a group relation to of people whohave nothinginalmost common beside dealtsubjectwith. I Above,“community”.italways Ialready term used However,wasnot the summarized. inparticipation publicthe in activities initialthat Inthe period. Conclusion, findings the are community), self-positioningits and individual cultures, and innational global of 2) 3) ways very among the political to activities relations bydifferent reflected inner (with the trends movement parts of of 3 the parts in the three therefore very complicated, is Thisquestion self-organization? ad political social,cultural beforeits public “comingin out” 1989-1990? This question is considered in 1 the community: minorities’ sexual the about ones secondary andfirst group social Hence, “comings I concentrate out”. mainon three amongquestions other historical period Ilook at? I would discuss this in the 2 The first methodological problem I encountered in the research was how to theorize the very the theorize to how was research in the encountered I problem methodological first The 3) What were the characteristic features of the movement which would help to understand its understand helpto which would movement of the features characteristic 3) Whatwerethe 1) What were the social and political conditions of the forming and existence of the community 2) What was the “community” in general, as a complicated but united object of “community” inbutof united 2) Whatas acomplicated ingeneral, the object research the was rd chapter I concentrated on three aspects of it: 1) political self-positioning of the self-positioning of it: 1)political aspects of three on Iconcentrated chapter 6 nd chapter. st chapter. CEU eTD Collection act as a social activist, working on behalf of sexual minorities’ community, one obviously as asocial should minorities’ obviously workingact of behalf community, on one sexual activist, to his heridentity.public However, inor partof) (this community disclosing participate the without the social situation of post-socialist transformations of society. to thishow individuals, ofcertain and identity relates have that aspersonal groups projects appeared movement” (Polletta, Jasper, 2001,p. 289). I study how movementthe identity has emergedin the should emerge in movement. the It is a “collective identity based on shared membership in a inmobilizeunderground. However, to identity” thecommunity’sorder a“movement participants, in before had which existed community developed andcomplicated duetothe was possible (re)shaped by movement. the movement’s activists apprehend them. Simultaneously, community the is being and (re)formed the as “interests,” its represents and community, a on based is movement The community. the of favor inthe objectives political and cultural social, realize their try to and andprograms, their agendas have who groups, isaset acting The of movement” publicly “social “movement” conceptualized as development. movement’s the in participation of history personal of example an analyze hasI Inthe and community should besatisfied problems,3.3. needsand solved. which section The interests. these promote to movement social a organize may consequently, and, interests political social and have common experience, social same share the who asasetof people 1991)) isgroup “imagined” an one, samemustbesaid the anynation-wide about community (Anderson, (any big group These imaginethe (1992). persons MarkBlasius “ethos”, after an call which I will widespread underground around networks which community the has itself. clustered and specific sociolect cultural style, adistinct in considering has country, emergedthe “community” homosexual a real regime, soviet the endof the before that long Iargue More that, than connected. “Coming out” is a fundamental process in which the movement identity identity is movementthe fundamental in“Coming Onealways can which appears. a process out” I argue hat the quick development of a sexual minorities’ movement atthe end of the Soviet period is gathered sexuality non-normative people with there activities groups of various In this research, note It isimportant severalthat to from produce aspecific group the persons to attitude group, the 7 CEU eTD Collection representing in it of front publicthe haddefine eye, to internationalthemselves in bigger the context. from alot Russian and activists, The interestcommunity abroad. of of self-closure,period attracted along international travels tothe after and exchange support. Atsamethe time, country, the opened international the without activities these of many realize to possible been have not would it Surely community. whole movement The was highly on dependentdonations and from promotion abroad. in Participants movement Russian couldthe understand as in themselves participants a wider in life of period of society. the the the specificities “post-Soviet” about Russia, signifying these from any Ispeak following, activism.the social In social activity followedwas by a period of anomia (in sense) alongDurkheim’s with mass withdraws and Thehistory disappointment. was framed movementthe of bythis Theperiodtransformation. of existing social-political system and the economic system of the state both led to mass impoverishment same WeigleMickiewicz, Atthe deconstruction time, Butterfield, the 1992; and pre- 1992). of political participation and ofmass emergence spontaneous movements were typical and (Finifter finishedby 1996. During this in period country’sthe social and political life, high level unusually of 1993) followed Iargue after. soon thefirstthat periodmovement’s of hasthe development been (unsuccessful in two in1991andsuccessful coups and Perestroika collapse endingof USSR, the of The appeared. specialized newspaper (registered) admitted officially first itself,established the and transformation happened. movement of the into transformation Russiancommunity’s period, this In society. initmovementhas the as process (sinceand self-organized itsof 1989). leaders’ emerged out coming In 1989, the overview I suffered). control they social toohigh information or lackdue of to the not could the first manycoming of out people whopreviously inmovement the wasparticipated intended or doit to (but publiccome out.“Association It is possible to consider the emergence of sexual minorities’ movement an effectof of mass Sexual Minorities” The international LGBT community should be considered another crucially important context. important crucially another considered be should community LGBT international The deep the by framed is happened have events these all in which context social main The 8 CEU eTD Collection trends gobackthat trends early to and are in 1990s discernible still andstructure. community the activities the shows Theresearch minorities”. “sexual of generation by another maybeusedtoday experience movement. the of designing in the played have both community, international the In the Ioutlinesection 3.2., the role newthe that information financial and provided possibilities, by participants. community’s the of position and activities movement’s the of objectives proclaimed publicly between Inmy movements’discern identity gradually become p.224). to try the this relation research I (1996, Irvine that pointout (lesbianthe andgaymen) up communities grow collectivethe identities that with it community the represents, although so community the isnot often visible (1998).JaniceM. relation its of analysis without be understood cannot movement lesbian and gay the that emphasizes especially movement Liberation Gay American of development the studied has who D’Emilio, John activitiesthe areup. This grown relation is important one of objectsin gay lesbian and history studies. all which of basis the on community and movement the between relation the it important Crucially and membership. loose structure with uncertain inner often and groups professionalized activities consists that of organizations internal with separation of and less) responsibilities (more or routinely certain social, and political cultural Todoit, objectives. movementthe should infrastructure form its period. precisely and overview existing about literature sexual minorities activities in Russiain the described sexual minorities in Russia I use the concept of “social movement”. Below I define the term more To summarize, I have described a particular historical period, which is finished now, anditsTo summarize, Ihave whichisfinishednow, historical aparticular period, described The essential feature of movement is its dynamics: a movement proclaims its intention to achieve to intention its proclaims movement a dynamics: its is movement of feature essential The of favor inthe worked who groups and organizations of set the of activities of my analysis In Theoretical framework Theoretical 9 CEU eTD Collection factual contemporary source on anthropology of Russian non-normative sexuality. national social culture and traditions informalof cooperation. Essig’s work is the main theoretical and I follow in was inWestern of importance the overcome 1960-1970s. accentuation of countries Moss’s which emergence, movement of stage early relatively a of example an gives community Russian the Thus, (1995; Nartova, inperiod 2004). by Soviet informal developed population the the organization, closeting, of and social closeting Their partial basedon techniques (1995, 2001). are practices minorities’ as Russian must sexual situation, on pre-“identity contrary,beunderstood the politics” identity”may sexual thatbe politics foundin contemporary Kevin mentionsqueer theory. Moss that of“post- images itwith compares and signify regime, this “queer”to term the offers She instead. mid-1990s,away of non-normative regime anduntil thepracticing the specific sexualities came fade since 1989 first byactivists generation of the activities the developed society. Shethe arguesthat if liberalization after possible became that activities based sexuality non-normative of set uncertain Selfand other The StudyofSex, deals help understand to shaping and transformation of identity. movementthe movement, these relations andits mutual for stand interests 1995). Woods, (Sherrill, I inn 1996; think the that case of Russian between communities’ may not form effectiveleast at political movement, unless havethey support strong of a community expectations politicalAt same may activity be“sexual minorities” 1993). the it time,(Klandermans, arguedthat and the real results tothe totheirmay attitude according compared tomake image their of they public strategies choose the the activists’ in1992). These social movements invary theirradicalism and preferable position politics and thus (Blasius, style life their of acknowledgement just than claims radical more claims as their propose (Calhoun, may be minorities 1994).It argued thatsexual in movement asocial may organized identity” “politics of abright of example so called Theyserved paradigm. movement” “newthe social The of activities in sexual minorities werestudiedRussia byLaurie Essig. Her in especially movement, social a as conceptualized were minorities sexual of activities social The (1999) provides (1999) framework atheoretical forconceptualizing the 10 Queers inRussia. CEU eTD Collection explain the features of ofits anddynamic of movement innerthe thefeatures development. explain would which a concept construct to try and facts historical of analysis the on concentrate I work minorities’ public activities in Russia, and Isuggestlooking atit as a kind of social movement. In my activities. movement’s the of and homosexuality, of decriminalization after right and number important of details useful for reconstruction both lifethe of community in the period before participant” observations in of events andMoscow Petersburg Leningrad/St. “queer life” includea business,“gay publisher’sart,” enterprises)David (2005). with Tuller’s book his “included (gay period the of severalactivities known less reconstruct helps to biographies collection of from citiesSiberian thatshow lifethe of community the in (2004); province Kirsanov’sVladimir lesbians and transsexuals of interview with gays, collection areSonyasources Franeta’s important non-political of and activities groups the organizationsexplained. outof capitalsthe isnot Other various well as 1989,as before life community’s However, the facts. important offer detailed and and thushis advocate sexualminorities’ consultant, of publicactivity very the descriptions are thus, Ineeded their own interpretation of their behaviorin that time and how they had apprehend their ways) needsinterests and of community,the situational utilized andproduced options community;the their (in realized who own activists was that My presumption movement’s theoretical actors. the intentions of reconstruct My wasto about. aim Ispoke of organizations certain development describe and how ithad given birth to the movement, I had to reconstruct the chronology of events and situation with sexual minorities in the country. Although I was notwriting a history of the community However, there still is no developed anthropological conceptualization of the emergence of sexual of emergence the of conceptualization anthropological nodeveloped is still there However, important Kon 1997). Hehasworks areoverviewsOther been anactive (1994, 1995, Igor of My research consisted of two main parts. First of all, I needed an overall view at the whole the at view overall an needed of Firstall, I main parts. of two consisted My research Methodology and research design 11 CEU eTD Collection their stories as they could reconstruct them now. Thus, the first part of the interview consisted of their interviews. Conducting theinterviews I tried toprovide my respondents an tell opportunity to me made semi-structured 13in-depth andI organizations.general, In organizers of groups participants, community in Russia:Moscow and Petersburg. St. minorities’ sexual the of centers main two in the interviews the on concentrated I limitations, time and for my Genderfrom conditions Departmentthe this of grant,received fieldwork, CEU Studies travel was written. 2.1. section the research, studying forminorities’usage of sexual the termsdifferent their the community; basisthe of on thehistory about community.collection sources the of and secondary of primary materials. I also studiedmaterials of Moscow Archive of Lesbians and Gays kindly me hiscollectiongave of editions, soIhadwork with opportunity these aunique to rare these Kon Igor was depicted. where process time ongoing of the and“thematic”al.), editions that Kon, et case. “Russian” this specificity of the woulddemonstrate effectively that its several I chose aspects organization following these three levels simultaneously. As I could not reconstruct the whole history, interviews and publications of period. that time, was shapedover andreshaped movement levels analysis: of the three were There system. be described asacomplicated was to activities, their of context operative the as general, in community the time, same the At conditions. In my search for the respondents I was interested primarily in interviews with the active the with interviews in primarily interested was I respondents the for search my In consistedThe fieldwork ofinterviews with movement’s of ages.the participants Dueto different Besides using of the gay and lesbian press as a (narrative) historical source, I made content analysis The main sources of “historical”work were part published historical descriptions (Essig,Kirsanov, Thus, Itriedmake to a chronologically organized reconstruction of the movement’s emergence and onthe intentions maybe basis3) Individual present-daY of of reconstructed asthey activists the and community the how shows that representation, of system symbolical the of Transformation 2) 1) The history of communitythe which gave birth to movement. the 12 (ALG), a private CEU eTD Collection primarily with from lesbian women ALG. with,being circleTheactiviststhe Ispoke of “public in place in contact. regular keep took Gay to June) 27 of (that forPride the busy too contactwere, perhaps, with preparation Ineededto had than activists andseveral I actually analysis. Ialso madefollow-up questions by way e-mail. This communication moreof needed time forI Allmadeasked menottodoit). interviewsinto transcripts also were turned recorded notes. interviewees (three record to possible were interviews all Not longer. was which interview Krauze’s generationsthree to belong and degrees, higher had two of beside the respondents All anthropologist). community. an as community The average of Where (Kon community.the were2experts and who was alesbian Nartova the and studied length of the interviews was 2, 5 -3 hours, of their activities. estimation (retrospective) except for giversgrant andstrategies offinancial 11)(other) leaders,support, personal with relations them, and with (could 10)relations be)defined, movement and thethe how interests aimsof discussed itand political main of interpretation and their and activities social their of context social 8) community”, LGBT “global trends in the society typicalof thatthe 7) activities, time;cultural their of results the and dynamics 9) intra-organizational ideology the on featuresaccent with to belonged of of thethe movement,community(s) organisationsthe history particular the the and andtheirleaders, 6) of organisations person groups who and – books, how songs etc.,between relations in structure, 1990s,its early of features community the and Condition characteristic relation to symbols“coming out” and entrance intoand the community (this signstopic often was the first one to discuss), of 5) 1989 – aboutiforganisations it; therespondentknewatleast of 4) personal anything about story public first the of emergence before the community the of condition 3)the dates, chronological important 2) sexuality; no-normative with name persons toand community the categories covered 1)preferable my afterfollowing the It topics: readings. preliminary had constructed self-introduction. wasI interview of second on thata uniform grounded the The questionnaire part It the search for interviewees I used the “snowball method.” In Moscow, I made interviews made I In Moscow, method.” “snowball Iusedthe interviewees for search It the I made 13interviews follow-up with questions andseveral exchanges short with participants other 13 CEU eTD Collection AlexanderGalich, isoften mentioned. song The described, naturally,how woman a wrote a aboutreport her husband’s 1 Appendix. in the is interviewees the of list The text. my in names first only used I so names, full their by mentioned be to want not did respondents the cases several in nicknames); these by here mentioned figures” mentioning with agreed names of their of (two hadthe nicknames and were regular citizens. for the care of site beparty alegitimate to wereproclaimed matters intimate and even prohibited, forcontrol officials to (Kon, 1995; 2001).However,Zdravomyslova, its public expressions were was a highifimportant hard life, that aspectindividual’s succeeded init to an was degree. Sexuality research: introduction of non-normative sexuality in the of public case life“Russian” of the the of society. specificity the at looking before them study to important is It society. which homosexuals hadtodecideidentity about their beginand toorganize themselves. in context socio-cultural in broader tounderstandthe order homosexuality before legalization of the in sexuality period in the society the with to regard survey is it situation the to necessary Therefore, sexuality andheld forms.whole its ideas inthesociety about improper proper systems of and InRussian discussionof this topic, the song “Red Triangle” written by the semi-underground singerof that time, 1) The state openly tried to put the whole run of private life of its citizens under control, and control, under its citizens life of of private run whole put the to openly tried state 1) The In important in sexuality SovietUnion shouldfeatures, terms for the of this one mention three mainfeatures ofthe In in established theregime section,sexuality this the Ioutline Soviet of the by is affected citizens its among intentions and practices homosexual of status Sociocultural 1 Igor Kon conceptualized this relation to sexuality as an attempt to build“sexlesssexualityto up to Kon anattempt as thisconceptualized Igor relation Chapter Chapter 1. Homosexuality intheSoviet Union before itsde-criminalization “Sexuality” intheSoviet Union 14 CEU eTD Collection infidelity to theirfactory’s Trade-Union and party committee. The husband’s behaviorwas discussed in the Communist’s in a “sexual but society became thespecific discursiveSoviet regime revolution this of revolution”, as the in theWest became conceptualized sexuality,that to of relation same deeptransformation comparison with Finnish Kon society (2002) suggested(2004). thatRussian society underwentthe her by shown had she as societies, European inother sexuality to attitude of transformations simultaneous with compared be may transformation generational this sexuality; “experienced” and Sovietfree moving moreconstrained population, andoppressed sexuality condition from gradually to forAnna example,did in Rotkirch, generations three discerned 2002). (Kon,the 2002,Rotkirch, sexuality “Westerner’s” as periods same basically the Union came through Soviet inof the sexuality itbebutcouldwas notsufficient detected enough “sexlessto regime the of transform civilization”. late 1970s,in the of period socialism the (“ family,becauseitinfluenced in familiesrelations and adults between (Golod,and 1996).In children sexuality. This circumstance even had been considered a social problem by specialists in sociology of people had materials often continued, about noscientific sexuality-related distribution knowledge circulation and matters Although could never aboutthese stop (illegal) knowledge authorities the of 1986). of men were actually involved in homosexual whileacts theirimprisonment (Kon,1997; Kozlovsky, At1998). samethe time, USSRhad the the biggest prison population in world,the huge and number Russian society neverhad such prohibition a strict of homosexuality before (Healey, 2002,Kon, however, revolution”; “sexual the before societies Western to compared be may homosexuality of “closeting” total This of regime (Gessen, 1994). from minds erase it citizens’ the to effective tools publicknowledge (Kon,To 1997). abouthomosexuality tolerablecondition.was under that from excluded were it to hints any also but sexuality of expressions only not where civilization” 3) Nevertheless, the country’s population could not avoid sexual life. It was shown history was shown life. the avoidthat It could not sexual population thecountry’s 3) Nevertheless, 2) Any information sexualityand knowledge about was excluded from media andliterature. as effectively functioned itswith medicalization, combined homosexuality, of The criminalization Brezhnevism” 15 ), a slight movement to discuss such matters CEU eTD Collection lesbian press. lesbian emerginggay and to advantage media” gavean “sexing of media.process This state-controlled the in its absence of long period by it,the wascaused calls media”, asshe “sexing of fastdevelopment quickly young) byjournalistsutilized in (mainly and publishers country the The (1995). extremely freedom of Masha pressto“erotichadthe been Gessenshowedhowthis freedom too. materials” Glasnost askedfor its had,asonemainmottos, of Perestroika, Gorbachev’s “western” andopenness freedom. of regime established general the inwith of knowledge wasjuxtaposed the country. Thisregime Thelackof as was non-existence. andapproved” such knowledge afeature “officially recognized its things life a with sexual socialinformation sexuality caused that for demand and knowledge about 1976, his verses werepublished but neverabroad in USSR(Gay,the slaviane!, 1993,pp. 21-27). and Gennady in writer was imprisoned Leningradgaypoet For example,the issues.Trifonov related connections with Western publishers The and journalists. same mustbehomosexuality- said about include self-made foreign manualstranslations of “Samizdat”sexual and erotic literature. had Besidesissues had illegal pornography, the to same these p.84). distributed of way 1998, (Tuller, in it country,the and wouldbe not wrong say to sexuality-relatedthat materials and were produced meeting, after which he was publicly reprimanded. publicly was he which after meeting, system of production and distribution variousof self-made issues printed ( sexuality-related materials wasstill illegal;butup tothat time, awell-maintained andcomplicated of Distribution enforced. still was solitude” “regime of the it before. But do decades had to tried asitlife intimate aseffectively alreadycontrol their not state could andthe “desexualized,” were not kind of “stalled” one. It meant that, to the end of the Soviet period the citizens of the country already We can summarize that until the 1980s there was a palpable contradiction between the real state of real state the between contradiction wasapalpable until the1980sthere that We summarize can `. Besides other meanings `. Besides other 1989), this (Remington, implied motto freedom of speech and 16 samizdat ) wasestablished CEU eTD Collection would help to estimatewould distribution help to homosexualityand of in shape USSR,but areseveral there the solved. crimes, known and disputed by the experts, for the majority of the community the problemsexual was totally about legislation in the uncertainties were there Although movement. the of participation direct had been widely indiscussed andprotested community,butthe thevery action happened without Thedecriminalization 2006). Kon, 1995; Petrov, (Gessen, 1994; weredecriminalized adults between acts homosexual consensual end, the In expert. law a of authority with interests their advocating infamous article from in code.Sincethe 1991,hekept with minorities’touch sexual activists, eliminate the to and usedthisopportunity He waslaw’sdraftinof new preparation engagedthe the Aleksei Ignatov. Prof. keyfigure The was procedure. of bureaucratic a routine as apart butactivism, tothe authorities’ by asananswer state the legislation,not penal of the of reformation process gay and lesbian movement in the late Perestroika period. The article 121.1 was reposed along with the seek protection of their rights as citizens and humans. was by unlawful and definition them knowledge often this from engagingprevented anyactivity to their activity that knew Homosexuals mass consciousness. into acrime as homosexuality of idea the homosexual wasintercourse led tofour or five years ofimprisonment. This law effectively introduced as “the Law of 7 March 1934”, played a crucial role in the history homosexuality in Russia. An act of control officially p.6; published state the Healey, 2002).By law, the 1995;Gessen,1994(rus), (Edge, relations was a powerful tool in the general trend of putting all the private life of Soviet citizens under andin homosexual offamily in1920s. USSR simplification criminalization The relations the of freedom aperiod followed after of same timecriminalization national other cases. The among unique state criminalization history homosexuality madeits of inthat sopainful the Soviet Union and,atthe It isnotIt knowuptill now, howfactually many sentencedlaw. by people were Thesedata this self-constituting the of demand main and first the became homosexuality of dectriminalization The wasthe It regime. undertheSoviet wastreated homosexuality the how describe section, I In this The official discourse: criminalization andmedicalization 17 CEU eTD Collection certainly accumulated, at least by “influential” persons in the community. For example, Alexander For in community. the persons atleast by “influential” accumulated, certainly was prosecution the in avoiding experience Acertain sectionthe people. helped“our” (look 2.2.) themselves to referred as they each other.“Our”people, helpto informal of importance about write factor for development of their community. feelingthe affinity of and solidarity between homoeroticspeople with intentions. Itwasimportant an People of older generation of the community spoke and consciousness. in mass “crime” the and “homosexuality” between connection ideological keptthe The lawfurther (interview among with threats tobeprosecuted other danger this Ortanov)). pseudonyms considering collapse of the Soviet system (but even the first public, “open” gay activists began their activity under very the until impossible absolutely homosexuals of movement public any made It homosexuals. when more than 130 men were imprisoned. (Franeta, 2004, p.69). place thattook asin inSiberian homosexualists against aslate militia’s “operations” cities her 1986 solely because of crimethis (Gessen, p. 1994(rus), 23). One of Sonya Franeta’s respondents described hundred injail, two 1993, about were there“sodomy” people accusedof who of were them among 73 After law p.10).elimination thousand in: at29 April everyyear. (cited Gessen,1994(eng) of the a mean about would that theprisoners 0.1% of all about article the was to according sentenced men averagenumberthe in that of Russiancriminal wrote slander,world Onespecialist extortion). (blackmailing, article this under than this article of because crimes many more were there insisted on, ɭɫɭɝɭɛɢɬɶ Scherbakov, Secondly, 1993). “obscene this article” wassometimes usedagainst to dissidents as etc.p. (Gessen,work secret informers, 1994, 18-20;Kozlovsky,p.155-156; provocateurs 1986, with to wereforced KGB.They tocooperate ifthe free only they agreed mencould stay homosexual blackmailed and cooperateforced by to KGBthatthe informationhomosexuals. gathered about Many rather but imprisoned not were often very men homosexual Firstly, investigation. an such in obstacles At same the time, common this danger unifiedpeople with non-normative sexuality and produced lawfor wasabig Soviet underit, this danger number obviously Regardless arrested precise the of their “guilt” and put them in hard situation in the prison. Thirdly, as prof. Alexei Ignatov Alexei prof. as Thirdly, prison. the in situation hard in them put and “guilt” their 18 CEU eTD Collection in Perestroika time. Thus, the state oppression was afactor of creation of the subculture. Russian sexualminorities, being established an social oppressed group, asubculture, which came out understandhistory livesinforceddestroyed people, them Russia.Itof their to of thousand and unity. its in role ambiguous an played pathology as homosexuality female of medicalization consistent by well. as sexuality non-normative and views political unorthodox whathe The the “underground called closet.” same individual hide social techniques were appliedto such havea highly Sovietsociety, citizensa society the politicized weretrained to as life, double was just oneparticular life”“double example AsKevin techniques. of Moss (2002)has in shown, development of and group individual beingtactics of ahomosexual in anintolerantenvironment that community under pressureof danger. This constantthis experience obviously usedin was the people whoused channels informal these network tofind allies. of by homosexuals small wereorganized groups of first official organizations Perestroika era,the with the “our people” in present times as set of people they can call on in case of urgency. mentionedrelations disappear elimination the of didnot connections law:my the respondents after In the late different people in the early 1980s, and studied the Penal Code especially for this aim. for strategies different men. Herecommended consult"thematic" be to able andlaws to procedure militiaKukharsky behavior ways at describes interrogation. especiallystudied and of different the He by personal acquaintance between “old” participants ofMany “old” wereby groups. between the small communities participants personal acquaintance small as wellgroups as individuals, often havingnoinformation each about other connectedor only hem did exist in the Soviet Union. The nation-wide “community” I speak about consisted of many To summarize this, Isuggestthatthewell-known male prohibition homosexuality of accompanied in the accumulated was service security andlaw the dealingwith the of experience Thus, the This informal network of “our people” was sustained by the permanent threat of prosecution. These Long beforeits “emergence in publicthe discourse”in 1989, homosexual men as well groups as of Homosexual community intheUSSR late SovietUnion 19 CEU eTD Collection main cruising place in Moscow were a big square in front of the Bolshoi in front wereabigof Theatre Bolshoi square the inMoscow main place cruising ironically mentions this gesture of demonstrating true national way to behave ina queer way (Moss, 2001). 3 kind. their together. These womenmet together regularly, and they still do it now without any need to cooperate withother groups of 2 pleshkas appropriatedtoilets by community;the and ahidden informalsystem of communication. community, its is although etymology (Kozlovsky, unclear institutions 1986)); city - cafés and public environments own members theireveryday of of consisted persons and active by socially established cruising places (usually cruising “ (usually places called and its had regional centers andlesbian informal –a gay infrastructure set of special meeting and solidarity the in group. the sustains that use this infrastructure, to possibility the about are aware also They practices. particular affinities feel they but “a community,” to with belong personally they that peoplethemselves about think not should people of a certain kind; These 1995). label “homosexuality” (Woods, of nebulous in the theycoincidedegrees under varying all are also interested class) which musical or taste location, geographic preference, (suchasgender,sex various elements in on based the identities communal of series of] special a set is community “[the life: gay Britain of analysis infrastructure for homosexuals). Theremay be applied thedefinition of community,the by in used his Woods Chris allowcould be “open” himself not homosexual an to being otherlocaleven well-known to Soviet Union anindefinite as network of people, unified only by theirhidden sexual preferences (one environment in a more or less consistent way. Itis more correct to think about sexual minorities in the distinguish between the from and, view,of to apossibility community and the researcher’s the point be too precise because it implies a certain amount of solidarity between members of a community On the coverof her“Queers in Russia” (1999), Laurie Essig is depicted as a man in drag standing on this place; Moss resided and employed were who ofwomen consisted that groups lesbian several about told Krauze Olga example, For The symbolical centers of the local urban communities’ infrastructures werecruising – sites infrastructures of centers local The symbolical the communities’ urban In following,the Ioutline infrastructure of hidden this community. Thebiggestcities of country the . Even the oldest members of the community do not know how the 2 . The very usage of the word “community” in relation to Soviet homosexuals would not pleshkas ”, ɩɥɟɲɤɢ 20 – the word is known to all members of the pleshkas 3 appeared. The appeared. (according to CEU eTD Collection and contradictions. It is worth mentioning that Vladimir Kozlovsky’s lexicon includes the critical the includes lexicon Kozlovsky’s Vladimir that mentioning worth is It contradictions. and provided hima description detailed of at relations from groups upper classes. was “allowed” to them. This by scenarios Theyhad experience. prison a traditionally jobmasculine masculinization and certain communitysexual in their of influenced were working surely them of Some employed. transsexuals female a aswell classlesbian women sometimes hadKrauze mentions “tram park “Konyashino,” –amunicipal transportation connectionsenterprise, where weremany with who regularly showed lodgingcompany, andsexual Inbigdistractions. themselvescities couldbe several placescruising and persons up at one placetown, a homosexual could easily acquire information about “pleshkas”could there getting possibility findto know nothingbutamongmany in nonqueer Moscow’s population as well” (Essig,1999,p.84).Goinga new to about others.there gathered who those among only not “known,” was place the Forsomehow gather… could example,queers the whole café was appropriated by Essig whole Laurie gays. the caféwasappropriated calls weregaysthere explained in invite that of staff andfriends, café,the whousedto theirthe gradually nudists were not homosexuals. not were nudists themajority of although in of same “zone tolerance” get the could homosexuals beaches); separate inbeach onlyin bathing ofbeaches certain was Nude Odessa. (certain tolerated or places parts beachesin were in Gay thebeaches, nude USSR often combined period. that with asChkalovsky characteristic Another places. asmeeting heavily thatwerepublicused certainly were toilets and baths here street public mentionI donot124). “Sputnik”) 2004,p. (Franeta, places with café park (along werePervomajsky homosexuals met in the famous “Catherine’s garden” in Nevsky inin garden”“Catherine’s met Nevsky famousprospect homosexuals the 20ththe Century memorial (Lychev, 1993)), square near metro Kitai-gorod station. In Leningrad legends, this place was used in this way, "queered", known as cruising site already in the beginning of There was fora struggle symbolicleadership in community.Kozlovsky’s the informants Vladimir In Moscow, sexual minorities met in famous cafés loci of the community’s infrastructure were nude beaches that began to emerge to thatbegan werenudebeaches infrastructure thecommunity’s of 21 pleshka Artisticheskoe , emphasizing inter-generational exchange inter-generational emphasizing , Sadko “the only in shelter public which and . . In Novosibirsk, cruising Sadko . Dmitry Lychev Dmitry . CEU eTD Collection were considered thegay most prominent Simultaneously homosexualpoets. themes in appeared – for free. very often collections, Ortanov) with (interview content their for completing collections these used editions specialized first Later, by homosexuality aboutenthusiasts. had Libraries were collected Kukharsky Aleksandr one). for example, by leaders, gathered of materials collections erotic were materials (there visual ofinformation werenetworks and viainfrastructure exchange ofliterature “their”people, distribution less citizen were more it companiesof or could enjoy Otherparts exclusive. these the then); apartment by (not every incompanies was socializing hosted were havingseparate people possible sophisticated Conlon, meaning More 2000, additional 2004). thereby(Brown, social cultural and receive places these in and places certain The practices arereproduced infrastructure. based onthis makes based thecommunity onthese it; sustains infrastructure is practices community alive, the This in(2004)). NewYork infrastructure Deirdre thesimilar described Conlon particular practices (as always suburban existed fornot an infrastructure space; asa recognizable outsider set of the sites for localized and in in theurban that period, of homosexualcommunity infrastructure primary were the there was a considerable number of number wasaconsiderable there 1992). (Lazarev, people” of although today”, nobody came ”Isee saying left place the just come circle the not did of society” the “…this society has its stars, and the rest hung around them. Ithappened often that is some of the “soul it, describes participant local community’s café,asa gay InBarnaul spirit. style subculture and the fixing of element anecessary were figures their infact together; “our people” the gather to necessary p.75). The leaders werethe (Kozlovsky, “pleshka of 1986, community”the intellectual centre present asan tried themselves of to aesthetes who smallcompany by produced words a considerably filled it with was because the lexicon, severely criticized homosexual, who remark an of anonymous Besides, semi-underground homoeroticexisted. art Eugene Kharitonov and GennadyTrifonov To summarize, the 4 . As soon . As as itbecame used to send organizations soon these for possible,their Western editions pleshkas along with nude along beaches, with 22 ɫ afés, (of course) certain public toilets and (ofcertain public toilets afés, course) CEU eTD Collection support ofhomophobia. support politics nowadays, fifteenyears after the first wave, takes place in sufficiently different environment, withsecond open wave state of politicizationof homosexuality in Russia. However, this self-establishment of gay and lesbian identity and St. Petersburg, organized by a new generation of gay political of political gay generation by new a organized Petersburg, St. and 5 homosexuality and AIDS-related materials. 4 Symbolically, environment. (andevenwhere by urban environment socially weretolerated practices) prohibited unaccepted the of spaceinside factually, andwere, separated function), (socializing practices cultural in collective consistent political body amore create to and community the politicize tried to activists The emergence. their official before werearticulated activists these agendasof the and andcommunities smallernetworks existing previously these on grounded LGBT organizations were activitiesfirst of later the the Therefore, constitute a biggernot by gathered they community, informationwere solidarity and channels. homosexualinterconnected in if their subculture,did Russia with groups even and own these groups wasaset of there that its signifies existence paralegal. However, less illegalor more or were activities not open exclusively for “sexual minorities”, and she considered it abig advantage of that actions. was audience the1970s.The back to aredated sometimes emergence, theirafter lesbian mediasoon remember Stories shows home-staged in transvestite Moscow. publishedin and poems, gayand works of whowriters did not belong communitythe to (Vishnevsky,OlgaKrauze 2002) would nowadays the community does not need to have such a central and stable place for meetingand for place stable and such havea central need to not does the community nowadays lesbian community, clubs refer(Sasha; anddiscos to would N.I. [Ivanova]; Ithink Nartova). contemporary and gay speaking about subculture, of the representatives Younger “queer” activities. town and continuebut theirthey existence cities do nothave ofunique meaning the specialized of have Cruising in to -open-air clubsandparts shifted discos. the places central places majority The activities. homosexual of legalization the after significantly importance their lost have These attempts failed, as I would show below. One should consider the on-going events around gay-prides in Moscow As Vladislav Ortanov explained to me, almost every formalized (institutionally) group of later period had a collectionof This infrastructure couldThis infrastructure effectively not excludepeople” “our from hostile environment. All these Pleshkas provided possibility meetto amate (informational and socializing function), toparticipate 5 . pleshkas could not help could but not ghettoized homosexuals. Nowadays, 23 ɩɪɟɞɩɪɢɧɢɦɚɬɟɥɟɣ (as Nartova defines them), the them), defines Nartova (as loci for special pleshkas CEU eTD Collection Britain “ type community.practice of keepbelongingthe andthus speech to this with acquaintance share they Yet them. with do to nothing have to try lesbians and gays many but homosexual community the part of recognizable arearather style this performing Persons gender. feminine in themselves mentioning and mannerism female a performing homosexuals feminized manner of homosexualthis mannerfunctionally thein/outreinforced divide and sustained solidarity. group behavior.in speak and communicate capacity to the patterns: of cultural system of part an important subculture Closer“khabal’stvo” consider would I communities. the in used relations sexual of to regime the sustains that the point,space closed special the create to was function Its gatherings. social at parties, special ”pleshkas,” at precise, “khabal’stvo”“perversion”, play about and a complicated inlanguage.genderedwith expressions jokes interest, and arousal, sexual of isexpression overt an imply would often “khabal’stvo” itout, figure related to community, “ called homosexual of amongmanner members was communicating the of speaking and a specific language. its of special style wassurely features the One style. specific culture of had recognizable the one can consider the set of homosexuals’ communities in late-socialist Russia a subculture, as far as it Lookingfrom this side, “style” subculture. of behaviorthe of –the patterns symbols remarkable and culture. Theymakeset of overarchingby group the theirown protest producing own their dominance functions. these fulfill internet together the and places public downtown city’s aRussian because socializing “Khabal’stvo” may be compared with another homosexual subculture slang languages, such as such languages, slang subculture homosexual another with becompared may “Khabal’stvo” unpleasant and a vulgar for synonym a as “khabal’stvo” term the used myrespondents of Several – people” ”thematic among places, in special used was speech as practice of a kind “Khabal’stvo” Besides slang,aspecific speech developedsubcultural initpractice as latemid-1970s. There by Dick According groups and areproduced subordinate (1979),subcultures to Hebdige to try polari ” (Baker,2002,Denning, although 2002), I failed find to anycomparative research. khabal’stvo ” (« ɯɚɛɚɥɶɫɬɜɨ »; the verb – 24 ɯɚɛɚɥɢɬɶ , “ khabalit’ ”). As far as I could CEU eTD Collection of them wore the marriage used happento ring at a private flat, music was played, and aninvitedon priest “made ither allfor the girls, each left hand (in very Thesemarriagestypicalwith event not (1986, app.VI). and recognizable ritual a special rare countries with Orthodox a as interview inthe mentioned are “lesbianmarriages” book, Kozlovsky’s InVladimir marriage. Christianity traditions wouldbesocial norm. Religiousasa "wedding" “secular” employed alternative to the symbolic of an alternative social norm by bypass the employment in a marriagecould They church. it: secret “family” go–could notto registration state the house ( In thishavelesbiansmarriages. period managedto girls secret Twowho decided live to asacouple – publisher isincluded; it consist of 45 names, all which of are female nicknames pseudonyms.or Poisk” produced newsletter “Omskaja Tema”; in its 9 in its “Omskaja Tema”; newsletter Poisk” produced foreign malenames In (Lazarev, 1992,p.7). Omsk, an ofhomosexuals“Klub entitledorganization – in Barnaul while names, female exclusively almost used were in Omsk example, for – nicknames transformed or appropriatedculture’s influence. Kozlovsky provides a listof nicknames,these the majority isof which female names. There Kozlovsky These dictionary securedanonymity,nicknames (1986). wereafeatureof of and prisoner were regional differentiations in the usage alienation. ofironical by their thesexuality and gender to relation reframe to but function), slang’s is (that them re-naming by intentions and relations nottohide This wasusedprimarily speech inside social practice subculture) bigger the of group. toasubgroup is attributed (asfar “khabal’stvo” of and complicated as a developed afeature consider is a performative, used in special situations and contexts, and the fact of the existencestill and of themanner was I usage Its a sociolect. rather but slang, not is it thus dictionary; “khabal’stvo” a for room 6 almost no special words has “khabal’stvo” whereas vocabulary, own its has “polari” is that difference obvious main The There is a special internet-resource gathering examples of “ examples gathering internet-resource a special is There An interesting fact may be mentioned to argue for the level of self-organization ofthe community. forself-organization level argue the mentionedmay to of be fact An interesting Many special nicknames that were in use exclusively inside the community are included in the included are community the inside exclusively in use were that nicknames special Many 6 . Many words are used with . Many transformedmeaning,butbe seemsthere areused with no words to 25 khabal’stvo ɁȺȽɋ th issue (1991), the list of issue list members (1991),the its of of ” and related materials: http://xabalka.gay.ru ), but they they but ), ritual used another instead of CEU eTD Collection 7 shaped by “opening”an of sexuality publicto discussion and asudden inrise tolerance ofits markers. and of its features forming emergence subculture.were this The public anation-wide movement from orientations sexual non-normative with people prevent not did it prohibited was homosexuality minorities’ movementwas shaped byits developmentin previousthe period. Although officially special of patterns behavior and acquaintance, some only of which couldbe recognizedby outsiders. lesbian an “active” (butch-like) of asafeature oneearring mentioned respondents in her ear in 1981 because, said she, “I heard that lesbians wore one earring”; similarly, one of Essig’s Amongmy respondents, only one Julia Certlich could remember suchcustom. girls with ringthis in the streetcrowd. Essig mentioned these marriages once as well (1999, p.41). recognize saidshe couldhands). Thegirl theirmarried weddingringsright on usually wear people sexuality in Russia, although there certainly were special terms to signify special tothese to attached terms therecertainly inpersons, sexuality although were Russia, in national context. are used communities particular this based sexuality non-normative for terms international how explain to am going I text the of part description namesthrough being usedinthe community, and connotations of names.In the last the Essig, 1991,p. 116. There never was any commonly accepted name for the community based on non-normative basedon community for the name accepted anycommonly never was There self- analyze also will I community. described the naming to approach my Iexplain section this In In this chapter, I tried to argue ItriedIn thischapter, primer the that to manifestation andshowing-up sexual the of There wereother signs used recognize by homosexuals each to Olgaother. Krauzehadan earring Chapter 2. Theemergence of the Russiansexual minorities movement after 1989 How to name the community? The problem of relevant naming 26 7 . There were also were . There CEU eTD Collection In short, In normative sexuality getmaya social help and to regardlessadvantage, of own person’s the sexuality. non-signifyfeels with was fora person,who people a“helper”meaning sympathy word to - the of third The “nature”). her or his about aware she or he be community the join could (who homosexual signify useda “hidden” bythis expression to society. of samecommunity My the or respondents as a certain person speak about) (to signify homosexuals was entitled for newspaper Soviet official first The theme”. the “she/he isabout shehe is“thematic”, or that among majority.the I think this approach is very fruitful but too complicated to be used inthis work. 8 practices sexual same-sex to orientation their community: the of characteristics basic the signifying and connotations gendered openly no through mainly by men (in this case it complies with “lesbians” as gendered term for females), having these terms had is “Sexual to. bedattached aneutral minority” term in widely community, used this perspectives theoretical the to avoid references to try I also recently. only terms these accepted has and self-description have anyunited not which does this community to “queer” “LGBT”“gay(s)”, or “sexual below, avoid suchas term Western in of Iusethe categories, to as minority” projecting order aware of their possible similarityconsisted of identities,and individualssharinggroups included similar incommon social netsand and common community interests The be controlled. cannot sometimes that connotations havedifferent terms “native” with other groups by Andme. these was reconstructed ifanalytically community whole community,the even of their kind. In the of texta part to relate far asthey as “native” terms the all use time the I cannot Asaresearcher, practices. I use term “sexual; minorities”. However, in fact I mainly write about male and female homosexuals. female and male about write I mainly in fact However, minorities”. “sexual; term use I include people “non-normative” with any sexuality, such a community whether not,actually exists or One of my respondents, Ortanov, defined the community through “homoerotic interests” as opposed to “heteroerotic” to opposed as interests” “homoerotic through community the defined Ortanov, respondents, ofmy One The most often used manner toimplyin involvement community,the if only potentially, was to The most often used “native” term is term The most “native” often used our related toany whopossiblyperson could participate in community’sthe life. Itdidnot the Tema . tema 8 . Then I write about the whole community which may which community whole the about write I Then . ours that means “theme”; it is easy to say about somebody . Surely it was a common way to speak about member 27 CEU eTD Collection sexual minorities sexual was word thefirst usedfor that the newspaperKirsanov of timesuggested byfirst official Soviet the The “blue”word tendstobe used in relation to the community itselfexclusively), (not its history (for abroad. life homosexual about information of in pieces or orientation, sexual “non-traditional” with a person iscases, about then speech the in abstract preferably later) were used terms wasproduced between the strict (amore distinction “homosexualists” with along Terms “homosexual” discerned. period – leading ofthat editions “blue” three relatively rarely. If we compare usage of words “gay”, “homosexualist” and “blue(s)” as synonyms in (2004, p.(2004, 131) had that before had domineered argot term prison offensive replaced the explained, Novosibirsk used in thewar;blue Leningrad As before the community from interviewee Franeta’s one itwas not “veteran”, toone because, according War, Patriotic the Great after introduced was term speechthe of“blues” themselves thishadword nohumiliating connotations and was neutral. This sympathize to sexual minorities and somehow enhance the community. only could person the practicesexuality; same-sex usedto person the that mean necessarily in the 2 inwoman language. Russian the alwaysbeen used for homosexual women. The word “homosexual” is notusually used in relation to a has “lesbian” word The humiliating. distinctively more was and themselves, for women homosexual for rarely by “blues”,“pink,”In contrast,equivalentused the was 1997). gendered language(1995, introduction into Russian facilitateof the term inthe to ordinary use“gays”,prefers to possibly order mainly “blues”Igor Kon in Russian-languagebooks uses of period term the he (1994); same the The terms, most often used for homosexuals were “blues” for men, and “lesbians” for women. In The “gay”word graduallybecame usedspeaking inEnglish homosexual communities and societies details) new without (not texts earlier his repeats basically which article English-language his In nd part of the 20 9 . Tema (Kirsanov, 2006,p.479).In (Kirsanov, “gay” newspaper,however,this word the isused th Century Century In it(Speirs, in Russian the 2000). was introduced context 1980s. Tema, 1/10 28 and RISK , a slight difference may be may difference a slight , CEU eTD Collection Essig has discussed the term, it “does not rely on a simple binary opposition – hetero/homo. Instead, it. AsLaurie politicize it easy beto allrelatively would to This of term was known them, therefore potentially,but, non-traditional sexuality-based identities,bisexualsother and suchas transvestites. homosexuals only not in itself include may minorities” ‘sexual term the say, to Needless better. the social ground for their activities, and the more differenta groupsestablish and to practitionersleaders their for theyimportant is wouldIt gather, solidarity. through activities political and social their liked. they normative sexual orientations, who would be free of constant social oppression and could socialize as image tothissignifies positive reference a new of non- (imagined)with community, people gathering speakhomosexualitypossibilitie3s “gay”act in about to to field.publicly Theandpolitical term relatively adapted recently. alienateswhereas word, this “gay(s)”quotation is used marks,without has although word the been 9 In various issuesof newspaper the report about Foundingthe Conference of Association,an andin adescriptions of communal life (p.7). 29 times, “homosexualist” and“gay(s)” -15 in -13times, wordappearsintimes, butthe news,a positive connotations.in example, For one issue of“1/10” (1993,#4(11)), the word “blue(s)” isused used as cultural samples, they would use the words “blue” or“gay.” The latter word has more obvious morelikely “gay” speakingbut, contemporary than about communities events or which would be becoming “our people” members as imaginarya of an sexual minorities’Russian community was that least alienation, andand issues. foreign “Gay(s)” is used in the textspublished in that early gay and lesbian in press with the contexts that makeexample, Tchaikovskywas characterizedpreferably biographers byhis gay as“blue”as “agay”) than it possible to think that they speak about themselves or The same is stated in an anonymous interview: “I was a shy boy…” – in: Tema 1992, #4, p. 18 The groups,oppressed communities, andindividuals try to redefine their position andlegitimize The community was inthe process of making anew identity itself,for complying new with . If an article was written about history of “western” gays, the word “homosexual” was used 1/10 , “blue(s)” almost , “blue(s)” all in marks, timethe goes quotation that 29 in CEU eTD Collection level of politization of a group a may show term this Thus, theusageof Nartova). with Nadezhda (Interview transsexuals) example, or activist (or at least the as such (for gendercontract presenceidentities problematize persons whosesexual not but“lesbians”, of a political claim): was highlyto normalizedproclaim according to heteronormative models; it happened tobe possible to normalize Petersburglesbianmiddle her shapeit’s classcommunity, research existence andmodeof a St. of likepossible) groups “bisexuals,” “transgender” persons and others. As Nadezhda foundNartova in “gays”be“lesbians” and twodominant seem to groups, encompassing other (existing virtually or similarities of their situations and interests cooperating in social and political struggle. InRussia, aware implieswas nogroups definition to acceptit.reason of of Classicterm the Western different there fact, term. In acceptedthis my None of respondents network). of the recourses the access to get used nowadays by in emphasize (andactivists who their LGBT try participation to global to networks another is cultural identity belongingarea. Itis to community. appropriation of term anapparent This Thepopular groups. visible asseparate LGBT Western iswidely notterm used intheRussian not BDSM andswingers)are persons, transgender basedidentities (transvestites, normative sexuality noon- possible other lesbians; and –gays homosexuals of exclusively almost consists It development. its years public for of fifteen the became visible of which community,the feature one illustrates term sexualities (not only “gay men” and “lesbians”). However, it is worth mentioning that the status of the stresses specificitycommunity(s). of For me, thisthe is a term of description, movement available for an outsider-anthropologist; thus it as presentingits use it, meaning inclineduniversality.were not but They accepted speaking to about their interestsits for toldterm mehelikedthe inMoscow Minorities” Sexual of “Association co-founder Ortanov, of people with differentuse it, although notto preferred My respondents bythem. commonly accepted itnever was however, non-normative lesbians and gay men, but other non-normative sexualities as well. (Essig,minorities”x). “sexual 1999,p. includes Iusethe term asan term notonly umbrella which prostitution)” (e.g. heterosexuality with overlap easily can and multiple are sexualities non-normative Russian non-normative sexuality based community minorities"used "sexual as an term; umbrella 30 CEU eTD Collection “queer”. When Iasked him abouthis usage of the term “queer” said that he he practically did not need it. under ideas and attitudes to“normal” sexuality orof his her environment. I thought equatedhe “sexual minority” and 11 http://lgbtnet.ru/news/detail.php?ID=2431 10 of the community and itsmay inin beused thedescription bestterm it The section that Russian community, asIdiscuss 3.2). movement is “sexual by the identities gay western “mainstream” of reluctantand weakappropriation about statement minorities”. It does sexuality (LGBT, queer)have notbeen (this togetherwith factshould appropriated beinterpreted the not hide the presencetoo. The usedterms for self-description Western among communities peopleof with non-normative of otheruse, in was homosexual(ist) term The one. pre-existing the of basis the on shaped be would which tothebe “community” This imagined term discerned. “gay”couldrelated appropriation name the of mentionbelonging community. the 1990, aslight after manner period to the people to In with non-normative sexuality In as a group. the time “undergroundlife”,of they developed away “Queer” (K “queer” theterm of meaning mainstream similar to strikingly minority” “sexual term hisfavorite of interpretation me an gave Ortanov that interesting norcommunity, by it my not even by is any is respondents, itappreciated of them (although Essig a as isterm inof neither used theoretical description the publicizedmaterials about/of the Russia” “LGBT Network entitled inwas society, Russian homophobia and discrimination against together minorities”; that’s why a national association political established in summer of in2006 toactorder “sexual of agenda political of global part as agenda present one’s to try is to “LGBT” oneself It was interesting for me to found that he defined as “sexual minority” any person whose sexual practices do not fall http://lgbtnet.ru To summarize this, I should state that there has never been one definite way to speak about peoplespeak about hasthere been summarize neverto one definiteway that state To Ishould this, “queer” by The nowadays. Laurie used namescontinues term the The of introduction of process 10 (MSM…, 2007).. ɜɢɪ ; text of foundational agreement (in Russian) is placed at URL ), it would possiblybecome more popularin younger generation. ; English page is still under construction. 31 11 ). But as soon as a popular gay journal is entitled CEU eTD Collection emphasized. The first organization of emphasized.minoritiesfirstin organization sexual The 1984, as hasappeared in USSRassoon of the groups based on a separate identity of their own. likegroups in peoples transgender who participate formed but lifeof the have community the not legal guarantees of non-discrimination of appear. non-discrimination legal guarantees “blue” subculture” (Kon, 1997,p.362),and more options for against struggle homophobia andfor gays andlesbians getsbetter, “the homosexual underground” hasbegan totransform itself into a emerge.After declining of articlethe in 121.1 May, new 1997,the follows: period the forsituation discussions, the problemfrom ispoliticalmedical transformed to one; and the organizations first USSR/Russia: in the minorities sexual of history itreason that influences theself-understanding of groups. the Kon discernsfour main periods in it on Russian web-sites;standsbeing groups’ to therefore repeatedly sexualminorities reproduced “publicity” of sexual the minorities and their The activities. with chapter textfromthis isKon’s book One possible periodization is provided byKon p. 354). Igor (1997, Itis basedonthe degree of periodization of the movement, and explain the specificity of the period I concentrate on. indevelopment movementlook atapossible gayandof the contemporary lesbian Russia. I The disadvantage of this periodisation is that1990- June minorities1993 sexual “human the “public in enter scene”, rights” are accentuated the the 2 1987-1990 beginning of open, publicdiscussion of problemthe by andjournalists;scientists 1934-1986 period of discrimination, penal prosecution and silencing; A periodization is important for research of this kind because in help to frame the observed process. and emergence the analyzing for framework chronological a general make to try I section, this In The periodization ofthemovement inthecontext oflate-Soviet andPost-Soviet Russia 32 nd and 3 rd period are not distinctively CEU eTD Collection impoverished and could not continue them. As Ortanov has explained it, explained has As Ortanov them. continue not could and impoverished because people became 1998.At wereabandoned social time that August, activities many in in Russia crisis economical sharp the is transition chronological in this point last The period. incountry and thusthe wayhow thecommunity mutated structured changes, organized, was this the short, emerges. In gay-business entrepreneurs of newgeneration the and(3) publicspace, the in participation active up give alive, stay still even if they organizations, many thus activity, public give up to leadersdecide often andtheir areexhausted, models organizations of the (2) organizational normalized), more (becomes changes sphere in public the situation andthe whole weaker, becomes This “initial” period finishes in 1995-1996. In this time, (1)social activity of populationthe in general “coming of its out” leaders.In years, movement two institutializes next the the itself fast. remarkably by reinforced being is movement real the time, that Since program. political any for basis a became happen have did inminorities “coming out” not appeared. Before, public and could not sphere andlater) of only sexual firstpublicthe the newspaper(officially first organizations registered well. as processes) globalization of (intensification context global the in and transition), state-socialist (post period that to connect the community’s transformations with broader transformations of the Russian society in existedin that certain is Although that of period. inevitably any generalization this kind shallow, Itry collapse of the USSR. Social activities andidentity-building of the community utilized opportunities late Perestroikathe and of time wasthe time that frame, social broader In the one. into combined andit formulates itsalready political Itseems demands. meto periods thatthese two shouldbe guard”, who came into the community already in the time of the USSR, orjustin time of its collapse, The initial of period sexual minorities’ activities has begun, Ithink,formally in 1989, when the At the same time, (4) the generational change took place. Certlich distinguishes between the “old the between distinguishes Certlich place. took change generational the (4) time, same the At optimism before 1998,but then… democrats’ power betrayed us then for the first time. We had a great deal of 1998 after they just gaveitall up. Firstly, they become Secondly, poorer. the was in 1998. Iknew many people who had interests in activities, and projects, but This was period about its endin was absolutely1995, butI the breakdownsure, that 33 CEU eTD Collection Edemsky). He was repeatedly mentioned by my respondents as an example of the new generation’s leader. generation’s new of the example an as by my respondents mentioned repeatedly was He Edemsky). 12 and wasover, period first the that She argued above). her(characterized theory to perfectly conformed about she spoke society the of transformation her,the For 67). p. (Essig,1999, subjectivities” of queer rise queer politics/the fall“the in of section her book in related over the entitled even was almost 1994; she organization self- lesbian and gay of period (first) the that concluded time, that about just at observations her finished and Essig, was who Laurie discussed. lesbian openly the realized this difference community in least at that argued She expectations. another and community the of image another had differently, behaved themselves mainly younger generations, “new guard”, representing and This the society. guard” whocame in share 1993and being experience not after could that already state of the against “new or the“young” to in contrast total “closet”, of sad experience that remember easily and could important before important late 1990s,andthe provided fornew recourses newleaders continue their activities in field. theircontinue a reframed activities does not mean that all leaders main Several leaders of theirinfluence acquired in have contemporary the community It this period. of the previous period nowadays. continues still period third This 3.1.) section inthe arediscussed rupture reasons of this lost their influence; re-invite again. the hadto communities “new (The because guard” thus,disappearance; theirrather, the of now they have to organizations socialize inthese not could “newguard”population the that juststate Here I separately. Abright example of them, according to all of my respondents, is the owner of www.gay.ru Ed Mishin (Mikhail Finally, the rapid development of information internetof wassocrucially Finally, the solved rapiddevelopment the problem which The level and social sense of the loss of the main organizations’ influence should be discussed should influence organizations’ main the of loss the of sense social and level The early queer activists.”glow of p.68-69) (Essig, 1999, the dampened all have soil Russian on flourish to meant not was identity sexual of in interest and funding from Western sources, and ageneral feeling that the politics Disillusionmentwith modelsWestern of organizing andidentity, asharp decrease appeared early that fissures have queeractivists among only deepened… but few of them were as successful and hopeful as they had been in the past… [t]he werestill“...there many organizations and groups based primarily on sexual identity 34 12 . CEU eTD Collection aboutwithout“group” giving it aparticular name. Krauze pointed out in interview, the word “gay” absolutely was used in the community in that time. Scherbakov 13 wrote struggle.Krauze AsOlga this about group, remembers toreceiveorder not only but moral support information finuseful theorganization of political in organizations “thematic” with other contacts establish to tried also “laboratory” The conference. Leningrad).The Finnish to asthe atthe SETA representative worked groups’ organization international conference was held in Helsinki (so that they did nothave to travel a long distance getto ILGA’s the was timethat at that Leningrad. It ILGA visited inJuly 1984representativesof and (ILGA), Association andGay Lesbian International tothe wrote Zaremba organizations. western with achieved From contacts as“lesbian”). this group characterized very beginning, article inthe the in Russia. There were about 30 persons of both sexes in the “Laboratory” the in sexes both of persons 30 about were There Russia. in homosexuals organizations of future of its included main topics the activity all that this organization 1991). Zaremba wasa qualified linguistcould and was communicate foreigners. with It remarkable in Aleksei Petersburg’described keyfigures byone of Scherbakov scene, gay (Scherbakov, St. of the Leningrad in 1984 by Aleksandr Zaremba. Itwas called “the Bluelaboratory”.history Its was make their activities. of I acomparison section, the end of In the activities. public these of typologization for used be may effectively differences time and try in indetailsonly butlook atthe other capital, Russiancities aswell. the that several activities of I of to discern differences of their approaches to the future of the community. These Laurie Essig mentions this group as “gay The first stable group of activists, working for the interests in wasorganized for interests of minorities, the stable group The first working activists, sexual In this theemergencesection of and firstorganizedI describe the organizations,not groups true gave them the address of Dutch Communist Party, or forwarded the letter… forwarded Party, or gavethe of CommunistDutch them address the about it. Thank God, the letter came into the hands of one of “our” people, and they any political movementof homosexuals and existed [abroad] how one couldlearn one of them had written a letter to “Izvestia” [leading national newspaper] askingif I knew an astonishing story of how they established contacts with the Netherlands: The first public homosexual organizations, their interests andaims laboratory” (Essig, 1999, p.) The same does IgorKon. However, as Olga 35 13 (Zaremba’s wife was CEU eTD Collection and this massenthusiasm made experiments enterprises and possible. Thepolitical system was mentioned, was there a feeling ofnew opportunities, andhopeful opened by socialthe transformation, have events these about works different of authors with along respondents, my As country. the massall over activities stimulated effectively Perestroika The time. of that self-organization (1) Sexual minorities’groups had similar agendas and presentedmovement themselves to their environmentin similar manner, because Different it. in pioneers national was only the not were capitals’ anin the groups the and organic simultaneously, part of a broader in country happening inthe places many community minorities’ was organization sexual the of and more general self- time, same the Atrise cities. central two these in andprocesses events to main attention their of social paid usually researchers Therefore, in USSR. the community minorities’ sexual of the main centers on will the andfounders theirof leaders anddid becomenot living projects. independently dependent organizations were all subsequent the as the“laboratory” was, Just activitieskind. this of mentioned by activistsinother their stories. However,its importance was in this anticipation future of establish Petersburg. not wasalmostThe “bluetradition, and never laboratory” did any Leningrad/St. in associations “thematic” of establishment later in the role important an play would Zhuk members Scherbakov andOlga group, other the of there),but academician become adistinguished 1984; is notclear, why they were let to be active forso long, more than two years. from the very beginning, butit continued its activity until the first threats from the KGB till August of Finnish “SETA”.correspondence fell to Unsurprisingly, newsletter KGB group the under observation “our” people) channels. were: their activities Among organizations. Moscow andMoscow Petersburg Leningrad since (St. twomain 1991), of cities country,the two werethe It was mainly project of one bright personality, Aleksandr Zaremba. He moved to Kiev (he would tocombine3) Attempts submit activities began incultural and areas. group to political The 2) Searchfor contacts with foreign organizations and centers,using personal informal and (via 1) Studies in history of homosexuality and distribution of information it.about oflater LGBT interests and theperspectives laboratory” “blue anticipated the I think that 36 CEU eTD Collection homosexuality in 20 towards attitudes changing The andsociety. “Minorities conference scientific international findthem their organize. way to andhelped who had advocate consultant influential leadersan the movement’s it Thus, nowadays). (he still do facts would and knowledge, references scientific necessary with activists provisioned the own unique library of related literature must be mentioned as an important recourse). As an expert, (his he field this in community intellectual international the to connection of a point also but movement, great efforts for it. His role was not only of an authoritative consultant and public advocate of the 14 Kirsanov,Tuller (1998)provides researchers 2006;Kon,1994,1995, 1997; of (Essig,1999, other come them to conference effectively encouraged outpublicly. movement firstthe public discussions homosexuality of on territory the of USSR.Manyleadersthe future of the were invited to the conference after personal recommendations of Igor Kon. TheIgor Kon, the most well-known Russian specialist in sexology and sociology of sexuality by activities. movement the their “community” produced the and., transformation, social the emerge. leadersbegan (potential community) of the new these Activists to openedby options utilized Consequently, soon as the sociopolitical as environmenthad in changed, groups placesdifferent in common had insidethecommunity agenda that period. been realized andformed previous the move itself ahead”. to started movement gay’s the began, Perestroika the As KGB. the by way same in the finished be Perestroika had begun. If it hadn’t begun, as it had not in the time of Zaremba, all theconsiderably activism tolerantin that time.would As Ortanov toldme, “one can say that gays began only because the consumed by Russianthe audience in this historical period. His influence was characterized in: (Gessen, 2002). His The event that triggered self-organization and collective coming out of the minorities of was the coming andcollective out triggeredThe eventthat self-organization A concise outline of the period’ history below is based on the interviews, ALG materials and works A prominent expert played fundamentally important role in the early shape of the movement. It was a was There self-organization. begin public to already ready was community The nation-wide (2) Introduction to sexology th century Europe” that happened in Tallinn, Estonia, in 28-30 May. 1990. It was in thathappened Estonia,28-30May.1990.It inTallinn, century Europe” (“Vvedenie v seksologiyu”(1988)) was the most wellknown work about sexology, 37 14 , who paid CEU eTD Collection Soviet Russia, for Russia, Soviet struggle –political of his these for his trends of three targeting activities personal activities.counter-AIDS is Ortanov In figureina sense, gaymovement theearly key the post- of depending onhispersonal foreign acquaintance sampleswith it), andheof facilitate also to tried tohis in for interests editions in gays (due was interested and specialized gay personal erotica social andstatus. Hewas professional intended toparticipate in criminalization homosexuality,of he astable “Tema”. with was a scientist Ortanov lesbians newspaper gaysand for officially registered societies and information flows; they alsofacilitate growing up of different concrete groups. for survival of informal networks that certain persons function as an interconnection of different (1999,p.6).Itisimportant hisbe of counterparts…” enough be andthereneedto present, needs to need orwisdom…make A havenospecialtalents himself publichejust a public character character. iswith is anyone contact who of infrequentto a widecircle interested andwho sufficiently people is quoting JaneJacobs:“a character social as public actor, Mitchell this defines character,” Duneier enter intoherself Thus,a “public production. fieldthe political Heturned to of tried Debryanskaya conferences. and discussions political for place meeting a became in Moscow flat her time, that In nationalistic, that is, according to Essig, unusual for lesbigay activists and should be thought of as a specific feature of feature specific a as of thought be should and Russian movement. activists lesbigay for unusual Essig, to according is, that nationalistic, 15 inthecountry political perspectives opposite in of two emergence the participated simultaneously influential reactionary intellectuals A.in most the pro-fascist, she of one Russia;thus, Dougin, of circle the within relations intimate in was time, same the at and, system Soviet the of reformation political for movement public first the Union”, “Democratic the of co-founders the among already had of in experience participation oppositional activity p.73).She political (Tuller, 1998, was action of a group persons,of of everyone his political whom personal aims. Debraynskaya Eugenia Debryanskaya, KalininandVladislavThis appeared Roman asacollective organization Ortanov. sexual minorities’ activists “Association wasthe of Sexual Minorities” established(ASM) byEugenia interestingnotes was “includedof It commonlyan observer”). first of thatthe group acknowledged Kirsanov,2006, pp. 411-413; Laurie Essig (1999, p.141-143) characterizes her political visions as conservative- Among co-founders other ofASM were Ortanov andKalinin, began who publishing of firstthe 38 15 . CEU eTD Collection number of Ortanov had got in touchin necessary the Followingnewspaper, innewspaper-making. an experience that announcement with Kalinin, and in the very end of November they completed the first emerging publishing andjournalistformprojects all over the USSR base for arecourse were Baltic countries Soviet) (still three time, the that In Rigaby Kalinin. in was printed It new circumstances. success inthe initiative acquire this could that They experienced identity. unusual such of display for enough tolerant was it whether situation social just-transformed in newspaper a newpolitical with Kalininworked Tema, the inDebryanskaya,him help commencing hisactivities.Before enterprise the whopromised whole and gay out” with Hewas open in becomeRussia” “thefirst (Kirsanov,2004). acquainted movement. programs (developmentof sexual ineducation, broad sense) –would become themain aims of the there, too. there, of Edward Limonov’s scandalous nivel, which introduced homoerotic images to the broad national audience was printed 17 political objective forRussian sexual minorities’ movements since the decriminalization. 16 becameit namesignificant: was of transformation formed organized. The better was or not group organization. Association Moscow after, Soon Gays andof Lesbians ofASM. instead came The inwho worked its with accordance ideas proclaimcould himself herself or a memberof the for any public in activities favor of sexual didminorities. It not have afixed membership: anyone ASM) Thereby, very was made wasestablished atthe end of It 1989. asan“umbrella”-organization be an person have theorganization newspaper(one private couldrunning not a edition). printed should they newspaper officially, register the to if theywanted As Ortanov explained, pornography. them took on themselves the tosellrisk kindof this it stuff printing – wasmore dangerousthan sell to by possibilitymerchantsfirstissue forvendor The in printing. distributed –by was Moscow those of provided the exchangethat information of system a site intheinformal these were countries antidiscrimination and decriminalization As Ortanov put it, “Everything was printed there. It was cheaper, and it was easier” (Ortanov). The first Russian edition In the interview, stated he that the struggle forlegislative prohibitionof discrimination must be and actually is the main Roman Kalinin, who was a student at that time, was a socially active person not afraid to “come to afraid not person active socially wasa time, at that was astudent who Kalinin, Roman Tema. Thus, initially it was a result of cooperation of two enthusiasts, who checked the 16 , development of national “gay culture”, anti-AIDS culture”, “gay national of development , 39 Novaya Zhizn’ 17 . Interms building, ofnetwork (“New Life”), and had CEU eTD Collection addressees. Western oftheir expectation the to themselves adapting perhaps, out”, “coming term used they texts presentation the nation scale. They even hired a director (Andrey Maimylakhin), who was chosen for his waschosen who Maimylakhin), (Andrey hired adirector even They nation the scale. was already planned as a professionalized NGO, promotinginterests of a particular in social group ‘Triangle’ Center the that was important It 3.1.) section inthe them characterize partially (I activities 10persons,(about almost all of them Moscow residents). The organization developed various President. The real activity of the Triangle was in the responsibilityit. The ‘Triangle’ Center was established atFounding Conferencein August,1993 in Moscow. of the CoordinationLesbian Center”, as Committeewell as editors ‘thematic” press representatives of anti-AIDS organizations joined 18 ‘Triangle’”. existing Leadersof previously the “Union of Coming Out Itwas interests. called“Russian (presumed) Organization group Gay, andBisexuals Center Lesbian identities in and advocating society their non-normativeandof public sexual sphere Russian becomewould for the first representation official legitimized interests the organization and publicly activists. Netherlands) the with (Germany, moreEuropean closercontact linewasin “cultural” identity), whereas mainly oriented at the USA (with “American” models of tough political conflictfor recognition of the identity politics of notradition was far asthere As activist”. gay “openly of tradition the constitute to They tried in Russia before, of sexual Moscow the community. in perspectiveone minorities’ constituted self-organization the they were able to find their analogues centerthe of public attention (Essig,Kon,Robinson, 1999; 1997, 1992,Tuller, 1998,). in thein they were At time, that ofactivists. group for the and self-determination timeexperiments were of West. They were more defined andmore ”presentable”,Iwould for Western suggest, partners. Theyears 1990-1991 InRussian, this group was named verbatim “Unionof Liberation” ( The group hadit, The group establishedand similar ASM that other after “organizations” ephemeral several This organization was planned asnation-wide. A from woman Novosibirsk waselected asthe The activity of the same group of leaders led to the emergence of an organization which which possibly of an theorganization led leaders emergence to of group same the The activity of 40 ɋɨɸɡɈɫɜɨɛɨɠɞɟɧɢɹ 18 ” and the “Moscow Gay and Gay “Moscow the ” and ), while in English CEU eTD Collection care organization in Lugansk. in organization care 19 sign newof building a toorganization approach professional qualifications as a person able to manage the organizational work. I considered this fact a main homoerotic texts in Russian tradition. “Tchaikovsky Fond” received its name Petr its after received “Tchaikovsky Fond” in tradition. Russian main texts homoerotic fetishizedbeen alreadywas Soviet inone among of homosexual groups It certain underground. the inventing). Krylia The wasnamed thebook after of SilverMikhailthe agepoet Kuzmin, had which paid special attention to official organizational forms. active person.Like lessother recognizable groupsin both Moscow and St.Petersburg, theirleaders by driven single were styled, theirone-leader and weredistinctively activities organizations both the however, them; among contradiction principal no was there although cooperation, mutual any Kukharsky, andthe Tchaikovsky Fundfor Cultural leadInitiatives by Olga Zhuk.have They did not Rights Center (initially -Association of Gays andlead Lesbians) Krylia, by Aleksandr prof. participant of “Blue laboratory”, Sergei joinedScherbakov, established groups in period.this traditions was much more reflected in this site than in other movement sites of the country. longown of traditions homosexual lifeunderground The relation groups’ 1998). (Rotikov, to An active Network Russia, would appear only in 2006. LGBT the organization, Asuccessor Triangle disintegrated. Center 1996,the endof asthe late country. between Thepersonalconflicts its organizers the financial combined with andas difficulties, of itithad, in first LGBT community the interests been organization the representing wouldhave the If yetregistration. getofficial not did andtheorganization wasexhausted, from fund received ILGA inof January ILGA of 1995 managing different projects in the territory of the country. The Center Triangle became a full member After the termination of The Center Triangle activities, Maimulakhin moved to Ukraine and became a leader of ahealth aleader became and Ukraine to moved Maimulakhin activities, Triangle Center of The termination the After Names of both groups were reclaiming of the Russian homoerotic “tradition” (which they were re- were they (which “tradition” homoerotic Russian the of reclaiming were groups both of Names The most well-known Petersburgand popularized organizations Gay wereSt. Lesbian andHuman movement hadits came Petersburg, way.This city emergence the In Leningrad/St. the of another for inhaving center aunited interested was main ILGA,was which foreign The partner Center’s 20 . Unfortunately, the regular fundraising was not developed yetdevelopedfundraising. Unfortunately, whenthe regular wasnot the 19 . 41 CEU eTD Collection 20 organization, a signal“thematic” for As people. later, toregister whenthey itOlga Zhuk explained attempted the was name fund’s the time, same the At Russia. in sexuality non-normative of “tradition” the construct discussions and numerous researches. He was heroa and key historical figure for that who tried to re- of wasasubject homosexuality (closeted) whose composer, Russian a Great Tchaikovsky, TheLetter of confirmation of fullmembership ILGA,in signed 18.01.1995 (ALG, File 65). butin media weappeared exactly “Tchaikovskyas Fund” (Anmegikjan, 2005) officially “Fundentitled for Cultural Initiative and sexual minorities’ promotion”, that gay composer, so take all the rest of us, gays, now!” In papers we were us itwas a principal Weposition. wantedtosay by “youthat: had acknowledged to use the name of the composer, because it would offend him [his memory], but for [While registration] we had difficulties with mayor. They did not want to allow us 42 CEU eTD Collection organization and by lectures organization organizedmeetingsspecialists seminars andregular different contribution development the of p. 108-111). regionalto “blue culture”The (Tuller, 1998, period before the official juridical consultations and helpfor gays. Kukharsky had been successfully practicing thisfor along establishment Russia, having existedandbeen activeof for such a long From time. beginningthe it was at oriented the organization. He was always proud for his personal regular meeting with for old asite as friends. them use who Theand effectgeneration of closer orsuch one to activity forbelonging the ofgays, wholecircle local closed community arelatively at is mainly not clear.oriented 21 provide information its andhelp. objectives One gathering them was to peopleof together. need the to asan alsoanswer appeared in Peter” “Sappho participate festivals. Omsk to Berlin and to Thepp.77-78). group didacquirenot official butwas lucky registration, beto officiallyinvited to foundin: beeasy canEssig, 1999, not disappointing theirof Both taskswere parties description (a necessary haveto negations with the administrators of clubs, and toinform the rest of the community. was minorities.It for sexual parties organize disco began to Petersburg” “Sappho calling themselves of girls A group initiatives. local other were there sametime, the At in 3.3. section isstory analyzed activists. minorities’ with sexual together working was a case feminists rare of in It lesbian country. the promoted activism that organizations among the began editing and publishing self-made feminists journal In here1988, OlgaLipovskaya assoon 1998). as in1979(Gessen, appeared organization, “Maria,” developed ”tradition”feminist of organizing inRussia. Thefirst feminist Russian underground It wasthe site of most well-known wasinLeningrad/St.Petersburg. the Themost organizations. case although this cooperation was not always successful with minorities’ activists, sexual GenderProblems.Lipovskaya Centerfor cooperated Petersburg and manage in1991began activities, the feministto most different successful was which of St. St.Peterburg’s lesbians with whom I spoke had no interest in “Krylia”’s activities. I can suggest these activities are activities these suggest can I activities. “Krylia”’s in interest no had I spoke whom with lesbians St.Peterburg’s Another key key figureAnother Petersburg movement of was singer Leningrad/St. the Krauze, Olga whose andfeminists movement between the of cooperation experience There wasalsoaparticular The Krylia The may be described as an interesting (and almost unique) case of LGBT organization in LGBT organization of unique)case almost interesting (and asan may bedescribed 43 22 . Nevertheless, her Center should be mentioned be should Center her Nevertheless, . Zhenskoje Chtenie (“Reading for Women”), 21 . CEU eTD Collection Urals regional center city Nizhniy Tagil, facilitated information exchange among sexual minorities in minorities sexual among his Since1980s,he in involved thelate region. himself information search hasbeen and consistently exchange information facilitated Tagil, Nizhniy city center regional Urals citiesother butwas autonomous in commencing Klimov, this activity.from Valery an activist the in organizational Again,itsprocesses about knew time establisher 75). the appearance (2004,p. of by onein Franeta, his country thisman According third city. the the organization considered the to Association’s establishexistence was to acquaintancethe and friendship between gays and lesbians in the of result main the that thought Franeta, by interviewed was who man, A gay friends. gay of in country. the withcommunities minorities’ sexual other connected was this group that form shown Tema andRISK the local Extracts in community. that determination the less alienated “I no longer want to hide my love…”). Obviously, there was a rapid process of self- change of the the namebesides news, later in meetings; and official various the about reports motto Soviet official aping manner, of the newsletter (from the ina it represented parody thebeginning was issue. with In “club”changed every the description of that “gays of the world, unite!” issueoutsider); the from gay 6had was Moscow a reprint “Tema”remarkable and “RISK”.It editions to understandable other citiesvisitsdescriptions for of news (mainly an to Novosibirsk), (not club names“enlistedincludingwith forever”.in of Thecontent 45 1991), issue9(September consisted 4 “ entitled language is very colloquial, and I consider it must be classified as a “fanzine” targeted to a small and close company. close and asmall to targeted “fanzine” a as beclassified it must consider I and colloquial, very is language 23 Olga Krauze’s organizational efforts at the same time (according to interviews with them). 22 newsletter by their self-made establishhomosexuals itself tried to history asanunofficial be organization.could Its partially traced ceasedtheir activity. “generation” activists who participated in these actions kept working innextyears, them leadersthe of previousthe Established bylesbians,it was primarily at oriented this audience,butnotexclusively. Younglesbian There were 14 issues in the collection of Moscow Lesbian and Gay Archive. The newsletter is typewritten. The typewritten. is newsletter The Archive. Gay and Lesbian of Moscow collection the in issues 14 were There for obstacle created and toorganize, friends her and Ivanova Natalia my informant encouraged she instance, the For In Krasnoyarsk, Siberian Association of MinoritiesSexual was established1990 about by a group Simultaneously, sexual minorities’ organizations emergedin regional cities. In Omsk, agroup of ɈȽɈɉɍȾ ” (?), but in July it was re-named “Klub ‘Poisk’”. There was a list of its members its list of a Therewas ‘Poisk’”. “Klub was re-named in itJuly but ” (?), Omskaya Tema (“Tema in Omsk”) (“Tema 44 23 . Initially, that organization was organization that Initially, . CEU eTD Collection Organization Astarta Organization 25 24 towards anti-AIDS programs. This NGO should be still active today wereinterests targeted in1993,buttheir inthe both participated conference Triangle 1993. They as in assoon “Siberian Initiative” NGO regional a established inBarnaul activists and two p. 67), 1999, (Essig, Krasnoyarsk in radio “thematic” a begin to tried Ivanova Natalia initiatives. local their andKrasnoyarsk visited and Moscow St.Petersburg in summerthe of 1991 andafter returningbegan Barnaul from persons Three center. the in activities in participate to possibility constant or visibility Novosibirsk, Barnaul and other centers. Unfortunately, they haveusually notdid muchpublic 2004a) newsletter for them (Lasarenko, promotionimprisoned ofhelpforhomosexuals and later (since 1993 till aspecial 2000) published characteristic for lesbian organizations, like Association lesbian in forof characteristic (Moscow “MOLLI” organizations, Lesbians Literature confrontation with the authorities and possibly were not ready to make full “coming out”. avoid thecommunity. at politicized needs urgent of to the any andtargeted open tried They but werebasedlessnetwork they groups onthe These previously were existing Vinogradov. Tchaikovskyin Petersburg, like FondSt. and groups the gatheredbyAleksei regional inTver’ one leaders), Kuzmin as Ortanov and Dm. journals (with RISK and “Argo” of editingthe collective which would be avehicle for their public activities. form, organizational They in a proper closed search of notwere of group cooperators. through close, ASM, ofa is of bythe whichwasaproduct activities surely a “radical represented political trend”, comparison would help todiscern main trends of the community’s development. country simultaneously. The capitals had the biggest concentration of these activities, and their In ALG, among other materials of the 1993 Conference, Klimov’s registration form for the conference is kept. is conference the for form registration Klimov’s Conference, 1993 of the materials other among ALG, In The third trend I would define as orientation at “purely cultural” projects. They mostat “purelycultural” projects.They were The Iwould define asorientation trend third Another discerniblein trend should movementthe be tothe attributed activities such of groups as It is possiblediscern to three main trends in the shape of the organizations’ activities. Thefirst one, of parts placethe indifferent took organizations minorities’ sexuality of Thus, theemergence Its website: www.sibin.ru. . The The analogousorganization was officially in Tomskregistered 20.09.1993; was it Regional 24 . Similar activists soon . Similarshowedactivistssoon themselves up inTver’, 45 25 . CEU eTD Collection LGBT Almost community”. leading all figures the of lacked movementthe solid social and cultural “world the to access have an to founders their promoted effectively organizations The nets. and international providedcontext themconsiderably easyopportunities connect internationalto to funds same Atthe time, projects. own their of vehicle for realization asa organizations registered individual’s Thelooked at personalefforts. leaders openlytheir and registered often)non- (more community. this without possible simultaneous emergence existed beforelegitimation.that networks period communities the andinformal of Thefastand of sexual minorities’ activisms all over the country of early partly the “democratization euphoria” the due to 1990s). would not haveespeciallyThe human after 1993. demanded discourse was rights not timeallthat at at (possibly, been activists, the of majority the for work of perspective important most the were exchange information in law making. The development of the position homosexuals’ of the representation have adequate to community, inorder officials with the communicate with to and itslegislation the over (homoerotic)work to necessity the on insisted that Krylia the cultureonly was it capitals’, and facilitation of timethat itof (although asanaim was proclaimed theirstruggle). Among in the organizations the activities. of these typology andusedas period, of described the activities group asideal of strategies possible understood memay These named“theline development”. trends three of community’s be should culture trend This sexuality. non-normative with people space for of communicative establishment the on concentrated They lesbians). for important so not were issues health (since them for issue important an wasnot an anti-AIDSpolitization; with andmedicineorganizations urgent and cooperation active and Olga Science), or Krauze’s projects, andvarious small They short-lived groups. avoided 2) The organizations that appeared at that time were made by individuals and existed only madeby only by individuals timeappeared atthat existed were and 2) Theorganizations that these basis of small the on weregrounded theorganizations out, pointed have already 1) AsI The history of reflects main group emergencethis period features in of time:that at community in the support strong a have not did rights human for struggle the that be seen may It 46 CEU eTD Collection p.404). communitythe which was outside of fund-raisingthe activities more were that orless “normal” for acquire Their in not fordid activity grants. foreign legitimacy leaders competition were inconstant perspective of of a participant it movement, the seemed severalthe main that organizations and their the From community. of the part to accessible not were which cooperation of techniques new Theequally. newfield of activities inmutual grant-based foreign with cooperation needed partners community. Perestroika The new opened opportunities and chances butnoteverybody could use them could afford international travels LGBT byforeign (funded funds),and“mere” members of the leaders.them as for “younger” with possible models of behavior of a LGBT movement leader was not acquaintance so of cruciallystage This life. important LGBT for foreign with relations mutual had and before abroad been both homosexuals. They avoided additional politization of their of activities.favor in It was interestingactivities their of that they socialization had of strategy another had clubs)) (gay Abaturov and house) publishing (“Glagol’ Shatalov like business gay “classic” named be may that of initiators the as well social capitals,he was able not to depend on thehelp from abroad toomuch. These two leaders (as successfully continued hiscultural and legalinitiatives: having high social andstatus cultural and hadabroad seen journaldevelopnew he main for wasto samples akindof edition gaysart aim – an resembling the Kuzmin) and 27 feature of factually high level of tolerance to sexual minorities among officials in that short period. 26 mainin and designof three emergence publications: socialize their interests, to get an opportunity developto their “preferable” practice. Ortanov took part beginning weremorein “modest” their claims political and strategy: another followed they needed to very the from who Kukharsky and Ortanov example for – equally them of everyone to relate capital, but in that situation they could invent their own new social practice. This statement won’t Another popular gay erotic edition, He evenmanaged an official registrationof “Argo” as“gay erotic journal” in 1994; that registration was mentioned as a 3) Inmanyit wouldcases, be discern easy to a gapbetween leadersthe in community,the who Argo 26 . This activity was terminated . This activity . Although the two latter projects certainly had political importance, Ortanov’s importance, had certainly political latter projects thetwo . Although Partner , disappeared at the same time because of the same reason (Kirsanov, 2006, (Kirsanov, reason same the of because time same atthe disappeared , 47 27 Tema by the economic crisis of by economicKukharsky crisis the of 1998. (with Kalinin), (with RISK (continued by Dmitry CEU eTD Collection disease. These activities relate to the second trend. second tothe relate activities These disease. the about in knowledge the of distribution role important played an time. group However, this in that eye public the for “recognizable” not were they because mainly rare, relatively mentioned methods tofightagainst epidemicUnlike the 1988). in (Allova, countries, other homosexuals were ready officials1987, butthe state discuss toinvitemeasuresnew preventive werenot to or any organization. In thehumankind’s relation itsto sexuality in general),Soviet noless influenced theforms of the movement’s self- as well (as time in that Union,just world the over all existence community LGBT the changed thefundamentally first official Ity registrationwas the set of problems of anti-AIDS activities and programs. Infact, the emergence AIDSof that of AIDSinin ofthis period. details anyhistoricalin whichshould research discussed the Russia, post-soviet happened on 1 of March structural undergotransformation. not soimportant mid-1990s.to the That’s why activities, by nurtured these Perestroika,the had to wouldsupport bemore effectively initialsolved by The lack Internet. ofinformation the severe was information of task way. accepted The in even a commonly formulated not – was discrimination movementpolitical thecommunity objective,which mobilize would continue -struggleto against with introduction newof normslesbian of and gayculture. In 1993, the first aim was achieved. Next community in struggle for decriminalization,information support of communitythe life combined heard. moneyimproper regrets of expenditurethe of havebeen would of projects, often organizational realities the about speak would time that of community the of participants the then Thus, over. were NGO activity professionalization of came later, and main then the described above organizations for young the findfinancial organizations to use support than itproperly.to of The stage lead to the wasting of received money. Perhaps, we should suggest that in that situation, experience organizational lack of the sametime, the At it neworganizations. of these management the was easier In my analysis, I decided not to discussaspectnotto In my of minorities’ Idecided important analysis, one coming sexual the out 4) Many of organizations timethat had in similarities their agenda: political of unification the 48 CEU eTD Collection politicized, then in late 1990s. There were activists and organizations who tried to present and whotried in themselves wereactivists to 1990s.There politicized, then late organizations relation to (virtual)intervention into inner state politics. Inits initial themovementperiod, was more forced community reflect the its identity on to public presentation. and time, same at the and, country the thecitizens of for visible most was the activity oftheir perspective This innational participate politics. to attemptin movement’s the section on this concentrate nowadays.exist in to andstill continue one second the thathaveappeared with these firstactivities the period Leavingtransformation of the asidewhole social system. Thus, it would make sense to compare different aspects of thecrisis in the summer of 1998. Themovementwas gradually alongtransformed with the overallfinancial the mention rather would informants my of some whereas event, landmark such as 1996 transformationto define a date of the ending precisely. Laurie Essig takes the disintegration of the Center Trianglein movementin the post-Sovietof Russia cameits to end after 1994, although it doesnotmake sense to try the post-Soviet Russian society, I will leaders conceptualized its social conceptualized leaders and aims.position the how understand to helps It activities. movement’s the of expressions in several concentrate can implied by previousthe history of community.the Having this framework, general in followingthe I of movement, the features with characteristic along discerns, were activities andpublic groups’ main Three organizations the of trends made movement. the of overview I In thissection ageneral One of One obviousis distinctionsbetween of firstperiodthe andsecond the of their movementthe In theprevious Ihave chapters, presupposedthat firstthe period of sexual the minorities’ Chapter 3. Aspects of Russian sexual minorities’ movement Russian sexual minorities’ movement andnational politics 49 If there are no gays in Duma [Russian State parliament], the Duma is not representative. Igor Kon (cited by Ortanov) by (cited Kon Igor CEU eTD Collection involved. Themost well known action was an act of gathering for decriminalization signatures among the next ten years would notsee any rise of social resistance on the side of sexual minorities. vanished. and The next aim perspective be activitiesof the would struggle discrimination. against But struggle. Inthemomentof article’sthe this powerful repose, factor of andcooperationgathering struggle for decriminalization was temporary lesbianof andunification in gaygroups their political whilepolitical claim its gathering social received signatures Oneof support processes. of effects people whocame demanding out, for abolition the of legal prosecutionthe Thiswas important. strictly appearance time. of very at that werenot definedpublic legal the Surely, possibledecisions decriminalization. The laws. of tovariouswere (andwould projects and resistance discriminatory be)anti-discrimination aim of non-discriminationhomosexuals in in society,the represented almost period that by solely main Krylia.the Its targets activity, oriented towards cooperation with state power andin political gradualline second improvement The such. as of the condition community minorities’ of was sexual of position a political construct articulatedof working at withthe other samepoliticalparties movements.and The social “radicals”have didnot develop achance to any long-term strategy actorstime, or the statetoo, political with receive cooperation to efforts Triangle’s in Center the itculminated and trend, “radical” apparatus. but Oneits can say that their politics was to as“depoliticized” one. second, ongoing period would look atI now theirthus community, in the process relation organizational the on concentrated have I Above them. to compare the political process. In the and with “political”a specialattention to the trend, insection they have2.3.), characterized been last part of the section, I characterize (as self-organization movements’ trends in different speak aboutthe I period. first the of activities the bein field. thepolitical Thissaidsecond cannot the about Below, period. Ioutline the political The whole politization of movementbegan the asconsolidation in for struggle the There were several campaigns of signature gathering, in which different strata of of were elites strata different in which gathering, signature of campaigns several There were the of be representatives the was developed politization part community,of the the Moscow In the 50 CEU eTD Collection minorities evendid not have to struggle sexual to appear the inmass there media. Nobody a situation would seriously stand created against it. liberalization its with along sphere ofmedia development fast 2002). (Gessen, 29 queerness in Russian“independent” culture 1990sin (Kirsanov, 2004, p.462-68). articles about the history of the movement, his openly queer performances were important for the legitimationof public 28 musicians, pseudonym) byVladimir organized (artistic Veselkin sexual minorities ina was published newspaper popular of rights the guarantee and homosexuality decriminalize to demand the with authorities state the to for thedecriminalization. opinion positive constituting elites’ typical form of politicalmustPetersburg. It under gatheringthat benoted, letters andsignatures open proclamations was a participation andscientists and Krauze since inLeningrad/St Olga classintelligentsia – among academics, middle Soviet period. It obviously had an affirmative effect in Party). In fact, he even could not participate in elections because of In fact,in heeven Party).participate elections his becauseof This not demonstrative could age. Libertarian Party (established soon before on the basis of Russian branch of the Transnational Radical from in hebehethe that wouldelections Kalinin. In a candidate announced Presidential 1991, claims included into a (possibly, broad political agenda). only The was madeattempt by Roman the politicalagendafor whole community. any offer to common without attempt particular activities their of development the on concentrated they that meant It country. the of life the into (homoerotics) sexuality non-normative of idea very the of introduction social and cultural by primarily be should thethat homophobicdecriminalization attitude population transformed ofthe thought and confrontations (Essig,1999,p.73; interview). Certlich’s Themajority was satisfied bythe and political avoid art” “lesbian of development the on concentrate to tried of 1990s) early the leader asMilaco-founder Ugol’kova, of MOLLI (obviously mostpurely important the lesbian group feature out. of their coming anapparent minorities, ASM. Itwas,possibly, firstpublic the of statement political interest and objectives of sexualthe In was In “SPID-Info” (AIDS-Info),not an official newspaper, but the one that was popular and allread over thecountry Veselkin is abisexual independent rock-musician who came out inearly 1990s. Although he is not oftenmentioned in Authoritative journals and newspapers supported Authoritative journals this and newspaperssupported demandAn intheir letter open publications. There was no person who would try to make a political program based on the sexual minorities’ such example For claims. political open any from itself distanced community the of part A great 51 29 in 1989 soon after the establishment of 28 . Vlad Ortanov did the same among CEU eTD Collection or by or authorities. otherwise commented the newly-elected President of the USA Bill Clinton place management take had under Triangle’s to project of the new in the Statefamilies same-sex the Family consider to demand with Youth Code and Family Women, for Committee important for the community. istheactivists for business of which characteristic enterprises his “generation”. private on concentration and de-politisation to trend On common the embodied he thus 9 “Underground”; of June, 1996,Roman Kalinin left the field of public political activity forhis own project, the first Moscow theygay club sent homosexuals’Moscow which the mainactivists gathered together At period, this of community. at least one letter topure provocation State Duma a became andcould ignorance partner’s American their and trends’s “radical” the reflected motto was initially motto “Turnprojected pinkRed squareinto mentioned triangles!” AsKon that rightly whose 1991, of June in the minorities sexual of festival Russian first the managed also friends Kalinin andhis asoffensive. inacourt even was mass-mediaandthatpublication discussed national by 2004). Simultaneously, Kalinin with interview widely Lazarenko, areckless was distributed was, perhaps, the most well known political 481-483; case gay’sof participation (Kirsanov, 2004,p. 34 number. factual the about care not did simply Trangle the or 33 disinformation) conscious e. (i. officials the to influence anattempt was it whether say I cannot but overestimated, very number this consider I country. the in couples 32 himself (Interview withKon). 31 student’s utterance was a sign of the public acknowledgement of Kalinin’s activities. my interview, he retold this story including it into his own re-evaluationof Kalinin’s activities of that time. For him, the 30 press national in the discussed waswidely out” “coming ALG, file 65. The information leaflet is in ALG, file 65. The letter is inALG, file 65. It is written there that there were about 8millions of homosexuals living in the same-sex IGLHRC leaflet, 1991. The motto was disclaimed after protests of many authoritative activists like Ortanov and Kon In Kalinin. for only vote would she him told politics, any from far was who ofhis, student a that remembers Ortanov The Center Triangle’s strategy was to influence the political decision making in fields which were which in fields making decision political the influence to was strategy Triangle’s Center The became mainSinceof Triangle 1993,the political theCenter (sincethe 1993), agent positioning 31 . 32 . On the same day, a national conference about LGBT issues about conference national a sameday, . Onthe 34 33 52 . Quite expectedly, none of the letters wasanswered letters the of none expectedly, . Quite . The Triangle even sent a congratulation letter to letter a congratulation evensent . TheTriangle 30 . Until Firstthe gay-pride in 2006, this case CEU eTD Collection authorship. In the last one two photos are printed, of Debryanskaya and Limonov respectively. Limonov and of Debryanskaya printed, are photos two one last In the authorship. 38 murdered in 1998. was She movements. nationalists andin rights inhuman expert an as country the in famous become had she Perestroika, 37 36 theirfuture punishment, these people tired to reframe church, interpretationof the of letter theirIn the own sexual intentions. cooperation. of the a project aresult as of anofficial documentsolidarity about theshared church’sof a relation emergence to the same-sexpossible sexual with relations positions is mentioned. marginal Considering between ofcooperation logics same the follow “church” ofthe the heads as action public their sexuality, normative Moscow, in officials church other andamong did not mirror acknowledged the Orthodoxbeing not is church’s and not position has at “church” all.7).this It must be Krotov, stated, Yakov further,Russia in that their personal interests to non- 21.05.2007). There were many homosexuals in community.its According to awell-knownspecialist in history of church attemptsand of homosexual (unnamed rape news athttp://www.rusk.ru/newsdata.php?idar=200580; last accessed 35 October the about minorities’ sexual issueincluded “The of opinions “the Bulletin”, community. newsletter, gay first of its activists The Moscow the of orientation” “political the developed fully it activity, this Church. Christian the of a division and minorities sexual between cooperation of precedent marginalized Christianity, inOrthodox of actthe becommunication couldpossibly usedasa congratulation to the participants of of conference the participants tothe congratulation religious calling group itself Russian the CatholicOrthodox Churchsenta letter with blessing and them was St.Petersburg politician Galina Starovoitova Galina politician St.Petersburg was them activities, although participatedid in not Another democraticthem. politician who publicly supported their approved Shepublicly leader Valeria of Novodvorskaya. DS the part the struggle from minorities’ sexual the to relation warm of because happened that case, exceptional an was movement Union (DS) two years before. This mutual cooperation with a leftist (in that period) political support movementthe andinclude its claims into their political programs proclaimed in end the of 1995, none ofinfluential politicians from leftand rightcamps alike agreed to highly individualized political positions. Nobody else dared to follow them: as the Center “Triangle” Vechernya Moskva,21.11. 1995; Sex i politika’ (Sex and politics) –in: Interview with Olga Krauze. Galina Satrovoitova was ofOctober. 3-4 at one of El’tsin theby Boris maincommitted Russian power state urban of the ethnologists. take-over The In the late This “Church” was established by AnashkinMikhail and Manuil Platov, both of whom laterwere accused of pedophilia The Center Triangle had a wide range of activities aimed to position itself as a political actor. In While the Third conference, an unusual ally was found among Orthodox among Asmall While found conference,Orthodox Christian Third an ally unusual was priests. the As was mentioned above,ASM wasestablished by samethe person founded that the Democratic 36 events”. 53 35 37 . Although . Although religiousthis was highly group . They both were exceptional politicians with politicians exceptional were both They . PLUS Center , #50,1990. Both articlewithout 38 . CEU eTD Collection 40 gay literature, this novel first was its and the most successful product (Kirsanov,2006, p.448-50) 39 York in “It’s of homosexuality inhis Russia due to fascinating description of his same-sex in adventures New me, Eddie”(NBP), recently found by Edward Limonov. Limonovnovel himself was known as a reluctant “popularizer” mentioned above the Triangle proclaimed about negotiations with the National-Bolsheviks Party openly nationalistic articles nationalistic openly Atpp.192-195). same the well-known the time, journalist Yaroslavgay poet and Mogutin published Zhirinovsky, personal whose homosexuality to relation forwas thepublicambiguous (Tuller, 1998, very establishment. Since its appearance, this organization has monitored the laws. Possibly, the main in solitude byAleksandr Kukharsky.specialized It in problems the lawof and defense rights from its group openly ignored them. isperiod partiesthe who that and movements bytheir“oppressed’ claims should supportthis social of the features oneof characteristic the However, preferences. intheir is political liberal was andstill both Mogutin and Debryanskaya of theinfluence overestimates Ithink she leaders; its of initiatives by these touched in fact, been, has in the community.extent community clarify the that to she not However, does ch. 7). 1999, (Essig, “queer community” The overwhelmingdescribes“nationalistic” leaders this inpolitical trend self-positioning of several Russian the of majority in the community common “rules of the political game” in their search for cooperation for search in their game” political the of “rules common sidethe ofmarginal (parties),political whogroups had just emerged andwereless constrained by whopartner would helpwith mass mobilizations. Thus, severalleaders decided tofind cooperation on homophobia of policythe makers and the movements’ inability presentitselfto as a perspective cooperation from political parties and movements. This maybe explained, primarily,by common Mogutin, 1995. Itwas extremely popular inthe country in thattime. Then“Glagol” publishing house beenhad established to publish At the same time, the movement found helpers among radical nationalists. At the same articles same the At nationalists. radical among helpers found movement the time, same the At At the same time, the ‘traditions” of human rights support was continued by the Krylia, led almost Krylia, by the wascontinued support rights human of ‘traditions” the time, same the At Until Until mid-1990s,theRussianthe sexual minorities’ movementfailed tofind anysupport or 40 , and Zhirinovsky negotiated with him cooperation. about 39 . Another political leader who promised support was Vladimir 54 41 . Laurie Essig in detail in Essig Laurie . CEU eTD Collection Russian political landscape - mainstream and marginal simultaneously. marginal and -mainstream landscape political Russian 41 The influenceefforts to the mass opinion and rise upaprotestin elites were unsuccessful placeformisinterpretation) and the age of consent (for both sexes) was raised up from 14 16 to years. leaving more made legislation (and strict was in2002,when happened makers,anti-pornography case inwhich Krylia’slegal the influence capital experience be and social was to used to law-on the representation and their claims were not introduced in the political agenda. The activities developed The activities agenda. inthe political introduced werenot and theirclaims representation political any acquire not did minorities” “sexual Russian that meant In finished. was movement the of all. at neglected ifnot even activists, of patterns discussed possible not as were practices Theirpolitical “normal” in Foucault), and life editionssexual minorities’published showed abroad. texts the of sense of (in ‘normalization’ the ofaimed towards community interests the were actual The abroad. community life with a prevailinginterest tothe everyday life gay the of lesbianand communities “mainstream”and period told gay inthe LGBT of about exclusively translations that press news The community. international in the discussions contemporary towards commitment his show articles Lychev’s Dmitry Only movement. this of traces no were there Russia, In movement. nation” surely could only reinforce homophobia and“homosexual in panic” society.the “outing” forcommunity left theThe any pulppress,which aims.entirely political was entirely to position improvement(Johansson, Percy, 1994).In Russia, this procedurewasnotusedby the prominentfigures, hostile tosexual minorities, isaproblematic butwidely used mean of political “outing”like of theUSA, method. In countries as appropriated political not was sex relations) secretly actually engaged insame- or are intended againsthomosexuality to are are politicians who examplesused. For example, showssome that “outing” possible methodswerenot (proclaiming that The latter cannot be said, surely, about Vladimir Zhirinovsky,who was and would be an absolute unique figure in With the disintegration of Triangle’s core activists group, the period of theperiod (unsuccessful) politization group, activists core of Triangle’s thedisintegration With In the USA English-speakingand other early countries,the were aperiod of 1990s “queer-the countries’ with in other politics presence minorities’ forms sexual the of the of A comparison 55 42 . CEU eTD Collection remove his fromname universityhis Diploma in order tosell paper the out and buy some food.(Krauze, 2007). 44 abroad. moved activists Petersburg 43 Apollo: Information Bulletin. (2002) #2. 42 experimental first the Although movements. social (latterly) and organizations NGO professionalized because if it. actions meetingsneed lesbian-oriented or tovisitnot any She anddo personally announcements. information main news, as of source the the knowledge educational internet-sites sufficientabout and mentioned time the all community, lesbian the of life the me about telling Nartova, well. perfectly communitythe as well as of previouslythe gay existed media and lesbian nowcould be satisfied byit with its variety of option for communications and search for “similar people”: information needs of seminars). chats, internet- just in hadappeared(clubs, that special concentrate places, began to activities minorities’ sexual The community. the around cases scandalous or events bright no were there scene; public the new had period main three features: andnewown organizations. groups inherited bynewnot whoestablished their of change. Experience leaderswas activists, previous the survive to necessity of because the level of activity mentioned byall of respondents the “elderthe generation”; they sustainwere notable to previousthe lives theirwere busywith private period previous of the Leaders was de-politicized. years, their activity ten For nextthe active actor. 1996followedafter strategies; other they not enter try did to politicalthe field asa responsible and As one example, I can refer to Olga Krauze’s obituary for Sergei Scherbakov, where she describes as he had tried to tried had he as describes she where Scherbakov, Sergei for obituary Krauze’s Olga to I canrefer example, one As Masha Gessen worked intensively as journalist (Gessen, 1997), Debryanskaya had her own small business several St. Among other actions, Kukharsky send a letter to the office of President V. Putin. The documents of the polemics are in: 3) The gay lesbianand began infrastructure to developitself according to newthe logic of Internet the of development fast by caused community the in relations of transformation The 2) 1) The gay lesbianand community was of deprived political participation itselfand alienated from To conclude this chapter, Iwill briefly characterize the new period, which continues till today. This 43 . The economic difficulties of survival in “Yeltsin Russia” were Russia” “Yeltsin in survival of difficulties economic The . 56 44 . This period also became a time of atimegeneration became of also . This period CEU eTD Collection discos if beginningthe of 1990s were described by Essig, hardly with a sympathy. visiting Queen Drag shows in the USA. It was aimed at Leningrad artistic circles (Kirsanov, 2005, pp. 381-83).45 Clubs and last was the Triangle The Center established. actors political with other neither wascooperation Thesubject. coordination “trends”different of of development movementthe was achieved; not apolitical establish and interests political their advocate to tried They activists. minorities’ sexual byvariousacknowledged “thematic” and writers journalists. interests and a representation critics,depoliticisation. andtotal social feminist any of rejection implied It society. consumer by offered models the to according of these lesbians, socialized young she middle-class about city spoke that urban extent the successfully, to interests, was Lesbianism feminism!” No lesbian! a for thing important most the is A family couples! legitimizeditsfor lack of critical and subversive As potential. she ironically,exclaimed “…and weall live in in the class young as harshly option. women criticizesan Nartova mode this of socialization lesbianism of community, was notoriously becamemain movie form screening andof demanded typical activity. as period timethe “education”, of seminars discussionsconcentration andon then after andgroup or still operate today. Infact, it was true time of genuine emergence of club culture in Russian cities. businessthis becamemoreinfluential: serious inand made clubs thattime till existed recenttime the verythe beginningback of and1990s camediscos to clubparties Thefirst experimental transvestite party was managed inLeningrad assoon asin1989 by Timur Novikov after his In this section, I characterized various attempts of entering into national politics exercised by the exercised national into ofpolitics attempts entering various Icharacterized In thissection, In internal 2000s,the solidarity, ofa“real”community early the absence with group common urban middle into of culture the integrated and “normalized” lesbianism period, was During that Nadezhda St.Petersburg describes that lesbiancommunity Speaking 1995, Nartova about after it, theseorganize companies, to how participation. knew nobody They still do not initiatives… know it well…political about But that. with ourselves weshould know. So, heterosexual peopleelites normalize andthereby educate people were afraid and homophobic because they did notknow. Neither did the I think struggle the wasnot often all.discussed at wasa In 1990s, there feeling that 57 45 , in the second part of of , inthesecond 1990s the part CEU eTD Collection disintegration, the movement lost its political subjectivity. organization of that period which had a chance to politicize the movement effectively. After its what kind of sport could we play better? Handball.So, we formed a women team.We were the lastin “ThereLGBT organizations them. invite wereLesbian [in nice.games Berlin]… soWe out: figured normative sexuality based activities abroad providedin non- an ultimate involvement possibility their to comemovement, the of there. Foreign participants many For friends. their by nor themselves mobilized be could capital. cultural as akind community’s of the celebrities art among behavior sexual non-normative of habits its with Age Silver themselves as an actual continuation of the gay and lesbian life. The references to the traditions of the present in homosexuality of try and Russia, to the history they acknowledge explicitly could side, other the From community). Russian in the in use not was abbreviation the since minorities”, speak aboutgoing community’s the to of traditions relation to life in gay andabroad. Russia identity, Iam construct 2.2.In section this was studiedin thesection thegroup one ofthe waysto names, is which group different of identity. The usage inthe of constructing aspects were different identity couldbe presenteddifferently social the to andenvironment community the to itself. There had be to designed. Itwasaprocess ofinvention of social identity of an social emerging This group. eye, only for public less the acceptable more or system,in the theircultural place groups, minorities’ sexual of image the However, consciousness. mass for even prose), gay Russian of anthology My notrespondents often remembercould in anyspecial interest life international the neither by From the one side, the community was to imagine its place in the global LGBT (or “sexual appear in Sexual minorities “outof blue”his didnot had Moss (asKevin country the the entitled National Tradition andInternational LGBT Community inthe Group Identity of Early Russian Sexual Minorities’ Movement 58 CEU eTD Collection conceiving the non-normative sexuality to this cultural area, they were not successful not were area,they this cultural to non-normative sexuality the conceiving described121-139), had by (1991, p. triedimportEssig a“western” to “American”) (mainly, wayof missionaries, Western the identity in period.If in the group innovation “western” the discernible circumstances. Ionly own should on their mentiondepended It that the Leningrad/St.oriented. primarily were Petersburg activists lesbianthese towhich community countries the as was France incloserand Germany contact USA, the with 46 aimed (IGLHRC), Commission Rights Human Lesbian and Gay International the called organization in freeuse contributions. to wereconsiderably these their ways local the activists whereas necessary money equipment, and Westprovided the one: wasorganizational support This West. the Russian sexual minorities came out and began to organize themselves, they had a strong support from sharehelp their(as DanielShluter didWhen tocommunity organizeand [1993]), experience. the study situation to the Theytraveled USSRarose. inof the things state the to activists foreign among West and could dependonits own experience. identities hadindividual it. basedThiscommunity before developed tothe and the openness group on developedmanaging a“native” tradition of non-normativeandforming the sexual the preferences insexuality the society which (exactly Essig decided toname“queer”). Russian sexual already had non-normative the practice to ways other sufficiently of availability the by however, explained, connotations a “virtual”,to imaginary lesbigay community partners. “Western” itdo by easily identity to so organizational asthey, wereexpected the and their rationality perhaps, take not did they However, communities. of other lifeand practices with became acquainted People butits West,the most contribution important was in creation of firstthe organizations’infrastructure. whole community inwas autonomous ideas the itself about life.and its future in They were interested the line after the competition, but, well, we were in Berlin” (Nat. Ivanova). At the same time, the Here and below, by the “West” I mean Western Europe and the USA. It does not make sense to try to discern between discern to try to sense make not does It USA. the and Europe Western I mean “West” by the below, and Here American influence was especially recognizable in the shape of “radical” trend activities. An activities. trend “radical” in of shape the recognizable wasespecially influence American After the beginningand of foreigners, of forGlasnost’ interest country the aconsiderable opening In the section 2.2., I described how the word “gay” was appropriated by the community with its 59 in making . This was, possibly, the most 46 . It may be may It . CEU eTD Collection under one category of “West” – that is, capitalistic North European and American countries. American and European North capitalistic is, that – “West” of category one under Germany, whereas several persons from Moscow fin away to the USA first. But all these territories may be gathered a “self-assertion”. follow,butnegativeon “propaganda” interpretationas to with ofthese actions would response asa a society. in andnon-existence They of “identity-politics” thatusual the knew this becauseof Stonewall” of benot 1991 could by accepted local andlesbians gays becauseof culture distance the to conceptualize actions“propaganda-styled” as like “queerness”. “soviet a Russian Straight their own patterns of making their everyday life (Moss, 2002; Nartova, 2004). This is what Essig tried in way wasconstructed private/publicanother it sphere as in as West, these (imagined)the people had of patterns self-description. the rich Possibly due to experience oflivingin a society where the butfollow“allies” material indispensable support, “Russians”and source of not did werean their experience”in construction of individual activists’ identities.and group The foreign organizations “export identities” there. However, who would receive them? to were attempts There really lesbian etc. be agay, a to how “to Russians teach” tried foreigners Essigmade a description disappointing that they felt hadAmericans The “colonialism”. it tocalling introduce activities, Russian to exercised Americans approach the the experience She criticizes of (p.66). however admit neveroccurred she“Russian Stonewall” to 133-134), had that the US community into this community. In andthis co-founder of IGLHRC Julie Dorf. vein, movies screenings, The press-conferences keyfigure and discussions. was American lesbian activist ininPetersburg “thematic” August1991,such andSt. as event 1990, andaserial Moscow organized leaders ofRussian community RomanKalinin andEugenia totravel Debryanskaya across USA the in new They for thesexualminorities’ there. promoted advocate visitstruggle to to and wanted Russia at supporting Russian LGBT wasestablished in activists, in California by 1990 US citizens used who In my interviews I did not find any strong evidence of influence by “western movement “western by influence of evidence strong any find not did I interviews my In Laurie Essigmentioned idea thatthe festival wasimagined of a as“Russian Stonewall” (1999,p. 47 of of a seminar place which took as lateasin 1994, them 60 CEU eTD Collection 47 social social and cultural capital Eric Hobsbawm has named “invention of tradition” (Hobsbawm, 1983). attacha (identity), managing any society tradition.and to group to try This with they themselves for necessary are justification and legitimacy as far As necessity. their proves and norm behavioral them. References to “tradition” mayidentity beexist to proved along for of time, this period long history legitimizes effectively rooted in the past also explainimportanthow traditionsfor are defining asocial belonging agroup. If sense to of a practice or the emergence of a given practice or “indigenously”. was already produced identity collective wasno there yet, suchideas,resistance for because Isuppose appropriated not they the were time same the At ones. global the of parts local as time that of community and movement national wouldNeither “we” my thinkThe separation between the about and“they”waskept. respondents in global movementcontext. the tothe can findattitude one this hardly describedIn the period, world. sexuallife andWestern all consummation minorities’ the texts of about acquiring knowledge over Thisglobal introduction movement. in was with identity global only theprocess collective of they itslanguage. os not thedid appropriated participantthemselves as present However, an organic infrastructure and gradually into economicthe of LGBT community,themselves (financial) worldthe (Crimp, 1990). movementUnleashin 1988 Power) Coalition to actions ACT UP(AIDS of become dueto popular inby New anti-AIDS gay activistsit originthe 1986and used York sign.Originally,the of was “ signature with triangle pink (the an ofACTUP least“old In1993at symbols anti-AIDS of homes conference, two at guard”activists. and “LGBT”is in also being processthe of adopted.During my research flagsI sawrainbow at the realm the languageof (semiotics). As Ihave mentioned, namethe “gay” was thoroughly appropriated, Essig, 1999, ch. 7. sameThe seminar is described by David (1998, Tuller pp. 118-122). He was skeptical about the On of the striking features of the movement was its uncertain relation to the tradition. It is known It tradition. the to relation uncertain its was movement the of features striking the of On To summarize it, Iwouldin suggestthat 1990s,the Russian sexual minorities integrate successfully in least, place -at took community Western images ofthe of introduction sametime,aslow Atthe Silence=death !”) were used, even if the participants did not know not did participants the if even used, were !”) 61 CEU eTD Collection possibilities to “teach” Russians how to be lesbians, gays men etc., too. lesbianism in Russia and consequences of Sovietthe period of gay and lesbian movements in the included, thehistory amonghomosexual history in anarticleof culture Russia.Itothers, of about 1995). “Gay,invented by andslaviane!” a“continualist”view herstaff,Olga Zhuk offered the of norjournal journalgays…. inabout Oursubject the whole in cultural situation its totality” (Kuzmin, in functions whichhomosexuality in contemporary culture…. Thisisnot ajournal forless gays, gay of volume first the to note introductory butwithout accentuation literature, homoerotics.of AsDmitry that inKuzmin his explained Russian in contemporary motives and themes homoerotic explore to intended was Kuzmin, Dmitry Thelot. journal gayliterature naming of tells a organizations the The very was of mefrom more openly thatvery beginning “inheritance’ the the articulated. procedure community forimagesand anew (imagined) community in the country. InSt.Petersburg, itseems to gay innewsinternational more from the interested much as past were the They tradition. to references contained texts other nor content their neither but history, the about items included representatives its a sufficientwas not ofcultural capital.source and social newspapersandjournalsby The published their relation to “tradition”. For Moscow groups,following, Iwill lookthe at the ways of their transformation.history of same-sexidentity varied. Inthe of waysof group the tothe approaches reshaping simultaneously.But the sexual relations in Russia weredeveloped three perspectives These it. legalize and minorities” of sexual “subculture lessmore or into normalized “underground” from Soviet regime the own under developed subculture its convert to (3) sexuality, non-normative of history national the reconstruct to (2) it; of continuation a“natural” decades before, themselves presenting two andlesbiancommunities European gay history of homosexuality in the manner as such had‘attachment” been done by American and three options in its search for cultural roots andframeworks: (1) to enframeitself into the global An interesting difference between Moscow and St. Petersburg communities’ strategies consisted in consisted strategies communities’ Petersburg andSt. Moscow between An interesting difference The Russian gay hadperformand lesbian community to “invention”this aswell.ithad Obviously, RISK , “[o]ur main“[o]ur classify present, is, task to and revise ways 62 Argo , published inMoscow by CEU eTD Collection symbols and methods of self-presentation. Russian sexual minorities’ attitude to the European and European tothe attitude sexualminorities’ Russian of self-presentation. methods symbols and didpoliticize nordidnot appropriate Russian groups they of innerdevelopment. period actions their of such in attitude period.that highly valued Butthis journal,by a homoerotic aesthetics. scholars, wastheonlysample andcritics materials here, creating wereequally materials Foreign represented and”national tradition-grounded” Tsvetaeva. Marina by text unknown an with concluded was journal The Cortasar). with along Heger (Heinz stories homoerotic foreign of translations and authors (“native”) Russian of verses various inwas popular published (1994)), culminating years, by these group report byMasha the Gessen’s soviet) readers with the “old guard” and their heroic suffering; articles about gay prisoners (this theme article 121.1),his inparticipation meant thejournal asymbolic connection of its contemporary (post- “gay of acknowledged 1970she eldergeneration poets” the been(in late by the was the sentenced translated from English); are them (all of death Tchaikovsky’s about articles of inside: acollection issue first contained the an article and example, art andculturology.” For literature, as“for there journal poems was The presented p.1). Slaviane, by Gennady Trifonov, homosexuality…support of but self-consciousness and of self-expression every personality” (Gay, who still is one of the most homosexuals,about but thejournal’s staff loved itand use decided it.to insimultaneously manner anironical expressed As Olgaitwas Krauzeexplained, atitle of an article were andculture experience Western (American) to theirand orientation national identity inventors’ Latin letters with letters word‘Gay’ new-invented Latin (Gay,this Russiansif readerswere“Slavs”,(supposing true in thatthe identity),written ittheir in was not partly “Hurrah!”,”Slavs” “Go!”)with soundedan (“Slaviane”).address to It rather traditionalistic whole idea with termination activities of Fondthe in about1996(when Germany).Zhuk emigrated to country. Unfortunately, demanded journal the was not bythe community and gave the editors upthe After the first period of intensive interest to the Western examples and experience followed a followed experience and examples Western the to interest intensive of period first the After propaganda “theof aimisnot informed journal’s message: The hisreadersintheeditor’s editor The title of the journal combined the “traditional” Russian exclamation “Gey” (which meant (which “Gey” exclamation Russian “traditional” the combined journal the of title The 63 ɫɥɚɜɹɧɟ !). Thus, by the title of !). Thus, by its of title the journal, the CEU eTD Collection openness, unusual inopenness, unusual countries with of Western presumed comparison sexual freedom 2003). (True, by extreme waschanged period theSoviet of there censorship Europe, Eastern of countries in other placeA similar took by process which Post-perestroika openness. inturn and Perestroika was caused the “sexual revolution”, to editions.contributed lesbian media Emergingthe sexuality-related emergence gayand of press and or social construction of sexuality as matter of of gay the of socialfactors lesbian were development important two there can that press: and suggest public consent and interest,it.” Thus, I to interest strong wassuch there read pornography. Everyone, to time used then everyone MOLLI inabout how shea “pornographic newspaper,” it defined by herself.“But”, said she, “itwas minorities’ press was one of the available options. Elena Certlich found her first sexual where anewsituation piece ofnew sexmediacreated front” “consistent This editions. “thematic” of information specialized audience broader first by than the a certainly wereconsumed newspapers pornography tremendously.first The same-sex publications about sexuality appearedwhich in first the In andmedia (Gessen,1995;Goscilo, timethe 1995). was increasing of Perestroika, this market campaigns. andsafe counter-AIDS sex, hygiene, information about All also them contained of articles thehistory about of movement, worldthe LGBT biographies, andvisual homoerotic content. contained advertisements, and invitations acquaintance news, to addition in them, of some and informational, mainly were others Tema”), “Omskaya analyzed as such ( acquaintances of company for a made“fanzines” as identity. were Some editions group community’s of the presentation Zhuk). Ortanov, (Debryanskaya, support financial obtain to achannel as contacts these leaders of the community main because moneyof mentioned flowself-withdrawal of the inlate1990s,the also decreased who had personal identitiesrelation mayAmerican in periodgroup best that be must described as distanced. bea rather It ships to Western organizations and who used 1) legalization of hidden interest to these matters in the community, 2) common liberalization of liberalization common 2) community, inthe matters these to interest hidden of legalization 1) note is to of thisdevelopmentthat literature It pornographic importantwasatime tremendous of inconsistent its not was several of enthusiasts by efforts in the country appeared pressthat The gay 64 CEU eTD Collection contemporary generation of NGOs did not use experience of the previous generation. theprevious of useexperience not NGOsdid of generation contemporary became a realcould that organizations community. The international the appropriate of experience the to inability working NGOs and projects, between integration different weak lack position, one,first as of political common were closed in integrity community partially) bysuchfeatures of was(atleast, the secondperiod the predestined of loss the and (again, de-politization the that suppose I patterns. and examples “imported” following than the Krylia was an exception in publicsphere. the rather anatural of buttransformations effect influence Western here),movement’s and leaders the with of the personal relations heavilyand basedon these were support, relations financial andtechnical their allies abroad. The participantcoming of global LGBT community. Foreignout organizations-partners of werethe used mainly to obtaincommunity was not a result of following exclusively heterosexual (Nartova,patterns 2004a; 2004). Vorontsov, after Soon normalizationthe this“public socialthe of sexuality”normalizedenvironment, wasagain her own place and status of (2)her estimation of movement, the interests and problems the to her approach of personal genesis in the community (aslesbian Petersburg and anddiscernin Itry gaymovement of several projects period. that (1) the to well as of the whole community as such), imaginary objectives. and toachieve their order the andThey targets. andconceptualize theirunderstand situation, and strategies their develop in own movement’s aims. Individuals in themselvesengage this process in toachieveorder their aims own biggerthe individualmovement, and how thatin consequently of theparticipates realization the identity basis mainly formedThe groupof the on subculturewas community pre-existing rather Briefly speaking, the Russian sexual minorities’ movement did not develop a group identity of a In this section I make an analysis of Olga Krauze’s history inof participation Leningrad/St. of framework it the lookathow an individual acts isitto necessary research, In ananthropological Ethos ofthemovement’s activist.Thecaseof Olga Krauze 65 CEU eTD Collection chance to have several talks with her and to observe relation in the “community” of the archive, discussions about other about discussions archive, of the “community” inthe relation observe to and her with talks several have to chance 48 interview her with 27April,in 2007 Moscow my of text the on primarily my analysis Iground movement. the of becoming in participating this closer look helps me to understand how one individual could figure out her own way of activities her community, thatshapedthe therefore, the thingsinfluenced these way of about thinking minorities’ life. Shehasbeen one of keyfiguresthe of Petersburg’ Leningrad/St. the community and she hascultural andininfluences combined making traditions different herview own sexual atthe sexual minorities’ community inPetersburg Leningrad/St. and Russia in look general. I also athow torealize localandimprovementpractical developmentideasshe usually the herchose of about being in constantly created individualthese andvoluntary inefforts isto exist certain this way. It not produces Comingethical possibility the forhowever is thecommunity efforts. thecommunity, out 658). as well aboutas texts her (especially:Kirsanov, 2005,p. 419-423), and her personal website oneself fieldthe through of lesbianthe constitutes that relationships and gay community” ( is that – understood theconsequence as of coming of process the out andenteringinto creating and establish a relationship to the culture in which they live”( in which they culture the to and arelationship establish eachother, men recognize inventthemselves, lesbians andgay life through which as “sharedwayof “ethos” of concept the introduces Blasius positions. social and political in their reflected is existence gay and lesbian of specificity the how shows that concept a for argues He society. given inthe truth of forproduction of importance experience their the and displays heterosexist society, inthe position their of uniqueness neglectthe not would existence that lesbian gay for and conception find proper on independent musical and poetical influenced scene both herstrategies. Mark Blasius (1992) tries to lesbian inand participation as thiscommunity herwell into involvementas simultaneous processes Olga resided in the apartment of the keeper of ALG, Elena Gousyatinskaya, who was abroad at that time. Thus, I had a “Ethos” is“Ethos” a way beingof inand for community,the invented through their personalvoluntary I use the notion of “ethos” as the common category to describe how Olga’s “coming out” asa out” Olga’s“coming how describe to category “ethos”as common the notion of I usethe 48 . There are also different texts of interviews with her, interviews with of texts alsodifferent are . There 66 ibid., p.645).Itis “a type of existence 49 . ibid., p. CEU eTD Collection was deeply involved into the underground culture of cultureLeningrad of underground was involved intothe deeply society. city transformational of post-Soviet circumstances in particular the ethos” “lesbian the as such a person, but had to invent it constantly. Thus, I try to look at her history as a in case have story alesbianactivistthatshedidnot wayof sense becoming activities the of apredestined of making Petersburg sexual minorities’ community aside(leaving herprivate life andmusical carrier) as the “ethos” explains development of personal andresponsibilities practical norms. subculture ina similar has beensocialized as who a person admitshould that community. I counterculture even underground, of these patterns to according image is organized circles. also Her andart thoroughly associates herself with underground butwith circles these more not musical “mainstream” order of compulsory heterosexuality” domineering( regime of f and the social truths that support it, “ ones itsit,outside of hasproblematizesdevelopment deeply subversive political It meaning. the marginalized and dominated are who individuals of consists community this as far as and category, issocial a “Ethos” deeply “ethos”. is as conceptualized of homoeroticism others) in to relation way of life through one’s homoeroticism” ( performer of subculturalthis style and manner. performs the habitus she fairly that well.can recognize For I me, that it means has been only it particularlyexperience, her share interesting Ican that to observe of course mean, not It does at herbehavior as generation. such aperfect next the and ofhers bypersons and circle “native” Krauze’s by Olga exactly distributed and produced patterns the several and subcultures underground several others, among produced, 51 environment cultural specific its time, Soviet 50 49 interview and also from shorter talks in the next several days when I was workinglesbian in the group, ALG. etc. I am rally grateful to Olga for her hospitality and honesty. All the quotations in the text are from this possible to “come out” once and for all the time ( She has the has She Igrew up in aperipheral region in a younger generation. Thus “our” subculture stylewas influenced and modified by It must be mentioned that Leningrad/St.Petersburg always was considered the cultural capital of the country. In the www.olgakrauze.ru Olga Krauze defines herself primarily as musician and poet. She is also a professional She painter. She is aprofessional also musician andpoet. as herself primarily Krauze Olga defines In following,the Olga Ireconstruct Krauze’shistory of an of active participantLeningrad/St. 51 , I can recognize these features and ways of self-presentation to the surrounding at once. habitus of an singer underground writer of Petersburgof artist and St. the subculture (a ibid., ibid., p.660;emphasis of the concept intheoriginal). Thus, p. 656). This way life,of then in the community (i.e. 67 ibid., p. 655). Coming out is necessarily crafting “a is crafting p.655).Coming necessarily out publicly 50 andnowadays, even she Ithink, introducing achange in the CEU eTD Collection marginality (=vulnerability). as of tactics herof social social may be interpreted compensation activity This artistic organizations). same time, she was socially active (she described her activities in the in activities her described (she active socially was she time, same Atthe andclasses. social groups Shedifferent wasbetween Sovietbureaucracy, too. vulnerable to as made status was a highlymarginalizedone. Hernational her origin an (she German) ethnic same time she was constantly educating herself in various humanities. Thus, I would define her social person living amongclass people that of influence cannot ignore the of prison experience). Atthe of cultural behavioral patterns, fortraits and Russian language unprivileged social classes, and a subculture (since influenced her sinceherchildhood prison the and staysstill was auniversal source employed innon-prestigious Although works. she never wasseriously imprisoned, the prisoners’ a member of the Communist Party. At the same time, she lived among working class people, and was period. herlifein Soviet of the circumstances different her origins explaining to referred she repeatedly interview, my In her. for important crucially was always surrounding in semi-marginal up growing and oppressed beingthe of one experience of childhood city, the the comeback to managedto homoerotic (same-sexabout love) 2007a). matters (Krauze, as works an Atexpression a “specific” theof lesbiansame culture. timeopenly spoke she and wrote James hasbeenBaldwin by read notonly Thus,pretendgays). she not did toemphasize hercreative it all“culture”,was interesting to not foronly “lesbians” (as by “Giovanni’s (her comparison) room,” way. this in perform to prefers she and area, cultural this in performance musical of non-commercial form a“classical” is It 52 ( “flat concert” of subcultural tradition the following to “classic” Russian Shesubculture). often atsmallperforms inparties flats private orsmall clubs, Itis much easier toorganize them,but itis worth mentioning that this manner of performing is “natural” for her habitus. Living inhad Living Leningrad, sheanintermediary had social and status: highereducation was even She camefrom intellectualsa family of who hadbeen exiled from Leningrad. Although her parents if a itwas Asshe stated, poet.” as a“lesbian categorized being rejected sametime, she the At 68 kvartirnik , ɤɜɚɪɬɢɪɧɢɤ Komsomol ) 52 . and invarious CEU eTD Collection 53 imprisonment, even dared to interrupt into militia arrest. Olga even into militiainterrupt thisas imprisonment, about arrest. dared to a common spoke practice: power.Thelesbianrelations saved thefrom – state theirfriends girls with dangerthe gays of of methods possible explore to had all They women. and men homosexual other with experience common the shared she lesbian, a Being networks). these in both included being in contradiction shenow it social with combined network another “these of wasno (obviously,people” there but culture, of inlife participate network underground andthesocial artistic continued to unofficial She 1.3). in it section the (asIcharacterized minorities sexual of community “virtual” to the co-habitate).communitiesmanage Inthelate 1970s, (sometimes members entered to Olga couldtheir that person andmaking of herlife asmarginal Alesbianmake person. woman to tried Olga’s and acquaintance happened towhen she was 25 years 1977), (aboutold already having the experience ofliving with same-sex lover know different lesbiangirl. a marry” “to way virtual only the groups homoeroticin intention as traumatic one. She dreamtabout being a boy inthe her childhood, because it was city.developed ofhidingherlife. hertechniques Shedescribed the periodof herown understanding These werestudy morehad It wasa about this get know nopossibility ofexistencewhenshe yet. to period type relatively but herself asalesbian moved understanding life” of in whenshe to early “closeted gradually 1970s, small mademarriage” a“registration with her of Atthat girlfriend. time shehad alongliving of period a (2006), she once how manageddescribed sheshe had toforgea found in hadpassport heryard, and way life.of At the same time she surely felt the burden of social control. In her autobiographical book in her of atease her choice she becould relatively ayard-keeper, Working as an this kind, exception”. of one only the was I thought old years 25 till and girlfriend beloved my with lived I amazing, was The “stamp” means the state registration of marriage. She means she had been officially married. officially been she had means She of marriage. registration state the means “stamp” The Olga became acquainted with the life of the community of people with non-normative sexuality non-normative with of people community lifethe of the with acquainted became Olga Since her childhood, as she would reconstruct it nowadays, Olga Krauze was a lesbian. “My history passport? We used to save the guys. Once, they called me… [and said that] Grishka Krauze: Even before that struggle. Well,how did I get the stamp decriminalization? Me: Didyou have this partnership, cooperation, or in timethe of for struggle the 69 53 into my into CEU eTD Collection to SRS as an option “many” people chose. A close friend of Krauze, whom she oftendecisionof two Ministries,State mentioned leaving aside all otherbureaucratic by procedures) getpositive variousto (Kon, 2003). needed Icannot occasions, explainperson (the her attitude obtaining was permit the of procedure very complicated to due rare were operations these 55 54 desperately desperately needed help. women)do often itdecided to only being not tounderstand able themselves properly have morebeing problems thanbefore. Not SRSin againstthe shethoughtpeopleprinciple, (mainly lesbian, Olga operationthe solution, thought aproper often was not it personwould the becauseafter to herhomoerotic as andliving long “orientation” of experience having“adjustment” However, the plenty of operation. desperately tomakefemale-to-malewomen cases then tried reassignment depiction shown surgery asvictims. latentof She told (SRS) reassignment knew a meshe them this The concepts of vulnerability and danger designed her thinking community. about the Her projectsproject. were individual oriented toward help suffering andpromotion individuals.to anideological produced she never thus, were); leaders, obviously, several whole(as community the They had difficulties in their socialization. She was not interested in big programs of development of herpersonally. to unfamiliar familiar and of personalities, set ascertain it) community the (imagined were of inhertraceable activity. herfurther public ethos in social in personal her managingAll and strata relations features activities projects. different these experienced participantvarious of informal shecommunicative networks, countedon informal, necessity helpto “people of kind”that had formed her“ time,up tothat may she that life.conclude I Here in community the experienced Olgawas already Krauze repeatedly mentioned the SRS operations1.3. section as in a notorious described meaning in the thing. people” According “her to rather, Or, to Igor Kon, during the Soviet period Her explanation of how the sexual minorities thought about she displays her attitude to the sex the to attitude her displays she about thought minorities sexual the how of explanation Her For Olga, the life of the community was highly personalized; by that, Imean that she thought about In then begantime had Perestroika and themass coming outof became community the possible, I had the success! I hadthe and so on. I did notcare for anything I knew I had to help my friend and sometimes “he I isafaggot”, cried they faggots, that fuckedall nobody better him were than office, fall onto that Grichka and shout leave my man alone! If they’d begin tosay Andreev had been andcaptured he wasin such-and-such office. Icould run into the ethos ”. Thisimplied tothe vulnerable attention position sexual minorities’; of 54 ; interest in the specificity of homoerotic art. As an 70 55 . Thus, they Thus, . CEU eTD Collection (“catalogue”), with a adding of information actual internationalabout LGBT community. p.76. community. the about mythology personal 56 her of part a become operations SRS rather, Or, a transgender person, therefore that “overestimation” possibly was grounded inthe specificity of her mutual environment. aspecial newsletter, distribute 1992, she Later,aboutmates. find their regionswhich even could to from people different used coordinator ofit:coordinator or medium, national of a kind into herself turning channels, information the systematized just she and community, the of basis was always exchange Information her ethos. of realization “natural” rather minorities. She aboutthis spoke for decision unexpected herself;as nevertheless,it Ithinkbe should service” (as she names it) or,more precisely, aninformation and communicative system for sexual requests to help finddesperate decided“acquaintances and somebody, to anation-wide toorganize the main common problem which should be paid great attention. She was impressed by the number of werereceived Soon after, ofletters thousands inaleadinghomosexuals newspaper. aboutits help intention In letter itsto interests. Krylia published very a the beginning activity,the of lesbians’ represent lesbian as active to a socially Kryliainvited there Association founders of the life waysinnerher lifemaking findbetter of in society. She and to heterosexist of the one was co- participated in their gathering and preliminary analysis. She discerned the problem problem in the of discerned She analysis. andpreliminary participated their gathering Ashort note about this actionon ”Krylia”’s English website: Olga developed her own communicative system. She completed a nation-wide database, through database, anation-wide She completed system. communicative Olga herown developed On the contrary, Olga developed her own concept of homosexuality that helped her to harmonize her to helped homosexuality that of own concept her developed Olga contrary, On the to them [psychological consulting]. not understand that was going with them… And that was the work that nobody did sexualthey could by crazy exactly their were driven they because butorientation, so she has the operation. There were so many of them. Iwon’t say they were fools, artificial fertilization, gives a birth, sooner she suddenly understands she is a man, makes she [Imagine] of elder generations. those especially [T]hey were extremists, very very nothing because beginning, wasnoInternet, there all. at made I catalogues”. it…. Iwas without of any help. Somehow Iwas loaded by all this work… from the to do Ihadbegun wasnecessary,thus was clearserviceof acquaintances “It the Probuzhdenie (“Awakening”), which consisted of of whichconsisted database the (“Awakening”), 71 http://www.krilija.sp.ru/2eng.htm . See also: Essig, 1999, “solitude” 56 . Olga as CEU eTD Collection participant of underground artistic life there so many activities were absolutely individual projects individual absolutely so manyactivities were life artistic there of participant underground a for regular was her activities organizing manner of this time, same atthe But, could. as she as long forFollowing she theseher voluntarily butpersonal activities. worked ethos, support infrastructure, movement;the nonetheless,(or wascould movement not not the ready yet?) provide notonly she by in activist, field.As wasdemanded an city of the the operating from any organization active help sufficient acquire not could she that weak so was community in the groups different between artist-member of the community who develops it also through her artworks. However, the cooperation mothers lesbians, werewomen situation. there of Besides - participants Warinthe Afghanistan and single by difficult women trapped different with via co-operation closer meet andbecame to opportunity Thisprovide lesbians’. notexclusivelymade Petersburg. tried organization Olga an was up of to in St. prisons women for help organized They charity. on based was “Klub” the of activity The more developsocialized, tried projects. “western-like” to better incomparably andwas of activism concept hadgay another Kukharsky, who implications. and accepttheir not needs shecould primarily “commercial” expressed gay community, of Zhenschin own own “hand-made” fanzine homoerotic songs, she also herpoemsin “Gay, published the journal.invented Slaviane” her also She give withlater. Olga not her wasdesignedhomoerotic art, concerts upperforming openly did lesbian promotion of interests, her of perspective next The problems. socialization with their institution. medical a with in cooperation Krylia the by founded She tried to facilitate the life of the community by helping its participants, and played a role of of an arole andplayed its byhelping participants, facilitate the life community the of She to tried Thus,her activities first were aimed atfacilitating information exchange and helpingindividuals At the same time, she distanced herself from the Krylia and established the andestablished Krylia from the herself she distanced sametime, the At 57 . Simultaneously, she worked as a volunteer on a “hotline telephone” for sexual minorities, for sexual telephone” a “hotline on asavolunteer worked she . Simultaneously, (“Klub of Independent Women”) about 1992. As projects Krylia’s she explained,Women”) the about Independent(“Klub of Arabesques . 72 Klub Nesavisymykh CEU eTD Collection “one-womancrusade to make her voice (1999,heard” p.78) seems shallow and imprecise. 57 action. for concrete findfinding helpedherto image her personal Clearly, organizations. investments. personal constant her without working institution an create not had she movement the left she Then movement. emerging field. The otherguaranteed only by intentions. She, naturally,these persons’ in this style transmitted of work new this side of this style was that she did not enhance that infrastructure of the nor the nor 1997, she keepworking couldmoney not “hadno becauseshe herat all”. Neither unique database, support theherliving community, but herfrom prevented continuation it. conditions Upto the of She to activities 205,n.117).multiple could 1999,p. develop (Essig, than because it’s cheaper” eat “smoke rather she would and her girlfriend that Krauze’s words quoted survive. Essig hardto work had to simultaneously but community, in international) life of the (already the actively participated circumstances as well as to her personal relations with other people. made personalities).interested This of of style her vulnerable herprojects work personal to “communal” style of (basedprojects on voluntary work of close friends and funded byindividual help the and relations informal the on counted she Thus, in general). citizens Russian to or minorities hereisitclear sexual “our” referred the to inside Olga’s not (However, whether country. the Taking into account into account the variety of activities, developed by the “Klub”, Laurie Essig’s estimationof it as For arelativelyFor longreceive period of helpfrom Olga usedto foreigntime, people andfrom At samethe time Olgalivedin conditions. extremely poor She and hadseveraltrips abroad still The sequence is the activists expected important: the financial notfrom from help primarily aboard Klub the deal.the didit, butourpeople, too.I thought Icould not spendmoney the myselfon soI did Germans, and Americans foreigners, only Not hand-to-hand. money me the gave Krauze: It the beginning I had some money. Secondly, Iused to find donors. They Me: whereyou get did money the yourfor publisher’s actions? were accepted by any organization in spite of her asks– thus, results of leader’s of results one her in of spite asks– thus, byanyorganization wereaccepted 73 CEU eTD Collection known nowadays in the community in the nowadays known also in production the of cultural patterns of independentlesbianan singer. In image isthis mostshe led several in groups 1990sandinfluencedthe contemporary leaders of lesbian the butcommunity, she that in only not consisted community the of development the into contribution personal Her work. creative own her on exclusively almost herself concentrating life community the in participation amore “individualized” strategy inof shehasaccepted her). Since thehardperiod of end the 1990s, of looking olderthe generation “the irony youth” at with (especially young at the whodate girls try to Nowadays, by (2004). sheis asithas been amember Nartova (private/semi-private/public) described in my judgement, model managinghercomings she follows out, life trinitary the of personal and especially to the people who can exercise a power over surroundings it tothe givesshe additional an power of such openness: ear… Butthelimits realizes her: the state officials and employers. In herleftear andnone-in inherright three earrings with temples, shaved haircut short appearance: may that Sheis initiatives. her from an lesbian be easily social open read even complicated groups. life of lesbian city’s the movement. Young women in who participated and thenext and, periods correspondingly, between “old guard” and “newguard”generations in the 58 less stable group, in women’s lastthe wasproposing of action period organization that on methodsthe andback cominglife period strategies of tothe underground Soviet Her of period. the acceptthis movement followed organizational whoandethos didrationality). herdepended not She Sheestablish nevertried to an NGO-style organization. (Surely,wasnot theonly she one inthe database, Olga burntit down. In 1997, she broke off any social activities for several years. the security of guarantee to unable leaders. Being by other effectively demanded not activities were Interviews with Irina B., Julia Smirnova, Sasha. Today, OlgaKrauze is anindividual independentmusician not engagewho does herselfin such This infamous ending of This infamous herfollowedfinishing ending of thecommon line projects firstthe of period. the of Labris existed for a very short time, but was a kind of “mediator” between the first between “mediator” was of but time,a kind avery short for existed 58 . 74 Labris Labris in As1996. amore or later joinedother later CEU eTD Collection that movement. of disadvantages and itself developed has movement the how see to helps thus and moments typical shows experience her However, community. the in only not acknowledged widely so artist lesbian noother thereis isunique; experience Krauze’s In a sense, of period. the shaped bytheconditions activist anartist and simultaneously influenced herpublic activities how these and wereactivities movementof 1990s. Itried show how her to personal andethos self-determination alesbian as establishment of publicly legitimized culture of non-normative sexuality. non-normative of culture legitimized publicly of establishment When the minorities movement public emerged,itssexual of firsttasks were decriminalization and temporary establishment of tolerance for overt manifestations of sexuality. was one of the reasons for fast transformation of media sphere, emergence of “sex in media” and 1989)) (Remington, “doublesoviet regime sexuality discussion (which wasapartof of thought” of between “silence”and factual discrepancy public forinformation for publicdemand and access the I think period, Soviet the In societies. Western in transformation with chronology and features population if country the came a gradual through transformation of sexual life comparable inits normalized ina way thatprecluded mentioningany sexuality-related At matters. of samethe time, the hadmiddleSince of it and the beenextremely the century the was publicdiscourse constrained, this context. in considered was movement minorities’ sexual The increased. dramatically activism social the after, soon and Perestroika of the period In the social a new,“better” regime. to of transformation state the Soviet regime its with specific sexual information and waspolitics and terminated society the was in formed akindof movement.social Ithappened intheperiod then USSRwasthe dismantled, the In this section, I tried to follow a personal story of one of key leaders of the sexual minorities’ During sexuality the period, Soviet strictly normalizedwas along heteronormative with models Union. Soviet inthe sexuality” “regime of of the features specific of anoutline the I began with In my I definework tried to the way howRussian sexual minorities came into public being and Conclusion 75 CEU eTD Collection this purposeIdiscuss their political andunsuccessful actions, for search allies among political other For trend. political” of “radical the bebyrepresentatives mademainly politics national into engage communitythe represent in which they emerged. effectively not couldfirst period in the emerged organizations the that I argue anddevelopment. Russian hadminorities, sexual Idiscussed it hardships, thus overcome its its organizational agenda for organization become a nation-wide could potentially ‘Triangle’ Center forms of The activity. leadersand anddiscussother, thepersonal impact of chosen their how development their haveshaped each they correlate how Ishow “cultural” ones. and “developmental” “radical political”, activities: capitals butall main country.over the Idiscern andthree of trends organizations the groups’ public cities Ishow that the process comingand of organizationgroup out place building took in notonly andregional in Leningrad/St.Petersburg organizational history several of Moscow, organizations independent in in making citizen’s analysis activism andorganization society. general rise By of of possibility contacts, foreign of availability tolerance, in rise its with transformation social broader group identity an is a sign of a process of the identities’ development. suggest thatintroduction “gay”of term the hasbeen a meanof of re-constructing community’s the and other “blues/gays/lesbians” minority”; “sexual as Western terms such between difference the show I transformation. terms used to name and describeandfor community the from outside. the community alsoby periods. I in namesintodiscuss which the were used secondchapter two the community the by itself, dividemovement”,meitactivities Ioffered as“the to Igeneralize helped that achronology which or theof set the of development outsiders. the frame To “movement”. and “community” between differentiation I already in the late1970s.Speaking emergence aboutthe myself of Iground movement, the onthe In the third chapter I discuss, firstly, the attempts to politicize the sexual minorities movement and movement minorities sexual the politicize to attempts the firstly, discuss, I chapter third the In the on its dependence show I movement. ofthe overview made ageneral I section nextIn the The choice ofnames for definition of a group is an important aspect of itsidentity constructing and an I argue sexual its subculture community underground that minorities’ discernible existed with 76 CEU eTD Collection example relations and connections that existed inperiod. activists thatamong andconnections example that relations community’s needs and interests and approachlater howthat defined heractivism. show Ialso by this the to approach her construct had she how show and materials available other with along interview by development PetersburgexampleLeningrad/St. Krauze. of lesbian activist Olga Ianalyseher inmovement’s participate and to the reasons individual options lastillustrate section, I the In trend. “cultural” the to belonging mainly activists several by homoerotism” of tradition “national strong identity ofthe IdiscussWestern itsdeveloped influenceof reinvention group without patterns. movement the and simultaneously, appropriated not were community LGBT global of participants of identities group the community. However, LGBT world the of infrastructure (financial) in suggest sexual Russian minorities integrate that themselves successfully 1990s, into economic would I community. the of shape very in the factor important acrucially was abroad from help minorities. 1990s and early thetime Iconsider second 2000s). of the period deep “normalization” of sexual (late in period second the interests have political itnot did articulated subject, become not apolitical groups in the early 1990s. As far as the aim was not achieved and the sexual minorities movement did Secondly, I discuss relations the movement’s attitudes to “the West” The financial and resource and Thefinancial West” “the to attitudes movement’s the relations discuss I Secondly, 77 CEU eTD Collection sexual minorities’ scene; her story was especially analyzed in section 3.3. Petersburg main of St. leaders and of one lesbian, the artist, poet musician, Krauze(1953), 13) Olga 1993, cardriver. Petersburg) (St. 12) Natalialesbian, Ivanova (1961), participated in women different and groups organizations since organization Kryliathe professor, businessman. (1991–present), (St.Petersburg) 11) Aleksandr Kukharsky (1949),open gay,leader of firstthe officially sexual minorities’registered Petersburg. studied community (1978),lesbian, 10) Nadezhda who lesbian Nartova anthropologist St. of recorded). (Moscow) 9) Sasha (1978),gay man, in participated community’sthe life since 2000(this interview wasnot (Moscow) sciences. social of teacher ALG, inof andwriter,lesbian participated actively 8) Julia poet work the (pseudonym;1952), Tsertlich recorded).interview wasnot(Moscow) 7) Svetlana,computer specialist,in (1975), late1990s the edited lesbian“Organic funzine Lady” (this (Moscow) recorded) not was singer6) Irina(1959), Moscow hasfrom andwriter, recently B., moved to interview Barnaul. (this (Moscow) journalist. professional 5) Elena G.,(1967),journalist,Smirnova’s partner, recently has moved toMoscow from Barnaul, (Moscow) manager. professional lesbian of ALG, writer, vice-director (1969), 4) Julia Smirnova Gays (ALG), participates in the movement since early 1990s, teacher of French language. (Moscow) and Archivekeeper of and Lesbians of Moscow director currentthe (1946), 3) Elena Gysyatinskaya publisher offirst gay newspapers (the and editor organizations first of the participant –gay activist, 1953) (nickname, 2) Vladislav Ortanov sexuality, acknowledged also for his efforts in advocating sexual minorities’ struggle. (Moscow) 1) Igor Kon (1936), - the most prominent Russian researcher in sexology insexology of sociology Russian researcher mostand prominent 1) IgorKon(1936),-the APPENDIX. The list of the interviewees Tema ) and journals ( 78 RISK, Argo RISK, ). (Moscow) CEU eTD Collection Denning, Chris (2002).Polari - http://www.chris-d.net/polari/ accessed (last 05.11.2007) D’Emilio, John D’Emilio, John (1998). Crimp, Douglas (1990). Conlon, Deirdre (2004). Productive Bodies, Performative Spaces: Everyday Park in Spaces:Everyday Life Christopher Conlon, ProductivePerformative Bodies, (2004). Deirdre Calhoun, Craig (1994). Social Theory and the PoliticsBrown, of Identity - Michaelin: Calhoun, Craig (ed(2000).Blasius,The oflesbian Mark(1992). ethos and gayexistence –in:Politicalvol. Theory 20,n.4,pp. Closet Baker, Paul Polari:(2002). Language TheLost of Gay Space:Men. London:Routledge; Geographies Anmegikjan, Maksim (2005). of Metaphor from the (1991). Anderson, Benedict Body to the Altman, Dennis (2001). Globe. Allova, Alla (1988). “Zhizn’ pri SPIDe: gotovy li my”? (Are we ready to live with AIDS?) Adam, Barry D.,JanWillem andAndréKrouwel Duyvendak Gay (1999). and LesbianMovements Press. (2 -in: Theory and the Politics ofTheory andthePolitics Identity. London: Routledge. 642-671. #28, p.12-15;available at: University Press. P.344-71. Temple Philadelphia, Movement. Worldwide a of Imprints National Politics. Lesbian and Gay of Emergence Global The –in: Movement Worldwide a of imprints National Borders? beyond nationalism. http://www.gdm.md/rus/story.php?sid=172 Sexualities, nd edition). London: Verso. v. 7.p.462-79. Global Sex AIDS Demographics Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities http://neuro.net.ru/sexology/info181.html Imagined Communities: reflections on theoriginspreadof andthe . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell. P.9-37 Literature andsources An interviewwith OlgaZhuk . New York: Bay Press. 79 . Chicago, L.:TheUniv. . Chicago, Chicago of . –available at: Ogonyok .) Social .) , CEU eTD Collection Gessen, M(1998)Lica feministskoj nacional’nosti (The faces offeminist’s nationality) –Itogi, #8, Franeta, SonyaFraneta, (2004). Foucault, Michel (1978). The History of Sexuality,vol. 1.N.Y.: Pantheon. Healey, (2001). Dan Johansson, Warren Williamand A. Percy (1994). Gessen, (1994(rus)) Masha Gessen,Masha (1994(eng)). mass USSR: the of System Political the Redefining (1992). Mickkiewicz Ellen and Ada, Finifiter, Hebdige Dick(1979) Goscilo, Helena andThe (1995)NewMembers in:in: Organs: Politics – Berry – Porn Ellen of (ed.) Gessen, Masha (1995) Sex in Media and the Birth of the Sex Media in Russia– in: Ellen Berry in:Ellen (ed.) Berry Media inRussia– Birth Sex the andthe of inMedia Masha (1995)Sex Gessen, Essig,Laurie (1999). Edge, Simon (1995). Gessen M. (1997) in: `Theorizing andGay in Rainbow: Culture – A Lesbian the Irvine, Janice M(1996). Place Duneier, Mitchell (2004). available at: available Tver’: “Ganimed”. Interviews). Haworth Press. Haworth Francisco: IGLHRC. support for political change.in: – Postcommunism andtheBody Politics IGLHRC. Postcommunism andtheBody Politics Seidman, Steven (ed. ) Press. http://www.a-z.ru/women/texts/gessr.htm Dead Again: theRussian Intelligentsia Communism after Homosexual Desire inRevolutionary Russia. With likethese…friends Marxism andGaypolitics. Queersin Russia: A Story of Sex, Self and Other Sex, Self Story of Queersin A Russia: Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Queer Theory/Sociology. Rozovye flamingo: 10sibirskikhinetrv’ju Rozovye flamingo: Sidewalk. Prava gomoseksualov Ilesbijanok v Rossijskoj Federacii. Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men in the Russian Federation. inthe Lesbians and GayMen Rights of The Amer. Polit. Sc. Rev., v. 86, n.4. Pp. 857 -874. N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. . N.Y: New York University Press. . N.Y: New York University Press. 80 Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell. Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence Outing: ShatteringtheConspiracy of . London: Routledge. University Press,of Chicago 2001. (Pink Flamingos: 10 (PinkSiberian Flamingos: . Durham, NC: Duke University London, Cassel, 1995.; . L.: Verso. SanFrancisco: San . CEU eTD Collection Kon, Igor (2003) Kon, Igor Kirsanov,(2005) Vladimir Kon, Igor (1997). Kon,Igor Kon, (1998). Igor Ranger and Terence Eric Tradition. In: Hobsbawm, Hobsbawm, Eric Inventing (1983)Introduction: Kon, Igor (1995).Kon, Igor (2002) Kon,Chelovecheskie Igor na 21veka seksual’nosti poroge (Human in sexualitites the Kozlovskii, Vladimir (1986). Kon, (1988)“Vvedenie Igor vseksologiyu” (Introduction sexology).to the M., Medicina. Riordan (1993)."SexualKon, Minorities," James in:IgorKonand (eds.) Igor Krauze, Olga (2007a). Krauze, (2007).Nuzhnyvsem Olga Sergei I nikomu lichno. needshimbut Scherbakov (Everyone Klandermans, Bert (1993) A theoretical framework for comparisons of Klandermans,(1993) A for comparisons Bert movementsocial framework theoretical of participation Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transsexuals). Tver’, Ganimed. http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/belkin.html (eds) (1983). Sexual culture in Russia). M.: O.G.I. seksual’nosti beginning of 21Century)the in: – Zdravomyslova, andAnna Elena Temkina (eds.) Riordan. NY: FreePress NY: Riordan. accessed 24.05.2007) –available at: does.) nobody personally Society. – in: – Homosexual Benson,VT.: Subculture) Chalidze Publications. Sociological Forum Bloomington: Indiana U. Pr. . (In search for sexuality) SPb., Dmitry Bulanin. The Invention Tradition.of Pamyati professora A. Belkina ( Pamyati professoraA.Belkina Lunnyj sveetna zare: i Liki maskiodnopoloiliubvi. The Sexual Revolution inRussia: FromtheAgeofTsars to Today, Klubnichka na bereske. Seksyual’naya kultura vRossii kultura Klubnichka nabereske. Seksyual’naya Ye-moe.Kniga stikhov. , vol. 8, n.3, 1993.n.3, Pp.383-402., vol. 8, 69. Russkie gey, lesbijanki, biseksualy69. Russkiegey,lesbijanki, Itransseksualy Argo russkoi gomoseksual'noi subku'ltury Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.1-14. http://www.gay.ru/people/activist/krauze_s_2007.html (Book of poetry.). M.: Queer, 2007. 81 Professor Aron Belkin. Inmemoriam) –available at: . M: Olimp. M: (The Slang of Russian (Raspberry (Raspberry on a birch. (69. Russian Gays, (69. Sex andRussian V poiskakh tr. James (last CEU eTD Collection Nartova, NadezhdaNartova, Urodov (2004a)“ProI ludyei”: Ilesbiystvo geteroseksualnost’ (“On Monsters MSM… (2007) Moss, Kevin The Underground(2002). Closet: Political and Sexual Dissidence in European East Nartova, Nadezhda (2004). Lesbians in Modern Russia: Subjectivity Soviet Nadezhda LesbiansPractices Russia: inModern of Nartova, Subjectivity or (2004). Moss, Kevin (2001) Review of Moss, Kevin “Queer of inRussia.: (2001)Review Laurie Story Essig. andof Sex, Other”–in: Self Mogutin, Yaroslav (1995) Chechensky usel: 13 tesisov (The Chechen Knot: 13Theses)Mogutin, Knot: (1995)Chechensky usel:tesisov Chechen Yaroslav –in: 13 (The Lazarenko, Vitaliy (2004). “ Gei- eto prostituirujuschaja proslojka” (“Gays are the strata that prostitutes” Lazarev V. (1992)Moj Barnaul in:- Klimova Klimov’sLasarenko,Village) –in: Gay Vitalij ValerijaGej-derevnya (Valery (2004a). Kuzmin, Editor’s Dmitry (1995). note –in: Yakov (2007). Krotov, E-mail letter author, to the 21.05.2007. Krauze,(2006). Olga Lychev, Dmitry (1993). Pleshka -in: and Humans” heterosexuality and lesbianism) -in: lesbianism) and heterosexuality Humans” and ‘East/West’ Divide Press. Culture Berry –in:(ed.) Ellen ‘Hypocrisy’? –in:Frunz ‘Hypocrisy’? Stigma and Discrimination. M.: SPIDInfosvyaz’. the Slavic Review,the Slavic vol Vzglyad http://www.gay.ru/society/lgbt/interview/r_kalinin2004.html at: available – Kalinin) Roman with Interview - “ http://www.proza.ru/texts/2006/10/16-362.html Kvir”, #8. Available at: , n. 3,p. 4-5. MSM: obschestvennojeMSM: stigma idiscriminatsia mnenie, . Cluj-Napoca, Editura LIMES. 189-Pp. 198. . 45,n.1, p.160-161. “Moj put’ vmuzyuky”“Moj put’ http://www.kvir.ru/08-derevnja.html ă , Mihaela, and Theodora-Eliza V Theodora-Eliza and , Mihaela, Postcommunism theBodyPolitics and Tema 1/10 , #3-4, p. , #3-4, 4. #4, p. 7. RISK, vol.1, p.1. . 82 Gendernye Issledovaniya (My way to Music) – published at: ăFă . rescu (eds.). rescu . N.Y: New York University NewYork . N.Y: (MSM: Public Opinion, (MSM: Public , #10, p197-, #10, 206). Gender and the(Post) Novy CEU eTD Collection True, Jackie(2003). True, Speirs, Gay Scott(2000) Haggerty -in: George Gay (ed.) Histories and Cultures: anEncyclopedia. Shluter, DanielShluter, Nash s vami(1993). na narod... grani buduschego(Our common in people... gates the Sherrill, Kenneth (1996) ThePolitical Power of Lesbians, Gays,Bisexuals and –in: Scherbakov, Sergei KaketoScherbakov, nachinalos’ it Sergei (1991). pri was commenced (How totalitarizme time inthe Scherbakov, Sergei prebyvanija“golubykh” v nevole Social’nye (Social Scherbakov, Sergei effects (1993). posledstvija Rubin, S.(1993)[1984] Gayle Thinking in: Sex - Henry Abeloveal. et. (eds.), AnnaRotkirch, (2004)“Whatkind sex of can you talk acquiring about?”: sexual knowledge in three Rotikov, Konstantin (1998) DvizhenieRobinson. H.(1992).Molchanie-eto smert’. vRossii men’shinstv seksual’nukh (The Polletta, Francesca, and James M. Jasper (2001). Collective Identities and Social Movements. –in: Movements. Social and Identities Collective (2001). andM. Jasper James Francesca, Polletta, Igor (2006).Zhizn’ A.“the Kukharsky) statjej Article”.)Petrov, (Interview with LifeUnder pod (The Communism. L.:N.Y., Garland Publishing, Inc. p.362-363. of of –in:Future) and Politics. of totalitarianism) –in: totalitarianism) of of imprisonmentof of “blues”)the –in: through Soviet Russia. Sovietgenerations –in: Bertaux, Daniel, Paul andAnna Thompson Rotkirch (eds.) Studies Reader sovremennost’ in: – in Russia) minorities sexual of movement The is death. silence Annu. Rev. Sociol Annu. at: – available Vol.29,no. 3,p. 469-473. N.Y.: Columbia Univ. Press . #4,p.74-80. http://gaynews.ru/right/article.php?ID=2331 (NewYork and London:Routledge), pp.3-44. Ty, ., vol. 27, p. 283 – 305. #2,pp. 83-93). Gender, Post-Socialism:Czekh Republic After Globalizationand The London and Routledge. NewYork: 93-119. P. RISK, Drugoj Peterburg #1, p.3. Gay, Slaviane! (Another Petersburg). SPb., Liga Plus. 83 #1,p.69-73 . Obschestvennye naukiI Obschestvennye The LesbianandGay Political Science On Living CEU eTD Collection Moscow Archive of Lesbians and Gays ( Vse Luidi 1993, #1-2 –sestry Ty 1993, #2 Impul’s Bulletin 1992 #1 Shans 1992#1,2,3, 4, 5-6 Nash Mirwinter, #4 1998, The Center Triangle Information Bulletin #3 1995, #2, Tema 1991#3-4;1992 #1; 1992 #2-3;#4 Gay, 1993,#1 Slaviane! RISK 1991, #1/2;1993,#3;1995, #1;1996, #6 Drugoj 1993 1994 #1,Argo 1995#2 Apollo Information(the #2. Bulletin) 2002, 1/9 1992#2 1/10 International 1994, #4 1/10 -1992,1993 (8 volumes) Zdravomyslova, Elena (2001) Hypocritical sexuality of period: Sovietand sexualknowledge late Hypocritical of sexuality the Elena(2001) Zdravomyslova, ChrisWoods, (1995). Weigle, MarciaandJim ButterfieldCivil in (1992). Society Reforming Communist the Regimes: Vorontsov, Dmitriy (2004). “Semeyanaya zhizn’ - eto ne dlya nas: mify I cennosti muzhskikh cennosti I mify nas: ne dlya eto - zhizn’ “Semeyanaya (2004). Dmitriy Vorontsov, –in: Literature Russian Recent in Homosexuality Us: Among Other The A. Vishnevsky Communist Countries. sexual in:ignorance, - SueWebber andIlkka Liikanen (eds.) Britain. Logic of Logic of –in:Emergence in: Ushakuine, Sergey in:(ed.) Sergey Ushakuine, gomosekseal’nyjh lifeisnot for parus”: myths(“Family homosexual andmale valuesof couples) – and EastEuropeanJournal, L.: Cassel. L.: States of the Queer Nation. A Critique o f Gay and Lesbian Politics in1990s Gay andLesbian A Critiqueof the Queer Nation. States of L.,Palgrave, 151–167. Comparative Politics, Semeynue Usy: modelidlyasborki Vol.n.4 42, (Winter 1998),p. 723-729 ALG ), files 65, 40 Sources 84 v. 25, n. 1. P. 1-23. Education andCivicCulture inPost- . V. 1. M., NLO. P. 576 -607. The Slavic