CEU eTD Collection 2010 Hungary Budapest, Timar Eszter Fellow Postdoctoral Reader: Second Supervisor: Professor Hadley Z. Renkin In partialfulfillment for the degree ofMasters Arts in GenderStudies (Insider’s) Perspective on LGBT Pride: Budapest PrideCaseStudy Budapest Department of Gender Studies Department of Central EuropeanUniversity Edward Cuneo Submitted to By CEU eTD Collection minority minority organizational struggles. emphasis on Pride allows its discourses to merge with differentiating approaches on (sexual) this Therefore, normatives. social (hetero/homo) political/social the beyond discourses such onreevaluating emphasis the remains interdebates, LGBTcommunity of emergence the some of the internalized debates on Pride’s aim, necessity, and effectiveness. Lastly, through particularities of Pride. In this sense, the interviewing process of Budapestlocals emphasized thisPride. However, merge clearsupporting/opposing divide social discursive group through “gothic” (Hurley 1997) help with supporting separation the of and opposing perspectives on distinctionsbroad of bodies. “grotesque” social Specifically,(Bakhtin 1984) andthe the with discourses conflicting the framed I topic, the on divide social hetero/homo instinctive newer ways to evaluating the discourses which surround the event. First, by avoiding Abstract With Budapest Pride parades as the main focus, the intent of this thesis is hintto at i CEU eTD Collection support andsupport assistance all the information they gave out. Also, thanks to all my colleagues and faculty for their Acknowledgements I wouldlike togive thanks to my informants for giving upsome of their time andfor ii CEU eTD Collection Reference List...... 57 ...... 56 Appendix Conclusion...... 50 Assimilation...... 38 Visibility...... 27 ...... 14 Pride[ful] Body ...... 1 Introduction iii Table of Contents...... Acknowledgements...... ii ...... i Abstract Table ofContents ocuin...... 23 Conclusion...... 20 Opposing ...... Social Group 15 Supporting ...... Social Group 12 Conclusion...... 9 ...... Methods 7 Literature Review...... 3 Theoretical ...... Framework iii CEU eTD Collection the official start and end of the march’s path. In addition to the large police presence in largefull the presence police to march’s path.Inaddition andend officialthe start of the at placed were parade from the andexit only entrance the Therefore, streets. neighborhood adjacent any was fencedofffrom path parade’s the this In case, been has prevalent. history which inrecent(Pride) from violent attacks, marchers assurethe builtboundaries to fenced difference physical wasthe for The most obvious this paper. argumentation my comparison to2009 Budapest Pride which has experience, basis into the my developed of references. past these on displayed believed for amoment any that labeled Pride paradewould bevery much similar tothose with form with I formain this the Pride, experience personal preparation parade.So, of Pride notlimited toone single day. There were smaller events organized up toa week in advance in was thefestivities length of the Additionally, a participant. became city entire the appeared by it paradehad affectthe itsthe appealandtolerantattention,which widespread on city, the disconever-ending trucks, parties and public exaggerations ofsexuality.fascinated by Iwas lavish regardingof were had rumors the true, opportunity.many Irealized the Thereafter, mental expectation of the event, butit alsomotivated me attendto CSDin Berlin as soon as I occurring not inmajor onlydid So, cities worldwide. theserepresentations buildmy of Pride of magazines Pride andLGBT television portrayed on images the reinforced celebrations sexuality, LGBT focused media.The non-stop of nudity,and exaggerated rumors public mainstreamdecorations,music, participationimmensein portrayed and loud group both and coverage was my main source of the parade’s perspective. I was always inspired by the lavish media Day inand LGBT 2008 public Street Previously, Berlin,(CSD) Parade Germany. Introduction Therefore, I grewvery Therefore, intrigued when I noticed in the extreme differences Christopher the at was parade Pride LGBT official an with involvement first My 1 CEU eTD Collection activist and non-activist members within LGBT community. Additionally, based on non- on based Additionally, community. LGBT within members non-activist and activist public adisconnection between with community (hetero) creates the historicized relationship theuniversal formation intercommunity Therefore, Pride’s of variantinsinuates discourses. history cultural specified of orientation spheres’ social (transnational/national) Nevertheless, orientates supportingthe whichrecognition” inspires social and group. 1992), (Taylor, for “demand and belonging transnational/national with associations Pride’s is it sense, visibility historical isstimulatedthrough itPride by specifically content the Inthis provides. involvement. of field event;the from its ranging (activist) organizational methods uptothe participatory (target) efficiency, This and importance. then isdebate founded by underlyingthe historical aims of intention, its of debate intercommunity the broadens Pride sense, this In event. specific this (supporting/opposing) alliances, is there a variation of andunderstood implied meanings of social intercommunity on depending However, discursively. and symbolically (physical) involvement with (national)normative spaces,is this social division both disrupted Pridediscourse, develops asupporting/opposingsocial division. Therefore,with Pride’s of terms body. In identity or aconstructed of therecognition spaces reinforces standardized marginality.social case the In forced the Budapest Pride, of intrusion intohegemonic discourses.or In addition this, theto festivities resemble celebratory asymbolic escape from imagery physical through whether society, marginalized otherwise an integrating publicly for specifically, issource in this a parade More general.representation LGBTcommunity, the of Pride. distinctions Budapest surrounding placedwithin discourses nation/other) the themetaphorical and actualizes Thisphysical audience. (hetero/homo; public separation between participant/performer distinction aclear created boarders physical gear, these riot Although these of types vary expectations from region,region to for goal public the the model towards or expectation significant hold a parades LGBT Pride 2 CEU eTD Collection generalized ‘supporting’ perception of witha unifyinggeneralized perception Prideof ‘supporting’ as social group universal bodily configurewill “grotesque” concept the of debates Bakhtin’s (1984) Specifically, Pride. will beconstruct able a semi-fixedto division of bodiessocial representing (inter)community public and bodily assimilation. visibility First, through I canons, cultural conception the of identities regarding of with andtheories (queer) bodily canons proceed of intersection the Framework Theoretical builtperspectives within community. LGBT the broadening for allows debates intercommunity focus of the dichotomies, hetero/homo Pride’s challenging Ultimately, Pride. of views oppositional the involving debates assimilation cultural behavior. This willbe lifestyle standards or andsocial regarding (hetero) of public tothenotion “coming-out” bemyThroughout of of will related analysis, types these debates externalthrough political)(hetero, influences on conflicting community interpretations. necessity; assimilation and tolerance visibility, regarding debates intercommunity for basis the becomes spectacle this Additionally, march. the of opponents the and organizers the both will be able to highlight the reinforcementsupporting/opposing social of units Through discussions. Pride bodilythe concept of Pride, I of the event as a spectaclecomplexity formulating through Pridebody, asaconceptual regarding the through the views of reference to the Eastern European region. Structurally, Iwill conceive this type of community limitations building its particularly incommunity of initiative; butalso Budapest, with surrounding Pride’s interpretation within LGBTcommunity. the Thiswill the demonstrate interpretationsdifferent ofvisibility participation. and encouraged governmental isorganizations’ (NGOs’)initiatives, the disconnection conceptualized through In order to focus on the structure and aim of this paper, the body of this text will The objective of my argument is to demonstrate the complexities of the discourses 3 CEU eTD Collection I willmainly use Bakhtin’s toformulate ‘grotesque’ the(1984) notion embodimentof of Though assimilation. cultural of dilemma the through visibility public for aim organizational each presented on of metaphorical extremes “fence”the side (supporting/opposing). will the twobodily publicrepresent concepts space, these Budapest Pride 2009separated Hurley’s Therefore, as “gothic” of correlated bodily to (1997) physical borders the concept. is Pride Budapest the surrounding public(opposing) discourse ‘grotesque’, to the contrast In Pride focused parade. is actuality on the the binary of primarily “supporting/opposing” opposition lyingoutsideof Pride within the and LGBTcommunity.As a foundation, the and the poles,suchasthe supporters binary from differentiating perception directed generational meaning through continuation. universal immortalizes and merging bodies, multiple thebirth the of celebrates caricatures, exaggerated social 367). Therefore,through body ‘grotesque’ (p. the generates unification history” immortal the create each manwho living butthe people to that future belongs sense the about thought abstract “not formulates Pride mankind, of (evolution) progress historic the with infusion body’s a biological to contrast In growth. visibility regarding importance, gives basis for the supporting common for social Pride’sgroup’s understanding public by visualization of the “exaggeration within (p.306). reality” Hence, unity is by formed specificity the is publicizedthe of satire reached satisfaction and satire, in contrast to direct and naïve ( directand to in contrast satire, the of understanding acknowledged with way indirect inan 305) (p. berated” are phenomena laughter as satirical negative”“specific (p.306)with social so, social Indoingcritique. the “caricatures and exaggeration of interplay formulates it how on especially, meanings; Therefore, forming the unified bodily will concept continue the underlying LGBT Additionally, this bodily construction of Pride will function to centralize the critical motives, Pride’s idealized positive producingof Therefore, thegeneral perception ‘clownery’ 4 ) orironic ( ‘burlesque’ ) laughter) (p.305). CEU eTD Collection (1997), it by Hurley literature within analyzed the sense, is In this Nature”. “a gothicized reality of the nonhumanin the major role a becomes hostility and athreat such of as acause Pride of characterization speciesthe into transcends inferiority of threat (Hungarian) the Therefore, 63). (p. “beastliness” which are the ultimate(identity) protection/progression. threat and(hetero-hegemony) “motif of longevityin In humanity, of case the and progress. national terms Budapest Pride, of the human fearlogicallyfor the focuseswhich bodily canon affectopposing the ‘gothic’ Pride, on terrors of false (intellectual humanthe moral) progression andperfection Thus,towards asacause (p. 56). (global) associationdeviation, opposing Pride focus oncontinuously social reconsidering,groups reevaluating, or body being asingular placed onto andlinear process. Inthismanner, fears with regulatory of connectshuman the regarding evolution, on narrative Darwinian to references conceptual Prideextreme opposition for potential gives human centrality of replacement the Therefore, process. regulatory social with self Pride’s spectacle as an inter-cultural division, also reflective of intercommunity debates. regarding Therefore, this societal ofsocialpower. distancing bodies metaphorical highlights xenophobia of homophobia, asaform thediscursiveundertones of interpretation, reflects its or social about meaning, within debate political the p. 61) (Hurley,1997, Nature” hierarchical social As Pride’s the“gothicized bodilypower. a continuation to concept, retain to strives continually which body idealized an becomes identity national sense, this In expectations. hegemonic and interaction social of complexities (inter)community limitations of Bakhtin’s bodily analyzinggrotesque concept, the ‘unified’body displays the beyond going Therefore, society. of standardization hegemonic to threat (factual) a into body turns conceptual this andorganizers, participants force of acollective as Pride In relation to the possibility of human devolution, Pride disturbs society and develops and society disturbs Pride devolution, human of possibility the to relation In bodilyAs includes ‘gothic’ the concept, a body evolutionary intheory the(hetero) 5 CEU eTD Collection Pride opposition. national (hetero) to always referring not however, mentioned; were images these process police Even barrier orthe in I-VI). my (Appendix during background interviewing the the animagewithout is rarely there etc), media, national websites, Pride Budapest (YouTube, Internet the Throughout social groups. supporting/opposing inperformer/audience; case, this “spectacle”of separation the actualizes presence addition police of extreme their own internal forms of community, or social groups (p. 84). arecapable of identity, creating “freak” appreciation participants of or acceptance the the the with Theoretically, “normalcy”. hegemonic towards contaminant possible a as but whichis eventas aproductperformer created, only the not of abnormal evolution, objectifies 1995,p.79).(Russo, Therefore during Pride, arelationship between audiencethe and lines distance” and “sight developing in of “spectacle”, terms a through thereof emerges In body,conceptualizing interaction the general asocial (inter)community debate. publicized surrounding the and participants, its event, the between relationship spectacle community represented continually as gets “Nation’sthe Other” (Renkin,p. 23). 2009, diversifyingto such standards, hegemonic as LGBT Pride. In LGBT sense,the this devolution” (p.63).Thus, thesemetaphors arecontinually and effectively in used opposition people) will not be able to join or to see what’s going on…” (Interview with D) (straight society ofthe members because again, invisible be totally you to causes “[The fences] trying protectto those who are taking part in the march, and of course it the Pride path, Budapest the inclosingand fences the outlining backReferring to isa formation of there of a Pride, varying perception critical While exploring the 6 CEU eTD Collection and the intercommunity debate of its cultural significance. Transferable to the concept of concept the to its Transferable of significance. cultural debate andintercommunity the diversity of Pride and unification both of source a as becomes a singletransformation symbolic This Union. entity,European in terms of the opposition’s ideology and governmental democracy following from Hungary’s membershipinto the generalization of the eventinstancespecificfor theopposing Pride group, became asymbolic intrusion foreign of belonging” identity national by LGBT (p.22).In of “‘queering’ threatened this activists’ began,marchers thein development Pridean a of perception embodied originated of the towards the attacks mostevident when the 2009), 2007(Renkin, Pride case the Budapest of with Specifically, transition. (national) political regarding extremism right-wing of members nationalist Pride’s createsthehomophobic opposition the agendacoming generally from European Pride of connections Eastern parades. political tothe responses of academic acorpus focus on first I will Pride, on discourses community inter-LGBT of argument the with consisting Therefore, visibility. LGBT for has march this position paradigmatic the exposes which dimension, political complex LGBT community.specify parade, willbe usedto some of (hetero)the hegemonic political notions placed on the Especially, in Eastern Review Literature European regions,internal for furthercohesion progression towards their specified LGBT community interests. the march and independence togaincultural for participants remains the possibility the there However, itself takes society. (Hungarian) threatening “freaks” became in contagious march the participants on a complexities within the visible of interactionpublic distancing from Therefore, the event. the Along with the fences built in Budapest Pride 2009, this statement portrays Along in thePride 2009,this statement fences builtthe with Budapest As a consensus coming from academic research within the Eastern European region, theEastern European within from research academic coming As a consensus Pride at directed relationship, spectacle a(inter)community of form complex This 7 CEU eTD Collection formation of one imagined bodily concept (grotesque) another (gothic) appears through its appearsthrough (gothic) another (grotesque) bodily formation concept imagined one of the with canons, bodily Hurley’s and Bahktin’s the to back referring Thus, parade. Pride unison (Gruszczynska, of social ontheinitiator 2009);focusing groups of the discourse, the thishostility 1997). However, various formssolidarity alsodiversified causes through of (Hurley, 2003)regarding Nature” a“gothicized normative sexuality”(Wallace-Lorencova, non- of “stigmatization through Pride of separation hegemonic construct distinctively Budapest. presented at marches,suchasinLatviaand Pride barriers building in the of physical internal conflicts. gainsPride each supporting/opposing memberbutalso social commonality group groups, In‘against inTherefore, acommon Latviaenemy’” (p.4). with clarifiedthis positioning of this sense,xenophobic conveniently (Pride social opposing) formedgroups an“‘integrated’ scene… these conflicts notion of 2005).Rather (Schwartz, a “united front” than a growth of varyingLGBT support, the challenges also which environment, social and political are Pride the in hostility discursive exposed through through “Gay/Jewthe Analogy” (Graff, This analogy 2006). helps explain of the rise the forvisible LGBT homophobicsuch anti-Semitic theuseof community, historical slogans context as the marginalizing of examples explicit the on hostilitymaterial relevant using am I Specifically, 23). (Renkin, p. enemies” 2009, “transnational by with are threatened Pride’s alliance nationalist whichreiterating through needs, reproductive nation’s perspective the through the politics. state (inter)societal struggles of sexual minority visibility beyond fixed (hetero/homo) binaries of belonging, the formation of Pride’s body adds to these given debates by displaying normative regardingregulation (hetero) 2005)asastate “sexual citizenship” (Waitt, Therefore, by unpacking the complexities of this atmosphere, I am able to able I am atmosphere, this of complexities the by unpacking Therefore, citizens its and nation the for protection as role a key plays morality Consequently, 8 CEU eTD Collection Pride discourses. Pride from emerging complexities intercommunity the explore to distinction bodily conceptual 2006,p.886).Therefore,of I am queer” (Browne, focusing projecton expanding this the the (hetero/homo) normative dichotomy rather than “emphasizing fluidity and the slippages in remain texts the physicalviolence, or reactions, counter-Pride of aims causesand on the Pride opposition, exposes these (nation/identity) of conflicts belonging. Generally,focusing from nature violent expected the regarding interpretations the varying spaces. Specifically, identity itself, andsexual Pride ingroup to within these citizenship their association terms of minority LGBT/sexual the amongst discourses the are absent most but agree, I field. in this done research of lack is a there that notion the with begin or end 2003) Wallace-Lorencova, 2005, (Graff,Schwartz, texts 2006, most related However, LGBTevents. the surrounding thereof. understandings hegemonic (hetero) to in relation event the of necessity and effectiveness the on debates intercommunity the further and conception bodily distinctive socially perceivedinteractive approaches bypublic is This connection visibility. grounded byPride’s with link Pride, imagery the composed related constructed to symbolic/physical, the Methods regarding of interpretations, specifications the individualizedidentity.an (inter)community of intersection explore their to in order perspectives, differentiating buildisit Inthis necessary these to sense, 2006). (Browne, such ashetero/homonormatives specified social group (body) allow for continuous (re)constructions of specific dichotomies, each found Therfore, theinternalized within debates discourse. developed (public/internal) Academically, Eastern European Pride research contextualizes the political arena political the contextualizes Pride research European Eastern Academically, interpretations and organizational community between distinction The clarified 9 CEU eTD Collection the interviewees’ statements. In this sense, I refrained from my merging In this from with Irefrained experience sense, own statements. interviewees’ the involvementwith Budapestintentionally, Pride 2009,I, myselfdistance from of analysis the my me and to meaningful personally are discrimination and visibility of issues LGBT Since text. the throughout becomemight apparent influence of type this characteristics, participant” (p.479). Although notI doperceivehold theseinterviews to anyin-depth and researcher between influence, bidirectional or reflexivity, engender to “tends then which personally topics ofin-depth tothe thatare participants interviews, meaningful qualitative which reflected the interpretations of the current LGBT/Pride issues. gay, bi, transsexual/gender. or However, their association with the LGBT community varied, lesbian, being to in regards community, LGBT the to pertain did informants all Additionally, Pride’s political/social eithersituation through supporting, or opposing,of view. point portray of to their interviewees wereencouraged understanding the actual participation Pride p r o g r e s shistorical its regardinggain perception Pride, political)of was (personal a general ior to o n , p o l i main the objective Nevertheless, preference. from interviewee’s the discussion starting the t i c a l / s o c i a l i m p lsupporting/opposing was divide attainable. i c a t i o n s the between connections themselves, where positioned interviewee the matter , a n d e f f eno Therefore, public understandings. general (hetero) inwith connection organizations, c t i v e n e s varying encounter upthepossibilityopened Pride and(activist) perceptionsof to LGBT s . T h e r e finterview process the aspecified group, construction of the towards oriented necessarily o r e , w i t has , opart r w iof tthe h ohave semi-structured conducted interviews Budapest with locals,identified who themselves uLGBT t , community with, or without, participation of public activism. Not In order to achieve a cohesive understanding of inter-communal debates of Pride, I According to Diamond (2006), interpersonal Accordingintensified be Diamond (2006), engagements to with can initiate open-ended to broad, questions As for for Iaimed questions themselves, the 10 CEU eTD Collection organizations, in togain visibility. form organizations, order an accepted of from varying in expandon LGBT the claimsonPride will cultural assimilation part the sense, this In Pride. of narrative national/activist the to relation in visibility public of signification overthe debates inter-community of themeta-level the produce will interviews encapsulate thesemi-structured interactions. public Therefore, social interpretations of (hetero) varying will implications political/social Pride’s of claims Pride, with involvement point of views, butdidnot want tocompleteidentify with either. opposing or LGBTsupporting and certain own similaritiestheir between stated, noticed, or many membership). However, officially Pridethe figuratively (group eitheror parade; activism.their affiliation opposing, stated sense, withsupporting,this some In complete or statistical figureliesin informants’ vaguenessthe of the LGBT with political association exact an producing of difficulty The balanced. practically was informants identified activist non- and activist between proportion the total), (8 size sample be the might limitation major Though implications of Pride in understanding marches macro-historical the the of Budapest. (hetero) dominating systems. resisting of in terms visibility, public necessary on contradictions and debates internal the visibility. goingbeyond Therefore, bodily Pride’s division (grotesque/gothic), Iwill expose held, in order to dissect the complexities found within these discourses on public LGBT of beperspectives of Pride interviews analysis will comprehensive focused the the through differentiating of theintersection However, experiences. or interpretations, informants’ the Since statements used in my analysis will not be limited to the interviewees’ the to limited be not will analysis my in used statements Since abasic process from produce interview the In amicro-level, responses the 11 CEU eTD Collection centrally as a LGBTissue through the perceptions of the LGBT community. focusing on heterosexualthe impulses on Iwillsexuality (p. 183), perceiveattemptto Pride intercommunity perception of a specific historical event. Therefore, without completely assimilation, allowsfor abidirectional view on tolerance ina (supporting/opposing) complex “compulsory resistingheterosexuality” framework of the (Rich,1980)through cultural notion of the developing Additionally, debates. of intercommunity and the Prideconcept Iwill from distancingboth impose norms, this concepton bodily standardized presented the of motives deliberate of queer theory’s Warner’s notions (1993) to binary.Relative 23) with term the queer, allows for radicalbeyond(supporting/opposing) challenges the set (hetero/homo) normative dichotomies (Browne, 2006). intercommunity on visibility exploredebates academic to “queering” of Pride’s these continue will I complexity, bodily Pride’s of finalize my argument to Therefore, Pride. within politics identity the of limitations the uncover to in order interviews, analyzed discussions of cultural assimilation,integration, and through composedthe imagery and within the LGBT community. Therefore, I will be exploringinterpretations of societal the Pride, polarity be(supporting/opposing) will implemented the complexities based on these building.interconnecting Thus, imagery theconstructed and personal/organizational focusingthis for be community Iwill differences discourse, of asasource on perceived Pride Through assimilation. cultural on issues internalized uncover will discourses inter-communal assimilation has on the collective identity of the LGBT/queer community. (hetero) implications the and visibility minority sexual of basis the on argument my Conclusion Furthermore, expanding Pride’s as “theNation’s position Other” (Renkin, 2009,p. Lastly, debatesbasedthe on through communitypublic visibility, or recognition, Additionally,Pride casestudy this continue research onBudapest 2009,Iwill during 12 CEU eTD Collection movements. todescribemultipleof factors developmentof the transcending social queertheory and encourage I willattempt Therefore, debates. community inter-LGBT perceive to ways individual inwillingness Budapest, and elsewhere. Ina sense, thisis intended toallow new and identities publicized on dilemma alsoas anintercommunity but factor, a political In conclusion, this paper will not only question the uses and interpretations of Pride as 13 CEU eTD Collection challenges perceived among these social among social challenges perceived these divisions. the with continue to order in necessary be will This concepts. body theoretical different Pride groupsthroughoutthese this their chapterbyrelating position to generalized towards between the distinction byclarifying start will I Therefore, (“queered”). potentially disrupted willbecome clarified social boundaries betweensupporting/opposing groups both and placed Pride, by onto differentreflecting social/political reactions. of perceptions these links between focusthe Iwill differentiating on countries. neighboring LGBT in on pride focusing research academic by elsewhere, explained relating as occur does barriers. division However, this BudapestPridephysical observation 2009,regarding of duringbecame mostmy apparent distinction The discourses. supporting/opposing “gothic”bodily and (inter)community canonswillframe the distinctions of Pride (opposing) (supporting) the “grotesque” intercommunity Specifically, using through meanings debates. unifying body concepts; however, displaying plausible intersections between reasons and (Hungarian)nation. forthe significance social/political organizational of Pride’s based the personal or position be on distinctionway, will group However,itself. discourse this willmerge impose social anddivision through eventthe This framed meanings, byconflicts source of identity of Pride as a specification/division. be will perspective, oppositional the with associated (body) group social the contrast, In as framing community. body aregrouped a specified LGBT organizersthe Pride supporting and participants the Budapest Pride. Specifically, about discussions tothe binary connected Pride[ful] Body In explaining the same event, or reaction, through different perspectives, the perspectives, different through reaction, or event, same the explaining In Additionally, distinction supporting/opposing the separate be group will referredto onconstructing the supporting/opposing willfocus chapter this In general terms, 14 CEU eTD Collection participants and audience. Partially, ‘fused body’ makes this it possible for diversified of absurdity found amongst normalization; social thus, leading toafused body between the bodilycanonallowshegemonic for realization expansion to the acceptability, this of Pride’s limitations (political/social) with possible Therefore, expectations. norms social or of (hetero) with nature comedy highlights “grotesque” satirical Thiscombination Pride’s uniforms. then military (army/navy) or (priest/nun) religious of use sarcastic the such as caricatures, fantastical included through and displayed areviews case, oppositional (hetero-normative) Pride supporting correlate social with group Bakhtin’s (1984)“grotesque body” canon.Inthis exaggerated affirmations oflifein thepositivemanner.creates So, viewsa positive of the participants and goals for its broader the audience. In sense,this themerging of bodiessocial portray one unifying social body. Nevertheless, it is prideindividual full flags,stickerslifestyle, such as rainbow/bear/leather or body costumes. the merger of all distinction. However,these at the same time, it was encouraged to parade with specified markers of differences,2008 actualized for the activist blurring LGBT possibilities lines of (sexual/gender) which highlights CSD Berlin of appearance physical media, the public/LGBT previous knowledgefrom Pride the event’s aim my with In compliance ofmerged diversity. became and‘one body’ event blurred the to was divide sense, performer/audience the In path. this with, awayfrom parade’s the and alonginto, people freely walked party-trucks, the dancers/performers atop the Except for 2008 example,therewere between (physical) noclear distinction andparticipant audience. CSDBerlin the back to and Referring for discourse public participation. widening effective Group Social Supporting Therefore, I argue that in this respect the parade develops a universal meaning for its for auniversalmeaning paradedevelops inthe I argue respect that Therefore, this positively Prideview,of isregardedas From (supporting) point an organizers 15 CEU eTD Collection sense, satire/sarcasm has nothing to do with comedic laughter, but encourages group encourages but do with laughter, comedic to hasnothing sense, satire/sarcasm them.this In whathas been done to sarcasm members of aim through theirgroup towards directs forreminder theconstant action’ a ‘call in of Budapest, laughter” appear as“satirical not socialcriticisms do Although II). Pride 2010(Appendix current webpage for Budapest byaspresentedPride in wing eggs,nationalist” etc, rocks, participants the attacked throwing issues,LGBT which,in is example, this on focused previous In2008,“ultra attacks. right of awareness and commonality through formed is unity social sense, this In internationally. website continues withvarious references supportingto social both nationallygroups, and (political) “Riseattributes: upfor diversity and human I).Additionally,(Appendix rights” the opposing political agenda. only differentunify also organizations,but theperceptionsmarch of the in to resistance the demonstrations. towards mergeof meaningsdemocratic Thus,this not organized rights does (p. 322)merging into auniversal political/activist (social)body symbolizing public of meaningssolidarity” “remembrance onthe march of the can as be combination inferred for“the freedom” fight (p.324)in between interplay Poland, this initiatingthe struggles of of connection agenerational through Therefore, equality. (political/legal) basisof on overall This(Gruszczynska, is 2009). political/activistunifyingachieved through organizations other democracy regarding mobilization political towards meaning andaction acollective create CSDissues marchdoes to Berlin),struggles (‘grotesque’) ofLGBT comparison this (in focusingAlthough onthepolitical/legal awareness. andbroadened political acceptance capability for supporting unifying andopposing in togain viewsonequality both order new conflicts. misunderstanding andemergent community for (inter) allows also this satire.However, understood commonality regarding In comparison to Budapest Pride similar slogan website In comparisonresembles to 2009,the To focus on the Eastern European context, Poznan March of Equality implements this 16 CEU eTD Collection challenges (hetero) hegemonic images, which then are “not only uncrowned, they are they uncrowned, only “not are then images, hegemonic which challenges (hetero) on Association Symposium’s website (Appendix IV). fundamentals of Pride remain similar, in terms of aiming for diversity and visibility, that the I argue Therefore, scandal. for a carnivalesqueprovocation and not human rights as stated by a member of social/sexual exaggeration as part of Pride participation is usually avoided. As Iwasinformed are apparent as aims of LGBTmembers, attained by understood satire.organizations In the case of Budapest Pride, these types mergers of through interplay merging social bodiesof andexaggerated criticism new with emergence the of their websites.its with continues Pride Thereby, connections. However, continuing and discourse open through such radical materiality open/disturbedthe of body 305). (p. the by criticism sharp and absurdity through phenomena social (hetero) of exploitation Pride onmorality heterosexual regulations (‘grotesque’) normative allows and naturalness, contrary to Therefore, expectations. (sexual/behavioral) hegemonic mockery the andof effectivenessmembers of body,Pride’s gain moral authority through their criticism public power over the marginalization sense, LGBTcommunity.of the internal In this as an costumes,exaggerated portrayals absurdity, the sexualities, of gain authoritative diverse or and have mockery dealtablow tothese vices”(Bakhtin, 1984,p.306).Forexample, the found body; thegrotesque satisfaction through characterization the of “since sharpcriticism norms politically and socially,directpublic through exposure.Additionally,is there amoral isIII) usedasa for worldwidesource andit unifies support local action. (Appendix 2008 Pride linkBudapest of YouTube the fear.haveno Therefore, membersto Nevertheless, Pride gives the possibility for social criticism through which absurdity Furthermore, these acts ignite the inter-LGBT community universal meaning of Pride of meaning universal community inter-LGBT the ignite acts these Furthermore, social challenge capabilitiesfunction of (hetero) Pride to In general, “grotesque” the Szimpozion Egyesület (Association Symposium), the main priority of Pride is 17 CEU eTD Collection inclusive objectives, but with an explanation of the recent violent history of Budapest Pride my with These initial group. of suggestions appearedunnecessary understanding Pride’s I Budapestin 2009,Iwasadvised Pride tactics, personalsecurity such remainingapartof as a inmy (body); unified perspective variable interpretation.however, in Before participation a a formed (p.29), isconnection andit statements establishes uses nationally recognized image/performance which blends itself by being included in public discourse. supporting/opposing membership social group interpretation, only butaffects not the discourses of march;the blendingthus, itself into the social hegemony. manner,this In meanings” (Renkin,29) is 2009,p. continually embodied inboth supporting andopposing transnational and “national of fusion the instance, For discourse. intercommunity through its of interpretation theprogress for areabasis images (internet/media) produced Pride’s in point anotherone discursively; views.For example, of conflicting although Budapest with in relation remain bodies these images, the including Therefore, body. (public/social) fused immortalizing an creates development this Eventually, collective. the to connection renewedimage’s inthe of of process intercommunity meanings, the generational the terms discourses of and eventthe Thus, their performedcriticisms. Pride this concept furthers body of correlated the comprehension ahistorical creates organization of continuity Pride’s another. in similartoone unison or metaphors by produced these in thesatisfaction/laughter of enjoying terms collective participation, of a sense developed bodies,have of transgression acknowledged universalized the or regarding inclusion. broadened all, suggestthat social would who However,understood this gains awidened criticism acceptability publicizedthe of (hetero) with a sense of authority, renewed”this309). Through image (Bakhtin, 1984,p.norms, renewed of social public Pride Therefore, such as the combination of national belonging with transnational bonds transnational with belonging national of combination asthe such Therefore, the is debatable, critique social ofthe satisfaction/understanding a Although collective 18 CEU eTD Collection gaining authority gaining authority historicizingthrough event. the while connections, symbolic their of awareness bodiesspread radically and conflicting unitetwo the cansuccessfully organizers In this norms. sense, the hegemonic public to connections their centralizes and awareness LGBT broadens both phenomena social Lily Allen’s “Fuck you very (very much)” (Appendix V),the universal understanding of (opposing) bodies. and homosexual As (supporting) portrayed bytheHungarian parody of themergence of heterosexual the affection actualizes of anddisplays public slogans public andgeneralized inclusion. group for the awareness it raised allows Therefore, norms. hegemonic the of renewal symbolic a membersandcreates its original (re)unifies both ‘grotesque’ the fear andterror, against order to broaden the notion havingof nothingfear. to As a community and a collective action infers supporting are thatfocusing the these groups on andcaricatures theircapabilities in combination for reaction. Eventually,activistdisplayingcause andtheir both this capabilities website’s reminders of violence,public both supportingjoined perspectivesare andopposing without fear, acknowledgement which to translates of participation. BudapestPride Similar to force central becomes a satire exaggerated through bodies of combination the Additionally, participants, reinforcethrowing the supportingfor objects at authority group’s criticism. suchas terrors, produced (hetero) hegemonic challenges towards social the criticism, mainly recognizable duringfestivals/carnivals. popular Therefore, adding absurdity the to of “cosmic fear (asanyfear)is (Bakhtin, laughter” p. 336),this defeated through other 1984, is generally. security,formultitude social supporting thisbetter the ofperspectives, but meant group for a importance images historical violent gained these the concern. Nevertheless, understood Thus, Pride’s mimicry of hetero/national normative regulated behaviors, such as behaviors, such normative regulated hetero/national mimicry Thus, Pride’s of performance, continual through images these of immortalization the with Lastly, 19 CEU eTD Collection insertion of Catholicism/Christianity into political the culture (Wallace-Lorencova, 2005,p. this sense,homophobia being continues andregulated through both through reinforced the LGBTthe community religion through national and sexual regardingpolitics deviances. In publicizing fears towards of issocial cosmic acombination there 2005), (Wallace-Lorencova, Specifically, 2003)andopposing in (Schwartz, groups. Latvia situation Slovakia social the regarding regions –communist, and post-socialist, the of in most recognizable strongly body through ‘closed body’ (opposing develops group) needforindividualthe from distancing a merging the creation of symbolicendangers the Hungarian specificity,in terms threats,of the focus on cultural stability. nation’s or aim the national/transnationalstability. for regulated (body) Thus, combination fears. Suchevolution. Therefore, regarding the opposing perspectivefears, of Pride, the event conflicts with the or specificities,for opposing the social a linearthrough group hierarchy natural-selection,of asaform of to its own specifications. Furthermore, human (social/political) are specificity becomes thefocus hegemony. regulation ‘natural’ link betweensocial (hetero) totheindividual,of threat and the regarding body” acquiringthus (1984,p.321) into In a diversity exclusiveness. can turn sense, this limited single, one of life the of meaning individual amerely “convey which body, closed explores the uses Bakhtin Overall, aim. social/political their with or Pride associate not does which directly and connections oppositionalthe Specifically,critique. critique will this from derive social opposingthe group of the grotesquePride, there are also contradictingin concepts contrarywhich then would be useful for the explanation of to a ‘new’ concept of Group Social theOpposing In reference to the conflict of cosmic fears woven into standardized society, this society, standardized into fears woven cosmic of conflict the to In reference limited becomes and others with merge to ability its loses body social the Therefore, However, though these mentioned concepts of the body benefit the organization of 20 CEU eTD Collection degradation. contradictingthus, opposing the notions group’s of formality against the of threat (p.60); form” inflexibility of than rather variety changefulness rewarded and for Nature one, howeverimplausible, morphica scenario wasaplausible configuration, whichany within was “natural selection Darwinian theories, to according “degradation”. However, hegemonic forpossible (hetero) source the intoregarding “other”, the turn such events organizers of 61). Throughthe1997, p. opposition Pride Budapestperspective participants and of 2007,the (Hurley, meaningfulness and particularity its both loses human” “the evolution natural of ‘gothic’. tothe focuscorrelates evolutionary’ ‘human the 2006), (Graff nature” to contrary is “homosexuality as such statements with humanly perfected, or remain traditional, culturally goal the to fact, scientific basis for is nature the of understanding though religious Europeanregion, Eastern the backreferring to hegemonic reasoning, suchas“Christian family 2005, values” p.(Schwartz, 2).Similarly, of acceptability for broadened facts asscientific traditions cultural through ‘natural’ the relativity, potential and “degradation” (touseWell’s 56). term)” (p. human ephemerality, of one …with universe in the “human centrality of replacement Hurley’s (1997)notion of “gothicthe body” develops, (opposing social group) in terms of its Thus, clarified. publicly are expectations standards and societal of stabilizing interpretations literal the figures bymajorAccompanied by rhetoric homophobic public (p. 21), escalating violence, suchas throwing eggs,bottles, rocksand physical20). assaults (Renkin,2009,p. by producing homosexual behavior as deviant, orsinful (Schwartz, 2003, p. 2). 2). Additionally,homophobia develops ofasocial norm importance focusingthe sexuality on Therefore, with the located goal for a perfected human through the biological biological process human the forthrough aperfected goal located with the Therefore, Therefore, the opposing social (“gothic”) group of reinforces their of Pride, concepts PrideIn the streetBudapest intocase of type 2007,this of social translated regulation 21 CEU eTD Collection normalcy 1995). (Russo, eventthe as aproduct of abnormal asapossible of evolution, but contaminator hegemonic rejecting participation and canbe societal approval of inferrednotonly Pride objectifying as statements groups) opposing (Pride addition, In perspective. oppositional conservative the significant role under inthe hierarchal being“fully human/evolved”of progression (p.56), these strong distinctions stable through “artificial” (civilizing/political) devices 64) plays(p. a importance opposing of Therefore,the the of dominating regulations social keeping group. are locatedintomarginality social critiquesunified the body, supporters through by the as a Therefore, threat. (societal) nonhuman the into transformation group participatory (Renkin,p. 25-26). 2009, history national to connection in agency LGBT erase to phrases anti-Semitic and homophobic at BudapestPride where“counterdemonstrators” andneo-Nazis combined 2007, skinheads cultural the caseof sensibility.clarification‘offensive’Such imagerytowards was the of distinction gives (opposing) reason for possible devolution. this So, This nonhuman. connection and 443) (p. lends itself to the “extra-terrestrial” into homosexual the turns camps, concentration and regime Nazi the to references sense, this In devolution. of possibility the “Gay/Jewthe through historicalcontinue Analogy” (Graff,2006) uses imagesof racism to human nature. quality of behaviors standardsand these degrade social diminish the ultimately publicized Therefore,perspective of opposingthe social rely group on rejecting such activities, in mannerthe that the Easternbroader prevention. The threat fordeviance) (social hegemonic reasoning (hetero) European Pride opposition’s use of anti-Semitism Nevertheless, these “gothic” images and metaphors areaimed form a causefor to images metaphors and “gothic” these Nevertheless, Furthermore, Hurley’sis (1997)“gothicized Nature” actualized through Pride’s 22 CEU eTD Collection correlates to the oppositional perspective on the fear of contamination. Therefore, the spatial the Therefore, of contamination. fear the on perspective oppositional tothe correlates “freaks”. the imagery of experience” and“phantasmatic “hypervisibile”, “externalized”, the regarding interpretations, notions perceived by asinglePride, imageof eventthe develops a multitude of deviantnature, but donot depend onmedia coverage. Therefore, similar theto differentiating clearly misrepresentation; fearbutwidened the visibility, groups opposing while connect proportionally presented in both social groups; findsupporting groups medianecessary for views are distinctive rather These deviance. social of evident or necessary, being either into social/sexualinterpretations practices event, the diverge publicduring (supporting/opposing) representation the of Typicallya direct usedas (supporting/opposing)groups. social regulations remains a possibility, with Pride’s satirical social criticism,but with certain risks. 85). Therefore, expansion social the hegemonic awarenessto public of withindiversity the p. 1995, (Russo, experience” “phantasmatic a andaportrayal hypervisible” of ‘out there’, asan “externalized, trope the expose does same time atthe which media commodification, encounter for public modificationsspectacleand through does community specification risks form of this internal comedy. However, satirical of exaggeration the beyond standards these clear distinctions is possible through the emphasis on internal group debates. ‘grotesque’ merging bodies and inclusion of diversity. However, potentialfor disrupting this sense, the ‘gothic’ body focusedremains (cultural) on self-sufficiency, asopposed to identity of politics individualthe citizen andthroughits relation societal to the standards. In Conclusion Under ofbecoming the pretenses abnormality, hypervisible, asasocial imagery the both for topic essential an becomes media coverage Pride, of Budapest In thecase instance, For “freak” the identity, in Pride challenges hegemonic boundaries the set Noticeably, these(supporting/opposing) bodiessocial separatedthrough remain the 23 CEU eTD Collection of bodies and (queer) identity are present, in terms of hierarchy and social normalcy. In the In normalcy. social and hierarchy of in terms present, are identity (queer) and bodies of conflicts between similarities the example, aprime as Pride Using boundaries. identity social relation to the hegemonicinterpretation thereof. concerningdiscourses Such different bodies,social or in groups, social expectationdiscrimination, initiative this remainslimited regarding publicmedia and attention usually are correlated to ideas on conflictsand Pride’s (bodily/imagery) into evolution question. of Ultimately, both unpredictability puts this inflexibility the hetero-normativeof expectations 64). self-interest(p. thanhuman or values progressive is successrather central adaptability to environmental therefore, favorites”; no “has and unpredictable both is selection natural it. within also ofnature, acknowledged theories Furthermore, Darwinian interpretation the of intoparticipation amonstrous image isboth positive andnegative depending onthe form” “inflexibilitythe normalization of or Thus,(Hurley,p. 60). turning 1997, Pride challengesinby natural the placedonto beselection Pridethrough wouldactually rewarded illogicalthe insinuation Partially,of evolutionary threat. by inferring variations thatthe found separation of explicit, oppositional the image, control over theirthe inthiscasegenerational which requires or radical, diversity. However, Pride the“freaks”. of hypervisibility Pride participants, alternate expands their criticism the reject and their reclaim control needto the reinforces hegemony (hetero) Nevertheless, towards 85). (p. culture (media) contemporary of asan aspect socially exposed by becoming hegemony (hetero) national Pridechallenges to that, contrary In barriers. by building visible, forcibly ismost traditions historical of national “contamination” towards resistance the isvisibility. case 2009,where Pride the spectacle, with meaningof Budapest Such the of and of interms interaction their modifies canons, bodily and perspectives, both of separation Though the organizers’ initiative usually is to raise awareness against general LGBT general is raise against awareness to usually initiative organizers’ Though the with arises contamination cultural thePride’s of notion questionable the Therefore, 24 CEU eTD Collection broadened audience; however, its effectiveness remains suspicious. Specifically with social for a can create an event capabilities diversified the have showed canons these Pride, the concept of the body and political/societalPride arefound within (supporting/opposing)each social respectively.group discourses on a particularwhen presiding with intercommunity debates. In this sense, these distinctive interpretations of event. In terms these distinction overlapsometimes individual among conflictinginterpretations; especially, of that it apparent will become asacontinuation, Nevertheless, spectacle. the rolewith of the by facts,various use andperspective isconfronted interplay group’s of ‘natural’ opposing the focuses on diversity,specified agivenwithin Fundamentally,social group. supporting the group’s perspective in order to doinfuse turn issues. on certain adiversified perspective broaden their hegemony,of social canonsdoraisethese and exposeembedded whichin contradictions, cultural revision lack of a complete the with However, is debatable. criticisms of these effectiveness awareness.the hierarchy, hegemonic the challenge do canons bodily different these though Therefore, To the contrary,norms remain in control of regulating public sexuality, regarding clear distinctions. this strugglesor performed. whicharebeing or hegemonic presented, Inthiscase, (hetero) the notchangemeaning the does participants, Prideamongst imageas that the such centrality, of identities(‘queer’) by expanding the social limitations of divide.this Nevertheless, renewing marginalized for centrality produces it Additionally, marginalization. of roles controlling highlight internal the identity. of divide (activist)group intercommunity that, addition to debates affirmation divide.In supporting/opposing the of intocase gave Pride physical of insightboundaries political/social 2009,the Budapest the an In conclusion, these bodily canons formulate the progression and connection between and connection progression the formulate canons bodily these In conclusion, when complexity social create discourses these Pride, Budapest of With case the Therefore, ‘queering’ these distinctions will displace (hetero/homo) hegemonic 25 CEU eTD Collection community community debates. inter-LGBT the to relative perspectives contradictory portray these to able am I this division, spread. However, (supporting/opposing)meaningtheir a unified for beyond requireto ability bodies conceptualized Nonetheless, these demonstrations. of inclusivedemocratic definition European’s Eastern on perspective causeawider may forcriticisms such plausible connections approach to hegemonyhierarchy, in (hetero) constantlychallengedremain need or for control. Therefore, Pride, such as the organizers of the Poznan March of Equality 26 CEU eTD Collection introduces the merging of interpretations. In this sense, the effectiveness of Pride is Pride of effectiveness sense,the Inthis interpretations. themerging of introduces Pride concerning effects and of cause framework visibility the interviewee perspectives, varying it. In this sense, through to interpretations connected and cause,the reaction, disharmony, whichblurs specified (group)membership. dilemmas clearthe disrupt supporting/opposing distinction social by internal group exposing organizational dilemmas inclusivewideningof activism. Lastly,complexities these and commonality, the intercommunity introduce debates variations over social group these individuality,group interpretativevariations. leading through complexities Then tothe of the Therefore, an analysis on interestfor& Whittier, as mobilization public 1992). (Taylor a source common through a collective perspective on visibility will assist intercommunity conflictemerges with interpretationsvarying onthis demand. on expanding the social groups’/individuals’1992), this recognition demandfor political/public (Taylor, perspective totheunderlying based conflicts onPride. Initially, byconstituting supporting the give will process interview the from statements differentiating These conflicts. and benefits in (cultural) discussing thischapter Pride’s to becentral Therefore, visibility Pride will visibility. over organizations and(activist) community (LGBT) between disassociation continues towards the argument Pride the interviewsreference to held.In 2009participation, LGBT in community concerning through Budapest Pride, sampleof the semi-structured discoursesthrough surrounding Pride. Therefore, Iwill focus on internalthe of debates the to disrupt the simplified formed generalization from (supporting/opposing)the binary set Visibility Specifically, in keyconcepts the surrounding this visibility chapter bewill on focused identity on collective theories new movement social to Iwillmakeaconnection First, forceby of Iwill singular continuethe Through attempting Pride asabodily concept, 27 CEU eTD Collection (LGBT) conflicts of political/public “actions” (Abelove, 2003). Partially, this exposes “actions” of political/public(LGBT) conflicts Partially, exposes the this 2003). (Abelove, internal the explores LGBTawareness spreading of goals tolerance, the (hetero) complete to connected indirectly Nevertheless, (Pride)methods awareness. raising of allowing public to visibility for public/political tolerance relates acceptance as a(hetero) and recognition public tolerancethereof. However, and thethe issues interpretations LGBTespecially, of have increasedknowledge and (personal/public) debates effectiveness remain focused above, generation, younger the as stated Therefore, publicly recognized. become (hetero) on thehave necessity (LGBT/gay/lesbian) terms the is that of development this of my understanding current Basically, to broaden the methods,spectrum developmentof visibility,general (public) recognition, of LGBTcommunity.the or of such as Pride. In this sense, Pride’s function. of supporting/opposing partTherefore, becomes the intercommunity the debates division on capabilities. activism/individual regarding focused (LGBT) internally also but associated, & Whittier, 1992). In terms of social reactions, awareness isnot limited as externally (hetero) visibility,includesbut intercommunity complexities regarding “identity negotiations” (Taylor multiple merged bodies. Mainly, the merger of social bodies does not focus only on public “identity is partly 1992,shapedby (Taylor, p.25) recognition” through inclusion the of that understanding the“grotesque” expands visibility Therefore, internally. challenged One of the first statements repeated by various interviewees is increasing the interviewees byvarious repeated statements One first the of Hungarian society there is higher visibility of LGBT people.” (Interview with Rita) in in general, I think, So, that. like stuff and rights adoption families, example, for butthey naïve,they very askthesevery basic questions, ask more don’t about, LGBT people. about So, moremuch knowledge have thesedays seems “Itteenagers 28 CEU eTD Collection 110). In 110). casethe is Budapest Pride,of this visible separation intercommunity highly of type p. & Whittier, 1992, for (Taylor action set goals organized the regarding “consciousness” in a group of formation arepresentthe inconsistencies However, action. for collective source debates. intercommunity through merge conflict and tendto acknowledgements these Nevertheless, interest. members’membership, transformation political regardingparticipation social activist and of the insight give will interpretations expanding Pride’s identity, collective of generalization developmentof “politicized groupidentities”Although (p.105). myintention is dissect to the the regarding actors, political into transformation member’s the of element missing a isstill there solidarity”, and experiences, interests, common by “member’s is formed identity movementtheory”& Whittier, (Taylor 1992,p.104).So,with notion the collectivethat social “new of concept key asthe identity collective through movements, social building (supporting/opposing) social groups. complexities (hetero/homo) the audience within individual intended with the and association Therefore, the continued drive for a broader community tolerance level does initiate a initiate level does community tolerance for abroader continued the Therefore, drive D) with (Interview public orvisible public; tothe itisalthough prettyheavily indiscussed the media…” the to open not are like Pride… the areevents, those but in Hungary, visible become can people where LGBT events… arecurtain there of course, way.So, structuralized community that would be able to advocate for its own interest or to be visible in a my opinion. Therein style], way [Western- existthat really itdoesn’t as awhole… “LGBT community are LGBT people, but it doesn’t somehow come together as a in created networks/bonds social the of inthe analysis interested Iam Therefore, 29 CEU eTD Collection commonality within “actions” (Abelove, 2003) opens the sources intercommunity opensthesources “actions”of 2003) commonality (Abelove, debates. within consciousness’in evident In Budapest. relation to this variable issue,the meaning of of andcomprisingwith a‘group struggles intercommunity concept debates organizational bodily I willboundaries, “grotesque” (p.111), disruptPride’s consciousness and negotiation expandingformation Taylor/Whittier’s of collective identity concepts the through of andbetween opposingsupporters by campson functionality.Finally, (internal) Pride’s set binary the clarify, or reevaluate, will I construction, this through However, continuation. issues visibility increased and public of LGBT discourse mobility asa forsocial drive takes iton. responsibilities organizational awarenessthe for compared public to importanceholds level Pride arise the conflicts through presencePride, of through the the with agreementthe issues standardization. of Therefore, visibility increased of an LGBT members fadeinto thehegemonic mostorganizations LGBT self-identified sphere of political main the with ground a common without Thus, community. (non-activist) public in diversity alack whichcauses minimal LGBTorganizations, the through registered number of (Interview with Adrian) with (Interview attacks on Pride.in And indirectan way, have they helped promote us issues.”to our these also are there and ingeneral; contras and pros to related discussions huge have rights we have gained for the pastyears 3 were due to the fact that we have Prides; we Pride provides; we be never anissuein would of all much Hungary. So legal the of can happen, this becausewithout level discussion; of level this visibility of the that most discussed in the media and (in my opinion) it is one of most positive things that itimpact,is becausevisible; because it is most the the strongest “I Pride hasthe guess willFirst, I construct unifyingthe among agreement, supportingthe group,of social 30 CEU eTD Collection hegemonic spaces/expectations. In addition, these actions are successfully portraying the aresuccessfully actions these Inaddition, spaces/expectations. hegemonic ultimately a response destabilization of “grotesque”, the social this Similar(supporting/opposing) division. is to to the “expectation nationhood, byhighlighting conceptthe through rhetoric hetero-normativeof and standards of members, of community Composed of with committed a group (Abelove, 2003).they play ennui” (p. 40)LGBT (queer) e.g.the in amarginalized subverting group, of world, terms alternate publicly in regards to an of includes arealization “an which action”, of possibility the introduces it Specifically, the boredom of hegemonic(hetero) opposition of Pride. againstthe limited aspositioned arenot boundaries However, these supporting/opposing commonality. form group underlying(homo) of a ispresentbydisplaying collectiveness of progress mainthe progress objective issocial movementto through Thisbroadening type discourses. was a consensusdiscussions relying it. upon Nevertheless, social (supporting/opposing) boundaries but are set, throughout of mobility contribution development the wide through function of social of Pride’s the interview, with social different these the combine does Oddly,groups statement participants. this and the between the attackers territories marked of socially & Whittier,(Taylor 1992) which leads me to infernorms. hegemonic (hetero) in inclusion LGBT general the for example primary that an as a used was registration legalization same-sex of partnership Particularly, recent 2007. the in most evident attacks the violent including the cultural intrusion Pride; of lead towards is awareness social and political legal, the of most sense, In this context. historical outlined an within emerged hegemonic impacton discourse of functions, strength Pride’s the social During thisinterview Adrian, with of an organizer Budapest Pride andother LGBT Additionally, this statement elaborates on the effectiveness of Budapest concretely of “boundaries”set up the Pride Additionally, perception generalized this Pride. 31 CEU eTD Collection “misrecognition” exposes inter-LGBT visibility aims. visibility inter-LGBT exposes “misrecognition” difficultassign memberto group commonalities, but acknowledgement of social it meanings.becomes manner, Inthis andconnected divisionscontinuous of alliances public encounter By participants the regardingthis, recognition. 2009), (Renkin,meanings” (supporting getsconflicted social group) with “national combination the of and transnational identity personal of participants Pride, Inthethe caseBudapest of public (p.26-27). frame as general of the sociala universalizing and“dignity” as a hierarchies challenge to Additionally,group. social reaction as isa “demand” provided through notionsthe of “honor” identity (personal) joinedand recognition are bycausing social/political harm a specificto regardingmodern“misrecognition”, inferiority.“misrecognition” (p.25), social Dueto visibility. Pride of aim the is argue I equality, for which of (political/social) for acknowledgementrecognition calls difference for demand similar tothem,butmotives this as as“queer” radical not acceptance. Though and tolerance of notion the to relative recognition, equal of democratic views political focuses modern the commonalitygoals.identity Thisdemand LGBT on to pertains of based “the on p. demandfor recognition” 1992,25).Specifically, (Taylor, type this of identity community inter-LGBT the security portrays on event focused actions organizational physical and claims interview between combination the sense, this In internally. placed boundaries also are there building, for community basis of their aspart attackers’) of their existence. marginalization versus theimplied in(queer) LGBTcommunity’s spaces centrality public these However, theperson’s group’s“mode or is of being” framed affectedand by public Although displayPridereaction a totheopposing supporters (‘the direct social groups 32 CEU eTD Collection supporting social of Pridegroup visibility. Continually, Iwould presentrelative inconsistencies of divisionsclarified among the (a common) butlaughsheterosexual about colleagues. the hiswith situation “out” colleague is, at that moment, both “in” and “out”, because in that University he is regarded as (homosexual) the statement, recent most the to reference In participants. LGBT among the (opposingattackers from group) participantsthe (supporting butalso divisions group), creates theviolentnot only separate do by discourses thesePride boundariesset social 1992, p.111), of by ‘other’department. threatened homosexual the environment the identified as heterosexual; belonging thus, (hetero) to national whichexpectations bewould colleague was the relation, and social the space the considering Therefore, social regulation. national this is bymeans sense, belongingthrough attributed space relations, of (hetero) In organizing. Pride of struggles of the that resemble thecolleague of expectations (hetero) space,these the to according However, identity. (national) individual colleague’s to the threat a noticed Dean the Basically, spaces. specified to in relation politics identity of interplay Specifically,highlights story, interviewee wasexplaining the this butalso acolleague’s the levelsdiscursive of“the [private] sphere…[and]the public intimate sphere”(p.37). to identity Indirectly,(Taylor, 1992). connection this is formed by recognition’sthe In this instance, the statement continues with notions of “misrecognition” in relation “misrecognition” of notions with continues statement the instance, this In A) heWejust should tell. thought, since.” laughing allhavebeen that at with (Interview be homosexuals at‘that’ department’… Dean]malicious. trying He to wasn’tHe [the “The (then) Dean of the Catholic University said: ‘…Ihave towarn you that there are In comparison to“the in-group” versus “the out-group” analogy &Whittier,(Taylor 33 CEU eTD Collection methods. Whittier,p. 1992, 114),which in thiscase is underintercommunity as effectivedebate to of dominant isdevelopedconsciousness through understandingschallenges & to (Taylor in“oppositional& Whittier, Taylor consciousness” This 1990,ascited 1992). type (Morris, of conflicts created activists, local within instigated attacks the interest of common agreement discursive visibility thereof. and inter-LGBT community Mainly,debate widened the of both increase an has been there Pride 2007, of Budapest physical counter-protest street violence, as pointed out by Rita, another LGBT activist and organizer. After the There is an internal debate focused on the normalization of the event in avoidance of in avoidance event the of normalization the on focused debate internal is an There there. It’s crazy. We’re just giving them ammunition’.” (Interview with Rita) “People I know say: ‘I understand the reasons behind the march, but I’m notgonna go beaten andup’.” get visible’. A lot be of and march, thePride the have go, general should we ‘yeah [say]: LGBT organizations “…The public says: ‘well, come on, I don’t want to go “The gay pride is a commercial business. Bullshit.” (Interview with M) on the streets of Budapest.” (Interview with Rita) Wefather:]“[Her must them! show We stop must this of violencekind thathappens to a court level]” (Interview with D) “[Beforeit unions] issue Pride] mightcome upasan [civil for afewdays… [butnot 34 CEU eTD Collection recognition. (political/social) their challenge/demand to aiming is Pride Budapest method or extent the to specifically inthe of againstcase it In isprotection violent sense, attacks. obviousthis not as externally invisible LGBT (supporting) “oppositional unification regarding consciousness”, isin prevalent BudapestTherefore, global/political forassistance security. integrate the in progress in to widen through collectivetransnational action order system,political establish tonecessary participants the gaveto reason attacks public physical opposition. The 114) developedpresent(p. from both perspectivethe and Pride of the participants the actors collective with the discontent strong Politically, a limited degree. to so done has membership LGBT to activism. whichsome attacks, publicizeda needto forincluded the collectiveaction after official of realization community mentioned or confessed either have informants most Nevertheless, 114). p. areand& Whittier,function 1992, (Taylor clarifyinginterests thus, their whatthese order; dominant the to contrast in interest common members’ emphasizing of capabilities the function correlatively, regarding andoppositional consciousness” “Political collective group. consciousness” &Whittier,in 1990,ascited towards (Morris, aimedthe Taylor 1992) for forframework necessary challengingis dominant thefunction ofthe“political systems effectively demanding “recognition” remains, and so does the direct opposition thereto. environment for LGBT issues, adiscursive where Pride asinof D, create case the inclusion of progress, also the but does not go far enough.general, Pridebeing turns into successful uselessor regardingvisibility. is However, there Nevertheless, the ideal of Pride The range concerning Pride’s visibility is displayed through these three statements. In threestatements. through these visibility is Pride’s displayed The range concerning In contrast, I would state that though the 2007 attacks formed a state of realization, it of realization,formed astate 2007attacks the though that IwouldIn contrast, state witha clear LGBT, the suddenincreaseofvisibility Thus, Iarguethat the of 35 CEU eTD Collection (socially/personally) most important in constructing an identity, according to M. Therefore, in Therefore, M. to according identity, an in constructing important most (socially/personally) retrieving identity iswhich not entirely necessary,because the workplace/natural setting is for Pride asource becomes first statement, the to According community/organization. there is a heavily present from. derives methods ‘negotiation’“action” (Abelove,In thisis 2003). uncertainty manner,that where boarder the Pride’s of on itis statements reach for (social)show that howto for public/political targeted unclear group the methods these effectiveness, Pride’s in of terms However, for commonality. struggles internalized for resistance LGBTthe community’s identification with public (hetero) the insinuates some of the within the LGBT struggles: political/social The following are two exemplary statements of Pride’s cause and effects in terms of interms effects causeand ofPride’s statements exemplary two are The following Lastly, backtoTaylor referring &Whittier’s (1992)analysis of collective identity, Although these informants contradict themselves (Interview speech]Adrian) language/hate with benorm [rude should accepted.” on the uses of Pride, themajority notion ofhas the opinion diluted opinion, becauseis it and very in as diluted [LGBT] general the society, the the majorityvery a have they things, of about opinion thecommon a have don’t society. they So, society… They think that this“LGBT kind people of aren’t a part of a physical community, they are a part thing:M) with queerpeople.”(Interview of the general my identity in workand in my natural andsurroundings so Inever on. mention this themselves somehow, and that’s channel the [Pride] they it.find and that’s ButIfind show to have they and identity; an need who people, gay of layer a thin is “There 36 CEU eTD Collection (media/political) in which these aims are being focused on. spaces the also but subject the of identity national the only not is important most becomes what ‘coming-out’ and visibility of argument the through Therefore, chapter. following visibility towards the affects of (hetero) assimilation, which lends itself socialto spaces in the from continue discussions intercommunity these sense, In this awareness. broadened of focus remains the Pride commonality. Nevertheless, modes structured creating of innovative visibility. LGBT for necessity by which the that, is there radical measures on discourse organization. Andthrough a developing of Pride; idea of a radicalpublicly standardizing norms,and violently social of disrupts unifyingthe the structure through identity, collective LGBT the on side systems dominating of interplay the Additionally, leads to statements theirinimportance. consciousness’ and regardsto modes ‘group differingresistance, of of issues, causeand separationmembers strong through intercommunity LGBT the conflicts of coming-out as an additionaltraditions. variationsfrom in deviating heterosexual commonly of Hungarian the privately stated potential wasunnoticed there However, dangerous. or unnecessary, asimpossible, regarded challenging social (hetero) norms “actions” through deliberate it (Abelove, 2003), was either directly/publicly of terms In provocation. and scandals with association its with mainly, disregard hegemonic social instandards, terms of “explicit” identity negotiations (p. 118); “implicit” mode of distancing from “dominant representation” (p.118). conjunction Adrian’swith statement, is there increasingan remain trend to hidden as an Therefore, the internal division of Pride’s methods and effectiveness causes and effectiveness methods Pride’s internalof division the Therefore, In conclusion, although isacollectivethere in interest broadening discursively Pride Throughout the interview process, there wasalarge dilemma attempting onopenly to 37 CEU eTD Collection (public) morality, there is(public)morality, a there understandinggeneral of (hetero) behavior, which isagreed the challengesgrassroots on hegemonic specifically, spacesand standards. More in terms of isopposing national group, compliance identity,tradition; to the social in with or contrast majorfiguresinmost for publichistory. Hungarian important political Therefore, recent the itgroup; is alsonecessary internal for andmembership agreement. (heterosexual) oppositional the of acceptance the to limited is not this However, measures. heavysecurity such as event, the of actualization the madefor are compromises (political) Therefore,inter-LGBT asthe of community discourse. visibility source public (recognition), includedin “national (Renkin, 2009)understandings with both conflicted and transnational” becomes for Pride asasource widenedsocial Organizationally, Budapest tolerance. groups, influencesameness by opposing in cultural (hetero-normative) necessary Pride triggering is anapparent there inBudapest, mergepublic general the with community’s tendency to regarding LGBT the chapter, previous the in on commented statement the back to Relating tovisibility. connected figures debate asasupplementary assimilation of cultural Pride, Assimilation “Rude language”is in toopenlyhomophobicreference rhetoric spoken by a few which I think is complete nonsense.” (Interview with Adrian) attacks, physical verbal or defense of kinds against these system wouldbe agood should hide more, we should hide better and we should try to cover our tracks and that language].anything thinkit; Most about weshouldn’tdo most we and think that “Most of us [LGBT community] don’t think that there is a problem [with rude discourses by the set community LGBT the of polarities internal with continuation In 38 CEU eTD Collection norms. However, form of (hetero) social a of includes destabilization Prideargue successfully that I Therefore, what is mostallows for identity butcompensation, should not forcefully include all LGBTindividuals. striking is thisconnection typeof statement, previous tothe symbols. Referring or recognized costumes the general nationally queens and regardingdrag it receives, media the coverage to usually referred reluctance to an equal or stronger association. (transnational) Pridestatement, and its into participants publicturn “freaks”throughits foreign imported group, in terms of the ‘foreignness’ of Pride in Budapest. In relation to the following (dis)association with/from it(supporting/opposing social groups). their wasbasedon of Pride interpretation interviewees’ the “grotesque”, the to reference In culturallyfor practices during public event. the dangerous as inappropriate spaces,dueto informant’sthe understanding of (social)But the privacy.Pride marchsingularly marked gets in tobeintermittently continues immoral reference publicbehavior to debated, (Hungarian) responsibility of all citizens to comply with. Whether homosexuality itself is labeled as an With the focus on Pride, many of the public conflicts resulting from from march the are resulting many public conflicts on the With focus Pride, of the You can’t help it.” (Interview with M) proud of it. It’s a curse. I enjoy every moment of it [homosexuality], butit’s a curse… them feel Idon’tgood. mind, force me butdon’t go to a to fucking gay I’m notPride. boostinglack [Pride] identity and it’s compensation. Then they feel OK,good. let are who people that feel still it… about feel I how that’s and Pride, a gay have Valentine’s Day… The same way, some people thought it’s good business for them to “The whole thing didn’t exist until democracy came by.It’s an import, just like In this section, the notion of assimilation connects itself with the opposing social 39 CEU eTD Collection intensions. However, thoughthis approach mightseem it alsoexclusive, unifies the mostly its reversal through of spectaclethe relationship, regarding the lack of universalizing itself from aimsof the Pride approach organizers differentiates This sexuality. regulating identification, embodied and disembodied social contact in order to exploit the structures public of spaces central QN enters the intentions, With these satire. with exaggerated implementing a universal meaning through the exploitation of contradictory standardization norms;hegemonic thus, exploit of contradictions the is usedto reversed, which then body is boundedstill by finite meanings of its actions; however, focusthe of spectaclethe is nationalismWithin methodsregulatory allure andcapitalism. thissphere,the of using the of Freeman,p. 1992, 152-153). of the body is framed by laws, policies,found in mainstream national identity,“makes andhow explicit thoroughly localthe experience social customs regulating sexuality” national identity and in of that by queer community stating thatsubliminal sexuality, is which (Berlant & in set boundaries the disrupts QN sense, this In normalization. and standards hegemonic of caricature anexaggerated becoming itself from critiques separate their hetero-hegemony, the disturbance isheteronormativity in of is done unison,though it apparent that QN seeks to unification. community regarding politics, identity of resistance radical this to relevant remains asaform social caricatures critique of interplay of the that exaggerated LGBT grotesquebody, recalling Bahktin’s Furthermore, community.would(1984) argue I local the within that from and homophobia of context the from both standards normalization hegemonicbut Pride,also disrupts not onlythe secures of Budapest continuance that resistance a type Pride. Figuratively, beyond a macro-level homophobia at resistance to Therefore, QN tries to exploit these regulations of sexuality (QN) QueerNation’s through recognizable resistance radical example, For through its same 40 CEU eTD Collection ignoring. At this moment, this is what separated the queer activists’ interest in social and in social interest activists’ queer the separated what is this moment, this At ignoring. doesn’t? Whatand is relationshipthe between money, control and power?” (2001,p.57). –who visibility has Who doesn’t? who – access has Who them? makes who and made Shepardfour listed questions, which issues:convey these arecommunity “How decisions from ‘splits’ of and power. these perception visibility,derive activists accessibility the then theissue of gays in the military. According toShepard, it seems that the majorfactor for shiftthe from focused themes on visibility homophobiaagainst towards AIDSthe crisis and that there was a shift, or progression, and members. Unitedthe notes someof States emergingwithin the splits group Shepard the of the meaning behind the GLBT movements, such as challenges. anti-assimilationist similar of exploration the through intersection intercommunity this conceptualize will I Therefore, from (hetero)social complianceLGBT organizers to arederived internalized norms. by faced thesechallenges statement, recent most Adrian’s M’s and to reference In resistance. which the source expands of organizing and problematics hetero-hegemony challenges is there intersection goalsvisibility, on the internal of an organizational debates, struggles of Inthisanalyzing LGBT when also sense, internalizedbut counter-interpretations. public politicalthe not only limitedistowards festivities opposition, to and mediacoverage inter-LGBT formany community continuation discourses, organizational struggles the of questioninga leads normalization to hegemonic societal (hetero) asQN,against formation, such (queer) of both the aim of visibilitynorms. social of criticism anddifferentiating bymaking theLGBTcommunity viewsamong themcentral through universal the trend of assimilation. Therefore, as a These questions refer to some of the lacking aspects some gay advocates were advocates gay some aspects lacking the some of to refer questions These Shepard AIDS (2001)focused inactivism on junction the in movementwith GLBT resisting a of deliberate hesitation Budapest Pride, the in to However, comparison 41 CEU eTD Collection regulations. sexual assimilate national (hetero) toHungarian to LGBTtendency group’s social opposing inter the to probable fits threat this Similarly, favor. hetero-normative in the remain would commodity/efficiency queer from the of profiting power the meaning that state, in a‘docile’ in gay/lesbian community the only agenda approach hetero-dominant’s the keeping reinforces assimilation inthe analysis,arguesthat for queermovement the (2001) which Shepard’s limit visibility variantsexualities of and gender, is beperceived abacklash. to Agreeably so marches to which tend Pride Therefore, violence. discriminatory of tolerance inavoidance public ontheregaining 50) campaign focus and p. 2001, like else” (Shepard, everyone “just scope of the on a continue organizations assimilationist gay bureaucratic-like same time the at However, spaces. in major public appearance the physical through diversity cultural effectivenessoverall and intercommunity on necessity. surrounding Pride’s the debates socialtowards inconsistencies (p. 886). Specifically, social these inconsistencies are focused possibilities for expanding of beyond relations “other” the the aimof recognition public queer continues the from “uncoupling hetero/homosexulaities” normative (p. 887), queer new productions of“fluidsexes, ordesires” genders, sexualities (p.887).Inthis sense, with exploring without boundaries these within remain to tend stability normative of contestations these 886). However, p. 2006, (Browne, dichotomies stabilized of (re)formations” Pride complexitiesthe of through presented andthe discourses. sexualities exploring themultiplicities foundand inqueertheory fluidity thepotentials in of geographies sense, In Iam this (p.58). expectations culture’s dominantthe into of assimilation issue, that as asingle movement their to was referring all, gay the advocate to justice while economical In relation to Budapest Pride, one could visually conceive the intentions to expandintentions conceiveBudapest the to Pride,visually In could one relation to “continued ‘queer’is normativities in First, located through of radical the challenges 42 CEU eTD Collection influences. Therefore, LGBT activism does not only concern itself with the will of hetero- of with the itself will the only not concern LGBT activism does Therefore, influences. in complying with butalso internalizedstandards, accordance hegemonic hegemonic with social assimilate. In isin to group’s LGBTtrend sense,this notonly Budapest activism dislocation” into 1997) asheterosexual (opposing) transfers individual“passing” the (Cohen, unworthy of concern or assistance (p. 86-87). public lifestyles ‘gaythe discursively produces men’ aspublicly(supporting group) deemed private and between tobalance different attempts affirming the Additionally, assimilation. social heterosexual alliesgroups) and benefits(class) causes a personal reaction towards challenged. Therefore,in damaged from alienation their(opposing the and/or public was AIDS epidemic in the U.S.A., where the capability of certain gay men passto as heterosexual idea This “queer” “class term (Cohen, of 1997). isin dislocation” used the with association social Pridethe for hesitation (hetero) direct normative social opposing group’s resistance. characterizes which is“person/image” this the Figuratively, following explains. the statement individually.For instance,the person” “openwasfrequently mentioned,conflicts as secret encompass these discourses inter-LGBT surrounding the subjects of Pride, the Budapest possibilities multipleof perspectives are allowed mergeto or distance themselves. In the case normative divisions (Browne, 2006). Thus, with the exploration of the internal debates, the Essentially, the term “queer” is associated with the distancing from (hetero) clear from distancing the with is “queer” associated term the Essentially, Therefore, in accordance with national identity and social regulations, “class identity regulations, social and national with in accordance Therefore, the through emerges hesitation intercommunity the that argue would I manner, this In A) with (Interview gay.” he’s mentions he never but knows, everybody person: secret open “An 43 CEU eTD Collection members, from the two-person publication group of magazine( of a national publication from group members, two-person the awareness of their limited civil rights. public, community fordominate with effectively spreading butstruggles LGBT the (politically) encouraged to retain their views on homosexuality as private or remote, in remote, or toretain private homosexuality viewson order as encouraged their (politically) eventssexual identities. such So, Marchas Poznan the of Equality 2005 areusually genders ofvariant of space public performances ‘naturalness’ heterosexual and through the invade anddisrupt relation the Pride local parades LGBTorganizations, these to reinforcing expressionsin for Therefore,sexuality the difficulties of other (p. 315-316). acts; concurrently, is spaceand within public what proper regulate actions imagesor these Furthermore, articulating etc. heterosexual desires, advertising, products affection, window is privileged in public spacethroughrepetition and regulation, suchas public of displays Heterosexismits boarders. them at displacing discredited and sexualities andleavingall other inclusive struggles. both organizational and participatory highlight debates inter LGBT for these Pride, space public of occupation the to In relation discursive complexities of his/her through association Pride with activism andpublicspaces. narratives discoursethe through of Pride. LGBT Ina individual the sense, encompasses the meta- merger of becomes amultiplied theindividual citizenship; a specified national limited to the (hetero) dominant culture. In this sense, the hetero/homo divide is notlimited to influence throughbehavioral compliance regarding public/media imagery, which is not Therefore, with the efforts for public visibility, there is a connection community. the with into hetero-normmerged are they individual; the on based not are ideals hegemonic internalized because growth, organizational inof terms necessity becomes a compliance Thus, activist p. 39). ‘in theknow’” (Renkin,“forthose 2007, events aclosed of madecircle Furthermore, LGBT organizations in Budapest have a small number of haveasmallnumber of inBudapest LGBTorganizations official Furthermore, Gruszczynska (2009) describes public space as being the source for public spaceasbeingGruszczynska (2009)describes source heterosexuality the 44 Mások ) to the to ) CEU eTD Collection tolerance. Its effectivenessis issue. a tolerance. specified Its separate (supporting/opposing) With the achieve public in to community, order and LGBT hetero-hegemony between the similarities merger of the into turns aim the hegemony. Thus, the a threat to radical without person’ ‘average/everyday tothe as relatable LGBTcommunity the presentdiversity of need to is a there perspective, assimilationist gay on the Therefore, LGBT presence. of normalcy identity. However, thisis interpreted differently on the premise of diversity the regarding hegemonic national the belongs LGBTthe to community that (hetero/public) awareness achievable. aim makesthis which representatively body conceptual on the is a limitation there Hungarian) orvisibility. participants, sense,this through In aim the publicbroad of visibility, is found on specification ideal Budapest Prideof the marginalization continued (average of gender, which queer communities offer, remains a constant.assimilationists. Thus, the possibility for further cultural multiplicitydomination against the Specifically, with the case of liberation theof gay in singlefocused identitiesbehind, to relation variant other leaves level the mobility isincreasing, LGBT order local the democratic of organizations of everyone else”(Shepard, 2001)method of assimilatingintopublic spaces.Though the in Gay obviousto the approach likeEurope’s inEastern Pride Parade, of terms “just the more be can This activism. and lifestyle in their standards hetero-normative to compromise context. democratic local non-profit organizations to join in their march,in order to widen their theme intoa more ask other to homophobia was general the against used organizations the of one techniques the awareness remainsexual diversity of and not intheirghettoizedin Therefore, locale. Poland not to“offendHowever, public goal morale”(p.320). the of gain organizationsis these to Constantly linked with the discussion of a successful Pride parade organization, is the This collaboration NGOs of movement’s thegayand portrays lesbian to trend 45 CEU eTD Collection mean, intercommunity discussions on Pride turn into a search for the ideal solution to avoid to solution ideal the for a search into turn Pride on discussions intercommunity mean, distinctions, butinto thisperspective puts the borderorganizational By struggles. I this, by measures ofPride clear drawing of participants security the trans-people which resembles marginalization internal the about speaks Stone normalization. of in terms 344) (p. movement normalization. reinforcing Pride of in terms culture, hetero-dominant the to This argumentof assimilating alludeseach other’s tothe LGBT activism (p.338). struggles between transgender and gay/lesbian issues; and likewise,leaving space for diversity between hand find ground inclusion. common the needto some one gayandlesbian activist On public presented emphasizeswhenbalancing spaces.Stone transgender difficulties the in receives gender-variance visibility the towards community activist gay/lesbian the within regulation apparent is aslightly there sense, In this increasedtolerance. for public ‘pass’ to trans-people forces times often which femaleness, and femininity of limits the to relation is with within commonly in regulated gay associated gender-variance, community, the is which dragcommunity, the Furthermore, issues 336). (p. transgender/gender-variant ‘adding aT’tothe preoccupyingorganizational name without themselves with merely of in terms activism, gay/lesbian and transgender between level activist at the U.S.A., According(Appendix Stone(2009),therearemisunderstandings VI). to in present, the trans-community the little connection to unitybetween includes andlesbians,butshows gays 2009 promotion Pride of video Budapest example, YouTube For the (internet/public). media coverage in the apparent Pride march, Budapest the with participation influence. meta-narrative national LGBTdiscourses from inter through on Pride emergedthe focused hierarchical formation premisean the of on organizational of butparticipation, boundaries on LGBTcommunity’sthe publicimage,Iarguethatthismarginalization isnot Specifically, I would like to expand on the notion of expandSpecifically, liketo “invading” Iwould on LGBT notion the transgender of visibly Most is queen/king obvious sudden the of decrease transgender/drag 46 CEU eTD Collection as the case of transgender inclusion. as thecaseof transgender such community, LGBT the to internally and externally both boundaries specific hold spaces these spaces.However, recognizedfocused public visibility onthethrough gainof physical remain Pride organizers of March, Poznan the conflicts Budapest the to locations. Similar and obscure for remote belong area; the opposing response marchers the thus, to physically broadly as physicallyfor important bothparticipant and In opposing group. manner,this the is regarded place takes march spacethe the Furthermore, concern. national/organizational nationalagainstnormalizedAgreeably so, standards. physicalthese march borders of display the the distancingpublic’s general areassumptions reinforced with extremedrag or fashion as an offense the event, the televisedimagery Therefore,of through culture. of LGBT the misconception of the event visually not havetheopportunity public theirto does redirect (hetero/nonviolent) general as a recognized group, but does portray a type of normative. (hetero) should become itself isin who focusedrecognition appear on participants image media; the the the thus, of Pride regain desirethe a respectful imagery. projected public violence to Therefore, street through With this logic, the fences provide security against attackers throwing objects, but the butattackers throwing objects, fencesagainst logic,security provide With the this with D) average (Interview guy.”” regular, fight these prejudices,if they don’t see that the guy next door is a gay guy and is just a kinds of prejudices[homophobic] still exist gay about people andit’s very hard to in people dragqueens only are dressedup show these or an who way…[So,] extreme they because responsibility, a huge has Media city… the along all fences these have “Since what now you itbecameand violent seein is dangerous, Budapest thatthey 47 CEU eTD Collection normalizing national national normalizing space. forces of dominating the resistance, dueto (hetero) commonality regarding finding in has difficulty LGBTcommunity as awhole the agenda. Nevertheless, diverse activist political forindividual strength resistance is as approached the raising capabilities for a formation of specialized social networks and policy awareness. Therefore, lending the the through terrors ‘coming-out’ hegemonic the devaluate to focus is a there perspective through internalizedthe influencesof moralepublic andnational belonging. In an activist it theidentities struggles organizations Pride the of addsto habitually represents. This of interpretations broadened the surrounding Pride, discussions regarding through the would theLGBTimage cultural resemble have theto hegemonic standards? why citizens. However, ‘out’ publicly openly, abundant an presence the of through resistance Iagreewith Although, focus. of broadeningsingular scope the LGBTcommunity the which correlatesDubiousitmight asvariations of solutionhas sound, of type this sprung upcontinuously, to cultural community. LGBT the (queer) hostility hegemonic towards the which solve would then assimilationeliminateidealimage thepublic’s publicizedto (homo) general hesitation ‘come-out’, to through for an search the from Partially, emerges this to‘coming-out’. fears connected the regarding the basis internally, spread awareness to necessity is increased there an Therefore, willingness. of theparticipatory individual on also but gayagendas, political on only rely not do movementresistance organized LGBT addition, In assimilation. LGBT and identity withnational (Hungarian) securing a In this sense, I argue further that there is a connection between the developments of you’re somehow closed from outsideifa world andeven [physically]the you goto have feeling You groups]. that social this beinga cult more apartof [gay like “It’s arepresented space and assimilation visibility, between intersection the In conclusion, 48 CEU eTD Collection of sexuality. image(prescribed) begins, buthinders the availabilities for afluid, diverse (queer) conception importance liesinterpreted. on publicimagethe Thus, and transmitted search the for ideal the visibility. internalized This divide isbased on termsthe of needthe for Pride; however, the on topicthe internal opposing social betweensupportinggroups of divide and public general merged LGBTpublic(non-activist) with heterosexual norms,formssocial into an intercommunity onpublicdebate beyond visibility Pride. Budapest leaving Therefore, the statementshowsawider spectrum Additionally,the this of clubs/bars. appearance of gay In this case, the social (hetero/homo) divide is actualized through physical the is actualized through divide (hetero/homo) social In thiscase,the you the impression that it’s somehow not OK.” (Interview with D) not really visible public… tothe I’mjustsayingin physical this itappearance,gives thisyou’re givesyou the impression that doing semi-illegal.not something It’s open, So, basements. or incellars literally like underground, are they inHungary club gay 49 CEU eTD Collection sexualities/identities. (queer) within broaderdiversity aspectsof with tolerance for public approaches contrast Budapest presented like LGBTactivistI wouldthe but to major of topics debate, the becomes assimilation and Visibility interpretations. community’s social oriented their complexities LGBTof activism such struggles, as minimal membergroup commonality. developing highlight debates intercommunity the of Pride, distinctions hetero/homo beyond the sense,going this Pride. In surrounding thepolitics of concept generalized a dichotomy give hetero/homoargue thatthe continue to Pride, I of interpretations/meanings the about LGBT inter debates concentratingcommunity with Pride organizing. Thus, aremergedThese internalized conflicts within for community LGBT the and create struggles remainin asimplistic binary supporting (internal)of and opposing (external) social groups. not do theseconflicts However, present. conflicts intercommunity basis of the the formulated analysis’ normative divisions. LGBT (queer) focus on(hetero/homo) “gothic”and bodies, inconstructingdivide Iintended social broaden possibilitiesthe to of me struck “grotesque” especially,personalexperience.Introducing asdistinctive; through the for any type of social hegemonicorganized againstactivism 2009has BudapestPride norms, Prideworks of conception Although, (supporting/opposing) this Pride. concerning Budapest Conclusion Therefore, I present both the complexities of the Pride organizational incentive and divide, grotesque/gothic abroad discourse Pride giving Budapest Therefore, overall the argument Iwillsummarize chapter, from pervious the As acontinuation 50 CEU eTD Collection p. 888).Thus, questioning the paths internalizedof these interpretations of Pride gives a 2006, mode of enquiry” (Browne, “different as a an intercommunity debate organization onto discourses,the the fluidity intension of the focused internal portray debates the struggles, for Pride’s source externalized seeking an of instead wasLGBT community.to portraynew of modes inthinking regards tothe social struggles this develops.event Therefore, Through therevealing extension the complexities of ofpolitical debates arethese also beingchallenged through vaguenessthe of supporting/opposingthe divide. conflictsintercommunity by Pride’s presented social sense,the critiques this In own social critiques. of theconstruction, lends ‘queer’ itself disrupt to (hetero) categorization and beyond question its Pride of visibility does not directly challenge the (hetero/homo) normative dichotomy of social normative (hetero) amore standards. for radical possibilities towards response seeking publicand for visibility search recognition the anintegrated tolerance, leaves various of connection the Pride.Simply, with of Budapest debates intercommunity or dilemmas organizational intended current tocriticizenot the is binaries. social This connected notions of cultural queer through assimilation theory’s complexity sexualidentity on and in IwouldpresentTherefore, researchlikethe disruptLGBT social of movements. to these historically been have suchaims of approach, this majority agreement of a part necessarily LGBTthe duringhas beencaptured not community analysis. interview the However, In relation to this statement, the aim for an ideal (public) imagery as representative of D) with (Interview would be crucial to haveit activist… I wereahuman of If organizedis problem… rights the “Being not part at least one person [to point out as] the public gay guy.” Therefore, with the exploration of Budapest Pride discourses, I am intending to create Iamintending withdiscourses, to Pride Therefore, Budapest exploration the of Although the formation of the social complexity within the LGBT community debates 51 CEU eTD Collection broadening of the capable range of andinterpretations.meanings either Therefore, broadening capable rangeof of the specific social analytical description of “queer people” (p. xxiv), or ‘queer’ case, constitutes a by distancing itfrom direct social (hetero/homo) categories. Fundamentally, avoiding a andgroups, the conflicts interrelated among them. Inthismanner, Iaimed ‘queer’ to topicthe social queer, LGBT, between connection adirect disassociates intentionally This identities. binary broaden social hetero/homoof the butalso statements conflicting structuralize supporting andopposing was social formed groups based on in to Budapest Pride, order public regarding imagery interpretations, tolerance. body through community LGBT the also but identities, homosexual and heterosexual challenged by morale. public socialaccepted the binary Thus, not only divide does remains hetero/homosexualities mergerof the visibility, forwidened approaches innovative with the Therefore, heterosexual. discursively as public” “general association the of free with the becomes apparent xxi) p. 1993, itself (Warner, associety” interpret to its ability heterosexuality “exclusive that through forTaking granted societal privileges gains LGBT ontothespaces centrality. of mergingthought school butof this heteronormativity, public resistance against towards wasnot focus the thereof, implications organization and Pride of struggles topic the remained surrounding aconstant hetero/homosexualities of normative the Though analysis. interview of level the on problematic as processes of normalization” (p.888). avoidam specific andmoveto of trying andthrough “beyond definitions cause purposely conflicts externally and internally. Butwith the assimilating emersion of cultural ideologies, I through the bodily ‘queer’conception understanding of the implications of public imagery and assimilation. Essentially, of Pride there is a continuation of the (re)making of social Just as normative dichotomies separate identities and sexualities, the categories of emerge did interactions social to connection queer elusive of type this Nevertheless, 52 CEU eTD Collection march itself. march supporting/opposing is binary the implied importance, actualization, directly to or of the march. Although implicationsthese dosurround discussionsthe of the Pride, BudapestPride the relate directly notto did and technically derivativespecific group a of not interpretations becomesvarying because categorization these problematic, social group should ‘private’ careaboutthe sexual lifestyleothers. of Therefore,the supporting/opposing orarelatableshouldbe ‘out’, (Hungarian) ornobody celebrity/personality be ‘out’, should everybody either apracticality, In as acollective. LGBT community of the be representative varying theories on‘coming-out’, in should of terms who be, quantity the willhow that and occurs, due to the subtle differences of correct approaches for visibility. Generally, there were negotiations” (Taylor &Whittier, 1992). “identity of specification the through blurred gets mobility social for mentality common the Pride, of struggles social of the as aresult Therefore, occurring? actually Pride the it gainingrely for Ordoes visibility? type Istherighta success? on it mediacoverage? Is the it Whatconsiders implications. has multiple too however,this march; Pride successof the the of therearethe supportingsocial Pride which organizing. First, themselves ally with groups, somebinary,by revealing destabilize complexities of internal the function hetero/homo to the categories (supporting/opposing) thatthese I argue However, queer theory. critiques of and “de-queering” them actof the through naming”888), according (Browne, 2006,p. to supporting/opposing was social formulated, whichgroups a causes risk“homogenizing of assimilation. or visibility on arguments and from (supporting/opposing) canfloatto conflicting their statements, interviewee, or This is specifically where the mergerbetween supporting/opposing social groups of dichotomy normative the activism LGBT current in framing Nevertheless, 53 CEU eTD Collection descriptions of societal/sexualthe “other” (Browne,within 2006, p.886) normative.this the intercommunity debate and the normative (hetero/homo) dichotomy allows for multiple discourse, the Pridebetween connections sense,the Inthis resistance. boundaries regarding specified continual lackof the of because distance from, achieve andto to difficult emerges for politicalthe aim specified equalityof and avoidance of violence.physical dislocation” toremain Thus,assimilatingtrend the (Cohen,‘private’ ‘gay’ 1997). the topic “class possible risks and secondary becomes community LGBT the of representative as a ‘coming-out’ festivities. However, conjoinedconstruction and understanding through of (hetero/homo) social critique a generalized becomes Pride human rights, cause of general allocated tothe with participants Inthisdiversified separate. manner, becomes independently Insofar implications,of ‘coming-out’ factorcompiles the asthe diverse act participation awareness remainslimited andslightly withdisassociated originatingthe discussion Pride.of ‘coming-out’ However, public discourse. regarding event visibility the of increased the ‘coming-out’. typeitself of assimilation connects with homo-hegemonicthe on notionsthe terrors of public this I am arguing that assimilation. Furthermore, of cultural trends the towards statements these directed I debate, Pride the of normative dichotomous hetero/homo from the refraining in heterosexual directed againsthegemony. and not Therefore, discourse inter LGBT nature of in whichsurprisingly of“others”, the remains tothe complex connected thoughts were not explicitly mentioned, they were certainly alluded to. Thus, this topic was continually difficult findto such opposition radical within interview my but sample, if such statements have no relation it,to or radically does not think itshould exist (in Hungary). Honestly,it was Therefore, the opposing social group simply does not think the event is necessary, or necessary, is event the think not does simply group social opposing the Therefore, Therefore, my aim of my Therefore, both struggle“queering” becomes the LGBTorganizational aim of of isacceptance abroadened there Pride, of contextBudapest historical the Through 54 CEU eTD Collection seem (interchangeably) to go onforever. to seem (interchangeably) discussions the butlasts aday, eventthat just an is Pride Budapest topic. on instinctthe and internally and externally; therefore, as a continuation, Iinsist on such radical (queer) behavior geographies”view,of Inmy Pridemultiple candevelop perspectives point (p. 888). could spaceand that bodies, (re)make (re)mappings (re)drawing, (re)conceptualizing, remains“radical “queering”Pride, entailing available for of (re)thinking, constant “unknown” and implicationsI future and motives. However, asmyinformants described it, future the isintend to keep it that way. In discourse. this sense, the focusin EasternEuropean political ‘normalcy’” of oppositionPride of the terms (p.889), to potential of “in areacademically intercommunity debates Therefore, argumentation. (hetero/homo) this research normative of the complexities emerging the through becomes ‘queered’ concept remain opentointerpretation. Thus, founding the construction critical of bodilyPride’s organizational for political/publicaim the recognition, potential for differentiatinglinks Although overarchingthe theme isframed from bodily the conception of Pride and the In conclusion, I recognize the lack of specificities on LGBT description specificities onLGBTregarding of In conclusion, description the lack Irecognize 55 CEU eTD Collection Appendix VI. IV. III. V. II. I. from BudapestPride. (2009,July 20) muveszek-a-homofobia-ellen-fuck-you-very-much you (very much). very Rainbow Mission Foundation. (2009). http://melegvagyok.hu/rolunk Közhasznú(2006-2010). Egyesülete. Szimpozion Egyesület - LMBT Fiatalok Kulturális, Oktatási és Szabadid from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X_Ic3Po-Fw&feature=player_profilepage BudapestPride. (2009, July 29) http://www.budapestpride.hu/en/join-us Rainbow Mission Foundation. (2010). http://2009.budapestpride.hu/en Rainbow Mission Foundation. (2009). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Okj7vvkDk&feature=player_embedded Retrieved from Rise up for diversityRise up for andhumanrights! Gaypride March05.07. 2008 About Us. http://2009.budapestpride.hu/magyar- 56 Hungarian artists againsthomophobia:“Fuck 15.Budapest Pride/2010. 14.Budapest Pride/2009. Retrieved from [Video file]. Retrieved Retrieved from Retrieved from Retrieved Ę s CEU eTD Collection Renkin, H.Z.(2009). Homophobia andqueer belongingin Hungary. Renkin, H.Z. (2007). Morris, A. D.(1990). Consciousness and the collective action: towards a sociology of Hurley,K. (1997). Gruszczynska,Sowing A. (2009). theseeds of insolidarity public space:case study of the Graff, A. (2006). We are (not all) homophobes: a report from Poland. Diamond, L. M. (2006). Careful what you ask for: reconsidering feminist epistemology and Cohen, P. (1997). ‘All they needed’: AIDS, consumption, and the politics of class. K.(2006).ChallengingBrowne, queergeographies. Berlant, L.& Freeman, E. (1992). Queer nationality. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Abelove, H.(2003). Reference List Journal ofAnthropology (doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, USA. lesbians, gays,andthesexualpolitics ofcitizenship inpostsocialist Hungary. Sociological Association, August9-131990, consciousness and domination. In siecle. Poznan march march of Poznan equality. 434-449. 471-491. narrative in autobiographical research on sexual identity development. the HistoryofSexuality8(1), University Press. (Original publishedwork 1965) New York: Cambridge University NewYork:Cambridge University Press. The gothic body: sexuality, materialism, anddegenerationatthe fin de Deep Gossip. Ambiguous identities, ambiguous transitions [electronic resource]: Rabelais and his world , 53, 20-37. Minneapolis andLondon:University Minnesota Press. of Sexualities, 86-115. Proceedingsthe annualmeetingof of the American 57 12,312-333.. (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana Antipode, San Francisco, CA. Boundary 2, 885-893. 19(1), 149-180. Focaal –European Feminist Studies, Signs, Journal of 31(2), 32(2), CEU eTD Collection Warner,M. (Ed.).(1993). Wallace-Lorencova, V. (2003). Queering civil society in postsocialist Slovakia. Waitt, G.(2005). Sexual in citizenship Latvia: geographiesof Latvianthe closet. Taylor, V. & Whittier, N. E. (1992). Collective identity in social movement communities: C (1992).Taylor, A.L. Stone, (2009). More than adding American lesbian at: and gay attitudes activists’ Review, H. (2001). Shepard, B. The queer/gay split: assimilationist suits the vs. sluts.the Schwarz, K. Z. S. (2005). Gay rights: united in hostility. Rich,A. Compulsory (1980). heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Russo, M. (1995). Russo, from: http://www.ceeol.com Minneapolis andLondon: University Press. of Minnesota Europe Review,of East Cultural Geography, Theory Social Movement lesbian feminist mobilization. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Press. University towards transgenderinclusion. in CultureandSociety, May, 49-62. Multiculturalism and the politics ofrecognition. The grotesque: risk,female excess, andmodernity. Fear ofa queer planet: queer politics andsocial theory. 6(2),161-181. 5(4),177-205. 21(2). (pp. 104-129). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sexualities, 58 12(3), 334-354. 12(3), Transitions Online, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Signs: JournalofWomen New York: Routledge. New York: 1-5. Retrieved 1-5. Frontiers in Anthropology Monthly Social &