Author: G.J.A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Author: G.J.A. Brugman, 10792252 [email protected] Supervisor: W. van Gent, second reader: F.M. Pinkster RMUS, University of Amsterdam Expected Journal: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Words: 9950 (excluding tables) Date: 04-07-2016 The Everyday Practices of Bicultural Gay Men – Negotiating Multiple Minority Identities while Moving through Socially Diverse Urban Spaces. By studying the everyday mobilities of Latino gay men in New York City and Turkish and Moroccan descent gay men in Amsterdam, this paper seeks to understand how bicultural gay men navigate and experience socially diverse urban spaces in alleged gay-tolerant cities in the Global North. Studying the negotiation of multiple identities spatially allows this paper to interrogate the significance of ‘markedness’ of marginalized identities and the ability to mask these as a matter of fluency and intersectionality. The context-rich account of both cities illustrates how the ‘territorialization of space’, together with the salience and the visibility of minority identities significantly shape the mobilities of bicultural gay men. The study adopted a triangulated mixed-method approach. Most bicultural gay men face an interesting paradox in the experience of spaces in relation to their double minority identities, facing ‘othering’ in certain spaces on the basis of either their ethnic or sexual identity. As a response they employ passing tactics to conceal their marked minority status, mainly their sexual minority position. The commonalities and differences found between both cities help to better understand the relation between minority identities, urban space and everyday mobilities. Keywords: bicultural gay men; new mobilities; passing tactics; identity Large cities have always been free havens for minority groups in society. These urban environments allow sexual minorities, but also ethnic, racial and religious minorities, to cluster with peers among which they can move relatively freely. Recently numerous scholars have suggested that traditional ‘gayborhoods’ are ‘degaying’ (see Ghaziani, 2014). With improved social and legal equality of LGBTQ1 people, it is argued that they are able to move more freely across urban spaces hence there is less demand for ‘own’ sexual minority spaces. In response to these ‘shifting sexual and gendered landscapes’, scholars like Nash & Gorman-Murray (2014; 2015) have reconsidered the geographical tradition of studying specific moorings in space by analyzing the mobilities of lesbians and gay men in major cities in the Global North. Where research on the geographies of non-heterosexuals has arguably overrepresented the position of White middle-class gay men in so- 1 The initialism LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and Queer 1 called ‘gayborhoods’, Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015) emphasize how a relational approach enables them to study the geographies of less visible subjects. Despite this potential, their study only considers the intersection of sexuality with class and gender, ignoring the role of ethnicity, race and religion. This is surprising since sociological and psychological research on bicultural gay men has indicated how they often have a very different process of self-acceptance and acceptance by their ethnic peers than majority gay men (Jaspal, 2012; Kennedy & Dalla, 2014). These studies on identity negotiation show the relevance of intersecting multiple minority identities, though they often lack a clear geographical perspective. Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015) claim that a greater acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in increased mobilities of LGBT’s in major cities in the Global North. When bearing in mind the fact that these cities are increasingly ethnically diverse, it is questionable if this alleged normalization has a similar effect on the geographies of all gay men or solely those that conform to the homonormative standard of the White middle-class gay man. Following De Certeau’s (1984) classic work on the Practices of Everyday Life, this paper conceptualizes space as socially constructed, meaning by power relations between majority and minority groups. His concepts of ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ serve to analyze how minority individuals move through ‘majority spaces’. As such, I adopt a relational approach to identity management, acknowledging both the role of agency and structure. With studying the relation between space and identities, I specifically focus on the markedness of minority identities and the agency to employ tactics of ‘passing.’ Therefore the main research question in this study is: “How do bicultural gay men negotiate their multiple minority identities spatially while navigating urban spaces?”. With answering this question, I aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of marked minority identities on the experiences of ethnically and sexually diverse urban spaces. Can they move as freely or do they need to negotiate one or more of their identities in certain spaces or are they forced to frequent spaces that meet both their minority identities? Following the work of Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015), I conduct a comparative case study on alleged inclusive cities in the Global North. New York City and Amsterdam are selected for an in-depth comparative analysis. Both cities are historically known for their relatively tolerant environments, attracting large numbers of ethnic and sexual minorities. Despite a general normalization of homosexuality, it can be questioned if this also diminishes constrains for bicultural gay men when navigating these cities. This study presents an in-depth analysis of both cities individually, but also analyzes the differences and similarities between both cases to come to an understanding of universal conditions and more contextual factors. Data was collected by conducting in-depth interviews, mental mapping and participatory observations. Before discussing the results, I first outline my theoretical framework and the research design. I end by discussing the findings and presenting my conclusions. 2 Everyday practices of bicultural gay men De Certeau’s (1984) work on the Practices of Everyday Life is used as a theoretical starting point in analyzing the navigation and experience of urban space in the daily lives of bicultural gay men. De Certeau (1984) stresses how space is never neutral, but constructed through power relations between hegemonic powers and active agents. One’s power position in society thereby influences the way they use and experience space (see also Raanan & Shoyal, 2014). Whereas De Certeau defines hegemonic power as official institutions, I build on the work of Duyvendak (2011) by arguing that a dominant group in society can also be seen as a hegemonic power. By employing ‘strategies’, a dominant group territorializes a certain urban space and thereby defines the ruling norm. As a result, marginalized groups predominantly move through spaces in which they do not fit the norm. Following De Certeau’s theory, these marginalized individuals can employ ‘tactics’ to reappropriate space and thereby securing their mobility. In the context of this study, it is worthwhile to discuss how space is both constructed in terms of ethnicity and sexuality. Hubbard et al. (2015) stress how spaces are differently sexualized, with predominantly being heteronormative. Agents who do not meet this sexual norm can apply tactics while moving through these spaces or construct their own spaces, such as ‘gayborhoods’. In these homonormative spaces, gay men are the dominant group. Caluya (2008) argues that these spaces are not only formed by sexuality, but are also gendered and ethnically and racially constructed. Homonormative spaces are thereby implicitly dominated by White middle-class gay men, possibly excluding minorities among sexual minorities (see Manalansan, 2003). Although De Certeau acknowledges the position of marginalized individuals, and their agency to reappropriate space, he has been criticized for conceptualizing tactics for the case of White middle-class heterosexual men (Crang, 2011). Collie (2013: 4) stresses the privileged position of this ‘common man’ as central actor, who is able to employ tactics in an unnoticed manner: he is “shielded form curiosity of the crowd”. Crang (2011) questions to what degree individuals with one or more marked minority statuses have the ability to employ similar tactics. Gay geographies In the field of gay geographies, a great number of scholars have analyzed the spatiality of sexual minorities in cities. Initially scholars focused on specific neighborhoods in cities in the Global North, researching the clustering of non- heterosexuals in ‘gayborhoods’ (see Ghaziani, 2014). This eventually implied an overrepresentation of middle-class, White, gay men who live a ‘visible gay lifestyle’, and an underrepresentation of individuals who did not meet this ‘homonorm’ based on their race, ethnicity, class or gender (Valentine, 1993; Drucker, 2011, Hubbard et al., 2015). In response to this shortcoming, scholars like Nash & Gorman-Murray (2014; 2015) have stepped away from this focus on bounded space by adopting a more mobile approach in researching the geographies of lesbians and gay men. This enables the inclusion of gay men that stay relatively unheard since they do not fit the homonorm or who do not prefer to visit homonormative spaces. It also answers 3 the increased mobility of gay men due to accomplishments in legal equality (Hubbard et al., 2015). Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015)