Glasgow’s Queer Battleground by Andrew McCartan, Bachelor of Science Geography A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Faculty of Geography, Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario © 2017 Abstract As LGBTQ rights have gained increasing acceptance in Western countries, Pride events have come to stand as examples of the complex reality of inclusion in public space as it is experienced by contemporary LGBTQ groups. This thesis takes the case study of Glasgow, Scotland, between 2015 and 2016, to examine a grassroots activist intervention into how Pride events queer public space. The group Free Pride critiqued the mainstream Pride event organised by the group Pride Glasgow, and created its own alternative event. This thesis analyses the debates in Glasgow to examine the extent to which the concepts of homonormativity and queer space can help us understand this contestation. Drawing on archival research, participant observation, and interviews with the key players in Free Pride, this thesis argues that debates surrounding homonormativity and Pride can be understood through three key discursive themes of radical politics, commodification, and exclusion. This thesis argues first that while Free Pride has legitimate grounds to critique Pride Glasgow, Pride Glasgow’s spaces are more complex than a critique of being homonormative allows. And second, that while Free Pride works to open up new possibilities for ‘queerer’ spaces and identities in Glasgow, this process is complex and contradictory. Queer Space, Homonormativity, LGBT Pride, Public Space ii Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been completed, and my time in Canada would not have been as significant or enjoyable, were it not for the mentorship and support from Dr. Catherine Nash, who truly went above and beyond in their role as supervisor. I cannot thank Catherine enough for being there for me throughout this process, even when she was across the world in sunny Australia, and when I was across the world in sunny Glasgow. I am also indebted to Dr. Ebru Ustundag and Dr. Philip Mackintosh on my supervisory committee, who were both very generous to me with their time and guidance, and to Dr. Linda Peake for her thoughtful contribution as my external examiner. Acknowledgement should also be given to Dr. David Butz, acting Graduate Program Director at my thesis defence, for his teaching and support during my time at Brock. His lectures and feedback were as useful and formative as his dinner parties were delightful and entertaining. I also wish to thank my MA Geography cohort at Brock for their encouragement and friendship over our time together. Especially Michael Daleo for providing me with maps and cakes! I’m sure you will all go on to achieve much greater things, but the fact that you have made me miss being in that grad lounge is a very big achievement – a testament to your wonderful characters. Lastly, thanks go out to all of the participants of this research for not only helping in this project, but for also creating important spaces within Glasgow that I have and will continue to rely on when I visit home. Special thanks to my best friend Julie Duffy for her love and support throughout my student life. Thank you for proof reading my undergraduate dissertation and please don’t hate me for the photo of you at Pride Glasgow. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III TABLE OF CONTENTS IV FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS VI GLASGOW’S QUEER BATTLEGROUND: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 GLASGOW’S PRIDE WAR 1 1.2 THESIS ARGUMENT 4 1.3 CONTEXT: HAS PRIDE LOST ITS WAY? 8 1.4 BACKGROUND: PRIDE IN GLASGOW 10 1.5 THESIS ORGANISATION 14 QUEERING SPACE AT PRIDE: LITERATURE REVIEW 16 2.1 INTRODUCTION 16 2.2 QUEER CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF IDENTITY 16 2.3 QUEER GEOGRAPHICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF IDENTITY AND SPACE 21 2.4 PRIDE EVENTS AND PUBLIC SPACE 23 2.5 HOMONORMATIVITY AT PRIDE 27 2.5.1 Radical Politics 29 2.5.2 Commodification 32 2.5.3 Exclusion 36 2.6 ALTERNATIVE PRIDE SPACES 37 2.7 SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS LITERATURE ON MY RESEARCH 39 UNDERSTANDING THE BATTLE: METHODOLOGY 41 3.1 INTRODUCTION 41 3.2 QUEER METHODOLOGY 41 3.3 WORKING WITH DISCOURSES 43 3.4 VISUAL CULTURE 45 3.5 DATA COLLECTION 46 3.5.1 The Case Study Approach 46 3.5.2 Archival Research 47 3.5.3 Interviews 48 3.5.4 Participant Observation 50 3.6 CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 51 3.7 POSITIONALITIES AND REFLEXIVITY 53 3.8 SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGY 57 FREE PRIDE’S CRITIQUE OF PRIDE GLASGOW’S SPACES – AN ANALYSIS 58 4.1 INTRODUCTION 58 4.2 THE SPACES OF PRIDE GLASGOW 59 4.3 UNDERSTANDING FREE PRIDE’S CRITIQUE 61 4.3.1 Radical Politics 63 4.3.2 Commodification 69 4.3.3 Exclusion 78 4.4 COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO FREE PRIDE’S CRITIQUE 81 4.5 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINT(S) 86 iv FREE PRIDE’S ALTERNATIVE SPACES – AN ANALYSIS 87 5.1 INTRODUCTION 87 5.2 FREE PRIDE’S ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE 87 5.3 UNDERSTANDING FREE PRIDE’S ALTERNATIVE SPACES 90 5.3.1 Radical Politics 90 5.3.2 Commodification 95 5.3.3 Exclusion 98 5.4 COMPLEXITIES OF OPENING UP QUEER(ER) POSSIBILITIES BEYOND HOMONORMATIVITY 105 5.5 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINT(S) 110 CONCLUSION 111 6.1 INTRODUCTION 111 6.2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 111 6.3 CONTRIBUTION 115 6.4 FURTHER RESEARCH 116 REFERENCES 119 APPENDIX 1 – PRIDE GLASGOW MAIN STAGE SCHEDULE 2015 AND 2016 135 APPENDIX 2 – FREE PRIDE EVENT SCHEDULES 2015 AND 2016 136 APPENDIX 3 – FREE PRIDE’S SAFER SPACES POLICY 137 v Figures and Illustrations MAP 1: GLASGOW’S PRIDE SPACES 2015-16. 3 FIGURE 4.1: SITE MAP OF PRIDE GLASGOW’S 2015 EVENT. 59 FIGURE 4.2: PRIDE GLASGOW’S LOGO. 65 FIGURE 4.3: CORPORATE PRESENCE AT PRIDE GLASGOW 2015. 71 FIGURE 4.4: FENCES AND SECURITY AT PRIDE GLASGOW. 77 FIGURE 4.5: PRIDE GLASGOW’S 2016 POSTER. 79 FIGURE 4.6: PRIDE GLASGOW’S 2015 POSTER. 80 FIGURE 4.7: PARTYING AT PRIDE GLASGOW 2015. 85 FIGURE 5.1: FREE PRIDE’S SPACES 2015. 89 FIGURE 5.2: FREE PRIDE’S LOGO. 91 FIGURE 5.3: FREE PRIDE’S 2015 POSTER. 101 FIGURE 5.4: FREE PRIDE’S 2016 POSTER. 101 FIGURE 5.5: FREE PRIDE’S VISUAL SIGNPOSTS FOR DEAF ATTENDEES. 102 FIGURE 6.1: PRIDE GLASGOW’S 2017 LOGO. 117 vi Chapter 1 Glasgow’s Queer Battleground: Introduction 1.1 Glasgow’s Pride War Well, well, well… If you had told me last month I would be writing about Glasgow’s Pride War, I wouldn’t have believed you. But we do love a good rammy1 in our fair city. (Bea Fiarse, Scotsgay, Issue 164, 2015) ‘Glasgow’s Pride War’, as it is dubbed by local media, is a conflict in Scotland between Pride organising groups Pride Glasgow and Free Pride over how Pride events ought to be using, and ‘queering’, public space in the city. Public space should be fairly and democratically open to all members of the public, who as citizens have a right to use space for living public lives (Lefebvre, 1996; Mitchell, 2003). However, the regulation of public space can be seen to reinforce inequality, and its governance is and has always been contested by different social groups (Low and Smith, 2006; Staeheli and Mitchell, 2007). Pride events are widely understood as events by and for the Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans (LGBT)2 community that create temporary queer spaces to push back against the exclusion of people with non- normative genders and sexualities from public space (Brickell, 2000; Podmore, 2001). They queer public space by, among other things, demonstrating the straightness3 of the space through making visible LGBT identities, practices, and performances (Valentine, 1993, 1996). Pride events do not only populate space with LGBT people, they produce space and identities within them as LGBT, so there is an expectation that only certain types of people will be supported within them (Valentine, 2002; Aldrich, 2004; Johnston, 2005; Enguix, 2009). Given Sedgwick’s (1990) contention that people with the same sexual identity experience 1 A “rammy” is a Scottish slang word to describe a fight or party that is rowdy and out of control. 2 Lesbian refers to women who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to other women; Gay refers to men who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to other men; Bi refers to individuals who are attracted sexually and/or romantically to people of more than one gender, usually including men and women; and Trans refers to individuals with a different gender identity from that which they were assigned at birth. The LGBT acronym is used in this thesis as it is arguably the most commonly used and most well-known acronym to describe the grouping of this community of people and the political movement surrounding them. However, it is not the only one and it has its limitations, particularly in prioritising certain identities over others (See, for example, Worthen, 2012). 3 Straight is another word for heterosexual, which describes cisgendered men who are sexually and/or romantically attracted only to cisgendered women, and cisgendered women who are sexually and/or romantically attracted only to cisgendered men. Cisgendered refers to individuals with the same gender identity that they were assigned at birth. 1 their sexuality differently, it is unsurprising that different LGBT people desire to spatially engage with their sexuality and gender identity differently at Pride. Therefore, geographers concerned with the spatialities of LGBT lives and activism, have engaged in debates over who feels “in place” and/or “out of place” during Pride events (Johnston and Waitt, 2015: 108).