Public and Private in Socialism – a Comparison Of

CEU eTD Collection

A H

C In fulfillment partial UNGARY AND THE AND THE UNGARY OMPARISON OF OF OMPARISON P UBLIC AND AND UBLIC Department ofPoliticalScience Supervisor of the requirements f of the Central European University G AY G Budapest, Hungary P ERMAN ERMAN Tamás Molnár RIVATE IN RIVATE Submitted to Submitted

I : Professor DENTITIES AND DENTITIES 2013 By

D or Master thedegreeArts of of EMOCRATIC EMOCRATIC Lea Sgier

OCIALISM

M OVEMENTS IN OVEMENTS R

– EPUBLIC

CEU eTD Collection closer ofidentity tothe Western type movements. movements these brought sphere public the of opening the how shows transition the after moveme of group broader a to connected also were they i an chose they secondly, movements, Western to related more were they firstly, factors: been three have of because may movements German East the that shows state the with movements and organizations of formation realm. the private of study the the in Thirdly, happened also exceptions few a with these that showing analyzed, be could category social LGBTnon as perceived an even Hungary of case the in and formation identity ident collective and individual on discourse public restricted of effects the firstly logic: circular movements. identity Western of model typical ideal an from differed in factors key the identity literature, existing the and interviews on based analysis, this of to aim The transition democracy. the before period the on focusing movements and identities LGBT German Cent of study comparative a to movements applies thesis This ity formation is analyzed, showing that this almost blocked the possibilities of collective of possibilities the blocked almost this that showing analyzed, is formation ity ntegrationist strategy, and thirdly, they had an ally, the church, through which which through church, the ally, an had they thirdly, and strategy, ntegrationist - existent. Secondly, the places and ways of collective identity identity collective of ways and places the Secondly, existent.

the key concepts of LGBT studies used for the analysis of Western LGBT Western of analysis the for used studies LGBT of concepts key the whic h the h relationship of LGBT people with the state the with LGBTpeople of relationship A BSTRACT ral European, in particular Hungarian and East East and Hungarian particular in European, ral i

nts.

Finally, the research of the period period the of research the Finally,

The analysis follows a a follows analysis The n ter relationship their and

more successful successful more

formation are formation in these cases these in s to is CEU eTD Collection the generous ofthe financial aid ofthesome point research. Rausch, Hristova, Olimpija heavily also to indebted am I idea. first very the from research this of process whole the through me guided who and work my supervised who LeaSgier, thank to like would I foremost, and First Martin Lücke, Martin

Benedek ui Takács, Judit

Kurdi for his immense help and support, and help immense his for Kurdi Heike Pantelmann, Heike

The the German part research of couldbeen have without not done CEU CEU A aly . ekn Adá Bozóki, András Renkin, Z. Hadley CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foundation. Andreas Kraß and Kraß Andreas ii

Andreas Pretzel Andreas as well as to as well as ái Takács, Mária Milka Ivano Milka

for th for

eir help at help eir vska Peter Peter , CEU eTD Collection R A C C C C C I A A NTRODUCTION PPENDICES CKNOWLEDGEMENTS BSTRACT HAPTER HAPTER EFERENCES ONCLUSIONS HAPTER HAPTER 1.1. 4.3. Transition4.3. democracyto Reactions4.2. and attitude of the state The4.1. b Collective3.3. identities Personal3.2. identity formation 3 About2.3. interviews the 2.2. Oral historyand limitaits Case2.1. selection 1.3. 1.2. .1. Public.1. and private discourse 2.3.2. East Germany 2.3.1. Hungary 1.3.2. 1.3.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.1. 1.1.3. 1.1.2. 1.1.1.

Identity movements Publicand private Gender,Sexuality and Politics

1: 4: 3: 2:

......

T C LG M

......

irthof a movement? ...... HE STATE THE PUB AND LGBT movements Individual and collective identities Socialist states Liberal democracies Gender, s Sexuality andthe heteronorm The political relevance of the socially constructed gender ONSTRUCTION OFSEXUA

ETHODOLOGY

...... BT

...... POLITICS INLIBERAL

......

exuality and the socialist ideology ......

......

...... tions ......

...... T

...... LIC SPHERELIC

ABLE OF ......

...... LITY ANDIDENTITIES DEMOCRACIES AND AUTH

......

...... iii ...... C

......

ONTENTS ......

......

...... ORITARIAN STATES ......

......

64 56 53 49 44 37 37 34 30 26 25 23 21 21 18 17 17 14 13 12 11 10

9 8 6 4 4 3 1 ii i

CEU eTD Collection Figure of 4:Members HIB March at 1st a May Figure Charl Eggert, 3:Michael Figure of articlescontaining'homosexual' 2:Number theword inMTIarticles Figure 1:Differences and between democracies liberal th otte vonMahlsdorf and Peter Rausch T ABLE OF iv

......

F IGURES e socialist states

......

42 40 27 12

CEU eTD Collection authors several by noted literature existing the of scarcity relative the of Because l private the and public the affected states socialist the of nature authoritarian the how reveal hope my at would countries these in similarities the strictest, the of one latter the and regimes, authoritarian ‘softest’ the of one being former The fromanidealtypicaldiffer model identity movement of liberal democra construction in “ question two of case H the countries: analyze will I contradiction, this behind lies what analyze to able be To minorities. sexual toward theof oppression direction a suggest rather would society of spheres many over control state overwhelming the identities, priority. private of erosion giventhe by characterized are regimes be authoritarian to expected be not would rights civil which countries European Western other the of many before also and Germany, West before laws discriminatory the all abolished has Republic Democratic German the while Czechoslovakia, with along 1962 same decriminalized Hungary However, heterosexual marriedcouples. recently has Eur time, same the At families. LGBT to rights adoption granting also often more and more years recent In opean post opean

in which factors did the relationship of gay people with the state in these states states these in state the with people gay of relationship the did factors which in if we look back in time, this difference on the level of rights wasn’t always so. so. always wasn’t rights of level the on difference this time, in back look we if nay n Es Gray uig h lt scait era socialist late the during Germany East and ungary asd cntttoa amend constitutional a passed - socialist states has states socialist dsie h fc ta te oils sae wr author were states socialist the that fact the despite ,

- sex sexual activity among the first states in Central Eu Central in states first the among activity sexual sex states of Western Europe have have Europe Western of states

legalized same legalized I NTRODUCTION

ment restricting the legal definition of family to to family of definition legal the restricting ment 1

- sex marriage, and marriage, sex ife and identities of sexual minorities. minorities. sexual of identities and ife

legalized same legalized the Hungarian Parliament Hungarian the Erős Erős tyn t ase the answer to trying , none of the Central Central the of none itarian regimes, in in regimes, itarian ( 2000) which along with along which - sex marriage, sex (

Holy 2001, 2001, Holy states that that states rope in rope cies ” .

CEU eTD Collection former states todemocracy. socialist tr the after occurred that changes important most the the discuss will I in subchapter while identities, LGBT towards attitude its and attempts these to state the of fo publicity more achieve could which organizations create to attempts the highlight firstly will I chapter this In state. the and groups LGBT between relationship the investigate I chapter analytical in of formation the on discourse public limited of effects the discuss will I Firstly setup. comparative a in results the analyze will I the interviews. of each of circumstances the describe briefly also will I interviewees anonymous mainly the after and interviews, with work of limitations the and applicability the discussing movements. LGBT between distinction problematized the sexuality, and gender of construction social the of concepts f follows: as is thesis the of structure The the socialist era. adu already were who men gay with Berlin and Budapest 2007) Renkin h piae n te ulc pee ad ial, h cnet rltd o dniy and identity to related concepts the finally, and sphere, public the and private the r LGBT identities and could affect the state. Secondly, I will analyze the reactions the analyze will I Secondly, state. the affect could and identities LGBT r I il atal rl o a eis of series a on rely partially will I ,

In the following chapter I will present the methodology of the thesis, thesis, the of methodology the present will I chapter following the In

dividual and collective identities, while in the second the in while identities, collective and dividual irstly, in the following chapter I give an overview of of overview an give I chapter following the in irstly, 2

semi - lts during at least the last decade of decade last the least at during lts structured neves odce in conducted interviews ansition of the the of ansition presenting presenting third

CEU eTD Collection well (Mucciaroni 2011) as research social general more the for for also but only issues, LGBT not specific relevant of understanding be may which effects, framing and dynamics public of opinion analysis the to contributed or structures, social of functioning the and relations vario disconfirmed and confirmed state the and movements LGBT between relationship the on di other of interest of center the scie political and social of area academic new relatively a constitute studies LGBT studies, gender with along in though even studies: also but debates, public in only not visible more become have issues LGBT LGBTof people wide to contributed St United the in importance political rights related for as well as representation fighting movements political of basis a as serve to started identities visible more and more these AIDS, from suffering partners visit to rights around controversies legal the by Stonew the After among identities, level. public the and private the at both constructed be to started politicized have identities LGBT others, new to way the opening family, the of concepts traditional fe of wave second the After states. 20 the of decades last the During C HAPTER us social movement theories, revealed important, yet often neglected aspects of power of aspects neglected often yet important, revealed theories, movement social us 1:

LGBT (Nardi 1998 all riots of 1969, and most importantly with the increasing tensions created created tensions increasing the with importantly most and 1969, of riots all . - spread changes in the legal frameworks, as well as the social perceptions social the as well as frameworks, legal the in changes spread

POLITICSIN LIBERAL nce, their results contributed to several topics which were already at alreadywere which topics several to contributed results their nce, ; Paternotte s ciplines, including ‘mainstream’ political science. Research Research science. political ‘mainstream’ including ciplines, th

century, LGBT identity politics emerged in the Western the in emerged politics identity LGBT century, iim wih usind rdtoa sxa nrs and norms sexual traditional questioned which minism, ates and in the Western democracies of Europe, and and Europe, of democracies Western the in and ates , Tremblay, Rimmerman2007 2011; and Johnson STATES (Lind 2013) (Lind 3

DEMOCRACIESANDAUTH

. LGBT movements gained increasing gained movements LGBT . ORITARIAN o their for better better ).

CEU eTD Collection 1.1. m be to needs gender social and sex biological between distinction a argument, fundamental of work the see movements feminist of history the of norms everyday even or making, decision institutions, affect that structures power hidden revealing life, political in the gender of question role the into about views dominant brought formerly have scholars and movements feminist of waves Subsequent attitude ofsocialist ideologiesgender sexuality and toward be to needs discussed. general more the issues, LGBT toward ideologies state socialist of attitudes the of analysis politi a be may orientation sexual how understand better to is necessary introduction brief a thesis, this of topic the to central not is theory gender though Even liberal in used dominantly theories democr the apply to trying movements, LGBT of analysis for relevant the themost whatI concepts may be In theoretical chapter this present briefly will Europe Eastern and Central on work less noticeably find still we World, the of regions other toward Australia 2007) States United the including democracies, liberal (2011) Johnson regions hence, and andcountries, studiesaccording ofthese most to character The world. the of areas these on concentrates still literature the of most democracies, liberal the in appeared movements LGBT first the As 1.1.1. ade, as the latter is a social construction, a category which was created by society itself. As itself. society by created was which category a construction, social a is latter the as ade,

Gender France ,

The political relevance of the constructed relevance political socially The of ge acies to the authoritarian regimes of the socialist states. totheacies regimes authoritarian the socialist of (Kulpa and Mizielińska 2011) and(Kulpa Mizielińska Wlet 2000) (Willett , Sexuality and Politics Dyedk 1995) (Duyvendak

discuss cases of specific states. Among these states we find mainly ‘Western’ mainly find we states these Among states. specific of cases discuss ad vn huh eety e ol osre sit n attention in shift a observe could we recently though even and , Spain , .

Clo n Tuil 2011) Trujillo and (Calvo 4

(Armstrong 2002 (Armstrong (Walters 2005) (Walters istics of LGBT movements vary across across vary LGBTmovements of istics nder

, Fetner 2008) Fetner

Tremblay, Paternotte, and and Tremblay, Paternotte, . According to the most most the to According . Italy , cal issue. Also, for the for Also, issue. cal : for an overview overview an for : Nri 1998) (Nardi ,

Rimmerman

or or CEU eTD Collection we as time, every reinforced are 'woman' and 'man' of categories the acts discursive Through rules. of set inherited an with them provides society dynamics; these of little experience present the in individuals history, gender though Even society. from exclusion avoid to order in meet must individual every that force compelling a has also it world, the in orientation our facilitates genders two of construction the While even jobchoices. or clothing, relationships, in interactions, social the of most in reinforced are categories the Later, parents. their from Barbies get girls and cars matchbox get boys when childhood, early ideal the creates soci these of survival the helps which Gendering, it category certain a into put people of uniformization the through Thus, sexuality. or shapes body genitalia, of combinations infinite labor of division the facilitating thus groups, Lorber Judith girl”.or a boy a it’s whether decide even can’t “one publicly boy teenage haired long a on commenting someone heard already have us of Most so. do to fail we if confused feel we and sex, her or to his is unconsciously) related (even decide to want we thing first beingthe someone, meeting When gender. construction their of manifestations obvious most the of one society, of categoriesa playSocial 2010) context femi and masculinities of meanings constructed socially of sets as understood conventionally is science political in concept a as “Gender it: put Beckwith Karen

- specific identifications of sex, that is, male and female, men and women” and men female, and male is, that sex, of identifications specific

2004) (

- related roles and the strictness of boundaries hav boundaries of strictness the and roles related

rus ht society that argues crucial role in the organization of labor, politics and many institutions and politics labor, of organization the in role crucial –

oty uncons mostly –

– in order to divide itself into clearly separable separable clearly into itself divide to order in 5

creates a finite number finite a creates

ciously ally constructed categories already begins in begins already categories constructed ally –

tailor the intended meaning of our our of meaning intended the tailor - yia "a" n "woman". and "man" typical

of categories out of the the of out categories of iiis drvd from derived ninities, e changed throughout changed e (Beckwith (Beckwith

CEU eTD Collection Existence Lesbian Steven is organized society modern which around norms heterosexual the of because heterosexual become people the of most genders, two the of sexuality the in differences Accord these despite parents. even Chodorow, the of both with looser typically are relationships whose boys, of thaninthecaseaccording indifferent,sex results connection more toChodorow with intimate family: the in see they patterns the by influenced largely is individuals of sexuality the which to according In mechanisms oftheir construction. a develop they as identity” nature sexual a acquire “individuals feminists, to According construction. social a as understood be also can sexuality understanding, similar quite a In 1.1.2. (Waylen 1994) to transitions of effects different the in even or laws, electoral as such policies, gender the in manifested is process nations” and institutions, movements, organizations, individuals, “behaviors, meaning process, a as also but category, social a as only not gender understand can we that argues Beckwith Karen 2004) through learnt also have categories these reinforcement ourselvesof and survival the to contributing thus acts,discursive we which reality, constructed socially the to words The Reproduction of Mothering of Reproduction The

Sexuality and the and heteronormSexuality eda 2003 Seidman Simn 2003) (Seidman (Chodorow 1978) (Chodorow

. girls tend to establish more intimate relationships with their mothers, which which mothers, their with relationships intimate more establish to tend girls

of Adrienne of

lo ees o h ifunil essay influential the to refers also Hne gne ad eult ae lsl itreae truh the through interrelated closely are sexuality and gender Hence, . .

Rich, in which she argues that we are all taught and forced by forced and taught all are we that argues she which in Rich,

, - (Chodorow 1978) (Chodorow specific effects of various apparently gender apparently various of effects specific conventions, practices, and dynamics engaged in by by in engaged dynamics and practices, conventions,

offers a psychoanalytical feminist view, feminist psychoanalyticala offers Compulsory Heterosexuality and and Heterosexuality Compulsory

(2005: 129) (2005: . Gender as a a as Gender . - neutral state neutral

democracy (Lorber (Lorber gender n to ing CEU eTD Collection in Stein and Plummer According be through seena exclusion means as categoriza of also can homosexual”, “polluted the and heterosexual” “pure the categories, separate clearly two maintained and created that practices state The categorization. sexual of ambivalences categorie these theory, queer notably most and literature feminist of waves further to according However, identities. lesbian and gay were category existing only world self gend traditional the Besides restricted as conformism, such toattitudes resistance, subversion or negotiation. casesare the of most in possibilities their categories, and existing the to relation in themselves acce socially of creation the on influence limited a only have individuals and construct, given a as come categories that means which society, by from deviating influenced deeply also are categories sexual gender, with of construction the of case the in as Just associated punishments policy and heteronormativity” cultural the of result a as preferences inherent their on act not to chosen often have people although orientation, Hatemi K. Peter also homosexuals against violence norms heterosexual the of or persistence the to contribute ridicule as such punishments incentives, social beside Hence, not. reinforces society do who those, punishing Rich, and them with comply who to those rewarding by norms heterosexual According identities. gender conventional adopt to society the United States after the 1970’s organized themselves as fitting the ‘ethnicity model’, model’, ‘ethnicity the fitting as themselves organized 1970’s the after States United the - identification emerged in the second half of the 20 the of half second the in emerged identification (Altman 2002) (Altman point out, “individuals do not sim not do “individuals out, point te oatczto o htrsxa lv ad aiu isiuinl and institutional various and love heterosexual of romanticization the s (2011: 90) (2011: . The first two major categories which questioned heterosexuality as the the as heterosexuality questioned which categories major two first The . r aeois pbi iette rltd o eul retto and orientation sexual to related identities public categories, er . (1994)

some of the queer theorists argue that gays and lesbians lesbians and gays that argue theorists queer the of some 7

pted categories. Hence, they have to define define to have they Hence, categories. pted tion tion ply choose their natural gender and sexual sexual and gender natural their choose ply th (Seidman 2001) (Rich 1980) (Rich

century in most parts of the Western the of parts most in century . As As . .

Rose McDermott and McDermott Rose s did not reflect the the reflect not did s

CEU eTD Collection cultural the on affect limited a only of subjects common were factories in working women thoughEven gender. ofunderstandings had change this Block, Eastern the of countries hi to quotas through partially and market labor ideology quick, the While 1920: in stated states, socialist the of ideologies state the in influential especially were ideas whose Lenin, As equality. gender on focus ideology’s the by affected deeply were production in and n were women and though men of even categories social roles: distinct gender of redefinition partial a itself with brought ideology Socialist minority.sexual then which created, is category social no discourse public of lack the in that possible is it case which in secret, in kept be may they as norms, social on dependent more much are identities sexual out coming of act performative the by created is identity sexual identities, other Unlike invisible. largely and fluctuating is group the of membership interest political a defines sexuality race, and gender unlike However, movement. rights civil black the of example the following group, ethnic an of lines the along 1.1.3.

17 out. them carry workersorganised the of officials the and world, the in workers her (…) full the inclinations. old to her the exercise to and from her womantalents enables the That man. for on freedom dependence mean and drudgery will household That society. to household separate the the econom the out of transference the carrying for programme seriouslyour in demand are we short, In socialist (…) the government. into and women legislation bringing into are economy, We practice. into equality this put to wish sincere a everywherethereAnd women. and men for rights of completeequalitynaturally clearingaway more prejudicesis volumes feminist couldliterature. than (…) of firstproletThe theGender, ideology and socialist sexuality )

may result in the impossibility of impossibility the in result

arian dictatorshiparian realestablishingpioneer a social is in equalitywomen.forIt - based transformation led to massive participation of women in the the in women of participation massive to led transformation based e ae h ms ad most the have We

a conscious conscious a 8

gh levels of political participation in the the in participation political of levels gh ot questioned, their roles in the society the in roles their questioned, ot

self (Plummer a (Plummer acd rtcie as o women for laws protective vanced - identification as a member of a of member a as identification ic and educational functions of functions educational and ic nd Stein 1994) Stein nd constituency, and the the and constituency, law there isIn

(Zetkin 1920 (Zetkin is evidence ofevidence is . Hence, Hence, . : CEU eTD Collection 1.2. through rights for fight to and politics, of space the as seen traditionally realm the sphere, public the enter to was democracies Western on movements LGBT of aim main the of One and whether about sexualityexi public discourse norms sexual traditional the question into brought has Hungary or GDR the whether 1920) at distracts Germany in example for women many of readings” „favorite the become have works related the that fact the and sexuality, on emphasis much too putting are scholars feminist that argued speech same the in Lenin well illustratedbyThis is another q issue. public a already is it of goal the but free, be may life sex Individual society. sustaining of goal primary the has it but discussed, studied, be may which society, of aspect important i socialist the in taboo a being from far was sexuality However, ofgenderkinds identities. different and categories traditional of transgressions about care not did ideology socialist the category:social a genderas of understanding the on effect limited a only had roles gender of redefinition superficial This and Hughes 2007) housewife worker of andcope theoldone tasks:the new ofmodern withmultiple one backgroundpropaganda inthe photos,

Public private Public and . In the terms of this analysis this adds an additional perspective of investigation: investigation: of perspective additional an adds this analysis this of terms the In . gives rise cultural also which interest, social its it gives which that is it arises, life, new but a third, a and concerned, are considered, be to individual sex love. (…) Drinking water development the nature is simple significant how only Engels showed Family the of Origin his not In order. low or high is a of are they whether there characteristics, life sexual In to adutyto towards community. the .

the two main gender categories remained distinct and ‘natural’, as as ‘natural’, and remaineddistinct categoriesgender main two the uote of Lenin’s sameLenin’s speechuote offrom 1920: the traditional social roles prevailed, and women had to to women had androles prevailed, social traditional the

sted. is, ofis, course, an individual affair. in But love twolives tention from the social role of sexuality of role social the from tention 9 (Zetkin 1920

n rfnmn o te eea sx re into urge sex general the of refinement and : 10 : )

deology: it was seen as an an as seen was it deology:

(Paxton (Paxton (Zetkin (Zetkin CEU eTD Collection cannot we media mass in discussed topics private formerly with that arguing life, personal on t introduced who Plummer, public the of concept The the family of members the by resolved be should which matters, private as otherwise charges criminal be to subject would that acts mask also they invisible, family the within relations power violence domestic abortion over decision the same of choice the as such matters, other in individuals was state the hand, other the on while women, of oppression and inequalities power traditional of continuation the for space leaving sphere, private the from withdrawal the for criticized been has state liberal the hand, one the to According angles. different from sphere public the and private distinction the of topic the literatureaddressed also feminist wavesof Subsequent space,com while private the hence and secrecy for metaphor a is closet the where closet”, the of out “coming 2001) Plummer 2013; Lind 1992; (Giddens space private versus public of dichotomy the is citizenship sexual of concept the to Central Ipart analyze will thekeydi second the in and the democracies, liberal the of in dichotomy overview public and brief private the on a literature give will I section, this In formation. movement facilitated and reinf formation, communityfacilitated which means, visibility 1.2.1.

Liberal democracies Aklbr ad hne 1996) Shanley and (Ackelsberg (Ackelsberg Shanley and 1996) ing out meansing enteringrealm out thepublic -

as the limitation of state intervention in the private sphere leaves sphere private the in intervention state of limitation the as - private distinction was also transformed by others, such as Kenneth Kenneth as such others, by transformed also was distinction private . he concept of ‘intimate citizenship’, designating a public discourse discourse public designatinga citizenship’, ‘intimate conceptof he One central topic of the former critique of the liberal state was was state liberal the of critique former the of topic central One fferences aspect. states socialist inthis that distinguished

also criticized for not granting personal autonomy to autonomy personal granting not for criticized also . Hne pbiiy a nt ny ga, u as a also but goal, a only not was publicity Hence, .

10 , which may be illustrated by the expression expression the by illustrated be may which ,

orced individual and collective identities, collective and individual orced - sex partner in the case of marriage of casethe in partner sex

(Lind 2013) Ackelsberg and Shanley and Ackelsberg .

betweenthe

hidden , on , , or or , CEU eTD Collection 2002) surveillance under was sphere public the as agency, of space larger by accompanied was This liberty. and expression individual freedom, of space the was sphere private the while regime, oppressive the by controlled was sphere public the equality, formal promoted it though even post of view of point the from which one, authoritarian an was state the hand, other the On workforce. formal the enter to women wanted they on, so and leave maternity paid childcare, services, public providing By Runyan 2002:142) households” private and organizations society civil autonomous capitalism, 1) Figure see states Europe Eastern and inc groups, multiple by challenged was critique of basis the as served that concept this However, normativ of arethepoliticalcitizens thefamilygender discourses asand through sexed heteronormative “all that arguing sexuality, of aspect the in brought who scholars, feminist by transformed citizen of obligations the Marshall T.H. of work the by others among represented citizenship, of concepts of focus traditional maki programs, television other and shows talk in discussions, public in appear matters private more as considered any public and private distinguish strictly 1.2.2. luding scholars working on studies on the transitional post transitional the on studies on working scholars luding .

Socialist statesSocialist e” ( 1950) ( (Lind 2013 ng the discourse on private issues public. Plummer’s concept differs from the the from differs concept Plummer’s public. issues private on discourse the ng , which emphasize the state’s role in securing the rights of the citizens and and citizens the of rights the securing in role state’s the emphasize which , .

(for the related key differences between liberal democracies and socialist and democracies liberal between differences key related the (for

. Communist ideology wanted to “obliterate private private “obliterate to wanted ideology Communist .

: 196

t priiae n omn fars ad hc wr already were which and affaires, common in participate to s ) h udrtnig f h piae pee n te oshl a a as household the and sphere private the of understanding the .

- communist communist hoit tre Wsen ocps pie down: upside concepts Western turned theorists 11

(2003) Tpc ta wr previously were that Topics . - communist countries of Central of countries communist (Marchand and Runyan Runyan and (Marchand space in terms of of terms in space (Ma cad and rchand CEU eTD Collection 1.3. some c identit 2011) Johnson and Tremblay, of group the of part a constitute movements LGBT As LGBT of aims groupsand organizations. the affected this how and citizens, LGBT by perceived sphere public the identities LGBT were how fre of lack the constructedin analysis: of aspect important an provide differences These that themajority thesame ison opinion sentiment the create to and ideology its support to state the by used mainly were they existed, discourse public and media though even where countries, socialist the of description the to states. socialist the in restricted severely was sphere private the forming in media of role the This, summary) Figure 1 Liberal democracies

Identity movements Identity       

(Habermas 1991) (Habermas oncepts related to individual andindividual collectiveidentityoncepts formation to related andidentity movements. identities Political movementsbased on intimacy insomeissues BUT: feminist critique sphereas the territory of politics ↔ private Th existence conservativeof values Pluralism, no stateideology Free media Freedom speechof Democratic regimes : Differences between liberal democracies and socialist the sta e statee does not intervenein

feminist/LGBT strugglefor affairs, construction public of

coined the term ‘regimented’ public sphe public ‘regimented’ term the coined

e media and public discourse, how was the role of the private and and privatethe of role the was how discourse, public and media e , being based on a shared identity, in this section I will look at look will I section this in identity, shared a on based being ,

–

also the

as thestate 12

- party So cialist cialist states      

(Dennis 2005) movements debatesor No possibility of politicalopen autonomyof spaces, butit still remains thespace stateThe tries to monitor thepr a limited extent women’s rightsand also gay rightsto aim of Marxism/Leninism as state ideology Media controlled by the state Limited freedom speechof Authoritarian regimes re, which may be applicable be may which re, a progressive image concerning

y movements movements y tes .

(Source: Own

(Paternotte, (Paternotte,

ivate –

CEU eTD Collection (2004) latter the while members, its by identity group of formation the indicating former the categorization: and identification group between parties. even or movements civil self as arena, political the in role a serve also can identities Institutional sphere. public the in individuals impersonalized) (sometimes of groups the w about understandings our of and actions our of all of basis a as serve may individual the while spheres: different in dominant be may categories These categories. distinct of set a defining id of set limited the and sphere relations. interpersonal of dynamics 24) 2004: (Jenkins individuals” to (identities) positions allocating for practices routinised of and (positions), colle the is order Institutional socialization. earliest self internal of synthesis a is identity individual that argues He order. institutional the and interpersonal Jenkins others and throughout their lives” themselves redefine and define individuals which during interaction ongoing the in and socialization, subsequent and primary of process the in constructed: thoroughly that argues Jenkins Richard society. the of norms by and interactions by constructed partly are which levels, several has Identity 1.3.1. orld placemayrelation andouralso larger the interpersonal personal with init, appear

. Individual and collectiveIndividual identities

(2004) - eiiinadetra self external and definition differentiates three orders of identity formation: the individual, individual, the formation: identity of orders three differentiates , while the interactional order order interactional the while ,

(2004: 18) (2004: niis rvdd y t a rsrc proa cocs while choices, personal restrict may it by provided entities .

ekn as mks dfeec i te ntttoa order institutional the in difference a makes also Jenkins

s the As “individuals are unique and variable, but selfhood is is selfhood but variable, and unique are “individuals - definitions offered by others, having its root in the in root its having others, by offered definitions

en te dniiain f h gop y others by group the of identification the means y

13 r i cntn itrcin te political/social the interaction, constant in are

is the place where identities are formed in formed are identities where place the is - identificatio c ti e level, ve n with organizations such as as such organizations with n “ a network of identities identities of network a the CEU eTD Collection social and norms sexual traditional against fight the in movements feminist with cooperated of scope Thesocieties. r LGBT norms. different achieving social in existing also role certain important an transforming played movements by values, of level the on society Manuel how didthe democracies liberal in movements the to similarly political became cases examined the in identities LGBT whether interesting, using without level collective a at Germany: East and Hungary This hardly ofthe context socialist state interpreted inthe be and identities, public and private of separation forced the by characterized be can states authoritarian the As system. political the accordingto politics identity However, freedo political the largermarginalized its within secure to political aim identity typically affiliation, partyformations or manifestos, programmatic systems, belief around solely organizing than Rather groups. social certain of members fo of injustice theorizing of experiences and activity political of range wide a signify to come Hence, factor political movements. a become has identity nationalist even or religious, feminist, as such movements, identity in arecentral identities Collective 1.3.2. problematic

LGBT movements Castells Castells yrela (

te to the socialist regimete tothe 2011) provides an additional aspect of analysis when we look at gay identities in identities gay at look we when analysis of aspect additional an provides collective

classifies LGBT identities as project identities, which aim to change change to aim which identities, project as identities LGBT classifies

the question emerges whether emerges question the context

identity can however vary: in some cases LGBT movements cases some in vary: however can identity various types of political actions, and they are at the core of of core the at are theyand actions, political of types various

ept te uhrtra ntr o te states the of nature authoritarian the despite

by the erosion of private identities, identities, private of erosion the by ”

(2004) explicit political messages or programs. programs. or messages political explicit According to According Ferenc Erős Erős Ferenc .

. 14

( Erős 2000 Erős Cressida (Takács 2004) identities can be constructed even even constructed be can identities m of a specific constituency constituency specific a of m

Heyes,

In: Takács 2004) Takács “ .

[

I ne i te shared the in unded ] dentity politics” has has politics” dentity identity politics can can politics identity ights in Western Western in ights

is specificto is ad f yes, if and , t s also is It LGBT

CEU eTD Collection movements social new of formation the making structure, opportunity in shift a signified 2011) Johnson movements of formation the discourage or encourage either can environment institutional the movements: on institutions political of effects structural notion the concept, this In gain access these to institutions. to want who movements, social the being outsiders, and institutions, political the within are t ( by others among developed one, process political Th movements. the state the of role the emphasize LGBTmovements, including movements, Johnson and Tremblay Paternotte, to According demonstrating themovement.within solidarity and goal common a having by and authorities, state the and opponents elites, the including but extremism, or acts violent definedby not Tarrow Sidney to according as confrontations, visible major of case the in concepts its use can we acts, violent with movements 2011) Johnson and Tremblay, (Paternotte, movements feminist as such movements, social other to related closely respect this in are movements LGBT the as movements, social of literature the on rely also will I analysis the In sufficientcooperate tobeable level inone to ofsolidarity social movement a demonstrate not could they hence and overcome, be not could men and women of purposes movement LGBT the within even cases some in but burdens, hrough interaction with the state and political institutions, and divides actors to insiders who who insiders to actors divides and institutions, political and state the with interaction hrough 1978) , which defines which . According to According . e most common approach used in the literature according to them is the is them to according literature the in used approach common most e

social movements as groups willing to gain access to state resources state to access gain to willing groups as movements social of the political opportunity structure is central, emphasizing the emphasizing central, is structure opportunity political the of McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald and McCarthy, McAdam,

by the sustained interaction with various groups, various with interaction sustained the by . 15

Despite the common association of social social of association common the Despite

Sidney (2011) ms o te tde o social on studies the of most , Tarrow ( 1996)

(1998)

the differences between the the between differences the of the analyzed topic in lack in topic analyzed the of (Paternotte, Tremblay, and and Tremblay, (Paternotte, ( , transition to democracy to transition , 1998) , social movements social , , and its influence oninfluence its and ,

(Altman 2002) and Charles Charles Tilly Tilly . are CEU eTD Collection react andwhethertheir shift in activity. thetransition, to hasa it meant transition the after and before Europe Central important another provides This easier.

aspect for the analysis of LGBT movements in in movements LGBT of analysis the for aspect 16 : how did the organizations and LGBT groups LGBT and organizations the did how :

CEU eTD Collection of all almost remarkable uniformity, “with dissertation, his in experiences his summarizes Renkin As years. those in lived who people be to seem sources only the that is period this of research the to related s main not the is mentioned, it erais this if even 2007 others among (see perspectives various sociali post the in community LGBT Hungarian the While regime during changes their about transitions. and states authoritarian in structures of opportunity nature the on light shed cases two the of analysis The Germany. East in than Hungary self for opportunities better had movements LGBT environment, political the of because that hypothesize would I regimes. authoritarian the of socia the among extremes two the as seen be can thesis the in analyzed cases two the sense, this In critiques towards politics. the state formulated who those expelled or activism oppositional of kind any to punishment severe str boarders the controlled service, secret widespread a operated the dictatorship, ‘soft’ a state the where Germany, East in limited as more much still were criticism open of considered possibilities was 1980’s the th in in Hungary differences While significant oppression. show also they dictatorship, socialist national a after formed regimes socialist authoritarian were countries these of both While Republic. I 2. n this study I will present and compare the cases of Hungary and the German Democratic German the and Hungary of cases the compare and present will I study this n 1.

, list states of Central Europe Europe Central states of list Case selection Case selection Takács et al. 2012 al. et Takács

), there is only minimal literature on the period before the transition the before period the on literature minimal only is there ), the people I questioned during the course of my fieldwork when when fieldwork my of course the during questioned I people the C HAPTER –

Hungary being the softest, while East Germany the hardest Germanythe whileEast thesoftest, Hungary being Renkin 2007 Renkin 2 :

M 17 ETHODOLOGY ubject of analysis. Another problematic aspectproblematicanalysis. ubject Another of

, - Riszovannij 2001 Riszovannij raiain n politic and organization st era has been analyzed from from analyzed been has era st

ictly, and often reacted with reacted often and ictly, ,

Takács 2004 Takács l ciim in activism al e levels of of levels e ,

Takács -

CEU eTD Collection aeil nraie nlss ouig n h oa tx ad t lnug, n finally, and language, its and text oral the on focusing analysis narrative material, a narrative, life single the analyzed: be may history oral which in ways four identifies Thompson analysis and their historical subjective facts of perceptions. explorat 1) 2009: Quinlan others” to available it making and information the preserving of purpose the or for a oflife a way an participant event withawitnessin created or to setting inaninterview hist oral Quinlan, and Sommer of definition the to According (2009) of works the on heavily relied I interviews the conducting of procedure practical the In countries. the of both litera orientation sexual their to way some in related relations, social and authorities state the to relationship percep subjective t because and literature sufficient of lack the of Because 2. Germany. as 1987) Kowalski Von 1994; Thinius 1990; Brühl and Soukup 2012; McLellan 2008; Stiftung 23 ‘There declaring, by responded first period, Socialist the during or 1989, before lives their and gays, lesbians, about asked 2. 2. ) H .

oly (2001) oly

vn huh hr i mr ltrtr o Es Germany East on literature more is there though Even ture in the case of Hungary, I have conducted semi conducted have I Hungary, of case the in ture Oralhistory and limitations its .

ion of a way of life which can only be described by the participants, as well as for the the for as well as participants, the by described be only can which life of waya of ion

t olcin f tre wih a eal u t peet oe yia life typical more present to us enable may which stories of collection mp hs aes n t fn ot oe bu fcs n h lc o adequate of lack the in facts about more out find to and areas these map o

states, there i there states, Paul in o te ebr o te GT omnt aot hi identity, their about community LGBT the of members the of tions . According to this definition, oral history is an adequate tool for the the for tool adequate an is history oral definition, this to According . Thompson Thompson s still much less than in the case of liberal democracies, or West or democracies, liberal of case the in than less much still s were ( 2000) no gays or lesbians under Socialism’.” under lesbians or gays no , and ,

18 of Barbara W. W. Barbara of

he focus of the research is partly the the partly is research the of focus he - structured oral history interviews in interviews history oral structured

Sommer and Sommer ory is “primary source material source “primary is ory Dni 20; Heinrich 2005; (Dennis Mary Kay Mary (Renkin 2007 (Renkin (Sommer and and (Sommer Quinlan Quinlan - history - - Böll story story - : , CEU eTD Collection two than more as itself: time be may issue another Finally, present. the in unaware are be also can interviewees the which of but examining, am I period texts time the at present were that conditions the of reliability The place. took interview the which in one the than conditions different under people, other to told have would they than p reasons many of because narratives their subjective manipulate may interviewees concern: of points important some be may there Still, in the interview alsoseem be texts to true compared source when toother, written found information factual objective The topics. of aspects some or topics some avoid to liked identif not could and again once recordings the to listened have I interviews the of reliability the check To as source ofreliability. terms materialsin evaluated be to need interviews thirdly,the and contents,subjective from separated be to need con objective Secondly, images. and comments repeating its up pick and says it what to 2000 evidence as and content of types as texts, as Thompson: to according was three whi evaluated, be to need they sources, the compare to able be to order In evidencecoming differentfrom( interviews the cross argument, the of logic f this in As period. time limited a to related stories, life of aspect certain a in interested only am I and interviewees one than cross reconstructive study, this of case the In c cross reconstructive onstruct arguments of events in thepastonstruct in events arguments of olitical or ideological nature, but it is also possible that they told me some things differently things some me told they that possible also is it but nature, ideological or olitical : 272). Firstly, the researcher has to evaluate the interviews as a text: one needs to listen listen to needs one text: a as interviews the evaluate to has researcher the Firstly, 272). : y internal inconsistencies, neither did I feel that the interviewees would have have would interviewees the that feel I did neither inconsistencies, internal y - analysis, where oral evidence is treated as a “quarry” from which to to which from “quarry” a as treated is evidence oral where analysis, - analysis requires shorter quotations and the comparison of of comparison the and quotations shorter requires analysis orm the overall shape of the analysis is governed by the inner the by governed is analysis the of shape overall the orm (Thompson 2000)

19 - analysis Thompson 2000 Thompson

Gfmn 1959) (Goffman is applied is : 269 : 271). - 271). , as I am dealing with more with dealing am I as , . These reasons can be of of be can reasons These .

affected by external external by affected ch has to be done in done be to has ch s. (Thompson

tents tents CEU eTD Collection I literature sufficient of lack the In state. socialist a in gay being of framing respondents’ the LGBT of appearance the formation, indivi about statements for looking was I movements: LGBT Western on literature the from emerging topics key the to according coding the done have I interviews, the transcribed and conducted having After interviews. the recorded have I and guide topic same the used have I interviews the For not did which connections, informal mainly channels, several through interviewees for looking t in especially questions, private answer to willing are who 45 over people find to difficult extremely is it as availability: on depended selection the respondents in and Budapest in living all were they interviews, the of time the at However, regions. different from often and backgrounds social different from coming respondents for looking could, th of selection the In important information abouttheperiod,subjective facts interpretations. and contain they Still, periods. examined the during states these in living gays of representation th of because Interviews habits everyday or conflicts, and values relationships, of terms in context this understand to helping works, context social certain a how exploring in useful the On generalization problematic. make can interviews of number small the though even reliable, overall interviews the find I concerns, these Despite present. the in experienced things by affected be also can they and memor period, examined the since passed have decades Berlin, where I have conducted all of the interviews. Besides this aim of including diverse diverse including of aim this Besides interviews. the of all conducted have I where Berlin,

allow more sophisticated system ofinterviewee selection. level of interpretation I use a reconstructive mode of analysis, which in general can be be can general in which analysis, of mode reconstructive a use I interpretation of level itriwe I re t wr wt a mn dfeet aeois s I as categories different many as with work to tried I interviewees e eir low number serve mainly as illustrations; they are not a a not are they illustrations; as mainly serve number low eir

- related topics in public or informal discussions, and in and discussions, informal or public in topics related 20

(see Appendix 1) Appendix (see ies may be unclear in some details, details, some in unclear be may ies

ul n cletv identity collective and dual he case of Hungary, I was I Hungary, of case he Topo 2000 (Thompson in both o both in

f the countries, the f 286). : -

CEU eTD Collection connections social make to already 80’s. during the started has he but gay, really was he whether decide to him jou a as works he now and Budapest, in born also was ‘Peter’ cafésand as barshealsoat awaiter, Lokál. waspresentthe start of in worked also He 1987. in gay was he that realized only he as decade, the of half second experiences has also he but Budapest, in born was ‘Daniel’ was alsopresent atthestartgay Budapest,Lokál, ofthe early first in pubof 1989. he and waiter, a as bars and cafés several at worked has he and gay, are friends his of Most served having after 1980s, the of half second the in Budapest to moved and village small a in born was He people. gay and musicians actors, by frequented mostly him to is ‘Albert’ Ito the interviewees. firstly presentinthecase the interviewees Hungary: of names fake assigning by interviews the to refer will I paper the In transition. the before adults hav I Hungary About 2.3.1. 2. worksources. with more reliable to able be to literature relevant the with results the matched have I interviews the of analysis the at which picture, whole a as socialism state under person gay a as living of experience the understand to tried also have I procedure coding the During foundation. their of circumstances the on and informat factual for looking also was 3. 3.

Aboutinterviews the Hungary

in his fifties, and he currently operates a café with a friend. Their café is according is café Their friend. a with café a operates currently he and fifties, his in

end slightly transformed my previously existing categories. Having done the the done Having categories. existing previously my transformed slightly end

cnutd i in six conducted e

ion on meeting places, organizations and their history their and organizations places, meeting on ion - depth interviews with gay men, who were already already were who men, gay with interviews depth 21

rnalist. It took a long time for for time long a took It rnalist. eae t te oi fo the from topic the to related

at the military. the at

CEU eTD Collection the February flat of at organizedwas the on28 The interview third hours. half andabout a one of opening the before shows, the in works interviewee the where bar the in 2012 December 15 on held was interview second The hours. 3 about for lasted and interviewee, the by operated café the in 2012 November 25 on held was interview first The the in covered topics the For interviews se time. same the at issues of range a towards positions and get an tothetopicandable insight their tomaptheinterpretations to subjective facts related out find to wanted I and perspectives did I interviews the In too felt masculine and authoritarian. he which Hungary, socialist the in than richer and freer was life cultural thought becau especially Europe long Western to after move to 1980’s wanted He early authorities. the the with struggles in Berlin West to moved has He director. and actor as films M ‘K. each regularly. other meet and parties organize together, houses their constructed other, each help who friends, of whom they eachfrequently.was ispart visited Hegroups have other andofseveral still strong he era socialist the During expectations. social of was this that realized he when years, university the until girls with affairs had school,was high alreadybut thathe attractedrealized toboys during his ownbusiness. He has he now but hotel, a at worked he era socialist the during seventies, his in is ‘Balint’ firstHungary. gayorganization ofhispartner lives with He inapartnership. registered ci gay of part was He retired. alreadyhe’s now but journalist, a as worked also previously he 70; is ‘Zoltan’ .’, who asked me to mention him this way, is in his seventies, and he has worked in in worked has he and seventies, his in is way, this him mention to me asked who .’, e Appendix. e rcles in Budapest, and he also had experiences about the start of Homeros, the Homeros, of start the about experiences had also he and Budapest, in rcles

not

ask previously fixed questions, as I was interested in their their in interested was I as questions, fixed previously ask where they themselves put the accents. I wanted to be be to wanted I accents. the put themselves they where 22

had many friends in East Germany, with Germany, East in friends many had

the bar and it lasted for for lasted it and bar the

not

a question a ’s running ’s

se he he se CEU eTD Collection organizations ofBerlin,whereever works since. he gay the of one joining before carpenter, a as work to started he the school of high half After second 1980’s. the during twenties early his in was he so forties, late his in is ‘Felix’ a in living now is He city. cooperative LGBT projectofan housing organization. the of pubs gay the regularly visited he evenings the in and constructions, at worked he Berlin East In friend. a of help the with Berlin to moving before already has where he grew upinRostock, He hisseventies. ‘David’ isin yearsa lives couplethere. he of decidedstill tomove toBerlin,and he After man. gay a as live life, his in time first the for could, he where Munich, to move he and was life his that him to obvious more and more became it as retirement, early his After child. a had and woman a married his during realized adole already has he though Even orphanage. an in up grew he mother, his losing after and Germany East of town small a in born was He sixties. his in is ‘Alexander’ anonymityrespondents. ofthe the before o case adults the in as just cases, the of in most In transition. already were and Republic, Democratic German the in somewhere in five conducted have I Germany East About 2.3.2. two about for lasted and May, 2 on intervieweethe of flat the at Berlin in held was interview sixth restaurant the forhour, intervieweeand and lasted approximately an of finally, on17April the fo lasted and interviewee, the of flat the at Marchalso 6 on held was one fourth the while hour, an about for lasted andinterviewee

and a half hours. cn yas ht e a gy h jie te iiay n atd s htrsxa: he heterosexual: a as acted and military the joined he gay, was he that years scent East GermanyEast

not

r about three hours. The fifth interview took place in the in place took interview fifth The hours. three about r on the right track, he started to drink. His wi His drink. to started he track, right the on 23

- et itriw wt gy e, h lived who men, gay with interviews depth f Hungary, I use fake names to assure the the assure to names fake use I Hungary, f

met some gay people some met fe left him, him, left fe CEU eTD Collection now a parliame is he but university, a at work to started he Potsdam, of University the from graduated having did and out stud fellow a of discrimination apparent the the at studied and Berlin, after but years, university near the (Homosexuelle before gay town was he realized already smaller He Potsdam. of a University in HIB born was He organization, fifties. his in is gay ‘Paul’ German East first Interessen the of formation the at participated he friends his with and age, early an at gay was he realized He assistant. is Rausch Peter gemeinschaft Berlin)gemeinschaft in1973.

not ntary candidate and mainly works at and aparty. works mainly candidate ntary

participate at any kind of organization or gay group until the transition. After transition. the until group gay or organization of kind any at participate in his sixties. He was born in Berlin, where he worked at a university as a lab a as university a at worked he where Berlin, in born was He sixties. his in

ent because of his homosexuality, he did he homosexuality, his of because ent 24

not

come CEU eTD Collection with alone being of feeling of part a as problems their overcoming of possibility the from people young deprived it as difference, substantial a make could categories LGBT b identities, own their find to people young of struggle the only is here observe can we what that possible is It interviewees. the of stories identity personal for possibilities Secon groups. informal of level the on also often and media the of level the on minimal was homosexuality to related discourse that showing sexuality, of categories In self and order interactional of lines identificationgroup. as a the along partly identities collective finally, and identities; individual discourse; public in emerging identities to referring order, institutional alon identities public levels: three creating categories, the and the transformed interactional slightly have I cases, the the to application individual, the in However, the order. institutional society: of orders three the of categorization chapter this divided have I a form they that claim community, andalso hence, they cannot theygrant argue that be should cannot individuals characteristics, common of set identifiable possibilities personal the limit categories social existing the and formation, identity private of level the on also role crucial a play society of norms dominant that claim theories Constructivist claims. political the in analysis of questions basic commun of kind any of basis the as most serve they as topic, investigated the of one is construction their and Identities th e

chapter firstly I will analyze whether homosexuality was part of the socially discussed discussed socially the of part was homosexuality whether analyze will I firstly chapter C HAPTER Jnis 04 Lre 20; ih 1980) Rich 2004; Lorber 2004; (Jenkins

C o he parts three to

ONSTRUCTION SEXUAOF hi polm cud ae identity make could problems their - formation in this environment, illustrated by some of the the of some by illustrated environment, this in formation

partly on the basis of Richard Jenkins’ Jenkins’ Richard of basis the on partly ut I would argue that the lack of publicity and and publicity of lack the that argue would I ut 25

–

te ie o ctgrzto i the in categorization of lines the g maybe virtual maybe LITY AND LITY IDENTITIES . In the absence of a clearly clearly a of absence the In . ity - formation even more more even formation ed certained rights. - – formation and also of of also and formation

community, and the the and community, dly, I will discuss discuss will I dly,

(2004)

CEU eTD Collection the and homosexuality, of decriminalization the around Hungary, In Hungary or onlycouplearticles before ofthetransition. a have they that impression the have interviewees the of most the did change legal this However, early, in1968 same decriminalized also has Republic Democratic German The change was legal a such introduce to Europe it Central in states first the Czechoslovakia, among with along that meaning 1961, in already legal relationships sex l Western some to compared even early, relatively homosexuality decriminalized have Republic Democratic German the and Hungary Both heterosexuality, are rewarded, whilenorm orviolence. punished mayby breaking ridicule be to R conformity way: Adrienne identical as almost such an in authors constructed to according norms its gender, to related closely is sexuality As education. and socialization of mechanisms various through reinforced 2004) identity personal of possibilities the in role crucial a play categories given socially 2, Chapter in presented sexuality and gender of view constructivist the to According 3. could appeargroupings.a ofmeeting through collective level on and informal thedescription places identities personal the how analyze will I Thirdly, cases. other in than problematic 1. 1. se

Public and A dsrbd by described As . state

s :

as public discour public (Herrn 1999) the

private discourse political decisions about the legal changes were changes legal the about decisions political uih obr (2004) Lorber Judith . se about LGBT issues was minimal. minimal. was issues LGBT about se

not

en ht GT sus could issues LGBT that mean

, gender and gender roles are constantly constantly are roles gender and gender , iberal democracies. Hungary made same made Hungary democracies. iberal

topic was rarely mentioned in the the in mentioned rarely was topic h acpe ctgre, uh as such categories, accepted the

not

read anything about the topic, topic, the about anything read T - sex relationships relatively relatively relationships sex he

not re was no public debate debate public no was re eoe oe visible more become

debated publicly, and and publicly, debated (Riszovannij 2001) (Riszovannij - formation ich (1980)

(Jenkins

are are

in in

- .

CEU eTD Collection and its and increa 120000, 80000 approx. between varied articles of number overall The analysis. this for relevant be might transition ( ‘warm’ articles. word unrelated the Hungarian in as ‘gay’, word 1 cinemas films. towatch Pasolini them of some these on of Instead material homosexuality. of kinds other of lack the as well as topics, LGBT of coverage media of lack in public The med attacked thefirst time by protestersfor the by covered widely was march gay the 2007 in though even related 242 articles, with 2004 in was peak The average. yearly a in hundred to close was it 2000 by and doubled already has it 1994 in low, remained number this transition the following dir years the in though even transition: the after homosexuality about articles of number 2 Figure in represented as 18 only 1988 in Agency, NewsMTI,National theHungarian media: archives from accordingof tothe data the

Unfortunately, the archive does not include articles from the period before 1988, and I couldn’t look for the the for look couldn’t I and 1988, before period the from articles include not does archive the Unfortunately, 100 150 200 250 300 50 0

18 (MTI 2013)(MTI Figure Number2: of a 13

visibility is also illustrated byinterviewsillustrated the alsovisibility is 19

oee, blee ht h lre ifrne bten h pros eoe n atr the after and before periods the between differences large the that believe I However, Number articles containingof Number wordthe articles contained the word ‘homosexual’, while this number was 13 in 1989 in 13 was number this while ‘homosexual’, word the contained articles 48

se cannot explain the increase in the number of articles containing the word‘homosexual’. the containing ofarticles number the in increase explainthe cannot se

'homosexual' 1 93

These 72

rticles containing the 'homosexual'word MTIin articles

113

107

84 numbers are especially low if we compare them with the the with them compare we if low especially are numbers

137

242 (MTI 2013)

174

meleg 127

172

in in MTI articles 153 mentioned reading mentioned i used is )

143

116 .

o ti, hc wud have would which this, for : all the respondents talked about theabout talked respondents the all :

word word 'homosexual' the containing Number of articles

medical books, medical

nldd many included a s t was it as ia

(Source:

going ectly ectly

to to

CEU eTD Collection wastopic, it arare occasion. a as appeared homosexuality if sources, available publicly no almost and debates, public no In DemocraticThe German Republic consequencegreater visibility of ofhomosexuals same of proportion the ( butabehaviorillness, 1984) 1984book the as such publications, other by followed p Europe film the of presentation control milder existing an have newsworthiness” as anyhow mentioned wasn’t it and world. the in phenomenon village, my in topic this to related that mentioned o interviewees several but generalized, As family. the in also taboo a was sexuality of topic whole the sometimes and homosexuality, be cannot this though Even However, Wild Oranges II.Oranges Wild ne of the of ne

the GDR GDR the , based on interviews with gay men, conveying the message that homosexuality is not an conveyingan withgayhomosexuality interviews , basedmen,themessage that isnot on gays gays Eastin Germany with interviews broadcast to started ‘Jugendradio’ the that 1989 after only was It year. every mag monthly a also Neuepeople,andLeben, the was therealsomaybeitpossible read to something,also once but was There mentioned. was homosexuality year, every in once that happen could it maybe there and week, every sexuality about section a had which topic. the about nothing almost was There ortrayed a lesbian relationship, meant a breakthrough in this respect. It was also also was It respect. this in breakthrough a meant relationship, lesbian a ortrayed respondents according to Judit Judit to according homosex te opee ak f iiiiy hne drn te 1980s. the during changed visibility of lack complete the , –

Homosexuals’ Confessions) Homosexuals’ uality was equally invisible in the media until the late 1980s. There were were There 1980s. late the until media the in invisible equally ualitywas ;

(Albert) and byand the1987book put it: put Egymásra nézve Egymásra - sex relationships has increased, which perception might be the the be might perception which increased, has relationships sex

(…) .

(Paul) One ofthe in

Takács “ .

I have n have I [Being gay] was never a topic in the family, sexuality didn’t sexuality family, the in topic a never was gay] [Being

( Forthcoming ever heard stories or gossips about gays or anything anything or gays about gossips or stories heard ever

terviewees fromterviewees the GDR (Another Way), which for the first time in Eastern in time first the for which Way), (Another Vadnarancsok II.Vadnarancsok 28

There was a newspaper of the ‘Jungenverband’, the of newspaper a was There (Géczi 1987) (Géczi (Takács ) , as the regime started to started regime the as , Furcsa párok Furcsa Forthcoming , in which the author claims that claims author the which in , –

Homoszexuálisok vallom Homoszexuálisok described his impress his described

(Strange Couples)(Strange ) .

zn fr young for azine move towards towards move

h 1982 The (Erőss (Erőss ion ásai :

CEU eTD Collection of sectors many across echoed gays and lesbians of acceptance and tolerance the for “calls unpreced previously with treated be to started issues LGBT to related the topics communicatefreely, not could though LGBTgroups the and strictlycontrolled, still wasmedia Even Hungary. in than radical more was change the and respect, this in point Hungary, of case the in as just However, living memoriesperiods.” earlier of no felt have I least at new, completely something build to have we that feeling the had “We was period earlier this that show interviews the power, the took NSDAP the before decades the during existed life that fact the Despite about anythingrelated tosex.” talk didn’t simply We twenties. early my in was I when problem a be to appear didn’t this but topics. possible the from excluded was sexuality of issue whole their from orientation sexual their hide to had interviewees the of Most friends. of groups in even or families the within conversations in consequence, a aspossibly also, but discourse, public in only not taboo a washomosexuality cases, Inmany become with familiar thetreatment ofhomosexuality inthe neighboring democratic available, was televisions German West of broadcast formation. identi individual in role important an play not could discourses public Hungary, of case but all was homosexuality and between, far and few were bars the gay Berlin, with of areas challenge: few a greatest of exception the was isolation many, “For GDR: the in activism lesbian di public of lack This

a taboo in the press” the in taboo a However, there was an important difference as well: in East Germany, the the Germany, East in well: as difference important an was there However,

scourse also mentioned by Josie McLellan in her paper about gay and gay about paper her in McLellan Josie by mentioned also scourse not Germany, especially in Berlin, an exceptionally free and intense gay intense and free exceptionally an Berlin, in especially Germany,

seen as a reference point, and it see it and point, reference a as seen

( Felix) (McLellan 2012 (McLellan

(Paul)

the second half of the 1980s proved to be a tur a be to proved 1980s the of half second the

: 109). This means that, quite similarly to the the similarlyto quite that, means This 109). :

providing occasional opportunity to to opportunity occasional providing

med to be completely forgotten. be to med parents, and in some cases the the cases some in and parents, “I didn’t tell it to my parents, parents, my to it tell didn’t “I ne oens, and openness, ented

state.

ning ning

ty - CEU eTD Collection the background or identities. visible ofmore politicized to insight an provide and identities, collective of basis the as serve they as presented, r socialist to specific be not may and generalized, be cannot experiences on discourses private and respondents. some of public memories the by illustrated formation, identity individual heteronormative the of effects possible the on focus here therefore norms, social with identities individual of interconnectedness the emphasizes n the by affected heavily is which identities, individual of formation the is analysis this of level second The 3. political turn. general a without area, specific this in shift a made has state the GDR the in issues, LGBT of major a topics. without other in turn even political way, tolerant more a in homosexuality of topic the treat to started boo several ‘softer’, became regime the as Hungary in countries: the of both in significantly increased GDR level, public the on all, In homosexuality, which perceiveda was ofthe asbreakthrough aswell. byinterviewees many film the of release 1989 the of series Lemke’s Jürgen publis was homosexuals with interviews and homosexuality, on organized were conferences medical and psychological University, Humboldt the at homosexuality on group working academic society” and state GDR 2. 2.

Personal Personal formation identity ni te al 1980s. early the until s ee ulse ad fl ws eesd wie n at Germany East in while released, was film a and published were ks

orms of the public sphere. sphere. public the of orms (Dennis 2005 (Dennis homosexuality

However, Thus, while in Hungary the change was not specific to the a the to specific not was change the Hungary in while Thus, Cmn Out’ ‘Coming

: 2 : n h ls dcd o te oils rgms visibility regimes, socialist the of decade last the in hed (2005). hed ) . a se a a ao both taboo a as seen was According to Dennis among others, there was an an was there others, among Dennis to According Among others, others, Among 30 ,

the first East German film treating openly openly treating film German East first the

This change This Rich Rich became the most obvious at obvious most the became ( 1980) in egimes, they are still still are they egimes,

ugr ad in and Hungary and and Jenkins Jenkins

Even if these if Even h regime the ( 2004) rea rea the

CEU eTD Collection their finding difficulties lack the that indicate interviews have the Hungary, socialist the of case the always in However, identities. people young and exist, identities LGBT public where societies in even common be may experiences these that argue could we course Of thinking o time’. ‘wasted of kind a as periods these at look and faster, decidemuch would them of most differentlytoday: do would they what about periods these of length The attractedand tried tooractually often tomen,relationships women. established with did they characterize uncertainty of period prolonged This also she think I uncertainty.” periodof contributed totheextensionofthis and it, realizing from far still was I scandal. huge a was there and was, a She door. the opened mother my when home possibility:negative a as defined clearlybe could it family, a of minds the in existed category a asgay being if Even norms. to the dominant heterosexual categorythisas life, did adult simplytheir of early the periods InHungary Hungary the university,the when had I my first physical relationship with someone. from graduated already have I 23, was I read. I and myself with struggling was I years 8 For thinki already was I (…) 15, was I When ‘gay’. cat the know didn’t simply we anyhow, him define didn’t we and this, of because bullied wasn’t He class. the in singer) pop Hungarian (a Judit Szűcs of songs sang and way I feminine but gay, was he exactly know didn’t rath we course would Of school. high in classmate gay a had I

not f the middleage unclear.” fromthe period enlightenment,totally of was it

many of the many

(Daniel) eie hmevs s a fr ay er atr culy elzn te were they realizing actually after years many for gay as themselves define r a ta eeyoy et ht e a smhw ifrn, s e eae i a in behaved he as different, somehow was he that felt everybody that say er

“we were fighting with one of my high school classmates on the bed at bed the on classmates school high my of onewith fighting were “we interviewees of uncertainty becomes even clearer when the respondents talk talk respondents the when clearer even becomes uncertainty of

talked about the inabilitytalked about todefine the ng of a boy, but it lasted 8 years to accept this. (…) this. accept to years 8 lasted it but boy, a of ng 31 I I eebr ih t tee er, ts like it’s years, these to right remember I “If t the moment already knew what the situation the what knew already moment the t

te xeine o al h respondents: the all of experiences the d

(Peter)

not

exist as a visible alternative visible as a exist

(Peter) mselves as gays mselves as in

(Peter) egory

CEU eTD Collection most the was this some, important factor. for and lot, a mattered individuals of environment immediate B level. self waysOf of course, the geographichave factor: may alsoan location been important and longer, took still orientation sexual their discovering them of some for However, of Hungary,evencould ifthey seemed their orientation sexual earlier identified tohave with lessdifficulty thaninthecase or issues, LGBT on discourse of lack the Despite The G anyone,discuss with neither withparents, his with anyfriends. nor alo being of feeling this about talked also Peter One results. six million couldn’t is, imagineit what men each with other. “ available. i existing where case a than more much issue the complicated which identities, their find to trying alone youngpeople the left categories of and discourse of erman Democraticerman Republic my artist friends. haven’tbut girls, with I defined thought myselfIdo somethinggay,ashad towith and it music o the than different somehow was I in that life felt gayalways have my I discover but 1983; to started have I city. a than different completely was village a gay, l have I want to begay. girlfriend. a had also I butexperiments, making are age that around boys that known It’s often. so not but them, with also contact lookedfor I 14. or13 of age the alreadyat discoveredboys forhave feelings I my really slowly. what about becamecleareronly it unclearthing, ideawasan it relationships,so no had I no life, gay a with came had I time the “At (…) situation” the of and myself of afraid really was lead this does where god, my oh shout: to wanted and pillow the on sweated just I sleep, couldn’t I when nights were there that is remember I What esides public discourse and the general handling of LGBT issues as a taboo, the the taboo, a as issues LGBT of handling general the and discourse public esides We had no idea what this was. It was It was. this what idea no had We ived in a city, not in a village like now, this of course wasn’t irrelevant in the life of a of life the in irrelevant wasn’t course of this now, like village a in not city, a in ived “It wasn’t specific for the West or the East, but it was my personal thin my was it Westor the East,but forthe specific wasn’t “It

(Peter)

(Alexander) - (Paul) identification and the interpretation of the process varies on a personal a varies processon the theinterpretation of and identification

When we played football, I always had erotic thoughts, but I didn’t I but thoughts, erotic had always I football, played we When

not

imagine

their lives as gays, as as Alexander.their such lives 32

not oe of some e ih i polm wih e could he which problems his with ne

like now that you google it, and you find find you and it, google you that now like

, where will I get? At the beginning I beginning the At get? I will where , h interviewees the

ett mdl ae already are models dentity

thers, it didn’t really go really didn’t it thers, ” (Daniel)” n at Germany East in

g. My g. My

not

CEU eTD Collection the case Hungary, remainedthe of private sphere. sph primary the debates, public and appearances media of lack some and norms, heterosexual self made mainstream military, the as such the occupations, from differences with cope to harder self of difficulty The of even individuals, ifthe legal environment would social explicit and norms even sometimes or implicit, the how reveals existence their relationships, or marriages cover of kind this of quantity actual the on data no obviously is there Although cover women. with relationship contin to decided then and drink to started Alexander divorced, marriages.” gay fake many are there also, today know you But much. very her liked I and friend, good a party, a was I that knew also she but this, realized also has She wife. my with was I when boys was marriage of kind this Alexander, to According norms were and visible enforced. more these where military, the as such professions, of case the in especially norms, the to conform peo force could homosexuality about negative society general of the feelings of influence the however, environment, supportive a of lack the In gay.” was I that me before even realized they think I fact, in and tolerant really were colleagues (Felix) solved, no one could say I was gay. too not A woman. first the married Iweekstalkative reallythree Aftera woman. but nice, to talk to started I where city, another to travelled I day One so. do to you expects also army the and so, do to you expects society the 25, be will you time the b married be to have you young: was I when myself told I but one, right the found haven’t I the lack of a visible alternative could affect the personal choices and life strategies life and choices personal the affect could alternative visible a of lack the

(Alexander) However, it was it However, (Alexander) - identification depended on the environment, in rural in environment, the on depended identification

(Alexander) - 33 identification as gay also more difficult. In the the In difficult. more also gay as identification

not

a long run solution for him, as finally they finally as him, for solution run long a

not

punish themformallypunish coming for out.

rare: ple to act as heterosexuals and and heterosexuals as act to ple Iws las hnig about thinking always was “I ere of gay identities, just as in as just identities, gay of ere ue his life without having a having without life his ue her, so the problem for me wasme problem for so the her,

areas it was much much was it areas

good good

y CEU eTD Collection ups”: according to memories cruising at certain points of the city center, such as the the as such center, city the of points certain at cruising memories to according ups”: were public was this coupledinvisible, by exte themore the in than differently act could gays where points meeting the though Even the party, we changed tonormal.” back gesticula and talked demonstrated. were orientation sexual in difference of signs apparent no streets, the on while events, closed these ident double of sort a to led has secrecy The so the and places private in “Pentecostyear. by members balls” organized community of some the every gatherings private parties, house in other each met characterizedmost secrecy This specificity. did public wider the or it of guests everyday the of most community, well interviewees the to according was presszó” “Egyetem though Even gayclub every night. i turned it when p.m., 9 until café normal a as operated which presszó”, “Egyetem well the of greaterOne the public. to largely invisible society, the of attitudes homophobic the of because also maybe and discourse public of lack the In Hungary tothe greaterinvisible public. in befor existed community even that showing communities, their organized people I chapter this In 3. 3. 3.

Collective Collective identities vn huh as sd aty ulc pcs o meig te omnt remained community the meeting, for spaces public partly used gays though even

move from individual to collective identities, identities, collective to individual from move ted in a totally different way than in the public. But once we were out of out were we once But public. the in than way different totally a in ted We other. each met we when fashionable really was behavior “Feminine

oh f h countries the of both

(Albert)

nsive usage occasional ofpublicnsive spaces “hook for of the other meeting places as well: LGBT people well: as places meetingother the of ity: elements of the gay identity only appeared in in appeared only identity gay the of elements ity: 34 prl uig ulc pcs bt tl mostly still but spaces, public using partly ,

- known meeting points was a caféacalled was meetingpoints known il analyz will e the transition a living living a transition the e

- not known in the LGBT the in known

nw bu this about know ing

o LGBT how nto a secret a nto - called - CEU eTD Collection or Mosaik Café Flair, Café Senefelder, Café Klause, City Wednesday, every organized were interview the to gay life ofas social the the‘Bermuda Triangle’ and long that p.m., popular cou queues so 6 was and from morning early open until open was was which which bar a pub Schoppenstube, a Burgfrieden, were places important other pla ideal an was Peking,which calledCafé previously CaféEckeSchönhauser, placeswas new the ofOne famousdecades placesthe ofthe last socialist emerged. era of the places,theseclose to startedcenter, andhistorical the anytoleratedin more not weregay pubs that decision a made government the when but district, Mitte the in Berlin, East of center the e the In 1980’s. the before decades already other each meet to way the find could Berlin in gays publicity, of lack the Despite DemocraticThe German Republic blondmanorbybearded”.that Jóska, to Pista from goes song this that announced pianist The it. like didn’t I disturbing, was restaurant Diófa the but me, it: put Balint as gay’, ‘too as many by seen were places difference reveal also places meeting of choice the However, spas, such asand Király Gellért, Rudas. eye made parks. the at meeting as well as widespread, more much was körút Múzeum or tere Fereneciek Dunakorzó,

LGBT community needed to look for new meeting points. It was at this time that the most most the that time this at Itwas points. meeting new for look to needed communityLGBT - contact. It has changed a lot since” lot a changed has It contact. ld be seen every night in front of its entrance. These three places were also known known also were places three These entrance. its of front in night every seen be ld ce for an afternoon tea, and served as a meeting place for groups of friends. Two friends. of groups for place meeting a as served and tea, afternoon an for ce Yudd’ have didn’t “You ees andees (Sonntags o to be afraid of any negative reactions, you just walked and walked just you reactions, negative any of afraid be to r the waiter came with a shot telling you that it was sent by sent was it that you telling shot a with came waiter the r - Club 2009) Club arlier decades, most of the bars frequented by gays were in in were gays by frequented bars the of most decades, arlier

35 included the Café Prenzlau, where dance events whereevents CaféPrenzlau, dancethe included (Albert). (Sonntags

Other important public spots were the were spots public important Other “The fact that I am gay didn’t disturb disturb didn’t gay am I that fact “The - Club 2009) Club

s in collective identities: some identities: collective in s . Other places according places according Other . CEU eTD Collection be will which disc Germany, East of case the in organizations first the of formation the until group a of one the or bar a on established were and place, to place from other each from differing often places, specific the of walls the within remained Identities identity.collective conscious more or generala of formation the to contribute didn’t semi were there though even all, In cities of theGDR, insmaller towns but was it more difficult meet to others. with well or pubs of form the in places meeting Gay of thei memories the to according points meeting as served toilets public or Friedrichshain, of streets gay.” n were them of all Officially Berlin. bars. and pubs gay officially well was places these of existence the though Even bars concentr and pubs gay the of most while Weißensee, in was which Busche, Die was city the of part LGBTEastern disco of the AltberlinerBierstuben. importantly The and only Offenbachstuben ca the besidesBut CaféNord. ussed in the next chapterussed inthenext

(David) But not only pubs and bars, but also other public spaces, such as parks and the the and parks as such spaces, public other also but bars, and pubs only not But (David) nterviewees. only a coincidence if I met someone: once I accidentally met some gay guys at a lake, and I could andtalk them, to but there otherwise were nogay places lake, thein town. a at guys gay some met accidentally I once someone: met I if coincidence a only city. big a it’s but respect, this in problem no was there Berlin In

ated in the district ofPrenzlauerated intheBerg.

. of friends, and hence, they also remained depoliticized remained also they hence, and friends, of

fés, some restaurants also were mainly frequented by gays, most most gays, byfrequented were mainlyalso restaurants some fés,

ly on the level of the collective identity of the regular public of of public regular the of identity collective the of level the on ly Bfr te rniin hr ws o el a pae n East in place gay real no was there transition the “Before ormal cafés or pubs, but the majority of the guests were guests the of majority the but pubs, or cafés ormal

- ulc etn places meeting public 36

- known parks existed in many of the bigger the of many in existed parks known

- known in LGBT circles, they were they circles, LGBT in known in both of the countries, these these countries, the of both in Already in Potsdam it was it Potsdam in Already

(Paul )

, at least at ,

not

CEU eTD Collection Riszovannij to according although that fact the be could tolerance political relative this of reason Another prevention. AIDS was goal existing only its of registration officialthe played 1988 in registered officially 1989. December in transition, of months the during founded was newspaper o I Hungary 4. the changesafter transition. the gen and responses the into look will I chapter second the in formed, were Germany East and Hungary of organizations LGBT the goals of kind what with and how, analyze will I chapter this of part first the In institutions. to expanded more much is state the of control the where 2011) democracies Johnson and liberal Tremblay, of case the in even process this in central is institutions element crucial a is sphere public visible be to need group a of identities and members society, of values the and legislation on impact an have to for used are communityIn serve formationcollectivea and and basispolitical of asaction. a tobe order identities personal the way the is analysis of element important second The n Hungary the first the Hungary n gnzto, Ho rganization, 1.

The birth of a birth ofThe a movement?

an important role: a role: important an

meros , just as in the case of LGBT movements in liberal democracies, entering the democracies,entering liberal in LGBTmovements caseof the in as just , C HAPTER institutions already appeared before the transition: transition: the before appeared already institutions ,

already Homeros eral attitude of the state, while in the final part I will briefly discuss briefly will I part final the in while state, the of attitude eral ccording to Hadley Z. Renkin Z. Hadley to ccording ,

4: with a primary goal of promoting AIDS promoting of goal primary a with i i ee mr cuil n h cs o atoiain regimes, authoritarian of case the in crucial more even is it ,

mre a te einn o te 1980s, the of beginning the at emerged T HE STATE ANDHESTATE THE PUB

was the fact that its members coulmembers its factthat the was Ln 2013) (Lind 37

s h rl o te tt ad political and state the of role the As (2001) (2007)

vr trioy f ie n social and life of territory every LIC SPHERE

the first steps of the gay and and gay the of steps first the , one of the main reasons of reasons main the of one , d persuade the state that that state the persuade d - prevention. prevention.

the idea of the of idea the while the first gay gay first the while

Homeros (Paternotte, (Paternotte, This goal This first was was ble ble CEU eTD Collection Thi Budapest. in places gay other of list long a by gayof1989 thefirstLokál thetransition:inearly bar, openly and was opened, it was followed Th becausecou about politics, [the socialism] no one this thought it: put K.M. As 1980s. the of years last the until time, long a for atmosphere depoliticized a created countries socialist other to compared living of standard good relatively goals, the while achieving and interests representing viable of means a political actionnot was organization: the of nature depoliticized impo limits the Besides also were consent of age discussed. of equality the and partnership civil as such issues beginning AIDS was organization the of goal official the though even Zoltan, to organi civil genuine first the as registered officially left, some and joined people new slowly, formed be to started group The Hungary. in and countries those in gays b of life the how between realized and Europe, Western in movements LGBT the on view a had who period, earliest the in figure central a was there him, to According 1980s. the of beginning the at gatherings informal of series a at emerged organization LGBT an starting Homeros, the foundation processof ofthe onthe Zoltan,a view hadAccording who to 2001) Riszovannij described Germany, East of case the with contrast in rules socialist the within life of way alternative an as intended activity their was nor regime, as considered not were did they Neither activity. forces, oppositional security the by watched were movement lesbian e limitation of gay meetinggay of limitation e

e b te tt, nte fco mgt ae lo otiue t the to contributed also have might factor another state, the by sed pl aces to merely semi merely to aces

h mmes of members the eas o te uhrtra ntr o te state, the of nature authoritarian the of because n i 18 atr oe er o wiig t was it waiting of years some after 1986 in and 38

s zation, not formed by the state. According state. the by formed not zation, - makes an makes public spaces also spaces public Homeros mn others among ld ever end” important difference, as having as difference, important

omlt cam aant the against claims formulate ig the difference was was difference the ig ended around the time time the around ended y hnu ( Thinius by - . rvnin a the at prevention,

“I didn’t think didn’t “I 1994

idea of idea of

In: -

CEU eTD Collection Interessengemeinschaftgay front, liberation Berlin Homosexuelle (HIB) first Europe’s Eastern form to decided finally men two the film, the of influence the Under lives” he which in society the but lebt” er der in Situation die sondern pervers, ist film, Praunheim’s von Rosa that them told who Berlin, West from pla been have McLellan, Josie to according They, Berlin. East in lived who Michael Rausch, Peter and men, Eggert young two by formed was organization gay a of idea the 1970’s, early the solidarity of out break Germany,InEast DemocraticThe German Republic becoming ofbeing inprivate public issueslocked spheres. instead public the toward step important an mark Homeros community to identities personal of transformation medi and organizations of foundation the way same the In something shares people of common uponwhichgroupas they a definethemselvescommunity. can or group a that indicates clearly entertainment for places own nning to form some kind of gay organization for years, when they met gay people people gay met they when years, for organization gay of kind some form to nning

organization in 1988 and the foundation of the first gay newspaper newspaper gay first the of foundation the and 1988 in organization

the legal changes of 1968 have opened the way before those, who wanted to wanted who those, way the openedbefore have 1968 changesoflegal the

and wanted to act against the taboo nature of LGBT issues. Already in Already issues. LGBT of nature taboo the against act to wanted and ) would be on ARD, a West German television next day. next television German West a ARD, on be would )

ity of LGBT issues and also in their way of of way their in also and issues LGBT of ity 39

( “It is not the homosexual who is per is who homosexual the not is “It - ulig Hne te eitain f the of registration the Hence, building. a products is also a sign of the the of sign a also is products a

“Nicht der Homosexuelle der “Nicht

(McLellan 2012)

‘Mások’

in 1989 in vers, .

CEU eTD Collection smuggle to managed and manifesto a wrote Front, Liberation Gay British the of member also Austr An abroad. from and GDR the from both city the in gathered crowds huge which for organized, were Berlin East in Students and Youth of Games Festival World Tenth the formed, was organization the which in year th goals: political had also HIB the However, they rooms, her them offered celebrated together, Christmas and inDie parties Busche. organized who transvestite a Mahlsdorf, von Charlotte of museum to and other each meet to gays, as life full a live to able be to was Rausch Peter to according goal main The Rausch) (Peter well.” as here change to things wanted we and Berlin, East to came who people from West m Western by influenced largely was HIB The of Rausch)Peter Figure 3: Michael Eggert, Charlotte von Mahlsdorf and Peter Rausch (Source: Private archive

form a community. They organized meetings in the private private the in meetings organized They community. a form alian member of the British delegation, Peter Tatchell, Peter delegation, British the of member alian 40 odels: odels: ey wanted to become more visible. The same The visible. more become to wanted ey

“We knew about what was happening in happening was what about knew “We

CEU eTD Collection “homosexuality (was) inthe GDR notpromoted”. the to invited they end the at what recalls also Rausch Peter and anything, get not did they However, ofthe communistthe tradition movement(…)” years a eliminating of purpose humanistic the with made was which 175, Paragraph (…) of abolition the of consequence logical the is This time. free the in also but work, in only argue, the highlight 2). also Appendix (See state socialist the of letters boundaries the within claims their of framing These programs. their for space some requesting GDR, the of l several sent organization The the lack ofregularcould meeting place, they This museum. interve state the country, the across meeting and HIBThedid were HIB the of distributing pamphlets thecrowd to members while liberation”, “Homosexual line, upper the only carry to Revolutionary liberation. provo too message “Homosexual words the the found who members, team his by attacked was then but socialism”, with support homosexuals placard a carried Tatchell clo the at and HIB, of members the with other each know to got They games. the of place the to it of thousands - old criminalization of a naturally justified variant of sexual life. This also follows from follows also This life. sexual of variant justified naturally a of criminalization old “ (…)

it is also about the equally rightful participation in social life in socialism, not not socialism, in life social in participation rightful equally the about also is it not at Charlotte von Mahlsdorf’s house, where they invited many women from from women many invited they where house, Mahlsdorf’s von Charlotte at according to Peter Rausch Peter to according

exist for a long time: when in 1978 a member organize member1978 a in when fortime: longa exist Ministerrat cative. At the end of the fight, the placard was torn, and Tatchell continued continued Tatchell and torn, was placard the fight, the of end the At cative. sing ceremony the first small LGBT demonstration of the GDR occurred. GDR the of demonstration LGBT small first the ceremony sing

Cucl f iitr) wee n fiil od hm that them told official an where Ministers), of (Council etters to the to etters (McLellan 2012) ned and was banned from holding meetings at her her at meetings holding from banned was and ned practically meant the end of the organization, as in as organization, the of end the meant practically Volkskammer

not 41

(Appendix 2:1). (Appendix

continue earlier. theoperation as

(People’s Chamber), the legislature legislature the Chamber), (People’s

a lesbian a

conference conference

hundred As they they As

were were - CEU eTD Collection an informationprogram with desk.” Festival Youth state a at appear did state the though Even community. LGBT whole the to open was it and found, be could gays by frequented bars and pubs the gone” mid the by it, done have they And GDR. the from away go we then do, can we what Club, Youth organization The participated. also Rausch Peter where decade, next the During Figure 4: Members of atHIB aMay 1st March (Source: Private archive of Rausch)Peter

(Peter Rausch). Sonntags Club Sonntags Rausch). (Peter and it became the meeting place of a new generation: new a of place meeting the became it and ) ad ht a te is tm te onas lb ol priiae t the at participate could Club Sonntags the time first the was that and , - organized event: organized what we are allowed to do, but they have said: if we cannot live as we want, we as live cannot we if said: have they but do, to allowed are we what in

the 1980s, two 1980s, “In 1989 there was was there 1989 “In (Paul)

operated not

support the organization, by 1989 they were able to able were they 1989 byorganization, the support

main 42

in the Prenzlauer Berg district, where most of most where district, Berg Prenzlauer the in

groups emerged: one was the Sonntags Club, Club, Sonntags the was one emerged: groups the Nationales Jugendf Nationales the was started as a regular meeting in a in meeting regular a as started was - 1980s most of them was was them of most 1980s “We were talking about talking were “We estival

( National National

CEU eTD Collection integ GDR the in coexisted, movements emancipatory and integrationist where states, Western the antifascism on emphasis an put have which circles, church later the of most but 1970’s, the in theHIB goal anof sphere was important public time. Entering the atsocialist regime the same support the and norms in changes about thoughts Western places gay the in Germans West meet also could they and television German West watch could Germans East Hungary: of case the in than significantmore be to seems 1960’s the of movements Western the of influence the members, movement this of formation the In 1973. in year, same the same decriminalizing as early as Germany East in transition, the GDR the and Hungary in both all, In norms more profoundly o aim the of instead integration of goal the was route viable only the exist, emancipator radical more movements integrationist the besides Germany West in while here: found be can movements to According putti emphasis onthe collective struggle against fascism ideology, socialist the to integrated be could which rhetoric a used have HIB, 1990) church the to related also movement rights civil the with relationship 2001) discussio LGBT Berlin, in also and GDR, the of towns several in church: the to related were groups other The ration remainedonlygoalration the main . . .

Most of these circles was more politicized tha politicized more was circles these of Most According to Dennis to According

Holy n groups were formed, using rooms provided by the the by provided rooms using formed, were groups n hy h they oe f h ky ifrne bten h Es ad et emn LGB German West and East the between differences key the of one , - sex relationships, and the first small LGBT protest also took place in place took also protest LGBT small first the and relationships, sex

( 2001) y ave imagined the changes within the socialist society, similarly to similarly society, socialist the within changes the imagined ave

movements also existed, in East Germany no such division could division such no Germany East in existed, also movements the movements of the 1980s, in some respects similarly to the to similarly respects some in 1980s, the of movements the .

the first gay organization gay first the .

the early 1970’s, shortly after the legal changes legal the after shortly 1970’s, early the 43

( of East Berlin, which led to a mixture of mixture a to led which Berlin, East of 2005) n the Sonntags Club, and had a close a had and Club, Sonntags the n .

–

or at least no opposition opposition no least at or and in shaping the goals of its its of goals the shaping in and s

w ere evangelic

already f already

(Soukup and Brühl Brühl and (Soukup f changing social social changing f , and contrary to contrary and , ormed church -

before before g an ng of the of (Holy T CEU eTD Collection to the non also and people LGBT of invisibility the to related be may This police. the with trouble much gay respondents the to according people LGBT representative. life everyday be not course on of rely may only which can interviewees, I the question this by in anecdotes police, the by discrimination on data of lack the In becauseg a address, that to move to not him warned actually have they office immigration the at Zoltan: state European Western so the transition, the before form some in police Hungary, In Hungary ways. many in lives private their to intruded has it hence and possible, as much as citizens control private the from withdrawal the spheres, the for states liberal the criticized movements feminist As the state canlimit interfere lives. personal withindividuals throu formation movement the to reactions the people LGBT of privacy of protection the is movements rights LGBT and theories feminist by also emphasized analysis, of aspect important third The 4. 2.

gh the privacy in selection of marriage partner, but mostly refers to the questiontowhich butmostly tothe refers ofpartner, gh marriage privacy inselection the Reactions and and Reactions attitudeofstate the -

called ‘Pink list’. list’. ‘Pink called

- militant andLGBT politicallymilitant of existing neutral theone behavior organization. ay manlivesthere.

situation in the socialist states was fundamentally different: the state wanted to wanted state the different: fundamentally was states socialist the in situation all of the respondents stated that they were sure sure were they that stated respondents the of all : Zoltan

w hen he wanted to register that he came to live at the address of of address the at live to came he that register to wanted he hen

also talked about the experiences of his friend his of experiences the about talked Ti my lo mlct pbi ise lk rights like issues public implicate also may This . and 44

Renkin Renkin

( 2007) (Ackelsberg and Shanley 1996) Shanley and (Ackelsberg

people in general did general in people also mentions the existence of of existence the mentions also about being registered by the the by registered being about

coming from a from coming However, in in However,

not

have have

and and CEU eTD Collection aarp ws etitd o ios wih rcial mat h dciiaiain of decriminalization the meant practically which minors, to restricted was paragraph earl paragraph’s the to returned firstly state German East the results: immediate to lead not did this paragraph, of cancellation the for fought Klimmer Rudolf activist gay communist the though Even era. Code Penal the of 175 Paragraph gay anti infamous the inherited Germany, West with along Republic, Democratic German The DemocraticThe German Republic yearsto the of themilitaryservice: state the with experience personal negative only his related interviewees the of One regions. geographic differentand backgroundssocial differentfrom coming age, same the frompeople with contacts establishing of fields also were These ways. in many controlled were they and apparatus the by set norms the to conform to had men where socialization, of form a was service military The period. that in man every for compulsory servi military the was apparatus state the with contact personal of field Another other kind ofdifference comparedcontrols. tousual police were these cont police were there though even either: police the by discriminated to According consequences, nor did it causeha any problems with my superiors didn’tor with my fellows. it and answer really to have didn’t I it, was that But asked: gay?’ and you room, ‘Are his to me invited commander My gay. was I that obvious became it which on My issue and they letus go. It was afunny situation. laug and bar this from only came they we them whether saw asked they When clothes. women’s of full were which bags, our of content the when policemen two stopped usonNagykörút (Grand Boulevard). Theyasked us to showthem it, didn’tI even look for it. (Peter) notaminterested in I butservice, secret theat file a had also possible I observed. that It’s nor t in badly myself feel didn’t I Somehow I have one concrete experience with the police: we weregoinexperienceone concretehavewewith police: the I

not ly negative experience is related to the military. A letter of mine was discovered from discovered was mine of letter A military. the to related is experience negative ly

Daniel more frequent than in the case of other pubs or bars, nor did they show any any show they did nor bars, or pubs other of case the in than frequent more ier version in 1950, and only later ceased to enforce it in 1957. In 1968 the the 1968 In 1957. in it enforce to ceased later only and 1950, in version ier te el oee Lokál opened newly the ,

, which was used against LGBT people during the Nazi the during people LGBT against used was which ,

he 80’s, I didn’t feel myself oppressed, nor excluded, nor oppressed, myself feel didn’t I 80’s, he 45

wee e okd ht time, that worked he where ,

hed. They didn’t really care about the whole the about care really didn’t They hed. (Daniel)

g home from Lokál after a party,homea fromLokálg after a large range of different different of range large a rols at some occasions, some at rols ce, which was was which ce, ve any formal any ve (Albert)

was

not

CEU eTD Collection strong a heteronormativeassumption. with topics the from excluded was homosexuality free, relatively was sexuality about discourse the and women of equality the supported ideology party the though Even well inthe country,on even going formulate not was something that possiblyimpression the create sense couldany in could or messages that political associations limited it but affairs, individual in intervene ( at the earlier the analysisin the country. of Asseen present strongly isit importantnor question, homosexuality an against differences, legal isnot acts state the though even that message implicit the included politics of level double This kind race a just of West atopicwas inthewasn’t news, it with Germany not ch arena, international it: put Rausch However, code. penal the in still was 175 Paragraph where state, a in again once themselves German found East citizens Germany, of reunification the of time the at that meant actually This 1994. its limited GDR the after year 1999) (Herrn to according latter the Germany: West than faster acted state socialist the changes these With Germany East (Herrn 1999) in 1988 in only abolished completely was paragraph The homosexuality. anged in the life of LGBT people.” LGBT of life the in anged

want to change its attitude towards homosexuality: towards attitude its change to want

hs cags ee o te eut o sm kn o pro of kind some of results the not were changes these .

only limited to ‘qualified cases’ the applicability of Paragraph 175 in 1989, one 1989, in 175 Paragraph of applicability the cases’ ‘qualified to limited only

“The East German state wanted to be seen as progressive as possible in the in possible as progressive as seen be to wanted state German East “The

ht a te an esn f h mdfctos ohrie nothing otherwise modifications, the of reason main the was that

the level ofsocial norms.

plcblt t mnr, n ol aoihd t opeey in completely it abolished only and minors, to applicability

Others also had the impression that the government did government the that impression the had also Others 46

lack of) public discourse, thestate discourse, of) did lack public

“There were no debates about that, it that, about debates no were “There - LGBT policy. As Peter Peter As policy. LGBT .” .” (Paul)

not

CEU eTD Collection the but other, the after oneclosed were Berlin East of district Mitte central the of pubs gay the ha gays by frequented places the to related action state major only The bars. other in than control police more visibly of or bars, in raids regular of gays” against raids policewere there Freidrichshain gays:against raids police mentioned interviewees the to according equality, granting laws the despite Also the Paul, for Also possible. as quickly as woman universitydiscrimination athis from animportant coming was factorthat preventedhim out: a marry to pressure strong a was h about questions frequentlyasked also friends his and gay, was he that revealed had he if discharged beenhave would he clearwasthat it levels: informal andformal topi a not was Homosexuality gay. was he that earlier realized already he though even woman a marry to reasons main the of one was this whom for Alexander, to according military the o kind this course Of sure.”happened gay,was butit because he was this that prove could one no course Of anymore. exams any pass couldn’t he Berlin, of cafés some in gays meeting was he that somewhere heard they when and teacher, a be to wanted experience. to possible still was discrimination institutions some at discrimination, legal of lack the and gays of equality formal the Despite c, but one according to him could know that it is out of the accepted categories on both both on categories accepted the of out is it that know could him to according one but c, difficult transition, the i people after Otherwise, 1989. homosexuality after my about openly talked only have I years. university the during out otcomedidn’t I result a as and at it of because scared was I Potsdam. existedin it experienced discrimination of kind this if know don’t I That wa talked there. also go don’t party naturally comrades we the said, he of but time, that officer organized meeting the gay a about there and 1980’s, late the in sentiments’ revolutionary priiae a a ev an at participated I “I personally didn’t see anything like that, but I heard from many fr many from heard I but that, like anything see didn’t personally “I s the first time heardI anyone officiallyto talk about gays. (Paul)

f discrimination could depend on the institution, but it surely existed at existed surely it but institution, the on depend could discrimination f n o te at, raie t mblz pol aant ‘counter against people mobilize to organized Party, the of ent n the GDR could live a normal life, but as a gay, it was more was it gay, a as but life, normal a live could GDR the n 47

(Paul) I a a red t h uiest, h als who university, the at friend a had “I

(David) However, there was no mention no was there (David)However,

ppened around the late 1950’s, when when 1950’s, late the around ppened e uieste a wl, u I have I but well, as universities her

(Paul) is relationships, which relationships, is

iends that in in that iends

o - CEU eTD Collection attitude, as wellfroma as control subculture thefear losing of 1980s, the of half second the until organizations area cruising gay a Freidrichshain, of streets the in raids police individuals, LGBT visibly discriminating not was police the though Even views. heteronormative represented also officials pro to than image international progressive a creating of aim the to legal related more the be could modifications of motivations the and changes, the about debates no were There environment. did this Germany, West before even homosexuality decriminalized Republic Democratic German the though even all, In wereals circles church the of members the of many that apparent was it interviewees the to according Staatssicherheit a also has state The life. gay of center the became Berg Prenzlauer district, another that merely was wave this of result

did o Stasi agentso Stasi occur - GT oiis I isiuin discriminati institutions In policies. LGBT wih ln wt the with along which , or Stasi (Heinrich td n mr ivsbe a: h sae euiy ( security state the way: invisible more a in cted ) had its observers in the organizations starting with HIB, and and HIB, with starting organizations the in observers its had )

- Böll

not -

Stiftung 2008) en n kn o cag i the in change of kind any mean earlier 48

may be a sign of the state’s state’s the of sign a be may icse ngtv attd twr LGBT toward attitude negative discussed .

n ol b eprecd n state and experienced be could on .

oiia o social or political iitru für Ministerium heteronormative heteronormative CEU eTD Collection activityof the of result a degree small a in onlyis this but politicized, more and more became the of simply or movements, I 23). their register to right their with living actually people of numbers low in results which stigmatized, be to continue people LGBT acts, sexual for consent of age equal and partnership registered including changes, legal several for fought successfully has community LGBT the though even climate: political changing a through transition, the after 2012) still is society the However, other for civic of theprotection rights organizations participated. also but groups gay only not rights these for fight the In 2008. in legalized was partnership o kind some of demand the to moved focus the same in consent of age equal of demand the was 1990s the of issues major the of One people. LGBT for rights more for fight whic found, also were Homeros besides organizations new Several places. LGBT as everyone by identified and found be can which opened, were places new a Hungary, In Hungary Itransition, differences major onlysome will twoperio discuss between briefly the countries analyzed two the dem to Transition 4. t is hard to tell whether legal changes were the effects of the work of these organizations and and organizations these of work the of effects the were changes legal whether tell to hard is t 3. 3.

Transition to democracyTransition . According to According .

tr h tasto bsds h peiul ivsbe semi invisible previously the besides transition the fter ocracy has created a completely new environment on the level of the state in state the of level the on environmentnew completelyacreated has ocracy Hadley Z. Hadley , however, as the main focus of this thesis is the period before the the before period the is thesis this of focus main the as however, ,

considereda

influence of international examples. In this context, the issue issue the context, this In examples. international of influence Renkin - sex relationships as in heterosexual relationships. After this, this, After relationships. heterosexual in as relationships sex

, the , s homophobic in European comparison in homophobic s

ambiguity ambiguity 49 f civil partnership or marriage and finally civil civil finally and marriage or partnership civil f

created by this this by created

partnership ( partnership hv prl satd to started partly have h continued to exist even even exist to continued - public spaces several several spaces public Renkin 2007 Renkin (Takács et al. al. et(Takács ds. .

CEU eTD Collection when bar he workedinthe same wi people young of generations different about talking is he that is credible fact this despite claim his makes What bar. gay openly peo young meet only may bar a in works who Daniel, misleading. be may which people, younger of identities of perceptions their about talking people older is it that fact the account into take to have we respect this in However, transition according ofthe respon toone the since lot a changed hence have Identities themselves. respondents the than earlier much self more much as them describing today, t identities, of level the On dimension people LGBT associated same legalize to actions took government leftist a that fact oth the direction, the From protesters. rightist the to opposition publicity, in media people LGBT great again had once situating which protesters, by year that targeted was before, attacked by seen Budapest, Prideextreme rightists marchwas streets almost permanently protested the of inthe when 2007, in direction, one from ways: two in politicized became issues LGBT the Hence, legal and Budapest in march Pride a of organization yearly the from Apart organizations. LGBT lobbying their activity was not visible to the greaterlobbyingactivity public. wastothe their visible not styles. Today young people muchcare less about what others hair extreme clothes, extreme of kinds all in fear of kind any without streets the in walk They Today it’s much more relaxed, younger generations take their identity much more naturally. more much identity their take generations younger relaxed, more much it’s Today hm s eae t te ets gvrmn’ ielg. h mrh wih a never was which march, The ideology. government’s leftist the to related as them .

oe closely more e epnet epaie the emphasized respondents he th his experiences fromdays.th his these dents: -

e oprs i eprecs rm rvos years previous from experiences his compares he - ih h left the with confident and able to identify themselves as gays as themselves identify to able and confident 50

ple who are already willing to frequent an an frequent to willing already are who ple bign i a epii political explicit an in bringing ,

contrast with the young people people young the with contrast

think about this

- sex partnerships also partnerships sex . (Daniel)

er CEU eTD Collection the aim ofintegration as membersexisting equal against ofthe social structure visibly fought organizations h establishment, social Western the of nature the heteronormative of most activities’, time ‘free of organization the and building community cooperation, was groups Eastern of goal primary after remained identities collective in differences major territories, nation new of existence the despite However, LGBT visible. issues muchmore Democratic German the of Republi decades previous the to compared difference considerable a make studies LGBT on focusing centers research or unions workers’ also but organizations, lo a on work to continued Club, level national the on operate Deutschland Schwulenverbandin organizations, of level the On 1999) later years of couple a erased only was and republic, federal the in existed still 175 paragraph the mentioned, previously as community: LGBT the for backwards step a was this However, democracy. liberal a become has Germany East environment, legal the meant also has This Germany. and political institutions of of onthe level and thus, system, adaptation theWestlegal German of Republic Federal the of part a became territory it and form, previous its in exist to ceased period short a after state the Hungary: in than Germany East in changecompletely adifferent itself with erabrought socialist the of end The DemocraticThe German Republic .

The amount of pu of amount The blic work and literature has also expanded considerably, making considerably, expanded also has literature and work blic Hl 2001) (Holy

(Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany, LSVD) Germany,in Federation Gayand (Lesbian cal basis. Almost all of the national parties have LGBT LGBT have parties national the of all Almost basis. cal

n raiain omd n h GDR, the in formed organization an , hl lcl raiain, uh s h Sonntags the as such organizations, local while 51 - wide organizations in the life of East German German East of life the in organizations wide

ence bringing new aspects besides the the besides aspects new bringing ence (Holy 2001)

h tasto: hl the while transition: the in some aspects some in .

Lesben

started (Herrn (Herrn -

und

to to s CEU eTD Collection opening new the bars former of East the in if even continuity, of feeling a creating exist, still places old the of many However, possible. became part Eastern the in pubs gay ‘officially’ of opening the Also, part. Western and bars numerous more the access could Berliners East and divided, more no were parts two the of scenes gay the that meant also has This possible. became parts two the t With he collapse of the Berlin wall, the city was once again reunited, and free move between between move free and reunited, again once was city the wall, Berlin the of collapse he

- West division does division West 52

not play a visible role anynot playa role more. visible

pubs of the of pubs

CEU eTD Collection the after shortly 1973, in formed already was organization LGBT first the GDR the in 1988, in registered officially was it before 1980s the during only planned be to started organization t the between emerge differences level significant this on However, countries. observed the of both in organizations of foundation the for basis a as serve to strong sufficiently be to seemed identities collective and individual The relatio identity collective and individual making categories, identity LGBT visible of lack the in resulted is LGBT about discourse public states socialist in that showing identities, collective and individual affects typical div I generalizable way. I concepts, background key the on based interviews the of analysis thematic the Besides guide. semi on partly research this built I transition, the before period the on literature sufficient of absence the of Because thesis. the of methodology the presented I chapter, first the in movements LGBT and sphere, public the and private the between distinction problematized the sexuality, and gender of construction social the of concepts movement identity of H socialist this In lo sd h eitn ltrtr t b al t apy h cnet o aayi i a more a in analysis of concepts the apply to able be to literature existing the used also dd h aayi t to mai two to analysis the ided nship withthe state.nship

thesis - Western omto mr difficult. more formation ungary and the German Democratic Republic Republic Democratic German the and ungary

I analyzed I - us a mnml eas o te tit tt cnrl vr h mda which media, the over control state strict the of because minimal was sues tutr itriw cnutd n h to onre, u countries, two the in conducted interviews structure

ye f dniy movement identity of type

construction in liberal democracies liberal in construction

the factors the

in at t b al to able be to parts Secondly, I analyzed movement formation and its its and formation movement analyzed I Secondly, C which ONCLUSIONS Frty I nlzd how analyzed I Firstly, .

53 the relationship of gay people with the state in state the with people gay of relationship the o ae: hl i Hnay h frt LGBT first the Hungary in while cases: wo

ial, h cnet rltd o dniy and identity to related concepts the finally,

analyze all the elements of an ideal ideal an of elements the all analyze differ . After having presented the presented having After ed

from an ideal typical model model typical ideal an from

the public discourse discourse public the ig h sm topic same the sing

related CEU eTD Collection well as heteronormativity, and sexuality to related structures power of understanding better a to lead can states authoritarian in movements LGBT of analysis the that believe I However, and often problematic. id about generalizations make period research the during conducted be could which interviews of number low the and Hungary of case the in sources of lack the Also, analyzed. countries two the to limited are results the therefore states, democracie liberal between differences of model systematic a provide Th aspects homophobia, especially byinthe case overwritten social ofHungary. tho even democracies, liberal of model earlier the toward trend general pubs places meeting and organizations new appeared, LGBT significantly, grew issues LGBT of coverage media the countries: the of both the towards shift fast relatively a observe could we transition, the After relatedmovement,have whichmight increase tothe civil rights impact. its b it which through church, the 1980s, the in ally an had movement the Thirdly, system. socialist the within visibility more gaining of goal the having strategy, depoliticize partly con also could state the aim ofcreatingBerlin, image morepersonal the a progressive of inand especially contacts and channels television German West through influences, international to exposed more was differe the to contribute could factors Three issuesgreater gained visibilityperiods. much inprevious than these when 1980s, the of half second the by movements and identities LGBT toward tolerant decriminaliz ere are of course limitations limitations course of are ere -

were created. LGBT issues also became politicized politicized became also issues LGBT created. were to o homose of ation tribute to the results. Secondly, Secondly, results. the to tribute

xuality in 1968. Also, the West German state became more more became state German West the Also, 1968. in xuality of these results: the analysis of merely two cases cannot cannot cases two merely of analysis the results: these of nces between the two cases: firstly, East Germany East firstly, cases: two the between nces 54

entity –

the movements followed an integrationist, an followed movements the now in the form of visibly gay bars and and bars gay visibly of form the in now - formation and interpretations difficult interpretations and formation –

in this sense we can observe a observe can we sense this in g hs s n many in is this ugh

ad authoritarian and s etr model Western

ecame ecame media media

as in CEU eTD Collection perspective political science theories.and of of transition is which outcomes, these influence to strategies could provide regime oppressive an under movement social a of success the to contribute factors which of understanding thorough more A regimes. authoritarian by manipulation their about

cuil questio crucial a n also from the the from also n CEU eTD Collection

6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

What do you do What are what think, the havedid it any other ties with movements? oppositional yes, if and opposition, of sort a considered be could being movement LGBT the think did you how feel, you do What wi police? go gay/lesbian the with confrontation any have you Did 1980s? the during media the in gays about heard ever you Have issue? social a larg a of front in gay/lesbian being about youtalked Have visibly? act to) (plan you ever Did gay/lesbian your youfriends, orsuch about issues hear anywhere? did with issues LGBT discuss you Did something? for or something, this was yes, If minority? a of part a as yourself identify you Did gay/lesbian? being and norms/expectations social between relationship the about feel you did What could What toothers? it have thepossible been reactions? react? they did How gay/lesbian? being about tell you did Whom youdid you do,and because who didofgay/lesbian? meet being yougo,what did Where changehabits? it former did How yourlife? everyday on have youyouweregay/lesbian?How realize did Political identity Identity relationsSocial Everyday life your areWhat general about the 1980’s? memories Starting questions Finishing questionFinishing er, not LGBT crowd? Did you feel that sexual orientation might be a political or political a be might orientation sexual that feel you Did crowd? LGBT not er,

th socialism? What was your opinion about the socialist system? Do system? socialist the about opinion your was What socialism? th

Appendix 1: Topic Topic 1: Appendix Guide

A most important changes since the transition? important changes sincemost thetransition? PPENDI 56

CES

How feel? didit

What kind of kind effectsWhat it did

Why didn’t you tell you didn’t Why

against CEU eTD Collection

Appendix 2: Letter of 2: Appendix HIB toVolkskammer the Source:of Peter PrivateArchive Rausch 57

CEU eTD Collection

Appendix 3 Appendix Source:of Peter PrivateArchive Rausch : Founders’Agreement ofthe HIB 61

CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection Fetner, Tina. 2008. Erőss, László. 1984. ——— Ferenc.Erős, 1994. “Rendszerváltás Duyvendak,Jan Willem. 1995. “From Revolution to Involution: The Disappearanceof the Gay Dennis, David Brandon. 2005. “Coming Out Into Socialism: The Emergenceof a Political Schwulsein in Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. Castells, Manuel. 2011. Calvo, Kerman, and Gracia Trujillo. 2011. “Fighting for Love Rights: Claims and Strategies ——— Beckwith, Karen. 2005. “A Common Languageof Gender?” Armstrong, Elizabeth A. 2002. Altman, Dennis. 2002. “Globalization and the International Gay/Lesbian Movement.” In Ackelsberg, Martha A., and Mary Lyndon Shanley. 1996. “Privacy, Publicity, and Power: A Feminist . 2000. . 2000. “Az Identitás Labirintusai”. Akadémiai doktori értekezés, Budapest. . 2010. Compar“A Gender Vol. 2. Wiley Movementin Spain.” the Logics aof ComparativePolitics of Gender.” 1994 Sage. Lesbian and Gay Studies 213 the Political. Feminist Rethinking of the Public Minnesota Press. the author. Erős, 211 Movementin France.” pdf.cgi/Dennis%20David%20Brandon.pdf?osu1185898260&dl=y. http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send the German DemocraticRepublic”. Thesis, The StateOhio University. – 233. . University of Chicago Press.

. University Californiaof Press. –

220. Budapest: T How the ReligiousRight Shaped Lesbian and GayActivism Furcsa APárok. Homosze - Blackwell. The Power of Identity: TheInformation Age: Economy, Society, and Culture ative Politics Genderof Symposium Introduction: Comparative Politics and The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis an

Sexualities Reconstructionsof Traditional Concepts inWestern Political Theory Forging GayIdentities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco, 1950 Journal ofHomosexuality

- , edited by Diane Richardson and Steven Seidman, 415 private Distinction.” - – Twins. identitásváltás.” In -

14 (5): 562

EFERENCES xuálisok Titkai Nyomában

64 –

579. Hirschmann, NJ and Stefano, Di C.Revisioning A Válság Szociálpszichológiája Perspectives on Politics

29 (4): 369

Politics & Gender

– 386. . Budapest: Private edition of

d the Sociology of

1 (01): 128 . Vol. U 31. of

8 8 (01): 159

, by Ferenc, by – – 425. Handbookof of of the LGBT 137. – 168. London:

- : . CEU eTD Collection Marshall, Thomas Humphr Marchand, MarianneH., and AnneSisson Runyan. 2002. “FeministSightings of Global Restructuring: Lorber, Judith. 2004. Lind, Amy. 2013. “Heteronormativity and Sexuality.” In Kulpa, Robert,and Joanna Mizielińska. 2011. Jenkins, Richard. 2004. Holy, Michael. 2001. “Ungelebte Ost/Westbeziehungen Heyes, Cressida. 2012. “Identity Politics.” EditedEdward by N. Zalta. Herrn, Rainer. 1999. Heinrich Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. Goffman, Erving. 1959. “ThePresentation Selfof in Everyday Life.” Giddens, Anthony. 1992. “TheTransformation Intimacy: of Sexuality, Love and Intimacy in Modern Géczi, János. 1987. MännerschwarmSkript 2000: Perspektiven im vereinigten Deutschland zwischen den Homosexuellenbewegungen in Ost http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/identity Information Stanford University. Philosophy MännerschwarmSkript Tagungsdokumentation Press. Category of Bourgeois Society Societies.” CambridgeUniversity Press. Challengesfor the 21stCentury Conceptualizations and Reconceptualizations 1.” Gender. New Haven: Yale Universi Oxford University Press. edited by Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and Laurel Weldon, 189 European Perspectives - Böll - Stiftung, Sachsen

. Sta Cambridge: Polity Vadnarancsok II. Homoszexuálisok Vallomásai 1980 AndersBewegt: Jahre 100 Schwulenbewegung inDeutschland Night to His Day. The Social Construction ofGender. Chapter I nford: The Metaphysics Research Lab forCenter the Study of Languageand Social Identity The Structural Transformat ey. ey. 1950. . Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. - - - Anhalt. 2008. Verlag. Verlag. . 1., Aufl. Heinrich

Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays . . 2nd ed. Lo

Translated by Thomas Burgerand FrederickLawrence. : : 135. ty Press.

De Lesben Und Schwulein Der DDR: - centring Western Sexualities: Central and Eastern ndon/New York: Routledge. 65 - Böll

ion ofthe Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a - , edited by Günter Grau. Stiftung Sachsen The Oxford Handbookof Gender

- Globalization and Development Studies: ÜberUnterschiede und Ung

und Westdeutschland.” In

- The Stanford Encyclopedia of politics/. - - 81 Anhalt e.V. . Budapest

Hamburg: . Cambridge: . . Paradoxes of

: : Magvető. Schwulsein leicheitigkeiten

and Politics – 213. MIT MIT

, CEU eTD Collection Riszovannij, Mihály. 2001. “Self Rimmerman, Craig A. 2007. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Renkin, Hadley Z. 2007. “Ambiguous Identities, Ambiguous Transitions: Lesbians, andGays, the Pl Plummer, Ken, and Arlene Stein. 1994. ““ICan‘tEven ThinkStraight” Plummer, Ken. 2001. “The Square Inti of Paxton, Pamela, and Melanie Hughes. M. 2007. Paternotte, David, Manon Tremblay,and Carol Johnson. 2011. Nardi, Peter 1 M. Mucciaroni, Gary. 2011. “TheStudy of LGBT Politics andContributions Its to Political Science.” MTI. 2013. “MTI Hírarchívum 1988 McLellan, Josie. 2012. “Glad BeGay to Behind the Wall:Gay and Lesbian Activism in1970s East McDermott, Rose,and PeterK. Hatemi. 2011. “Distinguishing and Sex Gender.” McAdam, JohnDoug, D. McCarthy, and MayerN. Zald. 1996. ummer, Kenneth. 2003. Studies SAGE Publications, Incorporated. t Observations About Europewith a Focus Italy.”on Political Science and Politics http://archiv1988tol.mti.hu/Pages/HirSearch.aspx?Pmd=1. http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/content/74/1/105.short. Germany.” In and Politics University Press. Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures,and Cultu 1989.” Press. http://www.history.lsa.umich.edu/652/Readings/Renkin.pdf. Sexual Politics Citizenshipof inPostsocialis Washington Press. Sexual Revolution inSociology’.” he State: Comparative Insights intoa Transformed Relationship

EastEuropean Monographs 5 (3):5 237 998. “The Globalization of the Gay & Lesbian Socio

44 44 (1): 89. History Workshop Journal

– IntimateCitizenship: Private Decisions and Public Dialogues 253.

The Lesbian and Gay Movements: Assim

- Articulation theof Gay and Lesbian Movement in Hungaryafter - 2012 (News Archivesof

44 (1): 17. mateCitizenship: Some Preliminary Proposals.”

Sociological Theory : : 150

, 74:105 Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective – 160. 66 t Hungary”.University The of Michigan.

– 130. Sociological Perspectives the National News Agency, 1988

12 (2): 178 Comparative Perspectiveson Social The Lesbian and GayMovementand

- ilation or Liberation? Political Movement: Some - “Queer” Theory and the Missing

– . Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 187. Signs ral Framingsral

PS: PS: Political Science

5 5 (4): 631 : 567 : . University of Citizenship –

. Cambridge Westview 586. – - 660. 2012).”

PS: PS:

. CEU eTD Collection Walters, Margaret. 2005. Von Kowalski, Gudrun. 1987. Tilly, Charles. 1978. Thompson, Paul. 2000. Thinius, Tarrow,Sidney G. 1998. “Powerin Movement: Social Movementsand Contentious Politics.” Takács, Judit, Tamás Dombos, György Mészáros, and Tamás P ——— ——— Takács, Judit. Forthcoming. “Queering Budapest.” Soukup, Jean J., and Olaf B Sonntags Sommer, Barb ——— Seidman, Steven. 2001. “From Identity to Queer Politics: Shifts inNormativeHet . 2003. . 2003. . 2007. . 2007. “‘It IsOnly Extra Information…’ Social Representation and Value Preferences of . 2004. Portland, Or: Hart Pub. edited by Luca Trappolin, Alessandro Gasparini, and Robe Don’tBother: Homophobia andHeteronorm the inHungary.” In Europe Hungarian Men.” Gay Cook. London: Bloomsbury. Ulli KlaumUnd Rainer M Bis17. 19. November 1989 Im Freien TagungshausWaldschlösschen Unter Der Leitung von Bestandsaufnahme;[dokumentiert Wird Veranstaltung“Die Schwule in Der DDR”, Vom Die Prenzlauer Berg, undPankow Weissensee http://www.old.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Gurung/soc2370sgSocialConstrCh2Fall10.pdf. Meaning Citizenship.”of Arbeiterbewegung und Gesellschaftswissenschaft. Homosexualität. Erfahrungen Schwuler Männer in Der DDR Und inDeutschland Ost Politics Cambridge/NewYork, Cambridge University Press,Coll.«Cambridge Studiesin Comparative Bert. 1994. - Club. 2009. The Social Construction of Sexuality Homoszexualitás És Társadalom ara W., and Mary Kay Quinlan. 2009. : : 185

2: 156. Aufbruch AusDemGrauen Versteck:Ankunft Im Bunten Ghetto?. Randglossen Zu From Mobilization Revolution to – 197. Verzaubertin Nord

Voice of the Past: Oral History

Femin rühl. 1990. Homosexualitätin Der DDR: Ein Historischer Abriss Beyond thePink Curtain: Everyday of Life LGBT People in Eastern

ism: AVery ShortIntroduction arbach Stattgefunden Hat] Citizenship Studies

Die Die DDR, Die Schwulen, DerAufbruch: Versuch Einer - Ost: dieGeschichte Berlinerder Lesben und Schwulen in . Budapest: Új Mandátum K . NewYork: W. W. Norton. 67 . [Berlin]:B. Gmünder. In The History Oral Manual

. Reading: Addison 5 (3): 321 Queer Cities . Oxford: Oxford Univers

. Verein für Sozialeund Pädag. Arbeit. . Tóth. 2012. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, – . 328. Vol. 141. OUP Oxford. , edited by JenniferEvans and Matt rt Wintemute, 79

- Wesley.

Homophobia inEurope iadó. . Bundesverb. . AltaMira. ity Press.

. Verlag erosexuality and the – 106. Oxford ;

CEU eTD Collection Zetkin, Clara. 1920. “Lenin theon Women’s Question Willett, Graham. 2000. Waylen, Georgina. 1994. “Women and Democratization Conceptualizing Gender Relations in http://w Emancipation ofWomen:From the Writingsof V.I. Lenin Unwin Academic. Transition Politics.” ww. ww. marxists. org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1. Living OutLoud

World Politics : aHistory: ofGay and Lesbian Activismin Australia

46 (03): 327 68

- –

From My Memorandum Book.” In 354. doi:10.2307/2950685. . International Publishers.

. Allen & The