Re-Emergence of the Russian LGBT Movement in the Context of Political

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillmentIn partial the of Gender requirements the degreeinCritical for ofMasterArts Re

- emergence of the Russian LGBT Movement intheContext of Is ThereIs Propaganda a ofHomosexuality? Political Heterosexism andHomophobia Supervisor: Second Allaine Reader: Professor Cerwonka DepartmentGender Studies of Central European University Assistant Budapest, Hungary VeronikaLapina Submitted to Submitted Studies Professor Hadley Z.Professor Hadley Renkin 2013 By

CEU eTD Collection the LGBTthe Russia. in movement of disunity the yetshows regions, the of agency of presence the for argues other, each oppose non as is it radicals that presenting and activism reveals moderate normalizing Russia, networking within Orientalism” “nesting of patterns its of analysis and community imagined an as t of Examination 90s. the in movement LGBT Soviet post the of legacy a is which activists, the between binary moderate/radical the strengthens anti that argues It heterosexism. political of circumstances current the dif in organizations LGBT between relationships the discusses also research anti however, This activism. activists;no with cities small in of people LGBT for closet the agendas enforced also propaganda and strategies shifted and community LGBT the group 2 and resist the galvanized heterosexism interviews state indeed that guided shows activists with 23 discussions of Analysis regions. Russian in activism reshaped i re examines the thesis This activism. LGBT stimulated have and minors homophobic being among as society homosexuality Russian confirm of propaganda prohibit which laws emerged newly The Abstract mplementation of regional anti regional of mplementation -

fit. The existence of multiple net multiple of existence The fit.

- emergence of visible and political LGBT movement in Russia afterthe in Russia LGBTand political movement visible of emergence

- propaganda laws. It examines how these laws affected and and affected laws these how examines It laws. propaganda works, some of which intersect and some of which of some and intersect which of some works, i

he organization organization he Russian LGBT Network LGBT Russian - propaganda legislation propaganda ferent regions in regions ferent ance of of ance - -

CEU eTD Collection LGBT society. humanrightsRussian and in homophobia severe of result o murdered brutally and raped was who Russia th dedicate to want I neverwill end. weak being me letting leas not but last, The of Russia express to want I Also, who didastonishing jobhelping mewith fo work my read to time his dedicated who Drew, experience. unforgettable an into CEU at studies my years, 15 almost friends old my thank to like would I wish and even no are There inspiring. and understanding express, words to supportive, incredibly being for Anatolii, and Valentina grandparents, my and Natalia, and Oleg parents, amazing my thank to want also I Harbord, whohel s and gender insights the through me guided carefully who University, European Central at department grateful. exceptionally bachelors my during me for Studies Gender of field the up opened who professors, mention to like I’d Moreover, work. a kind exceptionally her for Cerwonka Allaine your for grateful I’m Professorthank to like would Ialso critiques. useful and comments, insightful and interesting patience. remarkable and encouragement, guidance, his for Renkin, super my to gratitude express to like would I foremost, and First Acknowledgements His name never must forgotten be and hostility this and come hatredmust to

–

who have willingly exuality. more

as well as well as

ped me to improve this workto improve this ped and megave some how thankful I am to all of you all of Iam to how thankful .

t is work to Vladislav Toronov, 23 Toronov, Vladislav to work is

– ‘

thank you thank whenever I truly needed it needed truly I whenever am I

Additionally gratitude to all to gratitude la Echevskaya Olga

my new friend new my

also –

withme. stories shared their it is a result of overall ignorance towards the questions of of questions the towards ignorance overall of result a is it ’

nrdby rtfl to grateful incredibly goes I at o hn Aaei Wiig ntutr John instructor Writing Academic thank to want I , –

my informants informants my

again Katia, Julia, and Anna and Julia, Katia, designing and

– n Tatiana and

Ana, Svetlana, Ana, ii to Daria, to nd valuable suggestions and comments on my on comments and suggestions valuable nd n the 9 the n

– . With you this all started and, hopefully, and, started all this you With .

r the sake of making it better it making of sake the r you gave me everything that a child could child a yougave everything that me

I must also mention my amazing friend friend amazing my mention also must I th

– redesigning the of May, 2013. His death is not only a a only not is death His 2013. May, of for her unbelievable unbelievable her for

Barchunova yea l poesr fo Gne Studies Gender from professors all LGBT activists LGBT Austeja, Austeja,

r old gay man from Vo from man gay old r valuable

–

visor, Professor Hadley Z. Hadley Professor visor, for staying in my life for for life my in staying for and Maria and –

comments

maps. n t sy ta I’m that say, to and from different parts different from patience and patience

–

an end.

who turned who and Daria, Daria, and l go g

ad, ad, for on

CEU eTD Collection ImpactChapter Anti 2. of Chapter Outlaw and 1. Homosexual intheRussia Time ofChange Resistance: Introduction: Re Table of Acknowledgements Abstract Table ofContents Prerequisites Re 1.3. 1.2. Post 1917 Secretary and Tsars 1.1. Chapter Outline Limitations Methodology From toResistance: PoliticalHeterosexism Theoretical Framework 2.3. Activism tothe2.3. Activism East oftheUrals:Novosibirsk case of 2.2. NorthernArkhangelsk Activism: OOO “Rakurs” and LGBT2.1. Vihodand Volunteers: inSaint its activism

...... Contents

...... GORD 2.3.3. 2.3.2. Gender(Gender and iPravo Rights) 2.3.1. Project “Pulsar” 1.3.4. Re post in Movement LGBT the of Invisibility Stage: Apolitical The 1.3.3. LGBT1.3.2. after Varying Activism the ofState Fall Socialism: Experiences the of Depoliticization the of Prerequisites Decriminalization: Sudden 1.3.1. Local1.2.3. Initiatives the“Anti and LGBT1.2.2. inthe1.2.1. Activism Two Cases Capitals: ofMoscow and Petersburg Saint Friends) Russia Movement. - - mrec o te GT oeet n usa Sot n Ln Term Long and Short Russia: in Movement LGBT the of Emergence Soviet LGBTSoviet Movement: Radical Politicsand CommunityNeeds

...... -

Emergence of Russian LGBTEmergence ofRussian Movement

......

...... -

emergence of the Political LGBT Political emergence the Present Movement: Times of ......

......

Movement in theCenter: in StrategiesMovement in Conflicts – - PropagandaLegislations onRegionalLGBT Activism

ooeul, one Dui (ooeul, eaie and Relatives (Homosexuals, Druzia I Rodnie Gomosexuali, ...... - eeas Rglto o Same of Regulation Generals:

...... iii - Integration”Trend

......

...... - ...... Petersburg ......

...... -

...... e Dsr Bfr ad After and Before Desire Sex

......

...... -

...... Soviet ......

25 23 16 16 14 13 12 62 60 58 57 53 48 46 40 39 36 34 33 31 28 iii

ii ii

4 1

CEU eTD Collection Sources References V Appendix IV Appendix III Appendix II Appendix I Appendix Conclusion Chapter theNetwork:Reflectionsand 3. Networking Critical 3.3. Capacities of Networking: Moderate VS Radicals East/West Divide and the Activism. Moderate of Spread Community: Imagined an as Network LGBT Russian 3.2. LGB3.1. Thethe Russian Headquarters of 2.4. Kostroma:LGBT aDeveloping RegionRussian in Movement ......

...... 2.3.4. Radical Moderate: thePower VS of Categorization

......

...... iv T Network: Agenda Strategies T Network: and

......

117 110 109 108 107 106 104 101

89 82 76 75 68 64

CEU eTD Collection the revision of Russian Penal Code. It also refers to the heading of David Tuller’s book (1996) Cracks in the the in Cracks (1996) book Tuller’s David Le and of inGay Closet:Travels Iron heading the to refers also It Code. Penal Russian of revision the 1 policy first the 2006 May In exclusion. foca the in be to appeared againhomosexuals nationalism, 2008 Nemtsev, 1999; invis almost was it 2000s the of beginning the by 90s the in movement LGBT (p.67) miscarriage a rather but movement, the of birth movement LGBT solid a of emergence in activism LGBT of closet” “iron the of fall the homosexuality of pathologizationand nation. the within position problematic times at and Introduction

This is a reference to the decriminalization of homosexuality in Russia, which happened in 1993 as a result of result a as 1993 in happened which Russia, in homosexuality of decriminalization the to reference a is This Russian and Soviet history suggests that non historythat suggests Soviet and Russian

: Re - Emergence Russian of LGBT Movement )

However, post - soviet sbian Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chicago of University Chicago: Russia. sbian

from the beginning of 2000 of beginning the from

Russia Russia

Siberia.” Camp to ours send we here Francisco; San Camp to gays your all send you U.S. the “In asking: stop to me ple a litany, a as repeated again, over and over men, gay about “joke” a told (ne was Russia I sushchestvuet). in exist not did lesbians that told was I Usually theirs). not term, (my lesbians” and “gays about could I everyone ask would I 1980s, mid the In . Yet, .

against the propaganda of non of propaganda the against ol be could - 1

as Laurie Essig Laurie as

Laurie Essig. - normative sexualities have an ambiguous anhave sexualities normative

With almost 60 years of criminalization of years 60 almost With perceived as a first first a as perceived –

l point of the nationalist policies ofpolicies nationalist the of point l after the after Queer in Russia: ASt Queer inRussia:

- (1999) s along with the rise of new new of rise the with along s 1

in 1993 a 1993 in

Self, andtheOther abrupt emergence of the the of emergence abrupt

notes, it was not the not was it notes, - normative sexuality normative nd the emergencethe nd step

towards ible. (Essig, ible. ory of Sex, , 1999 a for a the

CEU eTD Collection Dcso o te uiia Bad f h Amnsrtv Css C F n h Cs #1 Case the on RF HC Cases Administrative the of 15.12.2012] Board Juridical the of [Decision 5 66 N 15.06.2006) website: Ryazan theof Region dated Ryazan of Region “O Ryazan of Region the Lawof the in Changes the of [Law Pravonarusheniiah” Administrativnih 4 A in the presented 3 2 therefor homophobia) politicalenhancedlegal(whichlevel the on fightheterosexism to strategiesdevelop to started underindependently oreach otherconjunction with in activists anti enacted newly 90s; the in emerged which movement “reemerged laws; propaganda public sphere tosustain closed. be can themselves Potenti organizations the even publishing, conferences, seminars, community LGBT to related opened legislation “ to able aren’t minors fined be must of republic which Kaliningrad, Krasnodar, Saint of city the in Samara, and Bashkortostan Magadan, Novosibirsk, Kostroma, oblast’) population underage the among ul et o te anti the of texts Full anti willas them to refer I Hereafter

hmsxa dsoiin’ a esl b ipsd n them” on imposed be easily can dispositions’ ‘homosexual peeei Sdbo Klei p Amnsrtvi Dlm C F o eu #1 Delu po RF VC Delam Administrativnim po Kollegii Sudebnoi Opredelenie N66 15.06.2006 ot oblasti Ryazanskoi Zakon aim to propagandize homosexualizm ( homosexualizm propagandize to aim Contemporary

ly tee eiltv cags i t eae l nnomtv sxaiis rm the from sexualities nonnormative all erase to aim changes legislative these ally, 3 Sne etme 21 sc plce wr aotd n h aes f Arkhangelsk, of areas the in adopted were policies such 2011 September Since . .

Retrieved May 27, 2013 from 2013 May27, Retrieved . It was justified by the r the by justified was It . ppendix I ppendix

- p h psiiiy o rgoa gvros o lmnt ams al actions all almost eliminate to governors regional for possibility the up rpgna oiis wih ee mlmne b te ie satd hs research this started I time the by implemented were which policies, propaganda - propaganda evaluate saig h mas hog wih oiia htrsxs and heterosexism political which through means the shaping e LGBT movement in Russia Russia in movement LGBT .

the http://ryazan.news Russian nationRussian as

– ” becau ” -

propaganda policies/laws/legislations propaganda critically not only prides and other public marches, but also festivals, also but marches, public other and prides only not 2

policies.

was implemented in the region of Ryazan (Ryazanskaya Ryazan of region the in implemented was http://www.vsrf.ru/stor_pdf.php?id=501100

se se - yet Petersburg. Petersburg. n the Administrative Violations”] Retrieved May 27, 2013 from 2013 May27, Retrieved Violations”] Administrative the n esolution of the Supreme Court Supreme the of esolution

- the - 3 O nsni zeei v ao Raaso Olsi “Ob Oblasti Ryazanskoi Zakon v izmenenii Vnesenii “O 03 the information about information the city.info/docs/sistemsj/dok_oeqrlo.htm activism is activism aiu Rsin GT raiain ad sole and organizations LGBT Russian Various current current muzhelozhstvo purely heterosexual 2

The legislation states that “public actions “public that states legislation The movement

being reshaped and re and reshaped being emre i rsos t te anti the to response in reemerged

these

as a new stage of the LGBT the of stage new a as lesbianstvo same .

5 .

h v The particular circumstancesparticular - e relationships sex - APG12

which claimed that claimed which

gees of agueness ) among minors” among ) organized by the the by organized - APG12 - 1 ot 11 -

03 “On the the “On 03 - 15.12.2012 11 dated dated 11 , thus ,

this

are are 4 -

CEU eTD Collection 6 organizations making thus symbolically) and (geographically western effect interest particular of matter a become organizations) such areas administrative (and Russia in areas administrative different in organization the by employed Ru contemporary in movement LGBT Network LGBT organizations Network. organizations LGBT regional various organizations; in organization conflicts dominant strategiesdoing between thetwo of activism the However, other. anti the each of with implementation interact regions different from activists which in ways strategies activists’ the only not changed laws heterosexist of implementation of creation the shape and enhance can laws) heterosexist of enactment the through occurs (which homophobia of legitimization activists community LGBT needs various addressing of ways the readjusting and combated is homophobia

See the map in AppendixV map thein See it n hs eerh peet the present I research this In to only not aims research this latter, the to relation In ewr. oevr ms o tee raiain ebr o te usa LGBT Russian the of members organization these of most Moreover, Network.

partially are located intheEuropeanare located part of Russia have B ecause the Network presents itself as moderate, moderate, as itself presents Network the ecause (who share moderate values) are moderate values) (who invit share chan the narrates . usa LB Network LGBT Russian The main aim of this research is to is research this of aim main The ge usa Federation Russian d : it shows, which regions are members are regions which shows, : it

n uh iuto o lgtmzd oohba n how and homophobia legitimized of situation such in the - rpgna as nacd o ol ntokn, but networking, only not enhanced laws propaganda

ulc mg o LGBT of image public

a ssia, but also to critique to also but ssia,

usa LB Network LGBT Russian national

hc mks n tep t uie regional unite to attempt an makes which

3 n the and

GT movement LGBT 6 ed to .

r mmes f the of members are

activism rtra codn t wih LGBT which to according criteria of the Russian LGBT Network. LGBT Russian ofthe understand cooperate and constitute theRussianconstitute andcooperate to

the Russian LGBT Network LGBT Russian the analyze the principles of networking, networking, of principles the –

n Russia in moderate and radical.

– how .

only certain regional regional certain only h biggest the the reemerge the /initiatives outside the outside /initiatives I

will the strategies of the of strategies the

usa LGBT Russian show oeae and moderate

u also but

within umbrella nce

lo the also that without without

the the the the an an In -

CEU eTD Collection 7 organizing force movement. ofthe org LGBT valuesRussia in movement fluctuate identity sexual although However, movement. the for central being as identities fixed denies it “LGBT” itself calls is Russia 391) (p. gain” political and resistance successful for necessary are identity collective of categories “clear that argues he politics, identity represents oppression (Informa society!” Russian from stigmatization severe of experience shared our is situation this in movement] [the us to issue important most The movement. this within different all are we that understand “we based not is movement that mentioned also informants My queer. it calls she thus, p.81); 1999, identity without politics a Russia called be in movement that out points “represent Essig Laurie movement. identity/queer sexual movements. Framework Theoretical Resistance: to Heterosexism From Political encompasses multi multiple, other country: the within organizations LGBT level.national the on N

LaurieEssig etwork (which are concerned with other issues or doing LGBTpoliti doing or issues other with areconcerned (whichetwork stae y eerh f usa LB mvmn wti t within movement LGBT Russian of research my situate I

located [s] nztos moderate anizations:

(1999)

age that argue I an alternative to identity politics and politics of ident of politics and politics identity to alternative an

in callsit ‘compromise - between identity between

Thus

on a shared and stabl and shared a on

the I

t ) asn 19) hwvr age that argues however, (1995), Gamson i) nt a argue

political identity which is based on the strategies and politics of politics andstrategies the on based is whichidentity political

Russian LGBT movement cannot be unequivocally called a a called unequivocally be cannot movement LGBT Russian 7 n rdcl I m rsac I e ti bnr a another as binary this see I research my In radical. and s -

that the that

layered which Networkgo the networks, itself. beyond - and oriented’ (pp. 62 (pp. oriented’

– and queer politics politics queer and

sr o caiinl n cnign pltc” (Essig, politics” contingent and coalitional of sort a is not fundamental not Russian LGBT Network is not theofonly LGBTnot network Networkis Russian h mo the e sexual identity, more on a shared oppression: shared a on more identity, sexual e 4

- 67)

vement is a broader structure which which structure broader a is vement –

although it although to

Russian movement, Russian ity. This alternative might might alternative This ity. The

cs differently) csinvisible heories on new social social new on heories demands inclusion and inclusion demands LGBT movement in movement LGBT

the a claim on shared shared on claim

Ru ssian LGBT ssian t he LGBT

CEU eTD Collection recognition ofheteronormativity institutional level. onthe con be to heterosexuality perceive they as society the about think people which in way the describes heteronormativity of level the at the about think people which in way conventional as heterosexuality regards heteronormativity concepts two the between difference conceptua Warner Michael which xxiii), p. 1993, (Warner, synonyms” are heterosexuality and humanity that insistence) (read: “assurance canand sexualities hatrednonnormative of Y it). on based commonly is it notes, 2009) (2005, Boellstorff as (although, intentions (homophobic) does n be must heterosexual) ofpublic (implyingRussia realm the in sphere public the from homosexuals of elimination legislative Thus, subjects. heterosexual non of fear a is homophobia while heterosexuality, of privilege and superiority the implies post of study case her in (2010) Currier Ashley example for distinction, author’s the employed researches Tom follow I heterosexism Boellstorff political and homophobia political between difference the disentangle To homophobia. galvanize and legitimizes consequently laws such of enactment Ru certain in passed anti narrate will I research this In policies. propaganda extra and legal conceptualizing I’m way mselves and mselves I want to begin the discussion discussion the begin to want I age ht h htrsxs o te anti the of heterosexism the that argue I et it legitimizes, triggers homophobia: “heterosexism creates a climate where fear where climate a creates “heterosexism homophobia: triggers legitimizes, it et ’s (2005, 2009) argument on the distinction between two phenomena; a number of number a phenomena; two between distinction the on argument 2009) (2005, ’s - prhi pltcl oohba Beltrf 20) rus ht heterose that argues (2005) Boellstorff homophobia. political apartheid

society, whereas heterosexis whereas society, […] […] sa fdrl ujcs s oiia htrsxs, e t age ht the that argue to yet heterosexism, political as subjects federal ssian oil sanctions social etoa; hl pltcl eeoeim mle legislative implies heterosexism political while ventional; of my theoretical framework by making a note of the the of note a making by framework theoretical my of (olsof, 09 p11 mhss de) Thus, added). emphasis p.131 2009, (Boellstorff, ” - – legal issues related to the implementation of anti of implementation the to related issues legal

take (Boellstorff, root” 2009,p.131). m heteronormativity and heterosexism heterosexism and heteronormativity 5

operates on the institutional level, it it level, institutional the operateson - rpgna eiltos eie fo the from derives legislations propaganda lizes as heteronormativity. The major major The heteronormativity. as lizes - propaganda legislations which were which legislations propaganda

ot directly postulate v directlypostulate ot

– “operates

s that is iolent xism xism - - -

CEU eTD Collection rpgna s hwvr ti nt sos oe o homosexua how family. heterosexual ofvalues more shows note this however, is; propaganda 8 by generated was which response, a presents book his in Baer community. LGBT of part the t society, homophobicand legislations ontheeffectsexert. they moral/sexua to related theories that think I of panic,course.”or of of(Lancaster, socialization canas2011,p.27) children thestuff serve protection the upon touches that “Anything panics. moral for catalyst a are safety children’s nation. Russian the offuture the to important, also nation. and analyze I legislation the invented; be might threat a as homosexuality depicting of ways various that s national children, and women of criminalization safety, and “[t]he health to menaces as them portraying by rationalized is notes […] behaviors innocuous Rubin Gayle As “homosexualization”. possible its and interventions. political by enhancedpanics are and sexual commonly moral workargues that his Gilbert (2002) Herdt in anti the panic, moral from emerging with Along so into there from are and attitudes action diffused political which into in channeled sex of moment” “political “the as defines Rubin Gayle minors among specifically propaganda homosexual I panic. moral of concept the to turn I laws, heterosexist et f h anti the of Text

ebas oe threat a pose lesbians 8 n re t understand to order In anti the However,

is Such moral panic portrays homosexuals as a major threat to the nation, and, what is what and, nation, the to threat major a as homosexuals portrays panic moral Such he main issue of this research is that heterosexist legislations trig legislations heterosexist that is research this of issue main he

implemented for the sake of protection of the underage population, implying gays implying population, underage the of protection of sake the for implemented - rpgna eilto i Sit eesug se pedx ) otis nt o what on note a contains I) Appendix (see Petersburg Saint in legislation propaganda

- rpgna eiltos o ol enh only not legislations propaganda oenet is Government to

the new generation and overall moral character of Russian Russian of character moral overall and generation new the ecurity, the family, or civilization itself” (ibid., p.297) saying p.297) (ibid., itself” civilization or family, the ecurity,

hog wih en ti hmpoi i tigrd by triggered is homophobia this means which through

especially concerned with the future generations generations future the with concerned especially l panic will deepen my understanding understanding my deepen will panic l 6

Roger Lancaster also argu alsoLancaster Roger - propaganda legislation also enhances it: it: enhances also legislation propaganda

mre fo a oa panic moral a from emerged lity does not conform to the Russian moral moral Russian the to conform not does lity il hne (ui, 92 p.297) 1992, (Rubin, change” cial ru ta lgsaie a o the of ban legislative that argue ne hmpoi i the in homophobia anced gered resistance on resistance gered es that threats to threats that es which , of

the .

CEU eTD Collection 7 tre o Rsin ooeul] Aih. 39. Retrie (339). Afisha. Homosexuals]. Russian of http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay stories 27 Way” that be to Going not is It Say: and Up Stand can [“I Geev Rossiiskih Jizni iz Istorii 27 Budet” ne Bolshe to issue whole a Lenta.Ru from Gay Retrieved for Rights] fight to Started Media Russian How Minorities: anti the [Support Geev. Prava Za Vstupili of SMI Rossiiskie implementation the after 9 activists. AsBarry, Krouwel andDuyvendak LGBT Russian experienceof unique a not is this and work; to activists the for field extensive ac LGBT of development legislation I heterosexist activists regional all that Almost indicated closet. interviewed political their of out activists LGBT dragged oppression p the enhanced dramatically law LGBT preclude to desired governments regional though widely be and to started people LGBT of status activists the all, of First ways. two in closet and the of out them dragged community LGBT the to agency gave legislations regional However, perpetuate the thus minors; among transgender) and a female of propaganda the prohibit for legislations rule heterosexist society.Contemporary Russian in exist to homosexuality crucial a as considered is invisibility Thus 45) 2009, (Baer, people”. normal us, homosexuality, towards tolerant are they that claimed officials state Some Moscow. in pride gay a organize to attempt an For example: Lenta.RU published an article, which describes how Russian Media defended LGBT community LGBT defended Media Russian how describes which article, an published Lenta.RU example: For public sphere, to discursively construct discursively to sphere, public a storm of protest by those affected. Other forms of public attention, in politics or politics in attention, public of forms Other affected. those by protest of storm a event mo the countries many in [i]nterestingly,

– discussed in Russian society, especially by politicians and politicians by especially society, Russian in discussed

a radio or television program dealing negatively with homosexuality, causing homosexuality, with negatively dealing program television or radio a heter wards homosexuality: Melnikova A.,& Markhotskaia K. (2013) “Ia Mogu Vstat I Skazat: tak tak Skazat: I Vstat Mogu “Ia (2013) K. Markhotskaia A.,& Melnikova homosexuality: wards onormativity - issue/ tivism in Russia. The encountered oppression opened up an an up opened oppression encountered The Russia. in tivism http://lenta.ru/articles/2013/02/22/reaction/ -

propaganda legislation: Surganova, E. (2013). (2013). E. Surganova, legislation: propaganda

y mlmnig eeoeit anti heterosexist implementing by

unless it is displayed pub displayed is it unless biiy f ooeult. eody svr legislative severe Secondly, homosexuality. of ublicity nd male homosexuality (in some regions also bisexuality also regions some (in homosexuality male nd

the

government tried to eliminate homosexuality from homosexuality eliminate to tried government the the

(1999) vement “came out” as a result of triggering of result a as out” “came vement 7

Russian nation as purely heterosexual, and to and heterosexual, purely as nation Russian

point out, point - e fo Aih Mgzn Web Magazine Afisha from ved related issues from the public, the from issues related lic ly, because “it shouldn’t affect shouldn’t “it because ly,

has ; Afisha Magazine even dedicated dedicated even Magazine Afisha ;

pstv efc o the on effect positive a the the - rpgna policies. propaganda Podderjka Menshinstv: Menshinstv: Podderjka media. 9

intended Thus, even Thus, - this Site Site

CEU eTD Collection exploitation of exploitation the dominantnarrative o to resistance in emerge networks and groups some how and movement the penetrate relations through movement LGBT Russian contemporary r power conceptualize me helps re the of understanding my only not shapes argument His power. of discourses dominant the to opposition in are which all covering network dense its forms resistance general in life social pervade which powerrelations, occurs field of these Resistance inthe isanintegral of relations. it part ex something as seen be cannot resistance that argues he Thus, p.92). (1988, organization” own their constitute which and operate they which in sphere relations the in force immanent of multiplicity “the implies which phenomenon, complex a is power that arguFoucault Certeau. de Micheland Foucault Michel of theories upon draw Icommunity, anti the through activism as aresult political heterosexism. ofthe LGBT revival withits of inRussia, situation be current applied claimbecomes. tothe can His 1980 opnn” n a pcfc yblc vn my oiie usata nme of number substantial gayslesbians and(p. galvanize347) movement and organization. mobilize may event symbolic specific a init and “opponent” for opportunities offer also media, ) entailing that the more visible and direct power gets the more pronounced resistance resistance pronounced more the gets power direct and visible more the that entailing ) In ord In M the as understood be can resistance that out pointed (1984) Certeau de Michel ichel Foucault also notes that notes also Foucault ichel er to understand the ways in which political heterosexism which is articulated is which heterosexism political which in ways the understand to er

the - propaganda legislations generates resistance on the part of Russian LGBT Russian of part the on resistance generates legislations propaganda

powerful for the benefit of the powerless. Certeau draws a line between between line a draws Certeau powerless. the of benefit the for powerful f activism of f - emergence of the political LGBT movement in Russia, but also but Russia, in movement LGBT political the of emergence –

elations within the movement itself. By looking at the the at looking By itself. movement the within elations hy r nt oaie i sm seii pit; similarly points; specific some in localized not are they

the power can be tolerate be can power

Russian LGBTRussian Network. 8

social structures social

iating mobilization. An “enemy” or or “enemy” An mobilization. iating a

Foucauldian lens, I will grasp how power power how grasp will I lens, Foucauldian d, until it is obvious is it until d, –

including the organizations the including

ternal to power: power: to ternal

(Foucault, es es CEU eTD Collection ho resistance: of that type specific fact a to led the homosexuality of out unfitness the of points discourses dominant Mosse respectability, on reasoning his with continuing While re lesbian and gay conceptualize to help will it context; specific this within occur might which resistance of types various narrates nationalism on debate the Moreover, strength. bodily and manliness into fit didn’t perverted, abnormal, no thus and unrespectable, as understood is homosexuality notion this through that argues and p.1) morals and manners correct’ and “‘decent as defines he non as produced are sexualities argues com LGBT of stigmatization the enhances Russia in discourse in “the weak”. benefi the for power of discourse using of angle from argument my informs definitely them between interaction the policies homophobic of introduction dramatical the Moreover p.30) 1984, (Certeau, advantage” their to it turning of way a it into introduce then but […] level first at them regulates which anti the of enactment the to had Russia in activists LGBT which responses the of understanding my enhancestheory everyday His life.in benefit own their fordiscourse dominant the exploit presenting individuals, powerless and powerful

mosexuals made an attempt to fit into the acceptable standard “[h]omosexuals used variousused acceptable“[h]omosexuals standard the into fit to attempt anmade mosexuals aiu css Frt f l, t ie te vrl idea overall the gives it all, of First cases. various - propaganda legislations. propaganda Usage of the debate on nationalism and homosexuality for my research is significant is research my for homosexuality and nationalism on debate the of Usage t suitable as a national body. The a The body. national a as suitable t that nationalism is a powerful discourse which shapes understanding of how certain how of understanding shapes which discourse powerful a is nationalism that ly enhanced the consolidation of local LGBT activists and groups of activists and activists of groups and activists LGBT local of consolidation the enhanced ly

sistance as a response to response a as sistance I argue that some of the tactics of activists “intervene in a field field a in “intervene activists of tactics the of some that argue I – - normative. He introduces the notion of respectability which respectability of notion the introduces He normative. ciit “sd te prsie oiis Creus theory Certeau’s policies. oppressive the “used” activists h aeoy frsetblt, and respectability, of category the a uthor points out that homosexuality was considered considered homosexuality was that out points uthor newly emerged Russian nationalism of the 2000s. the of nationalism Russian emerged newly 9

an appealing concept on how the weak can can weak the how on concept appealing an

of towards sexuality” (Mosse, 1985, 1985, (Mosse, sexuality” towards

h wy i wih nationalist which in ways the muni ty. George L. Mosse Mosse L. George ty. was

claimed to lack lack to claimed t of of t

CEU eTD Collection . 12 p. 2005, (Puar, normal.” gendered and racially, sexually, but “tolerant” as center imperialist the construct and perverse, and homophobic as other the castigate to able simultaneously “is US of discourses the sustaining means these by marriage) gay through example (for normalized be should and inclusion, of discourse a generate however citizen, decent a of image the compris Homonationalism “homonationalism”. calls she that politics a of production the of cost the at achieved often is inclusion this yet state, nation a in citizens as accepted be can lesbians and gays that idea the support Puar K. 2009, (Murray, others” in pariah of role the occupying while discourses nationalist some in citizenship of model new a becoming is “[H]omosexual amplified. gets precautionary the nation various within produced be could which homosexuality towards attitudes diverse are there that argues (2009) Murray A.B. David differently. nationalism (Berlant, 1 1992, Freeman, “anti was it itself; norm the redefineto but norm, the homosexualityin fit tryingto not of desire their by shaped kinds different of coexistence the for argued nation US homosexuals the within towards aimed violence and intolerance the all the to response in emerged anti in result can exclusionism its through nationalism that argue (1992) Freeman Elizabeth and Berlant Lauren theories. other in differently addressed are it to responses and exclusion of 1985,p.41). (Mosse, their manliness” strategies in trying toprove - siiainss rcie. hy conceptual They practices. assimilationists ) n s biu ta Pa’ cnepain rfr ak o os’ agmn o the on argument Mosse’s to back refer contemplations Puar’s that obvious is In 2) Certain authors understand understand authors Certain

- eaie ecpin f ainls a a icus i wih homophobia which in discourse a as Nationalism of perception negative - siiainss artv aot h anti the about narrative assimilationists - tt. hs oeet re t epn te oin f iiesi and citizenship of notion the expand to tried movement This state. 54). exclusion

the . Puar argues that acceptance of homosexuality in the in homosexuality of acceptance that argues Puar oiin f ooeul wti te icus of discourse the within homosexuals of position 10 es gays as national bodies, includes them into into them includes bodies, national as gays es of bodies within one nation. Resistance was was Resistance nation. one within bodies of

ize ize the Queer Nation movement which which movement Nation Queer normativity - siiainss movement” assimilationists Yet

the dominant narrative the p.7) Similarly, Jasbir Similarly, p.7) - states. He que He states. , as bodies, before bodies, as , stions CEU eTD Collection network generates resistance towards the values and ideas it postulates, because, as Anderson Anderson because,as postulates, it ideas and values the towards resistance generates network and that argue social will I imaginary of concept the upon drawing By general. in homophobia towards and legislations between distance members, geographical are: which factors, several of result i 2 (Anderson, community political imagined as Network LGBT Russian conceptualize to like I’d together. homophobia combating the of understanding perfect a of membership is this that presuppose I and 2004) social (Taylor, their existence” imagine people ways “the as imaginary social defines Taylor Charles other. or an conceptualize activists. of intrusion reasoning theoretical terms; nationalism on network. national the of participants as activists radical excludes reg a establishes itself Network the or moderate is it if Network LGBT Russian within happens process research. this for useful incredibly homonationalism of understanding Ru Although state. bythe byyetbut not subjects,performed way inclusion, a as of normalization magined community of activists, who belong to the Russian LGBT Network, is created as a as created is Network, LGBT Russian the to belong who activists, of community magined sadentqaiya nation as qualify doesn’t ssia

show how it unites activists. Besides, these theories will also help me to argue this major this argue to me help also will theories these Besides, activists. unites it how show hoy f oil mgnr i as eteey motn, s wud ie to like would I as important, extremely also is imaginary social of Theory

hrd aus ad hrd xeine f eitne oad te anti the towards resistance of experience shared and values, shared national 0 \ 2 p.6) 02,

homonationalism to homonationalism Russian LGBT Network, as these activists imagine their social existence as existence social their imagine activists these as Network, LGBT Russian ganization, members of which are geographically distanced from each each from distanced geographically are which of members ganization,

LGBT politics in the local spaces and on the s the on and spaces local the in LGBT politics –

bu wih eeit And Benedict which about the

n ooainls wl sae h understanding the shape will homonationalism on

Russian LGBT Network is an imagined political community political imagined an is Network LGBT Russian – hc roiie gy adlsin a citizen as lesbians and gays prioritizes which

a iaie a bt ihrnl lmtd n sovereign” and limited inherently both as “imagined

new level and to talk about the movement itself in itself movement the about talk to and levelnew 11

–

it invite the organization to network only only network to organization the invite it erson’s work is talking about. An An about. talking is work erson’s ional moderate organization; thus it thus organization; moderate ional I’d like to bring this debate this bring to like I’d pirits of separatism of pirits

I suggest that a similar similar a that suggest I the organizations s, I find this this find I s, - propaganda propaganda among of these

the an -

CEU eTD Collection ciit (niiul ciit ad ebr o vros raiain) 2 organizations); various of members and activists LGBT (individual 23 activists with interviews form constituted is analysis the for gathered I’ve information the Consequently, organization. one within and organizations, regional different between activ between relationships and organizations different of structure the of understanding volunteer but interviews, month 1.5 the Within organizations. LGBT the of routine and structure the understand and observe to opportunity an me gave which the for interviews Except 1996). (Kvale, hand at topic the experience and understand interviewees 2000) (Geertz, description metho research qualitative using of advantage The topic. my on perspectives intersectional and multiple the through work help can that methods and theories offers approach ethnographic The Russia. interview see/understand/interpret guided as such research, qualitative Arkhangelsk 2012) August and (July fieldwork my of time the Federation Russian the of semi guided as such methodology, Methodology waythis radical excludes it from activists official this nationalnetwork. by moderate, as itself narrating by itself limiting is Network The p.7). (ibid., nation” other notes , the o ec te otltd ai postulated the reach To

oeao o pbi dsusos Al hs epd e o achieve to me helped this All discussions. public of moderator imagined com imagined , Participant observation was also an important part of my ethnographic fieldwork, fieldwork, ethnographic my of part important an also was observation Participant , , Novosibirsk and in Saint in and Novosibirsk ,

ds is that they can provide a deep understanding (Creswell, 1998) and a and 1998) (Creswell, understanding deep a provide can they that is ds was was also engaged in various activities within organizations as a a as organizations within activities various in engaged also munity is always a limited one a limited munity isalways tutrl n gooiia cags n h LB mvmn in movement LGBT the in changes geopolitical and structural

where the where f h tpc hl as provides also while topic the of - structured interviews with interviews structured anti o ti rsac, I research, this of m - Petersburg as a sole administrative unit. Methods of Methods unit. administrative sole a as Petersburg - propaganda s

12 of my field research I was not only conduct only not was I research field my of

– s hle m t reveal to me helped ,

in legislation , it has “bounda has , it the geographical LGBT activists activists LGBT mlyd n e an employed

was

opeeso o how of comprehension

already enacted during enacted already ries, beyond which lies which beyondlies ries,

areas of Kostroma, of areas group discussions discussions group in four in how people people how thnographic thnographic a

regions better better dense ists ists ing ing -

CEU eTD Collection activists toad prefer might and politics towards priorities different have might perspective class working the homosexuality, rural the to Similarly legislations. activism/new LGBT on perspective yet education, im LGBT into activism involvement concludecanthat one this of basis the On bachelors had degree hig or respondents my of most issue: limitation"/class "educational the mention to homosexuality on Legislations Soviet excludes it also (whom lesbians and gays young affects 36 group age the ar informants my of most Moreover, lesbians. and gays urban as much as activism political prioritize not do possibly and angle, different a from legislations perceive therefore homophobia) internalized (i.e. orientation oth determine might homosexuality of “Ruralness” identity. their to relation in priorities other have and differently issue this experience might areas rural in homosexuals whereas Russia, in activism only related and legislations homophobic provides research my in exclusion forced this by locate are organizations LGBT that fact the to due areas, rural of aware fully Limitations implemented; field notesfrom my participantobservation. LGBT in volunteers with lhuh h rsls f y ilwr alw nwrn te eerh usin, I questions, research the answering allow fieldwork my of results the Although her (MA, PhD etc.) and they are mostly middle class in term of their occupation. term in class middle are mostly they and etc.) (MA, PhD her

dressactivities more everyday than

the existence of certain limitations. First of all, my fieldwork didn't include include didn't fieldwork my all, of First limitations. certain of existence the the eas of because - 5 Ti ecue te nomto o hw non how on information the excludes This 45. older older generation organizations in four in organizations

hs at y eerh ak, for lacks, research my fact this s 23 of group age the in e of homosexually of the hs crety implemented currently those government wants to protect from propaganda); from protect to wants government 13

areas where the where areas politics. - er attitudes towards personal sexual sexual personal towards attitudes er identified people, who could compare could who people, identified

an an - 35, d in the regional capitals. Yet capitals. regional the in d

"urbani xml, wrig clas working a example, anti small number small - rpgna legislations propaganda - propaganda Fnly Id ie to like I'd Finally, . e" esetv on perspective zed" plies a specifica plies

of them of

as were laws - a

m in s

CEU eTD Collection o te ewr dfns tef s oeae y poig tef o xmls f radical of political imagined an examples is Network the how show will I information, this to on Relying activism. itself opposing by moderate as itself defines Network the how the outlining by of out networking of principles start will I activists. LGBT Russian among principles networking are out. played legislation gay various of agendas how show to going is chapter This organizations. LGBT regional of politics reshaped policies propaganda step a the conduct of will implementation I the policies. to heterosexist response in movement LGBT Russian the of emergence provoked by theimplementation of as movement LGBT Russian explanation profound a give to try I’ll activism d by Russia; in about movement discussion LGBT the contemporary up open to aimed is chapter first the of part last the Consequently, post the of importance the and the experiencing in differences and similarities the bringing ofother inthepost experience By Union. Soviet of fall the after activists by and state the by addressed were sexualities which in ways the and Russia in activism LGBT of genesis the about talk will I chapter first the of beginning the at times, Soviet during legislations heterosexist and Out Chapter The second chapter of this thesis is dedicated to a more detailed analysis of the re the of analysis detailed more a to dedicated is thesis this of chapter second The chapters. three into thesis my divided I’ve the about argument an develop to going I’m thesis my of chapter last the in Finally,

and differing regional context regional differing and line

the Russian LGBT Network. I will present its agenda and show and agenda its present will I Network. LGBT Russian the

a emrec, n pit u te at hs re this fact the out point and reemergence, - oils dsore o te mrec o te movement. the of emergence the for discourse socialist heterosexist legislations.heterosexist - \ socialist/post eba atvss ifr rm n aohr how another; one from differ activists lesbian

shapes the the shapes 14 - by

as to as - tp nlss of analysis step aig n vrl pcue f gay of picture overall an rawing Starting with the history of homophobia homophobia of history the with Starting ways in which politics politics which in ways reality of “post” by LGBT by “post” of reality - communist countries, I’d countries,communist try tomap out my understanding of the contemporary the of understanding my

h wy i wih anti which in ways the of LGBT activists LGBTactivists of -

mrec was emergence non - communities - normative normative \ lesbian

the - - CEU eTD Collection cooperating. LGBT arethere Russia in currently tha show will I thus other; each with interact studied I organizations how of picture actual the show to going is section last The activists. radical exclude and moderate as movement ho and community

w it imagines itself as a national movement and thus and movement national a as itself imagines it w

network s 15 that are that

interacting, intersecting, competing and competing intersecting, interacting, tries to narrate the narrate to t

CEU eTD Collection ainls cavns t cam ht n srs Rsi o i te SR ti homosexual this USSR, the in or Russia tsarist in that claim to chauvinism nationalist Thus, thestatewas oppression af time. Perestroika in out” “came would effectively which subculture, a social established oppressed group, an being minorities, sexual Russian meanwhile. unity their understand liv destroyed “it Russia: in community Anti functioning. and how explain I’ll moreover, m key the out map will I pages few it how and happened how present will I part this In homosexuality. with relationship After 1917 Secretary and Tsars 1.1. demonstrate struggle thegay/lesbian ofRussian for uniqueness rights. contemporary in experience the in bringing By Russia. strategies and goals its shaped movement, LGBT the of establishment which issues crucial out map to trying perspective, historical stigmatization legislative pressures, heteronormative of methods various which in ways the show will relationship complex the of history the out mapping of Change Time the in Russia Resistance: and Outlaw Homosexual 1. Chapter srs ad oit usa ae ln his long a have Russia Soviet and Tsarist of emergence the show to aims chapter This and heterosexist is “[i]t that claims Healey Dan book, his of beginning the In

- ooeult lw hd n qioa rl fr h non the for role equivocal an had laws homosexuality

led to criminalization and pathologization of homosexuality. of pathologization and criminalization to led stimulated resistance. stimulated - eeas Rglto o Same of Regulation Generals: actorcreation o of hog wa means what through of other post other of lsoe o gy ad ebas en stigmatized; being lesbians and gays of ilestones s f huad o pol, e fre te to them forced yet people, of thousands of es 16

I’m going to look at this relationship in a in relationship this at look to going I’m - f the subculture” 2008 (Nemtsev, socialist/post with oy of tory the the h cmuiy a etbihd and established was community the homosexuality in Russian society I society Russian in homosexuality GT oeet n usa By Russia. in movement LGBT complicated and contreversial contreversial and complicated - - communist countries, I will will I countries, communist “othering” “othering” Sex Desire Before and and Before Desire Sex infcnl affected significantly

of - homosexual , heterosexual heterosexual

s el as well as In , p.21) the next the the the

s CEU eTD Collection ht s ecie a dsubn i nt h sxa at ewe to e i men two between act sexual the not is being problematic. makessuchrelationship men that two between attachment disturbing as perceived is what 10 than less as treatedwere “women state: the within women and men of statuses in discrepancy notes thatfemale same was homosexuality male whereas problema thus and choice sentiments conscious a as perceived friends. on female based their as with perceived relations was close Lesbianism predisposed being as men, than emotional factors. various from derived desire 2001 (Healey, imprisoned. rarely were pre seen was homosexuality Female 1992). Engelstein ; performed if witnesses its for offensive and unnatural was muzhelozhstvo that claiming code, penal the in laws the keep to eager were legislators same ( criminalizing men two between intercourse anal for 1832 Before 1992) Engelstein, prosecution introducedcodedelicti;thecriminalcorpus new no yet had moral/religiousissue, 2001; (Healey, men. other all same forbade homosexua and Great the Peter of reign to the during introduced was one, responseEuropean the replicated state first The than 1998). worse 2001;Kon, not (Healey, sin a adultery. considered was sodomy therefore marriage; the outside relations For institutions. different in Same centuries. The 2001, (Healey misrule” Communist by created or abroad from imported was subculture

Michel Foucault notes this fact in his interview, entitled “Friendship as a Way of Life”. He points out that that out points He Life”. of Way a as “Friendship entitled interview, his in fact this notes Foucault Michel - eouinr Rsi; ebas ee ocd o e mdcl pyharc tetet but treatment (psychiatric) medical get to forced were lesbians Russia; revolutionary uhr ons u ta same that out points author - sex practices in the army and army the in practices sex

- sex desire between men in pre in men between desire sex - e patcs n dsr ws prpitd f appropriated was desire and practices sex - sex desire in USSR was not a crime, but a disease. She relatesa acrime, tothe disease. desirewas it but sex not inUSSR

xml, h Otoo Cuc ws erbtn al sexual all reprobating was Church Orthodox the example, - sex relations and subculture were present in Russia for for Russia in present were subculture and relations sex

navy

Ti rltv “oeac” oad fml same female towards “tolerance” relative This ) oe ae omny ecie a big more being as perceived commonly are Women ; only after almost a century was this law spread to spread law this was century a almost after only ; muzhelozhstvo 17 - revolutionary Russia found diverse found Russia revolutionary

tised and criminalized. and tised as a medical, but not a criminal case in in case criminal a not but medical, a as publicly. . vn huh h pten of pattern the though Even ).

(Kon 1998 (Kon

tself; it is the strong emotional emotional strong the is it tself; rom the west, Russian Russian west, the rom homoerotism was a a was homoerotism 10

; Kozlovskii 1986 Kozlovskii ;

Laurie Essig also Essig Laurie iy which lity,

respo nses nses - 48). sex sex

CEU eTD Collection were recognized by other homosexuals; there were even prerequisites for a shared identity, as sharedidentity, a for prerequisites even therewere homosexuals; other byrecognized were ascribe were gestures and symbols of number A class. perverted a as bourgeoisie of critique communist the for ground the laid fact This aristocrats. surface the on parties, private these visited people though even men; gay rich to belonged occurred gatherings which “community that acknowledge to homosexua cruising. Although homosexual a homosexuality for spaces private and public certain establishing means that by and salons, apartments their in evenings balls, host to ability financial the had who bourgeoisie, (H Russia. same practiced who men, of community of form a of hidden activity sexual their tenuo their underlines themselves name to refusal apparent their but “homosexuals”, as on, later and catamites”, “commercial “pederast as men available such, sexually these to refer might “Outsiders masculinity. as identify to want not did penetrated the Yet 2001) (Healey, economy 1990) (Halperin, power. of exercise a same Some same in engaged necessary correctives” (Essig, 1999,p.4) weak subjects, legal full

a promn sx ih nte mn a nt one a hmsxaiy bt a the was but homosexuality, as counted not was man another with sex performing man hr i a ed o oe ht uig pre during that note to need a is There

– ealey, 2001; Kon, 1997; Kon, 1998) It was composed of mostly aristocracy and aristocracy mostly of composed was It 1998) Kon, 1997; Kon, 2001; ealey, -

sex practices had more similarities with status relations in Ancient Greece where Greece Ancient in relations status with similarities more had practices sex n man one - sex practices are consistent with the current un current the with consistent are practices sex

not only not efrs eul c wt another with act sexual performs er and therefore more susceptible both to perverse desires and their and desires perverse to both susceptible more therefore and er . ” ( ” were ibid., 42) ibid., us claim to masculine respectability that rested on keeping keeping on rested that respectability masculine to claim us - ulig ws n sne piiee atvt. pcs in Spaces activity. privileged a sense a in was building” the penetrating men not considered homosexual, but also but homosexual, considered not men penetrating the uh relationshi Such

On th On lity wasn’t an issue of class/ of issue an wasn’t lity 18 the the e other hand, authors don’ authors hand, other e

- eouinr tms o al e wo were who men all not times revolutionary omnt ws ecie a a ru of group a as perceived was community

- sex relations, even in pre in even relations, sex making an attempt to preserve their their preserve to attempt an making bten w mn eebe sexual resembled men two between p wt nw hrd enns which meanings shared new with d

n xhne o mtra weal material for exchange in derstanding of homosexuals. homosexuals. of derstanding status, there is a need need a thereis status, t deny the existence existence the deny t

from lower classes lower from - revolutionary - prostitutes”, th. nd nd

CEU eTD Collection usually poor; here it refers to a passivea to it refers here poor; usually 11 people and elite royal bourgeoisie, aristocracy, the to perversions other and homosexuality perspective. another from read be might fact this revolution, the of outcome accidental an as conceptualized be can 1917 in homosexuality of decriminalization the Although 2001) Healey, 1986; (Kozlovskii, was anti theof abolition on view common most The Government. Soviet established newly a of wasstep conscious this that argued 2001) Healey, 1974; Thorstad, (Lauristen, authors western homosexuality. Some of criminalization no was there 1933 until up because foremost and first were they as associated tolerated even were lesbians masculine values; patriarchal from and departure role female in shift the with associated was it Revolution October Great the After ( homosexuality Female private. in gatherings male as suspicious and visible unique, as not and present always were women between relationships same female of evidence might It time. that during sphere private no the in communities lesbian any forming is there yet relations, sexual their hide to attempt an making in relatives could same Female 50) 2001, (Healey world” homosexual male the of attributes the with subculturecoherent a themselves for construct to able wereless so and sphere public the people terms similar in other each to addressing started men

ek (rus) Tetka

eoe; osqety h ciiaiain f ooeult ws’ pr wasn’t homosexuality of criminalization the consequently revoked; be commonly found in brothels and cathouses; lesbians also presented themselves as themselves presented also lesbians cathouses; and brothels in found commonly be ) The October Revolution in 1917 changed the position of gays and lesbian in Russia, Russia, in lesbian and gays of position the changed 1917 in Revolution October The their “Unlike

(Healey, 2001) (Healey, 2001)

with the emancipatory movementwith the emancipatory – - sex relationships had no space to be expressed, yet female gatherings and close and gatherings female yet expressed, be to space no had relationships sex

is a Russian derogatory term to designate a simple woman, commonly from the rural areas, areas, rural the from commonly woman, simple a designate to term derogatory Russian a is - gay legislations however is that after the revolution all the Tsarist legislation Tsarist the all revolution the after that is however legislations gay male counterparts, Russian [homosexual] women […] had less access to access less had […] women [homosexual] Russian counterparts, male

The

homosexual. oit oenet smlr o Na to similar government, Soviet

(ibid.) 19

– lesbiian

ie “tetka” like stvo ws lot invisible. almost was ) i emn, attributed Germany, zi 11

r nsi ludi “nashi or sn anymore. esent be true that true be - sex desire desire sex

( our

CEU eTD Collection of the government government the of part the on actions triggered population urban the of Growth there. jobs find to hoping cities numbe a to due 1930s, the of beginningIn the regime. Soviet the tougheningoverallof the to commonly related is 1933, 2005, p.60) disa Union) Soviet the in least (at and discredited a Soviet for issue an of longer product the was […] homosexuality proscribed no that morality “[c]onventional officialdom: was homosexuality class, upper an longer no was there non and decadent as perceived was gayness production; in efficiency and work hard on based was morality class Working conditions. economic their to due perverted be to thought were classes upper UnionwasOrder Soviet and attributedtotheworkingwh morality inthe class, 6). p. 1999, (Essig, workers” of exploitation the to analogous mentality bourgeois of vestige only implied 1986), (Mosse, morality class middle Nazi to similarly morality, class 2001)Working (Healey, eliminated. be must which one the to class, inadmissible the to ascribed were past classes upper the ther revolution, the all through eliminated class working the as therefore life, bourgeois of aspect problematic a as depicted was Homosexuality bourgeoisie. erased it as just homosexuality, t and change political such because sexuality”,and sex of revolution“a Revolution October the call to possible Itis 154) p. 1994, (Engelstein deprivation.” cultural and social of than privilege class of function comfor a as turpitude more were Russians spectrum, political the “Across foreigners. and them, to close were who

rcetv sxaiy wie []e oit cniud o ead ooeult a a as homosexuality regard to continued Soviets “[t]he while sexuality, procreative in started which homosexuality, male of criminalization severe most the of period The

- rdcie in productive termed termed r of economic problems and lack of food, people migrated to the to migrated people food, of lack and problems economic of r e would be no perversion in the Soviet State. All the relics of the the of relics the All State. Soviet the in perversion no be would e cita (laig wih ie t eiiae l te “social the all eliminate to aimed which (cleaning) “chistka”

omns udrtnig Thu understanding. communist he rule of of rule he

20 (Kon, 1998; Mosse, 1986; Engelstein, 1992) 1992) Engelstein, 1986; Mosse, 1998; (Kon,

the ppearing bourgeois society” (Carleton, (Carleton, society” bourgeois ppearing okn cas hud ae erased have should class working al t epann sexual explaining to table , fe te eouin as revolution, the after s, ile exploitative CEU eTD Collection prostitutes, professionalized paupers, homeless people and various criminals. various and people homeless paupers, professionalized prostitutes, 12 yet criminalization, of society and un theimagethe sustained ofauthorities by state meanspublic; these Moreover, (p.18). media” and art ( Nemtsev Mikhail as use; related information the All p.19). m into crime a as homosexuality of idea the [introduce] anti the of implementation However, Union. a regulated were identities” “abnormal other non any towards intolerance in homosexuality of Prohibition the these to exposed potentially were USSR of citizens that implying 185) p. 2001, (Healey, students” sailor soldiers, Army Red people, young healthy totally of corruption and to the “working cit abnormal this degradation moral potential with concerned was that Officialdom out Soviet points mostly Healey subculture. urban new the and homosexuality to related problem were which groups, formed men gay to considered that said was it Although charged. and be arrested to groups “abnormal” first the of one were homosexuals (2001) Healey to According anomalies”

According to Dan Healey (2001), “social anomalies” in the USSR along with cruising homosexuals included included homosexuals cruising with along USSR the in anomalies” “social (2001), Healey Dan to According y subculture could bring to the nation. Visibility of cruising homosexuals became a threat threat a became homosexuals cruising of Visibility nation. the to bring could subculture y

public realm public perversions. Thus, the anti the Thus, perversions.

homosexuality was hidden not just from the media: trials of gay men were never were men gay of trials media: the from just not hidden was homosexuality 12 . In comparison to male same male to comparison In .

be the ground for potential espionage, espionage was only a part of the overall overall the of part a only was espionage espionage, potential for ground the be rm h ubn pc ta psd tra t te oaiy f h nation. the of morality the to threat a posed that space urban the from - class/communist morality”; gays were constantly accused of the “recruitmentofaccused the morality”;weregays constantly class/communist ; it also attempted to “purify” and c and “purify” to attempted also it ;

Even t a cntnl ptooie; oe, h wr dansd with diagnosed were who women, pathologised; constantly was it

2008 -

conformism, not only same only not conformism, the criminalization of homosexuality was silenced by the State. the by silenced was homosexuality of criminalization the

) points out “the state did everything it coul it everything did state “the out points ) - gay legislation aimed not only to erase homosexuality from from homosexuality erase to only not aimed legislation gay

the o same to

SR a b se a a aietto o rooted of manifestation a as seen be can USSR - sex relations, female homosexuality has no has homosexuality female relations, sex - e rltosdsr ws rdctd rm public from eradicated was relations/desire sex nd “cleaned” from the urban space in the Soviet the in space urban the from “cleaned” nd 21

- a lgsain aae t “effectively to managed legislation gay ontrol the nation, in any possible way. way. possible any in nation, the ontrol ass consciousness” (Nemtsev, 2008 (Nemtsev, consciousness” ass - sex relations (Kozlovskii, 1986 (Kozlovskii, relations sex

- perverted workingclass perverted s, and individual individual and s, d to de to d - sexualize

history

) – ,

CEU eTD Collection nesod n eain o usa ad oit ptaiy Communit spatiality. Soviet and Russian to relation in understood and honored inrelations thatsense withothers.” 1996,p.260). (Tuller, nurtured people many political, the and personal the between state, the and citizens between barrier every destroy to sought that system the in out, “trapped pointed Tuller David As p.230) 1994, (Moss, ways” many in opposed diametrically p and public personae, two up grow to seems Russian “Every identities. a under of realm the in homosexuality their hide to had people one; actual the not ideology, the into fitted which re the to everything transferring by spheres private the and public the between boundary the completely erase to was communists the of claimideological official The p.97) 1994, (Tuler, apartments.”private in gather and meet to continued men eighties, and seventies sixties, fifties, the Throughout altogether. disappear not did it view, public in yet hidden Nation; Soviet of lesbians wereonly pathologised, criminalizedtimes. butnot during Soviet why explanation possible a be could which masculinity), female of cases extreme of number invisib completely almost were lesbians female relations, of homosexual geography no almost was there that out points he Moreover, masculine. more considered was movement Bolshevik that fact the to due and equality proclaimed the to due fema then efiminization male of afraid more was government Soviet the that argues (2001) Healey treatment. involuntary compulsory for sentenced were lesbianism, el o hde piay wher privacy, hidden of realm the Despite severe criminalization and pathologization, gays and les and gays pathologization, and criminalization severe Despite be should chapter this of beginning the in about talking was I community the Thus, control of the state by enforcing by state the of control the private private alm of public. Thus, the life it was possible to lead in public was the one the was public in lead to possible was it life the Thus, public. of alm o as so the not to be imprisoned. While While imprisoned. be to not te wr able were they e from receded had life Gay Soviet “Though sphere. private a “no privacy” ideology, people managed to create to managed people ideology, privacy” “no 22 city squares, at the banya (public baths), and in and baths), (public banya the at squares, city

‘liberate’ h lives the a refined sense of the private private the of sense refined a le (except for the a small small a the for (except le

hi state their e wr (n sil are) still (and were ies

f people of bians were still a part part a still were bians

le masculinisation, le iae wih are which rivate, - objectionable were ta ken –

CEU eTD Collection decriminalize male homosexuality along with all activities, oriented towards community building and even even and building community towards oriented activities, leisureactivities. all with along homosexuality male decriminalize 13 repressions 1997) (Kon, al but established, was group rights lesbian and gay a that only not problematic it found who agents, KGB by detected medicine). Soviet in place no had (which in homosexuals of position goals main two had organization undercover St (now Leningrad in people gay of group a In1984 USSR. former the in AIDS on discourse the with connected movement a create to attempt first The public. go to attempts (Nem underground” homosexual 1.2. Post to emerge inthe late 80s. creating cruising/meeting communi for homosexual criminalization, notwithstanding homosexuals by appropriated were specific symbols, and level. signs shared of local a at system a developed identity, their functioning display visibly to inability their of prominentlybecause Homosexuals, were communities distance, such Despite or other partic each “old” between about acquaintance personal information by only no connected having often individuals, as well as groups small city one mostly

I designate movement here as all sole activists and and activists sole all as here movement designate I h ed f 0 ws hrceie b te vrl lbrlzto i te SR “The USSR. the in liberalization overall the by characterized was 80s of end The

their - Soviet LGBT Movement: Radical Politics and Community Needs Community Politicsand Radical Movement: Soviet LGBT

the Gay Laboratory Gay the

hs atr ay oiia, dooia acstos threats accusations, ideological political, many after Thus,

own privacy, thus giving thus privacy, own - based; Mikhail Nemtsev Mikhail based; Ptrbr) created Petersburg) .

so that members of this group had connections with foreigners. with connections had group this of members that so the

was disbanded, and its members had to keep sile keep to had members its and disbanded, was tsev, 2012, p. 37) started to reveal itself, making various various making itself, reveal to started 37) p. 2012, tsev, SR n t pplrz HVAD peeto discourse prevention HIV/AIDS popularize to and USSR

argot

the

( 2008) (

/slang. possibility for possibility Kn 1998 (Kon, the 23 –

activist groups, which emerged to claim rights, to to rights, claim to emerged which groups, activist a Laboratory Gay o ped nweg aot the about knowledge spread to

Moreover, cities had certain spaces which which spaces certain had cities Moreover, rusfrdfnn omnt s “many as community defining for argues ties were ties 19; si, 1999) Essig, 1997; ,

gay/lesbian liberation movement liberation gay/lesbian 13 ipants of the group” (p.23). (p.23). group” the of ipants

– present present

occurred in 1984 and was and 1984 in occurred

Gi Laboratoriia) (Gei peha” Therefore, “pleshkas”. in the in faig potential fearing , Yet USSR, even USSR,

nt or even or nt and plight they were were they

;

this

CEU eTD Collection for almost 50 years 50 almost for Certainly, minds people’s Soviet in society Russian into gayness introducing for blamed be could someone if as investigated, and “unnatural” term the using problem, a as discussed commonly was Homosexuality (p.205) cataclysms.” revolutionary” sortsof“sex andas were,various everydayare, intuitively,it protectedfrom bothlegallylife system social our state a quotes even Gessen Masha homosexuality. no is there as nation, Soviet “pure” the for threat a not followingpolitical newspapers, various the In 1997) in addressed was homosexuality Glasnost, of beginning Kon, 1994; (Gessen, terms. positive in homosexuality about talk to aimed sci literary, political, sort: any of discourses printable) (and printed to but press Soviet the of pages the to only not newcomer a was […] “sex repealed officially was censorship after USSR; the in censorship a as genderless sexuality and and sexless was sex media over Soviet The publications USSR. press the captivated and media of freedom the of years first the During Glasnost’. of phenomenon the with directly connected was and 90s of 80s/beginning acommunity tobuild citizenship, to ofa aone). (even part being transnational lesbians and gays of desire the also but sphere), only not ( immigrate. h scn atmt wih a atal scesu, emerged successful, actually was which attempt, second The

the homosexuality, Kon, 1997 Kon, presence of homosexuality in the USSR (although rooted deeply in deeply rooted (although USSR the in homosexuality of presence . – Gessen (ibid.) in her article says that says article her in (ibid.) Gessen

is the very reality that the sphere of intimate relations, the family and its its and family the relations, intimate of sphere the that reality very the is n, s e a se rm h eape f h Ws, catastrophic West, the of example the from see can we as and, , -

official’s speech on HIV/AIDS, who said: “One of the achievements of of achievements the of “One said: who HIV/AIDS, on speech official’s was discussed as problematic in t in problematic as discussed was nii” Gse, 95 p 1 p. 1995, (Gessen, entific” ; Essig, 1999) These first attempts, although unsuccessful, designate unsuccessful, although attempts, first These 1999) Essig, ;

included the included stigmatized both through medical and legal discourses and silenced silenced and and discourses medical legal stigmatized boththrough

US discourse of that time, claimed that this epidemic wasepidemic this that claimed time, that of discourse

and the feminization of the teaching profession). profession). teaching the of feminization the and 24

99) . However, at that time (1987) no no (1987) time that at However, . he press. Yet the time of Glasnost gave Glasnost of time the Yet press. he a list of the “ the of list a terms of terms e rsn publicly present be

the discourse of HIV/AIDS; HIV/AIDS; of discourse the causes”

of homosexuality of

t cam thei claim to , eut f severe of result at

h ed of end the

the

private private (1994) one – - r

CEU eTD Collection 2008 and Petersburg) by replaced was 1993 after Union Soviet the of collapse the after established were which organizations LGBT major four discuss will I part this In policies. could they that impression an shared th were, in governors present being of because in Petersburg, People Saint cities. capital and the Moscow in happened 90s of beginning the in actions political all as (Nemtsev activities” these of concentration biggest the had cities capital “[t]he in occurred initiatives liberation homosexual Mostly, activism. in engaging start to lesbians and gays Russian for 1.2.1. movement. Soviet/Post newspaper this of the nascence matter; political and public a become to homosexuality for possibility the up opened 1994 the begi reflected just gays, Soviet of needs varying that material of hodgepodge a “was which newspaper, the created activist, well most the probably is who Kalinin, 1998 1997, Kon, 1994; (Gessen, lesbians and gays about myths resolve and openly sexuality about write to aimed which “Tema”, newspaper the was such of One emerge. to media alternative for opportunity the p 23. Tm” culy showed actually “Tema” 223). p. , )

Activism in the Two Capitals: Capitals: Activism the Two in Glasnost and Perestroika, as incentives for the gay/lesbian movement, gave the ability the gave movement, gay/lesbian the for incentives as Perestroika, and Glasnost

- Soviet LGBT movement and shows how influential media influential how shows and movement LGBT Soviet cakvk Fund Tchaikovsky the etr pr o Rsi (aey ocw n S. Pete St. and Moscow (namely Russia of part western

a atal b rgre a a onainl on of point foundational a as regarded be actually can Treugolnik Esg 199 Essig, ;

Sit Petersburg). (Saint C nning to define an identity and a movement” (Gessen, movement” a and identity an define to nning – ases of ases of Saint PetersburgMoscow and the

- h wy i which in ways the nw soviet/post known

(Triangle) in Moscow, Moscow, in (Triangle) Association 25 ; ete, 2008 Nemtsev, 9;

Esg 19; o, 199 Kon, 1999; (Essig, of Sexual Minorities (ASM) which which (ASM) Minorities Sexual of iety nlec the influence directly

- h bgnig of beginning the oit gay soviet e same space where the the where space same e Te ulse, Roman publisher, The ) Krily

can be can - ihs n political and rights a

(Wings, Saint Saint (Wings,

, 2008 , for the social the for liberalization 8 Nemtsev, ; e state new rsburg) , p.50) p.50) , the - .

CEU eTD Collection with an emphasis on politics. “The Centre Triangle’s strategy was to influence the political political the influence to was strategy Triangle’s Centre “The politics. on emphasis an with for fight to established NGO first the of grouporiented Bisexua in This period that at criminalized still was homosexuality “Tema”.that fact the despite action, political direct registered officially had 1990 by about open be to activist their wanted organization also, who Kalinin, Roman by and activist) democratic (liberal Debryanskaya Evgeniia by lead was It 1999) (Essig, precisely. problems addressed of range the down narrowed just agenda, its change didn’t name the in change and the yet Lesbians, Gays of Association Moscow the renamed was it conflicts inner the to due and time repressi legal of elimination the for government the with struggle mean b its achieve to opinion en to wouldneed activists groupdemocratic “Notof needs. parliament,withcommunity every then concerned mostly aspiration they 2008 the followed was and ASM politics identityof pattern western agenda. organization’s this of part a became “Tema” newspaper the rights. minorities’ sexual for fight to aiming organization time. (Esstime.

). ter the political field. However, sometimes the group finds it necessary to attract public public attract to necessary it finds group the sometimes However, field. political the ter were

n 99 h AM Ascain f eul Minoritie Sexual of (Association ASM the 1989 In functioning barely was it However, Radical here means heremeans Radical Ognzto Cne Triangle Center Organization l

to impro to interested in politics; politics; in interested ig, 1999;Nemtsev, activists” (Essig, 1999, p. 61) p. (Essig,1999, activists” ve the position of homosexual in the Russian society. Russian the in homosexual of position the ve with asic objectives.” (Nemtsev, (Nemtsev, objectives.” asic – eoig oiial ivle ad bu icuin no h new the into inclusion about and involved politically becoming

rm l sxa mnrte (incl minorities sexual all from that such activists were activists such that

2008 they also claimed also they ) the the

elcd t Triangle it. replaced rights of rights working in the “radical the in working y h ed f 1993 of end the by 26

not oriented towards the communitythe needs towardsoriented not their sexuality, perceiving coming out as a as out comingsexuality, perceivingtheir the was founded in 1993 in Moscow, and wasand in Moscow, 1993 in foundedwas minority right from the state without without state the from right minority 2008 non , p.54) By “political” in this work I work this in “political” By p.54) ,

uding prostitutes) to homosexuals homosexuals to prostitutes) uding - (K heterosexual community, yet still still yet community, heterosexual ) a etbihd a te first the as established, was s) on, 1998 on,

was ; usa Gy Lesbi Gay, Russian

political trend” (Nemtsev, trend” political

n lne a Moscow a longer “no , 1997) , ons. After ons.

Such activists were activists Such

Publication of Publication

n and an certain certain any -

CEU eTD Collection aly ekn i hs eerhs o researches his in Renkin, Hadley non of history post in lesbians O naming. of techniques specific of help the with history cultural Russian into themselves write to attempt an making were organizations both titles; used they and they LGBT two of establishment abrupt a had Petersburg homosexual for support legal the only homosexuality not male issues: of decriminalization various addressing were Petersburg Saint in organizations LGBT only so the was it homosexuals Russian many for that fact the despite paper, his to mission historic only assigned Kalinin Interestingly, p.59). 1999 (Essig, culture” Russian in point also got “Tema” gone. money was the whenregisteredeven wasn’t moneyandthe all yetsquandered it ILGA, received organization This difficulties. financial and organizational, members, i as 1996, in down shut was it in regions numerous in importabranches have would which organization, most and also, but structure, governmental rights. marriage rights, adoption community” the for important were which fields in making decision urce non about ofinformation Tchaikovskii Fund for Cultural Initiatives Cultural for Fund Tchaikovskii emerged simultaneously, emerged At the same time, two major LGBT organizations emerged in Saint Petersburg. The The Petersburg. Saint in emerged organizations LGBT major two time, same the At the the same ways to claim their national belonging, which can be discovered from the from discovered be can which belonging, national their claim to ways same - normative sexuality” (ibid., p.67) and, consequently, write homosexual into it. into homosexual write consequently, and, p.67) (ibid., sexuality” normative - oit usa o erh o clua ros a t “eosrc te national the “reconstruct to was roots cultural for search to Russia Soviet shut down; Roman Kalinin claimed that “Tema marked a significant turning significant a marked “Tema that claimed Kalinin Roman down; shut og udrrud a lf” ( life” gay “underground long St. Petersburg Gay a Gay Petersburg St. s Mkal Nemtsev Mikhail . t commonly happened that time time that happened commonly t -

normative sexualities. (Nem - rights and community and rights post n tsev, bt lo omnt nes n wr providing were and needs community also but , - socialist Hungary analyses the phenomenon of of phenomenon the analyses Hungary socialist 2008 27

didn’t cooperate with each other. each with cooperatedidn’t

, p.58). Not only was it planned as a non a as planned it was only Not p.58). , . 6 ad hs atal epan such explains partially this and 46) p.

nd Lesbian Human Rights Center Rights Human Lesbian nd (2008)

ntly -

ne of the strategies for gays and and gays for strategies the of ne building organizatio building n i wr cmet ta St. that comments work his in –

s nation a as the the –

due to conflicts between between conflicts to due Russian Federation. Yet Federation. Russian

–

decriminalization, - ie umbrella wide Interestingly, ns a . Although . grant from grant

Krilya

an -

CEU eTD Collection raiain i te w cptl. ee pa t so hw hs ognztos we organizations these how show to plan I Here capitals. two the in organizations largest the at looked I section previous the In Petersburg. Saint and Moscow in organizations 1.2.2. LGBT Movement discursively natembed into themselves organizations LGBT “queered”) are writings his but homosexual, as narrated is personally he sexuality their (although not Kuzmin as and Tchaikovsky to suchimportant figures, belonging(homosexual) of terms in symbols cultural LGBT move and perspicacious extremely an naming fact, of matter in a as is, heritage organization national) important, more is what (and, cultural (R discourse. national into integrate to minorities sexual post in strategy used commonly a is memory and history Poetry. of Reworking Russian of Age Silver the of formation the to contributed who Kuzmin, Mikhail pre the during written was which novel, homoerotic LGBT the Naming homosexual. actually, is, proud so is nation the which about heritage the of part that Russian belonging national claim for to used discursively importanceis name his so great heritage, cultural a of is music His 1995) Sokolov, 1997; (Kon, desire. sex closeted a composer Russian famous the of name present. culturally and historically homosexuality homo inserting through in 55); p. 2007, (Renkin, history” national specifically a into gay “inserting through belonging national gay/lesbian reclaiming and groups between conflicts various the investigate to intend I section this In - one, as he could not accept his sexuality because of the prejudices towards same towards prejudices the of because sexuality his accept not could he as one, organization “ organization

eult it te ih ainl utrl eiae tu making thus heritage, cultural national rich the into sexuality Krilya in the Centerin ”

is also a strategy of claiming belonging. claiming of strategy a also is the ional identity. – : Conflicts in Strategies in Conflicts :

Piotr Tchaikovsky, who was a homosexual although homosexual a was Tchaikovsky,who Piotr post 28 - oit ae ntoa blnig a claimed was belonging national case, Soviet

B adn te opnn o sexual of component the adding By . The Fund for Cultural Initiatives Cultural for Fund The

- revolutiona enkin, 2007) Such usage of Russian Russian of usage Such 2007) enkin,

ry times (1908) by poet poet by (1908) times ry –

Krilya - it rewrites national national rewrites it socialist space for space socialist –

was the first the was to poin to

used the used - rights e in re t out t - CEU eTD Collection activists were competing over resources. Igor resources. over competing were activists post During themselve (Nemtsev, grants foreign the for rivalryof issue the is phenomenon this of distanceexplanation to aimed city each within organizations prevention. HIV/AIDS and homosexuality male of criminalization as such issues, significant various crit and achievements other’s each following opposition, constant decriminalizat the towards and radical that were activists Fund Tchaikovsky of most as homosexuality of decriminalization towards oriented were groups all However, government. the with compromise a reaching towards oriented not was Russia in activism radical homosexuality; of decriminalization to protests, and rallies hold to society, Russian within homophobia overall the and community LGBT the of needs the towards attention paying without state post for which activism political radical support (Nemtsev, society in homosexuals of position and conditions other, each to opposed Diametrically briefly earlier, LGBT with dealing in strategies their belonging, national their claim to strategies same the used organizations both Although simultaneously and inthetwocapitalsinitiatives emerged agendas ofthe largeones. toresist organizations smaller how and levels) intercity and city (on other each with conflict h peiu scin hw ta to ao LB ognztos existed organizations LGBT major two that shows section previous The raiain i Mso ad t Ptrbr wr as wrig separately; working also were Petersburg St. and Moscow in Organizations

- Soviet times, money for such initiatives were coming from the West, therefore West, the from coming were initiatives such for money times, Soviet

in the beginning of 90s in Saint Petersburg: Saint in 90s of beginning the in –

hs ognztos ee o wrig n ojnto wt ec other. each with conjunction in working not were organizations these o. Esg 19; ete, 2008 Nemtsev, 1999; (Essig, ion. - eae ise dfee dramatically differed issues related Krilya Krilya 29

Kon, on the other hand, points out that in the in that out points hand, other the on Kon, ee compromise were

Soviet Russia meant to claim rights from the from rightsclaim to meant Russia Soviet okd oad te mrvmn o the of improvement the towards worked

2008 To ciit rus ee in were groups activist Two ) Krilya fo ec ohr One other. each from s - iquing ways of addressing addressing of ways iquing retd yt oh aimed both yet oriented, ). This organization organization This ).

ie mmes f the of members time:

and Tchaikovsky Fund. Tchaikovsky and demand the immediate the demand

–

mnind this mentioned I 2008 didn’t ).

CEU eTD Collection homosexuals in Russia in andhomosexuals exacerbated existing withthegovernment. the conflict so of concern greatest The 1999) (Essig, slowly. homosexuality of opinion governmental) (and public change to aimed they as Fund, Tchaikovsky of strategies political the to themselves Nemtsev, and homosexuality (Essig,1999;activists did. Moscow major furtheras alienatethemselves than integraterather about society and government informing with work to aimed which Sodrujestvo Iskrennost’, (Ravenstvo, RISK journal and group activist an Moscow,LGBT activist created from an Ortanov, p.63) Vladislav more(Essig, 1999, safely.” but slowly, moving prefer theyInstead is. it than worse any homosexualityon opinion public Compromise decisively. and quickly move compromise to “Compared movement. the of number a in emerged Resistance activism. doing of way dominant the towards itself movement the within resistance provoked it Consequently period. that during needed actually Russia in people the and Memb Fund). Tchaikovsky Triangle then and (ASM strategy political aggressive used homosexuality male itself. th towards post only not in occurred that fact the on accentuate them of Both 1999) (Essig, them. reaching on approaches and thoughts similar having not but goals, same exact having explanati the to analogous is which ), 1998 (Kon opinions. opposite with people of groups and fractions into disentanglement post - called “compromise called - Soviet space, the emergence of any big movement consequently led to its its to led consequently movement big any of emergence the space, Soviet

h frt icus wih mre o hmsxa rgt ad ermnlzto of decriminalization and rights homosexual on emerged which discourse first The

2008

) In St. Petersburg St. In ) fields; first and foremost to the growing aggressiveness in the politicization ofpoliticization the in aggressivenessgrowing the to foremost and first fields; - oriented activists” was that was activists” oriented ers were more interested in Russian politics than in what LGBT what in than politics Russian in interested more were ers e dominant power of the State, but also within the movement the within also but State, the of power dominant e Krilya , led by Alexander Kukhar Alexander by led , - on Laurie Essig gives: a number of organizations of number a gives: Essig Laurie on oriented activists, however, do not want to make to want not do however, activists, oriented - 30 retd ciit [] aia qer wn to want queers radical […] activists oriented

radicals only aggravated the position of position the aggravated only radicals - oit usa resistance Russia Soviet skii, were also opposing opposing also were skii, Kompromis), I

1997; , CEU eTD Collection the90s. 14 Barnaul in Minorities; Sexual of Association Siberian club f 90s of althoughbeginning the in known Russia, was krai Primorskii of part eastern the in activism about exists information little relatively Homosexuality network. did LGBT it however too, regions that provincial the in show existed 90s the to in activism aims section this Petersburg: St. and Moscow in only not occurred non However, decriminalization. of aim shared the reach to which by strategy the over disagreement severe a in be to themselves found they other; each with conflict in were the “Anti 1.2.3. Localand Initiatives cultural than rather political. (Es women activities their all making consequently “MOLLI” in Art Lesbians and Literature of Organization Moscow the founding by representation desired the gained with connection strong a develop didn’t they aspects; social/cultural the with concerned more were lesbians some Therefore, issues. other on concentrate to need a felt some Treugolnik), of leader a was many who Debrianskaia, strug Although political decriminalization. in engaged for were struggle women homosexual a from excluded discursively were non the of result male a I want to thank Evgenii Belyakov for his insights on LGBT community in in community LGBT on insights his for Belyakov Evgenii thank to want I - s oprto ad “anti and cooperation 14

- . I showed in the previous section that various groups in the two main cities in Russia Russia in cities main two the in groups various that section previous the in showed I was State, Soviet the of fall the after Russia in emerged which movement, LGBT The

dominated movement as a result of onlymale of result a as movement dominated

Local initiatives came forward in Omsk Omsk in forward came initiatives Local - rmnlzto o lsins drn te oit r, ooeul women homosexual era, Soviet the during lesbianism of criminalization - related activism emerged separately in central Russia and Siberia; and Russia central in separately emerged activism related - nerto” i trs f aig n mjr usa network) Russian major one making of terms (in integration”

sig, 1999;Nemtsev,sig,

- Integration political LGBT movement in their activism. They activism. their in movement LGBT political 31

” Trend ” Trend -

2008 or its gay its or homosexuality being criminalized. As a As criminalized. being homosexuality mki Tm, n Krasnoiarsk in Tema, Omskaia – l fr h dciiaiain (like decriminalization the for gle

a regional NGO Siberian Initiative. Siberian NGO regional a )

- culture and a number of gay of number a and culture Vladivoskok and Primorskii krai in in krai Primorskii and Vladivoskok n’t constitute a solid a constitute n’t - centered and and centered the issue of issue the –

the -

CEU eTD Collection particularly engaged in major state politics or getting places in the parliament: that was was that parliament: the in places getting and or politics communities state major local in with engaged particularly work to trying were time that at organizations Local oriented. community mostly was 90s the in regions the in activism LGBT why reason the is this politics; state the on influence any have not do they assume remoteness, their of because regions, the and happens, struggle political where space the is Moscow differently. themselves of think they country: the of capital the to themselves relate not do commonly p.25 1996, (Tuller, Russians” than European more were Petersburg St. or Moscow from Russians if “as Europe, as Petersburg St. and Moscow to referring were Russia central in [were] respondents his of some but cities, other in th commencing processes in autonomous organizational about “knew initiatives LGBT regional establishing Those much. cooperate didn’t and other, each to relation in emerge organizations LGBT sim various regions different in commenced of establishment the and movement The jointly. working community and/or cultural, (political, di Geographical other. each from distant significantly are which regions federal 83 has it kilometers) square million 17.1 occupies (Russia country biggest world the Being impossible. almost capital the in groups activist activism inMoscowvisible and Petersburg. St. (ibid.) community b to homosexuality want didn’t who capitals, two the in activists for case the not commonly was which prevention, HIV/AIDS example, for was, latter the of interest main the initiatives; building community ev or , organizations Those (Essig,1999) egahcl itne ae h coeain betw cooperation the made distance Geographical

- oriented organizations emerged all over Russia, yet they didn’t network with the with network didn’t they yet Russia, over all emerged organizations oriented ) Tle rie a iprat su, ht usa pol i te regions the in people Russian that issue, important an raised Tuller 4). cntnl ascae wt AD eieis Tu, ay small many Thus, epidemics. AIDS with associated constantly e is activity.” (Nemtsev, (Nemtsev, activity.” is ultaneously in the 1990s, yet, these organizations didn’t organizations these yet, 1990s, the in ultaneously - ae) ed o h fc ta ognztos ee not were organizations that fact the to lead based) en projects, were definitely community definitely were projects, en tne n dfeet prahs o LGBT to approaches different and stance 32

2008 e te oa iiitvs n the and initiatives local the een p4) ai Tle nts that notes Tuller David p.49) , - oriented and and oriented ee not were - politics politics CEU eTD Collection Petersburg in 2011, which was preceded and followed by similar legislative efforts in other other in efforts legislative similar by followed and preceded was which 2011, in Petersburg post the d of stage new whole a thus activism, political of reemergence a be as perceived should activism Russian contemporary that argue to like would I changes, legislative (1996(98) faded movement the when stage the Nemtsevstages (Essig1999; two Prerequisites 1. yearsemerged (after fall in10 only the ofTriangl subsequent the unlike a as succeed didn’t Triangle why p.66); 1999, (Essig, flourishing” post the of wa politics identity began, it afteryears five “in why and movement, attenuation the influenced fragmentation this how showing post in activism LGBT reas year.”After a brief 1999,p.56) appearedwith each passing(Essig, lessvital organizations of group disparate and small a Instead, develop. identity sexual of movement St. capitals two in groups activist with conjunction differences politics. thenecessity ofsuch inunderstanding initiatives, LGBT the in discrepancy quantitative the cities only capital not created the from distance Geographical Petersburg. St. and Moscow in happening 3

Re . eesug xeine svr shs. “[P]ost schism. severe experienced Petersburg As has been shown, regional organizations and initiatives were not working in in working not were initiatives and organizations regional shown, been has As The LGBT movement in post in movement LGBT The - - Soviet LGBT movement. Since the adoption of anti of adoption the Since movement. LGBT Soviet Emergence of the LGBT Movement in Russia: Short and Long Term Term Long and Short Russia: in Movement LGBT the of Emergence

national - socialist space in the next few pages I will conclude this chapter by by chapter this conclude will I pages few next the in space socialist

LGBT organization, the All the organization, LGBT 2008 - Soviet Russia is commonly perceived as having only only having as perceived commonly is Russia Soviet ) –

the stage of its emergencestage(1987(84) the its of 33

– e in1996). e

- similarly the organization in Moscow and Moscow in organization the similarly i 0s. oee, u t te recent the to due However, 00s). mid - oit usa a nt en mass a seen not has Russia Soviet

Russian LGBT Network, which which Network, LGBT Russian - propaganda legislation in Saint in legislation propaganda national s floundering rather than than rather floundering s

u as structural also but

Russian network, network, Russian - - evelopment of evelopment oit LGBT Soviet 1996 oning onthe (98)) and (98))

CEU eTD Collection n h rgt egahcl pc. oe ciit rus Tinl, cakvk Fn) were Fund) Tchaikovsky (Triangle, groups activist Some space. geographical right the in act LGBT House; White the to next or Square Red at Moscow Most in happened 1990s of geographically. beginning the in distancedprotests demonstrations, debates, struggles, also political were and communities gay/lesbian building with activis regional issue; this to related action direct in engaged were ( struggle.” political of issue important one on agreement in were groups different another, one with conflict in commonly (Nemtsev began movement of politicization whole “the Yet, development. community and prevention, HIV/AIDS society, in position gays’/lesbians’ of improvement homosexuality: to related issues of range a addressing were previou out pointed I’ve As diverse. as described Decriminalization:1.3.1. Sudden Prerequisites the the Depoliticization of Movement. of movement re post the of stageapolitical the about Italk Inwill sectionregions. the this in LGBT activism of existence al I Petersburg. St. and Moscow in activists of strategies and goals various out pointing section, previous the in state legitimized homophobia. acti and visible became abruptly movement LGBT the regions,

struggle for decriminalization was temporary unification of lesbian and gay groups in their in groups gayand lesbian of temporaryunification was decriminalization for struggle –

y h ya 19 te GT oeet n post in movement LGBT the 1993 year the By post the of emergence the of description elaborate an gave I

homosexuality should be decriminalized in the post the in decriminalized be should homosexuality - 2008 Soviet LGBT movement, its prerequisites and the reasons why in the mid 00s mid the in why reasons the and prerequisites its movement, LGBT Soviet - emerged as aemerged politicalas one. ,

p. so depicted the conflict between groups and initiatives and showed the the showed and initiatives and groups between conflict the depicted so

ibid., p.55 ibid., 5 Dsie h fc ta itrss n srtge o atvss were activists of strategies and interests that fact the Despite 55) ) Only groups in the two capitals two the in groups Only )

as consolidation in the struggle for decriminalization.” decriminalization.” for struggle the in consolidation as

sly in the text, activists and activist groups groups activist and activists text, the in sly - - Socialist Russia could aptly be be aptly could Russia Socialist Soviet space. “One of the effects the of “One space. Soviet ivists in the capital cities were cities capital the in ivists – e n t rssac towards resistance its in ve St. Petersburg and Moscow Moscow and Petersburg St. - Soviet LGBT movement LGBT Soviet ts were more concerned more were ts the

CEU eTD Collection cooperation p. 55) vanished.”(ibid, andgathering of factor powerful this repose,article’s the of moment the “Inover. almost was po the of stage political the such change legislative of unexpected result a as vanish: to began activism LGBT political meaningless; became once at Fund Tchaikovsky the and Triangle the of actions political the All them. for left struggle struggle the in orientation their lost activists political movement, the to reference any without happened law the of abolition the as consequently, politics; state o abolition the enhance to was goal Their completely. aim their lost visible, and active most the time that at were who Zhuk, Debryanskaia, Kalinin, like activists, political Consequently, 56) p. state the by answer an a but activism, all the to authorities at not was “It activists. and society to invisible almost be to appeared it authorities; governmental the of decision political strategic a was homosexuality (Kon Europe. of Council the of member a became Russia – Russia for beneficial highly was also it opinion; public international of pressure the of result 27 the on occurred homosexuality male against law the of abrogationThe time. of amount certain a for issue addressingthis directly werealthough they gain power. to and politics into “sneak” to thus law the of abolition the enhance and directly participate homosexuality on perception arguing th decriminalization, beyond simple as organization such while politics, state high the in interested more

changes in the penal code improved the country's position on the world scene world the on position country's the improved code penal the in changes The d f heterosexist law thus to gain extra political weight and to engage themselves in themselves engage to and weight political extra gain to thus law heterosexist f

ecriminalization of homosexuality occurred without activists’at participation without all, homosexuality of ecriminalization occurred –

leaders of Triangle and Tchaikovsky Fund were dedicated to dedicated were Fund Tchaikovsky and Triangle of leaders s a part of routine bureaucratic procedure.” (Nemtsev, procedure.” bureaucratic routine of part a s

at there is also a need to shift the general public’s general the shift to needa also is there at 35

, 1997 , th

st of May, 1993; it h it 1993; May, of - oit a/eba movement gay/lesbian Soviet

, 1998 , –

actual ) Decriminalization of Decriminalization ) Krilya y tee a no was there ly,

ee looking were appened as a a as appened –

as a result a as 2008 ,

CEU eTD Collection yet after these local activists hadyet toimproveafter theiractivists social local statusthemselves these (ibid.) overall by followed comm LGBT of status legal the changed intrusion EU lesbians. wasn’t and gays of acceptance decriminalization because mainly ways, many in activism LGBT triggered (p.184) Europe" contemporary of much affecting is that Europeanization institutions. religious of power the by enhanced was which nationalism, of growth the and post resistance in homophobia eliminate Intere didn’t it yet decriminalization, society. the within 2011). Woodcock, 2005; Greif, 2005; (Sokolova, membership. Union European the of standards post of number a re the of because happened decriminalization where post in decriminalization the of enhancement LGBT 90s the reasons du movementinvisible astowhywas the post of experience the contrast to aim I Finally, away. fade movement LGBT the let didn’t citizenship sexual the in people inclusithe towards institutions religious resistanceof the how homosexualityand of decriminalization enhanced case, Russian the to similar institutions, democratic liberal their attempts in had activists incentives and obstacles which movement, the enhanced Socialism post 1.3.2. - Socialist/post stingly, the intrusion of the EU into sexual politics of post of politics sexual into EU the of intrusion the stingly, LGBTFall Activism State the of after Socialism:Varying Experiences The European Union became tremendously influential and powerful in terms of the of terms in powerful and influential tremendously became Union European The section this In

However to change the status of homosexuals homosexuals of status the change to

oeel n Solv (01 nt ta "h wdr rcs o ra of process wider "the that note (2011) Stoilova and Roseneil

influence of the European Union Union European the of influence - - Communist states. My aim here is to understand how the fall of state state of fall the how understand to is here aim My states. Communist . As Stulhofer and Sandfort (2005) note, international pressure enhanced pressure international note, (2005) Sandfort and Stulhofer As . oils cutis ooeult ws ermnlzd eas o the of because decriminalized was homosexuality countries socialist I’d like to disentangle similar experiences of LGBT activists in other in activists LGBT of experiences similar disentangle to like I’d - socialist countries and Russia to present my understanding of of understanding my present to Russia and countries socialist - 36 Socialist countries, similar to the Russian case, Russian the to similar countries, Socialist –

both legal and social. I will show how the the how show will I social. and legal both quirements of the Council of Europe. In Europe. of Council the of quirements didn’t shift the position of homosexuals of position the shift didn’t ring 90s thelate - socialist countries triggered countries socialist - oils countries. Socialist -

early 2000s. on of LGBTof on unity, unity, pid

CEU eTD Collection Religion's discourse was unquestionable in re in unquestionable was discourse Religion's nationalism. enhancing thus state; the in decriminalized being homosexuality against fighting were and institutions, the of liberalization overall the for up give didn’t institutions religious moral of ‘bastion’ only the itself Considering institutions. conservative of part the on resistance severe encountered decriminalized and/or acknowledged be to lesbians and 2011). (Blagojević, life" political and social shaping and influencing thus […], authority moral of moral ( threat thenation. to citizenship. threat dual a sexual as presented are from Homosexuals homosexuals deprives heterosexuality and nation of Equation na that argues (2011) Kulpa Robert 2005). (Greif, decade" past the of movements emancipatory the of consequence the are that ones the especially identities, and lifestyles "different" all against oriented prevalent, is values moral disco the identity, national […] of construction the "Within subjects. national the of morality) thus (and heterosexuality pure promoted immorality western the of intrusion the and society moral with traditional the about “contrasted Argumentation (ibid.) ‘immorality’” commonly and homophobia with up tighten was (p.87) morality” as example, For traditional national perverted. “polish debates presidential for during how out synonym pointed (2011) Mizielinska a is circumstances p.50). these 2011, in which (Kulpa, western, ‘alien’” foreign as produced and constantly is nationalism of “‘foreign’ discourse the within as Homosexuality west: about perverted the talked of opposite was an homosexuality as themselves to referring State east. respectable countries Nationalism plays out an important role in ‘othering’ LGBT people in post in people LGBT ‘othering’ in role important an out plays Nationalism Religious discourse also perpetuated heteronormativity; it "continued to play the role role the play to "continued it heteronormativity; perpetuated also discourse Religious In almost every post every almost In –

t xldd non excluded it Lalo; 2005) Schitov, - socialist country (except the Czech Republic) attempts by gays by attempts Republic) Czech the (except country socialist - omtv sxaiy y artn te a extraneous as them narrating by sexuality normative tionalism is closely related to heteronormativity. to related closely is tionalism 37 lation to the questions on sexuality, gender and and gender sexuality, on questions the to lation -

s pltcl poet o h sae n a a as and state the to opponent political a as

urse about the crisis of of crisis the about urse ity in the state, state, the in ity - Socialist Socialist

o the to

and and EU EU

CEU eTD Collection presence of an institution as a symbol of resistance. of symbol a as institution an of presence heterosexism to receptive extremely morality popular on influence tremendous has still and had religion Union, Soviet the in atheism compulsory despite and times. current prese was immorality, of claims on based was which such resistance, no obvious while opposition; powerful extremely an does) still (and constituted Orthodoxy post various mov LGBT the of foundation successful the for reason a as perceived be also can Church the of side the on lesbians and gaysacceptance ofpossible the to resistanceenormous (Papkova, USSR the of fall the yearsafter few first emerged. movement LGBT the when 90s, of beginning the in powerful that not visible state Soviet post the of maneuver political necessary th of result a as not occurred decriminalization the of actors the that see could one resistance, traditional heterosex the of respectability and morality religious the with contrasted and promiscuous and immoral of Church. the of decriminalization part the on 2005) Sokolova, Republic. easily more Czech much went homosexuality of (case identity national the on influence powerful a such have didn’t religion where States 1995). (Hauser, morality If

resistance to homo to resistance e compare we 2011, p.7) didn’t yetha didn’t p.7) 2011, ,

in contrast to the situation with the post the with situation the to contrast in -

socialist states. states. socialist I

definitely ual family. (Nachescu, 2005; Grief,ual family. (Nachescu, 2005) 2005;

post

sexuality on the side of the Churc the of side the on sexuality need to note, that even though the Church itself was not powerful not was itself Church the though even that note, to need - ihn h rlgos icus hmsxas ee rsne as presented were homosexuals discourse religious the Within oit n post and Soviet vn huh h sae ermnlzd ooeult, the homosexuality, decriminalized state the though Even –

ve much power within the state. the within power much ve hs usa society Russian thus

n hmpoi, oee hr Im akn aot the about talking I’m here however homophobia, and , mostly because of the absence of obvious resistance obvious of absence the of because mostly , ,

- the Church the oils sae However state. socialist 38 - oils eprec o LB atvs and activism LGBT of experience socialist

e demands of LGBT activists, but as a a as but activists, LGBT of demands e ofit ee lot h sm ad that and same the almost were conflict

- “weakened by the years of suppression” suppression” years of the by “weakened Socialist states elsewhere, states Socialist In the 90s Orthodox Church was not a a not was Church Orthodox 90s the In a ad tl i a oit wt is with society a is still and was h. Russian Orthodox Church Orthodox Russian h.

My hypothesis is that such that is Myhypothesis

ih aft right t n usa until Russia in nt r h fl o the of fall the er

there was no was there ement(s) in ement(s) During the During

was CEU eTD Collection organization was registered during the 90s, the official webpage of the LGBT organization Krylia Krylia organization LGBT the of webpage official the 90s, the during registered was organization 15 registra obtain to managed which organizations, of number small the politics, beyond society. in position went homosexuals' of betterment whichthe on concentrating issues addressing was it activists; LGBT radical of union earlier, out pointed I As 60) p. (ibid., Kukharsky.” the by continued was support rights human of “traditions” “the today): exists still and organization LGBT oldest the remains (which Petersburg) identity organizing disappearing. complete from an on … dependent not 90s [were] they “since it destroy couldn’t groups the the of disorganization of movement LGBT kept that identity” remained. LGBT p.80) marketable(ibid., economically for and/or politically assistance a provided of costs which the “without initiatives community only and disbanded groups LGBT the anti the decriminalization, of abolition for struggle a stage. as out invisible started an Russia in as movement described the as be However, can 90s, the of beginning politicized extremely to (Nemtsev, politics.” inner state into intervention projected) and (imaginary to relation their is movement 1. laterwhileRussia discussing inthe text, there dramatically. increased contem in yet resistance, of symbol visible

3 Although both Laurie Essig (1999) and Mikhail Nemtsev (2012) claimed that more than one LGBT LGBT one than more that claimed (2012) Nemtsev Mikhail and (1999) Essig Laurie both Although . 3 . The Apolitical Stage: Apolitical . The Invisibilit Oe f h ovos itntos ewe te is ad h scn pro o the of period second the and first the between distinctions obvious the of “One

2008 , hc cniud okn fo te rvos pltczd pro, was period, “politicized” previous the from working continued which , p. 54) p. , (bd, p.80). (ibid., ” - gay l gay Essig (1999) points out that absence of shared identity was the issue the was identity shared of absence that out points (1999) Essig The second The I’m going to talk about the current role of the Orthodox Church in Church Orthodox the of role current the about talk to going I’m aw led to the invisibility of the LGBT movement: radical political radical movement: LGBT the of invisibility the to led aw

phase of the post the of phase

The y of the LGBT Movement inpost GT organization LGBT 39 - emergenceLGBT ofthe movement. oay usa h vsblt o te Church the of visibility the Russia porary Krilya

- Krilya Soviet LGBT movement, in comparisonin LGBT movement, Soviet , led almost in solitude by Alezandr Alezandr by solitude in almost led ,

was not planned as a as planned not was

n h cptl iy (Saint city capital the in tion Krilya 15 -

Soviet Russia and this could be could this and

also was among among was also

vn certain Even politicized politicized

Krilya

CEU eTD Collection 17 – 16 registration. http://www.krilija.s All non the on legislation heterosexist regional the of adoption of commencement the and 2006 in Network foundatio the events: major two by facilitated was it opinion my ago long that not Federation Russian in occurred resistance 1.3.4. Re phase notcontinuetoday. ofinvisibility does I arguewill thatthis sphere. However, inthe public invisible mostly and oriented community ha as understood be can was existed stage second this which Thus, invisible. was community consequently and representation the no had “imagined”, interest; and ideas share could which community minorities’ sexual ( Nemtsev Mikhail p.80). (ibid., action” political for not but interaction for space public demands “which ones the and were initiatives vanished initiatives (political) radical the compromise all previously shown As Petersburg. St. in community gay/lesbian the of rights and needs the towards oriented are still and were maj a form to desire didn’t activists groupof homosexuality. of decriminalization unexpected the after vanished organizations other as rights LGBT of field the in existence continued its for reason another

it symbolically meant that the State r State thatmeant the it symbolically Essig (1999) points out that obtaining official registaration was an important goal of the LGBT organizations LGBT the of goal important an was registaration official obtaining that out points (1999) Essig Official webpage of the St. Petersburg LGBT Human Rights Center “Krylia” (the Wings): Wings): (the “Krylia” Center Rights Human LGBT Petersburg St. the of webpage Official - Russian LGBT Network can be seen as a second at second a as seen be can Network LGBT Russian re The - emergence of the Politicalemergence the of LGBTMovem

- propaganda of homosexuality (2006, Ryazanskaya oblast). The foundation of the of foundation The oblast). Ryazanskaya (2006, homosexuality of propaganda - retd ns becam ones oriented - mrec o te oi, tog n, ht s oe important more is what and, strong solid, the of emergence p.ru/ oeet oe, ht n h bgnig f 0 tee a n LGBT no was there 00s of beginning the in that notes, movement

states that Kylia was the only LGBT organization, which managed to obtain official obtain to managed which organization, LGBT only the was Kylia that states

ving no solid movement, only separate and scattered organizations, scattered and separate only movement, solid no ving

ecognizes presence of LGBT activism in Russia. activism in LGBT of presence ecognizes ivsbe Esg 19) rus ht ot successful most that argues (1999) Essig invisible; e 2008 or movement or

40 ) in his work on the emergence of post of emergence the on work his in )

ent: Presentent: Times tempt (after the disintegration of the of disintegration the (after tempt –

according to their website their to according –

in the beginning of 2010s. In 2010s. of beginning the in n of the All the of n 16

Yet, one local and small and local one Yet,

- - Russian LGBT Russian

iil LGBT visible - 17 Soviet Soviet , they,

CEU eTD Collection omte] 21, eray 1. eree My 3 2013, 23, May Retrieved 11). February gomoseksualizma (2010, http://www.baltinfo.ru/2010/02/11/Lesbiyanka Committee] th on Ban Ryazan's against appealed 19 is pathological. homosexuality anti the all Currently, Ryazan. in legislation the in appeared it when 2006, until used wasn’t “gomosexualizm” term the homosexuality of depathologisation After illness. as homosexuality narrated medicine Soviet of discourse the in 18 it!” about me Ask homosexuality! my of proud “I’m and norm” a is “Homosexuality saying were a school the to next placards with standing were they pickets individual organized activists two 2009 in only time: that at attention public of deal homosexuality other cancel activities of theNGO. didn’t struggle this but attitudes, homophobic provoked which legislation, be Network the After again. political as activism LGBT rearticulated 2006) from (starting homosexuality of propaganda a the However, community. the interregional of needs address an to and also society in homophobia but fight to activists; community, LGBT of community LGBT only not establish to dedicated is which politics high for struggle is thatprimarily wasn’t asleaders thought thea organization political, this andfor itwasn’t of (Nemtsev movements.” social (latterly) lesbian and gay t “The according itself other. develop to began each infrastructure help and knowledge share to groups support/rights in national a create to Triangle) Lesbiyanka obzhalovala v OON ryazanskii zapret na propagandu gomoseksualizma detyam [A Lesbian Lesbian [A detyam gomoseksualizma propagandu na zapret ryazanskii OON v obzhalovala Lesbiyanka “gomoseks word the uses it “homosexuality”; word the contain doesn’t legislation actual The 19

- ciit wr fnd o ter ikt; oee te mngd o pel h court the appeal to managed they however pickets; their for fined were Activists propagand In 2006 in the region of Ryazan the very first law, which prohibite which law, first very the Ryazan of region the in 2006 In

ae ulcy oiial atv i tr o fgtn fr h aoiin f the of abolition the for fighting of term in active politically publicly came 18 - detyam a legislation in Russia use the medicalized term “homosexualism”, discursively implying that that implying discursively “homosexualism”, term medicalized the use Russia in legislation a

amongst minors was implemented. Interestingly, this act didn’t get a great a get didn’t act this Interestingly, implemented. was minors amongst implementation --

129594

or places in parliament. The Network was formed as an NGO, NGO, an as formed was Network The parliament. in places or brupt implementation of the regional legislation which prohibits which legislation regional the of implementation brupt

e Promotion of Homosexuality Among Children to the UN Human Rights Rights Human UN the to Children Among Homosexuality of Promotion e

of the non the of - onr ntok n uie aiul oine LGBT oriented variously unite and network country

- obzhalovala 2008 - , p. 62) What is important in my understanding understanding my in important is What 62) p. , 41 rpgnalgsaini Saint in legislation propaganda

- o the new logic of personalized NGO and NGO personalized of logic new the o v - OON nd next to children’s library. Placards library. children’s to next nd - ryazanskii - zapret

from BaltInfo website: website: BaltInfo from - na - propagandu d propaganda of of propaganda d - Petersburg the Petersburg ualizm” which, which, ualizm” - –

CEU eTD Collection Kostroma’s Court] (2012, March 23). Retrieved May 23, 2013, from Echomsk website: website: website: Echomsk from Novosti 2013, RIA SeverInform 23, from website: 2013, 23, May May Retrieved from 24). March (2012, Retrieved http://www.severinform.ru/?page=newsfull&date=2 website: Petersburg] St. in 2013, centers 23). children's (Gase) picket March 23, prayda.html (2012, http://www.echomsk.spb.ru/news/politika/kostromskoy May Court] Vzgliad Kostroma’s Retrieved [ Gomoseksualizma Propagande Kostroma]. from 25 in Homosexual for http://center.ria.ru/politics/20111227/82582754 Fines on Law a of Reading 2013, advocacy First the Passed Deputies [The Gomoseksyalizma Propagandu 23, 24 23 30). June (2011, Arkhangelsk] http://w website: from Regnum IA 2013, May23, Retrieved of Region The in Banned been May has advocacy [Homosexual Gomoseksualizma http://www.vz.ru/society/2011/9/28/526071.print.html Children].Retrieved 22 21 ZakS.r from 2013, May Retrieved 23, 26). LGBT Banning Law Regional the Recognized 20 I homosexuality. promoting of guilty not them found court the however arrested, were them adolescents?” homosexual protect goingto is “Who and Norm!” a“Homosexuality is individual All the from activist anti the implemented Kostroma in administration lea for necessary being as homosexuality promoting be to claimed is which work), this in examine I (which “Rakurs” organization LGBT local the of work the restrict to aimed they legislation Ortho the of representatives and Arkhangelsk in community Academic the of members were 2011 in law the of initiators The Arkhangelsk. of region the was consummated, was law propaganda Rights Political and Civil on Covenant International the of articles two least at contradicts legislation the that Rights. Human but level, state the on only not decision n June 2012 the anti the 2012 June n For example: Kostromskoi Sud Priznal Osnovatelia Moskovskogo Gei Parada Alekseeva Nevinovnim v v Nevinovnim Alekseeva Parada Gei Moskovskogo Osnovatelia Priznal Sud Kostromskoi example: For za Shtrafah o Zakon Chtenii Pervom v Priniali Deputati Kostromskie 27). Desember (2011, A. Skudaeva, ibid. Protect to Want Just [We Detei Zashitit Hotim Prosto 28). September (2011, E. Sidorenko, example: For ibid. LGBT Zaprete o Zakon Oblastnoi Priznali OON V

ig scesu lf ad etos aiy values. family destroys and life successful a ding dox Church dox ;

protests in front of the Regional Library for Children with placards saying saying placards with Children for Library Regional the of front in protests Gei 20 - 21 aktivisti Gotovi Piketirovat Detskie Uchrezhdeniia Peterburga [Gay activists are ready to to ready are activists [Gay Peterburga Uchrezhdeniia Detskie Piketirovat Gotovi aktivisti

Even though the committee made a decision in favor of the activists (sayingactivists the of favor in decision a made committee the though Even t ) e einl eilto i sil rsn. h nx rgo wee h anti the where region next The present. still is legislation regional he - 22 propaganda legislation were implemented in the region of Novosibirsk. of region the in implemented were legislation propaganda - usa LB ntok n sm vlner fo Ksrm held Kostroma from volunteers some and network LGBT Russian

codn t te euis n h rgo o Akaglk wt such with Arkhangelsk, of region the in deputies the to According N. Alekseev was acquitted on a charge of Homosexual advocacy by the the by advocacy Homosexual of charge a on acquitted was Alekseev N.

u website: website: u

- -

print.html advocacy as a violation of the human rights] (2012, November (2012, rights] human the of violation a as advocacy lo ie a reac t te N omte for Committee UN the to grievance a filed also http://www.zaks.ru/new/archive/view/103051 ; V Arkhangelskoi Oblasti Zapretili Propagandu Propagandu Zapretili Oblasti Arkhangelskoi V ; - 42 - has UN [The Cheloveka Prav Narusheniem Propagandi sud

- ww.regnum.ru/news/society/1420783.html?forprint priznal 4 - - rpgna a, n epne o which, to response in law, propaganda 03 - 2012&newsid=158024 - osnovatelya 23

n eebr 01 regional 2011 December In - moskovskogo

- gey

All ofAll 25 -

CEU eTD Collection Retrieved May 23, 2013, from Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party website: website: Party M Retrieved 11). Democratic March Law](2012, "Homophobic" a Signed has Capital” “Northern the of Governor [The Zakon “Gomofobnii” United http://www.gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2011/11/16/n_2098117.shtml Retrieved 16). November (2011, Petersburg] Saint Russian in website: activity LGBT Grani.ru from 2013, Yabloko the paralyzes homosexuality of the Promotion Law Aon Draft (reporter): 23, Kostuchenko [E. Peterburga dvizhenie May Retrieved 01). from March (2012, 28 Russia] 2013, to http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/m.196062.html Travel Avoid to 23, Urges 01). March (2012, May Pedophiles] h of Hands the Untie Will and Terms Retrieved Legal in Untenable is Petersburg St. of Razviazhet i Otnoshenii Pravovom 27 26 same of condemnation andnuclearpatriarchal family institution powerful tremendously a is currently and discourse public in visibility and power gaining started Church the 90s, anti of implementation the for justification public brought attention tothe problems ofother regions. Petersburg St. in heterosexism Governmental attention. of lot a received showed Petersburg Church Orthodox the by postulated are which values, Russian primordially the preserve to and homosexuality, of influence detrimental other and Petersburg, St. Vitalii in people. law this of initiator LGBT the was he because towards known widely became who injustice politician a Milonov, legislative the of result a as attention world’s attractio an and Russia of center cultural a capitals, two Russia’s the of one Being city. this in change legislative this through known society. Russian in not resonance major gained in Novosibirsk. Diocese Orthodox the of representatives the to informants) my (by attributed is initiative The ttp://www.yabloko.ru/regnews/Spb/2012/03/01_1 ; Nash Flag ne Budet v Gosti k Vam [LGBT Community Community [LGBT Vam k Gosti v Budet ne Flag Nash ; ttp://www.yabloko.ru/regnews/Spb/2012/03/01_1 o eape Z example: For v Nesostoiatelen Zakonoproekt Peterburga Zaksobraniia deputatami Priniatii G.Yavlinskii: example: For Full texts of all the regional anti regional Fullthe ofall texts Implementation of the anti the of Implementation

The religious and moral values of the Russian nation Russian the of values moral and religious The ay2013, 23, unls Ksuhno Zknpok o rpgne ooesaim Prlze LGBT Paralizuet Gomoseksualizma Propagande o Zakonoproekt Kostuchenko: hurnalist 26

itself to be a catalyst for the Russian LGBT Movement to re to Movement LGBT Russian the for catalyst a be to itself

from RBC website: fromRBC authorities claimed that his aim was to protect children from from children protect to was aim his that claimed authorities - propaganda legislatio propaganda ruki Pedofilam [G.Yavlinskii: The Law Passed by the Legislative Assembly Legislative the by Passed Law The [G.Yavlinskii: Pedofilam ruki

propaganda legislation in legislation propaganda n usa I psuae taiinl aus wih include which values, traditional postulates It Russia. in

n for tourist St. Petersburg became a center of the of center a became Petersburg St. tourist for n

http://top.rbc.ru/society/11/03/2012/641148.shtml - propaganda legislation. Since the beginning of the the of beginning the Since legislation. propaganda 43 n can be found in the Appendix I. Appendix found inbe the n can 28 27

Te anti The .

Heterosexism of the state became publicly became state the of Heterosexism ; Gubernator “Severnoi Stolici” Podpisal Podpisal Stolici” “Severnoi Gubernator ; - sex relations, thus constructingnationalthus relations, sex May 23, 2013, from Gazeta.ru website: website: Gazeta.ru from 2013, 23, May

- were and still are presented as a as presented are still and were rpgna eilto i Saint in legislation propaganda Saint Petersburg (March 2012) (March Petersburg Saint

- emerge: it it emerge:

CEU eTD Collection gay legislation in the penal code in the 90s was experienced mostly by activists in the two the in activists by mostly experienced was 90s the in code penal the in legislation gay anti against struggle Political state. the by legitimized was which homophobia, with dealing regionally, inpar activism enhancedtherefore it enacted was it state; the of level the of on propaganda implemented prohibits not was which homosexuality, law, The emerge. to movement the helped that enacted legi implemented the of experience shared the equated tothemoralwhichby arechurch. values, postulated the p the of increase dramatic the of because that State out pointed them of secular Some K) (informant nationalism” enhances the severely of abolition the for call “This State. the and Church Orthodox Russian Russia in situation political overall LGBT activists. of resistance enhance institutions religious powerful consequently, church; the of part the se stimulates activism LGBT of emergence that argues 2011) Mizielinska, post other of Experience resistance. for provokes ground it thus a society, in homophobia becomes enhances which another) homosexuality of stigmatization one affecting mutually are (which constructs social two these of alliance the idea; national a into transferred being is Religion morality. the Russian Thus, nation. Russian respectable and “pure” the into invasion western often a as is depicted Homosexuality homosexuality). as (such values western perverted by intrusion a as officials state by narrated commonly is Nation Russian The heterosexual. compulsorily as identity is Russia in activism LGBT of reemergence the for factor enhancing an as see I What y nomns lo rud ht anti that argued also informants My

Nation is opposing perverted Europe and the West because of its religious views and and views religious its of because West the and Europe pervertedopposing is Nation

epcal cmuiy wih osaty id isl udr h tra of threat the under itself finds constantly which community, respectable

wr f h Rsin rhdx vle o Rsin ain being nation Russian of values Orthodoxy Russian the of ower – ticular regions. Consequently regions share experience Consequentlyregions in regions. ticular share -

socialist countries (Nachescu, 2005; Blagojevic, 2011; Blagojevic, 2005; (Nachescu, countries socialist the rise the

44 - of nationalism as a result of the coalescence of of coalescence the of result a as nationalism of propaganda legislation is an outcome of the the of outcome an is legislation propaganda slation. It was in the way the legislation was legislation the way the in was It slation.

vere resistance on on resistance vere legal - CEU eTD Collection Petersburg. Saint and Kostroma, Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk, Federation: Russian the of regions four in h with struggle the to related activities, current the on more elaborate to aims chapter following The needs. community everyday of importance the diminish not does leg thought more are which strategies applying by just the 90salso activists from tried todeal, which the to deal problems with activismalmost w all which upon issue fundamental the and problem main the because lost and confused were activists many when homosexuality of decriminalization unexpected the after happened It post re a rather is it struggle, new a as activism homosexual Russian the of stage contemporary the movement the of activists) sole and (organizations members the by activism “real” of experience the finally, Federation; Russian the in regions anti the of implementation “chain” the All organization umbrella new a of foundation the firstly, re political local struggle, become theactual movement, no participantsofthe LGBTIn bycontemporary regional activist, “personal and circumstances, having space” their place. the reach couldn’t simply they because itself struggle the from alienated were regions in Activists Moscow. in occurred influence to tried people which and Perstroika of times decision that fact the to due and capitals - mrec. s atmtd o hw LB atvs nvr culy iapae i the in disappeared actually never activism LGBT show, to attempted I As emergence. islation is currently the focal point of activist’s agenda today, my research shows that it that shows research my today, agenda activist’s of point focal the currently is islation - Soviet space; it was just mo just was it space; Soviet ec, hr ae he mjr usatv ies wih hrceie h pbi and public the characterize which items, substantive major three are there Hence, – Mos -

emergence of the LGBT movement in Russia in contemporary circumstances: circumstances: contemporary in Russia in movement LGBT the of emergence cow and St. Petersburg. Because of the geographical distance between regions regions between distance geographical the of Because Petersburg. St. and cow as established disappeared.as re established The - dified and stayed closeted and invisible for almost a decade. a almost for invisible and closeted stayed and dified making process on all the changes which accompanied the accompanied which changes the all on process making - u ad ohsiae. lhuh h non the Although sophisticated. and out - propaganda legislation in a number of administrative of number a in legislation propaganda 45

. Here I need to note, that I don’t perceive don’t I that note, to need I Here . - emerged movement oftheemerged 2000stries movement - Russian LGB Russian t just spectators.t just T Network; secondly, Network; T eterosexist legislation eterosexist - propaganda

the -

CEU eTD Collection from the gover the from response aggressive and immediate an provoked regime dominant the towards resistance any However, p.13) 2009, (Baer, Putin” Vladimir under authoritarianism new a of “consolidation opposition political emergenceof anti the when times, propaganda was implemented. legislation recent before politics, state/regional of terms in invisible almost of terms thou even regions, the in in activism Thus, expenses. possible the and distance both challenging, is city capital the reaching because activities, such in part cit capital the I in happened usually action as political the all However, chapter, previous the in 2009) demonstrated already (Baer, pride. gay a organize to attempt an made activists of group Networ the LGBT Russian and Vihod organizations: LGBT established Petersburg) St. and (Moscow Russia of (2006 00s the of middle the Since spheres. public and m homosexuality if state the from repression triggering of fear the with along society Russian in homophobia severe by caused was politics in participation and visibility towards Reluctance politics. public in involvement community mostly Regional were invisible. initiatives almost LGBT and sphere private the in hidden was community) LGBT the as well (as Russia in activism LGBT 2000s of beginning the in 90s, the in movement LGBT Activism Anti of Impact 2. Chapter As I pointed out in the previous chapter, after the the after chapter, previous the in out pointed I As re The ies of Russia; it was and still is extremely complicated for regional activists to take to activists regional for complicated extremely is still and was it Russia; of ies

- nment. For example, after the parliamentary elections in 2011 and presidential and 2011 in elections parliamentary the after example, For nment. mrec o a oiia LB mvmn i Rsi cicdd ih the with coincided Russia in movement LGBT political a of emergence . ra Be ee pit ot ht n 2005 in that out points even Baer Brian k.

to the toughening regime. Brian Baer in his book called it a a it called book his Baerin Brian regime.toughening the to ade an attempt to cross the boundary between the private private the between boundary the cross to attempt an ade - rpgna eiltos n einl LGBT Regional on Legislations Propaganda

- ae and based 46

- 2008) capital cities in the western part western the in cities capital 2008) community emergence of a visible post visible a of emergence - retd wt ams no almost with oriented, - 06 n ocw some Moscow in 2006 gh it existed, was existed, it gh - Soviet Soviet - CEU eTD Collection n anu. usa ao Bn Eeto Atvss Ty Poet (02. eree fo: B News BBC from: Retrieved (2012). Protest. Toys Activists' Election Bans http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world Mayor Russia Barnaul. in Regi http://ria.ru/riatv/20120204/556414108.html Regions Russian in Elections” “Forthe Honest Demonstrations http://ria.ru/riatv/20120204/556739669.html. Cities” Russian in Together” Russia Save “Lets “Rallies Review: http://www.bb News BBC from: Retrieved Putin. Vladimir to Opposition 31 http://lenta.ru/news/2012/06/09/inforce/ Lenta.Ru from 30 http://www.bbc.co.uk News Web Vzgliad BBC from from: Retrieved Rallies]. [Bolotnaya Bolotnoi na Mitingi articles of Series (Gase): Retrieved Vzgliad Newspaper Business (2013). election Russia 29 private the between boundary the cross to homosexuals by attempt an the of result a after as political and ambitious as regions anti of the of implementation number a in emerged which Russia in movement LGBT the with situation current the explains perfectly this and 95) p. 1988, (Foucault, resistance” is there power, is there “where that argued Foucault Michel activists. of h form a oppressive, (in way radical a such in a power of through articulation that activism suggests LGBT lens Foucauldian of Exploration regions. the in even consciousness, political all elections of results the with discontent their displayed opposition in People movement. the joined also regions in people capitals, the in people were results election the with dissatisfaction the showing Moscow 2011 in rallies public the about fact interesting One 69) p. 2011, (Robertson, variation” regional enormous masks picture national “the However what from understood is Russia in situation the Commonly, power. of centralization and amplification by followed is protest public of form any Russia rallies” public on “law the violating for penalties the governmentthe newest the (probably dramatically one ofRussia) in history the first i Petersburg Saint and Moscow in organizeddemonstrations opposition the 2012, in elections Ralli Public on Law [The Silu. V Vstupil Mitingah o Zakon (2012). “Lenta.Ru o eape Gnrl eot rm eosrtos n ocw n S. eesug Rlis fe Ptn wins Putin after Rallies Petersburg: St. and Moscow in demonstrations from report General example: For o eape anti example: For onal demonstrations against election results were held in various forms: for example, Toys Demonstration Demonstration Toys example, for forms: various in held were results election against demonstrations onal

–

- Site http://vz.ru/tags/5854/ Site eosrtos ee lo hel also were demonstrations trsxs lgsain eat imdae eitne n h pr o LGBT of part the on resistance immediate enacts legislation) eterosexist - election protest in Nizhnii Novgorod. Coomarasamy, J. (2012) Russia: Protests and and Protests Russia: (2012) J. Coomarasamy, Novgorod. Nizhnii in protest election

over Russia. This information argues for the overall heightening of of heightening overall the for argues information This Russia. over - propaganda legislation. This power can also be seen as emerging as seen be also can power This legislation. propaganda - europe

- 17049745

i rgoa centers. regional in d .

30 - 2013 is that they occurred not only in only not occurred they that is 2013 . Thus, one might note that currently incurrently that note might one Thus, . is happening in the capital cities. capital the in happening is c.co.uk/news/world 31

/news/world es Came into Force]. Retrieved Force]. into Came es lhuh ot cie in active most Although - - europe europe - - 16864893; 16864893; 17261136; ncreased and and 29

CEU eTD Collection un Lf o Gy epe n an Ptrbr] Rtivd rm BC Russia BBC from: Retrieved Petersburg]. Saint in People Gay of Life http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2012/03/120329_gay_st_petersburg.shtml Ruins 32 Saint of region P Saint about talking I’m thesis this in Thus, system. legal own its has and unit administrative sole a is it means which city, federal a is It Russia. of organizations. Saint gay a considered 2.1 and andone thenext recentlyin chapter. emerged this activist Kostroma comes uplast in Novosibirsk in initiatives and groups organization, oldest the is Arkhangelsk in Rakurs thus establish their of year its with accordance in present I groups and initiatives regional Russia in organization known best the V with commence will I regions the in activism the of analysis The researched. I regions the geopolitical of the specificities out map to section this introduce I regions. the of location geographical the in chapter I my laws. implemented organize the of result a as experienced activism LGBT regional which shift the reveal will I legislation. of implementation the after underwent activism regional which overall the reveal to seeking Russia, in be only can “tolerated” invisible. while itis society Russian in homosexuality out, pointed I as because, spheres public ip, . 21) art Poaad” mahe Zin ev ptrug [Anti peterburge V Geev Zhizn Omrachaet “Propagandi” Zapret (2012) A. Ciopa, .

Vihod and its Volunteers: LGBT activism in Saint activism LGBT its Volunteers: and Vihod - eesug ic te einn o te 90 the of beginning the since Petersburg In the following chapter I will explore LGBTregionsfour initiatives/groups/regionsin explore I will chapter following In the S aint - Petersburg in my research is a tremendously valuable region as it is historically is it as region valuable tremendously a is research my in Petersburg

Saint - Petersburg (Leningradskaia oblast) where the anti the where oblast) (Leningradskaia Petersburg - capital of Russian Federation. (Kon, 1997) As I showed in my first chapter, chapter, first my in showed I As 1997) (Kon, Federation. Russian of capital ihod, which is located in Saint Petersburg, because it is the strongest and strongest the is it because Petersburg, Saint in located is which ihod, - Petersburg is the second biggest cities in Russia and the second capital second the and Russia in cities biggest second the is Petersburg

olwn wy A frt I il oc uo te su of issue the upon touch will I first, At way. following

taey f hi atvs aog ih h changes the with along activism their of strategy n i i lctd n h cptl iy Al te the other All city. capital the in located is it and 48

- hd n xesv structure extensive an had s etersburg only, and not about the about not and only, etersburg - Petersburg

- propaganda legislation is legislation propaganda - propaganda legislation legislation propaganda

f LGBT of ment

–

CEU eTD Collection web organization’s the on found be can projects prospective and current previous, the about Information fieldwork. 33 to people, LGBT of parents “community the of – address commonly also projects These procedures. these to related issues legal and adoption IVF, parents” on “LGBT information provides the project instance, For people. of group particular a of problems the like resolve groups, specific w parents”, for “LGBT programs and Action” includes in “Transgender also It people. LGBT for consultations individual provide to able are and seminars and programs training create organization this ex out; coming homophobia, internalized identification, self with issues resolve to aims mostly “branch” This people. transgender and bisexuals homosexuals, for services juridical and psychological includes It itself. community LGBT The work. activists which in areas major three has organization the projects of number a encompasses it that stressed Vihod in managers project the of one Mikhail, volunteers. are people other the all coordinators; project as work nin who people, employs NGO, an as registered officially is which Vihod, position. people’s LGBT dealingwith oppressivechange. legislative Saint Saint in itself bases which isconnectedit with manyr other north the in located is city This enacted. not

regular discussions and seminars are conducted to cover this topic. Within the framework the Within topic. this cover to conducted are seminars and discussions regular l t All - page page - Petersburg, but also in Russia Russia in also but Petersburg, e nomto, hc i peetd n hs et oe fo te neves I odce drn my during conducted I interviews, the from comes text this in presented is which information, he Since 2008 Vihod has been working with the state and in society for the betterment of of betterment the for society in and state the with working been has Vihod 2008 Since

This part presents an elaborate description of the activities of a regional organization regional a of activities the of description elaborate an presents part This http://www.comingoutspb.ru/ru/home - ie” rjc, io as dsge a nqe rga t wr with work to program unique a designed also Vihod project, aimed” - Petersburg

enhance understanding and acceptance of their children; parents children; their of acceptance and understanding enhance

egions by train and byand egions trainair. by

–

- a crucial question of “parents of question crucial a Vihod

the biggest and best known organization not only in only not organization known best and biggest the

- western part of Russia, and because of its status its of because and Russia, of part western 49 (Coming Out). The data shows how Vihod is is Vihod how shows data The Out). (Coming

ih i t caiy pcfc sus and issues specific clarify to aim hich perienced psychologists, who work in work who psychologists,perienced

- to

- first area aims at the the at aims area first children” coming out out coming children” 33 . Currently . e -

CEU eTD Collection un Lf o Gy epe n an Ptrbr] Rtivd rm BC Russia BBC from: Retrieved Petersburg]. Saint in People Gay of Life http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2012/03/120329_gay_st_petersburg.shtml Ruins 34 th of abolition immediate the for “asking as perceives he which activism, radical in engaged be to want doesn’t Vihod government; the with dialogue a in problems resolve t non the before even administration the with working of history long a have they that me told Vihod, in rights LGBT for lobby Saint the in Rights with works Vihod community, the government outside oriented project another In Vihod). the so groups these enlighten and educate to want “we perception: homophobic and stereotypical the shift to aim projects these that say Activists identity. gender and sexuality of questions the cover which teacher doctors, journalists, minorities: sexual about opinion public and society on impact powerful have which groups professional the at aimed is it opinion”; public with “working called they project One issues. community public activism as well. for but community, the for only not beneficial become might argue, they parents, Rus in knowaboutparents their donot commonly activism LGBT “traditional” the for situation unusual an is this that public demonstration the of participants became also group this of members some that out pointed also their regarding about concerned are they issues different address and month every meet to able are e cnie tesle a big compromise a being as themselves consider hey

Ci p, . 21) Zpe “rpgni Orcat hz Ge V eebre [Anti peterburge V Geev Zhizn Omrachaet “Propagandi” Zapret (2012). A. opa, children’s h ohr w gop o ise wih io ad Vihod which issues of groups two other The

–

34 with legislative and executive authorities, with the commissioner for Human for commissioner the with authorities, executive and legislative with ' sexuality. Activists from Vihod told me that this project is very popular; they popular; veryis project this that me told Vihod from Activists sexuality. ' - , which Vihod organized to protest the legislation. One informant pointed outpointed informant One legislation. the protest to organized Vihod which ,

eesug Mkal a atvs wo s epnil fr h avcc and advocacy the for responsible is who activist an Mikhail, Petersburg. y can spread the right information about the LGBT people” (informant b, (informant people” LGBT the about information right the spread can y

- propaganda legislation was implemented. He told me that that me told He implemented. was legislation propaganda

s at schools. Vihod organizes educational seminars seminars educational organizes Vihod schools. at s children’s 50

- retd raiain ad hy at to want they and organization, oriented ’ sexual orientation. Thus, working with ’ sexual orientation. Thus, rse ae retd oad non towards oriented are dresses - propaganda legislation legislation propaganda i, because sia, laws e - CEU eTD Collection it was functioning since 2008. I managed to meet with several of them to ask why they they why ask to LGBTdecidedanfor tovolunteer organization me: now.One told ofthe volunteers them of several with meet to managed I 2008. since functioning was it in part took never volunteers the of Most drastically. increased volunteer to like would who people of number the that is acknowledged Vihod of members which change major The oppression. articulated the to immediately respond organi the of structure The branches. new developing of need no have they agenda; its and organization the restructure to need don’t Vihod in Activists authorities governmental with negotiations like issues, certain not are att more we paying started we that is currently occurred that change only and The so. do to planning Vihod, for tracks new any establish not did “We vulnerable. they as needs un community aside leave not do activist however homophobia, of the outburst prevent to whole the on society with working on emphasis greater a places currently organiza the in changes many not were there me told Vihod from Activists developed. and established discrepancystrategies ingoals of and activists. gr to lead can strategy one and unity their circumstances such in Saint in activists like would they that stressed also Vihod of Members Vihod). Mikhail, (informant negotiations” any without derstand that LGBT community, as a result of this legislation, is getting more and more more and more getting is legislation, this of result a as community, LGBT that derstand Thus, the data I’ve gathered shows that LGBT activism in Saint in activism LGBT that shows gathered I’ve data the Thus, ins oiis fe te eilto ws mlmne. ihi tl m ta Vihod that me told Mikhail implemented. was legislation the after politics tion’s works with kids too and w and too kids with works who friend, have I it. change to want I And unfair. is this think I And kids. with work to want I if lesbian a I’m out find can one no because […] fired be to going I’m lesbian a am I that out find will parents I teacher. kindergarten a [pause] teacher a am I - Petersburg to unite and work together. They’ve argued that that argued They’ve together. work and unite to Petersburg e are thinking that we could establish some some establish could we that thinking are e 51

any Vihod’s activities before, although before, activities Vihod’s any f someone among the among someone f . ” (informant Mikhail, Vihod). Mikhail, (informant ” zation enables its members to members its enables zation ae aheeet than achievements eater - Petersburg is well is Petersburg

ention to ention -

CEU eTD Collection ooeult a big o alwd n h pbi shr, hs n tep t cos the cross to attempt an thus boundary between and aggression. theprivate provoke public sphere might homophobic sphere, public the in propaganda allowed not of being as Prohibition homosexuality it. legitimizes and society in homophobia provokes it yet society), Russian in homophobia on based are they (although se anti the of heterosexism political the arguethat B Following legislation. the through legitimized discursively gets which homophobia, but community, LGBT for crucial are which laws, the not is it that galv change legislative heterosexist how illustrates movement the join to eager are who people LGBT of number the in change This volunteer. to children) with work who people LGBT change inth much people insociety: extr her made that and legitimate homophobia anti because Vihod, joined she that said volunteer Another anized a resistive spirit in LGBT people in Saint in people LGBT in spirit resistive a anized neves ih outes hwd ht lhuh anti although that showed volunteers with Interviews

Vihod) j, (Informant thebefore. unsafe this And felt never partner. I that. my allows government with hands hold I if street the in up beaten are. lesbians and gays all that [pause] now danger in I’m that feeling inner this have I But […] much change didn’t law the they think me told myfriends of Some know. you now, safe less feel I […] Teachers” “LGBT like (Informanta, Vihod) Something […] together project

e structure of the Vihod, it forced various people and groupse variousofpeopleand structureofthe forced people (like Vihod,it

52 - propaganda legislation is not homophobic per per homophobic not is legislation propaganda

ml nros bu te oiin f LGBT of position the about nervous emely - Petersburg. My research also proposes also research My Petersburg. - propaganda legislation made the made legislation propaganda oellstorff’s (200 oellstorff’s -

rpgna eilto didn’t legislation propaganda of homosexuality narrates narrates homosexuality of Now I can be be can I Now 5) argument, I argument, 5)

CEU eTD Collection people in order to assist not only psychologically, but also with appointments with doctors. with appointments with also but psychologically, only not assist to order in people gr separate a has also Rakurs demand. popular to people the of needs the on depends it that me told activists events, these of frequency the about asked tremendously become have projects these consequently religious; are people many city their in that out pointed Tatiana people. LGBT religious with works which large a organizes also Rakurs homophobia. internalized with problems resolve self facilitate to order in programs training and seminars arranged they’ve homosexuals: for help psychological was years the all during prioritized most The people. LGBTthey’ve abbreviation their managed toaddthe official to status. court, in after, and NGO an as Rakurs registered they first at that me told she it; of proud org LGBT an as registered is it also but organization, registered officially an is it only not studied: I’ve organizations LGBT regional other among case unique a represents Rakurs issues. of number a with deals successfully organization loca the in Literature and Language Russian of professor a as works who there organization LGBT Rakurs studied. I’ve cities other with comparison in activism LGBT of history is it connectedwith other cities (like Petersburg) St. railway. through the and airport own its has Arkhangelsk reach: to easy quite is it location geographical the in Federation Russian the borderof northern the to close region, the locatedof part northern is Arkhangelsk of city The Russia. of part European the in region biggest 2.2 .

Northern Activism: Arkhangelsk and OOO “Rakurs” and Arkhangelsk Activism: Northern Arkhangelsk is a small city in the northwestern part of Russia which has quite has which Russia of part northwestern the in city small a is Arkhangelsk r The uig t yas f xsec, aus eeoe cran rgas o ep LGBT help to programs certain developed Rakurs existence, of years its During –

egion of Arkhangelsk is located in the north the in located is Arkhangelsk of egion they plan an event once a month, but usually it results in two or even three, due due three, even or two in results it usually but month, a once event an plan they –

was established in 2006 by six lesbian women. Lead by Tatiana, by Lead women. lesbian six by 2006 in established was 53

oup of activists who work with transgender with work who activists of oup nzto.Ttaa t lae,i very is leader, its Tatiana, anization. - western part of the country; it is the is it country; the of part western

motn. hn I When important. - acceptance a acceptance l university, this this university, l - scale project, project, scale . Despite its its Despite . –

the only only the a long a nd to nd

CEU eTD Collection h si, tre t ak bu te e lgsain te wr nros n togt that thought and nervous were they homosexualitycriminalized again, wastimes. inSoviet like legislation; new the about ask to started said, she LGB the from reaction immediate an but alsoa long short the only not grasp to opportunity an me gave this year; a for laws we Arkhangelsk in activists LGBT mentioned, already I As authorities or media. by Tatiana local me: the told n However, hall. city the to next law the protesting were Rakurs from activists moreover homosexuals; to support their rainbow tying were they homophobia public and demonstrations a of organizing by number activism their and community LGBT the to government the of attitude the understand to trying were they me, told they then Since implemented. was legislation the aimed at andHIV HIV/AIDS prevention assistancefor people. positive LGBT of Federation the of affiliation have They personnel. medical transgender organization one the addressed because person project this started they that mentioned Rakurs from Activists When I met Tatiana and other members i members other and Tatiana met I When

to be ‘propaganda’? Holding hands in public in hands Holding ‘propaganda’? be to like questions ask to started They our deputies don’treallyunderstand what they implemented. like seems It null. was reaction The equality. for arguing and legislation activ simple very were They government. the of reaction the see to attempt our as planned we which actions of couple had We ss ee tnig ih otr akn fr h aoiin f the of abolition the for asking posters with standing were ists - term ones. Tatiana told me that right after the legislation was enacted, she felt enacted, was she after thelegislation thatright me Tatiana told term ones. either of these public demonstrations was ever acknowledged by the the by acknowledged ever was demonstrations public these of either

iety seig sitne n omnctos ih the with communications in assistance seeking directly, - T colored ribbons on the tree in the city center to express to center city the in tree the on ribbons colored - community in Arkhangelsk. The LGBT community, community, LGBT The Arkhangelsk. in community vns Fr xml, uig h we against week the during example, For events. –

which kind of actions a actions of kind which 54

n the summer 2012 it had been a year since since year a been had it 2012 summer the n

–

is it propaganda or not? or propaganda it is

e oig ih h prohibitive the with coping re –

- Sport and two programs, two and Sport re considered re oe f our of some

- term consequences, term CEU eTD Collection bu hmsxaiy hs rig o rvn te mrec o pbi hmpoi. They that homophobia. mentioned public of emergence the prevent to trying thus homosexuality about people enlighten and society with work to endeavor they Now people. of number small a at a was Rakurs banned LGBT the before said Tatiana people. of group broader started a they’ve with me working told Activists problems. of range new the towards attention devoted Rakurs. ButIrealized now thatmy my can knowledgeand f,(informant skills Rakurs). help” anti the of implementation h to and volunteer to like would he that working also the joined organization after inRakurs, He thelegislation was said implemented. previously. activism LGBT in engaged not were who also but activists, the of community the within only not resistance from benefited actually Rakurs that legislation. implemented shows Data before. happened never which with Rakurs help to volunteered people heterosexual that me told Tatiana instance, For people. of consolidation immediate an in resulted also law propaganda non the of implementation The law. this to according imprisoned be can one no that and n should they that say to down, community LGBT local the calm to need urgent an was There public. the to legislation the of meanings the explain to aimed which seminars Consequently first step for Rakurs in these new circumstances was to create a series of of series a create to was circumstances new these in Rakurs for step first Consequently During 2012, Rakur 2012, During was ‘feverish’ time some for [pause] us called e writing were People Community! of the within level nervousness the drastically raised legislation the of implementation The

urnl, h mi ga o Rkr i t “nrdc hmsxaiy o the to homosexuality “introduce to is Rakurs of goal main the currently, community

hs at hw eaty o htrsxs legi heterosexist how exactly shows fact This s’s politics had undergone a number of changes. The organization The changes. of number a undergone had politics s’s - rpgna a I olnt vn hn aot on ad helping and going about think even wouldn’t I law propaganda - oriented organization organization oriented elp in this fight with the severe injustice: “before the the “before injustice: severe the with fight this in elp –

about three month three about 55

For example, lawyer, who is currently is who lawyer, example, For –

all their events were mostly aimed aimed mostly were events their all –

LGBT communityLGBT triggered resistance in people, in resistance triggered

- projects and seminars, seminars, and projects al, they mails, lto galvanized slation - rpgna was propaganda ot be scared be ot -

CEU eTD Collection oesae wee ciit cnutdtereet wr olne vial o hm for them; for available longer no were events their conducted activists where spaces some However, projects. in assistance their offer to and events the to coming started organization, homosex both people, out, pointed already I As regionthe of population the within courtsthe Russian var if Rights Human of Court European the to appeal an file to ready are they but favor, their in regional the made be to going not is decision a that understand theydo that me told against Activists constitution. lawsuit a filed violat law organization this that the claiming administration, laws: the of abolition the for lot a done has Rakurs now By entity. experienced an are they court the in struggles of terms that we areare here,present.” we n,Rakurs) (Informant understand to people want We are. they as be to things want don’t We tolerated. be to way LGBT the to related issues the sil the break to all want “We community. silence to wanted commonly people that me told she yet attended, they events the during reactions homophobic violent any encounter didn’t T life. of sphere every in presence their show to want they society; in presence their show to want they activists other of agenda the into people LGBT to related questions, inserting By others. the from distanced be to want don’t life,” of areas various in homosexuality “insert” to want do “We discussions. active and events activities, their in initiatives/politicallyyouth) and organizations Rights (Human groups and organizations performance” usual their beyond go “to attempted they year the during that me told Tatiana journalists. and politicians with work to trying are activists thus public”; As I already pointed out, Rakurs is an organization wi organization an is Rakurs out, pointed Ialready As occurred change radical most the that noted Arkhangelsk from activists However, ious instances reject their suits. instances reject theirious suits. –

activists argued activists –

those changes had a twofold impact on the organization.the on impact twofold a had changes those ence. Sometimes it seems that invisibility is our only our is invisibility that seems it Sometimes ence. –

“we’ve already establish already “we’ve 56 s ua rgt wih r gaate b the by guaranteed are which rights human es atiana and other members pointed out that they that out pointed members other and atiana

ual and heterosexuals, started joining the the joining started heterosexuals, and ual

th a strong legal component legal strong a th ed the community, but we we but community, the ed –

by joining o joining by ther ther –

in CEU eTD Collection regions. takesForexample it 2days 4hourstoreachand from byplane Moscow it fr distant geographically being its of term in but railway) by and air by places other with connected is it thus center, industrial big a is (it logistically not reach, to complicated Saint and Moscow (after central 2.3 people intriggering resistance. different of amalgamation facilitates oppression that suggests This citizens. heterosexual and homosexual both members: more attracted Arkhangelsk in activism LGBT legislation, the that suggests for gathered I’ve volunteered data The people organization. when cases of number increasing experienced they that out Petersburg, of inSt. members Rakurscommunity situation pointed tosociety.the Similarly Raku of focusthe Thus issue. new radically a as than rather society, in present already was that homophobia enhancing as laws the tosee Vihod, similar from volunteers Rakurs, from activists that suggests It society. in homophobia of amplifier an ovewrcome to them for obstacle an as not legislation the perceive Activists region.the in legislation heterosexist to response in policies its changes cardinally that group regional propagandaand doesnot what as counts what balance to and understand to hard is it that say Activists homosexuality”. that afraid are “they now,” us help to afraid are organized] Rakurs events the for places provided who ones, [the “People implemented. was law the after welcome longer where space the in example, .

Ac - Analyses h rgo o Nvsbrk s h ol oe n hs eerh hc i lctd n the in located is which research this in one only the is Novosibirsk of region The eastern part of the country. The city of Novosibirsk is the third biggest city in Russia Russia in city biggest third the is Novosibirsk of city The country. the of part eastern tivism to the East of the Urals: case of Novosibirsk Urals: case ofthe East tothe tivism

hw ht ae f rhnes rpeet a upiigy well surprisingly a represents Arkhangelsk of case that show h amnsrto i gig o ie hm o so for them fine to going is administration the

Petersburg), thus it is the biggest city in eastern Russia. It is quite is It Russia. eastern in city biggest the is it thus Petersburg),

- aus raie sreig ad icsin te wr no were they discussions and screenings organized Rakurs

mostlyextremely term because the “propaganda” vague. is 57

after homophobia gained prominence in prominence gained homophobia after –

said one member of Rakurs, Rakurs, of member one said

rs’s activism shifted fromshifted activism rs’s - called propaganda of of propaganda called - established – om of the of om

by train. by train. , but as but ,

CEU eTD Collection financial support and the agenda of this event came from. Thus I could see the ways in which LGBT LGBT which in ways the see could I Thus from. activism ofdoing experience came event this addressed of were politics/community agenda the and support financial 35 only not did “Pulsar” project notes, Oleg Yet, literature. useful certain print to and space community the rent to payments between distributed was received they money grant The di screenings, movie included which events, of number a developed (18 men young towards oriented project, communicatory prevention HIV/AIDS a as functioning t until and planned, was It 2008. in launched financial was “Pulsar” project grant, a receiving After prevention. HIV/AIDS at aimed project a on working started prevention. HIV/AIDS was one major the yet variou covering was event training this Project”; “Humanitarian NGO the of activist an there,as went he that told Oleg,project, ongoing this leaderTheof Russia). of easternpart werewhich activists 2.3 presume totheimplemented law. to undergo inresponse agen outline to aims part This other. each with disagreement certain a in be to appear which initiatives, activist of number a has it city capital a being not while regions: Russian in activism LGBT its of terms Novosibi modifications. anticipated the about Novosibirsk in activism LGBT in change the of point starting graspI able the to myI’ve was right Thus, the lawfieldwork. implemented started was before anti the where Russia of part eastern the

h i The .1 - 27 years old), who practice sex with other men (MSM). As an activist group they they group activist an As (MSM). men other with sex practice who old), years 27 .

Project “Pulsar” nformation about this training is unavailable now, however it would be interesting to see, where the the where see, to interesting be would it however now, unavailable is training this about nformation rjc Pla eegd rm h sre o pyhlgcl riig vns o LGBT for events training psychological of series the from emerged Pulsar Project in area only the was Novosibirsk of region the fieldwork my doing was I time the At

das of existing organizations/initiatives and to indicate the change they change the indicate to and organizations/initiatives existing of das held in 2002 in Tomsk (a city which is close to Novosibirsk to close is which city (aTomsk in 2002 in held .

–

a i fo a western a from it was

- propaganda legislation wa legislation propaganda 58 35 s rpeet a ams uiu stain in situation unique almost an represents rsk

Since 2002 group of people in Novosibirsk in people of group 2002 Since

perspective of from the perspective of Russian Russian of perspective the from of perspective

–

activists were mostly talking talking mostly were activists s implemented; actually actually implemented; s csin,lcue etc. lectures scussions, he year 2010 it was it 2010 year he –

also in thein also s topics, s CEU eTD Collection seminar, lectures. “Seminars on LGBT rights, which Kseniia [leader of Gender i Pravo] Pravo] does” i Gender of [leader Kseniia which rights, LGBT on “Seminars lectures. seminar, with P projects i Gender joint some have commonly they that mentioned He therein. expression its found just has homophobia practices, enforcement its havedoesn’t argues, he legislation, The Thus, problem. regardless legislation ofthe old an of iteration an is it everything; of center the not is legislation that suggested Oleg society. Russian within homophobia reduce help might homosexuality about and audie broader a needs to activities building community community on fixation its from activism “transfer to necessary is it thinks he that out pointed Pulsar of members the of One society. in present is which homophobia, the LGBT yet, Russia; in presence its reclaim to activism for point It a “good”starting city. together, one is at in tobringactivists least isanimpulse that thelaw project out, pointed Oleg as “Pulsar” andrecreational isan educational LGBT the spacefor communityand friends: Currently, support. financial external any have doesn’t it mostly community a being out turned because it working, continued “Pulsar” ended, funding the years two after Although group. – thought was it as function

it started building a community of LGBT people, which went beyond the declared target declared the beyond went which people, LGBT of community a building started it – Oleg‘s attitude towards legislation is controversial one. On the one hand he agrees, agrees, he hand one the On one. controversial is legislation towards attitude Oleg‘s

said one of the informant (informant m), who often comes to Pulsar’s events Pulsar’s to comes often who m), (informant informant the of one said o m i [ciim tre ot o be to out turned [activism] it me For help andcompanio receive could people these where space a be must there companionship, and help for need in really are who people, are there if following: the to down comes activism me For gather. to communicate, to opportunity ravo. Space, where Pulsar hosts meetings, is used by Gender i Pravo to organize organize to Pravo i Gender by used is meetings, hosts Pulsar where Space, ravo. – nship – it became much more than more much became it

homophobia is an overall structural problem in Russian society. society. in Russian homophobia isanoverallstructuralproblem

- based 59

and community and

nce” (informant k, Pulsar) Educating people people Educating Pulsar) k, (informant nce”

go psie [as] An [pause] pastime. good a

just an HIV/AIDS prevention project prevention HIV/AIDS an just - building project, even though though evenproject, building - activism suffers more from from more suffers activism

–

“are

CEU eTD Collection LGBT community; it currently represents the Russian LGBT Network LGBT Russian the represents currently it community; LGBT 2.3 initia organization itself. individual their was it that clear made they However, protest. this in participated also they that said activities Pulsar’s in participate anti of implementation the protest demonstration a in participated himself he that said Oleg However, very doesn’t He activism. coincide specific agenda, said: with withpolitical organization this that feels Oleg center; community a than more something become to ready not is Pulsar project that emphasized he However, spotlight. the in currently is problem developrights ofevents. help acoherent to can Pulsar series LGBT on work which organization an as they, because Pravo, i Gender for with cooperation open is he why is argues, he This, community. LGBT implications the the for legislation addresses propaganda which seminars of series a create to effort and time his dedicate to in wants he man implemented, was legislation gay the after a that said as Oleg Russia.” have I rights the about me tell can someone glad I’m us. for important .2 .

GenderPravo(Gender i and The leade The the to related issues legal with dealing initiative an as established was Pravo i Gender in various ways. We want to be there if and when someone seeks seeks someone when and if assistance. there be to want We ways. various in lesbians and gays helps Pulsar that understand We meetings. our to come and come to people for space safea is Pulsar Novosibirsk. in LGBT community the within problems of lots still are There changes. global major, any plan not do we Currently r of Pulsar argued that people are fighting for the LGBT the for fighting are people that argued Pulsar of r

Rights) - rpgna eilto i Nvsbrk Ohr who Others Novosibirsk. in legislation propaganda

speak up openly. […] Many young people people young Many […] openly. up speak

tive, which had nothing to do with the the with do to nothing had which tive,

next to the city hall, to hall, city the to next in Novosibirsk. Lead Novosibirsk. in - rights because this because rights

f h anti the of has a has - CEU eTD Collection the LGBT groups in Novosibirsk should work in conjunction with each othe each with conjunction in work should Novosibirsk in groups LGBT the all that argue Pravo i Gender the of volunteers thus legislation, emerged the by shaped now community a primarily is which Pulsar, Novosibirsk in activists other from different are groups target and methods goals, their aim, political this despite that argued they Yet goal. mutual i is it that argued They LGBTwith other activists/groups: unity felt they passed, were laws the after that note Pravo i Gender the of activists region, and legal soci (both status the improve to intended actually be community, must the activism of the all needs because the account into take to important is it that claimed members t that obvious seem It accessible. and public information essential such make to trying thus media, social in videos the to links posts and YouTube on them posts rights, human and LGBT about videos t about lesbians and gays educate and inform to aims which strategy, “educational” organization’s the of part a As rights. their casesLGBT about againstinform minorities and members ofdiscrimination people, ofsexual state/re the with and society with work to but streets, the on demonstrations public organize to seek not does organization This groups. minority sexual various to support legal offer to aims it Kseniia, lawyer, young experienced an by al) of thepeople. Talking about the current situation in relation to the legislative changes in Novosibirsk Novosibirsk thetoin legislativerelationchanges in situation current the Talkingabout together. (Informant k,Gender iPravo) all it with deal must we and problem shared our is it us, of all affects it [pause] law this And […] together act to and efforts our coordinate is it Undoubtedly, his organizations wants to work closely with the non the with closely work to wants organizations his

mportant to coordinate efforts and work in conjunction towards their towards conjunction in work and efforts coordinate to mportant

motn fr GT ciit i Nvsbrk to Novosibirsk in activists LGBT for important

heir rights, the leader of the Gender i Pravo records info records Pravo i Gender the of leader the rights, heir - building organization. organization. building 61

gional government; they also monitor also they government; gional –

they were contrasting themselves t themselves contrasting were they ciim n ooiis is Novosibirsk in Activism - heterosexual community; heterosexual r to resolve this this resolve to r o -

CEU eTD Collection oprsn ih te gop dent at o nae n cntutv dbt wt the with debate constructive a in engage to want doesn’t groups other with comparison activist, political a himself consider who Bulat, silence. the disrupt to public; in homosexuality about talk to is aim Their Novosibirsk. 2.3 and experience share to opportunity the them communicateorganizations with other gives it and organization, major this re Pravo Genderi strategies). and methods (communicating change legislative obnoxious such with dealing in experience shared the of because regions,“problematic” other in LGBTorganizations with law and structure. thelegal anti existing the of use make to plan They tactical. is law this violates which action prospective and administration) (regional actor powerful the of strategy and strategies between Anti (1984). Certeau byintroduced tactics, division of logic the follows This Pravo) i Gender k, (informant d public some host to want we means propaganda what defines one no “as said: volunteers the of One law. the abolish to try and instances various of courts the to it with appeal then and precedent vi intentionally to plan they anti problematic the fight to strategy Pravo’s i Gender example For Pravo). i Gender s, (Informant others]!” groups target our in methods, our in […] other each from differ Novosibirsk in organizations the all that understand “we that me told S Volunteer issues. particular addressing be should struggle this in organizations the all yet, problem; .3 .

GORD LGBT public most the of group a is Bulat leader its and GORD They also argued that it i it that argued also They emonstrations and see, for which kind of actions the government is going to fine us” us” fine to going is government the actions of kind which for see, and emonstrations –

Gomosexuali, Rodnie I - propaganda laws is based on their main specialization, which is juridical: juridical: is which specialization, main their on based is laws propaganda presents the Russian LGBT Network in Novosibirsk, thus by being a part of bypart thusa Novosibirsk, being LGBT in Russian Network the presents

lt te non the olate s extremely important to establish and maintain connections maintain and establish to important extremely s - members of themembers Network. of Druzia Friends) and (Homosexuals, Relatives

- is trying to create resonance in the media. He, in He, media. the in resonance create to trying is - propaganda law by these means creating a legal legal a creating means these by law propaganda propaganda legislation in these circums these in legislation propaganda 62

. We just feel that we are [different from from [different are we that feel just We . - propaganda law to repeal the repeal to law propaganda

- ciit in activists tances is a is tances

CEU eTD Collection also individuals started some addressingBulat withvarious personally threats: administration; Hall City the to complaints submitted Novosibirsk in Committees Parental GORD) q, (informant of number a case, exist!” first the In negative. strictly was actions gays these to reaction public However, that know to want don’t just People […] majority. show to wanted “We issues. these towards ignorance the disrupt and homosexuality about people educate same about information basic some contained and the and One” Natural a is It Type wasan“Everybank calledand ofSexuality framedasexhibition. of Ob,was theriver the on organized was event second The children. their towards tolerance parents’ increase to a homosexual for rates suicide and homosexuality on information contained which fliers out giving were GORD from activists four poster, the exhibited they day the At homosexual?” is he/she realizes he/she if with, kid your leave whic Hall, City the near square central a in poster a hung they one first the During activists. moderate the by criticized were which actions major two had they , established) was GORD when time (the 2011 summer the Since provoke. and shock government; and/or community with work continuous any doing not are They struggle,a real fight”. results; any bring said to he going moreover, not is form such that arguing activism, “professionalized” it called commonly Bulat interview the During lot. a change can opinion, his to according doin of pattern common most government GORD’s peculiarity is in its public actions public its in peculiarityis GORD’s –

he wants to act directly and to provoke. He said that GORD doesn’t accept the accept doesn’t GORD that said He provoke. to and directly act to wants he

that our society has some issues, which are important yet disregarded by the by disregarded yet important are which issues, some has society our that

ht t s o atvs i hs understanding his in activism not is it that

posters depicted species among which homosexuality can be found found be can homosexuality which among species depicted posters g activism, which, in his opinion is funded and closeted and, closeted and funded is opinion his in which, activism, g 63

- – dolescents. According to Bulat, this aimed this Bulat, to According dolescents. sex sexuality. These two projects aimed to aimed projects two These sexuality. sex

they are open, provocative and impudent. and theyprovocativeare open, h said “What choice do you do choice “What said h –

bcue ciim s a is activism “because

their aim is to is aim their

CEU eTD Collection activists claim activists radical and 64) p. (ibid, counterparts” radical more their of integrity the in trust not [did] compromise and radical ac LGBT “compromised of narratives Contemporary more are activism doing of ways their that show to attempt an making were They GORD). group” activist “radical non as describedthemselves interviews their in groups these in Activists “Pulsar”. Project and Pravo i Gender groups: two by represented is Novosibirsk in activism “Moderate” “radical”. or “moderate” either organizations/group three All 2012. June in region, 2.3 then there onthe partactions of were GORD. no 20 September in held was event last This GORD) p, (informant faces.” their see couldn’t we so masks, wearing were They us. at eggs throwing started and came people These much. do didn’t they around, somewhere were police the “although that said They with pelted were they event, second the during that out pointed GORD of members the of some Also, up. beaten and people three by attacked was he demonstration, second .4 .

Radical VS Moderate:Radical VS Powerthe Categorization of I interviewed activists from Novosibirsk right after legislation was enacted in this this in enacted was legislation after right Novosibirsk from activists interviewed I

Bulat told me that when he came to the City Hall to get official permission to host the host to permission getofficial to Hall City the to came he when that me told Bulat andI claimedam that apedophile.” a women, mostly Others, die. to me want they that said who pensioners, some by phone the on called was I […] happen. to event this allowed who administration the was it because administration, Some W wr pbil acsd f norgn cide t hv sx […] sex have to children encouraging of accused publicly were “We ed that others were afraid to act directly because of their high social status. The status. social high their of because directly act to afraidwere others that ed

ie fe ti eet oe aetl omte tid o u the sue to tried Committee Parental some event this after time - oriented activists in the 90s, when. “[c]ompromise when. 90s, the in activists oriented - radical (and constantly opposing themselves to, what they called theywhat to, themselves opposingconstantly(and iit i Nvsbrk eal at ofit between conflicts past recall Novosibirsk in tivists

64 - retd (si, 99 ta disruptive. than 1999) (Essig, oriented”

/ntaie rfre t tesle as themselves to referred s/initiatives ttacked me via Skype via me ttacked

- oriented activists oriented 11, and since and 11, eggs. CEU eTD Collection verdict to the European Court of Human Rights. Kseniia, leader of Gender i Pravo even even Pravo pointed outthat for her there exact isno boundaryandbetween moderateactivism: radical i Gender of leader Kseniia, Rights. Human of Court European the to verdict vio which precedent, legal a create to need they that claimed They has. Pulsar one the from differs which strategy their narrating we change, legislative the discussing while Pravo, i Gender and GORD from might it because activism, the LGBT with the for situation radicalthe aggravate too be to not important is it opinion his in that said He situation. the change to attempt an in implemented was law the before meetings inv his about talked Pulsar form Oleg legislation. the revise to and groups working create to want they interviews, their during me told members as GORD. dist discursively adical and moderate between division the of reiteration etc. projects joint some had already they that me told Pulsar and i Gender of Members GORD. from themselves distance to trying also while together groups two that shows Novosibirsk of case –

Their strategy to question the unjust legislation is to work together with government: with together work to is legislation unjust the question to strategy Their n te wud ie o eeo a lsr oprto wt ec ohr Constant other. each with cooperation closer a develop to like would they and

not [pause] political enough. Howeve enough. political [pause] not was it [pause] community the for activity an was This balloons. colored rainbow released and together came people of group a when Flashmob”, covert were they actions such enacted, was law [ actions public about this skeptical were activists moderate Before use. us of both which methods more probably […] issues common more have we legislation this of result a Novo In sibirsk we have both radical and moderate activists. Currently, as Currently, activists. moderate and radicalboth have we sibirsk ae anti lates - rpgna a, o e fnd n te t apa aant the against appeal to then and fined get to law, propaganda - com munity in the region. On the other hand, activists hand, other the On region. the in munity – –

65 o eape e a a “Rainbow a had we example for Gender i Pravo and Pulsar are starting to work work to starting are Pulsar and Pravo i Gender r, now we are ready to address the address to ready are we now r,

leet n priiain n such in participation and olvement –

…] and if we had had we if and …] seminars, public discussions public seminars, ne te from them anced - Pravo Pravo

CEU eTD Collection propaganda”Bulat interview: in his out himselfpointed legislation.this LGBTpublic t before right were conducted GORD events public of members theall that As actions. their of outcomes possible andconsequences the about think didn’t GORD argued also They space. public of disruption the just beyond anything a was actions Bulat’s of aim the what know don’t they that war, p.63) nota seminar” (ibid, ‘radical of group a themselves called activists’ They audience. larger a address to wanted they community the for work to want didn’t They problems. particular to public general the of GOR from activists text, the in earlier out pointed I As figure. political a as acknowledged be to way the just are him for LGBT and politics in career have to wants GORD of leader that me told interviewed a th broader is are interests he his and that activist political claimed himself Bulat and ambitions; political having GORD of result a as happens it that argued Pulsar from activist One actions. GORD’s and them between distance thus and “moderate” as themselves classify do they GORD, Activists from project “Pulsar” and Gender i Pravo were arguing in their interviews their in arguing were Pravo i Gender and “Pulsar” project from Activists as way similar a in act to plan Pravo i Gender of activists though even However,

anymore! say to and directly government mlmne a a eut f u atvs. … Or vns were implemented asthe growing result of publicityhomosexuality. of events Our […] was legislation that opinion, activism. this share people thus enough, our provocative of result a as implemented anti that possible is It and critiqued other groups for being not radical enough. For GORD activism “is a “is activism GORD For enough. radical not being for groups other critiqued and - related events are commonly blamed for provoking the appearance of the “non the appearanceof provokingthe for arecommonlyblamed events related

D told me that their projects were intended to attract the attention attractthe to intendedwere projects their that me told D

- rpgna eilto i Novosibi in legislation propaganda –

we do not agree with this situation, not situation, this with agree not do we 66

en just LGBT rights. Some other activists I activists other Some rights. LGBT just en e a ws mlmne, e n his and he implemented, was law he d ee odrn i tee is there if wondering were nd try to show that there is a a is there that show to try

s was rsk

- rights rights – -

CEU eTD Collection radical GORD is being excluded from notion. radical this excluded GORDisbeing and activist moderate a discursively is activist normative they A activists. among homonormativity categories, a produce these of usage the through Thus, Russia. contemporary in mod address Pulsar and Pravo i Gender from activists moderate that suggests movement LGBT of level the to nation the of level the from theory (2005) Puar’s be Jasbir can Bringing Novosibirsk. in another activists LGBT of from community the within activists homonationalism of group one distance to categories such and of “radical” usage The work. as their to value add such to terms these labels uses group each how of and “moderate” significance the see actually Novosibirsk in activists research This moderates). about GORD from (informant profession a became activism whom for one, the or radicals) about Pravo i Gender from (informant activism” their listen the and speaker the warn “They interviews. the in up coming constantly was activists radical and moderate between opposition this how see to interesting tremendously was It it. towards in narrative dominant a is narrated himself aswhoisactually activist inNovosibirsk theone something. doing “moderate” the of side the on jealousy even and misunderstanding is there Novosibirsk in activists between that says Bulat However aggressive. or provocative be to have doesn’t but public, be to needs community Pravo i Gender of leader (the Ksenia generates. GORD actions provocative the all with associated be to want not do They created. GORD think they which activism of image negative the from distance to attempt an is activists” er not to trust “those” people” (Essig, 1999, p. 65) p. 1999, (Essig, people” “those” trust to not er Unlike the movement during the 90s (Essig, 1999; Nemtsev, 1999; (Essig, 90s the during movement the Unlike Pulsar’s and Pravo i Gender that clear becomes It Novosibirsk and radical activism emerged as a form of resistance resistance of form a as emerged activism radical and Novosibirsk activists towards his ideas and actions. In the interview he he interview the In actions. and ideas his towards activists 67 ) claimed during the interview that the LGBT the that interview the during claimed )

–

the ones, who “lack consistency in in consistency “lack who ones, the

taey o e ald “moderate called be to strategy 2008 erate activism as a norm a as activism erate ) moderate activism moderate ) ecie as perceived hw how shows

CEU eTD Collection never any LGBT any never was there if ban, authorities the did “what was: city, the in initiative LGBT first very the of propaganda ban Maria, my informant, currentlywhoisengaged is theonly inKos person inactivism organization. to LGBT established newly aimed the of example which perfect a is legislation it thus homosexuality; the of implementation the before only has it cities; other suburban connect electric trainscities. bigger that them with with connections many have doesn’t Kostroma of region The Kostr reach to complicated more much is it position, central Russia; of part 2.4 moderate exacerbating ,thus wayofdoing activism conflict thebetween activists. the into fit not do that activities towards backlash major the trigger might also it resistance: on not provokes law, heterosexist gets through which Oppression, articulated action. any of lack the to but action joint of only not lack the to directly legislation the on work to them allow doesn’t grou other and GORD between conflict the However, Pravo. i Gender For actions direct some take to willing is which organization a an for opinion public of source a as Pulsar, organizations: both for beneficial community is Pravo Gender and Pulsar of unity The one. third the with groups two these of conflict the exacerbated and groups two between .

Kostroma: a Developing Region in Russia in Region Developing a Kostroma: The region of Kostroma is relatively small and located in the center the in located and small relatively is Kostroma of region The Thus single is who Maria, informant, my to question first The LGBTac no wasbecause mostlythere very interesting, is Kostromacase ofThe - , the case of Novosibirsk shows, how anti how shows, Novosibirsk of case the , building initiative, becomes not only a platform for various discussions, but also but discussions, various for platform a only not becomes initiative, building the city of Kostroma is close to the western border of the region. Despite its Despite region. the of border western the to close is Kostroma of city the - related event in Kostroma?” Maria laughed and told me t me told and laughed Maria Kostroma?” in event related 68

n LGBT Movement n LGBT - propaganda legislation provoked unity unity provoked legislation propaganda – it seems like this inner conflict leads conflict inner this like seems it y eitne n coeain in cooperation and resistance ly

oma then to reach Arkhangelsk. Arkhangelsk. reach to then oma - handedly trying to establish to trying handedly hat is the question the is hat

of the European European the of s f activists of ps

troma. tivism tivism

–

CEU eTD Collection o da h te a ws mlmne; h ol epaain h cud ie a that was give could she explanation government followed other Kostroma theexample regions: in of only the implemented; was law the why idea no homose to related issues towards indifferent quite are Kostroma in people that shows opinion her in which, legislation, the about heard even never sample their of 60% than more that showed conducted) friends her and she (which surveys the of results issues the on relatedLGBTcommunityand no thenew tothe opinion public monitor to trying are friends her of some and she example, Kostroma. Allofthem were arre from people were them of three only Hall; City the of front in law the of implementation the against demonstration a in participated people eight about that said She implemented. were to came Network the of members Network, LGBT address the issue, therefore shedecidedbe thatto needs that. done something about t out pointed also she administration; regional the of website the browsing while law the about out found she that me told She legislation. the to respond to decided and case, this about out found she since herself asking kept she which Currently, Maria said, there are a number of projects she is trying to address. For For address. to trying is she projects of number a are there said, Maria Currently, Russian the with conjunction in was participated, she which in action, first the In ciim pue bfr m! o ee a gay a even Not me! before [pause] activism any have didn’t We here. lesbians and gays many have don’t we region, regions Yet one. similar a have other should we decided administration in implemented were Laws trend. overall the follow to decided government [regional] our because be could It region. our in “happened” legislation why idea, no have I sted, yet didn’tpress charges the administration sted, 69 -

propaganda policies. She pointed outth policies. Shepropaganda hat as there was no local organization to organization local no was there as hat protest the legislation even before they before even legislation the protest - lb Te omnt is community The club! –

n or regional our and

xuality. Maria said she has has she said Maria xuality. we are a small a are we

at the

CEU eTD Collection who is engaged in activism in Kostroma. in in activism iswho engaged 37 spaces. ofsafe number small 36 of perception other any have homosexuality ishiddeninprivate. because it not do people that claimed Maria lives; luxurious living bein homosexuals about stereotypes perpetuating still are city her in People life.” gay for poor too is Kostroma that say “They city: their in people gay no are there think Kostroma in people that out pointed she enough, Interestingly community. violencetowar homophobic or homophobia publiclydisplayed no thereis immoral, it consider and homosexuality towards attitude negative displayed Kostroma in people of LGBTwith Kostrom rights in situation the improve to help will it that hoping instances, higher of courts the to appeal to planning is she law, the abolish to request her rejected judge the although that said she court; six the In that is her. achievement biggest Maria’s work, her of months to talk to up showed actually them of none deputies, some with meeting the schedule to managed she though even However, explanation. any give doesn’t law the elaborate to them wanted she me told She law. this of adoption the as perceived be can Masha propaganda”. everything when situation, contemporary a in “especially LGBT, wan one no yet coverage, and attention media received held they that protest LGBT and actions the about write to able be would other Her

Maria and Masha are the two versions of of versions two the are Masha and Maria “Kitchen community” here means a closeted community, which can only be open about their sexuality in a in sexuality their about open be only can which community, closeted a means here community” “Kitchen Masha pointed out that, although her surveys showed that the majority (she said 73%) said (she majority the that showed surveys her although that, out pointed Masha

lesbians Kostroma. in community” “kitchen a is it small; aim as an activist is to attract the attention of the media: to find a journalist who journalist a find to media: the of attention the attract to is activist an as aim 37

also made an attempt to meet with the deputies who were involved in involved were who deputies the with meet to attempt an made also

the same name; it this subchapter I am talking about one person, person, one about talking am I subchapter this it name; same the 36 70

. It looks like there are no gays and gays no are there like looks It .

- related issues. Activist said that only one one only that said Activist issues. related she managed to filed the case to the the to case the filed to managed she g always rich, having fancy cars, cars, fancy having rich, always g on what propaganda is, as is, propaganda what on ts to write about write to ts ds the gay the ds CEU eTD Collection Network. cur is with She project. struggling is Maria Consequently, LGBTLGBTestablishment community ofan and rights/anti with her inKostroma attitudes. homophobic by perpetuated an have gets people LGBT that argues intim that He understanding closet. transparent of phenomenon post socialist the presents he when issue this about talking is (2011) Kuhar Roman years.” these public orientation sexual their display to want not do Kostroma in gays but publicity, implies “Activism people. of group no the of result a as them for changed has nothing Kostroma arenot eager become activists: in homosexuals however, networks, social various through members attract to trying was human peop of that hoping lack was she that the me told is Maria resources. Kostroma in activism current for problem main The myself”. by - Kostroma in rights gay for fight to like would who people no are there that is her bothers which issue One t said

“we could share the tasks, but currently it is very hard for me to deal with everythingalmostwith deal to me very for hardcurrentlyis but it tasks, the share “wecould hat it is still not functioning and she is really confused and doesn’t know what to do. to what know doesn’t and confused really is she and functioning not still is it hat Gays and lesbians told Masha, that they are they that Masha, told lesbians and Gays she month, 6 for organization LGBT an establish to trying been Masha’s though Even keep private private things years to want they 150 said They happen. to it expected they like seemed it [pause] in maybe [pause] gays support never would government that me told they [pause] laws these by offended or humiliated feel didn’t they say people

–

it is only her. “If there were more people,” more were there “If her. only is it rently trying to address these issues with the help of the Russian LGBT Russian the of help the with issues these address to trying rently t ctznhp hud e piae atr ad hs understanding this and matter; private a be should citizenship ate ciim em pites o te, ht Russian that them, for pointless seems activism ly –

they would rather keep it in private, as they were doing all doing were they as private, in it keep rather would they

- quite comfortable with their position that position their with comfortable quite propaganda law, as they were a closeted a were they as law, propaganda le would join the organization; she organization; the join would le –

she told me told she during the interview, interview, the during - legislation -

CEU eTD Collection f otoa xeine datc changes drastic experienced Kostroma of organization the within changes structural minor some had also Rakurs volunteers. of number the in increase an experienced Rakurs and Vihod like organizations, established More another. to organization one from changes these however changes; encountered regions these in activism Novosibirsk, Saint Kostroma, in implemented was legislation propaganda chang anti the of implementation the propaganda legislation. after homophobia of amplification potential of result way dual a in working is legislation how reveals activism LGBT of region developing a as Kostroma share th to back refers issue This homophobia. stimulated of threat this by caused is activism LGBT the with engaging” “not of strategy chapter this of affected As homosexuality. of potentially invisibility the from results This people. of number the to compared small quite remains activists of number However, resistance. with linked inextricably is power how perfectly illustrates region act LGBT homosexuality. towards directed power oppressive the by encouraged was appearance its underdeveloped, currently is Kostroma in initiative the Although emerge. anti the of implementation the change, legislative LGBT no was there though Even resistance. generates power ed after the anti the after ed – As research shows, the case of Kostroma perfectly exemplifies how the direct use of of use direct the how exemplifies perfectly Kostroma of case the shows, research As regions the in activism LGBT which in ways various the demonstrates chapter This

ht anti that –

s rvkn resist provoking as –

homosexuality is tolerated until it becomes visible. Thus, I argue that this this that argue I Thus, visible. becomes it until tolerated is homosexuality - rpgna eilto wl preut hmpoi i scey Thus society. in homophobia perpetuate will legislation propaganda - propaganda legislation was implemented. Data suggests that after anti after that suggests Data implemented. was legislation propaganda

ne n a agaaig h coe. h lte hpes s a as happens latter The closet. the aggravating as and ance –

as they had to prioritize the work the prioritize to had they as e anxiety which many activists from various regions various from activists many which anxiety e –

72 s h frt raiain a etbihd My established. was organization first the as

- rpgna a fre te ciim to activism the forced law propaganda

- - I pointed out in the beginning beginning the in out pointed I eesug Akaglk and Arkhangelsk Petersburg, related initiative prior to the the to prior initiative related

with society. The Region Region The society. with ivism in this in ivism differed the - - CEU eTD Collection olbrt ih ahohr ydaiguo h aeo h usa LB ewr I’ll Network LGBT Russian the of case the upon drawing initiati By other. each and with collaborate organizations how discuss I’ll organizations. LGBT the within networking of issue the address to aim I chapter last the in Thus, Network. LGBT umbrella an of members actually are them of some other; each with co and cooperate circumstances current in organizations these say, to Needless regionalofanti result a undergoneas individually Anti society. legitimize what homophobia and is this posesa major threat thecommunity. to in homophobia overall of amplifier an as work easily homosexuality of propaganda of prohibition as activists, and for community LGBT problematic more much are laws these of consequences the Yet heterosexual. purely anti the legislation 2009) (2005, logic Boellstorff’s to Returning violence. physical or receive can was verbal implemented after legislation homosexualitythis any public display of that suggested, Vihod from volunteers and Pulsar and Rakurs from Activists is. entails it what but problem, a not is itself legislation the that noted They informants. my of number a by shared was understanding this a for argued explicitly activists Many society. Russian addressed be should that problem propaganda bothdrag outof the laws people anti that suggest cases the of some However, efforts. their combine which organizations other each occursmakes clear shift it thatthecardinal inthe research This people. LGBT on impacts different has legislation that argues also research oevr m rsac as age ta anti that argues also research my Moreover, In this chapter I demonstrated the changes which each organization I researched had had researched I organization each which changes the demonstrated I chapter this In is an exhibition of state heterosexism and desire to preserve the public sphere as sphere public the preserve to desire and heterosexism state of exhibition an is –

hte i i vlner wo on h LB ognzto, r LGBT or organization, LGBT the join who volunteers is it whether anti - propaganda legislation makes homophobia legitimate; that legitimate; homophobia makes legislation propaganda –

it is a part of a bigger issue, which is homophobia in homophobia is which issue, bigger a of part a is it

closet and push them in. 73

people themselvesstart unite with asthey to - propaganda legislation beingimplemented. legislation propaganda - rpgna eilto i nt h only the not is legislation propaganda specific perception of the legislation; the of perception specific - rpgna as discursively laws propaganda - organization the Russian the organization

e cmuiae and communicate ves

- propaganda propaganda mmunicate s -

CEU eTD Collection organization umbrella one to limited be cannot Russia contemporary in movement LGBT the that argue

–

it isasystemit networks, ofcomplex whichdepend 74

s on a number ofissues.s on

CEU eTD Collection LGBTwhich however narrates movem the periphery the on agency of presence the suggests This other. each with conflict in be can and intersect can which Russia, within networks complex of number a creating thus boundaries, n actual groups, moderate and western geographical prioritizes Network the although that, out point will I Finally sections. two last the through so the to comparison in rural underdeveloped, as constructed is mountains Ural the of east that argue also will I argument. this develop to me helps community imagined an as Network the Presenting Russia. in activism in engaging of way acceptable only the as it narrate and activism in trend moderate a normalize to attempt an its that argue to me help will chapter this of section first the in initiatives a regional unite to aims distance which Network LGBT Russian geographical the in organization umbrella on major a of based presence the Showing divide. networking east/west symbolic a of reinforce divide radical/moderate principles these how show and implemented, were laws the where regions the cooperation/networkingof the in occurred wi anti of implementation the with encountered Chapter 3. Networking and the Network: Critical Reflections ll shift from a regional to an interregional perspective. I will draw upon the changes which which changes the upon draw will I perspective. interregional an to regional a from shift ll n hs hpe Il cniu t eaoae n h cags hc LB activism LGBT which changes the on elaborate to continue I’ll chapter this In

- aldErpa ato h cuty Il cryti argument this carry I’ll country; the of part European called ent asrather uncoordinated. - 75 propaganda legislation, however my discussion discussion my however legislation, propaganda

etworking goes beyond the official official the beyond goes etworking

through these principles space to the to space principles these through neosvoennaia

politics represents politics

(unexplored), and (unexplored), nd

CEU eTD Collection oae i Sit eesug a opsd o h a 39 the to opposed organizations as Petersburg, Saint in located 38 leaders” so on society with work its accentuates Network the of headquarters The opinion. public in shift the towards work and stereotypes transphobic and homophobic dispel to community, LGBT the about people inform to try Activists people. LGBT of the position of betterment the for government the with and society with work Petersburg Saint in LGBTNetwork Russian the of Representatives own. its of duties certain hasPetersburg Saint Peters Saint in umbrella an became Movement and Community LGBT October In other”. any like initiative “an as is characterized he members; nine only had it established was Network membership organization. inthis stra agenda, Network’s the about information retrieve to Petersburg Saint in located is which headquarters, its visited I work field my During country. organization LGBT umbrella only the is it movement; coherent and structured c the across initiatives and organizations LGBT of number a unite to aims Strategies Agendaand Network: LGBT oftheRussian Headquarters 3.1. The

Map in the Appendix IV shows the regions, which currently are the members of the Network. members ofthe the are currently which theregions, shows IV Appendix in the Map Here, when I talk about Russian LGBT Network or the Network, I mean the head organization, which is is which organization, head the mean I Network, the or Network LGBT Russian about talk I when Here, Igor, the leader of the Russian LGBT Network, told me that in 2006, when the the when 2006, in that me told Network, LGBT Russian the of leader the Igor, LGBTNetwork Russian The

–

journalists, reporters,journalists, activists: civil

who inform other people people towards aim we consequently people, all address to hard is It […] levels. various of educationalists with work to want We ug Bcue f t sau o haqatr o te ewr, raiain in organization Network, the of headquarters of status its of Because burg. - organization for various regional LGBT initiatives, with its headquarters its with LGBT initiatives, regional various for organization

2008, the 2008,

Russian Conference of Civic Organizations which Supports Supports which Organizations Civic of Conference Russian 38

took place in Moscow. After this event, the Network Network the event, this After Moscow. in place took

is the best the is ctual network, which is constituted from various regional regional various from constituted is which network, ctual 76

- known LGBT organization in Russia, whichRussia, in organization LGBTknown eis n hw ein acquire regions how and tegies ountry to form a a form to ountry - called

within the within “opinion

CEU eTD Collection the law to the European Court of Human Rights (which Rights Human of Court European the to law the hosted by (heThe which). didn’tspecify to appeal strategyagainst internationalorganizations events tomeet methat someintheorganizations. told politicians Thehemanaged with leader of mediation the to activists resort they though Thus even representatives. state hosts, invite Network constantly the events the attend don’t representatives state because government, Russian the with dialog a in be to complicated is it that me told Igor LGBTacknowledgesof existence inRussia: people anti the of implementation the that anti that argues Network the of propagan leader the sense this In government. the with Russia LGBT Russian Network) people are we perverts, not pedophiles, not are people “LGBT that exists, community LGBT that out find could they “so there, groups” “target invite and conferences multidisciplinary and discussions table round informa conduct Network the from Activists h Ntok lo ae a atmt o eoit te oiin f GT epe in people LGBT of position the negotiate to attempt an makes also Network The da legislation has enhanced their ability to communicate with authorities. He noted noted He authorities. with communicate to ability their enhanced has legislation da the government]. legislation [with this them with position our negotiate homophobic, to ability our legitimized is society Although Russia. in people LGBT are there that acknowledged they legislation this [ homophobia with problem a is there that see didn’t simply they enacted] be to started legislation the [before before acknowledgment,because already an is it Still, way. negative extremely this in [pause] However society. in presence t it… acknowledged of kind they Now

and we are around and we deserve to be present” (informant v, (informant present” be to deserve we and around are we and

- rpgna eilto sget ta te government the that suggests legislation propaganda tion campaigns and press conferences, organize organize conferences, press and campaigns tion 77

…] they didn’t see us. With With us. see didn’t they …]

hey acknowledged our our acknowledged hey

various organizations I researched I organizations various international -

CEU eTD Collection ae h communicatio the ease andfacilitate to and organizations regional connect to is NetworkLGBT Russian the of aim main The network. the in included are which LGBTorganizations regional the all represents level andnotonthelegislative: anti the A through articulated gets currently which and society in present is which homophobia, against struggle the in help can resistance of unity only cities; as country big a such for that is Network LGBT Russian the of a argument form main The to movement. and LGBT national initiatives LGBT various unite to is Petersburg Saint in organization the government. Russian address also could they so problem current the to organizations international various the of attention attract to attempt an in component major a is also use) to plan or using are ctivists from the Network argue that homophobia should be addressed on the structural structural the on addressed be should homophobia that argue Network the from ctivists Because of its statu its of Because Ru the of headquarters As the matter. of process the that on opinion public in change think with accompanied be must legitimization we Thus change. to going is [pause] yet nothing want, we as time much as right our need we that yell n and paper of piece a become documents legal international documents various in and constitution a in written be can reality Russian our In reality in but equal, born are people all that stated is it rights human on section the in constitution, the in that understand We

Russia it is not enough to have LGBT organizations just in the capital the in just organizations LGBT have to enough not is it Russia

n between activists and their communication with authorities. The The authorities. with communication their and activists between n –

s as headquarters of the Russian LGBT Network, the main goal of of goal main the Network, LGBT Russian the of headquarters as s f oit dent upr ti contract this support doesn’t society if

– ssian LGBT Network organization in Saint Petersburg Petersburg Saint in organization Network LGBT ssian

human rights are a social contract. Anything contract. social a are rights human 78

othing more. And we can can we And more. othing –

- it rpgna legislation. propaganda –

is not true! true! not is

all these these all CEU eTD Collection el o avcc fr einl ciit. ebrhp n h Net the in Membership activists. regional for advocacy of realm the introduce Network LGBT the of Representative lacks. periphery the argue they which knowledge, and experience the share and regions the in activists visit organizations head the Act it.” do to how and do to what know don't but activists, become to want “which regions the in groups initiative for assistance provides Network The organizations. regional are that organizations supposed toworkLGBT notonly to advocate for rights regional create to help they communities: LGBT Network regional LGBT assists Russian Consequently, regions. and towns small in also but center, the l and gays that show will community LGBT national a Thus 1998) (Weston, cities big in only present is which phenomenon a as addressed is commonly Homosexuality belonging. of claims specific make thus, and nation the in community help can periphery the includes which national community a Building LGBT periphery. the at and center the in lesbians and gays includes which community, the of formation the facilitate to aim its sees Network the thus cities, capital ga from solely constituted be not should argued, Igor community, This not goingLGBT to succeed an ifthere isnot inRussia: community tobe ismovement the arguesthat country. Network the The LGBT communitywithin create anto majo two has Network LGBT Russian the noted, Igor Currently, initiatives. regional of work unity the towards to aim which of all projects, various develop simultaneously to trying is Network The leader of the Network also discussed the ways in which the headquarters helps headquarters the which in ways the discussed also Network the of leader The change! community LGBT an create won’t we communitya thereis Unless need We r areas of activity in terms of forming an All an forming of terms activityin of areas r

to enlighten LGBT people, to form group consciousness! group form to people, LGBT enlighten to –

we are not getting any rights. […] If […] gettinganyrights. not are we 79

– , butalsoascenters. community

- nothing is going to to going is nothing Russian movement. Its first aim is Itsaim first movement. Russian esbians are present not only in in only not present are esbians

o li te rsne f a of presence the claim to work also makes regional regional makes also work ys and lesbians in the in lesbians and ys

ivists from from ivists

CEU eTD Collection as a crime. Activists from headquarter of the network argued that if the abolition of the anti the of abolition the if that argued network the of headquarter from Activists crime. a as Russia in people of majority vast the for nothing changed nation Russian the within homophobia supports government that meaning it, in embeddedness their and issue this towards position governmental the of proclamation a as seen be should law The it. in people LGBT of status social the change didn’t laws propaganda issue structural anti sees he that informants) my of from the regions. colleagues their with experience its share and support moral provide to ability its emphasized ma a need regions the in initiatives that argued He themselves. Network the join to want recognizable) stable, more become to (e.g. bigger something into develop to want which initiatives/organizations act facilitates between result a communication as and organizations, LGBT foreign of representatives and Network LGBT Russian the of representatives as well as regions other from colleagues their meet pointed activists regional many As broader because activist regional audience variousgets knowabout regional to forinitiati beneficial is this that out pointed Igor Network). LGBT Russian constitute which organizations, LGBT (all network the within visible groups (s out pointed Network the of ideologist the that note to important is It would like tohelpthem. who people members, new attract can They them. about know to get people many thus pamphlets; our in materials, other in and website our on activists regional about information the publish We - state. Igor drew upon the fact that d that fact the upon drew Igor state. –

o prnr hc cn ersn te i te aia. h Ntok also Network The capital. the in them represent can which partner jor xrm hmpoi i Rsin oit. mlmnain f h anti the of Implementation society. Russian in homophobia extreme ivists of different levels. Igor claimed that regional regional that claimed Igor levels. different of ivists

- out, the Network hosts conferences, where activists can activists where conferences, hosts Network the out, propaganda legislation as being an outcome of a major a of outcome an being as legislation propaganda 80

ecriminalization, which occurred in 1993, in occurred which ecriminalization, ves:

–

they still consider homosexuality consider still they Russia: it just confirmed just it Russia: imilar to most to imilar - - CEU eTD Collection Russia. Russia. situ the for normative as activism moderate constructs Network LGBT Russian the activists radicalthe to network the from activists by opposing that show to Iaim organization LGBT Russian the that proving Netwo By Russia. in movement a LGBT such the of consequences for the juxtaposition disentangling to chapter this of section next the dedicate I by theNetwork juxtaposing totheofradical initiative activists: narrated agenda organizationits the leader of radical/moderateIt thatthe binary. interesting is the how out point to Consequently, beviewed should dealt problem a this and within muchbroader sense. ha legislation propaganda k s n mgnd oiia cmuiy n ta i i iaie a a ainl LGBT national a as imagined is it that and community political imagined an is rk To finalize my description of the headquarters of the Russian LGBT Network, I want I Network, LGBT Russian the of headquarters the of description my finalize To

term as itself tr other the of followers considers Network LGBT Russian society. Russian address they which with claim the is This rights”. our need we love your need don’t “We well: really them characterizes which “Equal is any Without Rights motto Their activism. in trend radical the represent Gay Moscow – currentl we Russia In

the radical trend and [long pause] reformist/evolutionary one. one. reformist/evolutionary pause] [long and trend radical the –

can be called a reformist one. cancalleda reformist be

ewr dfns tef n is ebr i te ein i trs f a of terms in regions the in members its and itself defines Network - ppens, it will not trigger a reduction of homophobia in the country. the in homophobia of reduction a trigger not will it ppens, Pride organizers and their followers in other cities cities other in followers their and organizers Pride

Compromise”. Also they have a second motto, motto, second a have they Also Compromise”. y have two so two have y end, which end, 81 - – called trends in doing activism activism doing in trends called

and it is an extremely relative extremelyrelative an is it and

–

ation in ation

CEU eTD Collection 40 in engaged being of experience shared the through also but stigmatization, experiencing only Activists identity. gender not and of experience shared this through organization sexual larger of part a as themselves one’s understand of grounds on against discriminated and stigmatized being of experience shared on but identity, on not Russia based formed in is community currently that claimed Network LGBT Russian imagined the of an leader as The community. network LGBT Russian the constructs organizations regional between basis. daily a on other each with interact other, each with work each know LGBTnational movement. the from radicals exclude discursively to trying is thus and “other” as activism radical and anti L of Russian The sharper. even situation becomes the in categories two these between boundary the activists, between divide radical/moderate a of reiteration constant through an that argue me gives analysis to trying is This Network the that argue p.6). to opportunity 2002, (Anderson, community” political “imagined nation the to similar Network, LGBT Russian the how show I’ll section this excluding discursively thus ‘others’, as activists radical constructs it how and community, imagined an being while movement LGBT national a as itself invents Network LGBT Russian the which in ways the to attention draws section This its about discussion the for groundwork the prepare to aimed I section Activism. of Spread Community: Imagined an as Network LGBT Russian 3.2.

I draw this conclusion based on my participant observation ofthe my observation participant on based draw I conclusion this With the vivid descriptions of agendas of the Network’s headquarters in the previous previous the in headquarters Network’s the of agendas of descriptions vivid the With community actual of examples perfect are organizations LGBT Regional

te qie el tee r ata te ad eainhp bten ciit. They activists. between relationships and ties actual are there well, quite other

GBT Network constructs moderate activist as normal as activist moderate constructs Network GBT 82

normalize activism through its politics. I politics. its through activism normalize

regional them from the movement. At first in in first At movement. the from them

LGBT LGBT 40

Yet geographical distance geographical Yet - organizations rpgna legislation propaganda politics of exclusion. of politics

- state, is an an is state, Moderate Moderate –

people CEU eTD Collection state by creating separate visual representation; the Network is drawn on the map of the the of map the on drawn is Network the representation; visual separate creating by state dominion. geopolitical its imagines community 1 p. 2002, (Andersen, political the ways which in shows it movement: the of geography the of depiction simple a than more becomes map This society. eachparticipants andequal oftheorganization. other are help should organizations Network, the in that suggests informants the by about talked and is partnership horizontal of idea The foe. common with struggle and homophobia of experience shared of idea the through perpetuated is comradeship of sense This hierarchical. actually horizontal “deep, as Network the in relations the consider activists that implies this and p.7) 2002, (Anderson, community” a as “imagined certainly is Network LGBT Russian The movement. LGBT belongi their emphasized they Still, 6). p. 2002, (Anderson, communion” their of image the lives each of minds the in “yet regions; other in work who Network LGBT Russian of members encountered never them t organizations the in positions senior isinclusiveintermsRussia of people’s sexualities: o pointed also activists regional Other homophobia. against struggle a

even stated in the name of this national organization organization national this of name the in stated even

t s remarkabl is It e i i dfntl iaie. rm h itriw wt atvss h d nt hold not do who activists with interviews the From imagined. definitely is it Yet discriminate againsteven(Tatiana,Arkhangelsk) people more? to need we do Why against. discriminated are we who those include and movement, rights minority sexual of part a still are we But needs. special have they because is This example. for people, transgender for programs special some have we sure,

ordsi” ii. p6, vn huh te tutr o te ewr is Network the of structure the thought even p.6), (ibid., comradeship” 63 hw usa LB Ntok ss mp o li is rsne in presence its claim to map a uses Network LGBT Russian how e - 164) The Network is not distancing itself from the Russian nation Russian the from itself distancing not is Network The 164) ng to the network, pointing out that they are a part of national national of part a are they that out pointing network, the to ng e wr o vlner o, fud u ta sm of some that out found I for, volunteer or work hey 83

–

the way networking is understood understood is networking way the

at to want t ht ciim in activism that ut

CEU eTD Collection Affiliations. Affiliations. 41 head the Kostroma, of case the In groups. regional on activism proper/improper about views put it activists) for schools and seminars educational (e.g. hosts Network the events of series the Through organizations. regional the on agenda Network its imposes the that Network, LGBT Russian the of leader the with interview the from and regio with interviews the from both obvious, Itis organizations. regional other all than position higher a in be to appears Network the headquartersof Network: the ofmembers nation. th rights, their claim simply to want don’t they suggests: also politics their which nation, Russian the of part a as Network LGBT Russian the out maps It p.338). 1999, (Cerwonka, power” and resources on claims territo “[n]ational Consequently, activists. the of 175) p. 2002, (Anderson, imagination” popular the into deep “[penetrate] can which sign, visual powerful a create to presence, Network’s the claim to used is mapping Anderso Following activists. as and homophobia with struggling as region whole the marks organization affiliated one Thus, city. one only not fully, marked is organization the where region, the of space However, per the on not centers, regional the in established are organizations LGBT usually urbanized; extremely is Russia in activism earlier, out pointed I As present. are Network LGBT Russian the of members are which organizations where regions the indicates map organization the of webpage official the on displayed map the on presence actual its exaggerates visually Network the how see, to interesting its also is It 335) p. 1999, (Cerwonka, claim to important more is what Su Russianness. and, belonging its claim to federation Russian

fiil est o Rsin GT Network LGBT Russian of website Official

organizations the between equality actual no is there that is important is What Retrieved from: from: Retrieved h as lgtmz ad oatcz [] li t a pcfc territory” specific a to claim […] romanticize and “legitimize maps ch http://www.lgbtnet.ru/ru/content/regionalnye ey want to negotiate their presence and power within the Russian the within power and presence their negotiate to want ey

http://www.lgbtnet.ru/ 84

ries are not mere space but are connected to connected are but space mere not are ries - member of the Network is established is Network the of member ; Russian LGBT Network: Regional Regional Network: LGBT Russian ; - otdeleniya s forward the headquarters’ the forward s

, age ht such that argue I n, – into imagination into nal activists nal 41 iphery. iphery. . This . - CEU eTD Collection Petersburg was a major center of LGBT activism. ofLGBT center major wasa Petersburg 42 initiatives: regional of agency of lack the for arguing not I’m here Consequently, Network. organizations (Blag specificities" its and context local the account into taking "without regions the to superimposed being are politics LGBT Network. the from recommendations of number a of inapplicability entails which advice of pieces valuable gave and lot a Maria be not helped Network the although that shows, Kostroma in to activism of study case The productive. appear may periphery the at city, capital the of circumstances geopolitical the being are which activism LGBT of development of stages and agendas, political Thus, point. starting a just is situation current the Kostroma in activism population large a with Russia in Saint is only Not one. regional the that geotemporality Saint in (activism spaces central in activism that argue ( specialties local noticing not of mistakes risking without contexts other to on development Western/American of stages translate cannot “we succeed: to going not is spaces Eastern the d vary west and east of geotemporalities that argues (2001) Mizielinska’s another. to space one from activism doing of patterns of appropriation uncritical the question 2011) Mizielinska, 2011; Blagojević, space central from Network’s transferred the are from instructions the politics/strategies by LGBT which in ways the about question confused major a poses This headquarters. be to seemed her with interview thi in initiative LGBT emerged recently the onto strategies and agenda city” “big its transferred simply Petersburg Saint in organization hs aig h Aeia mdl eeoi) (bd, .0) olwn hr esnn, I reasoning, her Following p.102) (ibid., hegemonic)” model American the making thus

tle aot h eegne f GT ciim n h 90s the in activism LGBT of emergence the about talked I

–

oe f hm lk Rkr, ee well were Rakurs, like them, of some ramatically, which suggests that blind adoption of Western politics to politics Western of adoption blind that suggests which ramatically, jvć 21, .2. oee ti i nt h cs fr l the all for case the not is this However p.32). 2011, ojević,

–

it also has experience in LGBT activism LGBT in experience has also it

t te eihr. coas Ll& cio, 2005; Schitov, (Lalo& Scholars periphery. the to s

s city. Maria, being a ‘novice’ activist during my during activist ‘novice’ a being Maria, city. s 85 , currently she is the only activist in the city, the in activist only the is she currently ,

- n h frt hpe, and chapter, first the in Petersburg is the second second the is Petersburg - salse bfr te jie the joined they before established - eesug eit n different a in exist Petersburg)

successfully implemented in implemented successfully

hwd that showed 42 ; however for however ; biggest city biggest

Saint Saint

CEU eTD Collection s ie peiul, hy lal dfnd hmevs n eain o te iiitvs and initiatives other to organizations: relation in themselves defined clearly they previously, cited As used. Network the of headquarters from activists which divide, radical/moderate the to return sovereignty claim back. and to it wants of deprived was which group a as sovereign, possibly as community LGBT the imagines movement LGBT the situation current the in that suggest I community. the of sovereignty LGBT t is Russian movement Consequently, aim of the homophobia. the rise of triggers also which Network), LGBT Russian I; (informant freedoms” individual deny and sovereignty. of anti the deprived being as but sovereign, by away taken is sovereignty community’s LGBT beingthat argue Network the of Representatives of sense a in an not facilitate although to appears also oppression of un experience similar a have Network the of members how of idea postulated The limited as and sovereign as imagined: is community city the ofKostroma anti small the in because community, the of consolidation the enhance to manage didn’t she said certain d a in result can periphery the to politics LGBT central of application blind the Kostroma how shows of case particular this However, assistance. seeking Network, LGBT Russian t wanted Maria derstanding of the LGBT community in Russia to be “imagined as sovereign” (ibid, p.6), (ibid, sovereign” as “imagined be to Russia in community LGBT the of derstanding nesn 20) rus ht hr ae w mr apcs f o ntoa political national how of aspects more two are there that argues (2002) Anderson N LGBT Russian that prove To - propaganda legislation “because the state wants to control personal lives of people of lives personal control to wants state the “because legislation propaganda isorientation of the regional activist theregional activist isorientation of other cities represent radical trend in activism. […] the Russian LGBT Russian the […] activism. in trend radical represent cities other For

b eggd n GT ciim n se ok h iiitv t cnat the contact to initiative the took she and activism LGBT in engaged be o xml, ocw Gay Moscow example, - propaganda law made LGBTpropaganda laweven people made closeted. more

etwork is “imagined as limited” (ibid. p.7) I need to to need I p.7) (ibid. limited” as “imagined is etwork - rd ognzr ad hi floes in followers their and organizers Pride – 86

at the time of my research (august 2012) Maria (augustMaria research my 2012) of time at the

o fight for the o fight for

CEU eTD Collection in the 90s. inthe 90s. 43 het political of situation this in currently, that argued Network the from Activists legislation. anti the of implementation the by exacerbated gets debate this situation, current behavin as counterparts 90s early the to similar remains also two negotiations. any without immediately, state the from rights claim radic society; Russian in people LGBT of position the of betterment overall the is point main their that stating 62) p. (ibid., oriented” “compromised 90s the to similar themselves narrate still activists moderate contemporary by (represented activists LGBTLGBT actor of arevisible the themost Russian Network) moderate currently, limelight”, political “the occupying were 62 pp. 1999, (Essig, post in homosexuality towards attitudes worsen might position aggressive compromise while compromise critiqued radicals emerged: f LGBTmovement the when 90s, the of beginning the sinceRussia in existed has activists rhetoric ofthe 90spost andas wh limited, community isimagined alatter which as the narrates Network the of ideas sharethe don’t which initiatives the of “othering” discursive this and Russia in activists other from Network LGBT Russian distance to attempts These

This is the connection I make; during the interviews activists were not comparing themselves to the activists activists the to themselves comparing not were activists interviews the during make; I connection the is This rsxs i Rsi, hc mgt nac hmpoi daaial, lis f radical of claims dramatically, homophobia enhance might which Russia, in erosexism The debate between the radicals/compromise the between debate The

is anextremely term relative whichtrend, other the offollowers as itself Networkconsiders - - retd re age ta rdcl, ih hi ucmrmsn and uncompromising their with radicals, that argued tried oriented 65). Yet this debate experienced a major shift major a experienced debate this Yet 65). - Soviet LGBT movement.Soviet “n notold n iaporae as (bd, . 4. n the In 64). p. (ibid., ways” inappropriate and uncontrolled “in g

l aepeetda gop o atvs h at to want who activist of groups as presented are als – -

retd ciit fr o big oiia enough, political being not for activists oriented can calleda ref be – 87

oeae ciit tle aot hi radical their about talked activists moderate

- oriented (or moderate, reformist) LGBT reformist) moderate, (or oriented ich defines its limits, following the limits, definesits ich ormist one.

movement. Despite fact, this movement. 43 –

if in the 90s the radicals the 90s the in if The debate between the between debate The

–

and it it and - Sovi - propaganda propaganda t Russia. et irst -

CEU eTD Collection artn hm s aia adtu non thus and radical as them narrating r excludes LGBTRussian Network the Thus, improve willit. but Russia, in homosexuals of position the aggravate to going not is which one the country; the in situation a is activist ‘normal’ a that idea the perpetuates and constructs it organization, LGBT of network Russian a constitute to claims which organization, the as Consequently, movement. national Russian itself claim to attempt an making is Network the borders, regional the crossing By movement. LGBT Russian the for unfit a as activists radical marks it doesn't; it what and activists for strategies acceptable perpetuat it means these By agenda. Network’s the with accordance in organizations new establish helps or Novosibirsk) of case the in (as values moderate/reformist their share which organizations incorporates either It Federation. o out itself maps even it movement, LGBT national a as itself imagines already Network LGBT Russian the text, the in earlier showed I As movement. “compromised national a establish to trying and binary radical/moderate a of terms normali Network LGBT Russian the that argue I activists, radical/moderate normalize activism. Russian LGBT inRussia: people of position political and social the worsen and movement the for harm cause might activists hs wn t dsus h psto o Rsin GT ewr i trs f t atmt to attempt its of terms in Network LGBT Russian of position the discuss to want I Thus moderate one; this type of activism is the right one and makes it possible to change the change to possible it makes and one right the is activism of type this one; moderate n h cnet f h Rsin GT oeet n te eae between debate the and movement LGBT Russian the of context the In

rights equal such need don’t of Network] LGBT level [Russian We the fro homophobia. increase us even can relieve claims to radical going And homophobia. not is people LGBT of Legitimacy –

which do not actually provide anywhich providerights. equal donotactually

. It is already not an initiative of one city/town city/town one of initiative an not already is It . - normative activists and opposing activists from the the from activists opposing and activists normative 88

s h ie o wa te ewr se as sees Network the what of idea the es n the map of the Russian Russian the of map the n

adicals already by alreadyadicals e atvss in activists zes –

m it becomes a becomes it - oriented” CEU eTD Collection hpe, hr wr rgoa LB iiitv i Rsi i te 0, e te lce pltcl i ad were and aim political lacked they yet 90s, the in Russia in the decrim for struggle thefrom excluded initiative LGBT regional were there chapter, 44 for capacities that argue I chapter. this of section first the in talked I which about Network, poi also will I power. umbrella the beyond go networking of patterns actual the how show and circumstances geopolitical their of terms in other each with cooperate and wa the upon draw will I section final this Saint and Moscow like cities central only post the to comparison a establishing thus organizations, networking) of the types between some towards resistance with (along networking of types various anti of implementation the shows, data my as However, aboliti the for fighting of experience the share currently 3.3 this relate and activism LGBT of ofdiscussion radical/moderate toth terms in works power of topography the how show will I chapter, this of section final the In activists. radical of part the on resistance provokes mode closeted promote his/her to with trying satisfied by of Thus, kind position”. was everyone rights; claim to wanted one “no actions, political and public in engaged was Novosibirsk of region the in else one no because de he that interview, his in out pointed GORD of leader resistance generates activism normalize to attempt an such However, them. to network

I should emphasize that I’m talking about political LGBT Movement here; thus, as I pointed out in the first the in out pointed I as thus, here; Movement LGBT political about talking I’m that emphasize should I .

Capacities of Networking: Radicals VS Moderate and the East/West Divide East/West and the Moderate VS Radicals Networking: of Capacities As narrated in the previous chapter, LGBT organizations LGBT chapter, previous the in narrated As

t u hw hs ognztos e te oe f h Rsin LGBT Russian the of role the see organizations these how out nt - Soviet LGBT movement in the beginning of the 90s, includes not not includes 90s, the of beginning the in movement LGBT Soviet

inalization, which happened in the capital cities. capital in the happened which inalization, e geopolitics of the LGBTgeopolitics ofthee movement.

ys in which regional LGBT organizations interact organizations LGBT regional which in ys - Petersburg, but also cities on the periphery the on cities also but Petersburg, 89 ae ciim te usa LB Network LGBT Russian the activism, rate

oiia LB Mvmn, hc, in which, Movement, LGBT political - organization, in terms of resisting its resisting of terms in organization, on of the anti the of on - propaganda legislation enhances enhances legislation propaganda ie t etbih hs initiative this establish to cided \ groups - propaganda legislation. propaganda \ initiatives in Russia Russia in initiatives

44 –

. In . the the

CEU eTD Collection narrated as a country, which is located in the east, I follow the western logic (which is used in Russia too). in Russia used is western (which logic the follow in I the east, located is which country, as a narrated 47 46 etc. NGO’s in registering fundraising, experience their share to also but projects, joint have to only not other, each between connections 45 d commonly (or maps geographical Even Western Asian). and and European Eastern parts: two having as narrated always is Russia how interesting is Itcountry. the within exists boundaryeast/west an world, the of part Eastern the in situated commonl is country whole the the though prioritizes Even it Russia. of that west geographical see can one Network LGBT Russian the of map the at looking by o pointed Even distance. geographical the by complicated seriously is Vihod regions eastern with cooperation from Mikhail Also one. eastern the with compared networking of terms in beneficial is which Russia, of part western the in still is it North the on located different ofspecifically a position particulargeopolitical due differs hownetworking region. tothe Mountain Ural The part (eastern) Asian the in located are Novosibirsk) from GORD Pravo, i Gender Pulsar, (Project three other whereas Russia, of part (western) European the in located are Kostroma) them of Three geopoliticallocation. LGBTwhich theRussian Network perpetuates. divide, moderate/radical the about discussion previous my to it relate and chapter, the of part this in networking the for location geopolitical of importance the emphasize I’ll represents. organization the which region the of location geopolitical the by and moderate, or radical of membership networking

‘European’ and ‘Asian’ is the officially accepted division of space withinFederation Russian space of division officially accepted is the ‘Asian’ and ‘European’ Lewis and Wigen (1997) argue that east/west binary is socially constructed. constructed. socially is binary east/west that argue (1997) Wigen and Lewis n hs hss ewrig en ta ognztos eeo multi develop organizations that means networking thesis this In ay ciit i ter neves sd h es/et iie wih a apid to applied was which divide, east/west the used interviews their in activists Many their in diverse quite are studied I organizations the indicated, already I As

part of the country. Tatiana, for example, pointed out that although Arkhangelsk is Arkhangelsk although that out pointed example, for Tatiana, country. the of part 45

f h ognztos suid r dtrie b to ao fcos by factors: major two by determined are studied I organizations the of

the organization in the Russian LGBT Network and thus being defined as as defined being thus and Network LGBT Russian the in organization the ae h uofca bre bten h to at. pa t indicate to plan I parts. two the between border unofficial the are s

(Rakurs, Arkhangelsk; Vihod, Saint Petersburg; Maria in Maria Petersburg; Saint Vihod, Arkhangelsk; (Rakurs,

- esignate space to the left of the of left the to space esignate leveled (horizontal and hierarchical) hierarchical) and (horizontal leveled When I say that Russia is is Russia that say I When y seen y

in of activism, activism, of in 47

as being as t that ut

46 .

CEU eTD Collection Retrieved from HSE Center for Market Studies and Spatial Economics website: website: Economics Spatial and Studies Market for Center HSE from http://ces.hse.ru/en/news/49688155.html Retrieved 21). March (2012, 48 Ivisite allthe organizations that note to I need byLGBT specifically theRussian geography theNetwork. Network, in by the ofmembership center the from distant considerably is it because politics, national in interest less has logic this in east political certain having as of thought always are argue, Fergusson and Gupta as Territories, politics. in interested less and indigenous rural, as Federation Russian the of part eastern the constructs it implications: quan and spaces between part. eastern the in than there, higher much is regions, the of density the to similar density, population urbanized; more is Russia of part western The country. the geopol differencesThereare certain inthe quantitative capital. the from distant exceptionally is part eastern the thus country, the of border western the to close located is Federation Russian the of capital The 1996). (Tuller, Europe as west, “concep and politically culturally, as understood be must cities) capital (especially Russia of west geographical the that argued Russia Eastern from informants Tuller’s David thus 35), that arguing p. 1997, Ferguson, (Gupta, disconnected” naturally of instead interconnected, designategeographical specific areas. this 48), p. 1997, Wigen, & (Lewis, categories” mappable precisely be to meant never were West and “East note, (1997) Wigen and Lewis as Although, “Asia”. as Urals the of right the to one the and “Europe” as Mountains Ural

According to the research “Urbanization and Economic Development in the Regions of Russia” Kolomak, E. E. Kolomak, Russia” of Regions the in Development Economic and “Urbanization research the to According ut ad egsn ugs ta “pcs ae las en hierarchically been always have “spaces that suggest Ferguson and Gupta Russia. of part European the in narrated is networking how on elaborate I will first, At –

Moscow and Saint Petersburg. I will show that this eas this that show will I Petersburg. Saint and Moscow spaces are never an autonomous and always in certain relations with each other. other. each with relations certain in always and autonomous an never are spaces raiain n econo and Urbanization - economic determinations. (Gupta, Ferguson, 1997, p 40) Russia’s Russia’s 40) p 1997, Ferguson, (Gupta, determinations. economic iaie epltcl ifrne ewe to at hs certain has parts two between difference geopolitical titative

mic development in the regions of Russia [PowerPoint slides]. slides]. [PowerPoint Russia of regions the in development mic 91 d to the east of Ural Mountains are members ofaremembers Mountains Ural of eastto the d

division is used even within one country to country one within even used is division itics of the western and of easternparts western ofitics the t/west divide is sustained is divide t/west 48

This discursive divide discursive This tuallly”

CEU eTD Collection the Network organize seminars and “schools for activists”, to which they invite and where and invite they which to activists”, for “schools and seminars organize Network the from activists ways: following the in organization regional for support out carries Network this in alone not was Rakurs like felt they belonging; of feeling a with them provides organization bigger a of part a being that argued They Network. LGBT Russian the be of participant would collective of it status their without that work to meaning Rakurs for suffocated”, hard tremendously have would “[they] Network the without that claimed evenShe Rakurs. for LGBTNetwork Russian the in membership their importanceof network the in fa membership their that out pointed Urals the before Activists resistance. anti of implementation N LGBT desirable suchwell for a provi center the in it regions other with connections establish to possibility because preferable be to her to seemed Arkhangelsk from activists All the of headquarters the (where Petersburg Saint from equidistant are cities both though Even location. central a location, better much had opinion, her in Kostroma, of region the that out pointed She said. anywhere!”, to… Arkhangelsk from get to time long a quite takes “It other networks. with interact directly to them for hard organizations extremely it makes part western the of center the from remoteness their that out pointed region this from Activists communication. d that Tatiana, argued Rakurs of leader Russia. of part European the of north the on located is situated is Rakurs where Arkhangelsk, of city the text, the in earlier out pointed I As Network. LGBT Russian the iiae cmuiain ewe rgoa ognztos Ttaa cnwegd h great the acknowledged Tatiana organizations. regional between communication cilitates However, the leader of Rakurs pointed out that their membership in the Russian Russian the in membership their that out pointed Rakurs of leader the However,

tok epd o vroe hs rbe o gorpia ioain The isolation. geographical of problem this overcome to helped etwork –

hi dsr o ntokn gt mdae truh h itre ad social and internet the through mediated gets networking of desire their - - gay legislation in the regions triggered not only resistance, but shared but resistance, only not triggered regions the in legislation gay Russian LGBT Network is located), Kostroma’s central location for location central Kostroma’s located), is Network LGBT Russian - functioning as Rakurs. organization ue to their distant location they have a hard time managing the the managing time hard a have they location distant their to ue 92

–

an opportunity which is which opportunity an struggle. The struggle. des a better better a des -

Tatiana

CEU eTD Collection nac te ulc eonto o te GT ciimcmuiy n otoa Se also She Kostroma. in activism/community LGBT the of recognition public the enhance i that saying NGO, an as initiative her register to her recommended Network the from people that remarked alsoThe Kostroma.activist in initiative the about information the own political views. Mariaof its for arguedtheimportance with accordance in region this in activism LGBT created but helped, simply not Network the how shows Kostroma of case the that note to important is It there. implemented th as Kostroma, of region the in organization LGBT an start would who people for looking were Network the from activists that said she however, first; umbrella this from help seek to decided who she was It activist. an become she Network, LGBT Russian anti the the torespond to how both know evenknow wouldn’t with especially and, regions, other with networking interact organi other with regional anti of implementation the of result a as that out pointed also LGBT of conscious simply are who people of out professionals help such that argued Tatiana activists. regional teach they The only LGBT activist in Kostroma in activist LGBT only The Maria said that the Network provides a variety of educational materials and spread and materials educational of variety a provides Network the that said Maria becameclear! me for everything out sorted and came Network the And do. to what know barely you [pause] activism civil in yourself engage to decide you When skill and knowledge some gain and others with knowledge our share can we organization regional a As activists. other with events joint some have to communicate, to relationships, establish to important is It s from others.

–

hy od e ht nee t d adi all it and do to needed I what me told they zations on the horizontal level. onthe horizontal arguedzations She that – 93

Maria Maria

the Network’s help: – drew attention to the fact that without without that fact the to attention drew -

propagandalegislat is incredibly useful as “they make make “they as useful incredibly is - propaganda laws they started to to started they laws propaganda - anti e related problems.” Tatiana problems.” related -

rpgna a was law propaganda - organization at organization ion and how tohow and ion

would t

CEU eTD Collection two cities, and currently wi common problem they have the between this link transportation for Network, LGBT reasons Russian the main in membership three cooperation: are There Arkhangelsk. with network they that remarked regional other with experience their exchange can Vihod thus periphery, the at emerge initiatives and groups more currently cooperation: intensive anti the However, initiatives. and groups connectio establish to and Petersburg Saint in groups activist beyond go to attempt serious a make also they yet initiative, cultural this support they said They Bok Festival Movie Vihod mentioned, already I Petersburg Saint within organizations As regional with collaborates Vihod). f, (informant together” problem same the on the experience: activists regional for beneficial and fou they that out pointed conversations) the informal our (during and interviews them of both organized; Network LGBT Russian which conferences the of one on met Tatiana and Maria NGO. regional a registering of experience her shares Tatiana Tatiana with contact in stays Masha useful: remarkably be to organizations other of experience the finds she registration NGO of terms in that out pointed

LGBT movement in Russia: “it is an effective strategy effective an is “it Russia: in movement LGBT Activists from Vihod (Saint Petersburg) also argued that networking is important for important is networking that argued also Petersburg) (Saint Vihod from Activists

same things as Isame things currentlydo. as the through went who people are there that know to good was it […] stuff other some and NGO an registering in experience her about me very and me to nice very was she and […] her Rakurs from Tatiana, met I meeting, such During - O - Bok (Side Bok - by – -

Side) which has its headquarters in Saint Petersburg. Saint in headquarters its has which Side) as they can meet and exchange their knowledge and knowledge their exchange and meet can they as

- rpgna eilto oee u a pc for space a up opened legislation propaganda 94

th anti

- – organizations. In this vein, they they vein, this In organizations. very helpful. She to She helpful. very

if all of us will unite and work work and unite will us of all if - propaganda laws. –

– you already met met already you –

For example, with example, For

leader ns with regional LGBT regional with ns nd these events useful useful events these nd f Rakurs of ld ld

LGBT –

and CEU eTD Collection the Power ofCategorization. thePower 49 i Gender leader example, For networking. of importance to contrastradical (GORD) themselves even with activists more. th united Pravo) i Gender moderate(Pulsar, as themselves identified who activists, thus Novosibirsk; in activists for divide radical/moderate anti the menti already of I implementation As studied. I Petersburg) Ural Saint the to close Russia, and (Moscow spaces of central the from region distant geographically most part the is It Mountains. eastern the in located is Novosibirsk Novosibirsk). divide this activists; thus becomesreference oftheirnetworking. decision a about point moderate with common in more have they that argue to divide radical/moderate the used LGBT Russian of t interesting, member is It Network. a is which Pravo, i Gender with only working currently are they however, Urals); the beyond goes networking their in (thus Novosibirsk in organizations

This debate between activists in Novosibirsk I discuss in Chapter 2, subsect 2, Chapter in discuss I Novosibirsk in activists between debate This Behind the Ural Mountains I studied three organization three studied I Mountains Ural the Behind regional only the is Vihod Also, It is interesting to see how differently organizations in one region narrate the the narrate region one in organizations differently how see to interesting is It We relate more to the first ones, we share their need in in need their share we ones, compromise! (informant k,Vihod) first the to more relate We initiatives. and activists radical more are there agenda; moderate th is There Vihod) (Mikhail, others. with together act can we which in sphere shared or problem, similar some is there if cooperate We others. with not and organizations, some with connections establish can We

e Network [Russian LGBT Network] which has a a has which Network] LGBT [Russian Network e hat activists from Vihod (similar to activists in Novosibirsk) also Novosibirsk) in activists to (similar Vihod from activists hat

- propaganda legislation in Novosibirsk reinforced the the reinforced Novosibirsk in legislation propaganda

organization which pointed out that they work with work they that out pointed which organization 95

eir efforts on the regional level and commenced and level regional the effortson eir

nd n h peiu catr the chapter, previous the in oned

Pravo (members of the Russian Russian the of (members Pravo s in one region (the region of of region (the region one in s 49 ion 2.4.4: Radical VS Moderate: Moderate: VS Radical 2.4.4: ion

CEU eTD Collection lo ih tigr LGBT trigger might also it communicate; to regions the from activists the for opportunity an gives it activism: for and mo positive a is this and created being is organization national The Network. LGBT Russian the of formation the about issues positive stated Pulsar of leader The network. one in regions various interconnect and unite to aims it as movement LGBT benefic is it present; be must circumstances Russian in organization umbrella an that argued He Network. the of agenda the towards attitude interesting tremendously displays Network.I fact this Project thecase illustrate with Pulsar. will of LGBT Russian the of space the to limited be This not must networking doing. that suggests information is he what towards critical so be wouldn’t they if Novosibirsk, in initiatives groups other with working mind wouldn’t he that argued also Bulat However, society”. Russian in position lesbians and gays of betterment the to lead to going not which things, the that claimed LG Russian He activism. of professionalization the against argued out pointed I as Network) LGBT Russian the of member a isn’t also (which GORD of leader the Bulat, hand, Pulsar, with cooperate anti of implementation the after Pravo i chapters, Gender previous in showed already I as Moreover, has. Network the which agenda the regions whichGender with iPravo c other any mention didn’t she However, activists. for schools and seminars in participate to them invites Petersburg Saint in Network LGBT Russian the of headquarters the Also that pro said joint She some regions. has organization other the with currently cooperate to and organization major a of part a be to important is it that arguedNetwork the of members other the all to similarlyNetwork) LGBT Oleg, leader, its and Network, LGBT Russian the of member a not is Pulsar Project BT Network in its agenda lacks direct actions and “it is just full of discussing of full just is “it and actions direct lacks agenda its in Network BT

which is another regional organization in Novosibirsk. On the other other the On Novosibirsk. in organization regional another is which - related initiatives in regions/regional centers. All the events, events, the All centers. regions/regional in initiatives related ooperates. She also didn’t give Shealso critique any of didn’t ooperates. substantial 96 jects with Vihod (she didn’t specify which). which). specify didn’t (she Vihod with jects

- rpgna eilto fl te ed to need the felt legislation propaganda

ve for LGBT community community LGBT for ve ial for the for ial

and CEU eTD Collection which occurs in the western part of the county because they are located in the eastern part. part. eastern the in located are they because county the of part western the in occurs which movement” “the form not do which organizations/initiatives many are there that said He Rus of part western the from distant is Novosibirsk of region the because happens out, pointed he This, Tomsk). of region the Omsk, of region the (e.g. Novosibirsk of region the to close geographically are which structure thatinstead regionsthe and head suggests couldsupport organization: such against argues He leeches!” become simply they and people motivate not does situation a their stimulate doesn’t this and Network the on dependent become organizations regional that argues activist The the clai Oleg knowledge, share to abilities seminars, Network. n h ohr ad he hand, other the On Oleg points out that he communicates he that out points Oleg way itself. positions theNetwork LGBT the by reinforced is it [Russian and parasitical is position a Such organization Network] head the from activists funds LGBT demands of majority the currently However project!” so on work could you so money you give us let authorities, Petersburg Saint in activists the to say and here in money earn could projectsThey regions. their for money get can activists that regions, t in retrieved be can funds that example, for understand, don’t They perspective. different a from situation the at look cannot who activists createsit Thus […] members. the to organization head the Currently

everything that has been done follows the pattern pattern the follows done been has that everything – ctivities, they just wait for the Network to tell them what to do: “this do: to what them tell to Network the for wait just they ctivities,

“guys, you are [geographically] closer to the state state the to closer [geographically] are you “guys, sia, thus it is distant from the organizations in the regions there. there. regions the in organizations the from distant is it thus sia,

critiques the relationships, which occurs within the network. network. the within occurs which relationships, the critiques

97 a lot with other regional LGBT organizations organizations LGBT regional other with lot a

ms, seem to be beneficial for the members of of members the for beneficial be to seem ms, –

from from me me he he

CEU eTD Collection hc Oinaim s rmsd (Bakic ofbackwardness. in terms presented premised” is Orientalism which 50 which Pravo) on views similar sharing and region one i from being organizations both of result a as happens Gender and (Pulsar Network the in membership their of despite region, in organizations the between occurs Cooperation bases. various on happens and Network LGBT Russian the of limits the exceeds networking that asserts also research my However, he the with relationship hierarchical a in engaged are definitely organizations these of All about. talking is (2002) Anderson which about comradeship, and bond horizontal of terms in regions the these how interesting Itis Kostroma). from Maria and Rakurs Vihod; and (Rakurs hierarchical the in only the not level, on horizontal other each between interact to organizations/initiatives/groups the for possibility network, LGBT the Russian with the relations of hierarchical headquarters in engaged are part Russia eastern of the west in and located east organizations the in differs spatially it however cooperation, hierarchical Russian the Within occurs. movement LGBT Russian activism (like GORD). radical doing by or Russia) of part eastern the in regions with cooperates (Pulsar own their n “local” creating by either Network, LGBT Russian the of power the resist to try even and own, their of agency have regions that imply research my in presented I which orientalisms” “nesting Network’s the Despite network. and cooperating of picture complicated more a see can one thus other, occurs ar Oleg

Milica Bakic Milica y eerh set ta tee r mlil wy i wih ewrig ihn the within networking which in ways multiple are there that asserts research My

– us ht h Rsin GT ewr int h ol sae hr te networking the where space only the isn’t Network LGBT Russian the that gues

cooperation also happens between regions which are geographically close to each each to close geographically are which regions between happens also cooperation adquarters of the Russian LGBT Network, yet they also interact with each other. each with interact also they yet Network, LGBT Russian the of adquarters - Hyden calls “nesting orientalisms” “a pattern of reproduction of the original dichotomy upon upon dichotomy original the of reproduction of pattern “a orientalisms” “nesting calls Hyden

50 - ye, 95 p98 maig ht atr sae a spaces eastern that meaning p.918) 1995, Hyden,

ihn h Rsin eeain atrs f networking of patterns Federation Russian the within

hierarchical relations are still narrated by activists from from activists by narrated still are relations hierarchical 98

when the western part opens up a major major a up opens part western the when LGBT Network there is horizontal and and horizontal is there Network LGBT re commonly commonly re tok on etworks one one –

CEU eTD Collection 1997, p. p. 58) 1997, 52 Network LGBT Russian we the from retrieved was map krai).This Primorskii and Novosibirsk of region (only Russia of part 51 over west geographical the prioritizes which LGBT whole the the on movement of and Network LGBT Russian the of p.35) 1997, Ferguson, (Gupta, power” of “topography the narrates activists, LGBT by articulated was which country the of divide Orient” “LGBT Russia’s as Mountains Ural of east the to space incorporates produces it which activists of distribution spatial e the through also, to it organizations, goal Network’s the despite how demonstrated chapter This activists. moderate and radical both west, and east geographical LGBT level horizontal with the on interact they or (GORD) all at organizations other with interact not rather they Pravo); i Gender (except part western the with networking not mostly are activists east, Russia’s However, interview. his in mentioned Oleg which networking, hierarchical entails which Petersburg, Saint in Network the of headquarters the with working is organization this yet that; illustrates Pravo i Gender of case The moderate. organizations that important also is it other; each to regions the of closeness geographical the by conditioned is fact This Network. LGBT Russian of members are which organizations, regional the of density high the of result a as headquarters) the (with organizations between init local GORD) moderate doinginRussia. resist the of dominant narrative activism some that obvious becomes also it analysis my Through activism.

In such naming I follow Lewis and Karen, when they call Eastern Europe “Europe’s Orient” (Lewis & Wigen, &Wigen, (Lewis Orient” “Europe’s Europe Eastern call they when Karen, and Lewis follow namingI Insuch Map in the Appendix IV shows that LGBT Network mostly does not incorporate in itself the so called eastern eastern called so the itself in incorporate not does mostly Network LGBT that shows IV Appendix the in Map Anti (networking networking “horizontal” Russia of part western the in that shows Data

- rpgna eilto rivne rgos s novd n oiis bt i the in both politics, in involved as regions reinvented legislation propaganda http://www.lgbtnet.ru/ru/content/regionalnye - ebr) s nesv ad apn aog ih h heacia on hierarchical the with along happens and intensive is members) initiatives intheeasternpartinitiatives of Russia.

hne oprto bten einl LGBT regional between cooperation nhance 99

in Novosibirsk, which spatially belongs to belongs spatially which Novosibirsk, in - otdeleniya

hc ntok r all are network which the geographical east. geographical the

52 . The east/west The . aie (like iatives bsite of the the of bsite 51 e ,

CEU eTD Collection easternone. 53 betweeneach other. organizations LGBT the of interactions the on effect indubitable an has division such that whereas network, the its and country within practices networking their limit mostly part western the the in Organizations implications. within spaces of divide east/west the from and radical) or moderate bei being/not organization regional multi complicated a that argue I emerge. initiatives and groupss radical makes and resistance generates also activism “moderate’ of preferences own their to according own, their of networks establish initiatives these Russia, of East the in groups/initiatives/organizations LGBT some disregards Network the though even However,

Map in the Appendix IV illustrates that there are more LGBT activist groups in western part, then in the the in then part, western in groups activist LGBT more are there that illustrates IV Appendix the in Map

–

geographical distance, similar view similar distance, geographical 53

in the eastern part there are more informal networking patterns. I argue I patterns. networking informal more are there part eastern the in

ng a member of the Russian LGBT Network (thus being (thus Network LGBT Russian the of member a ng

- aee pcue f ewrig eut bt from both results networking of picture layered 100

s on LGBT politics. The dominant pattern dominant The politics. LGBT on s CEU eTD Collection o te organizations the for anti the that showed the also society Russian but community, LGBT only not educate and address to aims activism currently stra that indicated I laws. these were by Russia reshaped in organizations LGBT regional of agendas and strategies goals, the which anti where regions anti the to responded Petersburg) Saint city and the (Arkhangelsk, of Novosibirsk four RussiaKostroma, of regions in organizations LGBT different how showed I community. LGBT of of part the on resistance propaganda prohibit that legislations heterosexist which which LGBT stimulated political heterosexism activism. sexu the into insight an presents sustain to state the by used is heterosexism it; for enhancer an as and society Russian in homophobia severe the of outcome an as both rese This State. the and Church Orthodox the between unity and nationalism growing by enhanced is which society Russian in homophobia overall anti heterosexist way various in resistance triggered oppression of experience consequ a as visible became movement anti regional the of implementation the of result Conclusion y iutn m aayi i a ocuda faeok dmntae te as in ways the demonstrated I framework Foucauldian a in analysis my situating By re the examined thesis This

– -

rpgna as hud o b udrto a smtig eaae from separate something as understood be not should laws propaganda by these means activists intend to reduce the overall level of homophobia. I homophobia. of level overall reducetothe intend activists means these by - propaganda legislation was implemented helped me to reveal the ways in ways the reveal to me helped implemented was legislation propaganda - propagand

I - v suid hc, oee, lo eedd n o well how on depended also however, which, studied ’ve rpgna a. okn a th at Looking law. propaganda a legislation stimulated the raise of the number of volunteers volunteers of number the of raise the stimulated legislation a al politics of contemporary Russia and highlights the ways in ways the highlights and Russia contemporary of politics al - emergence of political LGBT political of emergence ne f h sae eeoeim n how and heterosexism state the of ence the the 101 eis n aeds f ciit sitd that shifted, activists of agendas and tegies Russian nation as heteronormative. This work work This heteronormative. as nation Russian

- rpgna as I lutae hw this how illustrated I laws. propaganda arch shows that these laws are treated are laws these that shows arch isgt o LB atvs i the in activism LGBT of insights e

. y eerh eeld that revealed research My s. ooeult galvanized homosexuality movement in Russia as a as Russia in movement - established shared

CEU eTD Collection hc mdrt/aia bnr sae proces shapes binary moderate/radical which in ways the on perspective broader a provide would activists radical of analysis subsequent of term in politically, and geographically this fact, this to relation In investigation. additional for field a up open facts These Federation. Russian the of parliament the by discussed being is level national the on implementation its of possibility the Currently Bashkortostan. of republic Federation Russian the of regions presents spaces central the in only not periphery, the in agency of presence the suggests Network LGBT Russian official the outside networking of presence The other. each resist and oppose sometimes and interact sometimes which movement, LGBT Russian activi of networks different, geographically and politically multiple, are there that demonstrated I’ve researched, I organizations LGBT regional the between networking com imaginedan as Network Presentingradicals).the moderatesoverprioritizes (it LGBT politics of terms in and east) Russia’s over west Russia’s prioritizes (it terms geographical in both st common a in activists umbrella an although that argued I organizations/groups/initiatives. different between divide radical/moderate a strengthened a makinganti ofthe use anti the resistanc of techniques well and munity helped me to develop my argument. Through the analysis of the actual patterns of patterns actual the analysis of the myargument. Through develop to munity me helped

While I was writing this thesis, anti thesis, this writing was I While anti The -

propaganda law for the sake of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights as as Rights Human of Court European the to appealing of sake the for law propaganda the Russian LGBT structure. the Russian movement as segmented - nw te einl GT organization LGBT regional the known - propaganda legisla propaganda e which activists employ; I presented the desire of activists to break to activists of desire the presented I employ; activists which e - propaganda by legislation the powerless. ruggle with homophobia, its networking practices are exclusionary exclusionary are practices networking its homophobia, with ruggle – -

raiain h Rsin GT ewr am t unite to aims Network LGBT Russian the organization tion, despite being an enhancement for LGBT activism, LGBT for enhancement an being despite tion, including Magadan, Samara, Krasnodar, Kaliningrad Krasnodar, Samara, Magadan, including - propaganda legislation was implemented in other other in implemented was legislation propaganda 102 the o ntokn. oevr I ugs that suggest I Moreover, networking. of s

oeaerdcl iie Fr ntne A instance, For divide. moderate/radical

was Aogie I hwd different showed I Alongside, .

research could be extended both both extended be could research

; however, this fact also fact this however, ; sts within the within sts , the , CEU eTD Collection networkingLGBT between activists. a resistance o na the in heterosexism and homophobia that understanding shared of idea the through but categories, identity through not understood and identified be can movement how visib and focused more becomes it how homophobia, increasing and heterosexism severe by shaped is activism which in ways the showed research this Russia who are note effects the at look continued be could research this which in way a be also could This closet. their preserve resistance galvanizing anti cases some in that showed I analysis my In community. LGBT and activists both for it of implication and Russia in homophobia and legislation propaganda argument about which thenetworks, presence ofmultiple goone. theofficial beyond my support could Russia of part Eastern the in groups activist of research further in engaging f f each other. It also shapes also It other. each f n h cnet of context the In Moreover, d wa i as important, also is what nd, ngaged inactivism.

I see my research as a st a as research my see I which anti which xeine of experience a , l heterosexist o ocd GT epe wo r nt nae i atvs, to activism, in engaged not are who people, LGBT forced so the

- propaganda laws has on the lives of LGBT people in Russia in people LGBT of lives the on has laws propaganda

overall oppression.

eul oiis n is eain o GT ciim in activism LGBT to relation its and politics sexual perception

how political heterosexism shapes patterns of of patterns shapes heterosexism political how arting point of conceptualizing heterosexist anti heterosexist conceptualizing of point arting 103 This This

on the ways in which oppression triggers triggers oppression which in ways the on the on implications general some has tion - state are interconnected, feed interconnected, are state - propaganda laws, while laws, propaganda le. My research shows research My le.

–

to -

CEU eTD Collection ril 2. n h poeto o cide fo ifrain poaad ad gtto that agitation and propaganda information, harms their health, andspir moral from children of protection the On 21. Article Novosibirsk Region of 2013) 16, the Introducing from Retrieved on Arkhangelsk] of from: Region the Law in [Regional Oblasti” Arkhangelskoi Children of Health and Morality Protect to Measures v Specific “On Law Regional the to Additions and Detei Changes Zadorovia i Nravstvennosti Zashite po Mer Otdelnih “Ob Zakon Oblastnoi v Dopolnenii i Izmenenii Vnesenii o Zakon Oblastnoi (2012) Zakonprost Retrieved minors. Saint=Petersburg]” 10. Article September, dated 336 Law 30.2011. in Arkhangelsk Region of #I0 Violations 0000000100%26listpos%3D0%26lsz%3D2%26w%3D2%26&c=%CF%C5%C4%CE%D4%C8%CB%C8%C8 FC+%EF%EE%E8%F1%EA%26intelsearch%3D%EF%E5 http://gov.spb.ru/law?d&nd=537913971&prevDoc=537913971&spack=011flist%3D%CD%E0%F7%E0%F2% Administrative Sankt v Pravonarusheniiah administrativnih Sankt Zakon minds) non and traditional of equivalence social about misconceptions damage of could formation (including population underaged which the of development information, spiritual and moral health, the spread to aimed activities uncontrolled and focused unde among transgenderism and bisexualizm lesbianstvo, muzhelozhstvo, “propagandizing Under Note: and Transgenderims Article March dated Law 7, 2012N PetersburgSaint oftheRegionalTexts Anti Appendix I

(accessed April 9, 2013) 9, April (accessed

amongArticle of homosexualizm 4.11.Propaganda minors. June, dated Law 226 142012.N

7_1.

n diitaie ie o ctzn i te am the in officials citizens and on fine: bisexualizm administrative an lesbianstvo, muzhelozhstvo, by punishable are old) years 18 (under population underaged among transgenderism propagandizing actions, Public administrative fine: on citizens citizens on fine: administrative (including propaganda and information the and moral health, spiritual their from harms which agitation, children and homsexualizm) of propaganda protect to steps actionsPublic propagandizing among homosexualizm are minors notallowed. thousand tofivethousand hundredRubles. - Peterburga (Saint Peterburga raged population (under 18 years old)” in this article must be understood as as understood be must article this in old)” years 18 (under population raged n ulc cin, rpgniig uhlzsv, ebasv, Bisexualizm Lesbianstvo, Muzhelozhstvo, Propagandizing Actions, Public On esrs rhbtn pbi atos rpgniig ooeulz among homosexualizm propagandizing actions public prohibiting Measures

rpgna f ooeulz aog ios nal ifito o an of infliction entails minors among homosexualizm of Propaganda take must authorities local the and Novosibirsk of Region the of Government

development.

–

it tosn Rbe; o lgl entities legal for Rubles; thousand fifty (Male/FemaleHomosexuality,Bisexuality, Transgender)

- - Petersburg Law). (2012) “O Vnesenii Izmenenii v Zakon Sankt Zakon v Izmenenii Vnesenii “O (2012) Law). Petersburg PropagandaLaws - 108

- 18 itual development.

- - 24 Peterburge [On the Changes in the Saint the in Changes the [On Peterburge : http://zakonprost.ru/content/regional/3/1453727/ (accessed May (accessed http://zakonprost.ru/content/regional/3/1453727/ : - - OZ OZ –

in the amount from four to five thousand Rubles; thousand five to four from amount the in

104

%E4%EE%F4%E8%EB%E8%E8%26listid%3D01

ut f ie huad uls for Rubles; thousand five of ount –

- rm w hnrd n fifty and hundred two from traditional marriage in their their in marriage traditional

- Petersburg Law “On the the “On Law Petersburg

- Peterburga “Ob Peterburga

CEU eTD Collection administrative on Code Regional from: Retrieved infractions]. Kostroma in and Region» Kostroma in Rights Children's of Guarantees the Pravonarusheniia Administrativnih ob Oblasti Kostromskoi Kodeks v i Rebenka” Prav Garantiiah “O Oblasti Kostromskoi Zakon v Izmenenii Vnesenii O (2012) Pravo.RU and (muzhelozhstvo homosexuality of propaganda of prohibition lesbianstvo), bisexuality,transgenderism along among minors withpedophilia. the On 19.3. Article LawF dated Region of of Region the of [Law Oblasti” Novosibirskoi V Plus Konsultant Laws Database: from: Retrieved Detei Prav Zashite Novosibirsk]of Region the in Rights Children’s of Protection On Novosibirsk: “O Oblasti Novosibirskoi Zakon the of the in [Law Delinquencies Administrative the Novosibirsk:On of Region Oblasti” Novosibirskoi V Pravonarusheniiah Administrativnih “Ob Oblasti Novosibirskoi Zakon

five hundred thousand Rubles. officials on rpgna f ooeult (uhlzsv and (muzhelozhstvo homosexuality transgenderism along allowed. isnot among minors, withpedophilia, of Propaganda Kostroma ebruary 15, 2012. ebruary 15, –

from forty to fifty to forty from http://docs.

193 pravo.ru/document/view/22198352/ - 5 - ZKO

thousand Rubles; on legal entities legal on Rubles; thousand 105

h. [On the changes in Kostroma Regional Law «On Law Regional Kostroma in changes the [On h. Region of Novosibirsk]of Region

(accessed May 16, 2013) 16, May (accessed

ebasv) bisexuality, lesbianstvo),

–

from four to four from

CEU eTD Collection Geopolitical Federation Mapof Russian Appendix

106

CEU eTD Collection LegislativeLGBTBans Regions inRussian 2013) onPropaganda ofMay of (as 16, Appendix II

LegislativeLGBT bans onpropagandain of

Propaganda of homosexualism is bannedPropaganda ofhomosexualism andbisexualism Propagandais banned ofhomosexualism bisexualism andtransgenderismPropaganda banned ofhomosexualism, is

107 Russian regionsRussian

CEU eTD Collection August, 2012 Russian in LGBT of Propaganda on Bans Legislative Appendix I

LegislativeLGBT bans regions onpropagandainRussian of

Propaganda of homosexualism is bannedPropaganda ofhomosexualism andbisexualism Propagandais banned ofhomosexualism bisexualism andtransgenderismPropaganda banned ofhomosexualism, is

) V

108

Regions ( Regions

researched regions/as of July of regions/as researched

CEU eTD Collection LGBT Russian (as ofMay Network 16,2013) Appendix

Regions V

–

members of Russian LGBT Russian members of Network 109

CEU eTD Collection References Boellstorf, T. (2005). T. Boellstorf, Blagojević (1995). (Ed.) E.E. Berry, L.,Berlant, Freeman,&E. (1992). Q Bakic Baer, (2002). B.R.O’G. Anderson, ------(1999). A. Krouwel, J.W., Duyvendak, B.D., Adam,

- B.J. (2009). B.J. (Eds.) (1999). (Eds.) ye, . 19) Nsig retlss Te ae f omr Yugoslavia. Former of Case The Orientalisms: Nesting (1995). M. Hyden,

N.J. 41). Burlington a Perspectives (Eds.), European Eastern and Mizielińska Central Sexualities: Western J. Centering & Kulpa R. In Integration. EU on Discourses Public NewUniversity York Press. Review York: Palgrave Macmillan. of Nationalism. Worldwideof a Movement Temple University Press. Movement Worldwide a of Imprints National Politics: (Eds.), Krouwel A. & Duyvendak National Borders? , J. (2011). Between Walls: Provincialism, Human Rights, Sexualities and Serbian Serbian and Sexualities Rights, Human Provincialism, Walls: Between (2011). J. , : Princeton UniversityPress.

. 54(4), 917 Other Russias: Homosexuality and the Crisis of Post of Crisis the and Homosexuality Russias: Other The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: National Imprints National Politics: Lesbian and Gay of Emergence Global The

The Gay Archipelago : Sexuality and Nation in Indonesia in Nation and Sexuality : Archipelago Gay The London:Versio. nd Farnham: Ashgate.nd - 931. Postcommunism and the Body Politics. Politics. Body the and Postcommunism mrns f Wrdie Movement. Worldwide a of Imprints Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread and Origin the on Reflections Communities: Imagined

. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

ueer Nationality.ueer

110 The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Lesbian and Gay of Emergence Global The

Boundary,

Gay and Lesbian Movement beyond beyond Movement Lesbian and Gay

p. 344 (pp.

2(19), 149 e Yr ad London: and York New n .. dm, J.W. Adams, B.D. In - Soviet Identity. Soviet -

373). Philadelphia: Philadelphia: 373). - 80.

. Princeton, .

(pp. 27 (pp. Slavic New New De - - CEU eTD Collection Geertz, C.(2000). Self Movement Identity Must (1995). J. Gamson, ------Foucault, M.(198 (1999). L. Essig, (1994). L. Engelstein, Namibia. Postcolonial in Homophobia Political (2010). A. Currier, (1998). J.W. Creswell, and Identity National Redefining Geographies: Constructed (1999). A. Cerwonka, (1984). de M. Certeau, (2005). G. Carleton, ------(09. h Eegne f oiia Hmpoi i Idnsa Msuiiy and Masculinity Indonesia: in Homophobia Political of Emergence The (2009). .

Problems, 42(3), 390 1961 Duke University Press. Siécle Russia. 110 Traditions Issues Transnational Landscape. International Shifting a in Geography Press. Pittsburg Press. Across andSpace Time In Belonging. National (1996). Friendship as a Way of Life. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Lotringer S. In Life. of Way a as Friendship (1996). - 129. - 1984): Michel Foucault 1984): Michel Foucault

. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self and the Other. the and Self Sex, of Story A Russia: in Queer 0 The Interpretation of Cultures: of The Interpretation Selected Essays. , 1988

Ithaca :CornellUniversity Press.

The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin in Modernity for Search the and Sex Happiness: to Keys The eul eouin n osei Russia Bolshevik in Revolution Sexual The Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing Among Five Five Among Choosing design: research and inquiry Qualitative ). The History ofThe History Sexuality Volume 1. - and GlobalProblems 407. 407. rcie f vrdy Life Everyday of Practice

(pp. 123 (pp. D.A.B. Murray (Ed.), (Ed.), Murray D.A.B.

(pp. 308 - 145). Durham&London: UniversityPress. Duke 111 - 312). New York: Semiotext(s). York: Semiotext(s). 312). New

, 36 (3), 335 , 36(3), -

Destruct? A Queer Dilemma. Social Social Dilemma. Queer A Destruct?

. Berkeley: University of California California of University Berkeley: . oohba: ut n Loathing and Lust Homophobias: International Politics: A Journal of Journal A Politics: International -

New York: Vintage York: Books.New 355. . Pittsburg: University of of University Pittsburg: . Foucault Live (Interviews, Live Foucault New BasicBooks. York:

Gender&Society

Durham and London: and Durham

, 24(1), ,

- de

CEU eTD Collection ------(1997). I.S. Kon, Herdt G. InAnger. Cultural and Rights,Sexual Panics, MoralIntroduction: (2002). G. Herdt, ------(2001). D. Healey, Poland of Case The Gender: of Questions Patriotism, of Traditions (1995). E. Hauser, (Ed.), Abelove H. In Homosexuality. of History a There Is (1993). D. Halperin, Politics the and Identity, Space, “Culture”: Beyond (1997). J. Ferguson, & A., Gupta, the in Slovenia in Women Lesbian of Status Social (2005).The T. Greif, M. Gessen, .

Russia: Strawberry on a Burch Tree]. Russia: onaBurch Strawberry Tree]. New University York York Press. :New (Ed.), Repression of Male HomosexualityRussia. inStalin’s and Gender Dissent. London: York New (Ed.), Berry E.E. a Critical Anthropology 33 (pp. in Explorations Place: Power. Culture. (Eds.), Ferguson J. & Gupta A. In Deference. Europe andRussia (Eds.), Sandfort T. & Stulhofer NewUniversity York Press. (Ed.), Faces andMasks theSame of (1998). (2002). nd Gay Studies Reader (1995). Sex in the Media and the Birth of the Sex Media in Russia. In E.E. Berry Berry InE.E. Russia. in Media Sex the of Birth the and Media the in Sex (1995). Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight Over Sexual Rights Sexual Over Fight the and Fear Panics: Sex Panics, Moral Postcommunism and the Body Politics Body the and Postcommunism

Lunnyi Svet na Zare : Liki i Maski Odnopoloi Liubvi.[Moonlight at the Dawn: the at Liubvi.[Moonlight Odnopoloi Maski i Liki : Zare na Svet Lunnyi ooeul xsec ad xsig oils: h Nw ih o the on Light New the Socialism: Existing and Existence Homosexual esani klua Rsi : lbiha a eek. Sx utr in Culture [Sex berezke. na klubnichka : Rossii v kultura Seksualnaia ooeul eie n eouinr Rsi: h Rglto o Sexual of Regulation the Russia: Revolutionary in Desire Homosexual Postcommunism and the Body Politics Body the and Postcommunism

(pp.169 University Press. Chicago :University ofChicago Press. (pp. 416 - 170). New York, London, The170). Oxford: York, HaworthPress. New - - Sex Love]Sex 51). Durham and London: Duke University Press.London: Duke51). Durham University and - 432). New York and London: and432). York New Routhledge. eult ad edr n Post in Gender and Sexuality

112 Moscow: O.G.I.

Moscow: Olimp.

(pp.197

GLQ - 228). New York and London: and York New 228).

(pp.78 , 8(3), 349

- 104.) New York and and York New 104.) - omns Eastern Communist - 378.

1990s. In A. A. In 1990s. The Lesbian The

(pp. 1 (pp.

- 46). .

In of CEU eTD Collection Lauritsen, J., & J., Lauritsen, California of University Berkeley: State. Punitive the and Panic Sex (2011). R.N. Lancaster, Behavior Sexual Majorof Patterns Some inBelarus: Sexualities N. (2005). Lalo, A.,Schitov, LGBT Song: Redemption Quite Not (2009). S. LaFont, (1996). S. Kvale, (2011). (Eds.) J. Mizielińska & R., Kulpa, Sexualities and Nations (2011). R. Kulpa, of Closet Transparent the and Panopticon Heteronormative The (2011). R. Kuhar, (1986). V. Kozlovskii, Press. London, Press The Oxford: Haworth Post in Gender Sand T. & Stulhofer A. In Background. Cultural Their and Durham&London:University Duke Press. (Ed.), Sage Publications. Eastern Perspectives (Eds.), and Farnham: Ashgate. Perspectives European Eastern and (Eds.), Central Mizielińska Sexualities: J. & Kulpa R. In Slovenia. in Space Publications. Materials]. Study Subculture: Homosexual the of [Argo New York: Press. Change Times

oohba: ut n Lahn Ars Tm ad Space and Time Across Loathing and Lust Homophobias:

European Perspectives De Thorstad, D. (1974). D. Thorstad, - n nrdcin o ulttv Rsac Interviewing Research Qualitative to Introduction An

etrn Wsen eulte: eta ad atr European Eastern and Central Sexualities: Western Centering

(pp. - omns Esen uoe n Russia and Europe Eastern Communist 43 ro uso Gmskulo Sbutr: aeil k Izucheniiu. k Materialy Subkultury: Gomoseksualnoi Russkoi Argo

- 62 ). Burlington Ashgate.). andFarnham:

The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864 Movement Rights Homosexual Early The . Burlington andFarnham:. Ashgate.

– .

113 De ‘West’ and ‘East’. and ‘West’ -

Centering Western Sexualities: Central and Central Sexualities: Western Centering

- Hate in Jamaica. In D.A.B. Murray D.A.B. In Jamaica. in Hate In R. Kulpa & J. Mizielińska J. & Kulpa R. In

p. 171 (pp. p. 149 (pp.

fort (Eds.) fort esn V. Chalidze Vt.: Benson, De - etrn Western Centering - . Thousand Oaks: Oaks: Thousand . -

192). New York, York, New 192). 6) Burlington 165).

p. 105 (pp. Sexuality and Sexuality the Public the - 1935). - 122).

CEU eTD Collection N Kulpa R. In Case. Czech A Families: Lesbian in Gender Rendering (2011). K. Nedbálková, (2005). V. Nachescu, (Ed.), Murray D.A.B. In Introduction. (2009). D. Murray, G. Mosse, European East in Dissidence Sexual and Political Closet: Underground (1995).The K. Moss, Mizielin (1997). K.E. Wigen, & M.W., Lewis, emtsev, M.Y. (2008). (2008). M.Y. emtsev,

Russia? :AnRussia? Essay. European Perspectives (Eds.), Mizielińska J. & NewLondon, Th York,Oxford: Post in Gender and Sexuality (Eds.), Sandfort T. & Stulhofer A. In Romania. Postcommunist in Church the and Space (2009). (Ed.) D.A.B. Murray, Across andSpace Time Modern Europe. London:NewNewUniversityand York YorkPress. Culture. 105). Burli Perspectives European Eastern and Central Sexualities: Western Centering (Eds.), Mizielińska J. & Kulpa R. In 'West'. the and Poland in Politics Queer BerkeleyLosAngeles: University and ofCaliforniaPress. ska, J. (2011). Traveling Ideas, Traveling Times: On the Temporalities of LGBTand of Temporalities the On Times: Ideas,Traveling Traveling(2011). ska, J.

(1985). . Durham&London: Duke. Durham&London: University Press In E.E. Berry (Ed.), (Ed.), Berry E.E. In ngton and Farnham: Ashgate.ngton and Nationalism and Sexuality: Middle Class Morality and Sexual Norms in Norms Sexual and Morality Class Middle Sexuality: and Nationalism

Hierarchies of Difference: National Identity, Gay and Lesbian Rights, Rights, Lesbian and Gay Identity, National Difference: of Hierarchies

Madison: UniversityPress. Madison: ofWisconsin o dd Sxa Mnrte Mvmn Eeg i Post in Emerge Movement Minorities Sexual a did How

Saarbrücken:Dr. VDM,VerlagMüller.

(pp. 130 (pp. (pp. 1 (pp. De - - 15). D Centering Western Sexualities: Central and Eastern Eastern and Central Sexualities: Western Centering - The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. of Critique A Continents: of Myth The otomns ad h Bd Politics Body the and Postcommunism omns Esen uoe n Russia and Europe Eastern Communist - e Press. Haworth oohba: ut n Lahn Ars Tm and Time Across Loathing and Lust Homophobias: 147). Burlington and147). Burlington Farnham: Ashgate. urham&London: Dukeurham&London: University Press. 114

Homophobias: Lust and Loathing and Lust Homophobias:

(pp.229

p. 57 (pp.

(pp. 85 (pp. - Soviet - 251). - 79). 79). De - -

CEU eTD Collection Sokolova, V. (2004). "Don't Get Picked": Representation and the Politics of Sexuali of Politics the and Representation Picked": Get "Don't (2004). V. Sokolova, fo Notes Sex: Thinking (1992). G. Rubin, and Citizenship Intimate Heteronirmativity, (2011). M. Stoilova, S., Roseneil, (2011). G.B. Robertson, H.Z. Renkin, the and History, Sexuality, Closet: National The in Skeletons (2007). H.Z. Renkin, (2005).Puar, J.K. Terrorist Assemblages Cruz A. In 'Alterity'. of Globalization The Desire: of Bombers Stealth (2002). C. Patton, (2011). I. Papkova, Czech Republic. In S. Forrester, M. J. Zaborowska & E. Gapova (Eds.), (Eds.), Gapova E. & Zaborowska J. M. Forrester, S. In Republic. Czech Reader (Eds.), Halperin D.M. & Barale, M.A. Abelove, H. 190). BurlingtonFarnham: Ashgate. and Perspectives European Eastern and Central Sexualities: Western Centering Same of Post Journal London:58). UCL. andStudies East ofSlavonic School European Europe Eastern and Central in exclusion and inclusion : formation in Nation Post in Belonging of Ambiguities NewUniversity York Press. (Eds.), IV Citizenship andtheAfterlife ofColonialism Globalizations: Manalansan M.F. & Malavé Center Press; Oxford:Wilson Oxf - Communist Russia Communist

(2009).

(pp. 267 of Anthropology, - e Sxaiis n ugra I R Kla J Mzeisa (Eds.), Mizielińska J. & Kulpa R. In Bulgaria. in Sexualities Sex The Orthodox Church and Russian politics. politics. Russian and Church Orthodox The

oohba n Qer eogn i Hungary. in Belonging Queer and Homophobia - 319). NewYork :Routledge.319). h Pltc o Poet n yrd eie: aaig isn in Dissent Managing Regimes: Hybrid in Protest of Politics The . UniversityNew York Press. :Cambridge

53, 20

– 37. . Social Text, ord UniversityPress. - r a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In Sexuality. of Politics the of Theory Radical a r oils Hnay I C Baker C. In Hungary. Socialist

115

23(3 Emerging Democracies in Queer Queer in Democracies Emerging – 4), 121

h Lsin n Gy Studies Gay and Lesbian The Washington D.C.: Woodrow Woodrow D.C.: Washington

(pp. 195 - 139.

Focaal - . 218). Ne 218). .. [et al.] al.] [et ..

the Regulationthe —

European (pp. 167 (pp. Over the the Over

ty in the the in ty w York: w York: (pp. 43 (pp. (Eds.), De - - - -

CEU eTD Collection Woodcock, S. (2001). A Short Story of the Queer Time in 'Post in Time Queer the of Story Short A (2001). S. Woodcock, K. (1998). Weston, of Fear (Ed.), Warner M. In Introduction. (1993). M. Warner, (1996). D. Tuller, T Sullivan Sandfort A; Stulhofer, aylor, C.(2004).

83). Burlingt (Eds.), Mizielińska Perspectives European J. Eastern and Central & Sexualities: Western Centering Kulpa R. In Madonna! Ask Let's Yet? There We and Social Theory (pp. vii University Chicago Press. of Durham&London:University Duke Press. D.A.B. In (Ed.), Murray Homophobia. Christian American Contemporary of Construction the Press. Russia and Europe Eastern (Eds.), Sandfort T. & Stulhofer A. In IndianaIndianapolis:268). Bloomingtonand University Press. Post Fall: the Wall/After - Blum, C. R. (2009 R. C. Blum,

Modern Social Imaginaries Modern Cracks in the Iron Closet: Travels in Gay and Lesbian Russia Lesbian and Gay in Travels Closet: Iron the in Cracks Long Slow Burn: Sexuality Slow Long andSocial Science on and Farnham:on andAshgate. Homophobias: Lust and Loathing Across Time and Space and Time Across Loathing and Lust Homophobias:

T. (2005) Introduction: Sexuality and Gender in Times of Transition. of Times in Gender and Sexuality Introduction: (2005) T. ). "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve": What's at Stake in Stake at What's Steve": and Adam not Eve, and Adam "It's ). - - Communist Cultures Through an East an Through Cultures Communist xxxi). Minneapolis: Universityxxxi). ofMinnesota Press.

p. 1 (pp. - 28). New York, London, Oxford: The Haworth Haworth The Oxford: London, York, New 28). 116 . Durham: Duke. Durham: University Press.

eult ad edr n Post in Gender and Sexuality

a Queer Planet: Queer Politics Queer Planet: Queer a - Socialist' Romania, or Are or Romania, Socialist' . New Routhledge. York: .

- West Gaze West

- (pp. 48 (pp. Communist .

Chicago : Chicago

(pp.251

(pp. 63 (pp. - 63). De

- - - CEU eTD Collection otoso Sd rza Osnovatel Priznal Sud Kostromskoi Kolomak Go [The Zakon “Gomofobnii” Podpisal Stolici” “Severnoi Gubernator Gei v Nesostoiatelen Zakonoproekt Peterburga Zaksobraniia deputatami Priniatii G.Yavlinskii: Putin. Vladimir to Opposition and Protests Russia: 3). February (2012, J. Coomarasamy, peterburge V Geev Zhizn Omrachaet “Propagandi” Zapret 29). March (2012, A. Ciopa, Sources - aktivisti Gotovi Piketirovat Detskie Uchrezhdeniia Peterburga [Gay activists are ready ready are activists [Gay Peterburga Uchrezhdeniia Detskie Piketirovat Gotovi aktivisti usa Uie Dmcai Pry website: Party Democratic Petersburg] St. in centers children's picket to United http://www.yabloko.ru/regnews/Spb/2012/03/01_1 Russian 01). March (2012, Pedophiles] of Hands the WillUntieand Legal Terms in Untenableis Petersburg St. of Assembly Legislative the [G.Yavlins Pedofilam ruki Razviazhet i Otnoshenii Pravovom Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2012/03/120329_gay_st_petersburg.shtml May Retrieved [Anti rpgne ooesaim [. lkev a aqitd n cag of charge a on acquitted was Alekseev [N. Gomoseksualizma Propagande and Studies Spatial Economics website: http://ces.hse.ru/en/news/49688155.html Market for Center HSE from Retrieved slides]. [PowerPoint Russia May 23,2013, Law] "Homophobic" a Signed has Capital” “Northern http://www.severinform.ru/?page=newsfull&date=24 2013, , E. (2012, March 21). Urbanization and economic development in the regions of of regions the in development economic and Urbanization 21). March (2012, E. ,

rpgna eiltos un Lf o Gy epe n an Petersburg]. Saint in People Gay of Life Ruins Legislations propaganda

from RBC website:from RBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world

from SeverInform website: website: SeverInform from 3 21, from 2013, 23, a okvkg Gi aaa lkev Nvnvi v Nevinovnim Alekseeva Parada Gei Moskovskogo ia http://top.rbc.ru/society/11/03/2012/641148.shtml 117

Retrieved May 23, 2013, 23, May Retrieved

(2012, March 24) March (2012, - europe

- 03 B Russia. BBC - 2012&newsid=158024 - (2012, March 11) March (2012, 16864893 kii: The Law Passed by Passed Law The kii: .

Retrieved May 23 May Retrieved

vernor of the the of vernor from Yabloko Yabloko from

Retrieved website:

CEU eTD Collection RIANovosti. (2012, February 04). Rallies “Lets Save Russia Together” in Russian Cities Cities Russian in Together” Russia Save “Lets Rallies 04). February (2012, RIANovosti. Russian in Elections” Honest the “For Demonstrations 04). February (2012, RIANovosti. #1 Delu po RF VC Delam Administrativnim po Kollegii Sudebnoi Opredelenie Russia] to Travel Avoid to Urges Community [LGBT Vam k Gosti v Budet ne Flag Nash K Markhotskaia, A.,& Melnikova, propagandu na zapret ryazanskii OON v obzhalovala Lesbiyanka a” 7 tre o Rsin Homosexuals]. Russian http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay of stories 27 Way” that be to Going not is It Say: and Up Stand can [“I Geev Rossiiskih Jizni iz Istorii 129594 obzhalovala 2013, 23, May Homosexuality of Committee] Rights Human Promotion UN the to Children Among the on Ban Ryazan's against appealed Lesbian [A 2013, moskovskogo http://www.echomsk.spb.ru/news/politika/kostromskoy 23, Court] Kostroma’s the by advocacy Homosexual Retrieved file]. [Video from Regions Retrieved file]. [Video from from #1 Case the on RF HC Cases Administrative the of Board Juridical the of [Decision 15.12.2012 http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/m.196062.html 01) March (2012, http://www.vsrf.ru/stor_pdf.php?id=501100

- v - - gey

OON from BaltInfo website: BaltInfo from - APG12 - prayda.html - ryazanskii .

- 1 ae 15.12.2012]. dated 11 eree My 3 2013, 23, May Retrieved . (2013) “Ia Mogu Vstat I Skazat: tak Bolshe ne Budet” 27 Budet” ne Bolshe tak Skazat: I Vstat Mogu “Ia (2013) . http://ria.ru/riatv/20120204/556739669.html

- zapret issue/ rm cos website: Echomsk from http://ria.ru/riatv/20120204/556414108.html 118 -

http://www.baltinfo.ru/2010/02/11/Lesbiyanka na -

propagandu

(2012, March 23). Retrieved May May Retrieved 23). March (2012, Afisha.

gomoseksualizma - (2010, February 11). Retrieved 11). February (2010, sud eree My 7 2013 27, May Retrieved

from Grani.ru website: website: Grani.ru from -

priznal gomoseksualizma detyam detyam gomoseksualizma (339). Retrieved from from Retrieved (339). - osnovatelya - - . APG12 detyam

- - -- 11 ot 11

CEU eTD Collection V OON Priznali Oblastnoi Zakon oZaprete Zakon LGBT Oblastnoi V OON Priznali V Gomoseksualistov:Zap Protiv Zakon Priniali Oblasti Arkhangelskoi V Prava Za Vstupili SMIRossiiskie Menshinstv: Podderjka 22). February (2013, E. Surganova, Skudaeva Sept (2011, E. Sidorenko, Rallies] [Bolotnaya Bolotnoi na Mitingi articles of Series Protest. Toys Activists' Election Bans Mayor Russia rhneso Olsi artl Poaad Gmskulza Hmsxa advocacy [Homosexual Gomoseksualizma Propagandu Zapretili Oblasti Arkhangelskoi Lenta.ru. Lenta.ru. Minori the [Support Geev. from Novosti RIA Kostroma]. in advocacy Homosexual for Fines on Law a of Reading First the Passed Deputies [The Gomoseksyalizma Propagandu za Shtrafah 2013, 23, http://www.vz.ru/society/2011/9/28/526071.print.html May Retrieved Children]. from Vzgliadwebsite: (Gase) 2013, from BBCwebsite: News [The UNhasRecognized the http://www.regnum.ru/news/society/1420783.html?forprint 2013, Arkhangelsk] of Region The in Banned been has 2013, http://www.newsru.com/russia/28sep2011/gay_print.html 23, Arkhangelsk] of Region The in Homosexuality Gei , A. (2011, Desember 27). Kostromskie Deputati Priniali v Pervom Chtenii Zakono Chtenii Pervom v Priniali Deputati Kostromskie 27). Desember (2011, A. , - paradi. [LGBT paradi.

Retrieved from website: ember 28). Prosto Hotim Zashitit Detei [We Just Want to Protect to Want Just [We Detei Zashitit Hotim Prosto 28). ember - from advocacy and Prides have been Benned Under The Law Against Law The Under Benned been have Prides and advocacy

http://lenta.ru/articles/2013/02/22/reaction/ ties: How Russian Media Started to fight for Gay Rights]. Rights]. Gay for fight to Started Media Russian How ties:

http://center.ria.ru/politics/20111227/82582754 Regional Law Banning LGBT Banning Regional Law http://vz.ru/tags/5854/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world from NEWSru.com website: website: NEWSru.com from 119 enm A website: IA Regnum

- Propagandi Narusheniem Prav ChelovekaPropagandi Narusheniem Prav

(2012, February 3). February (2012,

(2011, September 28). September (2011, from Vzgliad (Gase) website: website: (Gase) Vzgliad from

(2011, June 30). Retrieved May 23, May Retrieved 30). June (2011,

(2012). Retrieved May 23, 2013, 23, May Retrieved (2012).

;

advocacy of asaviolation eree My 3 2013, 23, May Retrieved retili Im Propagandu i Propagandu Im retili

- europe Retrieved May 23, May Retrieved

Retrieved May May Retrieved - 17049745 - print.html .

CEU eTD Collection LGBT Organization LGBT Organization Organization LGBT LGBT Organization Web Gomoseksualiz Propagande o Zakonoproekt Kostuchenko: Zhurnalist Ryazanskoi Zakon - pages http://www.gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2011/11/16/n_2098117.shtml Retrieved 16). Petersburg] Saint in activity LGBT the paralyzes homosexuality of Promotion the on Law Draft A (reporter): Kostuchenko [E. Peterburga dvizhenie website: Violatio Administrative the 66 N 15.06.2006) dated Ryazan of Region the of [Law Pravonarusheniiah” Administrativnih “Ob Oblasti website: rights] human the http://www.comingoutspb.ru/ru/home

of LGBT Organizations Russia of in http://ryazan.news http://www.zaks.ru/new/archive/view/103051

oblasti ot 15.06.2006 N66 15.06.2006 ot oblasti Krilya [Foreshortening], Rakurs Network LGBT Russian

21, oebr 6. eree My 3 21, rm ZakS.ru from 2013, 23, May Retrieved 26). November (2012, [Wings] - a 2, 2013, 23, May 03 “On the Changes in the Law of the Region of Ryazan “On “On Ryazan of Region the of Law the in Changes the “On 03 io [oig Out], [Coming Vihod - ns”] ns”] city.info/docs/sistemsj/dok_oeqrlo.htm , Saint , Saint Petersburg Retrieved May 27, 2013 from the Region of Ryazan of Region the from 2013 27, May Retrieved

120 http: - 03 “O Vnesenii izmenenii v Zakon Ryazanskoi Zakon v izmenenii Vnesenii “O 03

Arkhangelsk :

//www.lgbtnet.ru/ http://krilija.sp.ru/

rm aear website: Gazeta.ru from http:

//rakurs.ucoz.com/

an Petersburg. Saint a aaiut LGBT Paralizuet ma

(2011, November November (2011,