Gian Nicola Bagnara
London South Bank University
Abstract
London and its multicultural arena provide the socio-geographical niche for the qualitative analysis of identity processes. In this report I explore the psychological strategies adopted by migrant gay men to manage multiple identities. Grounded theory was used to discover dominant themes emerging from respondents’ narratives about the interplay between European, national, migrant and gay identities. My analysis suggests that multiple identities are managed as a form of resistance against the oppression inflicted by mainstream heteronormative structures. The ‘self in action’, the major emergent theme, downplays fixed identities, chooses amongst the available social scripts, and strives to generate new forms of cultural and social capital. Despite a favourable socio-political climate, respondents’ narratives reflect the crisis of the London gay community in providing ‘positive gay visibilities’ that go beyond the commercial scene. The implications of multiple identities for research, as well as the risks involved with qualitative analysis of small samples, are also discussed.
Keywords: migrant, gay men, multiple identities, national identity, European identity.
This study explores the nature of multiple identities in migrant gay men living in London. By using a phenomenological perspective, the stories of eleven gay men have been analyzed to develop a better understanding of the meanings attached to migrant, European, national and gay identities. The study begins with a review of the main social psychological and social constructionist research around identities and highlights the role of social categories (structure) and multiple identities in creative actors (agency) that emerge as dominant discourses around the nature of the self. It then looks at more recent debates to problematise and transcend the structure-agency binary by exploring the interplay between social categories, culture and subjectivity. Ultimately, acknowledging both the lack of research conducted in this area and its relevance for infrastructural changes and new governmental policies on migrant sexual minorities, the Keogh et al. report (2004), a community based research on migrant gay men, is analyzed and compared to the current study to stimulate a critical approach and new insights for future investigation.
The migration process toward big cities and the subsequent formation of subcultural sexual minorities started at the end of the twentieth century. Today London’s fame as gay-friendly and culturally diverse appears to be well established (Keogh et al., 2004). Migrant gay men from within the European Union undertake a revolutionary journey characterized by physical and emotional distance from family and their community of origin. Unfortunately, despite the actuality of migrant sexual minorities, little research has been done on the interaction between large-scale social identities and personal identities (Cinnirella, 1996).
For this reason, this report focuses on the interplay between migrant and gay identities with emergent European identity and long established national identities to explain the mechanisms involved in the construction of the self. On the one hand, large-scale social identities are discussed within and against mainstream social identity approaches; on the other hand, the recent work of social constructionists is used to uncover the complexity behind multiple identities and the nature of the self.
The European Union (EU) is a continent with many different languages, cultures and minority groups but also with shared values. It fosters cooperation among people, promoting unity while preserving diversity as an intrinsic richness of its members. The EU gives to its citizens civil and legal rights (work, movement and residency) and protects them against discrimination (see Gateway to the European Union, 2004).
Different surveys have gathered a vast amount of data on attitudes and beliefs towards the European Integration, but, only recently, has research tried to explore the emergence of a European identity using a psychological approach. The main theoretical frameworks have been the ones proposed by Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory, by Turner’s Social Categorization Theory and by Moscovici’s Social Representations (Cinnirella, 1996; Chryssochoou, 2000; Rutland & Cinnirella, 2000; Ruiz Jimenez et al., 2005). The personal narratives of what it feels like being a European citizen have rarely been taken into account (see Cinnirella, 1996; 1998). In contrast, the social constructionist’s critique against essentialism and fixity-claims (see Waites, 2005) has shifted the debate onto the dynamic nature of identities. Both approaches seem to have weaknesses in providing a full explanation of self-identity and they set the debate around two main academic discourses: structure versus agency (Jamieson, 2002).
Social psychological approaches: the role of social structures
Mainstream social psychology focuses on social representations and categorisation processes as the key features for an understanding of the self (Doise, 1997). Social representations have been explained as ‘common sense theories about the social world within which stereotypes, attitudes and categorisations are elaborated’ (Moscovici, 1998; in Chryssochoou, 2000: p 404). They represent meaningful contexts within which people make sense of who they are and group memberships are used to maintaining positive distinctiveness and to enhancing self esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; in Cinnirella 1996). The context-dependent nature of categorisations implies that the self can be explained in terms of comparative processes rather than fixed or absolute dimensions (Rutland & Cinnirella, 2000). In other words, it was simplistically assumed that in any given situation, a ‘single social identity – that which is highest in salience – will have the most consequences for individuals’ (Cinnirella, 1996: p 4). However, in the absence of distinctive memberships inherent in multicultural realities, it is not clear how self-categorisation can fully explain the nature of the self (Chryssochoou, 2000). As Jamieson points out (2002; p 7), ‘the construction of a category of humans does not necessarily mean that those attributed with membership experience themselves as being that category in any profound sense’. In this regard, Jenkins introduces the main social constructionist critique to traditional social psychological approaches. He argues that all identities are developed within a social context; hence the self is constructed as an ongoing product of social practices and discourses (1996; in Jamieson, 2002).
Social constructionist approaches: the role of subjective agency
The interplay between subjective experiences of sexuality, society and culture is a challenging phenomenon for psychological research. Although essentialist views are still popular in the scientific and political arena, qualitative studies on double minority status, such as sexual and ethnic minorities (see Coyle and Rafalin, 2000; Bennett & Coyle, 2001; Phellas, 2001), have gained increasing attention in a multicultural Europe. Phellas has looked at gay minorities that live in communities based on contrasting sets of values. In the case of Anglo-Greek gay men, ‘the gay community seems to offer emotional support in the expression of sexual orientation; the ethnic community offers cultural identity; mainstream society offers feelings of national and international identity’ (Phellas, 1996, p 3). In contrast to mainstream stage models of homosexuality (see Troiden, 1993; in Garnets & Kimmel, 1993), Anglo-Greek gay men develop a balanced system of multiple identities and gay identity does not become a primary one (Phellas, 2002). On the same line, Chryssochoou (2000) found that the idea that people construct identities in terms of discrete social categories is not confirmed in multicultural societies where such categories are blurred and continuously negotiated.
Wetherell and Maybin (1996) argue that individuals are able to take on multiple identities and internalise cultural truisms to make up a distributed self. As a consequence, people autonomously choose and change identities. In contrast, a different strand of social constructionism argues that ‘people have one self but many identities, some more primary than others’ (Jamieson, 2002; p 3). Identities are seen as projections of the self in real life contexts or the result of interaction between subjective self-agency and social structures.
Contemporary debates: social structures, culture and subjectivity in interaction
Debates around the nature of the self are still ongoing and quite controversial. According to Williams (2000; in Jamieson, 2002), if research focuses on structure, self-identity is made up of individual memberships of imposed social categories; whereas when research focuses on agency, multiple identities reflect the efforts of ‘creative actors in shaping the social world’ (Jamieson, 2002; p 11) and achieving a sense of unity of the self.
For example, Markus and Nurius (1986, pp 6-7) suggest that the ‘working self’ is best defined by the salient possible selves at a specific time and context. Behaviours adopted by the individual would be highly influenced by the desire to realize future possible selves (e.g. fulfilling a gay identity) and to avoid particular outcomes. Therefore motivations are confined within the socio-cultural maze and individuals are condemned to choose between culturally defined selves. The theory seems to perpetuate deterministic assumptions of people as passive carriers of social structures. In contrast, the working self can provide a sense of identity based on free choices and personal empowerment. Steven (1996; p 275) would define it as ‘the active conscious manifestation about the options available’. I argue that the working self is the individual’s attempt to find a balance between structure and agency but also to generate new social capital as a resistance to dominant cultural norms and social models.
The aims of the current study
The backlash of biomedical expertise used in sexual politics to support fixity-claims of sexual attractions and identities (Waites, 2005) has also emphasized the threat of essentialist approaches as a means to control our lives and ostracize other minorities (e.g. bisexual communities). Rejecting essentialist views of homosexuality in research is inevitably considered a political statement. Therefore, it is argued here that non-heterosexual subjective experiences and the study of it are fundamental ways to create a new public space where stories circulate within communities and give rise to claims for recognition, legitimization and full citizenship (see also Plummer, 1995; in Weeks et al., 2001). This report is one of them.
The aim of this study was to investigate the strategies that respondents adopt to overcome conflicting identities and if they use calculated consideration of gains and losses based on self interests (see Smith, 2005; in Ruiz Jimenez et al., 2005). I also explored if the desire to realize personal possible selves (e.g. living a fulfilled gay life) influence the strategies for social identity adopted by individuals (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Cinnirella, 1998; Weeks, 1991). As the analysis progressed, I focused on whether respondents’ narratives reflect one core vision of the self but many identities (Jamieson, 2002) to the detriment of fluid accounts of multiple selves (Weeks, 1995; in Holt & Griffin, 2003). Finally, the Keogh et al. (2004) report, the only example found in the literature to draw on for a comparison with the current study, was used to raise serious concerns about methodological issues in qualitative research.
Methodology
Participants were recruited from the London section of the website www.gaydar.co.uk. Gaydar is one of the largest selections of gay individuals on the web, which includes thousands of members. For the purposes of this study, the profiles were chosen and then selected according to two main criteria:
• European citizen living in London; and
• Self-defined gay men.
Data was gathered through email interviewing using a structured questionnaire. Open-ended questions were devised to explore the participants’ life stories with the focus on European and gay identity experiences. However, respondents were mostly British, Italian and Spanish (see Appendix 1 and 2).
A crucial issue for contemporary qualitative inquiry is the influence of technology (Broad & Joos, 2003). The Internet offers new means to gather data and to provide information in a private way. Early research on identity construction ‘conducted on the web’ assumed that people would create false identities (see Turkle, 1995; in Broad & Joos, 2004). More recent and accepted views instead suggest that the Internet is a public space where identities are enacted, reproduced and imagined (see also Broad and Joos, 2004). In addition, I argue that online interviews might be considered as naturally occurring experiences and a unique opportunity to gather a large amount of discursive data with a minimized influence of the researcher.
The knowledge I tried to produce is essentially a set of core categories from which a deeper psychological understanding of multiple identities might be developed. Any analytical speculation emerged only after a thorough process of coding, which led in turn to the identification of gradually higher-level categories and, ultimately, new hypothesis. Grounded Theory provides a powerful instrument to make sense of large amount of data and to develop new directions for exploratory research grounded in subjective experiences (Henwood, 1992; 1996; see also Strauss & Cobin, 1998).
Hence, the focus of my analysis was an understanding of the meaning that events have for the person being studied (Maykurt, 1994).
Analysis
The stories of migrant gay men provide further evidence for the need to explore the ability of people to manage multiple identities and collectively or individually transform social structures (Plummer, 1982, 1992; Porter and Weeks, 1990; Weeks, 1991; 1995; in Weeks et al., 2001). Respondents were asked to express the five more salient and therefore chronically accessible social categories that form the self-concept (Spitzer, Couch & Stratton, 1971; in Cinnirella & Rutland, 2000). In Rutland and Cinnirella’s study (2000) participants used personal characteristics, but also social categories such a student (45%), gender (37%) and Scottish (33%). Interestingly, none activated the category ‘European’ or ‘British’. The authors argue that this is justified by the distance of such categories from a day-to-day life situation. Although ‘gay’, ‘migrant’ and ‘nationality’ seemingly should be relevant social categories in daily life, my respondents barely used them and did not rely on one chronically accessible identity. This suggests the main strategy adopted to manage multiple identities: ‘The downplay of social identities and personal identities’; and the ‘Self in action’ as the main defining category of the nature of the self.
The ‘self in action’
The ‘self in action’ acts upon life and downplays ascribed social structures and personal identities as equally disempowering and damaging for the individual. It is a working hypothesis of liberation from oppression but it also defines the nature of the self. It is shaped by the behavioural style adopted in social interactions with people and by the emotions and feelings evoked by such interactions. The following excerpt provides a summary of the adjectives reported by participants:
Caring, loving, good, understanding, generous, respectful, honest, loyal, independent, energetic, disappointed, anxious, stressed, frustrated, and lonely.
Discourses around behaviours, thoughts and feelings define identity and become fairly stable values upon which migrant gay men wave their way through the hazards of life. In line with previous theories, the concept of trust is confirmed as a central tenet in the young adult’s life and it is necessary for adequate functioning (Erickson, in Carver & Scheier, 2004).
‘I think I have always been a reliable person and still I am.’ (P7)
The youngest participants instead take a different stand and emphasise self-centred aspects of their personalities, more concerned with individualistic enjoyment.
‘My aim to see as much as there is to see with my own eyes…. My desire to travel and to experience things first hand has been a constant.’ (P10)
The self in action reflects the active conscious reflection about the options available (Steven, 1996) and generate new forms of cultural and social capital, thus new identities. The following section explores the psychological underpinning of this process.
Migration: the empowerment of the self in action
The move to London represents the beginning of a revolutionary journey whereby respondents step out of a whole system of cultural and social norms to develop what has been defined as practices of freedom or resistance to oppression (Weeks et al., 2001).
‘As soon as I finished high school I booked a ticket out of home (emphasis is mine).’ (P3)
‘I was choking… I had to leave my country, its culture and ties. I felt so into the system back home (emphasis is mine).’ (P6)
Migrant gay men provide evidence for the hypothesis that identities are reinvented and created around relationships and conscious choices (Plummer, 1995; Steven, 1996). New stories about desired and imagined possible selves are told within and against a heterosexual cultural frame (Weeks, 1991). Other researchers would argue that multiple identities are downplayed because homosexuals do not wish to be ‘political revolutionaries’ and prefer to lay down a quiet existence within the social order (Coyle, 1998; in Kitzinger, 2004, p. 529). However, if Coyle were right, the ‘stepping out’ of a given social order would remain unexplained. In contrast, London represents a cultural space where the self in action conquers the power of telling new stories about itself. The following excerpt speaks out for it.
‘Most people who live here have decided to make this town their own (emphasis is mine), they are willing to variety in its many forms, this attitude includes the desire to interact with people of different backgrounds, race, creed, faith and so on. In London opportunities are there for everyone who dares to make personal dreams (emphasis is mine). People who find themselves uncomfortable with these concepts and lazily prefer to feel “safer” by only mixing with their own “people” will find this big city impossible (emphasis is mine) to sustain and they’ll normally move out to more provincial towns which are more suitable to the way they want to live their lives.’ (P11)
Respondents react against what I call ‘the biological social system’ (the one in which people have been brought up in). The upbringing of an individual within the normative and compulsory heterosexual society recalls the idea of a mission instilled in ourselves since early childhood as P8 suggests: ‘Had I been heterosexual I would have felt more comfortable fitting into the life of the town I grew up in.’
In summary, the construction of the self via categorization processes and rigid social representations is contested as a fiction and imposition from which people can depart. P6 says: ‘London is giving me the opportunity to act without renouncing to my selfhood.’ As it is becoming clear, the self in action represents the authentic and unitary entity that, for example, P11 discovered in ‘London, the place where I found my voice.’
The interplay of European identity and migrant status
Almost unanimously, respondents moved to London because they had prior knowledge of what the city could have offered. The decision-making process relied on a high sense of self-drive and some facilitators such as friends already established in the city, a certain knowledge of the language, and enough savings to live for a couple of months. Now, whether because they have bought a house, they fulfilled a career, they are studying, they pay taxes, they had their best experiences, these men have found their voices here and they perceive full citizenship.
‘I have got the right to be here as any other EU citizen. I have got friends, I work and study here, I pay taxes… hopefully one day I will buy a house. I feel part of it…’ (P6)
The multitude of sensory inputs provided by London’s multicultural society is portrayed as an element of enhanced possibilities and challenges to one’s views and ideas. The self in action takes the form of a ‘pick and choose personality’ (P10) through which migrant gay men can take advantage of the ‘rainbow of possibilities’ (P6). Norms are blurred and new lifestyles are invented and become available for grasp. However, the interaction between integration and diversity is not free from negativisms. P1 says that ‘there is a clear distinction between ‘British’ and everyone else, and often also amongst the many ‘types’ of British associated to skin colour, passport type, birth rights and so on.’ In other words, London’s multicultural society is located in a geographical space ruled by the British national authority. As Plummer points out, the new stories still flow within a stream of social power that distributes control and regulation (1995).
The positive distinctiveness and self-esteem (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; 1986; in Cinnirella, 1998) gained through large-scale social identities have been confirmed by the analysis of the subjective meanings of such memberships and their interaction with other salient identities. For example, the EU legitimates respondents’ perceptions of full citizenship. Multiculturalism instead is the means through which such citizenship is developed, although within and against the main British culture. Despite legitimate doubts about its future, respondents unanimously elect the EU as an acting regulator of human rights, equal opportunities, cultural growth and democracy.
‘I don’t have much knowledge of the European Union, but I do think it serves an important role, particularly in terms of human rights and democracy.’ (P8)
European identities seem to be based on individual self-interest. Personal evaluations of costs and benefits, together with the functioning of the national and European institutions, will decide the level of identification (Ruiz-Jimenez et al., 2005). The meanings attached to the European Union and European Identity at a collective level of abstraction are turned upside down when the subjective experiences of ‘being European’ or having a ‘European identity’ are investigated. P1 explains that the pride stems out of the ‘social status’ guaranteed to European citizens. The key elements of membership are ‘equal opportunities’, ‘freedom of working and travelling across the EU member states’ and the broad ‘cultural heritage’, which offers in turn feelings of positive distinctiveness when compared to other nations.
‘I feel happy to belong to a multicultural society that’s managed to come together to form the EU. I am proud to sponsor a partnership that would, ideally, offer equal opportunities across all its members.’ (P2)
‘I am proud and this is based primarily on my personal experiences of other continents and their cultures, and the way that non-European societies function.’ (P10)
The interaction between the European identity and the migrant status provides another example of how multiple identities can be managed by the self in action. European identity is embodied to legitimate the status of migrant in the UK. In fact, these men can be defined, as P6 suggests, like ‘business class migrant’. ‘I always knew in the back of my mind that my family and my local community were there for me. I’ve never felt alone.’ The ‘business class migrant’ represents a European citizen with good education, language skills, and support from the community back home. The frame of mind is the one of a privileged person free to stay or go back, as P6 clearly points out: ‘it’s my choice whether to stay or not. That takes me back to the EU which guaranteed me this freedom.’ The concept is free from negativisms or feelings of inferiority. Citizenship and social status are not doubted or lowered. The transition between the pre-Maastricht EU and post-Maastricht EU had deep consequences on people’s feelings of citizenship.
‘I migrated in 1989, when the word migrant was still an applicable term. Now I feel part of the EU and not particularly bound to any country’.
Overall the interaction between the European identity and the status of migrant has an extremely positive impact on respondents’ sense of integration and belongingness to such an extent that, as P11 says, ‘before now I never gave it any thought’.
The interplay of national identity and sexual identity
Although most European citizens seem to adopt a dual identity strategy with a stronger attachment towards their national identities (see Cinnirella, 1998), the general trend is a lowered sense of national identities. Moreover, what seems really interesting here is how respondents’ sexualities can be constructed in interaction with large-scale identities.
British respondents’ evaluations are mainly based on socio-political aspects (see also Cinnirella, 1996).
‘I could not live here and be myself…. Britain is a fascist place where people have an island mentality…I did not want to deal with the aggression towards gay men anymore.’ (P9)
In the case of Italians, a culturally specific construct operates as a frame through which gay men shape their own experiences of distance from the country of origin. National identity is conceptualized mainly in terms of relationships with significant others (family and friends) (see also, Cinnirella, 1996). The complexity of the interaction between national identities as a set of specific cultural values with relationships, sexual identities and sexual attraction stands out remarkably in P1 and P2’s narratives. In this specific instance, the stories told by P1 and P2 (similar profiles in terms of age, age at migration and nationality) illustrate how the same national identity can be strategically used by the self in action to maintain two completely opposite ‘sexual-leitmotivs’.
Firstly, P1 downplays the salience of his national and European identities to empower his self in action. He then starts a process of revaluation of such identities as free choices.
‘I never had strong feelings in respect of my national identity… The feelings I would attach to my national identity are sense of duty and responsibility, encompassing both my professional and emotional life (work, family and boyfriend), sense of truth and straightforwardness.’ (P1)
Secondly, such values become what Moscovici would define social representations or common theories about reality (Moscovici, 1998; in Chryssochoou, 2000) and P1 incorporates them as elements of his national identity which can be used in contraposition to the British one. In line with Cinnirella research (1996), P1 reinforces positive distinctiveness.
‘In London there is a clear distinction between British and everyone else…. I am proud to be European for the status symbol it expresses, freedom…. I am an Italian living in London and I do not wish to hold a British passport…perhaps my feeling of national identity is stronger than I thought….’ (P1)
Thirdly, P1 shows how national, European and sexual identities can be managed coherently to produce a sense of wholeness in his life.
‘Relationships here last just as long as a bottle of shampoo…I find British men shallow and untrustworthy, ok for a night out but certainly not for life commitment. Almost all of them are unable to have meaningful relationships…our values are intrinsically different and no relationships can be based on such foundation…. personally I have managed to surround myself with good friends (all non British)…and I do consider London as my home….’ (P1)
On the contrary, P2 drastically downplays his national identity. He has little contact with his family and no friendships or relationships with people back home. In this lack of national identity, there seems to be an initial emphasis on multiculturalism and the European Union.
‘I have no emotional attachment to my nation, I live happily in London…I do not respect people who make no effort to integrate in a multicultural society…. I feel happy to belong to a multicultural society that has managed to come together to form the European Union…. I left Italy when “migrant” was still an applicable term. Today I feel part of the EU and not particularly bound to any country….’ (P2)
However, similarly to P1, the core values chosen by P2’s self in action are used to create feelings of belongingness. ‘I have felt at home here since I arrived and I have put it down to likeness of social ideas and the sense of ‘fair play’ inherent in British men.’ He then continues: ‘London’s attitudes towards gays helped me to decide to remain…I would consider a relationship with any other race but I find myself more comfortable with English men… I am attracted to their culture and looks…. I have discovered that non-English men tend to be the most outspoken and out of order.’ In P2’s case, sexual identity and relationships have been deeply influenced by the interaction between Italian and British identities. In fact, he concludes by saying that ‘I have only had relationships with British men’.
P5 instead uses such construct to manage conflicting identities (British and Spanish) and cultural negativisms (ghettos, racism, cultural hypocrisy).
‘I feel Spanish people are more direct and less fake…multiculturalism is bullshit because people live in ghettos and are becoming more racist than before…I am proud to be European for its art, rich culture and history…and I don’t feel a migrant…. I felt more free in Spain than here in respect to my sexuality…. and the quality (of sexuality) has decreased because English people and I do not understand each other…and I tried to have a significant relationship with a British man just to prove myself that I cope with it…’ (P5)
Sexual Identity: the downplay of gay identities and gay community
Migrant gay men, as Cant (1997) suggests, move away from a home experienced as a prison to gain the freedom to open new choices and shape a new life. Leaving home is the first step towards becoming a new person (Davies, 1992, in Weeks et al., 2001). In this section, I will try to explore this new person, previously defined as the ‘self in action’, by focusing on the role of sexuality within the system of multiple identities.
Keogh et al. argue that ‘overwhelmingly, the move to London had been necessitated by the need to live an openly gay lifestyle. The cultural conditions at home did not offer the potential for an emotionally fulfilled life as a gay man’ (2004, p 5). On the contrary, my sample rejects the ‘openly gay lifestyle explanation’. On the one hand, sexuality did not play a primary role (see also Phellas, 2002); on the other hand, as it will be explored later, the concept of ‘living a fulfilled gay life’ is meaningless for the vast majority of them.
‘I had no idea I did move to London to embrace my sexuality.’ (P1)
‘I felt free in Spain maybe more than here.’ (P4)
‘I do not think that my sexuality motivated me to move.’ (P7)
‘I come from a place where my sexuality wasn’t an issue so I didn’t come here in order to be able to express it; I was already free to do that.’ (P11)
‘The reality that London is Britain’s only ‘true’ multicultural enclave did contribute towards my decision in terms of sexuality; however this was not a key factor.’ (P10)
At an abstract level, the psychological antecedents and the narratives about expectations, hopes and fears about the move to London show only a minor presence of factors directly related to sexual identities. This trend does not imply that sexual identity is irrelevant, but surely seems to disprove those theories that would place sexuality at the core of these men’s lives. The assumption here was that if gay identity is the central tenet of one’s person life or system of multiple identities, gay men should have it chronically accessible in their narratives. This was not the case.
The visibility of gay experiences and cultural gay spaces play a crucial role in the shaping of Marcus and Nurius’s possible personal selves and possible social identities. Another important aspect of claiming a gay identity is that in heterosexual Western society such a claim is not only personal and social, but also political (Plummer, 1995; Weeks, 2001). The following narrative shows a portrayal of the fluctuating nature of multiple identities and especially of the dis/empowerment of the self in action. It is also an historical shot of gay identity development over the last two decades.
‘I am gay. It was important to have a label and a cause during the 1980s, a very political time for me. I left Thatcher’s England in 1990 having had enough of defending who I was and clause 28. England was a fascist place. I felt European when I lived in Holland. I moved back to the UK to die. I have faced most of my fears. It has changed so much over the last 25 years. I was very out, proud and political…. a very visible gay man.. Now I am 43, HIV+ and I belong to a peer support group. I can access services for gay men with HIV/Aids although these services are fast disappearing.. I have always been a loyal person and helped others sometimes to my detriment. I don’t go out on the gay-scene anymore… The gay community is necessary but distant, alcoholic and unsafe. I am not sure that an idea of a fulfilled gay life exists (emphases are mine).’ (P9)
Migrant gay men show high level of expertise in managing identities in different contexts. To start with, they all share an attraction for people of the same sex and engage or desire to engage in homosexual behaviour. ‘The word gay is accurate in that it describes who I am in terms of having a sexual orientation towards other men.’ (P8) Homosexuality defines their sexual orientation and is free from negativisms. Gay identity instead is downplayed and deconstructed in its social components, which can be chosen or rejected according to one’s specific needs.
‘The word gay does not describe only my sexual orientation. It describes a whole series of values and culture I carry with me’ (P1).
‘To me the word “gay” identifies more the homosexuals that live in the capitalistic system build for them and defining the places where to socialize and consume.’ (P3)
Contemporary social constructionist research asserts that gay cultures provide a sense of support and inclusion to gay men living in ostracizing societies (Weeks, 1990; in Taylor, 2002). Coyle (1992) adds that the degree to which one believes that gay culture provides such sense of identity has the greatest impact to the subsequent self-definition as such. Both hypotheses are confirmed. In fact, in the case of migrant gay men, the gay community is described with negativisms and at the same time it is considered as a necessary evil. Depending on unique life histories, gay men are differently inclined to portray themselves in terms of collective gay identity (Garnets & Kimmel, 1993). Ultimately, it is suggested here that the downplay of gay identities is again an act of empowerment.
‘I find the gay community in London is generally rather shallow. Generally, everyone is worried so much with what they look like that they forget what they should be like. Often the use of drugs has a detrimental effect on relationships between people. Nowadays drugs are so widely available that the majority of the gay community evolves around them.’ (P1)
‘I have no experience of such a gay community in London. There is a commercial gay scene but I would not call that a community.. There are loads of organizations pro gay, but then again those are not communities. I guess gay people had to focus on the right to having sex with another man. The more accepted and normal it will become the more rapidly the gay label will lose meaning.. What I am trying to say is that perhaps sex preferences are not enough to create a real community.’ (P6)
Community is strictly connected with visibility of gay experiences and identities. Respondents refer almost unanimously to the commercial gay scene as community. They attach negativisms to it and indirectly highlight the lack of models to draw upon. It is crucial to understand why gay organizations, gay activists, campaigners for sexual equality and civil rights are not perceived as part of this community although visible and surely influential at a political level. Does the perceived absence or weakness of the gay community act in favor of heterosexual models? In other words, do migrant gay men provide support for the social assimilation and disappearance of the modern homosexual (Bech, 1997: 195-206; in Waites, 2005; Kitzinger, 2004: 529) or originality hypothesis (see Weeks et al.; 2001)?
The majority of migrant gay men does not hold an idea of ‘living a fulfilled gay life’ or reject it and replace it with life.
‘I have no idea of what it means’ (P2)
‘I am not sure I understand or even agree with this term.’ (P1)
The lack of an ideal of ‘fulfilled gay life’ seems to be interconnected with the concept of visibility. Plummer would probably define this as a lack of symbolic interactions or stories (1995). On the one hand, intimacy based on same-sex preferences is confined between the walls of private households located in a heterosexual society. Positive models of same-sex intimacy strive to leave the private sphere, to become stories about intimacy and therefore cultural and public models of homosexual intimacies. In addition, the public spaces available at present for gay men are mainly commercial and oriented towards consumerist life styles.
To sum up and to link back to my original question, are these examples of assimilation or originality?
Discussion
This research has focused on a small group of migrant gay men and the strategies used to manage multiple identities. The aim of the study was to provide an understanding of the psychological mechanisms used to manage multiple identities in a multicultural London. The grounded theory analysis suggested one core category, ‘the self in action’ and ‘the downplay of social and personal identities’ as the main discursive theme. Participants, despite the current belief that the self is fragmented across different socio-cultural dimensions and contexts (Wetherell and Maybin, 1996), seem to hold a unitary but not fixed view of the nature of the self. The self in action is a working hypothesis of liberation from oppression and defines the self as fluid and dynamic in its operation. It provides a new sense of identity based on free choices and personal empowerment. Migrant gay men deconstruct the fixed-identities, whether it is internal or external structures that influence people’s behaviour, and undertake a process of liberation whereby multiplicity is a characteristic of the social context. The move to London is the first action undertaken to empower the self in action. It represents a journey to step out of the biological system characterized by heterosexual norms and oppressive social categories and group memberships. London provides a cultural space of neutrality, almost a ‘no man’s land’, where the self in action finds the voice to tell new stories and generate new life experiments (Weeks, 2001). New stories can be imagined as snapshots of the interaction between a unitary self in action with the multiplicity of identities, cultures, and contexts.
Coherently with the main theme, large-scale identities are initially downplayed and disempowered. Thereafter, European identity and national identity are strategically used to evaluate personal costs and benefits. The European identity is used to legitimate a sense of citizenship as a ‘migrant resident in London’ and to emphasize the importance of human rights, equal opportunities and cultural growth.
Large-scale identities are used to create a neutral space where integration and differentiation interact to enhance the individual’s sense of freedom. National identities create tensions and opportunities. Respondents, depending on the context, critically downplay their salience at an abstract level and strategically select social meanings attached to them to increase feelings of self-esteem and positive distinctiveness. In this complex task of managing identities, the ‘business class migrant’ emerges as a European citizen with average education and linguistic skills, support from the family and the community back home, free to move and work, and with fairly stable values. Should I call this person ‘business class gay migrant’?
In line with the strategy used for large-scale identities, the self in action downplays sexual identity as a core identity and rejects the term ‘gay’ as a defining feature of the self or a leitmotif for personal fulfilment. Migrant gay men unanimously accept their attraction towards men as a defining characteristic of their sexual behaviour and recognize that adopting a gay identity has clear socio-cultural implications. In other words, respondents provide support for the hypothesis that personal and social identities are freely chosen depending on personal evaluations and the immediate contexts. The self is neither gay nor European, but ‘in action’. In addition to this, my study suggests that gay identity fails to provide positive and empowering choices for the self in action. In other words, the self in action cannot imagine itself adopting a possible present or future gay identity. In turn, it is quite clear that the gay community is held responsible for spreading oppressive models, like those perpetuated by the heterosexual community. I argue that the gay community succeeds in supporting homosexual behaviour as an accepted variant of sexual behaviour, but fails to promote valuable possible social identities (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Cinnirella, 1998; Weeks, 1991). This is why the idea of ‘living a fulfilled gay life’ generates confusion and disagreement, and the only visible model of ‘gayness’ is the one offered by the commercial gay scene.
Another fundamental issue concerns the ecological validity of this kind of research. As anticipated earlier on in this paper, qualitative research is not immune from methodological flaws and biases. This is a crucial point to consider, especially if we agree that its insights should be spread into political strategies to promote social change and cultural amelioration (see also Waites, 2005). In that case, methodological flaws can be highly detrimental for already ostracized minorities (e.g. the bisexual community). The following comparison between my analysis and the Keogh et al.’s report (2004) aims to highlight some of these risks.
The Keogh et al. report collected data from 18 migrant gay men living in London who voluntarily took part in their study by responding to adverts spread in the commercial gay scene. Leaving methodological issues aside for a moment, I question why and how their findings are in sharp contrast with mine?
Firstly, Keogh et al. found that gay men migrated to London ‘to achieve the potential for an emotionally and socially fulfilled life as gay men’ (2004; p 5). My analysis, in line with Phellas (1996) and Chryssochoou’s (2000) views on multiple identities, suggests that gay identity does not develop as the core identity and that migrant gay men do not understand and often disagree with the concept of ‘living a fulfilled gay life’.
Secondly, Keogh and colleagues argue that the status of migrant precludes integration into wider society, exposes them to social exclusion, and lowers the sense of agency on life and the control on social intimate relationships. On the contrary, my respondents step out of a whole system of cultural and social norms to regain control of their lives. Multiple identities are managed as a form of resistance against the oppression inflicted by social power and mainstream heteronormative structures. European and national identities are embodied to legitimate the status of migrant in the UK and to allow the coexistence of diversity and integration. In this regard, the analysis of the interplay between large-scale identities and sexual identity (overlooked in the Keogh et al.’s study) was crucial for an understanding of migrant gay men’s experiences.
Thirdly, sexuality is portrayed as an additional burden and as the main cause of fracture with families and ethnic communities. These men had to rely on the support of the gay community, which in turn failed to support them for a sense of integration in London. Moreover, ‘the practical needs to find job and accommodation, improve one’s language skills, and negotiate welfare benefits are not met by any service. Men without language skills and social capital come to rely on their sexual capital to make their way’ (Keogh et al., 2004; p 12). The authors concluded that the needs they seek to assess will be experienced only by a proportion of men and distinguish between skilled and unskilled migrants (especially in relation to the mastering of the English language). In other words, their sample is used as representative of a new social group: The migrant gay men with low skills, language and legal difficulties. On this note, my participants have been defined as ‘business class migrants’ and therefore seem to represent a radical different social group. However, such definition emerges from the respondents’ narratives and speculations must be monitored given the small sample from which they are drawn; thus the need to discuss issues of ecological and methodological validity in qualitative analysis.
Without doubting the good intentions of Keogh and colleagues’ research, I suggest that methodological problems might have seriously affected the interpretation of the data and in turn spread negativisms about migrant gay men by reinforcing negative stereotypes (e.g. migration equals social burden). Firstly, I think that the power of qualitative methodologies is in the production and interpretation of stories and the language used to tell such stories. In Keogh et al.’s report there is a big emphasis on respondents’ poor linguistic skills (English language) as one of the main causes of their upheavals. Even so, interviews were conducted by three trained interviewers in English!
Secondly, the sample was not chosen and in this case it seems highly skewed and misleading. Their respondents migrated from outside and within the European Union. As my analysis suggests, the privileges that the EU citizenship guarantees to its member are enormous. For this reason, I firmly believe that their research on migrant should have kept migration from within and from outside the EU separate.
Thirdly, participants were recruited primarily through the commercial gay scene. Amongst 18 participants, 11 were HIV+ and 14 unemployed. Keogh and colleagues argue that ‘the instability, as lack of services, is often related less to an HIV diagnosis than it is to the process of migration’ (Keogh et al., 2004; p 17). These are quite confounding variables when the object of the research is presented as ‘migrant gay men’ rather than ‘migrant-unemployed-HIV+ gay men’.
My critique aims to highlight the potential damages caused by poorly supported causal inferences contained in the presentation of the data: ‘Gay migrants give us a clear example (emphasis is mine) of the links between social deprivation, lack of personal social capital and HIV morbidity’ (Keogh et al., 2004; p 21). In response to such a statement, I would suggest that, rather than migration, the use and abuse of drugs within the gay scene could be a stronger predictor of HIV morbidity, then unemployment, and finally social exclusion. Why did Keogh and colleagues not tackle this issue in their report, especially when the commercial gay scene, as their respondents suggest, is the cultural space where sexuality is negotiated?
In a country where the stigmatization of sexual and ethnic minorities is a very delicate topic in the political arena and is always under the spotlight of public opinion, I think that these methodological flaws raise serious concerns. My fear is that this kind of research reinforces the idea of gay migrant men as a burden for ‘English Society’. Similarly, behaviours which concern the population in general, regardless of sexual and ethnic identities, can be wrongly labelled.
In conclusion, my study suggests that there is a possible significant group of migrant gay men whose experiences deserve to be told as significant stories about personal empowerments, multiple identities, migration and integration, and last but not least, same-sex intimacies and gay identities. On the other hand, Keogh et al.’s report shows that the sampling is a critical issue and different variants of migration must be distinguished. My critique is that, for the sake of transparency, sampling should be selectively manipulated and clearly stated in the object of study. The influence of large-scale, migrant and sexual identities has been proven crucial for an understanding of how people manage multiple identities in multicultural societies. Therefore, further qualitative investigations that reflect ethno-socio-cultural differences (e.g. focusing on migrant gay men from a specific country) might provide significant insights.
Is it time to spread these insights into political strategies to promote awareness and enrich the public opinion (see Waites, 2005)? Perhaps it is time for the gay community to take on the responsibility of actively divulging new empowering social models of same-sex experiences that could be heard and seen in the public arena. Migrant gay men, perhaps not only them, need supportive rather than oppressive identities. Multiculturalism seems to be the best social arena in providing freedom of choices amongst supportive identities. At the same time the European Union seems to be the best institutional backup to sponsor such multiplicity.
As a conclusion of this analysis, I am proud to suggest through the voices of my respondents a definition of the European gay community:
‘A group of persons (P5), united in fears, hopes and feelings (P8), free to express and enjoy their sexualities and same-sex relationships (P6), free to demonstrate across different countries within the European Union (P3), regardless the local political and religious beliefs (P2) and without fearing discrimination and isolation (P6).’
References
Bennett, C. J., & Coyle, A. (2001). A minority within a minority: Identity and well-being among gay men with learning disabilities. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 2, 9-15.
Broad, L. K. & Joos, K. E. (2004). Online Inquiry of Public Selves: Methodological Considerations. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 923-946.
Cant, B. (Ed) (1997). Invented Identities?: lesbians and gays talk about migration. London, Cassell.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Perspectives on Personality (5th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Chryssochoou, X. (2000). Multicultural Societies: Making sense of new environments and identities. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 343-354.
Chryssochoou, X. (2000). Membership in a Superordinate Level: Re-thinking European Union as a Multi-National Society. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 403-420.
Cinnirella, M. (1996). A social Identity perspective on European integration. In G.M. Breakwell & E. Lyons. Changing European Identities. Oxford: Heinemman-Butterworth.
Cinnirella, M. (1996). Towards a European Identity? Interactions between national and European social identities manifested by university students in Britain and Italy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 000-000.
Cinnirella, M. (1998). Exploring temporal aspects of social identity: the concept of possible social identities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227-248.
Coyle, A. (1992). My own special creation? The construction of Gay Identity. In Breakwell, GM. (1992). Social Psychology of identities and the self concept. London: Surrey University in association with academic press.
Coyle, A., & Rafalin, D. (2000). Jewish gay men’s accounts of negotiating cultural, religious, and sexual identity: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(4), 21-48.
Coyle, A. & Kitzinger, C. (2002). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: New Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell 2002.
Doise, W. (1997). Organizing Social psychological Explanations. In McGarty, C. & Haslam, S.A. (Eds), The message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on mind and society. Oxford: Blackwell. pp 63-76.
Gateway to the European Union (2004). A constitution for Europe. Summary of the constitutional treaty. Retrieved November 2005 from http://europa.eu.int/constitution/download/oth250604_2_en.pdf
Garnets, L. D. & Kimmel, D. C. (1993). Lesbian and Gay Male Dimensions in the Psychological study of Human Diversity. In Garnets & Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences (pp. 1-52). New York: Columbia University Press.
Henwood, K. & Pidgeon, N. (1992). Qualitative Research and psychological theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 97-111. Reprinted in Hammersley, M (Ed.). (1993). Social Research: Philosophy, Politics, and Practice. London: Sage.
Henwood, K. (1996). Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: BPS Books.
Holt, M. & Griffin, C (2003). Being Gay, Being Straight and Being Yourself: Local and Global Reflections on Identity, Authenticity and the Lesbian and Gay Scene. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 404-425.
Jamieson, L. (2002). Theorizing Identity, Nationality and Citizenship: Implication for European Citizenship Identity. Retrieved March 1st, 2006 from http://www.sociology.ed.ac.uk/youth/docs/State_of_the_Art.pdf
Keogh, P., Dodds, C. & Henderson, L. (2004). Migrant Gay Men: Redefining community, restoring identity. London, Sigma Research. www.sigmaresearch.org.uk/downloads/report04b.pdf
Kitzinger, C. (2004). Afterword: Reflections on three decades of Lesbian and Gay. Psychology Feminism & Psychology Sage, 14(4), 527-534.
Maykurt, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: Falmer.
Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Medrano, J. D., & P. Gutierrez. (2001). Nested identities: national and European identity in Spain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 753-778.
Phellas, C. N. (2001). Zorba the Gay Anglo-Greek: negotiating cultural and sexual identities. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 2, 77-82.
Phellas, C. N. (2002). The Construction of Sexual and Cultural Identities: Greek-Cypriot men in Britain. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Plummer, K. (1995). Telling Sexual Stories: power, change, and social worlds. London: Routledge.
Rutland, A. & Cinnirella, M. (2000). Context effects on Scottish national and European self-categorization: The importance of category accessibility, fragility and relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 495-519.
Ruiz Jimenez, A.M., Kosic, A. & Kiss, P. (2005). A Public View on European and National Identification Retrieved October 1st, 2005 from www.europhd.psi.uniroma1.it/html/_onda02/07/PDF/KissP.html
Steven, R. (1996). Understanding the Self. London: Sage The open University.
Seidman, S. (1996). Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
Strauss, A. & Cobin, J. (1998). Basic of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, G. (2002). Psychopathology and the Social and Historical Construction of Gay Male Identities. In A., Coyle & C., Kitzinger Lesbian and Gay Psychology: New Perspectives. Oxford, Blackwell.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A Self-Categorization Theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self Categorization Theory. Oxford: Breakwell Basil.
Waites, M. (2005). The Fixity of Sexual Identities in the Public Sphere: Biomedical Knowledge, Liberalism and the Heterosexual/Homosexual Binary in Late Modernity. Sexualities Sage Publications, 8(5), 539-569.
Wetherell, M & Maybin, J. (1996). The distributed self: A social constructionist perspective. In R. Steven (Ed.), Understanding the self (pp. 219-281). London: Sage The Open University.
Weeks, J. (1991). Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity. London: Rivers Oram Press.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: families of choice and other life experiments. London: Routledge.
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in Psychology. Chapter 3: Grounded Theory (pp. 32-49). Buckingham: Open University.
Appendix 1: Sample demographics
P1: 34, white, Italian, teacher. He has been living in the UK for 12 years.
P2: 37, white, Italian, web-office manager. He has been living in the UK for 15 years.
P3: 26, white, Spanish, costume designer. He has been living in the UK for 9 years.
P4: 28, white, Irish, Health-care consultant. He has been living in the UK for 10 years.
P5: 28, Spanish, white, sales assistant. He migrated one year ago.
P6: 33, Italian, white, Customer Service. He migrated at the age of 29.
P7: 28, white, Italian, Customer Service. He has been living in the UK for a year.
P8: 41, white, British, theatre co-ordinator. He migrated to London at the age of 18.
P9: 43, white, British, unemployed. He moved to London at the age of 17, lived in Holland for few years and recently migrated back to London.
P10: 25, British, marketing manager, born in Wales with Sino Celtic heritage. He has been living in London for fours years.
P11: 33, white, Italian, artist and civil servant. He migrated to London at the age of 25.
Appendix 2: Online questionnaire
1. Who am I? Please, feel the gap with the most salient and descriptive adjectives, which describe you today.
i. I am
ii. I am
iii. I am
iv. I am
v. I am
2. Think about your national identity and describe the feelings and values attached to it. Please, highlight changes that might have occurred since you moved to London.
3. Define your perception of multicultural society as you experience it in London.
4. If I say European Union, what concepts, feelings and ideas spring to mind?
5. Do you feel proud to be European? Please, highlight the main reasons for a yes or no answer.
6. Does the word migrant describe you? In what ways? If not, why not?
7. As EU citizen, before moving to London, were you aware of your rights (social, economic, political, etc…describe)? And now?
8. Describe your physical and psychological wellbeing just before you moved to London.
9. Describe hopes, expectations and fears about moving to London.
10. Why London, UK and not somewhere else?
11. Please, describe how you have organized your move to London (for example, think about money, work, education, language, accommodation, contacts, etc).
12. Compare your current working and/or studying situation with the one before you moved to London.
13. Describe how your relationship with your family developed since you moved to London.
14. Throughout your lifetime, has there been an element of your personality that has remained the same? Please, describe it.
15. Would you describe yourself as autonomous and independent? Please, provide examples to support a yes-no answer.
16. Has your sexuality motivated you to move to London? And if so, why?
17. Describe your life in relation to your sexuality in London (for example, fulfilling, improved, disadvantageous, etc.).
18. Does the word “gay” identify you? Please, describe why.
19. Describe the feelings provoked by being labelled as “gay man”.
20. Have you at times desired to have a significant relationship with a British man rather than non-British? Why?
21. Describe your idea of “living a fulfilled gay life”.
22. Describe your experiences and perceptions of the gay community in London.
23. The European Gay Pride parade will take place in Oxford Street, London next year. If I say European Gay man, what feelings and ideas come to mind?
24. Do you consider London as your home? Why?
25. How you would like to see yourself in the near future (few years)?
Biographical Note
Gian Nicola Bagnara graduated in Psychology-Sexuality at London South Bank University. His research interests covered issues of self, identity and multiculturalism. He is currently looking to get funding to expand his research as PhD student and explore the interaction between multiculturalism, sexual identities and sexually transmitted diseases.
Contact details: nicolabagnara@googlemail.com
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Megan Barker and Dr. Paula Reavey (London South Bank University) for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft, and for their challenging and thought provoking criticisms. Thank to all research participants for their trust and for sharing their ideas and life experiences.
This paper was published, in a previous form, as Bagnara, N. G. (2007). Migrant men: Managing gay and European identities in London. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 8(2), 152-168.