Objetivo específico: RSO4.3. Potenciar la inclusión socioeconómica de las comunidades

Thus far I have focused on the composition of the men’s PCs, the reasons they gave for including specific people and groups on their PC map, and some of the ways they conceptualised friendship and kinship. How though, if at all, did men

conceptualise their personal community in relation to wider ‘gay communities’?

I have elsewhere (see methods, Chapter Three) highlighted my rationale for not describing the research (to participants) as focusing on ‘community’, nor using this concept as the primary basis of discussion with the men I interviewed.

Nevertheless, during the course of the interview I did attempt to explore if, and how, men understood links between their personal community and wider ‘gay communities’. Some men spontaneously raised the topic of ‘community’,

particularly where talking about the commercial gay scenes, in other interviews I broached the subject by asking participants how they understood the term ‘gay communities’. Figure 4-7, found below, outlines the men’s conceptualisations of community and provides key quotes by way of illustration. In the section that follows I explore some of the ways in which men talked about ‘gay communities’, and note where men described these as informing or shaping their personal

communities.

4.6.1 Visible Communities: ‘Gay Community/ies’ as ‘The Scene’

and as ‘Organisations and Groups’

The most common way in which men referred to ‘gay communities’ were in relation to visible dimensions, such as the commercial gay scene and community-based organisations. Almost all of the men (n=27) explicitly referenced the bars, clubs and other ‘gay spaces’ that make up the commercial gay scene. Many of the men described regularly spending time on the gay scene (n=15), while others had done so in the past. For some (n=7) the scene was described as a safe and supportive space, in that there was less risk of homophobia and homophobic violence, particularly when showing signs of sexual attraction and affection.

Others stressed the sense of mutual support and solidarity that could be gained on the scene. Men often described how they had gravitated to the scene when they were coming out, as a means of meeting other like-minded people.

However, not all men reported consistent use of, or attachment to, the

commercial scene as they got older. Furthermore, some men (n= 12) highlighted their experience of negative aspects of the scene; it was variously framed as being ‘bitchy’ and superficial (based on ‘looks’, age, and ability to fit in), driven by gossip, ‘fragmented’, highly promiscuous, and driven by alcohol, and to some extent illegal drugs. Men who held negative views of the ‘scene

community’ tended to distance themselves from it, and reported not feeling part of this dimension of ‘gay community’. It is important to note that this was the case even among the men who reported going out on the scene regularly.

Indeed regular ‘scene use’ (used as one dimension of the sampling frame) did not neatly map on to holding a positive view of the scene, nor describing a

‘sense of belonging’ to ‘gay community’.

Many men (n=19) also cited community-based organisations (working with gay men specifically, and LGB people more broadly) as another visible dimension of

‘gay community’. The majority of these men had current or past connections to such organisations and groups. Indeed it was common for men (around a third of the sample) to describe areas of overlap between these visible dimensions of communities, stressing the scene-based health promotion work conducted by some community-based organisations. Nevertheless, a number of men (n=7) positioned the ‘scene community’ and the ‘LGB organisations community’ in opposition to one another, arguing that the scene is primarily about drinking and

having sex, while LGB/gay men’s organisations are more about politics, gay rights, and the promotion of general and sexual health.

In general, men tended to express more positive views of community-based organisations because they were seen to be working on behalf of gay men (and wider LGB groups) to provide information, promote equality and gay rights

(including resistance of stigmatising notions of gay life), and improve the general and sexual wellbeing of the ‘community’. This was particularly the case among those who had ongoing active connections to LGB groups and organisations (n=15). Although some men explicitly reported attending groups run by community-based organisations in order to meet like-minded people, again, being involved in such organisations did not neatly map on to men describing a

‘sense of belonging’ to ‘gay communities’. More often this type of community

‘attachment’ was framed as just one dimension of their social lives, rather than being central to their identity, or indeed an organising principle and basis for their personal community.

4.6.2 ‘Gay Community/ies’ as ‘Online Spaces and Groups’

Around half of the men in the sample talked about online groups and

‘communities’ as being important spaces in which to connect with other men both socially and sexually. In particular, men who grew up in rural areas, distant from the main commercial scenes of Glasgow and Edinburgh, often reported gravitating to online spaces when initially exploring their sexuality and seeking connections and friendship with other gay men. Indeed for these men, in the absence of easy access to offline dimensions of ‘gay community’ (such as bars and clubs part of the commercial gay scene), online forums and networks were an important form of community.

Although men pointed out that many gay specific social media and apps (e.g.

‘sociosexual media’¹⁰ including Gaydar, Fit Lads, LadsLads, Grindr etc.) are primarily geared towards seeking sex and sexual partners, many (n=12) noted that this is not the only way in which these online spaces can be used. These men stressed how they used and appropriated such forms of social media to develop and maintain friendships with other gay, (and less often) bisexual men.

10 See Glossary for definition.

4.6.3 ‘Community imaginaries’ : ‘Gay Community/ies’ as

‘Imagined’, as ‘Culture’, and as ‘Shared identity and Interests’

Men also conceptualised ‘gay communities’ in ways which evoked ideas around

‘imagined community’ as found in the work of Cohen (1985). By this I mean that they described having a sense of connection (albeit at times tenuous) to a

collective group of gay men, not necessarily known to them. Around a third of the men (n=9) made reference to having a shared history in terms of gay rights, community development, and a connection to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. At times some of these men were critical of ‘other men’, particularly young ‘superficial’

gay men, who were framed as not understanding the importance, or

significance, of a ‘community’ history. Others (n=10) described the significance of representations of gay men and gay life (including references to HIV) within

‘mainstream’ television, music and film. I would argue that for some, this was described in ways which suggested prior to ‘coming out’ (and indeed after) this was their first connection to ‘gay community’: recognising such representations as ‘someone like me’. For some men community was imagined through shared

‘culture’ and understanding of what it is to be gay, and men described the importance of specific cultural resources including gay print media, literature, theatre, and film. Thus, for these men community went beyond visible, spatial or indeed online communities, to exist as an imagined community of other gay men. Such understandings of community were not confined to men with a specific PC composition. However, it is worth noting that many of the men with very ‘mixed’ or female dominated friendship groups, despite not considering that their PC was shaped or informed by wider ‘gay communities’, did ‘imagine’

community in this way.

Around a third of the men (n=10) talked about shared interests on the basis of sexual identity as another way of understanding community. For some men (n=6), notably those with gay dominated friendship groups, this appeared to be an important factor in the development of their friendships with ‘like-minded people’. Some (n=9) made reference to the existence of multiple sub-groups, or smaller communities, under the ‘umbrella’ of ‘gay community’. These men made links between these sub-groups and socio-sexual cultures (for example

Bears and Twinks¹¹) and specific ways of identifying as gay. Despite

acknowledging their existence, none of the men self-identified with specific socio-sexual cultures or groups during the interviews. Indeed, several men made explicit reference to resisting the pressure to conform to particular ways of

‘being gay’. One way in which this was manifest by some men (n=9) was the rejection of what they described as some gay stereotypes; camp, flamboyant, promiscuous, fashionable, ‘straight dressers’, relationships with ‘fag-hags’¹², and having a ‘victim’ mentality. Thus, a complex picture emerged around perceived positive dimensions of shared interest and identity (as support and solidarity), and negative, or devalued, dimensions such as ‘gay stereotypes’.