All of the studies discussed the importance of friendships and relationships outside of what would generally be considered ‘gay community/ies’. Such friendships and networks were often reported to include family members, colleagues, and other heterosexual friends. Discussing friendships on the scene, Ridge and colleagues (1997; 1999) note that men who experienced exclusion from dominant groups on the gay scene often felt marginalised, and found it difficult to find and maintain supportive relationships. In contrast to ideals of
‘community’ that stress mutual support and solidarity, these men found it easier to make friends in different settings, including work. Supporting this finding, Fraser (2004; 2008) reports that although there were differences in the men’s
accounts, many of the men felt that heterosexual friends and family were an important source of support, and were very important to them. Some men in her study socialised primarily with heterosexual groups, others primarily with gay friends. Thus, some men were heavily involved in ‘gay community’, while others were less heavily involved and drew on other social networks and groups beyond the traditional ‘gay community’. Similarly, Holt and colleagues (Bernard et al.
2008; Holt 2011) found that some men distanced themselves from ‘gay
community’ and reported being more reliant on heterosexual networks of friends and family for support, and a sense of identity. These men often continued to participate in ‘community’ activities, but nevertheless spoke of their
ambivalence; wanting to be part of ‘gay community’, while simultaneously not feeling part of it. Investigating the importance of personal relationships and networks beyond ‘gay community’ may therefore be useful in developing HIV prevention activities that address different dimensions of men’s supportive networks. Woolwine’s (2000) work speaks to the idea that exploring friendship as a dimension of ‘gay communities’ may also be important in understanding men’s connections to one another, and wider notions of ‘community’.
The majority of studies mobilised different understandings of community in analysis, ranging from liberal approaches (Fraser, 2004; 2008), through
‘imagined community’ (Woolwine, 2000), to the proposal that the concept of
‘personal communities’ could usefully be applied in future research (Holt, 2011).
The different approaches to conceptualising community again emphasise the complexity of the term and the need to be attuned to the different ways in which it may be understood and experienced. The work of Damien Ridge and colleagues stands apart from the other studies, in that he criticises the relevance of community in HIV prevention, and individuals’ adoption of ‘safe sex’ practices. His work problematises the notion of community and stresses the importance of the individual in the context of wider social networks. Indeed, Ridge’s (Ridge et al., 1994; Ridge, 2004; Ridge et al., 2006) focus on the
importance of the meanings men give to their sexual encounters on ‘the scene’
highlights the way in which non-sexual identities, such as ethnicity, employment and class, impact on the ability to gain social support and/or develop sexual connections. Ridge and colleagues specifically focus on the commercial gay scene as part of their analysis (and critique) of ‘community’, although they
recognise the existence, and importance, of other informal networks and gay organisations. In terms of my own research this suggests a need to think beyond the confines of the commercial gay scene, and to sample and recruit both regular scene users/goers, as well as those who do not frequent the scene in order to explore if, and how, their experiences differ.
A common theme through all of the studies was the ambivalence men felt towards ‘gay community’. Given the men’s ambivalence around the notion of a cohesive, united ‘gay community’, some have suggested it may not be useful to present prevention and education materials which emphasise this idea (Bernard et al., 2008). All but one of the studies (Woolwine, 2000) made explicit links between the commercial scene and ‘gay community’. It seems clear that negative aspects of the scene are often associated with ‘gay community’ more broadly. All of the studies also discussed the importance of friendships and relationships outside of what would generally be considered ‘gay community’.
Such friendships and networks were often reported to include family members and heterosexual friends. As Holt (2011) suggests, such findings reinforce the importance of exploring personal relationships and groups outwith ‘gay
communities’ and commercial scene, as investigating the importance of men’s
‘personal communities’ may prove useful in developing HIV prevention activities that go beyond ‘gay community’. With the exception of Holt’s work, gay men’s
‘personal communities’ have not been investigated within the literature, or considered in relation to HIV prevention, a gap in research which this study aims to address.
A key limitation of the body of work reviewed is that none of the studies took place in the UK. As noted, all but one of the studies took place in Australia.
Although this is not surprising given the primacy of the idea of gay community attachment in Australian HIV prevention policy and practice in the early 1990s, it does pose problems in the transferability of the findings to the UK context.
Furthermore, only one of the studies identified specifically explored young men’s understandings of community, something which seems particularly
important given the reported changes to ‘gay communities’ over time (Reynolds, 2007; Rosser et al., 2008).