Author: G.J.A. Brugman, 10792252 geraldbrugman@gmail.com Supervisor: W. van Gent, second reader: F.M. Pinkster
RMUS, University of Amsterdam Expected Journal: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Words: 9950 (excluding tables) Date: 04-07-2016
The Everyday Practices of Bicultural Gay Men – Negotiating Multiple Minority Identities while Moving through Socially Diverse Urban Spaces.
By studying the everyday mobilities of Latino gay men in New York City and Turkish and Moroccan descent gay men in Amsterdam, this paper seeks to understand how bicultural gay men navigate and experience socially diverse urban spaces in alleged gay-tolerant cities in the Global North. Studying the negotiation of multiple identities spatially allows this paper to interrogate the significance of ‘markedness’ of marginalized identities and the ability to mask these as a matter of fluency and intersectionality. The context-rich account of both cities illustrates how the ‘territorialization of space’, together with the salience and the visibility of minority identities significantly shape the mobilities of bicultural gay men. The study adopted a triangulated mixed-method approach. Most bicultural gay men face an interesting paradox in the experience of spaces in relation to their double minority identities, facing ‘othering’ in certain spaces on the basis of either their ethnic or sexual identity. As a response they employ passing tactics to conceal their marked minority status, mainly their sexual minority position. The commonalities and differences found between both cities help to better understand the relation between minority identities, urban space and everyday mobilities.
Keywords: bicultural gay men; new mobilities; passing tactics; identity
Large cities have always been free havens for minority groups in society. These urban environments allow sexual minorities, but also ethnic, racial and religious minorities, to cluster with peers among which they can move relatively freely. Recently numerous scholars have suggested that traditional ‘gayborhoods’ are ‘degaying’ (see Ghaziani, 2014). With improved social and legal equality of LGBTQ1
people, it is argued that they are able to move more freely across urban spaces hence there is less demand for ‘own’ sexual minority spaces. In response to these ‘shifting sexual and gendered landscapes’, scholars like Nash & Gorman-Murray (2014; 2015) have reconsidered the geographical tradition of studying specific moorings in space by analyzing the mobilities of lesbians and gay men in major cities in the Global North. Where research on the geographies of non-heterosexuals has arguably overrepresented the position of White middle-class gay men in
so-
called ‘gayborhoods’, Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015) emphasize how a relational approach enables them to study the geographies of less visible subjects.
Despite this potential, their study only considers the intersection of sexuality with class and gender, ignoring the role of ethnicity, race and religion. This is surprising since sociological and psychological research on bicultural gay men has indicated how they often have a very different process of self-acceptance and acceptance by their ethnic peers than majority gay men (Jaspal, 2012; Kennedy & Dalla, 2014). These studies on identity negotiation show the relevance of intersecting multiple minority identities, though they often lack a clear geographical perspective. Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015) claim that a greater acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in increased mobilities of LGBT’s in major cities in the Global North. When bearing in mind the fact that these cities are increasingly ethnically diverse, it is questionable if this alleged normalization has a similar effect on the geographies of all gay men or solely those that conform to the homonormative standard of the White middle-class gay man.
Following De Certeau’s (1984) classic work on the Practices of Everyday Life, this paper conceptualizes space as socially constructed, meaning by power relations between majority and minority groups. His concepts of ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ serve to analyze how minority individuals move through ‘majority spaces’. As such, I adopt a relational approach to identity management, acknowledging both the role of agency and structure. With studying the relation between space and identities, I specifically focus on the markedness of minority identities and the agency to employ tactics of ‘passing.’
Therefore the main research question in this study is: “How do bicultural gay men negotiate their multiple minority identities spatially while navigating urban spaces?”. With answering this question, I aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of marked minority identities on the experiences of ethnically and sexually diverse urban spaces. Can they move as freely or do they need to negotiate one or more of their identities in certain spaces or are they forced to frequent spaces that meet both their minority identities?
Following the work of Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015), I conduct a comparative case study on alleged inclusive cities in the Global North. New York City and Amsterdam are selected for an in-depth comparative analysis. Both cities are historically known for their relatively tolerant environments, attracting large numbers of ethnic and sexual minorities. Despite a general normalization of homosexuality, it can be questioned if this also diminishes constrains for bicultural gay men when navigating these cities.
This study presents an in-depth analysis of both cities individually, but also analyzes the differences and similarities between both cases to come to an understanding of universal conditions and more contextual factors. Data was collected by conducting in-depth interviews, mental mapping and participatory observations. Before discussing the results, I first outline my theoretical framework and the research design. I end by discussing the findings and presenting my conclusions.
Everyday practices of bicultural gay men
De Certeau’s (1984) work on the Practices of Everyday Life is used as a theoretical starting point in analyzing the navigation and experience of urban space in the daily lives of bicultural gay men. De Certeau (1984) stresses how space is never neutral, but constructed through power relations between hegemonic powers and active agents. One’s power position in society thereby influences the way they use and experience space (see also Raanan & Shoyal, 2014). Whereas De Certeau defines hegemonic power as official institutions, I build on the work of Duyvendak (2011) by arguing that a dominant group in society can also be seen as a hegemonic power. By employing ‘strategies’, a dominant group territorializes a certain urban space and thereby defines the ruling norm. As a result, marginalized groups predominantly move through spaces in which they do not fit the norm. Following De Certeau’s theory, these marginalized individuals can employ ‘tactics’ to reappropriate space and thereby securing their mobility.
In the context of this study, it is worthwhile to discuss how space is both constructed in terms of ethnicity and sexuality. Hubbard et al. (2015) stress how spaces are differently sexualized, with predominantly being heteronormative. Agents who do not meet this sexual norm can apply tactics while moving through these spaces or construct their own spaces, such as ‘gayborhoods’. In these homonormative spaces, gay men are the dominant group. Caluya (2008) argues that these spaces are not only formed by sexuality, but are also gendered and ethnically and racially constructed. Homonormative spaces are thereby implicitly dominated by White middle-class gay men, possibly excluding minorities among sexual minorities (see Manalansan, 2003).
Although De Certeau acknowledges the position of marginalized individuals, and their agency to reappropriate space, he has been criticized for conceptualizing tactics for the case of White middle-class heterosexual men (Crang, 2011). Collie (2013: 4) stresses the privileged position of this ‘common man’ as central actor, who is able to employ tactics in an unnoticed manner: he is “shielded form curiosity of the crowd”. Crang (2011) questions to what degree individuals with one or more marked minority statuses have the ability to employ similar tactics.
Gay geographies
In the field of gay geographies, a great number of scholars have analyzed the spatiality of sexual minorities in cities. Initially scholars focused on specific neighborhoods in cities in the Global North, researching the clustering of non-heterosexuals in ‘gayborhoods’ (see Ghaziani, 2014). This eventually implied an overrepresentation of middle-class, White, gay men who live a ‘visible gay lifestyle’, and an underrepresentation of individuals who did not meet this ‘homonorm’ based on their race, ethnicity, class or gender (Valentine, 1993; Drucker, 2011, Hubbard et al., 2015).
In response to this shortcoming, scholars like Nash & Gorman-Murray (2014; 2015) have stepped away from this focus on bounded space by adopting a more mobile approach in researching the geographies of lesbians and gay men. This enables the inclusion of gay men that stay relatively unheard since they do not fit the homonorm or who do not prefer to visit homonormative spaces. It also answers
the increased mobility of gay men due to accomplishments in legal equality (Hubbard et al., 2015). Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015) show how gender and class differences explain why, compared to gay men, the mobilities of some lesbians are much more concentrated in private and semi-public spaces in stead of public or commercial spaces, making their everyday practices less visible. In line with these findings, it seems plausible that factors like ethnicity also causes differentiating spatial patterns.
This shift to a relational perspective is part of a larger ‘new mobilities’ paradigm that studies the interaction between people and space not by focusing on a demarcated space but adopting a more dynamic understanding of space. In line with De Certeau’s theory, I specifically focus on men’s everyday mobilities. This does not solely include the actual movements, but also its culture meaning and how these movements are bodily experienced (Cresswell, 2010; Gorman-Murray & Nash, 2014: 635). Mobility is the ability ‘to operate openly across a variety of locations’ (Nash et al., 2014: 764, emphasize added). These operations are shaped by the uneven distribution of power among social groups, constructed by dimensions of class, race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. This ties into different identities and how they are corporeally performed.
Spatiality of identity negotiation
In his study on urban and suburban gay men, Brekhus (2003) shows how gay men employ identity negotiation strategies in response to heteronormative spaces that are perceived as relatively unaccepting of their sexuality (see also Valentine, 1993; Crawley & Board, 2008). Brekhus (2003) distinguishes three strategies: i. prioritizing your sexual identity over other identities; ii. compartmentalizing your identities, and iii. harmoniously integrating all identities. He argues that the chosen strategy depends on the social costs of an identity. In an ideal situation with no social costs, bicultural gay men would be able to integrate their multiple minority identities in a self-identity that is salient regardless of the spaces they are in. In his study, Brekhus (2003) did not look at the intersection of sexual identity with other marginalized identities. In his conclusions, he acknowledges that racial minority gay men are limited in their ability to integrate their identities because of the markedness of these identities. They are forced to prioritize the embodiment of their racial identity, since this is the identity others primarily identified them by.
This acknowledgement resonates with the work of scholars who studied the identity negotiation of ethnic and racial minority gay men. Although different groups were studied, they all share a similar discrepancy between the tolerance of homosexuality in mainstream society and among their ethnic or racial peers. Next to being ‘sexually othered’, they are often ‘ethnically othered’ in homonormative spaces and in ethnic majority spaces. In the case of men with a migrant background, their identity negotiation is part of their larger negotiation process as a bicultural individual (see Goode-Cross & Tager, 2011; Jaspal & Siraj, 2011; El-Tayeb, 2012). Facing both ‘sexual othering’ and ‘ethnic othering’, many men are forced to compartmentalize their identities. They struggle to navigate safe and comfortable environments, often finding themselves in the middle (Schnoor, 2006; Kennedy & Della, 2014).
Tactics of passing
I use De Certeau’s concept of ‘tactics’ to understand how bicultural gay men negotiate their identities in response to the majority spaces they navigate. Firstly, these men can avoid more heteronormative ethnic spaces and more homonormative majority spaces by constructing and frequenting their own counter spaces. Secondly, they can employ tactics of passing to be perceived as a member of the norm-defining group hence be granted access to majority spaces without receiving unwanted attention (Jaspal & Siraj, 2011; Gutsche, 2014; Pfeffer, 2014). This implies the ability to pass as heterosexual in more heteronormative minority space and to pass as White in more homonormative and ‘gay tolerant’ majority spaces (Hubbard, 2012; Maliepaard, 2015). Collie (2013) and Pfeffer (2014) stress the importance of passing for marginalized minorities to secure their safety or to avoid stares or verbal abuse.
The act of passing stresses how a membership does not have to be authentic since others assess it on the markedness of a person’s identities (Paul M Ed & Frieden, 2008). One can conceal attributes of a minority identity and perform attributes that are associated with the identity of the majority group. The ability to employ tactics of passing relies on the performativity of one’s identity. As stressed by Brekhus (2003), bicultural gay men have more agency to conceal attributes of their sexual identity than their ethnic identity. The sexual identity of gay men is marked by their gender expression, and how much this aligns with cultural notions of appropriate masculine behavior (Hekma, 2007).
Research design
Conducting a comparative case study allowed me to unravel the everyday mobilities of bicultural gay men, studying them in their real-life context by using mixed methods for a rich data collection. In this way I am able to distinguish universal factors from more contextual factors hence coming to a better understanding of the relation between identities and everyday mobilities in socially diverse urban spaces (Gerring, 2006; Yin, 2009).
New York City and Amsterdam were selected as relatively extreme cases of cities in the Global North that have experienced large-scale immigration. Additionally, both cities are often considered ‘gay capitals’ in popular culture and media (The Guardian, 2015). Being known as relatively welcoming environments, ethnic and sexual minorities have flocked to these cities and created socially diverse spaces (see Foner et al., 2014). I expect that the spatial identity negotiation of bicultural gay men is most easily identifiable in cities with such diverse ethnic and sexual spaces. As Brekhus (2003) argues, compartmentalizing identities is common in more ethnic or sexual homogenous environments, where there exist clear role expectations. This could be in ‘gayborhoods’ or neighborhoods with large concentration of migrants, which can be found in both cities.
Besides their comparable reputation, there exist many relevant differences between both cities. New York City has a much longer and diverse immigration history. Where Amsterdam experiences a “current discomfort with immigration”, immigrants are more self-evidently part of New York City (Fonet et al., 2014: 77). Where immigrants in Amsterdam are confronted with a relatively dominant White
middle class, immigrants in New York City arrive in a society that also largely consist of African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. Secondly, where immigrants in New York City have historically been grouped by race, non-native ‘allochtonen’ citizens in Amsterdam have since the migration flow of late-twentieth century been defined around notions of ‘foreign birth’ and their different cultural characteristics, although this also carried an implicit othering based on racial characteristics (see Verwey-Jonker, 1971; Yanow & Van der Haar, 2012). Finally, both cities have a different morphology, with New York City outnumbering Amsterdam in terms of population, scale and density. These demographic and spatial differences enable me to analyze the role of territorialization of space in the spatial identity negotiation of bicultural gay men.
Respondents
This study investigates the daily mobilities and experiences of Latino gay men in New York City and gay men of Turkish or Moroccan descent in Amsterdam. While the Latino population in New York City is fairly large – being a pan-ethnic and multi-racial migrant group – they are still a minority group in terms of their accessibility to power (Rodriguez, 2000). Studying the identity negotiation of these men spatially, both the agency and structural level of identities are relevant. The racial markedness of ethnicity cannot be ignored, since bicultural men are ethnically identified by others partially on the basis of their racial features (see Crawley & Broad, 2008). Although homosexuality is generally normalized in New York City, attitudes among Latin migrant populations may deviate as a result of different cultural understanding about sexuality and gender (Decena, 2008).
Parallels can be drawn with the position of North African and Middle-Eastern migrants in the North-European context (see Jaspal & Siraj, 2011; El-Tayeb, 2012). With Turks and Moroccans being the biggest migrant groups from this region in Amsterdam, I specifically focus on these two countries of origin. Research shows how, of all religious and ethnic minorities group, the tolerance of homosexuality in the Netherlands is lowest among Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch citizens (Huijnk, 2014; Pierik et al., 2015).
Compared to the U.S. and Dutch society at large, Latin-American and Turkish and Moroccan immigrant cultures tend to have a relatively stronger sense of collectivity, with close-knit relations with the local community and relatives (see Decena, 2008; Jaspal & Siraj, 2011; Pierik et al., 2015). These cultural understandings make the Western notion of ‘coming out’ often problematic for bicultural gay men. It not only affects them individually but also the relation with their family and the wider community (Hekma, 2007; Jaspal & Siraj, 2011).
Table 1 provides an overview of the twenty-four bicultural gay men that were interviewed in this study. These respondents include fourteen self-identified Latino gay men, six Moroccan gay men, one bisexual Moroccan man and three Turkish gay men. Additionally, I conducted two expert-interviews with individuals who work for the cause of bicultural LGBTQ’s in the Netherlands. The respondents in both cities were approached via personal networks, through my local university in both cities, advocacy groups, volunteering at an LGBTQ-center, and via snowballing techniques.
Methods
With aiming for methodological triangulation, I combined in-depth semi-structured interviews, mental mapping and participatory observations. The interviews function as the primary data source. This method allowed respondents to express the often-complex nature of their identities and anticipating for the sensitivity of the topic (Burawoy, 1998; Bryman, 2012). The interviews were scheduled at a time and location of the respondent’s preference. The conversations were recorded on the scene with permission and lasted between 80 and 130 minutes. During the interview, the respondent was asked to conduct a mental-mapping exercise. I gave him a blank sheet of A4-paper on which he was asked to draw a map of “his version of the city”, and marking his “places of importance”. Such a visualization method can help to express certain emotions and to stimulate the respondent to adopt a more geographical lens (Rust, 2000). The maps were used to visualize the respondent’s perspective on territorialization of space, his everyday mobilities and the meaning that is given to these mobilities (Reinders, 2015, Tersteeg & Pinkster, 2015). Additionally, I scheduled a participatory observation with several respondents. Despite my suggestions, respondents offered their own suggestions during which part of their everyday practices I could join. These observations provided insights in the way respondents engage in specific social-spatial contexts hence provide an addition to the earlier collected data (Kusenbach, 2003; Van Duppen & Spierings, 2013). The data collected with all three methods were analyzed with the use of coding software Atlas.ti, using both pre-defined codes and In-vivo coding. The data derived from the mental-maps and participatory observations enabled me to verify and illustrate the interview data.
Analytical framework
The respondents were asked about both their ethnic and sexual identity with the purpose of measuring the salience and consistency of these identities, how they are formed and how they are negotiated. Identities are conceptualized as fluid, with individuals having the agency to negotiate their different identities depending on spatial contexts. Despite acknowledging the contextual and cultural way identities are constructed, I have adopted the institutionalized terms ‘gay2’, Latino, and
‘Turkish and Moroccan descent’ in my call for participants for the sake of brevity. To leave room for alternative interpretation of their sexuality and their ethnicity, the respondents were asked how they normally describe their own identities.
I specifically focused on everyday mobility, which was operationalized as “the routines and habitual practices through which individuals appropriate space and give meaning to this space” (Reinders, 2015: 3). Besides measuring the actual movement, I also asked how the respondents experience navigating spaces. To measure the power relations in space, the respondents were asked about their perception on territorialization of space and the constrains they experience in their movements. I specifically questioned the respondents about their perspective on
2
From a queer perspective, I acknowledge the limitations of this essentialist, western identity
category (see: Drucker, 2011). To modestly correct for this limitation, all participants were‘ethnic spaces’, ‘gay spaces’ and ‘ethnic-gay spaces’. The term ‘ethnic-gay space’ is used for liminal spaces that are specifically constructed by and for bicultural LGBTQ’s. Finally, to measure if the respondents employ passing tactics or avoiding tactics, I asked them about the markedness of their identities, their awareness of their identities in space and possible negative experiences related to the visibility of both identities.
Based on the discussed literature, I hypothesized that the bicultural gay men in both cities experience similar constrains of their everyday practices because of their double minority status. I expected that they feel othered in both more heteronormative ethnic spaces and more White gay spaces, and are therefore forced to frequent ethnic-gay spaces.
Results
To gain insight in the position of bicultural gay men in ethnically and sexually diverse spaces, I analyze the respondents’ mobility patterns and how they experience and react to the spaces they navigate. I hypothesized that bicultural gay men would be constrained in ethnic minority and majority spaces because of their ethnic or sexual minority status, hence would negotiate their identities, avoid these spaces or visit their own liminal spaces. To analyze this, I specifically discuss how the respondents navigate and experience more heteronormative spaces, more homonormative spaces and liminal spaces, and how they response to possible constrains (see table 2).
New York City and Amsterdam are experienced as generally inclusive environments. Respondents feel they can be ‘themselves’ in most of the spaces they navigate. As a result, many men argue they are not always conscious about their minority identities. The men in both cities are quite mobile. Their everyday mobilities cover large parts of the city and show only limited social ties to their neighborhood. With moving through various spaces, this high mobility comes with certain level of unpredictability. The men encounter people that may be intolerant. This unpredictability seems most prominent in New York City, where most respondents live in more peripheral neighborhoods that require daily commutes by subway. In the case of Amsterdam, the city’s compact size allows the men to move predominantly by bike. In addition, most men live in the inner-ring area of the city. The men in both cities have clear notion of the territorialization of space (see figure 2; 3). This is most strongly expressed by the Latino gay men that I joined in their everyday practices. When describing the spaces they navigate, they specifically refer to identity politics of ethnicity, race, sexually and class.
Being gay in heteronormative spaces
For many bicultural gay men, ‘ethnic spaces’, i.e. spaces with a large concentration of ethnic peers or cultural amenities, enable them to embody their cultural identity. Being in these spaces gives them a sense of belonging. This sentiment is most clearly present among the men in New York City. Specifically second-generation migrants have a strong desire to be in Latino spaces to connect with their cultural heritage. The experiences of the two first-generation Chileans PhD-students [F1 & G1] stress how this connection can also be searched with compatriots. During my participatory observation with one of the two Chilean PhD-students [F1] in their neighborhood of East Harlem, he argues how the Chilean culture is very different from other Latin cultures. He is hardly perceived as Latino in New York City, except in his own ‘Latin’ neighborhood. Although he gets mistaken for Puerto Rican, it suggests a certain common ground among Latinos. The shared Spanish language proficiency plays a key role here.
Although the men give meaning to their ethnic identity in these spaces, most of them feel constrained in expressing their sexual identity. With the exemption of three respondents in New York City and one respondent in Amsterdam, the men generally consider their ethnic peers less tolerant towards homosexuality than the city’s overall climate (see table 2). As explaining factors for this lower level of tolerance, the men point to the relatively strong heteronormativity and machismo,
resulting in more rigid gender roles, combined with the influence of cultural heritage and religious beliefs. Both groups of men argue that among their ethnic peers, sexuality is much more a private manner and therefore not openly discussed.
Although some respondents argue they are hardly aware of their sexuality during their everyday practices, most express an increased awareness when being among ethnic peers. They feel more constrained. When walking along with the 25-years-old Turkish Law Student [H2] in his neighborhood of Bos & Lommer, he shares that the many Turkish stores and eateries give him a sense of belonging. He points out a new ‘hipster restaurant’, which attracts mainly White customres, as a sign of gentrification and a threat to the neighborhood’s Turkish character. Simultaneously, he argues that with more of these White, middle-class people moving to his neighborhood he would feel less constrained in expressing his sexuality in this area.
His experience indicates that the ethnical composition of a space causes the space to facilitate one of his minority identities, while constraining – although only limited – his other identity. As a result, men like the Turkish Law Student need to negotiate their identities. The men can employ ‘passing tactics’ to conceal their identities. The tactics they employ to conceal their sexual identity include altering their behavior and appearance:
“When I see my family I am not crossing my legs and I am talking from my stomach so the voice is different and my hair is up with a hat and, yeah... I don’t put it out there, because I don’t think it is something that identifies me completely. I am Moroccan that defines me completely, but my sexuality, no, it is just one facet but not the 100 percent” (28-years-old designer [A2], Amsterdam, 15-03-2016).
The tactics that are employed by the various respondents show that their sexual identity is most strongly marked by their gender expressions, with more effeminate mannerism, appearance and way of speak marking them as ‘more gay’. During the mental map exercise, the 24-years-old Turkish recent graduate [J2] drew a pair of UGGS in a ‘Turkish area’ in Amsterdam. This visualizes an incident in which he received heteronormative gazes while walking the streets in shoes that “he should not be wearing as a man” (see figure 3). Other markers of their sexual identity result from their interaction with others. The respondents stress that they are more aware of their sexuality when being in public space with their gay friends, a partner or when meeting up for a date:
“I: Are there neighborhoods in Amsterdam where you wouldn’t meet somebody? G2: No, It would depend on the person! If the person were very feminine, I would hardly want to meet up anywhere (…) It has to do with my own insecurity (…) I don’t want to be associated with that. Then it becomes so flashy. Then it is so obvious. And I am not like that myself so…” (37-years-old Moroccan Juvenile Employee [G2], Amsterdam, 07-04-2016).
Besides employing passing tactics to conceal their sexual identity, some men employ tactics of avoidance. Most Turkish and Moroccan men choose to separate their own ‘free world’ from the world of their parents’ home and their parents’ local ethnic community. Four of the ten men in Amsterdam have not shared their sexuality with their parents. Others who did share their sexuality were cut-off by their parents or have a mutual understanding of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. Some respondents, like the 32-years-old Moroccan Event Manager [C2], stress that their coming-out process is very different from the “Western understanding of a coming-out”:
“I: and why do you think that [your sexuality and your parents] do[es]n’t fit?
C2: because my parents were raised very differently and because we, since we have all these freedoms in the Netherlands in terms of social issues and deciding for things yourself, we can say ‘if it doesn’t suit me, what ever, I just ignore it’. But for my parents, who are positioned in such a close-knit community, with the relations with their parents, with family members, with their neighbors… it goes beyond solely my parents. It is really a kind of organogram. (…) And that is really a cultural element. It is collectively determined and you don’t have a lot individual freedom”
(32-years-old Moroccan Event Manager [C2], Amsterdam, 18-03-2016).
Both Latino gay men and Turkish and Moroccan gay men emphasize the importance of the collective in relation to the individual, and how this influences their ability to come out to their parents and other relatives. Being physically distanced from their parents enables these men to live their lives freely without the necessity of a ‘full coming-out’. For most of the men, their move to Amsterdam provides them this distance. The Event Manager grew up in Amsterdam and hence still resides in the same city as his parents. He has created his own separate free world within the city. With joining him in his morning routine in the city center and neighborhood De Pijp, he argues how his everyday practices are very much concentrated in these areas and how he practically only visits his parents in East-Amsterdam during the Ramadan. In New York City, only five respondents express a similar sentiment about being physically distanced from parents. These are mainly first-generation Latinos whose parents still live in their country of origin.
These tactics of passing and avoidance are not only employed with their family members but also with ethnic peers in general, such as neighborhoods with a large concentration of ethnic peers:
“I feel, like, uncomfortable or I feel like stared at, or I feel like less than. And that is with Hispanics (…) because I am aware that I am Hispanic and sometimes (…) I am reminded when I am around them and I don’t necessarily fit in. And I already feel that I don’t fit in with them so when then these things happen and I get like stares, I feel very little (…) like not being accepted by people from my own cultural group, which is kind of why I have strained from surrounding myself with people from that culture” (23-years-old Dominican student [D1], New York City, 30-10-2015).
This avoidance can more easily be employed by the men in Amsterdam since, with the exemption of two respondents, they all live in inner-ring neighborhoods that are predominantly White or slightly ethnically diverse. This also speaks from the everyday practices of the 32-years-old Moroccan Event Manager [C2] as discussed above.
On the contrary, seven of the fifteen men in New York City argue they live in a ‘Latin neighborhood’ and three men live in an area with a large population of people of color. Since these spaces are perceived as more heternormative, the men more regularly employ passing tactics to conceal their sexual identity. The experienced lower gay-tolerance in such spaces is visualized by the 23-years-old Dominican college student [D1] by drawing his house in his ‘low income neighborhood’ of East New York, surrounded by fences with barb wire (see figure 1).
A sentiment that is not found in New York City, but is shared by nearly all men in Amsterdam, is the distinction between being in spaces with ethnic peers in their own city compared to being among the ethnic community in the place they grew up. Just like being with their parents, they feel similarly constrained in their former ethnic community. They feel hardly or not at all constrained when being among their ethnic peers in Amsterdam, since they have no connection with them.
In light of the markedness of their sexual identity, the respondents were asked about being affectionate with another man in public. In both cities, numerous men do not prefer to be affectionate in public, regardless if they feel constrained or not. Compared to New York City, the men in Amsterdam are much less inclined to be affectionate in public, with most of them giving geographical limitations:
“I: because why do you think you cannot do it [public displayed affection] over there [neighborhood Bos & Lommer]?
H2: I think I sort of inherited that with my upbringing, about how others think about me. Because, I don’t really care about that, but when I am in [Turkish and Moroccan] environments, then that sentiment kind of returns (…) I think they [Turkish and Moroccan descent inhabitants] dislike seeing affection. And so that’s why I try to prevent it” (25-years-old Turkish Law Student, Amsterdam, 13-04-2016)
In both cities, most bicultural gay men are more constrained to express their sexuality among their ethnic peers, e.g. neighborhoods with a large concentration of their ethnic group. In the case of Amsterdam, some Turkish and Moroccan men stress they are not affectionate in public – if preferred at all – to respect the ruling cultural and religious codes in their ethnic spaces. As a result, more often than the New York City men, they do not consider this a limitation of their sexuality:
“I: Do you experience moments in your daily life that you shut off your [homosexual behavior]?
K2: No. Nowhere. Except if I have to visit a mosque for work or… I am not religious… or if I enter the Turkish community, but I am not doing it as an act of self-censorship. I comply with their rules and I respect that. I don’t need to confront them with ‘well I am gay and here I am’, you know. So in those cases I am acting a bit more neutral compared to now. I am not making concessions, but I do respect their norms and values” (38-years-old Turkish Actor [K2], Amsterdam, 17-05-2016).
The men negotiate to what extent they are willing to mask their identity to respect cultural and religious codes. This seems to depend on the type of space and which identity attributes have to be concealed. Where the respondent expresses the above sentiment for a private or semi-private space like a mosque, he firmly states he does not make concessions in holding hands with his partner when walking on the street.
Some men in New York City extend the experienced intolerance among their ethnic peers to people of color in general. In these cases, they often explicitly refer to areas with a low-income and low-educated population of color. When joining the 27-years-old Guatemalan Student and Bartender [A1] in his commute from his home to his university, he stresses that he often feels unsafe when walking from the subway station to his campus. He points to the groups of African-American men on the streets. There is no clear pattern in the arguments behind the distinction between the intolerance experienced by ethnic peers and by people of color in general. The 22-years-old Moroccan Neuroscience Student [E2] and the 25-years-old Turkish Law Student [H2] stress how they feel more othered by their ethnic peers because of their supposed membership of this group and the fact that they understand the ruling ‘cultural codes’. The Turkish Law Student explains that his Turkish peers consider being gay as a ‘denial of your Turkish roots’ and as sign of ‘being westernized’. On the contrary, three Latino gay men feel relatively more uncomfortable among African-Americans compared to their ethnic peers since they do not “speak the language” of African-Americans, i.e. do not understand their cultural codes.
Being the ethnic other in White gay-tolerating and homonormative spaces
Where bicultural gay men experience the strongest constrains of their sexual identity in spaces with a large concentration of ethnic peers, as well as in low-income and low-educated spaces, White (upper) middle-class spaces are perceived as most gay-tolerant. In New York City, respondents refer to more affluent neighborhoods on Manhattan and ‘gentrified areas’ like Williamsburg in Brooklyn. In Amsterdam, respondents refer to White (upper) middle-class neighborhoods like De Pijp en Oud-Zuid and ‘more diverse’ neighborhoods like Oud-West (see table 2). Although bicultural gay men may experience fewer constrains in expressing their sexual identity, they may experience more regularly implicit forms of ethnic othering in these spaces:
“Yes, I think in [neighborhood] De Pijp. Often, it concerns folks who have studied for a while in Groningen or Tilburg or wherever, and they move to Amsterdam for their first job. And basically they have no life experience... or they have only spent time in their fraternity, you know, in an environment where everybody is the same. And then they come here and then they discover that there also exist different Dutch people. I have that feeling more in De Pijp, with those type of people, those yuppies”
(25-years-old Turkish Law Student [H2], Amsterdam, 13-04-2016).
For second-generation migrants in both cities this ethnic othering not only questions their ethnic minority identity, but also their ethnic majority identity. This is most strongly found among second-generation men in Amsterdam, whose ‘Dutchness’ is questioned. Like the Turkish Law-Student, the 24-years-old Turkish Graduate [J2] experiences similar othering in a ‘White, conservative space’ such as the Zuidas (see figure 3). Additionally, several of these second-generation men share how they have experienced to be less ethnically othered when they share their sexuality:
“If you share the combination of practicing Islamic religion, being aware of my Turkish identity, but also being active in the gay-emancipation movement then you notice that you are becoming a very different kind of ‘allochtoon’ (…) it is almost as if your gay identity compensates for your other identity (…) It is seen as if then you have embraced the Dutch norms and values and you have opposed your own barbaric culture. You experience that people really see it as a good example of integration” (24-years-old Turkish Graduate [J2], Amsterdam, 11-05-2016).
With the everyday practices of the Amsterdam men predominantly taking place in ethnic majority spaces, they are mainly ethnic othered by White Dutch people. The men in New York City predominantly navigate spaces that are ethnically and racially diverse or dominated by their ethnic peers. As a result, they recall more incidents of their ethnic peers questioning their ‘Latinidad’. Boundary making among Latinos is expressed in terms of migrant generation. Various first-generation Latinos distinguish themselves from the image of low-skilled migrant worker and from second-generation ‘Americanized’ Latinos. The Latino’s shared Spanish language can overcome these boundaries but an insufficient proficiency can therefore also further separate migrant generations. When joining the 30-years-old Ecuadorian
bartender [C1] to his work, it becomes clear he connects more with his White-American coworkers than his Dominican and Mexican coworkers. While his Latin coworkers talk Spanish with the bilingual White-American coworkers, the Ecuadorian bartender solely communicates in English, while he does speak Spanish.
In search for spaces where the respondents are not constrained in terms of their sexual identity, they were specifically asked about their everyday practices in ‘gay spaces’. Generally, the men show a clear territorial notion of gay spaces, identifying ‘gayborhoods’ such as Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen in New York City and De Reguliersdwarsstraat in Amsterdam (see figure 2 & 3). The majority of the respondents regularly frequent these spaces and experience them ethnically and racially inclusive. None of the men have experienced explicit racism, though some Latino gay men recall incidents of objectification of their ‘exotic bodies’; being seen as sexually active, sexually dominant, and ‘spicy’ (see table 2).
In the case of New York City, the two Chilean PhD-students [F1 & G1] experience homonormative spaces in New York City much more conservative than in their hometown Santiago, Chile. On the other hand, the 47-years-old Colombian architect [M1] and the 35-years-old Peruvian barista [O1] explicitly distinguish themselves from the ‘modern gay identity’ and the homonormative spaces connected to this identity:
“I don’t really feel like what everybody calls gay, you know (…) I am sexually gay, but if you would ask me if I have something in common with some of the gay guys, like the common gay guy that you see around, not really much in common. I am just a regular guy in that aspect. I don’t describe myself like a general gay person, you know. It is just that little aspect of my life, my sexual aspect” (35-years-old Peruvian
Barista [O1], New York City, 11-01-2016).
Some men avoid gay spaces like Chelsea because of its (upper) middle-class dimension. While walking with the 29-years-old Peruvian PhD-student [B1] through his neighborhood Bedford-Stuyvesant, he stresses that he would rather go to gay bars in his neighborhood since he expects them to be more diverse in terms of gender, race and class than he has experienced in Chelsea. In Amsterdam, three of the ten respondents express a similar disassociation of homonormative spaces.
Compared to their sexual identity, the men in both cities seem to be less constrained in their everyday practices by their ethnic identity. As a result, fewer tactics of passing and avoidance are employed in ethnic majority spaces. This is partially related to the relatively lower performativity of their ethnic identity. While appearance, language proficiency, accent, and name are relevant attributes, their ethnic identity is also marked by racial features that are associated with a certain ethnicity. With ‘Latino’ being a pan-ethnic label in the U.S. context, Latino men of various racial backgrounds are grouped together. Some respondents can easily pass as White, such as the 44-years-old Puerto-Rican Associated Professor [L1]. This enables them to navigate majority spaces unrestrictedly, although it simultaneously may cause ethnic peers to question their Latinidad.
In addition to the above-mentioned identity attributes, the experiences of Turkish and Moroccan gay men show how ethnicity is also expressed through class
status. With the exemption of two respondents, the Amsterdam men often hear that they do not look like the typical Moroccan or Turkish guy. They are often misperceived as Southern-European. Because of their appearance and because of the spaces they navigate, they do not fit the stereotypical image of the first-generation Turkish or Moroccan migrant worker or of the “guy who grew up in
Amsterdam-West [an area with many migrant communities] and has a bit of an Amsterdam accent” (24-years-old Turkish Graduate [J2]). This becomes also
apparent when joining the 32-years-old Moroccan Event Manager [C2] and the 22-years-old Moroccan Neuroscience Student [E2] in their neighborhood. Both men argue they prefer to frequent trendy bars and restaurants with a predominantly White middle-class clientele.
Full membership in ethnic-gay spaces
Experiencing othering in both more heternormative ethnic spaces and more homonormative majority spaces creates an interesting paradox in the everyday practices of bicultural gay men. Where a certain space may be inclusive on the basis of their ethnicity, they might feel out of place on the basis of their sexuality or via versa. Based on this observation, I expected that bicultural gay men would prefer to frequent ‘liminal spaces’ in which they can be their full self, both ethnically and sexually. I refer to these spaces as ‘ethnic gay spaces’.
Such ethnic-gay spaces are more present in New York City, which seems to logically result from the larger Latino population in New York City compared to the Turkish and Moroccan population in Amsterdam, both in absolute and relative terms. Several Latino gay men describe the neighborhood of Jackson Heights in Queens as an area that is both ‘Latin’ and ‘gay’, with a concentration of gay bars that predominantly attract Latin LGBTQ’s. In the case of Amsterdam, such ‘ethnic-gay spaces’ are of a different nature. Some older respondents recall the Habibi Ana as the only ‘Arabic gay’ bar. Other spaces that specifically cater to Turkish, Moroccan and Muslim LGBTQ’s are various support groups that were formerly organized by LGBTQ interest groups like COC and Schoren or are currently organized by organizations like Queer-Muslim empowerment foundation Maruf. Additional, numerous men in Amsterdam find these liminal spaces online, with being member of private Facebook groups where events are promoted and new connections are made. There is a nation-wide online network by and for bicultural LGBTQ’s, diminishing the need for actual physical locations. This is in line with earlier finding by scholars like Nash & Gorman-Murray (2015).
In New York City, only four respondents frequent ethnic-gay spaces. This appears not to result from experienced constrains in other spaces but more because of personal preferences. A class-dimension prevents some men to frequent these spaces, disliking the esthetics of the venues, the music and the patrons. In Amsterdam, four men either frequent or have frequented ethnic-gay spaces. These men stress that especially at the start of their coming-out process they were eager to meet other bicultural gay men, specifically other Moroccan or Turkish gay men (see table 2). They wanted to interact with like-minded individuals with similar experiences. The 24-years-old Turkish Graduate [J2] shares that, being a Turkish-Dutch gay Muslim, he receives most understanding from fellow ‘queer Muslims’ or
other religious LGBTQ’s. For the men who do not frequent these spaces, factors like migrant generation, class, lifestyle and taste weigh stronger than the fact that these areas fit both their minority statuses:
“There once was a bar, Habibi something. It was an Arabic, Turkish bar. I have never been there (…) Look, when going out is your way to enjoy freedom than I am not limiting myself to a bar where I can be free among my conspecifics. But not just that, but also because of the taste. I mean… the music, the jokes, the level of the conversations. It does not appeal to me, so I don’t want to spend my free time there” (38-years-old Turkish Actor [K2], Amsterdam, 17-05-2016).
The respondent stresses how he did not feel the need to meet ‘like-minded’ people, i.e. other Turkish gay men or more generally bicultural gay men. With only a small number of respondents frequenting these spaces, it seems that the bicultural gay men in both cities are not significantly constrained in their everyday practices that they can only move freely in ethnic-gay spaces. This suggests that they rather successfully employ tactics of passing and avoidance, i.e. concealing one or both of their identities or preventing conflicts when being in majority spaces.
“Although I live in a neighborhood that is not the safest, I feel very safe at home (…) I can shot the door, and it is all outside, it doesn’t matter. There could be a war, waiving outside on my front doorstep and, metaphorically everyday there is”
(23-year-old college student [D1], New York City, 30-10-2015).
Figure 1: Mental map by 23-years-old college student [D1], New York City (October 2015)
Figure 2: Mental map by 44-years-old Associate Professor [L1], New York City (January 2016)
Discussion
The analyses of everyday practices of Latino gay men in New York City and Turkish and Moroccan gay men in Amsterdam suggest both similarities and differences in the way they navigate, experience and interact with heteronormative, homonormative and ethnic-gay spaces. On the one hand, the outcomes seem to depend on the men’s identities, with their ability to harmoniously manage their identities and the markedness of these identities, and at the other hand on the spaces they navigate, with the city’s morphology, demographic composition and the territorialization of specific spaces.
Both in New York City and Amsterdam, bicultural gay men appear to face an interesting paradox. In spaces with a more homogenous population – either in terms of ethnicity or sexuality - the men experience ‘othering’ on the basis of one of their minority identities. As a result, they are able to express one identity but may need to downplay the other. Of both minority identities, the everyday practices of bicultural gay men are most strongly influenced by their sexual identity. As a response, men in both cities choose to either avoid certain spaces or employ passing tactics to conceal their identities. Men in both cities have a similar notion of the attributes that marks their ethnic and sexual minority status.
Differently than hypothesized, these constrains do not necessarily mean that bicultural gay men prefer to be in ethnic-gay spaces to enjoy full membership of the norm-defining group. While only a few men in both cities frequent these spaces, it appears that Turkish and Moroccan gay men are more inclined to visit these spaces to find support among like-minded folks, mainly at the start of their coming-out process.
Besides these similarities, the results also illustrate various differences in the everyday practices of bicultural gay men in both cities. Compared to the Amsterdam men, the men in New York City navigate fewer spaces in which they are ethnically ‘othered’. While some men work in more White spaces, they often reside in neighborhoods with a large concentration of ethnic peers. With discussing the experienced gay-intolerance of these areas, the men stress the role of a low-income and low-educated population. These differences in territorialization of space partially result from contextual specificities of both cities. Relatively high rents in New York City force most men to live in more peripheral neighborhoods, which are more impoverished than the residential neighborhoods in Amsterdam. The Turkish and Moroccan gay men reside in and navigate mainly ethnic-majority or ethnically diverse spaces. As a result, they experience less constrains because of their sexual identity but do experience incidents of ethnic othering.
While men in both cities stress that religious and cultural beliefs cause their ethnic peers to be relatively less tolerant towards homosexuality, this sentiment is most significant among the Turkish and Moroccan gay men. As a result, they experience more difficulties with harmonizing their ethnic, sexual, and for some religious, identities. This also speaks from the more complex relation with their parents in terms of their sexuality and the men’s opinion on public displayed affection in relation to respecting cultural norms. Despite the more strenuous identity management of Turkish and Moroccan gay men, they do not experience more constrains than Latino gay Men. This results from the fact that the Amsterdam
men navigate fewer spaces in which their ethnic peers are the norm-defining group compared to the men in New York City.
In line with this finding, the bicultural gay men in Amsterdam face a much larger White ethnic majority population in comparison to New York City. The large Latin population makes elements of Latin cultures, such as the Spanish language, more part of majority spaces in New York City. The Dutch ethnic majority more often questions the bicultural status of second-generation Turkish and Moroccan. In these cases, the men experience that their sexual identity diminishes their status as ‘ethnic other’. This fits the frame of ‘homonationalism’ by which the tolerance towards homosexuality is used as a measure for successful integration of non-western immigrants in the ‘progressive Western society’ (see El-Tayeb, 2012).
Conclusions
By demonstrating a comparative case study between bicultural gay men in New York City and Amsterdam, this study has tried to add to the understanding of identity negotiation in socially diverse urban spaces. By researching these men from a mobilities perspective, I have shown how the navigation and experience of urban spaces is shaped by their minority identities, specifically the degree of markedness of these identities. The study shows the role of both structural factors as well as the men’s agency in negotiation their identities while moving through socially diverse urban spaces.
Living in alleged gay-tolerant cities does not imply that bicultural gay men are not constrained in their everyday practices. Depending on the space they are in, one of their minority identities may provide access while their other identity might constrain them. Men who reside or navigate spaces with a large concentration of ethnic peers are more able to express their ethnic identity, but may need to conceal their sexual identity. When living in more ethnic majority spaces, bicultural gay men are less constrained by their sexuality, but might be more easily ethnically othered.
Secondly, it depends on the salience of their identities and how they are negotiated spatially. Bicultural gay men may have a different understanding of their sexual identity and their coming-out process than the understanding of mainstream society. The salience of their identities and their everyday practices seem to be mutual related. For men whose sexual identity is very important, it tends to shape their everyday practices more than the men who argue their sexual identity is only a small part of who they are. Simultaneously, the meaning that is attached to their everyday practices on its turn also feeds their identities.
Thirdly, their everyday practices are strongly shaped by the markedness of their minority identities. While bicultural gay men may self-identify similarly, it is the markedness of their minority statuses that affects their everyday practices. The men employ passing tactics to negotiate their identities spatially. More specifically, they negotiate the visibility of their identities. Some men are less able to mask their minority statuses hence are more easily identifiable as a non-member in majority spaces. These factors suggest that bicultural gay men do not necessarily have to frequent liminal spaces to be able to move freely. The men who do frequent ethnic-gay spaces are mostly motivated by personal preferences.
This study also raises new questions with regard to the role of social-economic class status in the everyday practices of bicultural gay men. The high level of education and the professions of the men in this study indicate that the majority obtains a middle-class position. This seems to come with a relatively high mobility, which enables bicultural gay men to live more self-sustaining lives in more gay-tolerate spaces. It also enables them to easily navigate different spaces to cater to one of their identities while temporarily concealing their other identity. Future research would greatly benefit from focusing specifically on the everyday practices of bicultural gay men with lower human, social and economic capital.
Bibliography
Burawoy, M. (1998). The Extended Case Method. Sociological Theory, 16, 1, 4-33. Brekhus, W.H. (2003). Peacocks, chameleons, centaurs: gay suburbia and the grammer of social identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caluya, G. (2008). The Rice Steamer: race, desire and affect in Sydney’s gay scene.
Australian Geographer, 39, 3, 283-292.
Certeau, M. de (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Collie, N. (2013). Walking in the city: urban space, stories, and gender. Gender
Forum, 42, 1-7.
Crang, M. (2011). Michel de Certeau, pp.106-112. In Hubbard, P. & Kitchin, R. (eds.) Key Thinkers on Space and Place. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Crawley, S.L. and Broad, K.L. (2008). The Construction of Sex and Sexualities. In Holstein J.A. & Gubrium J.F. (eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research, 545-66. New York: Guilford Press.
Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 28, 17-31.
Decena, C. (2008). Tacit subjects. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 14,
2-3, 339-359.
Duyvendak, J.W. (2011). The Politics of Home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Western Europe and the United States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Drucker, P. (2011). The Fracturing of LGBT Identities under Neoliberal Capitalism.
Historical Materialism, 19, 4, 3-32.
El-Tayeb, F. (2012). Gays who cannot properly be gay: Queer Muslims in the neoliberal European city. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 19, 1, 79-95. Foner, N., Raht, J., Duyvendak, J.W. & Reekum, van R. (2014). New York and Amsterdam, immigration and the new urban landscape. New York: New York Press. Gerring, J. (2006). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: UP.
Ghaziani, A. (2014). There goes the gayborhood? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goode-Cross, D.T. & Tager, D. (2011). Negotiating multiple identities: How African-American gay and bisexual men persist at a redominantly white institution. Journal
of Homosexuality, 58, 9, 1235-1254.
Gorman-Murray, A. & Nash, C.J. (2014). Mobile places, relational space: conceptualizing change in Sydney’s LGBTQ neighborhoods. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32, 622-641.
Gutsche, R.E. (2014). News place-making: applying ‘mental mapping’ to explore the journalistic interpretive community. Visual Communication 13, 4, 487-510.
Hekma, G. (2007). De benen wijd, de stem naar beneden. Sociologie, 3, 81-94. Hubbard, P. (2012), Cities and Sexualities. New York: Routledge.
Hubbard, P., Gorman-Murray, A. & Nash, C.J. (2015). Cities and sexualities. In DeLamater, J. & Plante R.F. (eds.) Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities, 287-303. New York: Springer.
Huijnk, W. (2014). De acceptatie van homoseksualiteit door etnische en religieuze
groepen in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Jaspal, R. (2012). ‘I never faced up to being gay’: sexual, religious and ethnic identities among British Indian and British Pakistani gay men. Culture, Health &
Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 14, 7,
767-780.
Jaspal, R. & Siraj, A. (2011). Perceptions of ‘coming out’ among British Muslim gay men. Psychology & Sexuality, 2, 3, 183-197.
Kennedy, H.R. & Dalla, R.L. (2014). Examining identity consolidation processes among ethnic minority gay men and lesbians. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 26, 4, 465-501.
Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4, 3, 455-485.
Maliepaard, E. (2015). Bisexuals in space and geography: more-than-queer? Fennia,
193, 1, 148-159.
Manalansan, M.F. (2003). Global Divas: Filipino Gay Men in the Diaspora. Durham: Duke University Press.
Nash, C.J. & Gorman-Murray, A. (2014). LGBT neighbourhoods and ‘New Mobilities’: towards understanding transformations in sexual and gendered urban landscapes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 3, 756-772. Nash, C.J. & Gorman-Murray, A. (2015). Lesbians in the city: mobilities and relational geographies. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 19, 2, 173-191.
Paul M Ed, P.L. & Frieden, G. (2008). The lived experience of gay identity development: a phenomenological study. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 2,
1, 26-52.
Pfeffer, C.A. (2014). “I Don’t Like Passing as a Straight Woman”: Queer Negotiations of Identity and Social Group Membership. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 1, 1-44.
Pierik, C., Boote M. & Hoof J. van (2015). De kastdeur op een kier: seksuele en genderdiversiteit in multicultureel Nederland. Utrecht: Movisie.
Raanan, M.G. & Shoval, N. (2014). Mental maps compared to actual spatial behavior using GPS data: A new method for investigating segregation in cities. Cities, 36, 28– 40.
Reinders, L. (2015). Re-imagining Nieuwland: narrative mapping and everyday urban space in a Dutch multi-ethnic neighborhood.
Reinders, L.G.A.J. (2015). “Re-imagining Nieuwland: Narrative Mapping and the Mental Geography of Urban Space in a Dutch Multi-ethnic Neighbourhood.” In Fischer-Nebmaier, W., Berg, M.P. & Christou, A. (eds.) Narrating the City: Histories, Space and the Everyday, 97-135. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Rodriguez, C.E. (2000). Changing Race: latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York Univeristy Press.
Rust, P.C. (2000). Make Me a Map. Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 2-3, 47-108.
Schnoor, R.F. (2006). Being gay and Jewish: negotiating intersecting identities.
Sociology of Religion, 67, 1, 43-60.
Tersteeg, A.K. & Pinkster, F. (2015). Us Up Here and Them Down There”: How Design, Management, and Neighborhood Facilities Shape Social Distance in a Mixed-Tenure Housing Development. Urban Affairs Review, 1-29.
The Guardian (2015). LGBT-friendly cities, hotels, restaurants and clubs: readers’ travel tips [online]. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/oct/15/lgbt-lesbian-gay-travel-tips [accessed 01-07-2016].
Valentine, G. (1993). Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time-space strategies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18, 2, 237-248.
Van Duppen, J. & Spierings B. (2013). Retracing trajectories: the embodied experience of cycling, urban sensescapes and the commute between ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘city’ in Utrecht, NL. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 234-243.
Verwey-Jonker, H. (1971). Allochtonen in Nederland: beschouwingen over de gerepatrieerden, Molukkers, Surinamers, Antillianen, buitenlandse werknemers, Chinezen, vluchtelingen, buitenlandse studenten in onze samenleving. Den Haag: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk.
Yanow, D. & Van Der Haar, M. (2012). People out of place: allochtony and autochtony in the Netherlands’ identity discourse – metaphors and categoris in action. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16, 2, 227-261.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
