, 赵楠北京大学城市与环境学院,北京 100871
The social space and network of homosexual groups in context of postmodern geography: A case study of Beijing
FENGJian, ZHAONian收稿日期:2015-07-24
修回日期:2016-05-6
网络出版日期:2016-11-28
版权声明:2016《地理学报》编辑部本文是开放获取期刊文献，在以下情况下可以自由使用：学术研究、学术交流、科研教学等，但不允许用于商业目的.
基金资助:
作者简介:
-->
展开
摘要
关键词：
Abstract
Keywords：
-->0
PDF (2011KB)元数据多维度评价相关文章收藏文章
本文引用格式导出EndNoteRisBibtex收藏本文-->
1 引言
同性恋社会空间是城市亚文化空间研究的重要领域。国外相关领域的研究兴起于20世纪80年代初期,早期研究主要关注城市中的同性恋场所（以同性恋酒吧为代表）[1],此后随着同性恋社群不断壮大,****们开始关注城市中同性恋者集聚的区域[2-4],并引发对城市空间权力的思考[5-6],同性恋聚居区被看作边缘群体反抗主流话语的空间载体,被赋予独特的政治、经济和社会含义。20世纪90年代以来,中国社会对同性恋的态度开始发生转变,法律上的“非罪化”和医学上的“去病理化”为同性恋群体提供了相对宽松的社会环境。在此背景下,涌现出大量以同性恋为题材的影视、文艺作品,同性恋社群活动、同性恋婚礼、名人“出柜”①等新闻也屡屡登上媒体头条,同性恋群体的可见度、被接纳程度和群体自身的身份认同有了明显提升。国内的同性恋社会空间研究在此背景下发展起来,特别是2000年以来,研究的数量和深度都有显著提升[7],有些研究已开始关注城市亚文化空间中文化生产过程及城市中的空间政治[8-11]。特别是近年来,中国一些大城市中形成了同性恋群体聚集的场所和街区,为相关研究开展提供了条件。但是,西方文献中所形成的一些著名论断,如“同性恋聚居区（Gay Ghettos）”、“同性恋的城市本质”等还缺少中国的回应。另外,如何从后现代地理的语境和视角来审视中国的同性恋空间并解读其形成机制?这些问题都有待于进一步探讨,也引发了本文
的研究问题。本文以北京作为实证研究地区,采用参与观察、问卷调查、深度访谈等研究方法,尝试从后现代地理的语境来解读同性恋社会空间与社交网络,从性别话语权视角提供对城市空间的认识和理解,并对西方文献中的相关论断进行回应。
2 文献综述与理论框架
2.1 同性恋社群与社会空间形态
城市亚文化和边缘群体的社会空间形态,是衡量社会公平的重要量度。同性恋空间,作为城市亚文化和边缘群体空间研究的重要领域,经过30多年的发展,已经成为城市社会空间研究的经典话题[12]。从同性恋空间研究热点的演变,能够清晰地解读出城市中同性恋群体空间权力扩张的过程,从一个侧面反映出边缘群体生存状况的不断改善。对同性恋社群的研究发轫于20世纪中叶,但直至20世纪80年代,同性恋群体在城市空间中几乎是失语的,实质上体现了在此之前同性恋群体公共权力的缺失。1969年“石墙(Stonewall)事件”,乃至美国20世纪70年代的“性解放”之后,同性恋组织和团体在公共领域为同性恋群体争取到更多权力,一些西方城市中开始出现越来越多的同性恋社交场所,并很快引起了研究者们的关注。最初,同性恋社会空间在城市中呈零星的点状分布,其中最典型也最先受到广泛关注的是同性恋酒吧[1, 13]。****们意识到同性恋酒吧以及其他类型的社交场所对同性恋社群不仅具有重要的正面意义[14-16],也会产生不良影响[17],既为同性恋者提供了难得的接触社群的机会,也带来艾滋病、毒品蔓延的风险。
此后,随着同性恋平权运动的推进及公众观念的转变,一些大城市中,同性恋社群不断壮大,并逐渐被主流社会接纳,城市中的同性恋社会空间也呈现出由点到面的扩张趋势。西方一些城市中形成了同性恋者聚居区[2-4],近年来,在中国一些大城市中也形成了类似的同性恋场所和街区[8]。同性恋场所与街区在城市中的位置、空间形态正是不同权力主体碰撞与互动的结果[5-6],体现了这些权力主体在城市空间中力量的相对强弱关系。
在“酷儿理论”和城市更新的双重背景下,同性恋街区的动态演化过程具有一定的特殊性[18]。在城市更新的过程中,旧街区的改建和功能升级都可能造成原有的同性恋街区的迁移或消失,表面上直接影响到同性恋者及其他利益相关者的切身利益[2, 19-21],更深层的影响会造成城市空间中权力关系的动荡。同性恋聚居区作为边缘群体反抗主流话语的空间载体,具有独特的政治、经济和社会含义,在城市更新的进程中,同性恋者及其他边缘群体的空间权利是否应得到保障,是值得城市规划领域思考的问题。此外,同样重要的是,除了中心化的、集聚的空间,城市中更加广泛存在的是分散化的、私人的空间,这种私人化的空间是同性恋群体与主流文化抗争和妥协的另一种空间形态[22],而这方面受到的关注还很少。
2.2 同性恋街区与多元性别空间构建
即便是在对同性恋相对宽松的西方国家大城市中,男—女二元性别以及基于二元性别的性关系在城市空间中仍处于霸权地位,并对其他类型的性别和性关系形成强烈挤压。同性恋城市空间研究作为一个性/别的议题,提出重构城市性/别空间的多种可能性。正因如此,同性恋城市空间研究自起步以来便成为女权主义地理学[23]、性别地理学[24-25],以及酷儿理论[26]等领域的热点话题,随着人类对性/别认识的不断发展被频繁讨论,以至于一些****认为同性恋议题集中了过多的学界关注,使这些领域的研究反而因此受到了局限[27-28]。从酷儿地理学的视角来看,同性恋街区不仅是同性恋者进行圈内社交活动和树立自身性取向认同感的场所[16],也以其空间实体对异性恋主导的城市文化提供补充,提出对性与性别的多元化理解[11]。从这一角度看,同性恋空间研究与女权主义地理学在质疑主流空间话语在城市中的霸权地位、提出对性与性别的多元化思考等议题上不谋而合,也因此受到女权主义地理学界的关注。
同性恋社会空间在城市中最初以相对分散的场所形式出现,在原本相对均质的城市空间中形成了与异性恋空间对峙的文化孤岛,如果说同性恋场所的出现是对异性恋话语的城市空间提出质疑的话,那么同性恋街区的形成则是向多元化的城市性别空间进一步的探索。同性恋群体通过创造游离于主流城市空间之外的同性恋社区,为自己争取更多的生存空间,同时也在有限的空间内为处于边缘的性少数话语争取到主流地位。从整个城市的层面看,同性恋社会空间与主流的异性恋社会空间并存。因此,同性恋街区形成和扩展的过程即是从性别范畴对城市社会空间的重塑[29-31]。
近些年,一些城市中,已经可以看到新的“酷儿街区”（queer neighborhoods）、同性恋友好街区形成。与旧的同性恋集聚区相比,新的“酷儿街区”是对各种性别与性取向都更开放的空间,试图消弭各性少数群体与异性恋之间的、不同生理性别与性别认同间的矛盾与隔阂,营造更友好的城市性别空间。现实中,新的“酷儿街区”与传统的同性恋集聚区并存[32-33],正体现了城市空间在性取向方面正在变得更富包容性、更民主。
值得一提的是,地理学界对跨性别者的关注起步较晚,但实际上跨性别者社会空间研究中对性别的讨论走得更远。不仅涉及到对男女二分的城市性别空间的批判[34-35],也更多地揭示了性少数群体社会空间的主观性和表演性[36]。
2.3 同性恋社区与社交网络演化
同性恋社区的形成与瓦解是“内力”与“外力”作用下的结果。“内力”来自同性恋社群内部。与异性恋者相比,同性恋者由于身份认同不足、缺乏与社群交流的途径,在社会交往方面往往面临更大障碍[37-38],存在对专属于同性恋社群的城市空间的需求。而来自社群外部的“外力”可以理解为宏观的社会环境,也包括城市政府与居民对性少数群体的态度。在对同性恋者不友好的环境中,同性恋者在城市空间中“现身”极有可能面临身份被迫公开,进而引发法律、家庭、社会等层面的巨大风险[39-40],同性恋群体需要相对私密的、“同性恋化”的空间容纳自己的身份,同性恋场所与同性恋街区就成为同性恋者与圈内人建立社交关系的重要空间[10]。因此,同性恋社区的形成其实是对同性恋群体不友好的外部社会环境与同性恋社群内部的社交需求共同促成的。从国内外对同性恋社会空间的实证研究可以看出,事实上,大多数同性恋场所和同性恋街区维持的时间并不长。造成同性恋社区消失的原因很多,可能是纯粹城市经济的因素,如该街区地价上涨,导致部分盈利能力不强的同性恋社交场所关闭,或旧城改造过程中整个街区拆除重建,重建后原先的同性恋社区一般无法恢复。也有可能是社会环境的变化,当外部社会——特别是当地政府与城市管理者——对同性恋社群抱强烈反对的态度,收紧对同性恋场所的管理,大批场所无法继续经营下去。但另一方面,随着社会观念的变化,对同性恋群体的态度由负面转向正面,同性恋者们越来越多地从与异性恋的社交关系中获得支持[41],这一变化也有可能带来同性恋场所、同性恋社区的瓦解[42],而且可能是最终的瓦解。
同性恋社区对同性恋社群最重要的意义在于,更多的社交活动和社交资源有利于同性恋者对自身性取向认同的建立[43]。虽然不同类型、形式的社交网络带来的效果也有所差别[44],但同性恋社交网络毫无疑问是同性恋者获得外界支持的重要来源[45]。同性恋者一般倾向于以不同的同性恋场所与社区为主要载体,逐步搭建起自己“同性恋化”的社交网络,但在空间上,同性恋群体的社交活动并不局限于同性恋街区[14]。通常所说的“同性恋社区”更多是依靠同性恋社群内部复杂的社会网络而非空间临近关系建立起来的[45],同性恋社区越来越倾向于以个人为中心构建的社交网络,而非社区中所有人紧密联系的共同体[46]。因此,在考察同性恋社会网络时,应将主要的关注点集中在“主体性”,而非“社区性”,即更多关注个人如何组织、利用和维护周边的社会网络。
可以沿着“社会”和“空间”两个层面搭建同性恋空间研究的理论框架（图1）。在社会层面上,同性恋个体通过集聚形成群体,通过个体之间的交往建立社交网络和关系圈;在空间层面上,物理的场所扮演了一定的空间角色。在后现代地理学语境下,场所会形成地方情感,而同性恋社群积极与主流的异性恋争取其话语权,获得相应的社会公正。总之,“社会”和“空间”两个层面上的因素会相互作用,再现了亚文化与城市空间的互动关系以及城市边缘群体获取相对公平的社会空间形态的过程,也是对社会—空间辩证法的新的诠释。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图1本研究的理论框架
-->Fig. 1The theoretical framework of this research
-->
3 研究区、研究方法与调查
本文选取北京作为研究区。截至2014年底,北京市总人口为2151.6万人,其中外来人口818.7万人。北京市共有16个区县,其中城六区（东城、西城、朝阳、海淀、丰台、石景山）是城市建设和人口问题最集中的区域。本研究主要针对城六区以内的同性恋场所及参与者进行调查。本文采用质性研究和定量分析相结合的方法开展研究。在3个不同类型的同性恋社交场所,即牡丹园（公园）、Alfa酒吧（酒吧）、北京同志中心(同志,是同性恋社群内部用来替代“同性恋者”的词汇,使用过程中含义已扩展为男同性恋者、女同性恋者、双性恋者与跨性别者等性少数群体的总称。同志中心是为各类性少数群体提供服务的民间公益组织。)（NGO活动中心）,共发放162份问卷,回收有效问卷154份。其中无效问卷产生的主要原因是被调查者填写信息不全,或误解了问卷中的问题。在回收的有效问卷中,牡丹园55份,Alfa酒吧42份,北京同志中心57份。问卷调查由于在3类同性恋社交场所进行,因而被调查者大多为经常出入这些场所的人士,具备较强自我认同水平,年龄集中于20~30岁,受教育程度相对较高。与此同时,对22位与北京同性恋社群关联度高的受访者进行了深入的个体访谈,建立访谈文本数据库。
中国的同性恋群体由于面对社会和家庭各方面的压力,对问卷调查的戒备和排斥心理较强,给研究的开展带来较大难度。深度访谈调查涉及到被调查者对个人隐私暴露的担忧,难度极大。考虑到搜集样本的难度,本研究问卷调查的样本量虽然有限,但与前人同类研究相比已有较大突破,且较为均衡地覆盖到了不同类型的社交场所。22位受访者包括18位同性恋、2位双性恋、1位泛性恋,及1位与同性恋群体交往密切的异性恋者,受访者基本情况如表1所示。
Tab. 1
表1
表1访谈样本信息
Tab. 1Basic information of interviewees
| 编号 | 访谈时间 | 基本信息 |
|---|---|---|
| 样本1 | 2013-4-20 | 男,40岁,同性恋,未婚,从事金融行业,在北京生活约20年 |
| 样本2 | 2013-4-13 | 男,28岁,同性恋,未婚,业务员 |
| 样本3 | 2013-4-13 | 男,30岁,同性恋,未婚,同志NGO志愿者 |
| 样本4 | 2013-4-06 | 女,26岁,异性恋,网店客服 |
| 样本5 | 2013-4-06 | 男,28岁,同性恋,未婚,北京人 |
| 样本6 | 2013-4-20 | 男,30多岁,同性恋,未婚,从事保险业,在京工作5年 |
| 样本7 | 2013-5-03 | 男,28岁,同性恋,未婚,在京居住5年 |
| 样本8 | 2013-3-17 | 女,27岁,同性恋,未婚,心理咨询师 |
| 样本9 | 2013-3-17 | 女,20岁,同性恋,大学生 |
| 样本10 | 2013-5-18 | 男,40岁,同性恋,未婚,在京居住10年 |
| 样本11 | 2013-5-17 | 男,40岁左右,同性恋,未婚,在北京工作十余年,大学时期向家人出柜 |
| 样本12 | 2013-5-19 | 男,20多岁,同性恋,未婚,化妆师,北京人 |
| 样本13 | 2013-4-05 | 女,22岁,同性恋,大学生 |
| 样本14 | 2013-5-11 | 男,35岁,双性恋,未婚,某NGO工作人员 |
| 样本15 | 2013-4-17 | 女,26岁,泛性恋,未婚,某NGO工作人员 |
| 样本16 | 2013-4-14 | 女,21岁,同性恋,大学生 |
| 样本17 | 2013-5-17 | 男,30多岁,双性恋,已婚,有子女,自由职业者 |
| 样本18 | 2013-4-20 | 男,50多岁,同性恋,已婚,有子女,公司高级管理人员 |
| 样本19 | 2013-6-06 | 男,20多岁,同性恋,未婚,在国外生活数年,回国后在北京居住1年 |
| 样本20 | 2013-5-19 | 男,35岁左右,同性恋,未婚,私营企业经理 |
| 样本21 | 2013-5-19 | 男,45岁左右,同性恋,离异,HIV感染者 |
| 样本22 | 2013-6-02 | 男,23岁,同性恋,大学生 |
新窗口打开
在154份有效问卷中,涉及同性恋者132位,占被调查者总数的85.7%;双性恋者16位,占10.4%;泛性恋6位,占3.9%。共涉及跨性别者8位,占被调查者总数的5.2%。被调查者生理性别、年龄、月收入、受教育水平分布如表2所示。
Tab. 2
表2
表2被调查者性别、年龄、收入、受教育水平分布
Tab. 2Distribution of interviewees' gender, age, income and education
| 组别 | 比例(%) | 组别 | 比例(%) | 组别 | 比例(%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 生理 性别 | 女 | 9.1 | 性别 认同 | 女 | 12.3 | 性取向 | 同性恋 | 85.7 |
| 男 | 90.9 | 男 | 86.7 | 双性恋 | 10.4 | |||
| 其他 | 0.0 | 其他 | 2.0 | 泛性恋 | 3.9 | |||
| 年龄 | 20岁以下 | 12.3 | 月收入 | 3000元以下 | 33.1 | 受教育 水平 | 小学及以下 | 1.3 |
| 20~30岁 | 66.2 | 3000~5000元 | 35.7 | 初中 | 8.5 | |||
| 30~40岁 | 18.2 | 5000~8000元 | 20.8 | 高中 | 24.0 | |||
| 40岁以上 | 3.3 | 8000~20000元 | 5.8 | 大学 | 53.9 | |||
| 20000元以上 | 4.6 | 研究生 | 12.3 |
新窗口打开
4 社会空间：同性恋场所的形成与空间角色扮演
4.1 社交场所的分布
根据访谈资料,整理出北京主要的同性恋场所分布和同性恋活动集中的片区（图2）。在北京五环以内,同性恋群体活动的片区主要有：海淀区五道口附近的高校密集区、三里屯的酒吧集聚区、四惠一带的女同性恋活动密集区、双井—劲松居住区、鼓楼休闲文化场所集聚区,以及地铁1号线西段沿线。虽然访谈样本有限,但图2基本上显示出北京同性恋场所和片区空间集聚的大致态势。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图2北京主要的同性恋社交场所和同性恋群体活动重要片区分布
-->Fig. 2The distribution of homosexual venues and neighborhoods in Beijing
-->
20世纪80、90年代,北京同性恋场所类型局限于公园、公厕、洗浴中心等。20世纪90年代末同性恋酒吧开始发展,并迅速成为北京同性恋群体最重要的集聚场所。近年来还出现了同志友好咖啡厅、同性恋活动中心等新形式的场所,独立剧场、文化沙龙等先锋文化交流场所也开始成为同性恋群体喜爱的聚会地点。从这一趋势可以看出,随时间推移,北京的同性恋社交场所的功能由单纯为同性恋群体提供性行为的场所,逐渐向多元类型演变,体现了同性恋群体寻求性体验和性伙伴之外的社交需求在不断增加。但另一方面,活动中心、文化沙龙等侧重文化交流类的场所由于受众有限,现阶段很难成为同性恋社交场所的主流形式。
如果谁研究研究（同性恋群体的）厕所文学应该很有意思,不知道你有没有听过这么一个说法,中国的同性恋文化是“厕所文化”,我倒觉得这没什么不好。这也算是“中国特色”吧,对同志群体的歧视和打击让我们群体只能在边缘求生存,倒形成了这么个独特的文化景观。（样本1,2013-4-20）
（活动中心）我知道,没去过,那儿太高档了,不是我们这种人去的。就是过去也和人说不上话,没意思。（样本21,2013-5-19）
以这些同性恋社交场所为载体,同性恋群体构建起独立于日常社交网络之外的社交关系,并最终在不同的场所中,形成不同气氛、不同紧密程度和不同交往方式的“同性恋社区”。
常来这里的人相互都认识,有的人是到处跑,但我自己没那个精力,在这里认识的人多了也就懒得去其他地方玩了,都是熟人,在一起聊聊天,自在。（样本17,2013-5-17）
你来这些点儿调查呀,必须得有人带着你,要不人家不知道你干什么的,还以为你是便衣（警察）呢。有熟人带着就好办多了,这里的人都抱团,你认识一个,其他人就信任你,给你做调查就是帮朋友个忙,自己也没损失,是吧?（样本11,2013-5-17）
4.2 社交场所的类型分异
北京市同性恋场所的形成主要有3种形式。（1）自由发展型 早期的同性恋场所几乎都是长期自然发展形成的,一个有规模的“点儿”(“点儿”为同性恋社群内部的暗语,即同性恋者聚集的社交场所。)（即场所）往往要经过几年时间才能形成和发展起来。
（2）群体推动型 自由发展型的同性恋场所往往出现在交通条件好的繁华地段,随着近20年来中国城市空间的快速蔓延,越来越多的人居住在大城市郊区,同性恋群体对场所的需求很大,而且要求最好能较为均匀地分布在各个地段。场所自然的发展速度无法满足群体需求,于是社群开始探寻自主创造同性恋场所的方式。“创造”同性恋场所的一般途径是：一个或几个在圈中较有影响力的同性恋者物色一处环境适宜的地方,如小树林、公园等,积极散播该处是“点儿”的消息,同时在一段时间内聚集一些圈中朋友在该处活动,使听到消息后来“踩点”的同性恋者信以为真,消息散布得更加广泛,该处便很快发展成一个真正的同性恋聚集地。
以前的“名媛”里面有好多风云人物,看上哪儿合适,就到处说那儿是个“点儿”,然后叫一帮朋友过来,天天在那儿“蹲点儿”,他们说头十天一定得给顶住了。要有人过去了一看,唉,还真是,就一传十、十传百,往后就不用他们的人过去守着了。（样本11,2013-5-17）
（3）自主经营型 一些经济实力雄厚的同性恋者选择自己经营同性恋酒吧、咖啡厅等同性恋场所,由于熟悉社群需求,服务社群的同时也获得了大量的经济收益。经营性的社交场所虽然收取一定的费用,但对参与者来说多了一重安全性的保障。
同性恋场所形成后,在长期发展过程中逐渐形成其专属的标签,即不同场所参与者的属性存在较为明显的差异。首先,不同类型的场所本身针对的群体就有明显差异。
拉拉(“拉拉”,及下文“gay”,分别为对女同性恋者、男同性恋者的口语化称呼。)聚会的地方跟gay不一样,除了酒吧以外,拉拉更喜欢有情调和有文化氛围的地方。现在有许多不完全是同性恋的场所,比如书吧、沙龙、剧场,也有许多拉拉喜欢过去玩。（样本15,2013-4-17）
问卷显示,酒吧的参与者中,30岁以下的占90%左右,其中20~25岁最多,占到了38%;而公园的参与者虽然以25~30岁为最多,但各年龄段均有分布;活动中心与酒吧相似,但30岁以上的参与者比例高于酒吧。3种场所参与者学历分布的差异较为明显,酒吧参与者中学学历（包括初中、高中和中专）占80%,总的来说,参与者的学历较低。公园的参与者各层次分布较为均匀。同性恋活动中心的参与者受教育水平最为集中,大学和研究生学历的占到了近90%。
我曾经有个男朋友,现在单身。我们在E公园认识的。在杂志上看到的介绍说E公园是个挺有名的点儿,来北京之前根本不知道还有这样的地方。（同性恋）酒吧我也去过几次,主要是想看看和我一样的这部分人是怎样生活的,那里大多是二十出头的年轻人,他们比较闹,像我这样的很难交到朋友。（样本6,2013-4-20）
相同类型场所在长期发展过程中也出现了分异现象。这种差异最初形成与场所的地理位置、周边社区的性质和特点联系紧密。而当特点初步形成后,会进一步吸引其他区域该种身份（或乐意结交该种身份）的人群,使得场所的属性进一步凸显
如北京市同性恋群体聚集的公园较多,各区都有分布,不同区域的公园活动人群也不同。普遍认为海淀区以年轻人为主,特别是学生所占比例较大,如位于某大学校园内的著名景点,环境幽雅,深受该大学及周边高校大学生同性恋群体喜爱,一些受教育水平较高、喜欢与大学生交往的同性恋者也时常光顾,聊天交友、感受校园氛围,维持并增进了场所文雅的“气质”。除此之外,石景山区的公园集聚拆迁户较多,参与者受教育水平普遍不高,而通州区的同性恋场所则以白领阶层为主。
4.3 空间中的角色扮演
社会—文化地理****认为,在生活中相对存在“前台”和“后台”的概念,“前台”是人们进行角色扮演的空间,是抽象的制度化的产物,而“后台”则是这种“制度化产物”失控的表现[47]。对同性恋者来讲,前台更接近其社会属性,是其扮演的社会角色,后台更接近其真实的性取向。一个很有意思的发现是,同性恋者在同性恋场所和日常生活这两种场景中,不仅同时存在前台和后台的功能,而且还存在相反的角色反转路径（表3）。具体而言,在现实生活场景中,同性恋者接受自己的社会属性,包括扮演异性恋角色（即前台）,但往往要伪装自己真实的性取向（即后台）;在同性恋场所中,他们会接受自己的性取向,展现自己真实的一面（后台）,但伪装自己的社会属性,扮演一个更加理想化的自己,如本来是打工者却谎称自己是高管（前台）。Tab. 3
表3
表3不同场景中同性恋空间角色的扮演
Tab. 3The spatial roles of homosexual in different scenes
| 不同的场景 | 前台：社会属性和扮演的社会角色 | 后台：展现真实自我 | 角色扮演及反演路径 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 日常生活 | 作为“前台” | “前台”的功能 | 作为“后台” | “后台”的功能 | 接受现实的社会角色,伪装异性恋身份 |
| 扮演异性恋者,或努力使性格、气质与生理性别相符 | 满足社会和家庭的期望,获得以同性恋身份难以获得的个人成就和社会认可 | 承认现实世界种种约束的存在,并在约束下维持正常的工作生活 | 搭建物质生活与精神世界的基础;履行家庭、职业和社会责任 | ||
| 同性恋场所 | 作为“前台” | “前台”的功能 | 作为“后台” | “后台”的功能 | 伪装社会角色,接受同性恋身份 |
| 隐藏真实身份,通过虚构与加工,创造出一个较为理想化的自我,并积极扮演这一角色 | 自我隐藏;摆脱现实桎梏,实现理想中的“我”。避风港与乌托邦的双重功能 | 展示自己真实的性取向和真实的性格、气质 | 对在现实生活中受到压抑的自我的释放 | ||
新窗口打开
在同性恋场所中,进行角色反转的原因在于,当前中国社会总体上对同性恋者包容度仍然不高。在同性恋场所中,参与者彼此的信任感有限,透露的往往是虚假的或经过加工的信息,一方面为了自我保护,另一方面也是由于不满自身现状,虚构出了一个较为理想的自己。参与者在同心恋场所中扮演着一个与现实脱节的、较为理想化的角色,场所对他们而言是远离现实生活困扰的乌托邦。值得注意的是,参与者能够自由表现自己真实的性取向,其信心和安全感的来源很大程度上恰恰是由于场所“前台”的属性,参与者隐藏了真实的个人信息,因而可以毫无顾忌地展示自己真实的一面。
调查者在北京多个同志公园中多次遇到一位男同性恋者,他的动作、神态在笔者和周围人看来较为“女性化”,他称自己为“牡丹”。谈论到性别意识时,他说道：“你别看我在这里是这样,可我一走出这个公园大门马上变得特别爷们儿。总有小姑娘追着我跟我搭讪呢,可是没办法啊,我就是这么一个人,怎么办呢,我就是万人迷。”旁边有另一位男同性恋者问他：“我们这群人里面就你赚钱最多,你公司的人要是知道你在外面是这样会不会把他们都给吓死?”他没有直接回答,而是开玩笑说：“我们就是一个小作坊,你说的好像我开着多大的公司一样,其实总共也没有几个人。”过了一会儿他又补充说：“就只有4个人。”
这种“前台”和“后台”、虚构和真实的相互渗透,营造出同性恋场所亦真亦幻的社交氛围。
4.4 从“空间”到“地方”
“空间”是一种抽象的概念,而“地方”则是“价值的凝聚”[48]。即对于一个客观的“空间”,每个人出于自身经验,形成不同的解读方式[49],以此形成“地方感”。同性恋场所相对于个体和群体而言,都存在从“空间”到“地方”的演变过程。对多数受访者而言,最初加入同性恋社交场所时,所感受到的只是由环境、人群、活动等元素所构成的物理空间,当多次参加聚会和活动、与他人接触交流后,一方面对场所的环境越来越熟悉,建立了与场所间的关联感;另一方面,结交了一批同志朋友,以场所为载体,逐渐搭建起自己的“圈子”。此时,场所对参与者而言,不再是客观的物理空间,而演变成为了充满主观体验和情感依恋的“地方”。
对同性恋群体而言,许多场所最初只是缺乏性别含义的城市空间,当这些空间通过不同的方式,自然或人为地被赋予了“同性恋”属性后,对同性恋者产生了崭新的含义与吸引力,随着场所规模扩大和知名度提高,“同性恋场所”的标签进一步固化,从相对均质的城市空间中脱离出来,成为同性恋者在城市中的“避风港”,场所因此具有了性别特征。
随着场所由“空间”向“地方”演变,场所中的人不再是分散的个体,而是形成了一个或几个团体,相互倾诉烦恼、互帮互助,给场所增添了社区感,但这种关联和“社区感”有明显的边界,仅存在于场所及周边小片区域,场所内以类似社团形式组织起来的参与者,在场所外往往形同路人。
5 社交网络：同性恋群体的社交图景
5.1 社交网络特点及与空间的关系
5.1.1 同性恋社交网络特点 同性恋者之间的社交方式和社交网络构建形式与异性恋群体相比存在较大差异。最显著的特点是同性恋群体的社交活动对互联网的依赖性极强。相比实体空间,网络社区可以隐藏真实身份,又可以根据自己的情况和社群维持适当距离,较为安全,而且无需付出过多时间成本。因而,互联网成为许多同性恋者与社群接触的重要途径,甚至是唯一途径。
年轻人现在多数应该都是在网上用社交软件交友吧,Jack'd、Grindr,现在流行的就是这些。用软件可以随时随地和世界各地的同志交流,大家用英文沟通。（样本19,2013-6-6）
网络才是我们同志的“大本营”呢！毕竟像有些人有老婆孩子,有事业有地位,出来玩顾虑很多。在网上没人用真名,聊得投机了就约出来,不想见面一拉黑就再也找不到你了。（样本5,2013-4-6）
根据问卷调查结果（图3）,40.3%的被调查者认为网络是他们与其他同性恋者交流的最重要方式,63.7%的被调查者使用不止1种软件或网络平台与同性恋社群交流。由于所有问卷都是在实体社交场所中发放的,实际上许多同性恋者仅使用互联网与社群交流,从不涉足或很少涉足实体的同性恋场所,因此,北京同性恋群体中上述两个数字还会更高。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图3被调查者与其他同性恋者保持交往的最长时间
-->Fig. 3The result of questionnaire: the duration of your longest friendship with homosexual people
-->
此外,同性恋社交网络的不稳定性较强,即同性恋者间较难建立长期的稳定的爱人或朋友关系。问卷调查中,44.8%的被调查者与同为同性恋身份的朋友最长交往时间在一年以下。北京同性恋群体内部社交关系倾向于短期性和不稳定性的原因,主要有三个方面：首先,同性恋者间交往多倾向于隐藏真实身份,难以建立信任感;其次,同性恋社交网络多以特定场所为载体,很少互留联系方式;另外,对于不愿“出柜”的同性恋者而言,与同性恋群体的社交网络对日常生活构成威胁,主观上刻意避免和圈内朋友发展稳定、深入的关系。
5.1.2 同性恋社交网络与空间的关联 与异性恋群体相比,同性恋群体间的社会交往关系显著依赖于特定的场所,同性恋者很少互留联系方式,通过经常光顾特定的场所维系与圈内熟人的联系,脱离场所后,联系随即被切断,超越特定场所建立长期、固定的社交关系在同性恋群体间并不常见。同性恋社交关系和社会网络以特定场所为载体,因而同性恋场所的不稳定性也导致了同性恋社交网络的不稳定性（图4）。
你说的那些（网络社交平台）我全都有,但是有的就是熟人聊聊天什么的,像QQ群呀什么的,都是认识的人,有时候大家也会约出来一起唱歌什么的。但有的就是纯交友约炮的,一个号用一段时间就不用了,再重新注册一个。（样本5,2013-4-6）
同性恋者间社会关系的不稳定性在北京同性恋社群内几乎已经成为一个公认的事实,非同性恋群体也对同性恋群体有类似印象,成为社会对同性恋社群负面评价的一个重要来源。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图4同性恋社交网络不稳定性的成因与后果
-->Fig. 4Reasons and results of the instability of gay social networks
-->
同性恋社交场所不稳定性的来源主要有3个方面：社交空间的破碎化、参与者的不稳定性和政府管制的影响。
首先,同性恋社交场所的规模普遍较小,除个别影响力极大的场所外,多数场所中参与者集聚的规模都不超过30人,且这些场所在城市中的布局较为分散,没有形成同性恋场所高度密集、同性恋群体集中居住和活动的片区。导致城市中同性恋社交空间的破碎化,社交场所发展和消亡的随机性较强,无法形成长期稳定的同性恋活动空间。
其次,社交场所中同性恋群体的聚会和互动一般没有明确的约定,而是依靠熟人间在交往中形成的默契,心照不宣地进行,使社交互动的发生具有较强的不确定性,维系长期关系的难度很大。同时,现代都市中人们的职业、居住空间变动相对频繁,日常生活空间的变动也会造成同性恋者参与同性恋场所活动的行为模式的变化,如倾向于参与离家或公司更近/远的场所,工作强度、性质或家庭结构变化造成参与同性恋场所的频率和周期变化等。参与场所活动模式的变化容易导致原本的同性恋社交网络被破坏。
此外,政府管制目前仍是导致同性恋场所消亡的重要因素。随着性少数群体在社会主流话语体系中日益强势,政府对同性恋活动空间的管理手段由20世纪90年代至21世纪初期的直接凭借行政力量取缔,逐渐转变为采取介入、干预、劝导等相对温和的手段。但由于同性恋群体对场所私密性敏感度很高,政府力量介入往往导致场所人气急剧减退,并很快消亡。
综上所述,由于缺少长期稳定的活动空间作为载体,同性恋社会网络很难长期维持。
5.2 社交网络模式
同性恋群体由于自身身份的不同,其社交网络的构建也具有不同的特点。如学生群体社交结构较为简单,同性恋化的社交关系与日常社交关系之间没有明显的分界线,同性恋朋友圈和非同性恋朋友圈的成员间社会距离近,彼此可能存在社交联系。而已经走入社会的同性恋群体社交结构则比较复杂,多数受访者有意或无意建立起了与日常生活相隔离的同性恋化的社交网络体系,且两个社交网络体系间存在明显界限,不同体系的成员间社会距离远,发生关联的可能性小。特别是对于已经组建了异性恋模式家庭的同性恋者而言,两个体系之间的界限更为分明,在同性恋社交圈中,会刻意避免与自己相同的社会阶层,或与自己职业关联度高的行业人士来往。除此之外,一般来讲,自我认同度越差的同性恋者,两个社交圈之间的隔离越明显（图5）。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图5学生与已工作同性恋者的社交网络模式对比
-->Fig. 5Comparison of social network between students and workers
-->
与同性恋群体和非同性恋群体交流使用不同的社交网络账号可以视作主动对社交网络进行区分的一个表现。问卷调查中（表4）,66.7%的学生与同性恋群体、非同性恋群体交流时使用相同的社交软件账号,而这一比例在非学生中只占21.5%,只有4.2%的学生有专门用于与同性恋群体社交的账号并经常登录,非学生被调查者中却有43.9%。
Tab. 4
表4
表4关于同性恋群体社交软件账号使用情况调查结果
Tab. 4The survey result of specialized SNS account for gay community
| 问题 | 选项 | 学生 | 已工作 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 人数 | 比例(%) | 人数 | 比例(%) | ||
| 是否有用于同性恋社群交流的专用社交软件账号以及账号使用情况 | 有,经常使用 | 1 | 4.1 | 57 | 43.9 |
| 有,不经常使用 | 6 | 25.0 | 28 | 21.5 | |
| 没有,都用一个账号 | 16 | 66.7 | 28 | 21.5 | |
| 不常使用社交软件 | 1 | 4.2 | 17 | 13.1 | |
| 合计 | 24 | 100 | 130 | 100 | |
新窗口打开
学生只占同性恋群体的一小部分,多数同性恋者倾向于构建出独立于日常生活之外的、“同性恋化”的社交网络体系,社交网络表现出二元化的特点。主观上讲这是对自身的保护,客观上讲,由于两个社交网络体系通过不同的话语体系组织起来,是互不相容的。
5.3 社交圈及话语体系
“圈子”（或“圈儿”）是同性恋社群中经常被提及的词汇。“圈子”不是单纯指具有同性恋身份的人群形成的社交圈,而是指活跃在同性恋话语体系下的所有人群共同组成的社交网络,不仅包括同性恋者,也包括与同性恋群体关系密切的“直人”,较少接触社群的同性恋者反而在圈外。对于没有公开“出柜”的同性恋者而言,在日常生活中往往需要扮演着异性恋的角色,而在圈子中则得以回归同性恋身份,“圈子”是唯一可以表露同性恋身份的公共领域。对于已经公开“出柜”的同性恋者,虽然同性恋身份为他人所知,但为了减少生活中的麻烦和困扰,也往往刻意模糊化自己的同性恋身份,在“圈子”中才真正意义上以同性恋身份出现。
我的室友都知道我是gay,刚开学我就向室友出柜了,因为大家要生活在一起4年嘛,一直躲躲藏藏的太累了。但话是这么说,我平时也不会很嚣张,毕竟我知道朋友们不是真的认同同性恋,而是因为我是他们的朋友才对gay较为包容。所以我不会在直人朋友面前说同性恋相关的话题,也不会光明正大地在寝室看GV,做人应该要有分寸。（样本22,2013-6-2）
除同性恋群体外,近年来,同性恋社区容纳了越来越多的异性恋者加入,包括“腐女”、“腐男”、同性恋运动支持者、向同性提供性服务的Money Boy等,他们在同性恋“圈子”中使用独特的话语来“对话”。而在圈外,则自然而然地放弃使用圈子内的特殊话语,与主流的异性恋话语体系保持一致性。
可能是我的职业特殊吧,我是个化妆师,我们这一行不是gay的话根本吃不开,有些同事是“直男”,就假装自己是gay,不让大家知道他有女朋友,整天藏着掖着的,但是我们全都知道,也不点破。……我倒是不想和我爸我妈住在一起,但是工作的地儿离家挺近的,没有搬出去住的理由。没跟他们提过（自己是gay的）这些事儿,他们肯定不接受,回家老催着我找女朋友什么的,我就嗯嗯答应着,他们托人给我相亲我也去见,见完了就说不合适就行了。反正老人嘛,思想就是（传统）,跟他们说肯定他们受不了。（样本12,2013-5-19）
一个有趣的现象是,同性恋圈子中的“语言”变迁反映了后现代地理学打破语言中心主义和重建“主客”平等关系的原理。比如,同性恋社群的交谈中女性可以很自然地提起“我的女朋友”,旁人不会感到惊讶;需要以文字形式提到既有男性又有女性的群体时,不使用汉语中惯用的“他们”,而使用“TA们”等。但在社区以外,与圈外人交流时,则会完全摒弃这些说法。语言除了作为人们沟通的工具以外,也是权力关系形成和巩固的工具或媒介。后现代地理学主张反对基于语言中心中义的主流话语体系,提倡多元化和权力关系的反转,要构建平等关系[50]。如果在此把人群简单地分为LGBT人群和异性恋者,那么当今中国社会,性别的主流话语体系通常建立在后者对前者的霸权之上,媒体、教育系统,乃至日常生活的语境中,“叙述者”们惯常选择性地忽视一般异性恋者之外的群体的存在。但在同性恋圈子中,同性恋者与异性恋者的权力关系反转,“圈子”里的异性恋者也认同并且遵守这种新的权力规则,以维持自己在“圈子”中的地位,从而与同性恋群体共享“圈”内的资源。
6 同性恋文化与城市空间的辩证关系
6.1 同性恋文化对城市空间的影响
同性恋文化对城市空间最直观的影响是使一些最初不具有性别和性倾向意味的公共休闲场所转变为具有同性恋倾向的休闲和聚会场所。如公园、社区花园、城市绿地等公共空间,最初不具备同性恋场所的属性,对周边生活的同性恋者、异性恋市民、恐同者的吸引力基本相同,当场所成为同性恋场所后,直接改变了城市中原有的休闲空间。公共的休闲空间变为特定群体偏好的休闲空间,改变同性恋群体休闲空间和行为的同时,其他群体的休闲空间也同时受到了影响,如,恐同者在生活中可能会对同性恋化的空间有所回避,其生活空间和路径都因此受到影响,对同性恋群体感兴趣的异性恋者而言,可能成为有吸引力的观光地。另外,改变了城市空间的权力格局。空间内活动的语境由异性恋转变为同性恋,在有限的空间内实现了边缘群体对主流社会的权力反转。正是不同群体权力在空间中相互碰撞、相互妥协的过程,形成了不同空间点上各利益团体不同的“权力密度”,最终使城市成为权力不均等分布的空间载体。任何一个群体,其权力在城市空间中既有“高峰”也有“低谷”,反映在本文讨论的范畴中,即是城市中不同地点对同性恋群体的包容度和友好度,以及同性恋群体在社会交往、社区服务和城市规划中被考虑的程度。
从城市经济的角度看,经营性的同性恋场所丰富了城市原有的消费空间。后现代城市的一个重要特征即是围绕符号和意象的生产和消费,同性恋亚文化在城市消费空间中的地位早已不再局限于满足同性恋群体现实的社交需求,而是逐渐成为同性恋与异性恋群体共同关注、生产和消费的一种文化符号。同性恋个体利用同性恋社交空间建立与社群的联系,以此获取对自我的认同感;同性恋空间也为异性恋提供了了解同性恋群体,体验同性恋文化的机会,同时也使异性恋参与者获得了生活方式时尚、思想先锋前卫、道德优越等积极符号。
不知道你发现没有,gay圈子的人多数都喜欢追求时尚,特别爱打扮,特别喜欢买名牌。一方面在圈子里,gay都是“外貌协会”,长得不好看、穿的不好看根本没人搭理你;另一方面又想让异性恋认可你,觉得你特别牛。（样本10,2013-5-18）
同性恋空间在城市空间中最初是以“孤岛”的形式存在的,即同性恋社交场所的范围是同性恋文化在城市中的权力边界,在社交场所之内,人们可以以同性恋身份现身,不惧怕和同性伴侣表现出亲密关系,但在场所外,会尽量隐藏自己的性取向,自我保护,避免和主流文化发生冲突。北京市目前同性恋空间的发展基本上处于这一阶段。但当同性恋社交场所发展到一定规模,其周边往往会形成对多元文化相对包容的区域。不仅接纳同性恋者,对其他边缘群体和小众文化也采取包容的态度。这种发展趋势目前在北京个别区域已有所体现。
我有个朋友跟我开玩笑说要是外地人在牡丹园地铁站下车肯定得吓一跳,还没出地铁口你就能看见一对对的gay,手拉手都不算个事儿。一个是现在社会接纳度高了,没那么多顾忌了,也是到这儿来的人多,大家见得多了也就见怪不怪了,gay们就越来越放肆了。（样本7,2013-5-3）
我们gay其实是性情最温和的,可能是因为自己就处在社会边缘吧,所以对什么事都比较看得开,对各种各样的人都很包容,许多文化圈的人就是喜欢和我们一起做事、一起玩。（样本2,2013-4-13）
对同志的态度最能体现一个城市对多元文化的包容程度,是不是欢迎不同性取向的人在城市中生活,能说明这个城市里的人对那些和自己不一样的人的态度。所以接纳同志的城市也最能接纳那些最前卫的艺术家和最有创造力的天才。（样本20,2013-6-6）
6.2 城市空间对同性恋文化的影响
“同性恋”作为一种身份,没有地域的差别,无论是在城市还是乡村,同性恋在人群中的比例是几乎相等的。但只有在城市之中,同性恋群体才作为一个社群出现,同性恋现象才作为一种社会现象和文化现象出现在人们的视野中,并构成现代都市社会的重要图景[29]。当前的中国社会,城乡间无论是经济和人口密度,公共设施和服务的获取,还是生活和思维方式,均存在极大差异。物理上,中国的乡村社会经济发展落后,休闲娱乐设施匮乏,同性恋空间很难找到合适的载体。更重要的是,中国许多乡村家庭仍将传宗接代看作整个家族的核心利益,加之传统的文化观念,对同性恋现象的容忍度极低。并且,传统的中国乡村社会的社会交往模式以血缘关系为基础,以熟人社会为主体,一个成员的同性恋取向被揭露后,将面临着近乎社会性死亡的毁灭性打击。
而在城市完全是另一番局面。改革开放以来,中国大城市社会成长迅速,特别是外来人口迅速增长,使得人口异质性急剧上升,人们在城市中生活时时刻刻面对着生活习惯、思维方式、知识结构与自己相异的人群。为维持城市社会持续运转,城市人就必须容忍这种异质性,并以其普遍的包容性为同性恋群体以及其他边缘群体提供栖身之所。同时,城市是信息的集散地,中国近年来各类媒体、社交化软件发展迅速,身处城市之中的同性恋者可以相对容易地获取社群相关信息,更全面地了解社会各界对同性恋社群的看法,能够较好地建立自我认同。此外,城市提供了更多超越血缘和家族的社会联系,尤其对于北京等大都市而言,总人口中超过一半为外来人口,作为都市中的“异乡人”,没有家庭和家族的牵绊,他们获得了更大的自由活动空间,比在家乡承受更少的社会压力（图6）。问卷调查结果显示,只有6.5%的被调查者“完全出柜”,另有12.3%的被调查者“在北京完全出柜”。说明被调查者在北京的出柜难度更小,“北京”相对于“家乡”,为同性恋群体提供了更宽松的生存环境。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图6大都市的城市特点对同性恋社群的影响
-->Fig. 6Influence of metropolitan features on gay community
-->
总之,同性恋文化和城市空间之间的影响是相互的,无论是从宏观层面还是微观层面都存在一种辩证的关系（图7）,更确切地讲,是一种亚文化与空间的相互作用,这种关系从亚文化或少数群体文化层面进一步诠释了社会—空间辩证法。
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图7同性恋文化与城市空间的辩证关系
-->Fig. 7The dialectical relationship between gay culture and urban space
-->
7 结论与讨论
从同性恋场所发展的时间过程看,北京的同性恋场所体现出逐渐多元化的发展趋势,同性恋群体开始追求来自社群更全面的支持,同性恋者利用场所建立起同性恋社区,保持与其他参与者相对紧密和稳定的关系。同性恋社交场所和同性恋群体之间的影响是相互的,场所影响参与者的行为和心理,而人也对场所有反作用。调查中发现,北京市现存的许同性恋场所并非自然形成,而是群体通过各种策略自主创造的,也正是群体的活动使物理“空间”转变为充满主观感觉的“地方”,并具备了“性别”特征。同性恋者积极进行不同的空间角色扮演,在同性恋场所和日常生活这两种场景中,不仅同时存在前台和后台的功能,而且还存在相反的角色反转路径,正是通过这种“前台”和“后台”、虚构和真实的相互渗透,营造出同性恋场所亦真亦幻的社交氛围。同性恋社交网络的显著特点是对互联网的依赖性和不稳定性,并在不同程度上与同性恋者的“日常生活”空间相脱离,甚至严格隔离。就社交网络与空间的关联而言,同性恋社交关系和社会网络以特定场所为载体,然而社交空间的破碎化、参与者的不稳定性和政府管制的影响都造成场所的不稳定性,进而影响到社交网络的不稳定性。也正是因为缺少长期稳定的活动空间作为载体,使得同性恋社会网络很难长期维持。同性恋社交圈不单纯指具有同性恋身份的人群形成的社交圈,而是活跃在同性恋话语体系下的所有人群共同组成的社交网络,也包括与同性恋群体关系密切的异性恋者,这反映了同性恋者所营建的新的话语体系具有一定的包容性,也是其实现权力反转的重要途径。值得强调的是,同性恋圈子中的“语言”变迁也反映了后现代地理学打破语言中心主义,提倡多元化和权力关系的反转以及重建“主客”平等关系的原理。
同性恋文化和城市空间之间存在相互作用的机制：一方面,同性恋群体的生活习惯、社交模式影响了城市空间的物质形态,使物理空间具有了性别特征;另一方面,城市空间的结构与特点也影响着同性恋社群的行为模式。无论是从宏观层面还是微观层面,都体现了亚文化或少数群体文化与城市空间相互作用的一种辩证关系,实际上是从亚文化层面进一步诠释了社会–空间辩证法。
可以将北京的调查研究结果与西方文献的相关结论进行对比。西方****有关同性恋空间的研究文献中曾提出同性恋聚居区（Gay Ghettos）的概念,认为它包含了场所集中、文化区域、社会隔离和居住集中4个维度[2]。实际上这是在西方早期对同性恋群体态度不宽松的情况下,所形成的同性恋者集聚的街区,而在现代西方对同性恋普遍接受的背景下,同性恋空间的分布已经表现均质化的特点。当前中国对同性恋的接受程度应该对应于西方的早期阶段,但类似背景下的同性恋空间特点却大相径庭：虽然中国大城市中同性恋群体规模并不小,但没有形成类似西方“同性恋聚居区”这样的区域,已经形成的同性恋场所更多的是活动空间,而且具有分散化和小规模集中的特点,而社会隔离和居住集中的特点都没有出现。西方****就城市化与同性恋的关系曾提出“同性恋的城市本质”论断,认为城市为同性恋者提供了天然的环境,同性恋作为社会存在已成为一种城市现象,同性恋本质上是“城市的”[51]。对北京的调查在很大程度上验证了这一论断,一方面,在中国的大都市,同性恋的社群规模相对较大,由于受国外的影响以及前卫文化的发达,人群对异质性文化的接纳程度较高,使得同性恋群体受到的歧视较小,同性恋群体自我认同感较高;另一方面,北京也体现了其在政治上的特殊性,政府管制更为严格,一定程度上也限制了同性恋空间的自由发展。
本文所调查的北京同性恋空间发展状况,也反映了在东方传统文化根深蒂固、性观念相对保守的中国社会,同性恋社群与同性恋空间的发展条件与西方存在较大差异,同性恋群体发展面临着特殊的环境和特殊的困难,由此也生发出不同的生存策略。对比西方****研究成果,不难发现,中国的同性恋空间发展与多伦多、巴黎等西方城市相比存在较大差距,城市中同性恋空间的形态尚处于“点”的状态,同性恋聚居、同性恋场所更为集中的同性恋街区尚未形成。由于面临更大的社会压力,北京的同性恋者在社交网络的构建中形成了特殊的策略,即主动将日常生活社交网络与同性恋社交网络进行隔离,以确保日常生活不受影响。
精力所限,本研究还存在一定的不足,如如何使调查问卷覆盖到自我认同感较差的同性恋者,如何深入探讨同性恋空间的话语体系及不同语境下的权力关系,如何反映更广泛的性别群体（如男同性恋者、女同性恋者、双性恋和跨性别者等）的社会处境和行为模式的差异性等等,都是未来有关中国同性恋空间研究需要进一步探讨的话题。
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
参考文献 原文顺序
文献年度倒序
文中引用次数倒序
被引期刊影响因子
| [1] | Although causal relationships between homosexuality and have not been established, the myths and assumptions surrounding this issue are numerous. Much of the available literature on the subject is from a psychoanalytic perspective, emphasizing latent homosexuality as a cause of . Very little is from the perspective of gay and lesbian populations. This paper analyzes the assumptions underlying the biological and genetic approaches, theory, psychoanalytic perspectives, and sociological models as they relate to and homosexuality. |
| [2] | 'Gay ghettos'09”neighbourhoods dominated by homosexual men and women-have emerged during recent decades in many cities in North America and western Europe, including in Paris' historical Marais quarter. The gay Marais resulted from economic and social factors such as initially low rents and real-estate prices in a run-down neighbourhood ripe for gentrification, a central location with good public transport and the emergence of an urban gay community eager to establish a territorial base for its political militancy. In addition, gay businessmen consciously set out to establish commercial venues in the Marais that would embody a more openly gay lifestyle. The Marais and this lifestyle have become objects of bitter attack from both outside and within the gay community. Residents resent the intrusion into their neighbourhood, while others denounce the formation of a distinct gay identity as 'communitarianism' and a threat to French national values. |
| [3] | |
| [4] | Gay spaces in particular cities have been the focus of studies of sexualities in leisure studies and geographies. However, with the British cultural development toward increasing acceptance of particular gay (and lesbian) lives, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) leisurescapes can no longer be confined to gay space/times or discussed solely in terms of exclusion. Conversely, the view that all other spaces are heterosexualised and therefore dangerous also needs critical reconsideration. Drawing on data from the 'Count Me In Too' project, a Brighton Hove based participatory action research project, we find that LGBT people socialise beyond the 'gay ghetto', and whilst certain 'straight' leisure spaces are still hostile, generic social space is not necessarily unwelcoming to some LGBT people. We contend that space can be simultaneously gay and straight, yet gender and sexual identities, mediated through other social differences, continue to be important in understanding LGBT experiences. However, LGBT socialising (and to a larger extent leisure activity) does not occur predominantly in commercial leisure spaces (whether these be understood as gay or straight). Understanding the breadth of LGBT socialising and the transgression of gay/straight divides enables an engagement with everyday space that does not presume it is heterosexual waiting to be 'queered'. |
| [5] | This paper responds to recent calls for a Foucauldian population geographyby critically analyzing the 2004 Gay and Lesbian Atlas (a U.S.-oriented product ofdemographers at Washington, D.C.’s Urban Institute, a public policy “think tank”).We employ a framework that foregrounds issues of governmentality, sexuality,gender, and scale to explore how both the Atlas and the 2000 U.S. census from whichthe Atlas’s data are drawn socially construct, for governmental purposes, certainsexualized populations and spaces. We pay particular attention to the power of scaleframingin this process by varying the spatial scales at which location quotients forsame-sex households are situated for census tracts in Seattle, Washington. Followingthe Atlas’s classification and coding algorithms, we show how the resultingcartography can reveal elements of a population that has previously been invisible inthe census – but only relative to certain larger scales. The question of scale thereforebecomes an important matter of governmentality, rather than solely a technical issue. |
| [6] | Drawing on and speaking to literatures in geographic information systems (GIS), queer geography, and queer urban history, we chronicle ethnographically our experience as queer geographers using GIS in an action-research project. We made a map of sites of historical significance in Seattle, Washington, with the Northwest Lesbian and Gay History Museum Project. We detail how queer theory/activism and GIS technologies, in tension with one another, made the map successful, albeit imperfect, via five themes: colliding epistemologies, attempts to represent the unrepresentable, productive pragmatics, the contingencies of facts and truths, and power relations. This article thus answers recent calls in the discipline for joining GIS with social- theoretical geographies, as well as bringing a spatial epistemology to queer urban history, and a cartographic one to queer geography. |
| [7] | 本文对1986年以来发表在各类学术期刊上的178篇关于同性恋研究的学术论文进行了梳理和分析,从研究时间、研究的学科视角、研究方法和研究内容角度出发,概括了这段时期同性恋研究的基本情况和特点,并且归纳总结了同性恋研究的研究成果。在此基础上提出已有研究在理论、方法、研究对象和范围等方面存在的不足。 . 本文对1986年以来发表在各类学术期刊上的178篇关于同性恋研究的学术论文进行了梳理和分析,从研究时间、研究的学科视角、研究方法和研究内容角度出发,概括了这段时期同性恋研究的基本情况和特点,并且归纳总结了同性恋研究的研究成果。在此基础上提出已有研究在理论、方法、研究对象和范围等方面存在的不足。 |
| [8] | 本文从空间—文化主题出发,以沈阳为调研点,综合运用参与观察、个案深入访谈、历史文献分析等人类学研究方法,着力探讨异性同性恋群体的身体、行为和社会关系实践如何在城市空间中得以组织、表达和理解。本文发现,通过与同性恋群体自身特点的互相作用,城市空间为同性恋的行为、情感、身份的流动构建了能动平台。 . 本文从空间—文化主题出发,以沈阳为调研点,综合运用参与观察、个案深入访谈、历史文献分析等人类学研究方法,着力探讨异性同性恋群体的身体、行为和社会关系实践如何在城市空间中得以组织、表达和理解。本文发现,通过与同性恋群体自身特点的互相作用,城市空间为同性恋的行为、情感、身份的流动构建了能动平台。 |
| [9] | |
| [10] | <FONT face=Verdana>中国当代社会和经济的变迁，促进了同性恋身份及其身份社区的出现。本文根据在成都市所进行的田野调查，从建构主义的视角，考察了本地语境下三种男同性恋身份——“飘飘”、“同志”和gay的形成和变迁。尽管今天成都的男同性恋者在日常生活中交替使用上述三个身份称谓，但是三个称谓隐含了不同的文化参照和政治内涵。笔者认为“飘飘”身份在本地的同性恋历史传统和现代同性恋身份之间起到了一个承上启下的作用，而“同志”身份则极大地推动了中国当代同性恋者的表现形式从行为向身份的转变，促进了同性恋社区的形成和壮大。<BR></FONT> . <FONT face=Verdana>中国当代社会和经济的变迁，促进了同性恋身份及其身份社区的出现。本文根据在成都市所进行的田野调查，从建构主义的视角，考察了本地语境下三种男同性恋身份——“飘飘”、“同志”和gay的形成和变迁。尽管今天成都的男同性恋者在日常生活中交替使用上述三个身份称谓，但是三个称谓隐含了不同的文化参照和政治内涵。笔者认为“飘飘”身份在本地的同性恋历史传统和现代同性恋身份之间起到了一个承上启下的作用，而“同志”身份则极大地推动了中国当代同性恋者的表现形式从行为向身份的转变，促进了同性恋社区的形成和壮大。<BR></FONT> |
| [11] | 围绕城市与同性恋的主题，本文从现代性的视角回顾了同性恋作为一个“社会群体”在城市中的出现和发展，强调了同性恋身份认同本质上的城市属性。文章揭示了同性恋研究在城市研究中的独特地位，并主要探讨了组织和控制城市空间与同性恋欲望和权利表达之间的张力，尤其关注同性恋现象在不同社会语境下“公共空间”的建构。文章以2009年中国大陆主要城市中“同志”社群引发媒体关注的事件为例，展现了这个群体争取公共空间，改变城市社会景观的努力。文章认为当代中国同性恋社群不断提升的社会可见度和日益扩展的公共空间，反映了中国城市和社会发生的积极变化。 . 围绕城市与同性恋的主题，本文从现代性的视角回顾了同性恋作为一个“社会群体”在城市中的出现和发展，强调了同性恋身份认同本质上的城市属性。文章揭示了同性恋研究在城市研究中的独特地位，并主要探讨了组织和控制城市空间与同性恋欲望和权利表达之间的张力，尤其关注同性恋现象在不同社会语境下“公共空间”的建构。文章以2009年中国大陆主要城市中“同志”社群引发媒体关注的事件为例，展现了这个群体争取公共空间，改变城市社会景观的努力。文章认为当代中国同性恋社群不断提升的社会可见度和日益扩展的公共空间，反映了中国城市和社会发生的积极变化。 |
| [12] | I consider the iconic place of the urban gay neighborhood across the literature. Noting, but also qualifying, its early preponderance, I trace its relative decline as both an empirical concern and also a theoretical one. I argue that this trend reflects a queer pluralization of 'sexuality' as well as a growing sophistication of how geographers handle place and scale. There has been a resurgence of interest in the 'gayborhood', however, within and beyond geography, and so I consider this counter trend in relation to the changing structurations of sexualities and space, as well as the forces pushing to maintain such zones in the city. |
| [13] | Urban nighttime entertainment spaces, including bars, pubs, and clubs, are a crucial space for the performance of gendered social relations and the experience of sexual identities. This article investigates the emotional spaces of commercial gay and lesbian recreation in two different settings: lesbian nights in Paris, France, and gay clubs in Turin, Italy. This research was carried out through direct observation and auto-ethnographic fieldwork. Drawing on the literature from emotional geographies, the article proposes an alternative take on the geography of gay and lesbian clubbing by applying the metaphors of the island and the archipelago from cultural geography to the gay and lesbian scene. The island and archipelago are presented as metaphors that imply emotions, performance, materiality, spatiality, strategy, and imagination in the performance of the gay and lesbian playscape. The article argues that the club, intended as a type of gay and lesbian island, does not necessarily imply a condition of insulation. Rather, the island implies both metaphor and materiality, and movement may also be considered an emotional strategy for gays and lesbians in the heteronormative urban space. |
| [14] | <a name="Abs1"></a>Understanding the link between venues for meeting sex partners and sexual risk behavior is critical to developing and placing effective sexual health education and HIV prevention services. Non-monogamous gay and bisexual men (<i>n</i> = 886) were surveyed in New York and Los Angeles about the venues that they met recent sex partners: bathhouses, private sex parties, gay bars/clubs, the gym, via public cruising, and the Internet. Bars/clubs, bathhouses, and the Internet were the most endorsed venues for meeting partners. Men having met a majority of their partners (i.e., “preference”) via these three venues were compared/contrasted. Those having preference for bars/clubs were dissimilar from men with preference for bathhouses or the Internet on multiple levels (e.g. age, number of sex partners, temptation for unsafe sex). However, these men were proportionally similar in whether they had engaged in a recent episode of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI). Logistic regressions predicting UAI suggested venues might not play a role in differentiating men who had <i>preference</i> for bars/clubs, bathhouses or the Internet. Additional regression analyses utilizing all six venues to predict UAI suggested other person-factors such as identity as a barebacker and temptation for unsafe sex better explain UAI. This research suggests HIV prevention and educational campaigns targeted within venues need also address socio-psychological person-factors in addition to environmental/venue contexts. |
| [15] | <h2 class="secHeading" id="section_abstract">Abstract</h2><p id="">This aim of this study was to describe and compare the physical design, as well as the atmosphere of urban gay bathhouses, and reflect on how desire operates within these premises when it intersects with the bathhouse environment and health imperatives. Three bathhouses were studied for a total of 147 h of observation. Men's desire for other men has created a landscape of spaces (real and virtual) where sex takes place in parks, alleys, restrooms, rest stops, adult theatres, video arcades, bookstores, bars, gay bathhouses and finally, the Internet. Although the Internet is perceived as an easy way for encountering sexual partners, gay bathhouses remain the most popular and convenient way, for men having sex with men to meet for regular or casual sex. This paper presents the descriptive results of an ethnographic nursing study that took place in three gay bathhouses located in two Canadian metropolitan areas. Gay bathhouses offer patrons a space within which a wide range of interactions, sensations and pleasure can be experienced. This paper highlights the specific features of three gay bathhouses, compares settings according to their specific architectural features and related sexual activities, and finally, proposes some changes in light of certain health issues.</p> |
| [16] | In recent years, geographers and urban sociologists have sought to map and understand the emergence and development of lesbian and gay spaces within the city - popularly dubbed 'the scene'. It is often asserted that the city is a space of sexual liberation and that specifically the 'scene' can play an important part in lesbian and gay men's identity formation and development. However, despite the range and richness of the academic literature on the production and emergence of lesbian and gay urban spaces, relatively little attention has been paid to the actual role of the scene in the 'coming out' process and the way young lesbians and gay men negotiate transitions to adulthood. This article addresses this neglect by drawing on empirical work with lesbians and gay men in the UK to explore what the scene has meant to them. In the first half of the article we focus on the positive roles that the scene can play in helping young people to find themselves as they make the transition from childhood to adulthood. In the second half of the article we consider the risks that they can encounter in the process. We conclude by reflecting on the scene as a paradoxical space, and on the implications of this research for the youth transitions and urban studies literatures, and for social policy. Copyright (c) Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003. |
| [17] | This study examined attitudes toward the most common place where men who have sex with men (MSM) met their recent male sex partners. In 2009-2010, MSM were surveyed in bars/clubs, bathhouses, and on Craigslist.org. We found strong but differential overlap between venue of recruitment and participants' most common place: 81% of men from Craigslist indicated their most common place was the Internet, 65% of men from bathhouses indicated their most common place was bathhouses, and 47% of men from bars/clubs indicated their most common place was bars/clubs. In general, interest in seeing more information on drugs/alcohol and HIV and interacting with a health outreach worker in participants' most common place ranged from "agree" to "strongly agree." However, men whose most common place was bars/clubs rated these items lowest on average. Rates of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) were high (43%), thus targeted efforts in bars/clubs, bathhouses, and on the Internet may be ideal venues for reaching high-risk MSM. Although most common place was unrelated to UAI, it was related to factors that contextualize men's encounters (e.g., attitudes toward HIV status disclosure, and perceptions about barebacking, anonymous sex, and alcohol use). Outreach providers should consider these contextualizing aspects as they continue to retool their efforts. |
| [18] | |
| [19] | Drawing on a combination of qualitative methods using data collected from gay neighborhoods in Chicago and Washington, DC, this article develops the notion of vicarious citizenship-the exercise of rights and claims-making by nonresidential stakeholders who personally identify politically, economically, or socio-culturally with a local community. Vicarious citizens include a diversity of self-identified community members, some of whom were former or displaced residents of the neighborhood, who draw on a variety of socio-territorial practices to mobilize against perceived normative and political threats to their visions of authentic community. At times, vicarious citizens may hold differing and even conflicting perspectives on the functions of community, challenging the claims of local residents and those with more material stakes in the local area. I argue the notion of vicarious citizenship can expand our understanding of how gay neighborhoods remain relevant among certain LGBT populations who, for a variety of reasons, select into neighborhoods outside established gay areas. Vicarious citizenship can also be found in other nonresident communities. |
| [20] | Abstract Over the past half century, many visible gay districts emerged in Western inner cities as sites of gay and lesbian residence, commerce, entertainment, culture and politics. Rather than static enclaves, these visibly gay districts are constantly changing, reflecting improved social attitudes towards homosexuality, increasing diversity of social activities and venues, and financial constraints on residential location in the inner city for many lesbians and gay men. This paper revisits Collins鈥 evolutionary gay district model to examine recent changes around one such inner-city district, Oxford Street in Sydney, Australia. A neoclassical economic perspective, focusing on market forces, consumer preferences and incentives, is used to hypothesise whether these changes are a process of decline, integration or colonisation of gay space. For the Oxford Street district there is growing evidence that various factors have eroded the vibrancy of gay cultural expressions. The paper concludes by discussing the... |
| [21] | In recent years, there has been increasing interest in changes within gay ghettos, villages, precincts, and neighbourhoods in different cities and regions, particularly in the West. This includes concerns from some constituencies about the decline – or de-gaying – of some queer neighbourhoods, coupled with commentary about the emergence of newer places, sometimes espoused as mixed, gay-friendly, or post-gay. Drawing on the South African experience, the question of how central these debates should stand in gay geographical scholarship is posed. Although it is increasingly acknowledged that the “old gay ghetto debates” are in some ways parochial (both spatially and theoretically), the dominance of such concerns remains pervasive in Western gay space theorisation. In this paper, attention is focused on Western theorisations of the relationship between gay sexualities, its links to specific forms of gay space such as gay ghettos and neighbourhoods, and the South Africa context. The contention is that gay spaces (in the form of consolidated space, or villages) are not a necessary outcome of lived gay identities. It is argued that in South Africa differently constructed gay identities are differently spatialised and ultimately incongruent with Western theory. The investigation supports the growing scholarship that suggests Western theorisation of the links between gay sexual identity and space is not universally applicable. |
| [22] | Geographic work on gay male spatiality has focused on gay men's uses of public spaces, and on their role in the gentrification of certain neighbourhoods, while largely neglecting the ongoing importance of home to gay men. This paper seeks to address this lacuna by considering how gay Australian men have used homes to constitute and affirm their sexual identities. To do this I draw on Garry Wotherspoon's (1986) Being Different, a collection of autobiographies written by gay Australian men, constructing four vignettes that illustrate gay men's identity-affirming uses of homes. I find that gay men use ‘private’ homes in rather ‘unhomely’—that is, non-heteronormative—ways, by inviting in ‘external’ non-normative discourses, bodies and activities in order to ‘queer’ domestic space and engender non-heteronormative socialization and identity-affirmation. Moreover, I find that through some of these uses, ‘private’ homes are often made to interact closely with, and reach into, ‘public’ sites of belonging, such as ... |
| [23] | Abstract Despite their diverse and contested characters, queer and feminist geographies have much in common historically, theoretically, empirically, and politically. Following a brief discussion of their connections and divergences, I discuss the distinctive contributions of queer geographies and their potential, in continuing conversation and alliance with feminist geographies, to enliven and enrich geographical inquiry more broadly. I focus particularly on the potential of feminist-inspired and allied queer geographies to rethink a variety of spatial (and other) ontologies, including space, place, placelessness, movement, gender, homophobias and heterosexisms, generational cultures, and cultural politics. |
| [24] | This review considers how recent geographies of sexualities have attended to intersectionality. It documents the unevenness in attention across gender, race, class, age, (dis)ability and religion. Gender and race have received far more attention than others. A series of anxieties is thus raised by this inequity: which and how many intersections are considered, the ironic consequences of those choices, the multiple registers in which these dilemmas occur, and the consequences for other geographies of identity. |
| [25] | In this commentary, I reflect on the contribution of this special issue of Geoforum to the sexuality and space literature. I begin by situating it at the interface between critical queer geographies and geographies of sexualities. I then highlight three important themes that (re)emerge from these contributions that point to both continuities with past research and new directions for the study of geographies of sexualities. |
| [26] | Scholarship on queer geographies has called attention to the active production of space as heterosexualized and has levelled powerful critiques at the implicit heterosexual bias of much geographical theorizing. As a result, critical geographers have begun to remark upon the resistance of gays, lesbians and other sexual subjects to a dominant heterosexuality. But such a liberal framework of oppression and resistance is precisely the sort of mapping that poststructuralist queer theory emerged to write against. So, rather than charting the progress of queer geographies, this article offers a critical reading of the deployment of the notion of 'queer space' in geography and highlights an alternative queer approach that is inseparable from feminist, materialist, postcolonial and critical race theories. |
| [27] | ABSTRACT This article examines the recent rapid growth of work on the geographies of sexuality. The authors argue that while sexuality has become an area of considerable interest within social and cultural geography, much remains to be done to tackle homophobia within the discipline as a whole. The article critiques the ease with which sexuality as an object of study has become assimilated into the discipline while homophobia remains deep seated. The authors discuss how feminist geography has been both supportive and restrictive in this respect. Reviewing the development of work on geographies of sexuality, the article argues we need to move away from a simple mapping of lesbian and gay spaces towards a more critical treatment of the differences between sexual dissidents. Finally, the authors argue for a greater forging of links with writers outside the discipline to consolidate work in this emerging area. |
| [28] | |
| [29] | Ever since the time of ancient Athens and the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality has been associated with the city. Historians over the past decade have chronicled urban gay and lesbian groups in Renaissance Italy, Enlightenment France and Britain, and modern America and Australia, and social scientists have also identified emerging gay communities in Asia. Their researches show how homosexuals formed urban networks of sociability and solidarity, and how the presence of such minority communities impacted on urban development from Castro Street to Soho. Homosexuals often moved to cities to escape the sexual and social constraints of traditional life, and they played a major role in transforming the city and in creating a particular urban ethos. The city, in turn, is the site for the construction of much contemporary gay and lesbian culture. |
| [30] | This article is an exploration of the ways that gay men negotiated and created urban spaces in 1950s Toronto. A significant part of this everyday encounter was the proliferation of tabloid journalism that exploited and mapped out transgressive domains of same-sex erotics for its readers. Using a variety of sources, such as oral histories, government documents, and these local newspaper tabloids, the author traces the contours of same-sex urban spaces, their conceptual and geographical linkages, and their relationship to the larger society within which they are set. Ultimately, the author shows how the securing of these spaces was deeply implicated in existing class and gender hierarchies that simultaneously served as places of resistance and domination. |
| [31] | Since the 1960s, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) culture has developed in big cities and metropolises everywhere (not only in the West, but also in Asia, Latin America and indeed Africa). This essay examines how cities provide the spatial conditions necessary for the formation of such emancipatory movements based on identity politics and strategies which transcend binary gender dualism. The starting point of this investigation is my thesis that only urban life enables LGBTQ individuals to live their lives fully, realize their (sexual) identities, and furthermore organize themselves collectively, become publicly visible, and appropriate urban, societal and political spaces.<br/>Resume;Depuis les annees 1960, les grandes villes et metropoles, non seulement de l'Europe, mais aussi d'Asie, d'Amerique latine et d'Afrique, ont vu se developper une culture glesbienne, gai, bisexual, transgender et queer. Cet article etudie quelques aspect de la relation entre ces villes qui est une condition pour la formation de ce type de mouvements d'emancipation fondes sur la mise en question de la bipolarite sexuelle. Mon etude repose sur la these que c'est exclusivement dans la cadre de la vie urbaine que ces identites (sexuelles) peuvent se manifester et s'organiser afin de devenir visible sur la place publique et d'investir l'espace urbain, social et politique. |
| [32] | This paper examines processes of social cohesion across sexual difference in 'queer-friendly neighbourhoods'-localities that have a heterosexual majority in residential and commercial terms, but where a significant presence of gay and lesbian residents, businesses, and organisations are welcomed. This investigation advances a lineage of work on the development and maintenance of gay and lesbian neighbourhoods, and their role in residents' well-being. The findings also extend understandings of social cohesion, a key theme in neighbourhood and policy research across the West. The context of this study is Australia, where recent projects on social cohesion have focused on public order, economic benefits, and race tensions. However, given that gay men and lesbians are present in Australian social and political debates, sexuality should be integrated into studies about neighbourhood cohesion. To analyse processes of cohesion between heterosexual and same-sex-attracted people, we draw on data from case studies of two queer-friendly neighbourhoods in Australia-the inner-city suburb of Newtown, NSW, and the regional town of Daylesford, Victoria. We discuss the findings in three analytical categories to highlight common processes and characteristics of queer-friendly neighbourhoods: diversity and difference; symbolic landscapes; combating homophobia. 脗漏 2009 Pion Ltd and its Licensors. |
| [33] | In this article we apply insights from 'new mobilities' approaches to understand the shifting sexual and gendered landscapes of major cities in the global North. The empirical context is the purported 'demise' of traditional gay villages in Toronto, Canada and Sydney, Australia, and the emergence of 'LGBT neighbourhoods' elsewhere in the inner city. We reinterpret the historical geography of twentieth century LGBT lives and the associated 'rise and fall' of gay enclaves through the lens of the 'politics of mobility'. In this reading, it is apparent that multifaceted movements - migration, physical and social mobility, and motility - underpin the formation of gay enclaves and recent transformations in sexual and gendered landscapes. After the second world war, LGBT communities in the global North were embedded in specific historical geographies of mobility and we trace these in the Canadian and Australian contexts. The 'great gay migration' from the 1960s to the 1980s has been joined by new LGBT constellations of mobility in the 2000s, and these have imprinted upon the sexual and gendered landscapes of Toronto and Sydney. |
| [34] | will be published by Palgrave in 2011. |
| [35] | This paper explores the complex relationship between transgendered people and cities in the USA, and, in particular, their relationship with queer spaces within those cities. Some have argued that queer spaces occur at the margins of society and constitute a safe haven for LGBT oppressed by the hetero-normative nature of urban areas. Data from a survey of 149 transgendered individuals indicate that although queer spaces provide a measure of protection for gender variant people, the gendered nature of these spaces results in continued high levels of harassment and violence for this population. The author argues that the strongly gendered dimensions of these spaces suggests that a discursive re-visioning of gender is needed to create more transgender friendly urban spaces. |
| [36] | and elsewhere and has contributed a number of book chapters to various projects. Her research interests include urban and regional geography, urban development, feminist, trans and queer geographies, and urban social movements with an emphasis on gender, sexuality and social relations. |
| [37] | Abstract Based on the assumption that sexual minority individuals are particularly sensitive to the possible rejection of others, the present study examined the occurrence and correlates of social anxiety symptomatology in gay and heterosexual men. Eighty-seven heterosexual and 87 gay undergraduate men between the ages of 18 and 24 completed common measures of social anxiety, self-esteem, boyhood gender conformity, and a modified S-R Inventory of Anxiousness. Results reveal that gay men reported greater fear of negative evaluation and social interaction anxiety and lower self-esteem than heterosexual men. Gay men who are less open about their sexual orientation and those who are less comfortable with being gay were more likely to experience anxiety in social interactions. The modified S-R Inventory of Anxiousness was useful in revealing that relatively innocuous situations for heterosexual men can be anxiety-provoking for gay men. The hypothesis that gay men who were gender nonconforming as children would report a higher degree of social interaction anxiety was not supported. Results are discussed in terms of the socialization experiences of gay men and are explicated using a minority stress framework. Implications are offered for the treatment of social anxiety in this population. |
| [38] | On the basis of recent evidence suggesting that gay men are particularly likely to fear interpersonal rejection, the authors set out to extend the rejection sensitivity construct to the mental health concerns of gay men. After establishing a reliable and valid measure of the gay-related rejection sensitivity construct, the authors use this to test the mediating effect of internalized homophobia on the relationship between parental rejection of one's sexual orientation and sensitivity to future gay-related rejection. The present data support this mediational model and also establish rejection sensitivity's unique contribution to unassertive interpersonal in the context of internalized homophobia and parental rejection. The authors conclude that gay-related rejection sensitivity is a useful construct for clinicians working with gay men given the impact that past gay-related rejection can have on their gay clients' present cognitive-affective-behavioral functioning. The authors discuss the possibility of revising rejection-prone schemas in clinical work with gay men. Future research is necessary to further examine the internal processing and interpersonal functioning of gay men by using existing constructs (or modifications of them) that are likely to be particularly relevant to the unique concerns of this population. |
| [39] | Gay neighbourhoods have historically served as vital places for gay socialising, and gay social networks are important sources of social support. Yet, few studies have examined the influence of these forms of community on sexual health. Informed by theoretical frameworks on neighbourhoods and networks, we employ multi-level modelling to test hypotheses concerning whether gay neighbourhoods and social network factors are associated with five sexual risk behaviours: receptive and insertive unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), barebacking identity, recent internet use for finding sexual partners, and 'Party and Play' (PnP). Our analyses of a community-based sample of gay men in New York City reveal little evidence for the direct effect of gay enclaves on sexual risk with the exception of PnP, which was more likely among gay enclave residents. Having a network composed predominantly of other gay men was associated with insertive UAI, PnP, and internet use for meeting sexual partners. This network type also mediated the association between gay neighbourhoods and higher odds of insertive UAI as well as PnP. Our findings highlight the sexual health implications of two important facets of gay community and, in doing so, indicate the need to better contextualise the sexual health risks faced by gay men. |
| [40] | This is the first study on the prevalence of dating violence and threats of being forced to come out of the closet among Chinese gay men. Data on social demographic information and the experience of dating violence, including types of abuse, threats of outing, and the gender of abusers were collected from 418 gay men and 330 heterosexual men by self-administered questionnaires. Mann-Whitney U test, (2) test, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to test group differences. Up to 32.8% of the gay men had experienced one abuse or more. Among those experiencing abuse, 83.9% of the gay men never told anyone about their abuse. The experience of any form of abuse by gay men was 5.07 times higher than the rate of abuse among heterosexual men controlling for age in logistic regression models. In addition, 12.4% of the gay men have experienced the threat of being outed. Overall, dating violence is more prevalent in gay men than in heterosexuals. Efforts to prevent dating violence, especially among gay men, should be made in China. |
| [41] | The purpose of this investigation was to understand how "fag hags" and gay-supportive heterosexual men (GSHM) describe the nature and quality of their interpersonal contact experiences with gay men. Eight archival interviews were analyzed using the methodologies outlined in Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997); i.e., consensual qualitative research. The results yielded suggest that the nature of contact experiences relates to direct contact with gay men in institutional or social settings or via indirect, formative experiences. The possible roles that contact plays in attitudes formation include: (1) normalizing homosexuality, (2) challenging previously held myths and stereotypes, and (3) increasing a person's likelihood of having contact experiences with gay men and developing gay-supportive attitudes. Participants described the quality of the contact as taking place in the context of a friendship that developed between them and a gay male that strengthened after the gay friend came out. Furthermore, the impact of these contact experiences did not change fag hags' sense of morality, but "improved" their attitudes toward gay men. The results from this study have broader social implications in that they contribute to the much-needed discourse, from a qualitative perspective, on the ways in which people form gay-supportive attitudes. Future research should focus on describing the transformational nature of contact between gay men and heterosexuals in order to uncover any processes or stages that heterosexuals go through in developing gay-supportive attitudes. |
| [42] | This study sought to identify how urban gay communities are undergoing structural change, reasons for that change, and implications for HIV prevention planning. Key informants (N=29) at the AIDS Impact Conference from 17 cities in 14 countries completed surveys and participated in a facilitated structured dialog about if gay communities are changing, and if so, how they are changing. In all cities, the virtual gay community was identified as currently larger than the offline physical community. Most cities identified that while the gay population in their cities appeared stable or growing, the gay community appeared in decline. Measures included greater integration of heterosexuals into historically gay-identified neighborhoods and movement of gay persons into suburbs, decreased number of gay bars/clubs, less attendance at gay events, less volunteerism in gay or HIV/AIDS organizations, and the overall declining visibility of gay communities. Participants attributed structural change to multiple factors including gay neighborhood gentrification, achievement of civil rights, less discrimination, a vibrant virtual community, and changes in drug use. Consistent with social assimilation, gay infrastructure, visibility, and community identification appears to be decreasing across cities. HIV prevention planning, interventions, treatment services, and policies need to be re-conceptualized for MSM in the future. Four recommendations for future HIV prevention and research are detailed. |
| [43] | |
| [44] | Involvement in a gay community is a necessary step in the of a positive gay identity. However, how gay individuals think of a gay community and how they participate in these communities remains largely unexplored from a psychological perspective. The current study used an online survey containing several open-ended response items asking participants how they define the gay community, their first experience with it, and the advantages and disadvantages resulting from their involvement. The responses of a nationwide sample of 129 gay and bisexual men were coded in accordance with grounded theory. The results revealed substantial diversity in the perceptions and experiences of the gay community. Implications regarding these findings are discussed. |
| [45] | <p>The reported declining significance of gay neighborhoods has raised questions about the role of gay enclaves as a locus for community building. Using Wellman and Leighton's community “lost,” “saved,” and “liberated” frameworks, we examine the degree to which gay enclave residence and network socializing are associated with experiences of gay community among men in the New York City area. Multilevel models indicate that enclave residence is neither directly nor indirectly associated with perceived community cohesion or community attachment. Increased socializing with gay men and heterosexuals were, respectively, positively and negatively associated with our community outcomes. Increased socializing with lesbians was associated with greater community attachment, while socializing with bisexuals was associated with greater perceived community cohesion. Our findings lend support for a “gay community liberated” perspective; experiences of gay community are shaped principally by network relations rather than residential proximity to gay institutions.</p> |
| [46] | The concept of 'gay community', and gay men's attachment to and involvement in gay community activities, has held both a symbolic and practical role in understanding and guiding responses to HIV in developed world contexts. In the West, the HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected gay men. Being involved in and connected to gay community activities (what, in Australia, is described as 'gay community attachment') predicted the adoption of safe sex practices. However, the meaning of gay community is changing. This presents a challenge to those working in HIV prevention. With reference to previous research, the meaning of gay community is analysed in qualitative interviews conducted with Australian gay men. The interview data indicate that gay men are often ambivalent about gay communities, suggesting a need for subtlety in the ways we think about and address gay men in HIV education and health promotion. The concept of 'personal communities' may better reflect the ways in which gay men engage with each other and their social networks. Recognising and responding to the changing nature of gay life will ensure that the flexibility and pragmatism of HIV programmes aimed at gay men are maintained. |
| [47] | |
| [48] | |
| [49] | 基于主位研究视角,以作者自我叙事的方式,对回族宗教活动空间的 存在主义意涵进行了主体意向性解读,完整自叙和沉浸思考后作者认为,回族宗教活动空间存在以下特征:①回族宗教活动空间的核心构成为家、清真寺和坟园；② 家、清真寺和坟园对回族宗教信仰者而言,不是单一的物理空间,而是具有特殊意义的宗教“地方”；③说明了回族宗教活动空间具有地方到无地方的转化特征,无 地方转换的地方指向是清真寺；④“接都哇”这一宗教仪式和宗教行为构建了回族宗教活动空间从空间到地方,从地方到无地方转换的桥梁.该分析过程与结论说明 了回族宗教活动空间具有从地方的物质宗教空间结构到无地方的精神宗教空间结构的递进转换特征. . 基于主位研究视角,以作者自我叙事的方式,对回族宗教活动空间的 存在主义意涵进行了主体意向性解读,完整自叙和沉浸思考后作者认为,回族宗教活动空间存在以下特征:①回族宗教活动空间的核心构成为家、清真寺和坟园；② 家、清真寺和坟园对回族宗教信仰者而言,不是单一的物理空间,而是具有特殊意义的宗教“地方”；③说明了回族宗教活动空间具有地方到无地方的转化特征,无 地方转换的地方指向是清真寺；④“接都哇”这一宗教仪式和宗教行为构建了回族宗教活动空间从空间到地方,从地方到无地方转换的桥梁.该分析过程与结论说明 了回族宗教活动空间具有从地方的物质宗教空间结构到无地方的精神宗教空间结构的递进转换特征. |
| [50] | |
| [51] |
