Gay,but not Inclusive: Boundary Maintenance in an LGBTQ Space

ABSTRACT

Using the framework of spaces for leisure and the homonormative lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, this study examines the ways in which an LGBTQ “gayborhood” creates and maintains boundaries of exclusion based on hegemonic norms. Through ethnographic observations and interviews with both homeless LGBTQ individuals and community stakeholders (those in positions of power), this study demonstrates the processes through which hegemonic boundaries are created via (1) the symbolic boundary of respectability, (2) policing, and (3) exclusionary nonprofit practices. Data further reveal the complex relationship between identity and acceptance in LGBTQ public spaces of leisure, demonstrating the importance of “thinking intersectionally.”     

Some sceptical comments on the relationship between social support and well‐being

There appears to be widespread acceptance that there is a general positive correlation between ‘social support’ and well‐being. Individuals' health may remain better and their recovery from certain diseases more likely when potential, if not actual, social support is available. This paper addresses two specific methodological problems. Firstly, the definition of ‘social support’ varies very widely in the literature. Furthermore, whilst other variables may be rigorously controlled, the ‘social support’ variable may still be a proxy for other factors. The lack of international agreement on a common meaning for social support vitiates comparative analysis. Secondly, in an attempt to explain why some societies are ‘healthier’ than others, Wilkinson points to an association between more egalitarian societies, ‘better’ micro‐social relationships and better health. This attempt to explain societal differences in terms of micro‐social processes is problematic. First, individuals with good social support may still be healthier in ‘unhealthy’ societies than those without such support in ‘healthy’ societies. Extrapolation of individual outcomes may not be the best way to explain societal differences. Secondly, it is not demonstrated that specific micro‐social processes either cause or are caused by the institutional, organizational and political contexts, which variously characterize more healthy or less healthy societies amongst the most developed nations.