The Challenges of Being a Rural Gay Man

Coping with Stigma

Deborah Bray Preston,Anthony R. D'Augelli

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135079390
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Social Sciences
• Thema: LGBT Studies

Gay men often face struggles in the conservative world of rural life, due to the pervasive social stigmas associated with homosexuality and the lack of anonymity in a small-town setting. In this book, Preston and D'Augelli present the results of in-depth interviews and surveys with rural gay men, providing unique and hitherto unknown perspectives on their experiences coping with intolerance. With sensitivity and humor, the authors narrate their attempts at accessing this hidden population in bars, campgrounds, social clubs, and political groups. This volume is a must-read for researchers, academics, and graduate and post-graduate students in health care, nursing, health policy, and social and psychological science.

1   Introduction

In the conservative world of rural life in the United States, gay men struggle to live and work as productive citizens who enjoy residing in small towns and the countryside rather than in urban areas where, although there tends to be more access to gay culture, the fast living pace of the city is not the life they seek. Yet the lack of anonymity and the pervasive stigma associated with homosexuality in rural areas is of great concern with regard to their quality of life. Most of the studies carried out to date on gay men related to their sexual identity, partnership formation, and sexual experiences have been conducted in metropolitan areas. Of the studies of rural gay people that have been done (Annes & Redlin, 2012; Cody & Welsh, 1997; Eldridge, Mack, & Swank, 2006; Kazyak, 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Oswald, 2002 a; Oswald, 2002 b; Oswald & Culton, 2003), few have explored the possibility that the rural environment may have a distinctive effect on these issues. Moreover, few have addressed problems of stigma for rural men. These two gaps in the literature provided the basis for our research project. The Rural Men’s Study (RMS) was a survey-based investigation of the lives of 414 rural gay men. The major finding of the study was that exposure to stigma against homosexuality was prevalent in the areas in which these men lived and that there were harmful consequences of this stigma. These included negative feelings about their sexual orientation, low self-esteem, and depression (Preston, D’Augelli, Kassab, & Starks, 2007). These findings prompted us to better understand issues of stigma by deconstructing its components using qualitative methodology that provides more detailed and nuanced information than a survey could. Using this methodology, we explored how gay men coped with the stigma associated with rural living. To this end, we conducted 15 interviews of rural gay men who had participated in the larger study of 414 men. We asked each respondent what it was like to be a gay man in a rural area. The resulting information was analyzed using the open coding technique suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998). We found five categories that the men identified as important to their lives. These were their experiences: (a) living in rural communities; (b) relating to their families; (c) establishing a sexual identity; (d) developing partnerships, and (e) engaging in sexual behavior. Accordingly, data from each of the five categories were examined to extract a central phenomenon that was significant to the respondents (Strauss & Corbin). That phenomenon was stigma.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Environmental Effects

Although studies of the lives of gay men have made important contributions to the understanding of issues related to homosexuality, the conceptualization of these issues has generally remained at the individual level without considering the effects of the social environment. In the case of the men in our study, this is the rural environment. It is as though researchers have treated gay men and the factors that influence their lives as if they exist outside of any environmental or social context. Several early social theorists have argued for the need to include social context in the analysis of the lives of individuals. For example, Blau (1960) advocated consideration of the structural effects of society that link the attributes of a social group to those of individuals. In that tradition, Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934) theorized that social identities originate in social interaction, which results in “contextual effects,” the effects of group structure on individual outcomes (Erbring & Young, 1970). In addition, Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1969) explicated a model in which individual attributes and environmental properties can be studied together. Using their model, people can be studied in terms of their individual characteristics, their relationships with others, and the characteristics of their communities. If we apply Lazarsfeld and Menzel’s model to our research, individual characteristics are those that describe those properties of gay men that are independent of the characteristics of the group such as issues of mental health and sexual identity. Relational characteristics are properties of gay men that are derived from their relationships with family, friends, and partners. And, contextual or environmental properties describe gay men in terms of their environment, in this case, the rural communities in which they live. In simple terms, as Brown and Schafft (2011) assert, where a person lives contributes to his or her identity. Thus for rural gay men, the effect of the stigma associated with living in a rural community influences their individual characteristics such as self-image and their relationship characteristics such as their interactions with their families and their development of partnerships. Stigma also shapes the relationship of rural gay men to their communities.

The Rural Community

In spite of the fact that rural sociologists have noted changes in rural society that have resulted in a blurring of the boundaries between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas (Brown & Schafft, 2011) and that rural areas in the United States vary considerably, there continue to be distinctive attributes of places where population density is low and primary groups such as family and kinship structure predominate (Struthers & Bokemeier, 2000). Rural can be viewed as a statistical location as defined by census data, or as a space that has been socially constructed by rural people in terms of a set of shared social, ethical, and cultural values (Flora & Flora, 2008).

There is considerable disagreement about what a rural community is. Flora and Flora (2008) define community as a place or location where people interact and form a social system that meets their needs and supports their identity. But Brown and Schafft (2011) argue that geographic location does not necessarily explain patterns of social interaction. They note the current explosion of virtual communities and the increased ability of people to network beyond geographical areas to create communities of “interest.” The difficulty with these two approaches is that both could as well describe an urban neighborhood.

Wilkinson’s (1990) work, however, provides a definition of a community that is distinctive and answers the question about how life in a rural community could be different from that in an urban neighborhood. He maintains that there are three elements that make up a rural community: a locality where people live and interact to meet their daily needs, a local social order which is a network of organizations that are involved in supporting residents (families, businesses, etc.), and a community field of organizations through which residents express their interests and needs and solve collective problems (churches, schools, governing agencies, etc.). By this definition, an urban neighborhood is only part of a community because it does not contain the three elements described above. This would be true as well for a virtual community.

Because the nature of relationships among people changes when populations are larger and more dense (Brown & Schafft, 2011), rural society differs from urban society in several ways as a result of these population parameters. Rural people tend to hold more conservative political attitudes than their urban counterparts. They tend to be more traditional in their views about such things as marriage, sex education, abortion, and homosexuality, and they are less tolerant of diverse populations (Beale, 1993). Strong religious beliefs play a major role in dictating and shaping the values, attitudes, and social norms of rural communities. Religion is a guide for acceptable behavior, and there is little tolerance for variations from the traditional family (Smith, 1997). Moreover, because of the “small town grapevine,” it is difficult to maintain privacy (Williams, Bowen, & Horvath, 2005). Finally, rural people have less access to good jobs and secure incomes (Brown & Schafft, 2011).

In spite of these possible drawbacks to rural living, there are many positive aspects to living in smaller, less densely populated areas. For example, Willits, Bealer and Timbers (1990) conducted a telephone survey in Pennsylvania in which they explored attitudes about rural life in a sample of 1881 respondents. They found widespread disagreement about the presumed negative aspects of rural life such as views that rural people are narrow minded and prejudiced toward people unlike themselves. On the other hand, positive comments about rural life included the enriched quality of family life, the lack of stress, more peace and quiet, and greater neighborliness.

There is another unique aspect of rural life that is highly relevant to our work. Unlike urban areas, rural areas provide the “raw materials” of American life as they are the settings of the extractive industries and farming. Although there are rural areas where lighter industry and business prevail, the economy of many small towns and communities remains based on natural resources (Brown & Schafft, 2011). Because of the rugged nature of the jobs related to the industries associated with these resources, these jobs are largely occupied by men. This leads to an image of rural masculinity emphasizing physical strength, hardiness, and individualism (Bell, 2000; Bell, 2006). Accordingly, as Campbell, Bell and Finney (2006) suggest, rural life is highly patriarchal, possibly more so than in urban areas. However, according to Peter, Bell, Jarnagin, and Bauer (2006), rural masculinity is changing. They suggest that there are two representations of rural masculinity: the monologic, which is a strict representation of manhood clearly differentiated from that of women, and the dialogic, which allows men to be more emotional and less controlling and is gradually becoming more acceptable. One important issue raised by Campbell et al. (2006) in these representations of rural masculinities is the complete absence of any mention of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a breach in rural sexual order. They note, “Being a gay country boy can be very dangerous indeed” (p. 4).

Gay men living in rural communities experience a wide range of challenges which are not like those experienced by those living in urban areas. These include living in a hidden subculture; fear of being ostracized; difficulties with access to health care and counseling; and lack of privacy (Williams et al., 2005). As a result, many gay men hesitate to risk rejection from friends and family by disclosing their sexual orientation and remain hidden. Often they internalize the social rejection and internalized homophobia can develop (Smith, 1997). Fear of rejection due to families’ knowledge of one’s homosexuality inhibits the development of close relationships with other men, including cohabiting domestic partnerships. Many rural gay men remain single because they fear the disclosure of their sexual orientation that might occur as a result of a same-sex partnership.

Stigma and Marginalization

Stigma results from an attribute of an individual that can be deeply discrediting and devalues the individual in relation to others. It is a complex concept that refers to prejudice, mistreatment, and discrimination that can be real or perceived (Alonzo & Reynolds, 1995; Goffman, 1963; Herek, Capitanio, & Widaman, 2002). The discrimination related to stigma can result in self-denigration as a result of internalizing the negative responses of others. Stigma serves to reduce the social status and social roles of the stigmatized person because of judgments based on attitudes about the stigma expressed by significant others in a person’s life (i.e., family, friends, community) (Goffman, 1963). Because of their inferior status, stigmatized people have less power than their less-stigmatized counterparts (Herek, 2009). Sexual stigma is defined as social disapproval of any non-heterosexual behavior whether it be expressed by individuals or groups. Sexual stigma related to homosexuality is expressed at all levels of society by individuals, families, and social institutions (Herek, 2004). Sexual stigma can be felt or enacted. Felt stigma is defined as a gay person’s awareness of the negative attitudes concerning homosexuality of people around them. Enacted stigma refers to overt incidents of sexual harassment, violence or discrimination experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals (Herek, 2009).

Marginalization of stigmatized people means not belonging, which is the result of stigmatization by the societies in which they live. Marginalization occurs frequently in rural societies because of an expectation of “sameness.” Rural communities are often culturally homogeneous; and, they are usually White and heterosexual (Cloke & Little, 1997; Phillips & Watt, 2000). Rural communities are often portrayed as close-knit and accepting, but this closeness may not extend to people who are different (Cloke & Little, 1997). Thus rural gay men are either forced to become invisible, to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, or to lead a heterosexual life to avoid the risk of being stigmatized.

Stigma against LGBT people has long been prevalent in the United States (Mays & Cochran, 2001). Since the 1980s, stigma has been exacerbated by the HIV epidemic because many with anti-gay attitudes believe that the gay community bears responsibility for the epidemic. HIV/AIDS in the United States to date has been most prevalent among gay and bisexual men (men who have sex with men), and most of the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS derives from its association with homosexuality. Because of this stigma, gay and bisexual men are marginalized in society because of their “blemished” lifestyles (Herek, Capitanio, & Widaman, 2003). The stigmatization of homosexuality is associated with higher levels of emotional distress among LGBT individuals in contrast to their heterosexual counterparts (Courtney-Quirk, Wolitsky, Parsons, & Gomez, 2006; D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 1998; Mays & Cochran, 2001). For many gay men, stigmatization based on others’ negative attitudes results in internalized homophobia, a form of self-denigration which erodes self-esteem and contributes to mental health difficulties, especially depression (D’Augelli, 1994).

The purpose of this book is to describe the perceptions of stigma experienced by rural gay men and their methods of coping with this stigma. The book has four aims. The first aim is to tell about our experiences accessing the hidden population of rural gay men to recruit to our study, especially how we used social networks of rural gay men, gaining their trust as we collected data. We have described these experiences in the Prologue. The second aim is to present the stories of 15 rural gay men using the results of an intensive analysis of interview material involving their experiences related to living in rural communities, relating to their families, establishing their sexual identity, developing partnerships, and engaging in sexual behavior. Each of these domains is presented in a separate chapter. The third aim is to relate the findings from our interviews to the quantitative findings from our survey data of 414 men. We accomplished this by footnotes to the interview data. The footnotes appear in the Notes section in the back of the book. The fourth aim is to generate a typology to represent the ways in which our gay respondents have coped with stigma. This typology is described in Chapter 8.

SUMMARY

Most studies of homosexuality have been done in metropolitan areas and have not included environmental variables even though the importance of the environment or social context in the study of human development and well-being is well-known. Although several researchers have documented differences and similarities in social and economic issues between rural and urban populations, few have examined issues of sexual orientation. Moreover, many questions related to stigma and marginalization of rural gay men remain unanswered. Our hope is that the research findings presented in this book will detail how stigma operates in the lives of rural gay men as well as describe the strategies they utilize to cope with the stigma.

2 Research Methods

INTRODUCTION

Our research combined both quantitative and qualitative research methods, employing the two-phase research design as suggested by Creswell (1994). In the two-phase design, data collection and analysis are conducted independently of each other and converge in the findings and their discussion (Creswell, 1994, 1998; Morse & Field, 1995). The quantitative method was a paper-and-pencil survey; the qualitative method consisted of face-to-face interviews with gay men to obtain more detailed information concerning their life experiences in rural areas. Although the questionnaire afforded greater anonymity and convenience, the interviews offered the opportunity to clarify and elaborate. In addition, the interviews permitted us to establish more rapport with the participating gay men. In the first phase of the study we surveyed 414 gay men. In the second phase, 15 gay men were interviewed.

QUANTITATIVE DESIGN

Our first challenge was to develop procedures to locate rural gay men and recruit them to the study. Since there is little known about the “culture” of rural gay people, we progressed carefully in the development of networks to facilitate contact with gay men throughout Pennsylvania. Our next task was to develop and refine our measures and design a questionnaire that would be appropriate for our potential respondents.

In 2000, we conducted a small study of rural gay men that served to inform our current research and helped in the development of ideas for measures and data collection (Preston, D’Augelli, Kassab, Cain, Schulze, & Starks, 2004). We redesigned our survey after that study and tested a preliminary version of our questionnaire on 10 local gay men who provided verbal and written feedback. We then revised the instrument. Next, we conducted another pilot study of 40 rural gay men in Rhode Island. This pilot study helped us further refine our measures and to test our recruitment and compensation methods. The resulting data from these 40 men were analyzed and the psychometric properties of the measures were examined. Revisions were again made and the final questionnaire that was used in the RMS was constructed.

The study was focused on gay men in rural Pennsylvania, a large rural state with a population of 12.7 million anchored by two metropolitan areas in the southeast (Philadelphia: population 1.5 million) and the southwest (Pittsburgh: population 305,700) with a capital city in the middle (Harrisburg: population 49,500) (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2010). In the rural northern tiers of the state are many small towns. According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2010), the rural population of Pennsylvania is 3.5 million and represents one of the largest rural populations in the country.

Determining Rural Residency Status

Defining and identifying “rural” has long been a vexing challenge for rural sociologists (Brown & Schafft, 2011; Flora & Flora 2008), and therefore deciding who is a “rural” gay man was be problematic. There is no consensus among researchers as to the optimal method. We chose a combination of four methods to identify rural respondents. The first method is called Central Place Theory. Central Place Theory explains factors that determine the location of “central places” (variously sized villages, towns, and cities) where goods and services are marketed to populations of less density surrounding more densely populated central place (Christaller, 1966). It has been used successfully to analyze rural health policy related to service delivery (Baer, Johnson-Webb, & Gesler, 1997). We used this theory to identify AIDS service organizations (ASOs) located in central places of less than 50,000 people, assuming that these organizations could provide assistance in locating social networks of gay men. The second method used was County Designation based on the U.S. Census designation. Of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania at the time of the study, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2003) classified 50 (75%) as rural based on population density (less than 274 persons per square mile) and distance from a metropolitan area. Based on these criteria, approximately one-third (...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Front Cover
• The Challenges of Being a Rural Gay Man
• Routledge Advances in Sociology
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Prologue
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Research Methods
• 3 Living in Rural Communities
• 4 Relating to Families
• 5 Establishing a Sexual Identity
• 6 Developing Partnerships
• 7 Engaging in Sexual Behavior
• 8 Conclusions
• Appendix A: Tables
• Notes
• References
• Index