Coming Out and Outcomes - Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Identites PDF

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2003, volume 21, pages 479 ^ 499
DOI:10.1068/d277t
Coming out and outcomes: negotiating lesbian and gay

identities with, and in, the family
Gill Valentine
Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England;
e-mail: g.valentine@sheffield.ac.uk
Tracey Skelton
Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, England;
e-mail: t.l.skelton@lboro.ac.uk
Ruth Butler
Centre for Applied Social Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England;
e-mail: r.e.butler@hull.ac.uk
Received 19 November 2001; in revised form 30 August 2002
Abstract. In late modernity there has been a shift in the ways that individuals relate to society, in
which traditional ideas, expectations, and hierarchies are being reworked. Released from the con-
straints and social norms of tradition, individuals, it is argued, are now freer to choose between a
range of options in the pursuit of their own happiness. Notably, these social changes have been
understood to provide more opportunities for lesbians and gay men to `come out'ödisclose their
sexuality and live the lifestyle of their choice. Coming out is often implicitly discussed in academic
literatures as an individual decision, and the consequences of coming out are also usually explored in
relation to the personal narratives of the individual who has disclosed a lesbian and gay sexuality. To
date, little attention has been paid to the actual processes through which sexual dissidents negotiate
their identities with others, and to the consequences of such disclosures for those who are close to
them or share their lives in various ways. In this paper we address this omission by focusing on young
people's experiences of coming out with, and in, families of origin. We begin by examining what is at
stake in the decision whether to come out or not by examining the role that families of origin play
in young people's lives. We then explore how the process of coming out is actually negotiated within
different families. Finally, we consider the òutcomes' of these choices. In doing so we contribute to
research on geographies of sexualities, geographies of the `family', youth transitions, and the emerging
field of social studies of emotions.
It is widely acknowledged that we are witnessing a historical transformation in society

(Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). The industrial era, which has been characterised by
rationality, scientific knowledge, social hierarchies, and tradition, is being challenged
by new a modernity. In this phase the old certainties of traditional occupations are
being replaced by a recognition of the need for individuals to adapt to the destandard-
isation of work and changing labour-market conditions, by, for example, retraining and
switching occupations. As a result, individuals' identities and lifestyles are no longer so
clearly related to their employment and family backgrounds.
Traditional ideas and expectations about social relations are also being reworked.
The preordained path of school, paid work, courtship, marriage, and parenthood is
now less clearly marked. Rather, there has been a weakening of class ties, a decline in
the reliance on authorities such as the church, and a decoupling of some of the social
behaviours and attitudes (for example, in relation to having sex, having children, etc)
that used to be attached to marriage and family life (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995;
Giddens, 1991). As Bauman (2002, page xv) explains: ``No more are human beings `born
into' their identities ... . Needing to become what one is is the hallmark of modern.'' With
these changes has come the emergence of new social allegiances. Released from the
constraints and social norms of tradition, individuals are now freer to choose between a
480 G Valentine, T Skelton, R Butler
range of options in the pursuit of their own happiness. However, these new possibilities
also bring with them new uncertainties and risks. As such, individuals are expected to
accept personal responsibility for any negative consequences or misfortunes that accrue
from their choices. It is a process that has been termed ìndividualisation' (Beck, 1992;
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002).
This theoretical approach is being employed by researchers to make sense of the
processes through which young people make the transition from childhood to adult-
hood (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995; Furlong and Cartmel, 1997). The freedom that
young people are assumed to have to create `do-it-yourself biographies' has notably
been understood to provide more opportunities for lesbians and gay men to live the
lifestyle of their choice. Law reforms (for example, the change in the age of consent for
gay men in the United Kingdom, and the extension of partnership rights to lesbian
and gay couples in a number of European states) and the growing public profile of
lesbians and gay men (for example, as a result of media, sporting, and political
celebrities `coming out') in North America and Europe have contributed to creating
a more liberal social climate. The development of social groups, support groups, and
political groups across a range of scales and the emergence of an increasing number of
commercial gay `scenes' (Binnie, 1995; Knopp, 1998) have also provided a framework
of allegiance for lesbians and gay men. As a result, it is generally understood to be
èasier' to be lesbian or gay now than at any time in the past. Yet, despite these positive
changes, homophobia and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation persist
(Valentine, 1993a; 1996). The decision to `come out' is still therefore both difficult and
risky for many young people.
Coming out is often implicitly discussed as an individual decision, and the
consequences of coming out are also usually explored in relation to the personal
narratives of the individual who has disclosed a lesbian or gay sexuality. Far less
attention has been paid to the actual processes through which sexual dissidents
negotiate their identities with others, and to the consequences of such disclosures
for those that are close to them or share their lives in various ways. Indeed, within
geography most work on lesbians' and gay men's lives has focused either on their
experiences as individuals, or on those of `communities'. Little attention has been
paid either to sexual relationships, or to the way that lesbians' and gay men's lives
(as individuals and in partnerships) are embedded into `families' of origin (birth
families) and families of choice (1) (the `family' relationships people create for them-
selves). Despite processes of individualisation people's lives are still woven together
in these and other forms of relationships. In the face of the uncertainties of the `risk
society' (Beck, 1992) it is to these significant others that most people turn for
support. Yet, it is also these relationships that lesbians and gay men put at risk by
coming out. In this paper we provide a counterpoint to the focus on individuals
within geographies of sexualities by examining young lesbians' and young gay men's
experiences of coming out with, and in, their families of origin. In doing so, we
examine the complex interrelationships between the identities of individuals within
a family and the collective identity of the family, and explore the ways that family
dynamics operate in delicate intergenerational negotiations about ìdentities'.
Surprisingly, the family has received relatively little attention from geographers.
Although there is a growing body of work on the meanings and experiences of
the home (for example, Sommerville, 1992), the relationships between those who
inhabit it have been relatively neglected. There are two notable exceptions to this.
(1) Here we follow Weeks et al (1999) in making a distinction between families of origin and families
of choice.
Coming out and outcomes 481
First, there is a body of feminist research that has focused on the home as a domestic
workplace. Themes within this work include women's responsibilities for caring for
dependent children and elders, and the relationship between domestic spaces and
wider geographies (for example, Dyck, 1990; England, 1996; Hanson and Pratt, 1988;
1995; Holloway, 1998). More recently, drawing on the accounts of the everyday lives
of nine couples with young babies, Aitken (1998) has begun to explore the way that
family identities are embedded in a complex web of cultural politics at a range
of scales from the home and community to the city and region. Second, children's
geographies ö with its focus on children as competent social actors ö has spawned an
interest in the processes through which children (primarily aged 5 ^ 16) negotiate
their identities and spatialities with adult carers (Sibley, 1995a; Valentine, 1997;
Wood and Beck, 1994). However, there is no work that examines: parents' relation-
ships with àdult' children; the role of siblings within the household; relations between
èxtended' family members; the dynamics of intergenerational relationships; the
production of familial identities; or the emotional functioning of the space of
the home.
A similar absence is evident in interdisciplinary work within the social sciences on
children and young people. Here, research is clearly divided into two discrete bodies of
work along the lines of age: childhood studies predominantly focus on the age group
5 to 16 years, while youth studies concentrate on 16 to 24 year olds. This separation
is also evident in terms of the different groups of academics that are at the forefront of
research in each field, and the intellectual frameworks and traditions upon which they
draw. Whereas the relationships between children and parents are the subject of
research within the social studies of childhood (for example, James et al, 1998), youth
studies has traditionally been more concerned with youth cultures and consumption,
and with the impact of structural factors, such as unemployment and homelessness,
on young peoples lives (for example, Bynner et al, 1997). Little attention has been paid
to how young people's transitions from childhood to adulthood are embedded in
day-to-day family life, and to the emotional functioning of the space of the home.
Although we recognise that young people grow up in a variety of family forms, and
may have experiences of living in more than one household, home(s) is still the site
where young people spend lengthy periods of time with a parent or parents and
siblings. It is in the home that understandings about young people's maturity
and morality are often constructed by parents through rules about spatial and
temporal boundaries. Even when young people leave home, the family home is still
the site through which many of their individual biographies and expectations are
routed and consequently where the emotional functioning of the family is often
played out. As such, it is important to recognise the transitional processes that take
place within the family home(s), rather than just those that occur at the wider
macroscale of society, and to understand how what goes on within family homes
can have consequences for young people's identities and social relations in the spaces
that stretch beyond them.
This paper is structured into three sections (excluding the introduction and con-
clusion). In the first section we examine what is at stake in the decision whether to
come out or not by examining the role that families of origin play in young people's
lives. In the second section we explore how the process of coming out is actually
negotiated within different families. In the third section we consider the òutcomes' of
these choices. In doing so we contribute to research on geographies of sexualities,
geographies of the `family', youth transitions, and the emerging field of social studies
of emotions (Davidson, 2001; Lupton, 1998).
Our findings are based on in-depth interviews (2) with twenty self-identified young
lesbians and gay men aged 16 to 25, and retrospective interviews with twenty-three self-
identified òlder' lesbians and gay men about their memories of this period and the
significance it had for the way their lives have subsequently mapped out. Although
some of our interviewees identified as heterosexual and/or bisexual before defining
themselves as lesbian or gay (and indeed in the future may redefine their sexualities
again), here we are choosing just to focus on those critical moments when a lesbian or
gay identity is negotiated within families of origin rather than to address the wider
processual nature of sexual identity formation. This work makes up part of a larger
study titled ``Living on the edge: the marginalisation and resistance of D/deaf youth''
(Valentine and Skelton, 2003). This has also included interviews with service providers
for lesbians and gay men and for the D/deaf,(3) e-mail interviews, group work, and
interviews with young heterosexual D/deaf people.
The interviewees were recruited from the Midlands of the United Kingdom by a
combination of methods including: snowballing from multiple sources, advertisements
on the Internet and in newsletters, and contact with a range of relevant support groups,
advice groups, and social groups. As such, our respondents are drawn from a wide range
of social backgrounds (in terms of their parents' social class, educational qualifications,
housing situation, and employment status). They have also grown up in a range of
different `family' forms. These include conventional nuclear families, lone-parent house-
holds, reconstituted families, and lesbian households. All the interviews, which were
conducted in a place of the informant's choice, lasted between one and two hours. These
were taped, transcribed, and then analysed using conventional social-science techniques.
As the diverse backgrounds of our interviewees imply, `family' is a problematic term
because it conceals a complex and diverse range of household forms (Stacey, 1990).
Here, we employ `family' as an umbrella term to cover the full range of social relations
outlined above. At various points in the paper we do however highlight moments where
the particular constitution of a `family' makes a difference.
Coming out: what is at stake

Individualisation, with its emphasis on self-fulfilment, choice, rights, and freedom, has
according to some commentators contributed to the growing instability of the family.
Writers such as Popenoe (1988) have argued that the family is in decline. Using data
from Sweden that shows marriage rates at an all-time low and rising divorce rates, he
suggests that the family is losing its social function and power. Other commentators,
however, have challenged this analysis (for example, Morgan, 1999; Silva and Smart,
1999). They argue that the tendency towards individualised or `do-it-yourself ' biogra-
phies does not necessarily lead to the creation of relatively isolated sets of individuals.
Rather, although family forms may be moving away from traditional notions of
`proper' nuclear families and some practices within the family may be changing, Silva
and Smart (1999, page 5) argue that ``families remain a crucial relational entity playing
a fundamental part in the intimate life of and connections between individuals''.
(2) The names of all those quoted, and the people and places referred to in these quotations, have
been changed in an effort to protect their anonymity and confidentiality.

(3) There are two dominant constructions of D/deafness: deafness as a medical matter and the Deaf as a
linguistic minority. The writing of `deaf' is commonly used to imply: a medical description of deafness
measured against the `norm' of hearing people. It usually signifies those who do not present a strong
deaf identity and who generally rely on oral styles of communication (lip-reading, speaking) rather than
BSL (British Sign Language). In contrast, `Deaf' is linked to the construction of a linguistic identity and
culture. It is commonly used by those whose first or preferred language is BSL, and whose identity
and behaviour are consistent with the norms, traditions, and practices of Deaf culture.
What they agree is changing is the way that people are `doing' families. Although
marriage rates may be declining, most adults continue to live in partnerships, or aspire
to these forms of relationships, yet they are no longer necessarily bound together
legally but rather are together through choice (Stacey, 1990; Weeks et al, 2000). These
forms of living arrangements include: cohabiting partners (with or without children)
who are not legally married; lone parents; same-sex partnerships; part-time relation-
ships; relationships that are maintained between different homes, sometimes over large
geographical distances; and so on (see, for example, Chandler, 1991; Smart, 1999;
Weeks et al, 1999). Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002, page 98) explain ``this does not
mean that the traditional family is simply disappearing. But it is losing the monopoly it
had for so long. Its quantitative significance is declining as new forms of living appear
and spread.'' These postmodern families (Stacey, 1990) or `post families' (Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), as they have been variously described, may differ in terms of
their degree of obligation or permanence but they are still characterised by their
members' commitment to intimacy, sharing resources, and maintaining responsibilities
for each other, albeit in different ways (Bernardes, 1987; Finch and Mason, 1993; Silva
and Smart, 1999). As a result, despite individualisation, many of the risks involved in
making the transition from dependent childhood to independent adulthood are still
mediated through families of one sort or another.
In the late 20th century and early 21st century, transitions from childhood to
adulthood have become more extended and more complex (Jones and Wallace, 1992).
Entry into the labour market has become more difficult, and the expansion of further
education, higher education, and government training schemes has made the school-
to-work transition more protracted (Furlong and Cartmel, 1997). At the same time,
a gradual reduction in the benefits that young people are entitled toöàdult' social-
security benefits are not payable in the United Kingdom until the age of 25öand rising
housing costs (Coles, 1995; Jones, 1995) mean that many young people are being
pitched into a state of semidependency on their families. Jones (2000, page 185), for
example, explains that: ``the restructuring of the welfare state and the withdrawal from
young people of much of the welfare support which previously safeguarded their
transitions from the parental home has made leaving home more difficult.''
Unable to support themselves financially, young people are expected to turn to
their parents for support. Ironically, therefore, while the family home is often presented
as the site that young people want to get away from, it is family resources that are
increasingly important in facilitating this escape (Jones, 1995). These resources are not
only monetary; family connections can be important in finding and securing work and
accommodation (Allatt and Yeandle, 1992; Bowlby et al, 1998) and families also
contribute more broadly to young people's welfare by providing emotional support
(Collins, 2001; Goldscheider, 1997).
The UK government, by placing increased emphasis on parental responsibility for
adults without independent means, is effectively forcing families to serve as a buffer
between the state and the individual. As a result, young people often achieve social
autonomy (in terms of their consumption, social identities, and sexual relationships)
from their parents before they establish their financial and housing independence
(Jones, 1987; 1995). Finch and Mason (1993) observe that the range of support (from
material and practical to emotional and moral) provided by families, with their
ill-defined sense of obligations, is one of the unremarkable characteristics of everyday
domestic life. Given this importance of families as a safety net it is not surprising that
many young lesbians and gay men are fearful that if they choose to come out they will
be rejected by their parents and cut off from this source of support.
As well as wanting to avoid rejection, young people also have a strong sense of
obligation to their parents and as a result are fearful of hurting them. In contrast to the
past, children no longer have much economic value within the household (and in fact
are often a financial drain), but they are more valued in personal and emotional terms.
Children increasingly anchor parents' identities. Individualisation may mean that
young people have more choices about how to live their lives, but it is parents who
are being held responsible for their children reaching their full potential: educationally,
emotionally, and even aesthetically (Beck-Gernsheim, 1988). Parents are increasingly
expected to make considerable material and personal sacrifices to provide their
children with the education, equipment, holidays, sports activities, and social activities
necessary to make the best start in life. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995, page 119)
explain: ``loving a child is an asymmetrical arrangement with all the decisions one-
sidely on the parents' shoulders and every mistake likely to interfere with the child's
chances in life (or so the educationalists tell us).''
This parental investment in children's futures often brings with it an implicit
expectation that this support will be repaid, though not necessarily in a direct way
(Finch and Mason, 1993). Gouldner (1973) describes this diffuse sense of reciprocity
as an àll-purpose moral cement' that binds families together, and Finch and Mason
(1993) suggest that it locks individuals into particular sets of relationships. Notably,
children, as the embodiment of the self in the next generation, often become a
`projection screen' for parents' own unrealised ambitions and desires for social mobility
(Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995, page 38). Families link people in time. Children give
parents a foothold in the future, and thus, Morgan (1996) argues, they provide a bridge
between individual time, life-course time, and historical time. As such, Beck and Beck-
Gernsheim (1995, page 138) claim that `ànyone suggesting that `my child should have it
better than I did' is not just thinking of the child, but mostly of him/herself.'' Children
are a `public' face of families, and as such represent one of the many ways that
households are woven into wider structures and practices. Of course, the flip side of
the mutual constitution of parent ^ child identities is that if a child does not `turn out
right' parents can not only blame themselves but fear that others will blame them too,
and that the whole family's identity will be `spoiled'.
`Normal' and àbnormal' adolescence is tied to powerful discourses about hetero-
sexuality and gender (Holloway et al, 2000; Valentine, 2000). Indeed, traditionally
adulthood has been understood to be defined by four markers, two of which are
based on a heterosexual imperative: exiting the education system, securing paid
employment, marriage, and parenthood (Morrow and Richards, 1996). Young people
who begin to identify as lesbian and gay therefore often feel anxious about letting
their parents down. Given that most heterosexual parents assume that their children
will also be heterosexual, family members are often an inadvertent source of negative
attitudes towards, and stereotypes of, lesbian and gay sexualities long before young
people identify as such (Elwood, 2000; Johnston and Valentine, 1995; Valentine,
1993b).
Decisions about whether or not to come out are not therefore necessarily made
on the basis of an individual's desires and chosen life path alone, but rather are often
embedded in an understanding of, and responsibility towards, wider family relation-
ships and reputations. Those lesbians and gay men who had grown up in lone-parent
households expressed this sense of loyalty and obligation most strongly. As Jack and
Sue explain below they both felt a duty to remain in the closet in order to protect
their mothers from hurt, and to vindicate their mothers' parenting skills.
Jack: `Ì kind of made all the excuses why I wasn't going to tell her because you
know she'd had a hard life and you know... she'd been quite ill and you know
obviously my Dad had left and various sorts of things had happened that. I just
thought you know, she's not had an easy time of it, and I just thought oh this'll
make it worse you know. And I think, I suppose that looking back on it now,
that's kind of internalised stuff with me you know, thinking that somehow its bad
to tell her, you know somehow it'd be bad news to tell her that I was gay... .''
Sue: `Ì think it stopped me developing emotionally, I think it kept me quite, quite
emotionally immature for quite a long time, but there was an issue around the
loss of my Dad ... and that was an overriding factor in that I didn't want to hurt
my Mum anymore. I didn't want her to think because we hadn't had a father in
the house she'd turned out a lesbian daughter and oh, a whole load of, of issues.
I just thought it's better not even to go there. I was quite prepared to live a life
of denial really and just be single ... .''
However, choices bring with them risks and potential negative consequences for
which individuals are expected to take responsibility. By choosing not to disclose their
sexuality young people like Jack and Sue, as their quotes imply, can pay a high price. A
life of secrecy and lies can hinder young people's emotional development, reinforce
their own homophobia, undermine their self-esteem and confidence, and inhibit them
from connecting with the lesbian and gay `community'. In common with many other
young people both Jack and Sue have juggled their sexualities with their families'
expectations of heterosexuality by establishing lesbian and gay identities that are
spatially and socially compartmentalised from the rest of their lives.
Jack: `Ànd then I had this relationship with this, with this bloke who I'd go
over and see, I'd stay over at his ... she [his mother with whom he lived] must
have known but, but, it was almost like there was two separate existences going
on, and the gay one was very much kind of like happened over here [one hand
gesture] and then you know the sort of the straight rest of my life happened
over here [other hand gesture].''
Sue: `Ì hoped [by running away from home], I hoped to be able to be free, to
free myself and I just wanted to, to not hurt anybody. I hoped that by going
away they'd be better, well I thought, I vividly remember thinking that they'll be
better off without me and I hoped that it would help them and it would help
me, I could be free, I could be myself.''
Yet, this is a tactic that can also serve to isolate these young people emotionally
from their families at a time when they most need support. Elizur and Ziv (2001,
pages 135 ^ 136) explain that: ``The realisation of same-gender feelings against the
background of self and others' expectations for the development of heterosexuality
breaks one's sense of belonging to a `reality' shared with the socio-familial environ-
ment.'' As the quotes below describe, lesbians and gay men who are not òut' are cut
off from potential familial support when they encounter the breakup of first relation-
ships and anxieties about their HIV status ^ although families themselves can also be
a site of homophobia (see, for example, Elwood, 2000; Johnston and Valentine, 1995).
Not surprisingly, gay and lesbian youth are at more risk than their heterosexual peers
of experiencing depression, substance abuse, suicidal behaviour, poor health, and
practising unsafe sex (Elizur and Ziv, 2001; Massachusetts Department of Education,
1995).
Riva:``... I was real confused. I thought I don't want to speak to anybody, I just
need to be on me own, and I ended that in meself, that I ended up drinking all
the time and I started taking drugs and stuff like that ... .''
Bob: `Ì took an overdose, I'd absolutely had enough ... I didn't want anything to
do with anybody, I blamed myself for how I'd been treated [he had experienced
homophobic bullying], plus my parents and other people, that they'd not been
there for me [because he was not out], and that was bad ... if it ever got that bad
again I think I would, I would do it [commit suicide] and I'd do it so I'd be
successful because it's, to me it's the only way out I could see at the time ... .''
In the face of such pressures many young people opt to come out to their families.
In the following section we go on to look at the tactics that they use in order to try
and achieve a positive response. Here, we focus on family dynamics, gender roles,
parenting roles, and processes of intrahousehold negotiations.
The process of coming out

Discussing self-identity in the context of a posttraditional social order, characterised by
individualisation, Giddens (1991) suggests that in our lifetimes we each encounter
fateful moments.
``Fateful moments are those when individuals are called on to take decisions that
are particularly consequential for their ambitions, or more generally their future
lives ... [they] are times when events come together in such a way that an individ-
ual stands, as it were, at a crossroads in his [sic] existence ... . They are moments
when the individual must launch out into something new, knowing that a decision
made, or a specific course of action followed has an irreversible quality, or at
least that it will be difficult thereafter to revert to the old paths'' (pages 112 ^ 114).
A similar term, `critical moments', has been used by Thomson et al (2002) to refer to
events recounted in interviews, which are interpreted either by the researcher, or by the
interviewee, as having important consequences for the informant's life and identity.
Given the consequential nature of `fateful' or `critical' moments the decisions
associated with them are difficult to take. Individuals are forced to reflect on and
call into question the `norms' and routines of their everyday life, to evaluate the risks
inherent in the different options that they face in an attempt to make an informed
choice that will yield the optimum outcome (Giddens, 1991). Although these fateful
moments are times of risk, the very act of facing and managing or overcoming a
difficult situation can be empowering and enable an individual to reconstruct their
self-identity in a positive way. Coming out to a family member can represent such a
fateful moment. Elizur and Ziv (2001, page 136) observe that this process ``requires
the working through of denials, pressures to conform to family expectations and the
majority culture, internalised and externalised heterosexism and fears of real and
imagined consequences.'' Indeed, coming-out moments often represent a crossroads
in an individual's identity that is reached as a consequence of a positive or negative
change in their personal circumstance which prompts them come out in search of
support and acknowledgement from their families. For Cassie it was the excitement
of falling in love and the desire to share her partner with her family that inspired her
to come out, whereas it was Mark's fear of his HIV test results that prompted his
disclosure.
Yet, there are no traditions or rituals to guide such individualised transitions. As
such, having reached the decision to disclose their sexuality young people use their
understandings of family dynamics and relations to evaluate the best way to negotiate
this transition in their identities. Families are not homogenous or monolithic institutions
but rather are formed through complex webs of differentiated relationships between
individuals, and are constituted in many different forms. Young people usually have
different sorts of relationships with individual parents, carers, and siblings such that they
find it easier to talk to some family members rather than to others, and also recognise
that coming out may have a differential impact on, or consequences for, others'
individual roles and identities. As a result, they rarely come out to the whole family
simultaneously. Rather, they use their understanding of differential family relationships
in order to make an informed and individualised choice about how best to disseminate
the news about their sexuality.
Mothers are usually the first to be told. This is not surprising given that previous
research has identified that much of the emotional work within families is usually done
by mothers (Valentine, 1997). Indeed, their power within households commonly derives
from their domestic knowledge of, and their control over, other members' activities.
Walkerdine and Lucey (1989, page 101) suggest that middle-class mothers often work
hard to manage and suppress confrontations and to produce a `fiction of harmony',
whereas Charles and Kerr (1988) argue that `good' mothers are defined in terms of
their willingness to prioritise their childrens' and partners' needs above their own. As
such, young lesbians and gay men often surmise that their mothers may already `know'
about their sexuality, and that their motherly love and concern will override any
feelings of homophobia. Moreover, lesbians and gay men often assume that mothers,
as the pivotal member of families, will be able to manage the reactions of others.
In contrast, the literature on parenting suggests that fathers are usually less
involved in the everyday domestic life of families. This distance and detachment
enables them to adopt the mantle of family disciplinarian (Valentine, 1997). As a
consequence most of the people we interviewed found it difficult to come out to their
fathers and anticipated a more negative response from them. These rationalisations are
born out by the evidence of other research. A survey by Savin-Williams (1990) found
that fathers are more likely than mothers to reject lesbian and gay offspring. A similar
study by D'Augelli et al (1998) revealed that fathers are less accepting of homosexuality
than both mothers and siblings.
Not only do lesbians and gay men commonly break the news of their sexuality to
their mothers first, they also often ask her to come out on their behalf to other
members of their families. In this way, coming out, rather than being a personal
process, can be an indirect process in which the responsibility for an individual's
identity (re)construction is transferred to others. Even when mothers or other family
members are not explicitly asked to take on this role, they often do so because in the
face of their own shock, fears, or disappointment they need to get support from other
members of the family. Here, lesbians' and gay men's siblings can often play an
important role in renegotiating their sexual identities for them with other family
members. In this sense, coming out not only involves the one-off event of the leap of
disclosureöone of Giddens's `fateful moments' öbut can also become a continuous
dialogue between family members. As such, coming out is not just something that is
done in or to the family but rather is a process that is negotiated both with other
individuals and as a collectivity.
Brian: `Ì said, I said to her [his mother] how do you think me Dad'll be with it?
So she said, she said, Ì'm sure he'll be alright, just give me time, I'll talk to
him' and stuff like that ... . And it just turned out that a couple of nights after
they were running this like erm gay season on Channel Four [a television
channel] ... . And me Mam put it on, me Dad's sat there he said `What the hell
are we watching this for?'... . And then she explained to him and he was like
`What?'... . I rung me mother up and I'd spoken to her, I'd said `have you said
'owt yet?' So she said `yes'. I said `how was he?' So she said òh give him a couple
of days to mull it over'.''
Mark:``... my Mum told my Nana then, 'cos she needed somebody to talk to... So
she told my Nana and then she told my brother and it's gradually worked its
way from there.''
Cassie: ``Harriet [one of her sisters] wasn't bothered erm, because you know
she'd been away to University, she'd been out and seen the big wide world and she'd
got quite a few gay friends and she wasn't bothered by it in the slightest. So you
know and my Mum said `but you know you'll catch all these sorts of diseases' and
you know Harriet actually said you know...àctually Mum I think you'll find that me
and Pru [her other heterosexual sister] are more likely to catch things than you know
than Cassie is'.''
Contrary to the expectations of many young people, mothers do not always res-
pond positively to the news of their child's homosexuality. As the primary carers for
their children, mothers can read their son's or daughter's sexuality as evidence of their
failings as a parent. In their role of carers they are also often very fearful that
their children will be at risk of discrimination and sexual diseases and will not be
able to develop stable relationships and lead happy lives. Rather than experiencing
these emotions of guilt, self-blame, and fear, fathers more commonly react to their gay
sons with anger and disgust, and respond to their lesbian daughters by reflecting on
their own loss of an imagined future as father of the bride, grandfather, etc. Most
families have little understanding of lesbian and gay lifestyles, and are themselves in
need of support when they learn of their son's or daughter's sexuality. As such, the
reactions of both parents incorporate many of the signifiers of defilement (such as
disease, dirt), embodied in stereotypes, that are commonly used to demonise minorities
and mark the boundaries between the self and other (Sibley, 1995b).
Sue:``... she [her mother] was blaming herself and I said `no it's not you, its not
you'... it's nothing she's done which, that was the hardest thing we worked on,
taking the blame away. She felt very much that she'd done something at some
point in my life that had affected me ... .''
Cassie: ``Her [mother's] first, you know her first reactions were all negative ones,
people are gonna treat me badly, I was gonna get my car vandalised, I was gonna
catch all sorts of sexual diseases because I'd be effectively cottaging, because my
Mum knew absolutely nothing about it. So she just thought you know gay
women, you know, just meet other women in toilets and I would catch all sorts
of diseases, I was gonna get AIDS, I was gonna get all these sorts of things.''
Lynne: ``... I remember going for a meal with him [her father] ... . And he kind of
said `yes, you know I have found it problematic and I had, you know, ideas of a
taking a son-in-law to a football match and those sorts of things'... . Because
this kind of idealised notion had gone.''
Robbie: ``He [his father] basically said that it was like the same as being a paedophile
and never to tell my sister because if I did she wouldn't let me see her niece [meaning
her daughter, his niece] anymore ... and they [Robbie's parents] would support her in
that completely 'cos they would see me as like a really bad influence on her and I
wouldn't be able to get a job and my life would be in the gutter.''
In a UK survey by Hunter (1990) it was found that 61% of violent acts committed
against lesbians and gay men are actually perpetrated by their family members. In a
similar US study by D'Augelli et al (1998) it was found that, of those young lesbians
and gay men surveyed, 25% had been verbally abused by their parents and that 10%
had been physically threatened. Gay men are most at risk (in quantitative terms) from
assault by their brothers, with mothers being the relative most likely to step in to
protect them. Only half of mothers and siblings in this study and a quarter of fathers
were fully accepting of those who came out. As the quotes above imply, our research
painted a similarly distressing picture. Of the forty-three people we interviewed, over

half reported that both their parents initially responded very negatively to their sex-
uality, a quarter described their parents as upset but accepting, and the remainder
claimed that their parents responded in different ways: with one parent reacting
positively and the other negatively.
Young people's vulnerability to negative family reactions is most evident in terms
of housing. `Children' aged over 18 in England and Wales (over 16 years in Scotland)
can only live in the family home with the permission of their parents (Jones, 2000).
Jones (2000, page 192) claims however that ``there is a strong feeling among policy
makers, housing providers, families ... that there is a `right way' to leave home; in
consequence, there is little family or state support for those who leave home for
problem-related reasons, or indeed those who are too young, yet it is these people
who most need support, and who are most at risk of homelessness.'' Several of our
interviewees were thrown out of parental homes or ran away as a result of negative
parental responses to their sexuality, as a result of which they found themselves in
precarious housing situations. Other interviewees encountered very negative reactions
from their families, including: being disowned by them, being banned from seeing
nieces and nephews, being physically assaulted, being referred to psychiatrists, and
having the family Christmas cancelled.
Vinnie: ``[He came out to his mother, who told his brother] And then my brother
punched me a lot and said `No brother of mine's gay'. And `don't you understand
what you're doing to Mum?' ''
Amy: ``... when I was about 15 and a half, 16, sort of that time period, I had a
big argument with my Mum who made comments `from what I hear you and
Susie don't need boyfriends' which caused a big argument within the household
and I walked out and I don't go back for a few years so it was a bit rough going
from then on.''
Interviewer: ``Where did you go?''
Amy: `Ì slept on a park bench for a couple of nights, and then [at] some friends'
that me Mam, I knew. They took me in ... .''
Fiona: ``Yeah and my Dad decided he was disowning me 'cos I was a lesbian
and shit like that ... my Mum wasn't accepting that I was a lesbian ... my Dad
definitely wasn't accepting it, and if I couldn't change my mind I was going ... and
it was just like, and it was like I couldn't, my Step-Dad and all that. Everything
was just like, I couldn't handle everything, the stress and like living by myself, I
couldn't handle that either, it was like the first time in my, I'm on my own and
it's like ahh, and there was like no-one there to help me.''
Mark: ``... the actual coming out experience ... was very, very, very stressful for
me because I had to put up with being practically rejected by my family. I mean
they've not thrown me out of the house but they may as well have done 'cos I
didn't feel like I was living with my Mum and Dad any more ... my Dad decided
that we were gonna cancel Christmas, he literally ripped all the decorations off
the ceiling, hurriedly put the Christmas tree away, we weren't gonna be having
Christmas cake, we weren't having Christmas dinner or anything, that was it
because of me coming out.''
According to her own account one young lesbian mother was reported to social
services as an unfit parent by her own mother and as a result her children were taken
from her and placed in her mother's custody. Riva explains her situation below.
Riva: `Ì had a lot of stress with my family 'cos I'm gay, they don't like it.''
Interviewer: ``Right.''
Riva: ``So I was sort of like booted out of the family and `you're on your own'
so I didn't have ...''
Interviewer: ``Yeah.''
Riva: ``So I come in the [name of youth drop-in centre] and I've been here ever
since.''
[Edit]
Riva:``... she [her mother] says I'm an unfit mother because I'm gay and I don't,
I'm not responsible and then all the rest of the crap. So I don't really see any of
them [her children], but I'm hoping next year to take it all to court [to try and
win custody of her children back from her mother].''
There are clear patterns evident in families' responses to young people coming out
according to the different ways that the families are constituted. Although some
negative reactions were evident in both what can loosely be defined as `middle-class'
and `working-class' families, it was `working-class' families that were most likely to
respond in terms of violence and rejection. In contrast, `middle-class' families tend
to seek professional help from psychiatrists and counsellors or to go into denial (a point
we return to in the following section). Two of our interviewees were raised in house-
holds with a lesbian mother. Both these women struggled to come out to their families
at first because of a rebellious desire not to live up to their lesbian mothers' expecta-
tions. Later they were aware that their mothers might be blamed for `corrupting' them.
Through observing their mothers' experiences of homophobia, and in one case through
being bullied at school because of the mother's sexuality, they had gained a greater
awareness of the wider social consequences of what being out might mean. Finally,
within families where a parent had had an extramarital affair, an illegitimate child, or
had left the family home there was a sense that they had forfeited their moral authority
to be critical of their son's or daughter's sexual choices. The following quotations
illustrate some of these patterns:
Megan: `Ì think because all my Mum's friends wanted me to be gay and my
Mum wanted me to be gay and I was just like you know, you're 14 and you're
rebelling [against] and you, everything your parents want, you know what I
mean? If she'd been straight I would have been gay and happy about it but no,
she was gay, so I thought I'd be straight and bollocks to her.''
Lynne: ``... in the eyes of me at kind of 16 I felt in quite a strong position in that he
[her father] had been having an affair and he had moved out, so he had kind of
contravened all these rules, so I felt in a way he didn't have any more kind
of ... . Judge me, yes to judge me or to you know make his opinions known about
that.''
In this section we have focused on families' initial emotional responses to a lesbian
or gay member coming out. In the following section we consider the way that families
adapt to this news after the crisis of disclosure, and the consequences it can have for the
identities of individual members and the collective identity of the family. These domestic
outcomes matter because the transitional processes that take place within the family
home in terms, for example, of understandings of a young person's competence,
responsibility, and trust can have consequences for the ways that young people handle
transitions (such as from school to work) in other sociospatial contexts. In this
way, advantage or disadvantageö not only in terms of economic and cultural
capital but also in terms of personal and emotional capital ö can begin at home. At
the same time the family itself is also reproduced through everyday domestic practices,
such as the way its members collectively negotiate `fateful moments'.
Outcomes
In outlining their individualisation thesis Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002, page 105)
suggest that the potential for new conflicts to emerge within the `post-family' is
increased as individuals pursue divergent life projects and it becomes difficult to hold
together biographies that tend to pull apart. In particular, ìdentity struggles' can break
out as individuals pursue their own right to a personal life and happiness in ways that
impact on the wider family. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim discuss this in relation to the
way tensions are being generated in the home by women's increased economic inde-
pendence. They suggest that women increasingly have expectations for their own lives
as individuals, rather than predominantly focusing their expectations on the family,
and, as such, their expectations of others within the homeöfor example, in terms of
gender roles and the division of labouröare also changing. Likewise, ìdentity struggles'
are also evident in post families when an individual pursues a lesbian or gay sexual
identity rather than forsaking or concealing their own sexuality in order to maintain the
family's expectations and image of heterosexuality.
The criteria for the transition to adulthood, as we pointed out earlier, have tradi-
tionally been defined in terms of leaving education, entering the labour market, mar-
riage, and parenthood (Arnett, 1997). These rites of passage also traditionally define
the renegotiation of the relationship between parents and their children. Through
tangible events, such as a wedding or the birth of a child, adulthood is effectively
conferred on young people by their family, community, and society. In this sense
parents have some means of recognising when, and how, to renegotiate their relation-
ships with their offspring from that of parent and dependent child to that of mutually
independent adults, and they can also monitor their own practices against some
``standard of normality'' (Morgan, 1999, page 19). Yet, when a lesbian or gay child
comes out these established markers of adulthood and opportunities for reflexivity are
lost. Understandings of a young person's transition to adulthood suddenly become
more intangible and individualised. These families have no guidelines or rituals to
fall back on in terms of how to respond, and must improvise. In this sense families
with lesbians and gay members, and families formed by lesbians and gay men, are like
binational or bicultural marriages or families where partners have to construct their
own intercultural reality in a space that has not really been structured before.
Adult parent ^ child relationships are essentially about negotiating the balance
between dependence and independence. This balance of responsibilities is disrupted
when a young person comes out as lesbian or gay such that they can effectively `shrink'
or `grow' in their parents' eyes. As a result young people and their parents can have
differential understandings of the extent of their progression from childhood to adult-
hood and of how this should be measured. Families respond to these identity struggles
in diverse ways.
In categorising families, Bernstein distinguishes between what he terms `positional
families' and `personalising families' (see Atkinson, 1985). In positional families power
is vested in positionsöfor example, in that of `the father'. Positional families are
authoritarian. Sibley (1988; 1995a; see also Lowe et al, 1993) observes that this
is evident in the way that children's use of space and time in positional families is
strongly bounded by a set of rigid rules. In contrast, in personalising families power
is more equally distributed between members and there is a more relaxed attitude to
the negotiation of space ^ time boundaries.
In Mark's case his family appears to be quite positional. His parents have
responded to his sexuality by effectively infantilising him. They have lost their trust in
him and regard him, because of his sexual identity, as vulnerable and at risk. In order
to control his behaviour and protect him they have established a rigid set of temporal
and spatial rulesöakin to those defined for young children. He explains:
Mark: ``... they basically sat me down and then told me how I was going to live
my life, you know [in] the blink of an eye take away all my freedom, you know
my freedom and liberties and everything, and you know. I didn't get any say or
negotiation on the matter because they just told me how it was gonna be ... it
seemed like I wasn't their son anymore, that I'd been replaced by somebody else,
that I was a stranger to them and the weird part was I felt the same as well. I
mean I sat there looking and talking to these people and I didn't see my Mum
and Dad anymore. I didn't see these two people that loved for me and cared for
me regardless and brought me up and everything and support me no matter
what. I'd just seen these two strangers, these authoritarian people that you know
in the blink of an eye taking away all my freedom and liberty and human rights
and everything.''
By reproducing their young adult son or daughter in a position of childlike depend-
ency within the space of the family home, parents such as Mark's can contribute to
positioning him or her in this way in wider society. For example, being treated as a
child at home can undermine young people's self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-
efficacy and in doing so reproduce their sense of dependency in other power relations
too. It was apparent in several of our interviews that such family patterns can be linked
to subsequent educational underachievement, self-harm, and emotional breakdowns.
In contrast, for other young people, coming out in the context of more person-
alising families, allowed them metaphorically to `grow' in their parents' eyes. For
these young people coming out repositioned them from being asexual children whose
identities were dependent upon their parents, to being independent adults who had
established lifestyles and values that were distinct from the family. In other words, by
coming out these young people have signaled that they are taking responsibility for
their own lives and have demonstrated their emotional maturity and so have been
recognised as individuals and as equals by their parents. In some cases this has
enabled them to renegotiate closer and more positive relationships with individual
members of their families. Noel's parents, for example, separated when he was a child
and he had little contact with his biological father when he was growing up and he
did not have a very positive childhood relationship with his social father. However,
he explains below how coming out has transformed his relationship with both his
biological father and his social father.
Noel: `` 'cos my Dad [his biological father] ... I was very surprised considering he's
been a bit of a womaniser, but erm, no erm, yeah he did have a discussion with
me on safer sex and all that, you know and he says Ìf I ever meet your boyfriend
what can I call him?'... but it did mean a lot to me that my Dad who I barely
knew was so supportive you know... my Dad you know has been and still has,
has been quite supportive since, I've started to get to know him better now
you know, since he found out ... and I can have a discussion about my sexuality
and my gay friends and everything with my Step-Dad as if I was talking to one
of my mates.''
Just as Noel's story illustrates that coming out does not necessarily undermine
family relations, the evidence of our research is also that neither does it necessarily
contribute to the production of disadvantage. Rather, coming out as a lesbian or a gay
man at home can facilitate or motivate young people to achieve success in other
spheres of their lives. Positive family support can be important in helping young people
to be resilient in the face of homophobia and to handle discrimination in educational
or workplace environments (Hershberger and D'Augelli, 1995) and can promote young
people's self-esteem and self-confidence more generally (Savin-Williams, 1989).
In `middle-class' households, in particular, parents' expectations for their children's
futures are often expressed more explicitly in terms of educational success and career
success than in terms of marriage and child-rearing. As such, some young people
explained that an emerging awareness of their sexuality had motivated them to achieve
in order to fulfil at least some of their parents' expectations and in doing so to
compensate their mothers and fathers for the loss of their heterosexual visions of
future family life. This was less evident amongst young people in `working-class'
families. In this way, the process of coming out can also contribute to the reproduction
of existing social and economic advantages. Lynne, for example, describes how her
sexuality rather than triggering processes of marginalisation has instead contributed to
her academic and professional success.
Lynne: ``... in retrospect, what I have done is I have looked back and thought
you know, what were the messages that I was getting from them in terms of how
to live my adult life and what were their expectations of me. And the only ones
that I can clearly remember is the idea of me getting a good education and
getting a career. And my Mum particularly was very much like: `Well I don't
want you to end up like me with very few qualifications and kind of being a
housewife and mother I want more for you than that', rather than any expecta-
tions really of relationships. Although, in retrospect there was that expectation
because it then, you know, later it came out because this kind of idealised notion
had gone for them. [Later she returns to this theme.] I mean I think what I have
tended to do is, it's been kind of: Òh look at me I've done really well at school'
and, you know, kind of going down that track. And being able to make them
feel proud of me for kind of career, educational sort of achievements rather than
kind of conventional achievements within relationships or that sort of thing.
Which I suspect is what quite a lot of people do to get that, because it is kind of
socially accepted approval for that, rather than for your kind of lifestyle or life
choice or relationships and things.''
The academic literature on transitions from childhood to adulthood often stresses
the importance of young people leaving home and developing their autonomy or
independence from the family. In doing so the interconnectedness of family members'
identities and the continued importance of familial relations are often overlooked.
Notably, the reputation of individuals can be shared by the whole family (Finch and
Mason, 1993). For example, as the quotation from Lynne above implies, coming out is
not just an individual process with consequences for the individual who identifies as
lesbian or gay. Rather, it can equally have consequences for the collective identity of his
or her family and those of the other members within it. Lynne's sister, for example, was
bullied at school because Lynne had come out as a lesbian. Having a lesbian or gay
child can also be regarded as evidence that the young person has not been brought up
`properly' by their parents. As such, homophobia is not only something that effects
lesbians and gay men, but also it is a process of marginalisation that can be passed on
to others. Not surprisingly, the fear of `spoiling' their own and the family's identity,
and of the discrimination and social exclusion that may follow from doing so, stops
many parents from disclosing their child's sexuality to other family members or to
friends and wider social relations. In this way, the closet is not a space that is
necessarily occupied by individuals; rather, it can be a collective space of concealment:
a space of family secrets and lies.
Carla: ``... [she came out to her mother] me Mum accepted it, me, me Dad, he's
dead now but we never spoke of it with me Dad ... so I don't know if me Dad
ever sort of knew but we never spoke about it.''
Tanya: ``[is out to her parents] I still don't actually know if either of them [her
sister and brother] know... my sister's never mentioned it, my brother ... he's never
mentioned it, but it's the kind of thing that I think my parents would keep from
them anyway.''
Aaron: ``... my parents are not particularly open with most of their friends about,
about our sexuality [he identifies as gay and his sister as a lesbian] and we've
had long conversations about the choices around that, and you know my Mum's
been very clear about saying ìt's ok for you 'cos you can come and you can go
away but if we disclose that information we're the ones that would have to live
with [it]'. There's [an] implied threat really, there's going to be some kind of
difficulty... they've got a complete propaganda unit going around this, [to explain
his sister living with another woman] ...`well she's [his sister] a nurse and she's
always lived with this woman because you know nurses don't get paid much do
they and it's cheaper to live in one house than two'... and the only people who
seem to believe this fiction is them.''
The popular understanding of the coming-out process is that once a lesbian or gay
man comes outöfor example, to their familyöthey are recognised as gay. Yet, several
of our interviewees described how, despite coming out to their families, their parents
appear to be in a state of denial, never acknowledging this news and carrying on as if
nothing has ever been said. These lesbians and gay men are in effect in a paradoxical
space: being simultaneously òut' and in the closet. The quotations below illustrate
some of the ways that their families fail to acknowledge the existence of lesbian or
gay members and desexualise their sexual relationships or flounder in their efforts to
communicate with them.
Robbie: ``... they [his parents] even pretend that I haven't come out to them. 'Cos
they say things like you were really depressed two years ago, three years ago or
whatever it was [when he was struggling to reconcile his Christianity with his
emerging sexuality and came out to them] but you never told us you know, you
got into loads of difficulty and we wish you'd spoken to us. And they even deny
things they say, when my brother says well Robbie's upset with you because you
said this [something homophobic], they say, òh we'd never say that' ... . So it is a
bit bizarre and I'm really confused like what to do about it as well because you
know in a way I wanna tell them again [about his sexuality].''
Cassie: ``Last weekend Erica [her partner] and I stayed at my parents' [house],
we were house-sitting, dog-sitting and I said something [to my sister Pru] about
the fact that ... we'd been out for a drink and we came back and I said òh
yeah there was a bad thunderstorm and I said oh we had another bottle of wine
and then we went to bed.' Pru went `too much information'... I think she's
fine ... she thinks of me as just being good friends with somebody, she was fine
with it in her own head, I think if she starts thinking about physical activity
then she goes ooh, ooh and er she freaks out.''
Gordon: ``My sister once came into a room where I was reading and gave me a
gay badge ... and then she went out of the room and we didn't talk about it. It's
very strange, I mean, I always think of us as ... one of those non-communicative
middle-class families, so I didn't know whether that meant she knew I was gay
really, because it was just so uncommunicative.''
In the academic literature on the home it is often represented in black and white
terms: either as a site of positive, often romanticised, familial relationships (Saunders,
1989) or as space that conceals violent and abusive domestic situations (Smith, 1989).
Yet, the quotations above obviously paint a more complex picture of the emotional
functioning of the home. It is a picture, in multiple shades of grey, of very differentiated
family relationships, of emotional webs of guilt, shame, and anger, of failures to
communicate, of the refusal of some members to acknowledge others' identities and
relationships, and of an inability to define new ways of relating beyond heterosexual
`social' norms. In the conclusion to this paper we reflect on what such experiences
mean for geographers' understandings of home and family, and for geographies of
sexualities.
Conclusion
`Ìndividualization brings to the ever growing numbers of men and women an
unprecedented freedom of experimenting öbut ... it also brings an unprecedented
task of coping with the consequences.''
Bauman (2002, pages xviii ^ xix)
In this paper we have focused on one such process by examining how young lesbians
and young gay men cope with the consequences of choosing to come out to their
families of origin. The empirical material that we have presented in this paper about
these `fateful moments' highlights a number of important points in relation to the
broad interdisciplinary literatures about the family and youth transitions, the newly
emerging field of emotional geographies, and more specific studies of lesbians' and gay
men's lives.
The diverse stories of young people's experiences of coming out that we have
explored in this paper illustrate the need for geographers to pay more attention to
how different groups of individuals `do' family rather than thinking of the family in
terms of a traditional, pregiven structure. Family is about the relationships between a
range of others (including spouses, ex-partners, children, siblings, grandparents, distant
relatives, and so on) and the responsibilities these members take for, or refuse to take
for, each other (Morgan, 1999). It is therefore an active process rather than a static or
monolithic institution. It is also not a homogenous unit but rather is composed of
complex, differentiated webs of relationships between its individual members. In other
words, the family conceals a tension between a desire for individuality and collectivity
that often results in identity struggles. In order to understand how families operate it is
neither enough to focus on individuals within a family, nor enough to focus on the
collective unit of families. Rather, it is only by understanding the nature of family
members' interrelationships, the ways that individuals interact and jointly construct
the experience of family life, how turning points in particular individuals' lives
impact on others, and how individuals mobilise family dynamics that we can begin
to understand the emotional functioning of the space of the family home.
In this sense we can see that in most cases the decisions individual lesbians and gay
men take about whether to come out are not based on their own individual desires and
chosen lifestyles alone (although of course these are important), but they are also
embedded in the `doing' of families. Families are important to young people because
of the financial and emotional support they provide and, as such, any decision to come
out is tinged with fear of potential loss. Yet, young people also feel love for their
families and a responsibility to protect their parents and siblings from feelings of
hurt, guilt, or shame. Individuals negotiate these complex emotions by playing on the
differential relationships that they have with individual family members. As a result, in
some cases the process of coming out can be transferred onto the responsibility of
others. By coming out young people also in turn pass the burden of disclosure onto
their parent(s) and/or siblings, who in turn must decide whether to break this news to
others both inside and outside the family. In this way, it is clear that coming out is a
process that is at once individual and collective, and that, as such, the closet is not
necessarily a space occupied by an individual but can also be a space of concealment
for the whole family.
The experiences of lesbians and gay men that we have presented here also reinforce
a growing recognition within youth studies that simple definitions of independence and
dependence, based on traditional markers (leaving school, entering the labour market,
marriage, and parenthood), need to be replaced by more complex analyses of the
different individualised pathways that young people take on the transition to indepen-
dent adulthood, and of the wider sociospatial contexts (homes, communities, etc)
within which these occur. Moreover, the traditional transition model assumes that
young people move from a state of dependency to one of autonomy, in which these
two states are conceptually polarised. Yet, in practice different transition processes can
be separate and unconnected; so, for example, getting a job, leaving home, or starting a
sexual relationship may occur simultaneously, serially, or not at all. As such, depend-
ence and independence are not actually distinct processes but rather are interconnected
conditions (Jones and Wallace, 1992), and young people and their parents may have
different understandings of the extent to which this progression from childhood to
adulthood has been achieved (and how this should be measured). For example,
closeted young lesbians and gay men may appear dependent on their families yet be
leading secret autonomous social and sexual lives. When they come out they may either
`grow' in their parents' eyes (because they have established an independent social and
sexual identity), or `shrink' (because they suddenly appear vulnerable or at risk). It is
also important to recognise that dependence is not a one-way relationship in which
young people rely on their parents, but that rather the relationships between adults and
children are often characterised by interdependence, with children actively contributing
to family life and identity. This has been most notable in this paper in terms of the way
that parents can be socially and emotionally dependent on the way that their offspring
lead their lives.
It is because of this interdependency that coming out is seen as such a risky
process. Yet, the process of coming out to parents is neither good nor bad in itself.
``Families can both hurt and heal'' (Elizur and Ziv, 2001, page 139). What is important
is the way that the disclosure unfolds with, and in, families of origin, and the emotional
functioning of family homes. It is these microprocesses that can contribute towards
propelling young people towards exclusion and marginality or inclusion and success.
As some of the young people's stories that we have told in this paper indicate,
advantage and disadvantage are passed on at home not only in terms of the transfer of
economic, social, and cultural capital but also in terms of what we have called personal
and emotional capital. The way that families of origin may position a young person
within the home (for example, in terms of time ^ space boundaries) can shape their
understandings of self and serve to position them in wider society. As examples in this
paper have shown, where parents' expectations for their offspring are predicated on
marriage and parenthood and where they react negatively to a young person's sexuality
or the young person anticipates that they will do so, young people's self-esteem
and confidence can be undermined. This in turn can translate into educational
underachievement and self-destructive behaviour. Where parents respond with positive
support, young people are usually more readily able to develop self-confidence and
emotional maturity. In these circumstances, and where young people can identify an
alternative route (such as academic, sporting, or career success) to fulfil their parents'
aspirations for them, they are not only able to achieve a positive outcome from a
potential situation of marginalisation but are also more readily able to develop their
own self-esteem. This in turn can give them the resilience to survive other negative
experiences in their lives. In this way, the findings of this paper reinforce Hanson's
and Pratt's (1988; 1995) argument that what goes on in the home has important
consequences for our much wider geographies.
Acknowledgements. We wish to acknowledge the support of the Economic and Research Council
for funding the research on which these findings are based. Gill Valentine is very grateful for a
Philip Leverhulme Prize that enabled her to work on this paper.
References
Aitken S, 1998 Family Fantasies and Community Space (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ)
Allatt P, Yeandle S, 1992, `` Ìt's not fair is it?' Youth unemployment, family relations and social
contract'', in The Experience of Unemployment Ed. S Allen (Macmillan, London) pp 62 ^ 75
Arnett J J, 1997, ``Young people's conceptions of the transition to adulthood'' Youth and Society
29 3 ^ 23
Atkinson P, 1985 Language, Structure and Reproduction: An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil
Bernstein (Methuen, London)
Bauman Z, 2002, `Ìndividually, together'', in Individualization Eds U Beck, E Beck-Gernsheim
(Sage, London) pp xix ^ xx
Beck U, 1992 Risk Society (Sage, London)
Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E, 1995 The Normal Chaos of Love (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E, 2002 Individualization (Sage, London)
Beck-Gernsheim E, 1988 Die Kinderfrage: Frauen zwischen Kinderwunsch und Unabha«ngigkeit
[The child question: women between the desire for children and independence] (Su«hrkamp,
Munich)
Bernardes J, 1987, `` `Doing things with words': sociology and `family policy' debates'' Sociological
Review 36 267 ^ 272
Binnie J, 1995, ``Trading places: consumption, sexuality and the production of queer space'',
in Mapping Desire Eds D Bell, G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 182 ^ 199
Bowlby S, Lloyd Evans S, Mohammad R, 1998, ``Becoming a paid worker: images and identity'',
in Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures Eds T Skelton, G Valentine (Routledge,
London) pp 229 ^ 242
Bynner J, Chisholm L, Furlong A, 1997 Youth, Citizenship and Social Change in a European
Context (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
Chandler J, 1991 Women Without Husbands: An Exploration of the Margins of Marriage (Macmillan,
Basingstoke, Hants)
Charles N, Kerr M, 1988 Women, Food and Families (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
Coles B, 1995 Youth and Social Policy (UCL Press, London)
Collins M E, 2001, ``Transition to adulthood for vulnerable youths: a review of research and
implications for policy'' Social Service Review June, 271 ^ 291
D'Augelli A, Hershberger S, Pilkington N, 1998,``Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth and their families:
disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences'' American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68
361 ^ 371
Davidson J, 2001, ``Pregnant pauses: agoraphobic embodiment and the limits of (im)pregnability''
Gender, Place and Culture 8 283 ^ 299
Dyck I, 1990, ``Space, time, and renegotiating motherhood: an exploration of the domestic
workplace'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 8 459 ^ 483
Elizur Y, Ziv M, 2001, ``Family support and acceptance, gay male identity formation and
psychological adjustment: a path model'' Family Process 40(2) 125 ^ 144
Elwood S, 2000, ``Lesbian living spaces: multiple meanings of home'' Journal of Lesbian Studies
4 11 ^ 28
England K (Ed.), 1996 Who Will Mind the Baby? (Routledge, London)
Finch J, Mason J, 1993 Negotiating Family Responsibilities (Routledge, London)
Furlong A, Cartmel F, 1997 Young People and Social Change: Individualisation and Risk in Late
Modernity (Open University Press, Buckingham)
Giddens A, 1991 Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Polity Press,
Cambridge)
Goldscheider F K, 1997, ``Recent changes in US young adult living arrangements in comparative
perspective'' Journal of Family Issues 18 708 ^ 724
Gouldner A W, 1973 For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today (Allen Lane, London)
Hanson S, Pratt G, 1988,``Reconceptualising the links between home and work in urban geography''
Economic Geography 43 299 ^ 321
Hanson S, Pratt G, 1995 Gender, Work and Space (Routledge, London)
Hershberger S L, D'Augelli A R, 1995, ``The impact of victimisation on the mental health and
suicidality of lesbians, gay and bisexual youth'' Developmental Psychology 31 65 ^ 74
Holloway S L, 1998, ``Local childcare cultures: moral geographies of mothering and the social
organisation of pre-school education'' Gender, Place and Culture 5 29 ^ 53
Holloway S L, Valentine G, Bingham N, 2000, `` Institutionalising technologies: masculinities,
femininities, and the heterosexual economy of the IT classroom'' Environment and Planning A
32 617 ^ 633
Hunter J, 1990, ``Violence against lesbian and gay male youths'' Journal of Interpersonal Violence
5 295 ^ 300
James A, Jenks C, Prout A (Eds), 1998 Theorizing Childhood (Teachers College Press, New York)
Johnston L, Valentine G, 1995, ``Wherever I lay my girlfriend that's my home: the performance
and surveillance of lesbian identities in domestic space'', in Mapping Desire Eds D Bell,
G Valentine (Routledge, London) pp 99 ^ 113
Jones G, 1987, ``Leaving the parental home: an analysis of early housing careers'' Journal of Social
Policy 16 49 ^ 74
Jones G, 1995 Leaving Home (Open University Press, Buckingham)
Jones G, 2000, `Èxperimenting with households and inventing `home' '' International Social
Science Journal 52(2) 183 ^ 194
Jones G, Wallace C, 1992 Youth, Family and Citizenship (Open Univeristy Press, Buckingham)
Knopp L, 1998, ``Sexuality and urban gay space: gay male identity politics in the United States,
United Kingdom and Australia'', in Cities of Difference Eds R Fincher, J Jacobs (Guilford
Press, New York) pp 149 ^ 176
Lowe G, Foxcroft D R, Sibley D (Eds), 1993 Adolescent Drinking and Family Life (Harwood
Academic, Chur)
Lupton D, 1998 The Emotional Self (Sage, London)
Massachusetts Department of Education, 1995 Massachusetts High School Students and Sexual
Orientation: Results of the 1995 Youth-risk Behaviour Survey Massachusetts Department of
Education, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 ^ 5023
Morgan D H J, 1996 Family Connections (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Morgan D H J, 1999, ``Risk and family practices: accounting for change and the fluidity in family
life'', in The New Family Eds E B Silva, C Smart (Sage, London) pp 13 ^ 30
Morrow V, Richards M, 1996 Transitions to Adulthood: A Family Matter? (Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, York)
Popenoe D, 1988 Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies (de Gruyter,
New York)
Saunders P, 1989, ``The meaning of home in contemporary English culture'' Housing Studies 4
177 ^ 92
Savin-Williams R C, 1989, ``Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths''
Journal of Homosexuality 18 1 ^ 35
Savin-Williams R C, 1990 Gay and Lesbian Youth: Expressions of Identity (Hemisphere, New York)
Sibley D, 1988, ``Survey 13: Purification of space'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
6 409 ^ 421
Sibley D, 1995a, ``Families and domestic routines: constructing the boundaries of childhood'', in
Mapping the Subject: Cultural Geographies of Transformation Eds S Pile, N Thrift (Routledge,
London) pp 123 ^ 142
Sibley D, 1995b Geographies of Exclusion and Difference in the West (Routledge, London)
Silva E B, Smart C, 1999, ``The `new' practices and politics of family life'', in The New Family
Eds E B Silva, C Smart (Sage, London) pp 1 ^ 12
Smart C, 1999, ``The `new' parenthood: fathers and mothers after divorce'', in The New Family
Eds E B Silva, C Smart (Sage, London) pp 100 ^ 114
Smith L T J, 1989, ``Domestic violence: an overview'', Home Office Planning and Research Unit
(HMSO, London)
Sommerville P, 1992, ``Homelessness and the meaning of home: rooflessness or rootlessness''
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16 529 ^ 539
Stacey J, 1990 Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth Century
America (Basic Books, New York)
Thomson R, Bell R, Holland J, Henderson S, McGrellis S, Sharpe S, 2002, ``Critical moments:

choices, chance and opportunity in young people's narratives of transition'' Sociology 36
335 ^ 354
Valentine G, 1993a, ``(Hetero)sexing space: lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday
spaces'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11 395 ^ 413
Valentine G, 1993b, ``Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time ^ space
strategies'' Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 18 237 ^ 248
Valentine G, 1996, `Àn equal place to work? Anti-lesbian discrimination and sexual citizenship
in the European Union'', in Women of The European Union: The Politics of Work and Daily
Life Eds M D Garcia-Ramon, J Monk (Routledge, London) pp 111 ^ 125
Valentine G, 1997, `` `My son's a bit dizzy'. `My wife's a bit soft'. Gender, children and cultures
of parenting'' Gender, Place and Culture 4 37 ^ 62
Valentine G, 2000, `Èxploring young people's narratives of identity'' Geoforum 31 257 ^ 267
Valentine G, Skelton T, 2003, ``Living on the edge: the marginalisation and resistance of D/deaf
youth'' Environment and Planning A 35 301 ^ 321
Walkerdine V, Lucey H, 1989 Democracy in the Kitchen: Regulating Mothers and Socialising
Daughters (Virago, London)
Weeks J, Donovan C, Heaphy B, 1999, `Èveryday experiments: narratives of non-heterosexual
relationships'', in The New Family Eds E B Silva, C Smart (Sage, London) pp 83 ^ 99
Weeks J, Donovan C, Heaphy B (Eds), 2000 Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other
Life Experiements (Routledge, London)
Wood D, Beck R J, 1994 Home Rules (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)

Coming Out and Outcomes - Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Identites PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Coming Out and Outcomes - Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Identites PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2003, volume 21, pages 479 ^ 499

Coming out and outcomes: negotiating lesbian and gay

It is widely acknowledged that we are witnessing a historical transformation in society

Coming out: what is at stake

been changed in an effort to protect their anonymity and confidentiality.

The process of coming out

painted a similarly distressing picture. Of the forty-three people we interviewed, over

Thomson R, Bell R, Holland J, Henderson S, McGrellis S, Sharpe S, 2002, ``Critical moments:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai