Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Using Strauss-Howe generational theory as a guiding structure, this chapter examines differences between generational identity for LGBTQ+ individuals compared to heteronormative generational identity. We theorize that LGBTQ+ individuals may identify with two generational cohorts—one defined by birth year and a second related to “coming of age” as a sexual minority. A case study examining the lifespan of four LGBTQ+ celebrity personalities demonstrates the concept of generational layering. We argue “generational layering” affects various aspects of LGBTQ+ life, including connection to place as reflected in attitudes of LGBTQ+ people regarding gay neighborhoods. The chapter concludes with five takeaway messages that clarify the relationship between LGTBQ+ people, the generational cohorts to which they belong and with which they identify, and the attitudes of various LGBTQ+ generational cohorts toward gay neighborhoods.
Using Strauss-Howe generational theory as a guiding structure, this chapter examines differences between generational identity for LGBTQ+ individuals compared to heteronormative generational identity. We theorize that LGBTQ+ individuals may identify with two generational cohorts—one defined by birth year and a second related to “coming of age” as a sexual minority. A case study examining the lifespan of four LGBTQ+ celebrity personalities demonstrates the concept of generational layering. We argue “generational layering” affects various aspects of LGBTQ+ life, including connection to place as reflected in attitudes of LGBTQ+ people regarding gay neighborhoods. The chapter concludes with five takeaway messages that clarify the relationship between LGTBQ+ people, the generational cohorts to which they belong and with which they identify, and the attitudes of various LGBTQ+ generational cohorts toward gay neighborhoods.
The stories of gay spaces across the United States are largely unrecorded, undocumented, and are not centrally collected or archived beyond informal reports and oral histories. Evidence demonstrates that the preservation of historic sites allows for future generations to benefit from intangibles related to community and identity. However, the LGBTQ+ community has been unable to gain benefits that place-based, historic sites can provide, due to an inability to commemorate spaces that have shaped LGBTQ+ history in significant ways. This chapter explores the disparities between the preservation and commemoration of significant LGBTQ+ spaces and the amount of funding distributed to these sites. As of 2016, LGBTQ+ sites comprised only 0.08 percent of the 2,500 U.S. National Historic Landmarks and 0.005 percent of the more than 90,000 places listed in the National Register of Historic Places. This representation is well short of the share of American adults that identify as LGBTQ+ , which in 2017 was approximately five percent of the United States population. In 2010 the Administration of President Barack Obama launched the LGBTQ Heritage Initiative under the National Historic Landmarks Program. This effort underscored a broader commitment to include historically underrepresented groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals. As a result, LGBTQ+ communities became eligible to receive funding for projects through the Underrepresented Community Grant Program. An analysis of the distribution of Underrepresented Community Grant Program funds revealed that the LGBTQ+ community receives considerably less funding compared to other underrepresented communities. The findings from this study suggest that there is still a significant amount of work that remains to be done to integrate LGBTQ+ histories into historic preservation programs that exist at various levels of programming (local, state, and federal).
Urbanists have developed an extensive set of propositions about why gay neighborhoods form, how they change, shifts in their significance, and their spatial expressions. Existing research in this emerging field of “gayborhood studies” emphasizes macro-structural explanatory variables, including the economy (e.g., land values, urban governance, growth machine politics, affordability, and gentrification), culture (e.g., public opinions, societal acceptance, and assimilation), and technology (e.g., geo-coded mobile apps, online dating services). In this chapter, I use the residential logics of queer people—why they in their own words say that they live in a gay district—to show how gayborhoods acquire their significance on the streets. By shifting the analytic gaze from abstract concepts to interactions and embodied perceptions on the ground—a “street empirics” as I call it—I challenge the claim that gayborhoods as an urban form are outmoded or obsolete. More generally, my findings caution against adopting an exclusively supra-individual approach in urban studies. The reasons that residents provide for why their neighborhoods appeal to them showcase the analytic power of the streets for understanding what places mean and why they matter.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.