Dr Francesca Romana Ammaturo and Dr Koen Slootmaeckers
In the first part of this series, we considered how maps (and associated data) can be used to create a new worldview. We discussed how and why maps operate as productive devices. We then reviewed the use of the Rainbow Map since its creation in 2008 to the present to highlight how its use by political elites can reinforce existing hierarchies and silence already marginalised voices. In this second part we will analyse the map in order to argue that there is a disconnect between the map and lived experiences, and that an uncritical reading of the map can lead to the projection of fictional queer utopias and dystopias.
Queer Utopias and Dystopias and the displacement of LGBTQI+ Lived experience
Whereas arguments relating to the use of the Rainbow Map often remain within the conceptual arena, the almost simultaneous publication of the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map and the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) report on the 2019 Survey on LGBTQI+ people lived experiences this past year provides us with the unique opportunity to explore and analyse the displacement of lived experiences that occurs when we only focus on legislation to map out LGBTQI+ equality. Due to the geographical spread of the FRA Survey, we can only analyse the data for the EU countries plus North Macedonia, Serbia and the United Kingdom (henceforth EU-plus).
Figure 1 provides a redrawn map of the Rainbow Index for the EU-plus countries. Observant readers will note that we have also normalised the index using the min-max normalisation to ease comparison of results throughout the blog post. Finally, although the geographical coverage contains only 30 of the 49 countries of the Rainbow Map, we believe the analyse and comparison of legal equality vs lived experience in those countries will enable us to critically discuss the issues with isolated legal analyses and present a more complex and holistic picture of LGBTQI+ equality in Europe.
Figure 1: Normalised Rainbow Index for EU-plus countries (ranking among covered countries included)
Considering the limitations that the data as publicly made available by ILGA Europe and the FRA present in terms of allowing an intersectional analysis as we previously highlighted, we want to note and stress that we are discussing aggregate measures of experiences of all LGBTQI+ communities. In other words, in our analysis we will focus on the disconnect between the legal frameworks and the lived experiences, whilst pointing out that going forward attention should be paid to the varied experiences of different subgroups, along the identity axes, but also for other intersections. Therefore, we want to remind the reader that, as such, the following maps do not capture the complexity of the experiences of LGBTQI+ individuals in intersectional terms.
With those important caveats in mind, when considering the lived experiences across the EU-plus countries (figure 2) a complex and multifaceted picture emerges. A first observation we can make is that violence and harassment remain very prevalent across the EU-plus countries, but also that the lived experiences in each country are the result of different combination of experiences of the (in)ability to live an open life, discrimination, and violence and harassment.
Consider for example, the United Kingdom. Whereas is scores medium high on the discrimination and the living an open life indices, it scores near the bottom of the violence and harassment index. Thus, whereas the LGBTQI+ communities (on aggregate) might be able to live a relatively open life and remain relatively free from discrimination, violence and harassment seem to be a prevalent feature of their lives.
A similar observation can be made for Belgium (a country which ranked second on the ILGA-Europe Rainbow index). The French scores on the Violence and Harassment index confirm the recent statement by the French Government in which admitted that homophobia and transphobia remain deeply rooted within their society. Here, however, it is noteworthy that it is not just violence that remains deeply rooted within French society, but the social climate seems also to reduce the ability for LGBTQI+ people to live their identities openly.
At the more difficult spectrum of lived experiences, we notice a complexity of the index. Consider, for example, Greece which scores very low on the discrimination and living an open life index. Its rather high score on Violence and Harassment index seems to indicate that in-person violence might shape LGBTQI+ lived experiences to a lesser extent.
Figure 2: Map of LGBTQI+ Lived Experience Index and sub-indices for EU, North Macedonia, Serbia and United Kingdom
Having mapped out the lived experiences of LGBTQI+ people in the EU-plus countries, we can turn to our main question of how the Rainbow index displaces lived experiences of LGBTQI+ people. As we recognise the importance of legal frameworks, we will compare the Rainbow Index against an LGBTQI+ Equality Index, which is a combination (average) of both the Rainbow Index and the Lived Experience Index. Whilst the differences between the two indices might not be extremely visible when we look at their projections on a map (see panel A and B in Figure 3), the displacement of lived experience by a simple focus on legislation becomes much more apparent when we consider the differences in country rankings (Panel C in Figure 3).
Figure 3: Mapping the displacement of lived experience by the rainbow index for EU-plus countries
The displacement of lived experiences is even more pronounced if we considered the relative difference (with average difference as reference) between the two indices. Taking this figure as an indication of the displacement, we can observe countries which the Rainbow Index depict as some kind of Queer Utopias and Dystopias – places presented as respectively safe and unsafe for LGBTQI+ people, yet lived experience data suggest the opposite to be more likely (for more on how we identity these, see here[KS2]).
Whilst the Utopias in Western Europe are to be expected, we also observe similar trends in Croatia, Greece and Serbia. For those who have been studying LGBTQI+ politics in this region these findings should not be surprising. Take the example of Serbia, where in recent years the government has engaged with strategic changes in the legal and political arena— including appointing an openly Lesbian Prime Minister — to please the EU without working on improving LGBTQI+ lives. In fact, Prime Minister Ana Brnabic has on occasions announced that Serbia is not a homophobic country.
Amongst the Queer dystopias are, perhaps not surprisingly, some of the Nordic countries where societies show more acceptance to LGBTQI+ people than the legal framework would suggest. But we also find Italy and Czech Republic with some of the biggest differences between the legal framework and lived realities for LGBTQI+ people.
Although we need much more contextual analysis to understand and explain the complexities in which legal frameworks and lived experiences diverge in each of these countries, what is clear is that the Rainbow Map cannot be read as an indication of LGBTQI+ equality in real terms. Both the presence and absence of law do not always translate to how people experience equality in their daily lives. As such, we caution against the fetishization of legislation within LGBTQI+ activism as well as academia. Furthermore, in light of the existing erosion throughout Europe of the levels of protection of LGBTQI+ rights which has coincided with the rise in popularity of populist governments, it appears obvious that the politics of ‘naming and shaming’ may not be enough in creating long-lasting legislative and social change for LGBTQI+ persons.
Dr Francesca Romana Ammaturo is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Human Rights at the University of Roehampton. Dr Koen Slootmaeckers is a Senior Lecturer in International Politics at City.
Reproduced with permission and minor alterations from LSE Department of Gender Studies blog. Original post from May, 2020 can be found here.
Comments
Post a Comment