Abstract
Although a large body of literature addresses sexual and gender identity development, little research has focused on definitions, conceptualization, and identification with LGBTQ+ culture. Fourteen LGBTQ+ emerging adults (age 20–25 years) with a diverse array of intersecting identities participated in semi-structured individual interviews aimed at exploring the construct of LGBTQ+ culture. Five of the 14 participants also participated in focus groups to further explore the conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture that was identified in the individual interviews. Participants described the LGBTQ+ culture as a culture of survival, acceptance, and inclusion. Most participants reported a sense of pride and importance in identifying with the broader LGBTQ+ culture and believed it was beneficial in their identity development. A multidimensional conceptualization of LGBTQ+ identity development was proposed to understand the multiple levels of identifying as a marginalized sexual and/or gender diverse individual. We discuss implications for practice, education, and training.
Keywords
Findings demonstrate the importance of sexual and gender identity development in connecting with the greater LGBTQ+ culture and community. Analyzing sexual and gender identity development as a multidimensional process (i.e., individual, social, and collective identities) may allow counselors to expand their multicultural competence with LGBTQ+ populations and explore LGBTQ+ community connectedness with clients.
Identity is conceptualized as the personal characteristics, social group membership, and social relations that define an individual as a unique being (Oyserman et al., 2012). Individuals maintain and negotiate many overlapping and intersecting components of identity that comprise their self-concept (Parent et al., 2013). Sexual and gender identity development models (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014; Savin-Williams, 2005) have traditionally explored individual-level processes that marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals undergo in order to develop a positive identity. Identity scholars (Cox & Gallois, 1996; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996) began to expand models of sexual and gender identity by introducing social identity processes into developmental frameworks. Indeed, models have become more comprehensive suggesting that sexual and gender identity are more than just individual-level processes; however, identification with a broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer + (LGBTQ+) culture has not been considered. Culture has been defined as the belief and value systems that influence practices, ideals, norms, and social institutions (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). The present study uses the acronym LGBTQ+ as a broad term used by marginalized sexual and gender diverse people whose gender, gender expression, or sexual identity do not conform to cisgender or heterodominant expectations (Parent et al., 2013). The acronym demonstrates inclusivity of gender identity (i.e., transgender), is not as cumbersome, and acknowledges various sexual and gender identities through the plus symbol at the end, thereby inviting all sexual and gender identities into the conversation.
Research with the LGBTQ+ community is gaining visibility, with some findings suggesting that connecting to or participating with the community (i.e., a group of individuals within the same geographic area that have characteristics in common; APA, 2017) has positive mental health implications (Davids et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2015; Salfras et al., 2018). However, qualitative research mostly discusses the negative aspects of LGBTQ+ community membership (e.g., rigid body image ideals for men, exclusion within the community; Parmenter et al., 2020) and does not explore positive traits, assets, and strengths of the community (Adams et al., 2014; Fraser, 2008; O’Byrne et al., 2014). Additionally, there is an absence of literature that addresses the ways that LGBTQ+ individuals conceptualize their culture, within the context of the literature on contemporary operational definitions of culture. In the current qualitative study we sought to articulate a definition of LGBTQ+ culture in order to expand upon models of sexual and gender identity development.
Sexual and Gender Identity Development
Theoretical models of sexual and gender identity development (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014; Savin-Williams, 2005) describe the process of formulating and incorporating sexual and gender identity into a congruent and coherent sense of self. Modern conceptual frameworks attend to contextual factors that support or hinder positive sexual and gender identity formation (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014; Savin-Williams, 2005). However, even contemporary models tend to overlook the relevance of activity and identification within a social group or community (Cox & Gallois, 1996; Dillon et al., 2011; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996).
Identity development, in part, is contingent on social identification with a community or culture (Phinney, 2000; Sue & Sue, 2012). Specifically, some marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals find that their connection with the LGBTQ+ community is central to their overall sense of self (Davis, 2015; Riggle et al., 2011; Riggle et al., 2008; Rostosky et al., 2010). The LGBTQ+ community is important for marginalized sexual and gender diverse groups and aids identity development through connection with ingroup members (Adams et al, 2014; Frost & Meyer, 2012). The body of research related to membership in the LGBTQ+ community as a source of resilience and positive connection has not historically utilized a cultural framework to conceptualize LGBTQ+ social identity. However, the construct of cultural identity is a prominent feature in ethnic and cultural identity development models (Berry et al., 2006; Phinney, 2000; Sue & Sue, 2012), and we contend that there may be meaningful parallels in the identity development processes of marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals. However, marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals are typically brought up within the heterodominant culture and may not have automatic exposure to other ingroup members (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2010). Similar to Sue and Sue’s (2012) model of personal identity, if marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals integrate into the LGBTQ+ community, LGBTQ+ individuals are better able to consider their personal sexual and gender identity within the context of the broader LGBTQ+ culture. Some scholars have mapped elements of social identity into sexual and gender identity development models (Cox & Gallois, 1996; Dillon et al., 2011; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). However, the existing body of literature lacks a conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture or LGBTQ+ cultural identity. The dearth of literature exploring the construct of LGBTQ+ culture demonstrates a gap in the literature that warrants further exploration.
Understanding the LGBTQ+ Community Through the Lens of Culture
A number of conceptually interrelated constructs are relevant to describing people’s relationships within a broader social group. As previously defined, culture can best be described as the belief and value systems that influence practices, ideals, norms, and social institutions (APA, 2017). It is important to differentiate culture from community, as the term community references a group of people within a given location who have characteristics in common. Culture can encompass a connection to organized groups, community events, and a connection with other cultural members, but also incorporates a wider variety of human phenomena. Culture provides meaningful messages about a particular group and produces a framework through which individuals can better evaluate and compare different social groups to clarify a cultural identity (Dillon et al., 2011; Sue & Sue, 2012).
Many marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals, like marginalized ethnic individuals, create strong ties with ingroup members and feel a sense of identity with the LGBTQ+ community (Frost & Meyer, 2012; LeBeau & Jellison, 2009). The LGBTQ+ community is viewed as an environment where individuals demonstrate compassion and support for one another due to similar experiences with oppression (Fraser, 2008; Lebeau & Jellison, 2009, Riggle et al., 2008). For some marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals, the LGBTQ+ community allows them to connect with LGBTQ+ role models and brings about a sense of hope and belongingness (Goltz, 2014). Such community support and connection serves as a buffer against the effects of minority stress (Morris et al., 2015; Salfras et al., 2018; Zimmerman et al., 2015), and decreases feelings of loneliness (DiFulvio, 2011) and suicidal ideation (Langhinrichson-Rohling et al., 2010). Additionally, identification and engagement with the LGBTQ+ community is beneficial for sexual and gender identity formation (DiFulvio, 2011; Frost & Meyer, 2012). A lack of connectedness with other marginalized sexual and gender diverse people partially explains the relationship between internalized stigma and psychological distress (Puckett et al., 2015). Social connection and support from other marginalized sexual and gender diverse people may be highly important and influential in the health and psychological well-being of LGBTQ+ populations (Riggle et al., 2008). Although research continues to examine the LGBTQ+ community, it is not clear how community members understand the concept of LGBTQ+ culture and whether individuals identify with a unique culture.
Previous studies focus on particular subcultures (e.g., lesbian culture, gay culture, bisexual culture) within the larger LGBTQ+ culture, often with an emphasis on gay cisgender men’s culture. Despite sociopolitical movements and activism increasing affirmation and, therefore, reducing discrimination toward marginalized sexual and gender diverse groups, there remains a divide within the LGBTQ+ community (O’Byrne et al., 2014; Parmenter, 2018). Parsing out and studying individual subcultures potentially divides the larger LGBTQ+ community and creates an atmosphere of separation rather than cohesion. Yet, exploring individual subcultures can help recognize differences and unique characteristics within the broader LGBTQ+ culture and reduce invisibility of specific subcultural groups (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). It may also be important to conceptualize the community at a macro-level to obtain a holistic and inclusive definition of what it means to be LGBTQ+ in a broader cultural context. In the present study, we conceptualize the broader LGBTQ+ culture as the focus of our analysis, while acknowledging the varied characteristics and struggles of the diverse identities within the culture.
Sociopolitical movements contribute to increased visibility and growing rates of acceptance and affirmation for LGBTQ+ individuals (Kite & Bryant-Lees, 2016) and culture is situated within a sociohistorical context that evolves across generations (APA, 2017). Because of these relatively recent trends in Western society, there is a need for more updated exploration and conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture. Younger cohorts of marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals may understand LGBTQ+ culture and sexual and gender identity differently than older generations (Goltz, 2014; Weststrate & McLean, 2010). Specifically exploring the experiences of marginalized sexual and gender diverse groups belonging to the millennial generation may be beneficial in conceptualizing culture while remaining consistent with definitions of culture that emphasize a generational component (i.e., younger generations learning values and history of the culture from older generations). By exploring the experiences of younger cohorts of LGBTQ+ people, we describe the culture within its current sociohistorical context and learn how young adult participants understand the history of LGBTQ+ culture.
Theories of cultural identity may not perfectly map onto LGBTQ+ culture due to definitions of culture being centered on the experiences of marginalized ethnic and racial groups. However, core elements of the construct of culture may be applicable for LGBTQ+ individuals and their identity development. Marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals have similar stories of hardship, strongly express the concept of “chosen families,” and possess a shared history that can be traced in Western society (Horne et al., 2014; Riggle et al., 2008). Therefore, we explored the lives of marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals through a cultural lens. In an attempt to further the existing body of research among LGBTQ+ populations, we used qualitative methods to (a) explore marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals’ definitions of LGBTQ+ culture; (b) describe the norms, ideals, and behaviors within LGBTQ+ culture; (c) explore whether the concept of culture is relevant for the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals within their communities.
Method
Positionality
Qualitative researchers engage in an ongoing process of acknowledging and exploring their subjectivity while attempting to manage biases (Morrow, 2005). Both the identities of the researcher and the participants are influential in the research process (Bourke, 2014). Exploring various overlapping identities and how they feed into biases (i.e., positionality; Bourke, 2014) allows the reader to assess how the researcher’s assumptions have influenced the research (Hopkins et al., 2017). The first author, Joshua G. Parmenter, identifies as a White, highly educated, first-generation college student, able-bodied, agnostic, gay, genderqueer-masculine presenting individual—was cognizant of how privilege and oppression intersect and impact their life’s trajectory and construct their worldview. The first author kept reflexive notes on how their identities and their assumptions of the LGBTQ+ culture may have affected the interview process and interpretation of identified themes. The second author, Renee V. Galliher, is a White, able-bodied, highly educated, cisgender woman who does not claim a particular sexual identity label, but she accrues all privilege associated with heterosexual status through participation in heterosexual marriage. The third author, Adam D. A. Maughan, identifies as a White, highly educated, cisgender gay man who was affiliated with a highly conservative religious organization. The second and third authors carefully engaged in self-reflection regarding the role of their identities in interpretation of the results. As members of the LGBTQ+ community, the first and third author maintained insider status with the participant group, while also remaining outsiders with respect to ethnicity, gender, age, religion, and other identities. Acknowledging the insider status while also being aware of the unique differences among participants was highly valued through the research process in order to analyze how diverse experiences shape development.
Participants
The present study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ institution. Participants were recruited nationally through LGBTQ+ organizations, LGBTQ+ listservs, and university diversity centers. Recruitment specified that interested participants must be English speaking, self-identify as LGBTQ+, and be 18–25 years of age in order to be eligible for the study. Email invitations directed participants to an appointment management website via a link to sign-up for an individual interview appointment and complete screening questions for the study. Seventeen participants completed the screening questions, however three participants did not meet age inclusion criteria and were not interviewed.
A convenience sample of 14 eligible participants between the ages of 20–25 (M = 23.07, SD = 1.68) completed a Qualtrics survey with an informed consent form and demographic information. Participants provided their email in order to receive a $20 Amazon gift certificate after completion of the interview and another $20 after completing the focus group. Overall, bisexuality was the most represented sexual orientation (43%), and the majority of the participants identified as cisgender (71%) and White (71%). Table 1 provides further information regarding the participants’ chosen pseudonym, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, pronouns, ethnic identity, and the extent of study participation (i.e., whether eligible participants took part in the individual interviews, focus groups, and/or transcript review). Table 2 provides information regarding religious affiliation, education, relationship status, and community description.
Participant Demographic Information
Note. I = interview; M = member checking; F = focus group.
Amadi was the only participant who responded to member checking the focus group transcript. All other participants were unable to review focus group transcripts.
Participant Demographic Information
Data Collection
Qualitative data collection included gathering experiences from participants through semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups. Individual interviews and focus groups were conducted using the videoconferencing platform Zoom in order to provide opportunities to link people scattered across various geographical regions and facilitate a diverse participant sample (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017). Participants were instructed in the informed consent to download Zoom and select a private location to ensure confidentiality of the interview. This allowed participants to have the freedom to choose a setting they felt was safe and secure to interview. Additionally, participants were informed that their identities would be known to the other focus group members if they chose to participate in the group interviews. Participants chose pseudonyms for themselves to maximize confidentiality. Audio recordings were transcribed throughout data collection in order to identify themes and refine interview questions.
Individual interviews
The first author utilized an interview guide to conduct semi-structured individual interviews, each lasting between 1–1.5 hr. The interviews began with a broad question asking participants to describe their sexual and gender identity. Subsequently, questions prompted participants to define LGBTQ+ culture, explore the role of the culture in their own lives, and then to do the same for heterdominant culture. Follow up questions and additional prompts were used to help participants fully develop their narratives, and questions evolved as the interviews progressed and initial themes were identified. Questions were written in a neutral tone (e.g., “What is the LGBTQ+ culture?” and “Can you explain the normative behaviors and beliefs within the LGBTQ+ culture?”) to allow for participants to discuss both positives and negatives of the LGBTQ+ culture. Using video recordings, individual interviews were transcribed and reviewed for errors to ensure the accuracy of the information provided.
Online focus group interviews
Participants were given the option to participate in online semi-structured focus groups to clarify and refine themes identified from the individual interviews. Online focus groups allowed for rich discussion of LGBTQ+ culture on which participants may hold differing views depending on various aspects of identity (Zwaanswijk & van Dulmen, 2014). One focus group contained three participants and a second group consisted of two participants. The first author conducted the online focus groups. Online focus groups were video recorded and lasted approximately 1.5–2 hr in length. Initial questions for the focus groups asked participants to consider how social context influences their sexual and gender identities, circumstances under which sexual and gender identity is more versus less salient, and intersections of sexual and gender identity with other components of identity. Additionally, participants were asked to further reflect on the values of LGBTQ+ culture, resources made available through connection to LGBTQ+ culture, and strategies for navigating between LGBTQ+ and heterodominant cultures. Questions were written in a neutral tone (e.g., “What are the values of the LGBTQ+ culture?”) to allow participants to speak openly about their experiences with the LGBTQ+ culture.
The questions for the focus groups served to confirm, clarify, and consolidate the themes identified during the individual interviews. The data from the focus group transcripts were helpful in triangulating the findings from the individual interviews. In order to ensure that the perspectives of the five focus group participants were not overrepresented, we were careful to include quotes from individual interviews throughout the results, especially from those who did not participate in the focus groups.
Transcript review
Transcript review allows for participants to review their interview transcript in order to validate, expand, and clarify information (Houghton et al., 2013), ultimately improving accuracy and credibility. Participants were provided with a copy of their interview and focus group transcripts and were asked to offer comments or edit information within their transcripts. Nine of 14 individual interview transcripts were returned after transcript review, and one of five participants reviewed the focus group transcript.
Data Analysis and Methodological Integrity
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to understand LGBTQ+ people’s conceptualizations, identification, and experiences with the phenomenon of LGBTQ+ culture (Creswell, 2013; Creswell et al., 2007). IPA is an idiographic, phenomenological, and interpretative analysis where the aim is to explore the meanings of the participants’ worldview, and their experiences and perceptions of a given phenomenon (Davidsen, 2013). IPA is often misconstrued as only a descriptive methodology of analyzing patterns within and between participants (Larkin et al., 2006). However, IPA research aims to go further by offering an interpretation of the phenomenon of study (Smith, 1996; 2004). Using an IPA approach allows the findings to produce concepts rooted in, but which may exceed, the experiences of the participants and broaden our understanding of sexual and gender identity development (Larkin et al., 2006; Smith, 2004). IPA was ideal for this study, as this approach aids in gathering of a holistic perspective on LGBTQ+ emerging adults and their identification and conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture.
Data analysis
Consistent with the IPA approach, themes were labeled to identify repeated patterns of meaning across interviews. Through an inductive reasoning approach, IPA allows analysis to build on patterns that appear within the data to form larger thematic categories (Davidsen, 2013). An iterative coding process was utilized by the authors, which involved the authors repeatedly reading and analyzing all transcriptions, making notes in the margins on identified themes, and writing comments on associations and preliminary interpretations. Identified themes were listed with example quotes so connections and associations could be made to further refine and cluster themes. A final set of themes was discussed among the authors until consensus was reached in order to minimize discrepancies in coding and themes. Using the final set of themes, the first and second author began making interpretations and conceptualizations that were rooted in the participants’ experiences.
Triangulation
Triangulation (i.e., using multiple methods to study interconnected phenomena from a variety of perspectives; Carter et al., 2014; Creswell, 2013) allows for verification of the information gathered from the qualitative methodology, thereby strengthening the credibility of the studies’ findings. Triangulation was accomplished through individual interviews, focus groups, transcript review, as well as through reading existing literature and consulting the research team on identified themes. Overall, the transcript reviews and focus groups did not change the findings of the study, but rather were used to verify interview content and further expand on the themes that were identified from the individual interviews, thereby strengthening the accuracy and richness of the data.
Assessment of saturation
Interviews were conducted until the interviewer obtained a point of saturation in the data (i.e., new information was not being gained by continuing interviews with new participants; Saunders et al., 2017). Assessment of saturation was achieved through transcribing interviews which allowed the interviewer to identify themes. The first author stopped data collection and consulted with the research team to en-sure there were no gaps in the data before moving onto analysis (Saunders et al., 2017).
Findings
Participants were asked to define and conceptualize LGBTQ+ culture, describe their experience within the culture, and explore identification with the broader cultural group. It is important to note that despite the interview questions being written in a neutral tone, participants spoke primarily of the positive and strength-based features of LGBTQ+ culture. Generally, they expressed passion and a deep sense of interest when describing LGBTQ+ culture and the positive influences it had on their identity development. As participants discussed their perceptions of LGBTQ+ culture, four broad themes were identified: Values of LGBTQ+ Culture, Basis of Cultural Connection, Collective or Cultural Identity, and Questioning the Fit of the Concept of Culture. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the themes and subthemes.
Themes and subthemes.
Values of LGBTQ+ Culture
Participants spoke at length about the various values and beliefs that were engrained within LGBTQ+ culture. The subthemes consisted of Acceptance and Inclusion, Liberation and Pride, and Striving for Equality and Social Action. All of these themes arise from the shared experience of alienation and marginalization within the larger heterodominant culture.
Acceptance and inclusion
A central tenet of LGBTQ+ culture is an overarching ideal of acceptance that governs the culture. Although the majority of the participants identified as White, bisexual, and cisgender, participants described LGBTQ+ culture as broadly inclusive and welcoming. Squid stated that LGBTQ+ culture is “built on this idea of acceptance.” Alex stated, “We’ve had to learn to be flexible and accepting in order to form the types of coalitions that we’ve needed to in order to get our rights.” Jenny described how the culture “has given me a means of making my life . . . habitable . . . entering queer culture for me was really like, being able to breathe for the first time.” Thus, LGBTQ+ culture allows marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals to feel congruent in their sense of self.
Specifically, LGBTQ+ culture values inclusion due to its historical experiences of alienation and persecution. Amadi shared, “The culture promotes a lot of inclusivity, identity, and intersectionality . . . there is a space for everyone.” Jenny expressed how LGBTQ+ culture is not only inclusive of marginalized sexual and gender diverse groups but also strives to be inclusive of other marginalized groups and promote social movements for other marginalized groups. Jenny described the new updates to the Philadelphia Pride flag that added “black and brown stripes . . . it shows how there is a movement within the larger LGBTQ community to pivot towards being more racially accepting.” LGBTQ+ culture is presented as a safe space, inclusive of marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals with different intersecting identities (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation; Goltz, 2014; Sexton et al., 2018).
Liberation and pride
Participants expressed that LGBTQ+ culture and their identification with the culture fostered feelings of liberation. Amadi expressed, “I feel free, like, freedom . . . you know there’s a lot of liberation within the community, you know, within the culture.” Lexi shared that the culture “gives you more like a sense of power to define like your own identity. And, like who you want to meet, and what you want to do in your life.” From this, the culture promotes a sense of freedom and the ability to break from heterocentric norms so marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals can create their own life paths. Summer shared her experience, “I just kind of feel like, as far as I’ve been exposed, there is no standard, it’s just that it’s all accepted, whether it’s traditional, nontraditional, or anything on the spectrum.” Squid described that one of the central values for LGBTQ+ culture is “being willing to shake things up, being willing to look at things from a fresh perspective.”
Participants noted that there is no standard or “carved path” within LGBTQ+ culture. A positive aspect of having a LGBTQ+ identity and identifying with the culture is the freedom to reject traditional gender roles or life paths rooted in heterosexism (Riggle et al., 2008). Amadi described his experience of shifting his thinking from heterosexist assumptions of gender to a liberated point of view promoted through LGBTQ+ culture.
I use to think a very masculine man would date a very feminine man. . . . But I mean I’ve obviously just bringing my heteronormative thinking into the gay culture . . . I mean now . . . it’s just two human beings who are in love. They don’t have to be one masculine, one feminine, or one feminine one masculine, or whatever. They can both be masculine. They can both be feminine. They can . . . who cares about what roles they play.
The sense of freedom that participants associated with LGBTQ+ culture was rooted in a proud history of defiance and advocacy, through which participants experienced their current sense of liberation as “hard won.” As Pega noted, “A lot of the queer community is around meeting other queer people for the sake of celebrating defiance of heteronormativity.” Understanding the persecution and resilience of the LGBTQ+ community throughout history was integral in identifying LGBTQ+ culture and its importance to the community. Squid shared, “I find myself often times turning to history when I’m looking at that culture and trying to take pride in, to some degree.” Oscar emphasized, “Within gay rights and gay movements . . . I think there are important pieces that are important in defining it as a culture.” Pega shared: I would say that the culture at large is one of reclaiming, rediscovering, recontextualization. Right? Cause I think that a lot of queer culture and a lot of queer history has been very much buried over the years, so I think that a lot of queer culture now in 2017 is about reclaiming that.
Past research suggests that learning about LGBTQ+ history is a mechanism to facilitate resiliency and connection with the LGBTQ+ community (Asakura, 2016). Historical events, such as the Stonewall Riots of 1969, were of particular importance in formulating LGBTQ+ culture and the annual cultural event of LGBTQ+ Pride. Pride allowed marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals to celebrate the existence of LGBTQ+ culture and the identity as a cultural group. Jenny shared that, “Pride marches are seen as one of the integral cultural experiences that LGBTQ people share.” Lexi shared similar experiences with the cultural phenomenon of Pride, stating, “I think Pride is like the most fun time of the year . . . just [to] be proud of who you are and that you’re able to be in this community of awesome people.” Overall, participants expressed that Pride, the Stonewall Riots, and the passing of major equality acts for LGBTQ+ people, as cultural events that were key to LGBTQ+ culture and its existence.
Striving for equality and social action
Participants noted that LGBTQ+ culture is strongly oriented toward social action, increasing visibility, and striving for equality. Jenny commented that LGBTQ+ culture is centered around “making space in a heterosexual society.” Oscar echoed this and shared that LGBTQ+ culture has a “constant striving to be heard and to have space and to have a place in society.” Oliver I shared: It’s important to me because it is still so socially relevant. Like that people are still trying to deny it even exists, and that even today it’s still like being held as something that can be changed or can be like pushed down, or can be like held and controlled. . . . It’s important to me in that sense that like it’s something worth fighting for.
Participants, such as Walter expressed that LGBTQ+ culture is a “culture of advocacy.” Being a member of a marginalized group promoted openness, as well as social justice and advocacy for others. Participants demonstrated that sexual and gender identity, specifically being a member of a marginalized group and possessing a sense of collective identity (i.e., categorical and relational identity that is shared with a broader group of people with characteristics in common; Ashmore et al., 2004), was used as a mechanism for resistance and social reform. Riggle et al. (2008) and DiFulvio (2011) found that marginalized sexual and gender diverse people believed qualities of altruism and engaging in social justice to be positive aspects of their sexual and gender identity that gave them a sense of meaning in their lives. Our findings suggest that the concept of LGBTQ+ culture has become intertwined with social justice due to shared experiences of hardship and oppression (Ghaziani et al., 2016).
Basis of Cultural Connection
In addition to articulating values within LGBTQ+ culture, participants placed emphasis on having a sense of cultural connection that was based on a shared struggle, survival and resilience, and supporting fellow LGBTQ+ individuals.
Shared struggle
Participants placed emphasis on a shared struggle that was integral to LGBTQ+ culture. Seattle stated: Realizing that there are other people out there with my same identity, sharing hardships related to that identity, sharing positive things with them . . . I think it’s played a role in me becoming more comfortable with being out in the public sphere.
Participants shared that being “othered” within a heterodominant society allows culture to be created from shared experiences of oppression. Oliver I commented, “[We’re] sharing some sort of struggle . . . there’s a culture, a community, a shared sense of ‘we are going through similar things.’” LGBTQ+ individuals’ perseverance may be fostered by the sense of shared hardships and collective identity (Asakura, 2016). Participants described a collectivistic approach to resilience and healing despite westernized views of healing focused on the individual.
Culture of survival and resilience
Despite experiences of internal conflict and systems of oppression that disadvantage LGBTQ+ people and promote marginalization, participants described the LGBTQ+ community and its members as resilient. Oscar shared, “There is suuuch a rich source of resilience, and power, and empowerment that comes from the LGBTQ culture,” suggesting that connection to LGBTQ+ culture may contribute to the resilience of its members (Zimmerman et al., 2015).
Not only did participants describe the LGBTQ+ culture and its members as highly resilient and empowering, they also shared how resilience within the culture aided in coping and building a stronger sense of self. Summer described benefits of resilience within the culture stating, “There’s this community in which you feel safe and you feel like you can be yourself. . . . And in that way you are stronger.” Connectedness is beneficial in coping with the negative effects of minority stress (Frost & Meyer, 2012; Meyer, 2003). Thus, stories of resilience highlight the existence of both individual and collective sources of resilience (Meyer, 2015).
Overall, these themes present LGBTQ+ culture as a “culture of survival,” echoing marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals’ resilience within a heterodominant society. Amadi exclaimed, “We are still here and we are still surviving!” Kendra shared: I would say that the culture is built around people of LGBT orientation who are trying to survive—in some instances literally, you know, facing violence—and thrive while being true to their self and their gender and sexual identities.
Amadi and Kendra’s statement that the culture emphasized collectivism in its pursuit for survival suggests that sexual and gender identity is not only an individual identity but also a collective identity.
Culture of support
The combination of this cultural group being formed based on shared hardships, resilience, and values created a strong sense of support within LGBTQ+ culture. Jenny shared that LGBTQ+ culture is a “system of mutual aid.” Kendra echoed this and expressed that the culture is a “network of people that help each other out, even if you don’t know each other personally.” Seattle noted the “self-protective or self-defensive nature of . . . the community. They want to help people that are a part of that culture . . . and defend them from persecution.” Participants’ emphasis on the culture being a safe space and “system of mutual aid” was consistent with past research suggesting those in the LGBTQ+ community feel a sense of duty to support one another (Adams et al., 2014; Fraser, 2008). Social support specific to one’s ingroup could foster a sense of connection and self-worth, thereby contributing to psychological health and resilience (Kwon, 2013; Meyer, 2015; Riggle et al., 2008).
Collective or Cultural Identity
Emerging from their articulation of shared values, hardships, and resources, participants clearly experienced the phenomenon of identifying with a larger group identity. Pega shared her experience shifting from an individual perspective to a collective perspective of sexual and gender identity, as she considered a broader group identity.
In high school, [it] became, “Okay, what does that mean for me? What does that mean for how I navigate that?” You know, and then it was also like, “Oh! . . . What does that mean for our group identity?”
Sexual and gender identity theory traditionally has focused on the individual process of exploring and committing to an identity (Cass, 1979; Levitt & Ippolito, 2014) but has not thoroughly explored the idea of LGBTQ+ people belonging to a larger collective (Cox & Gallois, 1996; Fassinger & Miller, 1997; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). LGBTQ+ participants in this study experienced both internal conflict during identity development and systematic oppression within a heterodominant patriarchal society. Marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals’ shared experiences of perseverance fostered characteristics and qualities that they reference to create a sense of collective identity. Participants resonated with the notion of being part of a larger collective, or as Jenny said, “families of choice” (Horne et al., 2014). Participants’ experiences reflect a relational and categorical identification and connection with other LGBTQ+ individuals that is similar to collective identity. Alex shared, “I mean for me it’s really critical to at least have some sort of connection to community and culture.” Jenny echoed this, commenting, “I still gravitate towards other queer people because there’s that shared lived experience that gives us a common vocabulary and culture to reference.” Lexi expressed “having other people to lean on and a sense of community is important.” Moana shared, “When people tell me, you know, ‘Hey, I’m gay.’ I’m no longer like, ‘Oh!’. . . Now it’s just like, ‘Okay cool . . . Me too!’ like we are in this together and this is so cool!”
Throughout data collection participants used the terms community and culture interchangeably, which made parsing apart the concepts very difficult. However, several participants discussed how the concepts of community and culture were conflated, primarily due to defining culture through connection with the LGBTQ+ community. Alex spoke further about the conflation of terms.
I can’t get a sense of culture without being part of the community, so it’s really important to me to be in that, in a way.
They usually talk about the community as like. . .they refer to the LGBTQ community, they don’t talk about a culture. Which I feel. . .has its ups and downs about it. . . it has its positives and negatives about it. What are your thoughts on that?
Yeah I mean I think it’s really hard to disentangle the two ideas. Like I can see them as separate things, but yeah they’re just, they’re not quite as distinct in my mind as maybe we would kind of talk about it. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think like, the fact that when we think about LGBTQ culture, what most people end up talking about is community, speaks to what the culture is, if that makes sense. Like, the culture is that we kind of like band together and have this community because we’ve had to. Right? Because we’ve been otherized and so having a community and a group and like, feeling part of that I think is part of the culture and that’s why they get brought up together so often.
Alex’s note on the importance of connecting with a larger LGBTQ+ community is essential in understanding LGBTQ+ culture. Articulating a collective identity may help capture the unique experience of connecting to a community that is not bound to a physical place (Ashmore et al., 2004; Lin & Israel, 2012; Omoto & Snyder, 2002). We believe collective identity should be integrated into the conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture and could be considered as an additional dimension of sexual and gender identity (i.e., individual, social, and collective identity).
Questioning the Fit of the Concept of Culture
Participants named a variety of values, characteristics, and ideals of LGBTQ+ culture that were consistent with the concept of culture we proposed in the introduction, which previous research supports (Adams et al., 2014; Fraser, 2008; Riggle et al., 2008). However, some participants also questioned whether the concept of culture is the best fit. For example, Seattle stated, “I think it’s unfair to call it one culture. I mean . . . there’s an umbrella there but . . . there are distinguishable subsets of the culture.” Squid shared his views on whether conceptualizing an LGBTQ+ culture made sense for him.
I can’t help but wonder if the LGBTQ community HAS a culture. Culture develops when you cram a bunch of people together and make them interact. With racial minorities, a lot of people live together when they’re part of the same group. But with LGBTQ individuals . . . we’re not so marginalized that we’re forced to all live in the same neighborhood. I think that there are big events and media that can help to create culture when LGBTQ people get together, but I think we’re hard pressed to have a true culture.
Participants discussed how LGBTQ+ culture was highly diverse, due to different sexual orientations, gender identities, and the numerous intersecting identities that form their self-concept, thereby resisting the use of identity “gloss” (i.e., an overgeneralization or overly simplistic label used to refer to groups; Trimble & Dickson, 2005). As a result, some participants found it tricky to name this one culture, creating dissonance with the common LGBTQ+ cultural qualities and values presented earlier. Participants stressed diverse identities and experiences among marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals which highlights the different communities within the broader LGBTQ+ culture that shape individual experiences (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer). Some participants believed that LGBTQ+ culture is too diverse to have norms that are shared throughout the culture. Although findings from the current study describe a culture in which LGBTQ+ people share similar values, it also is as Amadi stated, a “culture that recognizes difference and diversity.”
An overarching definition of LGBTQ+ culture was useful to participants, but they insisted that we acknowledge the unique experiences of individuals within the larger culture. This is not unlike the reaction to ethnic gloss observed in many cultures and subcultures among marginalized ethnic and racial groups. For example, individuals may find it useful to cultivate a sense of belonging to Latinx culture, as it acknowledges shared values or history and increases access to community support and belonging. However, at the same time, individuals may demand acknowledgement of their unique cultural contexts (e.g., Guatemalan or Puerto Rican) and may balk at the experience of being lumped into one homogenous group. We embrace the complexity of identification, and the notion that individuals can experience a sense of belonging to a culture that is defined at multiple levels simultaneously.
Discussion
In the present study we sought to explore how marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals define and identify with the larger LGBTQ+ culture. Participants provided evidence to support the existence of a larger LGBTQ+ culture with shared values and experiences. Although the participants did demonstrate some uncertainty whether the concept of culture fit well with the experiences of marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals, findings have strong implications for conceptualizing a culture that also integrates elements of the collective and community.
LGBTQ+ Culture
Connectedness to a broader group identity of LGBTQ+ that holds shared qualities, experiences, and values is important in understanding identity and its association with psychological well-being (Frost & Meyer, 2012; Sexton et al., 2018). We observed that the concept of an LGBTQ+ culture appears to be important for marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals in this study and could have important links to resilience. Our findings expand previous research by articulating an important aspect of the LGBTQ+ community that previous research has not fully explored.
The participants in this study described elements of LGBTQ+ culture that integrated values of community and collectivism into its conceptualization. Given the complexity and overlap between these terms, we seek to stay true to our participants’ experiences and how they understood the culture. Findings demonstrated that LGBTQ+ culture consisted of (a) engagement and connection with the LGBTQ+ community; (b) a sense of collective identity that is based on shared struggles, resiliency, and support for other LGBTQ+ individuals; and (c) shared values, beliefs, history, and engagement in social action.
First, participants defined and conceptualized LGBTQ+ culture through physically connecting and engaging with the LGBTQ+ community. Connecting and engaging with a community of shared characteristics, experiences, and values is important for many marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals (Sexton et al., 2018). Although participants did discuss their interactions with communities of LGBTQ+ people, participants described a connection and sense of belonging that was not bound by a physical location or direct contact with other members. Further, a participant described how she initially understood her sexual and gender identity from an individual perspective and eventually changed her perspective to think about her identity with the broader LGBTQ+ group or collective. With this, participants’ understanding of LGBTQ+ culture aligned with aspects of collectivism that emphasize a relational and categorical element of identity based on shared experiences and values (Sexton et al., 2018).
Second, many participants articulated a global perspective of connecting and belonging with the broader LGBTQ+ group (i.e., collective identity) that was integral in understanding the LGBTQ+ culture. Therefore, an important element of LGBTQ+ culture is a sense of collective identity that focuses on shared experiences of hardship, resilience, and support.
Marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals in this study described their understanding of LGBTQ+ culture through its values and beliefs. Participants’ perceptions of LGBTQ+ cultural values and beliefs align with definitions of culture (i.e., the belief and value systems that influence practices, ideals, norms, and social institutions; APA, 2017). Participants spoke of perceived values and experiences marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals shared, such as valuing acceptance and inclusion, liberation, pride, and striving for equality. Not only did participants perceive the LGBTQ+ culture to value social equality, but they also reported that some LGBTQ+ individuals act on their shared values and experiences of hardship to engage in social reform (Ghaziani et al., 2016). Engagement in social action influenced by shared experiences, values, and beliefs is consistent with research on collective identity (Ashmore et al., 2004; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Knowledge of common values and beliefs within the culture also inform marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals of collectivistic movements and goals that help LGBTQ+ culture persevere and thrive. Again, we want to articulate that collective identity is not separate from LGBTQ+ culture, but rather is an essential element in understanding LGBTQ+ culture.
Multidimensional Conceptualization of LGBTQ+ Identity
Given the importance of collective identity in the conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture, the participants’ experiences provide qualitative evidence to suggest an additional dimension of sexual and gender identity. Adapted from Sue and Sue’s model of personal identity (2012), our findings support a preliminary multidimensional conceptualization of sexual and gender identity: (a) individual, (b) social, and (c) collective (Figure 2). The individual dimension of sexual and gender identity draws from existing literature describing awareness, confusion, exploration, coming out, and integration of identities while paying attention to the flexible process of identity development (Savin-Williams, 2005) and how intersecting systems of oppression may impact development. The social identity dimension operates in tandem with the individual dimension and addresses social categorization as a group member (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and identification with a specific subgroup within the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, queer, LGBTQ+ people within marginalized racial and ethnic groups). The collective identity dimension of sexual and gender identity speaks to how marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals in this study embraced their connection and belongingness to the collective through shared cultural values and experiences. The basis of this collective identity with LGBTQ+ culture focused on shared struggles and hardships, survival and resilience, as well as supporting other LGBTQ+ individuals. Shared values and experiences bring about a larger global identification and sense of connection with other marginalized sexual and gender diverse groups, regardless of geographical location. Marginalized sexual and gender diverse people not only identify with the LGBTQ+ community or subcommunities, but also show awareness of a broader LGBTQ+ collective that emphasizes acceptance, survival, resilience, liberation, pride, and social justice. It is important to note that this is a preliminary conceptualization that integrates LGBTQ+ collective identity and needs to be further explored.
LGBTQ+ adaptation of Sue & Sue’s (2012) model of personal identity.
Limitations
Although our study provides insight into the conceptualization of the LGBTQ+ culture and potential implications for sexual and gender identity development, several factors should be taken into consideration. First, the participants were predominantly White, and they may offer a skewed perspective of inclusion and connection within the LGBTQ+ community. Additionally, although we did not prompt participants to reflect solely on the affirming and positive aspects of LGBTQ+ culture, there was absolutely a positive focus in their descriptions. Participants appeared to be motivated to present the aspirational ideals of the culture. It is unclear if the distinctly positive presentation is partially attributed to the sample consisting primarily of White cisgender individuals, who may not experience the same forces of oppression (i.e., racism within the LGBTQ+ community) related to connecting with the LGBTQ+ community. Our study does not address how different subgroups may access connection to the LGBTQ+ culture and if different systems of oppression limit subgroups from a sense of collective identity with the LGBTQ+ community. We caution readers about the transferability of the findings given the homogeneity of the sample. However, we would like to note that the study does not seek to provide one “true” conceptualization of LGBTQ+ culture and collective identity that is shared by all LGBTQ+ individuals, but rather to offer insight into how some LGBTQ+ emerging adults may view and experience their communities. Relatedly, it is important to acknowledge that all members of the research team identify as White and highly educated. Conversations about intersecting identities within systems of power and privilege, and interpretations of the content of those conversations, are necessarily limited by the identities of those facilitating the conversations.
Participation in this study was limited to those who had access to the internet and the recruitment announcements, potentially limiting the representativeness of the greater LGBTQ+ population. Additionally, it was difficult to schedule participants for the online focus groups, resulting in a small subset (i.e., only five of the 14 participants) participating in the focus groups. Although the focus groups helped consolidate themes from the individual interviews, having more participants in the focus groups would have improved the representation of the findings. Recruiting from LGBTQ+ organizations, university diversity centers, and LGBTQ+ listservs may have biased the sample in that the majority of participants were “out,” with regard to their sexual and gender identity, in most contexts of their lives. Future research should consider recruiting marginalized sexual and gender diverse people who are less involved in the LGBTQ+ community or who are earlier in their sexual and gender identity development.
Implications for Practice, Education/Training, Advocacy, and Research
Capitalizing on LGBTQ+ culture
The findings from the current study have important implications for incorporating LGBTQ+ culture into research, practice, and education/training. First, in order for continued education and training to flourish, mental health educators, trainers, and trainees should further advocate for inclusion of LGBTQ+ relevant modules in graduate training programs and continued education. Education and training contexts can begin to integrate relevant information about collective identity among marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals as well as aspects of LGBTQ+ culture to aid in providing LGBTQ+ competent care.
Within the realm of research and practice, clinicians can target collective identity and connectedness to LGBTQ+ culture in therapy. Specifically, research should further examine how positive health is associated with the multiple dimensions of sexual and gender identity (i.e., individual, social, collective) proposed within this study. We encourage clinicians and intervention researchers to not only aim to reduce negative aspects of minority stress and internalized stigma (Chaudoir et al., 2017; Hobaica et al. 2018) but also capitalize on establishing a sense of collective identity with the broader LGBTQ+ community, cultivating positive aspects of an LGBTQ+ identity, and addressing community connectedness to aid in positive health (McConnell et al., 2016). These recommendations cohere well with contemporary literature on affirmative psychotherapy (e.g., O’Shaughnessy & Speir, 2018).
Implementing LGBTQ+ support groups at universities, schools, community health clinics focusing on shared values and experiences may foster a better sense of community, stronger sense of collective identity, and connection to LGBTQ+ culture, potentially leading to more positive mental health outcomes (Davids et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2015; Salfras et al., 2018). The value of acceptance appears to operate at an individual level, which fosters a broader goal of inclusion at the level of LGBTQ+ culture. In turn, inclusion cultivates feelings of acceptance and authenticity. Future research should continue to investigate how connection with a cultural group—sharing cultural values (e.g., acceptance, inclusion, liberation, LGBTQ+ history and pride, social action) and collectively facing hardship—facilitates access to resources for community resilience (i.e., how communities aid individuals in order to benefit, develop, and support well-being despite adversity; Hall & Zautra, 2010). Additionally, focusing on values and shared experiences of hardship and resilience may help in creating a common language among a diverse audience of LGBTQ+ individuals and facilitate ingroup cohesion. It is important to note that LGBTQ+ culture was described as a culture of diversity. Marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals who identify with LGBTQ+ culture may appear to have common goals, however, not all of its members have a similar narrative. Practitioners should know that not all marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals identify or connect with LGBTQ+ culture the same way. Although some may be highly connected with the community and engage in social advocacy efforts, some marginalized sexual and gender diverse people may not feel a sense of identity with LGBTQ+ culture. Clinicians should focus on the narrative of the client with whom they are working rather than making assumptions that all LGBTQ+ experiences are similar.
Identifying and mitigating barriers to LGBTQ+ culture
Although our participants did not speak specifically about barriers to LGBTQ+ culture, it is an important implication to identify and mitigate individual- and group-level barriers to the positive aspects of LGBTQ+ culture mentioned in this study. Marginalized sexual and gender diverse individuals who feel detached from the LGBTQ+ community may want to seek out more opportunities to connect with other ingroup members (Pachankis, 2014). Research and practice should assess for individual- and group-level barriers that may interfere with accessing resources or benefits associated with LGBTQ+ culture. Specifically, researchers should explore how various systems of oppression may limit subgroups from connecting with LGBTQ+ culture and developing a sense of collective identity. One way of exploring and identifying barriers is for future research to utilize a grounded theory approach to specifically explore the process of LGBTQ+ individuals’ development of individual, social, and collective identity within LGBTQ+ communities. It is likely that not all LGBTQ+ individuals have the same access to the resources and support of the LGBTQ+ collective, and it is important to explore individual differences in the development of a sense of connection to community. Practitioners, advocates, and LGBTQ+ organizations may benefit from focusing on values and shared experiences within LGBTQ+ culture to help advocate for broader inclusion and acceptance within the LGBTQ+ community to mitigate barriers to LGBTQ+ culture.
Conclusions
Our study initially sought to explore whether the greater LGBTQ+ community could be considered a cultural context. Participants were easily able to articulate the values, history, and shared experiences of their cultural group, and their experiences support a framework for understanding collective identity based on connection to the LGBTQ+ community. Therefore, we offer implications for a more robust conceptualization of sexual and gender identity development by creating a multidimensional conceptualization consisting of individual, social, and collective identity dimensions. There is conceptual overlap across the constructs of culture and collective as they both emphasize shared values and beliefs within a group of people (Ashmore et al., 2004; Sue & Sue, 2012). Although the definitions of community, culture, and collective are conceptualized in different ways in the literature, all three terms emphasize something very similar—a sense of belonging and shared characteristics and values. We invite the reader to embrace this complexity as we further our efforts to conceptualize LGBTQ+ culture.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
