Abstract
This article is based on semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis of stories of 40 early midlife gay men concerning their conversations with younger gay men. Utilizing the communication theory of identity (CTI) as a sensitizing framework, open and axial coding revealed three overarching themes: shifted perspective on gay identity, evolved performance of gay identity, and discord with gay cultural expectations. The findings contribute to broadened understandings of how gay men experience midlife, and these are discussed in light of key CTI concepts.
Keywords
Whereas intergenerational communication among gay men has been explored by many scholars (e.g., Fox, 2007; Goltz, 2009; Hajek, 2015), little work has addressed how early gay midlife identity emerges in communication, or how communication functions to help men conceptualize, shape, and express their age identities. Even less research has approached intergenerational communication while integrating interpersonal, relational, and intergroup perspectives. The present study takes a step toward addressing these gaps, and in examining gay midlife, this study takes advantage of a somewhat unique opportunity to unravel mysteries related to the emergence of a compound identity characterized by a biological shift that also occurs during a time of “significant change in psychosocial identity” (Kertzner, 1999, p. 47). Factors driving this developmental change include stigma and complexity at the intersection of age and gay identities. Additional factors are dynamics related to social comparison and communication with younger men with whom midlife men have recently identified, and by whom they may have been recently marginalized.
The heuristic value of this study is enhanced by utilization of the communication theory of identity (CTI; Hecht, 1993, 2015; Jung & Hecht, 2004) as a sensitizing framework in the analysis and interpretation of the data. CTI proposes that identity formation is inherently a communicative process, comprised of exchanged messages that serve as symbolic linkages between and among people. From the CTI perspective, identity is communication (rather than being merely a product of it), and social relations both create and express it. According to the CTI, foci for identity exist at the individual, enacted, relational, and communal levels, identities both endure and change, and they have both content and relational levels of interpretation. Furthermore, the theory holds that identities involve both subjective and ascribed meanings, they define membership in communities, and they possess affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions (Hecht, 1993). The theory also holds that identities can be expressed in labels and in core symbols (i.e., fundamental beliefs that are shared by cultural group members) (see Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003).
The aforementioned loci (also referred to as layers, frames, or levels) for identity reside in the individual and her/his expression, social relationships, and group memberships, and communication is the link among them. Hecht (1993) defines these four layers as follows. The personal layer of identity refers to the individual, including notions of self-image, self-cognitions, self-definitions, and feelings about the self. The enactment layer of identity is seen as the expression, or performance, aspect of identity, and is exchanged with others. The relational layer is where identity is “jointly negotiated and mutually formed in relationships through communication” (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005, p. 33), including others’ ascriptions, subjective avowal of identity, and how one identifies as being part of a relationship (see also Jung & Hecht, 2004). Finally, the communal layer of identity exists at the level of the social group that is based on individuals’ shared categorizations, histories, and social and/or biological characteristics. In essence, these four identity layers assist individuals in their “sensemaking” of dyadic and communal contexts (Hecht et al., 2005).
The four identity layers do not function in isolation; rather, they are interpenetrated. In other words, identity formed and expressed on the various layers influences, and is influenced by, identity formation and attendant communication on other layers. This interpenetrating approach allows a process-oriented understanding of identity, because in any moment, all four layers may be present and a part of one another (Faulkner & Hecht, 2011). Interestingly, such interpenetration may result in consistency or contradiction among layers. For instance, a gay midlife man may avow a younger identity at the personal and enacted layers of identity but may be ascribed an older identity at the relational layer in an intergenerational interaction. Such a scenario would illustrate CTI’s concept of “identity gaps,” that are discrepancies or contradictions among the identity layers for a given individual, in a certain context (Jung & Hecht, 2004). These gaps, and much identity negotiation, occur in areas where individuals experience conflict or contradiction, and awareness of these gaps is the key for improving intergenerational communication and psychological well-being for older gay men whose compound age and sexual orientation identities carry simultaneous risks of stigma and experiences of otherness. To note, whereas CTI shares similarities with a more general interactionist approach that could have been applied here (e.g., Mead, 1934), CTI was chosen due to its explicit identification of, and focus on, the interpenetration of multiple identity levels that influence the development of the “self.” The CTI is not without its limitations, however. For example, it does not emphasize communicator motivation, assumptions about others’ identity ascriptions, or social discrimination or power dynamics that may have be relevant in this social context.
The research literature has addressed gay male intergenerational communication from perspectives both verbal (e.g., Fox, 2007; Hajek, 2014) and nonverbal (e.g., Alvarez, 2008; Hooker, 1965). Research on verbal communication has regarded sexual labels used across generations of gay men that are central to questions of social standing and identity (Paul, 1984) and delineations of in-group and out-group status (Valentine, 1998). Labels commonly ascribed to (or avowed by) older gay men that have implications for age-based social standing, and that carry implications for older men’s self-esteem and identity development, include “daddy,” “old troll, or “chicken hawk” (i.e., a sexual predator of younger men). On the other hand, nonverbal communication research has focused primarily on older men’s experiences of alienation and invisibility rooted in the gay culture’s foci on youth and “looksism” (Feraios, 1998; see also Bergling, 2004; Signorile, 1997). Researchers have suggested that the gay culture’s higher standards for physical appearance may function as compensation for an identity threatened by mainstream culture and that these standards may be communicated through ridicule or sexual rejection of younger and older gay men alike in meeting places and social media forums (Feraios, 1998). In gay male culture, therefore, it may be the effects of aging on physical appearance that makes age such a potent basis for discrimination rather than reverence (e.g., Hajek, 2012). These dynamics explain why older gay men might develop identities that support self-esteem and the maintenance of cultural relevance in other ways. Interesting is the notion that these pressures, to the extent that they exist, are inflicted on the gay culture from within.
Researchers have suggested that the age span for gay midlife, at least in the U.S., reflects that of heterosexuals and ranges from about age 40 to 64 (e.g., Hunter, 2005), though this study examines early midlife gay men, aged 40–53. Gay midlife men in general may face higher anxiety about aging than any other gay age group (Harry, 1982), as well as surprising feelings of midlife marginalization (Zak, 1998). Relevant to the current study on identity, Simpson (2013) has suggested that gay midlife men are concerned with developing more authentic selves, self-enhancing by conceiving of their age as being just a number, yet also expressing concern with age appropriateness. As found by Kertzner (1999), some gay midlife men may experience an absence of socially defined markers that generally delineate the aging process for heterosexual men—markers such as the birth of children and grandchildren. Relatedly, Zak (1998) has contended that many gay men might not know where midlife is, because, unlike many heterosexual men, they are not fathers of teenagers, nor are they grandfathers, and that it is in those roles and associated relationships that gay men would be able to compare themselves to their own fathers for a bearing on their life course. These findings suggest, unfortunately, the perhaps common notion that gay men’s psychological well-being is to be attained through searching for meaning in a heterosexist society (see also Kimmel & Sang, 1995), whose norms of reproduction do not always serve them, rather than engaging an alternative reflexivity for their gay identity development. Nonetheless, a perceived absence of such markers, with few well-defined substitutions, may combine with other gay cultural dynamics to influence gay midlife men’s age identity formation in line with the CTI levels discussed earlier. These dynamics may include a history of discrimination, sexuality being this group’s primary defining characteristic, all-male membership, and, as mentioned earlier, the subculture’s arguably heightened concerns with physical appearance.
The younger versus midlife intergenerational communication context is ideal for an exploration of gay midlife identity development. This is due to the midlife men’s potential lack of landmarks and schemas for gay aging (worsened by an older generation decimated by acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]) that may make a backward focus attractive or necessary for the negotiation of what it means to have aged, and the relevance of communicative encounters in such negotiation. As indicated by the literature above, identity changes may be indicated in self-labeling and behavioral differences, and identification in light of perceived discrepancies between ascribed and avowed age and sexual identities (i.e., in line with the CTI identity gap concept), as well as interpenetrations of the identity layers, also proposed by the CTI. Further contributing to the rationale for taking a CTI perspective is the theory’s openness to context-specific extension and adaptation and, as stated above, its usefulness in explaining behavior at the intersections of multiple stigmatized identities. Therefore, the present study addresses the gap in research on communicatively emergent gay midlife identity by taking a CTI perspective on the following question: What gay midlife identity dimensions emerge and/or are expressed through intergenerational communicative encounters with younger gay men in which age identity is salient?
Methods
Participants
Participants were 40 English-speaking gay midlife men who ranged from 40 to 53 years of age. This age range was selected given the interest in early midlife, to eliminate individuals likely to possess “young adult” or “old age” identities, and to limit historical effects (i.e., combining into one category men who had lived through markedly different eras in terms of gay acceptance). They were recruited in San Antonio (n = 28) and Austin, Texas (n = 4), Denver, Colorado (n = 4), and Chicago, Illinois (n = 4). Snowball sampling was aided by a written advertisement asking for volunteers who self-identified as being both “gay” and “at midlife.” The preponderance of men being from San Antonio was due to the above sampling method and decision to engage only in face-to-face interviews. Participants’ average age was 46.5, and their ethnic makeup was 52.5% Caucasian, 42.5% Hispanic or Latino, and 5% African-American. Twenty percent of men had completed secondary education, 50% an undergraduate degree, and 30% a graduate degree. Therefore, this was largely a “middle class” sample. About 52.5% reported being “out” to everyone, and 47.5% reported being out only to friends. Finally, 57.5% were single, with a mean period of singlehood being 8.75 years, and 42.5% were in a relationship, with the mean relationship length being 7.61 years.
Interviews and analysis
This study’s research question was explored through the analysis of participants’ personal narratives of communication with younger gay men. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews ranging from 20 min to 45 min were administered by the author, in the participants’ home cities. Each participant was asked to tell a story (i.e., provide a narrative) about a midlife conversation or other face-to-face communicative encounter he had experienced with a gay man in his 20s, in which his midlife identity was salient, and that had influenced his outlook on what it meant to be gay in early midlife. Participants’ reports of narratives comprised a subsection of longer interviews collected for a separate study (Hajek, 2014). The interview recordings were numbered and transcribed verbatim by research assistants.
The narratives were coded using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis techniques that shared similarities with those used in some forms of grounded theory (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Due to the CTI being used as a sensitizing framework, the data were analyzed from the perspectives of personal, enactment, relational, and communal levels of identity and by CTI concepts related to roles, labels, and symbolic meanings unique to this social context. Themes that emerged from the semantic content of participants’ reflections were representative of what Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 82) refer to as “patterned” responses. Of paramount importance in this study was the analytical criterion of “keyness” that Braun and Clarke define as the degree to which a theme “captures something important in relation to the overall research question.” The author systematically engaged in line-by-line analysis of transcripts, affording attention to verbal, nonverbal, and contextual elements of men’s reported conversations, CTI concepts, and participants’ reflections on the nature and meanings of each party’s communicative behaviors and associated thoughts, feelings, and interpretations (perceived and/or ascribed to the younger man).
Next, descriptive codes/concepts were identified through an iterative process in which emergent codes were continually checked and rechecked against the full set of data for the purposes of internal verification. Although data from all 40 participants were analyzed, theoretical saturation occurred in the first 30 transcripts. In other words, at this point, new cases were easily assigned to existing categories. This process generated codes/concepts that related to gay or age group labels and stereotypes (both ascribed and avowed), intergenerational comparisons, identity enactment, social roles, types of relational behaviors, and characterizations of the midlife transition. Further coding was then performed to compare initial codes/concepts for similarities and differences. This step refined the codes into larger themes that were representative of gay midlife identity as emergent in intergenerational communication. To note, men’s accounts frequently provided evidence of more than one theme, and in the occasional instances in which dual interpretations were possible for a given element, participants’ contextualization and interpretations aided in the choice of an appropriate category. Finally, further analysis resulted in these dimensions being categorized into three overarching themes. Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2006, p. 91) methods, the overarching themes (and eight subthemes) were reviewed to confirm their consistency with the coded extracts and the entire data set, resulting in a “thematic map” of the analysis. Respondent validation was accomplished by providing 10 participants with the themes and their definitions, to ensure consistency of the results with participant experiences.
Results
Following are the three overarching experiential themes and their accompanying sets of identity dimensions that became salient in the intergenerational interactions. The themes and dimensions are supported by examples from participant narratives. To note, pseudonyms have been substituted for participants’ names.
Overarching theme 1: Shifted perspective on gay identity
Men reported shifted views of gay identity that included the unanticipated experience of integrity or self-acceptance, a broadened historical perspective on their place in the gay culture, and/or the realization of a higher purpose as gay men in mentoring their younger counterparts.
Gay midlife authenticity
This dimension was characterized by a sense of integrity and power rooted in being true both to one’s gay and older self, free of preoccupation with the gay culture’s age-based stereotypes and expectations. Key to this dimension was the midlife shift wherein men found the freedom to choose an authentic path that often resulted in changes to their definition of being gay. In CTI terms, some men enacted authenticity through counter-stereotypical and unabashed sexual expression among a younger public, such as “letting go” on the dance floor in what some observers may have considered age inappropriate ways. More in line with an age-based stereotypical expectation, and as was typical of responses, Carlo, 50, found authenticity at a CTI personal level in disengaging the youthful pursuit of what he called “gay perfection” in the communication of his physical appearance. Authenticity was also seen in the identity development of Mike, a 51-year-old theme park choreographer. A young dancer’s story of his contrasting “fast” and “constantly connected” gay life made Mike realize that there was power in “being yourself at your age.” In reference to Mike’s subsequent choice to eschew identification with the younger gay culture’s fast and connected lifestyle, he added that at midlife, “You don’t have to be ‘gay’…That’s what your nature is, but you don’t have to buy into the whole thing.” In other words, for Mike, authenticity was to be found in not “pushing so hard to be ‘gay’” in the communal sense as he had conceived it as a younger man, but realizing instead that, at the personal level, “whatever it is that you are is what ‘gay’ is.” These changes may represent a transition from men’s former communal “depersonalization” (e.g., Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as “clones” of the youthful gay culture, to re-personalization.
The self-validating adoption of an authentic gay midlife identity may represent compensation for identity dimensions lost with advancing age that are highly valued in the trendy and “looksist” gay culture (e.g., Feraios, 1998; Signorile, 1997). Such compensation may involve the reframing of identity. Applying the above examples, and in terms of interpenetration of the CTI’s personal and enactment levels, men may reframe their identity-related dance floor expressions from “age inappropriate” to “authentic.” Consistent with other participants, similar compensation may be implied in Mike’s reframing of his gay identity from a former (i.e., younger) communal identity to a personal sexual orientation.
Gay historical vantage point
This dimension was characterized by men’s possession of a broadened perspective on the life course, including revelation at having seen changes in gay life and history across generations. Men viewed their younger conversational partners’ increased openness about gay sexuality as context for a distinctive gay midlife grounded in an early gay adulthood lived during a comparatively restrictive historical era. This dimension was salient as participants interacted with comparatively open and carefree younger men in bars, at the office, or in other places of business. For example, 49-year-old Steve’s historical vantage point became salient in an exchange with a younger salon colleague who was sharing an apartment with his boyfriend—something Steve claimed, “never would have existed when I was in college.” As another example, Dean, 51, discussed his vantage point as it related to encounters with his young employee. Telling of Dean’s identity development at the CTI communal and enactment levels, Dean said that like many of the younger generation, the employee “was [acting] so gay he was alienating people.” Dean’s historical vantage point was informed by his having come out during “a different time for gay people, and in some ways you wanted to keep your gay thing to yourself because it was this intimate thing that you wanted to protect and it belonged to you.” Illustrative of CTI personal level development, he added that the exchange with the younger employee “made me feel good about who I am because I feel like I have a clearer picture on it.” Although Dean’s comments may hint at internalized homophobia, his report of having a “clearer picture” speaks to a distinctive vantage point at the interpenetration of personal and communal identity formation processes. On the point of CTI communality, “gay historical vantage point” identification seems to rely on a communal form of reflexivity (e.g., Giddens, 1995) that speaks to a kind of epistemic gain from having endured the less accepting era. The vantage point identification codeveloped from this reflexivity may represent one way that gay midlife men uniquely self-enhance through identity formation (i.e., as survivors, or of possessing a certain fortitude) or through maintaining cultural relevance. It may also represent a political and emotional resource that these men can deploy against the stigma of gay ageism.
Gay tribal elder/mentor
Also reflective of a shifted perspective on gay identity, this dimension was characterized by men’s identification as mentors, protectors, role models, and/or educators for members of the younger gay out-group. This dimension was salient for several men in the context of friendships formed from repeated sexual encounters, with strangers at gay community centers, or with younger gay relatives or business clientele. Typical of men’s responses, and in CTI terms, Tom, 49, said that exchanges with younger gay coworkers had made salient for him interpenetrating personal, relational, and communal identification as an “older confidant”—not a “father figure,” but “just someone more experienced that they can look up to.” More uniquely, Edward, 52, experienced a similarly interpenetrating identification as a “fairy godmother,” that is, someone who dedicated himself to “paying it forward” through mentorship and assistance to younger gay men, as had been done for him. Sam, 42, in reference to the emergence of mentorship identification at the CTI personal, relational, and communal levels in his relationship with his gay nephew, said: I asked him, “Have you seen Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? Did you know that Burl Ives was a big daddy?” Those things we would consider part of gay culture, he had no concept of…One of the things I’m trying to be to him is a mentor. You need a gay card. You need to listen to disco, go to the movies, read the books, and know what it took to get you here in a comfortable circumstance. There was this handsome young Latino boy on the bench, crying. I stopped and asked him if he was okay, and he said, “yes.” His eyes were red and I sat down and I said, “Are you sure? Do you need to use my phone?” He said, “No, I have a cell phone um I tested positive.” He said, “My boyfriend just ran down the street. He didn’t want to deal with it.” I said, “Well that’s okay. He won’t get far in this neighborhood.” So he started laughing and he looked at me and asked, “So you were here when it [AIDS] happened—when you first heard of it?” I said, “Yeah,” and he said, “Wow, you must be really old.” And it hit me. {laughter} Then he asked, “What did you feel?” I said, “We didn’t have a cure back then. You’re very lucky. You didn’t dodge the bullet because you tested positive, but you’re lucky that there are drugs that keep it at bay.” And he said, “Well thank you. You’re kind of old but you’re okay.”
Overarching theme 2: Evolved performance of gay identity
The intergenerational encounters also made salient participants’ identification with changes in the performance of their gay identities over the life course. Representing self-affirming aspects of identity, this theme’s dimensions pertain to dis-identification with attributes that the men no longer possessed, or to which they no longer felt susceptible, and they are resonant with feelings of superiority to gay youth.
Beyond gay drama
Men identified positively as having matured beyond susceptibility to consumption by emotional, relational, and behavioral drama stereotypically associated with gay youth. This identification occurred in line with the notion that the explicit categorization of an out-group member invokes an implicit self-categorization of oneself as not a member of that category (see Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005). Men reported conversations in which younger dates, coworkers, or casual acquaintances expressed themselves in ways that made them seem, for example, “a lot more dramatic about life,” or for whom “everything is a much bigger deal.” Resonating with identification at the interpenetration of the CTI’s enactment and communal levels, Clint, 53, said that his conversational partner acted, “like a bad lifetime movie.” At the enactment level, Derek, 49, self-identified in contrast to a 20-something gay “kid” that he dated for 1 week while on business in South America, who was “…very dramatic. Everything was intense. He would sing out loud on public transportation, get jealous and make a scene in the bar.” Mike, 51, the choreographer above, exuded an attitude of personal and communal level positive distinctiveness as he recalled his interactions with the younger dancer whom he had prepared for a competition: I’d had only one session with him and then gay drama took over his life…He kept missing sessions and it was all this shit about how his boyfriend stole his phone and smashed it on the ground {laughter} and they were just so Jerry Springer and I thought, oh my God, you’re just so gay out of control.
This identity dimension supports the perspective that maturing gay men may shift their behavior from an outwardly “dramatic” orientation to what several scholars have referred to as midlife gay men’s inward reflection (e.g., Hunter, 2005; Kertzner, 1999; Kooden, 1997). Additionally, and in line with CTI assumptions, dis-identification from gay drama may carry a special “symbolic meaning” for gay midlife men in that it represents positive distinctiveness and release from identity-threatening gay “fem” stereotypes that permeated society in the men’s younger years. Any implicit identification with “manliness” may be related to residual internalized homophobia instilled during that era.
A subtler gay
This dimension regarded evolution from what men considered youths’ exaggerated or blatant (not to be conflated with dramatic) expression of gay sexuality. For many men, and consistent with a CTI interpretation, conversations made salient their subtler gay identity as they had enacted it in several ways, including dressing more conservatively, ceasing to flaunt their shirtless bodies in public as gay culture had programmed them to do, and practicing greater sexual selectivity. At the personal identity level, many men reported that their gay identities had evolved to become secondary. Discussing his gay subtlety as it emerged in his intergenerational conversation, Mark, 41, said, “I’ve lived that life of a 20-something gay male, and I have moved beyond it.” Like many other men, he perceived in himself a subtler gay identity, through implicit contrast at the enactment level, in the form of being less “nelly,” “gossipy,” or, in another participant’s words, not being part of a “giggling groups of posers.” Similarly, 53-year-old Clint’s subtlety evolved through interpenetration of the CTI personal, enactment, relational, and communal levels. Formerly immersed in the drag community himself, he spoke of interactions with his gay nephew: He’s twenty-two and never was feminine until he realized he was gay, and now everything about his life seems to go toward the transsexual, drag queen, that type of thing. And I’m just waiting for the moment he calls me and tells me he’s on stage {laughter}. Now I’m older and I don’t see that situation in my life [anymore], so it makes me uncomfortable to be around him. Everything I did was discreet. I wasn’t ashamed of it or anything…It was just a different time for gay people and in some ways you almost wanted to keep your gay thing to yourself. Instead of shouting it out to the world, it was more like this personal intimate thing that you wanted to protect and it belonged to you…I never thought that ‘gay’ had to be portrayed as being very flamboyant…I’m not saying anything against it. I just don’t think it’s something that I need to do.
Overarching theme 3: Discord with gay cultural expectations
Men’s reports indicated discord between their avowed identities, and those they assumed that younger men ascribed to them. These discordant aspects of identity were based on assumed expectations and stereotypes of older gay men and carried implications for the midlife men’s role in gay culture. Discord was also evident between avowed gay identity based on gay cultural expectations, and contradictory realizations and impressions made salient during the conversations.
Could be his dad
Men’s accounts referenced discord between the perception of sharing equal adult status and a nonfamilial role with the younger man, and the often sudden and unwelcomed realization of being as old as, or older than, the younger man’s parents. Several men reported the salience of this dimension in either romantic or platonic contexts, or in bars or on dates. These impressions triggered identity discord at personal and relational levels due to the paternal reference seeming to violate their gay cultural expectation that gay men are not usually fathers and that fathers would not be dating younger men or talking to younger men in bars. As an example of how this dimension emerged communicatively, Carl, 47, recounted a bar conversation with a small group of men in their early 20s: We were talking about college, and then you find out that their parents are younger than you {laughter}. At first the conversation was fun and light and everybody was having a good time. And then all of a sudden it just became very awkward, when one of them said, “Oh, my God, he’s older than our parents.” We were having this conversation and it steered to when I was in college. And he said, “You’re my parents’ age.” And I was like “Oh, my God. This 20-year-old could be my son.” I was slapped with the reality that I can’t date this person because his parents are my age. Like, I just wouldn’t. I knew he was younger, but I hadn’t thought that I would be old enough to be his father.
Not a predator
The recalled relational encounters fostered men’s awareness of an older gay predator stereotype, their identification with being commonly mistaken as predators, and their associated defensiveness about it. This identification occurred in the absence of younger men’s outright accusations of predatory behavior; it was based entirely on stereotypical conceptions and intergenerational expectations. Men reported fear of being perceived as predators by strangers in bars or by younger gay coworkers whom participants feared may have perceived unwelcomed and nonexistent staring or ogling. Typical of responses, Carlo, 49, discussed a personal versus relational level CTI identity gap made salient in a strictly platonic conversation with a young stranger in a nightclub: When they’re younger, especially a good looking younger guy, they think that because I’m asking questions, because they don’t know me, they don’t realize I have a natural curiosity about people. And because I’m older, they think I’m hitting on them. That’s annoying that they presume, when I’m like, relax, no, it’s not happening. There’s a bit of every gay man is after a younger guy in their 20s. It’s just not true with me and I find that annoying.
Interestingly, one participant, 51-year-old Randy, experienced salience of this dimension while merely preparing to report his platonic conversation with a younger fellow gay retreat attendee. He prefaced his story with the following: I don’t deal with anybody who’s under-age. I’m not comfortable doing that. I mean, that’s probably something we should talk about. I do not touch, or, you know what I mean? Because you know that’s a big stigma. I’m hands off. Get away. Anyway, he was from Grand Junction…
No need to pay for play
Men’s reports also evidenced their identification as being sexually desirable at midlife, including the perspective that they did not need to pay younger men for sex, and in light of awareness that this identity was in discord with the gay cultural stereotype. This dimension was revealed by many participants, and exclusively in the sexually charged Internet chat environment. Reflecting identity salience at the interpenetration of the CTI’s personal, enactment (i.e., no payment and/or sex), relational, and communal levels, Paul, 53, shared a view common among participants: “When you’re chatting with somebody on the Internet, they expect to be paid to hang out with somebody my age.” Similarly, 48-year-old Joseph’s account of an online chat exemplified a personal versus relational CTI identity gap that arose for some men: He thought I should pay him to have sex just because he was 20 years old. I said no…Gay men don’t have to pay for sex. You can get it anywhere you want. I mean sex is pretty easy. And you know I don’t have to have sex with some young tight-bodied person to enjoy sex. When I told him that, he “blocked” me.
Discussion
In summary, the three overarching experiential themes and corresponding sets of identity dimensions (referenced parenthetically) were shifted perspective on gay identity (gay midlife authenticity, gay historical vantage point, and gay tribal elder/mentor), evolved performance of gay identity (beyond gay drama, a subtler gay), and discord with gay cultural expectations (could be his dad, not a predator, no need to pay for play). The following discussion addresses the relevance of these identity dimensions to understanding some men’s experiences navigating gay midlife and the study’s theoretical contributions.
Relevance of themes to understanding gay midlife experience
Content of the three overarching themes carries interesting relevance to our understanding of gay midlife experience. The shifted perspective theme highlights men’s potential to embrace, rather than categorically eliminate or ignore, age-related changes. It also indicates how men may create new schemas for aging, perhaps in response to what critical researchers have regarded as a perceived void associated with a gay older age, or the absence of “futurity” in gay male culture (e.g., Edelman, 2004; Goltz, 2007, 2009). The evolved performance theme suggests that for some men, gay midlife is associated with the positive release of enactments of a youthful gay cultural identity. Accordingly, this theme’s dimensions concern what one is not, and they hint at a self-enhancing function of invoking reverse ageist stereotypes of younger men as leading relatively inferior or superficial lives (see Simpson, 2014). This theme also suggests that men may embrace evolved performance in the interest of obtaining personal distinctiveness, or self-efficacy, (e.g., Breakwell, 1986) in reclaiming control over their present, and hopefully future, experiences.
The discord theme also offers several important insights into gay midlife identity. First, the “not a predator” and “no need to pay for play” dimensions concern the rejection of younger men’s ageist stereotypes and show precisely how gay men’s experience resonates with Kooden’s (1997, p. 33) suggestion that the task of navigating gay midlife is about “a developmental identity shift from ‘what I am not a part of’ to ‘who I am’ to ‘what I am a part of’”. Second, the “could be his dad” dimension indicates, surprisingly, that gay midlife identity as emergent in intergenerational conversations may involve parental role conjecture on the part of men for whom child-rearing has been generally irrelevant. Third, the discord theme confirms gay midlife men’s potential for issues with stigma and attendant depression, internalized ageism, internalized homophobia, and reduced intergenerational contact, and how they manifest in alignment with the CTI identity gap concept. On a more positive note, such gaps may also indicate where some men may find positive gay midlife distinctiveness through not internalizing negative stereotypes (e.g., being a predator, needing to pay for sex).
Our understanding of gay midlife experience can also be enhanced through contrasting certain themes. Regarding identity gaps, whereas the discord theme reveals where some identity gaps may expand (as explained above), the shifted perspective theme indicates where others may close or heal. For example, the shifted perspective tribal elder dimension may represent a healing/closing of the relational avowed versus ascribed identity gap through a redefinition of aging that allows the midlife man to merge with the ascribed older identity in uplifting terms. Insight is also gained through considering similarities across themes. For instance, the shifted perspective and evolved performance themes suggest that men may handle the midlife transition by not only outgrowing the younger group identity but also by replacing lost identity dimensions in positive, appropriate, and socially comparative ways, and for equality rather than positive group distinctiveness (see Tajfel & Turner, 1986, for a discussion of positive group distinctiveness). Such identification along these themes may function to assist the men in accepting natural changes in their physical appearance or acceptance by younger men, thereby assisting them in achieving or maintaining a sense of psychological coherence, consistent with Jaspal and Cinnirella’s (2010, p. 865) psychological coherence principle. This principle regards an “individual’s subjective perception of compatibility between their identities”, and in the current context, this would involve reconciliation of the “older” and gay aspects of their compound social identities (see Roccas & Brewer, 2002, for a discussion of compound social identities).
Finally, and considering the study’s themes in a collective sense, they reveal what symbolic meanings gay midlife men form and enact in intergenerational communication, the significant influence of social comparison, and the importance of consideration of what one is not. These features are likely unique to the midlife transition, due to the absence of the binary convenience of “young” versus “old” categorization. The themes also reveal the significance of men’s desire to maintain or regain gay cultural relevance. This is a desire that may be particularly important to gay men at midlife or older, as they formed their identities during an era in which their gay “otherness” may have been a source of positive distinctiveness and/or intragroup bonding, despite, or due to, social discrimination. Additionally, the idea of taking personal responsibility for such maintained cultural relevance seems to reflect Zak’s (1998) assertion that, for gay men, “midlife is…a time of learning how to validate ourselves instead of waiting to be validated by someone else’s attention” (“Invisible Men,” para 11). Interestingly, the nonsexual nature of all but the discordant dimensions counters the stereotype—perhaps perpetuated by gay culture itself—that gay identity is primarily sex-focused. Furthermore, none of the men’s reports evidenced all of the themes or dimensions, and some men’s narratives evidenced potentially contradictory categorization across themes. For example, a few men simultaneously embraced tribal elder and a discordant “could be his dad” identification. A few others who identified with the liberating sense of “gay midlife authenticity” also indicated concern with being “a subtler gay” in a way that seemed to suggest internalized homophobia and concern with masculine outer appearances. Although the methods employed for this study were not aimed at discovering such contradictions, the possibility of their existence hints at the complexity of identity formation at the nexus of stigmatized age and sexual orientation. Also noteworthy (and perhaps surprising) is that the themes and various dimensions emerged in roughly equal measure across participant relationship status, ethnicity, and education levels.
Theoretical considerations
Key to this investigation was the examination of how gay midlife identity formation and management processes are potentially informed by the identity frames and mechanisms of the CTI (Hecht, 1993, 2015; Jung & Hecht, 2004). As reported above, the CTI analytical perspective revealed that gay midlife identities may communicatively emerge in ways resonant with all four of the theory’s identity frames. For instance, this may occur at the personal level in the form of self-actualizing shifts in perspective, at the enactment level through evolved performance or outlook on identity, and at the communal level primarily through discord. Identity emergence may occur at the relational level not only through intergenerational discord but also evolved performance and a shifted perspective. Interestingly, a number of the dimensions point to the importance of negative group stereotype rejection in gay midlife identity formation. Turning to CTI level interpenetration, the findings reveal that all levels may function for gay midlife men in simultaneous, intermingling, and reinforcing ways. For example, a tribal elder identity may have a personal aspect, that is, characterized by its enactment in mentorship in a particular relational context that is intergenerational (i.e., communal) in nature.
This study’s findings lend significant support to several CTI propositions. The results suggest that identity is multilayered, that its frames or layers interpenetrate, that identities have both content and relational levels of interpretation, and that identity dimensions are jointly constructed. Additionally, the findings support the CTI “identity gap” proposition that identity negotiation occurs at places of discrepancy or contradiction among the identity frames for a given individual, in a certain context. For this study, these gaps occurred along the discord theme dimensions. Furthermore, the findings support the CTI view that identities can be expressed in core symbols (i.e., fundamental beliefs that are shared by cultural group members), occurring here as beliefs in the existence and roles of “predators” and “daddies.” These symbols also exemplify what the CTI terms as “symbolic meanings” as they are enacted in intergenerational communication, along with other symbolic meanings related to conceptions of “gay drama” and “flamboyancy.”
This study’s results also offer an expanded view of how, and under what circumstances, the CTI’s mechanisms may occur. For instance, this study reveals the role that inevitable biological shifts may play in identity frame interpenetration and identity gap formation. As seen here in the case of generational shifts, identity management involves communicatively navigating the wake of an avowed identity that has been lost—a scenario absent in prior CTI-inspired research focused largely on static compound identities such as Jewish/gay identity (see Faulkner & Hecht, 2011). Relatedly, this study has uniquely shown that identity emergence as expressed in CTI frame interpenetration may involve significant comparison to one’s former self. Furthermore, and also related to self-comparison, results in this context reveal that key to identity formation at the various CTI identity frames may be consideration of what one is not (i.e., that the person has moved beyond or from a former self with whom he is communicating). The self-comparison finding is also useful for enhanced understandings of how and when CTI identity gaps may occur. For instance, this study’s data suggest that CTI identity gaps may arise from assumed ascriptions of conversational partners based on the perceiver’s projections of his own past communicative experience. Heuristically, these current contributions speak to the CTI’s flexibility and potential relevance for explorations in other shifting identity contexts.
Limitations and conclusion
This exploration utilized a sample that was homogeneous along the dimensions of theoretical interest (i.e., sexual orientation, gender, and age range) and diverse along other dimensions (i.e., ethnicity, geographic location, relationship status, “outness,” and socioeconomic status), a choice, as any, that may be considered a limitation. Additionally, the sample was limited to men comfortable enough in their aging and sexuality to discuss them openly. Furthermore, the snowball sampling method and the author’s acquaintance with a number of participants resulted in the decision to not ask them about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status and whether partnered men were in open relationships. These factors, if discussed, may have been influential on participants’ reports of gay midlife identity management in particular relational contexts. Finally, as is common with the use of a thematic analysis methodology, there existed to some extent the risk of participants’ reports being used to both identify and exemplify themes.
In conclusion, this study not only contributes several intriguing insights into how gay midlife men conceptualize and shape their potentially stigmatized age and sexual identities through communication with their younger counterparts (i.e., their former selves) but also expands our understanding of CTI-related processes. The identity themes and accompanying dimensions reported here may assist some gay men in anchoring the potentially amorphous midlife experience in self-affirming terms. More specifically, men may develop an appreciation for the roles of a shifted perspective and evolved performance of identity as indices to their wellbeing. They may self-enhance through the adoption of some of these identity dimensions, or through the avoidance of others that they consider less self-affirming or irrelevant. Not only does this research provide further insights into CTI mechanisms and how some gay men may cope with aging in constructive ways, its findings may be used to extend existing models of life stage development for gay, and, perhaps in some ways, heterosexual men as well. Finally, this research may be used to inform younger gay men about possible communicative dynamics involved in their outreach to older gay men in social or clinical settings, therefore reducing communicative barriers between generations.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.