Constructions of diversity,hierarchies,and identity intersections in LGBTQ+ activists’ interview talk

Research on LGBTQ+ movements has documented tensions and dilemmas concerned with membership, objectives, and practices that pose significant challenges to LGBTQ+ activism. This study aims to explore the argumentative resources mobilized to construct activist claims and objectives in the argumentation of people involved in LGBTQ+ ¹ movements and collectivities in Greece. It adopts a critical discursive sociopsychological approach (CDSP) attempting to document the rhetorical and ideological patterns that permeate activists’ argumentation on activist/collective objectives, actions, and identities, and their potential (dis)empowering implications on LGBTQ+ rights.

We considered CDSP—an eclectic variant of discursive analysis oriented to illuminate both the micro-social and macro-social contexts (Wetherell, 1998)—ideal for the exploration of our research objectives; it offers a multilevel approach to activists’ accounts, highlighting actively performed constructions that simultaneously perform varied functions (see Edley, 2001). CDSP, in particular, agrees with ethnomethodology and conversation analysis in the exploration of situated discursive practices; with rhetorical psychology (Billig, 1996; Billig et al., 1988) in the identification of arguments and counter-arguments; and with poststructuralism in the documentation of macro-social structures. Thus, CDSP can showcase located argumentative patterns that underpin or contest LGBTQ+ politics, their rhetorical organization, and the political-ideological and cultural structures that imbue them. In this way, CDSP can indicate complexities and subtleties in activists’ argumentation, indicating power relations and their local and distal impact.

Tensions and challenges of LGBTQ+ activism and queer politics

While a commonly marked feature of different forms of activism concerns their social problem–social change orientation, their more specific objectives and boundaries constitute matters of dispute. A central dilemma, which permeates LGBTQ+ movements, pertains to the tension between (single-)identity politics and intersectionality ² (see Leachman, 2016; Parent et al., 2013; Stone, 2010; Waites, 2017). An interrelated dilemma concerns tensions between “mainstream” LGBTQ+ movements aiming to promote institutional claims and “queer alternatives” oriented towards resistance against intertwined oppressive institutions (see Brettschneider et al., 2017; Cohen, 2019; Eleftheriadis, 2018; Fine et al., 2018). Finally, differences in the scope (local, national, supranational) of activist organization and action bring to the fore culturally specific dilemmas (see Ayoub & Paternotte, 2014).

Specific LGBTQ+ movements aim to fight homophobia/heteronormativity at the expense of more intersectional goals (Fox & Ore, 2010). They often prioritize claims for institutional inclusion (e.g., marital rights), advancing the primal concerns of comparatively privileged LGBTQ+ members such as White cisgender gay individuals with secured citizenship status (Adam, 2017). Emphasis on a single power structure can underscore particular oppressions and can construct a sense of “belongingness.” At the same time, however, it may create a false picture of homogeneity which excludes less visible subjectivities (Cohen, 1997; Furman et al., 2018; Hindman, 2011; Nourafshan, 2016). Institutional integration is often represented as a “universal” objective, although it favors privileged race and class categories (Adam, 2017; Jowett, 2014, 2017; Puar, 2012).

Intersectional approaches question essentialist (one-dimensional) LGBTQ+ identity politics and their exclusive boundaries (see Adam, 2017), stressing crucial sociopolitical aspects surrounding internal diversity and power asymmetries (Meyer, 2012). This research strand has indicated White and non-White LGBTQ+ members’ different experiences and understandings of homophobic violence (Meyer, 2012), and has differentiated their needs and claims (Moore, 2012; Nourafshan, 2016; Swank & Fahs, 2013). Intersectional oppressions can affect both involvement and disengagement from LGBTQ+ activism (Labelle, 2019; Swank & Fahs, 2013). Although sexual and gender-related discriminations might mobilize social actors to participate in the LGBTQ+ movement, racist treatment within activist groups can push them towards the pursue of alternative or intersectional activist initiatives (Labelle, 2019). According to Carastathis (2013, 2016), the unmasking of these coexisting privileges and oppressions can inform broader social justice objectives and facilitate the construction of activist alliances/coalitions (see Cole, 2008; Fisher et al., 2018; Price, 2017; Zoli et al., 2023).

DeFilippis and Anderson-Nathe (2017; DeFilippis et al., 2018), focusing on activism in the context of the US, draw a distinction between the “mainstream gay rights movement” and the “queer liberation movement.” According to them, the former prioritizes a liberal identity politics agenda grounded on LGBTQ+ rights and institutional inclusion, and tends to represent its claims as the supposedly consensual “voice” of the community. Queer groups question such claims of inclusivity and representativeness, pinpointing the marginalization of ingroup members who face multifarious (e.g., race- and class-related) oppressions (Broad, 2020; Fine et al., 2018; Mayo-Adam, 2020; for different contexts, see Francis & Kjaran, 2020; Liu et al., 2015).

Similar tensions are identified in the context of Europe. Paternotte (2016) examines the transition of diverse LGBTQ+ activist groups to an accumulative, formal, and transnational form of activist organization, namely, to a potent NGO (i.e., ILGA-Europe). This shift to a solid NGO-based activist organization reflects, according to him, groups’ engagement with European institutions and inclination towards EU-friendly activist objectives. This “NGO-ization” is extensively problematized by queer movements in Europe, emphasizing the risk of assimilation and mainstreaming (Eleftheriadis, 2018; see also Di Feliciantonio & Brown, 2015).

While the aforementioned tensions are documented on both sides of the Atlantic, in the context of Europe, binaries and hegemonic cultural hierarchies (e.g., the Northwest vs. Southeast divide) produce further contradictions (Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017; Michos et al., 2021; Paternotte, 2018). Occidentalist as homonationalist ³ , and Orientalist ideological patterns are reflected on the unique dynamics of local-regional LGBTQ+ movements. In these “peripheral” and often ambivalently positioned between the “West” and the “East” contexts ⁴ (see Bozatzis, 2009, 2016; Eleftheriadis, 2017), alliances and category intersections constitute points of heated discussion. The southeastern context of Cyprus, ambivalently situated between the West and the rest, is an exemplary case. Kamenou (2019; see also Kamenou, 2021), focusing on this context, puts forward that while the entrance of Cyprus to the European Union has laid the foundations for LGBTQ+ rights claims, it has also created space for the emergence of homonationalism, which entangles LGBTQ+ politics with nationalist patterns and promotes pejorative stances towards Turkish-Cypriot activists (see Kadianaki et al., 2020, 2022). Intersectional collaborative objectives are considered by the author (and the activists/participants) as a potential way to challenge homonationalism and support LGBTQ+ claims more effectively.

Bilic's research (2016; Bilic & Kajinic, 2016) in the context of Serbia pointed to similar concerns. Bilic speaks of the LGBTQ+ movement as diverse “segments” in conflictual settings. It showcases how unequal access to privileges and the prioritization of liberal human rights may stifle intersectional approaches and contribute to LGBTQ+ fragmentation. Underscoring a broad spectrum of interrelated inequalities and absences (e.g., overrepresentation of gay activists and the silencing of lesbians, disengagement from class issues and related alliances), the author notes activist alliances’ vital role in the promotion of essential LGBTQ+ social transformations.

The alliance between LGBTQ+ activism and the Left as a vehicle of political change in the context of Croatia and Serbia concentrated the attention of Maljkovic (2016). The author elaborated on potential obstacles to such an alliance, pointing to the ties of LGBTQ+ activism with Western liberalism (or, in other words, to the financial support of activist groups by Western institutions) and to the subtle reproduction of patriarchal, heteronormative values on the part of the Left. He maintained that under the premise of mutual compromises, an intersectional lens can connect LGBTQ+ activism with class issues and anticapitalistic objectives, thus fostering radical politics. The need for alliances in the postcommunist context of Poland has been underscored by Mikulak (2019). The author, critical of an NGO-based LGBTQ+ “activist pattern,” criticized initiatives (concentrated in urban regions) that prioritize expertise/professionalism at the expense of the collective.

Other authors explored the effect that austerity measures, which were implemented in the European south, had on LGBTQ+ politics. Eleftheriadis (2015) focused on the organization of queer initiatives in Athens and Thessaloniki, Greece, during the economic crisis (with an emphasis in the period between 2009 and 2012) and the parallel consolidation of extreme nationalist and neo-Nazi rhetoric in the sociopolitical arena. According to Eleftheriadis, the particular sociopolitical context influenced queer groups, which prioritized collective action against intersecting oppressive power structures vis-à-vis single-axis identity politics. Eleftheriadis’s (2017) study on the organization of Pride parades in Thessaloniki also casts light on the multiple factors that affect LGBTQ+ politics and the public representations of it. He pointed to the decisive role of the national and local contexts (i.e., Thessaloniki's close ties to the Balkans and the strong presence and opposition of the Greek Church to the LGBTQ+ community and its claims) and to broader Western influences (e.g., European assimilation and globalization processes). Eleftheriadis juxtaposes representations of LGBTQ+ claims projected as an indication of Western invasion, with homonationalist rhetoric, and puts forward that they often constitute two sides of the same coin, reproducing binaries with similar ideological implications (see Michos et al., 2020; Sapountzis et al., 2022).

To summarize, the literature we considered above explores processes that underpin activism membership and objectives and highlights diversity, dilemmas, and convergences related to LGBTQ+ activism. Adopting a bottom-up perspective provided by CDSP, this study foregrounds participants’ involvement in meaning-making processes through argumentation, embracing inconsistences and ambivalences while avoiding predetermined theoretical constructs’ reification. We perceive participants as active agents who manage positioning and rhetorical dilemmas, acknowledging their argumentation's potential to indicate (dis-)empowering patterns. Therefore, we aim to explore whether and how activists themselves orient to the above dilemmas and tensions in a particular context. Firstly, this study aims to document the ideological resources that permeate constructions of activist goals and practices in the specific context of Greece. This context, in line with aforementioned studies (e.g., Eleftheriadis, 2017), is considered “peripheral,” characterized by ambivalences between (seemingly) pro-LGBTQ+ sociopolitical settings and oppressive institutions. Secondly, our study aims to document the moral accountability concerns that social and ideological dilemmas raise in the specific discursive, interactional context provided by individual interviews. The latter allows room to elucidatecontradictory and fragmentary (everyday-like) argumentative resources, but, at the same time, it positions participants in specific ways. CDSP (Edley, 2001; Wetherell, 1998) constitutes a privileged approach in this direction, providing the necessary conceptual tools to delve into rhetorical and ideological dilemmas, and to cast light on their consequences.

Context of the study

Greece has taken crucial steps towards the legal recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights, being ranked, according to the index of ILGA-Europe (2023), 13th among the 49 European countries, and 10th among the 27 European Union members. Despite Greece's progress, especially in relation to other contexts considered “peripheral,” the road towards full sociopolitical inclusion seems long. Recent institutional developments include the 2015 Law 4356/2015, which extended cohabitation agreement rights to same-sex couples. In 2017, the Law 4491/2017, according to which Greek citizens can change their registered gender in accordance with their self-defined gender identity, was introduced. In 2018, the Law 4538/2018 included same-sex couples' option to foster children. In 2022, the Law 4958/2022 banned (nonessential) medical/surgical interventions to intersex minors under the age of 15. In 2024, the Law 5089/2024 legalized same-sex marriage alongside second-parent and joint adoption rights. Artificial insemination and surrogacy are prohibited for same-sex and transgender couples, while nonbinary individuals’ legal recognition and sex education in schools are not considered to date.

LGBTQ+ groups are mainly located in big cities like Athens and Thessaloniki (see Carastathis, 2021). Athens Pride and Thessaloniki Pride constitute volunteer- and sponsorship-based groups concerned with the organization of annual Prides in Athens and Thessaloniki. Other initiatives include the Lesbian Group of Athens, which focuses on lesbian rights, women's emancipation, and the elimination of broader intersectional exclusions; and the Lesbian Group of Thessaloniki, which focuses on lesbian and human rights claims. The Transgender Support Association, a voluntary NGO based in Athens and Thessaloniki, deals with transgender rights and the fight against transphobia and gender discriminations. Other NGOs with broad LGBTQ+-related actions are the Rainbow Families Greece and Positive Voice. The nonprofit association Intersex Greece, founded in Athens in 2021, aims primarily at the assertion of intersex rights. Other groups based in Athens include the Athens LGBTQ Youth Community, concerned with young LGBTQ members’ claims, and the group Proud Seniors aimed at the support of senior LGBTQ+ people. In Thessaloniki, a long-standing voluntary nonprofit organization, Sympraxi – Partnership for Gender Issues, is involved with the (co-)organization of the Thessaloniki International LGBTQ Film Festival. The action of self-organized and queer collectivities (see Eleftheriadis, 2015) is also significant, including the now disbanded queer collectivity Radical Pride, which participated in the realization of self-organized Prides in Thessaloniki since 2017.

Methods

Participants

We conducted individual semistructured interviews with nine LGBTQ+ activists. At the time of the interviews, two were members of a group focused on the organization of Pride in Thessaloniki, one participated in an LGBTQ+ youth group in Thessaloniki, two were members of a lesbian group, one participated in an association focused on transgender issues in Thessaloniki, and three were members of youth LGBTQ+ groups in Athens. ⁵ Nevertheless, most of them have been members of diverse (LGBTQ+, queer, or other) activist groups in the past. Six of the participants were based in Thessaloniki and three in Athens. Two activists self-identified as cisgender women, two as cisgender men, two as transgender, while three either identified as nonbinary or did not identify their gender in a specific way. Moreover, three participants identified as gay, one as lesbian, one as bisexual, one as pansexual, and three did not define their sexual identity in a specific manner. In relation to age, six participants were between 18 and 35 years old, and three between 36 and 55 years. Diversity is observed in their educational background, with four participants having completed secondary education, three having completed higher education, and two being university students. Moreover, two participants were unemployed, six were employed in temporary/precarious jobs (e.g., service, technology and informatics, NGOs, etc.), and one (university student) was not active in the labor market. Participants had Greek citizenship but we have no information about their ethnic background.

Participant recruitment process and interviews

The study was organized (as part of the first author's doctoral research) and conducted between October 2020 and October 2021, and it obtained the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (No. 048/10-09-2021). The necessary conditions for participation in the study were age (a minimum of 18 years) and participation in LGBTQ+ activist groups or collectives for at least 1 year, constituting a highly specified population group. Participants’ recruitment was based on snowball sampling, initiating from the broad social network of the first author, who was familiar with the LGBTQ+ activist groups that participated in the study due to prior related research experience. He approached activists whose contact details were at his disposal and asked them to suggest additional possible participants. LGBTQ+ activists who expressed their interest in the research exchanged contact information with the first author. The potential participants were initially informed about the research through online communication with the first author. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged. After completing the (written) signing consent process, participants took part in an individual semistructured interview with an average duration of 1 hour and 10 minutes. Six participants, who were based in Thessaloniki, were interviewed in quiet public places, while three interviews with activists based in Athens were conducted online due to COVID-19 regulations that restricted transportation.

Following CDSP's principles, we considered individual semistructured interviews ideal, since they allow argumentative lines focused on research objectives without hindering the spontaneous emergence of additional accounts; at the same time, CDSP enables reflexive comments on the interviewer's contributions (see Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The interview protocol consisted of open-ended questions drawing on literature review, institutional texts, and previous research (Michos et al., 2022). It included questions regarding (a) experiences from the participation in activist groups, (b) legally recognized LGBTQ+ rights, (c) rights claiming practices and objectives, and future prospects. The first author, being trained and experienced in the conduction of semistructured interviews (Michos & Figgou, 2017; Michos et al., 2021), conducted each interview, introducing himself as a PhD student in social psychology. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymized, and fully transcribed.

Analytic procedure

The analytic procedure began with the familiarization with the data corpus through repeated reading and initial manual coding. This process was both inductive (i.e., constructing novel categories as they emerged in the talk of LGBTQ+ activists) and deductive (i.e., identifying possible categories already familiar from the review of relevant literature), leading to the identification of recurring themes. Thematic categories include: (a) motives and reasons for involvement in activism, (b) experiences with group membership, (c) sexual and gender identity hierarchies and rights inequalities, (d) activist groups and the relations between them, and (e) activist objectives and practices.

The present paper focuses on the last two categories, analyzing them based on CDSP's eclectic approach, which, as mentioned in the introduction, provides versatile tools for the exploration of micro- and macro-social components (Wetherell, 1998). Given the dilemmas and tensions observed within LGBTQ+ activism, the analysis focused on the contestation of potentially disempowering argumentative patterns and the identification of those concerned with intersectional categories and objectives. Aiming to fulfill this analytic endeavor, our main analytical concern was the identification of the argumentative lines mobilized in the context of discussing the selected thematic categories and the documentation of their rhetorical organization. As our core analytical tool, argumentative lines constitute the common ground between CDSP and rhetorical psychology (see Billig, 1996; Billig et al., 1988). They are considered to draw on widespread sociocultural resources and to provide a commonsensical framework for organizing interaction and managing accountability (Wetherell, 1998). The study of positioning is also at the heart of CDSP's interests; thus, analysis was also focused on the documentation of participants’ self/other positioning (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999) as a way to construct meaning and address accountability stakes. Moreover, the analysis reflected on the researchers’ positionality (Lykke, 2010). Another CDSP's aim is to elucidate the accomplishment of interactional ends at the micro level. Thus, a last concern was the identification of rhetorical devices aimed at the accomplishment of rhetorical goals, such as providing facticity and avoiding identity censures (Edwards & Potter, 1992).

The analysis contains extracts that we consider typical of the argumentative lines identified. Each extract has been translated from Greek to English.

Analysis

In our analysis, we showcase three main argumentative lines. The first represents equality (of human beings and beyond) as activism's unified objective and constructs activist groups’ difference as desirable. The second constructs groups’ difference-as-diversity as potentially burdensome for activist collaborations and problematizes internal power asymmetries. The third questions LGBTQ+ groups’ practices and prioritizes broader “apolitical” claims as an opening to more inclusive activist objectives.

Projecting an “individualistic” perspective: Equality for all and healthy diversity

The first extract comes from an interview with a woman activist, member of a lesbian group in Thessaloniki.

Extract 1: Fighting for the same rights: Elaborating a sexuality-blind perspective.

Interviewer:

1. Now, as far as the future is concerned, what makes claiming rights

2. necessary? Why do groups keep claim-, why you, why do you keep

3. claiming?

Iris:

4. Eh, why. In order to spread information on some issues. So that we can

5. speak openly, without fear. Because there are racist attacks and because if

6. you go, if two girls go kissing outside, at best, they will call them names. Or

7. two boys, and do not deny it, it has happened (Interviewer: yes). Well, if I

8. can live like everybody else, then there is no reason for groups to exist. It's

9. like feminism. People sometimes say “what, what do we need feminism

10. for?” It is necessary because we do not have rights. We do not have the

11. same rights as men. Therefore, it is needed. Groups are needed as long as

12. we do not have the same rights. When we will have exactly the same rights,

13. heterosexuals, homosexuals, transgender, intersex, extraterrestrials –

14. right? –, asexual, when we will all have the same rights, then what do I

15. need the group for? No need. (Participant 2)

The argument shown above constitutes a response to the researcher's question concerning future activist objectives. Iris constructs activism as having a social change orientation, as being necessary in order to spread information and to combat discrimination and fear. She provides facticity to her claim with the use of a hypothetical example about the potential violent reactions that a public same-sex kiss would cause. Oriented to an external verification of her account, Iris also enlists the interviewer (Line 7: “and do not deny it”). Hence, she constructs a frame of injustice and articulates a commonplace, in our data, position; group action is necessary as long as inequalities exist. A possible achievement of equality in terms of rights would signal the end of activism. This premise is further grounded on a parallel between LGBTQ+ and feminist activism. She counterposes an argument that questions the current need for feminist action (which Iris constructs as a common trope attributed to unspecified people out there) with the argument that women and men still do not enjoy equal rights.

Groups are constructed as a vehicle for claiming rights on the basis of particular identities (i.e., identity politics), as evidenced by the listing of various sexual and gender categories. Iris stresses equal and unconditional access to rights, projecting the need to “live like everybody else” (Lines 8 and 12) as the main activist objective. The ideal of everyone's inclusion is further emphasized by reference to “aliens” (Line 13) amongst the identities listed.

The next extract is drawn from an interview with a pansexual woman activist from a group focused on the organization of Pride in Thessaloniki.

Extract 2: Groups’ differentiated objectives as fruitful diversity.

Interviewer:

1. Em, how, how, what's your take on the ways in which people claim

2. through these collectives, groups, associations? Let's say, what is your

3. opinion about the claiming practices, the organized actions of existing

4. groups?

Ophelia:

5. I think that each group has “its agenda,” put it in quotation marks, and

6. generally, its principles and all that, which are different from other groups'

7. and this is ok and healthy. Ehm, yes, that is, as we said before, generally,

8. before [anonymized group], I have also been in [anonymized group],

9. which was an extra-institutional anticapitalist

10. group and so on. After that, I went for a while to that [anonymized queer collectivity].

Interviewer:

11. Ah, you went to [anonymized queer collectivity] too, and?

Ophelia:

12. So generally, I’m not on a specific side and I don't agree that much with

13. there being, [with the fact that] there is opposition and so on. In general, I consider this

14. diversity quite healthy. Ehm, and that maybe each piece serves another

15. part and purpose after all. (Participant 1)

In the second extract, the interviewer touches on the existence of diverse activist groups and asks about Ophelia's take on the issue. Ophelia adopts the position of the “insider” by listing different activist groups she has been involved with (Lines 8–10), and represents the existence of groups with different agendas, norms, and ideologies as “ok and healthy” (Line 7). Articulating a position in favor of LGBTQ+ activist diversity, Ophelia divides the groups on the basis of their focus (on institutional claims or not) and their stance towards the capitalist system. These differences are articulated through recourse to personal experience and involvement, making Ophelia's way of accounting for activist groups' diversityappear grounded and well-informed. Nonetheless, this position raises certain accountability concerns, as it becomes apparent in her effort to avoid taking the side of any “activist camp.” Therefore, while essential differences and tensions between “opposite” activist sides are pointed out, these are constructed as fruitful and legitimate diversity. Distinct, possibly incompatible or conflicting, ideological orientations, goals, and ways of organizing and acting in groups are portrayed as beneficial, stressing the need for the acceptance of their diversity. Ophelia expresses her disagreement with existing conflicts between groups and mentions their importance in carrying out different aspects of LGBTQ+ activism.

Up to this point, difference-as-diversity in membership and objectives is treated as desirable and healthy. In the next two extracts, difference is treated as potentially problematic.

Approaching activist collaborations: Burdensome “difference” and power dynamics

Extract 3 comes from an interview with a bisexual woman activist who is a member of an LGBTQ+ youth group in Athens.

Extract 3: Difference as potentially problematic and obstacles to collaboration.

Interviewer:

1. Ah. I am asking if you think that a union or a greater cooperation would be

2. more effective or more helpful?

Silvia:

3. Definitely. Of course, of course. When society as a whole is against you,

4. and you also have an internal obstacle as well, eh, obviously it does not

5. help, eh, but I don't know if this, that is to say, it is a little bit inevitable.

6. That is, we are also human beings. Just because someone is gay it does not

7. mean that they definitely are a great person and a good person. Right? So

8. the intrigues that you can witness outside, I mean outside the community,

9. exist in here as well. Right? . . . But ok, we are Greece, they are Greeks.

10. We fight each other. Ok. This also happens.

Interviewer:

11. And this split, it may be difficult to communicate with everyone, to find-

Silvia:

12. Well, there is also a, there is also a distance in terms of age. When you

13. have older activists, things used to be different in the past. Ok? So there's

14. that problem too. A different approach to things. (Participant 5)

In the third extract, the interviewer poses a question regarding the potential benefits of cooperation between LGBTQ+ groups (Lines 1–2). This articulation may favor a positive response given the privilege connected to the “researcher” category. Silvia makes an “in principle” positive evaluation of a greater alliance through extreme case formulations (Line 3; Pomerantz, 1986). Accountability concerns may have pushed towards this direction since the undermining of collaborations can have unwanted identity inferences (e.g., being considered biased towards the close activist group that Silvia is a member of vs. “uncooperative others”). Silvia's account on the need to collaborate is predicated upon the construction of society as a general/homogenous category, which is hostile towards the LGBTQ+ community. Additionally, she constructs internal conflicts as disempowering, but also inevitable.

Silvia continues to list the causes of tension that prevent cooperation. The first one concerns an essentialized and dilemmatic representation of “humanness.” Common human nature is represented as having constant and inalienable flaws. Silvia, through the use of a close footing (Goffman, 1979), constructs a universal “human” category in which LGBTQ+ members are included (Line 6). This way of accounting for the differences between activists enables an individual differences rhetoric. Silvia argues that every individual (human) can be good or bad regardless of any category membership. Silvia's orientation to account for tensions, however, risks the representation of movements as miniatures of (human) society, which can individualize and normalize activists’ “differences” as generalized aspects of human nature.

The second reason concerns culturally specific stereotypes of “Greeks/Greekness.” Silvia, through footing shifts, mobilizes an “Occidental” representation that reflects the ideological ambiguity of the Greek national identity between Western rationality and impulsive Oriental traits (see Bozatzis, 2009). By noting that “we are Greece,” she underlines negative connotations that are treated as self-evident and commonplace. Division and mutual “extermination” emerge as normative characteristics (Lines 9–10), justifying conflict even when social actors construct a wider category with parallel goals. Finally, following the interviewer's contribution (Line 12), Silvia distances herself from older activists, taking up the position of the young LGBTQ+ activist (Lines 12–14) and constructing age difference as another burden in cooperation.

The next extract, which derives from the same interview, extends to power differentials involving a potentially demobilizing division between privileged and unprivileged LGBTQ+ identities. Moreover, the possibility of cooperation under specific conditions is noted.

Extract 4: Ingroup inequalities as a matter of tension and extreme events as ground for unification.

Interviewer:

1. What do you think is the position of the LGBTQI community in society

2. today? . . . As much as you have seen or heard anyway, in relation to how

3. it was and how it is now. Eh, and how do you think it can proceed. . . .

Silvia:

4. . . . Look, what I have observed, at leas-, I can tell you about the inside,

5. inside this organization here, that in the past people came with a full desire

6. for activism, with a full desire to claim rights, to shout, to protest. There

7. was this, this need and the tension. What I see now is that a little bit with,

8. even with the few that we have won, eh, I think quite a few, especially the

9. most privile-, “privileged?” the most privileged, let's say, groups of our

10. community, that is a gay cis man, ok, in general, he may not be very

11. interested in several parts of the claims anymore. . . . So now it has slowed

12. down a bit. Then it will, again, it will rise up. Ok, we see, let's say, e.g.,

13. with what happened to Zak, a great mobilization. Eh, it is the first time

14. after several years that every organization, eh, worked together to organize

15. protests, to organize actions, which is very moving and very, very hopeful.

16. Because if we can't even work together, goodbye. (Participant 5)

This extract begins with the researcher's question regarding the position of LGBTQ+ people in Greece, prompting Silvia to draw on her personal experience (Line 2). Silvia takes up the position of a member of a specific association (Lines 4–5) and underscores an ongoing decline of activism. By specifying the empirical basis of her account, she manages accountability concerns, preventing an explicit generalization of her observations. Silvia constructs a hierarchy of unequal power between LGBTQ+ categories, representing the granting of rights to gay cisgender men as a fact that places them in a privileged position (see Adam, 2017; Fox & Ore, 2010). Silvia manages accountability concerns by introducing the term “privileged” in question form before specifying gay men's higher ingroup status (Line 9). Therefore, she draws attention to (speculated) power dynamics, which became visible after the legalization of particular gay rights (Lines 8–11), decreasing the activist action of this section of the community.

Subsequently, however, Silvia constructs activism as varying in pace, with ups and downs as its inherent characteristic. The temporal dimension (past–present–future) mobilized by the question of the researcher is picked up by the participant, permeating her constructions of activism. Silvia speaks of the recent institutional wins of the movement as a factor that may have indirectly lowered the current intensity of activism in comparison to its past, but she also underscores random “naturalized” variations.

Silvia continues to depict the murder of the activist Zak Kostopoulos ⁶ as a tragic event that intensified activist action. This murder is constructed as an exceptional condition that prompted the radicalization of LGBTQ+ activism through the cooperation of different subgroups. Silvia represents collaboration and joint realization of activist actions as promising practices that can potentially pave the way for radical activist action that emphasizes collectivity instead of individuality. This becomes evident through the last sentence that stresses the importance of potential collaboration of distinct LGBTQ+ groups, since, if activists are not able to cooperate, this would possibly discourage future activism.

In the extracts considered so far, ingroup boundaries are treated as fixed, as the LGBTQ+ community is counterposed to society as a whole. In Extract 5, the limits of group objectives are problematized as multidimensional exclusions are discussed.

Necessity of broader activist objectives through universal and depoliticized claims

Extract 5 comes from an interview with an activist who self-referred to their gender and sexuality in fluid terms, and who also participates in the same lesbian group as the participant in Extract 1. Extract 5 supports the broadening of LGBTQ+ activist objectives and practices through rights claims common to every human and devoid of political/ideological connotations.

Extract 5: Everyday apolitical claims for inclusive LGBTQ+ activism.

Interviewer:

1. How does society consider that [the Pride]?

Philomeni:

2. And in the end, why should Pride limit itself to these shows and it is not

3. asking, what can I say, let's say. Doesn't this city have problems, little

4. issues? . . . Aren't gay people a part of this town? They should also ask for

5. more things besides being sad about their unemployment, about their mess,

6. about how they are. Shouldn't there be a group that demands, eh, defends

7. some gay people who are thrown out of their jobs just because of their

8. sexual identity? Where are these groups, let's say?

Interviewer:

9. So, you would like a Pride that-

Philomeni:

10. Or are we ribbon, sequins, and tulle?

Interviewer:

11. You would like a Pride that claims more widely and with art, let's say, both

12. with art and through art and through what's happening in this city-

Philomeni:

13. Well, we were asking for something that had culture in it and the demand

14. for some everyday rights that are common to all people, whether they are

15. gay or not, let's say. It's not nice to be looking for a job and not being able

16. to find one for, let's say, 5 years. And when we find one to get 5

17. hundred [Euros]. Aren't these our demands? Why? And these are not

18. political demands. They are, how to say it, practical, everyday. You don't

19. need to be a member of something to ask for the right to work. (Participant 3)

This argument is developed by the use of multiple, sometimes successive, rhetorical questions oriented to strengthen its reasonableness by implying self-evident/factual answers while enlisting the audience/interviewer. Philomeni expresses an emphatic dissatisfaction with the Pride in Thessaloniki, managing emerging accountability concerns via the constant use of rhetorical questions. Criticism focuses on the lack of citizenship claims through LGBTQ+ activist practices (see Bilic, 2016; Eleftheriadis, 2017). Philomeni constructs the Pride as one-dimensional and limited to the “show”—celebration instead of activism and claiming—a fact that is also strongly criticized through the mobilization of a stereotypical image in the form of a rhetorical question (Line 10).

Pride is also constructed as a potential vehicle for broader claims/objectives. Philomeni refers to issues that seem to concern the residents of a city, but also to claims that broadly concern the citizens of the country, foregrounding the specific sociopolitical context. Socioeconomic status issues and their intersections with LGBTQ+ identities are highlighted, noting unemployment and exclusion of LGBTQ+ people from jobs (see Bilic, 2016; Eleftheriadis, 2015). These are constructed as demands that the LGBTQ+ community should also claim through activism.

Philomeni constructs a closer subgroup with the use of a close footing (“we” formulation in Line 13 vs. “they” formulation in Line 4; Goffman, 1979), which wants the Pride to include elements of art and wider claims beyond sexuality and gender. The participant constructs such claims as “common to all people” (Line 14), highlighting their extensive impact on everyone. This argumentative pattern could be considered as supporting the inclusion of broader claims in LGBTQ+ activism while criticizing the fixation of the movement on one-dimensional objectives. However, these claims’ construction as common to every human tends to trivialize them, obscuring the particular needs and oppressions of LGBTQ+ categories. Philomeni differentiates her position from a segment of the LGBTQ+ movement, which is represented as more “powerful” given the implied domination of the celebratory aspects of Pride and (single-)identity politics, vis-à-vis a minority segment interested in multidimensional objectives. Interestingly, the generalization of the meaning and the scope of the activist objective towards multidimensional claims is accompanied by the renunciation of the “political” (Lines 17–19), in a potential attempt to keep a distance from partisan politics.

Conclusions

This paper focused on discursive constructions of activism and explored dilemmas around membership and objectives in the context of interviews with LGBTQ+ activists in Greece. In our analysis, we documented participants’ ways of accounting and their potential co-occurrence, as well as their functions within the immediate interactional context and their potential ideological implications. While, as indicated in the introduction, the relevant literature often constructs an image of polarization between relatively homogenous activist groups or objectives, our analysis showcased a more fragmentary picture, namely tensions not only between different LGBTQ+ groups and movements, or between group members, but also in the argumentation of the same activist.

A first line of arguinge laborated an individualist perspective, projecting equality (amongst humans and beyond) as activism's ultimate pursuit and constructing differences between movements as healthy diversity (see Iatridis et al., 2023). Activists adopted a liberal lens to a “sexuality-/category-blind” approach, which, as other authors (Bilge, 2013; Collins & Bilge, 2020; Puar, 2005, 2012) have suggested, served to depoliticize activism, likening the needs and claims of the specific LGBTQ+ community to those of any social category. According to Mikulak (2019), such individualistic, generalizing argumentative resources blur the picture around “diversity,” moving towards an “uncritical liberalization.” Dilemmatic differences between “conventional” (focused on institutional inclusion) and extrainstitutional LGBTQ+ movements were also constructed as inescapable diversity, while even “antagonistic” ideological orientations were constructed as complementary objectives.

In a second line of arguing, the previous picture of a functional and beneficial ingroup diversity was juxtaposed with the construction of difference as “problematic,” revealing internal tensions. Despite difference being represented as a burden for groups’ cooperation, it was also constructed as “natural” and inevitable through recourse to generalized individual traits (defects and binaries inherent in humans), Orientalist cultural self-stereotypes associated with Occidental credentials (Bozatzis, 2009, 2016; see also Michos et al., 2021), or age gaps.

Difference was also, in the argumentation of the same activist, represented as power imbalances posing challenges to activist participation (see Curtin et al., 2016; Wiley & Bikmen, 2012). The potential for collaborations was challenged by internal heterogeneity and power asymmetries that demobilize activist participation. Notably, this argument can also foresee a potential termination of activist action, especially on the part of comparatively privileged subjectivities who achieved inclusion in specific institutions, subtly underscoring particular (dis)empowering aspects of (single-)identity politics. In that case, mobilization over a common goal was represented as a result of radicalization. Despite diverse obstacles to an overall alliance, activist groups were still represented as able to enter a wider movement cooperation, radicalizing their action under extreme conditions and against common “enemies.”

A third argumentative line documented tensions in the scope of LGBTQ+ activism, questioning the fixation of the “mainstream” movement to one-dimensional identity politics. This activist approach was constructed as dominant, unrepresentative, and inadequate to address the “universal” needs of the community. Instead, this argumentative line promoted the inclusion of broader activist objectives, seemingly moving towards “unconventional” politics. While this discursive pattern challenges the picture of a homogenous-consensual community and raises issues of class and employment status, it universalizes and depoliticizes the possible multidimensional claims. Their construction as common to all humans and as nonpolitical/nonideological harbors a subtle liberalization which disconnects activist group membership and objectives from the complexities/subtleties of intersectional oppression, fueling a potential “end of activism.”

Our insights contribute to scientific dialogue on the empowerment of activism, exploring alternatives to individualistic and/or divisive approaches (see Bilic, 2016). Offering a sociopsychological bottom-up perspective, this study illuminated the rhetorical implications of arguments that conceal power imbalances, as well as those of others that consider collaborations and intersections. It showcased an oscillation between these approaches, which can coexist in the argumentation of the same group or activist, regardless of their varied characteristics. This finding can be read as potentially hopeful, considering the seeds of contradiction as a precondition to social change, fostering research and activist agendas informed by tensions, without reifying a (generalizing and depoliticizing) picture of unanimity.

Overall, the promotion of LGBTQ+ collaborations and multidimensional objectives emerges as a significant stake. An interconnected challenge concerns embracing “difference” without enabling its simultaneous normalization through reliance in a “common humanity” frame. Elaborating on the boundaries and the specific/differentiated needs of each category arises as a preliminary but inadequate step, since it can still bind activists to ideological dilemmas around inclusion/exclusion (see Atkins, 2019; Stone, 2010). In order to approach the widening of LGBTQ+ activist objectives through a potential opening to intersectional politics, attention should also turn to the particularities of oppression and power as a crucial next step in the sketching of activist initiatives aimed at cooperative and/or multilevel social changes (Adam, 2017; Carastathis, 2013). A further challenge involves the active management/negotiation of power differentials and activists’ identity intersections connected to common, but also differentiated, experiences of oppression and privilege (Cohen, 2019; Wiley & Bikmen, 2012). Such an effort can lay the groundwork for more robust and enduring partnerships beyond spontaneous collaborations mobilized under extreme/special conditions.

A parallel to the widely discussed (pseudo)dilemma between Black Lives Matter and “All lives matter” (Atkins, 2019; Yancy & Butler, 2015; see also Furman et al., 2018) can serve to further contextualize our conclusions and especially the challenges surrounding the depoliticization of LGBTQ+ movements through recourse to a “common humanity” perspective. The apparent dominance of this universal frame “aligns,” to an extent, the argumentation of our participants with the construct of “All lives matter”, which constitutes a repressive response to the Black Lives Matter movement. In our data, the utilization of argumentative resources similar to those mobilized in a repressive narrative may seem paradoxical. However, our participants’ argumentation mightbe aimed to resonate with or to include privileged social categories by prioritizing the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in (human) privileges while avoiding alienating the Greek society or raising severe counteractive resistance. This possibly “strategic” alignment with liberalism, however, established a homogenizing blindness towards social categories (see Carbado, 2013), which, as in the “All lives matter” narrative, relegates the power dimension, risking the (re)production of oppressive structures. A generalizing and/or apolitical focus on inclusion/exclusion (in humanity and beyond) proved inadequate to capture power differentials and troubled the elaboration of collaborations and multidimensional objectives, restricting them to liberal ends. Therefore, a “power-sensitive” frame attentive to social categories’ complexities emerges as a potential alternative to facilitate alliances and intersectional politics.

This paper illuminated particular (available) ways of accounting mobilized by our participants within a specific sociopolitical and discursive context. These argumentative patterns are connected to specific tensions, limits, and potentials of LGBTQ+ activism in Greece. Such an exploration of the fragmentary ambivalent argumentation enabled us to underscore the multiple challenges faced by activism, including the seemingly trapping hegemony of a “category-blind” liberal individualism and the potential of “alternative” LGBTQ+ politics. At the same time, it can provide the seeds of contestation and change. We avoided drawing conclusions regarding similarities/differences in participants’ responses—which could be related to their activist group membership, demographics, etc.—due to the limited size of our sample, but primarily because CDSP considers the argument, instead of the individual, as the analytic unit, exploring relations between argumentative patterns. Future research with larger samples could illuminate commonalities or differences among varied activist groups.