Abstract
Based on 27 in-depth interviews, web platforms analysis, and participatory observations this study investigates (a) the emergence and the development of the Bulgarian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning and intersex (LGBTQI) movement; and (b) the activists' motivation for engagement with the movement. Challenging the new social movements’ theories the data from the study suggest that (a) the LGBTQI movement in Bulgaria emerged within the political and the economic transformations marked by anti-communist rhetoric, rather than collective sexual identity; (b) most of the diverse activist communities and the incorporation of “bottom-up” approach did not emerge spontaneously but were established by funded and professionalized project activities; (c) an increasing number of younger activists use left-oriented intersectional approaches in their activism emphasizing on the economic rather than the cultural conditions: (d) the stable financial and social resources of the anti-gender campaigns require reconsideration of the resources and the structure of the LGBTQI movements seen primarily as social entities, often neglecting the economic and the political structures.
Introduction
The engagement with civic activism has become one of the most controversial public topics in Bulgaria within the last few years. Being identified as “traitors to the Bulgarian nation”, those who work for NGOs and express support for civic activism have been declared by many as “paid foreign agents” who aim to “destroy the Bulgarian nation and values”. A large number of people do not consider the civil society in Bulgaria as a legitimate means of social change driven by altruistic beliefs and values, labeling the non-governmental activities and initiatives as a “paid activism” aimed at “bringing down” the existing social order and “interfering” with national politics. These beliefs have intensified immensely after 2017, when the so-called “anti-gender campaigns” targeting women's and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning and intersex (LGBTQI) rights took over in Bulgaria (Darakchi, 2019). Often declared as “people's enemies”, those involved in LGBTQI activism and feminist issues have been under an escalating attack on right-wing media and in the public debates. Being blamed for willing to “disrupt” the traditional frames of gender roles and sexuality and to “impose foreign (feminist and homosexual) values”, LGBTQI activists have been subject to physical attacks, death threats, and hate speech.
Often taken as granted and as an intrinsic value of working democracies, the engagement with social movements and the collective willingness for social change deserve better understanding in Bulgaria where after the fall of communism the social movements and NGOs have faced numerous challenges. These include low support and distrust towards the non-governmental sector (Spasov, 2019); controversial mobilization characterized by low audibility and support for human rights activism versus strong support for the environmental activism (Krasteva et al., 2019); and contested strategies for social mobilization and resistance (Georgieva, 2017) including multiple voices and subgroups within the entire political spectrum, fighting over the importance of women’s, LGBTQI rights, migration, identity politics, and tax reforms.
Bulgaria remains one of the most LGBTQI unfriendly countries in the EU and currently is among the few countries in the EU which do not recognize any form of legal partnership for people of the same sex. Moreover, the average acceptance and support for LGBTQI people in Bulgaria have dropped rapidly within the last five years (Eurobarometer, 2019). On the one hand, the Bulgarian LGBTQI activism and its visibility have been constantly depoliticized, and the repathologization of homosexuality appeared to be the main strategy against visibility and equality (Panayotov, 2013). Furthermore, a large number of LGBTQI people, as expressed on social media and in public debates, strongly reject the notions of LGBTQI activism and declare it as “unnecessary” and “provocative”.
Given these trends and following the thesis of Szulc (2017) that LGBTQI activism in Eastern Europe must not be considered as a one-dimensional homogeneous phenomenon, this article aims to answer two main research questions: (a) What are the main social and political processes that have led to the emergence and the development of the LGBTQI movement in Bulgaria?; and (b) What are the personal experiences that inspired the activists to get involved in the movement?
Theoretical approaches
Gay movements have emerged as a combination of various economic and political factors, and globalizing processes have led to the globalization of the gay movements and gay politics (Plummer, 2011). Furthermore, the Internet and social media have created possibilities for cross-geographic exchange of strategies and solidarity (Binnie, 2004). Many studies are exploring the influence of the EU on the LGBTQI activism in Eastern Europe (Ayoub and Paternotte, 2014; Bilić and Biliâc, 2016) focusing mostly on political aspects—Europeanization and globalization. Less attention has been paid to the emergence of the LGBTQI movements as “group grievances” (Taylor and Whittier, 1992) taking into account the activists’ demographic profiles and personal struggles, and experiences in different political contexts. Aiming to improve this gap, in this study, the emergence of the Bulgarian LGBTQI movement is investigated through the stories of the participants in the movement exploring the interplay between their personal experiences, their struggles and “emotional investments” (Melucci, 1989) and the social structures and transformations.
The LGBTQI movements have been examined primarily within the scope of the new social movements (NSMs). NSMs’ theories are concerned with the internal dynamic, solidarity, collective identities, support, and personal experiences of those who form a movement (Riessman, 2008). The NSMs consider the participation in social movements as an opportunity for the individuals to act, identify, and celebrate their identity as a part of a group based on different criteria. As suggested by Polletta and Jasper (2001) the collective identity is usually desired by the members who make collective identity a very distinct category which analyzes the intentional effort of a group of people to join a collective formation based on a common identity voluntarily. Moreover, the collective identity provides an opportunity for the underrepresented and the marginalized groups to join together and take action against certain issues and reform them (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001). Furthermore, the collective identities in the LGBTQI movement can be deployed for different strategies as formulated by Bernstein (1997) as (a) strategies for critique and (b) strategies for education which provide a framework to explore the “ways” of doing activism employed by the studied group.
The NSMs’ theories emphasize the social and the cultural conditions for the emergence of certain collective actions rather than the resources (Edwards and McCarthy, 2007) and the structure of the movements used in the classical social movements theories (Della Porta and Diani, 2020; Pichardo, 1997). Thus the emergence and the development of the Bulgarian LGBTQI activism needs to be considered within the changing political and economic settings in Bulgaria after 1989 which provided a new understanding of citizenship as an act of mobilization (Krasteva et al., 2019). This new understanding happened within turbulent political transformations, a significant influence of the Internet, and economic challenges and possibilities that have played roles in the emergence of the movement creating discourses of and spaces for “intimate citizenship” (Plummer, 2011). Investigating the social structures and the personal motivation of the activists together we can answer not only “why” the movement has been built but also “how” it was done (Buechler, 1995) overcoming dualisms between structuralist and constructionist approaches in studying social movements (Husu, 2013).
Exploring the LGBTQI movement in the Western Balkans by building a bridge between the social movements' theories and the concept of citizenship, Rhodes-Kubiak (2015: 48) has claimed that citizenship goes beyond the relationship between the individuals and the state: “Citizenship is not simply a status that is held, bestowed, or formal but is instead located in political as well as social and cultural relationships that are dynamic, claimed, contested, shaped, and, above all, exercised.”
The notion of “activist citizenship” suggests that citizenship includes participation, negotiation, resistance, and willingness for change; however, it also portrays a certain elitist image of the engagement with social movements as an act based on informed and well-educated reconsideration of the existing social structures and granted rights. While the former might not be the case for many people who might not have the economic and the social capital to engage with this notion, the concept of activist citizenship provides the tools to explore the motivation of a group of Bulgarians who have formed LGBTQI movement in a post-communist context.
Methods
This study is based on different materials collected via ethnographical fieldwork between November 2018 and February 2020. The primary data are gathered from the online platforms of the acting LGBTQI organizations in Bulgaria (Bilitis, GLAS, Deystvie and Single Step) and semi-structured in-depth interviews with 27 people who have been active in the LGBTQI activism in Bulgaria in the period between 2000 to date. For the initial recruitment of the participants, a call for participation in a Facebook group devoted to Bulgarian LGBTQI activism was distributed. Initially, I have interviewed four people who had responded to this call. These respondents suggested the rest of the participants thus initializing a big part of the most active members of the movement in Bulgaria. The interviews lasted from 46 min to 2 h and 17 min. Most of the interviews (19) were conducted in person in different public locations in Sofia, Bulgaria; seven interviews were conducted online, and one participant answered the questionnaire themselves, followed by clarifying questions.
In order to investigate any generational differences in the notions of activism and to examine the tendencies regarding identifications and self-positioning, I have interviewed people from different ages. The age range of the participants varies as follow: 7 participants are between 40 and 54 years; 8 participants are between 30 and 40 years, and 12 participants between 18 and 30 years old. Of those, 14 are women, and 13 are men. Some 20 participants identify as attracted to their own gender, 4 as bisexual and 3 participants as heterosexual. Most of the participants self-identify as lower middle class, 21 of them have obtained higher university education, 2 of them have a college degree, 2 have high education, and 3 were students at the moment of the interviews. Additionally, I have done a participatory observation at several public events held by different LGBTQI organizations in Sofia. Notes and comments have been gathered from Sofia Queer Film Fest, Sofia Pride events, informal gatherings, and Facebook comments in groups where LGBTQI activists express their personal opinions in different discussions.
Results
Emergence and development of the LGBTQI activism in Bulgaria
In the Penalty code of 1896, after the liberation from the Ottoman Empire, homosexuality was punished with six-month imprisonment. After 1944, during communism, homosexuality remained illegal, and the imprisonment was extended to three years in 1951. In 1964, the Bulgarian authorities arrested 26 men who were accused of unlawful homosexual activities, among them some famous Bulgarian artists. This brought a controversial public reaction, and four years later in 1986, under the influence of the scientific studies in the West introduced by the sexologist Todor Bostandjiev, homosexuality was officially decriminalized by the socialist state (Gruev, 2006). Despite the official decriminalization, there were ambiguous laws which prohibited the public demonstration of homosexuality. Consequently, there were other arrests of homosexual men between 1968 and 1981 who were convicted of “indecent public behavior”. In the following sections, I have outlined the main events in the emergence, and the development of the Bulgarian LGBTQI movement divided into decades outlining the structure of the movement on the one hand and the personal reflections on these events on the other hand.
The first decade: (1992 to 2002)
As reported by some of the participants, a certain form of resistance during socialism was the purchase of audio cassettes with “Western music” on the black market. For some, this provided a way to think out of the dogmas of the communist regime—the lyrics of Metallica, Foreigner, Depeche Mode, and others inspired critical thinking and willingness for change. The democratic transitions after 1989 brought “hope” for liberation and “decent intimate life” as expressed by some of the respondents and “a different world” according to others. For some, it was the access to Western literature and art which was forbidden before 1989. For others, it was an opportunity to travel.
Inspired by the Western LGBTQI activism and the democratic changes after the fall of the communism a group of friends created BULGA—an association focused on legislative changes and health issues of LGBT people. Little is known about this association and I have not been able to find out an official document or account related to their activities. Founded by Krasimir Spasov, BULGA brought together advocates, medical doctors, and journalists; however, they discontinued their efforts due to strategy disagreements. In 1992, Guenko Guenkov registered Gemini which initially received a program funding, from the Dutch NOVIB mediated via COC Netherlands. This is why some of the early engaged activists believe that the LGBTQI activism at that time did not emerge within the community as “group grievances” but it was rather a result of a peer pressure from some “Western” organizations aiming to improve the legal and socio-economic situation of LGBT people in Eastern Europe. Focused primarily on HIV prevention among homosexual men, after 2000 Gemini participated in the debates toward legal changes in Bulgaria. These include the repealing of Article 175 of the Penal Code which defined different ages for consent and different punishment for heterosexual and homosexual people; the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Law for Protection against Discrimination promulgated in 2004; as well as the hosting of the annual ILGA-Europe conference in 2006.
Certain socio-economic events further mobilized the emergence of the LGBTQI movement. At the beginning of 1997, Bulgaria fell into a very serious political and economic crisis. During this time, one of the first mass protests in Bulgaria took place. In this context, some of the LGBTQI activists got to know the political climate better and got involved in different actions such as protests and school manifestations. Interestingly, some participants (5) have emphasized that their classes in sociology at Sofia University shaped their critical thinking, including their participation in the protests significantly. These processes brought people with similar interest together, and the first LGBT informal networks were created.
Furthermore, a few started borrowing LGBT literature in the office of Gemini and the library of the British Council in Bulgaria. Being completely forbidden in the past, the history of the gay movement in the USA and Western Europe became a valuable source of information for the emerging activists. The musical magazine “Rhythm” published stories of coming out which inspired and encouraged some of the activists. Desislava Petrova, as a part of Gemini, was one of the first people to relevel their sexual identity in Bulgaria by coming out on a national TV.
Many of the activists who would join the movement later, shared that they knew about Gemini and their activities; however, they stayed away from these because they were in the closet. Moreover, some viewed Gemini’s activities as dangerous at this time, putting them at risk to be outed by bringing more public attention to the LGBT topics. Although Gemini did not manage to organize a coherent community with clear common goals and being involved in predominantly male issues (Pisankaneva, 2006) the establishment of Gemini is very important because homosexuality became visible in the public space which created various media and political discourses on homosexuality and sexual identities.
The second decade: (2002 to 2012)
The second decade in the development of the LGBTQI activism in Bulgaria is marked by diversification and enlargement of the movement. Being the only organization before 2002, Gemini went through a series of funds management crises. This led to disintegration and distrust among the existing networks created by Gemini. In 2004, Bilitis Resource Centre led by Monika Pisankaneva and Queer Bulgaria Foundation started as separate but collaborating organizations. Assessing the need for diversification in the movement led mainly by gay men, their main focus was on women's, transgender, queer, and health issues (Pisankaneva, 2006).
Meanwhile, the Internet became comparatively accessible after 2005 as shared by the respondents, and this provided an opportunity for many to interact not only with other LGBT people, but it made possible the creation of international networks. The process was facilitated by the fact that more and more activists spoke English. This said, “Stalik”—the first blog on LGBTQI issues created by Radoslav Stoyanov in 2008—became a source for information and support for many youngsters at that time. Furthermore, the wider access to the web allowed many to join online forums in pages such as “gay.bg”; “momcheto.bg”; “elmaz.bg”; “gepime.com”. The Internet created a notion of what Fullam (2017) calls “optimistic” collective attitudes, strengthening the movement externally by making international networks and internally by the emergence of online communities, sports clubs, and lesbian clubs.
Another important aspect of the emergence and the diversification of the LGBTQI movement during the second decade is the fact that a big part of the participants (8) reported that they had been involved in workshops at primary and high schools devoted to ecological issues. This has had a very serious effect on the youngsters who declare that this shaped their notions of responsibility and action. Other notable events which led to emerging reflexive thinking was the participation of many activists in the school newspapers, radio programs, and similar activities which provided an opportunity for many to express their opinions and to realize that “their voices matter”.
In 2007, Bulgaria joined the EU. The notion that EU guarantees protection gave the necessary confidence to many people to publicly declare their positions and to get involved in the existing organizations. Many attended exchange programs and seminar devoted to human rights organized by the EU. On 28 June 2008, Gemini organized the first Sofia Pride. Although heavily guarded by the police, the participants still suffered severe backlash by skinheads, neo-Nazis, and nationalists. A Molotov cocktail hit the participants, and a few were injured. The police arrested some 80 people. Despite all this, Sofia Pride 2008 set a milestone in the Bulgarian LGBTQI activism. During the organization of the next pride in 2009, Gemini came under disagreements and lack of trust and ceased to exist the same year. A few month later, in September 2008, the student Mihail Stoyanov was brutally killed in a public park because he was assumed to be gay. This event predefined the attitude of some who previously considered LGBTQI activism as problematic, and consequently, they decided to participate in the movement more actively.
The accumulation of those events which, according to some personal accounts brought “anger” and “willingness to fight” further mobilized the movement. In 2010, young volunteers in the first pride events founded the youth organization Deystvie (Action). Initially focused on youth LGBTQI issues, currently, Deystvie (led by Denitsa Lyubenova and Veneta Limbareva) is the main advocacy LGBTQ organization in Bulgaria providing legal aid and campaigning for legal changes.
The third decade: (after 2012)
The third decade is characterized by (a) the political diversification of the movement; (b) the establishment of consistent LGBTQI communities, and (c) the growing schism within the movement. Being organized around NGO's activities, the movement did not offer significant political diversification. This was changed in 2012 when Sofia Queer Forum was held for the first time. Organized as a funded art project and directed by Stanimir Panayotov and Boryana Rossa, the Forum set up a milestone in the movement by providing a framework for reconsideration of the past in terms of gender and sexuality. While the movement's activities until this point legitimized themselves using a liberal human rights approach, often including anti-communist rhetoric, the Forum started tackling LGBTQI issues using intersectional, left-oriented rhetoric and approaches.
The movement was further mobilized and strengthened in 2013 when many activists took part in the massive anti-government protest which lasted more than a year and brought the cabinet down. In many respondents' accounts, this protest was a shifting point by providing an opportunity to reflect on their sexual orientation as a political issue and to join existing organizations and form new networks around gender and sexuality. These politically turbulent times inspired Simeon Vasilev and Dimitar Bogdanov who founded GLAS Foundation in 2014 with a focus on gay and MSM issues. The growing visibility of the movement was further strengthened by HUGE—an online platform for gay news which has been playing an important role in the creation of the gay scene in Bulgaria. Furthermore, another significant step in this decade brought by political shifts was the nomination of Victor Lilov for the mayor’s office in the capital Sofia in 2015. Lilov remains the only openly gay candidate for a political post in Bulgaria. He ran on pro minorities liberal platform emphasizing on the need for same-sex marriages.
Finally, Single Step—the youngest LGBTQI organization, was founded in 2016 by Ivan Dimov, and it focuses on youth mental health, creative camps, and prevention of STIs. Single Step is based on a liberal human rights approach, and it is often criticized for disrespecting and neglecting the achievements of the older organizations by portraying its activities as “new” and “unique” for Bulgaria. Currently Singe Step is carrying out campaigns for free anonymous HIV testing at home made available by post. Given the stigma surrounding HIV testing, especially in rural areas, and the termination of the WHO AIDS program in Bulgaria, these campaigns have a very important and responsible role in the movement.
While most of the organizational activities until 2012 can be identified as “top-down” including a “professionalization” of the activism in this decade the movement has seen a significant change whose approach many of the participants identify as “bottom-up” LGBTQI activism often criticizing the existing organizations for being top-down governed. Building on previous legal, health, human rights, and sports campaigns aimed at creating communities, in 2019 Bilitis, Deystvie and GLAS started a three years project “Rainbow hub”—a community safe space which offers eight self-help groups. These include women's, HIV, trans and intersex, non-binary, sports, youth, family, and others. Additionally, the community center established a movie club and a book club and organized several sports events, arts, and film festivals. Currently most of these activities are carried out online and the community center was closed in April 2020 due to Covid 19.
There are also initiatives and self-organized groups which are not associated with NGO's. An LGBTQI electronic library created and maintained by the independent activist Ivelina Panicharova has offered access to a large list of fiction and scientific literature. In 2017, youth activists founded the first Student Society for Equality at Sofia University focusing on issues such as violence against women, LGBTQI issues, and racism. The so-called “Queer Squad” happened to be another self-organized group of LGBTQI people and allies, although the group has not been active recently. Influential resources in these groups and initiatives have been series like “When we rise” and other movies and books exploring the origin and the development of the LGBTQI activism in Western countries.
These community-building events and groups have undoubtedly strengthened the LGBTQI movement in Bulgaria. Currently, there are several Facebook groups and community events which gather a solid and increasing number of people who discuss identity politics and express strong belonging to the movement. What is specific for this period is that the youngest activists who joined these groups are from a generation that was born after the democratic changes in 1989. Having the resources and education, as well as the opportunity to travel abroad, these activists have very informed opinions on different LGBTQI identity politics. However, having an undeniable mobilizing effect on the notion of community among the youngest generation, most of these community-building activities did not emerge spontaneously. These appeared as project type activities with funding which demonstrates that the financial conditions and the professionalization of the LGBTQI activism made possible the emergence of a wider bottom-up movement which does not operate within the formal NGOs anymore. This said, however, most of the community activities are part of a project which ends in 2021. This raises the question of the future development of the community.
The third most significant feature of the movement in the last decade is the emerging schism within the communities. One of the major disagreements between the different voices appears to be “pinkwashing”. In 2018, left identified activists issued a critical statement against the participation of a corporation with anti-feminist history in the annual Sofia Pride 2018. After a controversial and heated debate on the role of the corporations in the pride events, a similar statement was issued in the following 2019 years. This, on the one hand, has brought tension within the movement; however, on the other hand, these contestations have diversified the movement and initiated identity politics debates which did not exist explicitly before 2018. Starting rather as collective actions (Polletta and Jasper, 2001), the LGBTQI activism in Bulgaria to date bears all the features of a movement with its common goals, contestations and politics. In 2019, the 12th Sofia Pride was held with more than 6000 participants, which according to the organizers is the biggest pride event in Bulgaria to date. Given these historical developments, in the next section, I pay attention to the motivation and the identification of the activists, and the deployment of their sexual identity to the LGBTQI movement.
Identifications and motivations
Who is an LGBTQI activist?
On the one hand, identifying as an LGBTQI activist in Bulgaria has turned from a dangerous activity into a matter of social prestige and progressive way of thinking according to some activists from the older generation. On the other hand, there is a growing reconsideration of activism as a term encompassing social resistance in general. This is why the word “activist” might need a further reconsideration since, as expressed by some, it has a very negative connotation. Thus the obligation to act and participate in movements is seen as an integral part of democratic citizenship without being explicitly called “activism” but rather as a “duty”. In this context, nine participants identify as “front line LGBTQI” activists working for LGBTQI organizations, while the rest of the people (18) consider their activism as an additional part of their main job as members of other organizations, volunteers or just helping the movements in different ways. Given this identification, there are certainly different ways to participate in the LGBTQI movement. This raises the question “Who can be defined as an LGBTQI activist?” While those who work for organizations deal with events and strategic programs, the others who will be figuratively called “LGBTQI active citizens” promote studies, participate in online discussions, petitions, lead discussion with friends and network, and help the organizations. This phenomenon is what Krasteva (2016) calls “contestatory (e-) citizenship” where an increasing number of people belong to the informal part of the activism aligning with formal organizations, organizing and synchronizing activities, and approaches in online thematic groups. Therefore it is relevant to analyze deeper the forms of engagement in the activism which are not specifically related to formal organizations. As Kondakov (2019) has argued, the queer activism in the post-Soviet spaces can be found in non-conventional activists' “spaces” and the identification and the strategies of these usually 'hidden” efforts shall be taken into account when analyzing the activism in Eastern Europe, first as “lagging behind”, and secondly through the prism of formal “visible” LGBTQI organizations considered as the only form of activism.
Identification and “activist citizenship”
Most of the participants in this study were brought to the LGBTQI movement by two different processes. On the one hand, a large number of activists (17) have grown up in families where politics and critical thinking were present. These include mostly families with anti-communist political views as some parents were members of the newly formed democratic party after 1989 and others attended protests with their children. According to 11 of the activists, the notion of resistance and the understanding of the new democratic “activists citizenship” as a duty and value were implicitly transferred from their families and played a role in their further personal and professional development and political views which later on gave them the framework for LGBTQI activism within the general civil right movements and resistance.
On the other hand, the second half of the participants self-position themselves by comparing to their parents' generation. This is characterized by a very well-articulated rejection of patterns of thinking and attitudes which many describe as “passive”; “apathetic”; “hopeless”; “indifferent”; “dominated”. To many people, identifying as activist means rejection of “conformist” frames of thinking inherited during communism.
I think the communist regime, which in my opinion was not socialist at all, managed to kill any kind of critical thinking and resistance. To be an active citizen for many means to be paid because Bulgarians never do anything without having a personal profit out of it. (Male, 54)
Some activists have formed a critical way of thinking after having been subject to discrimination and corruption. As they describe, this motivated them to oppose their parents' attitudes and act in the framework of the new democratic citizenship. This, in the words of Rhodes-Kubiak (2015), is an act of “doing citizenship” rather than simply having one.
They fired me, and I had three salaries to receive; thus, I decided to refer the case to the Commission against discrimination. My parents told me that I should remain silent; otherwise, I will have many troubles. I hate this way of thinking, really. It is the same with my LGBTQI activism; I cannot wait for 100 years to get the rights I do not have. (Female, 34)
In the process of self-positioning to their peers, many activists express the need for civic education, which, according to them, give the framework to think as an active citizen. In this context, volunteering is an indicator of the attitudes of a society to act without any initial personal profit. Bulgaria scores the lowest level of volunteers in different causes in a study of OECD (2015). The notion of “active citizen” was a turning point of many respondents’ motivation to join the activism, in particular through the study of the history of social movements, the participation in various civic activities as students and at school and workshops on human rights.
We had a seminar on social movements, and we watched some documentaries. Then I realized what the point of the LGBTQI organizations is. I would not have assumed these as important before this. You realize you can fight for your own good and change certain things and this is legitimate. (Female, 25)
The data suggest that the sexual collective identity of people was not the initial force to bring together the activists who formed and build the basis of the LGBTQI movement in Bulgaria. The longing for a democratic change by fighting against corruption and poverty and the notion of an EU citizenship created spaces (protests, associations, and networks) and possibilities (education, seminars) for the activists to reflect on their sexualities and identities and join LGBTQI activist community. It was not until the beginning of the third decade that engaging with LGBTQI activism became a form of an intentional, well-considered and critically informed self-identification conceptualized by Laclau and Mouffe (2001) and Polletta and Jasper (2001). This new non-professionalized form of engagement with the LGBTQI movement, however, was initiated and built mostly by formal organizations on a principal of project funding.
Heteronormative passing and “coming out”
Reconsidered within the framework of the developing democracy and the belonging to the EU, which according to the participants provides more freedom and security, the personal traumas and homophobic bullying have been transformed into action by many. The data suggest that 17 of the respondents have been humiliated in schools due to the way they look or behave, and five women and two men have been physically attacked due to their activism, being public figures. Most of the participants identify the nationalist parties and the evangelical organizations in Bulgaria as the main increasing threats against their activities, beliefs, and wellbeing. There are increasing cases of online bullying and hate speech, including death threats reported by the majority of the interviewees (21). Some believe that those from the LGBTQI community who have been “privileged” to look and behave “normal” following the heterosexual normative structure are less likely to support or join the LGBTQI activism. The same people share that the jokes and humiliations concerning their behavior, outfit or their bodies have been a pivotal point which brought some to join the LGBTQI movement reflecting the need to prevent other young people from facing the same issues.
We usually forget what we have been subject to at school. All these humiliations, calling me with female names and remarks of my “feminine body” popped up a few years ago when I got to know a humiliated boy, and I realized that the emerging evangelical and nationalist anti-LGBTQI campaign would harm many people. This made me furious, and it all came back in my mind. Then I decided it was time to do something. (Male, 30)
Furthermore, many participants who previously were afraid to come out did not think of activism as an option mostly due to the fear to be outed. The interactions with networks abroad, the workshops on social activism as well as the increasing anti-gender campaigns have redefined the notion of one's sexuality as a political issue and coming out as an “empowering process”.
You do not consider your sexuality as connected to LGBTQI activism. In Bulgaria, we usually understand politics only as state politics, not as something where we all participate. Even my professors here were not very conscious of the wider understanding of politics. When I came out abroad and learned all these things, I realized that I had nothing to lose anymore. This empowered me, and gay activism was the next logical step, given my low tolerance of injustice. (Male, 22)
According to the majority of the participants (22), the LGBTQI people rejecting activism are afraid for their own coming out. On the other hand, six participants are not out to their families or the public since they prefer to stay “behind the scene” of front line activism. The activists’ experience is often connected to “strategic outness” (Orne, 2011) as an activist. This means that in many cases coming out as LGBTQI for many activists was easier than coming out as an activist because many people would accept one’s non-traditional sexuality or gender identity; however, the same people would reject and disapprove of their participation in activism.
The engagement of the personal traumas into the respondents’ activism has a distinct generational character. The younger the respondents, the more evident is what Melucci (1989) calls “emotional investments”. This is a notion towards coming out as a political act which brings many personal and public humiliations, exclusion by family and friends networks, poverty, and physical wellbeing. This notion is significantly strengthened by the emerging anti-gender campaigns which are considered as a direct, strategically planned political attack against the LGBTQI communities compared to the “banal” nationalistic rhetoric.
Political identification
As stated earlier, the third decade is marked by increasing political dialogues and contestation of the movement. The participants' argumentation of their activism and the political affiliations has a distinctive generational dimension. While those who have joined at the beginning of the movement, speak mostly within the framework of human rights and “liberal values”, the younger the activists are the more left-oriented political beliefs they express, considering their views within the framework of social inequalities and intersectionality although some of them do not identify with left-wing activism. This tendency predefines different approaches towards the organizational structure of the activism, the participation of the corporations in it and the politics of Sofia pride. On the other hand, some of the older activists have shared that they used to have more left-oriented beliefs but had realized that having a family and dealing with corporate jobs “makes one face reality” and thus revised their political orientation.
Although the youngest generation of activists expresses left-oriented views predominantly, there are two groups of left-oriented LGBTQI activists depending on the approaches they believe. The first one is those who have more moderate centrist left views. These activists consider the strategies for education as more important than the strategies for critique (Bernstein, 1997). The education and awareness about LGBTQI topics according to them is the best approach in a post-communist context. This group considers capitalism as a matter of strong regulation to achieve more equal societies. The second group of the left-oriented activist is using mainly strategies for critique. This includes strong anti-capitalist and anti-pink washing views. The second group has also included a strong working-class position, collaborating with workers unions and other left-oriented collectives.
Very often the first groups, as well as some right-wing oriented respondents, blame the second group for tending to “romanticize” and “rehabilitate” the communist regime in Bulgaria as well as for being “aggressive” and “radical”. In general, these discussions involve strongly divisive rhetoric similar to those in the recent general political discourses where any left approach is classified as “far-left”, and any right is called “far-right”. It has to be emphasized that most of these discussions take place online on social media platforms, including qualifications, impatience, and misunderstanding, which further complicates the discussions and the current contestations.
Conclusion
The Bulgarian LGBTQI activism emerged comparatively late compared to other Eastern and Central European countries. One possible explanation could be the lack of serious ethnical and national contestation and anti-war movements which opened the possibility for the early LGBTQI activism to emerge within them as is the case of Yugoslavia (Bilić and Biliâc, 2016). The development of the movement after 1992 is driven by a complicated interplay between the social structures, and the emerging collective sexual identities. Therefore applying only structuralist or constructivist approach in this case would not be sufficient to explain this interplay.
The movement emerged within the political and the economic transformations marked by anti-communist rhetoric, rather than collective sexual identity and “personal investments” as understood by the NSMs’ theories. Most of the diverse activist communities and the incorporation of “bottom-up” approach did not emerge spontaneously but were established by funded and professionalized project activities rather than self-organized groups. The economic crisis, the corruption, the Internet, and the membership to the EU have created diverse networks of activists who founded the basis of the movement.
The first generations of activists joined the movement for two main reasons, both connected to the new understanding of democratic citizenship as a duty. Some inherited a critical anti-communist way of thinking from their families, while others joined the movement as an opposition to their parents’ “passive and conformist” way of thinking. The youngest participants, however, joined the movement inspired by the understanding of sexual identity as a community belonging and reconsideration of their experiences as objects of homophobic bullying. Well aware of the social movements ideals and the identity politics, an increasing number of younger activists use left-oriented intersectional approaches in their activism, emphasizing the economic conditions rather than the cultural ones.
Despite these developments the majority of the so-called grassroots groups are themselves funded project activities which end in 2021. Therefore, close attention needs to be paid on the sustainability of the movement in the future in terms of financial resources and the development of the “bottom-up” approaches and grassroots activities. Will grassroots activism manage to organize and continue without these projects?
In general the mainstream organizations in Bulgaria usually respond in a defensive manner to homophobic attacks, events, and rhetoric rather than creating and promoting its unique discourses and mobilizing stories (Plummer, 2011) taking into account the Bulgarian political, cultural, and economic specificities. Furthermore, the left-oriented groups are focused mainly on strategies for critique, not taking into account the large number of LGBTQI people who reject the movement often due to the lack of coherent educational strategies. Thus the cultural resources and the mobilizing “glocal” strategies for education would be another important topic for further investigation.
Another significant feature of the Bulgarian LGBTQI movement is that the predominant part of the activists are white, mostly cisgender people with strong educational background. This said, most of the EU funded seminars and ERASMUS programs require self-financing of the plane tickets following reimbursement as well as spoken English which is an obstacle for many young people from low-income families or marginalized background to attend such programs. Furthermore, the structure of the EU LGBTQI strategies and ILGA Europe consists of institutionalization, professionalization, and “NGOization” (Paternotte, 2015) which limits the possibilities of grassroots activism for funding.
Given these challenges, a reconsideration of the resources—financial and cultural—is needed due to the increasing influence of the so-called anti-gender campaigns. Unlike the religious conservative groups participating in the “intimate citizenship” dialogues (Plummer, 2011) on the ground of their beliefs, the anti-gender campaigns are well-organized, and well-financed global movements, often promoted by political parties (Kuhar and Paternotte, 2017) which aim to abolish LGBTQI and women’s rights and these have indeed been very successful in Bulgaria (Darakchi, 2019). Given this, the interrelatedness between the social and the economic resources of the LGBTQI movements will be significantly important for their future development and even survival in certain cases.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A substantial part of this study was done during the author's Advanced Academia Fellowship at The Centre for Advanced Studies Sofia (CAS).
