| Abstract [eng] |
The conundrum for this research paper rises from the fact that nowadays’ societies are structured based on highly heteronormative and patriarchal perceptions meaning that LGBT+ people (especially homo- and trans- components) are usually considered to be out of the ordinary, out of the boundaries of „normality“, marginalized within the society. The traditional liberal concept of citizenship is described in binary terms – an individual either has or does not have a citizenship. However, N. Yuval-Davis conceptualizes citizenship in a more structural, gradual way. According to N. Yuval-Davis, citizenship should be considered as individual’s belonging to a certain community and as being affected, formed by various factors such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. Such conceptualization of citizenship serves in analyzing whether marginalized groups within the society feel as if their citizenship is not ‘full’. The main objective of this research paper was to analyze, what different forms of citizenship (as conceptualized by Nira Yuval-Davis) can be identified in how LGBT+ Women Residing in Lithuania are thinking about migration, what personal or mediated stories they remember as the most important ones and how these stories are affecting research group’s views on migration as well as how these stories help to understand identified forms of citizenship in a better way. The analysis has revealed that migration and citizenship topics are closely related – by analysing what are the reasons and expectations related to individuals’ choice to stay in/ leave Lithuania or individual’s thoughts about the possibility of migration, it was possible to identify what kind of different forms of citizenship are present in the views of LGBT+ women residing in Lithuania. Different forms of citizenship reaffirm the principles of heteronormativity and patriarchy that are characteristic to nowadays societies. This demonstrates and proves that the question of citizenship of LGBT+ women residing in Lithuania is problematic on its own: on the one hand, LGBT+ people should be considered as having citizenship, however the answers from research group revealed that the citizenship that is ensured for them cannot be considered as full or as identical to the one that is ensured for hetero- people. The analysis has also revealed several aspects (e.g. body control) that are specific to the informants being women, meaning that research group is part of two marginalized communities. The analysis has revealed 5 different forms of citizenship present in the analysed views on migration: safety citizenship, family citizenship (divided into two topics of civil union citizenship, and reproduction citizenship), trans- citizenship, medical citizenship, and women citizenship. The analysis of how mediated or personal stories are affecting informants’ views on migration has deepened the understanding on how different forms of citizenship are important for the informants. It was identified that media can affect LGBT+ women’s views on migration in two very different ways – the stories about LGBT+ present in the media can either be a factor that contributes to the intention to move out from Lithuania or by contrast such stories can become an incentive to stay in Lithuania and to work towards the political changes that need to be implemented to ensure better conditions for LGBT+ people in Lithuania. This research has confirmed that the situation of LGBT+ people in Lithuania is problematic and that their citizenship cannot be understood in binary terms. The citizenship of LGBT+ women residing in Lithuania is not „full“ in the context of heteronormative and patriarchal principles. Understanding citizenship as a gradual, structural rather than a binary category ensures a better, more in depth understanding of the situation of marginalized groups in Lithuania. |
