Structures of Violence: Exploring the Risk Environment of Violence in GLBT Individuals in India

Background: In India, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) population has a HIV prevalence rate of 6.4% compared to  0.36% in the general population (NACO,2010). Additionally, LGBT individuals experience high rates of stigma, violence and negative mental health outcomes (Chakrapani et al., 2007).This experience of violence interacts with other factors to amplify the risk for HIV, producing  synergistic epidemics or “syndemics” of HIV transmission (Stall et al.,2003). Responding to this HIV crisis in the Indian LGBT population, interventions targeting individual behavioral factors like condom use , have been implemented. However, research indicates the importance of structural factors like violence and discrimination, that constitute the “risk environment” for HIV (Rhodes & Simic,2005). LGBT individuals in India continue to face structural violence in the form of stigmatization and criminalization due to enduring socio-legal prejudice (Chakrapani et al., 2002). Hence there is an urgent need to understand the violence faced by this community. This exploratory, qualitative study examines the risk environment of violence as experienced by LGBT populations in India.

Methods: In-dept, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 LGBT persons between the ages 18 to 40. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from a community- based organization that provides services to the LGBT population in Kolkata, India. Participants were asked about their experiences of violence, discrimination and stigma. Elements of constructivist grounded theory were used both in the data collection and analysis phases of the project (Charmaz, 2006).

Results: Violence was found to be linked to three distinct yet interrelated environments.

The physical environment, such as public parks where sexual exchanges often take place, may either provide protection against (by the virtue of visibility and presence of group members) or become sites of violence with sexual partners or the police. Indoor sex venues like massage parlors can become sites of sexual coercion and violence.

The social environment, which encourages the stigmatization of same sex behavior and sexual identity within the family, neighborhood and other social groups, becomes a source of emotional and physical violence.

The policy environment which supports criminalization of same sex activity perpetuates stigma, encourages police harassment and prevents access to law and order for protection of personal safety.

Implications: Participants provided complex narratives of their experience of violence that underscored the intersections of individual and structural level factors.  It is essential for social work research with vulnerable populations,  to gain a situated understanding of the complex environments of risk. For LGBT individuals, interpersonal acts of violence may produce significant physical and mental harm. However, these individual acts of violence have more serious implications in the presence of the larger discriminatory social and policy environment. Social work researchers and practitioners should continue to critically explore the ways in which structural factors like criminalization and stigma amplify individual level risk, like interpersonal violence and sexual assault. Identifying specific aspects of the risk environment and the manner in which it interacts with individual’s daily experiences is vital to designing HIV and other risk reduction interventions for the LGBT population.