Resilience Pathways of LGBT Youth in Peru: Contesting Everyday Violence

Background /Purpose

In 2013, the Peruvian Parliament ratified legal sanctions against hate crimes associated with violence and discrimination, however, violence toward sexually diverse populations was excluded. Within Peru and worldwide, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups experience significant levels of violence, particularly LGBT youth. Informed by structural violence theory, this study explored LGBT youth responses to everyday violence in two geographically and culturally diverse cities in Peru: Lima, the capital and largest city, and Ayacucho, a mid-size city in the Andean region.  The purpose was to formulate key factors facilitating LGBT youth resilience to inform local practice and policy.  

Methods

Focus groups (n=6) in Lima and Ayacucho were conducted with youth (18‒25 years old) that self-identified themselves as gay (n=16) and Trans (n=30).  Purposive sampling strategies ensured inclusion of diverse youth. Additional data was collected from interviews with key informants (LGBT activists, community workers) in both cities (n=15). A large forum was conducted in each city to elicit community input on preliminary findings.  Focus groups and interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed verbatim and coded using thematic analysis. The theoretical flexibility of thematic analysis made this method an ideal research tool for this study.

Findings

Despite recognizable experiences of violence, LGBT youth displayed remarkable resilience, though resilience strategies were distinctive for each group and in each city, indicating the presence of socio-cultural differences. Transgender youth relied on their collective rather than individual resilience for survival as structural violence was higher for them, e.g. limited employment options other than sex work. In Lima, such resilience was supported by advocates and specialized services. In Ayacucho, in the absence of specialized services, the resilience of transgender youth was supported by their own activism and allies within the health and social care systems. Gay youth, including gay, bisexual and lesbians, revealed a high level of individual resilience rather than collective resilience. This resilience was fostered in Lima by community acceptance and in Ayacucho by support from allies and same-age heterosexual peers.Support and acceptance from families and immediate social networks was critical for all.   Structural and direct violence was reported by all youth but was greater for transgender youth, with thematic differences in their responses. For most youth, ‘fear’ was the main impact of direct violence (e.g. physical assaults, killings), while ‘despair’ and ‘social action’ were common responses to structural violence(e.g. homophobia, transphobia, poverty).

 

Conclusions and Implications

The theoretical distinction between resilience against violence and resistance to violence became less clear in this study, especially in the case of collective resilience. Current discourses of ‘resilience’ that overlook such resistance unintentionally may risk hindering the existing resilience of LGBT youth and perpetuating their experiences of discrimination and violence.  The use of a social resistance framework, which suggests that minority groups actively engage in everyday resistance, may be useful for interventions that effectively honour and foster the resilience of LGBT youth. Implications for mental health programming and social work practice with LGBT youth that effectively equalize their opportunities in the global society are discussed.