Don’t look like lesbian when you walk through the village, lesbians, gays, and transgenders in rural communities

Abstract

This study explores the coping practices of lesbians, gays, and trans (LG&T) people, living in rural communities, as they experience hardships originating from their surroundings in small rural communities in Israel. The research findings based on in-depth interviews with 24 gay, lesbian, and trans subjects, suggest that those who live in rural communities feel that their lifestyle is subjected to prejudice and scrutiny and monitoring. This anachronistic homophobic attitude is still prevalent in smaller communities in Israel. Subjects report that this causes distress and discomfort thus affecting their well-being and sense of belonging to the community, that is their home. The study reveals two approaches utilized to deal with the social control applied to them: the practice of resistance that contributes to the sense of relaxation and resilience of LGBTQ+ people in their surroundings, and the practice of avoidance that allows them to live their lives undisturbed. The findings show the importance of creating unique social services suitable for this minority living in rural communities.

Keywords:

• Sense of comfortable
• rural
• village
• coming out
• social services

Introduction

Substantial economic as well as environments changes have led some Israelis to leave the city and immigrate to the city outskirts, suburbs, and more rural communities such as Moshavim and Kibbutzim. These changes have affected these types of settlements in a variety of ways, whereby these are now receiving new members into their more traditional communities. Naturally, some of these members are LGBTQ+ people in search for opportunities and a life closer to nature within a smaller more close-knit community as many other after Covid-19. The, at times, difficult experiences these people go through in the process of trying to assimilate into small rural communities, stand in the center of this study. Based on the qualitative method, this study seeks to reveal LGBTQ+ individuals’ perceptions of their sense of partnership and belonging in these small rural communities.

Israel has about 955 villages, of which 451 are “moshav” (pl. “moshavim”), “kibbutz” (pl. “kibbutzim”), and about 45 Farms. The kibbutzim and moshavim discussed in this article are small settlements, numbering an average of 1,112 people, or between 140 and 220 families (Frome-Aricha et al., 2021). these are officially defined by the state as “rural communities.” In both the kibbutzim and moshavim, livelihood was historically centered around agriculture. Kibbutzim operated and lived according to ideological bases of partnership, equality, and shared living expenses. Production and work were also shared. The kibbutzim built an economic foundation for themselves that developed into industry. The kibbutz society was considered more advanced in its way of life, but it was also a closed and highly idealistic society that had no patience for those who expressed values and identities that differed from the consensus of the kibbutz. In the moshavim, many of which were settled by new immigrants who arrived in the country after its establishment. Each family lived on its farmland and was responsible for independent agricultural production. In the moshavim, the family had a significant meaning as they held the agricultural estate internally. The moshavim inhabited large multi-generational families who lived closely together, abiding by a traditional religious way of life. Therefore, in both the kibbutz and moshav, each had a social construct that sought to enshrine the either kibbutz or moshav way of life and reduce personal identity for the benefit of belonging to the whole. For many years, both moshav and kibbutz members were considered an Israeli elite group that exemplified the Israeli character within Israeli society. Years went by, each settlement required new members to fulfill screening and acceptance criteria that tested their compatibility with the lifestyle of the village. This process prevented those who were different from the village members from joining these settlements (Greenberg et al., 2016).

In the mid-1980s, the rural villages experienced an economic crisis that deeply affected agriculture as a viable source of income and also resulted in negative migration from the rural spaces and into larger communities (Gimmon et al., 2020). The governmental recovery plan aimed at resolving the crisis included substantial economic, organizational, and social changes, including the possibility of attracting new people to reside in these communities. For this purpose, expansion neighborhoods were established in adjacent to these communities to defray massive debt accumulated by the kibbutz and moshav members. The new arrivals were vetted by internal acceptance committees that used different standards than the ones used in during the times of the traditional kibbutz, now seeking a heterogeneous population. This is in opposition to the traditional screening process devoted to finding members with specialization in agriculture. The retreat from the conceptual and idealistic thinking that characterized the way of life in these rural communities opened up the possibility of repositioning the individual as an authentic person. This article relates particularly to the permutations in Jewish villages (moshav and kibbutz). Even though Israel inhabits many types of villages belonging to different religions and ethnic minorities such as Muslims, Christians, Druze, Palestinians, and others, those will not be included in this specific study.

Migration of gays and lesbians has been studied in the past with researchers (Kazyak, 2011, 2012; Hartal; 2015; Stone, 2018; Thomsen & Essig, 2022) indicating that in recent years the number of LGBTQ+ people have been increasing in rural communities worldwide. As in the Israeli kibbutzim and moshavim, some have lived in these communities for many years but have only recently felt comfortable enough to “come out,” while others migrated to rural communities in recent decades to find a better quality of life. These findings show that the historical dichotomy between the city and the village is disappearing, thus raising questions about how the newly arrived LGBTQ+ population may have changed the character of the rural space (Svab & Kuhar, 2014).

The current study seeks to add new information concerning the trials of LGBTQ+ people living openly as their authentic selves in small rural communities in Israel.

We suspect that, despite the increasing discourse of social inclusion and acceptance currently prevalent in many places around the world as to LGBTQ+ rights (Burke et al., 2022), in actual everyday life and in rural communities especially, LGBTQ+ people need additional social services, aimed at social and emotional support whilst integrating into these small close-knit communities.

On a personal note, I have lived for thirty years in a rural community in northern Israel. I came out at a late age, and I still remember the concerns that accompanied my decision. Some were questions about the way I would be received in the community where I live. Having gone through the process of “coming out of the closet,” I was asked by others who want to embark on this process successfully in their small communities. Understanding the complexity that characterizes the life of LGBTQ people in ​​rural communities was the motivation for this research study.

Theoretical background

Gender construct in the rural area

Since the beginning of research on gender in rural area, the emphasis has been on the dichotomous gender construct of work-life between men and women in rural area (Little & Panelli, 2003). The dominant ideology placed men at the head of a “natural hierarchy” since they were engaged in outdoor agricultural work and were the main breadwinners, while women found their place in the home as those who supported the men and fulfilled the needs of the home and the family (Dempsey, 1992; Poiner, 1990). Bryant and Pini (2009) teach about the link between the ownership of property and the community narrative, where men in rural areas were awarded more respect and a higher status than women because of the importance of agriculture as a means of livelihood for the rural family. Masculine qualities such as strength, power, and courage were considered qualities that enabled them to deal with the forces of nature and inevitably, to be at the social forefront as a result of the traditional way of life that transforms everyday power into significant social standing. The characteristics of the rural space for the entire population and especially for those with unique identities that do not correspond to the male narrative accepted in these spaces emphasizes the complexity of diversity as suggested by Hulko and Hovanes (2018) demonstrate that living in a small town identifying and being identified, and talking about intersectionality indicate that the sexual and gender create an experience of multiple marginalization that originates from the intersection of gender, identity, geographic distance, and loneliness in these unique identities.

McLaren et al. (2008) point out status differences within the female population in rural areas, according to their occupation. Furthermore, a distinction is made between employment for the sake of livelihood, which characterizes the contemporary generation of women in rural communities, and the traditional female employment of the older women, whose main occupation was working in the home and volunteering outside the home in community affairs. As per McLaren et al. (2008) the definition of the traditional occupation of women contributed to the low status of the women in the previous generation in rural settlements.

Kazyak (2011) and McLaren (2009) were the first to discuss gender and sexuality in the rural area, contending that any behavior that did not meet the “correct” masculine standards was unsuitable for the rural area and therefore rejected and marked as inappropriate. The mechanisms that preserved male supremacy contributed to the strengthening of the patriarchal family (Allen, 2021). The religious way of life and the significance of the clergy in the rural area also contributed to the social construct of “normative” masculinity in these communities (Little, 2017; Little & Panelli, 2003). Heterosexuality was also a preservation mechanism for the patriarchal society that helped maintain the social and political power of men in this space (Seidler, 1995; Hubbard; 2000; Shabazz, 2015; Gandy, 2012). This social construct largely prevented LGBTQ people from living in rural communities (Bain & Podmore, 2020).

Fellows (1996) described the masking and suppression of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals through the usage of “marriage of (in)convenience” which was practically obligatory in the rural area. Leslie (2017) presents similar findings about queers living in rural communities. Marple and Latchmore (2005) defined LGBTQ people in rural communities as living a life of “two-fold loneliness”; whereby they are required to conceal their sexual identity, and therefore experience a deep feeling of seclusion in their remote locale. This with little to no chance of meeting others in similar circumstances able to relate to them and form a community.

Swank et al. (2012) found that gays in rural communities in the southern United States often lived with a feeling of hostility and rage toward them from others in their surroundings because of their sexual identity. Leslie (2017) noted that one mechanism used by gays and lesbians in dealing with the fear of revealing their lives, was the use of a “cover” story and hiding their life through engagement in heterosexual intercourse. Hartal (2015) described the significance of organizing joint discussions among LGBTQs and the importance of building support frameworks for LGBTQ people in the face of the dichotomous and patriarchal structures that characterize many if not all rural areas in Israel.

Gays and lesbians in rural communities

The traditional way of life that characterized rural society through the years discouraged and even prevented lesbian gay & trance (LG&T) people from living there. in recent years there has been a phenomenon of LG&T choosing to live in rural communities; Forstie (2022) noted that the development of neoliberal thought and its spillover from urban centers to rural areas and small towns has promoted tolerance in areas that were previously less LG&T-friendly. These changes have allowed LG&T people to reside in these spaces despite the complexities that currently still prevail. According to Gates (2006, 2007) There are three reasons for migration from the city to rural settlements: the countryside is perceived as more open and spacious than the city. others are looking for a spiritual lifestyle, a connection to nature and a desire to live close to nature; and the third is related to the communal way of life that characterizes rural communities more than urban areas. Another possible reason, raised by the European Union report (OECD, 2006) is the sense of security (Kjaerum, 2014). Smith and Holt (2005) found that the sense of personal security in rural communities contributes to lesbians’ quality of life. Additionally they noted that the lifestyle characterized by a long-term relationship, is a family structure that imitates the heteronormative family and thus creates a family structure like others in their surroundings. This family structure also facilitates their acceptance and integration into the rural community.

Gates (2006, 2007) found that the number of gay people living in rural communities increased significantly early in the 21^st century. He maintained that the reason for this was not only LG&T migration to the countryside but also the coming out of the closet of longtime residents who previously feared taking this step. Newly acquired social openness in these communities now sanctions tolerance toward LG&T and allows them to live their lives more honestly (Hoffelmeyer, 2021; McLaren et al., 2008). These changes have contributed to the sense of security and visibility of LGBTQ+ people in areas that were previously perceived as less friendly to these groups (Forstie, 2022; Kazyak, 2012; Smyth et al., 2018).

This phenomenon of LG&T living openly with their authentic life in rural communities is not the same everywhere and can change according to the nature and characteristics of a specific area. In the central and southern United States, LG&T in areas closer to large cities more commonly live openly than in more remote rural communities in those states. The presence of LG&T people living their life in these communities depends on the existence of two parallel processes: how the LG&T community defines itself and it place in the rural area, and the processes of openness in these communities that make them more accepting of those who differ from the heteronormative majority (Hoffelmeyer, 2021; Woodell et al., 2015). Thus, the current study also examines the lifestyle coping methods of LG&T people in remote rural communities, with an emphasis on their sense of comfort while living their true life in the small, more isolated villages.

A sense of comfort

Giddens (1990) defined the feeling of comfort as a deep inner experience, a sense of security or trust that we have in the world around us and with those around us, and our belief that we can perform activities without being harmed by them. The feeling of security that meets the physical and emotional needs in our everyday space is related to the degree of acceptance that we feel from those around us and our ability to connect with them (Choudhury et al., 2022). Comfort is described as an emotional sensation, a feeling of rest amid the tensions that characterize everyday life (White, 2009). It contributes to emotional stability and to good functioning between us and our environment (Blokland & Nast, 2014; Silverstone, 2003). A sense of comfort promotes a feeling of security and self-assurance in the workplace or in any other setting where the individual may fear that his/her everyday life will be revealed (Shenkman et al., 2019).

One’s belief is that one can live life without conflict and offensive reactions from others due to origin, status, or authenticity. The individual has confidence in expressing opinions freely without being harmed. and enjoys the resources offered by his space with no expectation of conflict or struggle (Noble, 2005; Smith & Holt, 2005). Gorman-Murray (2009) interpreted migration in queers as an internal discussion that takes place between leaving the old place and migrating to the new place. Arrival at a new place is accompanied by a yearning for belonging and comfort, along with the apprehension and fear that originated from the L&G lived experience (Gates, 2006, 2007). The conceptualization of L&G people’s sense of comfort in their chosen space has not yet been sufficiently studied, and so the sense of comfort among L&G people in rural Israeli communities – kibbutzim and moshavim - is at the center of this research. The importance of the community to the LGBTQ’s sense of comfort and the understanding that rural settlements are changing, raised the question of the degree of comfort that L&G people feel in these communities.

The research method

This research utilized the qualitative approach which was based on in-depth interviews. This type of method allows the interviewee to speak in depth and detail, and for the researchers to understand the processes, feelings, and emotions accompanying the story (Flick, 2018; Newman et al., 2022; Stone, 2018).

For the in-depth interview, a questionnaire guideline was created that included introductory questions. questions concerning the number of years the respondent has lived in the community and how he/she arrived there, and questions detailing their daily life in the community, where he/she had or has trouble or a feeling of discrimination because of their identity.

The location of the interviews was determined according to the interviewees’ choice; most took place in the homes of the interviewees. A significant number of the interviews took place during the Covid-19 quarantine and restriction period, and the fact that people remained in their homes for many days made the meetings meaningful and contributed to the possibility of conducting interviews comfortably and almost without time restrictions or other disturbances. The interviews were deep-structured (Ayalon & Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, 2010), guided by nine open questions, and conducted as an open conversation. Each interview lasted around one hour and half and each was analyzed according to categories, as accepted in qualitative research.

The transcripts were analyzed by the main author and a research assistant specializing in qualitative analysis. Each of us mapped the information in the interviews, formulated a list of categories and proposed a title for the assortment of topics raised. In a joint meeting, we presented the categories and discussed the meaning of each category and its definition, as well as on the themes agreed upon by both researchers. In the third stage, the themes were formulated, and quotations were chosen that best represented each theme.

Study population

This study pertains to Jewish villages such as moshav and kibbutz. Israel’s population is expansive diversified with proportion to its small size. Arab and other ethnic minorities in which there is a traditional and closed society and still in social transition from tradition to modernity have unique characteristics as to gender and sexuality identities. therefore, they will not be discussed in this study. Twenty-four LG&T people were interviewed: eight gay men, seven lesbian women, and two male-to-female transgenders. Among the respondents in the study, none defined themselves as bisexual. Only those who defined themselves as living in an open authentic life, both to their family members and to others in the local community were selected for the study.

Nine of the respondents lived in one of the many kibbutzim in Israel and eighth in moshavim; some were born in the village and others arrived there at an older age. All respondents have lived in the village continuously for at least five years. We assumed that during this time span the interviewees would have experienced some social struggles in the community.

The rural communities in which the selected respondents lived are far from urban areas. Ten of the interviewees were from villages in the south of the country at least 1.5 hours drive from Tel Aviv, while the rest resided in the northern periphery at least a two-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is the large urban area considered significant to the LG&T community as the center where people with alternative identities live openly and comfortably, and where many support organizations are concentrated. In the current study, the choice of villages represented settlements that posed a contrast to Tel Aviv in their remoteness and isolation.

Recruiting study participants

The study population was located through social networks on the Internet, through regional interest groups also frequented by members of kibbutzim and moshavim, and with the help of an activist people in the LGBTQ+ community that provides various types of assistance for LGBTQ+ in communities far from large cities. Brodyn and Ghaziani (2018) noted the advantages of recruiting participants using the snowball method as a means of locating community members know them and exists within social networks. We approached each potential study participant in person, explained the research study and asked about their willingness to be interviewed. We confirmed that the interview is anonymous, that all identifying details in it are confidential (Newman et al., 2022). and that a college ethics committee had granted approval to conduct the research while observing the rules of ethics in research (Approval #12/2019-12).

Findings

Our research questions examined how the members of the LG&T community (in the current study, lesbian, gay, and trans experience their lives in rural communities and what contributes to or detracts from their sense of comfort in the rural area. The findings revealed the complexity of life for LG&T in the villages and the issues that bolster and harm their sense of comfort in everyday life.

The first theme emphasized the concerns that LG&T people had about revealing their authentic identity in the community and their reactions toward them and their family members. These concerns emphasized the significance that the community has on the individuals’ life and sense of comfort in the small village. The second theme showed that the LG&T’s was received with understanding and openness by those in their close surroundings, but that officials and functionaries in the community largely ignore the issues and needs that pertain to their life. The third theme presented two types of scrutiny experienced by LG&T people in rural communities in Israel, the first being informal, where norms of behavior accepted in the community and the general way of life are expected of them. The second is official and originates from the longtime practice of surveilling those who enter and leave the village, due to security measures. These two types of scrutiny harm the sense of comfort of LG&T people in these communities. The fourth theme reveals that LG&T people have a symbolic presence in the settlement. They represent the changes that these settlements have undergone from closed and elitist to open and accepting of those who create a more diverse society than the previously homogeneous one.

The first theme, the fear of the local peoples’ reaction toward them when they openly come forth with their LG&T identity, is a major issue. Many interviewees spoke of the anxiety they had before coming out; they feared the reaction of the village community toward them and their family members. In a small community, everyone knows everyone, and the entire family is associated with the event of revealing one’s personal coming out experience; this fear was found to be a substantial discouraging factor, preventing LG&T from making their identity known in the village. The use of terms such as “fear” and “social rejection” shows the power that rural society has over the individual and its repercussions for those who are different.

Reuven said “There was great fear, what will the others say? How will they react? There was a great fear that I would be left alone, maybe even thrown out, I no longer belong, less suitable. I’m not what they thought I was.”

Ester stressed what it would mean for the family when she said: “For a long time I debated whether it was right that everyone here in this small place would know, what it would do to me and my parents and siblings, how they would look at my brothers, how they would look at my parents. I was afraid they would pay a price because of me. It’s a feeling that has been with me for a long time.”

Eran emphasized the meaning of being part of an extended family in the rural village and the fear of harming her family when she said: “It’s not just me, it’s the whole family. I was afraid of how they would react to my family, what they would say, how they would behave. It’s a small place and everyone here knows everyone.”

The findings showed that LG&T people were afraid to make their authentic life as LG&T public knowledge in their community.

In the interviews, the rural communities emerge as intimate places where people are familiar with each other. Ester and Eran shared their concerns about the impact of changing family social position in the community, highlighting the significance of family in everyday life in the moshavim. This finding shows the significance of traditional identity in these settlements on the lives of LG&T. Family has an important place in the individual’s life as LG&T and in the social fabric in these types of communities. The individual is perceived as an inseparable part of the family to which he/she belongs. The tension between an individual’s unique identity and the price that the family may pay for that uniqueness promotes feelings of apprehension that delay that person’s willingness to live openly in his/her life.

The significance of choosing to be who I am in my environment: the unique characteristic of LG&T in the rural area.

When asked about their lives in the community, the words “choose” or “chose” appeared in the answers of many of the interviewees. Living in a rural settlement was a matter of choice for them. The choice was between the city where they had lived, studied and worked, and the place where they have now chosen to spend their lives - the village. In the city, each individual lives an anonymous life, but in a rural community, there is a much higher degree of familiarity and even intimacy.

Noam said “It’s a choice to live here. I like the quiet, the atmosphere, the isolation is good for me. I was in the city for a few years during my studies, I enjoyed it and when I tired of it I realized that was not really for me. Here I find it’s good for me. Quality of life, no traffic jams, close to nature and quiet, life is better. In my case, I have family and friends, you know, this is my place.”

Eran who lives with her partner in the village, said: “When we realized that we wanted to formalize our relationship and start a family, we chose to come to this village to the north. N is originally from a town close to here so there would be grandparents close by for our kids, an amazing family… And I connected to the north, so we decided to return here.”

Zion] from a veteran kibbutz family] described the dilemma “When I came out of the closet I asked myself whether to stay here or move to the city, I felt the dilemma for a long time but I chose to stay because here is home, family, friends, everything I know and love. My life is here.”

The interviewees affirmed that the decision to live in a rural community was a conscious one. They chose the rural area as a place of residence for the same reasons as other migrants do: the closeness to nature, the quiet that characterizes these villages, the desire to be close to family and part of a small and intimate community.

Personal identity in the immediate and family space and in the public sphere and their effect on the sense of comfort of LG&T people.

The third theme concerned the dilemma of disclosing one’s LG&T life in a rural community, with evidence that those close to the LG&T person accepted and even supported their choice of coming out as their authentic selves.

The question posed to the interviewees was: “How did the community react when they found out your LG&T life?” This was an open question, and the respondents could choose to answer in any way they chose.

The findings for this theme included reference to the responses and reference to what was not said, to factors that were not mentioned at all by the interviewees. The revelation of their LG&T life did not create excessive interest in the community, but the reactions of those close to them included interest, questions, and words of encouragement about the bravery to be who they are.

Shaul said: “My neighbors and friends approached me, asked some questions, and showed support. It was an issue only that month and afterwards they moved on to other matters. It wasn’t really an issue, on the contrary, many people appreciated the fact that I did what was right for me. Some people respected me more, I think.”

Another interviewee, Miranda said: As soon as I said to my neighbor, “Do you know, this is my partner,” and to another neighbor, “Did you know? We’re together,” and in the office of the community secretariat, “List her under my phone number too” and that’s it… suddenly it became so quiet and…. nothing (She laughs). Nobody was interested in my business, I wasn’t this “pet lesbian.” I had been terribly afraid that I would suddenly become the “neighborhood lesbian.” Definitely not. It surprised me a lot. And this is one of the things I keep talking about… all the noise was in my head. But nothing came of it.

Table 1. Respondents’ details.

	Name	Age	Gender	Status in village	Years in the village	Self identity
1	Moav	28	Male	Temporary Resident	6	Gay
2	Shaul	56	Male	Member	40	Gay
3	Ivona	45	Female	Member	28	Lesbian
4	Ester	44	Female	Permanent Resident	9	Lesbian
5	Tzvi	34	Female	Member	9	Lesbian
6	Miranda	54	Female	Member	18	Lesbian
7	Oav	45	Male	Permanent Resident	12	Gay
8	Eran	35	Male	Temporary Resident	35	Gay
9	Talia	34	Female	Member	12	Lesbian
10	Yoav	35	Male	Temporary Resident	8	Gay
11	Ornit	39	Female	Permanent Resident	6	Lesbian
12	Ronit	42	Female	Permanent Resident	8	Lesbian
13	Noam	34	Male	Member	13	Gay
14	Ynon	35	Female	Permanent Resident	7	Trans MtF
15	Zion	57	Male	Member	31	Gay
16	Reuven	26	Male	Member	5	Gay
17	Rona	36	Female	Member	11	Trans MtF

Moav: There was no negative reference to it, people asked, inquired. Look, it’s a very small place and literally at the edge of the world. There were those who, until I came out and said I was gay, had never seen a gay person and didn’t know how gay people live. So they asked questions and inquired. But it came from a good place of being interested. I didn’t feel a negative attitude.

After reexamining the transcripts of the answers, we realized what had not been mentioned at all in the answers, i.e. the administrators in the village, those “in charge” of the community. Since the organizational changes occurred in the villages, they are now managed by professional administrators who receive a salary for fulfilling their roles, as opposed to tradition, where leaders were chosen according to virtue and relatability. The community manager/director, the economic manager and the social welfare worker are usually the three that serve as the formal village leadership; their job is to ensure, among other things, the residents’ welfare. None of the interviewees mentioned these officials as being interested in their situation as LG&T after their life became known in the village. No one approached them, asked them if they had any needs or showed interest in their safety. This fact is somewhat surprising since the main characteristic of a small community is the small number of residents and the intimate acquaintance with each one, and a professional commitment on the part of the community’s administration to be interested and take care of the individual’s well-being.

From the interviews one learns of the difference in acceptance of LG&T people between those in the immediate environment – family and neighbors - and those in administerial and management positions in the community, who seem not to show any interest. This is a surprising finding in a small community where certain officials are elected to positions that are explicitly responsible for the welfare and well-being of all residents of the village.

The emergence of control and supervision in rural communities and their influence of LG&T

Informal scrutiny by the residents and scrutiny as a policy, and their effect on the sense of comfort in everyday life in the village

Ester said: “When my friend came here, especially during the Covid-19 period, we walked a lot outside, I didn’t have the courage to hold his hand, hug him outside. I didn’t want to create a situation where people were looking at me, saying something. When you see us together you know who we are and that we are a couple, but I didn’t want to take it to an extreme and emphasize it here in the village.”

Oav said: “When I walked around with my friends I did get the stares. I felt like they were thinking who are these strange guys? What are they doing here? Who did he bring here? I remember the strong feeling I had that they were looking and asking themselves questions, it had to do with the fact that we were all gay.”

Rona: “When I started dressing more like a woman, I didn’t dare to wear those things in the village, I knew they wouldn’t accept it and it would be difficult. To this day I don’t walk here in the village with the clothes I like to wear, I choose to wear unisex clothes that can be interpreted in any direction, I know that everyone knows but I don’t want to stand out, I don’t want to receive comments and reactions that would hurt me and it can happen so I avoid it.”

The three quotes testify to the significance of the informal social control that characterizes small communities and how it affects the daily behavior of LG&T s in the public sphere.

Talia, in referring to her perspective of how others view them: “Walking while hugging or hand in hand near the kids’ playground at four in the afternoon when all the parents are out… and we do it. We don’t get stares and whispers. But it feels different. And you are different. And maybe it’s true anywhere that isn’t Tel Aviv, I don’t know.”

There are LG&T who choose to be openly visible with their same-sex relationship. This is a conscious decision that places them on par with other couples in these communities. Despite their description of overt criticism as not existing in their space, they still sense that it exists, a testament to the significance of their authentic personal life in the small rural community.

The following quotes show a type of sanctioned denigration at the entrance to the village. The entrance gate and its camera that have been permanent fixtures for many decades are meant to give community residents security and protection against unwanted people and agricultural theft. For the LG&T, the gate and cameras do the opposite, reducing their security by betraying their “otherness” to the entire community. The knowledge that there is a type of control over who arrives to their home exposes them and their way of life, infringes on their privacy, and prevents them from freely meeting with people for fear of being exposed.

Noam said: “I don’t really like to invite my friends here and certainly not partners for casual sex. Never at my place. Here everyone sees everyone, everyone knows who enters and who leaves. Everyone sees everything here and talks, I have no need for that. So, I prefer to meet somewhere else, outside. Sometimes in nature, sometimes renting a place, the main thing is that they don’t see what’s going on at my house.”

Shaul: “It happened more than once that I made a connection with someone, and I thought of inviting him to my place and hesitated. The knowledge that everything is photographed, and everything is documented. You feel like it’s really against you. It’s a form of surveillance on you and your behavior. I don’t want the option that tomorrow in the morning they will ask questions or talk about who entered through the gate and drove towards the house of….”

Eran: “There is a guard at the gate and he watches who comes in and who goes out. If someone needs to come in in the evening, they have to call a specific person in the village who confirms the visitor. Sometimes I invite someone from the Grindr, and then the guard will ask him who are you and who are you coming to see, etc… and if it’s an Arab, then they might even say that you’re f…ing Arabs… You see, the thing is, what will they say?”

This quote adds another dimension to understanding the control carried out at the gate of some villages and the fear of gays that their activities will be discovered. Arab Israelis are an ethnic minority and both Jews and Arabs are generally intolerant of romantic relations between the two ethnic groups. Eran’s words express the fear that he will be tagged in the village as one who threatens these norms, perhaps changing the attitudes of the residents toward him. His lack of confidence regarding his status in the community emphasizes his need to forego meetings with certain acquaintances due to his dependence on the way the community perceives him.

From the interview it became clear that they functioned as representatives of the LG&T community on an individual level, but that their presence in the village was also utilized to symbolically redefine the settlement as diverse and therefore different from its historical life.

In sharp contrast to control and supervision, some LG&T feel that they have a unique role in the rural community. Seen as knowledgeable on issues concerning LG&T, they find themselves consulted by both individuals and by regional administrators seeking to act inclusively for different populations in the peripheral region. Oav described the social role found in visibility: “When the children see you and they know you are gay, when their parents see you and their son suddenly comes out of the closet. I think the very familiarity and the example has some kind of effect, again, because it’s a small community.”

Ivona said: “On a day-to-day basis I don’t really deal with it. But when there is something, then they contact me, if there is a question about the subject or they want to say something or find out, then they contact me, they feel comfortable asking, finding out, I am like the kind of representative who will have the answers.”

Reuven: “The kibbutz shows off a bit, as if it’s enlightened, you know, we… (laughing)… the fact that we live here is how they prove their enlightenment, not everyone here is the same, we also have others who are gay.”

Miranda: “At the admissions committee, when potential candidates arrive for an introductory interview, the members of the admissions committee describe the settlement and say to the new applicants: ‘And there is a lesbian couple here or …does that bother you in any way?’ And then the committee would say to them, if it bothers you, then it’s probably not suitable for you to live here.”

Ester: “Three years ago, the regional council had a plan for a social project of inclusion and diversity in the communities, so they asked us if we would agree to be interviewed and photographed, they wanted to show a couple. We thought about it for a few days and said to ourselves, here we are ‘marked’ in this respect.”

To sum up the interview results, LG&T s did in fact feel a sense of belonging to the rural community in which they chose to live. They realized, however, that the family is significant in the fabric of the settlement, and a traditional family unit is the prevailing norm. For members of veteran families who have an alternative life, there is apprehension about “coming out of the closet” not only for themselves but for the sake of the family. Thus, these veteran residents are torn between feeling a very basic belonging to the community and a fear of not being accepted by it if they open up with their life as LG&T. As for the covert and overt gate supervision that began with the goal of providing security for all village residents but affects people of alternative life in a way that could not have been foreseen. The LG&T we interviewed were disturbed by the fact that their visitors are identified and worry that common knowledge of the people with whom they associate may lead to negative feelings in the community. They clearly try not to highlight that their sexual identity, and certainly not the intimate details of their private life. They regard the informal control, even if done only out of curiosity, as threatening, and contributing to their feelings of uneasiness. At the same time, the LG&T do feel that they have a social role as representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, as they are consulted on a variety of matters. They also feel that their presence symbolizes the village as progressive, changing, more open, tolerant, and diverse, as compared to the past.

Discussion

The main findings showed the complexity of LG&T people’s lives and the issues that damage their sense of comfort in a rural community where “everyone knows everyone.” The openness that characterizes these communities is in fact only partial and often multi faceted. The lives of LG&T people are also characterized by apprehension about admitting their identity to their families, discomfort in the traditional structure of life in these communities and close lifestyle, the multi-generational nature of the place and deep familiarity between the members of the village, and heterosexual characteristics that originate from the history of the rural area (Allen, 2021).

The LG&T s interviewed undoubtedly felt social scrutiny from those around them, they are expected to behave in the public sphere according to the heteronormative code of conduct. This social control causes LG&T people to maintain “internal mobility” between the behavior expected of them and the one that personifies them. The origin of this internal discussion is from the feeling of external supervision and that the comfort of LG&T people in the rural area will exist when they follow heteronormative behavioral codes.

LG&T experiences support and understanding of their identity from those close to them, but community officials ignore them and their personal needs. A minority of those interviewed described themselves as having full and permanent status in the community; most have only temporary status. Our findings add another, sophisticated example to the findings of Hubbard (2000), Little (2017) and Hertel (2018) in which the significance of characteristics of hidden heterosexism and homophobia, unspoken and expressed in the policy of accepting these people as full members of the community. The intersectional meaning of gender, class, social status and distance from big cities affect the ability to live with a personal unique identity in small homogeneous communities. This Intersectionality teaches us about the multidimensionality potential to harm gender in small and traditional communities The conjunction of being a sexual minority in a small and close community, the social status, whether a member or temporary in the settlement, and the distance from the big cities, produce convolutedness in everyday life that act as a complex system that is sometimes unrecognizable to the individual.

Another type of control is a consequence of community policy that has been true for the entire rural area from its first days until today, regarding the monitoring of those entering and leaving the village. These findings are consistent with those of Gorman-Murray (2009) and Gandy (2012), whererby the means of control and supervision to preserve the space is also subverting the sense of ease and comfort. This scrutiny is perceived by LG&T as control over their daily activities and contributes to internal tensions and activity avoidance that LG&T thinks will harm them, or the way they are perceived in the village of their residence. Hence, because of the significance of the tribulations in their daily life, LG&T feel they must forego some of the appearance and behavior they would like to adopt, and adhere to an expected lifestyle in the village in order to feel accepted.

Hence, despite the changes made in the villages to adapt to the way of life and social thinking of the current neoliberal socio-economic era, the social control, scrutiny, and policy of exclusion that once protected the homogenous structure of the village, have not completely dissipated (Terry, 2020).

The fact that LG&T live openly seems to allow the community to present itself as open, accepting and inclusive of different identities (Smyth et al., 2018; Terry, 2020). Our findings on the feeling of being LG&T in everyday life contradict this declaration, revealing that LG&T in rural communities are required to humble their identity and forego the visibility and activity that naturally characterizes them as infividuals. The rural settlement is ready to accept different identities on the condition that they do not glaringly deviate from the accepted village. LG&T who wish to live in rural settlements must adapt themselves to these characteristics of life.

Faced with this reality, two different practices emerge, the first is of avoidance in presenting their authentic selves in the public sphere, and this out of a desire to conform to the lifestyle expected of them. According to this practice, LG&T people live in a transparent closet characterized by two-way visibility: they live in their own identity, whereby others know about them though it is not discussed openly nor is it presented in daily life in the public sphere. Our findings reinforce the significance of the transparent closet vis-à-vis the community, and not only the family (Kuhar, 2018; Svab & Kuhar, 2014). The second practice is that of resistance. Hertel (2018) indicated, and our findings also show, that this is partial and takes place in carefully selected areas, taking into consideration the formal and informal scrutiny in the community. This allows LG&T to assert their identity but in a limited and controlled presence that enables them to feel confident in who they are in a pre-defined and coordinated space, and even to receive positive feedback on their courage to live in the rural area.

Our findings renewed this claim by presenting LG&T living in small rural communities represents progress in the willingness of these small and unique communities to tolerate diversity, although this is sometimes a partial or even cautious presentation of the spaces that they choose. LGBTQ+ arrival and living in these areas gives the communities a feeling that they are lowering the barrier between the general society around. In this way, it answers the criticism of these villages that they are closed and elitist. And as such they do not accept others who are different from them. The LGBTQ+ help them to change the image that society has about them in gene. There is a need for Adapted social services that will allow them to meet and share their difficulties and discomfort with regard to their identity in rural settlements. This in turn might ease their concerns and help them establish communities that focus on addressing this issue with all LGBTQ+ living in the rural periphery.

We maintain that this practice contributes to neutralizing the feeling of constant control and supervision over their lifestyle. As soon as they openly identify themselves, they take on an informal role and become the representatives of the other identities, those that are not openly recognized in the community. The mere presence of LG&T contributes to the feeling of community members and officials that they have progressed from the historical, homogenous identity that long characterized rural society in Israel and other Western communities worldwide. Their participation in this type of community is proof of openness to others and a dedication to versatility.

Our findings contribute to changes in analytical thinking about differences between the urban and rural areas, about the entry of urban characteristics into the village, such as the presence of LGBTQs which ostensibly undermines the traditional rural homogeneity but has become a symbol of the advent of diversity (Svab & Kuhar, 2014).

Our recommendations following this study are to reform social services eligibility and accessibility for LGBTQ+ individuals living in the periphery and especially in small rural communities, establishing an applicable and relevant structure of social services to those in need. Other mechanisms such as group meetings, social activities along with required personal support can improve their longevity in rural communities. We maintain it is critically essential to educate administrates and those who deal with education, culture, and individual, concerning heterogeneity and the variety of identities as being a valuable resource and a contributor to the integrity of these communities, rather than a threat. By doing so all community members are seen as equal, therefore leading to a more prosperous community.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).