Labor Immobility, Stability Discourse, and LGBQ Young Adults’ Career Plans in Japan

Abstract

Recent US studies showed that many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) young adults develop hopeful views about their occupational careers by emphasizing future workplaces’ friendly climates and denying their risk of experiencing discrimination. The results may partly reflect American labor market conditions and social discourses that endorse these views, and little is known about how LGBQ young adults may perceive their career chances and make plans in different labor market and discursive conditions. To extend the literature, the present study focuses on LGBQ young adults in Japan and contrast the results to those from a US study based on an equivalent design. Analysis of in-depth interviews highlighted Japanese LGBQ young adults’ anticipation of chilly industry climates. Further, they disengaged sexuality from their career plans by prioritizing career stability over industry climates and by deciding to hide their sexual identities from their future colleagues. They explained these decisions by addressing the importance of labor immobility and by drawing on a social discourse that linked career stability to a better life. Overall, the results underscored that the ways in which people respond to social marginalization greatly depend on what structural resources and constraints exist and what social discourses are present in the national context.

Gender-Stratified Labor Market, Heterosexual Marriage Expectation, and LGBQ Young Adults’ Career Plans in Contemporary Japan

“…Their emphasis on stability represented their responses to labor immobility in Japan; because of a lack of opportunities to move to better jobs in later career stages, they sought to enter stable career paths as young workers. I have presented these patterns elsewhere (Ueno 2021), and in the present article, I focus on how participants linked their emphasis on career stability to their anticipation of having same-sex partners or staying single instead of marrying opposite-sex partners, how they responded to institutional aspects of occupational gender inequality (occupational segregation and earnings disparity) and an interactional aspect of occupational gender inequality (gendered career expectations), how narratives differed across women, men, and nonbinary participants, and to what degrees they “did” or “undid” gender in their career planning process.…”