‘There’s nowhere wonky left to go’: Gentrification, queerness and class politics of inclusion in (East) London

Abstract

This article explores the class politics of inclusion. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork, I examine a community campaign organized to oppose the closure of a pub to make way for urban redevelopment and the local Council’s and property developers’ proposal to be ‘inclusive’ by planning a ‘replacement LGBT venue’ on its former site. Through this case study, the article shows the struggle surrounding the ‘norms of intelligibility’ imposed onto working‐class and ‘queer’ expressions of sexuality in the attempt to gentrify a disadvantaged urban space. The article contributes to extant critical discussions of inclusion by unveiling the struggle surrounding the classed normative conditions attached to it. It further adds to queer perspectives on organization by showing how inclusion is predicated on ‘straightening up’ the ‘wonkiness’ of ‘queer(ness)’ in the pursuit of profit.

Geographies of night work

“…Delving further into the complexities of night work might open up a more subtle picture of what constitutes both day and night, as well as how they interact and perhaps crucially how capitalist practice continues to spread and/or to reach limits. Here, the decline, for example, in LGBTQ venues in London, connected to gentrification which increases rent and imposes noise restrictions at night (Burchiellaro, 2021), can be understood as an example of a ‘victory’ for the expansionary day, but resistance can be found in other spaces, for example, in informal uses of night-time urban ‘between-spaces’ (Ebbensgaard, 2019), in the dark-skies movement (Lapostolle and Challéat, 2021), in the work of lighting designers who have sought to counteract inequalities through design practice (Entwistle and Slater, 2019), and of course in the ways in which sleep and rest can be used as modes of resistance (Crary, 2013). Bringing these questions to work, geographers might help reflect on the night as a time of volunteering, of social care, in which people who work through the day donate labour differently.…”

A gay reflection on microaggressions, symbolic normativities, and pink hair

“…Similarly, homonormativity can be viewed as a lens of investigating LGBTQ employees' performances and relationships and categorizing them into those who are acceptable and those who are not, as an approach mediated and inspired by the heteronormative foundations (Duggan, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2009). Such outlook might play into the instigation that some LGBTQ employees are better than others, as well as sustain dominant power relations that lack intersectionality (Burchiellaro, 2020; Ghosh, 2014). In microaggressions, this is visible in verbal indications that aim to curate how employees identifying as sexual minorities should look, behave, discuss their life, and express their LGBTQ identity.…”

The inclusivity of inclusion approaches: A relational perspective on inclusion and exclusion in organizations

“…Thereby, so her argument, it is very likely that inclusion attempts will actually end up in a “perpetuation of exclusion or (conditional) over‐inclusion and a reification of difference” (p. 57). Similarly, Brewis (2019, p. 108) states that organizational inclusion policies are “bound within the confines of the existing market logics … and are unlikely to challenge deeply rooted hierarchies of power.” Adding to this, Burchiellaro (2020, p. 12), in her ethnographic research of a gentrification project and its associated inclusion initiative, describes how it actually resulted in the “ active disciplining of sexuality, space and class” (emphasis added; see also Priola et al, 2018). More generally, Ahmed (2012, p. 163) judges inclusion policies to be a “technology of governance” that produces subjects who are “willing to consent to the terms of inclusion.”…”

“…At the same time, the more organizational inclusion research is establishing itself as a coherent and acknowledged field of study, the more critical engagement with this inclusion turn is arising. Scholars question its ontological assumptions (Janssens & Steyaert, 2020) as well as arguing that forms of unconditional inclusion are irreconcilable with/not livable in contemporary capitalist work organizations (e.g., Ahmed, 2012;Brewis, 2019;Burchiellaro, 2020;Priola, Lasio, Serri, & De Simone, 2018;Rennstam & Sullivan, 2018;Tyler, 2019).…”

“…For Shore, Cleveland, and Sanchez (2018, p. 177), organizational inclusion research represents a shift of attention from trying to prevent discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups to “proactively creating inclusive organizational environments.” At the same time, the more organizational inclusion research is establishing itself as a coherent and acknowledged field of study, the more critical engagement with this inclusion turn is arising. Scholars question its ontological assumptions (Janssens & Steyaert, 2020) as well as arguing that forms of unconditional inclusion are irreconcilable with/not livable in contemporary capitalist work organizations (e.g., Ahmed, 2012; Brewis, 2019; Burchiellaro, 2020; Priola, Lasio, Serri, & De Simone, 2018; Rennstam & Sullivan, 2018; Tyler, 2019).…”