Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences
cite as: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3, 488–497
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw052
Advance Access publication May 19, 2016
Original Article
Older Gay Men and Their Support Convoys
Griff Tester and Eric R. Wright
Department of Sociology, Central Washington University, Ellensburg. Department of Sociology, Georgia State University,
Atlanta.
Correspondence should be addressed to Griff Tester, PhD, Department of Sociology, Central Washington University, 400 E. University Way,
Ellensburg, WA 98926. E-mail: [email protected].
Received July 31, 2015; Accepted April 19, 2016
Decision Editor: Deborah Carr, PhD
Abstract
Objective: We used the convoy model and the network type construct to identify the relationship quality profiles found
among older gay men and to examine how they define a satisfactory network.
Method: We used a network mapping strategy and in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 participants in Atlanta. During
the interviews, all network members were discussed, regardless of relationship or map position.
Results: For participants, having people in their lives with whom they could fully be “out” as gay men (authenticity) was
at the root of a quality network. This allowed them to develop emotional closeness (intimacy), which, in part, provided a
foundation of social support. Participants’ discussion of network quality, which reflected authenticity, intimacy, and social
support, revealed high, moderate, and low quality network types.
Discussion: Our findings diversify knowledge of the network type construct, provide a deeper understanding of its qualitative features, and give voice to this often-invisible group, situating meaning within their social-historical context. The findings
suggest that the meaning of a quality network is contextual and culturally specific, varying across groups of older adults.
Keywords: Aging—Convoys—Older gay men—Social network types
Embedded within a life course perspective, the convoy
model maintains that individuals’ “convoys,” or the collection of supportive relationships that move with individuals
through time, space, and life course, are shaped by personal
and situational characteristics, member gains and losses,
biographies, and social-historical context (Antonucci,
2001; Kahn & Antonucci, 1980). The structural (size,
composition, proximity, frequency of contact), functional
(instrumental, emotional, and affirmational support), and
qualitative features of convoys ideally form a protective base, affecting health and well-being (Fiori, Smith, &
Antonucci, 2007). Based in this model, the network type
construct has proven useful for characterizing the nature of
older adults’ social worlds (Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2011).
The construct is multidimensional but scholars have
focused on its structural and functional aspects (Amieva
et al., 2010; Fiori et al., 2007; Fiori, Antonucci, & Akiyama,
2008; Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2011). Highlighting the
need for more research, studies suggest that the quality of
relations is important and may have a greater impact on
well-being than structural elements (Amieva et al., 2010;
Antonucci, 2001; Antonucci, Fuhrer, & Dartigues, 1997;
Fiori, Antonucci, & Cortina 2006). Network quality corresponds to individuals’ overall convoy satisfaction and
captures a broad range of relational experiences (Doubova,
Pérez-Cuevas, Espinosa-Alacrón, & Flores-Hernández,
2010; Fiori et al., 2007). Scholars who have examined
qualitative aspects of older adults’ convoys have identified network types based on relationship quality patterns,
including: high quality network, high family/friend quality,
high spouse/family quality, low spouse/family quality, and
low network quality (Antonucci, Ajrouch, & Birditt, 2014;
Birditt & Antonucci, 2007). Quality has been measured in
a variety of ways, including the examination of support,
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
488
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
companionship, and affection as positive relationship
qualities, and demandingness, criticalness, conflict, and
loneliness as negative (Antonucci et al., 2014; Birditt &
Antonucci, 2007; Shiovitz-Ezra & Litwin, 2012).
Most studies of network quality have concentrated on
specific types of ties separately (i.e., spouse/partner, parents,
children, or best friends), rather than a range of relationships
at the same time (Birditt & Antonucci, 2007). Considering
that the types of networks older adults create are culturally dependent and specific, showing differences between
countries and across race, gender, and socioeconomic status
(Cheng, Lee, Chan, Leung, & Lee, 2009; Doubova et al.,
2010; Fiori et al., 2008; Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2006), it
is important not to prioritize certain relationships over others. This may be critical for marginalized groups. Indeed,
many gay men, whose experiences are not reflected in the
studies of cultural variation, have been ostracized within
their families and geographic communities of origin and, as
a result, have had to define and organize their relationships
differently (Nardi, 1999; Woolwine, 2000).
In this study, we extend the existing literature by focusing on the qualitative dimension of the construct and studying an often invisible, subcultural group of older Americans
that has been overlooked. We limit our sample to gay men
because structural and cultural forces, particularly hegemonic masculinity and heterosexism, likely affect their
relationships differently than heterosexuals and lesbians
(Nardi, 1999). We present findings from network mappingbased (Antonucci, 1986), in-depth interviews with 20 older
(60+) men in metro-Atlanta, GA, who self-identified as gay.
The following questions guided the interviews and frame
this paper: (a) How do quality network types vary among
older gay men? (b) How do older gay men define a satisfying collection of important relationships?
489
they are less likely to be partnered/married, more likely to
live alone, and less likely to have children. This can result
in higher risk of isolation, less support, financial insecurity, and poor health and well-being. Older gay men receive
support from, and give it to, a variety of people in their
lives, including their families (Grossman, D’Augelli, &
Hershberger, 2000; Grossman, D’Augelli, & O’Connell,
2001; Orel, 2004). Yet, friendship, which is uniquely linked
with community, is at the heart of gay men’s lives (de Vries
& Megathlin, 2009; Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2011;
Fredriksen-Goldsen & Muraco, 2010; Goltz, 2014).
In the context of a heterosexual society, friendships are
largely optional for heterosexuals (Nardi, 1992). For gay
men, meaningful friendships are necessary, in part, because
friends help mitigate the impact of stigma (de Vries and
Hoctel, 2006; Grossman et al., 2000; Nardi, 1992). Gay
men who are able to be themselves around friends experience increased well-being and relationship satisfaction
(Legate, Ryan, & Weinstein, 2012), whereas concealment
can lower satisfaction (Mohr & Fassinger 2006). Research
on older gay men is comparable. de Vries and Hoctel’s
(2006) work suggests that the construct of friendship is
deeper for older gay men than it is for older heterosexuals.
Their findings demonstrate that older gay men described
their friends in terms of trust, shared interests and values,
acceptance, emotional closeness, and care. Similarly, de
Vries and Megathlin (2009) contend that older gay men
have a more specific culture of friendship, compared to
older heterosexuals. Older gay men’s friendships demonstrate “the importance of having a place where one can
be authentic and feel safe and comfortable (perhaps in the
knowledge that one’s homosexuality is either not an issue
or an issue shared)” (de Vries & Megathlin, 2009, p. 93).
Method
Older Gay Men’s Relationships
Sample and Participant Selection
As attitudes and laws have changed over the past few decades, the ways in which gay men can openly organize their
relationships have expanded. However, these opportunities
are not available evenly within this group (Barker, Herdt,
& de Vries, 2006; Goltz, 2014; Wight, LeBlanc, de Vries,
& Detels, 2012). Certainly, early life experiences shape
later life outcomes (Elder, 1994; Mayer, 2009), including
networks (Antonucci, 2001; Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987;
Fiori et al., 2007). Movement closer to the mainstream does
not erase the experiences of oppression older gay men have
faced historically, or diminish the marginalization they
continue to experience, especially in mainstream aging and
healthcare settings or among their heterosexual age-related
peers (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2011; Fredriksen-Goldsen
& Muraco, 2010).
In a study of LGBT aging and health, FredriksenGoldsen and colleagues (2011) highlight the resiliency of
older gay men and reveal the health disparities and risks
found among them because, compared to heterosexuals,
The 20 participants interviewed ranged in age between 60
and 83 years, with a median age of 68. Seventeen identified as white. One identified as Asian, one Hispanic/Cuban,
and one African American. Four participants had “some
college,” 14 had a college degree, and 2 had a high school
degree. Most identified as middle class. Two defined their
economic status as poor, three as working class, and one as
upper class/wealthy. Eight participants had been “out” for
more than 31 years, and seven had been out between 20
and 30 years. Two had been out for fewer than 19 years,
and three were not fully out. Eleven participants were once
in a heterosexual marriage and the others had never been
married. Twelve participants were single, six were partnered, one was ending his partnership, and one defined his
status as single/partnered. Eleven participants had lived in
Atlanta for 30 or more years, five had lived in the metro
area their entire lives, and the others had lived there for at
least 14 years. We use pseudonyms to identify participants
in this paper.
490
The first author began recruiting from two local groups
by contacting members he knew from his involvement in
Atlanta gay communities and, with permission, attending
group gatherings. The group specifically for older gay men
began in Boston in the late 1980s, as a reaction to marginalization some men felt in gay communities because of age,
and has chapters in cities worldwide, including Atlanta.
The other group, which mainly has older members, started
in the early 1990s but has roots in gay men’s alternative
spiritual and anti-assimilationist movements of the late
1970s and 1980s. Its members and gatherings are primarily
located in the Southeast. The members we interviewed lived
in Atlanta. Both groups have regular gatherings but they
are generally informal or semiformal. Socializing, information sharing, and support are key group functions. We also
e-mailed information about the project to two gay men’s
dinner groups. We expanded recruitment by snowball sampling, which entails requesting participants to ask others
to contact the research team if they are interested in participating. These are commonly used methods for accessing
this hard-to-reach population (Cronin & King, 2010).
Assessments and Measures
We, the authors, are sociologists who have been trained in
qualitative and mixed methods research. The two graduate
student research assistants on the team were sociologists in
training. Our social location, as “out” gay/queer persons,
assisted in developing a rapport with participants. Indeed,
most participants asked about the sexual identity of the
interviewer and indicated more comfort being interviewed
by someone who is gay. We conducted the interviews in
2012 and 2013, interviewing participants in their homes.
On average, the interviews lasted 2 hr, and they were audio
recorded. The first author conducted 13 interviews. The
graduate students completed seven. To ensure consistency,
prior to them interviewing, the first author instructed the
students using the interviews he had completed and having
them do practice interviews.
We measured the characteristics of participants’ networks by asking them to list the most important people
in their lives and map them based on level of closeness
(Antonucci, 1986). They were also asked to provide the
following information for each person mapped: (a) gender;
(b) age; (c) sexuality; (d) nature of relationship; (e) years
known; (f) distance from participant; and (g) typical interactions (e.g., face-to-face, online). We used the map to guide
the interview, and all listed ties were discussed, regardless
of relationship or map location. We determined network
structure by examining networks size, proximity, frequency
of contact, and participation in groups. To assess function,
during the interview, we asked participants to describe the
type of support they receive from each member. We also
asked participants to discuss their perceptions of and how
satisfied they were with members and their overall convoy,
using this information to measure network quality. The
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
participants described their sociodemographic characteristics in a survey.
Data Analysis
As we reached the 20th interview, little new information
materialized from the data, and we ended data collection.
Twenty interviews fit general suggestions for qualitative research (Creswell, 1998; Guest, Bunce, & Johnson,
2006). Considering gay men’s experiences are underrepresented in the gerontology literature, the first author coded
each transcript to identify emergent concepts, rather than
assuming certain concepts would be relevant. Once key
concepts were identified, he coded the data again, focusing on the relationship between the existing indicators of
quality and the emergent codes. For each participant, he
created a memo summarizing network quality and function and noting structural indicators and demographic
characteristics. Using the emergent concepts, authenticity, intimacy, and social support, which defined these
categories, he then placed participants into a high, moderate, or low quality type. Finally, he reviewed the profiles
with the second author, and together they addressed concepts, indicators, and profile placement. The boundaries
of these profiles are explained below. The Institutional
Review Board at Georgia State University approved our
procedures.
Results
We begin by assessing the key factors shaping the meaning
of a quality network that emerged from the data across
types. We then examine the network quality profiles identified. We note the structural similarities and differences
across types. However, we focus our discussion on the
qualitative dimension, which related to the functional and,
at times, the structural.
The Meaning of a Quality Network
To determine the meaning of a quality network, we looked
at the main concepts that distinguished the high, moderate, and low quality profiles. For participants, having or
desiring a collection of people in their lives with whom
they could fully be themselves, as gay men, was at the
root of satisfaction. Gil’s comments exemplify the significance of authenticity and its social context. He affirmed,
“Everything I learned growing up was not to be authentic,
but to be what was socially acceptable. [Authenticity] is an
absolute criterion for being important in my world.” Later
in the interview, Gil said: “I’m interested in trauma and
recovery. And, that relates to the authenticity piece. I think
a lot of people die of not being able to be their full selves.”
He continued, saying “[being authentic] is a struggle.” He
attributed this fight to “growing up in a violently homophobic world.” As implied in Gil’s statements, authenticity
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
emerged from the interviews as a central unifying concept. We expand on this below and show how authenticity
united two other important constructs: intimacy and social
support.
Quality Network Types
High quality network
Structurally, this type was comprised men with large convoys (average, 34 ties) that included a range of friends and
some family. Most friends were other older gay men, and
most friends knew each other. Participants had long- and
short-term friends, some with whom they had frequent
contact and others only occasional, in-person and online.
Some lived nearby participants and others were far away.
Overall, participants described their convoys positively.
This was evident in their direct statements and in the confidence and lack of hesitation in their responses. When asked
if he defined his convoy satisfactorily, James quickly said,
“Oh my God, yes!” Similarly, Edward assuredly explained
that he was “very happy” and “very satisfied” with the people in his life, and Edger affirmed, “I have wonderful relationships, wonderful friendships.”
Participants’ friendships were largely built on the interconnectedness that comes with sharing a sexual identity.
This reflects, in a homophobic society, the importance of
connecting with similar others, or those who accept your
sexuality. Peter explained, “Most of my friends are gay.
I definitely feel closer to gay people.” Allen expressed comfort with his gay friends, many of whom, like him, were
married for many years and had adult children because
“They have been through the things I have been through.”
Greg, and most of his friends, identified as queer. This
allowed him to fully be open about his sexuality and to
resist assimilation, “parading your peculiar, and being stunningly beautiful in the process.”
The above discussion shows differences within this
diverse group. Certainly, Arthur explained: “Two gay men
can be just as different as a straight man and a gay man.”
Distinctions were particularly evident in participants’
thoughts about friends, partners, and sex, which reveal the
divergent structural and cultural expectations influencing
gay men’s lives. Gil expressed a strong desire for a partner
but was clear that he did not define a partner normatively.
He had many friends in his life with whom he was deeply
close and he could turn to for support, including those who
filled roles commonly associated with a partner. He listed
“a guy I sleep with occasionally,” stressing “Sexual contact
is important.” Similarly, Arthur, who described himself as
single but partnered, explained that he and his ex-partner
share finances, a house, along with his ex-partner’s current
partner, and mutual support. He had no desire for a conventional partner, and his relationships with several friends
blurred the lines between “friend” and “partner.”
For most men in this profile, there was not a ridged
distinction between a friend and a partner, and a partner
491
was not perceived as someone fundamentally “more than”
a friend. As a result, having or not having a partner did
not greatly affect their convoy satisfaction. Peter viewed
things differently. He stated that he and his partner “have a
great social life.” He then said, without being asked about
sex, “we’re certainly not interested in meeting anybody for
sex.” Despite having friends they can turn to for help, he
and his partner mainly relied on each other for support. He
said, “we really don’t live separate lives, except when [my
partner] is at work.” Most of their friends are other coupled gay men, who are monogamous, because he believed
they have more in common than he would with single gay
men or nonmonogamous couples. Despite having come out
earlier in life, when nonmonogamy was a more dominant
perspective in gay communities, Peter never related to this
perspective, and he is happy that gay culture is currently
“moving towards more our style of relationship.” Given his
perspective, it is likely that Peter would have assessed his
convoy differently if he did not have a partner. This was the
case for Paul, discussed below.
For the participants in this type, regular contact with
ties often occurred in local groups. Although involvement
is typically conceptualized as structural, and measured by
a simple count, the interviews highlight the functional and
qualitative dimensions and suggest that groups may vary
in their level and type of support and quality of experience. One of the two primary groups mentioned, which
started in the mid-1990s but had roots to gay liberationist
movements of the 1970s, was continually discussed as a
space where they could fully be themselves, and where they
could find and foster intimacy and support. Greg explained
that the group gatherings offered an environment where
gay men could be comfortable being “whoever the hell
you are” and “down to our core.” It also allowed members, who sometimes only saw each other once or twice a
year because of geographic distance, to “develop really profound connections.” Arthur noted the genuineness he found
in this group, proclaiming, “[it] gave me more and more
confidence and made me not just okay with being gay, but
just plain happy. [It] made me who I am.”
This group also expanded participants’ range of ties and
support. When asked about Leo, who he had listed on his
map, Greg said, “Leo, I think, doesn’t like me. I mean, it’s
just we’re really, really, really different people.” When asked
how Leo ended up on his list, he clarified:
He is hugely important to me. I can call Leo and ask
him for anything. I know what he has done in the community, and how he has shown up. He always shows up.
I mean we know the shit out of each other.
Although Leo was a direct source of support for Greg, he
also provided Greg, and arguably others, with opportunities for support by “showing up”—sustaining community
and cultivating shared experiences. Similarly, Arthur listed
a person on his map that he described as a “closed up person,” who “has almost no discernible personality.” This
492
person, Matty, is his ex-partner’s current partner, and the
three men have lived together for years. When asked how
Matty ended up on his map, Arthur said, “He’s so important to [my ex-partner]. He’s part of what makes [our living
arrangement] work so well.” Like Leo for Greg, Matty was
an indirect link to Arthur’s convoy satisfaction, and Arthur
attributes his ability to make their nonnormative situation
work to his experiences in this group.
As is evident in the discussion above, support was crucial to network meaning and quality. Similar to the certainty participants expressed about how satisfied they were
with their relationships, they also were assured about available support. Arthur pointed to his map and asserted, “I
can turn to any one of these people. They wouldn’t be here
if I couldn’t.” Greg could count on the individuals he listed
when “shit hit the fan.” Likewise, highlighting the range of
support available, Gil’s convoy included, “people who I can
call if I need something, or if I’m in trouble, or if I want to
tell what’s going on, and people I enjoy playing with.”
Participants’ wide range of ties included some family.
However, there was no indication that the men in this type
felt a sense of obligation to have these relationships, or that
these relationships negatively affect their friendships, as we
found among the men in the low profile. Gil stressed that
he does not closely associate with anyone who does not
fully accept him as a gay man, including family. Peter and
his partner are close to his partner’s parents and sister, and,
years earlier, they moved from New Jersey to Atlanta to
help care for his in-laws. Despite being close, Peter emphasized that knowing the gay community in Atlanta shaped
their decision, indicating that “family” alone might not
have been enough to move. Additionally, his in-laws live
with them, and “they know all our friends.”
James listed his son on his map, despite their poor relationship. James was not allowed around his grandchildren
because he is gay. He wished things were different, but he
had “made peace with it.” Instead, he focused on his positive relationships and credited his ability to do that to his
supportive friendships. He also credited his deceased aunt,
who always encouraged him to be himself. When asked
about his family, who he did not list, Greg explained, “I
don’t have any particular desire to hang with them, nor
they with me.” When questioned about how this affected
his life, he laughed and said, “It doesn’t. I’m not missing out
on anything. I have created my family, people I can turn to
for anything. My birth family is a non-issue for me.”
Moderate quality network
Structurally, the moderate type included men with smaller
convoys (average, 20 ties), compared to the high, but their
other structural indicators were similar. Their networks
were comprised friends and some family. They had regular contact with ties, online and in-person, and some were
nearby and others were far. Participants mainly listed other
older gay men, and shared sexual experiences were the
source of connection. William pointed out: “You notice
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
there aren’t really any straight people on [my map]. I don’t
hang out with straight people.” When asked about heterosexual friends, he explained:
I worked with a lot of straight people. I don’t think they
had the same interests. Things that are important to
them often are not the same things that are important
to me. It’s family. It’s children. It’s grandchildren. That’s
what they like to talk about. It bores me because I don’t
have that experience. I don’t have anything I can share
with them.
Showing the importance of gay friends, and shared experiences, Harry reflected, “We don’t have family to fall back
on,” and Ronald said, “History together is important. How
are you going to relate?”
Participants generally had positive things to say about
their convoys, but, unlike the men in the high profile, they
were not as confident in their available support, particularly emotional care. They had friends they could turn to
for help, such as getting their mail when they were away
or taking them to the doctor; but socializing was the most
commonly discussed form of support, which they, like men
in other profiles, perceived as meaningful. When asked
about the people to whom he was closest, Paul pointed
to three friends, saying, “I enjoy doing things with them.
I mean I care about them. I care about everybody. I just feel
they’re the ones that my social life revolves around.” As
discussed below, Paul associated emotional closeness primarily with a partner, rather than friends.
The moderate profile represented a transitional type.
Most of the men desired and were trying to develop more
intimacy and support. For most of his life, Luis was unable to fully connect with other gay men, beyond sexual
flings and “party friends,” because he was deeply closeted
at work. After retirement, a year before the interview, he
began actively trying to make new friends, joining three
different local gay groups. He especially enjoyed the one
group, highlighted above, because members were encouraged to “share from the heart,” and to hug and be physically close to one another, which was something new to
him. Like Luis, William’s situation shows how a major
life transition can affect relationships. His story also illustrates the border between the high and moderate types.
He expressed a lot of satisfaction with his convoy, without reluctance, and said that his friends, all of whom he
knows from an alcohol recovery program, were “extremely
important.” He explained, “Recovery provides me with
people I can talk to on a personal level. Someone I can
tell my shit to.” However, despite having lived in Atlanta
and being out for many years, these friends were relatively
new, and “we don’t have that history that often provides
depth.” He only had one long-term friend, and he wished he
had more. Fifteen years earlier, he ended most of the relationships because they centered on alcohol. When asked
about support, he said, “It is a question with not a lot
of good answers.” Though, he was hopeful. Highlighting
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
community, the resiliency of gay men, and how early life
experiences influence aging, he said, “If you want to make
a parallel, when the AIDS epidemic came along, there was
nobody to take care of our brothers, except us.”
Signifying less confidence, compared to the men in the
high type, Ronald answered, “I think good,” when asked
about his convoy quality. Later in the interview, he expressed
desire for people in his life that had “a willingness to discuss deeper, people honest with their feelings.” He wanted
friends he could talk to about being a long-term HIV survivor. He stressed, “Nobody talks about [HIV],” and explained
that, years earlier, he had stopped attending groups for HIVpositive men because the members tended to be younger, and
he felt “invisible.” Nonetheless, he made it clear that his two
closest, women friends, who he could not talk to about HIV,
remained important because they provided other support.
Actually, one of these friends recently gave him her old computer because he could not afford one, and he had been using
it to connect with older HIV-positive men. Like Paul, discussed above, Harry mainly described normatively masculine
ways of friendship. He talked positively about friends with
whom he liked to “banter over politics” and “go do things,”
but he did not have friends to turn to for emotional support.
He noted friends who would take him to the doctor, but after
thinking for a moment, he said, “I probably should find people I can talk to about things on my mind. I don’t know.”
Like the men in the high profile, how these men perceived the role of a partner affected their convoys. Paul initially said he was satisfied with his relationships. He then
clarified, saying, “I mean, the regret I have is, I fantasize
about someone I’m so close to that they practically live here
and we’re always together and doing things together. I just
don’t have anyone in that category.” He did not include
anyone in the center of his map, a space he reserved for a
normatively defined partner. He explained that he is close
to his friends but that their interactions were mainly social,
and he does not share the same level of intimacy with them
that he thinks he would with a partner.
These men also had ties with certain family members,
with whom they had developed mutually close and supportive relations. Luis was “somewhat close” to his extended
family, but he had minimal contact with them. Their connection and supportiveness was constrained because they
do not know he is HIV-positive. His sister knows his HIV
status because “I’ve always been able to trust her,” and she
is part of his “primary support system.” Paul listed three
cousins on his map, but he is much closer to his gay cousin
because “I can be more myself around him.” When asked
if he received support from his heterosexual cousins, his
response reflected a common division in many participants’
lives: “It depends on what I needed. Certainly nothing to do
with my gay life.”
Low quality network
Structurally, the men in the low type, in some ways, were
similar to those in the moderate and high profiles. They
493
had reasonably sized convoys (average, 20 ties), comprised
friends and some family. They listed other older gay men,
with whom they had shared experiences. Some friends were
near and others were far, and they had regular contact with
them, in-person and online. However, qualitatively and
functionally, their convoys were different.
The men in the high and moderate types discussed experiences of oppression, but they were mostly located outside
of their convoys. The men in the low quality type described
homophobia and heterosexism within their convoys, and,
as a result, they had to hide aspects of themselves to some
relations. This concealment created barriers to intimacy
and support with these ties and, at times, other members
or potential members. Heterosexism and homophobia were
usually found among family, and based in religion, but, for
some, subjugation was also present among nongay friends.
Some of the men here expressed a sense of obligation
to family, and their compulsory relationships were often
experienced negatively. Frederick compared the separation between his private life and his family to the “Berlin
Wall,” primarily because of his family’s religious beliefs.
Despite this barricade, he put his mother at the center of
his map. He explained, “Christianity is a huge part of my
background,” and “trying to do everything right in your
Christian faith . . . the family expectations, and, of course,
the caregiving I’m faced now for my mother, has really limited my outreach to [gay] people I would like to have more
contact with.” Consequently, he only listed one person with
whom he felt he could fully be himself. That is, someone “I
can really discuss intimate subjects,” such as “our desires
and wishes, our family lives or sexual lives or needs and
interests.” He said, “I wish that I was closer to more people.” When asked to whom he would turn for help of any
kind, he located support within a specific, normative relationship: “You know, that’s an interesting question you ask,
and I’ve thought about it, not having a wife, not having a
partner.” To Frederick, not having a partner was a “major
problem.”
Ben listed his mother and sister, who are “Christian fundamentalists,” in the center of his map, despite their poor
relationship. They think he lives in South Carolina, when
he actually lives in Atlanta, GA, where they live, because
they ask a lot of him and do not give much in return. He
believed that, “the only reason [my sister is] accepting
of me and [my partner is because] she knows she needs
me to help her deal with mother.” Jefferson, who listed
mostly religious family members, felt socially isolated. He
explained, “Isolation in terms of not having the intimacy
that I so much want.” He explained, “I have all these people
around me but very, very, very few people that I am really
close to. I feel somewhat sad about that.” He later emphasized that “the gay thing” kept him from being “real” with
his family and some friends.
Homophobia negatively affected some participants’
friendship, too. Ken described his map as, “the best group
of people I could come up with.” For most people listed,
494
he made comments like: “I don’t know them well,” or
“We’re not close or anything but they are nice people,” or
they are “acquaintances, not friends.” Many of his friends
were from a nudist community to which he and his partner
belonged, and where they spent most weekends. But for
them, the members were heterosexual. Ken initially stressed
that they “feel so accepted” in the community. Yet, later
he mentioned that he and his partner had never danced
together at any of the regular dances, despite them wanting
to do so. When asked about this, he stated:
We’re a little afraid that if someone would see us for the
first time dancing, and it would be two guys, it might
turn them off about coming up to the [community] or
moving into the [community], and we just don’t want
to risk that.
When asked how this affected them, he said:
Kind of bad. We’ve talked about it. And like, God, I’d
love to get [my partner] on the dance floor but I can’t
do it. You know, there’s just that, I guess it’s a continued
stigma. Women can dance together. Oh, whew, you see
a lot of things on the dance floor. We don’t want to run
any risk of hindering the resort. We just dance together
inside our cabin.
Ken’s comment regarding women dancing together underlines heterosexism and hegemonic masculinity in the community. His willingness to forgo dancing with his partner
in front of “friends” to protect “the resort” is informative
when considering the stories of the men in the other network types, especially the high profile, who made it clear
that, as this point in their lives, they would not hide their
sexuality to important others. Demonstrating his own
stereotypes about gay men, Ken stated that he would not
join a gay men’s nudist community because gay men are
“too sexual” and “immature.” He felt this way despite
having discussed participating in a group for older gay
men, in which some members got together occasionally
for sex after regular group meetings. Though, he stressed
that he did this prior to being partnered, which suggests
that he perceived being partnered and reserving sex for
that kind of relationship as a sign of maturity.
Homophobia was also a barrier to relationships in
Douglas’ life. Most of the people on his map did not know
he is gay, or “they know but it is never discussed.” He said,
“In my day, you did not come out.” As the oldest person
in the study, at 83, his statement reflects how the timing of
events (i.e., coming out) is shaped by norms and expectations and affects roles and behaviors throughout the life
course. Throughout his adult life, he focused on his career
as a professor, instead of nurturing personal relationships.
He did not even come out to his friends, who were also
professors and, he suspected, were gay—“we wouldn’t dare
tell each other. There was too much at stake.”
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
Discussion
By focusing on older gay men, and the qualitative dimension of the network type construct, these findings diversify
knowledge of the construct and extend the literature on
cross-cultural network types. Specifically, we situate older
gay men’s convoys within their historical and contemporary experiences, which reveal an older adult environment
where family is not central. The interviews suggest that
some elements of the meaning of a quality network, and
qualitative types, may not be consistent across groups of
older adults, including various cohorts of older gay men.
Quality types, and their meaning, are culturally specific,
like structural network types (Fiori et al., 2008).
The existing literature shows that family is a main component of older adults’ networks, and that “faith-based”
networks may be particular important to older Americans
(Litwin, 2001; Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2011). However,
this research overlooks the experiences of nonheterosexuals. Our findings support research showing that older gay
men have contact with their biological family (Shippy,
Cantor, & Brennan, 2004), but they also demonstrate that,
for many older gay men, family is not central to their lives.
For those men who were less satisfied with their convoys,
a sense of obligation to family and having to be closeted
because of religion was a primary source of negative sentiment. Men who defined their convoys satisfactorily noted
individual family members with whom they were emotional close, had reciprocally supportive relationships,
and were fully “out.” But, even for them, family was not
predominant. The stories participants told reflect a queer
construct of family, which emphasizes social practices and
“doing” family-like things, rather than “being in/out” of a
narrowly defined institution (Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan,
2001; Weston, 1991).
Across types, participants’ convoys were constructed
primarily of friends, many of whom were long-term ties,
and their interactions were often connected to local groups.
For most participants, their interactions with friends were
generally perceived positively, which speaks to research
suggesting that relationships with friends often become
less negative overtime (Birditt, Jackey, & Antonucci, 2009).
Unlike heterosexual older adults (Ajrouch, Blandon, &
Antonucci 2005; Antonucci et al., 1997; Perkins, Ball,
Kemp, & Hollingsworth, 2013), participants’ friends were
usually their primary source of support. This is consistent
with research, which has primarily focused on younger and
middle age gay men, showing that friendship is key to understanding gay men’s social worlds (de Vries & Megathlin,
2009; Nardi, 1999; Weeks et al., 2001; Woolwine, 2000).
Although authenticity is generally important to satisfactory
relationships (Reis & Patrick, 1996), Nardi (1992, p. 115)
notes the specific cultural effect of it, asserting that, in the
gay world, “at the core of the concept of friendship is the
idea of ‘being oneself’ in a cultural context that may not
approve of that self.”
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
Like our participants’ descriptions of relationship quality, Adams and Blieszner’s (1998) friendship framework categorizes emotional closeness as an indicator of friendship.
However, our findings complicate the existing research on
(nongay) friendships, which contends that women tend to
have closer and more intimate and emotional relationships
than men (Adams & Blieszner, 1995; Adams, Blieszner, & de
Vries, 2000). The desire for emotional closeness with others
was evident throughout our interviews, and the presence or
absence of intimacy shaped convoy satisfaction. This supports Nardi’s (1999) argument that gay men’s friendships
can challenge normatively masculine ideas of relationships,
extending them beyond “doing things” to talking, sharing
emotions, and developing companionships. It also suggests
that future research on men’s friendships needs to ask,
“which men?” Similarly, the interviews show that, like heterosexual women (Antonucci, 2001; Antonucci, Lansford,
& Akiyama, 2001; Birditt & Antonucci, 2007), some older
gay men feel burdened by other’s problems. The men in the
low quality type were saddled by unreciprocated support
they provide obligatory family ties and/or society and family homophobic norms and expectations.
The growing literature on relationship quality and
health demonstrates that, in certain circumstance, having demanding or critical ties can result in positive health
outcomes (Antonucci, Birditt, & Webster, 2010; Birditt
& Antonucci, 2008; Birditt, Newton, & Hope, 2014).
Although our findings cannot speak directly to these studies, the issues of relationship quality found here raise
questions about the type and extent of negative ties that
can produce positive outcomes. Given the research on
older gay men’s health, which considers social context
(Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2011), it is unlikely that the
demands or criticalness associated with homophobic relations will translate to positive health results. Similarly, it
is possible that some participants here had ties that were
demanding or critical in ways that could potentially result
in positive health outcomes but because their assessment
of relationships is framed by homophobia (e.g., family
rejection), they may perceive the impact of these other
types of negative interactions differently, and, therefore,
not mention them.
Although a shared sexual identity and experiences were
central to participant’s friendships, the interviews revealed
cohorts within this group. This was most clearly visible in
participants’ perceptions of the role of friends, partners,
and sex. These divergent relational and sexual scripts are
consistent with existing research, which suggests that sex
and friendships overlap for some gay men, and are distinct for others (Nardi, 1999). Post-Stonewall gay liberation and the early AIDS years were eras entrench with
eroticized politics, linking sex with freedom, whereas sex
has generally been situated within normatively defined
relationships among assimilationists (Sears, 2005). These
opposing viewpoints are shaped by individuals’ biographies and timing of significant events, such as coming out
(Rosenfeld, 2003).
495
These contrary views extend to ideas about support.
Like studies of heterosexual older adults (Antonucci et al.,
2001; Walen & Lachman, 2000), a few participants named
their partners as their main supportive relationship, and a
primary source of satisfaction, or they thought a partner
would be, if they did not have one. Most discussed partners
and friends in similar ways, including intimacy and support,
and they did not imply that their overall satisfaction rested
on having a partner. This supports Birditt and Antonucci’s
(2007) work, which indicates that the spousal relationship
may not always be the most important for well-being.
The queer relationships described by many participants
highlight the need to study a range of relationships, at the
same time (Birditt & Antonucci, 2007), rather than selecting predetermined relationships normatively perceived as
significant. Undeniably, queerness raises questions for future
research. Research on the social and health impact of expanding social-political opportunities (e.g., gay marriage) is, no
doubt, important. However, it is also imperative to examine
meaningful relational constructs that are, at this point, outside
of the mainstream (e.g., “ex-partners” or sexual friendships).
Our sample is not representative of all older gay men,
and the results should be interpreted accordingly. Sampling
from groups and networks likely produces in-network bias.
However, generating a random sample of older gay men is
not feasible (Grossman et al., 2001). Our findings represent
the existence of certain qualitative network types, and some
key concepts that shape them, not the extent of these types
among this group or an exhaustive list of important factors shaping relationship quality. Future research should
explore the convoys of older men who are not connected to
gay groups, investigate this population in other geographic
areas, and use more racial/ethnically diverse samples. It is
also important to better understand the range of experiences
among older gay men who have children and grandchildren.
Funding
This project was partially funded by Georgia State University,
Research Initiation Grant.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Cory Albertson, Marshall Jeffries,
and Marik Xavier-Brier for their assistance during data collection.
They would also like to thank Candace Kemp for her thoughtful
comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. G. Tester was the
Principal Investigator of the parent study and responsible for the initial
research design, participant recruitment, data collection, analysis, and
manuscript preparation. E. R. Wright contributed significantly to the
analysis, interpretation of data, and final revision of the manuscript.
References
Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1995). Aging well with friends
and family. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 209–224.
doi:10.1177/0002764295039002008
496
Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1998). Baby boomer friendships.
Generations, 22, 70–75.
Adams, R. G., Blieszner, R., & de Vries, B. (2000). Definitions of
friendship in the third age: Age, gender, and study location
effects. Journal of Aging Studies, 14, 117–133. doi:10.1016/
S0890-4065(00)80019-5
Ajrouch, K. J., Blandon, A. Y., & Antonucci, T. C. (2005). Social
networks among men and women: The effects of age and
socioeconomic status. The Journals of Gerontology, Series
B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, 311–317.
doi:10.1093/geronb/60.6.S311
Amieva, H., Stoykova, R., Matharan, F., Helmer, C., Antonucci, T.
C., & Dartigues, J. F. (2010). What aspects of social network are
protective for dementia? Not the quantity but the quality of social
interactions is protective up to 15 years later. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 72, 905–911. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181f5e121
Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Measuring social network types:
Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 10, 10–12.
Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social
networks, social support and a sense of control. In J. E. Birren
& K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of psychological of aging (pp.
427–452). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult
life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal
of Gerontology, 42, 519–527. doi:10.1093/geronj/42.5.519
Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., & Birditt, K. S. (2014). The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary
perspective. The Gerontologist, 54, 82–92. doi:10.1093/geront/
gnt118
Antonucci, T. C., Birditt, K. S., & Webster, N. J. (2010). Social relations and mortality: A more nuanced approach. Journal of Health
Psychology, 15, 649–659. doi:10.1177/1359105310368189
Antonucci, T. C., Fuhrer, R., & Dartigues, J. F. (1997). Social relations and depressive symptoms in a sample of community
dwelling French elderly. Psychology and Aging, 12, 189–195.
doi:10.1032//0882-7974.12.1.189
Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J. E., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact
of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships and
friendship on well-being of older adults. Applied Developmental
Science, 5, 68–75. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0502_2
Barker, J., Herdt, G., & de Vries, B. (2006). Social support in
the lives of lesbians and gay men at midlife and beyond.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 3, 1–23. doi:10.1525/
srsp.2006.3.2.1
Birditt, K. S., & Antonucci, T. C. (2007). Relationship quality profiles and well-being among married adults. Journal of Family
Psychology, 21, 595–604. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.595
Birditt, K., & Antonucci, T. C. (2008). Life sustaining irritations?
Relationship quality and mortality in the context of chronic
illness. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 67, 1291–1299.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.029
Birditt, K. S., Jackey, L. M., & Antonucci, T. C. (2009). Longitudinal
patterns of negative relationship quality across adulthood. The
Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences, 64, 55–64. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbn031
Birditt, K. S., Newton, N., & Hope, S. (2014). Implications of marital/partner relationship quality and perceived stress for blood
pressure among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology,
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 188–
198. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs123
Cheng, S. T., Lee, C. K., Chan, A. C., Leung, E. M., & Lee, J. J. (2009).
Social network types and subjective well-being in Chinese older
adults. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 64, 713–722. doi:10.1093/geronb/
gbp075
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronin, A., & King, A. (2010). Power, inequality and identification:
Exploring diversity and intersectionality amongst old LGB adults.
Sociology, 44, 876–891. doi:10.1177/0038038510375738
de Vries, B., & Hoctel, P. (2006). The family friends of older gay
men and lesbians. In N. Teunis & G. Herdt (Eds.), Sexual inequalities and social justice (pp. 213–232). Berkeley: University
of California Press.
de Vries, B., & Megathlin, D. (2009). The meaning of friendship for
gay men and lesbians in the second half of life. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 5, 82–98. doi:10.1080/15504280802595394.
Doubova, S. V., Pérez-Cuevas, R., Espinosa-Alacrón, P., & FloresHernández, S. (2010). Social network types and functional
dependency in older adults in Mexico. BMC Public Health, 10,
1–10. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-104
Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change:
Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57,
4–15. doi:10.2307/2786971
Fiori, K., Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (2008). Profiles of social
relations among older adults: A cross-cultural approach. Aging
& Society, 28, 203–231. doi:10.1017/S014468X07006472
Fiori, K., Antonucci, T. C., & Cortina, K. S. (2006). Social network
typologies and mental health among older adults. The Journals
of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 61, 25–32. doi:10.1093/geronb/61.1p25
Fiori, K., Smith, J., & Antonucci, T. C. (2007). Social network types
among older adults: A multidimensional approach. The Journals
of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 62, 322–330. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.6p322
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H., Emlet, C. A., Muraco, A.,
Erosheva, E. A., Hoy-Ellis, C. P., … Petry, H. (2011). The aging
and health report: Disparities and resilience among lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender older adults. Seattle, WA: LGBT
National Health and Aging Center: Caring and Aging with Pride.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Muraco, A. (2010). Aging and sexual
orientation: A 25-year review of the literature. Research on
Aging, 32, 372–413. doi:10.1177/0164027509360355
Goltz, D. B. (2014). We’re not in Oz anymore: Shifting generational
perspectives and tensions of gay community, identity and future.
Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 1503–1528. doi:10.1080/009183
369.2014.944042
Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000).
Social support networks of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults
60 years of age and older. The Journals of Gerontology, Series
B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, 171–179.
doi:10.1093/geronb/55.3p171
Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., & O’Connell, T. S. (2001). Being
lesbian, gay, bisexual and 60 or older in North America. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 13, 23–40. doi:10.1300/
jo41v13n04_05
Journals of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, Vol. 72, No. 3
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and
variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. doi:101177/15258
22X05279903
Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course:
Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. B.
Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp.
253–268). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Legate, N., Ryan, M. R., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out
always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy
support, outness, and wellness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 3, 145–
152. doi:10.1177/1948550611411929
Litwin, H. (2001). Social network type and morale in old age. The
Gerontologist, 41, 516–524. doi:10.1093/geront/41.4.516
Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S. (2006). Network type and mortality
risk in later life. The Gerontologist, 46, 735–743. doi:10.1093/
geront/46.6.735
Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S. (2011). Social network type and subjective well-being in a national sample of older Americans. The
Gerontologist, 51, 379–388. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq094
Mayer, K. U. (2009). New directions in life course research. Annual
Review of Sociology, 35, 413–433. doi:10.1146/annurev.
soc.34.040507.134619
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1085–1099.
doi:10.1177/0146167206288281
Nardi, P. M. (1992). That’s what friends are for: Friends as family
in the lesbian and gay community. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern
homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience (pp.
108–120). London: Routlege.
Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships: Invincible communities.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Orel, N. A. (2004). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual elders: Expressed needs
and concerns across focus groups. Journal of Gerontological
Social Work, 43, 57–77. doi:1300/j083v43n02_05
497
Perkins, M. M., Ball, M. M., Kemp, C. L., & Hollingsworth, C.
(2013). Social relations and resident health in assisted living: An
application of the convoy model. The Gerontologist, 53, 495–
507. doi:10.1093/geront/gns124
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy:
Component processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.
523–563). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rosenfeld, D. (2003). The changing of the guard: Lesbian and gay
elders, identity, and social change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Sears, A. (2005). Queer anti-capitalism: What’s left of lesbian and
gay liberation? Science & Society, 69, 92–112. doi:10.1521/
siso.69.1.92.56800
Shiovitz-Ezra, S., & Litwin, H. (2012). Social network type and
health-related behaviors: Evidence from an American national
survey. Social Science and Medicine, 75, 901–904. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2012.04.031
Shippy, R. A., Cantor, M. H., & Brennan, M. (2004). Social networks
of aging gay men. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 13, 107–120.
doi:10.3149/jms.1301.107
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain
from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men
and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 5–30. doi:10.1177/0265407500171001
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies:
Families of choice and other life experiments. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Woolwine, D. (2000). Community in gay male experience and moral
discourse. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 5–37. doi:10.1300/
j082v38n04_02
Wight, R. G., LeBlanc, A. J., de Vries, B., & Detels, R. (2012). Stress
and mental health among midlife and older gay-identified men.
American Journal of Public Health, 102, 503–510. doi:10.2105/
ajph.2011.300384