 Welcome to the latest in our series of Just Society Facebook Live chats. Today I'm joined by Professor Jackie Gav, Professor of Sociology and Intimacy, and also the stream lead in one of the research streams in our Citizenship and Governance Strategic Research Area, and the stream is called Private Lives, Public Intimacy. Is that right? It is, and I know that some people struggle with the public and the private in that, and that's intentional. It's meant, it's designed as a title to bring to the fore that there is an intersection between the private and the public. So there's an assumption that people go home and they shut their front doors and this is their kingdom, you know this is what they do and everything they do is private within that contained space. So the home for example, well actually that's not the case. What we do in our private lives is very much influenced by policy, by what the politicians say, and by cultural norms. So we can take as example the decriminalisation of homosexuality. It was only in 1967 when it became legal for gay men over the age of 21 to have sex in private in their house. Before that it was illegal and it's still then public sex or under the age of 21. So all of those things are very strictly regulated. And so the title itself, Private Lives, Public Intimuses, is designed to raise that tension between the public and the private. Thank you, that's great. And to celebrate this 50th anniversary, the BBC and the Open University have got a television programme, a couple of programmes. The overall title, Prejudice and Pride, what's that about and how does a leading academic get involved in a television programme? Well it's part of the Queer Britain series to mark the occasion of decriminalisation of homosexuality. And the reason it's important is the BBC and the OU has a long-standing tradition of collaboration. We always look at what are the opportunities here and it seemed to us that they were a great opportunity to say the OU is a fantastic institution which is committed to a quality of opportunity. So it says queer communities are part of that, obviously LGBT communities are part of that and a lot of our students may be drawn from that community. So that's part of it. It's also because then we can lead some of those things into our teaching, into our curriculum. So we have excellent curriculum around criminology and psychology which deals with issues around sexuality and obviously sociology and law in other areas as well. But curriculum around psychology and criminology particularly saying what are the pertinent issues around sexuality. And so we can tie in programmes which have a mass appeal but also are funded by the BBC and produced by the BBC so they have a popular angle. And we can tie those into curriculum and it enlivens it and it brings the subject to life in a way that teaching materials on their own cannot necessarily achieve. So you as a leading professor at the Open University, you see this not as a kind of odd add-on but as integral to what you do. Bringing together the kind of dream of an open and just society with your professional expertise. Oh, absolutely. I mean I think it's the beauty of working here. It is a political mission. There is a social justice mission here at the Open University as well. And so when someone like myself has the opportunity to work on a series of programmes and give academic input so basically we're providing the research evidence, checking that all of it's factually accurate and how they're putting this forward. What that means is we can actually say let's try and move beyond the student base and actually get some of these messages out further afield. And the particular programmes in the BBC are interesting because they're crowdsourced which means they're no experts which is the beauty of the People's History series is it's not academics. You don't always need academics on television by any means and it's not celebrity and it's not dramatised. So what you've got is quote real people talking about their lives. So there's a subtitle which is the People's History of LGBTQ Britain. Absolutely and it's part of a bigger series on the People's History that is always crowdsourced which basically means people put up their stories usually around an object to sort of memorabilia. So you know this is a pin bag that I used to wear or this is a wig I used to do or something like that and then they tell their story. And that means what you've got is a grassroots programme which shows some of the more nuanced and sensitive dimensions rather than the flag waving celebrity. Yeah but when I say that you're a leading professor as you are at a research start and so on that must mean, that does mean I know that you've conducted surveys of people's sexual lives and relationships and so on. So you must know more than a member of the public and there must be some points in the programme where the producers or the member of the public wants to say such and such and you think anyway but that's not actually what happens. So how do you then as an academic decide whether to speak up, do people listen to you? In the making of the programme I think that's what students find fascinating. Yeah I mean it's a really interesting point. I mean we don't have absolute editorial control can we be clear. I'm not in the editing suite but we do see rough cuts and you see the process going forward. If there is as I say factual inaccuracy which they always creep in you know because as you say a member of the public says something and it doesn't mean it's true actually more than an academic sometimes. But yeah so we then would say well you know you need to edit that out because that's actually not quite true or it's more nuanced than that. I think the bigger input we have is say well you know you've covered that angle but how about you think about this angle. So for example we were very clear that we wanted stories that weren't all celebratory because it feels like yeah 50 years in decriminalisation isn't it fantastic. Let's celebrate okay I'll buy that let's celebrate let's bring that in to pride celebrations etc and we should certainly mark the occasion. But we also need to reflect upon what hasn't been gained what are the losses. We were very clear we have to still acknowledge that homophobic crime is rising it is not lessening. I mean it used to peak and it's come down but it is still there it is really shocking how many queer people are in fear of their lives. In recent research that I've completed people were still talking about young couples especially I found most shocking. Young couples were talking about being fearful of holding hands in public and again goes back to the title of the stream. If you've got a 20-something couple saying I won't hold hands with my partner as innocuous as holding hands if I held your hand Simon no one would think anything about it. If I held a female partner's hand there is a fear for my sense of well-being it might be that I was attacked it might be that I was abused certainly verbally abused and that still carries on. So we're very clear that sort of line has to be brought in that we haven't reached some sort of sense of equality and everything's fantastic and that's all party now that is not where we're at. OK but let me give you another example of perhaps interpretation of how it all happened. So as you know I'm a professor of law. In fact my first book is a plug was on this very topic relationship in law and morality because of this is a lawyer's view in 1957 there was the Wolfenden report and it took 10 years before it was implemented in the sexual offences act. So in a sense it's the 60th anniversary of Wolfenden 50th anniversary but actually I know some people say but those are both really about gay men because lesbianism wasn't criminalised in the same way and actually maybe those things weren't as important as academic lawyers say they are. So let's say that that comes up in the programme. Has the if you like the general gay rights issue been hijacked by the male side of this. What then happens in behind the scenes in terms of you say well it's maybe this maybe that. Do producers listen to the. Would they not listen to me. Well there is a debate isn't there about what do we need experts inside. Well and it wouldn't you know it's not just me speaking as a lesbian woman you know a colleague a gay male colleague would make the same point and be listened to I'm sure as well. But yes of course that there was a gender dimension to it. We wanted to make sure there was not equal representation because it isn't you know the programme is not designed for that that would be something far more academic. But it is saying we need an equality of voice. So yes what is the perspective and it's explicitly talked about in the programmes of you know you're right there is no such thing still on the statute books as lesbian sex. You know lesbian sex doesn't exist because we can't describe it allegedly in culture or in the law and so that's really interesting that is there in the programme. But also you know what did that mean in equality pride marches what did that mean in personal lives that were lived as queers within movements. And an example would be an interesting example would be within something like the section 28 debates. Which a lot of that was around pretended families and the teaching alleged teaching of pretended families is normal in schools and pretended families actually of course means same sex parent families. And what was interesting yes that the story that leads to that in some ways is you know it's around gay men because it was around the book which depicted a gay male couple. And of course that was topical and so it was so responded to with such vehemence I guess because there's always the spectrum of pedophilia. And with lesbians of course it is meant to be the safest environment now you know you can debate the rights and wrongs of that as a position. But I think what happened with the lesbian rights programme with it that the lesbian stories within it sorry was around parents both gay men and lesbians talking about how they engage with section 28. But then also there's a very poignant story for example of a lesbian mother who lost custody of her daughters because she was not allowed to keep children who were girls because of that she might turn them into lesbians. And that was in the 80s and I still cry when I see it it is a heart bending story in my own research on the subject I've heard that story before so she lost the custody of her two daughters and could only parent her son. I know that students want two other issues just raised that has to be very brief but one is how did attitudes change so quickly towards the end of these 50 years can you give us a clue on that? It is interesting I mean even in the last 10 years the same sex marriage stuff who would have thought that and who might want it as well. I guess it's cumulative so once you start a snowball it just sort of keeps on building and there's a logic to that however if you want to be in some ways devil's advocate there's also the point of what it is as a process of normalisation. So the rights that have been won in theory one are about a heteronorm so they're about couple them, they're about marriage, they're about having children and actually a consequence of what's happened is those who aren't in couple relationships, those who are in triadic relationships, those who don't want a partner or those who are in relationships for example if someone's not a UK citizen. They are actually further demonised by the equality rights that have been achieved. Right that's an interesting point yes. So finally is it difficult talking about these things and again I think students are interested in this because students want to debate these issues but they don't want to be trolled obviously and we don't want anybody to be treated badly. But if I can give a personal example when I used to work in Northern Ireland and I read a paper for the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights advocating the equalisation of age for gay people as well as for heterosexuals. I've got a lot of abuse for that but still I was on a programme in Northern Ireland in which half of it was on terrorism and half of it was on this issue and I was in both halves as one of these academic experts but I was the only person who wasn't silhouetted. And we were talking to the producers about this, well people are scared to comment. Now on the terrorism nobody thought that I was a terrorist because I was talking about terrorism but people did assume that if you were talking about gay rights you were some kind of gay rights campaigner. So is it a difficult issue to talk about or is it for a professor of sociology and intimacy no problem at all? Certainly in 21st century absolutely no problem at all and that is a privileged position in the sense of I've reached some academic standing but also I'm not challenging anything particularly apart from saying there should be equality so in a way that's easy. It is a moot point in the sense of I remember when I was first researching this back in the day in the early 90s and I was always lesbian parenting specifically and I was invited on lots of chat shows and Kilroy back in the day. Kilroy chat shows and it was like no I won't do those things because you do get a lot of one that the presenter might want to make a feature of what about your child, what about you've got a son, what does he think about you. And I've always very much included my own child in terms of is this okay if I do this or that. And I think 30 years ago 25 years ago it was a problem. I don't see it being sexual problem today for certain groups. However that said I think you know within the LGBT I'm quite a normative looking person. I present as you know a female and therefore I'm far less likely to be trolled than other sexual minority groups or people who might identify as gender queer for example. So I think it's a particular experience and we should think about that being situated experience. Jackie thank you very much for being so open about this very important topic of our times of a just society. And for those who are interested in other aspects of this we're coming back at 230 with human for a colleague of mine to talk about can you have a just society when there are legal aid cuts and so on. That's a rather loyally topic of my interest. I think this is being a fantastic opportunity to listen to you. Thank you very much Jackie. Thank you very much.