Evaluation Of Homophobia Among First And Second Generation Migrants

Abstract

The construct of homophobia is often associated with sexual minorities, whose members are immersed in a hostile and judgmental environment, in which rights and personal identity are not recognized and above all sexual orientation (Meyer et al., 2021). In particular, scientific production, despite multi-ethnic societies, appears incomplete in relation to studies on attitudes towards homosexuality among migrants living in a host country. In fact, studies have generally addressed migrants above all for the aspects linked to pre- and post-migratory trauma (Crepet et al., 2017; Steel et al., 2017), cultural shock (Oberg, 1960), and linguistic-didactic aspects, such as linguistic erosion in adults (Wong & Fillmore, 1991) or L2 learning difficulties (Cummins, 2000; Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2014; Di Napoli et al., 2023). This contribution was therefore created with the aim of analyzing the levels of homophobia in a group of 75 migrants; of these, 38 were first generation and 37 were second generation, generally aged between 18 and 55 years (M = 29.72, SD = 10.74). To this end, a module was used to collect demographic and Italian-scale information: SIMO-G and SIMO-L (Lingiardi et al., 2005). The results demonstrate significant effects linked to ethnic and religious belonging on attitudes towards homosexuality, especially in the first generation. A significant fact This can probably be attributed to a higher level of integration in the host country, as well as a more conscious religiosity, in the second generation compared to the first. This is probably because the countries of origin for LG subjects (lesbians and gays), in general, provide for imprisonment or even death penalty (Alessi et al., 2017; Hopkinson, 2017; Zecena, 2019). In this sense, it may not be appropriate to talk about homophobia but rather about homonegativity, that is, attitudes, beliefs, and judgments against homosexual people (Slootmaeckers & Lievens, 2014). Preferable terms to identify the target of prejudice (Lingiardi et al. 2016). The results also call for a reflection on LG migrants who may be forced to face discrimination within their own community due to sexual orientation and a double stigma in the host country linked to the condition of migrant and sexual prejudice, negatively influencing the level of individual well-being and quality of life (minority stress, Meyer, 1995; Herek, 2004; Garro et al., 2022; Frost & Meyer, 2023). In conclusion, from a psycho-pedagogical point of view, it would be desirable to promote awareness, understanding, and respect for different sexual, gender, and even cultural identities among aid relations operators who work in the field of migration and education in general. This will help to create more flexible and inclusive environments to support the integration of all stakeholders.