TV Queers
As Davis and Needham write in Queer TV: Theories, Histories, Politics (2008), “television has regularly been configured as a domestic medium and, as such, closely associated with the home, the family, the quotidian; in other words, the heteronormative” (p. 6). Heteronormativity is the belief in a natural alignment between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual desire. It implies that gender conformity and heterosexuality are a natural norm and are therefore superior to alternative identities that deviate from it. As Butler (1991) explains, “the heterosexualisation of desire requires and institutes the production of discrete and asymmetrical oppositions between ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ where these are understood as expressive attributes of ‘male’ and ‘female’” (p. 23).
Queerness is a form of alterity that challenges this hegemonic norm. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT1) identities can be considered queer because they disrupt the normative alignment between sex, gender and sexuality. Queer identities also contest binary oppositions between male and female, masculine and feminine, heterosexuality and homosexuality. Thus, the word “queer” does not simply refer to non-heterosexuality. The concept, by definition, captures a shifting and fluid understanding of the self, which challenges rigid and static structures of identity:
Queer is something you are, constitutively, rather than something you might do (or have done), feel (have felt), mainly, sometimes, once, maybe. It is this latter range and fluidity (which goes far beyond another fixing notion, the bisexual) that analytical notions of homoeroticism and Queer seek to address. (Dyer, 2002, p. 3)
The term “queer”—unlike “gay” or “lesbian”—does not merely describe sexual practices, but refers to a destabilisation of heterosexual and cisgender hegemony (Rosenblum, 1994).2 Connoting strangeness and oddity, it is a “rallying cry against the regimes of the normal” (Love, 2014, p. 172).
“Queer” implies flexibility and diversity rather than a fixed, essentialist model of identity. It encompasses difference and multiplicity, thus broadening the limited notions of “gay” and “lesbian,” which, according to some, have been appropriated by white gay men and white lesbians (Ahmed, 2016; Barnard, 1999). Queer identity is intersectional in the sense that it overlaps with other aspects of identity such as gender, race, nationality, class, ability and so on. Queers navigate overlapping identities and often face intersecting forms of oppression (Collins, 2000; Daley, Solomon, Newman, & Mishna, 2007; Rosenblum, 1994).
The representation of queerness in popular culture is important because it contributes to the formation of identities and influences views and attitudes. Mediated representations do not merely reflect reality but construct it by producing or disturbing norms of gender and sexuality (Akass & McCabe, 2006; Capsuto, 2000; Chambers, 2006, 2009; Dyer, 1993, 2002; Meyer & Wood, 2013). Popular television is particularly powerful because it “has the unparalleled opportunity to connect with people in their living rooms” (Ellis, 2017, p. 3), to make them familiar with different cultural identities and to promote certain discourses about gender and sexuality. However, as the opening quote suggests, there is an inherent tension between television, a mainstream medium that reflects dominant ideologies, and queerness, which, by definition, subverts the norm (Davis & Needham, 2008; Joyrich, 2014). If popular media is defined by the “normal,” the mainstream and the ordinary, how can television be queer?
For decades, queers were absent or misrepresented on American television. Between the 1950s and the 1990s, most programmes promoted heterosexual marriage, the nuclear family and traditional gender roles. Homosexuality was mentioned as a joke or associated with deviancy, monstrosity, perversion and crime (Capsuto, 2000; Sarkissian, 2014). Since the 1990s, however, LGBT+ characters and themes have gained more currency on American television, which, according to some, has entered the “Golden Age” of queer representation (Akass & McCabe, 2006; Barber, 2013; Becker, 2008; Capsuto, 2000; Shugart, 2003). Programmes like Ellen (ABC, 1994–1998), Will & Grace (NBC, 1998–2006; 2017–), Queer as Folk (Showtime, 2000–2005) and The L Word (Showtime, 2004–2009) broke new ground by focusing on the lives of lesbian and gay characters. In the 2000s, queer stories became increasingly rich and diverse and they are now told in a range of factual and fictional genres including sitcoms, dramas, soap operas, telenovelas, musicals, political thrillers, sci-fi and reality programmes.
But visibility does not guarantee progress. Although LGBT+ people are seen, they are not necessarily known (Di Mattia, 2009; Walters, 2001). Representations can be inadequate if they reflect the biases of those controlling the media industry—which, as Shugart (2003) points out, has long been dominated by white middle-/upper-class heterosexual men. As Gamson (2002) observes, “if the invisibility party is over, new questions are still circulating about the new visibility party that has taken its place: who is invited, and by whom, at what price, and with what political and social consequences” (p. 340). As explored in Chap. 2, some seemingly queer-positive texts have been criticised for reinforcing heteronormativity. Representations are problematic when queerness is presented as a problem, when the media perpetuates stereotypes like the “sissy” (the effeminate, sensitive, misogynistic and foppish gay man) or the “dyke” (the masculine aggressive lesbian), and when queer characters are desexualised or heterosexualised. Furthermore, although young white gay men have gained visibility since the 1970s, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, non-white and older queers have long been underrepresented (Capsuto, 2000; Davis & Needham, 2008; Dhoest, 2015; GLAAD, 2015, 2016, 2017). Because the presence of LGBT+ characters on the screens does not guarantee progress, claims about the “Golden Age” of queer representation need to be examined.
In interrogating contemporary depictions of queers on American television, this book aims to go beyond questions of visibility to critically investigate such representations. It also aims to go beyond the “positive/negative” binary to analyse TV queers through an epistemological framework based on the concept of knowledge (Davis & Needham, 2008; Joyrich, 2008; McCarthy, 2001). It asks how television constructs and disseminates knowledge about queerness. What does contemporary American television teach about queer identities and related social issues like heterosexism, homophobia, cissexism and transphobia,3 discrimination and violence against LGBT+ people? How does it teach? What pedagogical models, techniques and tools does popular television use to educate audiences about queerness?