Preserving Heterosexual Authority and White Privilege Robb James Bruce University of South Florida, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2015 Straight Benevolence: Preserving Heterosexual Authority and White Privilege Robb James Bruce University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons Scholar Commons Citation Bruce, Robb James, "Straight Benevolence: Preserving Heterosexual Authority and White Privilege" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Straight Benevolence: Preserving Heterosexual Authority and White Privilege by Robert J. Bruce A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communication Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Rachel Dubrofsky, Ph.D. Aisha Durham, Ph.D. Kimberly Golombisky, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 16, 2015 Keywords: straight benevolence, post-sexuality, gayness, masculinity, whiteness Copyright © 2015, Robert J. Bruce Acknowledgments Producing this masters thesis has been life-changing, in every sense of the phrase. I am proud of my commitment, effort, and the work I now enthusiastically submit, but also just as gratified by the struggles and doubts I overcame. Without question, the most extraordinary moments of the past year revolve around the support, direction, guidance, encouragement, and love I have encountered along the way. I first want to thank my amazing advisor, Dr. Rachel Dubrofsky, for her tireless and vigorous support. She made an indelible impression on me on August, 21, 2012 … the very first time I heard her discuss her work during the USF Department of Communication’s graduate student orientation. Dr. Dubrofsky, since becoming my advisor, you have pushed me beyond where I ever thought I was capable. It has been an absolute honor to have worked with you so closely. Thank you. I am also indebted to my committee members, Dr. Aisha Durham and Dr. Kim Golombisky, for their theoretical direction. You both have helped tremendously to enrich my research beyond sexuality to include race and gender. I am convinced my work is stronger because of your guidance. To all of you: Thank you for the seriousness and urgency you devote to your scholarship, the significance and gravity you bring to your work, the passion and energy you infuse in your classes. Each of you has set a wonderful example for me as I continue on this journey. To my parents, Lynn and Al, I appreciate all the words of encouragement. This has not been easy! Between school, work, and family, something often had to become the lower priority the past few years. From get-togethers cut relentlessly short to holiday celebrations sometimes postponed by more than a week, thank you for always understanding and never making me feel guilty. You know I do that quite well on my own. To Marc—my partner, my best friend, my rock—your love means so much to me. Only someone who cares about me this much would have allowed me to verbally work through all this theory and analysis in his presence. You went from “heteronorma-what?” to calmly helping me get past the tough spots. And there were a lot of them. I love you. Finally, thank you to the University of South Florida Department of Communication for providing me this opportunity. As I have told many in the department, my only regret is having worked full-time while pursuing my masters degree. I wish I could have been around more, but I still take with me many incredible memories of an outstanding program. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii Introduction: Defining “Straight Benevolence” .............................................................................. 1 Sexuality, Normalization, and Media .................................................................................. 3 Masculine Heterosexuality .................................................................................................. 4 The White, Straight Savior .................................................................................................. 6 Methodology and Sites of Analysis ..................................................................................... 7 Chapter One: Macklemore’s Hip-Hop Benevolence ..................................................................... 12 Opening Notes: “Same Love” and Cultural Context ......................................................... 13 Macklemore’s Particular Beat of Straight Benevolence .................................................... 15 Pervasive Accompaniments: Heteronormativity and Masculinity .................................... 18 “Same Love” and the Dominant Rhythm of White Privilege ........................................... 24 Coda: Closing Thoughts on “Same Love” ........................................................................ 28 Chapter Two: Major League Baseball’s “It Gets Better” Benevolence ........................................ 30 Going, Going, Gone: Pro-Gay Advocacy Goes Viral ....................................................... 31 The Mechanics of Palatable Gayness ................................................................................ 34 Play Ball: Entering Discourse through Bullying ............................................................... 37 On the Hyper-masculine Field of White Benevolence ...................................................... 44 Bottom of the Ninth: Closing Thoughts on Major League Baseball’s “It Gets Better” .... 49 Chapter Three: Modern Family’s Gendered Benevolence ............................................................ 51 The “Modern,” Post-sexual, Post-racial Family ................................................................ 53 All in This Family: Gendered Benevolence, Racialized Sexuality ................................... 55 Paterfamilias: Conventional Masculinity, Post-sexual Nuances ...................................... 61 White Homonormativity: Family Value, sine qua non ..................................................... 65 Racist and Sexist Ties That Bind: Closing Thoughts on Modern Family ......................... 69 Concluding Thoughts on Straight Benevolence ............................................................................ 71 Implications for Masculinity ............................................................................................. 75 What’s Next for Pro-Gay Advocacy? ................................................................................ 77 References ..................................................................................................................................... 81 Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................ 99 i Abstract This thesis analyzes three current and popular media sites, exploring a term I coin “straight benevolence.” An ostensibly supportive and progressive attitude adopted by heterosexuals and expressed toward gay men in the United States, straight benevolence surreptitiously subordinates gayness and further entrenches white masculine heterosexual privilege. In my examination of hip-hop artist Macklemore’s “Same Love,” seven Major League Baseball “It Gets Better” gay-advocacy videos, and the “Suddenly, Last Summer” episode of ABC’s primetime U.S. television series Modern Family, I take an intersectional approach to address the interanimation of sexuality, gender, and race. I ask: In what ways is gay male sexuality normalized and sanitized, which I argue are requirements for straight benevolence? What attitudes toward gayness surface? How do supposedly enlightened, even charitable, stances on gayness construct representations of ideal—straight, male, white—citizens and therefore privilege particular identities? How, in other words, does straight benevolence preserve heterosexist and racist norms? ii Introduction: Defining “Straight Benevolence” Acceptance of the LGBTQ community in the United States appears to be advancing in more positive directions. In 2011, President Barack Obama certified the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a 17-year-old policy proscribing openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from U.S. military service (Bumiller, 2011). The following year, in November 2012, citizens of Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington voted to allow same-sex marriages in their states (Fantz, 2012). Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed California’s Proposition 8, that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and simultaneously ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional (Socarides, 2013; Crehan & Rickenbacker, 2007).1 As these examples illustrate, equal rights for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals unswervingly call for the support of individuals, populations, and groups always already assumed to be straight. On the other hand, while 21 states and the District of Columbia ban employers from making hiring and firing decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and 16 states offer similar protections for gender variant individuals, no such protection