Television and the Acceptance of Same-Sex Relationships
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Sociology Dissertations Department of Sociology 8-11-2015 Wed-Locked: Television and the Acceptance of Same-sex Relationships Cory Albertson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/sociology_diss Recommended Citation Albertson, Cory, "Wed-Locked: Television and the Acceptance of Same-sex Relationships." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2015. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/sociology_diss/82 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Sociology at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WED-LOCKED: TELEVISON AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS by CORY ALBERTSON Under the Direction of Griff Tester, PhD, and Wendy Simonds, PhD ABSTRACT 2011 was the first year the majority of the American public were in favor of same-sex marriage—a nine point (and largest year-to-year) increase from 2010. That year gave the LGBTQ community a crucial win in the hard-fought cultural war over government validation of same-sex relationships. Not so coincidentally, 2010 saw mass media, specifically network television, depict same-sex relationships like never before. New shows like Modern Family, Glee and The Good Wife hit their ratings zenith alongside stalwarts like Grey’s Anatomy , Desperate Housewives and House . But were the relationships depicted diverse in terms of roles, race, class and gender? Or did they resemble the heteronormative ideal of the white, upper middle-class relationship and family? Through a discourse analysis of popular, scripted network television shows from the 2010-2011 season, I found the depictions to powerfully create a “normal” same- sex relationship towards a heteronormative ideal. Both the same-sex women and men’s relationships were heteronormative in that their statuses and roles within the relationship adhered to the classic masculine/feminine binary. However, the same-sex women’s relationships were queerer, exhibiting sexual fluidity and labels beyond gay and straight. Still, the women maintained Western, feminine appearances supporting Laura Mulvey’s male gaze. The same-sex men’s relationships fully supported Jasbir Puar’s notion of the “exceptional homosexual.” Beyond their roles, the men’s relationships were heteronormative by being same-raced/white, upper-class, and, in two out of the three couples, having children. Ultimately, all the depictions exemplified Monique Wittig’s frustration that historical “discourses of heterosexuality oppress us in the sense that they prevent us from speaking unless we speak on their terms.” INDEX WORDS: Gay Marriage, Same-sex marriage, Heteronormativity, Visual culture, Television, Parasocial interaction WED-LOCKED: TELEVISON AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS by CORY ALBERTSON A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2015 Copyright by William Cory Albertson 2015 WED-LOCKED: TELEVISON AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS by CORY ALBERTSON Committee Co-Chair: Griff Tester Committee Co-Chair: Wendy Simonds Committee: Jung Ha Kim Anthony Hatch Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University August 2015 iv DEDICATION For those who inspired me with their walks down the aisle: Katie and Nick, Daniela and Didier, Stacy and Dave, Lorie and Greg And for those who brought my earliest friends to life: Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Patrick Stewart, Marina Sirtis and Gates McFadden v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At its core, this project is about rebellion. It is about rebelling so as to find one’s unique voice amid societal pressures to “talk” a certain way. During my journey with this project, I have been lucky enough to be surrounded by a chorus of rebels, each of whom push against the “normal” boundaries of society in their own way. They have also pushed me, guided me and supported me in finding my voice. In committee member Dr. Jung Ha Kim I found compassion, thoughtfulness and intelligence. She has acted as a sort of “vocal coach,” inspiring me to become a sociologist 15 years ago. She continues to inspire me today. In committee co-chair Dr. Griff Tester, I found a kindred spirit in that we share a love of music, dessert, and “queerness.” More importantly, though, we’ve shared life stories and offered each other emotional support during our respective struggles. I am thankful for his friendship. Committee co-chair Dr. Wendy Simonds and committee member Dr. Anthony Hatch too proved integral to me honing my voice as both offered the greatest gift any sociologist could ask for: new tones and perspectives which elevated my message. In addition to my committee members, I am indebted to a chosen few who nurtured, supported and, in general, kept me safe and sane. My friends and colleagues Dr. Moon Charania and Dr. Amanda Jungels both pulled me back from the scary, dissertation ledge multiple times with their empathy—they always understood and were willing to endure my bouts of insecurity with me. And Katie Vesser, Philip Barnard and Alicia Anderson provided me with the stability of their unwavering friendship—my love for them is endless. Lastly, I have to thank my mother, father and stepmother who, in their unflinching acceptance and support of me, unknowingly fought against societal convention. All of these rebels form my family which, in itself, challenges heteronormative ideals. For their willingness to walk this path with me, they have my unending thanks and admiration vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii 1 INTRODUCTION: Opposites Attract ...................................................................... 1 1.1 A Shift and a Spark........................................................................................... 4 1.2 Theoretical and Methodological Courtships .................................................. 7 1.3 Many Marriages .............................................................................................. 12 2 “I Want That:” The Marriage of Government and Heteronormativity ............ 15 2.1 Wanting Legitimacy........................................................................................ 24 2.2 Wanting Support ............................................................................................. 32 2.3 Wanting Heteronormativity ........................................................................... 36 3 “It Gets Better:” The Marriage of Labels and Stability (or Instability) ........... 41 3.1 From “Better Lesbian” to “100 Percent Gay” ............................................. 54 4 “Growing Needy, Whiny Tomatoes:” The Marriage of Heteronormative Roles and Same-Sex Relationships ...................................................................................................... 68 4.1 From Emotionally “Frozen” to “Freaking Out”.......................................... 81 5 “Give Me Sensual, Give Me Sultry:” The Marriage of the Male Gaze and Same-Sex Relationships ............................................................................................................ 100 5.1 From Sexualized Queer Women to Desexualized Gay Men ..................... 112 6 “A Little Bit of Me in that Princess Castle:” The Birthing of Heteronormativity 126 vii 6.1 Creating Normalcy through Coupledom .................................................... 135 6.2 Creating Normalcy through Heteronormative Roles ................................ 140 6.3 Creating Normalcy through Marriage........................................................ 144 7 Conclusion: Grounds for Divorce? ....................................................................... 151 7.1 Rocky Relationships...................................................................................... 153 7.2 It’s Complicated ............................................................................................ 156 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 163 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 The Multi-directional Male Gaze ............................................................................. 103 1 1 INTRODUCTION: OPPOSITES ATTRACT “Everything is blooming most recklessly; if it were voices instead of colors, there would be an unbelievable shrieking into the heart of the night.” – Ranier Maria Rilke On October 29, 2011, I stood at the foot of an old antebellum house looking out at a gathered crowd—friends and family. They were divided by a gravel walk, which, in a few moments, would be the center of attention. Dressed in a black suit and tie, I looked grown up, confident. Still, I felt nervous—I wanted everything to go smoothly, to be perfect. Just as my anxiety reached boiling, six groomsmen appeared. Then, five bridesmaids followed. They all took their time reaching me, each offering a slight, knowing grin as they passed. With all of them standing behind me, it was time. I took a deep inhale as the first chords of a guitar and mandolin version of the Beatles’ “I’ve Just