(Re)Presentations of Homosexuality: the Frame and Knowledge in the Making

Home , Acafellas, Blame It on the Alcohol, Puppet Master (Glee), Theatricality, The Old Wagon

(RE)PRESENTATIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

THE FRAME AND KNOWLEDGE IN THE MAKING

Matthew Isherwood

THIS THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIERMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

(Curriculum Studies)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

February 2015

Abstract

This thesis is an inquiry into how one understands sexual difference. It will consider how queer lives are presented to us in the media, and it attends to ways in which these presentations might influence and shape our knowledge of queer subjects. The primary research questions addressed in this thesis include: Do sites of everyday influence continue to promote stereotypes? What does this mean for homosexual individual? And if such sites do promote such stereotypes, can sex education curriculum attempt to undo media bias? To address these questions, the thesis considers popular representations circulating in the media. It considers these representations in light of the author’s own experiences as a gay man. The critical thinking that emerges from this act is made possible by engaging with multiple pieces of content, as well as the work of queer theorists such as Sedgwick and Butler and Halperin. In this sense, a new question emerges: How can one keep knowledge in the making alive and ongoing?

Preface

This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, M. Isherwood.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Preface ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

List of Figures ...... v

Acknowledgments ...... vi

Dedication ...... vii

Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2 - Literature Review ...... 8

2.1 Binary Thinking ...... 8

2.2 Categories and (Political) Identity ...... 10

2.3 Everyday Sites of Influence ...... 13

2.4 Operation of the Frame ...... 19

2.5 Curriculum as Conversation ...... 26

Chapter 3 - Methodology ...... 30

Chapter 4 - The Homosexual in Situation Comedies ...... 34

Chapter 5 - Textual Analysis of the Posters ...... 46

5.1 Introduction to the Posters ...... 46

5.2 Theatricality ...... 49

5.3 Fashion and Dress ...... 52

5.4 Predatory Behavior and Sexual Desire ...... 58

5.5 Effeminacy...... 63

5.6 Seeing/Categorizing Homosexuality ...... 66

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Final Thoughts ...... 71

Bibliography ...... 81

List of Figures

Figure 1. 1 Images of homosexual subjects from television ...... 4

Figure 1. 2 The TDSB posters (2011) ...... 5

Figure 2. 1 Advertisements targeting homosexual subjects ...... 25

Figure 3. 1 The chosen TDSB posters ...... 31

Figure 4. 1 Image from Frasier episode "Out with Dad" (2000) ...... 36

Figure 4. 2 Image of Max (left) and Derek (right) from Happy Endings (2013) ...... 44

Figure 5. 1 The chosen TDSB posters ...... 46

Figure 5. 2 Images of homosexual subjects in bright clothing ...... 50

Figure 5. 3 Phil in his suit (left) and Mitchell and Cameron wearing identical suits (right) ...... 54

Figure 5. 4 Image of Sandy from Glee ...... 59

Figure 5. 5 Section of TDSB poster A ...... 60

Figure 5. 6 Images taken from Vancouver's gay district, Davie Street ...... 63

Figure 5. 7 Mitchell wearing a dress (left) and pictured as a princess (right) ...... 65

Figure 5. 8 American Dad (2005 – present) often use visible stereotypes to portray homosexual characters ...... 66

Figure 6. 1 Ellie (left) and Bill (right) from The Last of Us (2014) ...... 78

Figure 6. 2 Young girls cosplaying as Ellie ...... 79

Acknowledgments

I offer my heartfelt and deepest thanks to those who have helped shape this thesis over the past few years. These have included the faculty, staff and fellow students who have inspired me on a daily basis. Particular thanks to Dr. Dónal O Donoghue, whose steady guidance, patience and teaching has helped me question more deeply both myself and the world around me.

I would also like to thank Dr. Carl Leggo, whose commitment to autobiographical inquiry and research helped make this work more than just a study of sexuality, turning it into a journey of productive self-reflection.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband who has patiently waited for a weekend together for the last six months. Thank you for your mostly well natured stoicism and support. I promise I am all yours again soon.

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to every lost soul who ever walked between the lines of recognition and wondered who they were.

vii

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This thesis invites the reader into an investigation in thinking about the fluidity of knowledge. It attempts to question if knowledge is fixed or ever evolving, how it is formed, and the relationship between knowledge and meaning. I will examine these questions with reference to their implications on sexuality and sexual identity from my own perspective and common representations of homosexuality. The thesis promises different interpretations depending on the reader's frame of reference. For me the thesis causes questioning, leading to a better understanding of my own idea of sexuality. It also causes reflection on my practice as an educator, specifically in regards to knowledge and meaning, and how that might develop differently in situations where images are used.

This thesis explores the importance of considering knowledge as a thing in the making, rather than as a thing made (Ellsworth, 2011). Knowledge has a fluidity to it that might, under certain circumstances, be replaced by certainty. Thinking in definitive terms is something I struggled with when considering the idea of sexuality. Much of my time has been dedicated to how one might reconsider the terms of a binary discourse that could potentially close down new ways of understanding sexuality. All too often I found myself unintentionally writing in ways that may have continued rather than interrupted binary thinking. This path of least resistance has been difficult not to follow.

I have chosen to examine the idea of knowledge as a thing made is through images and representations of homosexual lives. Such images are becoming more visible in sites of everyday influence (Duncum, 1999) throughout Western culture. Television shows, advertisements and educational materials now present examples of lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgendered and queer (LGBTQ)1 subjects in highly visible spaces. Of most concern, though, is what potentially happens when one looks at these images? Whether these images create a space to "ask new and alternative questions, rather than reproducing old knowledges by asking the old questions" (Rogoff, p.25, 2002) is something that will be attended to over the course of this thesis. However, I cannot necessarily promise a coherent answer.

This incoherence is something I have learned to live with. It speaks of the complexity inherent in the work. This complexity is difficult to explain, but has much to do with how one interacts with the images that surround them, their individual lived experiences and the fluctuating nature of sexuality. Each of these elements is connected, informing the way one might potentially interpret the images they see, and how that interpretation might affect their understanding of both their own sexuality, and the sexuality of others. Navigating this subject, then, is a difficult task.

The idea of representation led me to use the concept of (re)presentation throughout this thesis. This is to remind myself that images often present the viewing subject with a version of homosexuality that fails to encompass my own sense of identity. As a homosexual man, I often find characters on shows like Modern Family (2009 - present) portray a limited view of homosexuality that fails to speak about the diversity and complicated nature of sexuality. This concerns me because one can never be assured of the viewing subject's ability to gain access to the powerful meanings and messages afforded by interaction with such images. This links

1 I fully realize that this does not incorporate all identities that might be considered under this work. I am using the LGBTQ definitions as they are used by the TDSB in their curriculum. This is also an indication of the limits of representabilty and the operation of the frame.

the idea of knowledge, both in the making and as a thing made, to these images.

Because of their location in contemporary popular culture, certain (re)presentations are often more visible than other examples of homosexual performance. They are easy to find, circulating throughout our cultural consciousness within shows like Friends (1994 - 2004), Will &

Grace (1999 - 2006) and Modern Family. Together with other examples of how one might perform certain sexualities, these images have provided ways of recognizing homosexuality, marking its difference in categorical ways. And while these portrayals provided reassurance at times of great insecurity and vulnerability, they were also fairly limited in diversity, often repeatedly positioning the homosexual as an easily identifiable stereotype.

Now, LGBTQ (re)presentations can be seen in a host of primetime shows, including dramas, comedies and animated content (GLAAD, 2011-2012). However, while the number of shows choosing to include LGBT characters has increased, the way in which those characters are positioned remains limited in comparison to those labeled as heterosexual (see figure 1.1).

Often, old stereotypes are used to convey homosexuality to the audience. And while this recognizability may be useful for reasons that will be discussed further on, how this could potentially work upon the viewing subject will be the primary focus of this thesis. In particular, I am drawn to question how visual (re)presentations seen on popular television shows might provoke new mindsets capable of moving past the strict binary discourse of homo/heterosexual definition.

Figure 1. 1 Images of homosexual subjects from television

I am also interested in how these concerns may then be addressed in educational environments. Currently, educators are paying closer attention to the "complex ways in which individuals are formed by the institutions to which they belong" (Williams, 1967, p.14). Recently, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) created a curriculum designed to encourage more

"equitable and inclusive schools" (TDSB, 2011). The accompanying manual, entitled Equitable and Inclusive Schools (2011), makes clear an aim to work against false or generalized conceptions "of a group which results in the unconscious or conscious categorizations of each member of that group" (p.117). The same manual also makes clear the need to investigate

"media portrayals of stereotypes, bias, and prejudice" (p.120).

As part of this curriculum, the TDSB created a series of posters (see figure 1.2) to help promote inclusivity. It is the inherent visuality of these posters that initially drew me to them. In choosing to make LGBTQ concerns visible in this way, certain choices were made. What these decisions were and why these paths were taken will not be covered here, though I do recognize them as important. The focus will instead remain on asking "who is privileged within the regime of specularity" offered by the posters, and "whose fantasies are being fed by which visual images" (Rogoff, 2002, p.25).

There are two reasons for this focus. First, as previously mentioned, the TDSB intends the posters to interrupt certain stereotypes seen in media sites. Second, the TDSB (2011) also acknowledges a commitment to "enabling all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirited, and queer (LGBTQ) students, and students who identify themselves on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, to see themselves reflected in the curriculum" (p.3). It is the complicated interrelatedness of these and other LGBTQ (re)presentations that interests me, particularly how they influence the formation of knowledge and meaning.

Figure 1. 2 The TDSB posters (2011)

For me, the reason these (re)presentations of LGBTQ subjects are so important is because of how influential they have been, and still are, in informing not only my understanding of sexuality, but also my own sense of self identity. In my case, this was especially so during adolescence.

At a time when asking or speaking about sexuality was difficult, (re)presentations gave examples of how homosexuality could be performed and recognized. As a fourteen year old, they gave me examples of how I could fit into a scene that offered a feeling of acceptance and belonging. However, these same performances often sat at odds with who I was becoming.

This often resulted in me feeling adrift between two worlds. At that time it would have been helpful to have had some confirmation that such (re)presentations operated in the limits of representability. Therefore, I have a very personal investment in understanding how the TDSB posters work in relation to media (re)presentations. Do they, for example, confirm certain expectations, or do they create space for new meaning making?

Furthermore, the TDSB (2011) makes clear an aim to produce a certain tolerance towards

LGBTQ issues with their Equitable and Inclusive Schools curriculum, suggesting that the lessons and materials produced are done so to prepare "all young people to grow up as productive and constructive citizens in the diverse society of the City of Toronto" (p.4). Thus, what is shown becomes an important point of consideration. As are those other concerns previously mentioned, including how certain sexualities are made visible and what affect that visibility has on the formation of knowledge. These are questions that should be applied to both the TDSB posters and the multiplicity of pedagogical sites throughout popular culture, so that the relationship between these influences might be better understood.

In subsequent chapters, these ideas will be more fully considered, bringing together a number of scholars and examples of (re)presentation to question and investigate the idea of

knowledge and how images might offer chances to make, unsettle, crystallize and reform understanding. I will build a theoretical framework with which to question sites of everyday influence and their (re)presentations of homosexual lives. This questioning of key contemporary shows will be discussed in more detail later on. In a separate chapter, the TDSB posters will also be examined. This will take the form of a textual reading of two posters, chosen for reasons that will later be made clear.

Much of what I have chosen to consider here is because of personal experience. I have tried to make clear this connection with autobiographical accounts, hoping that they will contextualize what I have chosen to include. Consideration should also be made to how these experiences have influenced what I may not have included. This same reflection can also be applied to the images used. These images are spaces for encountering different renditions of sexuality.

However, at all times one might want to consider what we do and do not see reflected in those spaces. By this I mean to suggest that such images remain loose examples of homosexual lives.

In concluding I will opine to how sites of influence, such as television shows and the TDSB posters might work on the viewing subject to both continue and challenge binary thinking in relation to sexuality. Returning to the ideas of knowledge and meaning expressed at the opening of this chapter, I will examine how the unfolding thoughts of this thesis might be used to better understanding these concepts. Moreover, I hope this thesis prompts one to ask how the fluidity of knowledge might be maintained. If anything, this is the central question any reader should keep in mind when engaging with this work. This will be considered in regards to how educators might wish to think about the nature of sexuality and the power of images in regards to pedagogy and curriculum development.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1 Binary Thinking

In Epistemology of the Closet Sedgwick (1990) suggests that "nodes of thought and knowledge" in western culture are divided up by the "endemic crisis of homo/heterosexual definition" (p.i).

This definition categorizes an individual's sexuality through a set of identifiable markers.

Though these markers are often presented "as symmetrical binary oppositions" they "actually subsist in a more unsettled and dynamic tacit relation" to each other (Sedgwick, 1990, p.10). By this, Sedgwick is suggesting the homo/heterosexual divide "is irresolvably unstable" (p.10).

This instability is caused by the fact that heterosexuality is often defined on the basis that it does not embrace the traits or behaviors associated with homosexuality, though this is not a sustainable claim. For example, the appearance of the meterosexual man has meant the defining line between straight and gay has faded in places. But although we might now have multiple accounts of masculine performance, the type of masculinity used to (re)present homosexual men often remains limited. Therefore one should still consider that heterosexuality cannot be assured without first defining what constitutes homosexuality.

This act of defining certain types of homosexual masculinity can be seen on shows such as

Modern Family. The (re)presentations they use help those invested in traditional, hegemonic cultural values to police the boundaries between what people perceive as being homo and heterosexual traits. This policing continues to be sustained by the kind of unquestioned understanding that occurs when a viewer "assumes his or herself to be in an immediate (and incontestable) visual relation to reality" (Butler, 2002, p.73). This ignorance creates a certain kind of closed knowledge, "a knowledge that may itself ... be seen as either true or false under some other regime of truth" (Sedgwick, 2002, p.8). However, in actuality the stability of this

"truth" is highly unsettled, as homosexuality and heterosexuality remain two parts of the same

whole.

Regarding this thesis, I want to better understand why such binary categorization exists, and how certain stereotypes became so widely used in creating stable definitions of sexual identity.

Moreover, I feel the need to question why these stereotypes have "robustly failed to disintegrate under the pressure of decade after decade, battery after battery of deconstructive exposure"

(Sedgwick, 1990, p.83). I also had personal interest in Sedgwick's suggestion that the term

"homosexual" does not exist for its "meaningfulness to those whom it defines but because of its indispensableness to those who define themselves against it" (p.83).

Sedgwick's words resonate with me, especially in regards to my central question of knowledge and meaning. Her work allows me to consider what potential ways (re)presentations might work differently for homosexual and heterosexual subjects. For example, if the images are seen by the viewing subject to confirm stereotypes seen in other forms of media they may actually be working to strengthen the supposed differences between straight and gay people.

This allows heterosexual subjects the opportunity to sure up their own sense of sexual identity at the expense of visible homosexual diversity. In turn, homosexual subjects may find themselves feeling misrepresented. And while any images might be useful in opening up new avenues of investigation through critical inquiry, one can never be assured such questioning will take place. Therefore, asking if (re)presentations work to halt knowledge in the making will remain a focus moving forward.

The limited range of homosexual (re)presentations echo Sedgwick's suggestion that while

"people are different from each other" we "have few respectable conceptual tools for dealing with that self-evident fact" (p.22). Although this is a statement that most people would agree

with, it is also an idea that becomes lost when one considers understanding "in relation to knowledge as a thing made" (Ellsworth, 2005, p.1). If one believes knowledge to be set, then they cannot begin to think differently about what is currently known. They are on a path following particular ways of knowing, rather than taking new and unknown routes.

This idea intersects heavily with what has previously been discussed about visual images and their power to form and inform minds. If one understands what they see without question, then the TDSB could potentially be contributing to the same biases and stereotypes they hope to interrupt. It is because of these points that I feel it so important to investigate how

(re)presentations may potentially be working to allow viewing subjects to "gain an understanding of the associated biases, stereotypes, and prejudices" (TDSB, 2011, p.4) that contribute to homophobia in both society and educational institutions.

2.2 Categories and (Political) Identity

I feel that before moving on I would briefly position Sedgwick's writing against the work of another queer theorist. The main strand of argument running through both works is categorization. Halperin's suggestion is that identifying homosexual people as a group, rather than on an individual basis, limits homosexual possibility. That creating a respectful public gay identity has come at the expense of "those members of our community who do not (or who cannot) bury their sexuality discreetly in the sphere of private life" (Halperin, 2013, p.76). He puts forward the case that queer desires are different, just as queer people are different from each other.

In his book How to be Gay (2013) Halperin writes that the politics of gay identity have created a situation where campaigns for minority rights have "persistently championed identity (who we

are) over subjectivity (how we feel) and emphasized such matters as social equality, the benefits of diversity" and the "ethics of peaceful coexistence" (p.72). He writes that the work of identity has been to allow "normal people to categorize the members of a stigmatized population as a single group" (p.73). And while I am troubled by his use of the term "normal" in this sentence, I am interested by the idea of categorizing all homosexual individuals as a single group.

I am also intrigued by his idea that, to present a "respectable" image of gay identity, gay people have "been pressured to mask their queerness, rein in their sensibilities, and downplay their differences from regular folk" (Halperin, 2013, p.73). Again, Halperin's use of "regular folk" troubles me, and I have not yet figured if he is using it as a tool to provoke a response from the reader. What I am interested in is Halperin's call to investigate the way in which acceptance is presented to us, how that corresponds to the recognizability of certain figures, and how that causes one to respond to the suffering of others. He likens the process to an international buffet, where people do not feel obligated to sample "anything that looks particularly gross or disgusting" (Halperin, 2013, p.72). Here I would like to remember the TDSB curriculum's aim to allow "all young people to grow up as productive and constructive citizens in the diverse society of the City of Toronto" (p.4). It invites me to ask what kind of acceptance the TDSB curriculum is creating.

This leads me to another reason I am using Halperin's text. It raises the question of how

(re)presentations are being made "acceptable" to those "regular folks" he mentions in his work.

For example, Modern Family's (re)presentation are often criticized as never showing physical affection towards each other (Hudson, 2010). This aligns with Halperin's warning to "not purchase respectability at the expense of sex" (p.76). That respectable gay identity often ends

up closeting queer sexual experience is something of an issue, and one worth thinking about, especially in relation to the TDSB posters. This theme is also evident in Sedgwick's (1990) writing. She suggests that such closeting will only oppress "gay people, identities, and acts by undermining through contradictory constraints on discourse the grounds of their very being"

(p.70). Furthermore, Sedgwick warns that although having some "politically enabling effects" on those it describes, such categorization still results in the "definition of homosexual persons as a distinct, minority population, however produced or labeled" (p.83). And as both Sedgwick and

Halperin would agree, this is at the cost of individualism. This will be explored in more detail further on.

Halperin (2013) suggests that insisting on identity as a "common membership" only

"contributes to the transcendence of particular differences and thus to the identity-blind project of assimilation" (p.73). This has in turn led to an "official, public image of American gay identity" that makes clear its own "politics of respectability, social responsibility, and affirmation" (p.74).

And so, a process has begun that defines how one might classify themselves as (respectfully) homosexual. Such definition relies on clarity to what constitutes as (respectful) homosexuality in order for particular rules of acceptance to be put in place. However, neither can account for the diversity and instability of a more individualistic sense of identity. Even one that may give

"homosexuality a Bad Name" and be "Bad for The Cause" (Halperin, 2013, p.74).

Another reason that I am drawn to Halperin's work is how I feel it connects to homosexual

(re)presentation. As previously mentioned, homosexual (re)presentation is becoming more visible throughout popular culture, but what is allowed to be seen and where is an interesting question, especially when considered in relation to what I will cover in the following section. For example, how does this idea play into the notion of a visibly respectable homosexuality?

Finally, in regards to categorization and group identity, the issue of how the TDSB quantifies the group(s) contained within the LGBTQ acronym is of key importance. For example, we have many markers that manage and form the concepts, representations and categories in which lives are made and negotiated. However, while these help us make sense of a conceptual group of peoples they allow a very limited understanding of the person as a whole. Therefore, one must question whether curriculums dealing with issues of equity and inclusion push students "to ask new and alternative questions, rather than reproducing old knowledge by asking the same old questions" (Rogoff, 2002, p.25).

2.3 Everyday Sites of Influence

As media (re)presentations are a focus for this thesis, I feel it important to spend time addressing why. First we live in an increasingly visual world. These types of visuality are currently formed, transmitted, absorbed, and repurposed at a rapid rate" (Sweeny, 2006, p.294).

This is coupled with the increased capacity to access this visual content in more ways and in more places than ever before. Second is how visual images impact the way we understand the world. Mitchell (2001) warns of the image becoming a "conspicuous problem, both in popular culture (where 'image is everything' was the mantra of the day), and in the study of the arts, the media, cultural theory and philosophy, where a turn from language to the image seemed to be occurring" (p.181). Finally, how images are used and interacted with in schools. It is a way of asking "what images are and what they are becoming in our time" (p.185). So, while visual images do not act upon the viewing subject alone, this thesis will concentrate on that area in an attempt to focus its purpose.

A recent study of how humor impacted prejudiced towards minority groups suggested that

jokes directly referencing homosexual subjects actually decreased "support for gay rights"

(Brown, 2012, p.160). This reinforces the argument that television products dealing in humor

"reflect and reinforce their historical moments by promoting or rejecting dominant social and political ideologies" (Foss, 2008, p.44). Furthermore, as Hart (2000) suggests, many heterosexual subjects rely on such (re)presentations for an understanding of homosexual subjects. Such shows often tend to (re)present their homosexual characters using easily identifiable markers. Therefore one might believe media (re)presentations of gay men on television have the potential to influence the way viewing subjects understand the phenomenon of homosexuality, as well as moderate their empathy towards homosexual subjects and their causes. The subject of empathy will be revisited in later sections of this chapter.

Thus, the worry is that much of our understanding about sexuality comes from the "effects of a monstrously powerful visual culture" (Butler, 2002, p.78). That is not to say that homosexuality should be viewed entirely as a product of culture, as this creates the risk of viewing it as something that can be altered or suppressed. Rather, I am suggesting that culture often presents a limited vision of homosexuality, bringing an understanding "into focus on condition that some portion of the visual field is ruled out" (Butler, 2002, p.74). Therefore, it remains that the effect of (re)presentations seen throughout Western culture should be considered in regards to knowledge in the making.

They also have "a direct bearing on the already complex relationships within and between various social groups" (Hart, 2000, p.61). As these (re)presentations have become more plentiful, and by virtue more accessible, they have contributed significantly to the commonly accepted ways one might discuss and think about homosexuals and their lived realities. Media representations of gay men in recent decades have certainly increased, yet as a homosexual

man I feel the way in which homosexual subjects are portrayed often feels limited in comparison to that of heterosexual subjects. These visual (re)presentations have "contributed significantly to the social construction of gay men and to the resulting social ramifications of that construction" (Hart, 2000, p.61). It is this "construction" in relation to knowledge as a thing made that interest me.

If shows such as Modern Family are, as Hart (2000) suggests, a primary source of information regarding LGBT individuals, what harm might be occurring if they offer only a limited, often stereotypical ways to live a homosexual life? Currently, it is understood that the codes we use to define acceptable ways of being are performative "rather than essentially attributed, and therefore highly unstable" (Rogoff, 2002, p.32). However, because the defining codes of homosexual identity are so similar and repeated across many cultural sites, that instability is typically lessened when compared to the portrayed performances of heterosexual subjects. For example, in Modern Family the characters of Jay Pritchett and Phil Dunphy give very different examples of heterosexual male identity, while the homosexual characters of

Cameron Tucker and Mitchell Pritchett are positioned in very similar, often stereotypical ways.

We live in a world where the heterosexual male is offered many examples of how to perform a version of that sexuality. Such (re)presentations diffuse throughout our culture, creating knowledge and meaning in regards to sexuality. However, the individual accounts of gay identity are often reduced to levels that only continue to deepen the homo/heterosexual divide, providing formulaic patterns to the discussion around what sexuality is and how it might be recognized. Try to imagine a world where the only heterosexual male character on TV was

John McClane (Die Hard, 1988). It would be difficult to envisage. However, from personal experience, such limitations are currently a reality for me. Thus, one might argue that while a

breadth of (re)presentations are used to describe the different ways one might choose to perform heterosexuality, there is barely enough examples in use to describe even a few instances of homosexual performance.

These (re)presentations do serve a valuable purpose, though. They create spaces to consider alternative ways of being. For example, while most children grow up in (supposedly) heterosexual families, it is becoming more common to see same-sex families caring for children.

The placement of same-sex families on mainstream television certainly plays an important role in creating space to think about the idea of family and what that might look like. The issue is that while this works in general terms, allowing for the issue of same-sex families as a political category, it does not account well for a more individual (re)presentations of homosexual lives.

This forces one to ask who such (re)presentations are actually benefiting and what is their purpose?

In addition, the kinds of visual representations that circulate most freely within popular culture tend to be the most stereotypical. Each Modern Family episode is routinely viewed by an average of 12.63 million viewers in America alone2. This figure does not include DVD or streaming services, which would place that number significantly higher. As suggested by Paul

Duncum (1999), the popularity and everyday nature of these representations makes them highly influential sources of pedagogy.

Furthermore, such examples clearly separate homosexual subjects from their heterosexual counterparts in ways that suggest acceptable codes of performance for both sexualities. Often,

2 Stats retrieved from (wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Family) August 2014

these examples continue historical stereotypes that have typified the homosexual man, such as

"narcissism, shame, self-loathing, passivity, sentimentality, cowardice, and supposedly destructive (by which was often meant "promiscuous") forms of sexuality" (Halperin, 2012, p.79). In such cases, each attributed characteristic polices the boundary of homos/heterosexual categorization, making the homosexual subject more easily identifiable. My issue here is whether sexuality might come to resemble "that which names it" (Rogoff, 2002, p.32). In such cases, the pedagogical forces of visual representations describing homosexuality require careful consideration. This leads one to question how current visual representations of homosexuality contribute to the kind of binarism described by Sedgwick (1990).

Writing this thesis has made me think carefully and critically about visible homosexual performances on television, especially considering Duncum's (1999) argument that "learning about ourselves and the world is done mainly through everyday rather than in special experiences" (p.297). As suggested by Sedgwick (1990), categorization does not mean more or better understanding. Therefore, just because (re)presentation of homosexual subjects on television is increasing does not mean one will find themselves reflected in those spaces, especially as these (re)presentations often rely on familiar stereotypes. Furthermore, if the visual (re)presentations used by the posters appear to confirm what is seen in these sites of everyday influence, do they allow for (LGBTQ) students to find themselves reflected in the curriculum?

Therefore, it becomes important to examine how the posters are working in relation to pedagogical forces found outside the classroom. In short, do they work to create a "new mindset capable of moving away from the strict binary discourses" (Ellsworth, 2005, p.3) or simply promote the idea of pedagogy in "relation to a thing made" (p.1)? Although I do believe

that the TDSB understands "education and society" to be "inextricably linked" (Pinar, 2012, p184), I would question how this link is explored. It is my belief that the TDSB's (2011) curriculum is social reconstructionist by design, as it hopes to "prepare all young people to grow up as productive and constructive citizens" (p.4). Though it hopes to help students "acquire the knowledge, skills, and values to become responsible members of a democratic society" (p.4) one must also consider how certain cultural influences within that society change the way one interprets the posters. It is a question of whether the TDSB posters influence the way people think about aspects of society, or if aspects of society influence the way one thinks about the posters. This idea is central to this thesis, especially when one considers Duncum's (1999) argument regarding the influential power of everyday sites of influence.

Duncum (1999) writes that "a concern for everyday aesthetics arises from the social turn towards the cultural and the simultaneous turn of the cultural towards the visual" (p.295). This statement echoes much of what many visual culture theorists (Rogoff, 2002; Bal, 2003;

Mirzenof, 2002) also say about the influence of visual sites throughout popular culture.

However, Duncum (1999) goes on to suggest that certain sites have more pedagogical force than others, specifically referring to everyday sites of influence, which are "part of most people's daily experience. They are mainstream" (p.295). The "everyday aesthetic experience" is highlighted "for offering both immense pleasure and rich resources for the construction of identity" (Duncum, 1999, p.295). In addition, one might also consider that learning about ourselves and the world around us "is done mainly through everyday rather than special art experiences" (Duncum, 1999, p.297). The power of these sites comes from how interwoven they are with our daily lives. For that reason it seems no exaggeration to say that "our lives are embedded in visual aesthetics sites and that we live within the spaces provided by them"

(Duncum, 1999, p.298).

Duncum references a number of potential and "very different sites of everyday culture"

(p.295). To drive his argument, Duncum narrows his investigation to specific sites he believes to be the most influential, describing television as especially informative. The influence of television, suggests Duncum (1999), is "to be found in it obliquity" (p.298). Consequently, one should ask "what effect does television have when it forms so thoroughly a backdrop to daily life?" (Duncum, 1999, p.298). With this question in mind I will begin to examine certain televisual sites to determine how they might be contributing to the interpretation of the TDSB posters. Leading from Duncum's suggestion, I will look at some of the more popular programs that currently circulate within mainstream culture, primarily the sitcom Modern Family. First, this is because of the genre's popularity amongst a wide range of viewing subjects. Second, because the content of these programs is often everyday in nature, showing individuals and families living their everyday lives.

2.4 Operation of the Frame

In this next section, I would like to introduce a key concept used to explore the idea of knowledge in the making. This is the theoretical idea of the frame. I propose to clarify what I mean by the frame, drawing heavily from Judith Butler's (2009) book Frames of War, and her second chapter in particular. This essay, entitled "Torture and the Ethics of Photography," elegantly details how reality is presented to the viewing subject. More specifically, the chapter deals with the operation of the frame. Butler (2009) is able to argue that the frame establishes a

"certain field of perceptible reality" for the viewing subject, and how that "presentation affects our responsiveness" (p.63). In short, the frame will act as a way of understanding the representational limits of (re)presentations and potential responses to them.

As the TDSB posters will form part of this inquiry, the idea of the frame takes on special significance. As part of this thesis will be looking at the (re)presentations used by the TDSB posters, the format itself is of significance. For me, the poster has come to represent the concept of the frame. It creates a boundary to the viewable, beyond which any additional or potential ways of being remain unseen. If the viewing subject is unaware of this hidden potential, then one needs to consider how visuality is working on the viewing subject. By this, I mean how the influence of external images or objects is playing on the viewing subject's internal thought processes. For example, the TDSB posters make visible regulated images to the viewer, images that often repeat or validate (re)presentations of homosexual men on shows like

Modern Family. Therefore, unless the viewing subject is aware of the frame's operation, the potential for the "internal thought process" leading to new understanding may not occur. This would leave the viewing subject more inclined to use presently understood categories of binary classification, made recognizable by sites of everyday influence.

The poster was one of the earliest forms of advertisement and began to develop as a medium for visual communication in the early 19th century. Historically, posters have been used to

"promote various political parties, recruit soldiers, advertise products and spread ideas to the general public" (Flask, 2009). Given this history, the visuality of the TDSB posters do not reside solely in their images. Part of their influence comes from the history of the poster as a medium, explaining why they are still regarded as "one of the most effective forms of visual communication" (Flask, 2009). But what can be shown, and how it is interpreted, can be limited if the frame is not considered. This makes their potential to influence a double-edged sword.

My concern is that the posters (re)presenting homosexual lives are working with other sites of influence to create a certain kind of recognizability. I believe it is important to consider how such

recognizability allows one the opportunity to consider homosexuality as something viewable, brought "into focus on condition that some portion of the visual field is ruled out" (Butler, 2009, p.74). Consequently, one might seek to determine a person's sexuality based on a set of coded stereotypes or repeated markers inside the frames created by popular culture. How the TDSB posters function in this environment is an important question to ask, especially as they hope to promote a certain shift in understanding amongst the students who view them. Therefore, it becomes vital that we understand how the frame maintains "the notion of the recognizable"

(Butler, 2009, p.64) homosexual.

If we take Butler's (2009) suggestion that "the frame can conduct certain kinds of interpretations" (p.66) it becomes clear that one must consider how an unregistered frame works upon the viewing subject. Butler (2009) writes:

"The frame functions not only as a boundary to the image, but as structuring

the image itself. If the image in turn structures how we register reality, then it is

bound up with the interpretive scene in which we operate" (p.71).

There are a number of important points raised by this section of text. First, the concept of

"structuring" is important, as this suggests an idea of building, making and thus defining. I have written previously that definition may prevent viewing subjects from thinking about sexuality in new ways. This is because definition contributes to "knowledge as a thing made" (Ellsworth,

2005, p.1). Therefore, if the visual (re)presentations used by the TDSB posters are not examined with a "curious eye" (Rogoff, 2002) they may function without motivating viewers to

"change their point of view or to assume a new course of action" (Butler, 2009, p.68).

And by this I do not mean to imply that all viewing subjects will interact with the TDSB posters and their imagery in the same way. Previously I suggested that interpretation may differ depending on the viewing subject's lived experience, amongst other things. Some, for example may recognize the need to question what is seen. However, "whether and how we respond to the suffering of others, how we formulate moral criticisms, and how we articulate political analysis, depends on a certain field of perceptible reality being established" (Butler, 2009, p.63).

This makes the question of how the TDSB posters operate a difficult one to propose. While they certainly have the ability to educate, what that education might be could vary from case to case.

And while I do not think it possible to fully understand the implications of such a statement in this thesis, I do think it important to begin an investigation into what it might mean.

For example, further unpacking Butler's statement about the "field of perceptible reality" reminds me of America's president and the perception his visibility and status has had on the discussion around racism in that country. Events involving individuals of color and police have become a fixture in the global media during 2014. The most recent of which has resulted in the deceased individual's last words becoming a slogan for support groups. However, the president being of color has become a visual metaphor for those who would argue that racism is no longer an issue America faces. For example, Bill O'Reilly, host of the O'Reilly Factor, aired his thoughts that "the race factor in America is not an overwhelming problem anymore" (2014) in a segment titled Obama and Race. He further went on to use Obama to suggest that "Black

Americans should understand that if they study and work hard, they will likely succeed in life"

(2014). This over simplification of the issues being discussed was made possible, I believe, because of the perception the image of Obama as an icon produces. First, it generalizes an entire race of people under the image of one man, ignoring individual circumstance as a result.

Second, bringing this point back to (re)presentations, one could suggest that the images and

inclusion of LGBTQ concerns across sites of everyday influence could allow the formation of a similar argument, especially as shows like Modern Family and The New Normal show a particularly comfortable examples of homosexual lives. Again, I believe the TSDB posters to be an important part of maintaining knowledge in the making.

It is also important to note that Butler discusses a connection between this "structuring" of an image and how one perceives reality. My concern is if the structuring effect of the frame goes unnoticed, does the viewing subject assume this reality incontestable? This concern arises because so few different kinds of visual (re)presentation currently exist for the homosexual subject. If the viewing subject takes what they see within the frame as unquestioned reality, then this has implications regarding binary classification. It may also have implications for the homosexual subject, creating a frame in which their expectations for life are contained.

Finally, what Butler describes as the "interpretive scene" is also of concern, as this influences and effects how the viewing subject interprets the visual (re)presentations used by the TDSB posters. This has much to do with the influences that surround the TDSB posters, such as television, that work "to organize our perception and thinking" (Butler, 2009, p.71). Therefore, we must begin to consider how these influences and the frames they create might be interrupting the viewing subject from "asking or thinking in detail about the multiple, unstable ways in which people may be like or different from each other" (Sedgwick, 1990, p.23).

This means that a concern with (re)presentations comes not only from what they show, but also "how they show what they show" (Butler, 2009, p.71). For example, one of the TDSB posters pictures a series of hearts. The poster uses visual icons to depict either a man or a woman. Each heart uses a combination of these icons to describe the various sexualities that

one might be aligned with. However, the complexity of meaning any visual image contains may not always be decoded by the viewing subject as the author intended. When two of these icons became interpreted as supporting polygamy the TDSB received resistance from members of the surrounding community3. One news article entitled "Threesomes on Toronto School Board

Posters" (2012) seemed typical of the stories dominating much of the news surrounding the

TDSB posters. However, what is more important is the frame's operation in this situation. I believe that the TDSB was using this poster to build a visuality that would organize our perception of reality.

While the potential benefit of the posters is unknown, it does highlight the importance of questioning interpretation. Looking at how the media reaction to this poster was handled, it is my opinion that certain boundaries were strengthened. This occurred when TDSB spokesperson Ryan Bird (2012) publicly told the press that, "The reason for depicting two women and one man was meant to show that a person can be attracted to more than one gender." Mr. Bird also took care to note the TDSB "does not support polygamy." Here the

TDSB is creating a frame that includes what it sees as acceptable, whilst also expressing what it considers to be inappropriate. Though it is including different sexualities inside a frame of acceptability, it is also placing polygamous relationships outside that frame. This highlights many of the issues that surround the frame and positions of power in relation to whose ideas remain visible within a specific reality created by (re)presentations.

Perhaps this explains why making visible certain social concerns is another issue that

3 http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/threesomes-on-toronto-school-board-posters-not-polygamous- spokesman/

compelled me to write this thesis. It led me to ask if an image, which was supposed to make an individual or group of individuals feel more represented, might have the opposite effect. That is not to say that education relies on visuality alone. Indeed, I have found that those around me have learned about the diversity of sexuality through sharing and hearing about my own lived experience. However, my interest in images comes mainly from the increase in the presence of visual (re)presentation regarding LGBTQ subjects in mainstream media. Advertisements, for example, are now targeting homosexual subjects directly, showing examples of lived homosexual experiences that are highly visible, often using the poster format (see figure 2.1).

By making certain aspects of homosexual experience visible in this way, the images have

"already determined what will count within the frame" (Butler, 2009, p.67). So, while learning about sexuality does not happen exclusively through visual influences, they do contribute in a significant way, as discussed in the previous section of this thesis.

Figure 2. 1 Advertisements targeting homosexual subjects

Images contribute to an understanding of the reality we inhabit (Butler, 2009). However, what they say about particular things, such as homosexuality, might come to inform a vision of reality that does not fully represent those individuals the frame claims to include. Furthermore,

as with the "Love Has No Gender" poster, the frame might also include meaning that was originally unintended. This reveals a divergence in suitability for posters to teach something linear, such as the names for parts of the human anatomy or good grammar, and something more subjective, such as gender and sexuality. Whereas we might all find some common agreement on the function of the human eye or location of the heart, the same cannot be said for the nature of sexuality. Thus the frame created by the TDSB posters works as a stabilizing agent. Therefore, the visual (re)presentations used become "a ground for contestation in which unstable normativity constantly and vehemently attempts to shore itself up" (Rogoff, 2002, p.32).

On the topic of sexuality, we might begin to ask how the frame crystallizes certain examples by which homosexuality is "constituted through the force of exclusion and abjection" (Butler,

1993, p.3). Much like in my own experiences, the viewing subject may often allow certain visual

(re)presentations of homosexuality to inform how one imagines "the constraints by which bodies are materialized" (Butler, 1993, p.xi) as homosexual. By this I mean to bring home two points previously made. First, that the visual (re)presentations used by the TDSB and throughout popular culture are limited in comparison to those same visual (re)presentations used to portray heterosexual subjects. Second, any visual (re)presentation creates a frame. Depending on what this frame includes, new ways of understanding homosexuality may never be fully realized.

Therefore, the TDSB posters play a part in qualifying what people recognize as homosexuality

"within the domain of cultural intelligibility" (Butler, 1993, p.2).

2.5 Curriculum as Conversation

"The idea to amalgamate and revise the existing anti-homophobia documents

and curriculum resources produced by the TDSB was to ensure that the entire

school district and the community at large has access to one complete

resource to promote anti-homophobia education" (TDSB, 2011, p.2)

While the inclusion of an anti-homophobia agenda is commendable, one should also address the issue present in the idea of knowledge as a thing made. By describing their curriculum as

"complete" the TDSB is possibly excluding the close inspection of what is not included in the curriculum's content, materials, resources, and processes for evaluating student performance.

This includes what is and what is not being visually (re)presented by the TDSB posters, and also the limits of representability. Therefore, I would question if aiming to amalgamate existing materials into one "complete resource" is achievable or even advisable.

This thinking is, in part, produced from personal experience as a homosexual, as a practicing teacher, and also from William Pinar's (2012) work on curriculum as a complicated conversation.

In particular, it is Pinar's (2012) idea that curriculum as a conversation "requires curricular innovation and experimentation, opportunities for students and faculty to articulate, in their own terms, informed by the subjects they are studying, their lived experience" (p.193). In short, a curriculum is not self-contained, but a part of the culture in which we live and therefore integrated with our lives. If the TDSB wishes to tackle the issue of LGBTQ media

(re)presentations it must also be aware of the network these images are a part of, a network that also includes the images made visible by the TDSB posters.

Such a task may not be as simple as asking what is and is not included in the frame, but rather "what vacillates between those two locations, and what, foreclosed, becomes encrypted in the frame itself" (Butler, 2009, p.75). The idea of foreclosure works on multiple levels. First that one cannot consider the TDSB posters as separate from other images of homosexuality that appear throughout popular culture. Second that the images do not necessarily represent

the lived experiences of any individual in particular and therefore may not make all LGBTQ subjects feel represented. Finally, they cannot convey the range and diversity of queer longings. If such foreclosure is allowed to happen, what messages become encrypted by the

TDSB posters, and what affect may this have? More importantly, how might this foreclosure be addressed, and whose responsibility should that be?

Previously, I have outlined a connection between these posters and the way they become interpreted through other sources, mainly sites of everyday influence, beyond the classroom.

These influences have undetermined pedagogical force, yet we can surmise that "everyday visual imagery is influential in structuring thought, feelings, and actions" (Duncum, 2002, p.6).

Moreover, the more common the site appears, "the more powerful they are in forming and informing minds" (Duncum, 2002, p.6). Television programs, then, are so normalized and integrated into our daily routine that the sites they produce are of particular importance. How they might interact with the TDSB curriculum is something to consider carefully. This is because they may be influencing the interpretation of the curriculum through their sheer pedagogical force. This becomes an issue when we consider the TDSB's desire to address homophobia and homosexual stereotypes in the media:

"Anti-homophobia education is no different from education to combat

harassment and discrimination related to race, religion, gender, disability, or

class. People will only be treated with respect if the biases, stereotypes,

prejudices, myths, and negative ideas about them are dispelled" (2011, p.2).

The concern here is that while the TDSB sets out to question media stereotypes, it may be using visual (re)presentations that have the potential to continue, not challenge, the

"stereotypes, prejudices, myths, and negative ideas" they hope to dispel. Therefore, if the highly influential force of everyday sites is allowed to act on the unaware viewing subject, they may work to form an "interpretive matrix for what is seen" (Butler, 2003, p.79).

Therefore, one must be aware when examining the TDSB's aim to create a "complete" curriculum "that academic knowledge is not ... self-contained" (Pinar, 2012, p.188). Rather, it is part of a wide and complicated conversation between multiple different sites that make up our culture. Naturally, some of these sites are more visible than others, therefore having the greater pedagogical influence. It is this visibility that helps create the frame that is so central to the ideas presented in this thesis. The frame can be thought of, then, as "both jettisoning and presenting, and as doing so both at once, in silence, without any visible sign of its operation"

(Butler, 2003, p.73).

In light of this, one must ask how the TDSB curriculum presents a chance for students to

"reflect on, and think critically about themselves and the world they will inherit" (Pinar, 2012, p.189). To make this point clear, I am asking what understanding is achieved if one is never fully aware of what potential ways of knowing are made invisible by the frame? Without awareness the frame, can one reach the kind of understanding that might offer an "opportunity for social reconstruction" (Pinar, 2012, p.53)? This is important to consider as "it is understanding that informs the ethical obligation to care for ourselves and our fellow human beings" (Pinar, 2012, p.190). I will return the idea of conversational curriculum in the conclusion of this thesis.

Chapter 3 - Methodology

In order to explore the TDSB posters I will be using the ideas discussed in chapter 1 and 2.

With this framework I will conduct a qualitative textual analysis built upon the idea that certain everyday pedagogical sites work with the TDSB posters visual (re)presentations to create a frame that may be promoting a certain perception of homosexual reality. By delivering a certain view of reality through their posters, the TDSB may be confusing its aim of addressing media stereotypes. Furthermore, this visibility may not reflect the lived experience of all LGBTQ students, which may complicate the TDSB's aim of allowing those students the chance to see themselves reflected in the curriculum. This research will analyze two posters in particular, shown below (see figure 3.1). These posters were chosen because of their visual content.

Poster A specifically makes reference to queer subjects, making its use of visual images important to the idea of (re)presentation in regards to specific group of individuals. Poster B shows individuals directly, and while not specifically referring to their sexuality, I feel the visuality of the poster requires further consideration, especially in regards to how it works in relation to the curriculum and other sites of everyday influence.

Considering the increased visual (re)presentation of homosexuality throughout popular culture, these posters will allow for an investigation into the way homosexual (re)presentation operates both in and outside of the classroom. This will aid in revealing dominant ways of understanding homosexuality that might be contributing to the persistence of the binary categories commonly used to think and speak about sexuality

Figure 3. 1 The chosen TDSB posters

This kind of textual analysis will allow for a reading of the poster that better reveals the wider, more complicated conversation they are a part of. In this way, the TDSB posters are not isolated from the culture they are part of, but become interpreted through a lens constructed from the most influential parts of that culture. This allows one to question if they are actually confirming, rather than interrupting, homosexual stereotypes that populate our modern cultural landscape. As previously mentioned, because this question focuses on visual (re)presentations, two of the most visual posters will be analyzed.

These posters will be read against a set of specific everyday sites, chosen for their popularity, contemporary timeliness and accessibility. These will be Modern Family (multiple seasons), The

New Normal (season 1) and Glee (multiple seasons). This viewing will include selected

episodes from each series, focusing on those episodes that deal with homosexual lives specifically. Each episode will be viewed three times. This should allow for a good idea of how certain types of (re)presentation are repeated and how often. How homosexual (re)presentation is handled by each individual show will then be carefully studied. Other shows will also be referenced, taken from personal viewing habits.

Although this type of analysis may be associated with methods use in the analysis of film and television, the focus of this thesis remains one more closely aligned with visual culture studies and queer theory. The intent of this thesis is to question the images used by the TDSB posters, asking how they work to promote or challenge hegemonic ideas of sexuality, specifically in relation to the homosexual subject. The relationships between the images and the viewing subject, and the results those connections have on how one understands the culture they inhabit. It is the understanding that might potentially be formed through these sites that is of interest to me. This understanding leads into the second intent of this thesis, which is to investigate how this understanding may impact the LQBTQ individual. By comparing the

(re)presentations seen within the primary three shows, and (re)presentation found in other popular sites, the hope is that a more complete picture of how the TDSB posters are working will emerge.

This textual analysis will use the information gathered from these sites of everyday influence to speak of and comment on how the TDSB posters work in conjunction with these sites in regards to the frame. Some questions of interest in regards to this are:

1. What commonalities do the homosexual characters share across these shows?

2. What differences do the homosexual characters show?

3. Are similar (re)presentations present in the TDSB posters visual (re)presentations?

During the qualitative analysis I will allow the TDSB posters to guide certain areas of discussion.

The data collected from the everyday sites of influence will be central to understanding how the

TDSB poster's visual (re)presentations may be working on the viewing subject, building and strengthening a frame that includes certain examples of homosexuality, while excluding others.

Throughout the reading on the TDSB posters, autobiographical writing will be used to give certain points raised a context as one considers what is not being made visible by the frame. It will also help to instill a reference of individual lived reality to the work, which I believe is an important consideration. This frame is constructed from the repeated (re)presentations of homosexuality found in the selected everyday sites and the TDSB posters.

Chapter 4 - The Homosexual in Situation Comedies

The sitcom has included (re)presentations for many varied social groups on television, including the homosexual male (Foss, 2008). However, while we have seen an increased visibility of homosexual (re)presentation on screen during the last ten years, some suggest that the way such characters are positioned today continues to rely on humorous yet hurtful jokes that reinforce hegemonic notions of masculinity (Becker, 2004). Therefore, many of these programs continue to (re)present homosexuality using well recognized, possibly acceptable, ideas of gay identity. For example, Will & Grace places homosexuality in "opposition to masculinity, pairs its characters in familiar opposite-sex dyads, defuses the most outrageous character's threats to heteronormativity, and emphasizes relationships at the expense of gay politics" (Battles &

Hilton-Morrow, 2003, p.89).

There are further examples of such (re)presentation. Frasier (1993 - 2004) often dealt with the issue of masculinity, posing its two lead characters as not traditionally masculine. But assurance of their heterosexuality was introduced in each episode through various romantic escapades. The show also contained other (re)presentations of the heterosexual male, creating a range of ways heterosexuality might be performed. It is important to note, while one may view this variety as giving heterosexual subjects a less restrictive set of (re)presentations to align with, the way in which the show dealt with the (re)presentation of homosexuality could also become restrictive. For example, the show continually assured the audience of both characters' heterosexuality by positioning them next to various, and often attractive, female love interests.

This type of (re)presentation may create a form of social restriction for heterosexual subjects who exude a certain type of masculinity, one more readily associated with homosexual men.

The show seems to use the presence of female love interests as a way of confirming certain characters' heterosexuality.

When the show did choose to implicitly and explicitly (re)present homosexual characters, it relied on familiar cultural stereotypes. For example, one particular character, Gill Chesterton, is described as being a "pompous, catty, effeminate, over refined character" that is also "believed by his coworkers to be in the closet" (Wikipedia, Retrieved May 12, 2014). Interestingly, although Gill refers to his "wife" in multiple episodes, she never appears on screen. Not only does this support the claim above in regards to confirming heterosexuality, but it also suggests the power of vision in relation to forming knowledge.

In a later episode, entitled "Out with Dad" (2000), we find Frasier's father, Martin, pretending to be a homosexual man in order to dissuade the advances of a lonely widow. This plan backfires when Martin is setup on a date with another man. Interestingly, it is Martin's lack of interest in this particular woman that led to his being mistaken as homosexual, further placing the idea that heterosexuals aligned with certain types of masculinity must prove themselves by showing continual interest in the opposite sex.

Not to let his son down, Marty announces he will "gay it up a little" (11:21) to a worried

Frasier. This then begins a performance where Marty alters his language, expressing a keen interest in museums, galleries and antique shops. He proudly explains how he taught his sons about "art and -you know- upholstery" (11.54). His physical mannerisms also change. At one point he explains how he came out to himself, stating "I'm gay, I like myself, and I'm not living a lie anymore" (12:41). And while this is a commendable attitude towards his sexuality, it is delivered with flamboyance and a feminine hand gesture for emphasis, aligning Martin's performance with common stereotypes (see figure 4.1).

Figure 4. 1 Image from Frasier episode "Out with Dad" (2000)

While Frasier kept its homosexual characters to secondary roles, Will & Grace was the first sitcom to introduce lead gay characters in a primetime spot. Since it first broadcast, Will &

Grace has become an important and much discussed site of everyday influence, winning numerous awards, including two GLAAD Media Awards. One of two gay leads, Will is a

(re)presentation of a "very straight gay" (Connell, 1992). This (re)presentation has been applauded and condemned as a portrayal of the "normal gay" (Seidman, 2005). However, it is noted that "when the program must explicitly account for his sexuality that he is defined as "not masculine"" (Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002, p91). I am not using this quote to suggest that Will did not display masculine, or more appropriately, hegemonic masculinity qualities. Instead, I am more interested that when the show is asked to explicitly define Will's sexuality, it relies on those masculine traits that people perceive as being homosexual, policing existing binary categorizes as described by Sedgwick (1990).

Moreover, Will's friend Jack is a "flamboyantly gay, continually self-employed, self-described dancer/actor/choreographer" (Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002, pp. 88), who is not ashamed to rely on Will to support him financially, and holds an infinite love for celebrity divas. While this

gave audiences their first chance to see a prolonged performance of multiple gay identities, it was also working in consent with other examples of homosexuality historically used by the sitcom. Linneman (2008) takes issue with the feminization of both of the show's gay leads, saying:

"A comprehensive content analysis shows that both gay primary characters

frequently are feminized by other characters on the show, often in efforts to

castigate them. Very few of these feminizing moments occur as a result of the

characters acting in effeminate ways, thus emphasizing the immanent

femininity of gay men" (p. 583).

Similar to the discussed scene in Frasier, the main characters here align with a certain type of masculinity, either through their own performance or through the actions of other characters on the show. The repeated feminization of both Will and Jack would suggest an area for concern, especially when one considers that much of our "learning occurs through sheer repetition"

(Duncum, 1999, p.297). If such examples become repeated throughout a show's entire run this would work to reinforce a definition of gayness aligned with a certain type of masculinity.

This is where the frame becomes a helpful concept for making sense of this work. The frame created by repeated (re)presentations of homosexual performance may contribute to the recognizability of a universal ‘gay’ identity (Halperin, 2013). As discussed through Halperin's work, while this recognizability does have benefits, it can have implications for the many individuals represented by it. How we discuss the idea of sexuality, what rights may be afforded to LGBTQ subjects and under what conditions depends "upon a certain field of perceptible reality having already been established" (Butler, 2002, p.64). These sites of everyday influence

are working in part to establish this perceptible reality. And so, as a homosexual subject, I pay close attention.

Cameron and Mitchell from Modern Family are two further examples of the homosexual man.

Again, they have been acclaimed as being multidimensional characters that, like their heterosexual counterparts, show traits that are not easily classified as stereotypical. However, while the show does write both Cameron and Mitchell as more diverse characters, playing with ideas that broaden the idea of what constitutes masculinity, they also put them in situations that confirm historic ways of understanding sexuality.

For example, in the episode "Old Wagon" (2010) Mitchell tries to prove his hegemonic masculinity by building his daughter Lily a princess castle. Though this is tempered by

Cameron's apparent skill in this area, it is Mitchell's masculinity that becomes the comedic focus for the episode. Therefore, it is this part of his character that is made most visible to the viewing subject. Furthermore, Mitchell defends his handiness by saying he was an "intern at the

Sandburg Summer Playhouse," (6:02) a reference which plays up to the stereotype that associates gay men with musical theatre.

Autobiography 1

On many occasions, a colleague at the school I worked at would continually

ask me to join her musical theatre troupe. "You'll love it," she said," There are

so many gays there." Each time she asked, I would politely decline. It seems I

have more a love of manners than of musical theatre. But she would continue

asking. I would continue to politely decline. She would also make suggestive

innuendo at the lunch table, winking in my direction, turning the slightest of

topics into something sexual, waiting for me to react. I can't say what her goal

was, or even if this was anything to do with my sexuality. I can say that she

talked to me differently from the other male, heterosexual, staff. They were

never invited into her musical group. I can also say how it made me feel. It

made me feel uncomfortable. I can't say if this is a good, bad or unfair

response to have had. But I felt that I had presented myself to my colleges in a

certain way, and that the assumptions being made (that I would enjoy amateur

dramatics, or want to partake in suggestive banter) spoke against that

perception. It was the identity of some other person, not mine.

This individual was not being intentionally homophobic, yet her assumptions remain "the most intimate violence possible" (Sedgwick, 1990, p.26). Other friends, too, continued to make this association, calling a heterosexual friend "gay" for enjoying the musical Les Miserable. These types of assumptions demonstrate that knowledge itself is not power, but competes with ignorance and opacity to "mobilize the flows of energy, desire, goods, meanings, persons"

(Sedgwick, p.4). Thus, when considering the (re)presentations made visible to viewing subjects, one should remind themselves of how the "dangerous relations of visibility and articulation around homosexual possibility makes the prospect of its being misread especially fraught" (Sedgwick, p.18).

Many times in my life people have assumed that I would enjoy attending or being involved in experiences similar to those expressed by the homosexual characters in Modern Family. And while I haven't taken major offence on these occasions, as I am sure they were offered in all genuine sincerity, it does remind me of Halperin's (2013) work, specifically that "gayness reduced to identity or understood as identity - fails to realize male homosexual desire in its

unpredictable, unsystematic ensemble" (p.70). By this I mean to suggest that while I am homosexual, my desires, wants and needs cannot be known or predicted by thinking of homosexuals as a category of people. This is where Ellsworth's (2005) concept of knowledge as a thing made also becomes important. If one believes homosexuality might be understood in general terms, then the individual is at the mercy of the "mechanisms by which they are constructed and reproduced" (Sedgwick, 1990, p.22).

However, one is not unable to rethink and question existing knowledge structures. Once people knew more about my lived experience, they were able to produce new knowledge and meaning in relation to what they understood about a homosexual life. Initially, though, I was denied the authority to describe in my own way what being homosexual meant to me, nor accurately convey the way I was living my life. Therefore, when I think of the TDSB's goal to afford the opportunity for all LGBTQ students to see themselves reflected in the curriculum, I am reminded of the times when I was misrepresented and what that meant to me.

Perhaps this is why these particular media (re)presentations have troubled me. They do allow for the viewing subject to consider LGBTQ issues as a general subject. However, for the

LGBTQ individual, they have the potential to represent them in a way that does not account for their personal lived experience; their own history and identity. But as this thesis unfolds, I am finding that this may only be an issue if knowledge is allowed to settle into a particular way of understanding LGBTQ subjects through certain defining attributes, ignoring the complexity of their actual lived realities.

This makes the TDSB's aim to tackle media stereotypes, which may be a major source for understanding homosexual subjects (Hart, 2000; Duncum, 1999), all the more important. These

media sources, such as Modern Family, may play a part in how people construct an account of gay identity. The perception of homosexual people that forms here might become a "thing made" if not understood for what it is; a single account of gay identity that does not (re)present all gay subjects. Because of this, I can see a need to investigate how the TDSB is choosing to make visible LGBTQ subjects, as I believe it is closely aligned with making these students feel

(better) reflected in the curriculum. The TDSB posters, as visual pieces of this curriculum, play an important part of this investigation.

Other episodes of Modern Family continue using a masculinity commonly associated with homosexual men. In Run for your Wife (2009) Cameron dresses their adopted daughter as various pop-culture icons, such as Diana Ross. In an episode called The Late Show (2013), both men squabble over which clothes to wear, ending in a contest of "who wore it better"

(14:23). Furthermore, another reoccurring homosexual character named Pepper Saltzman occasionally appears, again displaying many stereotypes associated with the homosexual male.

Much like those traits used in Frasier and Will & Grace, the characters here are often depicted as flamboyant, vain, petty and selfish.

Elsewhere, we see other homosexual characters appear in sites of everyday influence. Kurt

Hummel from Glee (2009 - present) uses many of the stereotypes provided by other homosexual characters in mainstream shows. A flamboyant, feminine diva with an interest in musical theatre and fashion, he is a (re)presentation of a repeated example that works to drive home a particular concept of the homosexual life. More recent shows like The New Normal

(2012 - 2013) have tackled current issues faced by homosexual people. However, though the issues of surrogacy and same-sex parenthood may be culturally recent topics, the traits expressed by the characters are not. The character of Bryan Collins is a similar

(re)presentation to those discussed previously. In the pilot episode, the tone for these characters is set by an early conversation between the couple:

Brian: "I want us to have baby clothes. And a baby to put in them"

David: "Sweetie, you know you can't return a baby to Barney's" (“The New

Normal Pilot,” 7.04).

Other recent (re)presentations have attempted to pull away from often used stereotypes.

Blaine originally appeared as Kurt's love interest in Glee, showing a different account of masculinity. Initially written as bisexual, we see Blaine question his sexuality (Blame it on the alcohol, 2011). The character presented a good opportunity for the show to raise some interesting concerns around the question of sexuality, but as Blaine becomes surer of himself and his relationship with Kurt, we see a slight revision of his character, from composed and confident to dramatic and campy. This transition can be seen in episodes such as Trio, The End of Twerk and Puppet Master (2014).

Alternatively, the character of David Karofsky also appears in Glee, representing one of the more complicated portrayals of a homosexual subject in the show. A more hegemonic example of male masculinity, David only appears in a handful of episodes, but delivers a very different

(re)presentation of homosexuality than either Kurt or Blaine. Interestingly, his lived experience is also much different to either of those characters. This does suggest that shows can offer spaces to confront and question existing knowledge. However, it also raises questions as to the operation of the frame they create. How much space is allowed in that frame, how is that space allocated, and what affect does the repetition of similar (re)presentations have on knowledge in the making? It also raises the question of what kinds of (re)presentations are getting the most

exposure, and what impact that is having on LGBTQ individuals watching those shows.

One might also find this diversity of (re)presentation in Happy Endings (2011 - 2013). Here we find the character of Max, described by his on-screen friend Penny as "a straight dude who likes dudes" ("The Quicksand Girlfriend," 2011). Max is at the opposite end to more traditional homosexual (re)presentations. He has a love of video games, no desire to be in a relationship, poor personal hygiene and is continually unemployed. Although this may present a different way of thinking about what and who may be considered homosexual, it still creates a kind of binarism. Often we see Max defined as heterosexual by his friends because he does not imbue enough clear homosexual qualities. This notion is furthered later in the same episode when

Penny exclaims that Max is "the worst gay husband ever" (5.32). She reasons why in the following conversation:

Penny: "I want a gay who will watch house-flipping shows with me and grab

my boobs in a platonic way."

Max: "So you want a stereotypical, flamboyant, cartoonish, Sex in the City

gay? That's offensive!" ("The Quicksand Girlfriend," 6:06).

Later in that episode, we are introduced to Derek. Here we do see a more stereotypical

(re)presentation of the flamboyant homosexual. Not only does Derek's appearance seem solely for the purpose of comedy, he also repeats many of the visual (re)presentations that mark homosexuality in such shows. In this case, there are two reasons for concern. First, the character of Max is producing an alternate (re)presentation of homosexuality, but one that is seen as simply heterosexuality by another name. In such a case, the binary thinking that drives the homo/heterosexual divide is still functioning, working on the visual signs that come from how

one performs. Second, the character of Derek, positioned as a ‘real’ homosexual (even in jest), is repeating a similar (re)presentation of homosexuality found in many other sites of everyday influence. It is this repetition in such highly pedagogical sites that may potentially work to strengthen the markers by which homosexuality is recognized. It also signals how knowledge is closed down as categorical definitions are made using existing hegemonic ideas about sexuality.

Figure 4. 2 Image of Max (left) and Derek (right) from Happy Endings (2013)

My point is that if certain examples of homosexual (re)presentation are more frequently seen in sites of everyday influence, then one may learn to use these to make clear what Sedgwick

(1990) refers to as the "deadening pretending knowingness of modern homo/heterosexual definition" (p.12). This knowledge serves particular purposes. First it may be used to blindly group certain individuals together, making it easier to both accept and reject the idea of what constitutes a homosexual life. It also affords one the opportunity to define their opposition to homosexuality on the grounds of what they believe a homosexual life involves. This can be seen in effect from the reaction to the TDSB posters from various individuals and groups4.

4 http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/25/poster-not-about-polygamy-tdsb

Finally, it can be used to fill in missing information about individuals. This can be the case when someone wishes to understand more about homosexuality, which was the case with much of my friends and family when I first came out to them. The issue arrives when one considers this knowledge to be a comprehensive, unchanging account of homosexual life, rather than seeing it as one unstable example of an individual subject's sexuality.

Images, then, remain important to this investigation. Although shows like Glee and Modern

Family do not rely on vision alone to create meaning, the images they produce have significant pedagogical impact. Rogoff (2002) writes:

"Images convey information, afford pleasure and displeasure, influence style,

determine consumption and mediate power relations. Who we see and who

we do not see; who is privileged within a regime of specularity; which aspects

of the historical past actually have circulating visual representations and which

do not; whose fantasies of what are fed by which visual images?" (p.25).

If certain (re)presentations are more apparent in the visual field then they may come to inform how the viewing subject might read images in relation to one another. By focusing on the field of vision I hope to create a space in which to question images used by the TDSB. If these posters are "aimed at reforming what we think we know" (Ellsworth, 2005, p.37), one should consider how they might actually be interpreted in relation to sites of everyday influence, and how they "activate the instability of the binary self/other" (p.37).

Chapter 5 - Textual Analysis of the Posters

5.1 Introduction to the Posters

Figure 5. 1 The chosen TDSB posters. Poster A (left) and poster B (right)

Both TDSB posters contain many visual elements that work to inform the viewing subject about sexuality and diversity. Poster A shows a selection of brightly colored fish swimming in two directions against an empty background. A sign in the top left corner indicates gender diversity, accompanied by the words "safe and positive space." At the bottom of the poster a message reads "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your school!" The word queer is singled out from the other words by its rainbow coloring, a reference strongly linked to LGBTQ rights and the pride flag. Though the poster claims to promote a "safe and positive" school environment, how

elements of this poster might potentially continue existing knowledge of homosexual lives seen in media stereotypes should be considered.

Remembering the operation of the frame, what is and is not being made visible becomes important. One should also think carefully about what this might mean if the viewing subject is unaware of this "operation of power that does not appear as a figure of oppression" (Butler,

2003, p.73). The posters only present a limited number of ideas, excluding many others. If

"seeing is tacitly ... linked with the occupation of a position" (Butler, 2002, p.65), what position is the TDSB taking? What notion of the recognizable homosexual are they (intentionally or unintentionally) creating? Given the argument that sites of everyday influence have great pedagogical force, what potential for furthering binary thinking might happen if the TDSB posters use imagery that resonates with media stereotypes rather than offering the opportunity to rethink them?

What the TDSB posters mean to the individual is also of importance. Remember, I am interpreting them through my own lived experiences. Situations and people I have encountered during my life play an important role in how I have responded to the images and messages presented by the posters. Therefore, it is equally important to recognize that others may have different interpretations and ideas. However, I feel that individual consideration is part of understanding the potential effects such educational tools may have. For example, the word queer is used multiple times on this poster, but the meaning of the term may differ for the individual viewing subject.

Autobiography 2

Growing up, the word queer was used by certain members of my family in

relation to homosexual men. My most personal, and therefore hurtful,

association with the word also comes from a personal experience. I was

returning from a night out, holding hands with a boy on the way home. I was in

the second year of university and relatively new to living as an openly gay

man. We were about half way home when a car drove past and I was hit by

about half a dozen eggs. The assault was delivered with the insult of "fucking

queers" from the drive by assailants. It's the emotion that I remember feeling

that makes this such a valuable memory. Not fear, but embarrassment and

shame. I felt like I had been caught doing something that didn't belong outside

my room or the nightclub. It's this lived experience that has attached itself so

indelibly to the word queer. As yet, re-education about the word has not

trumped the connection to lived experience.

Although I also understand the aspect of reclamation and authorship involved in the word's use amongst the LGBTQ community, it is not a word I would choose to use to describe myself. It also goes some way in explaining how I have interpreted the use of the word in relation to the

TDSB posters. It also serves as a reminder of how individual interpretation can differ from intended meaning, as well as who has authorship of meaning. This is also a good example of why one might not want to "pass over what homosexuality feel like to us" (Halperin, 2013, p.71).

Poster B continues to match many of the themes presented in poster A, though in a more direct manner. Rather than using abstract images, poster B uses photographs of children in gender-queering ways. For example, two girls are shown. One is dressed as a fire-fighter, the other as a doctor. Meanwhile the boys are shown dressed in girls' clothing or playing with dolls.

At the top of the poster are the words "there are no rules for being a boy or a girl." For myself,

while I read the (re)presentations of girls as a commentary on what jobs or roles might potentially be occupied by women, the repeated images of boys wearing dresses is harder to interpret5. The posters intent (assuming it has one) appears to be about gender, yet because of its association with LGBTQ subjects, it also has the potential to be interpreted differently be the viewing subject. When I originally saw this poster, I connected the boys wearing dresses with homosexual stereotypes recently seen on television shows. It was partially this association that led me to choose this particular poster for further investigation. However, I recognize that this might not be every viewing subject's interpretation.

Over the next chapter, I will draw out some of the ways each poster works with sites of everyday influence to possibly promote and continue certain homosexual stereotypes. I will return to my original goal of considering the interrelatedness of the images used by TDSB posters and those found in sites of everyday influence discussed in the previous chapter. This is to from a more complete investigation into knowledge, both in the making and as a thing made, in relation to these images.

5.2 Theatricality

The types of fish used by poster A are colorful, flamboyant and theatrical. This may have been to create an interesting aesthetic for the viewing subject. However, one might consider how the use of such visuals aligns with stereotypical (re)presentations of homosexual men found in sites of everyday influence. For example, many of television's most popular shows repeatedly

5 Interestingly, one of my reviewers commented on not being able to tell the specific gender of these children, an interpretation that I had not encountered myself.

position homosexual men wearing bright and colorful clothing (see figure 5.2).

Figure 5. 2 Images of homosexual subjects in bright clothing

In these images, we see a repeated stereotype that could become associated with the TDSB posters through a common aesthetic of color and theatricality. Often, homosexual men are linked with theatricality, especially musical theatre. This repetition occurs in many contemporary shows, such as Will & Grace, Glee, The New Normal and Modern Family. In these shows the characters constantly show a need for attention. Modern Family's Cameron Tucker displays a constant need to perform and be seen performing. Similarly, Kurt Hummel from Glee repeats this trend, presented as a person driven by the desire is to perform. Little Britain's (2003 - 2006)

Dafydd Thomas is yet another (re)presentation that, through his outlandish wardrobe, demands viewers' attention. Each of these characters performs very similarly, showing one particular type of masculinity.

What concerns me is how these (re)presentations tend to be the ones most commonly made visible. Although they do form a recognizable identity for discussion around sexuality, it might also be a relevant point to remember Halperin's (2013) work. While such (re)presentations are part of how culture makes a coherent gay identity visible, that same identity cannot account for the diversity of all gay individuals. These (re)presentations crowd the frame of perceptible reality (Butler, 2002). Therefore, they have the potential to continue to portray homosexuality as

an identifiable social or political category, which for all its benefits may be "preventing us from knowing ourselves" (Halperin, 2013, p.71).

However, they also open up space for one to ask "what enactments they are performing and what relations they are creating" (Sedgwick, 1990, p.27). Indeed, this thesis has been made possible because of them. This opens up an interesting line of inquiry. Do (re)presentations lead to the "radical condensation of sexual categories" (p.9), or instead, allow for the instability of the homo/hetero divide to be opened up? After all, such images have the potential to produce "deadening pretending knowingness" (p.13), continuing the homo/heterosexual divide.

But as I am finding, they also have the potential to create space for new questions to be asked.

This complexity is in the very fabric of this thesis.

It is, then, important to remember that the frame created by shows like Modern Family may conduct certain kinds of interpretations. What interpretations might occur remains a central question of this thesis. Therefore, I ask what interpretations have the potential to happen when the viewing subject is exposed to the images of tropical fish. Such animals are kept on show for the pleasure of the viewing subject. They exist to be looked at, exactly because they are flamboyant, colorful and interesting to watch. Here the frame functions "not only as a boundary to the image, but as structuring the image itself" (Butler, 2002, p.71). By this I mean the colorful nature of the fish may be associated with the kinds of theatrical (re)presentations seen on

Modern Family. If nothing questions or troubles this (re)presentation, if what is seen maintains the stereotypes of a recognizable homosexuality, it may become knowledge as a thing made, rather than in the making (Ellsworth, 2005).

Certain repeated ideas may align the images of fish with popular (re)presentations of

homosexuality in everyday sites. As Duncum (1999) argues, repetition is a factor in how people learn. It is at the point where the possible interpretation of certain images overlap that particular ideas about homosexuality could become confirmed and continued. They add to a specific kind of recognizability that governs how one might articulate what constitutes homosexuality by making certain things visible, while hiding others. Such articulation depends on a particular perception of homosexuality having already been established (Butler, 2002). Moreover, the more specific (re)presentations are repeated, the stronger their influence may become

(Duncum, 1999). In light of this, the forms of fish become an interesting visual (re)presentation to use, simply because they may overlap with repeated stereotypes used in popular sites of everyday influence. Therefore there may be a need to think about the reality being delivered by the TDSB posters.

5.3 Fashion and Dress

The fish also feed a repeated stereotype positioning homosexual men as fashion obsessed.

For example, shows such a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003 - 2007)6 have a cast made up from exclusively homosexual men. That this show also deals with the idea of fashion and appearance supports the idea of these fish expressing a subliminal connection to the homosexual fashion stereotype, largely because they appear so visually appealing. This connection is possibly furthered when accounting for the images of boys dressed up in poster B.

And while there are truthful cases to this assumption, to believe that all homosexual men enjoy this distraction would ignore other ways of living a homosexual life, or other possible

6 Again, I realize that the word queer can mean many things, and not just in reference to homosexual men. However, apart from my own personal association with the word, one can also find links between the word and homosexual men in everyday sites.

homosexual masculinities.

Yet it is common to see this type of (re)presentation on television. Both Cameron and

Mitchell from Modern Family display a healthy appreciation of fashion, and the show often uses this stereotype to confirm the pair's homosexuality to the viewing subject, positioning them within a certain kind of masculine performance. This performance is often similar for both characters, demonstrating the lack of diversity applied to the (re)presentation of homosexual characters in such shows.

Positioning homosexual characters in such a way also occurs in Glee and The New Normal.

When we see the repetition of one particular theme, one might ask what effect such repetition might have on the way an individual may come to understand homosexuality. From personal experience I can confirm that it is common to expect homosexual men to be very concerned with their outward appearance. Pascoe (2007) writes that such "grooming habits are associated with gay men" (p.63). Yet to simply assume this a universal marker for recognizing homosexuality would be wrong, feeding the stereotype that all homosexual men are narcissistic

(Halperin, 2013). Yet because the (re)presentations in sites of everyday influence often show so few other performances of male homosexuality, viewing subjects may not have this assumption challenged. Pascoe (2007) uses an exchange between herself and a student to show this association, writing that "fags cared about the style of their clothes, wore tighter clothes, and cared about cleanliness. Nils explained to me that he could tell a guy was a fag by the way he dressed" (p.62). This exchange also highlights the importance of vision in identifying queer or homosexual subjects.

Taking Modern Family as an example, we do see the show try and tackle this issue by

aligning heterosexual characters with similar tropes. For example, in the episode "The Late

Show" the character of Phil Dumphey buys an extremely tight fitting suit (see figure 5.3).

However, this is one of the only times the character is shown to care about his appearance in such a way. Furthermore, during most of this episode, the character is dressing to attract the attention of his wife. Therefore, the show makes it clear that this is a concern of procuring heterosexual intercourse, not for personal enjoyment. Meanwhile, in the same episode, we see both the characters of Mitchell and Cameron fighting over whom gets to wear an identical suit both characters have bought without the other's knowledge (see figure 5.3). Neither character seems concerned with wearing the clothes for anything other than their own self-gratification.

Figure 5. 3 Phil in his suit (left) and Mitchell and Cameron wearing identical suits (right)

While the range of masculine performances exhibited by the heterosexual characters on

Modern Family position them in varied and different ways, the performances of homosexual characters are limited to stereotypes that help identify them as such, continuing, I feel, binary classification. In Modern Family we see Cameron and Mitchell's obsession with fashion occur throughout multiple episodes. And like Phil's suit, which is used to emphasis his heterosexuality through the pursuit of sexual intimacy with his wife, Cameron and Mitchell's obsession with

fashion is also used to strongly emphasize their homosexuality7. This is done by showing a familiar and well understood example of a particular masculinity, one strongly associated with homosexual stereotypes. For example, in "The Old Wagon" (2010) the following exchange takes place:

Mitchell: I've lay all the tools outside and all the supplies are ready. I think we

are good to go!

Cam: Terrific.

Mitchell: Aren't you going to change into a working man's outfit?

Cam: No, I'm good. And I don't think workmen really call them "outfits." (1:50)

Here we see Mitchell turning home renovation, an activity associated with a certain type of traditional masculinity, into something identifiably homosexual. This identification happens through the show's use of universal markers that help identify a person as homosexual. This connection is repeated in the same episode when Mitchell, in a sing-song voice, declares "look at us, three construction dudes. Dad, I'll get you some workman gloves. I have a pair in blue or camo; what's your preference?" (The Old Wagon, 8.21). By defining the homosexuality of the situation through the association of Mitchell's character with fashion, the show is articulating homosexuality in a way that continues an essentialist view of it. That the character of Jay,

Mitchell's on-screen father. Arguably the most hegemonic masculine character on the show,

Jay displays a healthy dose of despair at his son's suggestion is also poignant. In writing the characters in this way, the show is making clear the line of homo/heterosexual definition.

7 This is very similar to the use of love interests in Frasier (see chapter 4).

Autobiography 3

After coming out as gay, my mother reacted in a way that will remain one of

the most intimately painful moments of my life. The locus of this trauma was

that at the moment she came to categorize her son as homosexual, an

erasure of sorts took place. After two weeks of not speaking, I asked a close

friend to meet with her on my behalf. My mother then expressed many

concerns about how I was living my life; concerns that were born through

exposure to sites of everyday influence, rather than founded on what I thought

she had previously know about me and my life. These included being sexually

promiscuous, into drugs, and doomed to die alone. She cited Queer as Folk

(1998 - 2000) as being the main pedagogical inspiration for these

assumptions. One might question why she chose to use this as her main

source of information, but it remains that this was an easily accessible site of

everyday influence at a time when she may have been asking questions about

her son's sexuality; two years before I was ready to confirm her suspicions

personally.

Of course, this is simply one interpretation of that scene. And I am aware that this particular interpretation can be attributed to my own personal feelings towards the way Mitchell is being positioned by the show. These "painful imaginings" of my mother were born from "the epistemological distinctiveness of gay identity and gay situation" that has been made so visible by "our culture" (Sedgwick, p.75). What was and remains so uniquely painful in such a situation is that the individual is replaced by a sexual classification, becoming in the process "one of those" (p.78). That this happened between a mother and her son only amplifies the sensation

of hurt further. It also shows how far the "authority over its definition has been distanced from the gay subject her- or himself" (p.79). It is also a demonstration of the danger in thinking

(re)presentation "more at the level of groups than of individuals" (p.83). When my mother saw me as a homosexual, rather than as an individual, an amount of control was lost to the everyday sites of influence that showed homosexuality as a visible, knowable thing.

Perhaps it is my lived experience dealing with the disappointment of family members after coming out that informs this reading. Either way, this has much to do with the TDSB posters and their imagery. It shows that not every LGBTQ individual will identify with images used in the same way. How they may see themselves and their lived experience has everything to do with the way they may choose to interact with the images. This reaction to the (re)presentation of

Mitchell is also because I see so many other (re)presentations using similar markers to position the homosexual character. Returning again to Duncum's (1999) theory of repetition equaling greater pedagogical influence, it becomes troubling when one considers that homosexual characters are often positioned in similar ways to one another.

Brain from The New Normal is associated with fashion in almost every episode. In "Baby

Clothes" (2012) he expresses a fear that the couple's surrogate baby might be too big to fit into designer clothes, praying that "he or she is slightly undersized because Marc Jacobs onezies run a tad small" and that it would "be a shame if he or she got cut out of the fall line" (1:54).

This stereotype is further enforced by the character of Kurt in Glee, who also supports a healthy appreciation for designer clothing, stating that "every moment of your life is an opportunity for fashion" (Acafellas, 2009). That the subject of fashion may be connected to the TDSB posters is not assured, but there is equal argument to suggest that through potential connections between their images and sites of everyday influences they could be.

As an individual, I rarely find myself feeling connected or represented by the characters on these shows. If the posters have the potential to validate those same (re)presentations a theoretical problem emerges for the LGBTQ individual. Again, I am not trying to suggest that these are wrong or unreal account of gay lives, or that no homosexual man will find some truth in such accounts, but rather that this is an issue I, and possibly others, face. That all these characters are predominantly white and primarily middle class raises further questions as to how representative they are and the influence they are having.

Autobiography 4

A recent conversation at work led to the discussion of socks. "I heard," said a

colleague, "that you can always spot a gay man by his socks." This was met

by general unrest by the rest of the group. "You can't say that!" said one

person. "I heard the same thing about black people and socks" said another,

"and you never see any black gay people, do you?" I looked at my own socks.

They were odd and I knew one has a hole in the toe. I wondered what they

would make of mine if they saw them.

5.4 Predatory Behavior and Sexual Desire

In a Glee episode titled "A Night of Neglect" (2011) the character of Sanford Ryerson (see figure

5.4) is presented as a lecherous homosexual, openly confessing to another straight male character, "you're hunky and I'm what they call a predatory gay" (16:02)8. This is prior to his

8 Interesting to note the use of the prefix "predatory" in front of the word gay. This sub-categorization is another area that would be interesting to investigate further.

earlier presence in the show, formerly being introduced as an assumed pedophile, fired from his position as the school's drama teacher for inappropriately touching male students. That his effeminacy, vibrantly colored clothes, and love of musical theatre link him to fish in ways previously discussed in this chapter is an issue for me, as I believe it invites "unwarranted assumptions that all gay men may plausibly be accused of making sexual advances to strangers" (Sedgwick, 1990, p.19). It also raises questions about what parts of the homosexual life are allowed or welcomed in schools.

Figure 5. 4 Image of Sandy from Glee

Autobiography 5

I remember being in love with a boy named David throughout most of senior

school. I don't think he ever knew, but I could be wrong. I remember having to

be careful of not showing my desire in any evident way, which I must have

been okay at, because most boys our age were good at picking up on

anything that could be classified as "gay" behavior. For example, if you

touched someone's hand with yours by accident, or complimented someone

on a new shirt, it would be quickly addressed by someone in the group, ending

in you being accused of being a queer. I do remember feeling that any

evidence of my desire was not welcome in the school. And so I existed quietly

during those years, hiding a part of me as it wrestled violently to be free,

waiting to find a space where those desires would be welcomed.

Perhaps that is why I feel uncomfortable when I read the words on poster A (see figure 5.5).

It invites me to remember that feeling of invading the school space. I am reminded that the school does not belong to those who identify as queer, implied through the use of the possessive pronoun "your" in the text. Much in the same way Sanford does not belong in his respective school, the poster invites a similar understanding. This leads me to wonder how such an association might contradict any curriculum that aims to make all students feel part of the school they attend (2011). It also raises the question around how the terms of this acceptance might be negotiated.

Figure 5. 5 Section of TDSB poster A

The theme of the predatory homosexual is continued in Modern Family. In "Boy's Night"

(2011) multiple homosexual characters, positioned around a single type of masculinity, display what could be read as predatory behavior. For example, in this exchange between Cameron,

Mitchell and Hayley (Mitchell's teenage niece):

Cameron: Okay, so, the numbers are by the phone, there's food in the fridge, I

just changed her diaper so all you have to do is put her down in about half an

hour and not let a serial killer in the front door.

Heyley: What if he's cute?

Mitchell: Oh, well then save him for us! (9:03)

It could be suggested here that Mitchell's statement positions the couple in an interesting way, with the supposed "killer" entering the house for the teenage girl, later to be preyed upon by the homosexual men. The suggestion of predatory behavior is again enforced later in the same episode. Having met their friends at a restaurant, Mitchell's father happens upon them by chance. He is then invited to join their group, though not before he is assessed, in a suggestive way, by the group. This is shown in the following exchange:

Jay: I don't want to intrude...

Crispin: Hello Daddy! (After suggesting he "hooked-up" with a dentist who

looked like Jay while going through his "daddy" phase).

Longines: Oh, you are not intruding (looks Jay up and down) (9:28).

And while one might commend Modern Family for showing so many homosexual characters, it must also be said that the range of (re)presentation is not particularly broad. Each

(re)presentation of homosexuality here is made easily recognizable by its use of well understood stereotypes, such as effeminacy, vanity and (in this case) predatory behavior.

Therefore, one might ask how the poster is interrupting these ideas, and how the images of fish work with the accompanying text.

Autobiography 6

After a day of sailing, my husband, a close friend and I returned to the

changing room to wash and get ready for some lunch. But before any of us

even got close to a shower, our friend collected all his clothes and left to

change in a toilet cubical, before letting us know he would see us at the club's

bar. The shift in atmosphere was measurable, and the sudden disappearance

was cause enough for me to question it when we all sat down to eat.

Obviously embarrassed by the question, he joked that he had not wanted to

intrude on "our fantasy." When asked to elaborate further, he went on to

explain that he had seen a poster advertising a gay sauna, and so, assumed

too much from what the visual (re)presentation inferred. The image, as

described by him, was of two homosexual men lustfully looking at each other

in a locker room. This begins to explain why and where my interest in

(re)presentations of homosexual life began to thicken.

Poster A also creates space for me to think and discuss the way a ‘respectable’ image of gay identity is produced by the TDSB images and sites of everyday influence. It also allows me to ask what this might mean to the different viewing subjects who interact with those sites.

Through the images used I am able to consider what is made viewable in particular spaces. For example, it is my observation that images used in gay districts tend to focus more on sexual desire, while those found outside those spaces are remarkable only because sex seems largely absent (see figure 5.6). So when we see homosexual characters in Will & Grace and Modern

Family described as being either "asexual" or not showing enough physical affection, the use of fish becomes important in other ways. This is because, in my opinion, fish are quite asexual.

They have no visible genitalia, and their reproduction is quite removed from anything a human would associate with sexual activity.

Figure 5. 6 Images taken from Vancouver's gay district, Davie Street

So, the use of fish might be read in a way that suggests the TDSB is "promoting gay identity over gay sexuality" by "constructing a kind of official, public gay identity totally divorced from sex" (Halperin, 2013, p.76). It also raises questions about what is permissible to be seen in schools, homes, and particular public spaces. If visible during my time at school, could such a poster have enforced a feeling that my sexual desire was not welcomed in the school? And while the very use of the fish has allowed me to formulate these questions, it demonstrates the limits of (re)presentation, in that most (re)presentations fail to realize the complexity of sexual identity.

5.5 Effeminacy

Before moving on, I want to briefly remember the argument that the influence of everyday sites, especially television, "establishes parameters for thinking and experiencing outside of which it is difficult to think or experience, yet alone act" (Duncum, 2004, p.6). The images of boys dressed in girls' clothing become important, primarily because one may also see homosexual

(re)presentations dressed in similar ways on television. For example, in the Modern Family episode "The Late Show" (2012) we see Cameron confess a jealousy for women's clothing.

This is demonstrated in the following exchange:

Cameron: Men just don't have that many options. I can't tell you how many

times I've walked past a women's boutique and just thought, what I wouldn't

do to have that many choices.

Mitchell: Don't ever say that again. I don't like any part of it (5:25)

That Mitchell shows an alternative view to this (re)presentation by his disapproval of Cameron's confession is something the show often does. Whether this is a not-so-subtle attempt to balance the show's portrayal of homosexuality or not is something to consider. However, more important is that the show often places both characters in situations where, either verbally or visually, they are positioned as willingly or unwillingly dressed in women's clothing or in an effeminizing manner.

For example, in the episode "Starry Night" (2010) Mitchell is forced into wearing a dress after an incident with a skunk. In response to this, Jay, Mitchell's father, comments that his son would do well for himself if he was "that type of gay" (16:11). Again this repeats the association between homosexual men and women's clothing (see figure 5.7 left). That effeminacy is linked with transvestism, making two very distinct subjects appear grouped within the same category, remains an issue. This is possibly something that poster B replicates though its visuals. It is also made more complicated by the use of gender in the posters, as this, too, is a separate issue from sexuality. This particular theme is again evoked in later episodes, where again we see the show use women's clothing to effeminize Mitchell (see figure 5.7 right).

Figure 5. 7 Mitchell wearing a dress (left) and pictured as a princess (right)

In this case, one might ask what reality is made perceptible within these sites of everyday influence, and whether the posters do anything to break or question the knowledge that becomes acquired there. Returning to the concept of the frame, one might ask what occurs if the viewing subject is unaware of its operation? For example, if the viewing subject is aware of the frame's operation, then they may also understand that this is not a definitive example of how homosexuality can be recognized. However, when we consider the TDSB posters as educational tools, they may also work to police the boundaries of the frames they create, helping to make types of homosexual life more visible than others. The question is this; could more visible (re)presentations have an impact on the way the viewing subject interacts with educational material, such as the TDSB posters?

Furthermore, the images in poster B intersect with those of poster A to affirm more thoroughly the idea of the effeminate homosexual attention seeker. The children are posing, performing for the viewing subject, some with theatrical posture. Like the images of fish, the children in poster

B offer visual (re)presentations that could possibly work in conjunction with shows like Modern

Family to confirm the limited and repeated stereotypes that continue to circulate in popular culture. These everyday influences are seen to be "especially important in creating our

attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs" (Duncum, 2004, p.5). In such a case, the TDSB posters could simply be confirming these beliefs, rather than opening up an opportunity to experience knowledge in the making.

5.6 Seeing/Categorizing Homosexuality

To sum up this chapter of the thesis, I would like to speak briefly about how each of the previously discussed elements works with shows like Modern Family to create a definitive idea of homosexuality. One that can be seen and understood in relation to a set of markers that correlates with well-understood stereotypes. And while this thesis is not trying to deny that such stereotypes do not originate from a truth, or in any way argue against their validity, it is attempting to make a case that not all homosexual persons are represented by them.

Therefore, when one is assumed to be or not be homosexual because they show or do not show recognizable signs, what limitations are being created? What knowledge is being crystallized?

Figure 5. 8 American Dad (2005 – present) often use visible stereotypes to portray homosexual characters

It is this idea that one is able to see homosexuality, or a certain traits of homosexuality that I find interesting (see figure 5.8). These traits include theatricality, effeminacy, predatory behavior and narcissism. As discussed, such traits are used routinely by shows that operate at the heart

of today's popular culture. For example, in the Modern Family episode "The Late Show" (2013)

Mitchell tells the audience, "I hate the way my dad looks at us when we're late. Like we're a couple of silly queens, blasting disco music, primping, losing track of time" (2:13). This could be seen as a direct challenge to the viewing subject's expectation of homosexuality. However, later in that episode this challenge is overturned by Cameron when he explains why the couple is late for dinner, confessing, "Yea, you know, Mitchell put on some music and we were primping and dancing around and, well, I guess we just lost track of time" (14:04).

The idea that one is able to see homosexuality is repeated again in the Modern Family episode "Treehouse" (2011). Here we find Cameron betting his friends that he could, if needed, pass for heterosexual and pick up a female date in the process. Later in the episode, he is faced with breaking the news of his (supposed) deception to his date. It is then revealed to the viewer that Cameron was unable to fool anyone that he was heterosexual. We see this unveil in the following exchange:

Cameron: Katie, you're an amazing woman. You're smart, you're beautiful,

and how fun is that handbag? This is going to come as a little bit of a shock.

I'm fairly gay. I don't know why I said that. I'm totally gay. Just gay.

Katie: You're telling me you're gay?

Cameron: Yeah.

Katie: Why?

Cameron: I was born that way. I mean, you know, you just -

Katie: No, why are you telling me? I mean, I know you're gay. It's obvious.

Cameron: Well, it's not that obvious.

Katie: Well yeah. The way you talk and walk and dress and your theatrical

hand gestures-

Cameron: I do not have theatrical hand gestures. (looks at his hands in mid

gesture). Okay, maybe I am moderately… expressive (14:49).

Not only does this exchange again repeat the association of homosexual men and women's fashion, but also that Cameron's homosexuality was obviously identifiable. This identifiably was made apparent through the coded reading of specific markers, such as the way Cameron talked, walked, dressed and performed.

This scene gives structure to the way one might choose to understand homosexuality. This understanding might then help sustain the kind of binary categorization talked of by Sedgwick

(1990). Similar scenes also take place in other episodes, where again we are given reason to understand homosexuality as something knowable. For example, in "Boy's Night" (2011) we see the following exchange between two homosexual characters:

Crispin: Relax, your dad knows you're gay

Mitchell: He doesn't know I'm this gay!

In this scene we find the show suggesting to the viewer that there is indeed something identifiable about the performance of homosexuality. Perhaps even more problematic is the idea that an individual's "gayness" can be directly measured against it. A repetition of this idea happens in other programs, also. For example, in The New Normal Brian often dismisses his partner as not being "gay" enough. This can be seen in the following exchange between the two characters:

Brian: How funny is Shania's Little Edi impression?

David: Who's Little Edi?

Brian: I hate it when you pretend not to know gay stuff so you seem a less

gay.

David: But I don't know who that is?

Brian: See! That's what I'm talking about.

Although being used for comic effect, the show is also creating the idea that one can be more or less "gay" than another person by the way they act and the things they are interested in. The effect of this may not be immediately apparent, but does feed into the daily lives of homosexual subjects in varied and unexpected ways.

Autobiography 7

More recently I was invited to dinner at a friend's house with my husband. The

participants were all homosexual men of around the same age. Getting to

know everyone, my husband and I shared our interests and what had brought

us to live in Canada. Snowboarding, hiking, camping, climbing and mountain

biking were all mentioned, much to the surprise of most of the group. "You're

not very gay, are you?" one of them said. For the longest time this comment

has bothered me. It's only though the writing of this thesis that I am beginning

to articulate why. It's often bad enough when someone makes assumptions

about your character based on your sexuality. But in this case, I was being told

that I wasn't "gay" enough by another homosexual subject. It also makes me

realize the diversity of gay desire, and that although we may all share some

commonalities as homosexuals, we also have divergent interests.

Perhaps, then, if I had, instead, chosen to state visiting museums and galleries, cooking and restoring furniture as interests I would have been seen as more "gay" by this group. And while these are interest both my husband and I enjoy, they are only some of the interests we share, and thus highlight the complexity of homosexual performance; a complexity that is not often shown or explored by either sites of everyday influence or by proxy the TDSB posters and their visual (re)presentations. Thus, by using imagery that could potentially support a repeated

(re)presentation of homosexuality, the TDSB goal of interrupting media stereotypes may not be achievable if the frame remains hidden from sight. Therefore, whether the posters can truly make all LGBTQ students feel represented is something to consider.

The possible play between the TDSB posters and sites of everyday influence is something worth investigating. If such sites suggest that homosexuality can be seen, what effect could that have on the viewing subject? Potential interpretations of the posters could be very different depending on the viewing subject's lived experience, their sexual orientation, and the everyday sites they have been exposed to. However, no matter what the interpretation may be, the real danger is if that interpretation leads to crystallized knowledge. The important thing to consider, at all times is how knowledge in the making can be maintained.

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Findings from this investigation suggest that making visible LGBTQ issues does have potential benefits. It permits one to present social equality and the benefits of diversity over distinctive individual features. It allows a universal image of gay identity to be used in the promotion of human rights and social justice. The TDSB posters, I believe, work on this level. They create the opportunity to discuss these issues, allowing students the chance to discuss and investigate why such matters are of importance. In short, they potentiality open up new ways to think differently about LGBTQ issues. However, there are multiple possible issues with this statement.

First, the benefits discussed above are not assured. Though the posters do present an opportunity to keep alive knowledge in the making, they could also be used to crystallize it. As some of my own lived experiences show, certain homosexual stereotypes are sometimes used to better understand that group of individuals. Therefore, one might want to question if the

TDSB posters use images that potentially support certain stereotypes. One should also question if these images are further supported by other (re)presentations throughout everyday sites of influence. This final point is an even more valuable consideration when we remember the TDSB's (2011) intent to challenge media stereotypes and biases.

Second, thinking of LGBTQ as universal identities oversimplifies each individual subject and its many complexities. It also excludes those who do not "fit" into those categories, such as intersex subjects. Returning to Sedgwick's (1990) argument that people are all different from each other, I am reminded of "how few respectable tools we have for dealing with that self- evident fact" (p.22). This highlights a potential problem for a curriculum that wishes to allow all

LGBTQ students to see themselves reflected in the curriculum (TDSB 2011). By promoting a

group identity the TDSB may be taking away an opportunity to explore and reflect upon individual life experiences, and in doing so failing to realize that homosexual people are

"different enough from us, from each other, to seem like all but a different species" (Sedgwick,

1990, p.22). I have found the realization that not all homosexual men are created equal to be of major importance, and believe that keeping knowledge in the making alive is vital to allowing that understanding to happen.

This leads me to consider how one keeps knowledge open. When I first began this thesis, I knew that the images troubled me, but it was difficult to articulate why. On investigating the posters I began to from an understanding that my interpretation was aligned with my lived experience. For me, this meant a negative association with the images used by the posters. I saw them as supporting the most visible (re)presentations from sites of everyday influence.

However, allowing my understanding to freely shift provided the most important breakthrough of this thesis. I realized these images have potential truth to them. They may represent the lived experience of some other homosexual men. It was not the images that troubled me; it was the way they were sometimes used to construct a general homosexual identity, one that could not account for my own individual difference.

In my opinion, it was the personal reflection of my own lived experience that allowed navigation away from generalized knowledge. It helped keep knowledge in the making alive.

The autobiographical accounts, then, became important parts of this process. How my own interpretive frame had been constructed was important, allowing me to consider why I interpreted specific (re)presentations in certain ways. It was through this self-reflexivity that I realized how my lived experience has contributed to my individuality, and in turn that a similar individuality exists for all LGBTQ subjects. It was through autobiographical consideration that

"apertures for understanding and questioning the social conditions in which those experiences are embedded" (Leggo, 2009, p.35) became possible.

And while autobiographical consideration was part of this realization, it did not work alone. It was part of a complicated conversation between my lived experience, the TDSB curriculum, and popular culture. It would, then, be worthwhile to consider Pinar's (2004) work on currere. Pinar

(2004) writes that:

"As a verb - currere- curriculum becomes a complicated, that is, multiply

referenced, conversation in which interlocutors are speaking not only among

themselves but to those not present, not only historical figures and unnamed

peoples and places they may be studying, but to politicians and parents alive

and dead, not to mention the selves they have been, are in the process of

becoming, and someday may become" (p.43).

First it allows for a more personal approach to academic knowledge "as we discern our privately formulated way through it" (p.45). So, rather than presenting LGBTQ issues under the banner of a universal identity, a more individual approach might be taken, where the individual is invited to consider what LGBTQ issues have meant to them in the past, what they mean to them now, and what they may mean to them in the future. Second, it allows one to consider the complicated web of connected sources that join to from an understanding of the subject being studied.

One must also account for the operation of the frame. The frame has been a major consideration while writing this thesis. I have only been able to include so much content,

consider so many sources, and therefore have created a frame myself. Therefore, what I was unable to include remains as important as what I have included. It also imitates how

(re)presentations in sites of everyday influence may be working. This frame may be unavoidable, necessary, even. The frame is neither a positive or negative force per se, but may work to crystallize knowledge if not properly acknowledged by the viewing subject. Therefore, I also feel it may be of some importance to deliver other, alternative ways of understanding what homosexuality is to many homosexual people. As some (re)presentations have shown, certain shows continue the trend of using stereotypes that allow the viewing subject to easily identify gay people with a specific type of masculinity. After this investigation I feel the posters have the potential to confirm such stereotypes.

The issue is that the origin of the TDSB curriculum seems based in queer theory, while the execution of the material is firmly rooted in critical pedagogy. And while queer theory discourse seeks to provide a voice for individuals to define their own sense of self-identity, it does so "with meanings and effects quite different from those implied by discourses of critical pedagogy"

(Ellsworth, 1989, p.309). To expand on this point, queer theory works to destabilize the identity categories that lead to a single, restrictive sexual orientation, serving the interests of power structures that create heteronormal bias. However, while critical pedagogy understands this imbalance, and goes someway to work against it, it often pays little attention to the way that criticality is examined, or the kind of associations it may produce. So, while the TDSB posters are fully intended to tackle the kind of binary classification queer theory highlights, the images used might only continue these classifications by offering familiar language and

(re)presentations to engage students.

The danger here is that "critical pedagogy assumes a commitment on the part of the

professor/teacher toward ending the student's oppression" (Ellsworth, 1989, p.309). This raises two very important questions for this thesis that I would like to understand more definitively moving forward. First, that one can never be assured educators will not bring with them a particular stance or view of LGBTQ topics. Any viewing subject may use their own lived experience to from their own interpretation. Second, if sites of everyday influence are doing the teaching, can it be assured that the teacher, the poster, or a combination of the two, will be able to break their potential influence over students? In fact, the TDSB posters bring with them a particular social subjectivity that means they can never participate unproblematically in naming the struggle for LGBTQ student visibility. This is because they make visible a specific idea of sexuality. Therefore, there is a risk that without considering the themes encountered through currere, the curriculum loses "opportunities for students ... to articulate, in their terms, informed by the subjects they are studying, their lived experience" (Pinar, 2012, p.193).

This is problematic because, unlike the heterosexual student, who has more examples of performance to choose from, the homosexual student has far fewer. So when the TDSB posters show images that repeat what is shown in high pedagogical sites, such as Modern

Family, they are being offered no alternative way of understanding their identity. It raises the question of who the posters are working for. Furthermore, heterosexual students are not being offered new ways of challenging their understanding of homosexuality. From my own experience, I am led to believe that this could be enforcing the fact that one is able to identify homosexuality using certain stereotypical markers. It is also what I believed has led to many of the most painful moments in my life, caused by other people's assumptions in regards to my actual lived experience.

Furthermore, one must also remember that much of our sexual identity "in the field of vision is

formed through processes of negative differentiation" (Rogoff, 2002, p.32). To clarify, this means that masculinity needs femininity, heterosexuality need homosexuality. Thus, when one sees an image of a boy wearing girls' clothing, they might instantly enter into that state of visual contestation in which an “unstable normative constantly and vehemently attempts to shore itself up" (p.32). In short, this could mean the viewing subject uses other pedagogical influences to make sense of such uncertainty. The image of Mitchell from Modern Family wearing a dress might, for example, lead the viewing subject to connect what they see on screen with the images on the poster.

And what could be the possible effect of such visuality? It is the "most flagrantly visible manifestations -precisely those defining attributes of stigmatized minorities that caused them to be stigmatized in the first place" (Halperin, 2013, p.73). It seems, then, reasonable to ask if such a notion of "identity" simply "provides a protective shield against the uneasiness that stigmatized populations often occasion in "normal" people" (p.73). Similarly, Sedgwick's (1990) argument proposes heterosexuality is often defined on the basis that it does not embrace the traits or behaviors associated with homosexuality, or that heterosexuality cannot be assured without first defining what constitutes homosexuality. Therefore, by using stereotypical markers to define their homosexual characters, shows like Modern Family are contributing to the binary homo/heterosexual divide. Furthermore, the TDSB posters, as I have demonstrated, can also be read in relation to these sites, further policing the bounders of these classifications by confirming what one already may assume about homosexuality.

It may be that the use of visual (re)presentations for educational purposes need further and deliberate consideration, given that "images convey information" and "mediate power regulations" (Rogoff, 2002, p.25). Together, the pedagogical influence of shows like Modern

Family and the TDSB posters make a certain perception of homosexuality visible. They give a single account of gay identity, one that performs an important "practical and political function because it allows and indeed encourages normal people to categorize the members of a stigmatized population as a single group" (Halperin, 2013, p.73). Importantly, this classification is not based on individual lived experience or a sense of self, but on the grounds of being a homosexual. Therefore, it would be a worthwhile cause to pursue evidence on how such educational material relates to the TDSB's aim to work against false or generalized conceptions

"of a group which results in the unconscious or conscious categorizations of each member of that group" (2011, p.117). I believe that a rethinking of how such lessons are proposed and delivered is vital to achieving this goal.

Interestingly, since beginning this thesis, there have been shows that have begun to think differently about how homosexual subjects are positioned to the viewing subject. Please Like

Me (2013 - present) is an Australian show written and starring comedian/actor Josh Thomas. It roughly follows Josh's lived experience and serves as a semi-serious auto-biographical account of his life from the moment he comes out onwards. What appealed to me about this show in particular, and where it does better than any other show I have recently seen, is the way it does not focus on Josh's sexuality, but on his lived experience. In short, his sexuality is not the focus for each episodes existence, but rather a part of it that intertwines within and throughout the daily drama of Josh's life. For me, it feels natural in a way that Modern Family never achieves, mainly because the character is not written as an account of homosexuality, but as an individual who happens to be gay.

Other examples of what, to me, remain more tempered (re)presentations of homosexuality also exist. Though not on television, the video game The Last of Us (2013) was bought and

experienced by over six million people worldwide. The title had two homosexual characters, and while one, Bill, is only present for portion of the game, Ellie remains a central, even playable character throughout the entire adventure. Each one is written and presented in a way that destabilizes what may currently be expected from homosexual performance. Ellie's story, in particular, is dealt with in a mature and heartfelt way that, much like in Please Like Me, deals more with the lived experience of the individual than the idea (re)presenting a particular kind of recognizable sexuality. This again feeds into the idea that currere is important to consider when trying to open up the operation of the frame to further investigation.

Figure 6. 1 Ellie (left) and Bill (right) from The Last of Us (2014)

Whether these instances work because they do not use predictable stereotypes or because they present sexuality in a natural and relatable way is an interesting question. Perhaps it is both. A case for further investigation would be how this can be transferred to the school environment, or worked into a cohesive curriculum. What is certain, though, is that these examples have been feverishly taken up by the population exposed to them. The internet is full of young girls cosplaying as Ellie (see figure 6.2). That Ellie provides a strong and capable example of feminine independence is also something to consider. That she is also positioned

as homosexual, or at least coming to understand her sexuality better, is another. If nothing else, it shows the power such visual (re)presentations have for identity formation. Why some of these influences become so popular amongst certain groups is another area I am interested in understanding further.

Figure 6. 2 Young girls cosplaying as Ellie

In this regard, the TDSB is more concerned with what students need to learn about, and so have not made enough effort in considering what they are showing, or how it is contextualized within a greater cultural conversation. To this effect, the posters are, perhaps, not the best way to deliver this information, having a cultural history of their own. Thus, while ultimately an important endeavor, the TDSB is not fully dealing with the systemic cause of homophobia, or the reason media stereotypes still continue to exist. At the very least, there is little evidence to support whether educational material like the TDSB posters do anything to help either of these causes, which remain an integral part of the TDSB's equitable and inclusive schools curriculum

(2011).

From my findings, I believe there is a real need for educators to place emphasis on giving students a chance to think differently about how people categorize sexual orientation. To recognize and name the constitutive obstacles remaining between the TDSB curriculum and its

goal of a more equitable and inclusive school environment. From my analysis, I do not believe the TDSB posters do this. To proceed, we might first want to "understand how hard we have to strain to see" (Rogoff, 2002, p.32). By this, I mean to suggest that educators must begin to make visible the operations of the frame, reminding students of the potentiality that exists for identity formation beyond the limits of (re)presentability. This would be one area I would be interested in knowing more about in further research. Another would be to understand more about how sites of everyday influence affect viewing subjects and their reading of specific visual

(re)presentations and their understanding of homosexuality. Finally, I would also like to know more about how these sites work on LGBTQ students in regards to identity formation. For example, does the limited range of (re)presentations on display have any bearing on LGBTQ identity formation?

In summary, while many questions have yet to be answered, my research has given me a far deeper understanding of how visual (re)presentations might potentially work on the viewing subject. It is clear that while heterosexual subjects have many examples of how to perform, the homosexual subject has far fewer. Often the kinds of (re)presentations offered to LGBTQ students seem to work in ways that continue binary classification, rather than destabilize the boundaries of binary thinking towards sexuality. This can be seen in highly visible and pedagogically influential sites, such as Modern Family. If, then, the visual (re)presentations used in schools to combat such binarism are not thought out well enough, they could be doing more harm to the causes employing them. Through the readings of the TDSB posters, I believe to have shown that this is potentially the case. Therefore, my hope would be that this work goes some way to creating some momentum in changing the way educators use and think about visuality, knowledge, and meaning when educating students about issues particular to LGBTQ subjects.

Bibliography

Ast, D., Erickson, M., Gladstone, D., Gottieb, A., Ng, R., Parkins, J. (2011). Challenging

Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide. Toronto District School

Board.

Bal, M. (2005).The Commitment to Look. Journal of Visual Culture, 4(2), 145 -163

Battles, K., & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and

Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre. Critical Studies In Media Communication, 19(1), 87 -

93.

Becker, R. (2004). Prime-time television in the gay nineties. The Television Studies Reader.

London & New York: Routledge, 389-403.

"Boys Night." Modern Family: The Complete Second Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2011.

DVD.

Brown, C. J. (2012). Irony of Ironies?: ‘Meta-disparagement’ humor and its impact on prejudice.

The University of Michigan.

"Blame it on the Alcohol." Glee: The Complete Second Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2011.

DVD.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:

Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge.

Butler, J (2009). Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? United Kingdom: Verso.

Chambers, C. M, Hasebe, E, Leggo, C. (2009). Life Writing and Literary Metissage and an

Ethos for Our Time. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Connell, R. W. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the

dynamics of gender. American Sociological, Review, 57, 735-51.

Duncum, P. (2004). Visual Culture Isn't Just Visual: Multiliteracy and Meaning. National

Education Association, Review, 43(3), 252 - 264.

Duncum, P. (1999). A Case of the Art Education of Everyday Aesthetics Experiences. National

Education Association, Review, 40(4), 295 - 311.

Edelman, L. (2004). No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. London. Duke University

Press.

Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of Learning: Media, Architecture, Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.

Flask, D. (2009, April 14th). Development of the Poster. Design is History. Retrieved November

12, 2014, from http://www.designishistory.com/1850/posters.

Foss, K. A. (2008). "You're Gonna Make It After All": Changing cultural norms as described in the lyrics of sitcom theme songs, 1970-2001. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 5(1), 43-

56.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). (2009). Where we are on TV Report

2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/tvreport09.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). (2010). Where we are on TV Report

2010-2011. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/tvreport10.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). (2011) Where we are on TV Report

2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/whereweareontv11.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). (2012) Where we are on TV Report

2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/whereweareontv12.

Halperin, D. (2012). How to be Gay. United States of America: Harvard University Press

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). (2013) Where we are on TV Report

201 - 2012. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/whereweareontv13.

Gil Chesterton. (n.d.). In Wikipidia. Retrieved October 14, 2014, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_on_Frasier#Gil_Chesterton

Hart, K. (2000). Representing Gay Men on American Television. Journal of Men's Studies, 9(1),

59.

Hudson, W. (2010, May 12th). ABC’s Modern Family: How “Modern” Is Its Gay Couple?

Huffington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon- hudson/abcs-imodern-familyi-how_b_573508.html

Linneman, T. J. (2008). How Do You Solve a Problem Like Will Truman? The Feminization of

Gay Masculinities on Will & Grace. Men & Masculinities, 10(5), 583-603.

"Night of Neglect." Glee: The Complete Second Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2011. DVD.

Mitchell, W.J.T. (2008). Cloning Terror: The War of Images. In D. Costello & D.Willsdon (ed.).

The Life and Death of Images (pp. 179 - 207). New York: Cornell University Press.

Mirzenof, 2002

"Old Wagon." Modern Family: The Complete First Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2010.

DVD.

"Out with Dad." Fraiser: The Complete Seventh Season. Paramount Entertainment, 2000.

DVD.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, You're a Fag. California: University of California Press.

Pinar, W. (2004) What is Curriculum Theory? (Studies in Curriculum Theory Series). New York:

Routledge.

Pullen, C. (2009). Gay Identity, New Storytelling and the Media. United Kingdom: Palgrave

Macmillan.

"Puppet Master." Glee: The Complete Fifth Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2014. DVD.

"Queer as Folk (UK)." Queer as Folk (1): Series One. Channel 4, 1999. DVD.

Rogoff, I. (2002). Studying Visual Culture. In Mirzoeff. N (Ed.), The Visual Culture Reader,

Second Edition, 24 - 36. New York: Routledge.

Sedgwick, E. (1990). Epistemology of the Closet. California: University of California Press.

Sedgwick, E. (2003). Touching Feeling. United States of America: Duke University Press.

Seidman, S. (2005). From the polluted homosexual to the normal gay: Changing patterns of sexual regulation in America. In I, C. Editor (Ed.) Thinking straight: The power, the promise, and the paradox of heterosexuality, 39-61. New York: Routledge.

Spivak G, (1998). In Other Worlds. New York: Routledge.

"Starry Night." Modern Family: The Complete First Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2010. DVD.

"The End of Twerk." Glee: The Complete Fifth Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2014. DVD.

"The Kiss." Modern Family: The Complete Second Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2011. DVD.

"The Late Show." Modern Family: The Complete Fifth Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2013.

DVD.

"The Quicksand Girlfriend." Happy Endings: The Complete First Season. Sony Pictures

Television, 2011. DVD.

"Tree House." Modern Family: The Complete Third Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2011. DVD.

"Trio." Glee: The Complete Fifth Season. Twentieth Century Fox, 2014. DVD.

"Why Can't You Read Me." Happy Endings: The Complete First Season. Sony Pictures

Television, 2011. DVD.

"You've Got Male." Happy Endings: The Complete First Season. Sony Pictures Television, 2011.

DVD.

Yuen, J. (2012, September 25). Poster Not About Polygamy: TDSB. Toronto Sun. Retrieved

April 25, 2014, from http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/25/poster-not-about-polygamy-tdsb.