The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

“THEY TELL US WHO WE ARE,

THEY TELL US WHO WE AREN’T”:

GAY IDENTITY ON TELEVISION AND OFF

A Thesis in

Communication Arts and Sciences

by

Lyn J. Freymiller

© 2006 Lyn J. Freymiller

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2006

The thesis of Lyn J. Freymiller was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Michelle A. Miller-Day Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Thesis advisor Chair of Committee

Thomas W. Benson Professor of Speech Communication and Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Rhetoric

Ronald L. Jackson Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences

Stephanie A. Shields Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies

James P. Dillard Department Head and Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

Abstract

Recently, much has been made of the prevalence of gay characters on television, but there has been little investigation of the construction of gay identity on television. Meanwhile, these gay representations are presumed to sensitize straight viewers to gay people, but little study has focused on the responses of gay viewers to portrayals of fictional gay characters. This project consists of two studies that explore portrayals of, and gay viewer responses to, gay television characters. The studies are guided by the communication theory of identity and its tenet of identity as consisting of several interrelated dimensions including personal, relational, and communal. The first study investigates three notable television texts featuring gay and lesbian characters and analyzes how the characters are constructed on various identity dimensions.

Analysis finds that gay characters are portrayed as struggling with integrating gay identity into their personhood (Six Feet Under), as committed but strained in their relationships with other gay as well as straight characters (Will & Grace), and as experiencing tensions between gay and straight community as well as within their own community (Queer as Folk). The second study involves interviews with 22 self-identifying gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants to assess their responses to portrayals of gay characters on the different identity dimensions. Results find that some respondents find television portrayals to be varied and relatable, while others find them limited and compromised. The second study also explores how interviewees sense that media portrayals have influenced their own identity formation, and finds that interviewees frequently identify an actual or possible media influence. The studies conclude that gay characters on television do have complex identities, but that more is possible in terms of varied portrayals, and also that the interaction between media portrayals of gay identity and the lived experience of gay identity could be usefully explored with people struggling with sexual identity.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………….... vi

Chapter 1. Introduction……....…………...………………………………………………...….… 1 Overview of Research Problem………...…………………………………………………….. 1 Theoretical Concerns…………………...…………………………………………………..… 2 Television and Gay Identity………...…………………………………………………...… 3 Implications of Depictions of Gay Characters for Gay People………………...………..… 7 Toward New Perspectives on Gay Television Characters and Viewers…………….………. 10

Chapter 2. Review of Related Research……….….…………………………………..……...… 13 Social Construction………………………………………………………………..………… 13 Studies of Portrayals of Gay Characters on Television…………………………..……….… 14 Identity Research………………………………………………………………..………...… 19 General Approaches and Investigations of Gay Identity……………………..………….. 19 The Communication Theory of Identity……………………………………..………...… 21 Studies Examining Media and Identity……………………………………….………….. 24 Guiding Questions………………………………………………………………..…………. 26

Chapter 3. Study One – Methods……………….……………..………………………………... 29 Selection of Texts……………………………………..…………………………………….. 30 Text One: Six Feet Under…….……..…………………………………………………… 32 Text Two: Will & Grace………..………………………………………………………………... 34 Text Three: Queer as Folk………...……………………………………………….…..… 37 Textual Analysis Procedures…………………...... ………………………………….….… 39

Chapter 4. Study One – Textual Analysis……………….………………………..…….………. 44 Six Feet Under………………………………………………………………..…………..… 44 Personal Level: Self-identifying as Funeral Director, and Gay Man….………………... 45 Relational Level: Coming Out of Silence…………………………….………………… 47 Communal Level: Gay and Religious……………………………….………………..… 49 Summary………………………………………………………………………………... 49 Will & Grace……………………………………………………………….……………….. 50 Will and Grace: Dependence and Resentment…….……………………………………. 51 Will and Jack: Same-Sex Sniping………………….…………………………………… 54 Summary……………………………………………………………………………...… 59 Queer as Folk………………………………………………………………………..……..... 60 The Gay World vs. the Straight World……………………………………...... …….. 61 Gay Men vs. Lesbians…………………………………………………………...……… 64 Focus on Sex vs. Focus on Relationships……………………………………...……..… 66 Summary………………………………………………………………………...……… 69 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….……….. 69

Chapter 5. Study Two – Methods…………….……………………………….……….……….. 72

v

Data Collection Decisions…………………………………………………………………… 72 Participant Recruitment………………………………...…………………………………… 73 Interviews…………………………..………………………………………………… …….. 74 Data Analysis……………...………………………………………………………...………. 77 Phase One: Open Coding………….……...…………………………………...…………. 77 Phase Two: Axial Coding………….……...……………………………..………………. 78

Chapter 6. Study Two Findings – Part One………...…………………..……...……………….. 81 Personal Level…………………………………………………...... ……..…………………. 82 Core Identities: Essentially Gay………….…...…………………….……………………. 82 Stereotypes: Damaging or Helpful?………....……………………..…………………….. 88 Limited Lesbian Visibility…………………..………………………………………....… 99 Relational Level………………………………..…………………..………………………. 104 General Lack of Relationships……………..…………………………………………… 105 Limitations on Relationships……………….………………………………….……….. 108 Realistic Relationships……………………..…………………………………………… 111 Communal Level……………………………..………………………………………….…. 117 Disconnected – Individually or Collectively…………………………………………… 118 Reasonable Portrayals………………………………..…………………………...…….. 126 Summary………………………………………………..………………………..…...……. 131

Chapter 7. Study Two Findings – Part Two………….…….…………………………………. 133 Recognizable Media Influence: Gay Identity………….……………….……….…………. 133 Recognizable Media Influence: Personal Identity Apart from Sexual Identity…….…..….. 139 No Recognizable Media Influence…………………………………………...………..…… 144 Summary………………...………………………………………………...…………..…… 149

Chapter 8. Discussion……….………………………………………………………………… 152 Implications…………………………………………………………………………...….… 155 Limitations……….…………………………………………………………………..…...… 159 Future Research…….………………………………………………………………..…...… 160 Conclusion…………….……………………………………………………………..……... 162

References…………………………………………………………………………………..…. 163

Appendix: Interview Guide ……….…………………………………………………….…….. 170

vi

Acknowledgements

I am greatly indebted to Dr. Kathryn Olson and Dr. Barry Brummett, who first opened my eyes to rhetorical criticism while I was at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. At Penn State

University, Dr. Thomas Benson inspired me through his demonstration of just how much was possible in the realm of rhetorical criticism. I thank Dr. Benson, Dr. Ronald Jackson, and Dr.

Stephanie Shields for their crucial assistance as members of my committee and their enthusiasm for my project. I cannot express sufficient gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr.

Michelle Miller-Day. Her unceasing encouragement and optimism made me never lose hope that

I would complete this project. Thanks, too, to my partner Mark for his support and his many calls home from work to ask, “You’re working on your dissertation, right?” Finally, I would like to express tremendous thanks to my 22 interviewees for their remarkable honesty and eloquence in describing their views on gay portrayals on television. I initially had no idea if I would be able to find a reasonable sample of interviewees for this project. The inspiring stories and perspectives of these interviewees have inspired me to make talking to members of the gay community an ongoing part of my life’s work.

Chapter One: Introduction

Overview of Research Problem

In the first decade of the 21st century, gay and lesbian Americans live in a very mixed and

controversial social and political context. Heterosexual Americans tend to be divided regarding

their empathy for gay1 people as well as their support of gay rights. Major decisions related to gay rights in recent years have been extremely mixed. For while the state of Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage – via a court order – in 2003, only one year later voters in no fewer than 13 states passed constitutional amendments preventing same-sex marriage. 11 amendments passed concurrent with the November Presidential election (Wildman,

2004). Notably, these amendments were passed by extremely large margins.

Same-sex marriage became a major issue in the Presidential election itself. During his

first term, President George W. Bush publicly backed a federal constitutional amendment

defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Speculation arose that Bush secured a

second term in office, and received a popular vote advantage of three and one-half million votes,

by riding a wave of anti-gay, or at least anti-gay marriage, sentiment (Wildman, 2004).

In the midst of this cultural uncertainty toward gay and lesbian rights, we need to

understand how gay people respond to their circumstances. One particularly intriguing area to

explore is gay representation on television. It is possible that the presence of gay and lesbian

characters on television may help facilitate awareness of, and acceptance of, gay people by

straight society (Capsuto, 2000; Walters, 2001). However, research needs to focus more closely

1 Matters of nomenclature are challenging for researchers studying people who are members of the non-heterosexual population of society. Because of its simplicity, the term “gay” is used in this paper as a generic term that refers to all male and female homosexuals, unless otherwise noted. In keeping with its societal connotation, the term is also intended to encompass men and women who do not identify as either heterosexual or homosexual, where applicable. For the sake of variety, “gay” and “non-heterosexual” are generally used interchangeably. While the term “queer” has become more accepted in recent years, the term is not frequently used by gay, lesbian, or bisexual people or television characters to identify themselves. However, references including “gay” such as “gay identity” and “gay community” resonated with all gay male, lesbian, and bisexual interview participants in this project.

2

on how gay identity is portrayed on the highly visible and potentially influential medium of

television and on the responses of gay people to their fictional television counterparts, not just

the responses of “straight” society.

The question of how, if at all, television assists heterosexuals in recognizing the humanity

of socially stigmatized groups, such as gay people, is a complex one. However, the reactions of

socially stigmatized people – in this study, gay people themselves – to such portrayals have been

virtually overlooked. Focus on what the “mainstream” of society makes of portrayals of non-

heterosexual characters ignores the group of television viewers that may be the most affected by

the portrayals. Specifically, this focus has largely occluded attention to how non-heterosexuals

react to their fictional surrogates.

Investigation is called for, not only into gay people’s responses to television portrayals,

but also to the identity composition of the gay characters. Depictions of socially stigmatized

persons on television are, fairly or unfairly, typically burdened with a sense of responsibility.

Portrayals that do not show members of socially stigmatized groups as upstanding citizens might

be deemed politically incorrect, and generate charges of insensitivity toward a show’s producers

or network. Presumably, sensitive portrayals serve to challenge rather than encourage the

marginalization of the stigmatized group that is represented. While some analyses exist of gay

and lesbian portrayals on television, they contain little more than surface readings that assess

how generally “positive” or “negative” the portrayals are. This generally means the portrayals are suggested to either reinforce or undermine familiar gay stereotypes.

Theoretical Concerns

There are two theoretical concerns that arise from the presently-available scholarship on gay television characters and gay identity: (1) the lack of perspective on how gay identity is

3

portrayed on popular television programs, and (2) the limited understanding of the responses to,

and the social implications of, gay visibility on television for gay people. These concerns are

discussed further below.

Television and gay identity. Television is the most immediate of media forms. Audiences invite fictional characters into their homes, and presumably desire a degree of familiarity or connection with their fictional visitors. Much has been made in recent years of the putative trend of gay and lesbian characters becoming more prevalent on American television (Svetsky, 2000;

Weinraub & Rutenberg, 2003). Certainly there are enough portrayals to conduct an analysis of their representation, but it is important to remember that the number of such portrayals remains miniscule relative to the number of heterosexual characters featured on television. Thus, some viewers, as well as entities like the media and gay organizations like GLAAD (the Gay and

Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), look to the portrayals that exist to serve a higher purpose than merely entertainment. Often, portrayals of gay characters on television are weighted with an awareness of the responsibility to err toward a “positive” approach in the way they are depicted.

Fairly or unfairly, the socially stigmatized status of gay people and the relative rarity of gay characters on television might imbue any depiction of gay characters with a sense of responsibility in regard to the portrayals, as if any television portrayal of a gay character is a surrogate for the gay population. Meanwhile, few gay or straight viewers view heterosexual characters as somehow representative of straight society.

Gay identity is a particularly complex construct; while very few gay people would wish to define themselves either solely or primarily in terms of sexual orientation, the orientation does impact many aspects of personhood. A gay person may be reticent to self-identify as gay because he or she has perceptions about who gay people are that do not match with how the individual’s

4 self-image. Regarding relationships, a gay person=s self-image may shift, depending on whether the friend or relative he or she is with knows of his or her sexual preference.

Given the nature of gay identity, the communication theory of identity (Hecht, 1993;

Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993) offers a valuable framework through which to understand both the portrayals of gay characters on television and the responses of gay and lesbian individuals to those portrayals. The communication theory of identity views identity not as a stable concept or an arrived-at conception, but rather as an ongoing interaction and negotiation between four identity frames: the personal, enacted, relational, and communal. This multidimensional framework, which is discussed further in the next chapter, provides a way to view gay identity that recognizes its complexities.

While gay-coded images are in evidence throughout the history of filmed entertainment

(Capsuto, 2000; Russo, 1985; Tropiano, 2002a), in recent years the images have putatively become more overt and numerous. Indeed, it could be argued that particularly since the 1990’s, gay-themed images increasingly infuse American popular culture, including television, a medium that for most of its history either ignored gays or depicted them as anti-heroes (Capsuto,

2000; Tropiano, 2002a). Despite the very small percentage of television shows that feature even one non-heterosexual character, this trend of gay and lesbian characters generated considerable attention in the press. For example, in 2000 the popular-culture bible Entertainment Weekly devoted a cover story to the supposed omnipresence of gay and lesbian people and characters in the media landscape (Svetsky, 2000).

Today, a new show with a gay character is unlikely to generate the media attention that greeted the first hit network show with a gay regular character, Soap, in 1977 (see Montgomery,

1989). We are also unlikely to see another brouhaha similar to the one that attended Ellen

5

DeGeneres' character Ellen Morgan coming out (publicly acknowledging her homosexuality) on her situation comedy (hereafter referred to as sitcom) Ellen in 1997. This coming out was commemorated with the famous "Yep, I'm Gay" cover of Time magazine (Handy, 1997), and represents the first acknowledged gay or lesbian lead character on American series television.

But in regard to both Soap and Ellen, neither the press nor television viewers could be accused of being particularly obsessed with gay characters on television, as neither controversy was expressly about the encroachment of gay characters on television. Conservative groups had a long list of objections to Soap's content before the envelope-pushing program debuted; the gay character was not the main focus of protest (Waters, 1977). In addition, the fictional Ellen

Morgan's coming out on Ellen was inextricably commingled in the public mind with the concurrent and much-publicized coming out of DeGeneres herself. In fact, Ellen sputtered to a close only a year after the coming out episode topped the ratings. More recently, the anticipated controversy concerning television's first gay male lead, Will of Will & Grace, did not materialize when the show debuted in fall 1998. Sitcoms with gay lead characters such as Fox's Normal,

Ohio, which debuted in 2000, and Some of My Best Friends, which appeared on CBS in 2001, flew beneath the cultural radar and quickly met the same ignominious fate of most television series: cancellation. Ellen DeGeneres tried another sitcom in which she played a gay lead, but

The Ellen Show didn’t last long after debuting on CBS in 2001.

Specifically, in 2003, the time this project was initially conceived, a small spate of gay- themed television programs premiered, and proved appealing to relatively wide audiences

(Weinraub & Rutenberg, 2003). Perhaps the most auspicious of these programs is Bravo’s Queer

Eye for the Straight Guy, which made folk heroes out of its cast of five gay men who attempt to bring style and panache to rumpled heterosexual men. In addition to the heroics of the “Fab

6

Five” stylists on Queer Eye, viewers got to see television’s first same-sex “reality” dating program with Bravo’s limited-run reality series Boy Meets Boy, and the first network sitcom to portray a same-sex couple as parents with ABC’s It’s All Relative, a groundbreaking show featuring two gay fathers that lasted only one season. These shows joined such established programs as NBC’s Will & Grace, Showtime’s Queer as Folk, and HBO’s Six Feet Under as regular series featuring at least one gay or lesbian lead character.

In the present-day discordant cultural context, those who recognize the tremendous power of television to educate the public may look to television to buck against, rather than reinforce, social stigma against gays by presenting gay and lesbian characters in fictional programming solely as worthy, upstanding members of society. Rich (2003a) implies a sense of evolution in modern-age media by suggesting that "entertainment has often been the vanguard of familiarizing America with gay people, much as it was in spreading homophobia before that" (p.

7). Gay and straight audiences have invited gay and lesbian characters into their homes by watching the television programs. This has led to contrasting interpretations in the popular and academic press of the appropriateness and cultural significance of the increasing integration of gay and lesbian characters into American television (see, for example, Dow, 2001; Shugart,

2003; Walters, 2001). Some scholars interpret the increased visibility of gay and lesbian characters to be either the result or a harbinger of an increasing acceptance of homosexuality in society (Capsuto, 2000; Walters, 2001). Others consider the depictions themselves significantly flawed, potentially doing more harm than good through their reinforcement of stereotypes, among other concerns (Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Dow, 2001). However, no in-depth study exists that specifically addresses how gay and lesbian identity is portrayed on notable television texts. With all the speculation about television as a possible cultural force to sensitize

7 viewers to, and educate the public about, gay people, we need to look at how television portrays gay identity on some of its more popular and notable programs. The first phase of this project seeks to address that lack of research by offering perspectives on how gay identity is constructed on several television programs that feature gay characters through the application of the identity frames of the communication theory of identity.

Implications of depictions of gay television characters for gay people. Tropiano (2002a) begins his book The Prime Time Closet with a story of how, in high school, he saw an episode of the television show The White Shadow depicting a gay teenager struggling with his gay identity.

At the time, Tropiano identified strongly with the character's struggle, but yearned for what the character had that he did not: someone to talk with about his sexuality (pp. vii-viii). This anecdote suggests that media featuring gay and lesbian characters could have some significant impact on gay and lesbian individuals, or those grappling with questions about their sexual identities. Much more research is needed to explore the interaction of gay identity on television and gay identity as a lived experience.

It is difficult to discern if the mere existence of a smattering of gay and lesbian characters in the media is truly a sign of cultural progress for the non-heterosexual community. The presence of such depictions may indeed contribute to the greater social visibility that is necessary before any political change can be effected (Walters, 2001). Meanwhile, questions linger as to whether it is necessary to disdain negative or stereotypical portrayals of gay and lesbian characters as reinforcing well-entrenched social stigma. Implicit in both of these concerns is the notion that gay and lesbian characters on television serve a larger function, and carry some degree of social significance. This type of significance is seldom, if ever, attached to the depiction of heterosexuals on television. Few take any specific heterosexual television character

8 to be somehow representative of all straight people or as see that character as bearing some responsibility to reflect the straight community in some particular, which is to say positive, way.

Straight characters may be portrayed as unblemished heroes, irredeemable villains, or somewhat flawed common folk without comment. A straight serial killer on a dramatic series would receive no uproar, while a serial killer identified as gay would likely spark controversy over the appropriateness and implications of such a depiction of a gay person.

Why are gay and lesbian characters on television, almost by default, viewed as reflections of the large, diverse non-heterosexual population (see, for example, Capsuto, 2000; Tropiano,

2002a), while straight characters are not viewed as ambassadors for their sexual persuasion?

Most likely, the limited number of non-heterosexual television characters may lead some observers to view those few characters that do exist as surrogates for a minority group that would otherwise be altogether invisible on television. Similarly, the concern for responsible depictions of gay and lesbian characters surely stems from the fact that homosexuality is still a socially stigmatized condition in modern society. As such, it is subject to concerns of political correctness

– an inoffensive depiction of the minority group or, failing that, no depiction at all. These days, programmers willing to take on gay themes that might be offensive to more conservative viewers are unlikely to wish to also alienate more liberal viewers by depicting gay people in a manner that will raise the ire of the gay and gay-friendly population.

Whether television portrayals have any real effect on viewers remains something of a mystery. Certainly, it is difficult to definitively surmise the ways in which specific or collective television images create, imbue, or readjust people's perceptions of society or particular groups.

But for socially marginalized or stigmatized people, such as gay and lesbian individuals, media depictions may take on greater import. As stated, the scarcity of the depictions makes the few

9

that exist more auspicious and perhaps encumbered by concerns of "responsible" representation.

Fejes (2000) suggests the significant social purposes that media images can have for the gay and

lesbian audience:

People "coming out" search the interpersonal and media environment to understand their feelings and sense of difference. Media images are very powerful in helping one develop a sense of identity. Whereas in the past most media images of gays were negative, today a gay male can turn to the gay media for information and role models. (p. 115)

Echoing Rich's (2003a) suggestion of a sea change in the media's portrayal of gay and lesbian

individuals, Fejes suggests that the media may be more than merely consumed by gay and

lesbian audiences. Media may be used as part of the ongoing development of a gay or lesbian

identity. This idea is repeated by those who chronicle gay and lesbian depictions in the media

and agitate for more varied depictions of gay and lesbian identity on television (Capsuto, 2000;

Tropiano, 2002a; Walters, 2001). Similarly, Gross (1998) notes that the presence in the media

“of healthy, non-stereotypic lesbians and gay men does pose a serious threat” to the prevailing

moral order: “it undermines the unquestioned normalcy of the status quo, and opens up the

possibility of making choices that people might never have otherwise considered could be made”

(p. 92). Media depictions save the gay and lesbian population from the kind of social or cultural

invisibility that by implication suggests that a cultural group does not exist.

With these gay and lesbian media depictions available in the present contentious socio-

political climate, we need to explore how gays themselves respond to media depictions, and how

media-based gay identities interact with gay identity as an individual, personal experience. As

Walters indicated in 2001, “[g]ay life and identity, defined so much by the problems of

invisibility, subliminal coding, double entendres and double lives, has now taken on the dubious

distinction of public spectacle” (pp. 9-10). What do gays themselves make of being in such a

position? Is affirmation found in the relatively recent trend of depicting gays as heroes? Do

10

media-based gay identities influence the actual social identities of those who self-identify as

gay? As Americans – gay and straight – try to figure out what role gays have in present and future society, these pressing questions have been largely ignored. This project seeks to address the matter through in-depth interviews with self-identifying non-heterosexual people in which interviewees discuss their responses to portrayals of gay characters on television.

Toward New Perspectives on Gay Television Characters and Viewers

Early in the twenty-first century, what can be discovered about the evolution of gay identity within the context of cultural change and ambiguity in this arena? To be sure, the

political debates and social changes now taking place have very direct implications for the lives

of gay and lesbian people; their personal rights and their social acceptance are under rigorous

debate. This is, after all, a society in which the five gay men of Queer Eye have become pop-

culture icons serving as experts on grooming, clothing, appropriate food preparation,

communication, and home decor for straight men, but while they may prepare a heterosexual

man to propose to his girlfriend, at the same time they are denied the right to marry. While

ruminations about the social effects of television portrayals of gays typically focus on sensitizing

effects for heterosexual viewers, the issue of how gay people consume and respond to portrayals

of their invented-for-television gay brethren remains largely uncharted territory.

Since very little research exists exploring the idea that media images are utilized by gay

and lesbian individuals to find their place in society, investigation is needed to understand how

media images might contribute to gay and lesbian identity. Only then can we understand how

gay and lesbian social identities are constructed and renegotiated in a cultural context where gay

and lesbian people may feel accepted and scorned in equal measure. Potentially, much can be

gained from directed efforts to understand representations of gay identity within programs

11

featuring gay and lesbian characters. More can be learned from the gay and lesbian audience’s

interpretations of, and construction of meaning surrounding, those images. The former effort will

uncover the layers of the media-based depictions themselves, and their implications as

representations of this social group, a group which holds a singularly embattled and ambiguous

social standing. The latter effort will explore the interaction between a person’s gay or lesbian

identity and media-based depictions of identities similarly designated, and shed light on the possible identification that individuals experience when viewing characters who are ostensibly

members of their in-group.

This project is conceived as a two-part study to explore these issues. In study one, I

examine three notable television texts featuring gay and lesbian lead characters – Six Feet Under,

Will & Grace, and Queer as Folk – and explore how the fictional gay characters are portrayed at the personal, enacted, relational, and communal level. These texts were chosen because they represent perhaps the most notable television texts featuring gay fictional characters at the time of conception for this project. They represent a mix of comedy and drama, and a mix of pay- cable and broadcast network fare. A Thursday-night NBC staple, Will & Grace reaches the largest audience of any program with gay or lesbian characters. Queer as Folk stands out as the first American television program with a plurality of gay characters among its core ensemble.

The sexed-up, uncompromising program has proved controversial and spawned a cover story in the gay and lesbian periodical The Advocate that posed the debatable question “Is it good for gays?” (Kilday, 2001). Meanwhile, Six Feet Under had enough cultural impact to be the subject of a cover story on the mainstream entertainment news source Entertainment Weekly (Snierson,

2003). The analysis is limited to the first season that each program was broadcast, as the first

12

season represents the time when the gay characters were first introduced to audiences and their

gay identities initially constructed.

Study two involves an interview project to discern the responses of gay, lesbian, and

bisexual people to portrayals of gay identity on television. Bisexuals are included in the

interview sample despite the paucity of bisexual characters on television to buck against the

media invisibility of this large and overlooked segment of the non-heterosexual population.

Specifically, I conducted interviews with twenty-two self-identifying gay, lesbian, and bisexual

men and women. The interviews explore their reactions to portrayals of gay characters on

television, and interviewees comment on the characters with questions directed to the different

frames/dimensions discussed in the communication theory of identity. Ultimately, the interviews

explore how, if at all, media-based gay identity interfaced with the interviewee’s lived experience as a gay person. The next chapter reviews the previous literature related to the issues under discussion in this study.

13

Chapter Two: Review of Related Research

This chapter provides a review of literature related to this project. The first section briefly addresses the meta-perspective of social constructionist thought, which informs this research.

The second section discusses previous studies of representations of gay people on television. The third section discusses identity research, first with emphasis on general approaches and studies of gay identity. Then, this third section details the guiding theory for this project, the communication theory of identity, and discusses previous uses of the theory. The fourth section investigates connections previous studies have made between media consumption and personal identity. Lastly, the chapter addresses the major guiding questions for this study.

Social Construction

This project is concerned with what might be called the “construction” of identity: how media create images or how viewers of these messages interpret and take meaning from the images within the context of their own realities. Therefore, this investigation employs a social

constructionist framework to understand the relationship between media enactments of gay and

lesbian identity and the viewer’s construction of his or her own identity.

Social constructionist thought supports the notion that our everyday reality is

intersubjectively created by our interactions with societal forces and other with individuals. The

way we as individuals make meaning of the world is our own subjective reality, with meanings

created in response to our social experiences (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Social constructionist

thought supports the idea that humans construct their own understanding of the world in which

they live. Each person generates a mental conception he or she uses to make sense of his or her

life experiences. We generate these conceptions and come to understand the world through our

14

interactions with others; this yields meanings of social reality that are intersubjectively created

(Burr, 1995; Harter, 1999).

The antecedent of social constructionist thought is symbolic interaction, first suggested by Mead (1934). The perspective in symbolic interaction is the idea that "as people we construct our own and each other's identities through our everyday encounters with each other in social interaction" (Burr, 1995, p. 10). In other words, we have no single, fixed identity, but rather continually construct our identities through our engagement of the world. Meanwhile, an individual's understanding of the world is specific to a particular time or context, and a person

may construe his or her life and experiences in many different ways, at different times (Gergen,

1973). How we view our reality at one time may no longer be salient when we experience

changes in our lives. The communication theory of identity, the main theory employed in this

project, recognizes this sense of identity as shape-shifting and fluid, and provides four different,

interrelated frames through which to understand how identity is constructed and/or understood at

a particular time.

While social realities may be shared, individual identity conceptions are paramount in

social constructionist thought. The role of television in the creation of socially-constructed

realities – specifically, the role of depictions of socially stigmatized identities on television in the

creation of these identities – has not received a lot of attention. The next section looks at

previous literature investigating how gay characters are portrayed on television, and points out

some limitations in this body of research that this project intends to address.

Studies of Portrayals of Gay Characters on Television

Gay characters have been portrayed on television since the early 1970s, though in recent

years much had been made of the supposed upsurge of gay characters on television. Media

15

consumption is a very fundamental aspect of most people's experience of the social world, but

only limited research seeks to understand the meaning-making processes that accompany or

follow from such consumption. So often dismissed as merely entertainment and thus not worthy

of special or serious inquiry, television is simultaneously sometimes suggested to be an impetus

for educating the public with the images that it makes available.

Several ambitious works catalogue the presence of gay and lesbian characters on television, and offer some degree of analysis as to how gay characters are depicted. Capsuto

(2000) chronicles the history of gay and lesbian images on television from the beginning of the medium in Alternate Channels: The Uncensored Story of Gay and Lesbian Images on Radio and

Television. The book uncovers early television characters that were not specifically identified as gay or lesbian but were nonetheless gay-coded. For example, contemporary sensibilities make it easy to read lisping, effeminate, fussy male characters as gay, while mannish or stalwart women can be viewed as lesbians. These depictions led, in the 1970s, to the first television characters fully acknowledged to be gay or lesbian. The book attempts to do for television what Vito

Russo's seminal book The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1985) did for film, which is to say it uncovers how gay and lesbian images have always been part of the particular medium, but how only in recent decades have fully acknowledged gay and lesbian characters appeared. Similarly, Gross and Woods (1999) focus on the mixed messages accompanying the broadening prevalence of gay and lesbian characters in both film and television. Gay characters appear, which may seem laudable, but their portrayal does not necessarily break free of stereotypes. Fejes and Petrich (1993) discuss pre-Ellen television portrayals of gay and lesbian characters as reinforcing prevailing societal heterosexism (the notion that heterosexuality is the natural sexual orientation, and that other sexual preferences are deviant) rather than undermining

16 it. Walters (2001) contextualizes the emergent gay presence on television as part of an overall societal trend of increasing visibility for the gay community.

In his book The Prime Time Closet, Tropiano (2002a) describes and discusses the depictions of non-heterosexual characters in each major genre of television programming: dramas, sitcoms, and television movies. The text contains an invaluable episode guide of television shows that have featured one or more non-heterosexual characters, either as a one-shot guest or as a regular character. In addition, Sanderson (1995) discusses how homosexuality is construed and discussed on British television, in fictional programming as well as on nonfiction shows such as public affairs programs. Like most of the others referenced here, this author finds encouraging, positive portrayals as well as stereotypical and ostensibly damaging depictions on television. Keller (2002) focuses heavily on film but does include discussion of television programs such as Will & Grace in his discussion of how most media portrayals of gay men are steeped in damaging stereotypes. Rather than focusing specifically on gay identity, Keller takes an issue-oriented approach, and finds that films and television shows reference social issues that are of importance in the lives of gay men. However, they typically do so within a framework of stereotyping and homophobia.

Other authors have explored various dimensions and ramifications of gay and lesbian depictions on television. Doty (1993) offers revisionist readings of television texts with no explicit gay characters or content as fraught with, in her view, "queer" overtones (p.1). Laverne

& Shirley, for example, is not about two lesbians, but much of the duo's behavior could be interpreted as the behavior of a gay couple. Focusing specifically on Ellen, Dow (2001) positions the coming out of Ellen Degeneres' character, Ellen Morgan, as being in the confessional tradition described by Foucault. The visibility of lesbianism on American television was

17 mitigated, Dow argues, by the fact that Ellen's disclosure was portrayed as something she needed to confess to be honest with herself. In a similar vein, Lacroix and Westerfelhaus (2005) explore

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and conclude that the show’s uplifting premise of straight men being shepherded to better personal appearances and more fulfilling lives is undercut by the fact that the gay makeover artists rush in and rush out of the straight man’s life; the makeover artists view the man’s eventual progress on video from a non-participatory vantage point. The interaction between gay men and straight men is strictly delimited, and the gays are kept out of sight as the straight man debuts his new persona.

Several analyses of Will & Grace suggest that its portrayals of gays have disturbing implications. Battles and Hilton-Morrow (2001) find that Will & Grace places its gay characters in a traditional sitcom environment and that the program actually reinforces the heterosexism that it might be presumed to undermine. Shugart (2003) analyzes Will & Grace in concert with three notable films that depict the close friendship of a gay man with a straight woman. She finds that in all cases, the gay male is depicted as authoritative and imbued with sexual license over the female. Meanwhile, the straight female is submissive and romantically interested in the gay male. In these depictions, male homosexuality is ultimately linked with traditional traits of white male privilege, and thus the surprising conclusion is that the texts reinforce heteronormativity.

Meanwhile, Bruni (1999) points out a significant limitation of gay and lesbian characterizations on television by discussing the taboo of the same-sex kiss on American television. While depicting gay and lesbian characters is no longer considered taboo, broadcasters are still exceptionally skittish about depicting any physical affection between same- sex partners. In a similar vein, Hantzis and Lehr (1994) found that the asexuality of lesbian characters on television endorses heterosexism. This notion is echoed by Fejes (2000), who

18

discusses how gay male television characters in recent years exhibit a fairly traditional sense of

male masculinity. While these constructions trouble heteronormativity, the gay male characters

are disallowed acknowledged sex lives, and this delimits the challenge to prevailing concepts of

male masculinity. Gay characters may indeed appear on television but, as these authors argue,

any victory associated with their presence on television is mitigated by the fact that gay and

lesbian characters are generally not allowed the sex lives that would make manifest their stated sexual orientations. Meanwhile, there are comparatively few limitations on depictions of active sex lives for heterosexual characters. A viewer typically only knows a television character is gay

or lesbian because the characters on the program say so. One exception to the trend of non- sexual portrayals of gays is Queer as Folk, which takes advantage of its position as pay-cable program and vividly counters broadcast television's tendency to deny gay characters active sex

lives (Holden, 2001; Kiska, 2000; Ostrow 2000; Weinraub, 2000). This openness about sexuality is itself controversial, with some saying the show wallows excessively in the sexuality of the characters (Kilday, 2001).

The popular culture magazine Entertainment Weekly suggests that "audiences are more accepting of gay entertainment than ever before" (Svetsky, 2000, p. 23). If this is so, then it may be time for varied and realistic portrayals of gay and lesbian characters. Contemporary media is exploring gay and lesbian identity, if only tentatively. Films, particularly those produced outside

the major studio system, offer more openness in gay portrayals than television, and various film

magazines are devoted to analyzing film. But television programs are much more readily

accessible to the mass numbers of viewers, and generally receive less in-depth attention from

critics. Most textual analysis of television shows involves little more than surface-level readings.

For example, many analyses of gay television characters assess the degree of stereotyping

19

involved with the particular depiction, and take a stand on how "positive" or "negative" the

particular depiction is as a reflection on gay people in general (see, for example, Capsuto, 2000;

Tropiano, 2002b). However, there has been little intra-text investigation of how individual

characters factor their homosexuality into their rhetorical construction of identity on different

dimensions, or how the characters distinguish or contrast their homosexual identity with that of

heterosexuals. Meanwhile, the interpretations of the aforementioned writers offer assessments of the portrayals of gays on television, but no major studies take the matter to gay viewers

themselves, and ask them what they make of portrayals of characters that share their sexual

orientation. In order to position this study clearly within the literature that explores the complex

matter of identity, I next offer an overview of identity research and discuss studies that have

explored some facet of gay and lesbian identity.

Identity Research

General approaches and investigations of gay identity. Scholars have long grappled with

the matter of how to build frameworks to understand the complex matter of identity (Hecht,

1993; for a substantial overview of identity research and theories, see Marcia et al., 1993; for

various philosophical perspectives on identity, see Cockburn, 1991). Some approaches view

identity from a developmental perspective (see Harter, 1999). In such views, a relatively stable conception of identity becomes codified at a certain point in a person’s life; however, development may be ongoing. Other approaches focus more specifically on adolescence as the time frame for the formation of a somewhat stable identity (Adams, Gullota, & Montemayor,

1992; Erikson, 1968; Feldman & Elliott, 1990). The sense that a person comes into one’s own

(sexually and otherwise) during adolescence guides these studies, though they do recognize that conceptions of identity can be fluid. Meanwhile, Bosma, Graafsma, Grotevant, and de Levita

20

(1994) provide a volume which articulates varied perspectives on identity from many different

disciplines, and the authors endorse a move toward a multidisciplinary approach to

understanding conceptions of identity. Particularly germane to this study of gay identity as it is

constructed for fictional television characters and understood by gay and lesbian individuals,

Holstein and Gubrium (2000) posit an orientation to identity as guided and understood in terms

of narrative. In this view, our construction of self is ongoing and understood through the story of

our experience.

Identity research continues to wrestle with how we can best understand how individuals

conceive of themselves, the world, and themselves in the world. There have been various studies of gay identity, some involving interviews with self-acknowledged gay and lesbian individuals.

A few studies ask gay and lesbian individuals to describe their coming to terms with their

homosexuality, the coming out process, or how the disclosure affected their relationships with

friends and/or relations (Ponse, 1978; Rhoads, 1994; Warren, 1974; Whisman, 1996). For

example, Warren (1974) conducted interviews specifically with individuals who identified as gay

and moved within the gay community to some degree but chose to keep their gay identities

hidden in most of their relationships. The study points out how gay and lesbian individuals may

have different public identities, and must factor these different selves into their conceptions of

who they are as gay and lesbian people.

In another study, Ponse (1978) conducted interviews with lesbians and discussed issues

of identity and the social construction of self. Meanwhile, Rhoads (1994) investigated how

individuals in college struggle with the building of identity and community in that environment.

In the provocatively titled Queer By Choice, Whisman (1996) discusses the results of interviews

21

with non-heterosexual individuals related to their formation and reification of identity as lesbians

and gay men, and positions the identity-making as an empowering but ongoing process.

It is also necessary to note that much discussion of gay identity assumes that the growth of a gay identity occurs in stages, with acceptance and integration of gay identity occurring as a gradual progression (see Horowitz & Newcomb, 2001 for an overview of these approaches).

Notably, though, one theory of gay identity offers an alternative to stage-based theories, and resonates with the communication theory of identity, which is the framework for this study.

Horowitz and Newcomb (2001) suggest that desire, behavior, and identity are dimensions of

identity. These three dimensions of individuals interact with the social context an individual

finds himself or herself in at a given point in time. There is no endpoint of identity, but rather it

involves an ongoing and fluid development. Certainly, this multidimensional view of

homosexual identity contrasts with linear identity theories that suggest a gradual progression

toward integration of one’s gay identity. However, the three dimensions of identity are not

described in-depth, so it’s not fully clear how individuals experience or express the three

dimensions of identity. A more detailed theory is needed for this study of gay identity on

television. The communication theory of identity (first codified by Hecht, 1993) serves as a

useful framework that has considerable potential to illuminate the issues under study in this

project.

The communication theory of identity. The communication theory of identity posits that

the complex concept of personal identity can be conceived as consisting of multiple dimensions

(Hecht, 1993). In this view, identity is not a single, arrived-at construct. Rather, any person’s

sense of identity is multifaceted and oftentimes consists of contradictory perceptions. The theory

22

“extends identity beyond individual and societal constructions to consider interaction” as an

influence on conceptions of identity (p. 79).

The communication theory of identity conceives of identity as consisting of four frames:

personal, enacted, relational, and communal (summarized in Hecht, 1993, p. 79-80; see also

Hecht et. al, 2002, p. 853). The personal frame focuses on a person's self-awareness, that is, the

sense of self he or she holds in his or her subjective perceptions. The enacted frame refers to how

verbalizations express identity, and how by rhetorically constructing terms to describe identity, a

person simultaneously constructs identity itself. The relational frame focuses on how an

individual’s identity is often perceived in relation to one’s connection to other people. Finally,

the communal frame is concerned with a person’s shared identity with those in each community

or group in which he or she is a part. Individuals often conceive of themselves as part of multiple

communities (a family unit, a profession, an ethnic group) that each carries some sense of

identity. The dimensions are interpenetrated, meaning that any specific experience or verbal

reference related to identity might be understood in relation to more than one dimension of

identity. For example, there may be discord between one’s self-concept and the perceptions one

associates with a group with which one identifies. If a person recognizes homosexual inclination

and struggles with his or her entrenched view that homosexuals are not good people, there would

be a dialectical tension between the personal and communal frames of identity. Identity is best considered as "a negotiation among the individual, enactment, the relationship, and the

community, or any combination of the four" (Hecht et. al, 2002, p. 853).

Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) applied the communication theory of identity to

African American identity, work that was extended by Hecht, Jackson, and Ribeau (2003) with encouragement to apply the theory to other cultural groups. I aver that it is in keeping with the

23

core concepts of the theory to view gay and lesbian individuals as collectively constituting a

culture. The definition of “culture” offered by the authors (Hecht, Jackson & Ribeau, 2003)

reflects the multidimensional nature of identity: culture is an individual, social, and societal

construct. Individuals experience culture through “a sense of belonging to a social group and

adopting its own perspective on the world” (p. 4). At the social level, a culture is a group

“constituted by membership within a system with common patterns of interaction and perception

and a historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, and norms,” a “patterned social

network with shared history,” and traditions (p. 4). On a societal level, culture “characterizes

large groups of people as an entity” (p. 4). All these components of culture resonate with the

lived experience of gay and lesbian people. Such people are likely to identify themselves as part

of a social group that is geographically diffuse but experiencing many of the same challenges.

Additionally, they have a unique history and are likely to be viewed as a group by society at large.

In fact, I believe the communication theory of identity theory promises to be particularly useful for the investigation of gay and lesbian identity. Gay and lesbian people are likely to embrace the idea of having multi-dimensional identities, given the fact that they may be “out” as

gay and lesbian individuals to certain people in their lives, and closeted to others. This fact is

likely to be a source of considerable identity negotiation, affecting the self-concepts of gay and

lesbian individuals as well as their relationships with other people. A gay person may struggle at the personal level to come to terms with his or her sexual identity. Labeling is prevalent in society even though sexual identities themselves may be fluid, and individuals may be reticent to self-identify themselves as being part of a socially stigmatized group. Gay and lesbian individuals might consider themselves, in essence, to be one person when in a communal setting

24

with other gay and lesbian people and another person when in a communal setting with

heterosexuals. Sexual identity is likely to be "weighted" differently in contexts where there are

few or no other gay and lesbian people. These complex identity issues are in evidence in the

interviews conducted by Rhoads (1994) and Whisman (1996), as well as in literature that

functions to provide people with advice about coming out (for example, Signorile, 1995). In sum, the concept of identity as negotiated between different realms resonates with the experience of many gay and lesbian individuals, thus positioning the communication theory of identity as a

particularly useful theory to apply to gay and lesbian identity.

Studies examining media and identity. There is burgeoning evidence that media images

might play a role in the construction of self for viewers who see similarities between themselves

and fictional characters (Gross, 1998; Liebes & Katz, 1990). While the present study discusses

issues of identity specifically in relation to media depictions of gay and lesbian identity, various

other studies have investigated the manner in which certain groups are depicted in various media.

Steinke (1998) pondered the implications of the dearth of television images of women scientists

on the impressionable young female audiences that are beginning to conceptualize possible

future career paths for themselves. Steinke uses gender schema theory to raise the alarm that

young girls need more television role models with careers in the scientific field.

Several studies look at how newspapers construct identities for people of a certain social

or economic background. For example, Rhode (1995) investigated media constructions of

feminism in newspapers and finds that feminism, and feminists, are almost always depicted in a

negative fashion, and that the press constructs trends, such as the decline of feminism, that have

no basis in fact. The author points out that these articles often articulate extreme views on both

sides and do not represent the middle-ground viewpoint that most closely reflects what most

25 people think about feminism, and calls for genuinely balanced coverage of the issue. Bullock,

Wyche, & Williams (2001) found that newspapers, in the time frame prior to welfare reform efforts, constructed an image of the poor as somewhat unsympathetic, reinforcing a societal notion that the poor are in situations of their own making. Notably, the tenor of the coverage changed to a somewhat more positive portrayal of the poor once welfare reform was underway, but coverage continued to ignore the experience of the majority of poor people. In addition,

Lefkowtiz (2001) scrutinized Israeli newspapers during an election season and finds that the press created identities for social groups involved in the political process.

Certain studies move beyond discussing the impressions the media gives about certain groups to actually ask people in a certain population to respond to the media images they see, something this project intends to do. Botta (1999) had adolescent girls fill out surveys that connected media consumption with self-image. Much has been made of the supposed link between poor self-image and eating disorders for American women and omnipresent media images of unrealistically thin women. Botta's results show only a tentative link between media images and self-esteem. Meanwhile, Rosel (2001) found that rural elders in Maine made little use of television images of the elderly, though most did watch at least some television. They relied on their own social networks, not television, for information pertinent to their identities as long-time residents of their area.

Hecht et al. (2002) investigated the television show Northern Exposure and identified categories that summarized the construction of Jewish American identity on the program. The lead character, a big-city doctor transplanted to small-town Alaska, finds himself to be virtually the only Jewish American in town. The doctor or other townspeople suggest personality qualities, such as argumentativeness and materialism, and traditions, such as observing certain

26

religious practices, to be indicative of Jewish American identity. In addition, townspeople

conflate Jewish American identity with a "New York" identity, and both the doctor and the

townspeople assume that certain names are markers of Jewish American identity. Significantly,

this study also includes an interview component. The researchers interviewed Jewish Americans

after they viewed specially-selected clips from the television program, and discussed

representations of Jewish American identity as depicted on the program with them. Interviewees

identified with the themes to varying degrees as they reflected on their conceptions of Jewish

identity, and how they defined themselves as Jewish Americans. While valuable research has been done related to gay characters on television, construction and understanding of personal

identity, and the interaction of media images and personal identity, little inquiry has been made

into the nexus of these threads. The next, and final, section of this chapter addresses the guiding

questions for the present investigation and previews how this project takes a two-study approach

to address largely overlooked concerns about gay identity on television and the responses of gay audience members to fictional portrayals.

Guiding Questions

Entertainment media may be the vanguard of familiarizing America with gay and lesbian people (Rich, 2003). Additionally, media images may be potentially powerful in helping individuals develop a sense of identity, with gays able to turn to gay images in the media for information and role models (Fejes, 2000). More study is needed to explore the interstice of these ideas. One inquiry to follow is an examination of how “gay people” – gay and lesbian identities – are characterized in the gay media, how consumers of these images interpret them, and the role these images might play in constructing gay and lesbian identity for gay audience members.

27

The objectives of this study are to (1) identify and analyze messages related to gay and

lesbian identity in television texts featuring major gay and lesbian characters, (2) describe how

gay and lesbian consumers of those texts interpret those messages, and (3) describe how, if at all

gay and lesbian consumers of those texts apply these interpretations to their own identity frames

as gay and lesbian individuals. The accomplishment of these objectives will be guided by three

questions. The first phase of the study addresses this question:

GQ1: What references emerge in notable television texts related to gay and lesbian characters’ personal, enacted, relational, and communal identity frames as gay men or women?

The second phase of the study will focus on providing a description of how gay and lesbian consumers of these texts interpret them, and how they might apply their understandings of the texts to their own personal identity formation as gay and lesbian people. What do depictions of gay and lesbian characters on television mean to gay and lesbian individuals’ identities as actual gay and lesbian people living their unscripted lives? This second phase of the

project will be guided by the following questions:

GQ2: How do gay and lesbian individuals perceive identity frames for gay and lesbian characters

as depicted on entertainment television?

GQ3: In what ways, if at all, do gay and lesbian individuals perceive their own personal identity

interfacing with media depictions of gay and lesbian characters’ identity frames?

I chose an inductive approach to answer these questions that involved rhetorical analysis

for the first question and semi-structured interviews for the second. With close scrutiny of

dialogue in the programs that construct or reflect gay identity, I seek to understand how gay

characters on television are depicted at the personal, enacted, relational, and communal levels of

identity. Then, interviews with self-identifying gay, lesbian, and bisexual people allow me to

28 hear from gay people themselves in regard to how they interpret the portrayals of gay identity on television, how they see the characters portrayed at the personal, enacted, relational, and communal levels of identity, and how such depictions interact with their own identities as living, breathing gay people. In the next chapter, I address the methodology employed in the first of the two studies that comprise this project.

29

Chapter 3: Study One – Methods

In this study, I seek to illuminate how gay identity is portrayed in a trio of notable, popular, and varied television series. Previous examinations of gay characters on television often focus on how stereotypical, or how positive or negative, a particular portrayal may be (Capsuto,

2000; Tropiano, 2002a). Also, some researchers assess to what degree portrayals of gay characters undermine or reinforce the sense that heterosexuality is both normative and preferable

(Fejes & Petrich, 1993; Hantzis and Lehr, 1994). I wish to use the communication theory of identity to explore how scriptwriters construct fictional gay characters in regard to the personal, enacted, relational, and communal dimensions of identity on television. This study addresses the first guiding question identified in the previous chapter:

GQ1: What references emerge in notable television texts related to gay and lesbian characters’ personal, enacted, relational, and communal identity frames as gay men or women?

Only a miniscule percentage of fictional television characters throughout television’s history have been identified as gay or lesbian. Even so, television has offered hundreds of gay characters, either as one-episode guests on series, in made-for-television movies, or as series regulars (Capsuto, 2000; Tropiano, 2002a). Therefore, any in-depth study of gay identity on television must focus on only a certain segment of representations. This study does not purport to encompass the totality of gay portrayals on television, but rather illuminate portrayals of gay identity as depicted in several particularly notable texts. In this chapter, I first offer general justification for my choices of programs to analyze. I then provide background information about each of the three selected programs, and summarize some of the previous literature on each show. Lastly, I elaborate on the methods used to conduct the rhetorical analysis of gay identity on television, the results of which are found in the next chapter.

30

Selection of Texts

The first step in the rhetorical analysis of television texts portraying gay and lesbian characters is to select the texts for analysis. The first decision focuses the analysis on gay characters found in the most conventional of scripted television genres, situation comedies (half- hour programs typically filmed in front of a laugh-prone audience) and one-hour dramatic programs. This study, then, excludes the genre of “reality” programming, a genre that has gained popularity in the last few years. Reality shows of the modern era do have a history of including gay and lesbian participants among their “characters,” so they do account for a notable percentage of the modern-day gay and lesbian representations on television. Survivor on CBS and The Real World on MTV are two auspicious examples of reality shows that have typically included at least one gay person in each of their numerous incarnations. Additionally, Bravo’s program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has attracted much attention in recent years, and features no less than five gay males as its core cast of makeover artists reinventing the life and look of a different hapless heterosexual male in each episode. However, I feel that this project requires either a complete focus on reality shows or a complete focus on scripted sitcom and drama programming, and I chose the latter. The gay and lesbian participants on reality shows are neither fictional creations nor are they exactly themselves. They most likely adopt, or are given by the show's editors, some sort of role/persona within the context of the program. Viewers might assume that the behavior of all individuals on such shows is notably influenced and altered by the fact that cameras are constantly filming them. I desire to focus on the formats that show actors as gay characters in traditional, if fabricated and scripted, contexts.

By choosing comedy and dramatic shows with gay and lesbian characters, I can explore them without concern for authenticity; the characters are not really gay and lesbian people, but

31

rather representations of gay and lesbian individuals conceived by writers and embodied by

actors. In addition, the drama and comedy genres place the characters in everyday settings and

situations rather than the utterly contrived, scarcely “real” situations on reality shows. This

brings issues of identity more naturally to the fore as they go about their everyday television

lives in episode after episode. Viewers see the fictional characters in a putative everyday reality

that allows investigation of gay identity in a context that is known to be invented but is typically intended to resonate to some degree with real experience. If viewers do not find some affection

for fictional television characters, viewers are probably unlikely to watch the show in the future.

I chose to focus on three specific texts – Six Feet Under, Will & Grace, and Queer as

Folk – to allow a reasonably in-depth analysis of each. Book-length chronicles of gay characters

on television (Capsuto, 2000; Tropiano, 2002a) often strive for breadth and offer only a brief

analysis of specific programs, with many programs featuring gay characters merely mentioned in

passing. Any study of gay identity on television is likely to benefit from a more in-depth

exploration of specific shows and/or specific characters. I feel the three chosen texts,

individually and collectively, offer significant potential for gaining detailed insights into how

gay and lesbian characters are portrayed on television.

The three texts represent a cross-section of contemporary programs that have a high

profile with both gay audiences and gay media, as well as general, or “mainstream,” audiences

and media. While much was made of the supposed plethora of gay characters on major network

television in the late 1990s, particularly on the heels of the much-heralded coming out of Ellen

DeGeneres on Ellen (for example, Entertainment Weekly's cover story, Svetsky, 2000), the

number of gay and lesbian characters has actually decreased in recent years (Tropiano, 2002b).

While some shows still feature gay supporting characters, the three shows chosen for analysis

32

represent virtually the only three shows on major American broadcast or cable networks that

feature at least one gay and/or lesbian lead character at the time this study was conducted. In fact, virtually the only additional major program with gay leads to debut after this project was conceived is Showtime’s The L Word. The three selections are not merely default choices however. The shows also represent a mix of major network and pay-cable programs, a mix of

sitcoms and dramas, and variety in the distribution of gay characters to straight characters among

the core casts.

Each show also generated more than respectable ratings. Arguably these are the most popular contemporary shows with gay characters for audiences, gay or straight. As of the current writing, Will & Grace is in its eighth season on the air. Meanwhile, Queer as Folk and Six Feet

Under have aired their fourth and fifth seasons, respectively. In both cases, the seasons were officially announced as the last season for the shows. Early seasons of all three shows are currently available on DVD and therefore readily attainable for at-home audiences. Presumably, all episodes of all three shows will eventually be available in the popular DVD format. In the following sections, I give brief a background on each of the shows and reference some of the extant literature on them. The descriptions include some comparisons and contrasts of the selected programs to justify further the selection of this particular grouping of texts for this study.

Text 1: Six Feet Under. The drama Six Feet Under is an original series that appeared on

HBO. Among the central characters on the show, a rather dysfunctional family that runs a funeral home in Los Angeles, there is one gay male character. There is an additional gay male character among the other characters that complete the show’s ensemble. The show does depict something highly unusual on American television: an ongoing, if romantically on-again/off-

33 again, relationship between two gay men. In addition, the relationship is an interracial one, though the show makes essentially no reference to this fact. The main gay character, David

Fisher (Michael C. Hall), assumes charge of running the family funeral home after his father dies in the show's first episode. As the show begins, David (who is white) is closeted, but in the course of the first season his family comes to know his sexual orientation. His ongoing relationship is with Keith Charles (Matthew St. Patrick), an African American police officer who later leaves the force. David's fussy, businesslike manner in all professional and personal contexts is in contrast with Keith's more laidback approach to life. The rest of the ensemble includes David's kind but unfulfilled mother Ruth (Frances Conroy), his brooding teenage sister

Claire (Lauren Ambrose), his egocentric brother Nate (Peter Krause), Nate's unstable paramour

Brenda (Rachel Griffiths), and the funeral home employee responsible for preparing bodies for viewing, the capable Federico (Freddy Rodriguez).

Though Six Feet Under is a cable show with somewhat limited viewership, it merited a cover-story feature in Entertainment Weekly magazine (Snierson, 2003). However, the show's gay characters have not received a great deal of attention. The ensemble nature of the drama is reflected in the fact that all episodes feature multiple plotlines, and generally only one thread of the plot features David, while Keith is generally not featured without David. The show is ripe for deeper analysis in regard to gay identity. Six Feet Under is alone among the three shows discussed in this analysis as a show in which the heterosexual characters significantly outnumber the gay characters in the core cast. Thus, most of the time the gay characters find themselves in the sexual minority, and this may give them identity concerns that are not as pronounced in the other texts. The show also offers the one notable example of a character “coming out” among the shows studied. The characters on Will & Grace and Queer as Folk are “out” to all the other

34

characters in their respective shows at the beginning of the run of the shows. Though some of the

characters find themselves coming out to someone in the course of the show’s action, there is no

notable coming-out process depicted as in Six Feet Under.

Some critics have noted how identity-related challenges are fundamental on Six Feet

Under. Abernathy (2001) noted that it is obvious after meeting the related quartet of characters at the center of the show “that these four people have been ‘dead’ for years, walking through their assigned roles without enthusiasm and joy.” Similarly, Curran (2001) suggested that on the show

“[e]ven the living seem dead, detached from the world disconnected and from each other.” As the show progressed, the significant changes to the deadened identities of the characters received attention as well. Gilbert (2001) indicated part way into the first season that “the show has developed a neat overarching theme: coming out of the closet, and not just in terms of sexual orientation.” In other words, beyond David’s coming to terms with his homosexuality, the other characters also eventually learned new things about themselves, and revealed new aspects of themselves to others. Finally, Johnson (2003) noted that the four central characters in the show

“all deal with the longing to belong, the search for an identity, and the struggle to remain vital.”

Given their identity-related issues, the gay characters merit further investigation. Obviously, only the gay characters will be included in the analysis in this study, but I chose to focus primarily on the character of David, who is much more heavily featured than Keith, and whose journey presents tantalizing possibilities for investigating gay identity construction.

Text 2: Will & Grace. The popular sitcom Will & Grace runs on the NBC television network. When the series debuted in the fall of 1998, media pundits noted it as something of a landmark: the show was the first major network program to feature a gay male lead character – a co-lead, in this case. Most auspicious about the debut of Will & Grace was how little of a stir it

35

generated. Boycotts and heavy debate did not accompany its debut, as was more or less expected.

By pairing its gay male lead character with a straight female, the show capitalized on a then-

recent trend of films that featured similar gay man/straight woman friendship. My Best Friend's

Wedding, The Object of My Affection, and As Good As It Gets all featured such pairs (see Jacobs,

1998). By the same token, the pairing allowed the show to sidestep what some perceived to be off-putting about Ellen's out-of-the-closet final season, when some suggested Ellen focused too heavily on the star’s gay identity. With Will & Grace, heterosexual viewers had something of a surrogate among the titular characters, something not true of Ellen in its last year. In addition, the gay male lead of Will & Grace needed no coming-out episode. Will had just broken up with a long-term partner and had been out for years when the action of the show began. Perhaps Ellen’s

coming-out episode satisfied audiences, who were then uninterested in what came afterward for

the character. With Will, audiences were introduced to a gay man who had long ago

acknowledged his sexual identity, and presumably viewers would want to follow in his

experiences as an out gay person.

Will & Grace features four main characters: two gay men and two straight women. Will

Truman (Eric McCormack) is a gay lawyer who has been best friends since college with Grace

Adler (Debra Messing). In many ways, they resemble a married couple, from living together for most of the show's run to their communication patterns to their penchant for showing physical affection. Jack McFarland (Sean Hayes) is their fluorescent gay friend, and Karen Walker

(Megan Mullaly) is a wealthy socialite who works with Grace. Jack's unfettered, over-the-top effeminacy contrasts sharply with Will’s demeanor. Jack embodies the stereotypically limp- wristed, lisping gay man, while Will most certainly does not. Some criticize the program for

36 reinforcing the "flaming gay" stereotype through Jack's behavior and the criticism he receives from the other characters for it (Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Shugart, 2003).

Will & Grace received perhaps the most media attention of any show with a gay lead since Ellen. Two investigations of the program (Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2001; Shugart, 2003) were included in the overview of literature in the previous chapter. Additionally, Keller (2002) argues against judgments that the show does not reference or invoke important social/political issues related to being gay in modern society by offering numerous examples of how the show, in its own way, has indeed referenced these issues. However, any challenges the show offers to societal norms are undermined by the show’s tendency to ratify and validate only heterosexual bonds, even for the gay characters. Still, in this author’s view, the show’s penchant for camp humor allows it to address issues, makes it accessible, and allows it to contribute to the visibility of gays in society.

While the other two shows in this analysis do regularly contain humor, they are structured as dramas, and thus Will & Grace is the only comedy among the three shows discussed here. It is also the only major network show in the present analysis. I feel it is crucial to include at least one major network program here, as analysis might draw some contrast between gay identities as depicted on network television and as depicted on cable networks.

While its high profile in the media and its popularity in the ratings justify its inclusion here, in one sense Will & Grace is an inevitable choice. As suggested earlier, it is wrongheaded to think of gay characters as progressively coming into ever-greater visibility on television. While they briefly flourished from 1998-2001, gay lead characters on network shows have been in very short supply in recent years. Though much else could be said to justify its inclusion, given the

37

near-absence of other possible network shows to include, the inclusion of Will & Grace here is

virtually a foregone conclusion.

Text 3: Queer as Folk. The Showtime pay-cable channel hosted the controversial series

Queer as Folk, a series based on a short-run British series of the same name. The show stood

alone in the modern American television landscape as the one program with a plurality of

characters that are not heterosexual until Showtime started airing The L Word, which explores a

lesbian milieu. On Queer as Folk, one member of the core ensemble and several recurring characters are indeed straight, but the main cast consists of no less than five gay male characters

and two lesbian characters. The characters are well-wrought and complicated, but the show

unquestionably wallows to a degree in the elements that make it unmistakably a pay-cable

television show: profane language, illegal drug use, nudity, and abundant sexual situations with

explicit sex. The result is a program that tends to polarize audiences. It is offensive and repellent

to some (Bozell, 2000), while others find it refreshingly honest and uncompromising (Holden,

2001).

The show depicts the trials, tribulations, and frequent couplings of a group of gay friends

in Pittsburgh. Michael Novotny (Hal Sparks) is an agreeable store manager who for years has

had a crush on Brian, his long-time best friend. Brian Kinney (Gale Harold) is the character all

others on the show consider impossibly good-looking and perfectly in control of all situations.

Brian engages in endless sexual conquests with men and treats others, even those who consider

him a close friend, callously and with emotional detachment. Ted Schmidt (Scott Lowell) is

mild-mannered as well as a bit older than the others and also generally less successful in finding sexual partners. Emmett Honeycutt (Peter Paige) is the most stereotypically effeminate of these four and also the most catty and witty. Justin Taylor (Randy Harrison) is a teenager just coming

38

to terms with his homosexuality at the beginning of the series. Justin attaches himself to Brian early on and integrates himself into the group as he pursues his life's options out of high school.

The show also boasts the only regular lesbian characters on any of the shows discussed

here, and the two women also offer the most entrenched gay relationship featured on any of the

three programs. Lindsay Peterson (Thea Gill) and Melanie Marcus (Michelle Clunie) are a long-

committed couple with a baby conceived using Brian’s sperm. As mentioned earlier, Queer as

Folk does include one heterosexual character in its central ensemble, Michael's mother, Debbie

Novotny (Sharon Gless). However, given Debbie's flamboyant nature and her fierce support of gay people – she works at a diner with a primarily gay clientele and constantly wears t-shirts with gay-positive slogans – viewers could be forgiven if they resist considering her a "straight" character. Debbie is also perpetually bewigged and heavily made-up, not unlike a drag queen.

At the very least, Queer as Folk vividly counters television's historical tendency to deny gay characters active sex lives (Holden, 2001; Kiska, 2000; Ostrow, 2000; Weinraub, 2000). The show "shatters an unwritten rule in television against depictions of sexual behavior between men" (Weinraub, 2000) by frequently depicting explicit sex scenes involving same-sex couples.

Though Brian is ostensibly the most sexually voracious and surely averages more than one sex partner per episode, all characters find themselves in sexual encounters with regularity. In addition to their frequency, the show's sex scenes also vary in their locations (these characters are by no means limited to bedrooms for exercising their libidos) and variety (different practices and fetishism come into play as well). While its sexual content has received attention, it represents new territory to investigate the construction of gay identity on the program. The fact that the characters actively talk about their sex lives may also add dimension to their references to

39

identity. References of this sort are essentially non-existent with the male lead of Will & Grace,

who rarely dates and has no visible sex life.

While it is unquestionably provocative, the political implications of Queer as Folk

remain ambiguous. Many of the characters imbibe drugs and engage in casual and anonymous

sexual encounters with great frequency, leading some to view it as a very negative depiction of

gay society. "Is it good for gays?" an article in the gay magazine The Advocate asks about Queer

as Folk (Kilday, 2001). While there are no easy or definitive answers to the question, I intend to

investigate some of the possible interpretations of the show, especially those tied to the identities

of the characters as gay people. In all, the three chosen texts represent a strategic sample of what

modern-day American television has on offer in terms of major gay characters.

Textual Analysis Procedures

Rhetorical analysis of the dialogue on the shows is intended to identify references by or

about a gay character that relates to the character’s personal, enacted, relational, and communal

identity frames as a gay man or woman. The analysis intends to reveal the ways in which the

writers for gay characters pronounce and develop gay identities within the fictional context of the television shows. The following paragraphs discuss how I conducted this phase of analysis.

Upon considering the number of episodes each of the three programs has produced to date, I chose to include only the first season’s worth of episodes of each program in the present analysis. While this decision made the analysis much more manageable, I feel the decision is also justified as a strategic narrowing of the study’s focus. Obviously, a gay character comes to life for television viewers in the first episode of program and presumably further codifies that identity in the early run of the show, and thus the first season is appropriate for studying the literal creation of gay identity. Six Feet Under initially ran for 13 episodes, with each episode

40 about 47 minutes long. The first season of Will & Grace consisted of 22 episodes, each running about 22 minutes, while Queer as Folk had a debut season of 22 episodes of 47 minutes duration.

First, I went through a process of identifying references to identity in all the first-season episodes of each program. I watched the episodes and identified and transcribed any references to identity made by gay characters, as well as comments other characters make about a gay character, in any of the various forms such references may take. In other words, any statement in which a gay character referenced his or her sense of self, his or her relationship to other people, or his or her relationship to a larger society was noted. I also noted comments made by other gay or straight characters about gay characters and/or gay people. Instead of offering specific examples of the types of statements that were considered to reference “gay identity,” I will reserve specifics for the discussion of results in the next chapter. The dialogue referencing gay identity for each show was transcribed into a document.

As television characters cannot discuss/reference their conceptions of identity without using dialogue, for this analysis I decided to conflate the conceptions of personal and enacted frames of the communication theory of identity. Presumably most or all statements could be taken to invoke more than one dimension of identity, but the personal realm of these characters can only be understood through what is said by them or about them in the enacted realm. Even voice-over narratives used to express the inner workings of a character’s mind in television shows utilize dialogue to construct identity. Therefore, there are three dimensions to the communication theory of identity as discussed here: personal/enacted (hereafter referred to just as “personal,” for the sake of brevity), relational, and communal.

I examined the references found in each program and made further decisions about managing the reporting of the results. The files contained a large number of identity-related

41

dialogue snippets from Will & Grace and Queer as Folk, which forced further decision-making

about how to manage the focus of the discussions of those shows. Considering the varied number

of gay characters in the shows and the types of experiences depicted and referenced, I made the decision to vary the analytical approach between programs. My initial idea was to organize the discussion of each program around the levels of identity – personal, relational, and communal – with examples of how each dimension was in evidence in each program. This approach proved appropriate for Six Feet Under, as the catalog of identity-related dialogue snippets was not dauntingly large. As the gay character David and his romantic partner Keith are only featured among a predominantly heterosexual core ensemble of characters, the number of identity-related utterances in the scripts was not nearly as significant as with the other two shows.

To manage discussion of Will & Grace and Queer as Folk, I responded to my observation that a particular dimension of identity strongly emerged among the collected dialogue snippets. I decided to organize these two discussions mainly around one of the three dimensions of identity.

This approach allowed me to distinguish one analysis from the others while it also allowed me to take advantage of the unique qualities of each program. Specifically, David’s experience in the first season of Six Feet Under permitted me to look at one character’s experience at all three levels: as David goes through a coming-out process in this season, he redefines his identity to himself (personal level), to the family members around him (relational level), and also re- examines his group identifications (communal level). On Will & Grace, the action focuses

heavily on the core cast of four characters, which allowed the most useful study of the relational

dimension of identity; even the show’s title focuses attention on a relationship. As this program

offered the most concentrated focus on the close relationships a gay character has with a single

heterosexual person and a single other gay person, I made these two dyads the centerpieces of

42

the examination. In other words, I chose to organize the investigation around two specific

relationships within the show: Will’s bonds with his gay friend Jack, and his bonds with his heterosexual friend Grace. Finally, Queer as Folk afforded an opportunity to study gay communal identity, as it is the only program that offers a scenario in which homosexuality is normative among its central characters. The show contains references to the gay characters as a collective as well as references to their community and their community’s relationship with the heterosexual world outside their enclave. The other two shows largely lack these important references.

While a single dimension of identity serves as the framework for the discussion of two of the three shows, references to gay identity may also be considered to reference or invoke more than one of the frames. Therefore, while the discussions of Will & Grace and Queer as Folk will be organized around a single dimension of identity, the examples used to discuss that dimension may also have implications for other levels of identity.

After determining to pursue a three-part approach for Six Feet Under and to focus on one overarching dimension of identity for Will & Grace and Queer as Folk, I returned to the transcribed snippets of dialogue from each show that reflect or comment on gay identity. I printed the files that contained the dialogue from the episodes and cut the papers so that one self- contained quote appeared on each piece of paper. I eliminated the dialogue that did not explicitly reference the particular level of identity for Will & Grace and Queer as Folk. Then the examples were sorted.

For Six Feet Under, there were three a priori (predetermined) categories. For this show, I sorted the statements based on the level of identity they most strongly or explicitly addressed – personal, relational, or communal. With Will & Grace and a focus on relational identity, I sorted

43 the dialogue into two a priori categories: statements that discuss or reflect Will’s relationship with his straight friend Grace, and statements that discuss or reflect Will’s relationship with his gay friend Jack. For Queer as Folk, I sorted the excerpts into themes that described or reflected the general tenor of the statements that related to communal identity. I conducted several phases of thematic analysis in which I named, collapsed, and revised themes. This process generated three significant themes to describe how the program referenced the communal level of identity.

These themes reflect three pairs of oppositional dyads or tensions that reflect how gay community is constructed and referenced on the show. The next chapter offers the results of this study, with examples and discussion of the major themes that emerged in the analysis of the three programs.

44

Chapter 4: Study One – Textual Analysis

In this chapter, I discuss the emergent ideas in my analysis of three notable television texts with gay characters: Six Feet Under, Will & Grace, and Queer as Folk. As discussed in the previous chapter, I focused my analysis for one show on the three dimensions of identity borrowed from the communication theory of identity, and focused my analysis of the other two shows based on the identity frame that emerged as most salient in its scripting. As Six Feet

Under depicts one gay man as part of the central ensemble, a character that went through a coming-out process, the program allows exploration of this character’s identity-related concerns at all three levels. With two gay male and two straight female characters as its platonic core cast,

Will & Grace provides the best opportunity to look closely at the relational dimension of identity, as so much action hinges around the relational trials and tribulations of the central character of Will and his heterosexual female pal Grace and his gay buddy Jack. And, given that the central cast of characters on the show is almost all gay, an unprecedented situation on

American television at the time of its debut, Queer as Folk serves as the most useful program to explore gay communal identity. It is the only one of the three programs that literally portrays gay characters interacting in a substantive communal setting, and includes the most discussion of communal bonds. In the next sections, I discuss each program in turn, with attention to the utterances and situations that occur during the program’s first season that reflect or construct the fictional identities of gay characters consumed by television viewers.

Six Feet Under

As noted in the previous chapter, the first season of Six Feet Under depicts the coming- out process of the character David. Given that David and his romantic partner Keith figure into only a portion of the action and the plotlines depicted in any particular episode, it is both

45

manageable and useful to discuss David’s experience at all three levels of identity. First, I

discuss, in general, how he struggles with self-definition and then, more specifically, with self- defining as a gay person. Next, I note how his relationships, particularly with his parents – even the one that is deceased – are significant but difficult aspects of his experience. Finally, I look at the communal level of identity and discuss David’s struggle to reconcile his gay identity with self-identification within a religious group.

Personal level: self-defining as funeral director, and a gay man. In the first season of

HBO’s Six Feet Under, the character David progresses from a closeted gay man into a man who is “out” to those closest to him. David faces many challenges on the personal dimension of identity. Early on, he frequently defines himself in terms of his vocation as the manager of a funeral home; this is even though it is soon revealed that he joined his father’s business mainly out of a sense of duty, sidetracking his own aspirations in the process. When his brother Nate encourages selling the funeral home, David says sure, “let’s just invalidate my entire life”

(Kaplan & Patterson, 2001). Since his role as a funeral director has consumed so much of his life, he sees its continuance as his validation. Separately, David refuses a fling with a man, and the man suggests that David doesn’t need to be so serious. “I’m a serious guy, I bury people for a living,” David replies (Andries & Coulter, 2001). The conflation of personal and professional identity is partially explained by the fact that David gave up law school to get accredited as a funeral director because of filial commitment to his father, who started the business. Thus, David gave up some of himself for his father. Upon reflection, he seriously considers selling the funeral home and facing the uncertainty that would follow. He accepts this possibility by stating, “people start their lives over all the time, right?” (Kaplan & Patterson, 2001). Concurrent with his

46 becoming more accepting of his homosexuality, David ultimately professes a willingness to rethink the profession he has long considered to be the defining aspect of his personhood.

In addition to profession-oriented identity issues, David does struggle specifically with his homosexuality throughout the first season. In one episode (Robin & Garcia, 2001), David finds himself empathizing and agreeing with anti-gay protesters. David believes his homosexuality is his fault and he should be able “to fix it.” Being a gay person is “not who I want to be.” Rather, he wants “to be the guy at my church with a kid on my knee.” Here, the struggle is between personal identity and his perceptions of communal identity characteristics of gay people. David identifies more with traditional conceptions of traditional heterosexual bliss, and sees this normalcy as in conflict with his homosexual tendencies – as he says, it’s not who he wants to be. Ultimately, David concludes that he is so very “tired of being ashamed” (Ball,

2001b) about his homosexuality, and indeed does come out to his family. His statement suggests that he is willing to throw off one conception of self and take on another, though it is not empowerment or pride that he feels, but rather exhaustion at maintaining a shameful view of himself in terms of his sexual identity.

With his concerns at the personal level of identity reflecting both professional and as well as sexual identity, what is notable is that not all of David’s identity issues are specifically tied to his sexual orientation. Thus, these examples show that writers on programs like Six Feet Under develop gay characters beyond their sexual orientation. In constructing multidimensional characters, sexual orientation may be one identity that is constructed among others, an encouraging sign that gay characters are not automatically reduced to having their sexualities as their single defining traits and the axis around which all their experiences rotate.

47

Relational level: coming out of silence. While his fundamental, personally-held

conception of who he is shifts throughout the first season of the show, David also comments on,

and at least in some cases seeks to redefine, his relationships with other people. This happens in

the very first episode of the show (Ball, 2001a). As he ruminates to his romantic partner Keith

about the latest family crisis, David articulates the role he sees himself playing among other

people by saying, “I’ll be the strong one, the stable one, the dependable one, because that’s what

I do.” Meanwhile, he says, “everyone around me will fall apart, because that’s what they do.” In

response to this, Keith notes that David must get tired of being so hard on other people, as well

as himself. In this exchange, David professes weariness with relational patterns in which all

roles, including his own, are fixed. In fact, the weariness with which he makes the statements

suggests that David would welcome new communication patterns between himself and each of

his family members.

David also expresses frustration over his relationship with each of his parents, although

only his mother is alive. His father is killed in a car accident in the first episode of the series, but

reappears periodically as a specter with whom the still-living characters converse. David

references his identity in relation to his father in the first episode of the series (Ball, 2001a). He

carries on a conversation with his father’s ghost as he prepares his father’s body for viewing. It’s

unclear if David’s portions of the conversation are actually uttered, or if the whole chat occurs in his mind, but the scene is portrayed as if the two characters are conversing out loud. David states that he went to school to learn funeral services “when other kids my age were going to frat parties,” and “I did it all for you.” With these statements, David contrasts himself with others at the communal level of his age group, and professes that his choice was made in response to his father’s priorities, which is a relational-level construction. Further illustrating his personal sense

48

of conflict and how it is enacted relationally, in another episode (Robin & Garcia, 2001) David

ties in a concern at the relational level as he struggles with a component of personal identity

when he says “I feel like my father would hate me if he knew [I was gay].” This lingering

concern about his father’s approval suggests how strong a hold his father had over his son when

he was alive. David still worries about his father’s approval even though his father is dead.

From what the characters say on Six Feet Under, clearly the precedent in the Fisher

family was an absence of talk about emotions or other significant issues that involve soul-baring.

In the penultimate episode of the season (Robin & Garcia, 2001), David and his mother Ruth

finally have a conversation in which he self-identifies as a homosexual. Ruth expresses her

unhappiness, not at David’s disclosure, but rather at the fact that he didn’t tell her previously.

David says he appreciates her trying to be open to this news, but suggests she wasn’t a very open

person when he was growing up: “You and Dad, no one talks about anything” and “none of us

are like that.” Here, the example of the parents is neatly extended to the family as a whole: the

parents were not particularly open, so the children naturally followed the same pattern. David then brings the conversation to the relational level by telling his mother, “I don’t think you know

me very well.” Though they have been living on the same premises for an unspecified number of

David’s adult years, David clearly finds that his relationship with his mother is stymied by the lack of disclosure that was the established norm during David’s formative years. While this conversation is something of a stumbling start, it does provide a basis for not only a new relationship between mother and son, but also for an upending of the family’s closed-off

communication patterns. David’s experiences at the relational level of identity ultimately

facilitate his acceptance of his sexual identity, although overcoming the apparent mandate for

avoiding disclosure among his family members is not easy.

49

Communal level: gay and religious. Another identity struggle David experiences on Six

Feet Under is with two affiliations that seemingly are in conflict: he is a gay man, but also part of a church that does not welcome homosexuality. This conflict comes to a head in the season finale (Ball, 2001b). Keith questions David’s church affiliation, but David says that he finds comfort in the fact that the church hasn’t changed, like everything else in his life. After a

controversy emerges regarding the alleged homosexuality of the leader of his church, David says

he’s determined to deliver a devotional mass as scheduled because “they’re not going to

intimidate me into disappearing.” David redefines himself in relation to both his church and his

homosexuality, and tells the congregation that he’s tired of being ashamed and thinking that God

will judge him. He expresses that he can be both a gay man and a devoted follower of God.

While he doesn’t explicitly say it, the implication is that he doesn’t need the sanction of that

specific church, as his religious affiliation is larger than any particular church. David reframes his communal bond from a connection with the specific church to a connection to spirituality.

This represents a broader concept that allows him to work through the dissonance he had felt with the two affiliations that he perceived to be in conflict. In this fashion, David reconciles one tension operating in the nexus of the personal and the communal frames of identity.

Summary. In its first season, Six Feet Under followed one gay man through a watershed

time in his life, revealing a complex character that by no means organized his personal

experiences solely around his sexual orientation. The scripting in this series revealed gay characters as multifaceted human beings experiencing challenges related to their careers and other aspects of their lives beyond their sexuality. While David kept himself closeted for a time during the first season because of unresolved shame and lack of acceptance of his own sexuality, this reticence could also be seen as his simply following the constrained communication

50

precedents set by his family. Presumably, he’d be equally disinclined to disclose other personal

information to his family. For example, his family probably would not know about it if he started

some new activity in his spare time.

All of the members of the central ensemble of Six Feet Under are dysfunctional; David is no exception. His struggles with his identity at the personal, relational, and communal levels show a gay person in a predominantly heterosexual milieu that must redefine his identity. This must be accomplished first to himself, then to his family, and then to those to whom he shares larger group identifications, in order to integrate his homosexuality with other aspects of his

identity. With such depictions, a show such as Six Feet Under reveals that gay characters do not

need to be fully defined by their sexual orientations. However, that particular aspect of identity is

indeed ripe for dramatic exploration.

Will & Grace

The situation comedy Will & Grace offers an opportunity to explore the relational level

of identity. Platonic relationships, both gay/straight alliances (through the pairing of the titular

gay male/straight female characters) and bonds of friendships between gay people (through the

relationship of Will and his friend Jack, who are friends but have never dated each other), are

central to the program. The program does not offer the useful opportunity to explore romantic

gay relationships, however, as neither central gay male character dates during the first season of

the show. Therefore, I have chosen to organize this discussion around the central gay character

Will and the two most notable relationships in his life, his friendship with Grace, and his

friendship with Jack. I first discuss how Will and Grace seem to have an unshakable bond

between them, though frequently they actively undermine each other’s happiness. Then I discuss

51

how Will’s relationship with Jack is also characterized by a deep commitment, while on the

surface the two constantly exchange put-downs and express contempt for each other.

Will and Grace: dependence and resentment. The fundamental premise of Will & Grace

seems to celebrate the unique bond gay men and straight women are able to forge through their

ability to have strong friendships unencumbered by sexual tension. However, the program

occasionally indicates that relationships with gay men have a contaminating effect for straight

women, and vice versa. Indeed, the bond between Will and Grace is shown as deep and committed. But it is also a bond that supercedes the personal happiness of each individual and frequently leads one of the characters to place his or her platonic bond with the other above

romantic possibilities with a person outside the dyad. In one episode, for example, Will reacts

strongly against the idea of Grace dating his brother Sam (Kohan, Mutchnik, & Burrows, 1999b).

Will says to his brother, “You can’t have her, ‘cause she’s mine.” When Grace says that she is

not a toy and that it is not necessary for Will to get “all possessive and controlling,” Will asserts

that he’s not possessive or controlling, but “it’s just that Sam…can’t have you, ‘cause you’re

mine.” Will later apologizes for his jealous outburst, and tells Grace to date whoever she wants.

However, when Sam then arrives at the apartment, Grace tells Sam that she can’t date him

because she feels it’s “too weird” and comments that she’s violating a commandment: “Thou

shall not covet they gay best friend’s long-estranged, recently reunited brother.” Therefore, the

commitment between Will and Grace cancels out Grace’s romantic possibilities, even though

Will stated his intent not to control her. It’s unclear if Will objects to Grace’s bond with his

estranged brother, his brother’s bond with his live-in platonic mate, Grace’s romantic

opportunities when he has none himself, or some combination of these possibilities. What is

clear is that one should be wary of Will’s claims of not being “possessive” and “controlling”

52 when Grace is involved. Although he backtracks from the assessment, Will objectifies Grace by considering her personal property, and discounts her ability to make her own decisions. Will has, after a fashion, conflated his identity with Grace’s; he defines himself totally as part of a single entity that contains the two of them.

In another instance, Grace takes Will away for the weekend to try to get his mind off what would have been an anniversary with his ex-boyfriend (Savel & Burrows, 1999). Grace again passes on a romantic opportunity in order to attend to Will, who again encourages her to date as she pleases and not worry about him. Will admits that he misses his ex-boyfriend

Michael even though he wishes he didn’t. But in concert with attempting to move on past his

Michael, Will makes some statements to Grace that are typical of the unfriendly way the two so often address each other. He says, “The thing that kills me is, is that if a neurotic wing nut like you can get on with her love life…” Naturally, Grace does not feel particularly warmed by

Will’s cutting statement that she is able to find romance despite being unhinged, but Will continues and says that he thinks it’s great that Grace met someone, “I just…can’t believe that a lunatic like you got there first.” Grace’s impatience grows to a degree, though she remains generally nonplussed; again, this is typical for the two of them in such situations. Will then finishes with this back-handed compliment, “Maybe I need to be more of a lunatic.” With this,

Will points to Grace as a role model, though hardly in an affirming context. Such antagonism seems to be the expected standard for each of them. As portrayed here, gay/straight bonds are significant yet caustic. Will’s interactions with Grace show him continually falling into the stereotype of the embittered gay man who verbally taunts others. He finds solace in the perceived instability of his female friend. Considering that theirs is the most visible bond between a gay

53

and a straight character on American television, the relentless rancor in the relationship suggests

a less-than-harmonious bridging of the two sexual spheres.

The dysfunction between Will and Grace is highlighted by a comment from Grace’s ex-

fiancé Danny, whom Grace has recently started to date again: “I forgot that to have a relationship

with Grace is to have a relationship with Will and Grace. It’s always a threesome, and not the

good kind” (Barr & Burrows, 1999b). This outsider’s comment on their bond stresses how the two are inseparable enough to constitute a single entity in which Grace’s heterosexuality cancels

out Will’s homosexuality, thus resulting in mutually sustaining but sexless entity. Will’s

omnipresence in Grace’s life, and her omnipresence in his, is expected to be tolerated by any

potential relational partners for either of them. Even more succinctly, in another episode (Palmer

& Burrows, 1999) Grace’s office assistant Karen comments on the bond between Will and Grace

when she puts a call from Will on hold and says to Grace, “Grace, the reason you’re not in a

relationship is on line one.” Karen’s statement recognizes the effects the admirably strong but

too-impenetrable bond Will and Grace has on their options for romantic relationships with other

people. With these comments, it appears that characters outside the Will-and-Grace dyad have a

clearer perception of the dynamics within the dyad, and of the repercussions of these dynamics,

than that held by either Will or Grace.

Will’s bond with Grace appears immune to dissolution. On the surface, this may be an

encouraging gay/straight bond for television to feature. However, it is undermined by the fact

that both Will and Grace are closed off from exploring their opportunities for both romantic

relationships and other possible friendships. Despite the fierce commitment, Will finds himself

constantly frustrated by Grace and her attempts to please him. His complete commitment to

Grace simultaneously sustains him and holds him back. Instead of a healthy bond that would be

54

an encouraging depiction of a relationship between a gay person and a straight person, Will &

Grace shows a mean-spirited gay man who is indulged and coddled by his mistreated heterosexual pal. The relationship does not transcend stereotypical problems in non-platonic relationships between men and women. Will exhibits male dominance and coldness, while Grace exemplifies female submissiveness and personal sacrifice for the benefit of others. Will’s

penchant for characterizing his female friend as unstable and as property implies that he takes

comfort in denigrating the opposite sex. While laudably complex, the relationship has distressing

implications for television’s portrayal of healthy bonds between heterosexual and homosexual

members of society.

Will and Jack: same-sex sniping. The interaction between Will and Jack embodies the

stereotype of gay men as embittered individuals that have built up verbal acuity of a catty and

biting nature, perhaps as a defense mechanism for situations in which their manhood as gay men

is impinged. If Will’s relationship with Grace can be summed up with the word codependent, his

relationship with Jack is perhaps best described as contentious. The relationship is perhaps best

encapsulated by an exchange in the very first episode (Kohan, Mutchnick, & Burrows, 1998a).

Will has invited Jack to live with him, and Will asks when Jack will be moving in. Jack replies

that he will be away on business for a while. Will then chides Jack about his response, and notes

that Jack does not have a job or any “business” to attend to. When Jack asks Will why he has to

be so mean, Will responds, “Because you love it, and I love you…” Indeed, it seems the

communicative norm between the two to exchange unkind words, with no apparent

repercussions to the relationship. Immediately after the above exchange, Jack states that Will

needs to be nicer to him. Will agrees, because Jack is “A good friend,” and besides, “It’s got to

be rough” on Jack, “trapped in a man’s body like that.” So while professing friendship with Jack,

55

Will insinuates that Jack is a transsexual (as opposed to a homosexual) and challenges his

manhood, his male-ness, as an effeminate gay man. This type of bond, characterized by nasty

verbal assaults coupled with occasional helpful deeds and out-of-nowhere kind words, is

everywhere in evidence in Will and Jack’s exchanges. It also extends Will’s habit of denigrating

the feminine, so evident in his relationship with Grace, to effeminate gay men. Will and Jack’s relationship suggests that sharing a sexual minority status does not necessarily result in kindness between gay men, but does compel a degree of commitment to the other members of the sexual minority.

Though ostensibly they have been the best of friends since Jack assisted Will in coming out as a gay man when Will was in college, the two speak to each other primarily in insults. For example, despite his good looks and svelte build, Will is often taunted by Jack as being ugly or overweight. Meanwhile, Will consistently stresses Jack’s undisguised flamboyance. At one point

(Walker & Burrows, 1998) Jack responds to some mild teasing by saying to Will, “You were born bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, and of course, chunky.” After Grace asks Jack to assist her in her office for a week, Will immediately feminizes Jack by saying “Oh, you girls are going to have a ball, braiding each other’s hair and talking about boys and doing the Cosmo quiz.” Jack replies by saying “Oh, you mean like ‘How to tell if your best friend’s a bitch?’ Yeah, I already took it, you are.” Thus, Jack summarizes Will as both his “best friend” and “a bitch” in one statement. What seems nothing short of enmity on the surface apparently bespeaks a friendship that is insulated, not undermined, by such exchanges. Again, Will implies that Jack is a woman, and suggests that Jack and Grace will engage in stereotypically female-oriented gossiping if they hang out together at Grace’s office. Will suggests this despite the fact that he actually lives with

56

Grace, and would presumably have much more time to conduct such pursuits with her.

Comments that seem hateful on the surface are apparently sustaining to the bond, not damaging.

Separately, Will criticizes Jack for not paying his taxes, and attempts to negotiate with

Jack’s tax auditor (Marchinko & Burrows, 1998). Moments after Will slaps Jack across the face

to calm his hysterics about going to jail for tax evasion, Will says he will pay off Jack’s $2,000

tax bill. When Will says to Jack, “There are three things you can count on: death, taxes, and me,” one might surmise that Jack can depend on Will not only for physical and verbal assaults, but also for financial support. A similar scene plays out in a later episode (Barr & Burrows, 1999a) when Jack, posing as a lawyer in Will’s office, asks a man out to lunch and hits up Will for money for the meal. Will scornfully and ironically suggests to Jack that “It must be nice to have finally met someone that likes you for who you are,” and then suggests that Jack tell the man the truth “during lunch, you know, when he finds out that McFarland can’t afford the McNuggets because he’s a McLiar.” After this tongue-lashing, Will proceeds to give Jack money to go out to lunch. Clearly, the unfriendly words exchanged are commonplace enough that they serve as no

threat to the entrenched “friendship” between the two.

Beyond matters of finance or appearance, Will and Jack also comment on each other’s

facility in finding and maintaining relationships. Generally, Will implies that Jack’s relationships

are indiscriminate and random, and Jack does little to discount this. Jack offers a construction of

Will’s relationship style also. In one episode (Kohan, Mutchnik, & Burrows, 1998b), Grace

desires to expand the apartment’s two bathrooms into one more-capacious single bathroom. With

Grace absent, Jack and Will have the following exchange:

JACK: Will, why don’t you just share your bathroom? Ha. My God, I think that’s the first time I used “Will” and “share” in the same sentence without “doesn’t know how to” in between. WILL: What are you talking about?

57

JACK: Will, you’ve had one common problem in all your relationships. You. WILL: Jack, I’m good at relationships. JACK: Are you? Hmm, let’s take a look at a little clip from when it was still “The Michael and Will Show,” before it was canceled. “Will, can I change your throw pillows?” “No!” “Will, can I put my sweaters on your shelf?” “No!” “Will, can anyone live with a control freak nightmare like you?” I’m gonna say “No!”

In this characterization of Will’s norms in his relationships, Jack cuts to the heart of the breakup

that is still causing Will to be melancholy and in no particular hurry to find another relationship.

With his suggestion that Will is fully unable to “share space,” as it were, Jack makes clear that

Will’s focus on maintaining things as he likes them to be is enough to alienate those around him, be they platonic roommates or potential romantic life partners. The harsh conclusion is that no one is likely to tolerate Will’s relationship standards until he changes.

Elsewhere, Will suggests that Jack’s relationships are mere flings. Thus, in the purview of the show neither gay male character is portrayed as adept or even minimally competent in finding romantic relationships of any consequence. Jack has a penchant for only short-lived

“relationships,” while Will has an apparently intolerable relationship style. So, while the gay characters on Will & Grace are not shown in the first season with same-sex romantic relational partners, the comments provided about such relationships intimate that neither of the gay characters has had genuinely healthy romantic relationships in the past. Will’s relationships reflect the stereotype of a clingy, smothering relational partner. Meanwhile, Jack’s relationships reflect a stereotype more connected to the gay community: committed relationships are essentially unheard-of, and the sexual opportunism manifested by one-night stands is the norm.

Will’s schizophrenic words and deeds in relationship to Jack are further exemplified by two examples of instances in which Will offers Jack compliments, of sorts. In the first example,

Will is embarrassed when Jack visits his gym and is his typical, out-of-the-closet, effeminate self

(King, Proust, Kinnally, & Burrows, 1999). When Will expresses his exasperation with Jack to

58

Grace by saying that Jack is sometimes “just such a…fag,” Jack overhears. Jack calls Will

“pathetic” and acts out an exaggerated portrayal of a stereotypical straight man at the gym. Will ends up apologizing, but Jack is resistant until Will calls over a business associate who is also at the gym. Will then introduces the associate to Jack, who at the time is listening to disco music on exercise machine, and identifies Jack as a good friend. At this point, Jack views the apology as sincere. The positive outcome is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it appears unlikely that Will would have experienced any second thoughts about his stated embarrassment caused by Jack if

Jack had not overhead Will using the slur “fag.” Additionally, Jack essentially barters with Will regarding full forgiveness; things are smoothed over when Will offers Jack an apology and a full-time membership to the gym. As is often the case between them, Will’s financial resources seem to be as significant as any other reason as to why Jack remains committed to his putative

“best friend.”

An additional example unfolds in a different episode (Kohan, Mutchnik, & Burrows,

1999) in which Will offers Jack some notable praise at Jack’s birthday party. Here, Will’s intentions are worth considering. Will offers a toast to Jack on his birthday that includes the following statements: “But I love you Jack. I don’t tell you that often enough. You’re like…Well…Truth be told, you’re like the brother I never had.” While these are seemingly warm statements, it’s necessary to note that Will prefaces these statements by mentioning that he acknowledges calling Jack names like “Nellie…Mary… Tinkerbell, Femme-bot, [and] Ally

McHomo.” Will then follows the above statements with references to his actual brother, who is present at the party, and from whom Will has been estranged for years. Will goes on to say that

Jack has not done what his actual brother did. Will says, “Unlike him, you’d never cut me out of your life or split up my family.” Will ends with “Here’s to you, Jack, happy birthday.”

59

Essentially, Will uses his toast not to praise Jack but to express anger at his brother, which fully

undermines the kindness shown to Jack in Will’s statements.

Additionally, Will prefaces his remarks to Jack with more verbal reinforcement of Jack’s

effeminate qualities via a laundry list of some of the gay-centered, pun-based names Will has

come up with to taunt Jack in the past. As on other occasions, Jack’s lack of traditional

masculinity allows Will to contrast himself with Jack; Will could pass for heterosexual in most situations, while few would presume Jack to be straight. These two examples reflect prejudice within the gay community against those who are overtly effeminate, and are sometimes thought

to give gay men a bad name. Or, if not evidence of prejudice per se, the examples at least

comment on a communal image that many “straight-acting” gay men do not, at the personal

level, want to associate themselves with. Overt femininity is seen as a sign weakness, and is thus

held up for scorn and mockery. Instead of harmonious in-group relational bonds, the relationships between the “straight-acting” gay men like Will and “obviously gay” men like Jack may be strained by the impatience of the former with the effeminacy of the latter. Shared sexual orientation and marginalized social status unites them to some degree. However, outward manifestations of unmanliness may threaten the bonds between gay people, not just the bonds between gay people and straight people.

Summary. The general premise of Will & Grace promises the bridging of the gay/straight

societal divide. The pairing of a buttoned-down gay male portrayal with an over-the-top

“screaming queen” portrayal is, on the surface, a recognition that gay men may look and act stereotypically (like Jack) or non-stereotypically (like Will). But in examining Will’s relationships both with his best heterosexual friend Grace and his best homosexual friend Jack, it’s worth noting that the relationships are fraught with rancor, unhealthy codependence, and

60 perpetually-flying verbal slings and arrows. It is easy to admire the deep, apparently unbreakable bonds of friendship that are manifest in the strong commitment Will shows to both Grace and

Jack, and they to him. Yet, what is equally disturbing is that, in both cases, minute-to-minute interactions are characterized by comments that are personally insulting, caustic, and unfriendly.

In both relationships, Will references the femininity of the relational partner to denigrate the relational partner as less stable and/or less masculine than he perceives himself to be.

The relational dimension of identity in this program involves friendship bonds that are very strong and lasting but seem, paradoxically, brittle and cruel in most specific interactions.

Relational identity observations for the gay male characters on Will & Grace suggest that this level of identity is more complicated than what is often assumed. Even in the relationship between a gay person and the most accepting of straight people, there may be tensions. The same can be said of friendship bonds between gay people. The very strong and committed bonds that are visible on the surface do not tell the whole story of the relationships.

Queer as Folk

As the only show that has a plurality of gay characters among the three chosen, Queer as

Folk offers the best opportunity to explore gay identity at the communal level. In fact, the show is set in a gay community of sorts. Queer as Folk primarily takes place in a fictional gay-friendly neighborhood in Pittsburgh. The name of the main street in this thoroughfare, Liberty Avenue, implies that the area offers a type of freedom of expression that might not be as easily found elsewhere; presumably, it is easier to be a gay person here on Liberty Avenue than on a Walnut

Street somewhere else. The characters acknowledge that they live in the “gay ghetto.” They also acknowledge that the sense of community they find in this neighborhood – which is thick with

61

gay bars like the vast dance club Babylon, housing heavily occupied by gay people, and at least

one eatery with a primarily gay clientele – is not likely to be found outside this limited area.

Analysis revealed several oppositional dyads in the rhetorical construction of gay

community on Queer as Folk. In other words, references suggesting gay communal identity

implied various unresolved, contradictory dialectical tensions. Gay communal identity as

depicted in Queer as Folk can be understood through three themes. First, and most broadly, there

is tension between the gay-friendly sphere in which the characters most often operate and the

perceived heterosexual world outside their enclave. Second, within the gay community, there are

substantial distinctions drawn between the two primary groups therein: gay men and lesbians.

Finally, within the specifically gay male milieu in which the majority of the characters mainly exist, there is tension between constructions of gay male identity as a primarily sexual identification and constructions of gay male identity as a more relationship-oriented, less sex- fixated identity. The view that stresses sexuality contrasts gays with heterosexuals, while the relationship-oriented view suggests that there is little difference between the two groups. Each of

these themes will be discussed in turn, with specific examples from the program.

The gay world vs. the straight world. First, there is a stated tension between gay and

straight communities on Queer as Folk. The characters often draw conclusions about how

straight people are likely to respond to them, and they generally presume contempt. While the

majority of the characters have jobs that place them in an environment where they are in the

sexual minority, in gay-dominated groups they often discuss treading lightly when consorting

with straight people. One such exchange occurs between Michael and Brian (Cowen, Lipman, &

Mulcahy, 2000b). Brian calls Michael from the car while Michael, who is closeted at work, is at

a bar with several straight coworkers including Tracy, a woman he’s become good friends with.

62

Michael suggests that he doesn’t want to leave the bar, as his friend Tracy and coworkers are all

really nice. This dialogue follows:

BRIAN: Do you think she and her friends would be really nice if they knew the little charade you were playing? They’d probably tie you to a fence and bash your brains in. MICHAEL: They’re not like that. BRIAN: Not like that, huh? Listen to me, Mikey…There’s only two kinds of straight people in the world. The ones that hate you to your face, and the ones that hate you behind your back.

In a numbingly cynical view that is all too typical of Brian, there is no way to bridge the communities. Animosity, be it ultimately acknowledged or unacknowledged, is the inevitable result of disclosure of gay identity. Brian advances this notion despite the fact that Michael’s mother, who is straight, is the most gay-friendly individual imaginable. In Brian’s view, there is

a distinctly adversarial relationship between gay people and straight people; moreover, the view

implies that gay people are best advised to stay within their own ranks.

Michael continues to struggle with the frustration of remaining closeted at work, and

faces new challenges when he finds out that Tracy nurses a crush on him. When at the gym with

his friends, Michael notes that his boss told him to “bring his lady” to a party (Kramer &

DiMarco, 2001). The others jokingly suggest that Michael should go with Emmett in drag.

Michael jokingly agrees, and this exchange occurs about Michael’s coming out to his boss:

MICHAEL: Easier than explaining I’m a fag. EMMETT: So tell him the truth already. TED: You said that he’s a nice guy, that he likes you. MICHAEL: Yeah, until I give him a reason not to.

Michael clearly equates the disclosure of gay identity with a negative response: knowing he is gay will mean he will no longer be liked. Meanwhile, Emmett foregrounds the anticipated relief from being truthful, while Ted finds middle ground by noting that the fact that Michael is

already liked will presumably put him at an advantage. Michael does not respond to Emmett’s

63 statement regarding authenticity, but rather suggests that self-identifying as a “fag” would negate any respect he’s earned thus far.

When Michael’s smitten coworker Tracy finds out he’s gay, she wants to change jobs because she perceives that she has been betrayed and humiliated (Kramer, Cowen, Lipman, &

Greyson, 2001). She says that she thought they were friends and that she would not have told others that Michael is gay. Michael responds, “When you spend your entire life keeping it a secret – who you really are – you learn to stop trusting people, and it becomes second nature.” In his view, distrust has been inculcated, but it’s unclear if he has actually experienced rejection, or merely perceives rejection to be inevitable. He concludes that one’s gay communal identification must be omitted from interactions with non-gay others. How he arrived at this conclusion remains nebulous, however, as presumably one would have to deter from “always” keeping gay identity hidden at least once before “learning” that it is the best thing to do.

In general, the characters recognize and reify a degree of separatism between gay communal identity and heterosexual society. They see themselves as the “other” in their engagements with the big straight world beyond Liberty Avenue. Though the viewpoints are not supported by many of their interactions with it, they often suggest that straight society dislikes them, and wishes them gone. The characters differ on whether they, as a group, have any obligations to act in certain ways to encourage their acceptance as individuals and as a community. There is, however, one instance in which Brian finds that the two worlds may not be as strictly segregated as he tends to believe (Schafer & Skogland, 2001). When an older, married client with children expresses interest in going to gay bars with him, Brian says, “Christ, isn’t anyone straight anymore?” In the insular gay world depicted on Queer as Folk, only the gay or notably gay-friendly are let in.

64

Gay men vs. lesbians. While the first theme refers to the gay-identified community in

opposition to the wide world of straight people that lies beyond their gay-friendly neighborhood,

the second theme references a tension that lies within the gay community itself. Queer as Folk

frequently draws distinctions between gay men and lesbians. Primarily it is the gay men who

make comments about lesbians, rather than the other way around. This reminds us that in any

societal group, even socially marginalized ones that might be presumed to be interested in intra-

group harmony to buck against a stigmatized status, there are any number of subgroups with

priorities and viewpoints that differ from those of other subgroups. While gay men and lesbians share homosexual identification, they are different groups in various respects. Queer as Folk and

its gay characters are not above referencing any number of stereotypes about gays.

Brian derides lesbians habitually. For example, after noting to Justin that most women

want kids (Cowen, Lipman, & Mulcahy, 2000a), Justin asks “Even lesbians?” and Brian replies,

“Lesbians are women…sort of.” The gay male perspective takes center stage in the show, and

the women are given far fewer opportunities to make similar statements about the men. While

the lesbian characters are sometimes present to speak out against the stated stereotypes against

them, often they are not. As the above exchange occurs when Brian and Justin are taking a

shower together, it stands as one instance when no other characters, male or female, are around

to challenge the construction. Similar to how Will on Will & Grace denigrated the feminine in his gay male friend Jack, Brian denigrates the femininity of lesbian women. Brian constructs lesbians as lesser beings than straight women, but he clearly does not endorse viewing them as equivalent with gay men. In this way, he ultimately constructs lesbians as lesser human beings.

There are other derogatory statements about lesbians. Ted intones the following about lesbians (Cowen, Lipman, & Mulcahy, 2000c): “I’ve always said there’s only two reasons to be

65

friends with lesbians. They’ll never try to convince you that the only reason you’re gay is that

you haven’t met the right woman, and they know how to change a flat.” The first reason in Ted’s

comment suggests identification between gay men and lesbians, a recognition of the legitimacy

of same-sex attraction, while the second reason again harkens to stereotypes. Gay women are not like straight people, but they are also not entirely like gay men. While presumably gay men and lesbians would have many reasons for being friends, such as assisting each other against the tides

of heterosexual homophobia, Ted sees only very limited and utilitarian benefits of gay men

consorting with gay women.

The men do suggest lesbians to be more relationship-oriented than men are, though even in this the men are often scornful of the women. When Ted says that he intends to get to know

his new partner before they have sex (Tolins & Skogland, 2001), Brian asks, “What do you think

you are, lesbians?” Additionally, the characters use common derogatory terms to describe gay

men and lesbians such as “fag” and “dyke.” While sometimes the sting is removed from the

word, sometimes they use them with the same vitriol that homophobic heterosexuals might.

With the gay community already viewed as in opposition to the heterosexual world, gay

communal identity on Queer as Folk is splintered within due to the separatism created between

gay men and lesbians. To a degree, gay male identity is constructed in opposition to lesbian

identity. Gay male strength comes is drawn from diminishing the personhood of lesbians. While

they are ostensibly friends, the gay men and the lesbians on the show construct each other as “the

other” in various ways. The characters may be similar in one way, but their recognition of the

diversity within their group reminds us that no group affiliation transcends human differences.

66

Focus on sex vs. focus on relationships. The final notable theme of gay communal identity as depicted on Queer as Folk is another intra-group tension, this one located within the gay male community. The show suggests differing viewpoints within this group regarding what relational connection gay males should have with each other. One viewpoint is that gay male identity is inextricably linked with sexual freedom, and sexual engagement that is free of emotional investment. The second viewpoint suggests that gay males are capable of emotionally committed, generally monogamous relationships with each other. Some characters, particularly the perpetually cynical Brian, suggest that gay identity consists of sex and nothing more.

Meanwhile, other characters tire of the fixation on sex, and the attendant obsessions such as youth and bodily perfection, that they see in the community.

Michael’s voiceover at the beginning of the very first episode establishes the view that

“gay men” and “sex” are synonymous (Cowen, Lipman, & Mulcahy, 2000a). Over footage of the romping crowd at the gay dance club Babylon, Michael says:

The thing you need to know is, it’s all about sex. It’s true. In fact, they say men think about sex every 28 seconds. Of course, that’s straight men. Gay men, it’s every 9. You can be at the supermarket or the laundromat or buying a fabulous shirt when suddenly you find yourself checking out some hot guy. Hotter than the one you saw last weekend or went home with the night before, which explains why we’re all at Babylon at one in the morning instead of at home, in bed. But who wants to be home in bed, especially alone, when you can be here, knowing that at any moment you might see him, the most beautiful man who ever lived. That is, until tomorrow night.

With these first words, the show places sex in the foreground, and this is where the focus generally remains for most of the show. Michael focuses on the disposability of male attentions, and the privileging of surface beauty and fleeting connections. Drawing yet another distinction between gay men and the straight world, he intimates that gay men have accelerated libidos, and are on a never-ending quest for gratification. A relationship is unheard of here.

67

Michael, however, soon dates David, a man who professes to be interested in a long-term,

committed relationship. The pals are shooting pool in a bar, sans David, when Brian suggests to

Michael that he and his boyfriend are steadies (Cowen, Lipman, & Wellington, 2001). This

exchange takes place:

MICHAEL: He’s not a steady, we went out twice. TED: Around here, that’s a long-term relationship. EMMETT: Next thing you know, they’ll be exchanging rings. TED: Then there’ll be one of those commitment ceremonies where like all 200 of the guests have slept with one or both of the happy couple.

The friends also point out what they call the “warning signs” of a serious, committed

relationship: the exchange of flowers, an invite for a weekend in the country, and Michael’s

mother inviting David to their home for dinner. This dialogue stresses the disposability expected

in most same-sex attachments, and stress that even gay assimilation into a formalized

commitment akin to marriage is likely to echo the fact that a particular gay community is likely

to be so finite that couplings have occurred in almost all possible configurations. Ted points out how radical even a second date is in an environment where attachments are presumably not expected to last longer than overnight. Emmett’s fast-forward from a second date to a commitment ceremony suggests the absence of middle ground, no conception of gay male identity that is not based on all-out hedonism or full assimilation.

In a few instances, however, the characters suggest that the gay male obsession with sex and seeking new partners has less to do with the “gay” than the “male” part of the equation. In a voiceover that begins one episode (Cowen, Lipman, & Mulcahy, 2000c), Michael contrasts

Melanie’s home with those he’s used to – the ones that have stacks of dirty laundry and stacks of

porn tapes. The differences, however, are about gender, not about sexuality. Michael states:

68

Still, being there that day, I realized how different men and women are, and I don’t think it has anything to do with being gay or straight. It’s that, the way I see it, women know how to commit to each other, men don’t, at least, not the men I know.

Michael offers a reminder that while the first word of the phrase “gay male” refers to one group

identification, the second word refers to another, and the identifications are interpenetrated.

However, he does tie his views back to his immediate family of gay friends, and notes how commitment is in short supply among them. In the purview of the show, this is a relatively

positive assessment of womanhood, which is denigrated in so many other instances. This

statement suggests that perhaps some of the differences perceived between gay men and lesbians

might be as much about core gender differences as they are about anything else.

In a different exchange, Brian uncharacteristically downplays the differences between

gay and straight men. Michael and his semi-steady partner have hit a rough patch after the

partner, David, was discovered by Brian engaging in indiscriminate sex (Schafer, Tolins, &

Mulcahy, 2001). This dialogue occurs between Brian and Emmett as they assess the situation:

BRIAN: And what did you think would happen, that [he]’d be monogamous forever? EMMETT: That is just like you, make some vile, homophobic crack. BRIAN: Homophobic? EMMETT: Yes. That just because we’re gay it’s impossible for us to have a loving, loyal relationship. BRIAN: Not because we’re gay, because we’re men.

Contradicting his usual approach, here Brian does not draw a direct line between being a gay

male and being unable to commit to a partner. Why Brian temporarily takes a different view

remains unexplained, but again, gender rather than sexuality differences get an airing here.

The gay men on Queer as Folk differ as to whether gay male identity should focus on

sexual gratification, or on emotional connection through relationships. The theme is much further

explored in later seasons, when some of the characters indeed commence long-term committed

relationships, including a romantic pairing of Ted and Emmett. All the characters engage in a

69

considerable amount of indiscriminate sex. However, they all ultimately engage in relationships in some form. The bond that is perhaps the most intense and the most long-lived is actually the one between Justin and Brian, though in this case only one partner – Justin, of course – frames

the relationship in terms of a loving bond, and neither partner sees fidelity as any sort of an obligation. While there may be any number of stereotypes about gay men that are held by those outside of the community, even within the group there are distinct disagreements about what

being a gay man does, could, or should mean.

Summary. Ultimately, Queer as Folk must be recognized for depicting some of the

complexities of gay community, both as a physical space and as a theoretical concept. The

tensions between the gay community and the straight community, between gay men and lesbians

within the gay community itself, and between a sex-oriented or relationship-oriented view of

being gay within the gay male portion of the gay community are all much in evidence on the

show. The tensions challenge the notion that gay people are likely to function as a fully unified

unit, even when they live in a neighborhood where the residents are predominantly homosexual.

Within the community portrayed on the show, gay male identity is contrasted with and implied to

be superior to lesbian identity. The gay men distinguish themselves from lesbians in various

ways and typically find limited use for what they consider to be female- or lesbian-identified

norms. In addition to operating within the larger, predominantly heterosexual world that lies

outside of the boundaries the gay neighborhood, the characters experience intra-group tensions

that point to varying constructions of what is privileged or proper within the group.

Conclusion

The three selected television texts provide many points of entry to understand television’s

depictions of gay identity. With attention to specific dimensions of the communication theory of

70 identity, I offered analysis of how gay characters negotiated and discussed their identities in relation to those around them. Analysis found a wide array of representations, some encouraging and some problematic. It is a welcome site to see gay characters enjoying full, if fictional, lives.

The characters do find many challenges in life that are apparently precipitated by their sexual identities. This is reasonable and realistic. However, some portrayals, particularly at the relational and communal levels, have implications that cause concern. Some of these television portrayals suggest that tensions between gay people as well as between gay and straight people still preclude the full integration of the two populations.

One somewhat disturbing trend that is evident in both Will & Grace and Queer as Folk is how construction of gay male identity on television often involves the denigration of females and/or femininity. On these shows, central gay male characters at least partially build up their strong senses of self through their scorn of the emotional natures and female-identified behaviors of women and/or effeminate gay males. Conversely, some gay male characters imply that feminine qualities would be becoming to lesbians, whose very femininity is questioned. The resulting view of lesbians is that they are lesser people. This trend suggests that traditional conceptions of male privilege are not denied gay male characters on television.

While this analysis does not purport to report fully on all aspects of gay identity on these specific television shows, it does reflect a range of experiences and challenges for gay characters.

No sampling of television portrayals of gay characters could provide an overview of the real-life experiences of gay people in modern society, but the television depictions do point out some potential challenges that gay people might face. Gay characters struggle with homosexuality as an aspect of identity that is salient or significant in some instances and irrelevant in others.

Homosexuality as an aspect of identity moves from the margins to the center of a character’s

71 individual identity based on the circumstances. A sense of a unified gay community may be more elusive than might be initially expected.

If there is any truth to the speculation that television viewers – which would, of course, necessarily include gay as well as straight viewers – make use of media texts beyond being entertained by them, the portrayals of socially stigmatized groups such as gay people merit attention. To this end, we can turn attention to a significant but overlooked segment of the television audience: gay viewers. In order to assess the meaning-making process that gay audiences go through, it is necessary to study the gay consumers of gay television images further. In the next chapter, I turn to study two, which consists of an interview project that seeks to explore how actual flesh-and-blood gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals respond to the constructions of gay identity they’ve seen on television shows.

72

Chapter Five: Study Two – Methods

Study one investigated depictions of gay identity as constructed on several notable

American television programs. But what do gay people think of television portrayals of fictional characters that share their socially-stigmatized status? Study two seeks to understand how actual gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals respond to presentations of non-heterosexual characters on television. This study addresses the second and third guiding questions identified in Chapter 2:

GQ2: How do gay and lesbian individuals perceive identity frames for gay and lesbian characters as depicted on entertainment television?

GQ3: In what ways, if at all, do gay and lesbian individuals perceive their own personal identity interfacing with media depictions of gay and lesbian characters’ identity frames?

Data Collection Decisions

I determined that the most useful way to allow gay viewers to discuss their responses to television portrayals of gay identity would be to conduct semi-structured interviews. Interviews allow open-ended responses to questions and are less restrictive than surveys. For example, they do not limit responses to a few pre-chosen options. Also, individual interviews are more private than focus group discussions, and privacy was a priority given the sensitive nature of the questions I wished to ask. See Silverman (2003) for a general overview of concerns and benefits related to interviews. Semi-structured interviews allow a researcher to generate common information from each interviewee, but also allow flexibility (Patton, 1990). The approach involved asking each interviewee a general set of questions, but also permitted me to ask follow- up questions in response to the specific comments of each interviewee. Therefore, interviewees were able to respond to the questions according to their own individual perspectives (Marshall &

Rossman, 1989). As the study is exploratory in nature, seeking an initial understanding of the

73

responses non-heterosexual people have to non-heterosexual characters on television, I considered a single in-depth interview with each participant to be sufficient for the purposes of the study. Interview and data management procedures were guided by the recommendations of

Strauss and Corbin (1990). The full interview guide is included as the Appendix.

Decisions about who to include in the study were somewhat challenging. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-heterosexual characters on television are very clearly defined as either gay men or lesbian, with little to no recognition of bisexuality or fluid sexualities, I considered opening the study to only those who self-identified as gay or lesbian.

However, I determined that opening the study to bisexuals as well as to people who may not

wish to expressly self-identify with a specific label would be important for both practical and

symbolic reasons. Practically, I concluded that these individuals might have very significant

observations to make about the depictions of non-heterosexual individuals on television, and

might also have intriguing things to say about how they do or don’t relate to television portrayals

of gay and lesbian characters. Symbolically, I viewed this inclusive approach as a small way to avoid participating in the silencing of bisexual and other sexual-minority voices in society.

Participant Recruitment

After I received the necessary approval to involve human participants in the project from a large public university in the eastern United States, I sent an informational e-mail about the study to several contacts that then sent the message out on various e-mail lists at the university.

A print version of the informational e-mail was also left in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender (LGBT) student center on campus. The flier and the informational e-mail noted that the study sought “members of the LGBT community” for an interview project “investigating

LGBT responses to LGBT depictions on television.” Three criteria were noted as qualifications

74

for the study. The first criterion was that the individual self-identified “as having a sexual

orientation other than heterosexual.” I chose this phrasing in order to be sensitive to individuals

who might resist “labeling” their sexual orientation in any way, or may see such labels as fluid

and changeable. I determined that the most crucial idea was that a participant did not identify

with heterosexual orientation, not that a participant did identify with a specific designation such

as “gay” or “lesbian.” The second criterion was that the individual has “seen any television

programs with fictional LGBT characters.” The third criterion was that the individual was 18-65 years of age. This age bracket represents the standard age range approved for research projects at the institution without receiving special permission, and encompassed the population I sought.

Interviews

A volunteer sample contacted me via phone or, more typically, e-mail to express interest

in participating, and then interviews were generally scheduled through e-mail. I met most

interviewees in a public place on campus. This was done to allow the participant to meet me

publicly and be assured of my – the interviewer’s – genuine intentions before submitting to the

interview. I asked if the interviewee was comfortable and ready to go to a private room to talk;

the interviews were conducted in private spaces, mainly vacant classrooms on campus. Privacy

was needed for the actual interviews to allow participants to openly discuss their responses to the

questions; it was a priority to create a “safe space” to talk about the potentially sensitive matters

referred to in the questions. I met some interviewees in their campus offices, and both the pre-

interview small talk and the interview itself occurred in the familiar space of the interviewee’s

office. Before commencing the interview, participants were briefed on the project, their rights as

participants, and the trajectory of the interview questions. They then signed two copies of an

75

informed consent form. I signed the consent forms as a witness, gave one copy of the form to the

interviewee, and retained one copy. Participants were not paid for their participation.

Prior to the interview each participant filled out a five-item demographic profile providing information on gender, age, and sexual orientation. For “sexual orientation,” the

following were offered as options: “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” and “other.” In

retrospect, it is important to acknowledge that the term “transgender” should have been struck

from this question. The term refers to gender identity, not sexual orientation. The great majority

of individuals who self-identify as transgender would also self-identify as heterosexual. No

participant checked this designation or expressed a concern about it, however.

Additionally, the profile asked for the participant’s preferred term for his or her ethnicity

or race, and no categories were listed or suggested. Finally, the profile asked if the individual

grew up in a primarily urban or rural environment, with “urban,” “rural,” “mixed,” and “both”

listed as options. For each of the five items, the option “prefer not to answer” was also offered;

no participants marked this for a response to any question. At the top of the demographic profile

was a space for the researcher to identify a code name for the interviewee; generally, these code

names were assigned after the interview took place and were chosen randomly.

Interviewees generally were either university students or staff, although no university

affiliation was required in order to participate. Twenty-two total interviews were completed. I

considered this number to be sufficient, as there was reasonable diversity in the age range of

participants, and at least five interviewees identified with each of the three sexual orientations

included in the study. All interviewees self-identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual;

none preferred a different term, and none preferred not to label their orientation. The twenty-two

interviewees include twelve women, seven of whom identified as lesbian and five of whom

76

identified as bisexual. All ten male participants self-identified as gay. Participants ranged in age

from 18 to 54. Median age was 23 years, while mean age was just under 28.4 years. All

participants identified as white or Caucasian except for one African American woman and one

man who self-identified as Hawaiian-American. Interviews lasted from approximately forty

minutes to about eighty-five minutes.

Interviewees were first asked to discuss their “story” of how they came to be the person

they are today in terms of their gay identity. I deemed this background information about the

individual’s coming-out process to be crucial to include as an opportunity for the individual to

first conceive of their own identity construction as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person before being

asked to discuss the gay identity of fictional television characters. Moreover, after documenting the participant’s discussion of his or her coming out story, I guided the participants through questions to describe his or her own gay identity across personal, enacted, relational, and

communal dimensions. Each interviewee was asked how happy he or she was with his or her

sexual identity, how pleased he or she was with his or her core sense of self as a gay, lesbian, or

bisexual individual at this point in his or her journey. Then, each interviewee was asked how

pleased he or she was with his or her relationships with other people, which could include

friends, family members, professional colleagues, and relational partners. Finally in this phase of

questioning, each interviewee was asked if he or she felt a sense of gay community, a sense of

connection with other non-heterosexual people. It was left to the interviewee to define gay

community as he or she wished.

Once participants finished discussing their own identities, they were asked to discuss

their perceptions of fictional television portrayals of gay identity. Each participant was asked to

talk about his or her personal interpretations of different fictional characters on television

77

pertaining to (1) the characters’ personal identities – what a character says about himself or

herself or what kinds of behaviors convey a sense of who that character is as a person, (2) their relationships with other people, both gay and straight – how the character relates to others in his or her world, and (3) the sense of community exhibited or portrayed by these characters – what the character says or does that links him or her to a larger community identity. As the last phase of the interview, participants were asked about the implications of portrayals of gay characters on television. Finally, they were asked if they felt that media depictions had influenced their own identities and if they had the potential to influence those of other gay people.

Interviews were audio taped and then transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms rather than actual names appeared on demographic profiles, the cassette tapes of recorded interviews, and the written transcripts. The informed consent forms were stored separately from other materials, thus precluding identifiers being linked to profiles, interview tapes, or transcripts. Then, a coding

process was initiated to analyze the interview data.

Data Analysis

Phase One: Open Coding. Initial coding involved open coding of the transcripts to

identify responses directly addressing either of the two guiding questions. In other words, I

analyzed transcripts for comments that referenced at least one of four a priori categories: 1) an

interviewee’s thoughts on portrayals of gay characters on television at the personal level, 2) an

interviewee’s thoughts on portrayals of gay characters on television at the relational level, 3) an

interviewee’s thoughts on portrayals of gay characters on television at the communal level, and

4) an interviewee’s thoughts on how (and in what ways, if at all) he or she felt that media has

influenced his or her conception of his or her gay identity. I coded each meaningful unit – each

interview snippet that was determined to directly address one of the four a priori categories –

78

according to which category the meaningful unit primarily or most strongly addressed. As the different levels of identity were asked about in turn, and questions about media influence followed, there were very few instances of meaningful units that required decision-making about which category to place them in. During this phase of coding, I scrutinized the responses to see if a category of identity observations that was not reflected in the four a priori categories emerged.

However, no additional category of observations related to either guiding question did emerge during the first phase of coding, and I deemed the four a priori categories sufficient to represent the data.

I copied each meaningful unit or quotation into one of four documents, depending on which of the four pre-determined categories the unit addressed. If a quotation primarily referenced the personal level of identity – if it was an observation about what gay people are portrayed on television and what defines them – it was placed in a document for the “personal” level. If a quote referenced relationships of gay characters on television, it was placed in the

“relational” document. If quotation referenced depictions of gay community on television, it was placed in the “communal” document. Finally, if a quotation referenced the interviewee’s thoughts on media influence, or lack thereof, on his or her gay identity, it was placed in the

“media effects on identity” document. Each unit was placed into only one category. These four documents were each printed and cut so that each meaningful unit appeared on a separate slip of paper. Therefore, open coding resulted in four categories of quotations that each required a second phase of more nuanced coding to uncover the major themes brought up by interviewees within the category.

Phase Two: Axial Coding. Axial coding occurred as the second phase of this analysis.

Axial coding is used “to refine and differentiate concepts that are already available and lends

79

them the status of categories” (Bohm, 2004, p. 271). At this point I considered each of the four

sets of meaningful units separately. Within each individual category (personal, relational, communal, and media effects), I sorted the quotes by hand into overarching themes. A theme is a recurring unit that is identifiable in the text (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Three main criteria were used to assess a theme as recurring: (1) repetition of similar or overlapping ideas across multiple interviews, (2) restatement of ideas in more or less the same words across multiple interviews, and (3) the intensity of assertions that echoed with assertions from other interviews. There were indeed easily-recognized recurrences on these dimensions in each of the four categories.

The first three categories (personal, relational, and communal) all address guiding question 2. Within each category, I placed the quotations with thematic similarity together, gave each theme a name, and went through several phases of refining the themes – a process of renaming, collapsing, breaking out, expanding, and/or contracting themes to represent the tenor of the comments in the overall category as fully and accurately as possible. After this refinement of thematic codes, there were several relatively broad themes for each of the three levels of identity in evidence. Three themes were determined for both the personal and the relational level of identity, and two themes were generated from the quotes related to communal identity.

In regard to guiding question 3 and comments related to media influence, axial coding initially found two themes: “influenced by media,” and “not influenced by media.” Upon consideration, however, I felt it was essential to conduct an additional phase of coding on the first theme to better represent something notable I observed in initial axial coding. While some people expressed that media had influenced their gay identities, some references to media influence indicated that other aspects of personhood besides gay identity was influenced by media. In order to reflect that acknowledged media influence was not automatically tied to one’s

80 gay identity, the quotations in the “influenced by media” theme were thematically organized following from this observation. This additional phase of thematic coding broke up the

“influenced by media” theme into two sub-themes: “recognizable media influence: gay identity” and “recognizable media influence: personal identity apart from gay identity.”

Throughout the analysis process described here, I maintained a storehouse of theoretical memos. These theoretical memos were an outlet to describe the process of understanding the data, with hunches explicated and changes indicated as themes were revised. The theoretical memos, interview transcripts, and categorized meaningful unit documents also represent resources that are available to an outside auditor to assess the validity of the results of the study.

The availability of these documents reflects my effort to ensure the reliability of the findings

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The first part of the findings of this study – the findings related to the responses of interviewees to portrayals of gay characters on television – appear in the next chapter.

81

Chapter Six: Study Two Findings – Part One

This chapter addresses guiding question 2: How do gay and lesbian individuals perceive identity frames for gay and lesbian characters as depicted on entertainment television? It should first be noted that all interviewees were exceptionally forthcoming in their interviews, and shared their stories and opinions of gay portrayals on television with comfort and ease. The excerpts in this chapter as well as the next reflect the interview text verbatim, with repeated phrases and vocal fillers (e.g., “um” and “you know”) left intact. The syntax and sentence structure that appears is not always proper, but all passages have been double-checked for accuracy against the audiotape. A few quotations involve profanity. To ensure that no participant voices go completely unheard, at least one quotation from each of the twenty-two participants is included in the analysis chapters.

Overall, participants recognized that television offers a very mixed bag of depictions of gay characters, but they were able to make generalizations about their impressions quite easily, and drew on many specific examples as well. It must be kept in mind that the amount of television shows with gay characters that participants had some familiarity with varied greatly from one person to the next. The participants ranged from one person who did not have a television in her home but was nonetheless able to recall seeing various shows to a self-described

“TV junkie.” The shows that received the most mention by participants are Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, and Six Feet Under. However, many other specific shows were familiar to at least one interviewee. The following sections are arranged according to the personal, relational, and communal levels of identity, each including two or three thematic subheadings.

82

Personal Level

It just seems like, like that’s just kind of, it seems almost like, in these shows their homosexuality is the foundation of their identity so nothing else needs to be explained. - Chelsea, 20 year-old bisexual woman

Are gay characters permitted to be “real people” on television or are the depictions compromised? Participants had many strong and varied impressions of the gay characters they’ve seen depicted on television. As Chelsea indicates above, some may view gay characters as just gay characters – they are gay and nothing more. However, some interviewees do see a degree of complexity in the invented gay people who inhabit fictional worlds on television. The analysis that follows is arranged in three themes. The first theme of personal identity emerged around the idea that gay characters on television are defined by their homosexual status. The second theme represents the view that gay television characters are stereotyped. Finally, the last theme represents the unified observation that depictions of lesbians are rare on television and that talking about gay characters on television essentially means talking about gay male representations. All names used herein are pseudonyms, and designations of age and sexual orientation reflect how an interviewee self-identified on the demographic profile filled out prior to the interview. It should also be noted that by identifying each individual only by age and sexual identification, in no way do I wish to reduce participants to these aspects of their personhood; the designations are offered simply for reference.

Core identities: essentially gay. Interviewees were asked for impressions of gay characters on television at the personal level: who the characters are at the core and what generally defines such characters. Interviewees sometimes noted that gay characters are primarily defined by their non-heterosexual orientation. This view is represented by Chelsea in the comment at the beginning of this section. Her assessment suggests gay identification to be an

83

end in itself, and implies that further character development is unnecessary for a character

designated as such. Chelsea observes a lack of complexity and depth to gay characters, with a

presumption on the part of their creators that gay designation represents about all a character

needs in terms of distinguishing traits. Chelsea goes on to add this:

I don’t particularly like watching shows that feature gay characters because I don’t feel like they’re represented in the same way. Like, it just, it’s too simplified it’s too wa-, like it’s either too watered down or too pumped up in a sense like, they don’t come across to me as real people…

One might presume that all portrayals of gay characters on television, or at least the ones that may be considered “positive,” would be embraced and celebrated by non-heterosexual individuals. However, Chelsea suggests a degree of antipathy related to the depictions. While her comment does not include an explanation of what is meant by portrayals either being “too watered down” or “too pumped up,” the notion resonates with the comments of several other participants who observed gay characters to be either to be completely lacking in sexual engagement or, conversely, engaging in sex constantly. In the following passage Chelsea further suggests an explanation for the portrayals being as they are:

I don’t know it just seems like overall it’s kind of like the only way that gays really appear on television shows as characters acceptable to mainstream audiences is when they’re almost sort of packaged to be like, they’re the gay character. Like they don’t really have the depth and everything that the other characters do for the most part. Um, but as far as like, like it just seems like their identity isn’t really constructed or displayed in the same ways that it is for straight characters, in a sense.

In contrast to straight characters, gay characters are easily pegged and identified by sexual orientation. This arrangement makes the images palatable to mainstream, presumably heterosexual, audiences. But in Chelsea’s view, this accessibility is undercut by the limitations of the portrayals. Gay characters are merely gay characters, whereas gay people are not merely gay people, so something is lacking in television portrayals.

84

Some of Chelsea’s views are echoed by Rob, a 40 year-old gay man. Speaking generally

about how a gay character is typically shown on television, he states, “…like the character seems a little one-dimensional sometimes, you know that there’s not allowed to be the same depth, or richness of character that you see in a lot of the straight characters.” While heterosexual

characters are allowed a multi-dimensionality that makes them much more than merely straight people, gay characters are not permitted such depth. Whether it is the creators of shows or the audiences of shows with gay characters that are creating the situation in which such “richness” is

“not allowed” is not entirely clear. Still, Rob generalizes that some limitations are incumbent

upon most gay characters that do not apply to heterosexual ones. Similarly, Doug, a 21 year-old

gay man, offers these comments when asked to describe who gay people are on television:

I think it would vary from show to show, really, I, I would really go to say, but I mean in general probably happy, pretty people who dress well, everything’s decorated well, everything’s done well, they’re witty, and – I don’t know, just kind of, but, but there’s nothing below that. I mean, they don’t ever seem to really have to think about anything, they put themselves in positions where it’s – nothing really academic ever goes on. It’s just kind of… pretty and happy.

The clichés iterated by Doug – that gay people are good-looking and fashion-conscious, good at

home décor, and sharp-witted – identify stereotypes as a concern. Doug sees the characters as

fundamentally defined by such interests and abilities, with no deeper needs or thoughts. While

presumably there’s nothing wrong with being “pretty and happy,” it’s undesirable to have

characters that are nothing more than that. Their focus remains on surface-level interests.

The frustrating matter of a lack or presence of “dimensionality” which is referenced by

the participants above is also addressed by Julie, a 19 year-old lesbian, who also identifies a

function that such simplistic characters may serve within the purview of a program. She says:

Usually on TV, especially sitcoms, the characters are very out about themselves, almost to the point where it seems like they’re one-dimensional and that’s their identity on the

85

show and it’s almost like comedy – comic relief kind of deal, where a lot of characters view it as a funny thing about them.

In addition to suggesting that gay characters lack dimensionality that would make them appear to be complex individuals, Julie fears that the designation is itself a punch line, at least in the sitcom format. She underscores the relational level of identity with her suggestion that other characters are likely to view non-heterosexual orientation as amusing. Presumably the relationships of the gay characters are limited by other characters finding a gay identity to be both a fundamental and a comical identification. As others noted, Julie sees the characters as fundamentally gay, and little else. Rob, the aforementioned 40 year-old respondent, offers a view similar to Julie’s in this passage, and also compares the state of gay people on television to another historically stigmatized group that has been portrayed differently over time:

…for some reason it seems like most gay characters are stand-alone characters they um…usually they’re, it feels like they’re there for comic relief um, it’s kind of like you know how way back earlier in the century they used to portray black people with a blackface and they were always somebody you kind of laughed at and they were funny and, and that’s the way you kind of warmed up, I think, I think gay people are kind of at the same place right now where if we can make them cute and, and especially on, on network TV somebody we, that are funny and we can laugh at, then maybe that’s how, I think that’s how they’re easing into, to more mainstream things you know I think someday we’ll just have gay characters who are just gay and then the storyline doesn’t revolve around their sexuality, you know?

While he acknowledges that present-day portrayals of gay characters are limited and exist primarily for comic effect, Rob is generally encouraged by the current state of affairs. As portrayals of black people have progressed in the past century, current portrayals of gay characters are perhaps a necessary intermediary step between invisibility and integration. As happened with black characters in the media, audiences may gain a degree of affection for gay characters through the non-threatening portrayals available. This may lead to audiences that are

86 sensitized enough to welcome more complex portrayals in the future. While for now most of the experiences of gay characters are connected with their sexualities, it need not always be the case.

If television characters are going to be identified as gay, one can ponder whether they should be portrayed in any particular way. Brenda, a 23 year-old lesbian, references the two gay characters of the sitcom Will & Grace – the somewhat buttoned-down, arguably “straight-acting”

Will, and his effeminate friend Jack, who most likely no one would fail to identify as gay – as she generalizes about how gay characters on television are defined by their sexuality:

…I mean, yeah, they’re gay shows, it’s like their core sense of identity is in their sexuality, but this is not a sexuality connected to politics or anything, it’s just that, it’s ahistorical. And it’s very one-dimensional to me. So, it’s like…and they’re all very, even though – the ironic thing is that even though their identity is centered in their sexuality, they all look straight. They look straight but even though Jack has the flamboyantness …about him, well you know, Will looks, he kinda, maybe not looks straight, maybe not straight is the word but…you just don’t see the diversity of gay men.

Brenda expresses frustration at the lack of a political pulse in the program, and notes that the appearance of the characters is non-threatening as well. Television portrayals do not show that gay men look and act in any number of different ways. Though they’re defined by sexuality, the portrayals do not trouble the status quo.

Not all interviewees objected to their sense that gay characters being defined primarily by their sexuality. Angela, a 54 year-old lesbian, does not see these depictions as out of the ordinary for television. In reference to gay characters, she says,

I, I think that, that who they are as people, I was gonna say that, that this is something that bothers me but it probably doesn’t bother me just about them cause I think it’s true of the population in general, I think that their sense of identity comes from who they are sexually which is different to me than sexual orientation. Um, I mean I think that, that they’re very sexualized characters.

Shortly thereafter, Angela says:

87

…it’s all about, it’s all about sexuality, um, more than it is about identity as a person, but I think that’s true of heterosexual characters too that, that it, it’s really, um the culture is really sexualized, you know?

While Angela subscribes to the notion that gay people on television are heavily defined by their sexuality, she does not connect this to an essentialism applied to gay identity on television.

Instead, it connects to a cultural preoccupation with sexuality that encompasses all fictional characters on television, gay and straight. While gay characters are perhaps totalized as gay, the notion of sexuality driving characterization is not something that distinguishes gay characters from their straight counterparts.

It is also possible to object to television portrayals of gay characters as dishonest and objectionable while acknowledging that they are important for both gay and straight people.

Heather, an 18 year-old bisexual woman, expresses exasperation at the notion that gay characters on television seem to be little else besides gay, but recognizes vital social functions of portrayals.

After noting that sexuality seems to be front-and-center for gay characters, she states:

Yeah, like do we have to obsess about it? That’s what I – I would just like to see a show where the people were black, or the people were gay, or whatever, and that like wasn’t the focus of the show, you know? And it seems like with shows like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is even called that, like it’s, it’s cool, it’s cool to have shows like that where people are exposed to that culture because um, I think people are just you know straight – straight-up curious, like they just don’t know. So that’s good but at the same time I would like to have a show to counterbalance all that where like it’s not a big deal and you see like it’s just like a normal life, normal you know it’s not this huge thing that you know, like this huge obsessive thing – it’s not – doesn’t make the person, that’s it, yeah – it doesn’t make the person.

Heather recognizes the essentialism that other respondents also discussed, and it singularly bothers her. She would like television characters with minority status to exist, but to be more than just minority status characters in the world of the specific program. She suggests that television can serve a valuable function for straight audiences, as they may get a glimpse of a group that they are curious about. However, they may be misled by what they see if they

88

presume from the shows that life for gay people primarily revolves around being gay. Overall,

many participants noted that gay characters on television are constrained by their homosexual

status – it strongly identifies them, but often precludes them from being anything other than gay.

Interviewees presumably see themselves as much more than their sexual orientations, and thus are generally displeased with how sexual orientation seems to define gay characters on television.

Stereotypes: damaging or helpful? Many interviewees commented that television portrayals of gay characters reflect stereotypes, though this should not automatically be assumed to be problematic. Are stereotypes necessary conduits to greater understanding for audiences, or are they impediments to greater understanding? Participants voiced various opinions. This section begins with some general comments on the stereotypes interviewees referenced, and then goes into more detail regarding opinions on two popular shows with gay characters: Will &

Grace and Queer as Folk.

As previously stated, when commenting on gay characters, interviewees often expressed that characters were portrayed stereotypically, though they had varying assessments as to whether that was unfair or damaging. For example, Debbie, a 42 year-old lesbian, generalized that “gay characters are flamboyant characters” and finds this portrayal to be “not entirely unfair.” She suggests that “if you’re going to be a target, you might as well be a provocative target,” and indicates that she sometimes has the desire to shock people or be somewhat aggressive in sharing her gay identity with people. This inclination, one she presumably shares with at least some other gay people, is merely given reasonable representation on television.

A number of interviewees mentioned familiarity with the “reality” television show Queer

Eye for the Straight Guy. Discussion of this program was not discouraged, even though all

89

questions were pitched at people’s perceptions of gay characters in scripted television programs such as dramas and sitcoms. On this particular show, it could be argued that the five gay men in the cast, and/or the editors of the program, create personas that make the “Fab Five” (the moniker associated with the cast of the show) function as “characters,” in a sense. This

“characterization” is reinforced by the fact that each man’s primary function in the show is tied to a specific category in which he serves to makeover the life of a straight man: grooming, fashion, home décor, cooking, or culture. Alan, a 21 year-old gay man, bemoans his observation that the cast of Queer Eye embodies five stereotypes of gay men, and is particularly distressed by fashion guru Carson Kressley, easily the most stereotypically effeminate of the five. Alan states:

I’m worried that this show is essentially gonna tear us apart also because you have five males on that show and five stereotypes of gay men. If someone meets a gay man who does not act like of those five stereotypes, they’re gonna shit a brick, they’re not gonna know how to act. They’re going to be like, oh, my god, they’re not like Carson off Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I can’t like them. That’s what I’m worried about happening. And Carson is, I’m sorry, could you not have picked a more stereotypical gay male?

Alan implies that more harm than good is likely to come from representation of gay people on television if the portrayals cling to stereotypes. Since each cast member can essentially be reduced to his area of expertise, and indeed each one represents a separate stereotype regarding what gay men are good at, these characters, if they may be called that, lack depth. While heterosexuals may be inured to homosexuals through the shows, the limited representations are not preparing them for the complexity of actual gay people.

Several participants suggest that gay men on television fall into a limited set of categories. Chelsea (20 year-old bisexual woman) sees two types of gay men on television, what she calls “two stock characters”: “there’s like the conservative gay guy and then there’s the like flaming gay guy,” a distribution reflected in the characters of Will and Jack on Will & Grace that she finds frustratingly limited. She also sees the two “types” reflected in the two main gay

90

characters on the program Sex and the City: one female lead has a somewhat conservative gay pal, while another has a very overbearing, overtly effeminate gay friend. In a somewhat more elaborate conception, Craig, a 28 year-old gay man, suggests that there are three categories or types of gay male characters seen on television. First is the “professional, obsessed, relationship- stricken person”; this, he says, is the category “I most identify with myself.” He places Will of

Will & Grace and David of Six Feet Under in this category. Secondly, there are the “drifters,”

those that “really don’t have any kind of roots or foundations that really pin them down to

responsibility in life,” who are generally masculine and drift from man to man such as many

characters on Queer as Folk. Finally, there are effeminate men, who represent what “Americans

view as the negative stereotype” of gay men. Presumably this last category includes Jack of Will

& Grace and Emmett of Queer as Folk. Craig wedges a separate category in between two categories that resonate with Chelsea’s portrayal of the conservative gay man and the effeminate queen. The “drifter” appears to contrast with the effeminate man on the masculine/feminine continuum, and contrasts with the career- and relationship-based orientation of the characters in the first, conservative category.

Zoe, a 23 year-old bisexual woman, expresses the ambivalence that many interviewees have about stereotypes when she states that “the thing about stereotypes is that sometimes they’re true and sometimes they’re not, you know?” With this, Zoe notes what other interviewees acknowledged as well: stereotypes, while limiting and viewed in theory as something to be disdained, often have a resonance and could be based on a degree of truth. This theme will be explored further though discussion of the program Will & Grace, and particularly its character

Jack, who embodies many stereotypes but who still strikes a chord with gay audiences.

91

Not surprisingly, most interviewees were familiar with NBC’s Will & Grace. All

interviewees had seen the show except for two, both of whom did mention knowing about it. The

aforementioned Angela (54 year-old lesbian) notes her acutely mixed reaction to the show; she

says it’s a show

which I, which I watch pretty faithfully and, and love, although sometimes I hate myself for loving it because it absolutely reinforces every stereotype there is but I laugh, um, I mean I do, I just – I love it, and I really sometimes struggle with myself for that.

Reflecting a commonly-invoked reaction to Will & Grace, Angela hesitates to fully embrace a program that she feels inarguably plays on stereotypes, but feels compelled to acknowledge that as a television situation comedy, the show succeeds. Being entertained by the show is actually problematic because it may seem an endorsement of the stereotyping of gay people. This sentiment is echoed by Chelsea (20 year-old bisexual woman) who says that while “I like that show, I do sometimes feel a little uncomfortable in the way they’re, in the way they are stereotypical.” As stated earlier, it should not be presumed that all representations of gay identity will be universally endorsed by members of the non-heterosexual community. In fact, non- heterosexual audiences may struggle with the implications of supporting a program that may be offering messages about their community that are not distanced enough from stereotypes about the community.

Several interviewees pondered the contrast between the two lead gay characters on Will

& Grace. As previously mentioned, Chelsea pegged Will and Jack as exemplars of the two categories of gay men she perceives to exist on television. With the “conservative” and

“flaming” categories, she implies that perhaps one portrayal isn’t overtly gay enough, while the

other is too gay. Meanwhile, Paige, a 37 year-old lesbian, states:

Jack is just so over the top, in some way he’s a cartoon of what a gay, gay man is about. Y’know not all gay men are effeminate, not all gay men are um, you know want to be

92

interior decorators you know, um – I know some men like him but I also know some guys, you wouldn’t have a clue that they’re, they don’t have any of the mannerisms or y’know the, y’know behaviors that people typically think of when they think of a gay man, so I think off, y’know, thankfully Will is a little bit more of a balanced character I think, as opposed to Jack who is kind of the extreme and then you have Will that’s kind of in the middle and a little bit more real.

Paige finds “balance” within Will’s portrayal and, presumably by extension, between the two depictions, and somewhat objects to the stereotyped portrayal because she recognizes that gay men exist who are not so easily identifiable. Notably, though, regarding Jack she also indicates that she knows “some men like him,” so the portrayal is not totally invalid. Along these same lines, Greg (23 year-old gay man) observes the contrast between the two this way:

Jack is really funny it’s written very – it’s a comedy so you know you’ve gotta take it with a grain of salt, it’s, he’s very funny. It’s, I mean it’s a ve-, a negative portrayal but it’s, it’s humorous um so I kind of have to take it with that grain of salt there. And I think Will is actually a fair representation of, of gay life, I mean he’s, he’s not this irresponsible just you know running all over crazy person. So I think that that’s a more accurate portrayal I guess of, of gay life.

Greg notes what many others have noted about Jack: while the portrayal may be very stereotypical, it is indeed funny, and on a comedy show it’s difficult to take too much issue with that state of affairs. He goes so far as label it as “negative,” but the assessment is neutralized by the fact that the show is a comedy eliciting humor. There’s no need to invest significance in the portrayal outside of the fact that it’s fulfilling the requirements of the genre. Will, meanwhile, offers an affirming and at least somewhat “accurate” portrayal of a gay man – a grounded, responsible individual.

Heather (18 year-old bisexual woman) notes a similar dichotomy and also takes little offense at the arrangement. After noting that she generally takes umbrage at the old stereotype of the effeminate gay man that is very much embodied by Jack on Will & Grace, she says:

The thing where I don’t have a problem with it on Will & Grace is because it’s balanced. You know, you’ve got the stereotype and then you’ve got the – I’d say Will is like pretty

93

like not as stereotyped, or whatever, so – I think that’s good that they’ve got the balance cause otherwise that show could just be like, oh like look at the little monkey gay guy running around, you know?

Heather finds Will to be not a type per se and thus serves as an appropriate “balance” with Jack’s

over-the-top flamboyance. But danger would exist if a show focused on a single stereotypical

gay man; much like Paige noted Jack to be “a cartoon of what a…gay man is about,” so too does

Heather see caricature in the portrayal of Jack as hyper-effeminate.

As some of the previous comments suggest, stereotyped characters do not necessarily need to be viewed as inaccurate or unreasonable portrayals. Karen, a 22 year-old bisexual woman, also uses Will & Grace for illustration when discussing personal-level depictions of gay characters:

Well, I think we’re getting more of a range at this point because like, well if you have Will & Grace, I mean Will is pretty much a normal guy. He definitely has his likes and dislikes and they may be kind of stereotypical but you know he’s still – that’s okay because people have stereotypical likes and dislikes. You know, especially if they’re the people-pleaser type and not the, you know, go-your-own-way type.

While she does view Will as reflecting stereotypes – something Heather did not believe – Karen

indicates that they relate not to his place on the masculine/effeminate continuum but rather to his

likes and dislikes as a person. While considering the implications of Jack’s fluorescence, Karen

goes on to say, “Everybody knows a Jack though, so it’s okay. I mean does anybody really not

know a Jack?” Much like Paige said she knew men like Jack, Karen acknowledges that she can

recognize people like Jack around here in real life. Here too we see that while stereotypes may be

evident, it may be difficult to justify a strong objection because the portrayals still resonate –

which is to say that the stereotypes may resonate.

94

Indeed, opinions varied about how audiences are likely to “read” Will, and whether he represents an easily-identifiable gay man. Kaipo, a 31 year-old gay man, observes that Jack’s flamboyance makes him unmistakably gay, but Will is portrayed more subtly:

….Jack is about as out as you can come, I mean he’ll tell like the biggest straight man and not even bat an eye but the way his character plays off the words that he uses, he’s, although he can be so sexual in his flirtation with men period, um, it never, it never seems to be – it’s not threatening, because one, in some ways the excuse is his character is too dumb to know that he shouldn’t really say those things or act that way, um, and I guess with Will, he doesn’t – I’m like, a lot of it is that he doesn’t have to say it, it’s in his mannerisms, or in the way he chooses to dress or how he chooses towar-, to express himself, but in the same way that I mentioned earlier that people, even in this, people that you meet at any point in life, some of them will be identify you as gay and some of them won’t.

Kaipo suggests that Will is likely to be able to pass as straight at least to some observers, while

Jack is unapologetically out, and both representations pose little threat to other characters. But in what is perhaps an arrangement that is less than encouraging, Jack’s dimness and naiveté account

for his unfettered out-ness; Will’s benign status comes from his lack of forcing the issue in an

overt way.

Queer as Folk stands with Will & Grace as a show that invokes strong and very mixed

responses from gay viewers. While it is the first major American television program in which all

seven members of the central ensemble are gay characters, the show divides viewers over its

depictions of gay men as hyper-sexualized, particularly the sexually insatiable character Brian. In

this case, as well as with other shows, some interviewees found themselves appreciating the

portrayal of gay people on television while simultaneously expressing that the depictions

themselves leave a great deal to be desired.

The age of some interviewees allowed them more of long-range view of gay portrayals

on television over the years. For example, Brandon, a 42 year-old gay man, expresses

satisfaction with an array of gay sexual expression on television that is a welcome advance from

95 the more-limited depictions he recalls from previous eras. Speaking of the quintet of gay men in the main ensemble of Queer as Folk, Brandon observes that they are

so completely different in the way – you know, and they’re all out and they’re all accepting of their sexuality and still they express it in such completely different ways, and you know that’s something that you used to not get. You know that it used to be much more stereotypical, I think.

While he does not here suggest dimensions to the characters other than sexuality, Brandon views the spectrum depicted within that realm to reflect differences and to starkly distinguish each character from the others. Presumably the reference to the characters expressing “their sexuality…in such completely different ways” refers to how some are sexually voracious and indiscriminate, while others are relationship-oriented. The immediate victory in this comment is not the transcendence of sexual identification as primarily defining gay characters, but the opening-up of possibilities within that frame. Immediately following the quote above, Brandon says:

So I think that the way that these, that these characters feel about their own sexual orientation is, you know, as it becomes more mainstream, I think that the portrayals are you know sh-, showing the, you know, a much greater variation, you know. The, they’re showing the diversity that’s within the gay community.

Again using his impressions of gay representation in the past versus what has come along in recent years, Brandon sees progress in the recognition of some degree of the “diversity” that the gay community offers. The comment stands in direct opposition to Brenda’s comment that Will

& Grace viewers do not see the diversity of gay men that exists in real life. To Brandon, a sense of gay identity becoming more “mainstream” has provided momentum for television’s further exploration, specifically in Queer as Folk, of varied sexualities housed within gay sexuality.

96

Similarly, Rob (a 40 year-old gay man) directly addresses the dislike that many people

have for Queer as Folk and suggests that it may actually be the show’s realism that people find

off-putting:

Whereas in Queer as Folk, and a lot of people really hate that show, um, and I think they should just lighten up because there’s not a character on there that I can’t relate to or haven’t known somebody exactly like it, you know, over the years. Um, I think we all know somebody like Brian. And, and uh all those characters I mean they’re dimensions to a lot of, lot of different people and, and actually I think we embody little bits of all those characters in, in some ways, I mean many of us, so um, so I don’t know if I think the themes are stereotypes or, I don’t know I think actually Queer as Folk is more, more reality…

Just as viewers may recognize people they know in the effeminate Jack on Will & Grace, they

may see people they know to be like Queer as Folk’s most polarizing character, the unceasingly arrogant, sexually indiscriminate, relationship-phobic Brian. This character, just like the others

on the show, is realistic. Rob goes on to say: “…go to a club you know on a Friday or Saturday

night and you can pick out all those characters easily, you know, many times over, so I think they’re pretty true to, true to life.” Rob reinforces the notion that the stereotypical qualities that

seem front-and-center for gay characters on television might resonate more than gay viewers

would care to admit. He implies he can “relate to” each character, and indicates that he can see

“little bits” of the characters in people he knows. His use of the words “we” and “us” in the first

of these two quotations suggest that he sees some of himself in the characters, too. He also

appears to be able to peg surrogates of the characters in other people, presumably strangers, in

clubs. In Rob’s view television portrayals can be both “true to life” and reflect “stereotypes”; the

two are not mutually exclusive, because the stereotypes are easily found in any perusal of the gay

population, or even the close examination of a single member of the population.

Like Rob, other interviewees offer the degree of identification they found with gay

characters on television, and here too, various reactions suggest that texts are consumed and

97

understood differently by each auditor. Greg, a 23 year-old gay man, also looks to Queer as Folk

and suggests a degree of identification with the characters, though it is identification with a

notable endpoint: “Well with Queer as Folk for instance there was I think 5 or 6 gay characters

on there that I could sit there and go, I have friends who are like this, but I don’t personally identify with them.” While Rob identified with all the characters on the show, Greg feels once- removed from the portrayals. They resonate as realistic; however, they don’t represent him

specifically. The gay men shown are familiar to Greg, but while he thinks the characters reflect

those he knows, he does not find a surrogate of himself represented. Scott, a 24 year-old gay man

who self-identifies as a “geeky” Institutional Technology (IT) person, is very forthcoming in his

praise for Queer as Folk, as Rob was, and echoes both Rob and Greg in regard to how he relates

to the characters. Scott observes this about the show:

Queer as Folk is one of my favorite shows. I, I think because it encompasses so many personalities that’re all, all still gay and lesbian. And, people can dis it if they want, it’s a fantastic show, it does not represent all of the gay people or the lesbian people in the world, but it rese-, represents, certainly – I mean, I’m not in that show, but every one of those guys represents a part of me in some way so it’s, it’s awesome, it’s so powerful for me to watch that show you know I can identify with Brian, I can identify with Justin, with Michael, with the professor, whatever his name is…But um, you know each one of their characters has something that I can identify with, so for me it’s a great show even though there’s no geeky IT gay guy. Well, Ted came close when he ran that internet porn site.

Scott recognizes pieces of himself in each of the characters that allow him to identify with each

of them to some degree, though he does not identify fully with any one of them. This directly

matches with Rob’s construction, but at the same time Scott states, “I’m not in that show,” which

matches Greg’s conclusion. Scott relates to all the characters and does not burden the show with

the obligation to provide a surrogate for each viewer.

As the previous comments suggest, a variety of portrayals may exist on a show even if

most of the characters can be identified as stereotypes. Along these lines, Alan (21 year-old gay

98

man) points to Queer as Folk as an important part of the media’s present-day depictions of gay

people. He says:

From what I’ve seen of Queer as Folk, I liked it, because you had different scenarios, you had different gay individuals in it. You got to see different quote unquote stereotypes. You got to see people behaving and acting differently, and I enjoyed that. So I think that the media is in a bit of a – I still believe it’s putting a – it’s still testing the water, and I think it’s moving in the right direction…

Alan finds that stereotypes are not a problem; in fact, with various types of gay men depicted, the show offers an assortmetn of portrayals. This view does not seem to entirely square with his scathing indictment of the stereotypes on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but perhaps the totally fictional framework of Queer as Folk allows more latitude for depictions. Significantly, in

Alan’s view, the show still represents only a tentative step toward more vivid portrayals of gay characters.

Derek, a 21 year-old gay man, takes another view. He draws a distinction between real life and fictional portrayals, and seems loath to use television texts to find role models, or for information in general. Derek says this about Queer as Folk:

I can’t specifically on that show say I identify with this person but um, I have seen other people say, ‘oh, I want to be that person,’ which is very interesting to me cause I just, I can’t do that. Um, some people don’t like the show because it plays on stereotypes. And um, an administrator here on campus has told me you know, ‘we don’t, we don’t have this, you know, this set in our library, Queer as Folk set in our library just because we don’t want people who are newly identifying to be watching this and saying oh, this is what being gay is all about, you know having sex, doing drugs and drinking,’ um, but I feel that, I was mature enough and that it was not reality TV and it was fictional, so I did watch it when I was first coming out. But I knew that um, that’s not how life was.

Derek’s interaction with a university “administrator” suggests that some may presume that television texts bear a responsibility for portraying this particular under-represented community in a way that is helpful to the members of the stigmatized group. The acquisition was apparently rejected because the gay characters on the show do not serve as particularly good role models.

99

However, Derek divorces the text from any direct ties to reality; still, he does see others looking to fictional characters as role models. While many interviewees agreed that stereotypes are prevalent in television depictions of gay characters, they differ in their responses to and their degree of identification with these fictional gay men. As was the case with the first category discussed, their responses to television portrayals are complex and typically go well beyond being simply a positive or negative response.

Limited lesbian visibility. Interviewees often noted that when speaking generally about gay characters on television, they were primarily talking about gay men. In general, the dearth of lesbian representations on television served to challenge interviewees to offer responses and generalizations about their portrayal; an interviewee generally had to make a special effort to focus on lesbian portrayals, as the preponderance of gay characters representations that came to mind were male. A number of participants readily recalled the coming-out episode of Ellen, as well as a smattering of other depictions. Presently, the Showtime series The L Word represents the only program on American television with a core cast of mainly lesbian characters. Most female interviewees had seen this program, and those who had not seen it had heard of it.

Placing comments on the limitations of lesbian identity on television in a separate category is not intended to further marginalize portrayals of lesbians from more noticeable portrayals of gay men. The reason for creating this category is to prevent the many comments on lesbian representations from getting lost in a discussion that focuses too heavily on gay male representations. The heavy focus to this point in the analysis on the shows Will & Grace, which features two regular gay male characters and no regular lesbian characters, and Queer as Folk, which features five gay male lead characters and two lesbian characters, means the analysis has not yet placed comments on lesbian characters in the foreground.

100

Earlier discussion provided Craig’s (28 year-old gay man) conceptualization of the three categories of gay men on television. Craig captures the near-invisibility of gay women on television when he says,

I’m a TV junkie and, you know you just don’t see a lot of lesbians and to me you know you’ve got these four categories, you’ve got the professional, obsessed, relationship- stricken person, you’ve got the drifters, you’ve got the effeminate males, and you got the lesbians, and I guess it’s, just kind of you know, to me almost every single, every single character on TV can fit into one of those categories.

That Craig provides four categories of gay people on television and that the fourth category is a catch-all category for lesbians might seem myopic, but in fact portrayals of gay men far outnumber portrayals of lesbians on television. His categories imply that lesbians on television lack both representation and significant differentiation.

Much like they did with the portrayals of gay characters in general, participants typically appreciated the representations of lesbians that are available to television viewers but have little trouble pointing out the limitations of what is depicted. Marta (22 year-old lesbian) notes dissatisfaction with lesbian visibility on television by saying,

…you don’t see hardly any lesbians, and if you do, they’re always very thin, lipstick lesbian, and I mean, granted I am one but, that’s not the case, I mean how many of those do you actually see in real life? Not very [many], I mean, there’re not a lot of us, most of ‘em are very athletic or even more butch, you know but no one really wants to see that. I think that they’re trying to ease people in to the idea of gay and lesbianism by showing them what they want to see…

Marta invokes the term “lipstick lesbian,” which refers a gay woman who wears makeup and would likely be presumed to be straight by her appearance. This image contrasts with the stereotypically masculine, “butch” gay woman. Even though she identifies herself as part of that group, Marta is convinced that she represents a minority among real-life lesbians. Paradoxically, she is underrepresented on television as a lesbian but also overrepresented on television in that she’s a notably feminine-looking lesbian. Television representations may be safely packaged for

101 mass audiences and feminine gay women challenge societal expectations in one way, sexual preference, but significantly, not in another – their conventionally attractive appearances. Kate

(31 year-old lesbian) uses different terminology but also suggests that with gay women on television, reality is held at bay:

I think, I think, well, they clean them up real nice too, there’s not a mullet to be found, I mean, everyone weighs like four pounds and very femmy, all, all femmes. Not femme to the extreme as in role-playing butch/femme but like, feminine, they’re very feminine. Um, very palatable, they’re all, they’re all at-, very attractive um, the main characters anyway, um… stereotypical…

Kate references the infamous short-on-top, long-in-the-back haircut called the “mullet” that is stereotypically favored by less-feminine lesbians. Her term “femme” seems something of a synonym for Marta’s “lipstick lesbian,” though “femme” may also bespeak a feminine role within a relationship in addition to an aesthetic or appearance. Like Marta, Kate senses that lesbian characters are packaged in a way that makes them seem little-removed from societal expectations of women. However, Kate goes on to indicate that the characters on The L Word are reasonably complex, though she does see some stereotypical qualities in most of the characters.

She concludes that the characters are “partially stereotyped,” but also notes that there is one character that does not seem tied to any familiar lesbian stereotype: a woman that sleeps around a lot. This character is a direct surrogate for Brian on Queer as Folk, though within the realm of familiar lesbian stereotypes, there is no equivalent of the promiscuous gay male stereotype.

The lack of lesbian portrayals, and the types of portrayals available, also concern Brenda

(23 year-old lesbian). She points out that Will & Grace often traffics in stereotypes, and she particularly objects to the few lesbians portrayed on the show. Commenting on “the portrayal of lesbians” when they do appear on Will & Grace, she says:

That irks me. As these old 60s, 70s lesbians with big hair or bad hair, um, the serious kind of motorcycle dyke type look, where they’re big and husky, wearing a suit, or even,

102

just not even, just really like, Will and, and Jack are part of the cool group, and these lesbians are not cool.

Brenda observes that the rare lesbian who appears on this putatively gay-positive show typically embodies dated stereotypes. The arrangement not only serves to stigmatize the lesbian character as out of the mainstream of heterosexual society but also places her out of the realm of acceptance among other socially marginalized individuals as well. Even when they appear, lesbians may not be accepted by others, even gay men.

Chelsea (20 year-old bisexual) offers yet another term that does not seem fully captured by either “femme” or “lipstick lesbian” when she reflects on the limitations of portrayals of gay women on television. She says,

…even just within lesbianism people are always thinking in terms of you know there’s the butch and there’s the bitch and it’s like the people, but there are also, and then there’re groups like lipstick lesbians who are like you know really girlie and also want to be with someone who’s really girlie and but like people tend to think of lesbians in terms of like you know, a woman try to be, trying to pass as a man.

Chelsea then clarifies that she’s essentially using “bitch” as a synonym for “femme” and says

“bitch is the woman in the relationship.” She does not offer specific characters that she feels represent these categories, but it is clear that she feels that the spectrum of lesbian identity is not recognized by television portrayals of gay women that show them to be either particularly feminine or particularly mannish. Paige (37 year-old lesbian) also observes the preponderance of notably beautiful, feminine gay women on television and the paucity of more varied portrayals.

She proffers some ideas as to why more of a spectrum of lesbians is not shown. She states,

…I think the media tends to emphasize these, the more extremes um because they elicit a response whether it’s humor, or it’s fascination or um, you know, or disgust in some case, you know that the media tends – like in many things – tends to emphasize these more dramatic qualities of, of life and someti-, and oftentimes that’s not necessarily a reflection of what real life is about um y’know, and not all gay women are blond and beautiful like Ell-, Ellen you know, you, you get two kind of pear-shaped women who have you know haircuts that they you know, that probably cost 10 bucks each y’know and y’know they

103

drive a y’know, an SUV. They’re, they’re, they’re very non-descript, y’know very y’know average-looking women, and you don’t see average-looking women on television, they’re all like stick-skinny um, I think in some ways they’re ah, a straight man’s y’know, view of what two women are like, you know that whole thing of y’know what a straight man envisions lesbians are like are, are just two straight women in, in high heels and that’s – that’s appealing. Um, so I think oftentimes the media will um, they portray these um, these visions of gay men and, and women through a lens which is not um, an accurate reflection of what real life is. And so I think that um y’know it would be nice to see more pear-shaped women buy-, driving SUV’s and, and you know a dog in the back or something like that.

Like Marta, Paige sees the lesbian characters as packaged for easy consumption in a manner that

is dissonant with the lived experience of many gay women. Paige feels that a straight male

fantasy seems behind some representations of gay women on television more than any sense that

programmers are attempting an accurate portrayal of the group. Programmers seek a more broad appeal than what would be generated by the realistic “pear-shaped” women that Paige feels are invisible on television. Plain-looking women in their SUV’s would be insufficiently “dramatic” for television representation. Whereas Brenda saw only mannish, presumably “pear-shaped” women on Will & Grace, Paige finds these representations to be lacking in what she’s seen.

While female interviewees often expressed happiness that gay representation was evident on television, even if it was mostly gay men that were represented, some also suggested that a stepping-up of more varied portrayals of gay women was an important matter. Another important

consideration is the degree to which gay male and lesbian experience is the same, and if gay

male representation on television is directly relatable for lesbians. Brenda (23 year-old lesbian)

comments, “And, and no lesbians really allowed, or when there is a setting where it’s all, you

know where it’s gay and lesbian, and lesbians together, you see – you still the divide between the

two.” Significantly, Brenda notes that different segments of the gay population are not integrated

together in the television landscape. Dovetailing with Brenda’s views, Karen (22 year-old

bisexual woman) notes,

104

I’m tired of gay role models, I want some lesbian role models. ‘Cause the gay experience and the lesbian experience aren’t the same; they’re treated differently, they’re treated differently culturally, they’re treated differently in the way the public reacts to them.

Karen gestures to the larger question of how much gay men and lesbian women have in

common, and to what degree any such thing as an inclusive gay community exists. While gay

men and gay women have certain commonalities, there are also notable differences. She implies

that relevant and resonant experience goes unrecognized by the public if only gay male

experiences are what the public learns of through television programs.

As this section demonstrates, interviewees expressed much unhappiness with how gay

characters are fundamentally portrayed on television, though some do find some satisfaction by

what they have seen develop in such portrayals over time. Characters are often seen to be

fundamentally gay, with little else to identify them. The characters also often make viewers

recall stereotypes, though relating to the characters to some degree is still possible. The few and

limited lesbian portrayals concern interviewees, as well. Participants expressed varied views on

the measure of diversity portrayed on television and how relatable they saw the characters to be.

In the next section, I turn to the relational level of identity, and the comments offered about the

relationships of gay characters on television.

Relational Level

Um, I mean, there’s a – there’s the – part of me is like, no, you know, only show us in the best light, but I mean we’re all humans, show us as humans interacting with other fucking humans, excuse me for cursing, but sometimes it’s, I mean, just show it like it is, show it like it is. - Brenda, 23 year-old lesbian

If many participants view gay television characters as limited and reflecting stereotypes,

do they also find that the relationships the characters are shown in to be similarly limited? Again,

opinions differed. Not all interviewees expressed the exasperation communicated by Brenda, who calls for portrayals of easy interactions between gay characters and other characters, and

105

interactions that resonate with real life experience. Some participants see encouraging signs

regarding how gay characters are integrated on television. It should be noted here that the

interview questions regarding “relationships” encouraged interviewees to consider and discuss

not just depictions of same-sex romantic relationships, but also relationships such as friendships

and co-worker relationships between gay characters as well as relationships gay characters have

with heterosexual characters. Three notable themes emerged connected to this level of identity,

and the portrayals of gay relationships on television. A number of participants bemoaned the

general lack of substantive relationships for gay characters on television. Also, many participants

found the relationships that were depicted to be compromised to a degree. Lastly and on a more

hopeful note, some interviewees expressed satisfaction with the relationships they see gay characters experiencing on television.

General lack of relationships. The first theme of consequence regarding the observations

interviewees had about gay characters in relationships on television reflects the observation that

recognizable significant relationships seem to be lacking overall for gay characters. Rob (40

year-old gay man) expresses the following:

I don’t think you see gay characters on TV often having – gay characters in significant relationships don’t seem to be the main characters on a lot of shows. That I, I haven’t seen, I’m sure they’re out there but I haven’t seen them, and those times when they do have gay characters in significant relationships they’re usually just – a one episode thing, you know, or they’re, it’s not a main character, something like that. So I think that they often portray gay people as not having significant relationships or I mean…or just the women having significant relationships or uh, or they don’t, I don’t know, they don’t seem to have long, deep, meaningful relationships you know I – it’d be interesting to see, you know, do a study on, on gay men and, and lesbians and how many do, you know what’s the percentage that do have those significant, long-term relationships [unintelligible] I don’t know. So, so maybe, so sometimes I think boy, it’d be nice to see a couple on TV, but then I think well, maybe, maybe they are kind of reflecting the society…

106

Rob observes a lack of romantic relationships, but doesn’t rush to fault the depictions for this;

while the portrayals are not much in evidence, he acknowledges that many gay and lesbian

people in real life might be single, and media can legitimately reflect this as well. He does

include one comment that implies that perhaps gay women on television have more substantial

relationships, and this theme will be addressed more in later analysis. Rob continues with the

following:

Um, but right now they don’t seem to have very in-depth, significant relationships with you know either other gay people or heterosexuals you know, it doesn’t seem to portray that you don’t see like two gay, you know a gay guy and a straight guy as being like buddies you know and even in the real world that happens you know a lot but you don’t see it on TV…

Rob points out that it is with gay/straight relationships that television has perhaps not done its duty. With friendships easily possible between people with different sexual identifications in real life, television rarely portrays the bridging of the two communities. Brenda (23 year-old lesbian) also voices the view that the worlds of gay people and straight people remain at odds on television. Regarding gay characters on Will & Grace, she observes:

Well, I don’t really see them having much interaction with other folks, so it’s just kind of a separate but equal type feel, even though you know you don’t quite think about that when you’re watching it cause it’s funny, you’re like, oh, this is funny, but there aren’t really any straight folks around except for the two women. Don’t really see any straight men around unless it’s somebody they need to come out to. So it’s really a separate, I mean in a sense it’s a separate but equal kind of thing, but then on the flip side it’s like ah – you know you have access to a world that you normally wouldn’t have access to through watching this show, however skewed the view of the world is.

Brenda, like Rob, is not quick to condemn the limitations she sees in television portrayals. As

Rob considered that limited gay relationships on television may be a reasonably accurate

representation of real life, Brenda sees the glimpse of the putative gay world that television may

provide to be potentially illuminating to straight viewers.

107

While the above two participants found shreds of justification for what they saw as rather

compromised relational portrayals, others were not as forgiving. Doug (21 year-old gay man)

comments,

Queer as Folk is just kind of…they don’t have relationships, I mean they just kind of fly around it – even when, I think they try to present a community of friends maybe. I don’t even know how well they do that because, I don’t know, because they sleep with each other and then they’re not, I mean it’s kind of like the boundary between friends is broken and you very rarely see them interact with straight people at all and when they do it’s not in a positive light, hardly ever in that show.

Doug observes what may be seen as somewhat incestuous relationships on Queer as Folk, where

characters pair off within their in-group but do not engage with the straight society existing outside of their enclave. Members of the gay in-group uncomfortably shift between being friends and lovers with other members of the in-group and the out-group of straight society is generally kept at a distance. Meanwhile, Craig (28 year-old gay man) observes the situation with gay characters in relationships in this quote:

I’d, I’d say right now I’m kind of frustrated by the lack of gay relationships like, like you know, like things are per-, potentially partnership-building or, or even marriage-building, in uh, television. I think, I think it’s okay now for characters to be gay on TV and, you know any kind of, of gay relationship is kind of still taboo…

Craig recognizes a qualified victory with the integration of gay characters on television.

However, showing them with notable and visible romantic relationships remains a threatening prospect. Harkening back to ideas about the depth of character that some viewers see lacking in gay characters, Craig finds a lack of full relational engagement that would allow gay characters to be shown with deep bonds between them.

Alex (38 year-old gay man) concurs with Craig. Alex observes a historical trajectory which has led to the present-day portrayals of gay characters, but instead of growth and an

108

opening-up of opportunities for gay characters, he sees them stuck in the place they’ve been

stuck in for years. He says:

Well the only time they’re allowed to have relationships, um, they’re in very gay-positive shows. But even Will & Grace, I mean they don’t all have, they’re not allowed to have relationships. Um, so…I can’t think of, you know there was that whole pre-90’s, where gay was the topic of the week kind of show you know and, and they actually talked about it…but they’re certainly, they’re certainly written in such a way that the gay characters are very limited in terms of what they can do.

Alex sees gay issues as moving beyond flavor-of-the-day status in the media, but present day

portrayals remain somehow reduced or “limited” nonetheless. Shows that are preordained as

“gay-positive” have a better chance of depicting relationships, though such a notable example as

Will & Grace may fail to follow through on its promise. The writers of shows place constraints on the gay characters, disallowing viewers from seeing them in relationships. In the passages discussed in this section, interviewees expressed their concerns over the lack of resonant, significant relationships for gay characters. In the next section, interviewees recognize portrayals of gay relationships, but comment more directly on the limitations they are subject to.

Limitations on relationships. When gay people are indeed shown in relationships, romantic or otherwise, is this automatically reason for celebration? A number of interviewees would clearly say no. However, there is a notable contrast visible in how interviewees see gay romantic relationships. Some participants suggest that the characters have relationships that are sex-based, while others observe that gay characters aren’t sexually realized. Obviously, the comments may refer to different shows, and both conclusions may be true. While the basic-cable show Queer as Folk permits vivid sex scenes, the broadcast network show Will & Grace tends to play it safe and sexless, at least as far as its gay characters are concerned.

Taking Queer as Folk as a guide, Greg (23 year-old gay man) notes, “it seems everything negatively portrays…gay people as just like constant sluts.” He goes on to observe that the two

109

significant lesbian characters on Queer as Folk, Melanie and Lindsay, are portrayed “…like the family, like – it kind of made it portrayed like lesbians were like moms and um the gay men were like horny teenage boys, and I was just like…whatever.” Recognizing the highly sexed-up world

of the main gay male characters on Queer as Folk, Greg contrasts the gay male depictions with the distinctly maternal portrayals of the show’s two visible lesbians. Similarly, when asked for her observations on gay relationships on television, Zoe (23 year-old bisexual woman) comments, “Well, they have to have sex all the time. For one. That’s, that’s definitely something that’s portrayed a lot. Lots of sex…” Presumably also referring to Queer as Folk, Zoe’s central observation is not that the characters have developed relationships, but rather have sex-based connections. Her most fundamental impression of gay relationships on television is that the bonds revolve around sex.

On the other hand, Alex (38 year-old gay man) views gay television characters as lacking in fully-realized sexual relationships. He states:

Well, they’re not allowed to have relationships, they’re not allowed to be sexual beyond some sort of comedic um, you know let’s make a joke, or let’s pretend that he’s having a relationship but God forbid we ever see it or the character evolves because of it.

With his reference to comedy, Alex is likely zeroing in on comedic shows such as Will & Grace, and other broadcast-network shows that are unable to show the sex scenes that are obligatory on each episode of Queer as Folk. The lack of such engagement, however, delimits the growth of the characters. Such relationships may be intimated for purposes of a laugh, with any visible indicators of a real relationship kept safely off-screen.

Several interviewees, such as Greg, observe a disjunction between the way gay men are show in relationships and how lesbian relationships are portrayed. Two participants specifically address portrayals of lesbian couples. Brandon (42 year-old gay man) says,

110

…then you have the, the committed monogamous lesbian relationship where they’re not supposed to stray and that’s sort of a lesbian stereotype, you know you will hear straight people saying oh yeah, the, the lesbians, lesbian couples are the most monogamous couples there are you know, cause that’s the stereotype and you know I have no idea if there’s a sort of factual basis for that; you know, I mean how do you gather the data for it but um, but it’s certainly a stereotype that people have and that’s one that’s portrayed on there…

Brandon finds that lesbian couples are often shown as long-term and devoted, and doesn’t rush to take issue with the stereotype. Depictions of lesbian devotion presumably contrast with relationships between gay males, though he doesn’t address this. In his view, the notion that lesbian couples are more committed is a familiar stereotype that would be difficult to prove or disprove, but finds that the existence of the stereotype has led to its portrayal on television. Also,

Marta (22 year-old lesbian) opines,

Well, I think that with, within the lesbian relationships I think that they, they are showing that they’re very nurturing and very loving and they don’t emphasize that lesbians actually have sex. They don’t – they’re not really big into that. It’s like they just you know go to bed and hug, hug each other and have like 12 cats.

In the committed lesbian couples on television, Marta senses a notable missing element: the sex.

Unlike the interviewees who saw gay male characters as entirely focused on sex, Marta observes that lesbian characters are not. The stereotypically female-centered focus on nurturance – of her romantic partner, and presumably, of the many cats in her household – takes precedence over demonstrated sexual desire for lesbians on television.

Doug (21 year-old gay man) further endorses the idea that gay male relationships and lesbian relationships play out differently on television. Without referring to any specific show, he says:

Generally, I’ve always felt that lesbians are portrayed as having more intimate personal relationships that are monogamous to me, from what I’ve seen of the few shows I’ve watched and – gay guys sleep with everyone. I mean that’s been my general thing that it’s kind of portrayed.

111

Doug goes on to say:

I think, yeah, it doesn’t seem very realistic. I mean, of the lesbians I know, none of them are that happy, monogamous couple, I mean, they have just as many problems, they sleep around just as much, I mean it’s just – I don’t know if they’re trying to still portray women as wanting to pair up with one person and wanting to settle down into a home life and be happy even if they are lesbians and that’s what they’re still trying to reinforce or what but, the lesbians I know don’t act like that. Very rarely I mean, I know some that are in committed relationships but I mean it’s the like spectrum just like it is with gay guys. I mean, there are gay guys that are in a happy committed relationship and then there are the ones that are sleeping around and I mean, I think that would be more accurate, just to portray everyone in a spectrum. Which I have – I don’t know if Queer as Folk is trying to do that with having one of their lesbians sleep with a man but, yeah. I don’t, I really, that was kind of an interesting thing. That they kind of violated the whole thing but I was wondering maybe their lesbians are too boring and they think that they need to do something with them to create a story…

Doug takes issue with a perceived lack of fidelity to reality with the typical ways both gay men and lesbians are shown in relationships on television. He views the rare-for-television depiction of fluid sexuality, a lesbian sleeping with a man on Queer as Folk, not as a breakthrough in the portrayals of sexuality onscreen but rather as a likely gambit on the part of the creators to generate interest around the lesbian characters. As others did, he calls for more of a range of experience to be portrayed, and desires television depictions to resonate better with his experience, and that of those around him. While the quotes in this section found varying degrees of fault with television portrayals of gay relationships, the next section gives voice to the participants who found some degree of affirmation in the way they see gay relationships portrayed on television.

Realistic relationships. Some interviewees are heartened by portrayals of relationships on television involving gay characters. Speaking sometimes of friendships and sometimes of romantic relationships, these participants find encouraging complexity in the experiences that gay characters have with others, both gay and straight. For example, Angela (54 year-old

112 lesbian) suggests that close observation will allow viewers to see the depth of some relationships involving gay characters:

I see in general gay and lesbian characters – and again probably mostly gay males because I think that’s mostly who is portrayed um in the media – um, I see them having what look like superficial relationship but are really very deep relationships and very caring relationships and again I’ll go back to, to Will & Grace and Jack who is such a buffoon, and so self-absorbed, as are all of the characters on that show, but I watch in that self-absorption that each of them has, a real connection with each other and, and a joking that comes from a core of caring that’s really strong. Um, and while I may sometimes wish that they did things a little differently, I think the show wouldn’t be as funny if they did, um, and I probably wouldn’t watch it if they did, and so, I – it’s one of those be careful of what you wish for kind of things. Um so I think there’s a real connection…

Echoing a theme discussed earlier, Angela first clarifies that her references to gay characters on television may be assumed to refer primarily to gay male characters, as few lesbians appear.

With Will & Grace, the surface connections between the characters may seem brittle, but when one recognizes the total commitment the characters have to each other, one must acknowledge a rare and powerful depiction of gay characters and straight characters whose close relationships allow for joking. The teasing that occurs doesn’t threaten the bond between the characters, but instead is a reflection of its strength.

Speaking specifically of the relationships portrayed on Will & Grace, a show whose core cast consists of two gay men (Will and Jack) and two heterosexual women (Grace and Karen),

Paige (37 year-old lesbian) offers the following comments:

…again with Will and Jack and uh, the Will & Grace show, y’know they’re perpetually looking for somebody to date um, and y’know I, I think that – I’m, it’s hard because I don’t wanna seem like I’m an expert on what it means to be a gay man. Because the gay male community is somewhat different than the, the lesbian community, um, but I, I – in some ways I think that’s re-, that reflects truth, but in er, real life I should say, not truth, um but in some ways it doesn’t. You know again I know a lot of gay men who are in these long-lasting relationships. Um, maybe there are fewer of them on average, I don’t really know, I would love to see some statistics and I think everybody would like to see some statistics I don’t think they exist, but um, y’know, um, Ellen certainly had a y’know ongoing relationships, she also had y’know, in both cases, both shows, they, there are relationships with, with straight people who are you know very much integrated in their

113

lives, whether in the Ellen show, you, her relationships were primarily with her coworkers and her brother. And in the Will & Grace show there’s of course Grace. Um, who is obviously the y’know, she and Will are the main characters, um, and they’re, they’re good healthy, I think oftentimes good healthy, typical relationships um, so I think that they reflect real life um to a fairly high degree. There are other shows where the relationships are, are sometimes silly and, and almost um, you know just stereotypes of what people ex- think gay life is about…

Just like Brandon, Paige ponders how it might be proven that either gay males or lesbians have a

larger proportion of committed relationships. Regardless, the characters on Will & Grace cast about for romantic relationships, a situation that doesn’t resonate with her experience of seeing many men in committed partnerships. However, Paige indicates that on both Will & Grace and

Ellen, the gay characters function well in relation to the heterosexual people in their lives. Yet, she ends her decidedly mixed-bag commentary with a reference to how stereotypes may dictate the portrayals of gay life on television. Just as depictions of gay characters at the personal level had many interviewees noting that stereotypes are invoked, it is also likely that gay relationships on television reflect the simplified notions of the creators rather than the reality of gay people in society. Of course, any number of creators and writers of shows may be gay themselves.

As noted earlier, some participants of a certain age are able to observe how portrayals of gay on television have evolved over time. Though some viewers may wish that things had progressed further by this point in time, it is fairly easy to view modern-day portrayals as at least somewhat more advanced than what was seen in previous decades. Looking at relationships,

Brandon (42 year-old gay man) notes,

Um, the uh, you know in the, in the shows where the, you know, most, where the main characters are gay like uh Will & Grace for example, I think um the, the way that other characters treat the gay characters there is, has you know evolved over the last few years as the show’s been on, into something much more realistic of the way that you know – that show is you know the people are professionals they work together in a professional context usually and I think that the way they’re treated by other characters nowadays is much more representative of the ways for example I’m treated in my professional life by the people who I work with.

114

Brandon finds Will & Grace resonant for its portrayals of gay people as fully integrated members

of a work environment. Within the run of this particular show, there has been a move toward

realism that is welcome. The “professional context” of the relationships makes sexual orientation

a background matter. Brandon continues more generally with the following:

…I think there’s a fairly positive um, portrayal, especially in the last few years, of the variety of types of relationships that uh gay men and women have, you know it’s not, you know the, the common portrayal in the media for years was you know, you know gay men are you know out cruising all the time and you know and that’s you know, you’re out looking for sex and that’s basically it and um I think the, the more recent portrayals in the media you know certainly acknowledges that some of that does exist but there’s a whole broad spectrum of types of relationships in addition.

Brandon sees a gradual opening-up of television’s portrayals of gays, and with this, relationships are now allowed to be more complex and varied. He opines that the sex-focused portrayal of gay men, the portrayal several interviewees discussed above as describing gay characters today, represents the way gay men were relentlessly portrayed in the past. In Brandon’s view, the predatory, sex-focused basis of gay characters still exists, but today other priorities are open to gay characters.

In addition to friendships and romantic relationships, gay characters also have been shown in relationships with their families, though to quite a limited degree. Scott (24 year-old gay man) seizes on one of the rare depictions of family relationships and responds with great approval. He comments on Queer as Folk, a show that features a heavily gay-positive maternal figure in Debbie, mother of central character Michael. Scott states,

Uh if everyone got the opportunity to watch Showtime for free I think we would see a lot more people exposed to some really good relationships, like I wish everyone, every mom in the world, could watch Debbie kiss Michael on the forehead and you know, scold him a little bit to know that she’s not brainwashed into being like some gay-loving crazy lady, she is a real mom and she like has expectations but also a lot of affection and that’s a, that’s a great relationship.

115

Scott suggests that Queer as Folk, or at least the segments of it that depict a strong mother-gay son bond, would be useful to mothers everywhere; however, the fact that it appears on a pay- cable channel limits its reach. What may be shocking to these mothers is the utter normalcy in the mother-son interaction, such a kiss on the forehead or a gentle scold. While Scott does not refer specifically to the role of the gay son Michael in this relationship, or the fact that Michael is almost perpetually exasperated by his doting mother, the bond does represent a relationship that’s seldom seen on television. Comments like Scott’s point out that there is much more to the bonds on Queer as Folk than the explicit and typically fleeting sexual couplings for which the show is best known.

Returning to romantic relationships, Alan (21 year-old gay man) finds distinct progression evident in the relationships on Queer as Folk, similar to how Brandon saw change in the professional relationships on Will & Grace. Alan states:

Queer as Folk – you’re starting to see them becoming more monogamous and you’re starting, I mean, I don’t know if it so much is a conformity, I mean, I’m sure there are some very radical people out there who will say that’s conforming to, you know, patriarchy, whatever. I can see it, I can argue the point but I’m not going to. I just believe that it’s more of someone like, oh, I do love this person, and I want to be with this person, and I’m gonna commit to this person if whether it’s through a civil union, whether it’s through we just exchange rings, it’s more or less recognizing their love.

Though he could apparently suggest otherwise, Alan finds the evolution of the relationships on

Queer as Folk to be affirming. The characters progress beyond what were indeed quite hedonistic inclinations in the early episodes of the show, and most experience at least one notable relationship. This evolution is not “conformity” but rather part of the organic growth of the characters as they continue to exist as the program continues to chronicle their fictional lives and growth.

116

With discussion of portrayals on any television programs, it is more than fair to consider

whether the characters are simply acting as the required by the dictates of the specific genre of

program such as comedy or drama. Craig (28 year-old gay man) comments,

They’re – I’d say especially in comedies relationships between gay people and straight people are abnormally friendly. Uh, I think that they’re – we catch them in the middle of their relationship already, so they already know each other, they’re not really forced to address each other’s identities because they’ve already’ve done that in the prior to the show times that they already knew each other.

Craig observes that viewers are typically introduced to pre-existing relationships between characters when a show commences. In a typical comic program, in his view, gay/straight relationships are kept on friendly terms, with no need to reveal sexual orientation since the matter is likely to be a pre-established matter. Another interviewee points out that portrayals of some gay characters are well in keeping with what one must expect of them given the types of shows they’re on. Alex (38 year-old gay man) points out the norms of a particular show and a more general genre, and in both cases finds the gay characters to be at least reasonably represented. When asked about gay relationships on television, Alex responds,

I think…that’s a really mixed bag – I think in Six Feet Under they are as functional as anybody else, which is about as good as it gets in Six Feet Under. Um, and [they] certainly have one of the healthier relationships of anybody in the show. Um…Queer as Folk’s a soap opera you know so nobody has a stable, functional relationship…

Alex observes that the conflicted relationships on the shows are simply in keeping with the requirements of their genre. Notably, he implies that the relationship between two gay men on

Six Feet Under could be viewed as a relatively strong relationship within the purview of the show, which focuses rather relentlessly on tense, dysfunctional romantic and familial bonds.

Similarly, the soap-opera structure of Queer as Folk means that no character exists without conflict in his or her relationships. In these cases, the fact that the characters are gay does not

117

preclude them or excuse them from being constantly involved in relationships that are full of

conflict.

The segments in this section reflect participants’ views of gay relationships on television

as scarcely existent, limited when portrayed, and sometimes encouraging and complexly portrayed. As with their observations related to the personal level, participants found some satisfaction with the present and some hope for the future in what they are seeing on television.

Next, we turn to the third and final level of identity, communal identity, and address the views and opinions of interviewees in regard to gay community on television.

Communal Level

I’m kind of ambivalent on the issue of community. I think that sometimes it could be good but not necessarily in every case. Um, I don’t know if it’s that necessary. But, on the other hand it is true that most people who are LGBT know someone else who’s LGBT, you’re not usually in it by yourself, so there is a community there and that’s part of the honest portrayal of it. - Julie, 19 year-old lesbian

It is not certain that such a thing as “gay community” exists in real life, so one might wonder if such a thing could be captured on television. Are gay people a recognizable societal subset, or simply individuals who exist in all facets of a predominantly heterosexual society?

Both could be true of course; some gays live amongst other gay people, while other people may be or think that they are the only gay people in their areas. Of course, even if a gay-friendly neighborhood exists, that does not necessarily automatically reflect a community. The ambivalence noted by Julie speaks to how viewers/interviewees may be unsure about what they want or expect from television portrayals of gay community. Julie suggests that it is not necessary to see it portrayed all the time, but in order to reflect the reality that most gay people know other gay people, it may be dishonest if community is not shown in some fashion. Two broad themes emerged when assessing the comments of interviewees regarding portrayals of gay

118

community on television. First, many interviewees suggest that gay characters seemed to be disconnected, either from each other or from the larger straight society. In these views, there is no recognizable sense of community, or no integration between gay and straight society.

Secondly, and conversely, some participants express satisfaction with what they view as valuable portrayals of gay community on television.

Disconnected – individually or collectively. Numerous interviewees find that gay characters do not form a community on television in any observable way. Other interviewees do suggest that gay characters form something of a community, but not one that is necessarily integrated well with straight society. In this view, the gay characters form a group, but the group is kept out of the mainstream of society. Doug (21 year-old gay man) comments,

Yeah, they just kind of have their own little world I mean, it’s like everywhere they go, they don’t have to interact with heterosexuals hardly at all and when they do it’s because they’re being protested against or something like that. I mean it’s always adversity or struggle when it comes to straight community…

Doug finds an adversarial relationship between gay and straight factions on shows, with little common ground. The “little world” the gays inhabit generally insulates them from interactions with straights, but when the worlds are bridged there is only disagreement and disharmony. The equation is us-versus-them, or gays-versus-straights.

While one could rush to judgment that a show such as Queer as Folk clearly depicts community by portraying its gay ensemble living in a very gay-positive neighborhood in

Pittsburgh, we may question the definition of “community” and if such a designation is appropriately applied to the situation portrayed. Debbie (42 year-old lesbian) explains “I, I haven’t – I, I would not say I’ve seen a representation of any community, but certainly not the gay community, on television, in any way. If anything, you know, gay parts of town maybe, but that’s not community.” Debbie diminishes the connection between a gay-friendly neighborhood

119

and a legitimate sense of community, as community consists of more than similar people living in close proximity. Notably, though, she opines that television is not adept at portraying “any community,” so perhaps its failure to depict gay community is not significant. Similarly, Craig

(28 year-old gay man) says the following:

You see location as community but not relationship or groups as much, in what I’ve seen, but I – I mean, that may have developed over – since that I’ve, that I’ve seen those episodes but y’know any time in my opinion that you really see community it’s this part of the storyline or it’s like a location. But not like an organization or, or s-, support groups or, AIDS wards or anything like that, that you usually see.

Craig points out that while a neighborhood could possibly be assumed to be community, there is a lack of portrayals of deeper communal bonds forged by involvement in organizations. Images of community are built into certain episodes, but the sustaining daily ties are not much in evidence.

Greg (23 year-old gay man) states, “I don’t feel – there’s no interaction with the straight community at all, it’s kind of like, we’re gay, this is our gay show. And it was just kind of like there’s this gay bubble, that’s it.” Similar to the implications of the gay “world” suggested by

Doug, Greg finds separatism and disconnection with straight society. Just as other interviewees felt that gay television characters were essentially gay and little else, Greg implies that certain programs are essentially “gay shows” and little else. When asked if any form of community is shown on Will & Grace at all, Greg responds, “Not really. Unless you count the Banana

Republic. I don’t think so, I really don’t.” This reference to the fashionable upscale clothing retailer that the character Jack worked at for time indicates an example of “location” that perhaps

Craig would not have anticipated. As presumably a portion of the male staff and clientele of trendy clothing stores is gay, such places may be the most likely places to find gay characters on television.

120

The sense of disconnection that some non-heterosexual viewers find in relation to gay

community on television bothers Heather (18 year-old bisexual woman) considerably. She finds

“walls” rather than bridges between communities on television:

I think maybe like, I think maybe the problem that I’m having with these shows is just that it’s, it’s keeping – you know like we’re all connected like we’re all you know we’re all somehow related and we’re holding each other, we’re keeping that wall up somehow instead of like integrating with each other. Which is what we should be doing in all aspects – in religion, um sexuality, race, any type of culture, so – that’s, yeah that’s the one thing I have with shows focused around a certain aspect like that although it is like – it’s still okay to have shows like that because…um…it’s a forum in which to address certain issues.

With an ambivalence that characterizes many other observations by various participants, Heather sees a degree of benefit and a degree of lost opportunity in television portrayals of community.

The shows exist as a “forum” but depict groups as separate that, in her view, need to be portrayed as integrated. The different groups mutually reinforce their separation through their lack of engagement.

As Debbie noted above, a gay neighborhood does not necessarily reflect a gay community. Similarly, even when a show offers a group of gay people among its central characters, one could question whether community is indeed portrayed. Alex (38 year-old gay man) observes,

Queer as Folk has its, you know its little cluster of people but I don’t see any community. I mean they go to a dance club or they go to wherever that back room is, that mythical back room where everybody’s perfect, um, but I’ve never seen any sense of community…They don’t seem to be involved actively in their community, they don’t…they’re not involved in any civil organizations, they don’t participate in gay pride parades or – that I’ve experienced, so there’s, it’s not really any sense of a community, it’s five guys.

In Alex’s view, “five guys” do not make a community, as they generally only interact with each other. They visit a gay dance club and check out the “back room” where much anonymous sex takes place, but lack further engagement with other gays outside of their close friendships. Alex

121

finds that Queer as Folk’s central ensemble is distanced from civic engagement, and from a real sense of their place in a larger social fabric. Marta (22 year-old lesbian) also finds a lack of

political pulse that would connect individual gay characters to a community larger than themselves, and notes that while references might be made to community involvement, such involvement is not often shown. She states:

I don’t see that there is a lot of shows of activism or especially act-, I see very little political activism or even just activism in general. Even if it’s just you know AIDS activism or any other gay-related issues. I don’t see that a lot. Um, they will say occasionally, oh, we’re going to gay day at Disneyworld or something like that, like some kind of, like a festival, or – I know they mentioned once on Roseanne, that the mom was going to go down for um Fantasy Festival in Key West. Which is usually a very big gay festival down there, they mentioned that but they mention it but they won’t show it like they won’t show them being there or anything like that or have anything to do with it when they get, allegedly get back they don’t talk about it or anything like they’ll make brief mentions of going to gay and lesbian events, but they don’t really show them or have anything to do with them. I don’t see any, any examples of activism or any kind of even political alignment, or – well, they have made a couple jokes in Will & Grace about hating Bush which is, which is good, which is very good, but I don’t see them aligning themselves with a political party or along party lines or standing up and saying you know we’re this or we’re that, or for this or for that, so, and there’s a lot of political ties.

Marta observes a significant disconnect between the gay characters and the political and social issues that are important to gay people. There may be references to involvement in events, but like gay sex on broadcast-network shows, the participation is kept safely off the screen. Political references provide needed punch lines, but the characters stop short of overtly endorsing political views. Again, there is a lack of engagement with others in a recognizable community.

It must be kept in mind that many shows offer only a single gay character, and thus there may be limitations to what is likely to transpire regarding depictions of community. Julie (19

year-old lesbian) offers the following observations:

I don’t know for sure if there’s any sense of community, but I think in a lot of shows where the gay characters are on the fringe, there’s only one or two of them so there’s not a community. Maybe in a show like Queer as Folk where it’s about gay people, there’s more sense of community. I mean, you have to have two people to have a community.

122

Indeed, it’s difficult to depict any sense of community when a solitary gay character inhabits a

show. Julie expresses that a gay-populated show like Queer as Folk at least has the potential to

show more of gay community, though she does not seem fully convinced. As other interviewees

note that gay characters as a collective may be kept to the “fringe,” Julie notes that specific gay

characters may be similarly marginalized. The community at the center of the action is the

straight community. Similarly, Marta (22 year-old lesbian, mentioned just above) states,

I, they usually have no more than 3 or 4 people that are gay or lesbian on the screen at one time. Like they never show like a whole bunch of people and it’s like they never show them going to any gay or lesbian fun-, like I said, they don’t show them going to any of these things they talk about. You know it’d be nice to see them say oh, ‘we’re going down to the community center’ or something and then you down and then there’s like a whole room full of people that’re all gay. They, they don’t show that, they don’t show them in – I don’t know if it’s fear of a whole bunch of us together at the same time or, what’s gonna happen but they usually will show no more than 3 or 4 people at a time that are gay or lesbian. They usually show very few, have to be in little clusters surrounded by lots of other straight people, they can’t show like a whole screen full of gay people. I don’t know why that is.

Marta finds there to be strict limits on gay representation on television, representation that is kept in check to a degree that gays remain an on-screen minority. She finds gays to be constantly flanked by straights, and allowed to talk about though not visibly participate in gay-centered

community events. Showing “more than 3 or 4 people at a time that are gay or lesbian” might

challenge the dominance which straight characters have on the television screen.

Chelsea (20 year-old bisexual woman), among other interviewees, expresses a degree of

understanding that television portrayals might be unlikely to capture the complexity of gay

people’s lives, though she still bemoans the absence of portrayals that hint at that complexity.

Like Marta, Chelsea notes a lack of gay community and finds that television depicts gay

characters separated from a larger social context:

123

Again, it’s kind of like they have, they might have a couple gay friends and they’ll have a couple straight friends but it’s almost like they’re just kinda taken right out of the context that they, that they would live in if they were actual people and like, just simplified and set down on the stage and I understand that obviously you have to simplify to make, you know television like you know logical or watchable or whatever but it just seems like, there isn’t a gay community. Like it doesn’t really give you the idea that like you know they necessarily have like you know they have places to go and things that they do, as, like as a whole, you know what I mean it’s like they’re sort of, there’s some rituals for like, for certain groups…

Television needs to reduce and simplify things in order to portray them, in Chelsea’s view. This arrangement shortchanges television’s ability to show the activities of the characters and their interaction with each other in a community setting. The characters exist on the screen, but in the portrayals available they do not seem to be on their way to participate in a social network with other gay people when they exit a scene, let alone exhibit such involvement on screen.

Even when gays and straights appear to get along well on television, there can still be a sense of disconnection from others outside the amicable in-group of characters. Doug (21 year- old gay man) looks to Will & Grace and comments,

Um, there’s Will and there’s Jack and I mean, they really don’t seem to have that many friends and I don’t know I mean but even then, the only people ever, that I’ve seen brought into the show mostly are people that one of them’s interested in there’s not, very rarely do I see a group of friends other than, Karen I think, the other lady. I mean it’s like the four of them and that’s it. So I don’t know if they could really, in a, in a half-hour show, portray any type of community and I think it’s shown as a positive way then but it’s just kind of, I don’t think it’s done fake, in a fake manner but it’s just kind of like, all the straight people they interact with are like, oh yeah, Will’s gay, whatever. But I mean, at the same time I don’t think they have enough time to show a community and keep up with their main characters cause I think they’re the one’s they’re trying to develop so…

Doug fairly points out that perhaps we should not burden Will & Grace with the obligation of representing gay community in the midst of its 30-minute, sitcom-standard plots. The plots are organized around the central characters, and viewers expect these characters to be the focus, so there is little need to broaden the scope to a communal level, or any community context. But

Doug finds more troubling implications as he continues with the following:

124

…you don’t really know much of anything outside of their lives other than being gay, other than interacting humorously with their friends. I mean it’s kind of, there is no real serious drama that doesn’t involve everyone having sex and all of their issues with everyone having sex and then, having to bring in every no-, like I guess every popular problem that the gay community faces, and having to make a show about that like Queer as Folk does I mean it’s kind of, they don’t show them as normal, everyday, personal problems like a heterosexual television show would to me. Kind of like interacting as, not necessarily like a family but as relationships interacting with other I guess straight couples and you don’t very often see a mixture of the crowds coming together on any show either.

In this second quote, Doug finds that gay characters lack complexity in their lives and experiences as they appear onscreen; on a “heterosexual television show,” the portrayals would be not necessarily issue-oriented but still somehow “normal” and, presumably, universally resonant to viewers. Typically, gay characters are centered on concerns tied to their identifications as gay people, not on the breadth of problems that people in general face.

Connecting back to the relational level of identity, Doug finds that different crowds don’t mix, leading to a disconnection between gay and straight community.

Again, it must be kept in mind that each interviewee had seen a different distribution of programs with gay characters. While he sees some sense of community represented, Kaipo (31 year-old gay man) observes that accessibility to certain shows may dictate the visions of community available to viewers:

Queer as Folk shows a sense of gay community, uh very strongly, but you have to pay to get Showtime and so it’s not available to everyone. Will & Grace shows uh gay people interacting in a straight world um, and the funny occurrences that can happen between those exchanges. Uh, but I don’t get a sense of gay community, the only gay community that Will has, like Will actually has difficulty plugging into the gay community and Jack acts as his conduit for those interactions so in, in many ways I see Will as being isolationist or um, removed from true gay culture, but that removal allows him to have um, a different perspective and it helps to highlight the heterosexual interactions that he has with Grace and Karen, uh so I think it’s possible but if you want to see gay community, then you have to pay for it.

125

In Kaipo’s view, Will is engaged with straight folks but is isolated from “true gay culture,” with

“culture” presumably used as a synonym for community. This arrangement perhaps allows him to interact better with the heterosexual women he consorts with, but it is humor that characterizes the interaction between gay and straights. Just as Scott noted that paying for Showtime is necessary to see a great mother-son relationship on Queer as Folk, Kaipo suggests that portrayals of gay community are also only for paying customers. Speaking about Will & Grace, Craig (28 year-old gay man) opines the following:

…go back to Will & Grace, you really don’t see much of a community, you see a friendship, you see a very strong friendship between Will and Jack, um, you see a very supportive relationship from people that you would quote/unquote call the ‘allies’ in the form of, of Grace and Karen. But you really don’t see – um, like for example you don’t see the, the uh other gay couple who, who’ve adopted the baby as much as you used to and I really like those characters...

Craig is satisfied with constructions of the gay characters at the relational level, but sees a paucity of representation of the communal level. Will and Jack do not lack straight friends, but instead lack much engagement with other gay people. Craig mentions that the gay characters have “allies,” which is a term often used to describe individuals who self-identify as friends to and supporters of the gay community, though they do not self-identify as gay. Such support from the straight community may be all well and good, but Will and Jack are shortchanged in their interactions with other genuine members of the gay community.

Considering this focus on portrayals of gay community, it is certainly reasonable to question if there is indeed any obligation on the part of the creators of shows to depict any sense of gay community on fictional television programs. The contrasting views on this matter that viewers may take are well-summarized by Laura (24 year-old bisexual woman) in this passage:

Well, given that I mean, there are a lot of people out there that are queer but by themselves and or are you know, forced to be such given the community of, you know, the environment in which they live, um, be that rural or you know whatever, um, in some

126

ways it’s, I mean it is correct and it is a um, fair you know, uh evaluation of the particular environment in which we live, but on the other hand, you know, there are communities and there are places to go, people to see, and if you make efforts, you can almost always connect with someone, somehow if it’s by internet, if only it’s potent-, potentiality.

Laura notes that media portrayals depicting gay community and media portrayals depicting isolated gay individuals may both be accurate portrayals. Circumstances may make gay people feel truly alone in the environment they live in; however, with effort they are able to reach out to some form of community. Laura can see both sides of the coin; television can capture reality through gay characters both by showing disconnection from other gays and connection with other gays. While the participants discussed in this section see limitations or absence in regard to gay community, this view is not universal. The next section collects comments from interviewees that find television portrayals of gay community to be praiseworthy.

Reasonable portrayals. Some participants expressed relative satisfaction with what they saw as gay community on television. While sometimes they qualified their praise, these participants observed that television has made strides in depicting networks of gay people that are engaged with each other and/or with straight society. For example, Paige (37 year-old lesbian) notes the following:

I think that, I think there’s always a sense of – I see a sense of community y’know in one shape or another coming through on almost all of these shows um…y’know um, some shows are simply about the gay community I mean Queer as Folk is pretty much just about the gay community. Um, y’know, other than a few uh people like Mike’s mom, that character, um, ah there aren’t many straight people so it’s, it’s, that’s all it is about. Um, and shows like Will & Grace and Ellen, um there’s, they’re intergra-, interacting with straight society, y’know Will is having to work in his law firm and all the rest of his coworkers are straight. Y’know, Ellen way back when had that coffee shop and she was y’know, all of her employees were, were straight, so y’know I think there, they vary again from communities to, to dom-, y’know, the show focuses on only the gay community too – y’know, shows often focusing on just the um, the – more of an integration.

127

Whether the characters are in primarily gay or straight environments, Paige finds that there is a

sense of community coming through on television. Queer as Folk focuses heavily and primarily on gay community, with the straight characters reduced to the supporting roles, and even on broadcast-network shows such as Will & Grace and Ellen characters find themselves smoothly integrated into a larger societal context. Professional, workplace contexts allow a peaceful co- existence between gay and straight characters. Community takes many forms, and it’s almost always there in some capacity.

Some interviewees support the idea that location, or the places that gay characters are shown in, may indeed be taken as representations of gay community. As noted in the previous section, some interviewees specifically discount this notion. Rob (40 year-old gay man) observes the following:

I think people see gay culture as night life. As the bars and uh, you know, drinking drugs, and, and sex. And I think that’s a fairly significant part of gay culture I mean I don’t think they’re wrong there, but I think there’s a lot more they just don’t get a chance to see.

Rob’s mixed feelings are that while what may be called the bar scene is indeed operative in people’s free time, much else exists that would show gay people as having more going on in their lives. He indicates a limited representation of community that could be usefully expanded.

However, as it’s a “significant part of gay culture,” he is unable to tag the portrayal of the bar scene as altogether misrepresenting the gay community. Portraying “night life” is not inaccurate, but it’s an incomplete picture of gay experience. However, according to Brandon (42 year-old gay man), television has indeed admirably progressed to more varied depictions than it offered in the recent past. He references the fictional gay dance club Babylon depicted on the show Queer as Folk and notes how the show has moved beyond showing the club scene as the primary representation of gay community. He says,

128

I think that there’s becoming more of a portrayal, I think it used to be you know the gay community is basically portrayed as a bunch of partiers. You know, Babylon, you go out, you drink, you do ecstasy, you dance, you look at the go-go boys and, you know and I mean that, that’s certainly a part of the gay community and it’s part of the gay community that I’ve participated in um, but I think that the media’s starting to present other types of things, of things too. Um, you know, political uh you know, political organization for example on the part of uh gay men and lesbians. Uh they’re, in ah Queer as Folk for example, despite all the partying that they show they also show um gay people just hanging out socially you know in a social context as a community, they show them taking part in unified political activity.

While the “party” scene is indeed represented, Brandon is heartened by how television has branched into portraying other aspects of gay experience. Like Rob, he does not take issue with having the club scene depicted, as it’s “certainly a part of the gay community.” Rob and

Brandon’s comments echo the comments of those interviewees who viewed personal-level portrayals of gay characters to be based on stereotypes, but hesitated to condemn the portrayals because they resonated to a degree. Similarly, Rob and Brandon find the communal-level depiction of club culture to be both stereotypical and somewhat accurate. Unlike what some interviewees said about Queer as Folk and other shows in the section just above, Brandon

observes political engagement that provides more dimension to the characters and their

experience. The deepening of experience for the characters has brought about richer portrayals of community.

As discussed earlier, it is presumably necessary for multiple gay characters to exist on a

show to allow for representations of gay community. Commenting on Six Feet Under, a program

in which the gay characters are distinctly in the minority, Alex (38 year-old gay man) still finds

affirming portrayals of both gay community, and gay integration into straight society. He

comments:

Six Feet Under I think does a really excellent job of um, both presenting a community um, and also integrating the characters into the larger heterosexual world. Um, and maybe it’s because um, you know the one character was coming out so they got to

129

explore that whole transition um, as opposed to just having this…gay person that they drop into the, to the mix.

Viewers watched Michael on Six Feet Under as he gradually came out to more people and explored his place in the gay community. This allowed a rare chance for viewers to see a character move between communities with ease. Alex continues,

Well I mean, you know I remember he participated in the gay men’s chorus, um, and is involved in his church and his partner’s involved with the police department, you know, a bunch of other stuff, feeding the homeless, so you saw, really saw them interacting in, in a much broader context of community than just living in the one set that TV sitcom people live in.

The dramatic format of Six Feet Under allows its major gay character, Michael, to venture out of his family home and into the community. This engagement with gay community in various forms occurred after the first season of the show, which was analyzed in study one. Some of the

Michael’s activities focused on involvement in the gay community, while others were more generally community-oriented. Meanwhile, Scott (24 year-old gay man) transitions from recognizing no real sense of community in Queer as Folk to finding that the show indeed gives its gay characters experiences that are rarely depicted on other shows. He says,

…we don’t really see much of the gay community outside of the characters on that show, which stands to reason, it wouldn’t be a very interesting show if it kept showing random people. But um, well I would say maybe the gay and lesbian center that Brian constantly comes into conflict with in Queer as Folk, that represents something and the, the hospital where uh people are going who are getting sick and dying from ah AIDS infection. That is a critical part of the community that doesn’t get shown very much on the shows. So, I, I think that show probably more than any that I know of is the most connected to gay community.

Doug, in the previous section, didn’t take issue with Will & Grace for predictably focusing on its core characters and not the community outside. Similarly, Scott initially sees Queer as Folk to be reasonable in its focus on its core cast, with no major sense of gay community outside of the central ensemble. However, when he considers the gay and lesbian community center and the

130

AIDS hospital ward the show portrays, he finds that these are uncommon and valuable

depictions. This further attests to the many ways that one may define and recognize community

in general or gay community more specifically.

Though it is not the opinion expressed by Rob or Brandon, some may feel it is damaging

to portray gay characters engaged in the party scene at all because it may enforce the stereotype

that all gay people care about is drinking and picking up sex partners. However, it may be

possible for party-centered bar culture and community-oriented involvement to exist in a

harmonious combination. Derek (21 year-old gay man) comments:

Again, another thing I like about Queer as Folk, they do show the diversity within the community. So even though they all party on Liberty Avenue, they’re all in the bar watching the show about like the perfect gays, or – I forget what the, what the name is but um, they’re seeing like these two men are partners and they’re successful, they’re success-, successful doctor and lawyer and you know they help out with like the AIDS project and like the homeless shelter and like they’re doing all these great things, which is another part of the community, and it’s part of any community, um gay or straight, you have people who live on the social scene, people who help, who help out in the community, people who’re doctors and lawyers, people who are escorts and strippers I mean…it’s great so there’re different senses of the community um on Queer as Folk in particular.

Derek views the characters of Queer as Folk as engaged with the bar scene as well as other community-related projects that are not necessarily gay-centered causes. Like the actual gay population, there may be characters that are employed in the social sector of the community or employed in occupations with no explicit tie to gay community. Likewise, the social pursuits of individuals may be focused on the gay social scene or on parts of the community with no express tie to gay community. Derek welcomes the portrayal of gay communal experience in any of the many forms that it takes.

The comments in this section suggest that at least some non-heterosexual viewers find portrayals of gay community on television to be both present and worthy. Though sometimes

131

qualified in their praise, they see the potential for television to reflect how gay people operate in

a predominantly heterosexual society while simultaneously being part of a societal sub-set with

some of its own norms. Overall, interviewees offered different views about gay community on

television, with some seeing little evidence of it at all. However, there is at minimum a degree of

hope for those who would like to see gay characters as part of larger communities on television –

at least some shows can be viewed as taking steps in the right direction.

Summary

Through their comments related to their observations of the construction and portrayal of gay characters on television at the personal, relational, and communal levels of identity, interviewees express both frustration and happiness with what they’ve seen. With their thoughts on personal-level depictions, their views on the core construction of gay characters, interviewees find much to criticize related to stereotypical portrayals but also a fair amount they could relate to. Sometimes acknowledging the resonance of certain portrayals made interviewees uncomfortable, as it gave them the sense that they are complicit in the reification of gay stereotypes if they find stereotypical portrayals to be reasonable. Viewing the relationships gay characters have with each other and with straight people on television, some interviewees find the bonds to be sometimes constrained by the gay character’s sexual orientation. Others sense no such constraints and even sense the possibility of there being deeper realms in a relationship because at least one person in the relationship is not heterosexual. Regarding gay romantic relationships, interviewees find either a general lack of such portrayals or find that television currently seems to be experimenting with such portrayals, which is a trend that is encouraging at

least in theory. When assessing portrayals of gay community, respondents vary on how community might rightfully be defined or recognized. Some interviewees detect little distinct

132

representation of any such thing as gay community. Others see representations that at least hint at

the diversity and complexity of gay community and experience, or allude to important aspects of these realms. With such a variety of responses to and opinions about gay portrayals on television,

it is worth exploring how, if at all, these viewers feel personally impacted by the media

depictions they’ve seen. The next chapter discusses interview participant responses related to the

question of whether or not media depictions had influenced their own identities as gay, lesbian,

or bisexual individuals.

133

Chapter 7: Study Two Findings – Part Two

This chapter addresses what respondents had to say about the ways in which they

perceived or did not perceive their own personal identities interfaced with media depictions of gay and lesbian characters’ identity frames. The comments in this section address guiding question 3: In what ways, if at all, do gay and lesbian individuals perceive their own personal

identity interfacing with media depictions of gay and lesbian characters’ identity frames? Two

themes of perceived media influence reappeared within and across interviews: (1) influences on

gay identity and (2) influences on identity apart from the interviewee’s gay identity. These two

themes will be discussed and exemplified in the next sections. The third overarching theme that

emerged and will be discussed suggests that media images were perceived to have no influence

on respondent identities.

Recognizable Media Influence: Gay Identity

In the view of some interviewees, exposure to television/media depictions of gay

characters had definitely influenced who they saw themselves to be as gay people. In most of

these cases the influence was positive, though not always. While they acknowledged the effect,

interviewees often noted that quantifying it was not an exact science and that they found it challenging to identify exactly and how and where the media played a part in identity formation

or ongoing identity management. For example, Alan (21 year-old gay man) offers the following

assessment, in which he somewhat reluctantly concedes that media images have inescapable

effects:

The media’s everywhere and the media has effects on us whether we want to accept it or not. I’ve learned that. I want to say that, yes. Whether I believe it or not, I know they’ve affected me, that I, I’m like, I could never be that way, I don’t want to ever want to act like that character, and usually two days later I usually am acting like that character, kind of ironic, I love irony, but I think you know they tell us who we are, they tell us who we’re not, who we aren’t. Yeah. I just feel that I know that it’s there, I know that certain

134

characters have affected me more than most because like I said I don’t want to act like that character, I would like to act like certain qualities of that character, maybe they said something funny that I want to remember. It’s just…that I know that it’s constantly washing over me and through me and that it affects me and I just need to know that.

Alan sees his behavior and actions as inexorably influenced by media images, something he seems equally hesitant and determined to acknowledge. The options for who to be and how to be

(“who we are”) and who not to be and how not to be (“who we aren’t”) are, in some capacity, identified through the media. Alan’s presumption that media images are “constantly washing over” viewers suggests that it may be difficult to recognize the effects. Still, we may find ourselves consciously or unconsciously taking cues from fictional characters in our interactions with others in daily life.

Alan’s conception of insidious but unavoidable media influence is echoed, to some degree, by Zoe (23 year-old bisexual woman). She states:

I think the media dictates a lot of how people in general act, I think that uh – I think almost everything I’ve seen at all like my whole life has in some way affected me and how I think people are and I think that’s part of a problem in society in general, but um, I definitely think that when you see someone that shares one part of yourself um, a lot of people, at least me, kind of subconsciously think you’re supposed to be like that so, when I see females my age or Jewish females or bisexual females, or even lesbians, um, unless it’s completely ridiculous, you kind of internalize how they act, you know, and you, you pick up some of that stuff and most people have been doing that their whole lives I mean, people learn how to pass as straight and um, people learn about how the right way is to be, you know a good lesbian or um, you know, just, just stuff like, just anything like that I mean people don’t even realize it but that’s where we get so much of our information from and all we know other than that is what we see around us…people are getting their ideas of how to be from society you kn- and from TV…

In Zoe’s view, like that of Alan, media consumers take cues from media depictions that are possibly subconscious, but nonetheless real and perhaps all the more significant for their insidious nature. Viewers gain information about how to act from the media and cannot keep their identities shielded from influence from the portrayals of characters similar to themselves in the media. Zoe, however, also indicates that social observation is another significant source of

135

information and guidance on “how to be” as a member of a social group, whether it is a sexual

minority, a gender, or a religious group.

Kate (31 year-old lesbian) recognizes the direct effects of viewing a gay-themed film on

television. She tells a story of watching the lesbian-themed movie Claire of the Moon by herself

at her grandmother’s house. She calls watching this movie “pretty pivotal” and says she

identified with a character that comes out in the movie who is a writer, as is Kate herself. The

character makes a gradual discovery of her sexuality; in the film, a friendship with another

woman turns into a sexual relationship.

So that did [have an influence] because I felt like that was, that was not only a character but a whole situation that I could imagine myself being in because it’s a kind of gradual thing that builds between she and this other woman, so, yeah, and the fact that she was a writer, and was at this kind of workshop and stuff like that like I could see myself in a situation like that and it, it made it something recognizable, I’d seen other gay movies, lesbian movies before that that hadn’t done anything to me and that I couldn’t identify with and didn’t…didn’t really have much impact, I would say. I mean I was curious, so you know you kinda, look at lots of things and…Who am I now like if I would grow my, I don’t know, grow my hair out because her hair was long or something, which, you know, it wasn’t really like that, but it certainly shaped what was possible, you know I think it made certain things available, um, again because I think I had to you know get rid of my own homophobia before I could be gay and so that stuff, yeah, the media, that – films, and that film in particular made that something that was, was okay.

For Kate, a film viewed on television allowed her to recognize some of what she desired in life, and allowed her to envision both professional activities such as a writer’s retreat and a sexual orientation. The media images shaped “what was possible,” allowing her to cast off, or at least providing a challenge to, her own homophobia. The media made “available” a definition of self that previously seemed off-limits. Through this construction, Kate ties the acceptance of a self- identified gay identity not to the onset or recognition of same-sex attraction, but rather the acceptance of the notion that such attractions were legitimate and viable. Media images were instrumental in facilitating Kate’s self-designation and self-acceptance as a lesbian. In fact, the

136 film provided the assurance of the acceptability of a lesbian designation that she required before she could self-identify as such.

Of course, it is not a given that any readily apparent media influence on gay identity is positive influence. Rob (40 year-old gay man) suggests that there was little opportunity to find useful information from television portrayals given the dearth of gay representation when he was coming out. Responding to the question of whether media images have influenced his identity, he says:

Yeah. But only in a negative way, I think when I was coming out, when I was coming out there wasn’t these characters on TV, so 15 years ago, you really didn’t see what’s there now you know, or, not that I recall, there’s very few things, a few movies out that were kind of almost B-movies. Um, so there really wasn’t things that, that showed things back then, and now things are out and I don’t, you know I’m very comfortable with my sexuality and everything, I think it does make a difference for those people who are, are young now, those kids in high school you know I think, I think that it does influence them.

With a view of media portrayals of gay characters that covers a number of years, Rob expresses that younger individuals in the current age have images available that could assist them in defining themselves as non-heterosexual. For his own era, though, he recalls no useful role models or encouraging images. In fact, he recalls media images he took in at a time when he struggled with his sexual identity which he found utterly harrowing. Rob recalls seeing one of the most notable 1970s-era anti-gay crusaders, Anita Bryant, on television when he was in junior high. He says:

And uh, I thought she was the most terrifying human being alive and evil, she scared the crap out of me and I was just terrified of her, I mean I thought she was like, I don’t know why I was so terrified of her, I, just all the things she would say on TV and her, her attitude towards things and, and the gay community and stuff, and not that I was, I was, I wasn’t out, I wasn’t even identifying as gay, I wouldn’t of even thought that way, I was just so scared and so terrified by her. And so I think she was probably the biggest, that was probably the biggest influence in my life as far as media is the things I would see with her when I was, when I was growing up and, and how scared I was and it just, it kind of just reinforced this is wrong and you are not accepted and you’re a bad person

137

and you’re evil and you’re gonna go to hell and look what you’re doing to society, and you’re not accepted and you will not be loved. And you know so, so that was, that was very difficult for a while.

While not a fictional character on a series, Anita Bryant was a visible media presence in the

1970s, and Rob’s utter fear of her and her agenda was palpable to him a time possibly before he had formed any sense of sexual identity at all, and certainly before he self-identified as gay. Rob implies that Bryant-based media images delayed his coming out process. While Kate suggests that a media portrayal facilitated her self-acceptance as a gay person, Rob only recalls media images that suggested to him that self-defining as gay was well beyond inadvisable. Bryant’s success in conflating gay identity with evil and wrongdoing hugely alarmed Rob, who did not yet see himself as a gay person but who, on some level, recognized that his inclinations reflected those of a gay person.

Similar to Rob, Alex (38 year-old gay man) recalls negative assessments of gay people on television. But unlike Rob, Alex does not find that his own acknowledgement of his gay identity was forestalled. Asked if media portrayals have influenced him, Alex says:

Oh yeah, yeah, um…I’m not sure how much of an impact it had on me emotionally because you know for so long I was operating under the assumption that I was, I was just going through a phase so I was not overly identifying with being gay in high school but um, you know there were gay characters who had furtive sex lives and never, when I was growing up certainly never had relationships, they were never depicted in relationships. Um, so I mean, and certainly I got that message that it wasn’t something you were supposed to talk about – I got that from somewhere. Um, so yeah, I remember especially growing up which I suppose is when the images really matter, um the image was um you know that they kind of live life on the sly and engage in a lot of surreptitious sex but don’t really have a life outside of that. Um…which at the time was fine cause all I was interested in was the surreptitious sex so, I wasn’t looking for, I didn’t, I didn’t expect to be gay so I wasn’t really thinking about how I was gonna have to model after myself. Um, I certainly didn’t think gays had healthy relationships, but I didn’t think I was gonna end up being gay anyway so, it was really a concern for me.

The lifestyles portrayed on television for gay characters as Alex was still defining himself sexually were not encouraging, but he does not view this as a problem. While he identified with

138

the habits he saw the characters enact, he did not self-identify as gay, and so could relate without personalizing the limited portrayals on a deeper level. Alex opines that the time frame when one is “growing up” is when media images “really matter,” which suggests a potential for much greater influence from media images if he had seen himself in his teenage years as a homosexual person. As he thought he was “just going through a phase” of same-sex attraction, the possible detrimental influence of media images was mitigated.

Most of the comments in this section thus far have addressed how media images were used at times when individuals were still defining themselves in terms of their sexual orientations. Therefore, the question of whether or not media images are most influential at that crucial coming-out stage is worth further exploration. Kaipo (31 year-old gay man) offers a metaphor for the usefulness of media depictions of gay characters. Speaking of such media images, he says

I, I would describe them as being training wheels. Um, because when you’re first starting out and if you’re isolated and don’t know people who are gay, the only thing you have to cling to are these depictions in the media. Um, hopefully if you’re motivated, you will eventually meet gay people and hopefully they’ll be gentle but um, they will break those stupid stereotypes that you see and part of it is just the clash between the fantasy that television projects and the reality of what we are and how much diversity we encompass. So um it provides a role if you have nothing else to go off of, but the best thing would be to interact with other people who are gay. Um, and I think that will give you the best depiction of what being gay in America is actually like.

Kaipo speaks generally, but presumably he made use of media images in the way he describes.

To view media images as “training wheels” presumably means that individuals are advised to get

to a point when they are no longer of use. However, the images presumably provide a rather

essential, or at least welcome, form of assistance to go to the next phase. Interacting with other

gay people is most crucial, in his view, but media images may bring those who are questioning

their sexual orientations to a place where this interaction is possible. Media images of gays show

139 that one can be gay in theory, and interaction with actual gay people shows that one can be gay in the real world.

With the comments in this section, participants confirm that media images have some reasonably direct effect on viewers. While the interviewees in this section express different uses of and implications for media portrayals of gays, they all recognize some influence on personal identity connected to media images. But recognition of media influence did not turn out to be universally connected with an interviewee’s sense of gay identity. The next section addresses the other forms of influence that media images had on participants.

Recognizable Media Influence: Personal Identity Apart from Sexual Identity

A number of interviewees note that they could recognize some form of influence from the media, but do not see this influence as guiding or shaping sexual identity. Instead, these individuals acknowledge that the media influences some other aspect of their personhood. For example, Angela (54 year-old lesbian), does not hesitate to recognize media influence, but she hastens to contextualize this influence. This extended quote is her response when queried about whether or not media has influenced her identity:

I think that the answer is yes but maybe in a different way than you’re looking for, I don’t think the media has, has kind of shaped my identity as a lesbian woman but I think it certainly has shaped my identity as an American consumer and particularly as a woman in a, in a culture like this. I think that, I think we all, we all get the messages about who we’re supposed to be and how we’re supposed to look and what we’re supposed to think and feel and, and I um, even though I think I’m aware of all that in a way, and kind of on a level that other people aren’t necessarily, I’m really aware of how that gets manipulated and how um, how susceptible I am to it even as I might want to think I’m not. I mean, it, it amazes me to see anyone um but you know I think of, I think of young women that I go into classrooms and talk to about socialization of women in this culture for example and I, I remember talking about um our awareness of how we’re supposed to look, dress, act, and, and so forth and, and 20 year-old women, who all look like each other, saying “well that’s ridiculous, that doesn’t have anything to do with me,” and I’m thinking, let’s look at ourselves here, you know? It’s like – you know, and it’s the same kind of thing that, that um parents will say in, in a kind of another uh lifetime parents would say “well, I wish that my child went to a school that, that had uniforms,” I said “but your child does

140

go to a school that has uniforms they just don’t look like what you’re expecting a uniform to look like,” that, that’s really clear that young people all wear uniforms. And they know how to identify each other. Um, and, and I think, so I think we’re all so inundated with that that i-, it’s kind of like the water we swim, so there’s an unan-, an unawareness that goes along with it. But, but I think which is so important to acknowledge cause we’re all products of it and we all, we all make judgments about people, places, and things based on those things that we don’t have anything to do with…

When it comes to influencing how people look and think, Angela adds this: “the media has so

much power as far as that goes.” In her own experience as an American woman as well as an

educator that views the general conformity of young people in terms of appearance, she finds media to be influential in shaping who we are. She quickly brackets out her own sexuality as

having been shaped by media, though. It is clothing and personal appearance that take on an

aspect of uniformity even among young people who do not have official school-issued uniforms.

All of us are “products” of a consumer culture that imbues us with ideas about how to view

“people, places, and things” in the world. While at the beginning of the previous section Alan

suggested that media images “wash over us,” Angela offers a different water metaphor. In her

view, we are so immersed in media images that they represent “the water we swim” in, and are

thus so omnipresent that their components and effects on us are almost impossible to identify

objectively.

Similar to how Angela views media influencing American norms and expectations for

personal appearance, Karen (22 year-old bisexual woman) identifies a body-oriented influence she attributes to the media. She states the following in response to a direct question about whether media has influenced her identity:

I don’t think so much in terms of sexuality, I think more in terms of my body image. Like my body image has been more affected by TV, like what a girl is supposed to look like….In terms of like my sexuality the only way that it’s really affected it is that like I can sit down with friends and talk about girls that I think are attractive on TV and boys that I think are attractive and I think that has more to do with my friends than it does with

141

the actually media…Cause there aren’t bisexual role models in the media for me to have my identity fixed by. They aren’t there.

Karen finds that even if she desired to find influence from media images, the paucity of bisexual representation would make it impossible. Television is useful for telling us “what a girl is supposed to look like,” however. Though television portrayals of good-looking people allow

Karen to identify people of both genders that she finds attractive, the portrayals do not recognize or reflect a sexual identity that finds both genders potentially attractive to an equitable degree.

For this recognition, she must turn to friends.

Both Angela and Karen note that the media influences people’s sense of what proper appearance is, particularly for girls and women, and both imply that these effects are dubious.

However, Marta (22 year-old lesbian) recalls a similar but more direct media influence, though again it is not in regard to her construction of internal identity.

I – especially when I was, when I was younger like I thought I’d cut my hair to try to be more butch I mean, I would, there would be random you know lesbian more so in print ads than on TV but there were characters on TV that I would see that I would know, they’re supposed to be a lesbian, they look like this, and so when I wanted to look more like a lesbian I tried to look more like them. So – especially, a lot, not so much now, but really when I was younger, cause I knew that’s what a lesbian was, I knew I felt like a lesbian but I knew I didn’t look like one so I would try to look like the women that I would see on TV because I knew people knew they were lesbians, so I wanted to look like them. [Sighs] I never, never got a mullet though, that was one thing I never – I, I drew the line at that, that was just wrong.

Far from being threatened by the portrayals of out-of-the-closet gay people on television, Marta actively found herself aping the physical attributes of gay women on television. In fact, she actively sought the stereotypical physical characteristics of a lesbian, though she viewed the much-scorned mullet haircut (short on top, long in back) as a step too far. For her, the physical depictions of lesbians on television told her “that’s what a lesbian was,” and she fully assumed that those around her would have the same conception of lesbians and would thus recognize her

142

attempts to assume a lesbian persona. Her construction of lesbian identity in exclusively visual

terms speaks to the visual nature of television, and the potential of television to dictate an

identifiable and thus imitable image of a social group.

While Marta eagerly co-opted a thoroughly stereotypical image of a lesbian, gay viewers

may respond to or be influenced by portrayals of gay characters on television that buck against

prescribed stereotypes. If the characters are shown as having depth and complexity, instead of just a surface sexuality, audience response and connection may be focused on a range of

character attributes. When asked about if the media has influenced his identity, Greg (23 year-old

gay man) responds with this:

Not so much as far as with, with gay life but um like gay characters so much haven’t done that but I’ve definitely watched different shows that have definitely, I’ve been like, oh, wow that’s a unique quality that I would like to have. I’m a – I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer frequently, um, there was Willow on that show, she was a lesbian um, I watch that but – that was one of the reasons why I watched it was because she was a lesbian but it also, there were certain qualities – I don’t value being a hard person I don’t think that that’s something that is an admirable trait so wi-, I could really watch Buffy and be like, she’s a soft person but she’s tough too, she knows – she stands her ground. And so that was something that I have tried to integrate into me. And it was, you know, okay, you know what, I can still be nice without being a wallflower and, and you know without being a floormat and standing my ground, and saying no, you know, this isn’t cool and it, you know it also motivated me to take kickboxing classes…

Media images have compelled Greg to take up his new hobby of kickboxing, but have not

shaped his conception of sexual identity. While Buffy the Vampire Slayer did include a lesbian

character, it is mainly the tough, take-command heterosexual character Buffy that Greg finds

influential. Buffy’s strength and skill in managing situations while still not coming across as a

“hard person” is something Greg finds most laudable and inspiring. Such influence speaks to the

potential of television portrayals to inspire various audience members on different levels.

Admirable traits exhibited by a fictional character can be emulated by an inspired audience

member of any sexual persuasion.

143

Meanwhile, Craig (28 year-old gay man) also distances himself from any acknowledgement of media influence on gay identity, but does describe the usefulness he has found in his viewing of media images featuring gay characters. He states:

Um…in defining myself as a gay person no, it [the media] really hasn’t played a role. I think though Will & Grace to me has been like my comfort show. It really hasn’t led me to perceive myself differently but it’s, it’s given me some, you know, some comfort in my identity that uh, I really can’t say any other show has, um, I think largely because it somewhat avoids the downsides of gay life, but um, it also demonstrates the strength of friendship, and so that’s y’know kind of [coughs] two things that I find comforting about it. But the uh…I, I really can’t think of any other show that, you know, that gives me any kind of positive reinforcement beyond that one. I’d say some shows, y’know or some depictions, make me say, ‘boy, I’m glad I’m not that bad’ or you know, I catch myself saying things like that…But you know there are other times that I’m – I view myself not as good as y’know some characters. I’m not as strong as the gay character in, in NYPD Blue as I perceive him now, I think he’s much stronger now than he was before, I think it’s something that’s developed over time. I’m not y’know as – no I’m not as, as courageous as Jack McFarland in many respects, I find him to be a lot more courageous now that he’s finally getting a sense of what he wants in life, and I – you know, so those are things that I see, y’know, that, that, you do see those comparisons that you kind of impose upon yourself, uh, but I really don’t see myself wanting to emulate anybody in particular. I just find y’know Will & Grace to be comfortable and I find some characters and depictions uncomfortable. That’s basically the, the, the way I view it, more so than how I, how I identify myself.

Though Will & Grace does give him “comfort in his identity,” Craig does not suggest any direct influence of this or other shows on his conception of his sexual identity. He finds comfort in the portrayals even though they are not personalized in any real sense. Still, the fictional characters do serve as a point of comparison in regard to Craig’s positive and negative qualities. While he does not profess to “emulate” any character, he does find their strength and courage to be worth assessing and considering in relation to his own.

The comments in this section occupy a middle ground between the perceived immediacy of media depictions in influencing gay identity and the perceived absence of any such influence.

While the individuals in this section are quick to factor out cues from the media when defining their identity in terms of sexuality, they do connect other aspects of their lives and experience to

144

the media images they’ve consumed. Whether the impact is on personal appearance or human qualities such as strength, these viewers do make use of media and see it as a factor in their

assessments of who they are as people. Media influence was not felt by all interviewees,

however.

No Recognizable Media Influence

Some interviewees suggest that television depictions of gay characters have no influence

on them: media had not influenced their sense of gay identity, nor did it otherwise influence

them in some other aspect of their personhood. For these people, media was definitively factored

out of the influence equation. For example, Brenda (23 year-old lesbian) finds no surrogates in

the media with identities that resonate with hers:

I think like there are shows where you see yourself, like oh, you know, I relate to her and blah, blah, blah. But lately as a black lesbian feminist, I haven’t seen anything at all, or anyone that I relate to…

While Brenda recognizes the possibility of finding resonance in television characters – characters

you “relate to” – she does not find any to be currently available. She describes herself with three

identifications that all might be considered socially stigmatized identifications: she is African

American, a lesbian, and a feminist. Television portrayals do not reflect anything close to the

totality of her being, and as such she has nothing to “relate to.”

In addition, viewers may question the obligations of the media to portray gay characters

in any particular way. By not holding the media to a standard, viewers may be more easily able

to dismiss the idea that the media has effect on personal identity. If the media is not responsible

for showing the complexity of gay experience, gay viewers may not feel a need to take the

depictions, and their possible influence, with anything other than a grain of salt. In this vein,

Brandon (42 year-old gay man) states:

145

I don’t think it [media] r-, I don’t think it really has [influenced my identity], I’m really sort of uh, critical about the media in general and I don’t generally have really high expectations from the, from the entertainment media anyway. Um, my own, my own personal educational background is in things like classical Greek and Roman literature so you know, when I, when I watch television I’m not expecting usually you know profound enlightenment or anything. And um, I don’t you know I think because of the way that I view the media, because I am very critical of it, that I ex-, I don’t expect things from it, and so I think I’m much less influenced by it than you know a lot of people appear to be. Um, now the – again I d-, I think that the uh way that that uh gay characters are portrayed in the media, doesn’t – it’s not so much that it’s you know influenced me and how I look mysel-, at myself, or how I look at other gay people, but I think it’s more that um, I, I just hope that they…keep introducing a broader range of gay and lesbian characters, and then start addressing things you know like, like transgender issues and you know, that’s something that’s you know, that and bisexual issues are still something that’s basically taboo. And I would like to see the media portray a broader range, you know of the, the whole spectrum of you know, what it means to be gay and how gay people live and act in our society.

With his lack of high expectations for media portrayals, Brandon feels unencumbered by any need to personalize the depictions. He does imply that “a lot of people appear to be” more directly influenced; presumably, the expectation of these viewers to find something useful or resonant in the portrayals makes them find the portrayals significant enough to offer cues about who to be or how to be. Notably, Brandon looks to the future to have media images that depict the range of experience. These portrayals would prove useful to gay viewers and/or the heterosexual viewers that would see them by allowing them a richer view of the diverse non- heterosexual community. Apparently, when media graduate to representations that hint at the diversity and complexity of the community, viewers in general can make more and better use of media images as contributors to their awareness of the world and the shattering of taboos.

Several interviewees recalled the lack of media influence on them at the time they were

first self-identifying as gay. As previously noted, it could be presumed that media depictions

might have more impact on those just coming to terms with their sexual identities. Those

struggling to codify their sexual identities may take cues from the media about what is legitimate

146

or not in terms of who or what they could be. This is exemplified by the example of Kate discussed in the first section in this chapter, who discovered realms of possibility in her sexual identity thanks to gay portrayals in film. However, it is certainly possible that even those

“questioning” their homosexuality will see media portrayals and real-life experience as fully separate domains. Derek (21 year-old gay man) describes viewing Queer as Folk during the time he was redefining himself, to himself, as a gay man. But he goes on to comment that he does not feel that the depictions of hyper-sexualized gay life on the program served to dictate his choices as a young man newly defining himself as gay:

Well, I was aware of the stereotypes and I knew that um I didn’t fall into the stereotypes to begin with and I wasn’t going to just because it’s not who I am. Um, being promiscuous is just not who I am, it’s not how I was raised and it’s not who I want to be. Other people, I mean that’s fine, and I would never hold that against anybody but for me um, it ha-, it hasn’t had any influence on who I am.

Derek recognizes that media portrayals do not resonate with his personal sense of self, and recognizes that while media characters may share his sexual orientation, they do not share his orientation to relationships or life in general. He does not begrudge anyone who might find applicable life lessons on such shows, but he sees the characters are “not who I am” and “not who I want to be.” He recognizes portrayals in the media as harkening to stereotypes that he does

not identify with, and thus his lack of identification is not a cause for concern. In Derek’s construction of self, his self-concept is clearly demarcated from what he views in the media.

While Derek did have access to a notable gay-themed media artifact, others recall that the lack of portrayals during their coming-out processes somewhat precluded any useful media influence. Laura (24 year-old bisexual) indicates that her intake of gay images in media and her codification of her sexual identity did not run along parallel tracks. She says:

Have I made use of it [media with gay representation] no, I discovered it after, way after the fact, um I think that’s probably because of the lack of you know, these characters in

147

television, especially during my formative years, so to speak, so, uh during high school to me that was the Ellen craze and even then I didn’t, you know, I made note of it, but, and I thought it was cool, I was glad it happened um, but I didn’t like, I honestly didn’t stay home and watch it even though at that point I was probably, I was aware of the significance to me…

Laura concedes that she may have had some awareness that notable things were happening with gay portrayals on television around the time she was starting to self-identify as gay, but notes that she gave the matter little attention. The general “lack” of “these characters” during this

crucial phase in her development of her sexual identity ensured that media images were not

particularly significant as part of the process. Even the availability of what was, at that time, the

most notable television portrayal of a gay character on television (Ellen) did not somehow require Laura to pay particular attention to the media in general or that media artifact specifically.

Naturally, each successive generation of gay people will grow up with an assortment of media images available that is a different assortment than the images available to any previous generation. Debbie (42 year-old lesbian) connects her lack of response to media images to the time frame in which she explored her sexuality. After stating that she does not perceive any media influence on her identity, she says,

…now remember, at that time in my life, I mean that was a while ago, we’re talking 70s at that point, so…maybe things have changed a little bit but I don’t feel like it [has influenced my identity] – not, not what I’ve seen.

Debbie implies a generation gap in regard to available media images, and identifies the formative years of her sexual identity as a different generation. She acknowledges that the intervening years may have brought “a little bit” of change, but apparently media portrayals were not a factor in identity formation and are not a factor in her ongoing identity management.

148

Similar to Brenda, Chelsea (20 year-old bisexual) finds a paucity of television portrayals that are viable for direct identification. Self-identifying as a bisexual female gives her a status that is seldom seen among fictional characters. She states:

I feel like seeing homosexual characters on TV hasn’t really effected the way I perceive myself because, A, they’re all men. And B, they’re, they’re gay, they aren’t really bisexual like I feel like, bisexuals are just, they’re just invisible for the most part on TV…bisexuals are kind of lumped in with gay but they aren’t as extreme, in a sense, like it’s like, again there’s that sort of space in between gay and straight that’s occupied by bisexuals that people don’t really know what to do with.

Though gay males have found a degree of representation on television, Chelsea is able to differentiate herself from them on the dimensions of gender as well as sexual orientation.

Bisexuality or any such representation of the “space in between gay and straight” is outside the purview of media depictions, giving her little to relate to as a viewer. Chelsea continues:

I don’t think they [media depictions of gay characters] necessarily affect gays or lesbians as much as they affect straight people because the gays and lesbians are living that identity. They understand how it is and it might, they might feel like they’re getting messages on how they should behave, or how they’re supposed to be, but um I think for the most part that’s something that, as your, as your identity like develops you can move away from, and constructing like the way you actually need to be to be true to your own identity, but I think for the most part like people, people tend to look at – straight people tend to look at these shows the same way you know like maybe like people look at like gangster movies and assume that’s exactly how it works in every instance or something like that.

Though she does indicate that gay viewers might look to media depictions for cues as to “how they’re supposed to be,” Chelsea suggests the main usefulness of media depictions of socially stigmatized characters may be for the viewers that do not share the stigmatized status. For gay viewers, true authenticity involves moving away from focus on media depictions and building

“the way you actually need to be to be true to your own identity,” which presumably means liberating oneself from being influenced by media images. Straight people, however, might look to media for information about the gay community, and place stock in the portrayals as being

149

universal. Gay people can recognize that the images don’t offer the full scope of their lived

experience, but straight people might take the images as a complete representation.

The statements in this section show that not all gay television viewers identify an

influence between media portrayals and their own identities. Perhaps it is significant, though,

that several address the notion that perhaps others are indeed directly influenced by media

portrayals. As noted before, even among those who discussed a direct media influence on their

identity formation, quantifying or even recognizing influence of the media on one’s identity is a

challenge. Despite their own feelings that they were not influenced themselves, even most of the

interviewees quoted in the last section found that at least potentially, viewers are affected by the

media images they imbibe.

Summary

While the previous chapter discussed respondent’s assessments of gay identity portrayals

on television, the comments in this chapter speak to the uses that gay viewers have made of these

portrayals. The images are sometimes beneficial, sometimes neutral, and sometimes detrimental.

The examples in this chapter show that the gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants professed a full range of responses to the question of whether or not the media influences perceptions of identity for viewers. Three sets of interview responses emerged from the respondents when asked about the ways they perceived their own personal identity interfacing with media depictions of gay and lesbian characters’ identity frames. One set of participants readily acknowledged media influence regarding their sexual identities, another set perceived media influences tangential to sexual identity, and the third set perceived no media influence on their identities. Among the six interviewees who claim to have experienced no media influence, two are lesbians, two are bisexual women, and two are gay men. Therefore, no one interviewee subset dominated this

150 category. Also, these six interviewees represented a range of ages, thus there is insufficient evidence to suggest that older generations are less likely to be influenced by media given the more limited representations available when they were in their formative years. As previously noted, even these six sometimes implied or stated that media effects on viewers were possible, particularly for the younger people who are now able to come out in a media environment which does indeed recognize the existence of gay people.

While no interviewee suggested a broad and all-encompassing media effect in his or her life, respondents sometimes took cues from the media as to how to look or dress and/or what character traits they wished to emulate or avoid emulating. Although the data suggest that media may not be the primary source for information about identity as a gay person, this study does suggest that media images are salient guides for gay and lesbian people. These images may provide options for how to enact gay identity and present themselves in their societal roles.

Among some respondents, media images were presumed to not have directly influenced sexual identity. But there were still other satisfactions associated with media portrayals of gay characters, and even inspiration motivated by the accomplishments of a character, for these viewers.

With the exception of one interviewee, participants did not make concerted efforts to close themselves off from or generally avoid media images. In fact, when asked, many noted that they made particular effort to view programs with gay and lesbian characters to support their existence. This suggests that media images may be a significant component for assessment of gay communal identity frames. Yet, many of the respondents reported dissatisfaction with media forms such as television to offer portrayals that speak to a full realm of possibilities for gay people. Still, media seems to be one source of information for the development of self. Even

151 when respondents did not report relatable television images, they typically expressed an active pursuit of these images. In the next and final chapter, I explore some of the conclusions and implications of the two studies that comprise this project.

152

Chapter 8: Discussion

These studies were exploratory in nature, seeking to examine various dimensions of gay identity on television and to explore assessments of portrayals of television’s portrayals of gay identity from gay viewers themselves. The two related studies in this project sought to gain a greater understanding of gay identity by investigating areas that have been seldom explored in previous research. While no analysis could fully capture all the aspects of gay identity portrayed on fictional television shows, the analysis of the three texts in this project pointed out that television portrayals at least hint at the complexity of gay identity. The struggle and pain sometimes involved with self-identifying as gay, identifying as gay to others, and negotiating gay identity within a predominantly heterosexual society all have been depicted on television.

However, analyses in the first study revealed that perhaps gay characters on television can be, and are, more fully developed beyond sexual orientation. Defining oneself professionally, dealing with platonic relational partners, and identifying with other “communities” besides the gay community are, of course, all part of the gay experience. Yet, there seems to be much more territory that television could usefully explore. More entertainment media portraying gay characters as fully engaged, engaged not just with their sexualities and romantic partners, but also with their families, careers, and societies, would enrich the media landscape greatly.

The interviews with self-identifying gay, lesbian, and bisexual television viewers revealed a wide range of responses. While some expressed disdain for portrayals that they considered one-dimensional, others found some portrayals to be complex and relatable.

Obviously, responses to the portrayals were delimited by the particular sampling of gay character portrayals that a particular interviewee had viewed. Meanwhile, interviewees also offered differing responses about the influence of such media images in their own lives. While some

153 could recognize a direct influence of the media on their identity, others maintained that there was no direct influence.

There are several general conclusions from these studies. The first is that media and television images are a present influence in the ongoing management of gay identity. Many participants felt that media portrayals of gay identities had influenced the shaping of their own identities. Meanwhile, even some of those that didn’t acknowledge media influence have scanned the media landscape for potentially useful images. Also, many interviewees noted that they felt there was a very real potential for the media to significantly influence others, particularly those struggling with sexual identity issues. This recognizes a general assumption that media images are a factor in the ongoing management of gay identity. In fact, it may be interesting to interrogate whether an individual who presumes that only others are affected by media images are genuinely as immune to its possible influence as they contend they are. It is possible that some individuals are not immediately able to recognize that they too have been influenced in some sense, and express the potential of media influence through statements focused on others.

Interviewees generally expressed interest in television portrayals of gay characters and some degree of attention to them, yet few reported them as a primary source of information on gay identity. Yet while no interviewees perceived that television provided them with scripts for how to behave, they revealed that television portrayed “possibilities” to inform aspects of identity. Generally, participants suggested that television and media images supplemented actual social interactions to influence their identities. However, it is unclear how these images supplement everyday lived experiences on gay identity. Scholars interested in gay identity management could examine the direct and indirect influence of media images further.

154

Some observations can be made when looking at each of the three identity dimensions

(personal, relational, and communal) across the two studies. Regarding the personal level, the analysis of the character David on Six Feet Under found a depth and range of experience that portrayed him as much more than simply a gay person. This contrasts with the assessments of many interviewees, who thought that gay characters on television were identified as gay and given little else in the way of personality. Still, some respondents did sense a spectrum of portrayals that suggested television was exploring some of the possibilities regarding whom gay characters are and how they might be portrayed.

At the relational level, the studies uncovered strains on and limitations to the relationships gay characters on television have. Rhetorical analysis observed a complexity in relational depictions on Will & Grace that was not necessarily very affirming of either gay- straight relationships or non-romantic relationships between gay people. Many interviewees sense no complexity at all in the relationships of gay characters on television, while others did note significant bonds between the characters. Just as the rhetorical analysis of Will & Grace involved no study of gay romantic relationships due to their absence on the show, participants often noted that gay characters seemed to be disallowed sex lives. This sometimes results in the somewhat ironic construct of a character that, one the one hand, is primarily defined by sexuality, but on the other, does not actually exercise that sexuality in a recognizable fashion.

When romantic relationships are shown, some participants would question whether either

“romantic” or “relationship” are appropriate designations for the portrayals of gay sexuality, as the more-explicit shows offer gay couplings that are opportunistic and fleeting.

Communal level observations in both studies called into question the proper definition and understanding of what community is and where it might be found. Contradictions and

155 unresolved tensions in the portrayal of gay community in Queer as Folk echo the thoughts of interviewees that a cohesive sense of community might be more elusive than might be assumed.

Quandaries over definitions of gay community as a social entity or a politically-oriented community came through in both studies, as well. The specific efforts of many interviews to view programs featuring gay themes and characters also suggest that television portrayals might be viewed as a form of gay communal experience. Participants often considered their viewing of programs with gay characters to be acts that supported the community and served to encourage programmers to offer more depictions.

Implications

This project has several implications that are prescriptive in nature. The first major implication is that television programmers can and should experiment with more and more varied representations of non-heterosexual characters. This suggestion is based on the results of both the studies in this project. Among the gay characters on three programs strategically chosen for analysis, there is not a single non-Caucasian regular character. The gay males greatly outnumber the lesbians. Very few of the characters are financially strapped. And, as is suggested by referring to them as “gay characters,” none of the characters self-identify as anything other than gay or lesbian. The lack of diversity was very much noted by interviewees, most notably by the female participants who self-identified as bisexual. These and other participants decried the depictions of sexuality on television in the familiar gay/straight binary. Characters whose sexuality cannot easily be categorized are presumably threatening to programmers, who may fear that characters whose sexual orientations defy easy labeling may lack resonance to audiences.

Beyond bisexual individuals, there are individuals who identify as asexual, and individuals who simply do not self-identify themselves with any of the familiar terms reflecting sexual

156

orientation. Numerous participants in this study noted there is an audience that is essentially

unrepresented on television, people who do not define themselves sexually as either gay or

straight, that is ready to embrace characters that are similar in this regard.

More specifically, the findings of both studies suggest that television portrayals of gay

characters largely place males in the privileged position and females in the subordinate role. The

general lack of lesbian characters reinforces a degree of invisibility for the lesbian population.

The fact that interviewees found that discussion of gay characters on television defaulted to

discussion of gay male characters has disturbing implications; beyond this, the gay male

portrayals themselves sometimes endorse the denigration of women and/or female-identified

mannerisms, ideas, or relationship orientations. Traditionally masculine gay male characters

often express or reinforce notions of their own identity as differentiated from, and superior to,

that of both gay and straight women. This superiority is extended to the less masculine gay males

among them, due to the effeminate manners and female-identified habits of these men. While

Showtime’s program The L Word has certainly provided some valuable representation of lesbian characters, no single program could be enough to fill the large vacuum of strong portrayals of gay women.

Programmers can also feature more and more varied non-heterosexual characters simply to capitalize on the enticing dramatic possibilities of such portrayals. The gay male/heterosexual female friendship at the center of Will & Grace resonates with audiences, but this novel dynamic is merely the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, while non-heterosexual characters can of course participate in any type of plotline in which their sexual orientations are immaterial, there is also great dramatic potential for portrayals of the complexities of life that are unique to the non- heterosexual population. For example, a situation such as a character navigating a family get-

157

together where some relatives know the true nature of the “friendship” between the character and his or her guest could be portrayed as all-out farce, trenchant drama, or a combination of comedy and drama. Portrayals of complex gay characters with multifaceted lives and identities would bring out new dramatic territory for heterosexual characters as well, through their relationships

with the gay characters.

Lack of diversity applies even to the geographic settings of shows with gay characters.

While numerous interviewees grew up in rural backgrounds, most programs are set in cities with significant gay populations. The three programs analyzed are examples: Six Feet Under takes place in Los Angeles, Will & Grace is set in New York City, and the characters of Queer as Folk are based in a gay-centered, though fictional, neighborhood in Pittsburgh. As gay people exist in all parts of society and in all geographical areas of the country, gay characters need to appear in settings in which their presence is not necessarily expected but nonetheless entirely realistic. The recent film Brokeback Mountain surprised the American public with an unexpectedly resonant portrayal of two cowboys with a fiercely committed lifelong bond. Television can and should explore new territory as well. Programmers need to mine the experiences of the non-heterosexual population in society to reflect more accurately the diversity of experiences that are indeed typical in American life. Such portrayals will resonate not only with socially stigmatized audiences, but also with all others who at one time or another struggled with their own identities.

In other words, the themes to be brought out from deeper portrayals of gay characters are universal.

As noted earlier, one significant point from this research is that the non-heterosexual respondents did see the potential for television to be a viable media form for reflecting a range of identities and experiences of non-heterosexual individuals in American society. Many held the

158 view, even though they felt it is not current living up to its promise. Therefore, another general implication of the studies is that media images may be a significant influence on those who are

“coming out” or struggling to define or understand their sexual identities. In fact, media images may be an important talking point for counselors and others working with gay or sexually questioning youth. Specific media images and their relative merits could be usefully referenced to explore “possibilities for being” in the realm of sexual identity. Through critical engagement with such media depictions, stereotypes could be discussed, contextualized, and perhaps undermined. The integration of non-heterosexual identity into one’s full sense of personhood can be a process involving much resistance and many stumbles. Allowing those who are struggling with this process to discuss what they take from media images could be a useful tool to ensure that media images are not having unduly significant influence. Also, such a discussion would help negotiate a sense of personhood in which sexual identity is not seen as the basis of self- definition, but rather as a facet of identity that is considered to be unproblematic. Enhancing conscious reflection of media depictions of gay characters would be useful for heterosexual viewers as well, because they might get a better understanding of the complexity of all forms of sexual identity.

While the inclination might be to tie the idea that media images may be an important construct when defining non-heterosexual identity specifically to young people, it must be noted that individuals might be codifying or struggling with their sexual identities at any age or stage of life. Of course, when older individuals deal with sexual identity redefinition – presumably they are redefining themselves as non-heterosexual after previously identifying as heterosexual – the media representations may be more removed from their experiences, since television leans toward gay characters that are on the younger spectrum of the age scale. Sexually questioning

159

people older than their 20s is yet another population that is little-represented on television. These individuals may have residual recollections of a media landscape that was devoid of gay characters, or that only offered negative portrayals. At the same time, they also may be more skeptical or questioning of media in general, and more prone to dismiss possible influence. Still, the realm of media intake and the assessment of imbibed images merit exploration. The volume of media images an individual observes, how closely an individual scrutinizes media images, and how influenced an individual is by media images will vary greatly from person to person.

However, the potential usefulness of media images, and/or the containment of their damages, is a valuable construct for discussion with sexually questioning people of all ages.

Limitations

The interview study in this project was limited by the sample, which was overwhelmingly white and included only individuals that are particularly well-adjusted in terms of their gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. Further study should investigate a more ethnically diverse sample.

As Caucasian viewers look to television and see mainly Caucasian gay characters, viewers of color have far fewer representations, and the implications of this are worth investigating.

Similarly, since bisexuality is essentially not recognized by mainstream media, research could focus specifically on identity construction and management for those who identify as bisexual or, more generally, for those who do not identify as either heterosexual or homosexual. Within both television’s portrayals of non-heterosexual characters and, perhaps, society’s conceptions of non- heterosexual individuals, there is apparently less recognition of women than men, less recognition of non-white than white, and less recognition of bisexuality than homosexuality.

Research should focus on other socially marginalized identities besides this study’s focus (“gay identity”) as the subject of study.

160

Additionally, the participants in the study were generally well-educated, with all interviewees having some years of college, with some holding and some in the process of obtaining advanced degrees. Future research can inquire into the relationship between educational level and the level of awareness and intake of, significance of, and skepticism toward, media images and messages. Whether education level is connected to forms of media influence is an intriguing and unanswered question. Other specific suggestions for future research are discussed below.

Future Research

The first study in this project looked at three programs, and by the completion of the project, two of the three programs (Six Feet Under and Queer as Folk) concluded their runs and the third (Will & Grace) is also drawing to a close. Researchers should attend to the new generation of gay portrayals on television to assess how gay identity is portrayed on television in a social context that continues to place gays at the center of political debate about equal rights and marriage rights. Additional systematic analyses of programs could compare and contrast major broadcast network programs with programs that appear on “narrow-cast” cable channels, which allow for more experimentation with, and explicitness in, content. Several new gay- entertainment channels have debuted in recent years, and niche basic-cable channels such as

Bravo and MTV have become reliable outlets for programming featuring gays. Instead of focusing on specific programs, research could explore implications of gay programming as a component of a channel’s identity. The functions of portrayals of non-heterosexual as normal, or at least non-stigmatized, are worth looking at. In a general sense, more research is needed to address gay identity on television, both on programs other than those discussed here as well as on aspects or dimensions of identity besides the three addressed in this study. Further research

161 will lead to a better understanding how identity is constructed for this socially stigmatized group on what is the most immediate form of visual media, television.

Additionally, these studies dealt almost exclusively with fictional gay characters in scripted television dramas or comedies. The portrayals of gay people on reality shows and on news programs merit attention as well, as these representations are indeed putatively “real” images of actual gay people in society. Also, these studies were conceived and conducted just before a media firestorm over gay rights erupted in concert with the 2004 Presidential election.

The censoring of mild same-sex partner images on television in the children’s television show

“Buster,” the explosion of anti-gay marriage initiatives, and the 2004 Presidential election itself, are a few of the happenings that occurred after the interviews were conducted. The responses of gay and lesbian audiences to the widespread efforts to preclude gay marriage and otherwise foreclose on rights for gay people merit study. Do gay people personalize these efforts, and if so, to what degree and in what ways? The effects of initiatives against same-sex marriage on gay identity are important to study, as are the effects of the anti-gay rhetoric endorsed by officials of the Catholic Church. Also, the effects of media representations of those espousing an anti-gay political agenda have on gay identity require attention.

Many interviewees presume that the visibility of gay characters on television today is beneficial for those who are part of the current generation of individuals who are newly self- defining as gay. Therefore, researchers could study the use and possible influence of media images to those of any age that are in the process of self-defining themselves with a sexual identity other than heterosexual. Whether television portrayals of gay people can generally be of use to individuals who are coming to terms with socially-stigmatized sexual identity is an additional worthy, but not fully answered, question. While an individual’s personal interactions

162 with people and his or her environment will certainly have a distinct influence on that individual’s process of defining sexual identity, the role of media images of gay identity to facilitate or possibly to confound this process merits further investigation.

Conclusion

While interview participants found things lacking in terms of depictions of gay people on television, this should not suggest that they found no entertainment or social value in what they viewed. Interviewees differed on how successful or useful they found current depictions of gay identity on television to be. However, participants often expressed hope that in the future there would be more gay characters overall and more variety in the portrayal of non-heterosexual people and their experiences.

Listening to the voices of people who are underrepresented or unrepresented in American popular culture can let us know what is missing from the media landscape which, for better or worse, is a source of a great deal of information for many people. Several interviewees noted how media representation either reflected or encouraged a degree of social legitimacy for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. While no participants were wholly impressed with television depictions of gay characters, most were greatly pleased that representation does exist. Overall, there is reason to hope that in the future, even more diversified non-heterosexual identities are likely to be available to all television viewers.

163

References

Abernathy, M. (2001). Six Feet Under. Popmatters.com. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews/s/six-feet-under.html.

Adams, G. R., Gullota, T. P., & Montemayor, R. (1992). Adolescent identity formation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Andries, L. (Writer), & Coulter, A. (Director). (2001). Crossroads [Television series episode]. In C. Taylor, R. Cleveland, & L. Andries (Producers), Six feet under. Hollywood, CA: The Greenblatt-Janollari Studio.

Ball, A. (Writer & Director). (2001a). Pilot [Television series episode]. In C. Taylor (Producer), Six feet under. Hollywood, CA: The Greenblatt-Janollari Studio.

Ball, A. (Writer & Director). (2001b). Knock knock [Television series episode]. In C. Taylor, R. Cleveland, & L. Andries (Producers), Six feet under. Hollywood, CA: The Greenblatt- Janollari Studio.

Barr, A. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999a). My fair maid-y [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Barr, A. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999b). Object of my rejection [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

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, 87-105.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday and Co.

Bohm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke, Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 267-275). London: Sage.

Bosma, H. A., Graafsma, T. L. G., Grotevant, H. D., & de Levita, D. J. (Eds.). (1994). Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Botta, R. A. (1999). Television images and adolescent girls' body image disturbance. Journal of Communication, 49, 22-41. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from Proquest database.

Bozell, L. B. (2000, December 15). Queer as Folk: TV's latest sign of decline. Human Events, 56, 16+. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from Proquest database.

164

Bruni, F. (1999). Culture stays screen-shy of showing the gay kiss. In L. Gross & J. D. Woods (Eds.), The Columbia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics (pp. 327-329). New York: Columbia University Press.

Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F. & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229-246.

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternate channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on radio and television. New York: Ballantine Books.

Cockburn, D. (Ed.). (1991). Human beings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cowen, R., Lipman, D. (Writers), & Mulcahy, R. (Director). (2000a). Pilot [Television series episode]. In K. Inch & S. Hockin (Producers), Queer as folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Cowen, R., Lipman, D. (Writers), & Mulcahy, R. (Director). (2000b). Episode 102 [Television series episode]. In K. Inch & S. Hockin (Producers), Queer as Folk. Toronto,Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Cowen, R., Lipman, D. (Writers), & Mulcahy, R. (Director). (2000c). Episode 103 [Television series episode]. In K. Inch & S. Hockin (Producers), Queer as Folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Cowen, R., Lipman, D. (Writers), & Wellington, D. (Director). (2001). Episode 107 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Queer as folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Curran, P. (2001, June 2). Six Feet Under tackles final taboo: New cable drama follows a dysfunctional family that owns a funeral home in Los Angeles. The Montreal Gazette, D7. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from LexisNexis database.

Doty, A. (1993). Making things perfectly queer: Interpreting mass culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dow, B. J. (2001). Ellen, television, and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 123-140.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

Fejes, F. (2000). Making a gay masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 113-16.

165

Fejes, F., & Petrich, K. (1993). Invisibility and heterosexism: Lesbians, gays, and the media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 10, 396-422.

Feldman, S. S., & Elliott, G. R. (Eds.). (1990). At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320.

Gilbert, M. (2001, August 17). One of television’s better undertakings. Boston Globe, C4. Retrieved October 9, 2003, from Proquest database.

Greenhouse, L. (2003, June 27). Justices, 6-3, legalize gay sexual conduct in sweeping reversal of court's '86 ruling. New York Times, pp. A1, A17.

Gross, L. (1998). Minorities, majorities and the media. In T. Liebes & J. Curran (Eds.), Media, ritual and identity, pp. 87-102. London: Routledge.

Gross L., & Woods, J. D. (1999). Up from invisibility: Film and television. In L. Gross & J. D. Woods (Eds.), The Columbia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics (pp. 291-296). New York: Columbia University Press.

Handy, B. (1997, April 14). Roll over, Ward Cleaver. Time, 80-86.

Hantzis, D. M., & Lehr, V. (1994). Whose desire? Lesbian (non)sexuality and television's perpetuation of hetero/sexism. In R. J. Ringer (Ed.), Queer words, queer images: Communication and the construction of homosexuality (pp. 107-121). New York: New York University Press.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002 – A research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76-82.

Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hecht, M. L., Faulkner, S. L., Meyer, C. R., Niles, TA, Golden, D., & Cutler, M. (2002). Looking through "Northern Exposure" at Jewish American identity and the communication theory of identity. Journal of Communication, 52, 852-869.

Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. A. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture. Mohwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holden, S. (2001, August 31). Where the real successes are. New York Times, pp. B1, B8.

166

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity in a postmodern world. New York: Oxford Press.

Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2001). A multidimensional approach to homosexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1-20.

Jacobs, A. J. (1998, October 23). When gay men happen to straight women. Entertainment Weekly, pp. 20-27.

Johnson, A. (2003, February 28). Six Feet Under uncovers life, soul in a funeral home. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved October 9, 2003, from Proquest database.

Kaplan, B. E. (Writer), & Patterson, J. (Director). (2001). The foot [Television series episode]. In C. Taylor & L. Andries (Producers), Six feet under. Hollywood, CA: The Greenblatt- Janollari Studio.

Keller, J. R. (2002). Queer (un)friendly film and television. Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland.

Kilday, G. (2001, June 19). Is it good for gays? The Advocate, 66-73. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from Proquest database.

King, M. P., Proust, T., Kinnally, J. (Writers), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999). Will works out [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Kiska, T. (2000, December 2). The real deal: Showtime's "Queer as Folk" adds another layer to honest portrayals of gay TV characters – their sex lives. Detroit News. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from Proquest database.

Kohan, D., Mutchnik, M. (Writers), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1998a). Pilot [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Kohan, D., Mutchnik, M. (Writers), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1998b). Head case [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Kohan, D., Mutchnik, M. (Writers), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999a). Big brother is coming (part 1) [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Kohan, D., Mutchnik, M. (Writers), & Burrows, J. (1999b). Big brother is coming (part 2) [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

167

Kramer, R. (Writer), & DiMarco, S. (Director). (2001). Episode 108 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Queer as folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Kramer, R., Cowen, R. Lipman, D. (Writers), & Greyson, J. (Director). (2001). Episode 112 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Queer as Folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Lacroix, C., & Westerfelhaus, R. (2005). From the closet to the loft: Liminal license and socio- sexual expression in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6, 11-20.

Lefkowitz, D. (2001). Negotiated and mediated meanings: Ethnicity and politics in Israeli newspapers. Anthropological Quarterly, 74, 179-189. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from Proquest database.

Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readings of Dallas. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marchinko, J. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1998). Where there’s a Will, there’s no way [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Montgomery, K. C. (1989). Target: Prime time. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ostrow, J. (2000, December 3). Gay sex takes off the wraps: Queer as Folk delivers explicit look at homosexual subculture. Denver Post, I.01. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from Proquest database.

Palmer, K. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999). Grace, replaced [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producer), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Ponse, B. (1978). Identities in the lesbian world: The social construction of self. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

168

Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Rhode, D. L. (1995). Media images, feminist issues. Signs, 20, 685+. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from Proquest database.

Rich, F. (2003a, June 20). Gay kiss: Business as usual. New York Times, section 2, pp. 1, 7.

Rich, F. (2003b, August 10). And now, the queer eye for straight marriage. New York Times, section 2, pp. 1, 16.

Robin, K. (Writer), & Garcia, R. (Director). (2001). A private life [Television series episode]. In C. Taylor, R. Cleveland, & L. Andries (Producers), Six feet under. Hollywood, CA: The Greenblatt-Janollari Studio.

Rosel, N. (2001). Inconspicuous consumption: How a small sample of rural elders see images in the media. Generations, 3, 47-51. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from Proquest database.

Russo, V. (1985). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the movies. New York: Harper & Row.

Sanderson, T. (1995). Mediawatch: The treatment of male and female homosexuality in the British media. London: Cassell.

Savel, D. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1999). Secrets and lays [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producers), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Schafer, J. (Writer), & Skogland, K. (Director). (2001). Episode 105 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Queer as folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Schafer J., Tolins, J. (Writers), & Mulcahy, R. (Director). (2001). Episode 118 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Queer as folk. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Shugart, H. A. (2003). Reinventing privilege: The new (gay) man in contemporary popular media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20, 67-91.

Signorile, M. (1995). Outing yourself: How to come out as lesbian or gay to your family, friends, and coworkers. New York: Random House.

Silverman, D. (2003). Analyzing Talk and Text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 340-362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

169

Snierson, D. (2003, March 14). Beyond the grave. Entertainment Weekly, 16-27.

Stienke, J. (1998). Connecting theory and practice: Women scientist role models in television programming. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 142-151. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from Proquest database.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Svetsky, B. (2000, October 6). Is your TV set gay? Entertainment Weekly, 24-28.

Tolins, J. (Writer), & Skogland, K. (Director). (2001). Episode 106 [Television series episode]. In S. Hockin (Producer), Will & Grace. Toronto, Canada: Tony Jonas Productions.

Tropiano, S. (2002a). The prime time closet: A history of gays and lesbians on TV. New York: Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.

Tropiano, S. (2002b). Post-Ellen blues (or lack of?): Gay and lesbian characters on prime time. Popmatters.com. Retrieved March 31, 2003, from http://popmatters.com/columns/ tropiano/021016.shtml.

Walker, W. L. (Writer), & Burrows, J. (Director). (1998). William, tell [Television series episode]. In J. Marchinko & T. Kaiser (Producer), Will & Grace. Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment.

Walters, S. D. (2001). All the rage: The story of gay visibility in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Warren, C. A. B. (1974). Identity and community in the gay world. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Waters, H. (1977, June 13). 99 and 44/100% impure. Newsweek, 92.

Weinraub, B. (2000, November 20). A new Showtime series will focus on gay sexuality. New York Times, E1+. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from Proquest database.

Weinraub, B., & Rutenberg, J. (2003, July 29). Gay-themed TV gains a wider audience. New York Times, pp. A1, C5.

Whisman, V. (1996). Queer by choice: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of identity. New York: Routledge.

Wildman, S. (2004, December 7). Bushwhacked again. The Advocate, pp. 26-27.

170

Appendix: Interview Guide

I. Gay identity questions 1. Tell me about who you are as a gay person today. a. Tell me the story about how you arrived at this identity. b. What events or moments in time were critical in forming this identity? 2. Are you “out” to others? a. What family members are you out to? b. What friends are you out to? c. What coworkers are you out to? 3. What was (is) the process of coming out like for you? a. Are you not out to anyone that you would like to be out to, and if so, who? b. How do you judge whether or not to come out to someone? 4. How happy are you with your current identity as a gay or lesbian individual? a. How happy are you with your core sense of being, your subjective sense of self as a GL (gay or lesbian) person? b. How happy are you with your relationships with other people, where the matter of sexual preference is concerned? c. How much of a connection to you feel with a “gay community,” both at a local level and a national level?

II. Depiction of GL characters on entertainment television questions 1. Please talk to me about the television programs you have watched (or currently watch) that feature at least one gay or lesbian character. a. How aware are you of the various programs on television that have one or more gay or lesbian characters? b. What efforts, if any, do you make to learn about and/or view programs that feature gay or lesbian characters? 2. Talk to me about your perceptions of depictions of gay and lesbian characters that you’ve seen on television. a. In your opinion, what kinds of personal identities do these fictional TV characters embody (personal identity meaning core sense of self, a subjective conception of who one is)? b. In your opinion, how do GL characters express their identity to other characters and to the audience through dialogue? c. What kinds of things do other characters (gay or straight) say about gay and lesbian characters? d. What kind of social/cultural identities are depicted (this refers to how GL characters are depicted, if at all, as forming their own social group as well as how the characters are depicted as operating in a predominantly heterosexual society)? e. How do these TV depictions convey how GL people are supposed to be in relationships with others (both gay and straight)? 3. What is your opinion of the depictions of GL characters on television? a. What do you think of the way the characters are portrayed at the personal level?

171

b. What is your opinion of the way the GL characters verbally describe themselves? c. What is your opinion of the way GL characters are referenced/described by other characters (gay or straight)? d. What do you think about how GL characters are shown as a community, and how they are shown in relationship to a largely heterosexual society?

III. Media identity frames and personal salience 1. In what ways have these media depictions of GL individuals shaped your own self- concept as a GL individual? a. If they have, how and in what ways have they influenced your personal, relational, and/or communal sense of identity? b. If they have not, do you think television depictions affect other gay or lesbian people, and if so, how? 2. Do you think television programmers and creators/writers of shows with gay and lesbian characters have any specific obligations to gay and lesbian individuals, and if so, what are they? a. Do they have any obligation to depict gay and lesbian individuals at all, and if so, why? b. Do they have any obligation to depict gay and lesbian individuals in specific ways, and if so, what ways? 3. Please tell me anything else you would like to tell me about your identity as a GL person and/or your responses to media depictions of GL characters.

Mr. Lyn J. Freymiller Curriculum Vitae April 2006 Department of Communication Arts and Sciences The Pennsylvania State University 234 Sparks Building University Park, PA 16801 Home Phone: 814-235-9601 Office Phone: 814-865-8332 Email: [email protected]

Education

Ph.D. candidate Communication Arts and Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. GPA (4.0 scale): 3.95. Defense passed; degree expected: May, 2006. Dissertation Title: “They Tell Us Who We Are, They Tell Us Who We Aren’t”: Gay Identity on Television and Off Program of study emphasizes rhetorical studies; interests include rhetorical theory and criticism, media analysis, identity, qualitative research methods, gay and lesbian rhetoric Dissertation Committee: Dr. Michelle Miller-Day (chair and advisor), Dr. Thomas Benson, Dr. Ronald Jackson, Dr. Stephanie Shields (Psychology).

M.A. Communication Department, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. GPA (4.0 scale): 3.883. Degree conferred August, 1996. Thesis committee: Kathryn Olson (head), Dr. Barry Brummett, Dr. Renee Meyers.

B.A. Communication Department, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Degree conferred May 1992.

Academic Employment and Teaching Experience

The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, Pennsylvania. Department of Communication Arts & Sciences. Graduate Teaching Assistant, 2000- 2004; Fixed-term Faculty, 2004-present. University of Wisconsin – Waukesha. Waukesha, Wisconsin. Communication Department. Associate Lecturer. Summer 1999-Spring 2000. Edgewood College. Madison, Wisconsin. Communication Arts Department. Instructor. Fall 1996-Spring 2000. Carroll College. Waukesha, Wisconsin. Communication Department. Instructor. Fall 1999- Spring 2000. University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Communication Department. Graduate Teaching Assistant/Instructor. Fall 1995-Summer 1996.