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,