A Framing Analysis of Pictures from New York's Gay Pride Celebrations

Home , Atlanta Pride, Dykes on Bikes, Pride flag, Pride in London, Pride parade, The Eagle (bar)

GAY PRIDE: A FRAMING ANALYSIS OF PICTURES FROM

NEW YORK’S GAY PRIDE CELEBRATIONS

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Communication Studies

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Communication Studies

Ryan K. Pritchard

FALL 2018

Ryan K. Pritchard

GAY PRIDE: A FRAMING ANALYSIS OF PICTURES FROM

NEW YORK’S GAY PRIDE CELEBRATIONS

A Thesis

Ryan K. Pritchard

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Dr. Jacqueline Irwin

______, Second Reader Dr. Michele Foss-Snowden

______, Third Reader Dr. Nicholas Burnett

______Date

iii

Student: Ryan Pritchard

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Dr. Shawna Malvini-Redden Date

Department of Communication Studies

Abstract

GAY PRIDE: A FRAMING ANALYSIS OF PICTURES FROM

NEW YORK’S GAY PRIDE CELEBRATIONS

Ryan K. Pritchard

This study examines the rhetoric of gay pride parades from their inception to their current incarnation though the examination of selected published photographs in The New York

Times. The study analyzes six photographs from New York City’s gay pride celebrations, each corresponding with a significant event affecting the LGBTQIA rights movement. The study uses Entman’s (1993) four aspects of framing as its primary theory to analyze the selected images from LGBTQIA pride parades/festivals and combines

Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, Gregory Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity and hegemony to supplement the theory and further examine the many factors comprising gay pride celebrations. The goal of this thesis is to illustrate that gay pride parades and festivals have changed from a form of civil protest to a celebratory event that is overtly sexual in nature.

______, Committee Chair Dr. Jacqueline Irwin

______Date v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“It takes a village” does not begin to describe the endeavor that is writing your thesis; accordingly, there are several people worthy of thanks. These people assisted me throughout graduate school as well as the thesis writing process. It goes without saying, but this thesis would not be what it is without their help.

Dr. Irwin – your patience throughout the never-ending process that is “thesis-ing” was exemplary. I tested it repeatedly and you always knew exactly what to say and do. It took me significantly longer to complete my thesis than it should have, but you were always there reminding me to “just write”.

Dr. Foss-Snowden – Your guiding hand has been there since 100b and words cannot express how much you have changed my life. You knew what I wanted before I did and you subtly ensured I took advantage of every opportunity. You are truly the best.

Dr. Burnett – You have taught me to remain strong in my convictions, always fight for what I know is right while showing humility and grace.

Ellen Galena, Gwenna McGrath and Kristen Wacaster – You have proofread and edited more than anyone’s fair share of graduate papers and this thesis. I am truly humbled by your friendship and devotion to my education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments...... vi

List of Figures ...... viii

Glossary ...... ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 22

3. ANALYSIS ...... 56

4. CONCLUSIONS ...... 85

References ...... 96

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page

1. Gay Pride - 1970………………………………….……………………………. 58

2. Gay Pride - 1986……………………………….………………………………. 63

3. Gay Pride - 1994……………………………….………………………………. 68

4. Gay Pride - 2003……………………………….………………………………. 71

5. Gay Pride - 2015……………………………….………………………………. 76

6. Gay Pride - 2016……………………………….………………………………. 80

viii

GLOSSARY

This study rhetorically examines pride parades from their inception to their current

incarnation. In a study such as this there are bound to be words, phrases or concepts that

are foreign to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. The following words

and phrases are used throughout this study. Having some familiarity or understanding of

the words, phrases and concepts from the onset will assist by familiarizing the material

and providing a concrete definition for the terms.

Heteronormative - noting or relating to behavior or attitudes consistent with traditional male or female gender roles and the assumption of heterosexuality as the norm.

Homonormative - a word addressing the problems of privilege seen in the queer community today as they intersect with white privilege, capitalism, sexism, transmisogyny and cissexism, all of which end up leaving many people out of the movement toward greater sexual freedom and equality.

LGBTQIA – an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and allies.

Pride parades/celebrations – events celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and allies.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court of the United States of America’s 2015

landmark decision to allow same-sex marriage (Erickson, 2015), homosexual men and

women have faced a long history of hatred, discrimination, and marginalization as

evidenced by events such as: the infamous and vicious murder of college student

Matthew Shepard (Willis, 2004), the criminalization of homosexual acts by psychiatrists

and the United States government (Silverstone, 2012), the suicide of closeted teen Tyler

Clementi, whose sexual encounter with another man was broadcast over the internet by

his dormitory roommate (Pilkington, 2010), the 1973 destruction by arson of the UpStairs

Lounge in New Orleans that killed 32-closeted homosexuals (Stack, 2016), and the 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Florida (Ellis, 2016). The road to acceptance of homosexuals through confirmation of their right to marry (Erickson, 2015), and other forms of equality, has been paved with decades upon decades of their coming- out, fighting, protesting, combating inaccurate stereotypes, decriminalizing sex between consenting same-sex partners, fighting against AIDS and its stigmas, and participating in,

what is at the time of publication of this thesis, 48-years of gay pride celebrations.

Gay pride celebrations have been held in public locations to create solidarity

among gays and lesbians through visibility, garnering overall attention for the gay and

lesbian community, and aiding in bringing about societal acceptance of gays and lesbians

in the United States (Armstrong, 2010). Due to the high visibility of gay pride

celebrations, they are watched by both homosexual and straight bystanders, making the

planning of these events arduous as the organizers must anticipate how both homosexuals

and heterosexuals will view the event so the parades can effectively appeal to and

persuade these multiple audiences. It is from this standpoint that this study takes shape.

This study examines the rhetoric of gay pride parades from their inception to their current

incarnation though the examination of selected published photographs in The New York

Times. The study analyzes six photographs from New York City’s gay pride

celebrations, each corresponding with a significant event affecting the LGBTQIA rights

movement.

Origin of Gay Pride

While the words ‘gay pride celebration’ denote an air of fun, relaxation, and

community, historically these events have been anything but that (Katz, 2011).

According to Armstrong and Crage (2006), gay pride celebrations in America are

traceable to the Stonewall Riots that occurred on the weekend of June 27-28, 1969, in

New York City. To fully appreciate the birth of gay pride in its current incarnation, it is

critical to understand the historical antecedents of homosexuals’ experiences in America

prior to the Stonewall Riots. During this time span, gays in America were marginalized, discriminated against in employment and housing, considered social deviants, and their sexual orientation was even regarded as being due to mental illness (Rimmerman, 2015).

As a result, very few people were honest or open regarding their sexuality, and those who were unable to hide their sexuality or nonconforming mannerisms often moved to larger cities where attitudes were slightly more accepting and it was easier for them to hide

(Bronski, 2011). In addition, Bronski (2011) reports that following World War II, many

lesbian and gay male veterans opted not to return to the small towns of their birth, but

rather migrated to enclaves in larger cities (e.g. Boston’s Beacon Hill, San Francisco’s

North Beach or New York’s Greenwich Village) where they believed they could live

their lives more openly (p. 179).

While larger cities around the United States were able to offer gays and lesbians

more acceptance than most small towns or rural areas, homosexuality was still considered

taboo and homosexual men and women faced many forms of discrimination and

marginalization (Bronski, 2011). In the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s many gay bars were forced

to be selective with whom they admitted into their establishments, as known gay and

lesbian gathering places were also subject to frequent illegal police raids (Gillespie,

2008). Years of oppression, shame, and secrecy, lives lived lurking in societal shadows,

and police harassment led up to the events that would jump start the LGBTQIA rights

movement in America: the Stonewall Riots.

Beginning the weekend of June 27-28, 1969, the patrons of the Stonewall Inn

found themselves in conflict with the New York City police. According to Rimmerman

(2015), at the time, it was routine for New York City police to conduct raids at any

suspected or known gay bar, as a means of harassment. On this night, Bronski (2011)

reports that police performed a routine raid at the Stonewall Inn and “evicted patrons and

arrested some of the staff. A crowd gathered outside and refused to leave. Clashes with

the police ensued. Even though the bar had been closed, crowds gathered again and the

scene was repeated, with less violence late Saturday evening” (p. 210). Alwood (2015) elaborated on the riot by noting: “when they began making arrests, young men outside

launched a rampage, throwing bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter in

protest” (p. 18). Rimmerman (2015) reported the riots lasted on and off for

approximately three days and became widely credited as being the motivating force of

the gay political movement (p. 22). The Stonewall Riots were the initiating event that led to the eradication of sodomy laws, eliminated the exclusion of gays and lesbians from public life and helped to abolish the sickness model of homosexuality being used by psychiatrists and doctors at the time (Rimmerman, 2015, p. 26).

To help commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, gays in

New York City planned “gay pride” events, including a parade (Hall, 2010). New York’s gay organizations reached out to other gay organizations in major cities across the United

States, so they could plan their own commemorative festivities:

Resolution #1: that the Annual Reminder, in order to be more relevant, reach a

greater number of people, and encompass the ideas and ideals of the larger

struggle in which we are engaged–that of our fundamental human rights—be

moved both in time and location. We propose that a demonstration be held

annually on the last Saturday in June in New York City to commemorate the 1969

spontaneous demonstrations on Christopher Street and this demonstration be

called CHRISTOPHER STREET LIBERATION DAY. No dress or age

regulations shall be made for this demonstration. We also propose that we contact

Homophile organizations throughout the country and suggest that they hold

parallel demonstrations on that day. We propose a nationwide show of support.

(Armstrong, 2006, p. 738)

In addition to recognizing the significance of the Stonewall Riots themselves, participating cities recognized the importance of having an annual gay pride parade:

In 1970, hosting a gay parade was indistinguishable from a gay protest or political

demonstration: a public gathering of homosexuals was perceived by authorities as

confrontational and by homosexuals as a courageous display of political

commitment. When Los Angeles activists applied for a parade permit, the Chief

of the Los Angeles Police reportedly told them, ‘Granting a parade permit to a

group of homosexuals to parade down Hollywood Boulevard would be the same

as giving a permit to a group of thieves and robbers’ (Christopher Street West

Association n.d.). After sustained legal challenges over months, the California

Superior Court issued an order for the parade permit and required police to

provide protection. (Armstrong, 2010, p. 740)

According to Armstrong (2006), the New York protestors, turned activists, initially only reached out to a small handful of major cities in 1970 (e.g. Los Angeles,

Chicago and San Francisco) to host the first ever gay pride parades/marches. While San

Francisco refused to participate, Los Angeles and Chicago rallied behind New York City and began planning their own gay pride parades (Armstrong & Crage, 2006).

Participating cities “recognized that Stonewall represented a victory over police that they had not yet achieved. They had arrived at the idea of commemoration, were willing to engage in public protest, and had built the infrastructure necessary to organize public protests” (Armstrong, 2010, p. 740).

For the first time in American history, homosexuals were marching down the

street in broad daylight, telling America they existed, they were not going away, and they

wanted to live their lives without shame or guilt (Armstrong & Crage, 2006). For the

first time in American history, homosexuals were demanding they be free from living life

in the societal shadows and free from continuous police harassment (Armstrong & Crage,

2006).

Neo Gay Pride

Over the course of time gay pride celebrations became a yearly event spreading from Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York to cities across America. With that expansion, pride celebrations began to evolve from a commemoration of the Stonewall

Riots to an event that increasingly celebrated being LGBTQIA. This evolution has brought gay pride parades to a new iteration the study is calling neo gay pride. In neo gay pride the visuals of these LGBTQIA men and women forced America (and arguably the world) to begin asking questions such as: What is gay pride? What is a gay pride parade? How should LGBTQIA members publically advocate for their rights? Why is gay pride sexual? Is gay pride too sexual? Perhaps the best method to begin answering these types of questions is to define exactly what a parade is. A parade, as defined by

Merriam-Webster, is “a public celebration of a special day or event that usually includes many people and groups moving down a street by marching or riding in cars or on special vehicles (called floats)” (2016). While there are variances between parades across the

United States of America (e.g. location of the parade, topic/theme of the parade, types of floats, etc.), most Americans are familiar with the concept/idea of a parade, as they have

7 seen parades of some fashion on television or attended them in person. While the Macy’s

Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City is an example of a larger parade most people are familiar with, many small towns across America have local parades to honor veterans, celebrate holidays such as St. Patrick’s Day or celebrate local events.

With a definition of a parade firmly established, the study can now begin to define what a gay pride parade is and how it differs from a traditional parade. As it turns out, what is lacking from the current research is a concrete definition that differentiates gay pride parades from any other form of traditional parades. In fact, while the research discusses gay pride parades extensively, it does so with the notion the reader already possesses a general understanding of what gay pride parades are. For purposes of this research, the study contends the Merriam-Webster definition of parade does describe the events occurring at gay pride parades, but fails to do them justice, as the definition does not account for the historical antecedents and subtexts present at these specific types of parades. The study contends that while a gay pride parade is a public celebration of a special day or event that does include many people or groups moving down a street by marching or riding in cars or on special vehicles, it is substantially more than this and can also include: events sponsored or hosted by local gay bars (either along the parade route or before/after the parade), pre- and post- pride parties at individual’s private residences, a festival following the parade route, costumes (elaborate or minimal), and the audience itself, which is comprised of individuals of every race, ethnicity, gender, familial status, and sexuality (e.g. gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc.) as well as children and pets.

Given the lengthy and arduous fight for LGBTQIA rights (some of which are still being fought for in 2018), one would expect that today’s pride events would serve as a reminder of older LGBTQIA individuals who bravely stood up to illegal police raids, laws that criminalized homosexual acts, as well as survived a time when living in the closet was a necessity. However, with time, gay pride parades across America have become less about pride and more commercialized, sexualized, and objectified

(Silverstone, 2012).

What started out as the expression of a group of people who were tired of being harassed and discriminated against (exemplified by the popular pride parade slogan

“We’re here, We’re Queer, Get Used to it”), has morphed into an excuse to openly engage in binge drinking, illegal drugs and indiscriminate sex (Katz, 2011). This type of behavior perpetuates negative stereotypes and serves as an unfavorable representation of gay culture (Silverstone, 2012). According to Gillespie (2008):

It is questionable whether the younger generation of GLBT persons is even aware

of the historical antecedents of the many gay and lesbian pride festivals held

across the country each June. Indeed, 35 years ago, it would have been difficult

to imagine the scale of today’s pride festivities, complete with corporate

sponsorship and police protection. (p. 642)

The coalescing of historical ignorance, corporate sponsorship, growing up in a less hostile climate of homophobia, a generation lost to HIV/AIDS, and seeing large public gay pride parades/festivals has changed the gay pride narrative from protest to celebration: neo gay pride.

Framing: An Introduction

With a solid understanding of the origin and modern iteration of gay pride parades, the study will examine Framing as its primary theory to analyze the selected images from gay pride parades/festivals. Framing is a tool commonly used to aid in examining mass media images and stories (Entman, 1993; Gamson, 1989; Hallahan,

1999). Gamson (1989) defines a frame as “a central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue” (p. 157). Framing provides the structure

to do this because at its basic level, it involves selection and salience (Entman, 1993).

“To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem, definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Gamson (1989) elaborates on framing by stating it is possible to tell many different stories about the same events and that in doing so some facts are emphasized only by certain frames and not others. Subsequently, framing can result in the slanting of a story or the highlighting of one aspect over another in any given news story (Gamson, et. al., 1992, p. 25).

It is important to note that the slanting of the story may be intentional or unintentional on the part of the publication. In a publication as large as The New York

Times you may have multiple people working on the same story (e.g. someone who photographs the event, someone who writes the article and someone who edits the article). Each of these people may work independent of the other(s) and have their own frame for the article. However, the intention (or un-intention) to frame by the

10 journalist/photographer is irrelevant as the end result is the same: the story is framed and the viewer takes the framed meaning from the story.

Given that framing can promote a problem or a moral evaluation, its importance cannot be overstated. Gamson (1989) illustrated the importance of the visual in framing when he stated:

Frame analysis helps to solve the problem of what visual cues are important and

meaningful. The visual content, like the words, takes on meaning from the

framing context. Having coded television news – including the visual

component- for several different issues, I can testify that a great deal of the visual

material is simply filler, adding nothing to the story. But on every issue there are

important moments when the visual imagery contributes significantly to one or

another story line. (p. 159)

Gamson (1989) elaborated on the importance of visual cues by stating that the multiple competing frames in a story help guide the audience to the images that will be the most meaningful because “in effect, one asks of any given image whether it has a good, poor, or irrelevant narrative fit with different possible stories” (Gamson, 1989, p. 159). In the instance of gay pride parades, both heterosexual and homosexual viewers will absorb meaning from the visual framing context and will, in effect, ask of the given image

“whether it has a good, poor, or irrelevant narrative fit with different possible stories”

(Gamson, 1989, p. 159)

Entman (1993) elaborates on framing analysis by illustrating that frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and even suggest remedies. In other

words, framing will highlight portions of the story (in this instance, gay pride as

portrayed through frames in The New York Times) and elevate these portions of

information in importance and salience (e.g. a militant, hyper-sexualized, non-gender confirming group of deviants). Entman (1993) then reports that the increase in this salience will enhance the probability that the audience “perceive the information, discern meaning and thus process it, and store it in memory” (p. 53). In the instance of gay pride parades, both heterosexual and homosexual viewers will perceive and discern meaning from the visual images (either positive, negative or both), process these images, and store them in their memory for the next encounter they have regarding the topic of homosexuality. When this next encounter happens, the viewer then references these frames and associates those meanings to this new encounter.

Beyond examining how the sender (i.e. The New York Times) frames gay pride, framing analysis also serves as a methodology for understanding the intent of homosexuals as the creators of their own social movement and visual rhetoric. Having followed many other social movements (e.g. Civil Rights, Women’s Movement, etc.),

LGBTQIA individuals have been strategic with their adoption of social movement tactics and methodologies. To better understand social movements and their identities, Cloud

(2009) was able to further the framing methodology through her research on identity frame analysis. According to Cloud (2009), identity frame analysis is a method that emphasizes how individuals and groups manage their identities in communication. The research in Cloud’s study (2009) identifies that framing in social movements ultimately

helps to explain the formation of a group’s identity and belonging. Cloud (2009) states

that:

Framing serves three functions for movements regardless of particular ideology:

the crafting of identity and maintaining solidarity, providing members of a group

with a frame for their grievances and explanation of the problem’s source, and

providing members a sense of potential efficacy in addressing their grievances. (p.

459)

Applying this iteration of framing to gay pride, the study is better able to identify and

understand the original homosexuals who revolted against the dominant mainstream

heterosexual culture, how these homosexuals expressed their differences or similarities

(e.g. their group identity) within their social movement, and how these homosexuals provided their own group members with a frame for their grievances.

Finally, it is important to note that the framing of a message is often a representation of the values of the person constructing the frame (Henry and Reyna,

2007). In their study on the impact of perceived value violations on American political attitudes, Henry and Reyna (2007) state “one of the most important functions of values is that they act as a guide for judging whether we or others are living up to important standards in life” (p. 276). Values can be used to evaluate or judge and to place blame on ourselves or others (Henry and Reyna, 2007). Consequently Henry and Reyna (2007) illustrate how framing and judgmental value expressions work simultaneously to frame an issue while also casting a value judgment on the people/events/story. In relation to gay pride, the study is seeking to determine how The New York Times frames gay pride

13 parades and what judgmental value expressions it is imposing on LGBTQIA individuals

(e.g. are they condemning homosexuality due to societal standards, etc.).

Theory and Methodologies

While framing analysis will serve as the primary theory to analyze the selected images from LGBTQIA pride parades/festivals, the study will also combine multiple methods to supplement the theory and examine the many factors comprising gay pride celebrations. Framing analysis will illustrate how gay pride events have been framed in the New York Times over time, while the combination of methods will illustrate how gender performance, authenticity and social movements have influenced gay pride celebrations. The methods the study will use are Social Movement, Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, Gregory Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity and hegemony. It is important to note the study does not intend to use the methodologies synonymously with framing analysis, but rather as a supplemental tool or lens that will help identify the multi-faceted events occurring at gay pride events.

In order to begin analyzing gay pride parades, it is necessary to understand how social movements function and what, if anything, makes the gay rights movement different from other social movements. To achieve this, the study will perform an in- depth literature analysis on social movements. The study will apply this information to the gay rights movement to illustrate how LGBTQIA individuals have used other social movements (e.g. the Civil Rights Movement, etc.) to their benefit.

Next, the study will perform its analysis of gay pride images using Judith Butler’s theory of performativity. In her work on gender and identity, Butler (1990) proposed that

14 gender is not a stable identity, but rather is fluid, and subject to culture and time. Butler believes that gender is a stylized repetition of acts that “is produced through the stylization of the body and, hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and styles of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self” (Butler, 1990, p. 140). Butler stated that a key element of gender and performativeness is the distinction between expression and performativeness. Butler argued that gender is performed, rather than a static stable identity, which means there is no true masculine or feminine; therefore gender opens itself up to gender restriction, masculine domination and heterosexuality preference. With masculine domination and heterosexuality preference in place, Butler (1988) then argued the term ‘strategy’ best described gender performance, meaning those who fail to perform the expected gender roles are likely to face repercussions. When applied to the gay rights movement, Butler’s theory of performativity will be used to illustrate how gays have performed gender roles in pride parades, how that performance has changed over the history of the gay rights movement and how the performance of masculinity and femininity have been highlighted in the media. For example, if a gay man is mimicking the clothing of straight men (e.g. clothing that is loose fitting, masculine looking plaids, a white V-neck t-shirt, etc.), then his choice of clothing is being used as a performance of masculinity. If a gay man is attempting to perform traits that are considered stereotypically masculine (e.g. marching with a basic black and white sign opposed to a pink sign with glitter or is stoically marching down the road as opposed to riding on a float filled with flowers and half-naked dancing men), then he is performing masculinity. In the above case, the gay man’s

masculine clothing and method of protest will have an effect on how the message is

received by audience members (primarily heterosexuals). In addition, the performance of expected gender roles (or deviation from them) will determine the parade’s effectiveness,

if the group will face repercussions, and how the event is portrayed in the media.

To further illustrate performativity in gay pride parades, and explain how gender

performance has changed throughout the history of pride, the study will use Gregory

Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity. In his theory, Herek (1986) concluded that heterosexual masculinity consists of various personal characteristics. These characteristics consist of traits such as: success, status, toughness, independence,

aggressiveness and dominance. Herek also notes that heterosexual masculinity can also

be defined by what it is not, and that is feminine and homosexual. Herek elaborated by

illustrating how labels such as ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ do not exist in nature, but

rather are social constructs that provide meaning to patterns of sexual behavior and

relationships. While these constructs provide individuals a method for use in everyday

life, they are also narrow and not easily changed. Herek explained how these constructs

allow masculine heterosexual men to view themselves as normal, while viewing all

others (non-masculine or effeminate homosexual men) as deviant. Homophobia is then used as a method of expressing who one is (heterosexual and masculine) and who one is

not (homosexual and non-masculine). Herek also noted that heterosexual masculinity is

fluid and ever changing. What was considered masculine in biblical times is different

from what was considered masculine in the “Wild West”; while both of those definitions are drastically different from what is considered masculine today.

What Migliaccio (2009) found, was that the performance of masculinity was influenced by gendered expectations. “One example of a common performance of masculinity that adheres to a hegemonic ideal is that of being stoic, both physically and emotionally. Men display themselves as being unhurt, unfettered and in control of situations, their lives and their emotions” (Migliaccio, 2009, p. 228). Migliaccio (2009) elaborated by stating “Another and often primary component of the hegemonic masculine ideal that is accessible to most men is the avoidance of femininity, or refraining from behaviors that would associate a man with women. Masculinity can be construed as not solely a performance to be accepted as a man, but a performance to inform others that he is not feminine” (p. 228).

Finally, every social group has some form of power dynamic including an ideology that is used to maintain a dominant and non-dominant class. Gramsci calls this idea hegemony, and uses it to explain the process by which the dominant group ensures those who are dominated accept their place in the existing social hierarchy (Kahn, 1988).

It is the study’s goal to illustrate the current hegemonic power dynamic in gay culture through the use of pride parades. Through the visual analysis of photographs from New

York’s pride parades, the study will illustrate how pride parades function to reconfirm the stereotypical idea that LGBTQIA individuals are deviant. Furthermore, the study will explore how LGBTQIA individuals perform their gender and sexuality to legitimize this belief, as well as how gays and lesbians use hegemony and legitimation to shame other

LGBTQIA individuals into behaving in ways that fit the dominant beliefs and ideals (as well as the sub-dominant ideology present in gay culture).

Rationale

The study examines gay pride in New York, New York from its inception in 1969

to 2016. This study combines theory and topics not often discussed in tandem; however,

this combination is required to illustrate how gay pride events formed, how gay pride events have changed over time, and how gender performance, authenticity and social movements have influenced gay pride celebrations. The goal of this thesis is to illustrate

that gay pride parades and festivals have changed from a form of civil protest to a

celebratory event that is overtly sexual in nature. Furthermore, the study will also seek to

illustrate the current hegemonic power dynamic in gay culture through the analysis of pride parades. Through the visual analysis of photographs from New York’s pride parades, the study will illustrate how pride parades function to reconfirm the stereotypical idea that LGBTQIA individuals are deviant. The study will explore how LGBTQIA individuals perform their gender and sexuality to legitimize this belief, as well as how

LGBTQIA individuals use hegemony and legitimation to shame other LGBTQIA individuals into behaving in ways that fit the dominant beliefs and ideals (as well as the

sub-dominant ideology present in gay culture). Images from gay pride parades and

festivals are subsequently shown on the news, where only the most garish and outlandish

are featured. These messages are framed so strongly there is little room for interpretation

and they reaffirm pre-existing stereotypes about LGBTQIA individuals. Even when a

news article is pro-gay, use of the aforementioned images will supersede the written text

and only serve to reaffirm existing stereotypes about LGBTQIA individuals (especially

when they are viewed by individuals in smaller communities or more conservative areas).

Examining how framed images from gay pride parades centered around major events in

gay history are vital to understanding public perception of gays and lesbians.

The importance of this study cannot be overstated. Having only originated in

1969 (45 Years, 2012), the gay rights movement is relatively young when compared to

other social movements. Given both the relative youth of the movement and the

somewhat taboo nature of the topic, little mainstream research has been conducted on gay

pride celebrations. The gay pride parade research examined by this study has been

concerned with such areas of study such as police satisfaction at Atlanta pride (Gillespie,

2008), whether pride is still needed (Anderson-Minshall & Breen & Broverman & Garcia

& Ring, 2013), corporate sponsorship of pride events (Hernandez, 2007), discrimination and victimization of participants in the Chile pride parade (Barrientos & Silva & Catalan

& Gomez, & Longueira, 2010) etc., thus making this study the first of its kind.

The study will rhetorically analyze six photographs from New York City’s gay

pride celebrations. Beginning with the year 1970, the study will analyze one photograph

from each decade, (1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2010), one photograph from New

York’s 2015 gay pride celebration (June, 2015) and one photograph from New York’s

2016 gay pride celebration (June, 2016).

The six photographs will be chosen based on their correlation with a significant

event affecting the gay rights movement. For example, a photograph will be selected

from 1970 because it was New York’s first annual gay pride celebration (45 Years,

2012). A photograph will be selected from New York’s 1986 gay pride celebration

because of the AIDS crisis and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold state sodomy

laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (45 Years, 2012). A photograph will be selected from New

York’s 1994 gay pride celebration because it followed the implementation of President

Clinton’s December 21, 2013 “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and marked the 25th

anniversary of the Stonewall Riots (45 Years, 2012). A photograph will be selected from

New York’s 2003 gay pride celebration because of the United States Supreme Court

ruling that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, thus reversing their earlier decision in

Lawrence v. Texas (45 Years, 2012). A photograph will be selected from New York’s

2015 gay pride celebration because of the Supreme Court’s decision that the Constitution

guarantees the right to same-sex marriage (Liptak, 2015). Finally, a photograph will be selected from New York’s 2016 gay pride celebration because this pride celebration occurred a few short weeks following the homophobic terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida where one of the largest mass shootings in the United States of America occurred in a gay nightclub (Ellis, 2016). In addition to closely following the Pulse massacre, New York’s

2016 pride celebration also occurred after the arrest of James Wesley Howell, who was

looking for his friend at the 2016 Los Angeles pride parade/festival while in possession

of an arsenal in his car, as well as chemicals that could be used to create an explosive device (Ellis, 2016). The study plans to choose six photographs that will include images of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender persons, and straight supporters marching in a gay pride parade. Other people/items which may be present in the photographs will include: drag queens, signs, costumes, floats, anti-gay protestors, celebrities, representations of

corporate sponsorship, pride flags and fetish groups.

Organization of the Study

Chapter one introduced the thesis and provided some background and significance regarding the historical events leading up to and surrounding gay pride. Chapter one then identified how photographs from gay pride events across multiple decades were selected, as well as provided a justification for the selection process. In addition, chapter one discussed the methodology the study will use to critique the six images selected and a justification for the selected methodologies.

Chapter two offers a detailed review of literature pertinent to this study. This literature encompasses historical events leading up to and surrounding gay pride, as well as any pertinent information regarding gay culture that may be relevant to the study. In addition, chapter two will detail how gays and lesbians drew on other social movements to help fine-tune their distinct form of protest rhetoric (e.g. gay pride parades) and how they used gay pride parades as visual rhetoric in their own social movement. Chapter two will also detail literature on how gay pride parades have changed over time to better suit society’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality and the AIDS epidemic. Finally, section two will also detail a comprehensive review of the aforementioned theories and methodologies.

Chapter three is comprised of the analysis on the selected six (6) images of New

York’s gay pride parades beginning in 1970 and ending with the most current in 2016.

Each selected image will be carefully described and immediately following each description will be its analysis. The framing methodology, performativity, heterosexual masculinity, and hegemony discussions will be applied to each of the six (6) photographs.

In addition, any explanations or discoveries from the selected methodologies will also be discussed with each artifact.

Chapter four of this study will convey conclusions, as well as detail the findings and implications of this study. In addition, chapter four will discuss the limitations of the study as well as make suggestions for future areas of research.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Having pride in one’s homosexuality is a deeply personal and individualistic experience. What one person may wish to keep private, another will put on a sign and proclaim to the world. While there is no right or wrong manner in which to display one’s pride, disagreements can arise when social movements attempt to advance the larger group’s goals. These disagreements can lead to the fracturing into subgroups within the

LGBTQIA community, especially on deep-seated issues such as the portrayal of masculinity/femininity, queer shame and the commercialization/sexualization of pride events. Consequently, a review of the literature on these topics and framing is required in order to fully understand this study.

Social Movements

To understand the rhetoric gay pride parades have used to appeal to internal (i.e.

LGBTQIA) and external (i.e. straight) audiences, one must understand how social movements function. While this understanding may initially seem remedial, social movements are fluid and evolve over time (Morris & Howard, 2006). Consequently, to better understand how social movements function, it is necessary to examine the components comprising them and begin with a concrete definition for the term social movement. According to Griffin (1952), a historical movement will have three elements present in it: (1) a period of inception; (2) a period of rhetorical crisis; (3) a period of consummation (p. 186). The period of inception occurs when a pre-existing sentiment is

23 noticed by the public or “when a striking event occurs which immediately creates a host of aggressor rhetoricians and is itself sufficient to initiate the movement” (Griffin, 1952, p. 186). For the LGBTQIA rights movement, the Stonewall Riots serve as this period of inception.

Next, the period of rhetorical crisis occurs when “one of the opposing groups of rhetoricians succeeds in irrevocably disturbing that balance between the groups which had existed in the mind of the collective audience” (Griffin, 1952, p. 186). In the gay rights movement one example is the coalescing of thousands of LGBTQIA individuals attending a pride event, attempting to create positive images in the minds of heterosexuals of the need for acceptance, love and tolerance. Images depicting protestors at pride events initiate a rhetorical crisis by calling attention to the discrimination and hatred the LGBTQIA community faces.

Finally, the period of consummation occurs when “the great proportion of aggressor rhetoricians abandon their efforts, either because they are convinced that opinion has been satisfactorily developed and the cause won, or because they are convinced that perseverance is useless” (Griffin, 1952, p. 186). The closest the gay rights movement has come to consummation is the Supreme Court of the United States of

America’s 2015 decision to make same-sex marriage the law of the land (Erickson,

2015); however, the current and ongoing violence and legal setbacks the LGBTQIA community faces illustrates that true consummation has yet to be achieved.

With the components comprising a social movement established, it can now be stated “that all discussion about movements centers around the tokens, symbols, and

transactions which unite or separate people who organize to produce change” (Cathcart,

1972, p. 86). Movements are carried forward through verbal and nonverbal language that will help an individual identify with the movement (Cathcart, 1972). Identification with the LGBTQIA rights movement can be seen in both the internal (i.e. LGBTQIA

members) and external (i.e. heterosexual) audiences. For example, the popular pride

slogan “We’re here, we’re queer get used to it” sprawled out on a banner has different

meanings depending on factors such as: who is holding the sign, how they are dressed, or

their socially accepted performance of societal gender norms. These meanings will either

persuade or dissuade internal/external audiences, thus making the parade a success or a

failure.

In their research on confrontation in social movements, Morris III and Howard

Brown (2006) expanded on social movement becoming strategy through the use of confrontation. According to Morris III and Howard Brown part of the appeal of confrontation is, that it is a “can’t-lose strategy” (2006); i.e. many confrontational strategies are employed simply because these acts carry a message and force the oppressor to pay attention to the oppressed. Confrontation also serves as a reminder that the marginalized understand their place in society and they will no longer accept that place (Scott and Smith, 2006). For the LGBTQIA rights movement, prior to the 1969

Stonewall Riots LGBTQIA members understood their subservient place within the dominant culture (i.e. subjugated to a life hidden in the societal shadows where there was a constant threat of being outed); however, the Stonewall Riots served as the confrontation necessary to illustrate that LGBTQIA members would no longer accept that

25 place (i.e. the formation of a yearly commemorative pride event celebrating being

LGBTQIA).

In her analysis of the gay rights movement, Morrissey (2010) examined how ideographic language was used by gays to persuade citizens to vote no on the California

Proposition 8 campaign, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. In her analysis,

Morrissey (2010) specifically sought to understand how other social movements had used the ideographic term ‘equality’, and conversely, how the LGBTQIA rights movement used the term. Morrissey (2010) found that when African Americans used the term equality they initially viewed it through the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine which,

granted equal access to political resources and arguably then equal social

treatment for African Americans. Condit and Lucaites explained how this

interpretation was able to become reality, in writing, ‘the separate but equal’

doctrine thus placated egalitarian sentiment by promising equality. It also

placated white supremacists by legitimizing separation. Even the African-

American worldview of the period fit the contours of this proposed usage for

American equality. (p. 333).

Morrissey (2010) argued it was not long before African Americans’ understanding of equality changed, and their movement began to focus on the concept of

‘integrated equalities’. It was then that African Americans “insisted on FULL

EQUALITY, including SOCIAL EQUALITY. The distinction being made here establishes a line between equality in the legal sense and equality in a social sense”

(Morrissey, 2010, p. 333).

Additionally, Morrissey also sought to examine how equality differed in the

LGBTQIA rights struggle. “Although African-Americans have had a central role in shaping the ideology of equality to this point, gays and lesbians continue to mold these understandings, struggling for their own version of equality, which lies somewhere in the combination of both legal and social equality” (Morrissey, 2010, p. 334).

To further her point, Morrissey (2010) explored how gays illustrated the concept of equality through the phrase “We are all Californians” in their campaign for Proposition

This comment immediately draws reference to those things that voters might have

in common. Whereas in the past, as in the present, arguments against gay rights

revolved around what makes gay people different from straight people, this ad

spot attempts to dispel such notions by highlighting similarities and counting on

the connection being made to induce the view that if we are all the same, why

should there be anything other than equal rights and equal opportunities among

us? (Morissey, 2010, p. 335)

In relation to gay pride parades, the study would expect to see a difference in the types of messages that participants list on their signs from the onset of pride to now. For example, in an image from New York’s first gay pride parade in 1970 the study would expect to see messages highlighting differences between gays and straights (e.g.

“Different but still human”) or more declarative messages regarding accepting gays and lesbians as they are (e.g. “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used To It”), while signs from

more recent gay pride events would include messages focused on uniting straights and

gays (e.g. “Love is Love” or “We are all the same”).

While traditional research on social movements has focused on the actions of protesters through their words or use of bodies, Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) has

shifted the focus of social movement studies to how embodied rhetorics of protest have

been situated in particular places (i.e. ‘place-as-rhetoric’). Elaborating on ‘place-as-

rhetoric’, Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) identified three ways in which places act

rhetorically. “First, protesters may build on a pre-existing meaning of a place to help make their point, such as holding a protest event at a state capital so that protesters can direct their message to this symbol of government” (Endres and Senda-Cook, 2011, p.

259). Second, “protests can temporarily reconstruct the meaning (and challenge the dominant meaning) of a particular place, such as Critical Mass’s take-over of car lanes in downtown city streets to raise awareness about bicycles as a ‘legitimate’ form of transportation” (Endres and Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 259). Finally,

repeated reconstructions over time can result in new place meanings, such as how

the 1960s UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement’s repeated use of the front steps

of Sproul Hall (a building that at the time housed campus administration offices)

for their protests eventually resulted in its being known as a place for protest on

campus, even though the building now houses student services. (Endres and

Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 259)

Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) note it is important to understand that place is not simply the environment or a natural place, but rather the confluence of physical

structures, locations and bodies functioning rhetorically for social movements. Place-in- protest conceptualizes how social movements use space to emphasize dissenting viewpoints and demonstrates how places exist in states of protest. For example, Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) specifically cite the Castro District in San Francisco (the gay district of that city) and its historical and political significance as it was the base of operations for Harvey Milk, and the place where gay people congregated to the center of the gay rights movement in San Francisco. The same can be said of the West Hollywood neighborhood in Los Angeles, the Boystown neighborhood in Chicago, the Chelsea neighborhood of New York and the Stonewall Inn (the bar that was raided, sparking the

1969 Stonewall riots). In the 49-years since the Stonewall Riots occurred, a significant amount has changed in society and in the gay rights movement. Ghaziani (2011) states that “gay life in the western world today is so open that it may be moving ‘beyond the closet’, despite a persistent privileging of heterosexuality by the state, societal institutions, and popular culture” (p. 99); this has been coined as post-gay. Ghaziani

(2011) reports that “post-gay life is characterized by the twin impulses of assimilation of gays into the mainstream—even if only ‘virtual’ and biased toward a small segment of gays—and an escalated internal diversification of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

(LGBTQIA) communities” (p. 100).

Finally, with the evolution to post-gay life there has also been a change in the collective identity construction of gays. Ghaziani (2011) reports that early social psychological perspectives asserted that collective identity was “an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals” (p. 101) whereas movement scholars today

29 assert that “activists are not exclusively oppositional in how they construct their collective identity” (Ghaziani, 2011, p. 101). Political actors must strategically decide whether to play up or down the differences on which their disadvantages rest. Despite this accepted oscillation between sameness and difference, existing frameworks provide a clearer snapshot of how a collective identity is configured when activists are strategically asserting their differences from external audiences. Left comparatively unexplained is how a collective identity is constructed during movements when activists articulate their similarities to mainstream audiences. This is where the transition to a post-gay era becomes theoretically useful, as it presents an opportunity to reimage the relationship between “us”, “them,” and even “insiders” (Ghaziani, 2011).

Hegemony

As previously stated, power dynamics are present in every society and relationship. Included in this power dynamic is an ideology that is used to maintain both a dominant and subordinate class. This power dynamic is called hegemony, and it explains the process by which the dominant group ensures those who are dominated accept their place in the existing social hierarchy (Kahn, 1988). According to Landy (1986), the dominant (or ruling) class is able to maintain their dominance over the subordinate class by producing more than just wealth and power. They also reproduce themselves through civil institutions (e.g. government, schools, institutionalized religion) as well as through the conforming attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and social groups.

Hegemony, according to Landy (1986), “proceeds from the assumption that everything in life is in constant motion, that everything is interrelated rather than rigidly schematic and systemic” (p. 53). She elaborated by stating that “Social structures are

conceived of as a source of lived social relations and as sources of constant conflict,

though the tensions may not be directed toward the transformation of social conditions

but toward the legitimation of prevailing conditions.” (Landy, 1986, p. 56). Social

movements, specifically, “make strategic use of the media for various counter-hegemonic

purposes which include the critique of existing social and material conditions, disruption

of dominant discourses, codes and identities, and articulation of alternatives, whether in

the form of new codes, identities and ways of life or progressive state policies” (Carroll

and Ratner, 1999, p. 2).

For gay pride events, disrupting dominant discourses or codes and identities can

be witnessed through the men and women who challenge traditional gender roles through

the use of drag. For example, men will dress as women (drag queens) and women will

dress as men (drag kings) and use the performance of the other gender to critique

patriarchy, upset gender roles, combat norms related to social standing and challenge

racism and marginalization. Xhonneux (2013) cites the example of the narrator of ‘A

Good Man’. The narrator and her gay male friend always participated in the gay pride

march and:

When Jim enthusiastically slaps the people marching alongside him on the back

or yells at them, the narrator dreads someone getting angry with him. She

conspicuously describes men’s possible violence in female terms and vice versa:

‘I got afraid some guy might slap him or hit him with his purse, or some woman

might slug him’. Though Jim is not in drag his behavior, too, is often labeled

feminine, as the narrator compares his speech and mannerisms to those of a very

disappointed maidened aunt or a little old lady. (p. 296)

Xhonneux (2013) cites the aforementioned example as a means of illustrating how gay men and lesbians are given to upsetting traditional gender roles and that drag exposes how heterosexuality and heterosexually ideal genders are equally performed in society. Elaborating, Xhonneux (2013) explained that while heterosexuality and

‘heterosexually ideal genders’ are equally performed, they become naturalized and any required impersonations escape attention as a result. However, by exposing the mimicry characteristic of heterosexuality, drag challenges heterosexist power and claims to originality. Applying this type of analysis to gay pride, the study intends to examine the historical gay pride reality that has been created to expose hierarchical levels of hegemony and legitimation present as a result of pride’s historical reality (Ventsel, 2010).

In Santino’s (2011) study on hegemony in social movements, he identified that protest demonstrations usually have carnivalesque and ritualesque elements to them.

Santino (2011) identifies the presence of the ludic, of play, of the carnivalesque, which is used as a descriptive term. Santino (2011) states that “we will recognize the carnivalesque in the festivity, but the ritualesque lies in the performative use of symbols—images, music, movement—to effect social change” (p. 62). In parades, protests, and street theater, Santino (2011) states that the line between performance and ritual has become blurred but it can be explained as instrumental actions and that are

performed so as to create real social changes. “Still, however, insofar as these changes

are not empirically verifiable, they are symbolic—at least to an observer who does not

accept the terms of the ritual and whose perspective and presumptions lie outside the

belief system underlying the ceremony” (Santino, 2011, p. 63). Specific to gay pride

parades, the purpose and intention of the event is to accomplish far more than the

temporary suspension of social norms; they are aimed at changing society itself by raising consciousness about LGBTQIA individuals (Santino, 2011). When examining gay pride parades, Santino (2011) notes that the tendency is to recognize the carnivalesque but to overlook the aspects of an event that involve transformation. Because the

LGBTQIA community is so diverse (i.e. you can be LGBTQIA and any race/ethnicity), gay pride events have tried to incorporate many of the participants’ diversities, thus making it easy for outsiders to recognize the carnivalesque elements present. For example, when gay pride is featured, mainstream America sees stereotypical depictions of floats full of half-naked men, gender non-conformists, large multicultural floats, drag queens/kings, etc. as opposed to someone who looks and acts like them, and thus, they focus on the carnivalesque.

While mainstream America is focused on the carnivalesque aspects of gay pride parades, they seek to assert their dominant hegemonic view of masculinity and femininity on the parade’s participants. According to Lanzieri and Hilderbrandt (2011), “white, heterosexual, and middle class are the standard measure of hegemonic masculinity that all men are held to as a comparative” (p. 278). Lanzieri and Hilderbrandt (2011) elaborated by stating that:

studies corroborated that masculinity is defined not only through behavioral

contexts (e.g., acting masculine), but it is also characterized symbolically through

physical components of muscularity and fitness – the body is utilized as the

vehicle to masculine power. Additionally, the advertisements express anti-

effeminate attitudes in order to align with the prevailing value system that

empowers gender typicality. (p. 277)

In addition to the many previously stated examples of gay pride’s behavioral contexts (i.e. the many ways in which gender is performed), participants in gay pride parades make repeated use of muscularity and fitness to symbolically illustrate masculine

power. This is evidenced through countless marchers participating nude or wearing

minimal clothing (e.g. booty shorts, skimpy shirts, underwear, leather attire) or costumes ranging from popular television characters to animals.

Performativity

In her work on gender and identity, Butler (1988) proposed that gender should be understood as “the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self” (p. 270). Butler

(2007) elaborates by stating,

Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a

highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of

substance, of a natural sort of being. A political genealogy of gender ontologies,

if it is successful, will deconstruct the substantive appearance of gender into its

constitutive acts and locate and account for those acts within the compulsory

frames set by the various forces that police the social appearance of gender. (p.

33)

Butler emphasizes “that subject positions are continually evoked through stylized acts of repetition, and it is through acts of repetition that gender becomes ritualized, the effects of which make it appear natural” (Moulin de Souza, 2016, p. 607). Consequently, gender is performative because it is the effect of regularized repetition of norms where genders are divided and arranged in a hierarchy. “The constraints expressed by beliefs, knowledges, taboos, prohibitions, rewards and punishments operate in the ritualized repetition of norms that simultaneously (re)construct and deconstruct gender” (Moulin de

Souza, 2016, p. 607). Butler then explains “the fact that those who fail to perform the illusion of gender essentialism are so eagerly castigated or excluded points to the existence, on some level, of the social knowledge that the truth or falsity of gender is only socially compelled and in no sense ontologically necessitated” (Xhonneux, 2013, p. 296).

Evidence of the performance of masculine gender is illustrated throughout gay pride. For example, the performance of a masculine gender can be seen in some pride participants’ choice of clothing. Pride is an annual event that people plan on attending months in advance (even longer for those traveling from a rural area to a large pride event such as New York). Many participants choose their outfits (especially the more elaborate outfits/costumes) far in advance of the pride event. What constitutes ‘masculine looking clothing’ is: men’s clothing that is loose fitting, button-up shirts, masculine looking plaids, white V-neck t-shirts, shorts/pants with no shirt, tank tops, leather pants, leather

35 shirts and leather suspenders. It is important to note the performance of masculinity can be performed by all LGBTQIA individuals. Conversely, what constitutes “feminine looking clothing” can range from: tight clothing (i.e. skinny jeans, short shorts, booty shorts, crop tops, etc.), sheer tops/blouses, high-heeled shoes, body adornment with glitter, etc.

Applying Butler’s performativity to the Civil Rights movement, Hohle (2009) analyzed the Civil Rights Movement pedagogy, focusing on the “ritualized repetition of embodied movements that deracialized the black political body by embedding idealized citizenship into bodily postures, which increased the probability for a successful performance” (p. 284). More specifically, Hohle (2009) examined how social movements

(specifically the Civil Rights Movement) learned to stylize bodily gestures, postures, grammar and physical appearances to construct and project idealized citizenship through the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent

Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

To increase idealized citizenship the SCLC and SNCC analyzed performances of ritualized repetitious movements that deracialized the black political body such as good handwriting, word pronunciation, and the style, tone, pace and exchange of speech in public discourse (Hohle, 2009). Hohle (2009) explained that a strong and sure handwriting illustrated a person’s strength and that all first class citizens should possess a first class handwriting. In addition to good handwriting, many African Americans also attempted to master a civic vocabulary through the practice of the correct pronunciation of political words (Hohle, 2009). “Building a civic vocabulary though spoken discourse

limited emotional outbursts by attaching a rational form of argumentation to the

embodied performance” (Hohle, 2009, p. 291). In addition, African Americans were also

tasked with practicing good manners and maintaining a level of politeness to challenge

stereotypes that black people were bad mannered and uncivilized (Hohle, 2009).

Through this analysis, Hohle (2009) concluded the effect of good citizenship and the deracialized self ultimately provided for the expansion of an entry point for the Civil

Rights movement which was something the NAACP and the social democrats of the

1940s had yet to achieve. While gays and lesbians did not need to combat stereotypes regarding manners, politeness, or being civilized, they did need to combat stereotypes regarding masculinity, femininity, sexual identity, acceptable gender norms and deviancy

(Cover, 2004; Kraus, 1996; Xhonneux, 2013).

Similarly to Civil Rights Movement participants, LGBTQIA individuals were able to use performativity in order to conform or rebel against societal gender norms. For example, Cover (2004) and Kraus (1996) use the notion of self-stereotyping, which they define as the gay and lesbian cultural production of a small range of fixed categories of visually recognizable lesbian and gay bodies. Gays and lesbians are able to recognize and use these performative visual categories and subsequently make a determination regarding a person, an event or a situation. Cover (2004) notes that self-stereotyping may include subjective performativity of the body through particular stances, gazes, or vocal intonations and can also include items such as: hair, clothing, grooming, accessories, or other aspects of self-presentation. It should be noted that these elements are recognizable and also used by non-members of the group (i.e. people who identify as straight). As

evidence of this, Cover (2004) uses the example of Tinky Winky from the hit children’s

television show Teletubbies to illustrate how performance works. According to Cover

(2004), in 1999 Christian right-wing leader Jerry Falwell accused Tinky Winky of being gay. As evidence of Tinky Winky’s gayness Falwell claimed that Tinky Winky has the

voice of a boy, but carries a purse-like magic bag, is purple (the gay-pride color) and his

antenna is shaped like a triangle (the gay-pride symbol). Falwell’s belief is that

collectively these are gay innuendos. Cover (2004) explains that “Performance of the

signifiers of lesbian/gay culture such as the wearing of culturally recognizable symbols—

the triangle—in Falwell’s reading confirm his suspicions, but the identification is made

not by the symbols but through application of the stereotype” (p. 91).

While the Tinky Winky example Cover (2004) uses may seem like a farfetched

example from a religious extremist, Bulmer (2013) illustrates how gay and lesbian

military identity conflicts with attitudes towards gay and lesbian soldiers’ participation in

pride parades. Applying Butler’s performativity to the interview data collected, Bulmer

(2013) determined “that the terms through which military personnel articulate their

confusion are always already patriarchal and heteronormative. In this way a performative

understanding of gender explains why even patriarchal confusion can still determine who

has power and who is marginalized” (p. 148). Bulmer (2013) expands by explaining how

LGBTQIA inclusion in the military could be understood to be ‘homonormative’ with the

military legitimating some ‘out’ behaviors and marginalizing others; this is performed by

gay and lesbian service members. For example, Lieutenant-Commander Craig Jones,

MBE, the most senior openly gay member of the military and lead consultant for the gay

38 community in the armed forces at the time, responded to these concerns stating “Men and women from the Armed Forces look and behave exactly like men and women from the

Armed Forces. We are the front line of the Armed Forces, not the lineup of the Village

People” (Buhlmer, 2013, p. 144).

Finally, in his research on men’s friendships and performances of masculinity,

Migliaccio (2009) speculated that men’s friendships are more than a product of being a man. What Migliaccio (2009) found was that the performance of masculinity was influenced by gendered expectations. “One example of a common performance of masculinity that adheres to a hegemonic ideal is that of being stoic, both physically and emotionally. Men display themselves as being unhurt, unfettered and in control of situations, their lives and their emotions” (Migliaccio, 2009, p. 228). Migliaccio (2009) elaborated by stating “Another and often primary component of the hegemonic masculine ideal that is accessible to most men is the avoidance of femininity, or refraining from behaviors that would associate a man with women. Masculinity can be construed as not solely a performance to be accepted as a man, but a performance to inform others that he is not feminine” (p. 228).

In a gay pride celebration, the performance of masculinity can be seen in many of the subgroups who participate in pride parades/festivals. For example, Dykes on Bikes is a group of lesbian women who are known for their independence and non-acceptance of traditional gender norms. They have been a staple in gay pride parades and are well known for their loud motorcycles and masculine performance and clothing style (i.e. short hair, leather pants/jackets/vests, boots, tough and stoic attitudes, etc.). Another

39 example of the performance of hegemonic masculinity is seen in the bar Eagle NYC.

According to Eagle NYC’s Official Website (2018), Eagle NYC caters to patrons who love raw masculinity and participate in the leather community. The Eagle NYC (2018) has a long history of participation in New York’s pride parades and they go out of their way to perform what they consider “raw masculinity”. For example, they prominently feature shirtless men with large muscles, beards, leather shirts/ties/pants/suspenders/hats/armbands/cuff bracelets and men who display themselves as being unhurt, unfettered and in control of situations, their lives and their emotions.

Heterosexual Masculinity

To further illustrate performativity in gay pride parades, and explain how gender performance has evolved with the pride movement, the study will use Gregory Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity. In his theory of heterosexual masculinity, Herek

(1986) concluded that heterosexual masculinity consists of various personal characteristics. These characteristics consist of traits such as: success, status, toughness, independence, aggressiveness and dominance. Herek also notes that heterosexual masculinity can also be defined by what it is not, and that is feminine and homosexual.

Herek elaborated by illustrating how labels such as ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ do not exist in nature, but rather are social constructs that provide meaning to patterns of sexual behavior and relationships. While these constructs provide individuals a behavioral template for use in everyday life, they are also narrow and not easily changed.

Herek (1986) explained how these constructs allow masculine heterosexual men to view

themselves as normal, while viewing all others (non-masculine or effeminate homosexual

men) as deviant. Homophobia is then used as a method of expressing who one is

(heterosexual and masculine) and who one is not (homosexual and non-masculine).

Herek (1986) also noted that heterosexual masculinity is fluid and ever changing. What

was considered masculine in biblical times is different from what was considered

masculine in the Medieval era; while both of those definitions are drastically different

from what is considered masculine today. To further compound the issue, culture and

sexual orientation also play a large role in defining heterosexual masculinity.

When applied to the gay rights movement, Herek’s theory of heterosexual

masculinity will help explain several elements present in gay pride parades. Firstly,

Herek’s theory of heterosexuality masculinity will illustrate the types of gays and lesbians who do, and do not, participate in gay pride celebrations. For example, Herek lists success and status as characteristics of heterosexual masculinity; consequently, when examining photographs from gay pride celebrations the study will use the measures of success and status (i.e. are parade participants dressed or acting in a manner that illustrates success or status, or do they appear to be deviants) to illustrate the types of people who participate in gay pride parades and how gay pride parades have changed from 1970 to 2016. Secondly, Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity will illustrate how gays and lesbians have used traits like toughness and aggressiveness in their parade signs (e.g. “We’re here, We’re Queer, Get used to it”). Additionally, Herek’s theory will also illustrate how that message has changed over time (e.g. “Love is Love”) and how

these changes have affected the gay rights movement. Finally, Herek’s theory of

Heterosexuality Masculinity will be used to illustrate how gays used characteristics such

as toughness and aggressiveness to be viewed more credibly by heterosexuals.

Based on Herek’s work on masculinity and homophobia, Theodore and Basow

(2000) set out to examine “whether level of self-esteem, degree of self-discrepancy along

gender attributes, and level of importance associated with these attributes contribute to

the variance in homophobia” (p. 34). Theodore and Basow’s (2000) conclude that

masculine attribute was the best predictor of homophobia among heterosexuals. The

results of their study indicated that college-aged males who were highly sensitive to

gender stereotypes, and held negative beliefs of their own inability to perform masculine

stereotypes, were most likely to hold homophobic beliefs and attitudes.

Similarly, in their study, Cohen, Hall and Tuttle (2009) sought to examine

heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians who either conformed, or failed to

conform, to widely held homosexual stereotypes. Cohen, Hall and Tuttle (2009)

considered the most prevalent homosexual stereotype regarding traditional gender-role norms, which is that homosexual males are effeminate, while lesbians are masculine. It was Cohen, Hall and Tuttle’s (2009) conclusion that a homosexual stereotype’s ability to influence a heterosexual man’s attitude was greater when traditional gender-role stereotypes were followed. Stated differently, the more masculine a homosexual, the more successful he was in changing heterosexual mens’ attitudes.

Commercialization/Sexualization of Pride

As mentioned in Chapter 1 of the study, “35 years ago, it would have been

difficult to imagine the scale of today’s pride festivities, complete with corporate

sponsorship and police protection” (Gillespie, 2008 p. 642), but today’s pride events have

evolved far beyond the protest marches they originated as. According to Hernandez

(2007), “A decade ago it was unheard-of for corporations to support and identify with

gay-themed activities to such a degree. But with the rise of LGBTQIA employee groups

in major corporations, showing your pride now has the blessing of higher-ups” (p. 73).

Even companies who specialize in family entertainment have begun to participate in

pride events. Hernandez (2007) reports that “The Disneyland Main Street fire engine has

left the Anaheim, Calif., theme park only twice in the last 50 years – both times to

transport LGBT Disney employees in nearby Long Beach’s pride parade”. Another large

company participating in San Francisco’s gay pride parade is Kaiser Permanente.

According to Hernandez (2007) Kaiser Permanente has participated in pride parades for

the last seven years. “This year they’re dressing as vegetables and carrying signs that

read “WE’RE STEAMED AND WE DON’T TAKE LONG TO PREPARE AND

WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HEALTHY, GET USED TO IT” (p. 73).

While some might consider Kaiser Permanente’s involvement (and to an extent all large corporations) in pride events as positive, “on the other hand it can feel like a co- opting of queer culture, and that is conceptually problematic. When it appears they are cultivating us to sell their product, that doesn’t feel so good to me” (Hernandez, 2007).

The rewording of a popular gay pride slogan from ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to

43 it’ to ‘WE’RE STEAMED AND WE DON’T TAKE LONG TO PREPARE AND

WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HEALTHY, GET USED TO IT’ is a good illustration of how a corporation co-opts queer culture and uses it to sell their brand. This type of use minimizes the historical significance of the original movement and co-opts its power and resonance.

To illustrate the concern regarding the use of corporate sponsors, DeJean (2017) reported that Capital Pride events cost a total of $1.3 million and corporate sponsors pay for approximately 40% of that cost. For example, Wells Fargo donated $15,000 in cash and Maryland Live! Casino donated between $50,000 and $75,000 in cash and in-kind contributions (DeJean, 2017). One of the main concerns with this type of sponsorship is that those donating these large sums of money gain unfettered access to the LGBTQIA community, in addition to their logo being used at all of the events. In their study covering sexual citizenship in private and public spaces, Cappellato and Mangarella

(2014) stated that

pride marches can stand for diverging claims, being events that connote a space

destined for dissidents, who only have the right to occupy it on certain

conditions—for example, sexual expressions, transgressing gender norms—and

for a specific period of time (the parade) and therefore confirming

heteronormative assumptions (p. 213).

Cappellato and Mangarella (2014) expanded on the confirmation of heteronormative assumptions explaining how it reiterates the idea of normalization of gays and lesbians

who are “deemed respectable according to the criteria formulated by heterosexual people

who do not impose rules but rather encourage ‘others’ to self-govern in alignment with heteronormative models” (p. 213). In gay pride parades, the heteronormative model would include participants who dress and “act” straight, or as Cappallato and Mangarella

(2014) state it “the call for social inclusion based on the argument of the sameness” (p.

213).

In addition to becoming too commercial, many people began to feel that gay pride

events had become too sexualized. One important factor helping to sexualize gay culture,

and subsequently gay pride events, was the use of homoerotic images in gay publications.

At the time of the Stonewall riots, there was little pro-gay literature geared towards gays

and lesbians. According to Streitmatter (1993), The Advocate is the oldest, and largest,

gay/lesbian publication in the United States. In the two years leading up to the Stonewall

Riots (when the magazine was founded), The Advocate evolved from a local Los Angeles

PRIDE Newsletter to a full newspaper that “sought to give voice to a segment of the

population that had been denied access to standard mass communication outlets”

(Streitmatter, 1993, p.94). Right from the start, The Advocate used homoerotic images as

a staple in their publication. “Homoerotic images grew increasingly prominent and

increasingly explicit in both the editorial and advertising content of the movement

newspaper during its first two years. Long before the Stonewall Rebellion, The Advocate

had established homoeroticism as a staple element of the gay press” (Streitmatter, 1993,

p.94). Streitmatter (1993) defended The Advocates’ explicit use of homoerotic images

by stating that gay people were erotic and sexual people and they wanted to illustrate that

with pride.

While magazines like The Advocate may have been comfortable with the

sexualization of pride, when viewed from an outsider’s perspective the blatant

sexualization proved to be too much for some people. For example, one mother stated

“Gay pride with all those half naked men … is something I can’t accept and I recken that it might well be a rebellion but that makes no difference” (Cappelato and Mangarella,

2014, p. 220). Other examples of the sexualization of pride events occur through the

vendors/entertainers selected to cater and perform at gay prides and festivals. For

example, many pride festivals have adult areas that are restricted to participants who are

aged 18 and older because they contain pornography, nudity or vendors who specialize in

kink, etc. While certain vendors are typically restricted, due to space limitations they can

be intermingled or situated next to other vendors who do not have similar age

requirements. In addition, some pride events have started booking actors from adult

films as entertainers/headliners for pride events and festivals. These actors may emcee

for scheduled shows (e.g. singers, comedians, drag queens, etc.) or host audience

competitions where the adult star might give away miscellaneous items such as

underwear, sex toys, shirts, etc.

Queer Shame

Once members of the LGBTQIA community began to feel pride had become too

commercialized and/or sexualized, many no longer felt comfortable or included in

mainstream pride events (Halperin and Traub, 2009; Rand, 2012; Silverstone, 2012). As a

reaction to feeling that pride events were overly commercialized and/or no longer

welcoming, some participants created Gay Shame.

Gay Shame’s co-creator and producer, Simon Casson recalls that Gay Shame was

born out of dissatisfaction with mainstream gay pride events. He describes how

he attended gay pride in London in 1994 with ‘loads of corporate sponsorship

everywhere and terrible music and people being fucked on drugs’ and remembers

a friend saying that ‘if there was a march going in the opposite direction called

Gay Shame I’d be on that one’. (Silverstone, 2012, p. 65)

Halperin and Traub (2009) explained that “ Gay shame, in its original, activist form, is a queer-radical, anti-assimilationist, anticorporate, anti-globalization, pro-sex

movement committed to exposing the hypocrisies of the mainstream gay and lesbian

movement and to creating a radical outsider queer culture” (p. 77). Using Halperin and

Traub’s (2009) explanation of gay shame, Rand (2012) states that gay shame celebrations

consequently perform two functions:

First, they affirm those who feel shamed by heteronormative and homonormative

discourses of identity and pride. What is cast as shameful and alienating about

particular bodies, identities, and practices can instead be figured as the source of a

collective resistance to normativity. Second, gay shame also wields shame

offensively, redirecting it onto other gay groups or individuals. (p. 78)

Rand (2012) concludes that while the radical uncertainty and volatility of shame is its

productive potential for activism, it is also its peril. “Indeed if shame is to offer any sort

of productive conceptual leverage to activists and scholars, the affective tension that

continues to define the relationship between pride and shame must be preserved rather

than neatly resolved” (Rand, 2012, p. 79).

Similarly, Rand (2012) reported that “Activists first organized ‘Gay Shame’

events in the late 1990s and early 2000s to counter what some felt were the neoliberal,

assimilationist politics and the corporate selling-out of Gay Pride” (p. 77). According to

Rand (2012), these ‘Gay Shame’ celebrations performed a double movement by affirming LGBTQIA individuals who felt shamed by heteronormative and homonormative discourses of identity and pride, and also redirected the shame onto other

LGBTQIA groups or individuals. One manner in which LGBTQIA individuals redirected

their shame was by submitting the names of institutions/individuals who performed a

disservice to the LGBTQIA community. The nominees were then voted on and Gay

Shame Awards were given to the worst offenders.

While gay shame events were prominent in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s

(Rand, 2012), they have largely died off and are no longer being reported as occurring.

One possible explanation for the demise of gay shame events could be the general demise of activism once sodomy laws were reversed and once AIDS shifted from a death sentence to a manageable illness where suffers could live a normal life expectancy.

Despite the decline of gay shaming events, it does not mean that gay shaming was eradicated.

While gay shaming has traditionally been used as a method of mocking those in

power and the existing power dynamics (Silverstone, 2012), another form of gay shaming

has recently begun to be reported; gays shaming other members of the LGBTQIA

community. According to DeJean (2017), with the election of President Donald J. Trump

and his reversal of pro-gay policies, pride parades in 2017 began to look different than

they had in previous years. For example, New York’s pride parade usually consists of

music and comedy performances, but in 2017 it included speeches from activists and

community leaders (DeJean 2017). “In Los Angeles, pride organizers have replaced the

parade with a protest march – a sharp about-face from last year when the event was

branded as a music festival, which critics derided as gay Coachella” (DeJean, 2017, p. 4).

With these changes comes tension between organizers and members of the LGBTQIA

community who disagree on the shift from pride celebration to protest.

In a video of the Phoenix protest, one attendee, who appears to be a white woman,

shouts at the Trans Queer Pueblo representatives, ‘This is not your day! Go do

this at the park! You’re ruining our parade!’ Someone who appears to be a white

man shouts repeatedly, ‘Shame! Shame!’ Later in the video, he can be seen

yelling ‘fuck you’ at the protesters. Others shouted racial slurs and shoved the

protesters. A local alt-weekly noted the resemblance to a Trump rally ‘except that

this time, the angry white men were wearing rainbow beads and were at an event

that’s supposedly about tolerance and equality’. (DeJean, 2017, p. 5)

In response to incidents such as these, many LGBTQIA marginalized members

“decided to protest the main pride events and organized a separate march and night of

‘healing and resistance’ celebrating the most marginalized voices in the community”

(DeJean, 2017, p. 8). While the activities occurring at these events are aimed at healing

and resistance, the fact that they are separate is itself an act of shaming towards those in

power of the mainstream pride events (i.e. white, wealthy gay men) (DeJean, 2017).

Similarly, Johnston (2007) has centered her work on the manner in which pride parades

“may be considered emancipatory events and have the potential to reinscribe a number of

hegemonies. To this end, I am both dismayed (shamed?) and encouraged (proud?) with

the affects of gay pride parades and their framing and performance as a tourist event” (p.

30). Coming from this standpoint, Johnston (2007) illustrates how pride and shame are constructions and have spatial and embodied affects and shame may arise from a person’s desire to fit in while simultaneously feeling out of place. Johnston (2007) argues that individually and collectively, shame is a response to others.

With the election of Donald J. Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice

President of the United States of America (and their change in rhetoric and policies related to gay issues), one can reasonably expect the trend of resistance/protest marches

(as opposed to traditional pride parades) to increase in frequency. If the trend DeJean

(2017) discusses continues, we can expect to see additional fracturing among current

subgroups of the LGBTQIA community, with the smaller subgroups having less power or

influence. For example, traditional pride events will cater to white and affluent gay men

and lesbians, while the smaller resistance/protest marches will be comprised of the most

marginalized of the LGBTQIA community (i.e. transsexuals, poorer gays, homeless gay

youth, minorities, etc.). The more powerful group (mostly white wealthy gays/lesbians)

50 will continue to push for legislation that serves their interests (i.e. tax reform, continued support to fight against those who oppose marriage equality, etc.) while the needs of the remaining LGBTQIA groups (transsexuals and homeless LGBTQIA youth) will go unserved.

Despite the limited research on gay pride events, a reoccurring theme was present in all the literature reviewed: gay pride has changed, and not necessarily for the better.

Framing

Finally, as a method for analyzing gay pride parades, the study will use framing to examine how gay pride (as a social movement) has informed, influenced, and changed both homo- and heterosexual understanding of gay life and culture. According to Entman

(1993), framing, at its basic level, involves selection and salience: “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem, definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52).

Entman (1993) elaborates by illustrating that frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and even suggest remedies. In other words, framing will highlight portions of the story (in this instance, gay pride as portrayed through frames in

The New York Times) and elevate these portions of information in importance and salience (e.g. a militant, hyper-sexualized, non-gender confirming group of deviants).

Entman (1993) then reports that the increase in this salience will enhance the probability that the audience “perceive the information, discern meaning and thus process it, and

51 store it in memory” (p. 53). For example, in gay pride parades, both heterosexual and homosexual viewers will perceive and discern meaning from the visual images (either positive, negative or both), process these images, and store them in their memory for the next encounter they have regarding the topic of gay pride parades or homosexuality.

When the next encounter happens, the viewer then references these frames and associates those meanings to this new encounter.

While Entman examined framing on the whole, pride parades are visual in nature, and therefore lend themselves to a specific aspect of framing: the visual. Gamson (1989) illustrates the importance of the visual in framing by stating:

Frame analysis helps to solve the problem of what visual cues are important and

meaningful. The visual content, like the words, takes on meaning from the

framing context. Having coded television news – including the visual

component- for several different issues, I can testify that a great deal of the visual

material is simply filler, adding nothing to the story. But on every issue there are

important moments when the visual imagery contributes significantly to one or

another story line. (p. 159)

In addition to taking on meaning from the framing context, Gamson (1989) elaborated on the importance of visual cues by stating that the multiple competing frames in a story help guide the audience to the images that will be the most meaningful because “in effect, one asks of any given image whether it has a good, poor, or irrelevant narrative fit with different possible stories” (Gamson, 1989, p. 159). For viewers of gay pride parades, both heterosexual and homosexual viewers will absorb meaning from the visual framing

context and will, in effect, ask of the given image, “whether it has a good, poor, or

irrelevant narrative fit with different possible stories” (Gamson, 1989, p. 159)

Beyond examining how the sender (e.g. The New York Times) frames gay pride,

framing analysis also serves as a methodology for understanding the intent of

homosexuals as the creators of their own social movement and visual rhetoric. Having

followed many other social movements (e.g. Civil Rights, Women’s Movement, etc.), the

LGBTQIA movement has been strategic with its adoption of social movement tactics and methodologies. To better understand social movements and their identities, Cloud (2009) was able to further the framing methodology through research on identity frame analysis.

According to Cloud (2009), identity frame analysis is a method that emphasizes how individuals and groups manage their identities in communication. The research in

Cloud’s study (2009) identifies that framing in social movements ultimately helps to explain the formation of a group’s identity and belonging. Cloud (2009) states that:

Framing serves three functions for movements regardless of particular ideology:

the crafting of identity and maintaining solidarity, providing members of a group

with a frame for their grievances and explanation of the problem’s source, and

providing members a sense of potential efficacy in addressing their grievances. (p.

459)

Applying this iteration of framing to gay pride, the study is better able to identify and understand the original homosexuals who revolted against the dominant mainstream heterosexual culture, how these homosexuals expressed their differences or similarities

(e.g. their group identity) in their social movement, and how these homosexuals provided their own group members with a frame for their grievances.

Beyond values and social frameworks, framing has an element of public relations built into it. Just as framing is critical in the construction of social reality, it is said, public relations also involves the construction of social reality as it attempts to define reality, which is the very essence of communication (Hallahan, 1999). Gay pride parades are designed for a specific audience (in this case the LGBTQIA community) but participants and viewers can be LGBTQIA, allies, non-supporters, or any combination thereof. Recognizing the public relations aspect of framing, Hallahan (1999) was able to expand framing from something that affects the cognitive processing by selectively influencing “which memory nodes, or sets of memory traces organized as schemas, are activated to interpret a particular message” (p. 209) and apply it to public relations through seven different models. Hallahan (1999) identified the following public relations related models of framing: framing of situations, framing of attributes, framing of risky choices, framing of actions, framing of issues, framing of responsibility, framing of news.

Breaking framing into these seven models Hallahan (1999) does more than categorize framing; he allows for the contextualization of framing within the models.

Doing so allows one to act as a frame strategist to determine how “situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues and responsibility should be posed” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 224) in order to achieve the desired outcome. For example, when a 2011 tsunami disabled the emergency generators to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and insufficient cooling led to three nuclear meltdowns, framing and Hallahan’s (1999) models would

allow public relations professionals to develop specific key messages or arguments for

the public. (e.g. how the disaster is under control or being appropriately managed). In

addition, framing could also be used to provide a foundation for image selection and to reinforce key ideas. In the Fukushima Daiichi example, Hallahan’s (1999) framing of issues could be used to examine alternative interpretations of social reality.

Echoing Hallahan (1999), Knight (1999) examined the words and writings of interest group leaders to identify a range of frames that related to sex education. Knight

(1999) identified four major attributes of framing:

(1) a description of the problem; (2) an identification of the causal agent(s)

creating the problem; (3) a recommended solution or treatment; and (4) a moral

evaluation of the causal agent and its relation to the problem. Of the four,

problem identification is probably the most important. It can be divided into five

framing devices: metaphors, exemplars, catch phrases, depictions, and visual

images. (p. 387)

Elaborating on the attributes and framing devices, Knight (1999) explained that problem definition identifies what a causal agent is doing (including costs and benefits) while cause diagnosis identifies the forces creating the problem. Of particular note are exemplars, which can be broadly defined as stereotyped images used to evoke certain emotions on a topic/issue (Knight, 1999). For example, pro-choice groups will

“sometimes refer to ‘back-alley’ abortions, an image that recalls the secrecy and danger

associated with abortions before they were legalized” (Knight, 1999, p. 388).

To put the aforementioned into the context of this study, each of Hallahan’s

(1999) models could be used to examine gay pride parades as a whole, any of the

different aspects of the parade or any combination thereof. For example, Hallahan’s

(1999) framing of issues could be used to illustrate the allocation of gay pride resources

(e.g. location, money spent/not spent, subgroups within the LGBTQIA community who

do not feel they are equally represented) while the framing of responsibility could be used

to illustrate the success/failure of a gay pride parade. Furthermore, exemplars (Knight,

1999) could be framed to show stereotyped images such as the effeminate limp wristed

homosexual or depictions could be used to frame judgments or portrayals of opponents

such as the commonly used photograph of Anita Bryant with whipped cream on her face

after she was “pied” as an act of political protest. In addition, catch phrases could be

framed to illustrate how a group uses their stock or frequently occurring clusters of words

in their events to persuade, defy or declare their group’s message (i.e. We’re Here, We’re

Queer, Get used to it).

With a firm understanding of how the aforementioned topics relate to gay pride, it

is easy to see how complex and deep-seated many of the issues surrounding gay pride can be. While there is no panacea for these issues, identifying and discussing them will bring these issues to the forefront where members of the LGBTQIA community can begin to examine them. Consequently, the study will now analyze the selected gay pride images.

Chapter 3

ANALYSIS

Parades dealing with human rights issues inherently contain protest rhetoric (e.g. protestors, hate speech, etc.) and analyzing how these messages are framed by the media is critical to better understand how a message is received by its recipients. The study will use framing analysis as its primary theory to examine six images from New York’s annual gay pride parade celebration. The four aspects of framing Entman (1993) identified are: defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments and suggesting remedies. In addition, the study will also use Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, Gregory Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity and hegemony in its analysis to help illustrate how gay pride events have changed over time and how gender performance, authenticity and social movements have influenced gay pride celebrations.

Each of the selected images is from a gay pride event occurring in New York,

New York, was featured in The New York Times and correlates to a significant event affecting the gay rights movement. For example, the first image selected is from New

York’s first gay pride parade in June of 1970 (45 Years, 2012). The second image selected is from New York’s 1986 gay pride celebration because of the AIDS crisis and the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold state sodomy laws in Bowers v.

Hardwick (45 Years, 2012). The third image selected is from New York’s 1994 gay pride celebration because it marked the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots (45 Years,

2012). The fourth image selected is from New York’s 2003 gay pride celebration because of the United States Supreme Court ruling that sodomy laws were

unconstitutional, thus reversing their earlier decision in Lawrence v. Texas (45 Years,

2012). The fifth image selected is from New York’s 2015 gay pride celebration because

of the Supreme Court’s decision that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex

marriage (Liptak, 2015). Finally, the sixth image selected is from New York’s 2016 gay

pride celebration because this pride celebration occurred a few short weeks following the

terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida where one of the largest mass shootings in the United

States of America occurred in the Pulse gay nightclub (Ellis, 2016). The aforementioned images were selected, as they were the best representations of what The New York Times typically publishes on gay pride parades surrounding major events in LGBTQIA history.

Each image is included in the text of this study and the analysis using framing, performativity, heterosexual masculinity and hegemony follows each image. The images are ordered and analyzed chronologically.

Photograph 1. Gay Pride – 1970 [Fosburgh, 1970]

The first image the study will analyze was published in The New York Times on

June 29, 1970 and the article is titled Thousands of Homosexuals Hold a Protest Rally in

Central Park (Fosburgh, 1970). This gay pride parade occurred one year following the

Stonewall Riots and was intended to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the

Stonewall Riots (Hall, 2010). This image was the first of its kind as this was one of the first gay pride parades in history; shared only with Los Angeles, CA and Chicago, IL, where activists were simultaneously hosting their own gay pride parades commemorating the one-year anniversary of the riots (Armstrong & Crage, 2006).

As stated in chapter one of the study, the act of framing will “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way

59 as to promote a particular problem, definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). The study will now apply these four aspects of framing to the selected images.

The first aspect of framing, defining a problem, is established through the visual of the men and women marching down the street holding signs stating “Pride” and

“Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day 1970”. The problem is further defined through the visual of the participants with their fists raised in the air as if they are chanting or yelling. While the initial Stonewall Riots served as what Griffin (1952) identified as the period of inception, the above image serves as the period of rhetorical crisis by showing

LGBTQIA persons who are standing up against discrimination and oppression and showing pride in their homosexuality. In addition, although America had recently gone through the 1960’s and its sexual liberation movement, that movement mostly pertained to the dominant heterosexual class; homosexuals were largely considered deviants and social outcasts. Consequently, the visual of a gay pride parade, in and of itself, assisted in defining the problem that LGBTQIA persons were being persecuted and they would no longer tolerate that treatment.

The second aspect of framing, diagnosing a cause, is not readily apparent from the image. As previously stated, the definition of the problem is the persecution of the

LGBTQIA community and their unwillingness to tolerate it. According to the protestors, the cause of that persecution (i.e. the problem) is the dominant group in power (i.e. mainstream/religious heterosexual America) since it is responsible for creating the conditions of anti-homosexual discrimination. For example, it was the dominant

ideological teaching that homosexuality is a sin that contributed to the dominant group’s

psychiatrists classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, which allowed for the

dominant group’s congress to create laws targeting the LGBTQIA community (e.g. anti-

sodomy laws).

The third aspect of framing, making moral judgments, is seen through the

participants shown in this frame. The original participants of the Stonewall Riots are

largely credited as the most marginalized members of the LGBTQIA community (i.e.

drag queens, transsexuals, members who fall into lower socio-economic status and non- white LGBTQIA individuals). Additionally, the person largely credited with throwing

the first brick, and consequently starting the Stonewall Riots, was Marsha P. Johnson, a

black transsexual female. In this image we do not see any of the aforementioned groups;

rather, we see a group consisting mostly of white males whose style of dress would

indicate they are of moderate means (i.e. button-up shirts, suits, hats, slacks, etc.). The

moral judgement asserted with this visual is that being gay is good because gay is

synonymous with those in power (i.e. white, male, higher socio-economic status).

The fourth and final aspect of framing is the suggestion of a remedy to the

problem. In many ways the suggestion of a remedy is where this image falls short, as no

clear remedy is suggested. The participants in this image are not proposing changes to

existing laws or rallying for new legislation such as the elimination of anti-sodomy laws

or the removal of homosexuality from the DSM (the American classification of mental

disorders); rather the participants are simply marching down the street holding signs

stating “Pride” and the name of their parade. Rather than offer a solution, this image acts

as a form of confrontational strategy simply because the pride parade is an act that carries

a message (i.e. we are LGBTQIA, we are members of society and we are here) and it

demands that the oppressor (i.e. white mainstream/religious heterosexual America) pay

attention to them. In addition, the confrontation of their gay pride parade also serves as a

reminder that the marginalized LGBTQIA community has an understanding of their place

in society and they will no longer accept that place.

In Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of performativity she proposed that gender is not

a stable identity, but a fluid, ever-changing agency that is subject to culture and time.

The performativity of masculinity in this photograph is easily witnessed through the

men’s conformity to the pre-existing gender norms of what a man should look and act

like. For example, the performance of masculine gender is framed in the men’s choice of

clothing. In contrast with the group that started the Stonewall Riots, the men marching in

the parade are wearing what most would consider masculine looking clothes, consisting

of: men’s clothing that is loose fitting, button-up shirts, masculine white t-shirts, slacks, a business suit, men’s hats. Additionally, the posture and mannerisms present in this photograph all convey the social construct of masculinity. For example, the men in this photograph all appear to be stoic (physically and emotionally), tough (e.g. the man in the white t-shirt with his rolled up sleeves or the man in the cowboy hat with his button-up

shirt), in control of their situations, and unhurt. Conversely, the type of man not shown in this photo is the very type who helped start the LGBTQIA rights movement during the

Stonewall Riots. Missing from this photo are: minorities, transsexuals, drag queens, or anyone who would bring the appearance of femininity.

This social construct is also evidenced by the men’s choice of signs. For example, the two visible signs in the photograph read, “Pride” and “Christopher Street

Gay Liberation Day 1970” as opposed to messages such as “Love is Love” “I am Gay”, etc. The framing of these masculine men, their masculine mannerisms and their masculine signs are meant to perform masculinity and convey what Herek (1986) identified as heterosexual masculinity which consists of traits such as: success, status, toughness, independence, aggressiveness and dominance. These traits uphold the view that masculine heterosexual men are normal and the yard-stick to which gay men should measure up to and are those visually represented in the photograph.

Finally, the framing of men in the photograph not only failed to challenge traditional gender norms, but also failed to accurately represent the LGBTQIA community as it was (i.e. the absence of lesbians, the absence of transsexuals and the absence of men who failed to adhere to traditional gender norms). The framing of traditional masculine roles through mannerisms, dress, signs, etc. reinforces the belief that gays should perform heteronormative hegemonic masculinity, and be ‘real men’ (i.e. not gay).

Photograph 2. Gay Pride – 1986 [Rohter, 1986]

The second image the study will analyze was published in The New York Times on June 30, 1986 and the article is titled Marchers Laud City’s New Law Prohibiting

Bias: Parade by Homosexuals Attracts Thousands (Rohter, 1986). This gay pride parade took place sixteen years after the first 1970 gay pride and seventeen years following the

Stonewall Riots. At the time of this gay pride parade the LGBTQIA community was five years into the AIDS crisis (A Timeline of HIV and AIDS, 2018) and the United States

Supreme Court had recently upheld state sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (45 Years,

2012). The impact of the AIDS crisis on the LGBTQIA community cannot be overstated as in the United States it first appeared in gay men and affected the LGBTQIA community the hardest (Wright, 2006). For example, in 1981 the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) published its first communication that a rare pneumonia

was found in five previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles and they initially coined

the disease as Gay-Related Immune Deficiency or GRID (Wright, 2006). It was not until

1982 that the CDC changed the name from GRID to Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome or AIDS and updated the associated risk factors to: male homosexuality,

injection drug use, Haitian origin or hemophilia (Wright, 2006). It was not until 1987

(one year following the gay pride parade this study examines) that President Ronald

Reagan made his first major speech regarding the AIDS crisis, at which time there had

already been a substantial loss of life and impact on the LGBTQIA community (Wright,

2006; Andriote, 2012). Due to the stigma surrounding AIDS, the protest rhetoric

employed by the LGBTQIA community adapted in order to adequately address the

epidemic and the lack of support the LGBTQIA community received from heterosexuals.

The first aspect of framing is to define the problem. In this image The New York

Times does not define the problem for external audiences (i.e. heterosexuals), but rather for the internal audience (i.e. homosexuals). In this image there is one large banner spanning the entire length of the picture stating “forward together” and there are multiple people holding the sign with a parade of people behind them. Because of the poor quality of the image it is difficult to definitively identify the genders of the participants in the parade, but there appears to be a mix of men and women. In this frame the banner with the words “forward together” can be viewed as the gay community’s attempt to unify itself and move forward in the face of the AIDS crisis where it was being ignored by heterosexuals who largely viewed AIDS as a gay disease. This is evidenced by the fact that despite having been identified for five years, President Reagan had yet to address

AIDS in any mainstream communication (Wright, 2006). In addition to the AIDS crisis, the LGBTQIA community also faced a blow from the United States Supreme Court, which had recently upheld state sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (45 Years, 2012).

Consequently, the problem being defined for gays and lesbians is to unite, fight for their rights and move forward in that fight together. Additionally, the framing of the message

“forward together” also laid the groundwork for acquiring heterosexual allies. Although the majority of Americans were opposed to LGBTQIA rights, there were heterosexuals who were supportive of the LGBTQIA community and the message “forward together” invited them into the movement.

The second aspect of Entman’s framing is the diagnosis of a cause. As previously stated, this image is not defined for external audiences (i.e. heterosexuals), but rather for the internal audience (i.e. homosexuals). Because the LGBTQIA audience is being called to come forward, unite and fight for their rights, the cause can be defined as heterosexuals who do not support LGBTQIA rights as well as those in power who are ignoring the AIDS crisis and its impact to the LGBTQIA community.

The third aspect of Entman’s framing is the making of moral judgments. In this image, the moral judgment is made by members of the LGBTQIA community on heterosexuals who oppose LGBTQIA rights as well as the politicians/lawmakers ignoring the AIDS crisis. At this point in time there was a heavy death toll due to AIDS, a large percentage of the LGBTQIA community suffering from AIDS, stigmas surrounding homosexuality and AIDS as well as an atmosphere of criminalization through prosecutions under state sodomy laws. Members of the LGBTQIA community were

desperate for help from anyone who would listen. Consequently, the message of

“forward together” casts a moral judgment on those who opposed them. Members of the

LGBTQIA community were letting the rest of the world know they were organizing, they

were coming together, they were forming advocacy groups (i.e. ACT UP, Human Rights

Campaign, GLAAD, GenderPAC, etc.), they were fighting AIDS, they were fighting the

stigma surrounding AIDS, they were remembering the casualties from the AIDS crisis

(i.e. The Names Project) and that the LGBTQIA population was a force to be reckoned with.

The fourth and final aspect of framing is the suggestion of a remedy to the problem. With the problems clearly defined and well understood by members of the gay and straight communities, the framing of the message “forward together” suggested a remedy to the problem by expressing a double meaning. The framing of the message

“forward together” served not only to unify members of the LGBTQIA community, but also invited heterosexuals into the movement. This invitation to move “forward together” worked on two levels. First, it allowed straight people who supported the

LGBTQIA community to continue to do so by fighting for LGBTQIA rights and assisting those suffering during the AIDS crisis. Secondly, the framing of the message “forward together” allowed for LGBTQIAs and heterosexuals to work together on the issue of

AIDS (as it did affect a small percentage of heterosexuals) even though they might disagree on the topic of LGBTQIA rights.

In the 1986 photograph the “forward together” sign is carried by what appears to be mostly, if not all, men. The men carrying the sign do so effortlessly and take up the

entire street. The banner blocks most of the men so only the upper portion of their

clothes is visible, but all of the men are wearing t-shirts or button-up shirts, and many are wearing hats. This style of dress is consistent with what Butler identified as the performance of masculinity. In front of the “forward together” sign there is one man leading the parade who is wearing a sleeveless shirt, athletic shorts and a backwards hat.

As Butler (1990) stated, gender is not a stable identity, but rather a fluid, ever-changing agency that is subject to culture and time. This is evidenced in how the masculine style of dress has changed from pants, button-up shirt, suit jacket, etc. (although those would still be considered masculine) to include items such as athletic shorts, a sleeveless shirt and backwards hat (which consequently show more of the male physique).

In addition to reinforcing hegemonic gender norms through the performance of clothing, the framed image also illustrates the emotional aspects of the performance of masculinity. Herek (1986) concluded that heterosexual masculinity consists of many various personal characteristics. These characteristics consist of traits such as: success, status, toughness, independence, aggressiveness and dominance. In the framed image, the sign is being carried by all men and there are very few women portrayed in the image.

Perhaps more importantly is the man leading the parade. In this image the man leading the parade is portrayed as not only a leader, but in charge (i.e. he is at the helm of the parade), tough (i.e. he is wearing athletic wear and showing his toned physique), and independent (i.e. he is alone in the middle of the street while the participants behind him have each other).

Photograph 3. Gay Pride – 1994 [Scott, 1994]

The third image the study will analyze was published in The New York Times on

June 27, 1994 and the article is titled Gay Marchers Press Ahead in 25-Year Battle: Rally

Recalls Stonewall ... (Scott, 1994). This gay pride parade was held twenty-four years after the first 1970 gay pride and twenty-five years following the Stonewall Riots. This gay pride parade was monumental as it marked the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall

Riots which jump-started the LGBTQIA rights movement and led to the first gay pride parade (45 Years, 2012).

In this image, The New York Times is defining the problem that gays and lesbians are still not accepted in mainstream society and they must continue to fight for their rights in society. In the picture there is a large rainbow pride flag covering the entire width of the street that runs for a full mile down New York’s First Avenue (Scott, 1994).

There are people on each side of the street holding the gigantic pride flag. The sidewalks on both sides of First Avenue is packed full of people and they can be seen running the entire visible length of First Avenue. For this artifact, it is not the visual of the picture that fully defines the problem, but rather the accompanying text stating Gay Marchers

Press Ahead in 25-Year Battle (Scott, 1994). The visual of the pride flag stretched out for a full mile with the adjoining sidewalks packed full of people is breathtakingly beautiful and shows a major advancement in the LGBTQIA rights movement as well as

New York’s gay pride events. In the 1970 and the 1986 photographs there are people marching in the parade, but there is still space/room between each of the participants whereas in this artifact the street does not appear to be able to hold any additional people.

Viewing the photo without the text might indicate the LGBTQIA rights movement had fully matured and carved out a respected place in society. It is only through the accompanying text stating Gay Marchers Press Ahead in 25-Year Battle that one understands there is still significant work to be done and members of the LGBTQIA community still face discrimination.

Similar to diagnosing the problem, the second aspect of framing is not readily apparent from the image and requires the accompanying text stating Gay Marchers Press

Ahead in 25-Year Battle (Scott, 1994) to fully diagnosis the cause. As previously stated, the image of a large rainbow pride flag covering the entire width of the street and running for a full mile down First Avenue illustrates the significant growth occurring in the

LGBTQIA rights movement as well as the increased acceptance of LGBTQIA persons.

However, it is only through the accompanying text, that gay marchers are pressing ahead

70 in a 25-year battle, that the cause is identified; which is the heterosexual dominant members of society who have failed to accept gays and lesbians in the past twenty-five years. It is noteworthy that the visual of the grandiose pride flag and the packed sidewalks reinforce the diagnosed cause the reader gets from the accompanying text as it illustrates how societal views towards homosexuality have changed, how many more people accept LGBTQIA individuals, how many more LGBTQIA people are beginning to come out as well as how far the LGBTQIA rights movement has come.

The third aspect of framing also requires the accompanying text of Gay Marchers

Press Ahead in 25-Year Battle (Scott, 1994) in order to implicate a moral judgment.

Twenty-five years into the LGBTQIA rights movement and the topic of homosexuality is still taboo, but more and more heterosexuals are beginning to see people who identify as

LGBTQIA in their daily lives and on television. In addition, although it varied from state-to-state and city-to-city, more homosexuals were feeling comfortable enough to tell friends and family they are LGBTQIA without fear they would need to move to another city/state in order to fully live their lives. The moral judgment cast by The New York

Times is that being gay is ok and gays are pressing ahead with their quest for full acceptance and heterosexuals should accept them as they are.

The fourth aspect of framing is the suggestion of a remedy. The visual of the mile long pride flag engulfing all of New York’s First Avenue coupled with the accompanying text of Gay Marchers Press Ahead in 25-Year Battle (Scott, 1994) suggests that the

LGBTQIA movement is remedying its own problem. For example, the 1970 and 1986 gay pride parades do not compare to the size or grandiosity of the 1994 image. The New

York Times is framing the 25-year battle as a major success in the LGBTQIA rights

movement and letting heterosexuals who do not support members of the LGBTQIA

community know the movement is pressing ahead in its quest for full equality.

Additionally, the inclusion of the length of the battle (i.e. 25 years) also frames the

tenacity of the movement and its dedication to achieving full equality; regardless of how

long it takes to achieve.

Photograph 4. Gay Pride – 2003 [Elliott, 2003]

The fourth image the study will analyze was published in The New York Times on

June 30, 2003 and the article is titled Gays and Lesbians Parade With a New Sense of

Pride and Possibility (Elliott, 2003). This gay pride parade occurred thirty-three years after the first 1970 gay pride and thirty-four years following the Stonewall Riots. This gay pride parade was significant because of the recent United States Supreme Court

72 ruling that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, thus reversing their earlier decision in

Lawrence v. Texas (45 Years, 2012). In addition to the reversal of Lawrence v. Texas, this gay pride parade was also significant as it followed the legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada (Elliott, 2003). While the legalization of same-sex marriages in

Canada does not directly impact the United States it can be viewed as an overall win for the global LGBTQIA community.

The first aspect of framing, defining the problem, is established by what is not being shown in this image from New York’s gay pride celebration: the parade. Unlike the 1970, 1986 and 1994 gay pride pictures, the 2003 gay pride celebration is the first image where a traditional parade is not shown. Instead, the image features two couples in the foreground with a large crowd of couples in the background. The couple in the foreground on the left are both male, while the couple in the foreground on the right are both female; in the background are a variety of same-sex couples. The male couple in the foreground on the left is kissing while the female couple in the foreground on the right is looking at something that is not shown in the photograph. It is important to note this is the first image where the study sees public displays of affection between same-sex persons. In the article accompanying the image it is stated “We’ve broken new ground, said Janice E. Thom, a spokeswoman for Heritage of Pride, which organized the 34th annual parade, now known as New York City’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,

Pride March. It’s part of the mainstreaming of us as people. We’re becoming part of the diverse quilt of this country” (Elliott, 2003). Consequently, given the reversal of sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, the

problem being framed by The New York Times is the lack of marriage equality for same-

sex couples in the United States.

The second aspect of Entman’s framing is diagnosing the cause. Given the recent

reversal of Lawrence v. Texas and the use of public displays of affection between same-

sex couples, the cause can be diagnosed as conservatives or religious citizens who wish

to keep their religious views as the dominant ideology and remain in power. In this photo

The New York Times appeals to this group by using a photograph of what could be

anyone in Middle America’s aunt, uncle or parent, thus making gay marriage more

relatable to its opponents. For example, in this photo we see middle-aged gays and

lesbians who have a non-offensive, gender conforming look to them. They appear to be

white, middle class everyday people who just happen to be gay. What is strategically

absent from the photo is items that could make gays and lesbians appear to be different

from the rest of America such as: pride flags, gays/lesbians dressed in costumes, overtly

sexual behavior, drag queens, transsexuals, nonadherence to social norms, etc.

The third aspect of framing, making moral judgments, is seen through The New

York Times use of images showing same-sex couples as opposed to the traditional parade.

Rather than keep with tradition and show the accompanying parade, festival, protests, etc., The New York Times featured gay couples kissing and celebrating gay pride through participation in commitment ceremonies. Additionally, the commitment ceremonies featured in this photograph actually occurred the day before the annual pride parade

(Elliott, 2003). Given this and the recent win in Canada, the moral judgment being asserted is that gays and lesbians are no different from heterosexuals and are just as

deserving of marriage. This judgment is reinforced with the accompanying quote from a

participant who stated, “It’s part of the mainstreaming of us as people. We’re becoming

part of the diverse quilt of this country” (Elliott, 2003).

The fourth and final aspect of framing is the suggestion of a remedy to the

problem. Given the surrounding context of the image the suggested remedy to the

problem would be for the United States to allow for same-sex marriage. For example, in

the accompanying text The New York Times reported that some parade participants held

signs reading ‘Justice for Gay Couples’ and they reported that a group of those

participants were planning to wed in Canada so they could be legally married.

Additionally, the participants reported wanting equal justice in the United States so when

they returned from their Canadian weddings they would be afforded the same legal rights

as heterosexuals (Elliott, 2003).

In relation to gender performance, middle-aged LGBTQIA members conforming to existing heteronormative gender standards were framed in The New York Times. For example, the gay pride participants appear to be mostly white, middle class and they relate to Middle America through the presentation of accepted gender norms (i.e. the women carrying purses while the men do not carry them, both sexes being dressed in clothing that is deemed appropriate for their gender, both sexes adhering to their sex’s accepted norms). While the agency in performance of gender is illustrated through the participant’s clothing and mannerisms, this occurs up to the point of the men kissing.

The man kissing is where hegemony illustrates what is actually occurring in this photograph. According to Herek (1986), heterosexuality masculinity consists of traits

such as success, status, toughness, independence, aggressiveness and dominance. Herek

(1986) also noted that heterosexual masculinity can also be defined by what it is not, and that is feminine and homosexual. In this photograph, the two men kissing is a violation of Herek’s heterosexuality masculinity, as it is clearly homosexual. However, the kiss works because of the framing of the masculine men doing the kissing and its hegemonistic properties. The visual of two masculine men “who appear as if they could be anyone’s family members” kissing, challenges social norms enough to move the gay rights movement forward a few inches. However, the kiss serves only that purpose and does not challenge the stereotypes surrounding effeminacy in gay men. This is especially important considering non-conforming men are the ones credited with jump-starting the gay rights movement. For example, viewers would reject as not relatable a photograph depicting two limp-wristed men in skinny jeans, who exhibited no performance of toughness or dominance, kissing. These masculine constructs, according to Herek

(1986), allow masculine heterosexual men to view themselves as normal, while viewing all others (non-masculine or effeminate homosexual men) as deviant. In the case of this image, it allows masculine homosexual men to view themselves as normal while viewing all others as deviant.

Photograph 5. Gay Pride – 2015 [Flegenheimer & Lee, 2015]

The fifth image the study will analyze was published in The New York Times on

June 28, 2015 and the article is titled Jubilant Marchers at Gay Pride Parades Celebrate

Supreme Court Ruling (Flegenheimer & Lee, 2015). This gay pride celebration took place 45-years following the first gay pride in 1970 and forty-six years following the

Stonewall Riots. This gay pride parade was historic because the United States Supreme

Court had just announced its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution

guarantees the right to same-sex marriage (Liptak, 2015). Additionally, the

announcement could not have come at a more opportune time as the Court’s decision for

marriage equality was announced on Friday, June 26, 2015 and New York’s gay pride

celebration began the next day.

The problem being defined in this image is that despite the United States Supreme

Court’s decision in favor of the right to marriage equality, members of the LGBTQIA community still face significant discrimination. In this picture, there is a crowded street with a couple of participants wearing t-shirts stating “Love is Love”; many of the participants are waving gay pride flags. Unlike the previous pride photographs, the participants in this photo vary dramatically in: age, race, ethnicity and gender. This picture differs from the 1970, 1986 and 1994 photos in that this is the first time a protestor is visible. In this photograph the protestor is standing in an area that is sectioned off from the gay pride participants. The protestor is in stark contrast to the pride participants who are adorned with pride flags and colorful t-shirts stating “Love is

Love”, while the protestor is dressed mostly in black. The protestor is holding a sign stating:

SAME GENDER MARRIAGE:

destroying Religious liberty

destroying Moral values

destroying Family life

destroying Society

destroying Health

The sheer number of gay pride supporters compared to the protestor is substantial; however, the protestor’s presence cannot be missed due to the use of space (i.e., he is given a considerable amount of it compared to the pride participants who are packed into the surrounding areas). Space, especially at a major New York City event such as pride,

78 is a commodity and to have this much extra space around the protestor can be symbolically viewed as synonymous with the church’s power and opposition to the

United States Supreme Court’s decision.

In this image, the moral judgement being made is that America is changing and the church’s anti-gay beliefs have no part in our changing society. For example, in this photograph the protestors are smiling, happy, vibrant, and colorful (i.e. carrying/waving pride flags, have vibrant and colorful clothing, etc.) while the protestor is wearing mostly dark colors and standing alone. The juxtaposition of the colorful pride participants and the black and white protestor is being framed to make a light and dark comparison and illustrate who is right (i.e. light – which is comprised of gays and gay supporters) and who is wrong (i.e. dark – which people who are anti-gay and do not support same-sex marriage). Additionally, the participants are mostly all looking at something off to the side that is not shown in the frame (i.e. not at the protestor) and the protestor has his hand on his ear and his gaze seems to be at his feet or the ground. The purposeful selection of a photograph where no one is paying attention to the protestor creates the frame that no one (even the protestor) is interested in his message or what he has to say.

The fourth and final aspect of framing is the suggestion of a remedy to the problem. The remedy being suggested is that you should choose diversity and love. For example, the pride participants featured in this photograph are meant to symbolize the melting pot America is famous for being, while still appealing to a broad audience. In this photo there are people of many different ages, ethnicities, backgrounds, etc. and they have all chosen to support love. What is absent from the photo are any items that could

make gays and lesbians appear to be different from the rest of America such as:

costumes, drag queens, transsexuals, nonadherence to social norms, etc. Additionally,

the placement of the pride participants around the protestor is reminiscent of a colosseum, where some people were on display while the audience looked on from above. In this case, the sheer number of people surrounding the protestor is meant to illustrate that he is only one among many and his message will be drowned out by the sea of “Love is Love” messages.

Similar to previous photographs, the 2015 pride image frames the photo to include only conventional performances of gender that appeal to the average middle-of-

the-road American. Pride parades have a long history of outlandish, over-the-top, gender

nonconforming or confrontational participants. For example, the following frequent

pride attendees are known for challenging social constructs and gender norms: drag

queens, performance artists, Dykes on Bikes, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the

leather community, etc. Despite their prevalence and presence at large pride events such

as those in New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles, The New York Times

framed this article with a group of pride participants who are the most mainstream they

could be. Furthermore, if it were not for the pride flags the participants are holding or

their Love is Love t-shirts, it would be difficult to determine this was a gay pride parade.

This photograph is simply a large crowd of people huddled around a protestor opposed to

a parade marching down the street or a festival full of booths and entertainment. The

New York Times framing of this pride event highlights only a version of the LGBTQIA

community that is illustrative of hegemonic masculinity and shows how “white,

heterosexual, and middle class are the standard measure of hegemonic masculinity that

all men are held to as a comparative” Lanzieri and Hilderbrandt (2011, p. 278).

Photograph 6. Gay Pride – 2016 [Rojas, 2016]

The sixth and final image, the study will analyze was published in The New York

Times on June 26, 2016 and the article is titled Pride Marches On, With Jubilation and

Solemn Tributes to Victims of Massacre (Rojas, 2016). This gay pride parade took place

forty-six years following the first 1970 gay pride and forty-seven years following the

Stonewall Riots. This gay pride parade occurred a few short weeks following the

terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida where one of the largest mass shootings in the United

States of America occurred in the Pulse gay nightclub (Ellis, 2016). In addition to closely following the Orlando Florida massacre, New York’s 2016 pride celebration also occurred after the arrest of James Wesley Howell, who was found “looking for a friend”

81 with an arsenal in his car and chemicals that could be used to create an explosive device at the 2016 Los Angeles pride parade/festival (Ellis, 2016).

The first aspect of framing, defining the problem, highlights two problems in this photograph. The first problem being framed is the continued violence against the

LGBTQIA community, despite the advancements made over the last few decades.

Although the LGBTQIA community has a long history of violent attacks against its members, the Pulse nightclub shooting described above is by far one of the most visible and deadliest attacks in LGBTQIA history. In this picture, a large red sign with white letters stating “I AM PULSE” can be seen in the center of the photograph. Next to the “I

AM PULSE” sign is a second sign, stating “It’s a gay thing!!! 20k gun suicides a year!

LGBT Rate is 2X Higher”. These signs are framed to highlight the continued violence against the LGBTQIA community. The second problem being framed in this photograph is gun violence in America. Next to the aforementioned signs is a white sign stating

“GayH8 + Flawed Policy = Orlando” with a picture of a gun and red paint made to resemble blood splatter across the sign. Additionally, a rainbow banner sprawled out across the participants (who are all lying down in the middle of the road) with the words

“AGAINST GUNS” (the rainbow flag is meant to stand for the word’s gays so the banner would mean “GAYS AGAINST GUNS”) written on it.

The third aspect of Entman’s framing is making of moral judgments. The framing of the LGBTQIA protestors is making two moral judgments. First, there is a need for gun reform and/or control in America. This moral judgment is seen in the photograph with the participants lying down in the middle of the road symbolically illustrating their

deaths, then reinforced by the banner laying across them, as if on a casket, stating

“GAYS AGAINST GUNS”. The second moral judgment being made is that everyone

should care about violence against the LGBTQIA community. Similar to the 2003

image, where the placement of gays and lesbians who resembled the average American

was featured, in this photograph the same rhetorical tactic is employed. The pride

protestors are dressed to resemble the average American and vary in age, ethnicity,

gender (although the majority does appear to be male), etc. The participant holding the “I

AM PULSE” sign is framed to illustrate how he could be your friend, neighbor, uncle,

brother, etc. and you should not tolerate this type of violence against him (i.e. gays).

Additionally, the participant holding the “It’s a gay thing!!! 20k gun suicides a year!

LGBT Rate is 2X Higher” sign is framed to illustrate how gun violence (in these case

suicides) affects LGBTQIA members disproportionately higher than heterosexuals.

Coupled with the “I AM PULSE” sign, the “It’s a gay thing!!! 20k gun suicides a year!

LGBT Rate is 2X Higher” works on multiple levels as it normalizes LGBTQIA members

and illustrates the effects of gun violence specific to the LGBTQIA population.

The final aspect of Entman’s framing analysis is the suggestion of a remedy to the

problem. In this photograph the remedy for the problem is gun reform/control in

America. While the “I AM PULSE” and the “It’s a gay thing!!! 20k gun suicides a year!

LGBT Rate is 2X Higher” signs bring attention to violence against LGBTQIA members, the signs in the background clearly spell out the remedy. For example, in the back of the photo near the top left of the “I AM PULSE” sign is a black sign stating “NRA Sashay

Away!”. The term “sashay away” is a catch-phrase from the popular show RuPaul’s

Drag Race, where the losing drag queen must sashay away after being eliminated from the competition. Additionally, to the right of the “GayH8 + Flawed Policy = Orlando” sign is a small black sign on a long stick with white lettering that states “TELL THEM

TO GO AWAY!”. The suggestion that the NRA sashay away clearly outlines that the

NRA is impeding gun law reform, and if they were to sashay away then some form of meaningful reform could be instituted.

In the 2016 New York pride celebration the photograph shows pride participants lying down in the street with onlookers on both sides of the road. There are only a small handful of women present in the photograph. Similar to the previous photographs, all of the participants in the photograph appear to be performing traditional gender roles for their sex. This gay pride image differs from all of the previous images in that this is the only gay pride image in the study to show approximately four males with their shirts off; as most of the previous images showed participants fully dressed with little to no skin showing. Additionally, most of the men in this photograph are wearing shorts as opposed to pants (which is what most of the men wore in the previous photographs examined).

Given the topic of gun control, and the fact that guns can be considered a masculine weapon, the choice to frame an image featuring shirtless men and bare legs is especially important as it is being used to highlight and emphasize the physical aspect of gay masculinity. In their study regarding physical masculinity Lanzieri and Hilderbrandt

(2011) found that:

Studies corroborated that masculinity is defined not only through behavioral

contexts (e.g., acting masculine), but it is also characterized symbolically through

physical components of muscularity and fitness – the body is utilized as the

vehicle to masculine power. Additionally, the advertisements express anti-

effeminate attitudes in order to align with the prevailing value system that

empowers gender typicality. (p. 277)

In this case, gay men may be framed as seeking gun control/reform, but they are still performing traditional masculinity. It is interesting to note that in addition to performing physical masculinity, the image does not feature a substantial amount of pride symbols aside from the large banner at the bottom of the picture.

This chapter analyzed six photographs published by The New York Times centered on major events of LGBTQIA history in the United States. Entman’s (1993) framing analysis was used as the guiding method while Judith Butler’s performativity, Gregory

Herek’s heterosexual masculinity and hegemony were used as supplemental theory.

Chapter four will detail the study’s conclusions, limitations, discussion and future studies.

Chapter 4

CONCLUSIONS

This study hypothesized that over the history of the gay rights movement gay pride celebrations have become less about pride, more commercialized, sexualized, objectified and The New York Times has elevated these portions of information in importance and salience. The photographs featured by The New York Times are not subtle and use framing as a tool to effectively advance the gay rights movement. The study reviewed the literature on social movements and protest rhetoric. The origins and history of the gay rights movement/parades were detailed in order to provide a context and background for the images selected and analyzed. The study analyzed six photographs beginning June of 1970 through June of 2016 using Entman’s four aspects of framing, Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, Gregory Herek’s theory of heterosexual masculinity and hegemony to understand how The New York Times has framed gay pride, illustrate how gay pride events have changed over time and how gender performance, authenticity and social movements have influenced gay pride celebrations. The study concludes by detailing the limitations of this study, offering a discussion of the analysis, as well as identifying future research that should be concluded on gay pride.

Discussion

As illustrated by the analysis portion of this study, gay pride celebrations are complex, multi-faceted and consequently worthy of a few remaining remarks. To begin,

The New York Times used framing to highlight specific portions of gay pride celebrations

in order to make those aspects salient to the readers of its publication. This is strongly

evidenced in the pictures chosen by The New York Times depicting gay pride

celebrations. In the six images selected by the study, The New York Times used images

depicting the political and human rights aspects of pride while the accompanying text

often referenced the carnivalesque and party-themed atmosphere present in gay pride

celebrations. For example, in the 1986 accompanying text The New York Times stated

“As in years past, the event was half carnival and half political rally” (Rohter, 1986). In

the 1994 accompanying text The New York Times stated “It was less a flamboyant event

than a traditional gay-pride march, but more lighthearted and festive than a political rally.

There were men in gowns, and topless women, but shorts and T-shirts predominated”

(Scott, 1994) and “There were topless women and a few men running naked up Fifth

Avenue. At the New York Public Library, a man in a white chiffon skirt performed pirouettes on the steps. ‘The impressive thing is the visual extremes’, said Roger Pretto, a tourist from Miami taking photographs with his wife, Judy” (Scott, 1994). In the 2003 accompanying text The New York Times stated “Rainbow flags, samba drag queens, politicians, gay grandparents and a lavish flow of discordantly thumping floats made their way down Fifth Avenue yesterday, as they do every year” (Elliott, 2003) and “Crowds cheered louder, political groups marched in greater numbers and parade-goers seemed more party-prone than protest-bound” (Elliott, 2003). In the 2015 accompanying text The

New York Times stated “Nearby, the procession of papier-mâché floats, pulsing with music, was taking shape. There were marching bands and barely-there tops and humans

87 dressed as giraffes, fairies and leprechauns” (Flegenheimer and Yee, 2015) and

“Moments later, the gravity gave way again to festivity. The actor Tituss Burgess broke into the national anthem, and scantily clad men wove their way through the marchers”

(Flegenheimer and Yee, 2015). Finally, in the 2016 accompanying text The New York

Times opened the article stating “There were scores of men and women, some uninhibited by cares or much clothing, dancing to pulsing beats on a sunny Sunday afternoon along

Fifth Avenue” (Rojas, 2016). Given the consistent references to the party-like atmosphere of gay pride parades (as they appear in every article except the 1970 article) it is clear The New York Times is pictorially depicting one aspect of pride while editorially describing another. Additionally, when the accompanying text is read chronologically (as it was listed above), the comments illustrate an increase or progression in the degree of the party-like atmosphere of pride. For example, the 1986 text described that pride as half carnival and half political rally while the 2016 text referenced the scores of scantily clad men and women dancing to pulsing beats.

The second conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that The New York

Times has relied on traditional gender roles, race, gay men and hegemony in its visual depiction of the LGBTQIA movement. In all six of the images The New York Times featured photographs depicting pride participants adhering to acceptable and traditional gender roles. For example, in each of gay pride photographs all of the men are wearing jeans, slacks, button-up shirts, t-shirts, shorts or suits, etc. and the women are wearing t- shirts, blouses, shorts, pants, carrying purses, etc. Additionally, when examining the photographs chronologically there appears to be a small progression from the more

88 formal to the more casual. For example, in the 1970 photograph there are mostly button- up shirts and pants being worn compared with the 2017 images where there are mostly shorts and t-shirts being worn.

In regards to race, the majority of the photographs featured participants who largely appear to be white and middle class. This is significant as homosexuality is found in all races yet race is not equally depicted. This omission can lead to fracturing within the LGBTQIA community as one group gets more attention, resources, services, etc.

This fracturing is evidenced in the fight for marriage equality. For example, in the 2003 photograph it appears that marriage equality is the main concern of the LGBTQIA community but many under represented gays and lesbians saw that as a white middle class issue as they were still fighting for more basic rights and services such as: equal protection under the law, medical care, an end to homelessness and poverty, etc. This fracturing is most evident in the movement for transgender rights. While many gays were pushing for pro-gay legislation, transgender rights were frequently left off or stripped out of the legislation for fear the bill would not pass with those provisions included. Transgender members of the community were often promised the larger movement would return for their protections at a later date, but many felt that date was never coming.

In regards to gender, The New York Times disproportionately featured men in their photographs. For example, men were predominantly featured in the 1970, 1986 and the 2016 photographs while women were only featured in the 2003 and the 2015 photographs. Even when women were highlighted in the photographs they were still

89 shown alongside men and they never appeared in equal numbers. Similar to race, inaccurate gender representation can lead to fracturing within the LGBTQIA community and the misrepresentation of groups within the LGBTQIA community.

The third conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that a successful heteronormative gender performance has been instrumental to the success and advancement of the gay rights movement. As mentioned in the analysis section of this study, the photographs The New York Times selected depicts gays and lesbians who conform to heteronormative gender standards of dress and mannerisms. The participants in these images, for all intents and purposes, appear to be “straight acting”, meaning a stranger would not know they are gay/lesbian/transgender unless they were told. This is problematic for two reasons. First, it does not accurately represent the entire LGBTQIA community. There are a large portion of LGBTQIA individuals who either choose not to conform or cannot conform to heteronormative gender standards. Only featuring

“straight acting” gays and lesbians fails to give representation to nonconforming gays and lesbians. Secondly, featuring only “straight acting” gays and lesbians is divisive and pits

“straight acting” gays and lesbians against “gay acting” gays and lesbians. When one version of masculinity or femininity is preferred, it becomes a commodity. Those who are unable to acquire it become second class citizens and are likely to suffer from discrimination from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Finally, this study has illustrated that the effective use of framing can help advance a social movement. In the instance of gay pride parades, through framing The

New York Times has put forth the illusion that LGBTQIA members are similar to

heterosexuals (i.e. sameness), thus making them more relatable and more likely to be

received by heterosexuals. While other social movements are able to use a broader

interpretation of sameness (i.e. we are all human, we all share “these beliefs”, etc.), the

gay movement is unique in that it has members who belong to both the dominant class

and the marginalized. Through framing, The New York Times has worked to advance the

gay movement at large but it is problematic in that it promotes the gays and lesbians

belonging to the dominant class (white and conforming to heteronormative gender

performance) while further marginalizing LGBTQIA minorities (non-white and non- gender conforming). In light of these findings, there were some limitations to this study.

Limitations

One major limitation of the study is the small sample of photographs used for

analysis. Having originated in 1970, New York has held 47 gay pride celebrations as of

the writing of this study (Armstrong & Crage, 2006). The study analyzed six

photographs centered on significant events in LGBTQIA history. While diligence was

given to the historical events and the photographs chosen, the study is limited to the

content within the six photographs selected. Additionally, the content found in those

photographs may be representative of the framing occurring around significant events in

LGBTQIA history but it may or may not be representative of the framing occurring at all

other gay pride celebrations. Consequently, the analysis of photographs from gay pride

celebrations that are not centered on significant events in LGBTQIA history may yield

different results.

A second limitation of the study is the poor image quality in the older photographs. Technology has improved significantly since the first 1970 gay pride parade and with technological improvement comes photographs with significantly better pixel resolution, depth of scope and color quality and lighting (e.g. the 2015 and 2016 photographs in the study). Many of the older photographs (e.g. the 1970, 1986, 1994, and 2003 photographs) are blurry, have poor pixel resolution and have poor lighting which makes analysis difficult as it is impossible to definitively identify the details in the photographs.

A third limitation of the study is the photographs used for analysis were all from gay pride celebrations in New York City. Gay pride celebrations occur in major cities across America. Examining photographs from gay pride celebrations in other major cities (i.e. Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.) may yield similar or entirely different results as each city has its own distinct culture. For example, San Francisco is widely recognized as one of the most liberal major cities in America. Analysis of photographs from San Francisco’s gay pride celebrations around major events in

LGBTQIA history might expand the current study or yield entirely different results.

A fourth limitation of the study is that the photographs used for analysis are taken from a distinctive major city (i.e. New York City) that is dissimilar to any other city in the United States. New York City is well known throughout the world as a major trendsetting city and is considered to be avant-garde by many. As such, New York is not representative of the many mid-size or small town pride celebrations occurring throughout the United States. Each city has its own distinct culture that influences and

shapes events such as gay pride. For example, organizers of gay pride celebrations in

small towns may choose a location for their celebration that is easily accessible for its

participants but far enough off the beaten path that participants are less likely to be

visible to the general public or exposed to protestors. This is a stark contrast to major

cities such as New York where the parade is held in an extremely public location and is

broadcast for the world to see.

Lastly, another limitation of the study is its focus on photographs around

significant events in LGBTQIA history. Choosing photographs around any historical

event will naturally change the intent of the rhetoric. When a tragedy has recently

occurred it is natural to expect a departure from the normal celebration and an emphasis

placed on the tragedy. For example, when the Pulse nightclub shooting occurred shortly

before New York pride there were many people protesting the tragedy or remembering

the person(s) killed (i.e. protestors with signs or mourners with candles). When a tragedy

affecting the LGBTQIA community occurs close to a major pride event it creates an

atmosphere that is distinctly different from the norm and thus, atypical of a normal gay

pride celebration. Despite the limitations of the study, its findings leave considerable

areas of future research.

Future Studies

While research has been conducted on gay pride celebrations, the existing research is limited and has been concerned with areas of study such as: police satisfaction at Atlanta pride (Gillespie, 2008), if pride is still needed (Anderson-Minshall & Breen &

Broverman & Garcia & Ring, 2013), corporate sponsorship of pride events (Hernandez,

2007), discrimination and victimization of participants in the Chile pride parade

(Barrientos & Silva & Catalan & Gomez, & Longueira, 2010), etc. This limited focus

leaves a substantial number of possibilities for future research. In addition to the limited academic focus on gay pride parades, gay pride parades naturally lend themselves to ongoing study as they occur annually across the United States and in many parts of the world, are ever-evolving in order to meet the current needs of the LGBTQIA community, are frequently covered in the media (both domestically and abroad) and are comprised of virtually every race and ethnicity in the world. In regards to the framing of photographs from gay pride celebrations, additional studies analyzing photographs from different time periods (i.e. not centered around major historical events) would give insight into how gay pride is framed on a year-to-year basis. Having only originated in 1969 (45 Years, 2012),

the gay rights movement is relatively young when compared to other social movements.

Examining gay pride parades on a year-to-year basis would help establish a norm or a baseline for pride celebrations. The prevalence of modern technology (e.g. cell phones, video cameras, tablets, etc.) makes accessing recent images relatively easy, while the older events can be accessed through media archive files.

A second future area of study is a comparative study using images from major cities across America illustrating how gay pride events are framed differently based on their geographic location. This type of study could begin with the first three cities to host gay pride parades (Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and follow their transformations through the gay rights movement. This type of study would be an

extension or the next step of this study but would greatly expand the understanding of

gay pride as a form of rhetoric and illustrate how the three founding gay pride cities have

evolved

A third future area of study is a rhetorical analysis of photographs of gay pride

parades since President Trump has taken office. Although President Trump claims to not

have an issue with the LGBTQIA community, many of the people in his cabinet do.

Despite his promise to be LGBTQIA friendly, President Trump proposed a ban on

transgender military service personnel, failed to acknowledge pride month and

continuously fills his administration with people who are widely known for their anti-

LGBTQIA views. For example, Vice President Mike Pence has a long history of

supporting anti-LGBTQIA laws and is on record as supporting gay conversion therapy.

Studying gay pride since Trump’s acquisition of office would help to illustrate how the

LGBTQIA community evolves to meet what many activists consider a direct threat to the

advancements the movement has made over the last forty-eight years.

A final future area of study related to gay pride is to analyze programs from gay pride celebrations. While conducting research for this study, the study discovered a

LGBTQIA historical society in Los Angeles possessing archived programs from gay pride celebrations from locations such as New York and Los Angeles. Analyzing programs from gay pride celebrations would provide a deeper understanding of the intent of homosexuals as the creators of their own social movement as well as illustrate the role sex plays in that gay rights movement. For example, The Advocate reports that from the beginning of the gay rights movement it has used homoerotic images as a staple element

95 in their gay publications (Streitmatter, 1993, p. 94). It is worthy of study to determine the extent to which homoerotic images were used in gay pride parade programs and how that changed over the course of the gay pride movement. Analyzing gay pride parade programs would also be especially beneficial as they have fallen out of vogue and are not routinely used at modern pride events. The analysis of these programs would hopefully lead to the cause of their demise.

References

45 Years of history. (2012), Advocate, 1061, 18-52.

A timeline of HIV and AIDS. (2018, April 11). Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-

basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline

Alwood, E. (2015). The role of public relations in the gay rights movement, 1950-1969.

Journalism History, 41(1), 11-20.

Anderson, D., Breen, M., Broverman, N., Garcia, M., & Ring, T. (2013). Reasons

to have pride in 2013. Advocate, 1067, 49-76.

Andriote, J. (2012). Reclaiming HIV as a ‘gay’ disease. The Gay & Lesbian Review

Worldwide, 19(5), 28-30.

Armstrong, E., & Crage, S. (2006). The making of the Stonewall myth. American

Sociological Review, 71(5), 724-751.

Barrientos, J., & Silva, J., & Catalan, S., & Gomez, F., & Longueira, J. (2010).

Discrimination and victimization: parade for lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender (LGBT) pride, in Chile. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(6), 760-775.

Bitzer, L.F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.

Bronski, M. (2011). A queer history of the United States. MA: Beacon Press Books.

Bulmer, S. (2013). Patriarchal confusion?. International Feminist Journal of Politics,

15(2), 137-156. doi: 10.1080/14616742.2012.746565

Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology

and feminist theory. Theater Journal, 40(4), 519-531.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York, London: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc.

Butler, J. (1996). Imitation and gender insubordination. In A. Garry & M. Pearsall

(Eds.), Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy (2nd

ed., pp. 371-387). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.

Callis, A. (2009). Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and queer theory.

Journal of Bisexuality, 9, 213-233. doi: 10.1080/15299710903316513

Carroll, W. (2007). Hegemony and counter-hegemony in a global field. Studies in Social

Justice, 1(1), 36-66.

Carroll, W.K., & Ratner, R.S. (1996). Master frames and counter-hegemony: Political

sensibilities in contemporary social movements. Canadian Review of Sociology,

33(4), 407-435.

Carroll, W.K., & Ratner, R.S. (1999). Media strategies and political projects: A

comparative study of social movements. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 24(1) 1-

34.

Carroll, W.K., & Ratner, R.S. (2001). Sustaining oppositional cultures in ‘post-socialist’

times: A comparative study of three social movement organisations. Sociology,

35(33), 605-629.

Cappellato, V., & Mangarella, T. (2014). Sexual Citizenship in private and public space:

Parents of gay men and lesbians discuss their experiences of pride parades.

Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10(1-2), 211-230.

Cloud, D. (2009). Foiling the intellectuals: Gender, identity, framing, and the rhetoric of

the kill in conservative hate mail. Communication, Culture & Critique, 2, 457-

479.

Cohen, T., Hall D., & Tuttle J. (2009). Attitudes toward stereotypical versus

counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 46(4), 274-

281.

Cover, R. (2004). Bodies, movements and desires: Lesbian/gay subjectivity and the

stereotype. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18(1), 81-97.

DeJean, A. (2017). Trump’s assault on LGBT rights is galvanizing activists for an even

more defiant pride. Mother Jones. Retrieved from

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/politics-lgbt-pride-resistance-

trump-1/

Elliott, A. (2003, June 30). Gays and lesbians parade with a new sense of pride and

possibility. The New York Times.

Ellis, R., Fantz, A., Karimi, F., & McLaughlin, E. (June 13, 2016). Orlando

shooting: killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance. CNN. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

Enders, D. & Senda-Cook, S. (2011). Location matters: The rhetoric of place in protest.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(3), 257-282.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

Erickson, T. (2015). Legalization of gay marriage—United States Supreme Court

declares it unconstitutional for states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry:

immediate impact of gay marriage in North Dakota. North Dakota Law Review,

91(1), 219-232.

Flegenheimer, M., & Lee, V. (2015, June 28). Jubilant Marchers at gay pride parades

celebrate Supreme Court ruling. The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/nyregion/jubilant-marchers-at-new-yorks-

gay-pride-parade-celebrate-supreme-court-ruling.html

Fosburgh, L. (1970, June 29). Thousands of homosexuals hold a protest rally in Central

Park. The New York Times.

Gamson, W. (1989). News as framing. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(2), 157-161.

Gamson, W.A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the

social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.

Ghaziani, A. (2011). Post-gay collective identity construction. Social Problems, 58(1),

99-125.

Gillespie, W. (2008). Thirty-five years after Stonewall: An exploratory study of

satisfaction with police among gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons at the 34th

annual Atlanta pride festival. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(4), 619-647.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.

Griffin, L. The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38(2),

184-188.

100

Gudelunas, D. (2011). Consumer myths and the gay men and women who believe them:

A qualitative look at movements and markets. Psychology and Marketing, 28(1),

53-68.

Hall, S. (2010). The American gay rights movement and patriotic protest. Journal of the

History of Sexuality, 19(3), 536-562.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.

Halperin, D. & Traub, V. (2009). Gay shame. Chicago and London: The University of

Chicago Press.

Herek, G. (1986, May/June). On heterosexual masculinity. The American Behavioral

Scientist, 29(5), 563.

Henry, P.J., & Reyna, C. (2007). Value judgments: The impact of perceived value

violations on American political attitudes. Political Psychology, 28, 273-298.

Hernandez, G. (2007). Big gay business. Advocate, (987), 72-76.

Hohle, R. (2009). The body and citizenship in social movement research: embodied

performances and the deracialized self in the black Civil Rights movement. The

Sociological Quarterly, 50(2), 283-307.

Jameel, M. (2015, July 6). Rainbows and weddings: The Neoliberal and imperialist

politics of LGBT rights. Retreived from https://solidarity-

us.org/rainbowsandweddings

Johnston, L. (2007). Mobilizing pride/shame: Lesbians, tourism and parades. Social &

Cultural Geography, 8(1), 29-45. doi: 10.1080/14649360701251528

101

Kahn, R. (1988). The problem of power in habermas. Human Studies, 11(4), 361-387.

Kates, S. (1998). Twenty million new customers: Understanding gay men’s consumer

behavior. Binghampton, New York: Harrington Park Press.

Katz, D. (2011). Come on, go to your pride festival. Lesbian News Magazine. Retrieved

from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/64873975/come-on-go-your-

pride-festival

Knight, M. G. (1999). Getting past the impasse: Framing as a tool for public relations.

Public Relations Review, 25, 381-398.

Kraus, N. (1996). Desire work: Performativity, and the structuring of a community:

butch/fem relations of the 1940s and 1950s. Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, 17(1), 30-56.

Landy, M. (1986). The legacy of Antonio Gramsci. Boundary 22, 14(3), 49-70.

Lanzieri, N., & Hildebrandt, T. (2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male

attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(2), 275-

293.

Lippmann, W. (1955). Essays in the public philosophy. Boston, Toronto: Little Brown

and Company.

Liptak, A. (2015, June 26). Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage a right nationwide.

The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Merriam-Webster (2016, June 1). Retreived from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/parade

102

Migliaccio, T. (2009), Men’s friendships: Performances of masculinity. The Journal of

Men’s Studies, 17(3), 226-241.

Morris III, C. & Howard Browne, S. (2006). Readings on the rhetoric of social protest.

State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.

Morrissey, M. E. (2010). Equality as an Ideograph: The gay rights movement and

proposition 8. Conference Proceedings -- National Communication

Association/American Forensic Association (Alta Conference On

Argumentation), 331-337.

Moulin de Souza, E., & Brewis, J. & Rumens N. (2016). Gender, the body and

organization studies: Que(e)rying empirical research. Gender, Work and

Organization, 23(6), 600-613. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12145

Pilkington, E. (2010, September 30). Tyler Clementi, student outed as gay on internet,

jumps to his death. The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/30/tyler-clementi-gay-student-

suicide

Rand, E. (2012). Gay pride and its queer discontents: ACT UP and the political

deployment of affect. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 98(1), 75-80.

Ridge, D., & Plummer D., & Peasley D. (2006). Remaking the masculine self and coping

in the liminal world of the gay ‘scene’. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8(6), 501-

514.

Rimmerman, C. (2015). The lesbian and gay movements assimilation or liberation?. CO:

Westview Press.

103

Rohas, R. (2016), June 26). Pride marches on, with jubilation and solemn tributes to

victims of massacre, The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/nyregion/pride-marches-on-with-jubilation-

and-solemn-tributes-to-victims-of-massacre.html

Rohter, L. (1986, June 30). Marchers laud city’s new law prohibiting bias parade by

homosexuals attracts thousands. The New York Times.

Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota

Press.

Santino, J. (2011). The carnivalesque and the ritualesque. The Journal of American

Folklore, 124(491), 61-73.

Scott, J. (1994, June 27). Gay marchers press ahead in 25-year battle: rally recalls

Stonewall…. The New York Times.

Silverstone, C. (2012). Duckie’s gay shame: Critiquing pride and selling shame in club

performance. Contemporary Theatre Review, 22(1), 62-78.

Sonnekus, T. (2010). We want to see something different (but not too different)’: Spatial

politics and the pink Loerie Mardi Gras in Knysna. Critical Arts, 24(2), 192-209.

Stack, L. (2016, June 14). Before Orlando shooting, an anti-gay massacre in New Orleans

was largely forgotten. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/upstairs-lounge-new-orleans-fire-

orlando-gay-bar.html?_r=0

Steinmetz, K. (2014, July 2). Burger King debutes gay pride whopper. Time.com.

Retrieved from http://time.com/2947156/burger-king-debuts-gay-pride-whopper/

104

Streitmatter, R. (1993). The Advocate: Setting the standard for the gay liberation press.

Journalism History, 19(3), 93-110.

Theodore, P., & Basow S. (2000). Heterosexual masculinity and homophobia: A reaction

to the self? Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2).

Tuten, T. (2006). Exploring the importance of gay-friendliness and its socialization

influences. Journal of Marketing Communications, 12(2), 79-94.

TV News Desk. (2015, November 27). Retrieved from

http://www.broadwayworld.com/emailcolumn2.cfm

Ventsel, A. (2010). Visualization of “people” in Soviet Estonian public photographs of

the Stalinist era. Social Semiotics, 20(5), 593-612.

Villarejo, A. (2005). Tarrying with the normative queer theory and black history. Social

Text, 23(3-4).

Youngblood-Jackson, A. (2004). Performativity identified. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(5),

673-690. doi: 10.1177/1077800403257673

Watson, E. & Shaw, M. (2011). Performing American masculinities; The 21st century

man in popular culture. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Weiss, M. (2008). Gay shame and BDSM pride: Neoliberalism, privacy and sexual

politics. Radical History Review, 100, 87-101.

Willis, D. (2004). Hate crimes against gay males: An overview. Mental Health Nursing,

25(2), 115-132. doi: 10.1080/01612840490268090

Wright, K. (2006). HIV AIDS a timeline. Essence, 37(2), 140-141.

105

Xhonneux, L. (2013). Performing Butler? Rebecca Brown’s literary supplements to

Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity. Critique, 54, 292-307. doi:

10.1080/00111619.2011.574748