AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Stephanie Painter for the degree of Master of Arts in Applied Ethics presented on March 22, 2017. Title: Exploring Embodied Gender Identities in Steven Universe. Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Stephanie C. Jenkins Steven Universe, a relatively new show from Cartoon Network, explores an unexpectedly complex understanding of gender through their main protagonists. Utilizing Judith Butler’s work on gender performativity and doing gender, as well as Daniel Dennett’s conception of the self as a theorist’s fiction, and Alexander Weheliye’s understanding of power and oppression existing in the articulated assemblages of people’s embodiment, I analyze the construction of several of the characters in Steven Universe and how they deviate from normative modes of being. In this paper, I argue that Steven Universe is expanding the normative construction of what it means to have an identity and a gender identity in children’s animation. ©Copyright by Stephanie Painter March 22, 2017 All Rights Reserved Exploring Embodied Gender Identities in Steven Universe by Stephanie Painter A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Presented March 22, 2017 Commencement June 2017 Master of Arts thesis of Stephanie Painter presented on March 22, 2017 APPROVED: Major Professor, representing Applied Ethics Director of the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. Stephanie Painter, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Stephanie Jenkins, for her patience, support, and guidance throughout my graduate school experience. Our many discussions and your feedback has been instrumental in the conceptualization of this thesis. Your instruction and direction has broadened my understanding of philosophy. Thank you for allowing me to dive deep down into rabbit holes and help me take my grand ideas and narrow them into accomplishable ideas. Without your help, I certainly would not be graduating, let alone graduating with a thesis that I am proud of. I would also like to thank Dr. Barbara Muraca as well as my minor advisor, Dr. Elizabeth Sheehan, for your insights and expertise in the development of not just this thesis, but in my education here at Oregon State. My experience would have been completely lacking without you both. Dr. Muraca exposed me philosophers whom I never expected to encounter like Audre Lorde and your openness to creativity even in academia has been an inspiration for me. Dr. Sheehan, while Sianne Ngai somehow did not make it into my thesis, I am so appreciative of our time together breaking down her complicated theory. You exposed me to a whole new world of theoretical consideration that I know I am not ready to walk away from. Sincerely, thank you both. I am indebted my husband, Bryce Siegel, who has been so supportive of my desire to finish graduate school—even when I wanted to give up. Our life has been on hold largely because of this endeavor and thanking you for your patience and kindness seems shallow in contrast to your support. Without your care, certainly, I would have long since given up this desire to see my project to its completion. I love you deeply, thank you. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Continued) I would also like to thank my little sister, Danielle Painter, who so often inspires me to do and be my best—when I often do not want to be. Without your support and love I would not be able to strive as hard as I do. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family who have supported me. Your time and your encouragement has my deepest solace and you have my sincerest gratitude. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 1.1 Thesis Outline ..............................................................................................7 2 Literature Review........................................................................................................9 2.1 Definitions....................................................................................................9 2.2 Gender Representation in Children’s Animation .......................................12 2.3 Gender Studies: Queer Theory ...................................................................23 2.4 Philosophy: Theories of Consciousness.....................................................29 3 Steven Universe ........................................................................................................37 4 Non-Coherent Agents ...............................................................................................43 4.1 Theory ........................................................................................................44 4.2 Analysis......................................................................................................49 4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................63 5 Material and Embodied Selves ....................................................................................... 64 5.1 Theory ........................................................................................................65 5.2 Analysis......................................................................................................70 5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................78 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................80 7 Works Cited ..............................................................................................................86 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Governor John Ratcliffe, from Pocahontas ..................................................................3 2. Macroburst, from The Incredibles ................................................................................. 15 3. Drizella and Anastasia, from Cinderella ....................................................................... 18 4. Him, from The Powerpuff Girls .................................................................................20 5. The Crystal Gems, from Steven Universe ..................................................................37 6. Pearl, in her gem form ...............................................................................................38 7. Pearl, in her humanoid form ......................................................................................39 8. Amethyst, as the Purple Puma ...................................................................................40 9. Steven, performing onstage .......................................................................................41 10. Stevonnie, fighting an enemy ..................................................................................42 11. Steven and Connie, right before fusing ....................................................................50 12. Stevonnie, after Steven and Connie have fused ........................................................51 13. Garnet, as she usually exists ....................................................................................57 14. Ruby and Sapphire, not fused into Garnet ................................................................57 15. Steven (on the left) and a hologram of his mother, Rose Quartz (on the right) ..........75 16. Jasper (on the left) and Amethyst (on the right) .......................................................76 17. Bismuth...................................................................................................................82 18. Ruby and Sapphire’s Kiss ........................................................................................84 Painter 1 Introduction “All television is educational television. The only question is, what is it teaching,” said Nicholas Johnson, a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner and professor at the University of Iowa College of Law (qtd. in Williams 180). While this quote has been used time and time again, its truth remains, as the fundamental nature of television hasn’t changed. All types of media are created with the intent to communicate some idea or message. What causes concern is the extent to which we consume media, especially television, with little critical thought because its intended focus is “entertainment.” According to the Media Education Foundation, “45% of parents say that if they have something important to do, they are likely to use the TV to occupy their child” (10 Reasons Why Media Education Matters). Moreover, “Children spend a daily average of 4 hours and 40 minutes in front of a screen – 2 ½ hours of which are spent watching television” (10 Reasons Why Media Education Matters). I find the two most concerning statistics to be that “Children ages 2-7 watch television alone and unsupervised 81% of the time” and “97% of American children ages 6 & under own products based on characters from TV shows or movies” (10 Reasons Why Media Education Matters). Children watch a lot of television and it's primarily unsupervised—meaning the show or movie goes without critical analysis by an