Queering Adolescence:
Challenging Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Stereotypes in MTV’s Faking It
Laura Hovilainen 233136 Master’s Thesis English Language and Culture University of Eastern Finland Philosophical Faculty School of Humanities November 2020
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty
Philosophical Faculty Osasto – School
School of Humanities Tekijät – Author
Laura Hovilainen Työn nimi – Title
Queering Adolescence: Challenging Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Stereotypes in MTV’s Faking It
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages English Language and Culture Pro gradu -tutkielma X November 2020 133
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which MTV’s teen series Faking It engages in counter-discursive representation of adolescence and to evaluate whether this representation constitutes queer counter-discourse. I examine the topic through two themes: first, the series’ challenging of conventional lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes and stereotypical sexual minority discourse, and second, its challenging of the gender order. The aim of the study is to discern queer dissent from youth-oriented mainstream media such as Faking It.
The theoretical framework of the study consists of critical discourse analysis and a social constructionist approach to language, representation, sexuality, and gender. The theoretical background of the study is based on the notion of the media operating within cultural structures and functioning in relation to the dominant power structures. This framework is introduced through the concepts of representation, media representation, discourse of mainstream ideology, stereotype, specific lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes, counter-discourse of resistance, and queer counter-discourse.
The analysis of this study consists of evaluating the practices of media representation that either discursively reconstruct or counter- discursively challenge the social, political, and cultural order and its power imbalance in relation to sexuality and gender. Having contextualized the lesbian, gay, and bi stereotypes as a discursive tool of reconstructing the mainstream ideology, I analyze the ways in which Faking It resists dominant discursive traditions by representing non-heteronormative sexuality outside of the stereotypes and in opposition to them. In investigating the series’ challenging of the gender order, I analyze the counter-discursive practices of representation that make visible and challenge especially gender regulation. Whereas the analysis of the resistance of sexual minority stereotypes forms the core of this study, the investigation of the series’ challenging of the gender order extends the scope of the study from sexuality to gender while supporting the study’s aim of discerning queer dissent.
According to the results of the study, Faking It can be seen to challenge various lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes and stereotypical practices of representation, and to engage in counter-discursive representation regarding adolescence and sexual minorities. When it comes to the series’ queer potential in relation to the representation of sexuality, the study shows that Faking It amplifies queer dissent to some extent but the message is often left flat. When it comes to the challenging of the gender order, Faking It is shown to make visible and resist the restrictive ideology of the gender order, especially concerning gender regulation. According to the study’s findings concerning this theme, Faking It can be seen to engage in counter-discursive practices of representation that amplify queer dissent to a greater extent. In addition to the study making tangible the discursive negotiation inherent in the reading of media texts, the results of the study highlight the viewer’s possibilities of locating queer counter-discourse in the mainstream media, as well as of producing media representations that challenge harmful dominant discursive conventions related to gender and sexuality.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Faking It, critical discourse analysis, social constructionism, queer studies, media representation, adolescent sexuality, sexual minority stereotypes, lesbianism, homosexuality, bisexuality, gender studies, gender regulation
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty
Filosofinen tiedekunta Osasto – School
Humanistinen osasto Tekijät – Author
Laura Hovilainen Työn nimi – Title
Queering Adolescence: Challenging Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Stereotypes in MTV’s Faking It
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages Englannin kieli ja kulttuuri Pro gradu -tutkielma X Marraskuu 2020 133
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract
Tutkielman tarkoituksena on tarkastella, millä tavoin MTV:n nuortensarja Faking It tuottaa vastadiskursiivista representaatiota nuoruudesta sekä arvioida täyttääkö tämä representaatio queerin vastadiskurssin määritelmän. Käsittelen aihetta kahden teeman kautta: tutkimalla kuinka sarja vastustaa lesbo-, homo-, ja bi-stereotyyppejä sekä stereotyyppistä seksuaalivähemmistödiskurssia sekä tarkastelemalla tapoja, joilla sarja haastaa sukupuolijärjestelmää. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on paikantaa queeriä toisinajattelua ja toisintekemistä Faking It-sarjan kaltaisesta nuorille suunnatusta valtavirtamediasta.
Tutkielman teoreettisena viitekehyksenä toimii kriittinen diskurssianalyysi ja sosiaalisen konstruktionismin mukainen näkökulma kieleen, representaatioon, seksuaalisuuteen ja sukupuoleen. Tutkielman teoriaosuus pohjautuu ajatukseen median ja kulttuuristen valtasuhteiden vuorovaikutteisuudesta. Tätä lähestytään keskeisten käsitteiden avulla. Näihin kuuluvat representaatio,
mediarepresentaatio, valtavirtaideologian diskurssi, stereotyyppi, erityiset lesbo-, homo-, ja bi-stereotyypit, vastadiskurssi ja queer- vastadiskurssi.
Tutkielman analyysiosuudesssa tarkastelen sellaisia mediarepresentaation käytäntöjä, jotka joko valtadiskursiivisesti vahvistavat tai vastadiskursiivisesti haastavat sosiaalista, poliittista ja kulttuurista järjestelmää ja sen valtaepätasapainoa liittyen seksuaalisuuteen ja sukupuoleen. Määriteltyäni lesbo-, homo-, ja bi-stereotyypit yhdeksi valtaapitävän diskurssin ja valtavirtaideologian työkaluksi, tarkastelen analyysissä ensin tapoja, joilla Faking It:issä rikotaan valtaapitävän diskurssin perinteitä kuvaamalla ei-heteronormatiivista seksuaalisuutta stereotypioita rikkomalla. Sukupuolijärjestelmän rikkomista tarkastellessani keskityn tuomaan esille vastadiskursiivisia kuvaamisen tapoja, joilla tehdään näkyväksi ja haastetaan sukupuolta ja etenkin sen sääntelyä. Siinä missä stereotyyppien
vastustamisen analyysi muodostaa tutkimuksen ytimen, sukupuolijärjestelmän haastamisen tarkastelu laajentaa tutkimuksen
ulottuvuutta seksuaalisuudesta sukupuoleen ja tukee samalla tutkimuksen tavoitetta paikantaa queeriä toisinajattelua ja toisintekemistä.
Tutkimuksen perusteella voi todeta, että Faking It haastaa useita lesbo-, homo-, ja bi-stereotyyppejä sekä stereotyyppisiä kuvaamisen tapoja ja siten tuottaa vastadiskursiivista representaatiota nuorista ja seksuaalivähemmistöistä. Sarjan representaatio ilmentää queeriä toisinajattelua ja toisintekemistä seksuaalisuuden kuvaamisessa jossain määrin, mutta viesti jää paikoittain melko latteaksi. Suhteessa sukupuolen haastamiseen Faking It tekee näkyväksi ja vastustaa sukupuolijärjestelmän rajoittavaa ideologiaa etenkin sukupuolen sääntelyn osalta. Tutkimus osoittaa, että sukupuolen kuvauksen osalta Faking It tuottaa vastadiskursiivista representaatiota sekä näkökulmien että identiteettikuvauksiensa kautta ja ilmentää queeriä toisinajattelua ja toisintekemistä jossain määrin enemmän. Sen lisäksi että tutkielma tekee konkreettiseksi diskursiivisen neuvottelun, joka sisältyy aina mediateksteihin, tutkielman tulokset tekevät näkyväksi katsojan mahdollisuuden havaita queer-vastadiskurssia valtavirtamediassa ja mediateollisuuden mahdollisuuden tuottaa representaatioita, jotka haastavat sukupuoleen ja seksuaalisuuteen liittyviä haitallisia valtadiskursiivisia konventioita.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Faking It, kriittinen diskurssianalyysi, sosiaalinen konstruktionismi, queer-tutkimus, mediarepresentaatio, nuorten seksuaalisuus, seksuaalivähemmistöstereotyypit, lesbous, homoseksuaalisuus, biseksuaalisuus, sukupuolentutkimus, sukupuolen sääntely
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ... 7
1.1 Aims and Structure ... 7
1.2 Material ... 11
1.3 Field of Research ... 14
2 Terminology ... 17
2.1 Gender ... 17
2.2 Sexuality ... 21
2.3 Queer ... 27
3 Methodological Approach and Theory ... 32
3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis and Representation ... 32
3.2 Media Representation ... 36
3.3 Discourse of Mainstream Ideology ... 40
3.4 Stereotype ... 42
3.5 Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Stereotypes ... 45
3.5.1 Gender Deviance and Otherness... 45
3.5.2 Sexualization ... 49
3.5.3 Monstrosity ... 53
3.5.4 Phase and Cure ... 56
3.6 Counter-Discourse of Resistance ... 59
3.7 In Search of Queer Counter-Discourse ... 62
4 Analysis ... 66
4.1 Sexual Minority Stereotypes in Faking It ... 66
4.1.1 Stereotypical Sexual Minority Discourse ... 67
4.1.2 Challenging Stereotypical Sexual Minority Discourse ... 71
4.1.3 Challenging Lesbian Stereotypes ... 81
4.1.4 Challenging Gay Male Stereotypes ... 88
4.1.5 Challenging Bisexual Stereotypes ... 93
4.2 Gender in Faking It ... 103
4.2.1 Counter-Discursive Perspectives ... 103
4.2.2 Counter-Discursive Imagery and Identity Narratives ... 110
5 Conclusion ... 116
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The Circuit of Culture ... 35
2 Framework for Critical Discourse Analysis ... 38
3 Patterns of Media Images in Relation to Majority and Minority Groups ... 60
4 A Still Image of Amy Raudenfeld and Karma Ashcroft in “Burnt Toast”... 84
1 Introduction
In this thesis, I analyze to what extent MTV’s teen series Faking It amplifies queer dissent firstly through its challenging of sexual minority stereotypes and secondly through its challenging of the gender order. In both parts altogether, the objective of the study is to make visible Faking It’s queer potential and queer counter-discursive practices of representation. Whereas the main focus of the study is on the series’ resistance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes, the discovery of possible queer perspectives and narratives through the challenging of the gender order supports the main aim of the study: to discern queer dissent. I approach the study through a framework of critical discourse analysis and social constructionism.
1.1 Aims and Structure
The objective of this study is to make visible the counter-discursive practices of representation that can be discovered within MTV’s teen series Faking It, and analyze whether they can be interpreted to amplify queer dissent. I examine Faking It as a media text that inherently encompasses political, cultural, and social representations and performances, and reconstructs ideas of what or who is allowed to exist, what is good or bad, desirable or unwanted, or right or wrong, especially regarding adolescence. The aim of this study is to discern from these representations and performances such messages that challenge the dominant political, cultural, and social discourses and manage to queer them.
In other words, whereas I acknowledge the multiple readings that the series allows for, I explore its representation with a specific focus on discovering and bringing to the surface
its queer potential and queer dissent. I especially look at Faking It’s representation of adolescence: first concerning adolescent lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexuality through the theme of stereotypes, and second concerning themes related to adolescence and gender.
This study’s framing on the theme of adolescent sexuality and gender is due to the fact that media is commonly used for identity formation, especially concerning gender identity and sexual identity (Arnett 3). Although the construction of one’s self-identity is a life-long process, youth in particular is in a crucial phase of identity construction (Van Damme 170) and television has been shown to be an especially central source of information concerning the theme for adolescents, as it provides automated romantic and sexual scripts and conveys cultural norms and rules (Brown et al., “Television”) (Davis).
Due to this central role that the media play in adolescents’ daily experiences and identity formation (Arnett 1, 3), I wish to highlight through this study the role that it can take in either reconstructing restrictive and heteronormative traditions, or, alternatively, in revealing gender and sexuality’s natural-seeming social production and challenging it in order to represent queer aims. Although audiovisual media can be an innovative and experimental field of artistic expression, not only meant to entertain but also to spark strong aesthetic experiences, the creative dimension does not rule out the need for its critical study. As Gross for one notes, the array of media does not exist out of goodwill but often out of commercial interest, as the industry always either sells the audience a product or sells the audience’s attention as a product (Up from Invisibility 1). By disregarding social critique and focusing only on the aesthetic and the entertainmental, one may thus at worst reassert and solidify the gendered and heteronormative status quo as unconditional and natural, instead of regarding it as the constantly reconstructed and ever-changing social reality that it is. Especially when involving minorities – in the context of this study,
notably those of sexual orientation and gender – the artistic freedom of the media needs to be carefully weighed against the heavy price of either completely lacking or alternatively, inaccurate and stigmatizing media representation (Giles 166). Despite the focus being often on how misrepresentation limits the possibilities of minority groups, the aim of this study is to discern the counter-discursive and queering elements in Faking It, as “good”
representation can help destroy barriers, affect the way people are treated, and enable what one can be in society (Dyer 3). What is more, a reductive analysis demonstrating that everything is “always the same and merely awful” without further investigation tells the reader very little and worse, does very little politically (Dyer 1).
The reason for choosing MTV’s Faking It as this study’s subject material is due to the fact that, as mentioned above, adolescents often have limited resources to sexual information and for this reason, images that are inclusive and easily available in the mainstream media have a significant role in gender and sexual socialization. This is especially meaningful regarding adolescent non-heteronormative sexuality and non- normative gender performatives. Although popular culture is often understood as trivial and apolitical in nature, the cultural messages and values concerning gender and sexuality in its representation thus ultimately influence the way their viewers – adolescent ones in particular – see themselves and the world around them, thus making it an important area of research.
The structure of this study is as follows: after introducing the study’s aims and structure here, I move onto introducing the material, i.e. Faking It as a series, after which I place this study in context by presenting the field of research to which this study is connected. After the introduction, I next move onto the terminology used in this study as I map out the meanings of gender, sexuality, and queer. In the following section, I present the study’s methodological approach and theory: I first describe critical discourse analysis
and its features. I then define representation from a critical discourse analysis approach after which I explain what constitutes representation in relation to media. I then move onto the discourse of mainstream ideology. In this section, I explain the way the dominant power is reproduced in media discourse through various tools such as the stereotype. After defining the stereotype, I present the specific cultural stereotypes related to lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Next, I define counter-discourse as a concept after which I explore what separates queer counter-discourse from for instance sexual minority discourse alone.
Following the methodological approach and theory of the study, I move onto the analysis which is two-fold: I have divided it into a section addressing the resistance of sexual minority stereotypes and a section focusing on the resistance of the gender order. In analyzing the themes related to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes, I first address the stereotypical sexual minority discourse in which the series engages, after which I move onto the ways that the said dominant discourse is challenged and eroded. I begin with the resistance of stereotypical discourse around sexual minorities, after which I address the ways the series challenges specific lesbian, gay, and lastly, bisexual stereotypes – bringing to the surface the implicit and explicit cultural meanings that defy the dominant discursive tradition and presenting their possible queer dissent. In the analysis regarding the challenging of the gender order in the series, I present the ways in which Faking It represents perspectives and narratives that resist especially gender regulation. Whereas the first part of the analysis forms the core of this study, the second section supports the study’s aim of discerning queer dissent within Faking It by extending the scope of the study to concern not only sexuality but also the resistance of the gender order. Lastly, in the conclusion, I reflect on the study’s outcomes and summarize the research.
1.2 Material
Faking It is a teen series that is created by Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov. It is developed by Carter Covington and aired by MTV. The series consists of three seasons in total, its first season premiering in April 2014 and its third and last season airing in March 2016, shortly after which MTV confirmed the show not to continue any further. In an interview, executive producer and writer Covington notes the decision to be due to low ratings, not e.g. creative issues (Covington). The series mixes the traditional elements of romantic comedy and teen drama with what Covington describes as an attempt to move beyond coming-out narratives and enter a “post-gay” era of television (Covington). While nominated for 5 awards – two for GLAAD Media, two for People’s Choice, and one for Teen Choice – and winning the 2014 Teen Choice Award for Choice Breakout TV Show, Faking It also received a fair amount of criticism during its time on air.
Regarding its genre and generic conventions, Faking It is a characteristic and at times even exaggeratedly stereotypical teen drama. Described as a romantic comedy by MTV at the launch of the first season (MTV), the series follows the emotionally intense and melodramatic lives of a group of adolescents who contend with questions of Otherness and difference in addition to common adolescent anxieties around friendship, love, and sexuality – the elements that Rachel Moseley for one uses in defining the genre of contemporary teen drama (41-43). The series has a freshness and playful irony to it, however, as the characters navigate adolescence and impending adulthood in the geographically real city of Austin, Texas but an otherwise imaginary and moderately utopian universe of Hester High School where traditional norms are lightly reversed. In fact, the catch of the series is that Hester High is “so tolerant and accepting [that] the outcasts are the in crowd” and in the subversive high school, non-conventional youth and
minorities are on top of the social hierarchy (“Pilot” 01:02-01:07). First season’s antagonist and traditional mean girl Lauren Cooper who later becomes one of the main characters describes the school as a “Kumbaya socialist freak show of a high school,”
reminding the audience that despite the image, not everyone is thrilled with the school’s too accepting atmosphere (“Pilot” 02:45-02:49).
In this world where the traditional stereotypes of popular jocks and beauty queens simply do not cut it, one half of the main character duo, Karma Ashcroft, is determined to find a way to gain popularity as she is tired of spending every weekend watching Netflix documentaries with her best friend and fears that they will end up outside of the social circle forever. Describing herself as “so fucking ordinary” that she would never stand out enough to fit in at Hester High due to her multiple privileges, Karma is committed to her pursuit of popularity no matter the means or the cost (“Pilot” 17:04-17:06). Amy Raudenfeld, the other half of the main character duo and Karma’s best friend since childhood, is satisfied with her life, and although not similarly committed to the claim for popularity, Amy is committed to her beloved friend and for this reason goes along with Karma’s plans even with personal sacrifice.
What exactly happens to set the main plot of the series in motion is a sum of accidents and misunderstandings that starts with Shane Harvey, a popular gay student at Hester High, overhearing Lauren tell Amy and Karma to “paddle back to the Isle of Lesbos” and at once deciding he will make Amy and Karma his best friends as he has been
“craving lesbian energy in [his] life” (“Pilot” 03:10-03:13, 06:31-06:34). Despite being confused by Shane and the others’ perception of her and Karma as an established lesbian couple and sincerely clarifying that she’s not gay, Amy’s objection is slow off the mark as Shane nevertheless ends up untruthfully outing the two freshmen as a lesbian couple, campaigning to elect them as Homecoming Queens (“Pilot”), and setting the perfect stage
for adolescent drama around themes of romance, sexuality, and friendship. According to his own words, he does this to show Amy and Karma that the whole school accepts them, although he later admits that the motive is only partly solidarity and partly his own social gain (“Pilot”; “Boiling Point”). As Amy and Karma are so enthusiastically celebrated as lesbian idols by the whole school simply for existing as lesbians, the students e.g. chanting
“all hail the Queens” in a frenzy, offering them baked goods, and most importantly, showering them with fame and popularity, the two friends decide “to just go with it” and exclaim “let’s be lesbians!” (“Pilot” 08:54-09:05, 11:48-11:50, 17:45-17:48).
The carrying plot of the series, especially in the first season, circulates around this scheme of Amy and Karma performing lesbianism for popularity and the consequences of the above-mentioned scheme in the main characters’ lives. This is shown e.g. when Karma pursues a clandestine romance with her crush Liam Booker, “the hottest guy in school”
(“Homecoming Out” 09:22-09:24), and Amy awakens out of compulsory heterosexuality and struggles to come to terms with her newly found conflicted feelings for her best friend and her sexual identity. After the flashy and sensational premise, the show focuses on an intimate and touching portrayal of teenage relationships, struggles, and coming-of-age. In the second and third seasons, the series covers the lives of the adolescents without the scheme but with an emphasis on its social consequences and the themes of adolescent sexuality. In this study, I address all three seasons of the series but due to the limited extent of the thesis, I focus only on select key events, plot lines, and characters. The connecting theme in the framing is the counter-discursive and queer potential of the elements, as I approach Faking It mainly with the purpose of making visible the various counter- discursive practices through which the series asserts queer dissent through its resistance of sexual minority stereotypes and the gender order, as mentioned above.
1.3 Field of Research
Jeffrey Arnett claims that there is relatively little research focused on the portrayal of adolescents in entertainment television (7). Not only are they overlooked in research but adolescents seem to be somewhat underrepresented in television (Arnett 7). What is more, Batchelor et al. note that the representation of teenagers from sexual minorities is often almost non-existent in television (673). In a study concerning the media representation of adolescent sexuality, Batchelor et al. claim that the sexual content relating to adolescent characters is consistently heterosexual and positive portrayals of teenagers in sexual minorities are hard to find in the mainstream (673). In the few open portrayals of homosexuality, being gay and a teenager is according to Batchelor et al. primarily depicted as a cause of anxiety or alternatively, a target of abuse (673). More specifically: male homosexuality is a cause of embarrassment and an object of teasing or bullying, whereas lesbianism is often entirely invisible (Batchelor et al. 673).
The invisibility of teenage lesbianism is unsurprising, since the male-female ratio of teenage characters strongly favors boys and young men, and Arnett maintains that teenage boys outnumber teenage girls by three to two in the media (7). The same trend is found in gay- and lesbian-oriented media which overrepresents boys and men, and in which, as Bradley Bond notes, gay male characters are represented significantly more than lesbian characters or bisexual characters of any gender (“Portrayals of Sex and Sexuality” 50).
According to Maria Jacobson, the phenomenon follows the typical pattern of representation across all media: women are underrepresented and continuously reduced both in numbers and in their roles’ significance (8). As for the representation of bisexuality, Laura Erickson-Schroth and Jennifer Mitchell note that bisexuals, regardless of their gender, are often close to invisible in the media and when they are shown, they are
commonly misrepresented through harmful tropes (298). This is due to what Kenji Yoshino describes as a phenomenon of bisexual erasure (460). Adding all of the above underrepresented demographics together, the setup of Faking It challenges the mainstream’s norms and conventions as it portrays teenage girls and young women openly forming their non-heteronormative sexual identity in the foreground of the show – which makes the series a relative exception to the mainstream representation and due to this nature, a previously less researched topic.
Regarding the findings about the messages and the ways in which adolescent sexuality is represented in television, Christopher Ferguson claims that the prevalence of sexual themes in the media reflects a developing cultural openness towards sexuality (128).
Kunkel et al. in fact claim in their study that sexual content in mainstream pop culture programs has increased vastly and the sexual messages have changed into more open- minded ones within the recent years, as characters for instance often have their first sexual encounters outside of committed monogamous relationships in casual encounters (58, 42).
As Barrie Gunter notes, having sex is implied to be normative in television series, even from an adolescent age (5). Maria Jacobson, however, notes that despite the rapid-seeming increase in sexual content, the tendency has developed in the background for a few decades already (11), and when it comes to teen series, Elke Van Damme highlights that although there is implied sexual behavior and sexual innuendo in the representation of adolescence, the portrayal of explicit sexual content is extremely uncommon (170-171).
Nevertheless, while adolescent sexuality is on a steady increase in mainstream television, Bond notes that the representation of adolescent non-heterosexual sexuality in the form of interactions and behaviors is still extremely rare in the mainstream, and any sexuality associated to LGB identities is often sanitized and unrealistic (“Portrayals of Sex and Sexuality” 53). In gay- and lesbian-oriented media, however, portrayals of non-
heterosexual behavior and interaction in the form of light sexual behavior like physical flirting or romantic kissing are not uncommon in the representation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual characters (“Portrayals of Sex and Sexuality” 54). By addressing the ways in which Faking It as a mainstream teen series engages in contrasting elements more commonly seen in gay- and lesbian-oriented media – for instance, instead of centering on jokes, insults, and stereotypes, the focus is on talk around non-heterosexual themes and portrayals of non-heterosexual behavior and interaction (“Portrayals of Sex and Sexuality”
54) – this study aims to add knowledge of and draw attention to the practices of representation regarding an often overlooked group.
2 Terminology
In order to introduce the meanings and definitions of the key concepts used in this study, in this chapter I will break down gender, sexuality, and other concepts related to queer theory and queering. I approach the themes through a framework of social constructionism and with particular reference to both cultural regulation and the possibilities for contesting said regulation.
In the section concerning gender, I define gender performativity and gender identity, and through the concept of intersectionality, I place the subject material of this study and consequently also this study itself in context. In the next section concerning sexuality, I detangle from one another the phenomena of sexual desire, sexual acts, and sexual identity and define the regulation of sexuality through binary frames and heteronormativity. I also clarify what I categorize as representation of sexuality and clarify the terms used in this study to describe non-heteronormative sexualities. In the section concerning queerness and queer concepts, I define the notion of queer dissent and distinguish it from hetero- and homonormative views of “gay normality.”
2.1 Gender
Gender, according to Judith Butler’s social constructionist gender theory, is best understood not as a stable identity but rather as a stylized repetition of gender acts constituted through social discourse (“Performative Acts” 519, 528). Although gender is instituted through the body in its mundane movements and gestures, Butler maintains that the idea of an innate or abiding gendered self is nothing more than an illusion and a performative accomplishment that the audience and the actors both settle upon to believe
and even perform in sincere belief (“Performative Acts” 519-520). According to Butler, gender is instead something that one continuously does, a corporeal style and an act, as well as the cultural significance that the gendered body assumes, its meanings outlined by surrounding cultural conventions (“Performative Acts” 522). In other words, in the form of these repeated acts, gender is re-enacted and re-experienced through its socially and culturally established meanings (Butler, “Performative Acts” 526). In its condensed form, Butler describes gender as that which is “put on, invariably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure” (“Performative Acts” 531).
Although the body is clearly not a passive object scripted or pre-programmed with cultural codes that are imposed on the individual, Butler maintains that neither is it simply a radical choice or an independent project that purely reflects one’s individual choices (“Performative Acts” 526). In fact, gender is always performed under strict cultural and social regulation and control (Butler, “Performative Acts” 528). Butler claims that as gender is popularly imagined to be part of one’s substantial spiritual and psychological core, some gender acts are consequently interpreted as expressing this gender core or essence and either conforming to or contesting its cultural expectations (“Performative Acts” 527). Whereas performing one’s gender well rewards and reassures one of the alleged essentialism of gender identity, performing it wrong results without exception in punishment, both direct and indirect (Butler, “Performative Acts” 528). What this means is that when an individual fails to perform the illusion of what Butler above maintains as gender essentialism, one faces punishment through social sanction, taboo, and/or marginalization, thus constraining the performance and asserting regularly more pressure and anxiety on getting the performance right (“Performative Acts” 520, 528). With a Foucauldian approach to the regulative discourse, Butler suggests that gender is regulated through discipline, surveillance, and power, which operate not only through various
juridical and institutional forms of power but also through cultural norms (Undoing Gender 55). This active process of normalization produces and maintains what should or should not be, including, as Butler illustrates, what a woman or a man will be or where sexuality belongs and where it does not (Undoing Gender 55). As Butler argues that gender and sexuality – especially heterosexuality – are inextricably linked, norms surrounding gender can often be traced back into a system of compulsory heterosexuality (“Performative Acts”
54). The heterosexual norms concerning gender performance can be subtle and implicit or visible and explicit, the latter visible in for instance traditional gender roles.
As gender is a shifting and culturally contextual phenomenon, Butler argues that gender can be seen purely as a point of convergence for cultural and historical relations (Gender Trouble 5). From this point of view, gender identity seems a complex concept to consider, especially in regards to gender’s performative fluidity. Butler, however, claims that if gendered attributes are not regarded as expressive of gender but as performative of gender, the said attributes then become the matter that in fact constitutes gender identity (“Performative Acts” 528; emphasis added). In other words, gender identity does not lurk behind expressions of gender but in fact is the alleged expressions of it (Butler, Gender Trouble 33).
Although aware of the strategic purposes of gender categories, Butler criticizes the discursive means that constitute them, and calls for a new approach (“Performative Acts”
529-530). According to Butler, “women” as a category, for instance, articulates a normative vision of an allegedly shared essence, nature, or cultural reality that does not in reality exist (“Performative Acts” 529). Bindig approaches the issue from a similar point of view, arguing that gender is always intertwined with other ideological themes, including for instance sexuality, class, race, and ethnicity, which cannot be purely separated from one another (21). As these intersecting axes of identity overlap and shift, Kaisa Ilmonen
maintains that they often displace one’s identity into multiple discourses that may at times even be conflicting and inconsistent (28). According to Ilmonen, this contextualized and constructed positioning of the self that makes up one’s gender or sexuality is always in negotiation with the assemblage of one’s other identities concerning not only the above mentioned categories of class, race, and ethnicity but many others like cultural location, and dis/ability as well (27-28).
Kimberlé Crenshaw argues that the aspect of intersecting identities being more than the sum of their parts is necessary to take into consideration not only culturally but also in research to avoid otherwise inevitably distorted analyses (140). In fact, Crenshaw notes that a single-axis framework focused on gender or sexuality, for instance, often reflects only the experiences of the otherwise-privileged in that group and erases those of multidimensional oppression (140). In order to avoid what Butler above calls normative visions of shared cultural reality, Crenshaw introduces the framework of intersectionality that recognizes the multi-axis categories of identity and experience and, as an approach, enables the addressing of negotiations of power, privilege, and oppression between one’s identities and experiences.
In practice, an intersectional approach in the context of this study means a spelling out of the intersections of identity: for instance, although this study is framed on the media representation of adolescent non-heteronormative sexuality and gender performative, due to Faking It representing non-heteronormative sexuality and non-traditional gender performative mostly from a white, middle-class, able, and American perspective, the findings concern primarily the same ideological themes. What is more, when Faking It challenges gender and sexual minority stereotypes through distinct characters in the series, the narrative options the characters have for subverting the norms are inevitably influenced by their privileges and oppressions: in this case, more commonly the former unless stated
otherwise. For this reason, the findings of this study are inherently limited to concern mostly white, middle-class, American, and able gender performatives as well as sexual minority narratives, experiences, and identities, and cannot thus be transferred to make universal claims about the overall groups nor, for instance, the cultural meaning of the representation of the overall groups.
2.2 Sexuality
From the perspective of social constructionism, sexuality has no way to escape the clutches of society and culture. In fact, Jeffrey Weeks claims that as a starting point to understand sexuality and its cultural meaning, one needs to understand gender’s social construction through patterns of subordination and dominance (“Rights and Wrongs” 6). Weeks claims that in the social sphere of existence, sexuality is perhaps one of the most susceptible elements to cultural organization despite of its natural-seeming physical connections (Sexuality 17). As pervasive cultural forces significantly mould and shape the various sexual possibilities of the body, Weeks claims that sexuality does not exist except for through its social organization and social forms (Sexuality 17). In other words, nothing is thus sexual until named so (Weeks, Sexuality 17). This emphasis on sexuality’s social construction, instead of alleged nature, allows for the revelation of sexual patterns, social definitions, and diverse social practices that give and negotiate meaning with varying power to define and regulate, all of which Weeks emphasizes as aspects of the production of sexuality that are meaningful to take into account in the definition of sexuality (Sexuality 17-18).
Mimi Marinucci outlines that it is in fact the relationship between the cultural meaning of sexuality and the bodily phenomena in connection to it that is socially
constructed and far from natural or universal, although the physical interactions and manipulations occur across histories and cultures (5). Yet, what exactly constitutes sexual interaction or activity is open to debate and often escapes strict definition. As Marinucci notes, the definition of sex acts is ambiguous and often context-dependent, as the boundaries of sexual behavior and sexual desires are often unclear and without authoritative conditions (48). Marinucci also points out that what is sexual in one context, may be completely devoid of sexual connotations in another context (49). In other words, since any ordinary activity may be considered sexual under erotic circumstances and vice versa, there can be concluded to be a limitless amount of potential sex acts and no sufficient or exclusive list of conditions to distinguish them from other acts (Marinucci 48- 49). Martha Craven Nussbaum, however, argues that sexual acts are motivated by desire and this desire is always “about an object, and for an object,” attending to and interpreting this object of desire “as desirable” (266; emphasis original). Nussbaum claims that society and cultural variation affect largely, if not completely, what is found to be erotically desirable, noting that sexual behavior is often more of a crossroads of socially constructed roles and fantasies being enacted than a place of bodies meeting in a socially uninterpreted way (266).
Richardson argues that for this reason in cultural discourses about sex, some sexual practices are regarded as inherently better – more normal, more satisfying, or more natural – than others, mentioning for one that often only different-gender penetrative intercourse is seen as “real sex” (188). The privileging of different-gender heterosexual practices is a prevalent cultural norm despite research finding the norm not to reflect common experiences in the social reality: Alfred Kinsey et al. for instance asserted already in the late 1940s and early 1950s that sexuality exists on a continuum where homosexual and heterosexual desires and expressions often intermingle within the same individual and
refute the normative assumption of the two being mutually exclusive experiences (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male) (Sexual Behavior in the Human Female).
When it comes to sexual identity, Donald E. Hall claims that from a social constructionist point of view, sexual identity is, in its core, a classification (1). Whereas gender identity consists of gender performative, Hall defines sexual identity instead as a narrative and above all, one that we both tell ourselves as well as about ourselves to others (1). Hall argues that sexual identity is a set of primary identifiers chosen from countless different desires felt over a lifetime or even just the course of a day (1). All occasions that may provoke any desire in a person, not limited to only sexual desire, require one to carefully sort out the phenomena, to acknowledge, and to select their responses – privileging some and denying others – and to hierarchize these desires as central or peripheral (D. E. Hall 2). When doing so, one maintains the vulnerable and always threatened social construct that is commonly understood as a unified “sexual identity” (D.
E. Hall 2). Since what is called the “sexual” is so bound up with the emotional, the friendly, the aesthetic, and even the enviable, as Hall points out, sexual desire can often be difficult to define or separate from its context for one to consciously acknowledge it to be a building block of an allegedly unified sexual identity (2). As the many desires of an individual vary in their importance as sexual identity components, the definition of one’s sexual identity is always inevitably a reduced simplification of the complex sensual and emotional responses to one’s surrounding social and cultural context and its identity politics (D. E. Hall 2). In other words, not only does one have to navigate through the complex personal responses and hierarchizations of desire but one also needs to either conform or contend the meaning and value that the surrounding social and cultural discourse gives them.
Judith Butler emphasizes the significance of cultural conventions, norms, and ideals
in the construction of a gendered sexual identity (“Gender Trouble, Feminist Theory, and Psychoanalytic Discourse” 336). Hennessy condenses Butler’s approach as understanding sexual identity as “the effect of discourses […] that assemble a provisional coherence on the surface of the body” (224). Similarly as gender is controlled by regulative discourses and the threat of punishment, Kevin Walby and Andrew Smith argue that the social and cultural surveillance practices also categorize and restrict sexuality and sexual practices, and reinforce binary frames (55). The reinforcement of binary frames is visible in what Steven Seidman describes as everything being continuously culturally organized through sexualization: either heterosexualizing or homosexualizing not only culture, social institutions, and knowledges but also social relations, acts, bodies, and desires (“Introduction” 13).
In addition to forcing sexual phenomena into binary categories, culture regulates sexuality through cultural norms that commonly revolve around heterosexuality. As Joseph Marchia and Jamie M. Sommer note, heterosexuality is a culturally privileged and presumed social norm that is systematically imposed on all cultural subjects, and its violent power is directly linked to the oppression of non-heterosexual sexualities (273). Although different aspects of the same phenomenon are explored through multiple theoretical approaches such as the heterosexual contract (Wittig 56), compulsory heterosexuality (Rich 632), sex/gender system (Rubin 159), or the heterosexual matrix (Butler, Gender Trouble 194), the most relevant emphasis to this study is in Michael Warner and Steven Seidman’s joint concept of heteronormativity (8; “Identity and Politics” 131). Although the term is multidimensional in its meanings both in academic work and in popular culture (Marchia and Sommer 267-268), Aliraza Javaid sums it up neatly as “the normalisation of heterosexuality through social structures, social practices, and social institutions” in which heterosexuality assumes a superior position and against which other subordinate sexualities
are measured (84). In other words, the heteronormativity of culture is pervasively everywhere, encouraging heterosexuality and discouraging any other forms of sexuality.
Lisa Diamond exemplifies the power of heteronormativity in noting that most people, even heterosexually identifying ones, experience same-gender sexual desire periodically in life (“Sexual Desire” 862). Emphasizing the complex relationship between one’s desires and one’s sexual identity, Diamond claims that what often distinguishes a lesbian, gay, and bisexual sexual identity from a heterosexual one is the persistency, stability, and intensiveness of one’s desires, especially in the cultural context of heteronormative ideals and regulations (“Sexual Desire” 862). As discussed above, however, sexual identity consists of more than simply one’s sexual desires: on the one hand, desire alone does not imply identity or motivation to act on those desires, and on the other hand, it does not need to do so as sexual identity can fluidly shift and change according to how one’s personal narrative develops. What is clear, however, is that heterosexuality is both assumed and demanded of all social subjects and going against the heteronormative status quo takes active resistance.
Despite the otherwise boundless nature of sexuality, in analyzing the media representations of sexuality, one is limited by what is conventionally recognizable as an expression of sexual desire or a sex act. Although there are certain conventional gestures and movements, e.g. caressing and kissing, that are popularly coded as expressions of sexual interest and sexual desire, the definition still lacks clear boundaries. To specifically define what exactly constitutes the media representation of sexuality, I make use of Bond’s approach that understands as sexuality all depictions of sexually suggestive behavior, sexual activity, and even talk about the themes of sexuality, relationships, and sexual activity (“Sex and Sexuality” 106). To further break down what constitutes above mentioned sexual behavior and sexual activity, actions like intimate touching, romantic
kissing, physical flirting, and sexual intercourse, for instance, can be understood as sexual actions or actions expressing potential or likely sexual intimacy (Bond, “Sex and Sexuality” 106).
When it comes to common conventions regarding the media representation of sexuality in teen series, Van Damme maintains that although implied sexual behavior and sexual innuendo is portrayed in the genre more than ever, there is often very little explicit sexual content if often any (170-171). Batchelor et al. likewise highlight that representations of teenagers engaging in sexual encounters are extremely rare, and the predominant portrayal of adolescent sexuality is often defined by conversations on the theme of sex such as discussions about romantic interests, flirting and dating, teasing and sexual bravado, and lastly, sexual negotiation (671). Nevertheless, the sexual aspect of teenage relationships has grown to be one of the main subjects of today’s teen series (Van Damme 171).
Concerning the terminology of sexual identities, in this study, I use the terms non- heterosexual and LGB as umbrella terms for same-gender attraction, behavior, and identity without specifying either monosexual – using the term in its rising practice according to scholars like Kenji Yoshino (358) – or oppositely, non-monosexual interests or characteristics. When discussing only monosexual same-gender attraction, behavior, and identity, I use the terms lesbian and gay or homosexual, and to imply non-monosexual same-gender attraction, behavior, and identity, I use the term bi or bisexual, although the identity marker for the latter phenomena is only one of many. Whereas the non- monosexual sexual identity markers such as bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, and spectrasexual refer to parallel capabilities of same-gender sexuality and attraction, it is worth noting that all of the identifiers have their own specific emphases, connotations, histories, and political positions, making the choice of one’s personal identity marker
meaningful. Despite the importance of internal self-definition in social reality, however, in the case of media text, there is only external, and to simplify, I choose to use only one term. As Talbot argues, any personality represented in media is a synthetic performance consisting of meaningful outside choices and is thus available for criticism, analysis, and definition (92). In analyzing media, I thus consider all identity representations artificial and subjective, as they are politically, socially and culturally meaningful choices made by the writers of Faking It. This approach allows me to read, categorize, and critique these choices from occasionally contrasting perspectives.
2.3 Queer
As lesbian and gay identities have emerged into cultural existence at large and a certain sense of neoliberal “gay normality” has spread in many regions, Peter Drucker criticizes in Dennis Altman’s footprints (77-78) the monolithic vision of global gay identity (219).
Drucker claims that lesbian and gay identities seem widely eager to adapt into an intensifyingly unequal global hierarchy, entering what Drucker specifically calls a homonormative-dominant regime that is characterized by racist and Islamophobic assimilation into dominant nations, increasing ghettoisation, gender conformity, exclusion of transgender people in the form of essentialism, formation of normative family orders with marriage as foundation, and, lastly, the exclusion of marginalized queer people (219- 220). Despite the association the term may provoke, the increasing dominance of homonormativity in no way implies a less heteronormative culture. The originator of the term Lisa Duggan describes homonormativity as neoliberal discourse, naming it as “a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions — such as marriage, and its call for monogamy and reproduction — but upholds and sustains
them while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption” (179). Drucker argues that homonormativity does not in any way challenge the heterosexual norm but rather reflects and overtly adapts to it: rewarding those who mimic heteronormative standards and marginalizing the other Others who either refuse or are refused by homonormativity (220).
Angela Pattatucci-Aragon notes that what often defines homonormativity is the assimilationist desire to seem acceptable and be accepted by the heteronormative majority, manifest in the spirit of “we’re just like you, except for one thing” (9). Forming an oppositional subculture against the culture of homonormativity, queer dissent questions said assimilationist politics of “gay normality” and, from the viewpoint of queer anti- capitalism, challenges the racist, classist, and intersectionally marginalizing social relations that homonormativity reconstructs (Drucker 219-220).
The core of queer’s radical potential is its flexibility in regards to gender and sexuality, as Drucker notes (307). Roberta Chevrette claims that “queer” is an inclusive signifier of multiple fluid, unfixed identities and as a term it does not only challenge the gender order but concerning sexual politics, it challenges the homosexual/heterosexual binary, resists categories of sexual identity, and takes into account the various cultural, political, and historical discourses constructing heteronormative sexuality and aims to queer them (172). There is deliberate ambiguity in the term: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick notes that queer can be and refer to many things at once as “the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically” (8). According to scholars like Jimmie Manning, although queer’s roots are in gender and sexuality, the theory can be expanded to concern all human existence in which individuals who do not cause any harm to others are nevertheless
marginalized and ordered disobedient through discourse (3). Manning thus argues that the spirit of queer theory is the radical notion that individuals are not captured in essentialized identities and the aim of queer theory is to undo said essentialization (3). Since queer opposition challenges the idea of global homonormativity, “queer” as a research concept can be argued to imply an approach intrinsically more suited to recognize the multi-axis categories of intersectionality introduced earlier. Gloria Anzaldúa, for instance, uses the term to refer to an experience of hybrid embodied subjectivities and claims that the queer are “the supreme crossers of culture,” highlighting the artistic and political importance of queer cultural knowledge and potential (106-107).
Although Erin Rand condenses the meaning of “queer” to be a form of resistance and a strategic practice of solidarity and alliance among those ordered different among a common enemy – gendered capitalism and oppressive social hierarchy – (1) Kosofsky Sedgwick notes that the descriptor always hinges radically on one’s own experimental self- perception (9). Fraught with more social and personal histories than “gay” or “lesbian”
comparatively, Kosofsky Sedgwick argues that there are certain important aspects that the term can signify only when used in the first person (9). This is especially significant in the context of the term being a reclaimed slur. In the context of media analysis, Kosofsky Sedgwick, however, notes the common use of the term to denote same-gender sexual object choice whether it may or may not be organized around the multiple intersections of definitional lines (8). Michelle Kelsey even characterizes that the term “queer” is used in popular mainstream media as a sanitized, non-offensive cultural descriptor (163). While Manning notes that this use of the term as a “catch-all identity marker” for all who are not heterosexual is still contested both in the academic field and outside (1), many scholars, including Marinucci, argue that merely replacing the term “gay” with “queer” leaves a lot of theoretical work unexplored, leaving us stuck in the limitations of “gay” and not fully
exploring the vast richness of queer theory (xi).
In this study I use the term to represent a deliberate queer dissent that defies gendered heteronormative definition and expectation and calls into question identities and their intersections, as shown above. My approach is in the spirit of what Cathy Cohen condenses as the broad aim of “queer,” that is, to make the term function as more than an abbreviation and to express through it the possibilities of change, redefinition, movement, and subversive performance (439-440). This aim – of discovering queer counter-discursive practices, perspectives, and dissent – travels throughout the study and is especially central in the analysis.
In this general terminological chapter, I have opened up the concepts of gender, sexuality, and queer that are central throughout this study. In the section concerning gender, I have discussed gender from the point of view of social constructionism and explained the way gender performativity and identity are inextricably linked to social and cultural regulation, including gender norms and heterosexuality. I have also shortly defined the intersectionality of identities and placed this study’s framing in context by spelling out the white, middle-class, able, and American perspective of Faking It and consequently of this study and its findings. In discussing sexuality, I have explained sexuality through social constructionism: I have categorized sexual acts as socially constructed roles being enacted through the body and defined sexual identity as a narrative that is by definition a reduced simplification of one’s complex desires and responses. In order to clarify the cultural repression of non-heteronormative sexualities, I have used the concepts of binary frames and heteronormativity that organize sexuality. Additionally, I have categorized what I understand in the context of this study to constitute representation of sexuality and explained my choice of terms for describing sexual identities. The notions of both gender and sexuality as social constructs that are culturally regulated are crucial in this study, as
the focus of this study is on analyzing how these themes are represented – and consequently either reconstructed or challenged – through their portrayal in the media. In the section concerning queer themes, I have distinguished queer dissent from notions of hetero- and homonormativity connected to a culture of “gay normality”, and defined both uses of the term queer – to either note same-gender sexual object choice as a “catch-all”
marker or to note change, redefinition, movement, and subversive performance concerning the gender order and sexuality – out of which I have aligned my use of the term to the latter in this study. This emphasis on the meaning of queerness is crucial for the study’s focus on discerning queer perspectives and queer dissent from Faking It. After having above outlined the terminology necessary for understanding the subject of this study, in the next chapter I clarify the analytical tools with which I approach the themes and further discuss the methodological approach and theory of the study.
3 Methodological Approach and Theory
This chapter aims to clarify the framework with which I approach Faking It as a research subject. In the first section, I begin by describing critical discourse analysis. I then define representation from the approach of critical discourse analysis, after which in the following section, I present guidelines for what representation means in relation to media. I then discuss in detail the various distinctive traits of representation that reproduce the discourse of mainstream ideology, out of which in the next section, I choose to take a closer look at the concept and significance of the stereotype. Following that, I present an overview of the most common cultural lesbian, gay, and bisexual stereotypes. I define and give examples of the stereotypes according to four main themes which are gender deviance and Otherness; sexualization; monstrosity; and phase and cure. Afterwards, I briefly discuss the alternative ways of representation that challenge and resist the discourse of mainstream ideology, first overall and then in relation to sexual minority counter-discourse and queer counter-discourse.
3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis and Representation
Critical discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary approach that Teun A. van Dijk describes as consisting of the “study and critique of social inequality […] by focusing on the role of discourse in the (re)production and challenge of dominance” (249). According to Norman Fairclough, critical discourse analysis is particularly concerned with the way discourse and social elements such as ideology, power, cultural institutions, and identities exist and interact in relation to one another (178). What distinguishes critical discourse analysis from discourse analysis, for instance, is that according to Fairclough, critical discourse analysis
is both normative and explanatory (178). Its normativity means that instead of merely describing the cultural reality, critical discourse analysis also evaluates it and examines whether the said reality meets the demands and values for a “just or decent societ[y]”
(Fairclough 178). Its explanatory nature means that in addition to describing, evaluating, and examining, critical discourse analysis also aims to explain the cultural reality through social structures, mechanisms, and various other forces (Fairclough 178). The aspects together mean that critical discourse analysis is always political since, as van Dijk notes, the critique of a discourse always implies a critique of what is responsible for the related perversion of power (252-253).
According to Fairclough, critical discourse analysis approaches the social reality as mediated through concepts and representations (178). Before discussing media representation, however, one needs to first grasp the idea of representation alone.
Condensed to its bare form, Stuart Hall argues that representation is “the link between concepts and language which enables us to refer to […] the ‘real’ world of objects, people or events, or indeed to imaginary worlds of fictional objects, people and events” (3;
emphasis original). In other words, representation is a way to make reference to events and stories not directly in our grasp but that are made accessible to us through the utilization of symbols. Hall further offers three main approaches to representation: a reflective approach in which language merely reflects a meaning that already exists in the real world, an intentional approach in which language expresses the message that the speaker personally wants to express and intends as meaning, and lastly, a constructionist approach in which meaning is constructed in language and through language (1). The most relevant of these for this study is the last one, the constructionist approach. According to the constructionist approach, Hall describes the system of representation as two-part: the first one is simply when concepts are mentally formed and function as “a system of mental representation,”
classifying things into meaningful groupings and categories in the mind, while the second is trying to communicate these meanings with another “system of representation” that is vastly called language (14).
More precisely, Hall suggests that “[r]epresentation means using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent the world meaningfully, to other people” (1), in which language refers to all the ways in which we communicate meaningfully with each other, making use of the variety of representational systems through which this meaning is produced, such as various spoken languages, body language, or sign language. Language, again, according to Hall, consists of signs that reference or symbolize things, ideas, worlds, people, and events, both in this material world and in imaginary fantasy worlds (14).
However, Hall claims that the relationship between language and the “real world” is complex, as language in no way accurately or directly reflects the world (14). To describe Hall’s approach in a concise manner, signs that make up a language do not convey meaning naturally but rather through cultural codes that are the results of social conventions, our “shared maps of meaning,” that are learned and internalized by simply partaking in and being a member of culture (14). A premise in this theoretical approach, Hall argues, is that things, such as people, ideas or events, do not have any inherent, true, or ultimate meaning by themselves but that meanings are constantly in flux and dependent on surrounding culture or place in time, as it is society and human culture itself that makes things signify (45).
Hall asserts that codes are maintained by their active use, through encoding, that is
“putting things into code” and decoding, that is interpreting the meaning or code at the other end (45). This model of encoding/decoding, introduced already in 1973, challenges the simplistic sender-receiver model, and as Talbot claims, switches the focus on cultural conditions, even when codes or concepts have been naturalized (6-7). The social
communication processes at both stages of encoding and decoding are culturally conditioned and culturally dependent but not interchangeable, as, for instance, media texts simply do not mean the same to the producers as they do to the audience (6-7). Talbot further refines Hall’s original model about how meaning is produced, exploring the subject of mediated discourse in particular, and presenting an updated visualization (see Figure 1) of how the relatively independent different sites circulate culture and produce meaning (6).
Figure 1. The Circuit of Culture (source: Talbot 2007, adapted from Hall 1997).
This new model further accentuates the relations between production, consumption, and representation, as well as the complex continuity of the process (Talbot 7). Talbot highlights the benefits of this model, as it criticizes assumptions about the writer as the originator of meaning, validates the reader’s production of meaning, and interprets the language in which the meaning is produced as part of said meaning, or in other words, sees form as part of content (8).
Regulation, in turn, in Talbot’s model, refers to the power structures that shape, give rise to, and put into crisis different readings (12). Influenced largely by Gramsci and Foucault, Talbot outlines a common trait in critical discourse analysis, that is the political aim of who gets to actively participate in forming consensus (13). In the context of media,
