[current issue] [back issues] [submissions] [links] [staff] [mail us]

The Subversive Potential of the Queer Body in American Daytime TV Talk Shows


by Heather Wilson 

All Rights Reserved © Heather Wilson and Deep South
Deepsouth v.6.n.3 (Spring 2000)

 
[previous page 1 | 2 | 3 ]


 
The question remains: Should gay rights activists perpetuate the dominant cultural hegemony, and work for assimilation into it, or should heterosexual power regimes be actively questioned and subverted? Should queer bodies be put on the same cultural standing as heterosexual bodies (ie. assimilating into the norm), even if this potentially means a forced ‘tolerance’ of homophobic treatment? Gamson's series of interviews with talk show viewers clearly indicate a high majority of people don't 'mind'26 if people are gay, but question why they should feel the need to constantly air their sexuality (as if it was their dirty laundry) in public, preferring them to remain in the bedroom, stay in the closet. One male interviewee exclaims;
 
'"Why can't it be 'don't ask, don't tell?'" he asks. "They don't want to be 
satisfied with that today. It's not hatred against them, believe me when I say I have a feeling for them and what they're going through, but damn it, don't tell, keep it in the closet."'27 
 
And a female caller to a 1992 Donahue show;
 
'"All they seem to do is cause problems. If we all got together and talked about it, maybe we could figure out what could be done with them. I really think they should all go back in the closet and make life peaceful again."'28
 
In an always already heterosexual world, one is assumed to be heterosexual until it is said (or 'suspected') otherwise. Without announcing sexuality, by staying in the closet the hetero-norm is not challenged, and everyone out of the closet (the heterosexuals that where never in it) are happy. Their place as the original is not questioned, other than from inside - from a constant failure to realise the ideals they mimic daily. The heterosexual hegemony remains secure (or as secure as it can ever be). 
 
 

With queer bodies out of the closet, the constant mimesis is called into question. Does the presence of a homosexual body potentially threaten or reaffirm the dominant position of the heterosexual body? In 'essence', the queer body that desires to be similar to, to be accepted, assimilated, by the heterosexual dominant only acts to reaffirm the cultural hegemony, albeit in a potentially denaturalising way. The conscious parody of some instances of drag acts to question the stability of the masculine and feminine in regards to the biological male and female sexed bodies. The flamboyant or 'stereotypical' queer body can act to disrupt the dominant heterosexual matrix, challenge the dominant hegemony depending on contextual situations. But what are the consequences? Are these isolated instances of disruption enough in themselves to disrupt a power regime that is always already heterosexual?
 
 
 

According to Gamson, as talk shows became more sensationalised, middle class gay activists using talk shows to forward their own political agendas found they were sidelined in favour of apolitical queer people. There is a concern amongst activists that these people, 'often flamboyant, unaffiliated, untrained in political agendas, and of lower educational, economic, and social status--threaten the mainstreaming agenda of many in the gay movement.'29 There seems to be a common feeling that these disruptions of the hetero-norm act negatively on the gay community. The disruptions make it harder for queer people to be accepted in society, harder for them to gain equal rights. Queer people are being 'implicated by imagery that sets them outside the bounds of the normal, a place they decidedly don't want to be.'30
 
 
 

The appearance of potentially transgressive queer bodies in drag on talk shows depicts drag as a site of ambivalence. Their appearance doesn't necessarily equate to a subversion of the hetero-norm. It can be seen as to aid both the subversion and reaffirmation of the heterosexual matrix. Butler comments that the contradictory nature of drag works to illustrate a 'general situation of being implicated in the regimes of power by which one is constituted and, hence, of being implicated in the very regimes of power that one opposes.'31 In other words, because the queer body is constituted through a heterosexual hegemony it is part of this discourse, and is forced to work within it, even though it opposes its constructs. So even when a disruption of the heterosexual framework (and therefore media as hetero-spectacle) occurs, it is constituted within the bounds of the heterosexual hegemony.
 
 
 

While talk shows do provide the grounds for a disruption of the capitalist and ideological model of media as spectacle through a subversion of hetero-norms, this potential disruption occurs only infrequently. More often than not, heterosexual norms are denaturalised and re-idealised rather than actively disrupted. This being the case, a consideration of the breakdown of the heterosexual hegemony appears unrealistic through such infrequent acts of subversion. These acts of subversion remain to be seen as arguably either positive or negative. Looking at the smaller picture, acts of subversion are perceived as negative by some gay rights activists who prefer an assimilation into the dominant heterosexual hegemony. This view tends to position heterosexuality as a legitimate original in the face of homosexuality as copy. 
 
 

On the other hand, transgressive queer groups look to the wider picture. They are interested in breaking down negative stereotypes, and reducing homophobia and queer victimisation, however they don't want to achieve this at the expense of a reaffirmation of the heterosexual hegemony. For real equality to be achieved, it seems that the always already heterosexual framework inherent within society must be constantly disrupted. But realistically, the goal of assimilation, working within, yet potentially against the heterosexual matrix is more attainable than a disruption of that matrix. The TV talk show illustrates this by the ways in which different queer bodies both appear on, use and subvert the genre to their own means - whether for fame or for political means. This is not to say a normalisation through assimilation is a positive step at all. The heterosexual matrix, in its false belief of itself as original, and with this position of domination constantly being threatened (if not occasionally subverted) by the queer body, along with an ostracising nature which aims at limiting bodies of excess, does not seem the type of power regime one would want to be assimilated into as a mere 'copy'. 

[previous page 1 | 2 | 3 ]
 

[bibliography]


26 Possibly they only 'not mind' because it is seen as bigoted, (as homophobic, racist, sexist), to openly admit a hatred towards any grouping in society. By 'not minding as long as they aren't confronted with it', the (always already hetero) consciousness is 'cleared' of such guilt.
27 Gamson, 1998, p205.
28 Gamson, 1998, p198.
29 Gamson, 1998, p185.
30 Gamson, 1998, p193.
31 Butler, 1993, p125.


Bibliography

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990. London: Routledge.

 

Butler, Judith, 'Imitation and Gender Insubordination' in inside/out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, Fuss, Diana (ed), 1991. London: Routledge.

 

Butler, Judith, 'Gender is Burning: Question of Appropriation and Subversion' in Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", 1993. New York: Routledge.

 

Gamson, Joshua, Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity, 1998. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

 

'Hey, Girlfriend, You Can Stop Complaining About Your Man, 'Cuz Today I Take Him Off Your Hands!'. Prod. Andrew Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki, Exec. prod. Gail Steinberg, TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.

 

'I Married a Man… Now He's a Woman!'. Prod. Gregory Piccioli, Dir. Adam Simons Sorota, Sally Jesse Raphael, Exec. prod. Maurice Tunick, TV3, New Zealand, May 2000.

 

'One Date With Me and You're Mine!'. Prod. Andrew Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki, Exec. prod. Gail Steinberg, TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.

 

Oprah, Prod. Jill Barangik, Dir. Joseph G. Terry, Exec. prod. Dianne Atkinson Hudson, TV3, New Zealand, May 2000.

 

'Secret Sexy Confessions: Its Time to Confess and get this Sexy Secret off My Chest'. Prod. Andrew Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki, Exec. prod. Gail Steinberg, TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.

 

Swirl: Terms and Definitions, retrieved from the World Wide Web on April 14, 2000:
http://www.sou.edu/ENGLISH/IDTC/Terms/terms.htm#anchor42031

 

'What Sex is my Child?'. Prod. Gregory Piccioli, Dir. Adam Simons Sorota, Sally Jesse Raphael, Exec. prod. Maurice Tunick, TV3, New Zealand, May 2000.