A Reception Study Among British Gay Male

“I don’t feel comfortable with the representation of me.”

– A Reception Study Among British Gay Male Audiences of the Representation of Gay

Males in Fictional TV Series on the British Small Screen

Student Number: 200780362

Module Name: Dissertation and Research Methods

Module Number: COMM5600M

Word Count: 14121

Date of Submission: 1 st September 2014

Abstract

As the visibility of gay people has increased on television, scholars have demonstrated great interest in how they are represented. This study is going to explore how gay males perceive their representation. In order to achieve this, Stuart Hall's works of representation and Clark's model of the media representation of minorities were discussed as the theoretical framework of this research. Other relevant studies were also reviewed as they can help us to understand the issue and in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 gay men discussing gay male representation in contemporary TV series on the British small screen.

It was found that they are not satisfied with their representation. They think it is relatively narrow, and that the sexuality of gay characters has been over-emphasised. Their discussions of the representation were often contextualized to the genre of the programmes which indicates that the representation impacts considerably on their own lives. Some of them related themselves to the fictional characters, and the gay identity formulation of some of the participants was influenced by the representation.

1 - Introduction

It is reported that almost 92% of the UK population are TV viewers (BARB, 2014), and that they “currently watch an average of four hours and two minutes of television a day”.

Additionally, more and more viewers tend to watch TV programmes either online or on portable devices (BBC, 2013). It is therefore beyond doubt that TV continues to play a vital role in people’s lives in the UK.

Historically, sexual orientation has been regulated through differing societies and often enforced through the law. Over many centuries gay and lesbian people have been subjected to prejudice and discrimination - indeed in 1810 it was a capital offence in Britain (Cook et al., 2007, p.109). Fortunately, during the 20 century and the early 21st century, enlightened legislation has empowered the gay community through changes in the law relating to equal employment, marriage, adoption, and other facets of life. The Stonewall Riots (1969), regarded as the catalyst for the start of gay rights, and since then there has been a slowly-developing acceptance and tolerance of gay people and their lifestyles. From the inception of the gay liberation movement, there also has been an increase in what is known as “queer visibility”. In the west, both in public and community life, alongside improvements brought about through political and legal initiatives, we can see more and more queer people . As a result, “queers have been increasingly visible in the media”(Barnhurst, 2007, p.1). Indeed, in recent years in popular culture, there has been a Historically, sexual orientation has been regulated through differing societies and often enforced through the law. Over many centuries gay and lesbian people have been subjected to prejudice and discrimination - indeed in 1810 it was a capital offence in Britain (Cook et al., 2007, p.109). Fortunately, during the 20 century and the early 21st century, enlightened legislation has empowered the gay community through changes in the law relating to equal employment, marriage, adoption, and other facets of life. The Stonewall Riots (1969), regarded as the catalyst for the start of gay rights, and since then there has been a slowly-developing acceptance and tolerance of gay people and their lifestyles. From the inception of the gay liberation movement, there also has been an increase in what is known as “queer visibility”. In the west, both in public and community life, alongside improvements brought about through political and legal initiatives, we can see more and more queer people . As a result, “queers have been increasingly visible in the media”(Barnhurst, 2007, p.1). Indeed, in recent years in popular culture, there has been a

Without doubt researchers who study the effects of television suggest that the representation of sexual minorities on TV do impact on audiences’ understanding, attitude, and opinion of those minorities and the issues related to them (Signorile, 1993; Hart, 2000; Gross, 2001; Tropiano, 2002; cited in Gibson, 2006, p.257). Therefore, scholars in the field of media, communication, and culture have had a great interest in issues of LGBT and television. A number of researchers, particularly in America, have studied the subject (e.g., Gibson, 2006; Raley and Lucas, 2006; Barnhurst, 2007; Chamber, 2009), and the US- based LGBT organization, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), launches its media-monitoring reports every year. However, in the UK only four major reports of LGB portrayals on TV were found (Stonewall, 2006; Stonewall, 2010; The BBC, 2010; The BBC, 2012), and fewer academic studies have been found (e.g., Arthurs,2004; Bradley, 2013).

Of all the different genres of TV programmes, fictional TV series (soap, drama, comedy and sitcom) inevitably attract audiences as a source of entertainment and to occupy their Of all the different genres of TV programmes, fictional TV series (soap, drama, comedy and sitcom) inevitably attract audiences as a source of entertainment and to occupy their

study the media representation of sexual minorities have paid special attention to TV series such as Queer as Folk (e.g., Davis, 2007), Will & Grace (e.g., Battles and Hilton- Morrow, 2002), and EastEnders (e.g., Bradley, 2013).

All in all, there is a large number of studies on the representation of sexual minorities in the mass media, however most of them focus on the textual level, namely, researching on the media product. Smaller amounts of research have been found on how audiences perceive the representation, i.e. reception studies, especially in the UK.

Therefore this research will explore the audiences ’ views on the representation. Instead of focusing on the mass (straight/heterosexual) audience, the present research will pay more attention to the sexual minorities, specifically gay males, as audiences because it is the representation of themselves.

After a deal of consideration of relevant theories, studies and reports, the following research question, aim and objectives were formulated:

Research question: How do gay male audiences perceive the gay male representations in contemporary TV series on the British small screen?

Research aim: To investigate how gay male audiences read and make meaning from gay male characters in contemporary TV series on the British small screen.

Research objectives:

1. To discover the general impressions held by gay male audiences of these representations.

2. To identify what they consider to be positive/negative representations.

3. To explore the views that they hold on stereotypes.

4. To find out their opinions on the impact of the representation.

2 - Literature review

2.1 Representations matter

This thesis has at its centre the issue of representation. T he concept of “representation” is problematic although numbers of theorists have discussed and examined it. The central theoretical background to this thesis will be the works of Stuart Hall.

2.1.1 What is representation?

Representation is simply defined by Hall as “the production of meaning through language” (Hall, 1997b, p.16). His theory on representation expands upon this simple concept by studying the “crucial links between language, culture and how shared meanings are constructed and represented within language” (McEwen, 2010).

T he term “language” “is being used here in a very broad and inclusive way”, including written language, spoken language, visual images, and “some other means when they are used to express meaning” (ibid., p.18). Hall suggests that the production of meaning actually involves two processes. First, there is a correlation at work in our mind between “all sorts of objects, people and events” and “a set of concepts” (ibid., p.17). The meaning is given to the world “by constructing a set of correspondences or a chain of equivalences between things and our system of concepts, our conceptual maps ” (ibid., p.19). Then in the second process, our concepts and ideas match up with signs (words, sounds or images) forming a common language in order to exchange meanings and concepts. In the T he term “language” “is being used here in a very broad and inclusive way”, including written language, spoken language, visual images, and “some other means when they are used to express meaning” (ibid., p.18). Hall suggests that the production of meaning actually involves two processes. First, there is a correlation at work in our mind between “all sorts of objects, people and events” and “a set of concepts” (ibid., p.17). The meaning is given to the world “by constructing a set of correspondences or a chain of equivalences between things and our system of concepts, our conceptual maps ” (ibid., p.19). Then in the second process, our concepts and ideas match up with signs (words, sounds or images) forming a common language in order to exchange meanings and concepts. In the

example representations therefore we are always discussing what they mean. Producing and exchanging meaning is through the use of language.

In the practices of representation, we can understand each other because we are “sharing the codes” (ibid., p.21). “Codes fix the relationships between concepts and signs” (ibid.).

Where a language is shared then there is a shared understanding of that language and of cultural values. So if we are sharing the same codes, as Hall puts it, we can say that we are sharing in the same culture. The spoken and written words are usually used but representation can be made through objects, music, gesture, body language, visual images et al.

Language acts as a signifying practice in which meaning is coded into interpretation. In this process Hall states that when we put things into code it is called “encoding”, when we interpret the meaning for that code is called “decoding” (ibid., p.62) (to be discussed later). Hall continues his argument saying that if the meaning is dependent on the cultural codes, then it “can never be finally fixed” (Hall, 1997b, p.23), but it can be relatively stable in a certain period of time. This notion that meaning is never truly fixed is one of Hall’s most important conclusions. Therefore representation cannot be a fixed and unchangeable notion.

Thus in this thesis one of the main aims is to examine how British gay male audiences make meaning from the gay male characters from TV series and how fixed is that representation.

2.1.2 Theorising representation

Hall’s social constructionist view of representation is greatly influenced by two celebrated scholars – Ferdinand de Saussure and Michel Foucault. Saussure believes that “language is a system of signs”, and “the sign is the union of a form which signifies (signifier)… and an idea signified (signified ). Though we may speak … as if they are separate entities, they exist only as components of the sign… [which is] the central fact of language” (Hall, 1997b, p.31). So in this way meaning is produced by linking the signifier together with the signified. He argues that the fundamental basis in the production of meaning is the marking of difference.

For example, we can identify “red” is “red” because “red” is not “green”. “In order to produce meaning, the signifiers have to be organized into ‘a system of differences’ ” (ibid., p.32). He argues that this system of differences is the result of particular historical instants inside culture and history. Therefore “interpretation becomes an essential aspect of the process by which meaning is given and taken. The reader is as important as the writer in the production of meaning” (ibid., p.33). In this research I will be focusing on the “reader”.

Barthes brought the semiotic approach of Saussure to bear on “reading” a wide range of texts (such as advertisements, soap operas) in popular culture, treating them as signs of: “a language through which meaning is communicated” (ibid., p.36). He suggests that the interpretation of meaning contains two levels: (1) denotation is read in the shown image directly, (2) and connotation is decoded in the carried message or meaning where involved in the wider realms of social ideology in specific culture (ibid., p.38).

Representation is understood in the way in which words or images function as signs to make meaning. Later theorists developed this and started to consider representation as a source for the production of social knowledge via larger units – discourse. The most significant theorist in this field is Michel Foucault (ibid., p.42). In his idea “discourse is much broader than language, and includes many other elements of practice and institutional regulation …” (ibid., p.51). He continues “the production of knowledge is always crossed with questions of power and the body; and this greatly expands the scope of what is involved in representation” (ibid.). Thus representation becomes a more complex issue because of its relationship to power.

2.1.3 Representing difference and stereotyping

Representing difference is a very common practice of representation; however, it is also controversial, because power is involved in the representation of “others”. Therefore, scholars are highly interested in the topic of “the other”.

Hall (1997a) through analysing a “variety of images [of black people] which [were] on display in popular culture and the mass media” in a wide period of time, explicitly illustrates

how the representation of others works and what are the issues in that representation. He emphasizes that although his theoretical account of representing “others” comes from the analysis of images of black people, it “could be equally applied in many instances to other dimensions of diff erence, such as gender, sexuality, class, and disability” (ibid., p.225).

Hall presents four accounts of why ‘difference’ does matter theoretically from linguistic, social, cultural, and psychic levels respectively.

His first dimension comes from Linguists who take the same sort approach of as Saussure: “‘difference’ matters because it is essential to meaning; without it, meaning could not exist”

(ibid. p.234). For example we can define masculinity by examining its opposite: femininity. This binary opposition is simplistic and excludes the large area between definitions of opposites.

The second account is also from the theories of language which offer another argument: “we need ‘difference’ because we can only construct meaning through a dialogue with the ‘other’ ” (ibid.). The difference between the two accounts is that the first strictly focuses on

binary oppositions, but the second emphasises that meaning comes from a dialogue with others and can change through this interaction.

The third account comes from anthropology: “culture depends on giving things meaning by assigning them to different positions within a classificatory system. The marking of ‘difference’ is thus the basis of that symbolic order” (ibid., p.236). The quoted example is that foods can be classified into groups of raw and cooked. It is the difference between these groups that gives them meaning. However problems arise when the things fail to fit or are in the wrong category.

“The fourth kind of explanation is psychoanalytic and relates to the role of ‘difference’ in our psychic life. The argument here is that the ‘Other’ is fundamental to the constitution of the self to us as subjects, and to sexual identity” (ibid. p.237). Hall uses the example of Freudian theory where after realizing that one is different from mother or father then one takes on the feminine or masculine role.

The notion of “other” is extremely important because we encounter others every day. However, we may not treat them well, and this shifts the way in which we represent them. The other through making difference can lead to seeing “us” and “them”, with “them” abnormal and “us” normal. These differences can be threatening to the “other”. This is the essence of stereotyping (Hall, 1997a).

Stereotyping is the representation of people thus formed with in a discourse which “is structured by a set of binary oppositions” (ibid., p.243). Hall stresses that people being

“stereotyped” means they are “reduced to a few essentials, fixed in Nature by a few simplified characteristics” (ibid.).

He stresses three very important main points about stereotyping: first , it “reduces, essentializes, naturalizes and fixes ‘difference’”; “Secondly, stereotyping deploys a strategy of ‘splitting’”; “The third point is that stereotyping tends to occur where there are gross inequalities of power” (ibid., p.258). Therefore, stereotyping plays a very important role in the “regime of representation”. It creates a very definite gap between “us” and “the other”.

Hall continues his argument by asking “can a dominant regime of representation be challenged, contested or changed” (Hall, 1997a, p.269). Because he believes that “meaning can never be finally fixed” (ibid., p.270), he argues that by using the practice of “trans-coding” then change can be made. He provides three trans-coding strategies. The first strategy is reversing the stereotyping. Hall illustrates several 1960s and 70s “revenge” films in which all the previous negative stereotyping characteristics were valued positively. For example, the black characters were all “bad” roles but “heroic” (ibid., p.270-271).

Secondly, a range of positive imagery can replace the negative. Using the campaign slogan “black is beautiful” for example, “a derogatory term (‘black’) is coupled with a positive term ( ‘beautiful’) to increase the representational range of what is means ‘to be black ’” (Waerden, 2011, p.10). Thus there is a celebration of diversity but conversely there Secondly, a range of positive imagery can replace the negative. Using the campaign slogan “black is beautiful” for example, “a derogatory term (‘black’) is coupled with a positive term ( ‘beautiful’) to increase the representational range of what is means ‘to be black ’” (Waerden, 2011, p.10). Thus there is a celebration of diversity but conversely there

To su m up, “difference” is important because it is something that helps us to understand the world and make meaning. So in the case of this thesis homosexuality is important as it is the binary to heterosexuality. Understanding how homosexuals think about the representation of themselves may provide useful accounts which can be used as trans- coding strategies to challenge the stereotyping representation.

2.1.4 Clark's Model

Another theoretical model useful for this research is that of Clark (1969, cited in Fitzgerald, 2010) who concludes that there are four chronological stages of media representation of minorities.

In the first stage, the minority group is totally ignored by the mass media, namely, no images of people in the minority group appear . Clark names this stage as “non- recognition”. The second stage is “ridicule”, in which the members of that group are p ortrayed as “buffoons”. They are presented stereotypically by the media and even used as subjects that are belittled and even humiliated . “Regulation” is the third stage. Minority characters are portrayed as “enforcers or administrators” in the dominant group, for In the first stage, the minority group is totally ignored by the mass media, namely, no images of people in the minority group appear . Clark names this stage as “non- recognition”. The second stage is “ridicule”, in which the members of that group are p ortrayed as “buffoons”. They are presented stereotypically by the media and even used as subjects that are belittled and even humiliated . “Regulation” is the third stage. Minority characters are portrayed as “enforcers or administrators” in the dominant group, for

members in the group are presented as they are in real life, which can be either positive or negative. Stereotyping representation can still be seen in this stage, but “they are not

considered to be as harmful to the process of social constructionism as are stereotypical characters when only a handful of characters repres enting the social group” (Hart, 2003, p.598). It is because the stereotypical characters exist just as part of the social group in the wide range of different types of characters in the group.

Although Clark put forward his model of media representation of minorities in an editorial commentary, which is not an academic study, number s of scholars “have found his analysis useful” (Fitzgerald, 2010, p.369). This model has been adopted in the field of media representation of sexual minority and will be reflected in this research.

2.1.5 Encoding/Decoding

Encoding and decoding are two specific stages in the practice of representation, which are worth to discuss further. Hall (1993), through analysing how messages are produced and received within the television discourse, puts forward a four-stage model of mass communication: production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction. He also argues that in the communicative process there are “determinate moments” which are “the moment of ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’.

Hall argues that the meaning of text, in this case television, is located between its producer and the reader. The producer (encoder) frames (encodes) meaning in a certain way while the reader (decoder) decodes it differently according to personal background; various different social situation and other frames of interpretation. For instance, an event has to

be encoded into a televisual story in order to broadcast it on TV. The audience then can interpret (decode) the event in their own way. However , “decodings do not follow inevitably from encodings” (Chandler and Munday, 2011).

Hall provides us with three types of audience reading (decoding) of text. First is the dominant or preferred reading. This is when the reader decodes the message as the encoder (producer) wants them to do and broadly agrees with it. Readers “unconsciously draw on common sense” to establish the meaning (ibid.). This is taken to be the hegemonic position. Second, negotiated meaning is when the reader shares some of the code and broadly accepts the preferred reading but they can reject or refine some of the elements of the text in the light of their previously held view. Contradictions occur because individual experiences and interests intervene in the interpretation. Third, oppositional ('counter-hegemonic') reading occurs if the decoder recognises the dominant meaning and in direct opposition rejects that meaning for cultural, political or ideological reasons. They bring an alternative frame of reference to their meaning (Hall, 1993).

Criticisms of Hall’s model have been made: such as how can a preferred reading be established? Others doubt the model’s mass media genre application. Despite the various criticisms it is Hall who first “highlighted the importance of active interpretation within relevant codes” and “gave a significant role to the 'decoder' as well as to the 'encoder'”

(Chandler, 2000). His model has been very influential and encouraged a number of scholars to focus further on reception studies. The presenting research will also follow this tradition of emphasising and analysing the significant role of the decoder.

2.2 The politics of queer representation

In this section, the notion of the “other” is accorded to sexual minorities. The issues of representation of sexual minorities (queer), especially the representation in television, will

be examined in the literature.

One of the significant differences between sexual minorities and the other minorities (such as racial and ethnic minorities) is that they are self-identified. (Gross, 1991). Namely, we cannot identify them by their appearances (sometimes people assume that effeminate men or masculine women might be homosexual, however, there is no direct connection between these). Gross (1991) argues that in this context, they are “akin to political minorities (so-c alled radicals and ‘fringe’ group)”. McKee (2000) points out that the media is the most important source of information about gay identity for gay people in their youth.

Therefore more attention needs to be “paid to the situation of lesbian women and gay men as members of the mass media audience” (Gross, 1991, p.19).

The gay liberation movement started in the late 1960s in the United States following the examples of the black, anti-war, and feminist movements (ibid., p.28).The Stonewall Riots of 1969 heralded a new worldwide gay social movement which has played a very important role in LGBT history. It “set off when a relatively ‘routine’ raid on a ‘gay bar’ in New York’s Greenwich Village turned to a three-day confrontation between hundreds of police and thousands of protesters” (Chambers, 2009, p.11). This original and literal fighting for “gay liberation” and “radical sexual politics” “quickly became a part of ‘identity politics’ with the goal of achieving ‘gay rights’ in the 1970s, by claiming that sexual orientation as “a fixed sexual identity” whose rights should be protected.

In this context, “lesbian and gay studies began to appear on US university campuses throughout the 1980s” (Chambers, 2009, p.12). Scholars believe that “if lesbian and gay men possessed a fi xed identity based upon their ‘sexual orientation’, an identity whose rights should be defended politically, then this meant that there was a gay identity to be studied by the academy” (ibid.). Thus, the understanding of gay identity became a central academic dimension in early gay and lesbian studies.

Queer theory was developed on the basis of lesbian and gay studies in the 1990s as a response to the AIDS crisis. Instead of arguing that homosexuality is “an unchanging and Queer theory was developed on the basis of lesbian and gay studies in the 1990s as a response to the AIDS crisis. Instead of arguing that homosexuality is “an unchanging and

Therefore queer theory also provides recognition to non-normative sexualities and sexual practices such as transsexual, bisexual, intersexual. This greatly challenges the heteronormativity existing in the straight culture and society (Jagose, 1996).

The concept of heteronormativity in the context of this research needs further discussion. “Queer theorists interpret heteronormativity as the discursive power granted to the compulsory heterosexual matrix in Western society” (Dhaenen, 2012, p.58). Rich (1980) who first put forward the term argues “popular culture will tend to portray heterosexuality as if it were natural and inevitable and to position alternative forms of sexuality as ‘other’ ” (Raymond, 2003, p.103-104) . Heteronormativity “relies upon fixed notions of biological sex, gender, and sexuality, and veils its constructedness and anomalies by feigning universality and rendering the heteronormative discourse hegemonic” (Dhaenen, 2012, p.58). It is the The concept of heteronormativity in the context of this research needs further discussion. “Queer theorists interpret heteronormativity as the discursive power granted to the compulsory heterosexual matrix in Western society” (Dhaenen, 2012, p.58). Rich (1980) who first put forward the term argues “popular culture will tend to portray heterosexuality as if it were natural and inevitable and to position alternative forms of sexuality as ‘other’ ” (Raymond, 2003, p.103-104) . Heteronormativity “relies upon fixed notions of biological sex, gender, and sexuality, and veils its constructedness and anomalies by feigning universality and rendering the heteronormative discourse hegemonic” (Dhaenen, 2012, p.58). It is the

(ibid.). The media representation of sexual minorities still continues to be dominated by ideology and power of heteronormativity “resulting in representations where gay men and women participate or want to participate in heteronormative institutions and practices” (ibid).

2.2.1 Queer representation studies

As homosexuals have become increasingly open and visible in society, promoted by the gay liberation movement and legislation, their visibility in the mass media has also increased(Barnhurst, 2007, p.1). However, Barnhurst argues that the “visibility, like other semantic and semiotic forms, contains its own contradictions” (ibid.). He points out there are many paradoxes of visibility: “spurring tolerance through harmful stereotyping, diminishing isolation at the cost of activism, trading assimilation for equality, and converting radicalism into a market niche” (ibid.). The paradoxes of visibility are just the reason that attracts scholars to study the queer representation passionately.

Stonewall (2006), one of the UK’s largest LGB charities, published a report on the BBC’s portrayal of lesbian and gay people . The research included “both a quantitative study of the content of BBC One and BBC Two during eight weeks” of prime-time viewing between 7pm to 10pm, totalling 168 hours, “and qualitative research from focus groups of both gay Stonewall (2006), one of the UK’s largest LGB charities, published a report on the BBC’s portrayal of lesbian and gay people . The research included “both a quantitative study of the content of BBC One and BBC Two during eight weeks” of prime-time viewing between 7pm to 10pm, totalling 168 hours, “and qualitative research from focus groups of both gay

found to be “positively and realistically represented”. “The majority, 72 per cent, of individual references to gay sexuality were made during entertainment programmes” (ibid.). They also found that gay people were likely to be used as the subject of jokes; 51% of all the gay references were “designed for comic effect”; “Most of these revolved around stereotypes of sexually predatory or camp and effeminate gay men” (ibid).

With regard to audience opinions, they found that straight view ers “would welcome more documentary programmes about lesbian and gay contemporary social issues such as civil partnership or the age of consent legislation, as this would help them to understand lesbian and gay lives” (ibid.). Homosexual audiences thought that the portrayals on TV were important because they can help to challenge bigotry and prejudice towards them.

Stonewall (2010) carried out further research, however, this time they did not just focus on the BBC. “Researchers monitored 20 TV programmes most popular with young people on BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five for a 16 week period”, totalling “126 hours, 42 minute s and 17 seconds of programmes” to analyse “the extent to which lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people were portrayed positively”. They “also used a series of focus groups

with young people from across Britain to explore their views on the ways broadcasters portray gay people and on how this influences t hem”. The result of the 2010 research was with young people from across Britain to explore their views on the ways broadcasters portray gay people and on how this influences t hem”. The result of the 2010 research was

In response to the Stonewall research, the BBC conducted its own research on the portrayal of lesbian women, gay men and bisexual people in broadcast media in 2010 (Hemley, 2010). This research was based on a national survey which involved a representative sample of 1,625 UK adults. The most significant findings were that “LGB people want to see more and greater diversity within, LGB portrayal”, and that programme “context is critical to how all audiences perceive the portrayal of LGB people”. Perhaps the most striking finding was a more open and accepting liberal attitude that “the clear majority of the UK population are either comfortable with, or do not feel strongly either way about, the portrayal of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people” (BBC, 2010, p.8).

The BBC updated this research in 2012. It found that “gay and bisexual men seem relatively happy with the TV they consume (across all channels, not just the BBC) – lesbian and bisexual women perhaps less so”; and that “the channels watched by LGB audiences are broadly the same as those watched by heterosexual audiences of the same age and gender”(BBC, 2012, p.6). They also interviewed LGB experts who were The BBC updated this research in 2012. It found that “gay and bisexual men seem relatively happy with the TV they consume (across all channels, not just the BBC) – lesbian and bisexual women perhaps less so”; and that “the channels watched by LGB audiences are broadly the same as those watched by heterosexual audiences of the same age and gender”(BBC, 2012, p.6). They also interviewed LGB experts who were

There are several similarities in the findings of each report, however, the main difference among the four reports is the audiences’ opinion on the portrayals, especially the gay audiences’ view. Although this research did not involve a large amount of representative samples, the results of the research can still contribute an in-depth understanding of the gay male audiences view on the representation.

Within the academia of media, communication, and cultural studies, it seems that American scholars have researched more on the queer representation in mass media, especially television, than British scholars. The majority of them like to focus on the textural level (i.e. media products). Apart from using examples to demonstrate their arguments, they also employ content analysis and discourse analysis to explore these issues.

Rhonda Gibson (2006) gives us a clear picture of gay representation in American mass media by reviewing the media images of LGBT people from 1950s to 2004. She points out t hat “the number and quality of LGBT characters gradually increased throughout the 1970s and 1980s”; but “the real breakthrough event occurred in 1997 with the coming-out of sitcom lead character Ellen Morgan” and “since then, the number of LGBT main characters has exploded” (Gibson, 2006, p.258). She argues that although, generally speaking, the portrayals of sexual minorities on television has improved, there are still several issues: a) they are more likely to be stereotypically portrayed; b) in those portrayals they are more likely to be Caucasians revealing a lack of race diversity; and c) bisexuals are hardly to be seen on TV.

Hart (2003) did a similar review by tracing the representation of gay men on American television from the late 1960s to late 1990s. He employed Clark’s model and argues that “gay men ultimately entered the respect stage of representation on American TV, as defined by Clark (1969), in the 1990s” (ibid., p.601).

Instead of doing qualitative review, Fisher et al. (2007) did an analysis of gay, lesbian, and bisexual content on TV from 2001 to 2003. It analysed more than 1000 programmes. It found that about 15% of those programmes related non-heterosexual content and this content only occurred within the relatively limited genres of movies or variety/comedy Instead of doing qualitative review, Fisher et al. (2007) did an analysis of gay, lesbian, and bisexual content on TV from 2001 to 2003. It analysed more than 1000 programmes. It found that about 15% of those programmes related non-heterosexual content and this content only occurred within the relatively limited genres of movies or variety/comedy

Raley and Lucas (2006) offer another “content analysis of prime-time network television during the fall of 2001”. In the research they also used Clark’s model. They claim that “gay male and lesbian characters are moving into Clark’s third stage of regulation and possibly even the four th stage of respect”. Apparently, their result is conflict with Hart (2003)’s finding through his historical review which also employed Clark’s model.

Fouts and Inch (2005, p.35) conducted a content analysis focusing on a specific television programme genre – sitcom. They analysed all the homosexual characters in 22 television situation comedies in early October 2000 to find out their demographical features, and “whether they verbally comment about sexual orientation” at that time. It shows that only 2% of those 125 central characters are homosexual, which is far less than the “actual prevalence rates of homosexuality in North America (10- 13%), and that “all the homosexual characters were male and in the 20- to 35-year- old age group”. “Homosexual characters made significantly more comments about sexual orientation than heterosexual characters” which “suggests that television writers/producers present sexual orientation as

a significant theme in the lives of homosexual characters”.

The above researches generally point out the same representation issues as in Stonewall (2006, 2010)’s reports: lack of diversity (age, racial, genre, and sexual orientation), The above researches generally point out the same representation issues as in Stonewall (2006, 2010)’s reports: lack of diversity (age, racial, genre, and sexual orientation),

Raymond (2003) offers her positive account of queer representation by illustrating queer characters in contemporary American TV fictions using a queer perspective, especially in sitcoms. She argues that “queer images, themes, and tropes” of today are greatly different from the “earlier eras where homosexuality could only be hinted at or, if explicit, pathologized” (ibid., p.103). Queer characters are more likely to be treated as “folks” now. This is a great challenge to the heteronormativity.

However, Avila-Saavedra (2009) argues that those gay male characters who appeared on American TV screen did not challenge “heteronormative notions of masculinity and

he gemonic models”. His discourse analysed “three network and basic cable television shows with gay male leading characters from 2004: Will & Grace (NBC), It’s All Relative (ABC) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (Bravo)” (ibid., p.9). He argues that there is a normalization of queer identity within all the three programmes which fits in the heteronormativity and traditional gender-appropriate characteristics. He suggests that “visibility is no longer an issue only for white affluent, gay males who hold traditional family values” (ibid., p.18).

It is interesting here that both the above scholars use a queer theory/perspective to analyse almost the same programmes, but give a totally different evaluation. This might because of the subjectivity of qualitative research. The role of the researcher in that kind of research is akin to that of normal audiences, in that they offer their own in-depth understanding of the issues. In this research I am trying to find out the understanding from audiences, who are also those who being represented in the mass media.

Two British studies on the queer representation focusing on specific TV genres were found. Unlike the studies mentioned above (some have focused on sitcoms), these two analyse the representation in the genres of drama and soap respectively.

Arthurs (2004) “maps the transition from secrecy, invisibility and shame to coming out, visibility and pride in the history of gay and lesbian rep resentation in British television” and puts forward an explanation about the issues of gay, lesbian and queer sexualities in UK drama. She argues that “television has lagged behind the developments in sexual storytelling than in other cultural fields” because it pays much more attention on “avoiding offence to its majority audience”. “Gay and lesbian narrative in television drama remain relatively scarce and are still very constrained by the requirements for ‘respectability’ in the popular forms of prime time” (Arthurs, 2004, p.127). She also claims that drama’s function of “being a space for psychological complexity and pleasurable fantasy” “goes beyond the demand for citizenship rights in an ‘oppositional public sphere’” (ibid.).

Bradley (2013) explores “the representation of the gay romance” in the British long- running soap – EastEnders, “in order to demonstrate the political and cultural impetus of popular television genres and their influence on public opinion” (ibid., p.33). Specifically, she analyses two gay romance storylines in EastEnders: the relationship between Colin Russell and his partners, and Christian Clarke and Syed Masood. She argues that these relationships are “employed by the programme makers to construct an elaborate Queer identity that attempts to reflect a liberalisation of British culture and society. Additionally, she puts forward an interesting point that because soap is essentially still a “woman’s” genre, instead of fulfilling the gay men’s interests, it actually “offers up the gay male body for heterosexual female consumption” (ibid., p.39). Therefore, the privilege of gay storylines in soaps is romance. As a re sult, it “limits the parameters of gay identity” (ibid.).

Both of these two scholars demonstrate that political and commercial reasons influence producers or scriptwriters when they set up a gay character or storyline. This is perhaps because British TV corporations have a unique position to uphold between being a public service broadcasting media and commercial organizations. In this context, the queer representation on British TV is slightly different from the US. On one hand, they wish to represent gay people in the media; on the other hand, pressure from audience numbers may lead to restrictions in the way in which gay people are represented.

2.2.2 Reception studies about queer representation

As mentioned earlier, there are not many reception studies about queer representation and only two studies have been found.

Dhaenen (2012) conducted a reception study among Flemish viewers of queer resistance in contemporary television fiction. The study was based on his previous qualitative textual studies on the popular series (The Wire, Family Guy, Six Feet Under, Bothers & Sisters, Torchwood and True Blood) which argues “these series represent gay characters and themes that expose the oppressive practices of heteronormativity and represent viable alternatives to the heteronormative way of living” (ibid., p.57). In order to explore the audiences’ view the author selected a selection of sequences from those series and showed them to his participants (aged between 18-35, homosexual or heterosexual).

He concludes four main points about the audiences’ reading of gay representation. First,

most of the participants generally consider the most of the characters are non- stereotypical (ibid., p.61). If stereotypes do occur, none of them was described as offensive or inappropriate. Because those stereotypes often appeared in comedies, they think they are funny. Second, most of his participants think the gay representations were realistic. Third, the opinions included contextualising the representation in terms of the production. Fourth, some did not believe that the representation would have a great impact on society, but others “ascribed a social and emancipating role” (ibid., p.63). Generally, his most of the participants generally consider the most of the characters are non- stereotypical (ibid., p.61). If stereotypes do occur, none of them was described as offensive or inappropriate. Because those stereotypes often appeared in comedies, they think they are funny. Second, most of his participants think the gay representations were realistic. Third, the opinions included contextualising the representation in terms of the production. Fourth, some did not believe that the representation would have a great impact on society, but others “ascribed a social and emancipating role” (ibid., p.63). Generally, his

Farrell (2006) did another reception study focusing specifically on the HIV issue. She explores how some gay male undergraduates perceived a fictional story in Queer as Folk by showing collections of edited clips to small focus groups. She finds that all the participants “are making meaning of this HIV storyline in relation to their own lives and their understanding of gay culture” (ibid., p.201). Most of the participants believe the representation is relatively accurate.

Dhaenen (2012) ’s research may be similar to the present research, but he involves both heterosexual and homosexual participants making its focus more of a comparison and the consensus on the topic rather than listening to individuals’ deep voice. In Farrell (2006)’s reception study her aim is a very specific HIV issue, so there is little comparison to be made with this present study . More importantly, both of the two studies were done in an artificial environment of viewing, which can raise questions regarding whether the results truly reflect viewing habits. Results generated in this way may be more focussed, however, it also limits the material which the participants are asked to consider. It was therefore decided, for the purpose of this research, to explore the issue in a more natural way, in the hope that more relevant data may be produced.

3 - Methodology

3.1 Why interview?

The main aim of this research is to understand how gay male audiences perceive the gay male characters in recent or current TV serial fictions shown in the UK, to discover how they engage with those characters, and to identify their personal views on them. Such views are inherently subjective and dependent on individual contexts and characteristics such as age, life experience, educational background and personality. This research is concerned with finding out in depth those perceptions of gay male audiences which heavily suggests a qualitative research approach rather than a quantitative one.

In order to know the views of an audience it is necessary to ask. Face to face communications is the most obvious way to determine the opinions of people on an issue. Therefore the most appropriate research method of this project would be interview, which is defined as “a conversation between a researcher (someone who wishes to gain information about a subject) and an informant (someone who presumably has information of interest on the subject)” (Berger, 2000, p.257). By talking and asking “we can find out about people’s ideas, their thoughts, their opinions, their attitudes, and what motivates them” (ibid. p.113). Thus the data will be generated in a relatively natural way, which is more likely to reflect people’s true behaviour, rather than creating an more artificial In order to know the views of an audience it is necessary to ask. Face to face communications is the most obvious way to determine the opinions of people on an issue. Therefore the most appropriate research method of this project would be interview, which is defined as “a conversation between a researcher (someone who wishes to gain information about a subject) and an informant (someone who presumably has information of interest on the subject)” (Berger, 2000, p.257). By talking and asking “we can find out about people’s ideas, their thoughts, their opinions, their attitudes, and what motivates them” (ibid. p.113). Thus the data will be generated in a relatively natural way, which is more likely to reflect people’s true behaviour, rather than creating an more artificial

There are also two specific practical reasons why interview would be the most appropriate way for the present research. Firstly, for homosexuals, “…their sexuality is not visible,

which is a different situation than for racial/ethnic minorities, whose visibility is quite obvious if their heritage is mar ked on their bodies…” (Staiger, 2005, p.140). In other words, people’s sexuality is not as obvious as their other demographic identities, such as gender, age, and race. It is relatively difficult to find a large number of participants “who are representative of some larger group of people of interest to us” (Berger, 2000, p.187) as in

a survey, the other common research method used “to get information about certain groups of people” (ibid.).

Secondly, “discovering how audiences make sense of media messages is not easily done through survey research”(Hansen et al., 1998, p.257). Although a survey can indeed provide information about audiences’ attitudes and opinion (ibid.225), however, it cannot provide “much richer and more sensitive type of data on the dynamics of audiences and relations to medi a” (ibid. p.258). It is for precisely this reason that this research relies on qualitative data gathered through in-depth interviews.

3.2 Finding participants

As mentioned before, sexuality is not visible; this makes it is more difficult to find participants. In this context, snowball sampling becomes a useful way to find participants. In this way, “one subject gives the researcher the name of another subject, who in turn provides the name of a third, and so on” (Vogt, 1999; cited in Atkinson and Flint, 2001, p.2). Thus it is usually used to find participants in hidden and hard-to-reach populations.