Illustrate and Critically Discuss the Representation of Gay People in Television Sitcoms or Soap Opera.

enlarge and diminutively discuss the means of intrepid large number in boob tube sitcoms or soap opera. As the issue of government agency is central to this essay, it is grievous to line of credit that in that location energise been problems with commiting a definitive meaning of representation. Several theorists live with commented on the concept of representation. Stuart Hall (1997 61)) defines representation as the process by which members of a culture use talking toto offer meaning.From this meaning, he says, we freighter already see that representation cannot perhaps be a fixed, unchangeable notion. While culture and language rise and grow with human indian lodge, the same essential hence be give tongue to of the perceptions of representation. Gillian Swanson (1991 123) backs up Halls theory, observing that there can be no absolute version of how things argon but solo many competing versions. She continues Ideas close to what people argon like and how the y be meant to be understood already prevail in our culture.They give meaning to our aesthesis of self and allow us to position ourselves in relation to others. such meanings and attitudes are reproduced in representation but the appearance representations are constructed is as important as the ideas and meanings they project, since they offer positions for us, through with(predicate) which we recognise images as similar, or different from, ourselves and those around us. We continually define ourselves in changing traffic to those meanings images change over time and the meanings which are allowd by the social or cultural con text edition change as well.The general idea of representation then, not only changes over time, but whitethorn likewise bemuse several different interpretations at any given point. Alexander Doty and Ben Gove (1997 84) reason that when discussing homo internal representation in the mass media and popular culture we must calculate beyond understandin g the mass or popular as necessarily meaning a mainstream media or culture that only addresses millions of heterosexuals. They have sex another(prenominal), alternating(a) mass media that runs parallel to the mainstream mass media but has been pushed to the sidelines in the past.A traditionalist viewpoint would state that this is because the mass media should convey the will and desires of the majority and indeed should not be made to positively represent anything that contradicts the societys possessive ideology. However, Doty and Gove note that in recent years the lines between these mainstream and alternating(a) mass media have turn blurred with, for example, the screening of create by mental acts written, starring and watched by sapphics, unfearings and queers on boob tube.Having said that, this by no means implies that there is little of an issue to be raised by the representation of homosexuality on tv. The virtually obvious issue surrounding this is, of course , the stereotyping of brave graphic symbols on television and, in particular, television sitcoms. While sprightly, lesbian, bisexual and transgender characters did not appear in television sitcoms until the 1970s, modern television sees an entire genre of situation comedies featuring comicals.These types of programmes are no longer written by the homosexual for the homosexual, but have become integrated within Doty and Goves mainstream mass media. They discuss the splendor of be witting of who finances, creates, publicises and exhibits a certain programme, and how these parts might affect the way that programme represents queerness. For example, the two creators of the jocund- emergego-friend sitcom entrust & Grace are Max Mutchnick, who is gay, and David Kohan, who is straight.Arguably, the way in which queerness is represented here may have benefited from having a homosexual and a heterosexual in install. This way, the show has much chance of appealing to a wider mass hearing. Consequently, it is possible that the gay, lesbian or queer characters featured in television sitcoms may have been tailored, in a sense, for a heterosexual audience. This could go whatsoever way to elucidate why depart & Grace, unlike many other similar sitcoms of its kind, has become so popular. Stephen Tropiano holds a simpler view, claiming that the success of Will & Grace reallyly comes ingest to one thing its funny.What separates Will &Grace from the gaycoms that only expire a few months has little to do with its politics and more to do with the talent of the performers and the quality of the writing and direction (mainly, James Burrows, one of the best in the business). Swanson notes the extreme and caricatured way in which stereotyping draws on commonly-held impressions and assumptions. It may be assumed that the views Swanson talks most are commonly-held by the dominant, heterosexual audience that the mass media is seen to address.If this is the case, t hen this may account, in part, for some of the stereotyping of gays in television sitcoms. A more positive (and therefore acceptable) representation would make the programme much more accessible to a much wider audience. But what could be regarded as a positive image of gays and lesbians in television? Doty and Gove note that many of the images regarded as positive by, and that received praise from critics and watchdogs were ones that played shine homosexuality or ignored the issue altogether, depicting gays as cosmos just like everyone else in their attempts not to make it a central point.On the other hand, those images where gays were more explicitly depicted fared no better. Joshua Gamson (1998 21) found that studies of the portrayals of gay men and lesbians in film and television have soundly exhibit how homosexual lives have been subject to systematic exclusion and stereotyping as victims and villains. For example, Gamson cites Vito Russos The Celluloid Closet, in which Rus so argues that television has produced sterile conceptualisations of AIDS that vilify gays and legitimate homophobia. Doty and Gove take this a step further, observing thatBy the late mid-eighties and 1990s, the recurring televisual image of gay men with AIDS sparked heated critical debates over precisely what kind of image it was negative, because it depicted homosexuality as a victimhood that, yet again, ended in death or positive, as it encouraged sympathy and even admiration for gay men through images of their courage in the face of death. They identify a bit of a grey area concerning the labelling of the representation of homosexual images as positive and negative in that different people will look at these images from a variety of perspectives there can be no universal interpretation of any given image.The same can be said of trying to define possible images of gays, lesbians and queers on television. Doty and Gove observe that there are two ways in which people recognise these real images some note that text expressively find outs the imagery through dialogue or by showing physical or sexual activity. Recent examples of this are Matt Fielding (Melrose Place), Simon and Tony (Eastenders) and Beth Jordache (Brookside). Other people flavour that realistic images do not need to use explicit text to gauge a characters sexuality on the footing of other signs.Many viewers see characters like Mr Humphries (Are You Being Served? ) and Xena (Xena Warrior Princess) as existence gay, lesbian or bisexual. These two binary explanations of what constitutes as a realistic image of queerness shows the difficulty in even defining what humans is for gays, lesbians and queers. It is difficult to define a typical reality or, to put it another way, to recognise a general gay identity in which to reason them. Essentialist theorists state that they are bound together by the fact that their identities are determined by their sexuality.Donald Hall (2003 42) suggests th at such theorists would argue that same-sex desiring individuals have ever so existed and that however much their context may have changed, they were, without a doubt, aware of their sexual desires and they must have thought of themselves as belonging to a distinct group of similar individuals. While it makes sense that the individual would have been aware of their sexual desires, constructionist theory would perhaps note that historically they may not have been aware of any sense of belonging, rather one of detachment due to the cultural influences in society at the time.Constructionist theory, says Hall, emphasises language and belief systems in order to determine identity. Richard Dyer (2002 19) observes, rather importantly, that a major fact about being gay is that it doesnt showthe somebodys person alone does not showthat he or she is gay. He argues that there are signs of queerness such as expressions, stances and clothing that make transparent the invisible. Typification i s a dependable necessity, says Dyer, for the representation of gayness, which he argues is the product of social, political, practical and textual determinations.He deduces that the social factor is an integral one from which gay people can be recognize The prevalent fact of gay typification is determined by the immenseness of a social category whose members would be invisible did they and the culture not extend life demeanor signs with which to make recognition possibleIt is probable that some gay people are for most of their lives in fact invisible. playing and dressing gay may only be an evening or weekend activity in particular, it may not be skilled at the workplace, or for married gays at home either.Equally, many people who are homosexual may never identify with the various gay lifestyles, never, in this sense, define and produce themselves as gay. What Dyer conveys here is that to be classed as gay, a person must be able to identify with not only the inner, biological aspects of gayness (as put forward by essentialism) but also with the cultural aspects around them (as suggested by constructionism). This in itself is kind of stereotyped because of the presumption about what is gay. Those who do not aline to this ideal are classed as invisible.Accordingly, the images we have been seeing of gay characters in television sitcoms may only be representations of certain types of gay people, and it is difficult to know whether or not these people are a majority or a minority. Will & Grace attempts to deviate from the stereotypic notions of gayness through its two gay main characters, Will and horseshit, and provide an insight into invisible gayness. James Keller (2002 124) describes the two main male characters as foils representing diversity within gay masculinity, a diversity which argues for and against gender stereotypes about gay men.The summons Will, Keller says, signifies resolution and courage enchantment the surname Truman suggests that W ill is a real man. This is also put across in the way he dresses. As an attorney, his conservative style and uptight personality mean that Will shows little of the usual stereotypical traits that signal to an audience that he is gay. Keller compares him to the modern sensitive male (such as Ross Geller in Friends), and his primary relationships focus mainly on women, namely Grace.The name bozo is reminiscent of a joker or jester, a zany basically. While Truman represents composure and respectability, McFarland implies waywardness and outlandish behaviour. Tropiano asserts that, similarly to Will, Jack isnt exactly gay either hes hyper-gay. Keller describes Jack as silly, irresponsible, immature, narcissistic, effeminate, disdainful and promiscuous, the epitome of the negative stereotypical gay male, made agreeable by humour and childlike unselfconsciousness.Their apparent contradictory personalities are, says Keller, the respective embodiments of the long-familiar and the unfam iliar, although, paradoxically, what is coded as familiar here is actually unfamiliar in the biography of gay representation. He notes that Will is presented as the norm whilst Jack is portrayed as unusual among gay men in a respectable, middle class situation. While Will is offered as the favorite(a) alternative to the stereotype of the gay man, because Jack is much funnier and more stylish than Will he could, points out Keller, easily also be a preferent alternative.This presentation of two very different types of gay men, both preferable to the stereotype, serves to not only expand the culturally authorized notion of gayness (as part of its political agenda) but also works as a hook to keep its audience interested (the main function of the programme). In addition to this, Will and Jack have enough depth, enough layers in their personalities, to represent arguably a certain sense of realism. Tropiano explains Sean hay and the writers have created a three-dimensional characte r who, beneath his somewhat shoal exterior, is a strong, confident person.As a gay man, hes also completely comfortable with his sexuality. Will, on the other hand, though smart and successful, is the character that most needs personal guidance, about love and relationships in particular, and Jack is often on hand to give this advice. Between these two characters, then, are a fair number of characteristics that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight people alike would be able to relate to in some way.Furthermore, Will & Grace compromises with the dominant ideologies by making the most important relationships in the lives of the two gay characters heterosocial and quasi-heterosexual. By doing this, the problems identified in earlier gaycoms such as Ellen (which was axed for being too gay and overly political) are overcome and, as a result, more meaningful, contemporary representations of gay people seen in the show are able to ease naturally into cultural ideology as conf licting to being forced through. Vito Russo (1987325) argues against Richard Dyers (and others) theory of invisibility.He says that gays have always been visibleits how theyve been visible that has remained offensive for almost a century. Joshua Gamson supports Russo, pointing out that, until recently, gays and lesbians had very little input into their own representations. Dominant ideologies have therefore held virtually all control over how gays have been represented in the past, leading to negative stereotypes of gays. To remedy this, Gamson argues that more exposure is the answer. However, this in itself poses problems, such as when considering the positive/negative images approach.Doty and Gove note that its critics have suggested that most definitions of what constitutes a positive image would restrict the range of gay and lesbian representation as much as so-called negative, stereotypical images do, by encouraging only bland, saintly, desexualised mainstream figures who might as well be heterosexual. But herein lies the problem dominant cultural ideology has, throughout history, commanded how gay people are represented in society and on television, and only recently have they been able to acquire some control themselves.After a period of trial and error, the television sitcom Will & Grace, with its innovative balance of hetero and homosexual political comedy, could be making its mark on society. During this time, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders have been continually trying to become fully accepted as part of mainstream culture. However, the images approach has been criticised for attempting to do just that. In an changing culture, is the gay community in a state of confusion about which direction it wants to go, and how it wants to be represented when it gets there?References Craig, Steve (1992). Men, Masculinity and the Media. London perspicacious Publications Ltd. Dyer, Richard (2002). The Matter of Images Essays on Representation. Lond on Routledge Gamson, Joshua (1998). Freaks Talk Back. Chicago University of Chicago crush out Hall, Donald E. (2003). Queer Theories. Hampshire Palgrave Macmillan Hall, Stuart (1997). Representation Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London Sage Publications Ltd. Keller, James R. (2002).Queer (Un)Friendly remove and Television. North Carolina McFarland & Company Inc. Lusted, David (edited by) (1991). The Media Studies Book A Guide For Teachers. London Routledge Medhurst, Andy and wisecrack R. Munt (1997). Lesbian and Gay Studies A Critical Introduction. London Cassell Tropiano, Stephen (2002). The Prime duration Closet A History of Gays and Lesbians on TV. Kent Combined Book work Ltd. Russo, Vito (1987). The Celluloid Closet Homosexuality in the Movies. 2nd Ed. New York harper & Row