Abstract
With 1975’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey forced us to acknowledge that our “fascination with film” hinges on seeing women through a male gaze. But in recent years, the concept has been derided as irrelevant with today’s fragmented intellectual and media landscape that favors intersectionality. Cory Albertson redeploys Mulvey’s theoretical acumen to analyze how the male gaze still functions as a mechanism to illuminate patriarchal influence, but within societal representations (and acceptability of) lesbian, bisexual, and queer relationships. Albertson situates his analysis around a 2011 Gallup poll which marked the first year a majority of the American public “favored” same-sex marriage—a nine-point (and largest ever year to year) increase from 2010. The previous year’s GLAAD “Where We Are on TV” report found the 2010–2011 television season’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer (LGBQ) characters had their highest percentage in the report’s then-15-year history. This season saw Glee and The Good Wife hit their ratings zenith while stalwarts like Grey’s Anatomy hit new, important LGBQ milestones. Using these shows, Albertson demonstrates how the male gaze, as a feminist methodology (and, by extension, feminism as an activist ideology) maintains its relevance through its mobilization in/by the aesthetics, sexual practices, and gender acceptability of LGBQ characters. He finds the shows create “normal” same-sex relationships remarkably similar to the heteronormative ideal. And the central component of that normalcy hinges on being bound by the male gaze where lesbian, bisexual, and queer characters are sexualized in service of heterosexual men’s pleasure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I use the term LGBQ because the shows that met my criteria only contained characters who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, bicurious and one with no label, which I call queer. No transgender characters were present.
- 2.
Kalinda appeared on The Good Wife from 2009 to 2015.
- 3.
This chapter is part of a larger project that also examines gay and bisexual male roles and sexual identities/labels and everyday roles within these relationships in more detail. For further details, see Albertson (2018).
- 4.
As a researcher of media, I acknowledge the complex and diverse ways that masculinity and femininity operate in some contemporary television programming. However, the focus of this chapter is the application of Mulvey’s male gaze theory on lesbian and bisexual female characters in mainstream broadcast network programming.
- 5.
I also do not discount the possibility that the viewer might already practice the male gaze in which case the societal surrogate and the camera lens reinforce the viewer’s male gaze rather than instigate it.
- 6.
Without having access to networks’ demographic information, it is hard to know the audience make-up for sure.
References
Albertson, Cory. 2018. A Perfect Union? Television and the Winning of Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Routledge.
Bordo, Susan. 2015. It’s Not the Same for Women. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Its-Not-the-Same-for-Women/234535?cid=cp20.
Ciasullo, Ann M. 2001. Making Her (In)visible: Cultural Representations of Lesbianism and the Lesbian Body in the 1990s. Feminist Studies 27: 577–609. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178806.
Doane, Mary A. 1980. Misrecognition and Identity. Cine-Tracts 11: 25–32.
Duggan, Lisa. 2002. The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, ed. Russ Castronovo and Dana D. Nelson, 175–194. Durham: Duke University Press.
Farr, Daniel, and Nathalie Degroult. 2008. Understand the Queer World of the L-esbian Body: Using Queer as Folk and The L Word to Address the Construction of the Lesbian Body. Journal of Lesbian Studies 12: 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160802278580.
Fisher, Deborah A., Douglas L. Hill, Joel W. Grube, and Enid Gruber. 2007. Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Content on Television. Journal of Homosexuality 52: 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_08.
Gallup. 2011. For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage. Gallup.com. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx.
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. 2011. Where We Are on TV 2010–2011 Season [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/tvreport10.
Gledhill, Christine, and Vicky Ball. 2013. Genre and Gender: The Case of Soap Opera. In Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall, Jessica Evans, and Sean Nixon. London: Sage.
Hall, Stuart. 1996. Encoding/Decoding in Media Studies: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hantzis, Darlene M., and Valerie Lehr. 1994. Whose Desire? Lesbian (Non)sexuality and Television’s Perpetuation of Hetero/sexism. In Queer Words, Queer Images, ed. R. Jeffrey Ringer, 107–121. New York: New York University Press.
Jenks, Chris. 1995. Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
Koch, Gertrude. 1985. Ex-Changing the Gaze: Revisioning Feminist Film Theory. New German Critique 34: 139–153.
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. 1984. Gender Roles and Power. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Manlove, Clifford T. 2007. Visual “Drive” and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey. Cinema Journal 46 (3): 83–108.
Marcus, Sharon. 2015. A Richer, Stranger Essay. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Richer-Stranger-Essay/234538?cid=cp20
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2011. The Right to Look: A Counterhistory of Visuality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Moritz, Marguerite J. 1994. Old Strategies for New Texts: How American Television Is Creating and Treating Lesbian Characters. In Queer Words, Queer Images, ed. R. Jeffrey Ringer, 122–142. New York: New York University Press.
Mulvey, Laura. 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16: 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6.
———. 1989. Visual and Other Pleasures. London: Macmillan.
Nosek, Brian A., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2002. Harvesting Implicit Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Web Site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6 (1): 101–115.
Puar, Jasbir K. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationlism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press.
Raley, Amber B., and Jennifer Lucas. 2006. Stereotype or Success? Prime-Time Television’s Portrayals of Gay Male, Lesbian, and Bisexual Characters. Journal of Homosexuality 51: 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n02_02.
Rich, Adrienne. 1980. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs 5: 631–660. https://doi.org/10.1086/493756.
Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Methods. London: Sage.
Seidman, Steven. 2002. Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life. New York: Routledge.
Silverman, Kaja. 1980. Masochism and Subjectivity. Framework 12: 2–9.
Studlar, Gaylyn. 1984. Masochism and the Perverse Pleasures of the Cinema. Quarterly Review of Film Studies 9: 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208409361219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Albertson, W.C. (2018). Sleeping with the Enemy: The Male Gaze and Same-Sex Relationships on Broadcast Network Television. In: Harp, D., Loke, J., Bachmann, I. (eds) Feminist Approaches to Media Theory and Research. Comparative Feminist Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90838-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90838-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90837-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90838-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)