In the second edition of Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction, David Gauntlett surveys media representations of gender from the 1950s to the present, introduces three important gender and identity theories, examines how men and women use the media to shape their identities, and explores visual methods he has found useful in gender and identity research.
First, he considers why it’s useful to examine the interaction of media, gender and identity, noting past inequality between men and women; ideas of masculinity and femininity; and growing acceptance of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.
He offers competing views of Theodor Adorno, who contends mass media have potentially damaging power, and John Fiske, who maintains the audience is more powerful; flaws of media effects research; psychologists’ views of gender and identity, including the “nature vs. nurture” debate; and Laura Mulvey’s “male gaze” concept, in which men and women both watch a film from the perspective of a male protagonist whose desire is directed toward female characters.
Surveying gender representations in the 1950s to 1980s, he finds some progress over time, but mostly stereotypical depictions of femininity — and strong, often heroic depictions of masculinity — in television programs, movies, magazines and advertising. In the past two decades, he finds strong women characters in TV programming such as Sex and the City and Ugly Betty; more equal, complex relationships between genders in movies such as Spider-Man 3 and Knocked Up and strong “girl power” lead characters in Charlie’s Angels; less progress away from sexism in advertising; and an increased presence of gay TV and film characters.
He introduces Anthony Giddens’ “structuration” theory, which explains that “social structure is reproduced through repetition of acts by individual people” (pg. 102); and Giddens’ idea of the “reflexive” self: in late modern times we all choose a lifestyle and shape a self-identity in the form of an ongoing narrative (often based on media suggestions).
He moves on to Michel Foucault’s evolving ideas of discourse and lifestyle; Foucault suggests power flows through relationships, the use of power produces resistance, thus sparking change, and sexuality is central to human self-identity.
Finally, he considers queer theory, focusing on Judith Butler and her book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity; queer theory finds the human body, identity and desires are disconnected — thus, gender is a performance, which means sexual roles can be subverted.
Examining readers’ use of men’s and women’s magazines, Gauntlett determines both men and women find useful information to shape their identities despite often stereotypical content (men’s magazines, though, seemingly must adopt an ironic tone because of the masculine stereotype that it’s a weakness to need such help); he finds similar identity-shaping content in self-help books.
He then diverts into an examination of visual research methods, including asking subjects to make videos, draw pictures or build Lego models that reflect their self-identities.
Gauntlett concludes with the idea that
popular media have been a force for change (partly by providing role models) in
society’s view of gender and self-identity: shaping a kinder, gentler
masculinity; offering a “girl power” femininity; and allowing greater
acceptance of gay men and lesbians.
Gauntlett covers a lot of
ground in Media, Gender and Identity. This approach is both a weakness and a strength. At times, the book
feels disjointed, with Gauntlett finally tying the disparate sections together
with a quick conclusion in his last chapter. A reader highly interested in
media representations of gender; theories of gender, sexuality and identity; or
men’s and women’s use of media might wish for more examples or greater detail in
the individual chapters. On the other hand, Gauntlett offers a wealth of
information, in a highly readable style, for anyone interested in understanding
conflicting views — and media representations — of changing gender roles and
acceptance of diverse sexual identities in our society.
Gauntlett’s examination of
media representations and the theories of Giddens, Foucault and Butler is
applicable to the political battle over same-sex marriage in California and
elsewhere in the United States, and to the media’s effect on the debate.
Gauntlett found few examples of gay characters in movies and TV programs until
the 1970s and 1980s; gay lead characters, however, emerged in movies such as Philadelphia
and
Brokeback Mountain and TV shows such as Queer as Folk, Will and Grace and The L Word, reflecting and perhaps contributing to society’s greater acceptance of lesbians and gay men in the past two decades. Even so, individual states in the U.S. could outlaw homosexual behavior until the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay men and lesbians enjoy varying legal protections in many states, but not in others, and their relationships aren’t recognized by the federal government under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
As Foucault
observed, the exercise of power can lead to resistance, and discrimination
against gay men and lesbian has resulted in a movement to push for legal
protections, including the right to marry. In 2008, the California Supreme
Court ruled that the state law restricting marriage to a man and a woman
violated the state constitution. Gay-marriage opponents, in turn resisting the
court’s exercise of power, put a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, on
the ballot. Supporters argued:
Proposition
8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death,
divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a
child is to be raised by a married mother and father. ... We should not accept
a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay
marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us
against our will.
(California
Secretary of State Web site, http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm)
Giddens observes that we are in a late modern (or post-traditional) society, which requires the individual to choose a lifestyle and develop a consistent narrative of self-identity; queer theory suggests “gender and sexuality can be reinvented in the here and now” (pg. 152).
However, the success of Proposition 8 at the polls reveals a large segment of the population in California (a relatively tolerant state and a center of production for the popular media) that rejects the idea of redefining what it views as the traditional family relationship between men and women.
For gay men and lesbians who seek equal rights, though, there is hope. The voters’ exercise of power in approving Proposition 8 in turn has energized a new generation of activists who are pushing Congress and President Barack Obama to change discriminatory federal laws. (“Gay Rights Marchers Press Cause in Washington,” The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/us/politics/12protest.html). It’s possible this back-and-forth will continue until a political solution is found that gives gay couples equal rights while protecting religious individuals and institutions with the assurance that living “according to their own values and beliefs” isn’t threatened by government actions.
Comments