LGBTQ+ Representation in Media: Doing More Harm Than Good?
Lesbian, gay, and transgender groups have been increasingly represented in media and even politics over the past few years, whereas earlier, they were totally overlooked. While this is, indeed, progress for the LGBTQ+ movement, it is nowhere near enough. It also begs the question; just how much does this newfound representation really help the movement? It is true that these groups are being represented more in television, but it is arguable that they are not portrayed in the most positive and constructive way. They are often portrayed as a social pariah of some sort, whose coming out is illustrated as some massive struggle or abnormal event. While this brings these communities into the conversation, it creates a negative stigma surrounding them. It does not help to normalize the coming out of homosexual people and certainly does not adequately state the magnitude of their struggles, at the very least. In many situations, transgender people are not even played by transgender actors. Rather, a heterosexual actor is cast as a transgender person, which leaves little to no room for transgender actors. I hypothesize that the current state of LGBTQ+ representations in media—namely television—are more detrimental than they are beneficial.
The first and arguably most detrimental discrepancy concerning LGBTQ+ representation in media is the recurring negative portrayals of LGBTQ+ communities, homosexuality, coming out, and so forth. Gregory Fouts and Rebecca Inch point out; “few studies have focused on the impact of this representation” on these communities (Fouts and Inch 2005). Lauren McInroy and Shelley Craig also note that research has found that North American youth spend a significant portion of their time engaging with traditional and new media—reportedly about 7-8 hours of total social media and 2-3 hours of television consumption per day (McInroy and Craig 2017). These youth are our future. They are going to grow up and shape the world—either for better or for worse. That being said, what values and ideas we instill in them directly affect our lives. We must teach them to not “see” race, religion, gender, sexual identity, and so forth. That is our best hope of eradicating such prejudices and discrimination. What we choose to show them through media, therefore, directly affects our lives and our future children’s as well. According to McInroy and Craig, LGBTQ people have consistently been stereotyped as comic relief, villains and/or criminals, mentally and/or physical ill, and victims of violence. These stereotypes remain prevalent and may contribute to ongoing societal homophobia and heterosexism (McInroy and Craig 2017). If we are continuing to depict LGBTQ+ people and communities in any sort of negative light, or as something “out of the norm”, then those patterns and attitudes towards these people will not improve.
A study was conducted by Sheila Murphy and Traci Gillig in which a group of young people were asked to watch a show on ABC Family that includes a young gay couple. Of the 469 total participants, 362 of them identified as heterosexual/cisgender, and 107 identified as LGBTQ+. Some of these surveyors were instructed to watch the clips of the young gay couple and then answer a questionnaire that “assessed their attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and issues” (Gillig and Murphy). The results show many important yet different truths. When it comes to levels of fear, anger, sadness, and surprise, there were no significant differences between LGBTQ+ participants and heterosexual participants. However, when it came to feelings of disgust, heterosexual participants felt far more than LGBTQ+ participants. In addition, LGBTQ+ participants felt far more happiness, hope, and empathy for the gay, on-screen couple than heterosexual participants did. That being said, it is arguable that these media representations are not benefitting LGBTQ+ communities that greatly, and may even be harming them. It seems as though these plotlines may be affirming negative and hateful feelings, stigmas, and ultimately treatment towards such communities and individuals.
Traci Gillig and Sheila Murphy
It is worth noting that not all depictions of LGBTQ+ individuals and communities are negative—positive ones do exist. Take the character Kurt Hummel from Glee, for example. His character receives an overwhelming amount of support and welcome from his family, and is depicted as an incredibly talented individual. However, his talents are in a predominantly female career path—that of singing and dancing. It is a commonly used gay stereotype, along with the fact that Kurt is a victim of hateful and senseless bullying simply because he is homosexual. While his character really helped to open viewers up to the gay community somewhat, the show did nothing to break these age-old, unfair social norms and stereotypes. This was back around 2010, however. Today, in 2018, a show is being created in which a transgender actor is starring as a superhero. This show and role both have enormous potential to finally start to break that glass ceiling.
One vital benefit that comes from LGBTQ+ representation in media (and specifically television) is the creation of emphatic dissonance. Vincent Youngbauer and Joseph Jones illustrate the importance of this idea, writing that “cultural shifts occur when the dominant social structure accept those social structures outside the norm, in this case structures related to LGBTQ culture”(Youngbauer and Jones 2018). Seeing LGBTQ+ individuals or groups on television provides viewers with a certain insight and a sense of personal connection. It feels intimate and like viewers know these characters personally, which gives rise to empathy. However, there is still the underlying issue of cultural stereotypes, especially surrounding the LGBTQ+ communities. Youngbauer and Jones acknowledge this problem. They propose that “representations must first reveal the stereotypes that the dominant culture already attaches to such cultures, and later, representations evolve into demonstrating more complex structures that more closely represent the reality exhibited by those cultures.” When these shifts take place, the dominant culture viewer—in this case, the heterosexual—can achieve a level of empathy and possible acceptance of what was previously an unaccepted culture, and hopefully without unfair stereotypes attached (Youngbauer and Jones 2018). In addition, they even go so far as to argue that these stereotypes are a necessary evil because they allow for emphatic dissonance to take place.
Another troubling and unequivocally harmful aspect of LGBTQ+ representation in media is how non-heterosexual roles are cast. It has been a topic of controversy, especially in recent years with the rise of LGBTQ+ discussion. Take the film The Danish Girl, for example. Heterosexual actor Eddie Redmayne starred as a transgender in the movie, which caused backlash since he was not trans himself. Scarlett Johansson was asked to star in a movie in which she would play a transgender role. However, she refused because she wanted a transgender actor or actress to play the part. Hollywood is a fundamentally profit-driven industry, and they are more concerned with enlisting big-time names rather than casting someone who truly lives that life day to day and really understands what it is like to be transgender. Only someone who knows that life firsthand can play that part with true accuracy. It also further marginalizes LGBTQ+ actors and actresses because they have a much harder time landing roles in Hollywood. Alfred Martin touches on this important yet commonly overlooked issue, stating that “identity cannot be effectively “put on” in order to perform a gay role” and argues that if gay actors are frequently rejected from playing non-gay roles, then gay roles should be carved out as the terrain of gay actors (Martin).
Another prime example of LGBTQ+ representation making a positive impact on the discrimination and even blatant mistreatment of such communities is the show Will & Grace, which then-Vice President Joe Biden referenced when expressing his acceptance and support for same-sex marriage. He credited the show with increasing society’s level of support for gay equality—as it depicts the everyday lives of gay men—stating that it had probably singlehandedly done more to educate people about the LGBTQ+ community than anything else previously. Shows that can bolster the support of the Vice President of the United States and lead him to explicitly voice his approval of the LGBTQ+ community are undoubtedly an incredible success.
One theory behind situations like the aforementioned is the intergroup contact theory. According to Bradley Bond and Benjamin Compton, intergroup contact theory assumes that stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination of a social minority can be reduced when members of the majority engage in interpersonal contact with members of the respective social minority (Bond and Compton 2015). This kind of contact happens naturally when people watch a TV show, as they are sort of experiencing the character’s lives vicariously. Mary Kate Messimer concurs, but regarding NBC’s show Hannibal. She states that the gay relationship between the show’s protagonist Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham creates feelings of understanding and personal connection in viewers. Messimer writes that this empathy encourages the viewer not only to see queer experience but embody it (Messimer 2018).
One factor that is detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community but often overlooked or unnoticed is that most representations in media are of white, gay men and women. There is the aspect of intersectionality, in which (for example) black gay men and women receive even further hatred and discrimination because they are both gay and black. There are also countless other identifications in the LGBTQ+ community. These groups often go unheard and underrepresented, and they do not always face the same issues as other LGBTQ+ identifications. Because of this, they do not receive any of the benefits of emphatic dissonance or the intergroup contact theory. Gay men and women are not the only people in the LGBTQ+ community, and certainly not the only ones whose voices deserve to be heard.
Through the process of conducting this research, I feel as though my hypothesis has been somewhat debunked. After reading all of the material, it seems evident that LGBTQ+ representation is beneficial to the community for the most part. It aids in decreasing tensions, polarization, discrimination, disconnect, etc. However, there are negative side effects as well. It seems there are some discrepancies in how LGBTQ+ individuals are portrayed and how the roles are cast—therefore, more research could stand to be done in these arenas. There did not appear to be much research on the aspect of casting such roles in media. This could potentially help to close the gap between heterosexual and homosexual people at a large scale.
Works Cited
Bond, Bradley J., and Benjamin L. Compton. “Gay On-Screen: The Relationship Between Exposure to Gay Characters on Television and Heterosexual Audiences’ Endorsement of Gay Equality.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 59, no. 4, Dec, 2015, pp. 717-732.
Fouts, Gregory, and Rebecca Inch. “Homosexuality in TV Situation Comedies: Characters and Verbal Comments.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 49, no. 1, 2005, pp. 35-45.
Gillig, Traci K., and Sheila T. Murphy. “Fostering Support for LGBTQ Youth? The Effects of a Gay Adolescent Media Portrayal on Young Viewers.” International Journal of Communication (19328036), vol. 10, Jan. 2016, pp. 3828-3850.
Martin, Alfred L., Jr. “The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on US Television.” COMMUNICATION CULTURE & CRITIQUE, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 282-297.
McInroy, Lauren B., and Shelley L. Craig. “Perspectives of LGBTQ Emerging Adults on the Depiction and Impact of LGBTQ Media Representation.” Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 32-46.
Messimer, Mary Kate. “’Did You Just Smell Me?’: Queer Embodiment in NBC’s Hannibal.” Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 51, no. 1, Feb. 2018, pp. 175-193.
Youngbauer, Vincent W., and Joseph R. Jones. “Cloned This Way: Emphatic Dissonance and Mixed Messages in the Representations of Non-Heterosexual Sex Acts in Three Television Series.” Taboo: The Journal of Culture & Education, vol. 17, no. 3, Summer 2018. Pp. 44-54.