What do you think?
Rate this book
The Queer Politics of Television
This is a radical book, which brings together the fields of political theory and television studies. In one of the first books to do so, Samuel A. Chambers exposes and explores the cultural politics of television by treating television shows--including Six Feet Under , Buffy , Desperate Housewives , The L Word, and Big Love-- as serious, important texts and reading them in detail through the lens of queer theory. Samuel A. Chambers makes the case for the profound significance of ""the cultural politics of television,"" the way in which a television show's text itself engages with the politics of its day. He argues for queer theory's essential contribution to any understanding of the political, and initiates a larger project of queer television studies. This is an important and fresh contribution to queer theory and to the understanding of television as politics.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 3, 2013
Chamber's book provides quite a good insight into queer theory as a methodology and way of analyzing a medium like television but the conceptual apparatus he uses constantly changes depending on the analysis he is undertaking. Basically the goal posts consistently move.
You can state that 'heterosexism' or 'homophobia' (used by Sedgwick incidentally in her neologisms 'heterosexual panic', 'homosocial desire' etc) are not pertinent terms as it assumes an individuality that doesn't encompass institutions and wider societal 'norms' and that this norm constitutes 'heteronormativity'; a taken for granted assumption that everyone has a stable gender category and a stable heterosexual identity that institutions play off, such as in marriage and representations in the media and while I do see the logic of the argument being presented (as in other queer theory texts that I also respect such as Sedgwick's work) I don't buy the argument.
Firstly, feminist authors claim the power of hegemonic masculinity and how this identity is constituted in a constant reaffirmation of firstly his power and his status as a reproductive agent. Why does the hegemonic masculine identity have to constantly reaffirm his identity? Is it because identity is malleable and not fixed in a world where basic norms are constantly being challenged and we no longer live in traditional societies or within binary understandings of most things. He needs to constantly reaffirm his straight identity, it is no longer taken for granted. This is what Bauman refers to when he discusses liquid modernity but also his own neologism 'adiaphorization' which asserts that basic norms and understandings of what constitute basic morality no longer exist, they are constantly renegotiated. Even human rights are not fixed in stone for they relate specifically to only those who the government determines has the rights in question. Connel discusses how men have to prove they are not gay, which would assume that the straight identity is not a norm but conceived as an ideal and the homosexual is understood primitively as a pejorative. This is different from a norm stabilizing heterosexuality, rather it seems that one has to prove his worth to the norm in order to be a 'real man', this is anything but a norm, which is taken for granted. There is real work in cultivating identity what Giddens calls a 'body project'. The body project of heterosexuality wouldn't be such a rigorous and constantly changing; unfixed performance, if it were a norm that such a sexuality was fixed. Postmodernism came and went in academia and now we are back predating structure as having a prevailing stabilizing 'norm' that everyone plays to. This is what I don't buy about the concept personally. Butler says that gender is a performance but if gender is an individualized performance, this means that the norm of heterosexuality is on very shaky ground since each performance is potentially a different performance to the idealized norm itself and indeed most are. The institutional power of the closet therefore seems to be drastically overstated and overplayed for the sake of the thesis, which is to discuss gay spaces on television, or epistemological safe spaces where gay characters seem to congregate.
The main problem is that television is not a mimetic relation to real life, it's a hyper realistic medium that is based largely on the success of the product in making money for its creators. This means that television is highly structured to offer what it believes will create content that will sell to large audiences and make the most amount of money. Theoretically, it doesn't make sense to offer equity representation anyway as homosexuality is not 50% of the population regardless of the performative pansexual utopia that was discussed in the ancient world by Cantarella. Furthermore, as Chambers rightly states, it doesn't matter if there was equal representation, it would depend wholly on what they said and what the characters did. Although I agree with him, this does put him in a bind as only gay characters which fulfill the specified identity politics that is ascribed is therefore accepted as being a 'true gay character' or as one with reactionary potential to break apart the assumptions of heteronormativity. The problem is, not all gay people are like that and so the utopia for the book is to have a hyper real identification of a specific reactionary gay identity that is able to fight against a dubious conceptual idea of heterosexual rule.
There has been endless critiques of Queer eye for the Straight guy for this very reason. It is understandable to critique the pink pound thesis, which assumes that the gay identity is an effeminate consumer who is a 'fag hag' but the problem in doing this is that you do the following two things:
1- You offer a worldview where gay men can potentially have a hegemonic identity based on their effeminate consumer identity and that gay men can have an identity which is more rustic and straight looking. Which complicates the hegemonic hierarchy somewhat, since it shows that traits understood as 'feminine characteristics' become hegemonic in this representation. It shows that the feminine performance is not passive nor weak nor submissive, but can be used as an active agent in the oppression of other identities. This destroys nearly all of modern feminism which assumes a unidirectional, asymmetrical concentration of power solely in the masculine agent with 'patriarchy'. Isn't the butch lesbian trope a symbol that men don't hold the performative function or role of 'hyper-agency' exclusively?
2-You disavow representations of real gay men, who although marketed and playing on hyper-real characteristics of these identities are really out there, for your own idea. It's almost censorship to assume that one identity is better than others because it serves a particular agenda that suits your cause. Representation is critiqued that doesn't offer reactionary challenges to the heteronormative society.
This is problematic as the term is not critically assessed but merely affirmed as self evident. The fictional space of televisual hyperspace also is a different epistemological consideration to real life. Television is always distorted and offering hyperbolic representations of everyone to such an extent that the news becomes a blitzkrieg of personality and graphics before the news is even uttered. Reality television is staged and meticulously polished with artificial lighting, fake characters and props that symbolize specific ideas in the viewer such as extravagance or responsibility. These points are rarely contested as its the entire point of the televisual world itself to do this. Therefore a critique of representation for offering stereotypical portrayals doesn't seem to understand that nuanced, introspective, detailed worldly characters that embody the 'truth' of a particular identity also needs to be marketed within a capitalist economy to a very particular audience, that don't have a heteronormative bias that prevents them from appreciating characters but rather the market is limited due to the saturation of images that constitutes familiarity. Often the easiest and most recognizable tropes are the best ways to sell products hence why the heterosexual couple is endlessly portrayed in very specific and demeaning ways. They have rituals, they have rules and specific familial bonds with their children and we instinctively understand the basic point of the intruding mother in law or the pedantic housewife, even if we reject them as stereotypes in principle. This is why the best example offered in the book of reactionary queer programing is one that takes place within the confines of the stereotypical heterosexual framework itself, which is similarly oppressive to the identification of endless families and performances that don't fit and who also are heterosexual. It shows that all representation and fictional identity in general is consistently weighing the problematic of not portraying that very identity and doing so in a market economy that demands brevity. We should therefore be weary of offering grandiose proclamations and psychoanalytic analysis of the televisual medium as though it were simply devoid of these factors and presented to the world outside all these factors. We need an analysis of television that understands Susan Sontag, interpretation sometimes corrupts the intention and point of the original idea.
Furthermore, just a side note. The opening of the preface begins as follows:
"Let me begin with a claim that many readers will refuse to believe: I do not watch very much television. Really. I make this statement not as a denial of the significance of television as a cultural artifact. Indeed, one of the indirect aims of this book is to argue strongly for what i call 'the cultural politics of television'. Instead I begin with this statement as a confession of ignorance"
He then goes on to delineate his ignorance on the subject and seems to almost relish in this fact for some reason. It might be the worst opening I have ever read. It doesn't satiate your intellectual appetite to read a book by an author who states that he knows nothing about the subject. Is this concession simply a way to bypass criticism? What is the function of the author beginning in a Socratic method by denying any knowledge of the book he is about to introduce and indeed a book he himself wrote? It is a statement which seems honest and forthcoming, harsh even. However, it functions as a way to bypass critiques and this is why this bulky uninviting review probably exists.
You can state that 'heterosexism' or 'homophobia' (used by Sedgwick incidentally in her neologisms 'heterosexual panic', 'homosocial desire' etc) are not pertinent terms as it assumes an individuality that doesn't encompass institutions and wider societal 'norms' and that this norm constitutes 'heteronormativity'; a taken for granted assumption that everyone has a stable gender category and a stable heterosexual identity that institutions play off, such as in marriage and representations in the media and while I do see the logic of the argument being presented (as in other queer theory texts that I also respect such as Sedgwick's work) I don't buy the argument.
Firstly, feminist authors claim the power of hegemonic masculinity and how this identity is constituted in a constant reaffirmation of firstly his power and his status as a reproductive agent. Why does the hegemonic masculine identity have to constantly reaffirm his identity? Is it because identity is malleable and not fixed in a world where basic norms are constantly being challenged and we no longer live in traditional societies or within binary understandings of most things. He needs to constantly reaffirm his straight identity, it is no longer taken for granted. This is what Bauman refers to when he discusses liquid modernity but also his own neologism 'adiaphorization' which asserts that basic norms and understandings of what constitute basic morality no longer exist, they are constantly renegotiated. Even human rights are not fixed in stone for they relate specifically to only those who the government determines has the rights in question. Connel discusses how men have to prove they are not gay, which would assume that the straight identity is not a norm but conceived as an ideal and the homosexual is understood primitively as a pejorative. This is different from a norm stabilizing heterosexuality, rather it seems that one has to prove his worth to the norm in order to be a 'real man', this is anything but a norm, which is taken for granted. There is real work in cultivating identity what Giddens calls a 'body project'. The body project of heterosexuality wouldn't be such a rigorous and constantly changing; unfixed performance, if it were a norm that such a sexuality was fixed. Postmodernism came and went in academia and now we are back predating structure as having a prevailing stabilizing 'norm' that everyone plays to. This is what I don't buy about the concept personally. Butler says that gender is a performance but if gender is an individualized performance, this means that the norm of heterosexuality is on very shaky ground since each performance is potentially a different performance to the idealized norm itself and indeed most are. The institutional power of the closet therefore seems to be drastically overstated and overplayed for the sake of the thesis, which is to discuss gay spaces on television, or epistemological safe spaces where gay characters seem to congregate.
The main problem is that television is not a mimetic relation to real life, it's a hyper realistic medium that is based largely on the success of the product in making money for its creators. This means that television is highly structured to offer what it believes will create content that will sell to large audiences and make the most amount of money. Theoretically, it doesn't make sense to offer equity representation anyway as homosexuality is not 50% of the population regardless of the performative pansexual utopia that was discussed in the ancient world by Cantarella. Furthermore, as Chambers rightly states, it doesn't matter if there was equal representation, it would depend wholly on what they said and what the characters did. Although I agree with him, this does put him in a bind as only gay characters which fulfill the specified identity politics that is ascribed is therefore accepted as being a 'true gay character' or as one with reactionary potential to break apart the assumptions of heteronormativity. The problem is, not all gay people are like that and so the utopia for the book is to have a hyper real identification of a specific reactionary gay identity that is able to fight against a dubious conceptual idea of heterosexual rule.
There has been endless critiques of Queer eye for the Straight guy for this very reason. It is understandable to critique the pink pound thesis, which assumes that the gay identity is an effeminate consumer who is a 'fag hag' but the problem in doing this is that you do the following two things:
1- You offer a worldview where gay men can potentially have a hegemonic identity based on their effeminate consumer identity and that gay men can have an identity which is more rustic and straight looking. Which complicates the hegemonic hierarchy somewhat, since it shows that traits understood as 'feminine characteristics' become hegemonic in this representation. It shows that the feminine performance is not passive nor weak nor submissive, but can be used as an active agent in the oppression of other identities. This destroys nearly all of modern feminism which assumes a unidirectional, asymmetrical concentration of power solely in the masculine agent with 'patriarchy'. Isn't the butch lesbian trope a symbol that men don't hold the performative function or role of 'hyper-agency' exclusively?
2-You disavow representations of real gay men, who although marketed and playing on hyper-real characteristics of these identities are really out there, for your own idea. It's almost censorship to assume that one identity is better than others because it serves a particular agenda that suits your cause. Representation is critiqued that doesn't offer reactionary challenges to the heteronormative society.
This is problematic as the term is not critically assessed but merely affirmed as self evident. The fictional space of televisual hyperspace also is a different epistemological consideration to real life. Television is always distorted and offering hyperbolic representations of everyone to such an extent that the news becomes a blitzkrieg of personality and graphics before the news is even uttered. Reality television is staged and meticulously polished with artificial lighting, fake characters and props that symbolize specific ideas in the viewer such as extravagance or responsibility. These points are rarely contested as its the entire point of the televisual world itself to do this. Therefore a critique of representation for offering stereotypical portrayals doesn't seem to understand that nuanced, introspective, detailed worldly characters that embody the 'truth' of a particular identity also needs to be marketed within a capitalist economy to a very particular audience, that don't have a heteronormative bias that prevents them from appreciating characters but rather the market is limited due to the saturation of images that constitutes familiarity. Often the easiest and most recognizable tropes are the best ways to sell products hence why the heterosexual couple is endlessly portrayed in very specific and demeaning ways. They have rituals, they have rules and specific familial bonds with their children and we instinctively understand the basic point of the intruding mother in law or the pedantic housewife, even if we reject them as stereotypes in principle. This is why the best example offered in the book of reactionary queer programing is one that takes place within the confines of the stereotypical heterosexual framework itself, which is similarly oppressive to the identification of endless families and performances that don't fit and who also are heterosexual. It shows that all representation and fictional identity in general is consistently weighing the problematic of not portraying that very identity and doing so in a market economy that demands brevity. We should therefore be weary of offering grandiose proclamations and psychoanalytic analysis of the televisual medium as though it were simply devoid of these factors and presented to the world outside all these factors. We need an analysis of television that understands Susan Sontag, interpretation sometimes corrupts the intention and point of the original idea.
Furthermore, just a side note. The opening of the preface begins as follows:
"Let me begin with a claim that many readers will refuse to believe: I do not watch very much television. Really. I make this statement not as a denial of the significance of television as a cultural artifact. Indeed, one of the indirect aims of this book is to argue strongly for what i call 'the cultural politics of television'. Instead I begin with this statement as a confession of ignorance"
He then goes on to delineate his ignorance on the subject and seems to almost relish in this fact for some reason. It might be the worst opening I have ever read. It doesn't satiate your intellectual appetite to read a book by an author who states that he knows nothing about the subject. Is this concession simply a way to bypass criticism? What is the function of the author beginning in a Socratic method by denying any knowledge of the book he is about to introduce and indeed a book he himself wrote? It is a statement which seems honest and forthcoming, harsh even. However, it functions as a way to bypass critiques and this is why this bulky uninviting review probably exists.
Displaying 1 of 1 review