 Hi, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of our discussion of critical media studies in this video focusing on what is known as queer analysis. Let me point out first of all that this is not a pejorative term not intended to offer any offense to anybody. It's just a term that was used to describe this theory in historically. So we've kept calling it that. So it's just known as queer analysis. So what do we mean by queer analysis? Well, queer analysis examines artifacts using a framework that considers how human understanding of gender, sex and sexuality are affected by the media. So getting away from the strict understanding of masculine versus feminine, looking at some of the different aspects of gender fluidity, sex and sexuality and how those things are affected in by the in the creation and the viewing of different media. Just a brief little history. First of all, this is kind of an offshoot of feminist analysis. So it means that it stemmed from that initially. And the idea, though, that the queer analysis really focuses on the in-betweens, by which we mean, you know, feminist analysis really focuses on masculine versus feminine, and that's it. It's very clear, masculine, feminine, those traditional views and roles. So queer analysis focuses on the in-betweens. It's a less binary approach than feminist criticism or feminist analysis. It takes a look at gender fluidity, but also that sexuality, you know, between those sexes and a little less traditional approach in those regards. The major premises of queer analysis are, again, that a binary view of sexuality is too narrow. The idea that a person is either heterosexual or homosexual, even that is too narrow, let alone, you know, masculine and feminine, things like that. But the binary view of sex is too narrow, according to queer analysis, right? That the definition of these concepts and meaning, you know, heterosexual and homosexual is constant. And the definition of sexuality is really constantly changing within a culture, which also defines attempts at binary classification. So this idea that, first of all, again, much like we talked about with masculine and feminine being social constructs, ideas that we create to help identify and narrow down these things. The fact that the ideas of heterosexual and homosexual are also socially defined and social constructs, right? And so queer analysis says those are too narrowing. It's not just a matter of heterosexual or homosexual. It's, you know, there's more fluidity in things than that. So it just defies that binary classification. In a contemporary sense, we look here at different sexual stereotypes. So queer analysis attempts to break those down and break away from those sexual stereotypes, things like natural and deviant. The idea that one type of sexuality is natural and the other is deviant. So that if you were, as you know, traditionally, we would say heterosexuality is natural. It's the way that things ought to be and it's the way that nature intended things. And if you are anything other than strictly heterosexual, that that is a deviant behavior, meaning deviating from the norm of society. Queer analysis says that's not appropriate. That's too narrow a perspective. Also, things like monogamous and promiscuous, that if you are not monogamous, then you are, again, deviant. You're promiscuous, which is, it would be considered more of a deviant behavior, but that there's an in between there, too. In between these things is not a binary classification between monogamous and promiscuous that, you know, in our culture today, we recognize things like how you wanted to find open relationships or even just relationships that involve more than two people, committed relationships that may involve three people or more. That there's some room in between there. In other words, queer analysis says that it's not just a binary thing here. That it's not as straightforward between gender clarity and gender ambiguity. That there's, again, there's room in between. That's what we're talking about with queer analysis, the in-betweens of these things. So we have, first of all, addressing these different types of sexual stereotypes, right? Also, we look at things like positive representation. Note that positive representation, positive is in quotations there. This idea that contemporary media attempts to portray these different attitudes and different relationships such as gay relationships and homosexual relationships and relationships that are not monogamous or and so forth in a positive way, but does so in a way that really tries to fit them in a particular perspective of our traditional definitions still, right? So, for example, we could look at the idea of this television show Modern Family, which has a clear representation of a gay couple in a committed relationship. But we look at that relationship again, and it's still really outside of the fact that there are two men involved in that relationship. It is a pretty traditional relationship. It is monogamous. It is very clear on, you know, there's no questioning between them about whether or not they are homosexual, that they are strictly attracted to other men. There's no fluidity there in terms of the gender clarity and gender ambiguity or the sexual clarity and sexual ambiguity, what they might be interested in. How many we see as the relationship continues to grow. Again, they're very traditional family. You have kind of the one that predominantly throughout the show. One is the working kind of the provider of the family. The other is more the homemaker, so to speak. They're raising kids together. So even though it's a gay couple, it's still represented in a very traditional sort of manner. That's what we mean by positive representation, that while there's that effort there, that it may not represent really all again the in-betweens, all of those things that even though we're representing an almost actual relationship, a gay relationship in the show, that it's doing so in really a very, in the construct of a very traditional relationship as well. There's also this contemporary perspective of invisibility. That things may be there but may not be seen or may only be seen by particular people. So you have this idea of camp, what's known as camp. And camp is a collection of stylistic elements that resonate with the experiences of queer individuals living within a heteronormative social system. So again, kind of going back to this idea that they may resonate there, but they may be kind of hidden or they may be kind of obvious to some people but not to others. I think this show doesn't necessarily feature predominantly gay characters, but they show crazy ex-girlfriend if you're familiar with that. It uses a lot of stereotypes and does so in a way that sort of gives a nod to the traditional things about, you know, what's it like to have a crazy ex-girlfriend? What's the behavior like? And what is a show like this about? It's a musical show. But anyway, there's just a lot of stylistic elements that will stand out there, but still fits it into a more normative state as far as what we expect from media. And we see that a lot with the representation of sexuality in television as well. The other idea here is what we call the fourth persona or the textual wink that may be there that some people may say, okay, they look at this and they don't see representation of different sexuality or different normative behavior, but it's there nonetheless. So one representation of my wife is very much into Animal Crossing, the video game Animal Crossing. And there's been a lot of discussion I know in that world, the Animal Crossing world, about the relationship between two characters, one named C.J., who's kind of the fishing guy, and the other flick I think is their name, the bug person, right? There's some question about whether these two are in a relationship and are they gay? Are they bisexual? Is one of them a woman? I mean, there's all kinds of questions here, but there are some people that look at this and say, I see what's happening here. This is a nod, this is a wink to that culture, this idea of less heterosexual normative behavior, but it's not outright because they don't want to maybe put off people that don't follow those values so you have these things that are represented in the media as well. There are some questions that we ask in queer analysis, how is sexuality defined in the artifact? Is it a very traditional heterosexual or even heterosexual, homosexual thing? Or is there some fluidity in the way that sexuality is described and used in this media? What are the power relationships between the person's varying sexuality? Is it the idea that, again, as we looked at in feminist analysis, heterosexual, predominantly heterosexual white males create this media, so are they represented in that way in the media as being dominant in that power structure? What does the word contribute to our knowledge of queer, gay, or lesbian experience in history, including artistic history? So what does this add to that body of work, so to speak? How does the artifact illustrate the problematics of sexuality and sexual identity? Is it what we consider an accurate representation? There's some discussion too about how coming out in a television show or film is always portrayed in a very dramatic way. Like it's a massive decision and everybody else has to kind of take it in and adjust. And is that really the way that things always happen? I mean, I'm sure it does happen that way, but is it the kind of way that things normally happen? Or is it just that representation, that common representation? Is it an accurate representation of how those things play out in a broader scope? What sort of support, if any, is given to the elements or characters who question the heterosexual, homosexual binary? What happens to those elements or those characters, right? So what happens if somebody is gender fluid or if they are sexually fluid, right? And don't fall into that strictly heterosexual or homosexual binary status. How are they treated? How is that situation treated? Are they looked at as odd or weird or is that made a big deal or is that just kind of the norm for that situation in that medium? What elements of the artifact exist in the middle between the perceived heterosexual, homosexual binary? Or in other words, what elements exhibit threat of both? So again, how does this fall, or what elements fall in the middle here? Do they represent the in-betweens, so to speak? I wonder once again, just take a quick examination of an artifact here with some of those questions. Just give you an idea of what that looks like. I chose to do this with Zoe's extraordinary playlist, which is a television show that's been on recently. If you're not familiar with it, it's a television show where this young woman, Zoe, has an experience where now she hears music, hears singing and dancing to express themselves in their mind. They're not aware that it's happening for the most part. But in particular, there's one character in the show that I wanted to focus on, and that is the character of Moe. Moe is kind of a gender fluid. In the show, Moe indicates that they go by he, but also are gender fluid enough that they would accept them, those types of pronouns as well. But as we can see, representation of Moe in this particular television show. So as we look at this in Zoe's extraordinary playlist, how is sexuality defined in the artifact? Well, there's a lot of heterosexual normative sexual behavior that's happening. Most of the relationships here involve heterosexual men and women involved in a heterosexual relationship. But they do have the representation of Moe in here as a gender fluid, presumably homosexual. But we don't know in the show she will only see Moe engaging with other men. So that could be gender fluid in that way. But sexual fluid in that way. So sexual is primarily defined, again, as heterosexual. But we do have this representation in there. What are the power relationships between the persons of varying sexuality? Well, it's interesting that Moe's not really a... She's a central character, but they are a central character, but not the main character. That's obviously Zoe. The show is named after her, but Moe does play an important role in this program. And this gets a lot of representation there. And really is represented as a sort of a powerful character in this program. It gives Zoe a lot of advice and is kind of a force of nature and just personality. Moe is a force of nature, very powerful. But oftentimes portrayed as sort of having vulnerability as well. So it is an interesting kind of combination. What does the work contribute to our knowledge of the queer, gay, lesbian experience in history, including artistic history? I don't know. It's sort of contemporary. It does contribute to the idea that you can just have this character in a show who is who they are, right? There's no kind of big deal made about Moe's sexuality or the transgender nature of Moe's persona. And it's not really something that's drawn out a lot. It just kind of is what it is and people accept it. So I mean, there's that. I don't know that it really extends our knowledge of gay and lesbian experience outside of Moe's personal experience. I don't know that it's necessarily representative of the larger kind of LGBTQ experience maybe, but it is representative of Moe's experience in this situation. The artifact illustrates the problematics of sexuality and sexual identity. You know, I think there are situations where Moe just finds that she has to explain herself, so to speak, or take a stand for herself, herself, herself, theirself. I'm struggling with my pronouns here. So it does, but for the most part represents just kind of a normative situation for Moe. It just kind of is what it is. It doesn't throw, I think, him or her into situations where they're really called on to explain things or throw in difficult situations necessarily because of his sexuality. What sort of support, if any, is given to the elements or characters who question that? Again, not a lot of questioning. It just kind of is seen as kind of a normal thing. There's not a lot of questioning about, you know, why is Moe this way? Why is Moe behave this way? Why is Moe dressed this way? It's just kind of is what it is, most different and flamboyant and things, but so there's that, but not necessarily questioned because of their sexuality. What elements exist in the middle between the perceived heterosexual, homosexual binary? It is interesting that I think Moe is represented as homosexual. We don't see any instances of them in relationships with women of a sexual nature. All the intimate relationships that Moe has in the television program are with other men. So we don't have that, but there is this question of this idea of gender fluidity. Moe typically dresses and exhibits traits of femininity. And so we took that expression here. And a good one. Moe's a great character. I love the character of Moe in part because Moe brings a lot to the show in terms of his voice. He's an incredible singer, so that you kind of forget the other stuff. But maybe that's kind of the idea here that they're saying the other stuff is just what it is. It's just the normal part. So let's focus on these other things. So just an interesting thing to consider, I guess, from that perspective. What does this add to that history, to that arsenal and to the representation and normalization of these types of choices and behaviors and things? Okay. That's our look at queer analysis. Hopefully it's been interesting for you and open some perspectives for you. Again, adding one more critical lens to our tool set, to our tool belt of critical media studies. If you have questions about queer analysis or any of the other types of critical media studies or critical media analysis that we've looked at, please feel free to email me. I'd love to hear from you in that way and be able to discuss this with you further. In the meantime, I hope that you will gain a new perspective here. Continue to look at things from the perspective of not only queer analysis, but the other critical media analysis that we've discussed.