Skip to main content

“Modern” Is as Modern Does: Modern Family and the Disruption of Gender Binaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1261 Accesses

Part of the book series: Queer Studies and Education ((QSTED))

Abstract

Bruce E. Drushel opens our eyes to the possibility of a growing complexity in the representation of queer characters in media by examining Mitch and Cam from the popular sitcom Modern Family. Even before commercial television series began regularly to feature openly gay and lesbian characters in the 1970s, writers suggested them through character behaviors that were violations of conventional gender norms. The current ABC situation comedy Modern Family distinguishes itself through its willingness to develop characters, most notably the gay male couple Mitch and Cam, that freely depart from these binaries. While a surface-level view of the pair suggests the continuation of at least an approximation of traditional couple gender roles—Mitch as the masculine breadwinner, complete with beard and conventional masculine appearance and background, and Cam as the feminine stay-at-home nurturer and domestic problem-solver—episodes reveal more sophisticated and multidimensional types. Drushel analyzes the gender behaviors of the Mitch and Cam characters, contrasting theirs with those of characters represented as lesbian or gay among both recent and past US television sitcoms. Among the questions Drushel addresses is whether the Mitch and Cam characters are part of a revolution in representations of gender and sexuality, a pioneering example of gender parody, or merely encouraging anomalies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   37.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Works Cited

  • Bagdikian, Ben H. 1987. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcus, F. Earle. 1983. Images of Life on Children’s Television. New York: Praeger. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bathrick, Serafina. 1984. The Mary Tyler Moore Show: Women at Home and at Work. In MTM: “Quality Television,” ed. Jane Feuer, Paul Kerr, and Tise Vahimagi, 99–131. London: British Film Institute. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Jane Delano, Kim Walsh-Childers, Karl E. Bauman, and Gary G. Koch. 1990. The Influence of New Media and Family Structure on Young Adolescents’ Television and Radio Use. Communication Research 17 (1): 65–82. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buerkel-Rothfuss, Nancy L., and Sandra Mayes. 1981. Soap Opera Viewing: The Cultivation Effect. Journal of Communication 31 (3): 108–115. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butsch, Richard. 1992. Class and Gender in Four Decades of Television Situation Comedy: Plusça Change…. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9: 387–399. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byars, Jackie. 1987. Reading Feminine Discourse: Prime-Time Television in the U.S. Communication 9: 289–303. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Claudia. 1997. Viewer Letters as Audience Research: The Case of Murphy Brown. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 41 (1): 109–131. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, Paul, and Brad Walsh, writers, and Jason Winer, dir. Fizbo. 2010. Modern Family. Twentieth Century Fox, Hollywood. November 25, 2010. Television.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, Alice E., and Thomas W. Whipple. 1983. Sex Stereotyping in Advertising. Lexington: Lexington Books. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, Bonnie J. 1990. Hegemony, Feminist Criticism and the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7: 261–274. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Femininity and Feminism in Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Journal 57: 143–155. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fouts, Gregory, and Kimberley Burggraf. 2000. Television Situation Comedies: Female Weight, Male Negative Comments, and Audience Reactions. Sex Roles 42 (9/10): 925–932. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frueh, Terry, and Paul E. McGhee. 1975. Traditional Sex Role Development and Amount of Time Spent Watching Television. Developmental Psychology 11 (1): 109–114. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, William F., Jr. 1987. Humor and Paradox. American Behavioral Scientist 30 (1): 42–71. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Frances. 1994. Women and Laughter. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Print.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guider, Elizabeth. 2010. ‘Modern Family’ Actors Practicing Gay Kiss. Entertainment Weekly, August 28, 2010. Web. 21 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimoff, Michelle. 2012. Not So Modern Family: Top Sitcoms Make for Sexist, Inaccurate Television. Christian Science Monitor, January 27, 2012. Web. 21 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, Robert. 1998. The ‘Mock-Macho’ Situation Comedy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Its Reiteration. Western Journal of Communication 62 (1): 74–93. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebert, Robert M., and Joyce Sprafkin. 1988. The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and Youth. 3rd ed. Elmsford: Pergamon. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, Jeanne M., and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. 1988. Theories of Family Communication: Toward a Merger of Intersubjectivity and Mutual Influences Processes. In Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, ed. Robert P. Hawkins, John M. Wiemann, and Suzanne Pingree, 253–275. Newbury Park: Sage. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Marvin L. 1992. The Family as Portrayed on Prime-Time Television, 1947–1990: Structure and Characteristics. Sex Roles 26 (1–2): 41–61. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Beth, and William Douglas. 1997. The Family on Television: Evaluation of Gender Roles in Situation Comedy. Sex Roles 36 (5/6): 409–427. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Jerry. 1987. The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy. London: British Film Institute. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. Taking Humor Seriously. New York: Routledge. Print.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poniewozik, James. 2010. Modern Family Watch: Lips Service. Time, September 30, 2010. Web. 21 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, Andrea L. 1991. Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation in the American Television Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, Byron, and Mark M. Miller. 1978. A Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Identification with Television Characters. Journal of Broadcasting 22 (1): 71–86. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richman, Jeffrey, writer, and Michael Spiller, dir. 2010. “Halloween.” Modern Family. Twentieth Century Fox. Hollywood, October 26, 2010. Television.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, Kathleen. 1995. The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter. Austin: University of Texas Press. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Joan Wallach. 1988. Gender and the Politics of History. New York: Columbia University Press. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skill, Thomas, and James D. Robinson. 1994. Trend: Four Decades of Families on Television: A Demographic Profile, 1950–1989. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 38 (4): 449–464. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro, Josep, Manual Salamero, and Esteve Martinez. 1994. Assessment of Sociocultural Influences on the Aesthetic Body Shape Model in Anorexia Nervosa. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 89: 147–151. Print.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villarreal, Yvonne. 2011. ‘Modern Family’: Savior of the Sitcom. Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2011. Web. 21 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuker, Danny, writer, and Fred Savage, dir. 2011. After the Fire. Modern Family. Twentieth Century Fox. Hollywood, November 15, 2011. Television.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Drushel, B.E. (2018). “Modern” Is as Modern Does: Modern Family and the Disruption of Gender Binaries. In: McNeil, E., Wermers, J., Lunn, J. (eds) Mapping Queer Space(s) of Praxis and Pedagogy. Queer Studies and Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64623-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64623-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64622-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64623-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics