Abstract
What does it mean to be “queer” in this age of digital technology, where much of our communication, indeed much of our lives, focuses on interacting with screens? This is a complicated question and we cannot begin to answer it without first exploring what it means to be or use the word “queer.” There are many readings, definitions, and interpretations of “queer.” Queer can be defined as ironic and playful, a way to perform identity that is defying gender/sexuality/sex binaries in a smart, campy way. It can also mean to adamantly defy and disrupt culturally sanctioned binaries, specifically, as they relate to sex/gender/sexuality, with no hint of irony or play but more along the lines of warrior-like defiance, as Leslie Feinberg writes in Transgender Warriors (1997). Queer can be an umbrella term, a way of creating a community of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersexed, and “other” people—not only a shortcut through the alphabet soup of acronyms, but as a way of uniting these groups as having similarities or kindred experiences as they defy the sex/gender/sexuality binaries. Adopting the word “queer” to name themselves, LGBT people are also linguistically reclaiming a word that historically (and still today, given context and purpose) was/is used to deride, wound, and insult. Others define “queer” as any behavior or ideology that rejects the heterosexual (or dominant) paradigm of heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is how the heterosexual culture positions itself as the primary human relationship, masculine male and feminine female. Heteronormativity is seeing straight, reading straight, and thinking straight. Relating this idea of heteronormativity to theories of race and culture, Edward Said has described the phenomenon of the dominant ideology permeating one’s conscious and unconsciousness as “the white man on my eyeball” or, as Toni Morrison has said, “the white man in my head.” According to Janet Halley, in her article “The Construction of Heterosexuality,” queer is a marker that refuses the “heterosexual bribe,” or the cultural perks awarded to those who perform a heterosexual identity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
When I refer to racial/ethnic identity, I will put “white” in quotation marks because “white” is not an ethnic identity/race, although it is often thought to be a race/ethnicity. Likewise, I reject the terms such as “Caucasian” (a very specific geographic location and people within Eastern Europe) that does not acknowledge the historic privilege and domination of “whites.” Likewise, I reject such terms as “people of color” as this term lumps everyone who is not “white” into a category as if everything “white” is the norm and anyone who is not “white” is cast/e as a homogenous, indistinguishable “other”.
When referring to race/ethnicity, I will try to be consistent and specific when I feel those racial markers are important for my argument, identifying continent of origin (European-American, Anglo-American, Asian-American, Latin-American, South American, and African-American). In other contexts, where the specifics of ethnicity or race are less important, I will use the term Traditionally Marginalized People (TMP), indicating groups of people, who—because of race, ethnicity—have traditionally resided outside the dominant power structures of “white” privilege.
- 2.
It is sexist to refer to the same-sex partner/marriage movement as “gay marriage” as “gay” is not a stand-in for lesbian. To use “gay” as a universal term to include both gay men and lesbian women uses “male” as the universal norm and erases female/lesbian from the worldview, not unlike using a universal “he” to refer to people.
References
Alexander, Jonathan, and Elizabeth Losh. 2010. A YouTube of one’s own: Coming out as rhetorical action. In LGBT identity and online new media, ed. Christopher Pullen and Margret Cooper, 37–50. New York: Routledge.
Aslinger, Ben. 2010. PLanetOut and the dichotomies of queer media conglomeration. In LGBT identity and online new media, ed. Christopher Pullen and Margret Cooper, 113–124. NY: Routledge.
Bond, Bradley. 2009. Out online: The content of gay teen chat rooms. Ohio Communication Journal 47: 233–245.
Bryson, Mary, Lori MacIntosh, Sharalyn Jordan, and Hui-Ling Lin. 2006. Virtually queer? Homing devices, mobility and un/belongings. Canadian Journal of Communication 31: 791–814.
Buerkel-Rothfuss, N.L., and S. Mayes. 1981. Soap opera viewing: The cultivation effect. Journal of Communication 31: 108–115.
Carstarphen, Meta, and Susan Zavoina (eds.). 1999. Sexual rhetoric: Media perspectives on sexuality, gender, and identity. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Carveth, R., and A. Alexander. 1985. Soap opera viewing motivation and the cultivation process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 29: 259–273.
Cholodenko, Lisa. 2010. The kids are all right. Mandalay Vision: Los Angeles, CA.
DeLisi, M., M.G. Vaughn, D.A. Gentile, C.A. Anderson, and J.J. Shook. 2013. Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence new evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11(2): 132–142.
Feinberg, Leslie. 1997. Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Boston: Beacon Press.
Fiske, John. 1989. Understanding popular culture. London: Unwin Hymann.
Gauntlett, David. 2002. Media, gender and identity. London: Routledge.
Gill, Rosalind. 2007. Gender and the media. Cambridge: Polity.
Gross, Larry. 1991. Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media. Journal of Homosexuality 2(2): 19–46.
Haworth Features Submission. 2005. Bicurious husbands online discussion group. Journal of Bisexuality 5(2–3): 179–194.
Herrup, M.J. 1995. Virtual identity. In To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism, ed. R. Walker, 239–251. New York: Anchor Books.
Hichon, Jacqueline, and Shiela Reaves. 1999. Media mirage: The thin ideal as digital manipulation. In Sexual rhetoric, ed. Meta Carsarphen and Susan Zavoina, 65–76. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 1990. Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.
Hotlzman, Linda. 2000. Media messages: What film, television, and popular music teach us about race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Inness, S.A. 1997. The lesbian menace: Ideology, identity, and the representation of lesbian lite. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Kryzan, C., and Walsh, J. 1998. The !OutProud!/Oasis Internet Surrey of Queer and Questioning Youth, August to October 1997. 1–59. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419854.pdf
Kang, Yowei, and Kenneth C.C. Yang. 2009. Gay and lesbian blogs in China: Rhetoric of reversed silence in cyberspace. China Media Research 5(1): 21–29.
Kimball, M.M. 1986. Television and sex-role attitudes. In The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities, ed. T.M. Williams. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. 265–301.
Lanningham-Foster, L., T.B. Jensen, R.C. Foster, A.B. Redmond, B.A. Walker, D. Heinz, and J.A. Levine. 2006. Energy expenditure of sedentary screen time compared with active screen time for children. Pediatrics 118(6): e1831–e1835.
Mackie, V. 2008. How to be a girl: Mainstream media portrayals of transgendered lives in Japan. Asian Studies Association of Australia 32(3): 411–423.
McGhee, P., and T. Frueh. 1980. TV viewing and the learning of sex-role stereotypes. Ex Roles 6: 179–188.
Newport, Frank. 2001. American Attitudes Towards Homosexuality Continue to Become More Tolerant. Gallup, June 4, 2001. Http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010604.asp
O’Riordan, Kate, and David Phillips. 2007. Queer online: Media, technology, and sexuality. New York: Peter Lang.
Out Films. Ed. Ken Sain. Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://www.outfilms.com/
Parish, J.R. 1993. Boys and lesbians in mainstream cinema. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.
Peirce, K. (Director). 1999. Boys don’t cry. Beverly Hills: Fox Searchlight Productions.
Pew Center for Research and the Press. 2009. Majority continues to support civil unions. Retrieved August 20, 2010 from http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage
Poster, Mark. 2002. Everyday (virtual) life. New Literary History 33: 743–760.
Potter, W.J., and I.C. Chang. 1990. Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 34: 313–333.
Pullen, Christopher, and Margaret Cooper (eds.). 2010. LGBT identity and online new media. New York: Routledge Press.
Reichert, T., K.R. Muly, and S.C. Zavoina. 1999. Designed for (male) pleasure: The myth of lesbian chic in mainstream advertising. Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and Communications, 57: 123–134.
Ross, M.W., and M.R. Kauth. 2002. Men who have sex with men and the Internet: Emerging clinical issues and their management. In Sex and the internet: A guidebook for clinicians, ed. A. Cooper, 47–69. New York: Routledge.
Sedgwick, E. 1990. Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shapiro, Eve. 2004. Transcending barriers: Transgender organizing on the internet. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 16(3/4): 165–179.
Shaw, D.F. 1997. Gay men and computer communication: A discourse of sex and identity in cyberspace. In Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety, ed. S.G. Jones, 133–145. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Signorielli, N., and M. Lears. 1992. Children, television, and conceptions about chores: Attitudes and behaviors. Sex Roles 27: 157–170.
Stearns, Susan, and Meta Carstarphen. 1999. Deconstructing Ellen: Time, sitcoms, and the meaning of gayness. In Sexual rhetoric, ed. Meta Carstarphen and Susan Zavoina, 183–197. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Sumara, D., and B. Davis. 1999. Interrupting heteronormativity: Toward a queer curriculum theory. Curriculum Inquiry 29(2): 191–208.
Tan, A.S. 1977. TV beauty ads and role expectations of adolescent female viewers. Journalism Quarterly 56: 283–288.
The Rainbow List. Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://www.therainbowlist.com/index.php?p=home
Usher, Nikki, and Eleanor Morrison. 2010. The demise of the gay enclave. In LGBT identity and online new media, ed. Christopher Pullen and Margaret Cooper, 271–287. New York: Routledge.
Walters, Suzanna. 1999. Will they ever get it right? Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review 6(2): 60.
Wincapaw, Celeste. 2000. The virtual spaces of lesbian and bisexual women’s electronic mailing lists. Journal of Lesbian Studies 4(1): 45–59.
Zuckerman, D.M., D.G. Singer, and J.L. Singer. 1980. Children’s television viewing, racial and sex-role attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10: 281–294.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siebler, K. (2016). Queerness in the Digital Environment. In: Learning Queer Identity in the Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59950-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59950-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-60322-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59950-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)