— read write play

The call for “realism and balance”: Stonewall on youth TV

Stonewall UK’s study of lesbian and gay representations in youth TV confirms that gay people are rarely explicitly present on screen and that positive lesbian identities are spectacularly absent. There are, though, a few assumptions and unanswered questions raised by that research which I want to draw out – not least because they suggest the challenges for television producers who might want to respond to these findings.

Throughout, the study assumes that lesbian and gay characters are only those whose sexuality is declared explicitly, through their words or relationships. Echoing the report’s title, “Unseen on Screen,” we’re to assume that we can only see gay people when we’ve been told we’re looking at gay people. It’s a rhetorical position which enforces a kind of presumptive straightness, and seemingly erases the chance of any undeclared character being gay. It’s an understandable requirement for the study’s methodology, but not a wholly positive one.

Though report makes continued reference to “balanced” and “realistic” representations, it does so without directly exploring what balance or realism might look like. I’d argue that these terms are at best defined indirectly, in language which suggests that realistic and positive images are primarily defined by a claim on normality (although, again, the terms of that normalcy aren’t directly explored).

Accordingly, the first examples provided of television “Getting it right” suggest the value of a disinterested inclusiveness: gay people’s lives are shown, but on the same terms as straight lives. Gay subjects are explicitly identified (we “know” that they’re gay) but that knowledge has no special significance. In “I’m a Celebrity…” the inclusion of gay subjects is praised for

an upbeat, natural reflection involving scenes with [Colin's] partner among the positive experiences he had had while in the camp

Similarly, Hollyoak’s positive representations are described as informal and normalising:

In Hollyoaks, Charlotte and Lydia and a male friend were in the pub. Charlotte, a lesbian, commented on the attractiveness of one of the female bar staff. It wasn’t the central focus of the scene. It was just a casual expression of same-sex attraction in an upbeat scene of friends having fun.

That said, the report notes the worrying absence of representations – once more, “positive and realistic” – which actually focus on sexual orientation rather than treat it as a secondary concern.

Part of the challenge here, I think, is the desire to reject traditional negative stereotypes of gay people: a desire which reflects the anxieties of the young people quoted in the study confronted with homophobic imagery. However, a simple distinction between “good” and “bad” images is problematic. Though potentially stereotypical, gay people can be “figures of fun, predatory or promiscuous,” and happily so. Indeed, some gay people have consciously embraced those identities for a range of personal and/or political reasons – not least as a rejection of normative, straight culture.

It’s also not necessarily stereotypical to represent gay lives which are “unhappy,” involve bullying or “the rejection of families.” These realities are (unhappily) common, as Stonewall itself has often argued in the past. Indeed, the “realistic” portrayal of young gay lives might demand the telling of those kinds of stories. Realistic, but not positive.

So, finally, what would constitute positive and realistic portrayals that are also balanced? If OfCom were to take on board the report’s proposal to develop guidelines with producers to ensure “more positive portrayals of gay characters,” what would those guidelines suggest?  More significantly, what particular political and social agenda (liberal? normalising? radicalising?) will those images serve?