From Gritty Realism

to Queer Utopias
Changes in Representation
of Same-Sex Relationships in
Teen/Young Adult TV
Feminist Visual Analysis
• Rooted in positionality and situated knowledges
(Haraway, 1988)
• What is visible?
• Who made it?
• For whom?
• For what purpose?
• Who is doing the analysis?
• How have they experience the text?

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 2
Byker Grove as Gritty Realism
• Broadcast on BBC1 Tue/Fri 5pm from 1989 to 2006
• Aimed at 11-16 year olds
• BBC remit = educational and politically impartial
• Set in a youth club (very little of school or family life)
• Known for hard-hitting “gritty” storylines covering teenage
pregnancy, drug addiction, homelessness, etc.
• Set in real-life location of Newcastle in NE England
• Key message: actions have consequences

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 3
Byker Grove as Gritty Realism
1994: first-ever gay kiss
on British TV in a show
aimed at teenage
viewers

Resulted in massive
media outcry – tabloid
newspapers calling for
producer to be sacked

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 4
 Messages
• Who do we identify with? Noddy or Gary?
• What messages do we take away? Don’t make the same mistake Noddy did
• What are the contexts of those messages? Hide your sexuality
• Why might our takeaways be different?

Gary was right to be angry Noddy misread the situation foolishly

Gary over-reacted Noddy misread the situation understandably

Gary is homophobic

1/26/23
Byker Grove was queer-baiting all season

I didn’t see that coming

Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 5
Sex Education as Queer Utopia
• Streaming on Netflix from 2019 to present
• Aimed at teens and upwards
• Netflix has no regulators
• Known for diversity (gender/sexuality/race) and graphic
descriptions of sex (but no nudity)
• Set in fictional, unidentifiable location
• Key message: sex positivity

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 6
Sex Education as Queer Utopia
2019: praised by
GLAAD for its diverse
representation of
gender and sexuality—
lesbian, gay, bisexual,
pansexual, asexual,
gender non-conforming,
non-binary and
questioning characters

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 7
 Messages
• Who do we identify with?
• What messages do we take away? Sex can be pleasurable
• What the contexts of those messages? We should accept/embrace our sexuality
• Why might our takeaways be different?
Scenes like this make me feel
uncomfortable
Eric shouldn’t be attracted to his bully

Adam’s bullying of Eric was understandable

Everyone in Sex Education / 2019 is LGBTQ+

1/26/23
This is unrealistic
This is representative Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 8
Realism vs. Utopia
• Whose reality? Whose utopia?
• Heteronormativity (Warner, 1991)
• Homonormativity (Duggan, 2002)
• Antinormative / Queer (McCann & Monaghan, 2020)
• What is the consequence of this (mis)representation?

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 9
LGBTQ+ Representations
“Media informs people’s knowledge of LGBTQ people,
and is often the first place that individuals – including
young people who subsequently identify as LGBTQ –
encounter LGBTQ identities.”
(McInroy & Craig, 2017)

• Perpetuates stereotypes / one-dimensional characters

• Marginalised invisibility vs. assimilated visibility
• Creation of common dialogues / understandings
• Validation of LGBTQ+ identities

1/26/23
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 10
More examples? https://tinyurl.com/kowiqueer

• Reflect on your own memories of first seeing LGBTQ+

characters on screen
• Who produced that show?
• Who was it produced for?
• Were they positive or negative representations? How did you
decide this?
• How did you respond to seeing those characters?
• How do you think others might have felt on seeing those
characters for the first time?

1/26/23
• What more recent examples can you think of that are more
positive / negative?
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 11
Resources
• Buikema, R., & Zarzycka, M. (2011). Visual Cultures: Feminist Perspectives. In R. Buikema, G. Griffin, & N. Lykke, Theories and Methodologies in
Postgraduate Feminist Research (1st ed., pp. 119–134). Routledge.
• Dhaenens, F. (2013). Teenage queerness: Negotiating heteronormativity in the representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth
Studies, 16(3), 304–317.
• Duggan, L. (2002). The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing
Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics. Duke University Press.
• Fiske, J. (2010). Television Culture. Taylor & Francis Group.
• Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3),
575–599.
• Jedlickova, J. (2017). Contemporary Trends in Teen TV. Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities. Theatralia et Cinematographica.
• McCann, H., & Monaghan, W. (2020). Queer theory now: From foundations to futures. Red Globe Press.
• McInroy, L. B., & Craig, S. L. (2017). Perspectives of LGBTQ emerging adults on the depiction and impact of LGBTQ media representation.
Journal of Youth Studies, 20(1), 32–46. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.
• Vázquez-Rodriguez, L. G., Zurian, F. A., & García-Ramos, F. J. (2022). How Queer is Sex Education? Analyzing Its Non-normative Gender
Identities and Forbidden Fantasies. In LGBTQ Digital Cultures. Routledge.

1/26/23
• Vázquez-Rodríguez, L.-G., García-Ramos, F.-J., & Zurian, F. A. (2021). The Role of Popular Culture for Queer Teen Identities’ Formation in
Netflix’s Sex Education. Media and Communication, 9(3), 198–208. Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text, 29, 3–17.
Louise Hallman / PLUS KoWi 12