This article draws on qualitative research data collected in semistructured interviews conducted during 2013 and 2014 with 30 lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) parents living in England and Scotland. It explores how LGBTQ parents respond to media representations of families like theirs and build narratives of family identity from limited cultural resources. Media, encompassing a range of cultural representational resources, including advertisements, television shows, books, and films, produces specific knowledges about LGBTQ families. Participants argued that popular entertainment media (including Modern Family) offered a limited range of representations of LGBTQ parents and concretized knowledge about the shape of families. I argue that available representations fail to acknowledge the diversity of non-heterosexual family forms and that this representational gap results in sociocultural invisibility. I explore the responses LGBTQ parents had to such gaps and how they negotiated or rejected representational meanings in order to consolidate new narratives of family.
AbelM. (2007). Violent affect: Literature, cinema, and critique after representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
2.
BarkerM.Bowes-CattonH.IantaffiA.CassidyA.BrewerL. (2008). British bisexuality: A snapshot of bisexual representations and identities in the United Kingdom. Journal of Bisexuality, 8, 141-162.
CameronJ. (2005). Focusing on the focus group. In HayI. (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (pp. 116-132). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
6.
CavalcanteA. (2015). Anxious displacements: The representation of gay parenting on Modern Family and The New Normal and the management of cultural anxiety. Television and New Media, 16, 454-471.
7.
ClarkD. (1995). Commodity lesbianism. In CreekmarC. K.DotyA. (Eds.), Out in culture: Gay, lesbian, and queer essays on popular culture (pp. 484-500). London, England: Duke University.
DotyA.GoveB. (1997). Queer representation in the mass media. In MedhurstA.MuntS. (Eds.), Lesbian and gay studies: A critical introduction (pp. 84-98). London, England: Cassell.
10.
DriverS. (2007). Queer girls and popular culture: Reading, resisting, and creating media. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
DyerR. (1990). Now you see it: Studies on lesbian and gay film. London, England: Routledge.
12.
DyerR. (2002a). The matter of images: Essays on representation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
DyerR. (2002b). The culture of queers. London, England: Routledge.
GomillionS. C.GiulianoT. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 330-354.
16.
GrossL. (1994). “What is wrong with this picture?” Women and gay men on television. In RingerR. J. (Ed.), Queer words, queer images: Communication and the construction of homosexuality (pp.143-156). London, England: New York University Press.
17.
GrossL. (2001). Up from invisibility: Lesbians, gay men, and the media in America. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
HalberstamJ. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives. London, England: New York University Press.
19.
HallS. (1996). Who needs identity? In HallS.DuGayP. (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1-17). London, England: Sage.
20.
HannamK. (2002). Coping with archival and textual data. In Shurmer-SmithP. (Ed.), Doing cultural geography (pp.189-198). London, England: Sage.
21.
JenkinsH. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
22.
KellnerD. (2011). Cultural studies, multiculturalism and media culture. In DinesG.HumezJ. M. (Eds.), Gender, race and class in media: A critical reader (3rd ed., pp. 7-18). London, England: Sage.
23.
KressG. (1996). Representational resources and the production of subjectivity. In Caldas-CoulthardC. R.CoulthardM. (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 15-31). London, England: Routledge.
24.
LevitanS.O’ShannonD. (Writers), & MelmanJ. (Director). (2012). Schooled [Television series episode]. In LevitanS.LloydC. (Producers), Modern family. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox.
25.
LimingS. (2007). “Reading for it”: Lesbian readers constructing culture and identity through textual experience. In PeeleT. (Ed.), Queer popular culture: Literature, media, film and television (pp. 85-102). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
MuñozJ. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics. London, England: University of Minnesota Press.
30.
NelsonK. Z. (2006). The construction of an open time dimension in narratives about the becoming of lesbian and gay families: An act of resistance. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7(1), 8-18.
31.
Pallotta-ChiarolliM.LubowitzS. (2003). Outside belonging. Journal of Bisexuality, 3(1), 53-85.
32.
PhelanP. (1993). Unmarked: The politics of performance. London, England: Routledge.
PostgateO. (Writer), &; FirminP. (Director). (1970). The Egg [Television series episode]. In PostgateO. (Producer), The Clangers. Canterbury, England: Smallfilms.
35.
RichA. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, 631-660.
36.
RiggsD. (2011). “Let’s go to the movies”: Filmic representations of gay foster and adoptive parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 297-312.
37.
RiggsD. W. (2014). What makes a man? Thomas Beatie, embodiment, and “mundane transphobia.”Feminism & Psychology, 24, 157-171.
38.
RobinsonL. (2007). Gay men and the Left in post-war Britain. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
39.
RothmannJ. (2013). “Send in the (gay) clowns”: Will and Grace and Modern Family as “sensibly queer.”Acta Academica, 45(4), 40-83.
40.
SchacherS. J.AuerbachC. F.SilversteinL. B. (2005). Gay fathers expanding possibilities for us all. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(3), 31-52.
41.
SheffE. (2014). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple-partner relationships and families. Plymouth, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
ShugartH. A. (2003). Reinventing privilege: The new (gay) man in contemporary popular media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(1), 67-91.
43.
SilverstoneR. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
44.
SinC. H. (2003). Interviewing in “place”: The socio-spatial construction of interview data. Area, 35, 305-312.
45.
SkeggsB. (1997). Formations of class and gender: Becoming respectable. London, England: Sage.
46.
SmithJ. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In SmithJ. A.MarreR.Van LangenhoveL. (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9-26). London, England: Sage.
47.
SpencerC. (Producer),SandersC.DeBloisD. (Director). (2002). Lilo and stitch [Motion picture]. Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Pictures.
48.
ThompsonJ. (1988). Introduction. In ThompsonJ. (Ed.), Language and symbolic power (pp. 1-36). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
49.
ValentineG (1993). Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: Lesbian time-space strategies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18, 237-248.
50.
WaittG. (2005). Doing discourse analysis. In HayI. (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (2nd ed., pp. 163-191). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
51.
WaltersS. D. (2012). The kids are all right but the lesbians aren’t: Queer kinship in US culture. Sexualities, 15, 917-923.
52.
WarnerM. (1999). Normal and normaller: Beyond gay marriage. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 5, 119-171.
53.
WeeksJ. (1977). Coming out: Homosexual politics in Britain from the nineteenth century to the present. London, England: Quartet Books.
54.
WestonK. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
