The FOX television series Glee has been lauded for its progressive portrayals of gay characters and criticized for trafficking in stereotypes. We position Glee within a transmedia framework, using textual analysis of program storylines, ethnographic fieldwork, and messages about Glee circulated on the microblogging site Twitter, to examine fan responses to and uses of Glee. We find that young adults experience and deploy Glee in two ways. First, they use Glee as a text to interpret their own life experiences, and imagine how they might articulate queer desires and acceptance of them. Second, as a malleable and mobile symbolic object, Glee acts as a strategic device used to signal identifications with and levels of awareness and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT)–identifying people. Although some of the engagement with Glee on social media echoed textual themes, we also find devoted fan engagement that diverges from that of our ethnographic observations.
Abu-LughodLila. 1998. Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
AndrejevicMark. 2008. “Watching Television without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans.” Television & New Media9 (1): 24–46.
3.
Avila-SaavedraGuillermo. 2009. “Nothing Queer about Queer Television: Televized Construction of Gay Masculinities.” Media, Culture & Society31 (1): 5.
4.
BattlesKathleenHilton-MorrowWendy. 2002. “Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre.” Critical Studies in Media Communication19 (1): 87–105.
5.
BaymNancy K.2000. Tune in, Log on: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. London: SAGE.
6.
BondBradley J.2011. “Exposure to Sexuality in the Media and Emotional Well-Being among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents.” Dissertation, Department of Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/26199.
7.
BurkeKenneth. 1974. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DowBonnie. 2001. “Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility.” Critical Studies in Media Communication18 (2): 123–40.
10.
EpsteinRobFriedmanJeffrey. 1996. The Celluloid Closet (documentary). Sony Pictures Classics.
11.
EvansVictor D.2007. “Curved TV: The Impact of Televisual Images on Gay Youth.” American Communication Journal9 (3): 7–17.
12.
FiskeJohn. 1992. “The Cultural Economy of Fandom.” In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, edited by LewisL., 30–49. New York: Routledge.
13.
GagnonJohn H.SimonWilliam. 1973. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago: Aldine Pub.
14.
GerbnerGeorgeGrossLarry. 1976. “Living with Television: The Violence Profile.” Journal of Communication26 (2): 172–94.
15.
GinsburgFaye D.LilaAbu-LughodBrianLarkin. 2002. Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
GrayJonathan. 2003. “New Audiences, New Textualities: Anti-Fans and Non-Fans.” International Journal of Cultural Studies6 (1): 64–81. doi:10.1177/1367877903006001004.
17.
GrossLarry. 1991. “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media.” Journal of Homosexuality21 (1–2): 19–46.
18.
HaythornthwaiteCaroline. 2001. “Exploring Multiplexity: Social Network Structures in a Computer-Supported Distance Learning Class.” The Information Society17 (3): 211–26.
JenkinsHenry. 2006. Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.
21.
KinderMarsha. 1993. Playing with Power in Movies, Television, and Video Games: From Muppet Babies to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LullJames. 1980. “The Social Uses of Television.” Human Communication Research6 (3): 197–209. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00140.x.
24.
MankekarPurnima. 1999. Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood, and Nation in Postcolonial India. Durham: Duke University Press.
25.
MarcusGeorge E.1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology24:95–117.
26.
MarwickAliceboyddanah. 2011. “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.” Convergence17 (2): 139–58.
MilnerR. M.2009. “Working for the Text: Fan Labor and the New Organization.” International Journal of Cultural Studies12 (5): 491–508.
31.
MurraySimone. 2004. “‘Celebrating the Story the Way It Is’: Cultural Studies, Corporate Media and the Contested Utility of Fandom.” Continuum18 (1): 7–25.
32.
PapacharissiZiziFernbackJan. 2008. “The Aesthetic Power of the Fab 5.” Journal of Communication Inquiry32 (4): 348–67.
33.
RadwayJanice A.1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
34.
RomeroDaniel M.MeederBrendanKleinbergJon. 2011. “Differences in the Mechanics of Information Diffusion across Topics: Idioms, Political Hashtags, and Complex Contagion on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, Hyderabad, India, March 28 – April 1, 695–704.
35.
SandvossCornel. 2005. Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Malden: Polity.
36.
ShefrinElana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication21 (3): 261–81.
37.
ShugartHelene A.2003. “Reinventing Privilege: The New (Gay) Man in Contemporary Popular Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication20 (1): 67–91.
38.
SpradleyJames P.1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
39.
StakeRobert E.1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
40.
StraussAnselm L.CorbinJuliet M.1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
