I teach a class called “Race, Gender and the Media,” and in addition to the elements in the title, I tend to cover LGBT issues as well as other aspects of diversity. Although it is an elective, it satisfies a “critical issues” requirement our students must meet to graduate. My class is oriented around a wide array of readings and discussions, and I first try to ground students in some concepts about identity, ideology and the social construction of what is considered “normal” before moving into specific issues of race, gender, class and sexual identity. What is clear to me in teaching this class is that a) students want to talk about these issues, b) students need to be exposed to different perspectives on these issues, and c) they need to talk about these issues with people who are different than they are.
For me, the central concept of this class is identity, and I hope that my students learn the important role that media play in constructing, circulating and reproducing certain ways of understanding identities like male and female, gay and straight. One of the things that I have found especially helpful in discussing LGBT issues is to talk about how gender is a social construct. I make it a point to disrupt the notion that heterosexuality is inherently “natural.” While biological sex may be a fact, it is society that assigns certain traits and attributes to the sexes, and thus defines what it means to be male and female. Mass media construct, reproduce and circulate these meanings, and thus help teach individuals which behaviors and beliefs are appropriate for certain identities. I also use readings and videos that highlight how the concept of heterosexuality as natural is a construction of the Victorian era, and how transgender individuals have accepted cultural space in India (the hijra) and Thailand (the kathoey).
I also relate these issues to the fact that mass media are businesses, and so they ultimately must be concerned with the bottom line. That impacts the types of content they are willing to promote and disseminate, which also means that commercial pressures impact the gatekeepers of that content. This is a double-edged sword, of course. On the one hand, if a group can show that it has disposable income and is loyal to advertisers that recognize that, media content will follow the ad dollars. This is partly why there are more images of upscale gay men in television: Advertisers believe they are an important market with money to spend. However, this also means that social groups whom advertisers cannot easily see as profitable — those who may not show up in marketing surveys or whose behaviors might bother enough of the mainstream to worry advertisers — will likely be ignored.
Many of my students produce stories or other work to address these issues not only for my class, but also for their other classes and for our campus media. They seem to do a better job of approaching people as individuals and not just defining them by one social category or another.
Our alumni tell us that we need to make our students aware of diversity and to start questioning their assumptions before they get to their newsrooms, studios or offices.
I believe we are getting better about that.
