Youre Wearing Kurts Necklace

5 downloads 151387 Views 220KB Size Report
text, of course, may be positioned by non-LGBTQ stu- ... ternational school in Germany, and Glee was acces- sible for ..... bike, and working as an auto mechanic.
FEATURE ARTICLE

“You’re Wearing Kurt’s Necklace!” T HE R HE T OR IC A L P O W E R OF GLEE IN T HE LITER ACY CL ASSROOM Michelle M. Falter

How can teachers use popular culture texts in the classroom to advocate for LGBT students? This article explores one teacher’s reading of Glee within her classroom.

A

few years ago, one of my 10th-grade students stopped me abruptly: “Ms. Falter, you’re wearing Kurt’s necklace! Did you know that?” Looking down, I realized I was wearing a gold chain with a pair of gold-framed glasses dangling at the bottom that I recently bought, thinking it was a cute necklace for a self-proclaimed nerdy English teacher like me. I was, however, unaware that my necklace was one that the gay male character Kurt, on the television show Glee, wore during one of the episodes (see Figure 1). Most fascinating about my student’s statement was her apparent high level of involvement with the character Kurt, so much so that she knew about the accessory he wore during one episode. Her excited tone suggested she thought it was cool that I wore his necklace. Her comment held no judgment or indictment about a boy wearing a traditionally female piece of jewelry. Michelle M. Falter is a doctoral Additionally, her opinion student at the University of Georgia, that I was wearing Kurt’s Athens, USA; e-mail mfalter@ uga.edu. necklace, rather than

him wearing mine, indicated to me a deep connection with the character and demonstrated that she viewed the show’s storyline to be a sort of reality. Because of the sense of reality that television often nurtures, the distinction between drama and real life is increasingly blurry, particularly on shows that have realistic characters, such as Glee. Clark and Blackburn (2009) believe, in particular, that “when a text focuses primarily on an LGBTQ character, it is positioned by LGBTQ readers as a mirror, a way of seeing themselves….This same text, of course, may be positioned by non-LGBTQ students as a mirror” (p. 29). Apparently, for my student, that was the case. At the time, I hadn’t known much about Glee and was surprised that my students knew of it at all. When the show first aired, I was teaching in an international school in Germany, and Glee was accessible for viewing only via the Internet. My students came from all over the world, and so it intrigued me that this U.S.-based show was seemingly so relevant to their lives. Prompted by my students’ interest, I began watching Glee. This musical TV comedy premiered in 2009 and takes place in the Midwestern United States in the small conservative town of Lima, Ohio. Within the halls of McKinley High School, a group

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 57(4) Dec 2013 / Jan 2014 doi:10.1002 /JA AL.24 3 © 2013 International Reading Association (pp. 289 –297)

289

FEATURE ARTICLE

J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

5 7 (4 ) DEC 2013 / JAN 2014

FIGURE 1 Kurt Hummel and I wearing same necklace.

290

of outcasts constantly struggles to save their unpopular glee club (The New Directions) from budget cuts. Under the guidance of their Spanish teacher and glee club director, Mr. Will Schuester, and the hindrance of the pesky cheerleading coach, Sue Sylvester, this group of drama/music geeks tackles relationships, sexuality, and other social issues. As the year progressed with my own high school students, I began noticing the transformative, educational, and entertaining potential of the show. Glee was popping up everywhere. Bullying was an issue in the school that year, and the administration had asked us to discuss the topic in our classes. Glee became my vehicle to do so, by watching episodes with my students and deconstructing them. Also, one of my 11th-grade students announced she was a lesbian, and it was through discussions of this show, in the halls of our school and in our English class, that I believe she found the courage and freedom to do so. These issues are not just the issues of a foreign international school; they are issues I saw and continue to see within schools that I work in the United States. Because of my students’ interest in Glee and the connections to it across cultures, I began to read episodes with a more discerning eye. Although I reveled in the pleasure my students got out of discussing each episode, I wanted to analyze the show’s persuasive power, especially as a U.S.-produced show that was breaking international ground. Glee creators have claimed that the show is cutting edge in its positive portrayal of underdogs. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) seems to concur, for they awarded it best comedy show in 2011. Furthermore, Barrios (2011) insisted, “every high school in this country has students wrestling with issues like those seen at McKinley High. Many of these kids are misunderstood by their parents—like on Glee. All of them struggle with acceptance and respect of their peers in school—like on Glee.”

From first glance, the show appeared to be cutting edge. One of the creator’s groundbreaking moves was to have a major storyline revolve around a gay adolescent male, Kurt Hummel, and his coming-ofage story. Yet, I wondered whether the portrayal of LGBT teens, like Kurt, reified dominant hegemonic discourse about adolescent sexuality. Did it truly break ground in its portrayal of gendered teens, or was there something more complicated going on concerning adolescent identities and their representation? As Clark and Blackburn (2009) attested, it’s important to consider how texts represent LGBT people. Did this television show work as advocacy for LGBT teens? And if so, how? Finally, how could teachers like me use popular culture texts to help students become better-informed consumers of media and advocates for marginalized populations in schools?

The Rhetoric of Popular Culture Texts To understand Glee’s appeal to my students, and to what extent the text could challenge or reinforce taken-for-granted assumptions about LBGT culture, I first needed to understand the rhetoric it offered as a text. The term rhetoric signifies the persuasive appeal or power of something. Often, popular culture acts as one of the most persuasive texts in the lives of adolescents. For my students, Glee was no exception.

Texts Traditionally, people define the word text as written or printed material. However, students no longer read just books and printed texts. According to Alvermann, Moon, and Hagood (1999), the act of reading is no longer perceived as transmitting facts from the printed page to the mind. Nor are texts perceived any more as that narrow vein of technology known as print media. Today’s reader interprets a broad range of texts that use a variety of symbols, or signs, to communicate messages. (p. 9)

Visual and digital texts fill students’ lives and environments. We call these texts multimodal because they incorporate multiple modes through which meaning is communicated (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Unsworth, 2001). Additionally, a text doesn’t have to be verbal or written, but it is often a multimodal composite of words, images, and sounds. “If a written, spoken, or performed message is available for people to negotiate

Popular Culture In the broadest sense, popular culture is a system of signs and artifacts (including actions, events, or objects) that work together in unity, with widely shared meanings, that most people know about (Brummett, 2011; Sellnow, 2010). Television shows, advertisements, movies, and songs are all popular culture texts. Popular culture is important because it has the persuasive power to shape and reinforce our taken-forgranted beliefs and behaviors since “it offers messages simultaneously and covertly about how we ought to believe and behave” (Sellnow, 2010, p. 7). Because of its covert nature, popular culture is ultimately political. It acts as a site where social understandings are created and played out in an attempt to sway people’s opinion. The political and hidden agenda of popular culture texts, like Glee, highlights the importance of using rhetorical analysis to uncover the potentials and pitfalls for adolescent viewers. A rhetorical analysis allows a critical engagement with the message sent through a popular culture text and ultimately argues that the text either reinforces (a preferred reading) or challenges (an oppositional reading) these hegemonic, taken-for-granted beliefs and behaviors (Sellnow, 2010). A feminist lens best helps demonstrate Glee’s critique of hegemony. Feminist Perspective I base my rhetorical analysis in a feminist perspective because it allows me to deconstruct the ways that society perceives our gendered world. These beliefs

and behaviors are rooted in hegemony, perpetuated through processes that support dominant ideology. In many cases, ideology illustrates common sense notions of how to behave and see the world. Men and women reinforce these ideologies, but they empower only those in the dominant group while oppressing those who don’t fit the normative definitions. Those who aren’t “normal,” according to dominant patriarchal definitions, are therefore “othered.” Feminist rhetorical analysis focuses on the taken-for-granted “normal” roles and rules for men and women in society that are conveyed as appropriate or inappropriate, desirable or undesirable (Brummett, 2011; Sellnow, 2010). My analysis uses a radical and queer feminism that “challenges common definitions of gender and sexuality that are limited to predominantly White, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual people” (Sellnow, 2010, p. 92). This third-wave feminism is interested in the deep levels of oppression embedded in institutions and enacted in instances of bullying and sexual harassment. Furthermore, radical feminism critiques heteronormativity as natural. Heteronormativity stems from masculine hegemony in which dominant American ideology oppresses all gender relations other than heterosexual masculinity, and it therefore reifies gender/ power inequalities. One example is the belief that homosexuality or transgenderedness is unnatural. According to Adrienne Rich (1980), heteronormativity or “compulsory heterosexuality” is pervasive in Western culture because there is a tendency to portray heterosexuality as though it was natural and inevitable. Feminist scholar Judith Butler (1990), argues that the category of sex is a “socially instituted and socially regulated fantas[y]”; it’s not “natural” but, rather, “political” (p. 126). It functions as an institution with its own expectations, standards, and principles of appropriate behavior. A feminist understanding of sex and gender as separate is also important. Sex equates to biological traits, whereas gender is the socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity. Butler (1990) says we must take these ideas a step further. Not only is gender socially constructed, it’s also performative, meaning that we perform, or “do,” different gender roles (Butler, 1990). Furthermore, feminists challenge the categorization of people that leads to narrow definitions of normal. They critique our society’s tendency toward binary and dichotomous thinking, arguing that people don’t fit into neat little boxes.

“You’re Wearing Kurt’s Necklace!”: Necklace!” The Rhetorical Power of Glee in the Literacy Classroom

its meaning, then it is a text” (Hagood, Alvermann, & Heron-Hruby, 2010, p. 15). Therefore, texts might be anything that can be “read” by an interested party. Also important is the inseparability of text from society. Brummett (2011) described text as “something that people perceive, notice, or unify in their everyday experiences; it is also something that critics or students of popular culture create” (p. 29). Freire (1983) wrote that “reading the world proceeds reading the word, and the subsequent reading of the word cannot dispense with continually reading the world. Language and reality are dynamically intertwined” (p. 5). Many things we think and do are in response to the continual rereading of the popular texts of our world. And as Blackburn (2012) attested, “trying to understand reading and writing words in isolation from worlds is all but useless” (p. 17).

291

J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

5 7 (4 ) DEC 2013 / JAN 2014

FEATURE ARTICLE

292

As Brummett (2011) noted, “what is key to this theoretical stance is a questioning of categories” (p. 184), which can then lead to an interrogation of all sorts of categories. Feminists highlight the importance of questioning gender norms, but they also look for ways to change and break down the patriarchal ideological structures, too. Butler (1990) argued that parody is the tool for destabilizing gender norms and binaries. Because gender is not a process but a set of repeated acts (Butler, 1990), the way we “do gender” can be deconstructed by purposefully aping and critiquing those acts. This concept of gender as repeated acts demonstrates that all gender categories are socially constructed. While Butler highlights drag as a parodic subversive strategy, people can use other acts of parody (mimicry and travesty) to interrupt and reveal gender norms. All gendered acts are repetitions of what others before us have constructed; therefore, all gender is parodic. Through parody of masculinity/femininity, gender binaries are weakened and the possibility of multiple or fluid notions of gender identity can be achieved. Of course, even Butler argued that parody by itself is not subversive and that parodic repetitions could become “an instrument of the power one opposes” (p. xxvi). However, for parody to work, Butler claimed that it needs to make us laugh; it is about “the pleasure, the giddiness of performance” (p. 137). In considering Glee, I noticed that many characters perform gender in ways that do not fit binaries of male/female and masculine/feminine; they perpetually challenge these dichotomies by offering the viewer a parodic humorous take on gender norms. A feminist perspective allows me to identify how Glee, as a popular culture text, ultimately rejects and negates dichotomous heteronormative thinking.

Glee’s Persuasive Appeal Glee has many suitable persuasive LGBT-themed episodes, but this rhetorical analysis focuses on one episode early in the show’s history. I chose the episode “Preggers” because it is crucial in understanding the

Glee, as a popular culture text, ultimately rejects and negates dichotomous heteronormative thinking.

rest of Glee’s LGBT-themed content. Additionally, this episode deals with Kurt, with whom my secondary students made multiple connections. Like Dhaenes (2012), I acknowledge that my feminist reading of the text is individual; however, this doesn’t mean my reading is any less valid or unstructured. Using Sellnow’s (2010) and Brummett’s (2011) rhetorical approach to interpreting and reading texts, and Butler’s (1990) notions of performativity and parody, I could judiciously analyze the messages embedded in this television show. Likewise, by studying several characters in terms of appearance, actions, words, and interactions, it became evident that the show acts as an oppositional reading to the taken-for-granted beliefs about homosexuality and masculinity.

A Closer Look at One Episode: “Preggers” (Season 1, Episode 4) Despite the title “Preggers,” this episode deals primarily with Kurt’s experience coming out of the closet amid a school culture that is intolerant of perceived sexual deviance. Additionally, it explores other gendered expectations of straight characters and offers a counternarrative. On the surface, “Preggers” is filled with stereotypes that may seem exploitative, and many TV critics have harshly criticized the show for these (Dehnart, 2010; Rosenberg, 2012). However, I argue that the writers of Glee use stereotypes as a technique to ape, make fun of, and ultimately subvert sex and gender norms. Even Dehnart’s (2010) criticism of Glee acknowledged the contradictory nature of identity. On the one hand, he claimed that Glee keeps “characters in societally defined boxes”; on the other hand, he claimed that Glee has characters who are a “more complicated example of gender.” Dehnart is quick to say that Glee does reinforce what people already think about LGBT youths, but I beg to differ. So do my students, as well as those in Marwick, Gray, and Ananny’s (2013) study of LGBT teens who “used Glee to appreciate and navigate their own sexualities and experiences” (p. 16). Keeping Butler’s theories of gender performativity and parody as a strategy of subversion, I postulate that Glee defies heteronormative thinking, weakens gender binaries, and opens up these traditional categories. This show, often described as a dramedy for the ways it tackles serious topics humorously, offers a window into the lives of ostracized teens through comedic, often absurd scenes. Both Marwick, Gray, and Anannny (2013) and Dhaenens (2012) found that

Kurt and Burt Hummel. Since this episode discusses Kurt’s coming out, it makes sense to begin with him and his father. The juxtaposition of these two characters draws our attention to how differently each performs his gender. As a viewer, I was introduced previously to the musical-loving, angelic-voiced Kurt. However, this episode is the first time we meet his father, Burt. Burt is a “man’s man,” wearing flannel and baseball caps, engaging in such activities as watching Deadliest Catch, playing football, riding his dirt bike, and working as an auto mechanic. In contrast, Kurt acts as a foil character, donning a unitard with a sequined vest to dance to Single Ladies by Beyoncé with two of his female friends. This behavior immediately designates Kurt as abnormal by societal standards because his clothing and actions communicate femininity. In an effort to please his father, who has just witnessed his son dancing in the basement, Kurt attempts to prove his manliness. With the aid of his friends, he tells his dad he’s on the football team. Kurt feels pressured to make his unitard, an unmanly piece of attire, seem manly by asserting that “all the guys wear them to workout nowadays.” In this scene, Burt displays societally normal behaviors as a male, whereas Kurt’s behavior and clothes appear womanly. Hence, Burt pushes Kurt into the heteronormative ideology by asking him which of his two female friends is his girlfriend. Kurt at this point is not ready to confront his sexuality, so he performs dominant notions of male gender expectations to please his dad. As the show progresses, Kurt continues to struggle with performing appropriate male behaviors. When talking to the star quarterback, Finn Hudson, he insists that he’s “not gay” but then complains about wearing a helmet because it will mess up his hair. During his first practice, he doesn’t wear the customary football uniform, instead donning an ’80s-style workout ensemble. Throughout the show, Kurt rejects the heteronormative and patriarchal norms of what it means to be a man. The apposition of Kurt in relation

to two seemingly stereotypical football players is also worth notice. Finn Hudson and Noah Puckerman. The directors place Finn and “Puck,” both football players, in opposition to Kurt by highlighting their heterosexual status and athleticism. Both characters exemplify hegemonic male norms. Puck performs the jock stereotype by fighting, getting bad grades, and being a womanizer. He flaunts his sexuality and sex appeal. For many boys in American culture, losing one’s virginity establishes manhood. Puck impregnates his classmate, to whom this episode’s title relates, and therefore reaffirms his masculine studliness. These behaviors seemingly reinforce heteronormative expectations about gender and sexuality, and as a viewer, I may be tempted to believe that this is the type of boy I should like to be. In one conversation with Finn, Puck remarks, “I’m a stud, dude. I can wear a dress and people would think it’s cool.” This exchange appears to suggest that the only people who can oppose normative gender roles are those whose masculinity is overtly exaggerated and performed. However, Puck is not likable in this episode. He consistently bullies Kurt and other outcast classmates. By exposing and accentuating his extreme manhood, Glee makes us question whether this gendered norm is acceptable. In contrast to Puck, Finn offers a more complex view of masculinity. In many ways, Finn struggles just as much as Kurt in performing so-called appropriate heteronormative behaviors. Finn is also a jock, but unlike Puck, he is not successful in a traditional sense. First, Finn is a losing quarterback, the leader of a failing football team. Second, Finn has never had sex, and so isn’t a “real” man yet. Puck sees this weakness and taunts him with accusations of being gay. After Finn talks to Kurt, Puck says, “I knew it. You’re in love with Kurt.” As a heterosexual male, Finn does not find this teasing amusing, yet he persists in helping Kurt despite the mocking. To avert the possible accusation of being labeled gay, Finn performs masculine behaviors but he never fully follows through. When Kurt approaches Finn to help him get on the football team, Finn assumes that Kurt is asking him out and says, “Thanks, but I already have a date to prom. But I’m flattered. I know how important dances are to teen gays.” Despite flinging the word gay at Kurt, Finn does not judge him. Instead, he helps Kurt throughout the episode, defending him multiple times to others. The difference between Finn and Puck is that Finn is not a clichéd stereotype of a heterosexual male teen. He

“You’re Wearing Kurt’s Necklace!”: The Rhetorical Power of Glee in the Literacy Classroom

Glee’s use of irony, parody, satire, and camp was intended to subvert the heteronormative matrix. The mere fact that viewers are required to suspend their disbelief when characters break out in song, in the tradition of a musical, is absurd and laughable but exemplifies Butler’s (1990) playful strategy of subversion. Through humor, Glee is able to “normalize” acts that are abnormal in dominant ideology. Several characters can illuminate this strategy.

293

FEATURE ARTICLE is both strong and sensitive, an athlete and a singer in the glee club. His character deconstructs notions of what it means to be an athlete and a man that challenge the traditional model. Sue Sylvester. Another character who challenges the traditional model is Sue Sylvester, the cheerleading coach. In this episode, Coach Sue has a pivotal role. Throughout, she repeatedly talks about busting out of her box. And in the end, she offered this advice to her television viewers:

J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

5 7 (4 ) DEC 2013 / JAN 2014

I say shake it up a bit, get out of your box. Even if that box happens to be where you’re living…it’s not easy to get out of your comfort zone. People tear you down, tell you “Why did you bother in the first place?” But let me tell you something. There is not much difference between a cheering crowd and an angry crowd flinging abuse at you. They’re both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they’re cheering for you. You do that, and someday they will. And that’s how Sue “C’s” it.

294

This diatribe could be a metaphor for judging people according to socially constructed ideas of gender, race, class, and sexuality. Most of the time, it’s difficult to determine if Sue should be taken seriously, because she often uses witty comments to mock other characters. Not only is Sue humorous, but she also exemplifies irony. She displays aggressive masculine behavioral traits, has a short manly hairstyle, and wears only tracksuits, all of which contrasts sharply with the stereotypical bubbly sunshine image of her cheerleaders. She often aggressively pushes students into lockers, yet also takes care of her sister who has Down syndrome. Sue is complex, just like everyone else, and doesn’t want to be stuck “in a box” and categorized, as her television message suggests. Men and women come in different packages—some with sequins, and some with tracksuits. The Message. Despite the seemingly stereotypical portrayal of Kurt as an effeminate gay teen, as a viewer, I rooted for his success. In the face of constant ridicule by classmates, Kurt comes out on top. He shakes things up, as Sue advises, and takes chances, which another

Men and women come in different packages—some with sequins, and some with tracksuits.

character, Rachel Berry, foreshadows when she belts out the popular Céline Dion song Taking Chances. In his own unique way, Kurt manages to become a football player and persuade the team to join him in a dance rendition of Beyoncé’s Single Ladies during a game. One cannot help but laugh at the ridiculousness of this scene. He kicks the winning field goal, and his macho teammates raise him on their shoulders in celebration. By imitating Beyoncé’s choreography in the middle of a football field, the show deconstructs gender expectations via parody. Hot off his victory, Kurt has the courage to come out to his dad, who says, “I’ve known since you were three. All you wanted for your birthday was a pair of sensible heels.” Through these funny moments and Kurt’s success on the field, the show asserts that viewers should accept Kurt and other LGBT teens, and in turn, so should society. All in all, Glee’s character interactions, key dialogue, and action help break down dominant heteronormative ideologies. Because of its persuasive influence as a popular culture text, it is important to understand the implications of this analysis for the classroom.

Why and How Does Glee Matter in the Literacy Classroom? Definitely, Glee has the potential to promote compelling, dialogical teaching and learning around the deconstruction of heteronormative values. As Blackburn and Buckley (2005) stress, “queer-inclusive curricula benefit all students. Wisdom, after all, is the accumulation and application of knowledge(s), or differing cultural ‘truths’; that is, the ability to learn and grow” (p. 204). First, Glee acts as advocacy for our LGBT teens. School-based bullying is increasing, and LGBT teens often bear the brunt of this intimidation. According to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) in its 2011 National School Climate Survey, schools are hostile environments for LGBT students. Of those students, 85% have heard someone use the word gay in a derogatory manner, 71% frequently heard homophobic remarks, 61% often heard negative remarks about gender expression (regarding masculinity and femininity), and 57% heard these types of remarks from teachers, staff, and faculty members at their school (Kosciw Gretak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012). These statistics are unacceptable, considering the high number of bullying-related suicides covered in the media over the past five years.

In five separate studies, professor Edward Schiappa and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota have found that the presence of gay characters on television programs decreases prejudices among viewers.

In a time when so many social changes and policies are occurring around the world, students may feel conflicted about issues such as gay marriage, gays in the military, bullying, and gender discrimination. Schools can help students so that they don’t feel what Becker (2006) calls straight panic: “the anxiety felt by mainstream America and Americans confronting a social landscape where monoculturalism seemed maligned and difference prized” (p. 4). Although some discomfort over change is expected, schools can ease the fear, uncertainty, and misconceptions by using popular culture texts such as Glee. Unfortunately, “like race and class, sexuality and gender are topics often relegated to the hidden curriculum, which teaches lessons as loudly as a formal educational text” (Ma’ayan, 2012, p. 57). Teachers often fear the unpredictability of discussing these topics, or they fear parent or administrator backlash for attempting such dialogue. Fear is something that teachers should not dismiss but rather should interrogate fully

(Blackburn, 2012; Fecho, 2001). First, teachers must examine their own prejudices and misconceptions about those who identify as LGBT. Then teachers can reflect on and address parental disapproval “rooted in fear and hatred of that which is not normative in terms of sexuality and gender” (Blackburn, 2012, p. 79). As Fecho (2001) noted, fear and threat are common in the critical literacy classroom—there is “no avoiding it” (p. 30). But threat need not be bad. Indeed, “threat [can be] a transactional element to be acknowledged and transcended rather than denied, ignored, minimized or euphemized” (Fecho, 2001, p. 11). If we silence or disregard these “threatening” conversations, we aren’t only creating “dissonance between classroom curriculum and students’ real lives” (Ma’ayan, 2012, p. 71). More important, we may be missing opportunities for authentic learning from one another. Rather than ignoring or letting threat thwart or abort our efforts, teachers “must negotiate such threat lovingly” (Blackburn, 2012, p. 100). Glee has important implications for teachers and LGBT and non-LGBT youths, but it may be unclear how English teachers would take this knowledge and use it within their classes, particularly when keeping in mind the Common Core State Standards. Based on my own experiences, and the work of Clark and Blackburn (2009), a good starting place is determining what is relevant to and enjoyable for your students. This may include finding multimodal and popular culture texts that are equally relevant, “mak[ing] visible popular culture’s invisibility in the classroom” (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999, p. 11). The next step would be teaching students media literacy skills. Critical media literacy offers a space in our classrooms to deprivilege masculine hegemonic voices by moving marginalized voices into the center. Cable in the Classroom (an initiative to bring media literacy to the American population) argues that students need to understand that (a) all media messages are constructions, (b) each person interprets messages differently, (c) media have commercial interests, (d) media have values, and (e) each medium has its own language and style. My analysis offers one way to read Glee, but students may have alternative readings. Using these five claims, teachers can write questions and explore them through close analysis of episodes from Glee, which fits seamlessly with the CCSS. (See Take Action! sidebar.) These questions are helpful in framing discussions, but students can also benefit from specific close analysis of sensory details, characters, dialogue, and actions

“You’re Wearing Kurt’s Necklace!”: The Rhetorical Power of Glee in the Literacy Classroom

The inclusion of LGBT curriculum and texts has reduced bullying in schools and made the school environment more hospitable for diversity. GLSEN reports that LGBT students who experienced inclusive curriculum were more likely to report that their classmates were somewhat or very accepting of LGBT people than students who did not experience inclusive curriculum (66.7% vs. 33.2%) (Kosciw et al., 2012). However, many of these inclusive curriculums did not incorporate positive images of LGBT history, people, or events. The impact on students’ self-esteem has far-reaching effects—and possibly “life-saving potential” (Blackburn, 2012, p. 59). Using Glee in the English classroom can help spotlight positive portrayals of LGBT students. Glee’s counterhegemonic discourse also has positive implications for students who are not LGBT. My student in the opening vignette was able to look past sexual orientation and gender differences, finding a common connection between me (a straight female) and the character Kurt (a gay male). This is not to say that all students can easily make these connections. Glee is a valuable resource to begin these conversations. According to NPR staff members (2012), Glee’s gay characters do more than entertain us:

295

FEATURE ARTICLE

Take Action S T E P S F OR IMMEDI AT E IMP L EMEN TAT ION ✓ Closely analyze an episode of Glee, tracing the characters, conflicts, images, sounds, language, and messages/themes. ✓ Lead discussions using the following guided questions that address the Common Core State Standards: ✓ What are the socially constructed messages in this episode? What tools do the producers/writers, costume/stage designers, and/ or actors use to construct these messages? Are these messages static or dynamic? (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.2, R.3) ✓ How might viewing Glee through a different perspective help us understand the messages differently? (CCSS.ELA-Literacy. CCRA.R.6)

J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

5 7 (4 ) DEC 2013 / JAN 2014

✓ Whose commercial and financial interests does Glee represent? Who is bringing me this program and why? What ads support the program and to whom do they appeal? (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.3)

296

✓ What taken-for-granted beliefs and values does Glee prefer and/or oppose? How are these values and beliefs critiqued or reinforced? Whose values does this show represent? (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.7) ✓ How does the medium of television affect our understandings of the messages/values on Glee? How does the use of music affect our understandings? What stylistic and language choices do the producers, directors, actors, etc., make that help us understand and critique the show’s messages? (CCSS. ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.4, R.5) ✓ Write a rhetorical analysis essay, create a public service announcement, or write thematic comparisons of songs in the show or other YA literature after discussion. (CCSS.ELA-Literacy. CCRA.R.1, R.9, W.1, W.8, W.9, SL.4, SL.5)

within the text, just as a teacher does with traditional print-based texts. In particular, with Glee, teachers need to spend some time deconstructing terminology and analyzing pervasive stereotypes about gender and sexuality. Blackburn (2012) calls this “language awareness”

and suggests that teachers “analyze hate-based language with students” (p. 59). Many episodes of Glee are suitable for this kind of close analysis around LGBT and gender-related themes and language, including: “Never Been Kissed” (Season 2, Episode 6); “Furt” (Season 2, Episode 8); “Sexy” (Season 2, Episode 15); “Prom Queen” (Season 2, Episode 20); “I Kissed a Girl” (Season 3, Episode 7); “Saturday Night Gleever” (Season 3, Episode 16); and “The Role You Were Born to Play” (Season 4, Episode 5). Teachers might also want to analyze episodes of Glee in conjunction with YA literature with similar topics. Excellent candidates for comparison would be Perks of Being a Wallflower (an epistolary novel about a gay youth) by Stephen Chbosky; Am I Blue? Coming Out From the Silence (a collection of short stories addressing issues of adolescence and homosexuality) edited by Marion Dane Bauer; and The Full Spectrum (a collection of essays and poems from LGBT writers ages 13–23) edited by David Levithan and Billy Merrell. Rhetorically speaking, Glee offers educators a powerful means of exploring marginalized and hidden messages because of its cultural relevancy and persuasive appeal for adolescents. With bullying on the rise in schools, Glee has the power to dismantle hurtful, discriminatory practices and language, replacing them with accepting, inclusive dialogue and actions. Schools cannot be a place where the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” still resides. Students are savvy consumers of popular culture texts and naturally want to bring their home literacies into the school. Therefore, schools need to harness Glee as a text to explore not only at home and in the school hallways, but also within our classroom walls. References Alvermann, D.E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M.C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barrios, J. (2011, May 3). Why Glee matters. Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/jarrett-barrios/whyglee-matters_b_856495.html Becker, R. (2006). Gay TV and straight America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Blackburn, M.V. (2012). Interrupting hate: Homophobia in schools and what literacy can do about it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Blackburn, M.V., & Buckley, J. (2005). Teaching queer-inclusive English language arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 202–212. Brummett, B. (2011). Rhetoric in popular culture (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marwick, A., Gray, M.L., & Ananny, M. (2013). “Dolphins are just gay sharks”: Glee and the queer case of transmedia as text and object. Television & New Media. doi:10.1177/1527476413478493 NPR st a f f. (2012 , May 12). How T V brought gay people into our homes. Nat ional Public R adio. Retrieved from w w w.npr.org/2012/ 05/12/152578740 / how-tv-brought-gay-people-into-our-homes Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–660. Rosenberg, A. (2012). “Glee” is an immoral television show and it’s time to stop watching it. Think Progress. Retrieved from thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/02/475188/ glee-is-an-immoral-television-show-and-its-time-to-stop-watching-it Sellnow, D. (2010). The rhetorical power of popular culture: Considering mediated texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

More to Explore C O NNE C T E D C O N T E N T- B A SE D R E S O U R C E S •





• •

Arnold, S. (n.d.). Hidden homophobia unit. Teaching tolerance. Retrieved from www.tolerance.org/activity/ hidden-homophobia-unit Carroll, M., & Blatteau, L.H. (n.d.). Media literacy: Examining the world of television teens. Read Write Think. Retrieved from www.readwritethink.org/ classroom-resources/lesson-plans/media-literacyexamining-world-966.html Henry, L.A. (n.d.) Critical media literacy: TV programs. Read Write Think. Retrieved from www.readwritethink. org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/critical-medialiteracy-programs-96.html Luke, C. (1999). Media and cultural studies in Australia. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42 (8), 622–626. Marshall, E., & Sensoy, Ö. (Eds.) (2011). Rethinking popular culture and media. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

“You’re Wearing Kurt’s Necklace!”: The Rhetorical Power of Glee in the Literacy Classroom

Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, UK: Routledge. Cable in the Classroom. (n.d.). Media literacy 101: III. Five things everyone should know about media. Retrieved from www.ciconline.org/Resource/Media-Literacy-101 Clark, C.T., & Blackburn, M. (2009). Reading LGBT-themed literature with young people: What’s possible? English Journal, 98(4), 25–32. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge. Dehnart, A. (2010). Glee’s harmful simplicity. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/17/ glees-harmful-simplicity.html Dhaenens, F. (2012). Teenage queerness: Negotiating heteronormativity in the representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth Studies. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.718435. Falchuk, B. (Writer), & Falchuk, B (Director). (2009, September 23). Preggers [Television series episode]. In R. Murphy, B. Falchuk, & I. Brennan (Producers), Glee. Hollywood, CA: Fox Broadcasting Company. Retrieved from www.amazon. com/Preggers/ dp/B002Q91AVG Fecho, B. (2001). “Why are you doing this?”: Acknowledging the transcending threat in a critical inquiry classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(1), 9–37. Freire, P. (1983). The importance of the act of reading. Journal of Education,165(1), 5–11. Hagood, M.C., Alvermann, D.E., & Heron-Hruby, A. (2010). Bring it to class: Unpacking pop culture in literacy learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kosciw, J.G., Greytak, E.A., Bartkiewicz, M.J., Boesen, M.J., & Palmer, N.A. (2012). 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001.) Multimodal discourse. London, UK: Arnold. Ma’ayan, H.D. (2012). Reading girls: The lives and literacies of adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

297