Call for speakers for an online seminar on March 15th, 2023, Media Semiotics Research Group, SemioLab, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Title: Breaking the “glass screen”: un-gendering media practices
Gender, unlike sex, is not biological but cultural. Gender refers to the way a person defines itself, as feminine, masculine or queer, and describes learned patterns of behavior and performance. These patterns of behavior are not dictated by “nature” and biological sex but cultural institutions and social actors– family, school, media, toys, texts etc. The idea of what it means to be feminine, masculine or queer, does not simply happen, it is formed through cultural activities, signification practices and meaning making discourses. Since the 1960s and up to the 1980s it was generally thought that gender studies research would focus on women. “As the 20th century came to a close, gender and communication scholars became much more interested in also researching some of the ways in which men and male sex roles were portrayed and began to explore how communication systems and processes contributed to the construction of different forms of masculinity” (Mendes & Carter, 2008: 1702). Masculinity, like femininity, had to be shifted from the unquestioned norm state. Considering that heteronormativity is produced in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life like nationality, the state, and the law, commerce, medicine and education, as well as in the conventions and effects of narrativity, romance, and other protected spaces of culture, it seems that the sexual culture straight people inhabit is so diffuse, a mix of languages they are just developing with premodern notions of sexuality so ancient that their material conditions feel hardwired into personhood (Berlant & Warner, 1998: 554-555). Scholars today, are called to research and think upon gender+ beyond the polar division of male/female.
So why think of the relationship between media and gender? In the words of D. Gauntlett “[m]edia and communications are a central element of modern life, whilst gender and sexuality remain at the core of how we think about our identities”. Mass media messages and interpersonal discussions have the potential to form and change opinions on various cultural issues (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). The media are known for their long-acknowledged power to “represent ‘socially acceptable’ ways of being or relating to others” i.e. of constructing identity and acknowledging it (Carter & Steiner, 2004: 1). “For Bakhtin the processes of communication in social interaction are engendered in the dialectic relation between identity and otherness. The sign is a dialectic unit arising from the relation between identity and alterity” (Petrilli, 2013: 545).
According to C. Carter and L. Steiner (2004: 2) “[t]he media are instrumental in the processes of gaining public consent. Media texts never simply mirror or reflect ‘reality’, but instead construct hegemonic definitions of what should be accepted as ‘reality’. These definitions appear to be inevitable, ‘real’ and commonsensical. Thus, media images dissemble the extent to which they are aligned with the interests of powerful groups in society”. As P. Duncan observes, mainstream cultural representations and media images portray unconventional sexual practices as psychologically unhealthy and morally wrong (Beemyn & Eliason, 1996: 91). R. Williams (1977: 110) underlines the fact that “Hegemony is then not only the articulate upper level of 'ideology'[…] is a whole body of practices and expectations […] our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world”. In this context, media play a major role in constructing and de-constructing norms and representations within cultural practices. Therefore, hegemonic practices of representations ought to be constantly contested and renegotiated.
Along with media other institutional practices need to be considered. E. Cowie in her studies deals with the construction of women as a sign in representation through signification, stating that film is not simply a reflection of political/economic practices, but “a system which produces meaning through the articulation of signifying elements” (Cowie, 1978: 49-50). However, when the object “woman” is brought to be represented in film or other media, it already bears a meaning, which is produced outside of the system of representation, in society. Therefore, one can assume that representational practices are points of production of definitions, but they are not detached by the other practices defining the position of women in society.
Mulvey in her feminist readings on cinema questions the ways “the unconscious (formed by the dominant order) structure ways of seeing and pleasure in looking” considering film as a “skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure” (Mulvey, 1999: 834-35). She goes on wondering how it will be rendered possible “to fight the unconscious structured like a language (formed critically at the moment of arrival of language) while still caught within the language of the patriarchy” and conceive a new language of desire (Mulvey, 1999: 834). According to her “[w]oman […] stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning” (Mulvey, 1999: 834). Keeping Mulvey’s stands as a starting point for further consideration, researches can go on questioning how gender identities are being formed through the dominant gaze in media discourses as well as attempting a critical stand on the ways verbal and visual language constructs female, male, queer, and others, pleasure.
Digital cultures have shaped an evolving social and political context in which gender identities are performed. N. Fraser argues that publics are not only a site of discourse and opinion but “arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities” (Fraser, 1992: 70). This can be clearly illustrated in the public sphere of digital worlds where identities are constructed within pre-defined stereotypical gender perceptions reproduced either by some members of the digital communities or by the algorithmic feedback. Despite the initial ambition for equal expression and accessibility thanks to the participatory cultures, online inequality on gender representation is on the rise, underscoring the restrained distribution of accessibility in different digital media for individuals with a non-normative gender expression.
Τ. van Leeuwen in his critical linguistic approach on representations poses an interesting question that can be applied to all media discourse (verbal or not). According to him (van Leeuwen, 1996: 43) if a critical approach is attempted then we should ask “who is represented as ‘agent’ (‘Actor’), who as ‘patient’ (‘Goal’) with respect to a given action?”. He also adds that special attention should be paid to the suppressions or backgroundings of social actors and their activities (van Leeuwen, 1996: 39). Introducing here the factor of gender+, scholars should question what the usual gender of “actors” and “patients” is, what are the connotations of such choices and whether there is a specific tendency towards a specific gender in cases of suppression or backgrounding techniques in discourses.
Scholars and researchers are called upon to consider, question and renegotiate, on terms of gender identity not only regarding femininity, but also masculinity, queerness, alterity and any other form of sexual/gender identity, the ways of being represented in media, constructed thorough discourse and signification acts, but also media accessibility, inclusivity and representativity of all genders. We welcome abstracts—approximately 20 minutes long plus 10 minutes for discussion—related (but not limited) to one of the following main themes:
Suggested topics:
- Constructing gender identities
- Omissions and misrepresentations of genders in media
- Representing femininity, masculinity and queerness
- Self-representation in new media and gender identity building
- Media as gendered social actors
- All gender media accessibility, inclusivity and representativity
Paper submission:
The deadline to submit abstracts is January 25, 2023 (extended deadline January 31, 2023) on the following addresses:
Iokasti Foundouka, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Eleni Lazaridou This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The official language of the virtual meeting is English.
Abstracts for presentations should include all of the following information in one paper in MS Word format (.doc, .docx):
- Author’s name, affiliation and academic status
- Email address
- Title of submission with a maximum 200-word abstract in English
- A maximum of six keywords
- A short biographical note mentioning the author’s background of studies and research.
Papers are for a 20-minute presentation. An acknowledgment of receiving your abstract will be sent via email within a week after the submission. Notifications of acceptance will be sent to the selected participants until February 10, 2023.
References
Beemyn, B. & Eliason, M. (1996) Queer studies: a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender anthology. New York (N.Y.): New York university press.
Berlant, L. & Michael, W. (1998) Sex in public. In Critical Inquiry, 24/ 2, pp. 547-566.
Carter, C. & Steiner, L. (2004) Critical Readings: Media and Gender. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Cowie, E. (1978) Woman as sign. In M/F 1(1), pp. 49-63.
Fraser, N. (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–142.
Gauntlett, D. (2008) Media, Gender and Identity: An introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955) Personal influence. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mendes, K. & Carter, C. (2008) Feminist and Gender Media Studies: A Critical Overview. In Sociology Compass, 2/6. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 1701–1718.
Mulvey, L. (1999) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. In (Eds.) Leo Braudy and Marshall.
Cohen Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. New York: Oxford UP, pp. 833-844.
Petrilli, S. (2013) Sign and meaning in Victoria Welby and Mikhail Bakhtin: A confrontation. In Semiotica, vol. 196, pp. 533 – 548.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1996) The representation of social actors. In (eds.) Carmen Rosa Caldas Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, Texts and Practices. Routledge. pp. 32-71.
Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
