Ideological Criticism Showtime\'s Drama Series

Ideological Criticism

Showtime's drama series the L Word, which ran from 2004 to 2009, features a cast of lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered characters, and has been lauded for its representations of non-heterosexual individuals and relationships. The relative dearth of complex lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) characters on contemporary television means that the L Word constitutes one of the few places where the public can see these kinds of characters represented with the sort of depth and complexity usually reserved for heterosexual leads. However, just because the L Word makes a point to include homosexual, bisexual, and transgender characters, this does not mean that it treats them equally. In fact, instead of presenting homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people as discrete points on an otherwise broad spectrum of human sexuality, the L Word seems to alienate its bisexual and transgender characters, presenting them as a kind of subdivision or even aberration of homosexuality in largely the same way that homosexuality was frequently perceived as an aberration of "normal" heterosexuality. Thus, instead of breaking from a homo-hetero dichotomy through its bisexual and transgender characters, the L Word actually serves to reinforce this dichotomy by treating bisexuals and transgendered people as somehow apart from the rest of human sexuality.

There is some inherent difficulty in explicating how the L Word alienates bisexual and transgendered individuals precisely because it is so overt in its attempts to at least appear as if it is offering a progressive, robust representation of the LGBT community. On the one hand, the show seems to take a definitive, explicit ideological stance merely by focusing on LGBT characters and the way public reception of their sexuality affects their lives, and as such, one might suppose that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to criticize it for any potentially divisive elements. In fact, it is somewhat difficult to recognize these divisive tendencies at first glance, because the show goes to great lengths to essentially flaunt its credibility. This is why one must engage in a close ideological critique of the L Word's rhetorical and narrative devices, because it is only by examining the traces of latent ideology which present themselves in language, rather than the overt ideology declared by the show and its supporters, that one can begin to understand how the L Word alienates bisexuals and transgendered people even as it claims to do the opposite.

As mentioned above, an ideological critique is focused mainly on "the ideology manifest in the artifact and the rhetorical strategies that promote it over other ideologies," with a particular interest in those traces of ideology that reveal a dominant, subjective approach inherent in the artifact but otherwise hidden due to the self-cloaking tendency that is inherent in all ideology (Foss 248). This last point regarding self-cloaking is important to note whenever one is discussion ideology, but especially so when considering ideology expressed in rhetoric, because one cannot hope to parse traces of ideology in a rhetorical artifact without first appreciating how that ideology hides itself. In short, the central "goal" of any ideology is to present itself as anything but; that is to say, ideology can only be truly successful when it is not identified as such by the people believing and enacting it, because it is most successful when it can present itself as "common sense," or intuition, or any form of knowing and interpretation that purports to represent an inherent, "natural" truth.

Appreciating how this phenomenon works in the L Word is particularly important because upon cursory examination, its particular ideological perspective appears anything but hidden. However, the fact that it seems to have an explicit ideology should inform the critic that there is more to its position than meets the eye, because seemingly explicit ideologies by definition cannot help but to shield more implicit ideologies from view. Thus, the L Word's explicit attention to representing LGBT characters actually serves to partially shield its particular treatment of those characters from criticism, because it convinces the audience to ignore any of the subtle traces of a dominant, regressive ideology and instead focus on its more general "positive" ideological position, a position that largely can be summed up as "LGBT people exist, and their interpersonal relationships are more or less like heterosexual people." When an artifact seems to argue for such a basic, seemingly positive, and rather simplistic ideology, the careful critic must take it as a warning sign that there are more complex, possibly negative ideologies at work. Thus, examining how the L Word alienates bisexual and transgendered characters will not only contribute to the field of ideological criticism by further demonstrating the means by which ideology hides and reveals itself, but also by specifically showing how the neoliberal rhetoric of equality and tolerance can often serve to perpetuate regressive ideologies that run counter to its explicitly stated goals and ideals.

Before continuing any further in this study, it will be necessary to first describe the artifact in greater detail. The L Word debuted in 2004, and to understand its relative cultural importance one may consider the various legislative and cultural shifts which have occurred in the intervening years. Firstly, at the time the L Word debuted (and continuing until after its conclusion), the United States military's policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) was fully in force, meaning that homosexual members of the military were forced to keep their sexuality a secret or risk being discharged. DADT featured prominently in one of the show's storylines, because one of the central characters found herself having to deny her relationship in an attempt to remain in the military (in typical television fashion, the story ended with her dramatically declaring her love for her girlfriend in court). Additionally, in 2004, the American public was definitively against the idea of gay marriage, but in just six years, public opinion has shifted to the point that for the first time in history, a majority of Americans favors allowing gay marriage (although this number still fluctuates, the trend has been gradually moving towards this position for some time).

It is in this context that one must consider the L Word, because it helps one to appreciate why it might have deep-seated traces of a dominant, hetero-normative ideology; quite simply, from a purely mercenary perspective, the show's success very well could have depended on its not being too progressive in its implicit ideology, but instead present a kind of "safe" representation of LGBT characters that might appeal to a wider viewing audience. This is also why there is little benefit to discussing the artifact in terms of an author, because although one might point towards the show's creators or the writers or directors of particular episodes, in reality one must face the realization that television shows such as this are produced within the context of a massive corporate structure, such that artistic and rhetorical decisions, while undoubtedly influenced by the specific individuals who happened to work on any given episode, must be considered part of the show's larger production. Of course, this is not meant to excuse the L Word for any of its potentially regressive ideological content, but rather simply is a means of acknowledging how the specifics of the medium itself will influence this study.

As a result, one need not waste time talking about specific writers or directors, but instead may focus on the show itself as kind of dual-natured entity, both rhetor and rhetorical artifact. Of course, accounting for the entire show is well beyond the scope of this project, so it will have to suffice to focus on a few specific episodes that will help support the argument. Because this study is chiefly concerned with the show's representation of bisexuals and transgendered people, the particular episodes under discussion will focus on these characters. The first episode under discussion here is the sixth episode of the first season, entitled "Losing it." Among other storylines, it partially focuses on the character of Alice Pieszecki, a journalist and the only character who self-identifies as bisexual. In the episode, Alice goes on a date with a man named Lisa, who identifies himself as a "lesbian in a man's body," and they continue to date for the next three episodes.

The second two episodes under discussion focus on the only prominent transgendered character in the show, Moira/Max. The earlier episode is titled "Lonestar," and is the seventh episode of the third season. In it, Moira goes through the earliest stages of her gender transformation by taking testosterone injections. The later episode is entitled "Leaving Los Angeles," and is the fourth episode of the sixth and final season, wherein Max (formerly Moira) is abandoned by his lover after becoming pregnant. With this brief synopsis, one can now move on to identifying and analyzing the rhetorical aspects of the show that provide clues to its ideology.

To begin this analysis, it is necessary to define an important term that will help to identify and discretize the traces of ideology revealed in these episodes of the L Word. Thus, one must begin by noting that ideology reveals itself in rhetoric through certain words or phrases, which are frequently called "ideographs," after a term coined by Michael McGee in his 1988 essay "The Ideograph: A link between Rhetoric and Ideology" (McGee 1). Though in his essay McGee limits ideographs to single words, this study need not adhere to such a strict standard, especially because the essential function and effect of ideographs do not change whether one considers only single words or certain repeated phrases. McGee argues that ideology is expressed through rhetoric in the form of ideographs, discrete units of ideology in the form of certain words (or phrases) that work together to maintain "diachronic' and 'synchronic' patterns of political consciousness which have the capacity both to control 'power' and to influence (if not determine) the shape and texture of each individual's 'reality,'" (McGee 5).

In other words, ideographs are the visible points of larger ideologies, and these points, through their complex of historical and contemporaneous meanings, are the language through which ideology is expressed and perpetuated. McGee uses the examples of "law, 'liberty,' 'tyranny,' or 'trial by jury'" to demonstrate what he means by ideograph, because each of these words or phrases, while having multifarious meanings in general, nevertheless purport to "have an obvious meaning, a behaviorally directive self-evidence" when deployed in rhetoric (McGee 6). Thus, the self-cloaking tendency of ideology in general is reflected in a fractal way on the level of the ideograph itself, demonstrating just how pernicious this tendency is.

In the context of the L Word, then, the most important ideographs to consider are those words or concepts which concern themselves with differences of gender, sex, and sexuality, and furthermore, that purport to have consistent, self-evident definitions. As would be expected, then, the most importance ideographs for this study are precisely those that deal with these topics, such as "man," "woman," "bisexual," and "transgender." In addition, the title of the show itself forces one to include "lesbian" in this list, if only because by calling it "the L word" the show imbues it with some special importance.

In fact, the choice to call the show the L Word actually serves as the first clue as to its ideology, because although it purports to consider homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people equally, focusing on the term "lesbian" automatically implies that the show is primarily concerned with homosexual women above and beyond anyone who finds themselves elsewhere on the broad spectrum of human sexuality. This reveals an important assumption on the part of the show, and demonstrates some of the roots of its problematic representation of bisexuality and transgenderism. In short, the show assumes from the get-go that its focus, and its audience's expectations, will revolve predominantly around strictly homosexual women, because this is the subjectivity with the most authority. This makes sense, considering the fact that bisexuality was not even recognized as a distinct form of sexual expression until relatively recently, but it also highlights how the show, rather than pushing forward towards more expansive representations of different subjectivities, seems intent on taking the "safe" route by proclaiming itself to be primarily interested in that form of female sexuality deemed most acceptable in contemporary society (Herek 264, Schneider 73). (One can quite reasonably argue that the L Word's representation of lesbians is not substantially better than its treatment of bisexuals, because it depends so much on patriarchal conceptions of female homosexuality, but that is a topic for another study).

This focus on lesbian women specifically has been noted by previous critics, although without the attendant recognition that this focus comes at the expense of other characters (Moore 3). This focus on lesbian women specifically comes to the fore when considering the character of Alice, because she is the only self-identified bisexual on the show, even though other characters maintain romantic relationships with members of the opposite sex at various times. In "Losing it," Alice meets Lisa, a man who self-identifies as a lesbian in a man's body. While Alice is talking to her mother on the phone, Lisa talks with their mutual friend Shane, who tells him that Alice "doesn't want to be a lesbian anymore." He responds by saying "maybe I can change her mind," and in this moment the L Word reveals an underlying ideology that stands in stark contrast to its supposedly neoliberal focus on inclusion and equality.

While the introduction of Lisa, a "lesbian-identified man" seems intended to broaden the show's representation of different sexualities, the way it does this actually only serves to alienate bisexuals and reiterate, albeit in a modified form, some of the more atrocious assumptions previously used to diminish the identity and subjectivity of lesbians. When Lisa says "maybe I can change her mind," he is effectively reiterating a common misogynist trope regarding lesbianism, except in this case being a lesbianism is used to alienate and condemn bisexuality, whereas in the past, heterosexuality was used to alienate and condemn lesbianism. In short, the original version of this trope depended upon the assumption that female homosexuality was not actually a genuine phenomenon, but rather that lesbians were merely women who had not yet had sex with the "right" man. Thus, when Lisa says "maybe I can change her mind," he is repeating verbatim the same rhetoric which was previously used to deny lesbian women their sexual identities. The only difference is that the L Word changes the target of the slur; instead of denying female homosexuality, it implicitly denies and alienates female bisexuality by suggesting that Alice is in reality a lesbian, except she just has not been with the right one yet. That Lisa is actually a man matters very little, because within the rhetorical boundaries of the show, their relationship is considered a homosexual one, due to the fact that Lisa self-identifies as a lesbian. Thus, the L Word effectively discounts the possibility of genuine bisexuality, but manages to do it in such as way as to appear to be celebrating sexual diversity.

If the L Word's treatment of bisexuality is lacking, then its treatment of transgenderism is outright appalling. Moira's story begins relatively hopefully, with Jenny helping her in her transition to Max, as seen in the episode "Lonestar," but by the final season, Max has effectively turned into the show's token transgendered character, present only inasmuch as he can be used to make the show feel relevant to its immediate historical context. While more friendly responses to Moira/Max's transition have described her "as a stone butch who becomes a queer trans boi, moves through a female to male transgender identity that seems committed to binary gender identity and hegemonic masculinity, and finally, settles in to a more ambivalent relationship to masculinity and queerness," this gives Moira/Max far more agency than the show actually grants her, because it pretends that the various transitions in his/her life are indicative of a complex characterization, rather than a relatively blatant deployment of stereotype (Reed 170). Transgendered individuals lead lives just as complex and multifarious as anyone else, but rather than demonstrate this complexity, the L Word essentially relies on gimmicks and stereotypes in its representation of transgenderism (even if it does make some efforts to discuss the difficulty faced by transgendered individuals in the workplace) (Barclay and Scott 499).

To see how fully this is the case, one need only consider Max's eventual pregnancy, revealed in the episode "Leaving Los Angeles," in its immediate historical context. The episode aired in February 2009, just a few months after Thomas Beatie, "a transgender man who had had 'top' surgery and been on hormone therapy but had stopped taking testosterone in anticipation of getting pregnant," actually did become pregnant (Currah 330). Although the particulars of Max's pregnancy were somewhat different, the fact that the L Word had its sole transgender character get pregnant just a few months after a transgendered pregnant man became one of the hottest news topics reveals the extent to which it considers transgendered people as individuals, with lives as complex and varied as anyone else. In a show ostensibly concerned with representing the varied lives of women with different sexual preferences and identities, one must question what it means for said show to dramatically change the course of its only transgendered character's narrative in order for it to fit in with the most recent, well-known representation of a transgendered person in the media, regardless of how much of an outlier that representation is.

After examining how the L Word treats its bisexual and transgendered characters, it will now be possible to organize these representations into a coherent ideology. Firstly, it seems clear that the show considers bisexuals and transgendered people as somehow lesser, or at least less relevant, than strictly homosexual women. This is evidenced by the name the L Word, but also by the way the identities of its bisexual and transgendered characters are seemingly denied or alienated. Furthermore, the particular form this alienation and denial takes is actually not new, because it seems to reify the very same rhetorical methods by which homosexuality was previously alienated and denied by a heterosexual hegemony. In a sense, then, the ideology implicit in the L Word, and revealed through its particular conception of "lesbian," "bisexual," and "transgender," is merely an evolved form of hetero-normative ideology.