48
Popular Culture Review
solely in biology. The very elements of lesbianism that are resistant to dominant
ideological beliefs about women cannot be effectively explored through
individualized, therapeutic talk show discourse. This is the most common way
that lesbianism was discussed on old-style talk shows—as something peculiar to
a subgroup, and unrelated to the (naturalized) heterosexual viewing audience.
CONCLUSIONS
Because talk shows are constructed upon liberal and therapeutic discourses,
with their psychologizing, individualizing impulse, they contain built-in filters
that structure their discussions of lesbianism and racism in counter-productive
ways. While they might seem to be innocent, entertaining investigations, they
help maintain inequality, by reinforcing understandings that are antithetical to its
dismantling. Their emphasis on emotion translates inequality into a universally
shared experience in which, as a Night Talk audience member put it, “There’s no
such thing as a wrong emotion.” Discussions often became relativistic, with
therapeutic, confessional turn-taking appearing to be the only goal. This
emphasis on sharing, while unquestionably creating a less raucous and
ostensibly more respectful atmosphere than on new-style shows (where
understanding is anything but the goal) often caused the discussion to leave the
realm of history, and enter one where intentions, not actions, are all-important.
While the sensationalism and conflict of the new-style talk show make it fall
very far short of serving as a useful vehicle for the examination of racism and
homophobia,3*5 the good old days of the old-style show left much to be desired as
well.
Bowling Green State University
Becca Cragin
Notes
1 For images o f the talk show as carnival or freak show, see Gamson and Priest. For the
talk show as game show, see Abt and Mustazza, Munson, and Rapping. For the talk show
as Mardi Gras, see Priest; and for the talk show as pornography, see Abt and Mustazza.
2 For particularly egregious examples o f racial and class bias, see Abt and Mustazza,
which is rife with statements like:
[Talk shows] sh ow case. . . the hallmarks o f what is sometimes
referred to as low class behavior— not to mention cognitive and
linguistic errors that so tellingly distinguish certain people . . . By
watching, participating in, and enjoying these talk-show spectacles,
people effectively become low class. (22)
3 For studies that describe the elective model as representing the majority o f lesbians’
experience (with the primary model representing a strong minority), see Diamond and
Savin-Williams, Esterberg, Golden, Rust, Stein, and Whisman. In addition to the
common cultural convention o f men’s experiences being viewed as universal, the
obscurity o f the elective model in the scholarship may be due to researchers’
oversampling o f community-affiliated lesbians (Diamond and Savin-Williams 315;
Esterberg 178), who might be more likely to identify with a primary model than
unaffiliated women, especially given the stigmatization o f bisexuality within many