1 Ms. D.M. Wentink MA – 5741203
Masterthesis Linguistics rMA (18 ECTS) - Universiteit van Amsterdam 47 pages / 20.777 words
Supervisor: Ms. Dr. E.A. Bannink Second reader: Ms. Drs. M. van der Laaken July 2014
A Critical Discourse Analysis of
“KRO’s Uit de Kast” (KRO, 2010)
1. Introduction
In the Dutch TV show “KRO’s Uit de Kast” (‘Out of the Closet’) a number of young male and female1
LGB participants partake in interviews and conversations with a presenter, after which they disclose their homosexuality in front of family, peers, and colleagues while being documented on camera. The makers of the show explicitly state on the website devoted to the show that they aim to educate their audience on gender equality and the emancipation of homosexuals. The question is whether the program makers have succeeded in doing so. Does the format benefit the cause of making people aware of the struggle LGB teenagers face when they decide to open up about their sexual orientation and empower the participants who tell their stories? And are the aims of the makers compatible with the genre of the confessional reality tv show that has been opted for?
This research aims to find answers to these questions through a close look at the approach of the makers and analyses of the interviews, conversations, and comments that were part of the show. The central topics of analysis are homophobia, heteronormativity, and gender normativity, for these three issues often go by unnoticed in society while leaving an enormous impact.
2. Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach in the field of social and language research. Broadly, it “studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality” (van Dijk, 2001, p. 352). CDA, in other words, researches the power
2
relations between the social structures in order to understand the underlying construction that is the foundation of the social problem. CDA, therefore, concentrates on the dialectical relations of the discursive aspect and the other elements within the social practice.
For a critical discourse analysis, Fairclough (2003) suggests a schema for language critique. CDA research starts with a focus on social problems rather than the conventional ‘research question’ as Fairclough argues: “[this] accords with the critical intent of [CDA] – to produce knowledge which can lead to emancipatory change” (p. 209). For the analysis it is therefore important to start with identifying the social practices the problem is located in. Social practices are rather fixed forms of social activities such as job interviews and news reports. They are made up of different elements: activities, subjects, objects, instruments, time and place, forms of consciousness, and discourse. Critical Discourse Analysis focuses on the dialectical relations between the discourse and the other elements in the practice. In the next step, the discourse itself is investigated. The ‘order of discourse’, the way different genres, styles and discourses are networked, is analyzed. This order may be hegemonic: some may be more dominant than other. As Fairclough explains: “a particular social structuring of semiotic difference may become hegemonic, become part of the legitimizing common sense which sustains relations of domination” (2003, p. 207). The textual/interactional analysis, both interdiscursive and linguistic, is to find out what kind of speech the discourses are made up of, what the discourses allow to be said and also what they prevent from been said (Best, 2005). After the analysis of the discourse, the researcher should consider whether the social order in a sense ‘needs’ the problem and to identify those who benefit from the problem and have no interest in it being resolved. The aim here is to look for unrealized possibilities past the social problem. Here it is important for the researcher to “never take any social phenomena for granted, […] to open up alternative options and de-mystify power-relations, latent beliefs and ideologies” (Wodak, 2008). Finally, the researcher has to reflect critically on the analysis, “requiring the analyst to reflect of where s/he is coming from, how s/he herself/himself is socially positioned” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 210).
2.1 CDA and Gender and Sexuality
In the CDA research paradigm, discourse is not only defined in the linguistic sense as social interaction in a specific situation, but also in the sense of Foucault, who argues that “a ‘discourse’ […] is a body of statements that is both organized and systematic, and is presented in the form of a set of rules” (Best, 2005, p. 105). In his work, Foucault describes how discursive power works on bodies. As Best proposes: “In this way, discursive formations allow us to allocate people within a network of categories” (p. 105). This generates notions of what is considered a ‘normal’ sexuality, and ‘normal’ (sexual) behavior. Sexuality and gender are not determined by ‘natural’ power; the power is “integrated by laws, rules, norms, habits, and […] a general consensus, and thus [takes] the form of what Gramsci called
3
“hegemony” (Gramsci 1971)” (van Dijk, 2001, p. 355). In the field of ‘Gender and Language’, research mainly focused on the division male vs. female until in 2005 Lazar proposed ‘Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis’ as a new approach. This “feminist perspective would claim that many social problems are inherently gendered, thus not viewing ‘gender’ or ‘sex’ as isolated variables, but as dimensions informing theory and methodology in all research” (Wodak, 2008, p. 193). Wodak stresses that “critical studies of gender relations should aim at deconstructing the hegemony and symbolic violence of gender in sociopolitical contexts” (p. 197).
2.1.1 Heteronormativity
When a child is first introduced to the world, it is pronounced either a boy or a girl based on its biological sex. It is only when a child grows up and learns to express himself or herself, that gender becomes visible. The environment is probably a major influence on this. Sexual culture is dominated by heterosexuality and compulsory gender roles: society expects people to take up feminine and masculine roles within heterosexual relationships. “When everyday talk is analyzed, we find that ‘heterosexuality is “naturalized” – constructed as an invisible (unoriented) category” (Kitzinger, 2006, cited in Coates, 2013, p.538). Heterosexuality is the unmarked case. Heterosexuals are considered ‘normal’ because this sexual orientation leads to reproduction, “’ [other]’ people have ‘sexuality’ but heterosexual people are ‘just people’” (Best, 2005, p. 213) . Heterosexuality represents and controls both our economy, culture, and ideas about the world. This heterosexual hegemony has been discursively constructed through time, and rules over everyone who does not conform to normative sexualities. The heterosexual hierarchy is topped by people that are monogamous, reproductive, and fulfill the accompanying compulsory gender roles (Coates, 2013). Men top the hierarchy, and therefore, men and women are treated differently in this respect. Men who do not conform to the gender roles are lower in the hierarchy, especially if they are also gay. As Eckert and McConnell-Ginet argue: “The outcome is that while activities and behaviors labeled as male are treated as appropriate for females as well as for males, those labeled as female are treated as appropriate only for females. One way of looking at this is that female activities and behaviors emerge as marked -- as reserved for a special subset of the population -- while male activities and behaviors emerge as unmarked or normal.” (2003, p. 21).
Research on parents’ opinions and reactions to non-normative behavior (Kane, 2006) has shown that parents accept gender nonconformity more with girls than with boys. Especially fathers feel they need to accomplish hegemonic masculinity in their boys, because their sexuality would reflect their own. Solebello & Elliott’s research of the heteronormative strategies fathers employ to make sense of their teenage children’s sexuality shows that although fathers are not actively involved in sex education, they do care about their boys’ sexuality and actively craft hegemonic masculinity (2011). Both Kane
4
(2006) and Solebello & Elliott (2011) find that parents who see non-normative behavior in their children, often consider that the child might be homosexual. Martin (2009) studied the role of the mother in children’s view on sexuality. She concludes that mothers’ construct of heteronormative understandings in early childhood contributes to the sense that heterosexuality is natural. Most children grow up with a heteronormative view of the world: they are told about heterosexual love and marriage and homosexuality is mostly invisible for young children,. In interviews with mothers, Martin finds that only 6% of the sample acknowledges the possibility their child could be gay and tell their child about homosexuality, often because they have relatives/friends in the LGBT community. Over half of the mothers would love and support their child if s/he turned out to be gay, although they would wish it were not. A third of the mothers would actively try to discourage homosexuality in their children, often because of religious reasons.
2.1.2 Stigma
In everyday introductions, sexual preference is not often discussed. Heterosexuality is the default orientation. If an individual wants to express and/or emphasize a deviating sexuality, it has to be performed, and repeatedly and interactionally achieved (Coates, 2013). Individuals that are concerned with hiding their homosexuality, then, can camouflage their sexuality, and pretend to be heterosexual. People may have several reasons to do this: because they have not come out yet, to either themselves or others, or because they believe homosexuality is a discreditable identity. A discreditable identity is the definition of a stigma, according to Erving Goffman (1963, 1990). Goffman explains that, for the stigmatized, there is a difference between virtual identity, which is expected and projected by others upon one, and actual social identity. The difference can be so substantial that it overshadows all other characteristics: the stigma becomes the centralized part of the social identity of the individual. This can cause problems in social interaction because “an individual who might have been received easily in ordinary social intercourse possesses a trait that can obtrude itself upon attention and turn those of us whom he meets away from him” (p. 15). Homosexuality is a stigma that can be easily hidden. It cannot be seen from a person’s appearance, although some people mistake normative feminine behavior, like metrosexuality, for homosexuality. A homosexual may choose to pass as a heterosexual, but in doing so, homosexuals will always have to be careful not to disclose behavior that could ‘out’ them. As Goffman states: “the person with the secret failing, then, must be alive to the social situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore likely to be alienated from the simpler world in which those around him apparently dwell” (p. 110). A risk of pretending to be heterosexual is finding oneself in situations where homosexuality is made fun of and not being able to stand up for oneself. Goffman describes this as “feelings of disloyalty and self-contempt when [he] cannot take action against ‘offensive’ remarks made by members of the category he is passing into against the category he is
5
passing out of…” (p. 109). It is therefore almost inevitable that there comes a point where pretending is no longer an option. When e.g., LGBs feel that close relations, “ratified in our society by mutual confession of invisible failings, cause him either to admit his situation to the intimate or feel guilty for not doing so […], hence cast a shadow” (p. 94). At that moment, they decide to come out.
Fields (2001) shows that not only homosexuals themselves have to deal with their stigma, but also their parents. According to her, “straight parents contend with a “courtesy stigma”; that is, their stigma is courtesy of their child’s deviant behavior or identity (Goffman, 1963)”. To deal with this stigma, parents try to reestablish their children and themselves as “normal”. By showing that their children participate in heterosexual rituals and conform to normative gender roles, parents argue their homosexual children are normal. Fields gives an example of a mother who worried her daughter would look ‘like a truck driver’ the first time they met after her disclosure of her homosexuality over the phone. The mother was relieved when this turned out not to be the case. The mother was afraid her daughter would abandon the normative female gender role she conformed to before and was relieved her daughter had stayed ‘the same’ as before. Fields explains: “As these parents based their claim to moral standing on the extent to which they and their children were not queer, they bolstered the heteronormative foundation of the mainstream society to which they wanted their children and themselves to be readmitted” (p. 183). Fields concludes that, “normative understandings of gender, family, and sexuality simultaneously provide foundation for stigma, an avenue out of deviance, and the means by which stigma is perpetuated” (p. 168).
2.1.3. Tolerance and Acceptance
Individuals with an undervalued gender identity, a stigmatized sexual identity, who are different from the rest, are often treated as abnormal. Other behavioral standards are projected on them, and sometimes they are even feared. Homophobia “refers to a fear of homosexuality in others (and probably oneself) and frequently implies verbal and physical aggression towards individuals (self-) identified as lesbian or gay” (Gough, 2002, p. 219). According to Gough, homophobia in males is most evident in heterosexual male environments such as in school, the pub, and sports clubs. He argues that in these contexts homophobic comments are used “in asserting heterosexual and masculine credentials, a project bolstered by ‘humorously’ locating ‘weakness’ in other men” (p. 219). These comments are used to regulate ‘hegemonic masculinities’, dominant forms of masculinity which derive from and serve to reinforce divisions between men and between men and women to the benefit of privileged groups. The top of the hegemony is usually described as a ‘white, heterosexual, middle class, masculine man’ often married with children, with a fulltime job, and a healthy physique. In his research, Gough analyzes homophobia in heterosexual, male, college students who “might display greater investment in presenting themselves as liberal or ‘politically correct’” (p. 222). He questions,
6
“whether and how homosexuality in general and gay men in particular can be subjected to abuse and ridicule where institutional and cultural norms exist promoting tolerance and equal rights” (p. 222). Gough (2002) lists the following most common homophobic ways of speaking about homosexuality (p. 252):
‘Tolerance’: the speaker professes a liberal attitude to homosexuality while also producing statements that could be regarded as homophobic (as in ‘I’ve always tolerated it but…’).
‘Privacy’: the speaker expresses disapproval of public displays of (homo)sexuality ‘Difference’: the speaker draws clear distinctions (between lesbian and gay persons and
sexual acts, gay men and lesbian women, homosociality, and homosexuality).
‘Individualism’: the speaker construes sexuality as personal choice (unconnected to ideology and power relations)
In the ‘tolerance’ discourse, much effort is devoted to mitigating homophobic comments by adding a disclaimer that needs to emphasize that the speaker is concerned that he might be perceived as homophobic, which he does not want to be. Others might express that they have no problems with homosexuality as long as it remains in the private domain and they are not confronted with it. They maintain that it should be controlled – “as if to paint lesbians and gay men as immature deviants deserving of sympathy and correction who are unskilled in the self-discipline required of and attained by ordinary decent heterosexuals.” (p. 234). Public display of homosexuality is often condemned in religious circles because it is feared homosexuals might corrupt heterosexuals, especially children. Another power attributed to homosexuals is the power to emasculate other men by the threat of rape. As Gough argues: “The gay other is imbued with potential power and strength, a common enough depiction in heterosexual folklore – […] and one which conflicts, ironically, with equally popular images of gay men as effeminate and weak” (p. 227). The ‘difference’ discourse is expressed by means of e.g. the slang term ‘no homo’: to deny any homosexual intents by a speaker after an utterance which might have given such an impression. It shows that the speaker may be okay with homosociality, but empathetically does not want to be perceived as homosexual. Speakers advocating ‘individualism’ see homosexuality as an “individual expression and responsibility” (p. 228). They mean that homosexuals then can choose to be heterosexual, so they are not discriminated based on their sex.
3. The study: Identifying the social practices involved
This section gives a closer look into the social practices that are involved in the TV show. The first is the concept of television show in general and what it entails. Afterwards, the focus shifts to the actual TV show involved and its script and format, and the role of the presenter. The second social practice is the ‘out event’. This paragraph explores why people come out in a formal way, what coming-out means, and how it affects both the speaker and listener.
7
3.1 Social Practice 1: ‘The TV show’
Every day on television, someone, somewhere, tells his or her personal story in a show. These stories often focus on a participant who asks the TV show for help to solve a problem. This participant trades a confession for help and resources to solve his or her problem, while the program makers have the opportunity to make their program in return. Examples of this sort of TV are programs such as Obese (morbidly overweight person attains healthy weight) and Hoarder (person with hoarding disorder is guided towards healthy living conditions). The genre follows a fixed pattern of event: there is a public announcement/acknowledgement of the problem; while on the road to salvation a crisis occurs; crisis is solved; a happy end is established. When these ‘confessional reality TV shows’ contain more participants with the same problem, they become a shared narrative of a particular group of people that can educate the viewer. The makers of “KRO’s Uit de Kast”, want to address the taboo of homosexuality in this way. They state on their website that their decision was inspired by a report by the Inspection for Education that shows that about fifty percent of students in secondary education believe that it is not beneficial for a student to come-out at school (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2009). The program makers want to reveal why students believe this and the perception of LGB youth on the matter, and what difficulties LGB youth face because of it. They want to contribute to the acceptance of homosexuality, in particular environments where it is still difficult to debate.
By showing a series of individual stories of homosexuality, the viewer, who might have a stereotypical idea of homosexuality, is presented with a more detailed image. As Blommaert explains: “The greater the distance, the more general and less precise our categories become. We tend to have extremely nuanced and fine-grained categories for that which is closest to us, but may have to revert to simple stereotypes exuding incapacity to perceive all kinds of differences as soon as we move away” (2005, p. 206). The program makers hope that with this knowledge the viewers gain, they also gain more understanding and respect for homosexuals. This would be seen as one of the strategies to combat prejudice.
The TV show “KRO’s Uit de Kast” is broadcast by the Katholieke Radio Omroep or KRO (transl. Catholic Radio Broadcasting Organization). The KRO was established in 1925. Its Catholic identity has become less prominent since the 1950s but has not disappeared altogether. Ethical and religious topics still feature regularly in the programs the KRO produces. The website of the TV show states that the presenter, Arie Boomsma, follows young LGB individuals during their coming-out, documenting the reactions of friends, family, and peers. On their website the production company involved explains that the most important questions for the television show are: what reaction does the LGB partaker expect; is this expectation met, and is s/he relieved afterwards? The production company also states that the presenter supports homosexual young individuals at their coming-out to family and friends.
8
The content of an episode is described as including two or more ‘disclosures’ of the individuals’ homosexuality. For a short period, the presenter is asked to ‘hang out’ with the individuals to guide them in the process of the ‘actual’ coming-out. Apart from the television show, the makers have created a multimedia concept to stimulate openness and discussion about homosexuality for young LGB individuals and their surroundings. On the program website, there is a forum where people can read and place stories and comments. To emphasize the urgency of the platform, the presenter Arie Boomsma is quoted, saying: “The emancipation of homosexuals in The Netherlands seems completed, but there is sometimes still a fairly tough stance toward homosexuality.”
The producer’s website states that they in particular look for participants that have trouble coming out by themselves in contexts that have the reputation of being non-acceptant of homosexuality, such as youth clubs with a religious signature, sports, and school. The site also explicitly names obstacles that homosexual youths face, like expectations from family and friends, and fear of conflict or bullying. The combination of contexts (environments and persons) and obstacles form the theme of the episode, e.g. coming out in a Christian community, or coming out to a soccer team.
3.1.1 The TV show: Script and Format
Every episode of the TV show follows the same script, although some participants have more than two coming-out.
The beginning of the show, the theme is introduced together with the participant-guest, his age, and the people that he will come-out too. Hereafter, the situation is further explained by either the participant or the presenter in a voice-over while bits of the participant’s everyday life are shown in clips.
After the introduction, the presenter Arie Boomsma meets the participant for the first time in a place where they can “secretely” talk about the coming-out. The participant is invited to tell his personal journey: how he found out he is homosexual, why he wants to come-out, and to whom, and what the obstacles are. Secondly, the first coming-out context is introduced, in voice-over comments by the presenter and/or interviews by the presenter of the people in it. Because the crew does not want to out the boy before his coming-out, they pretend to shoot a different kind of show. Either they pretend that they do not know the participant at all e.g. when they pretend to make a documentary of a theme park and asked if they could tag along with the group the participant is with, or pretend to follow a participant for different reasons e.g. when they pretend to focus on religious youths.
This part is followed by a short conversation before the coming-out between the participant and the presenter, which could be seen as a sort of pep talk to encourage the boy. After the first coming-out, the moment is evaluated by the presenter and the participant, or by the participant alone with a
diary-9
cam. Next, the participant usually comes out to the parents, the culmination of the show. Again, there is a conversation/ pep talk beforehand and an evaluation afterwards, together with the parents and others, and/or just between the presenter and the participant. Finally, the presenter pays the participant a visit a few weeks later to reflect upon the events that took place.
3.1.2 The TV show: The role of the presenter
The host of the program Arie Boomsma (1974) is known for television programs such as “40 days without sex” (EO, 2008), “If you really knew me” (KRO, 2011) (Dutch: Over de Streep), “Speechless” (KRO, 2011), about stutterers, and “He is a She” (KRO, 2014), about transgender people. He is religious, and he has written (non-)fiction books about poetry and religion. In his work on television, radio, and literature, he combines religious issues with controversial subjects, like transgenderism and homosexuality. In 2009, he was suspended by the broadcast organization he worked for, for a scantily dressed photo series for the first issue of the glossy magazine “L’HOMO”. This photo series also clearly show his collection of tattoos, including a full covering medieval style back piece of the Christian theme “Saint George and the dragon”.
The presenter of the TV show plays several roles: he not only presents the program and interviews the LGB participants, but he also supports the boys and their friends/peers/family. In terms of Goffman (1959, 1990) the presenter could be a go-between or mediator who “earns the secrets of each side”. He makes “an effort to translate the differences between speaker and listeners into a view that is more acceptable collectively than the original projection” (p. 150). On top of that he may also be seen as a service specialist, “who specialize[s] in the construction, repair and maintenance of the show their clients maintain before other people” (p. 152). To be able to play this role, the presenter needs detailed information about the back stage of the participant’s performance and this knowledge makes him almost a “member of the team” without sharing the same risks, and without disclosing any information about himself. He presents himself as a ‘wise’ person (Goffman, 1963, 1990) “before whom the individual with a fault need feel no shame nor exert self-control, knowing that in spite of his failing he will be seen as an ordinary other” (1963, 1990, p. 41). According to Goffman, the service specialists are in a position “to exploit their knowledge in order to gain concessions from the performer whose secrets they possess” (p. 156). In the TV show, the participant has ‘given’ his secret to the presenter to be exploited on television and this gives the presenter the position to demand concessions. The participant then might show more on television than he had previously thought he would or wanted to give. Although the program is eventually aired on TV, the production of the show is very secretive. The presenter is a sort of “service specialist of questionable repute” (p. 155) that participants do not want to be seen with at first, for that would ‘out’ them before the actual coming-out. At the same time, the presenter can be seen as a confidant (Goffman, 1959, 1990) to whom the participant
10
“confesses his sins, freely, detailing the sense in which the impression given during a performance was merely an impression” (p. 158). However, there are differences. Goffman describes confidants as unselfish, people who “[do] not make a business of receiving such confidences” (p. 158). Therefore, we may conclude that the part of the presenter is in a way ambiguous: he makes an effort to support and help the participants on the way to their coming-out, but he also exploits their stories to make a TV show. His support is also a temporary part, only for the duration of the shooting of the program.
3.2 Social Practice 2: ‘Coming-out’
After careful self-exploration, self-identified lesbian and gay individuals choose to ‘come-out’. Short for coming out of the closet, this event is the one thing all individuals in the LGB community have in common. According to Liang (1997), the question “How out are you?” implies that coming-out is “a matter of degree rather than a binary position” (p. 291), and thus lacks a central definition. Nevertheless, Liang proposes that at least one of three recognizable properties appear: “self-presentation as a lesbian or gay to the self; self-“self-presentation as lesbian or gay to others; membership in a series of ongoing acts of self-definition, and/or self-presentation as lesbian or gay” (p. 291). Within the field of CDA, Deborah Chirrey has written extensively on the act of coming-out. In Chirrey (2003), she researches coming-out as a speech act and explores to what extent the new self is created and how speakers’ and hearers’ realities are altered after the coming-out. The article is inspired by Liang (1997), who defines coming-out as a speech act that “not only describes a state of affairs,… but also brings those affairs, a new gay self, into being. By presenting a gay self, an individual alters social reality by creating a community of listeners and thereby establishing the beginnings of a new gay-aware culture. Coming out is, in this respect, a performative utterance (Austin 1962) that can be seen as revolutionary” (p. 293). Chirrey distinguishes three types of coming-out, first there is the coming-out to the self, which is the recognition of being gay. Although this is not a speech-act in the canonical sense – it is an internal psychological process – it does create a shift in perception of the individual. The coming-out to others is a true speech-act (although it can be achieved by using non-verbal methods). It is a performative, at least when it is successful and thus when the speaker gets the acknowledgement of the hearer. Then there is the practice of ‘outing’ a person, in which others announce an individual’s homosexuality, although as Chirrey notes “there is a belief that the onus is on the gay or lesbian individual to verbalize his or her sexuality or else he/she will not be regarded as being out” (2003, p. 28). The locution of coming-out can be very direct like “I am gay” or less direct “I’m attracted to guys”, or girls if lesbian, which states the same thing. Connotations and collocations can be used to try to evoke a more preferable evaluation of the expression. The illocutionary force of the locution of coming-out is the possibility to alter reality for the speaker and the hearer in interaction. “It not only involves the speaker in an act but it may also have the force of causing the listener to
11
change his or her perspective on the world in order to accommodate this new information” (Chirrey, 2003, p. 30). The effect of the illocutionary force is the perlocution. The listener’s stance on homosexuality also has an influence on how s/he responds to the coming-out. The listener may take the coming-out as a ‘disclosure’, and frame the action “in terms of a neutral act or revelation of information that is viewed in a non-judgmental way” (p. 32). They may also interpret the coming-out as a ‘confession’ or ‘admission’, notions that “resonate[s] with a sense of acknowledging criminality, sinfulness and blame, while phrases such as ‘his secret’ and ‘in hiding’ suggest that being gay is characterized by clandestine activity, presumably due to its supposedly shameful nature” (p. 32). The speaker is dependent on the listener for the performativity of the coming-out and Chirrey (2003) stresses that “not all hearers are willing or able to alter their behavior or thought patterns” (p. 33). Possible perlocutionsare, denial of the coming-out, or a “temporary acknowledgement,… a creation of a sexual identity that is transient, lasting only for that particular interaction” (p. 33). The result could be that the coming-out is never mentioned again, or an acknowledgement that is “limited to certain contexts and circumstances” when e.g. parents forbid a child to come-out to others. In these cases, reality can also be altered in such a way that a form of homophobia is unleashed upon the speaker by the hearer.
In a second article, Chirrey (2011) researches script formulations and grammatical choices in coming-out advice online. She argues that the purpose of these script formulations is to “normalize the act of coming-out as a routine event and as a rational course of action for the LGB individual” (p. 283). The person that comes out is positively formulated as being “reasonable, emotionally healthy, moral and loving”, while those who they come-out to are “discursively constructed […] as being initially prejudiced against LGB people and, while some ultimately overcome this prejudice, others do not” (p. 284). The text encourages a specific moral stance and position to the individuals that are looking for help. They recommend emphasizing their coming-out as a desire for honesty. Because the individual may seem to have a “fragmented, confused or incoherent sense of self”, the importance of “continuity of the self” is stressed with phrases like, “Tell them you are still the same…”, LGBs should emphasize that “their fundamental identity and sense of self is unaltered and unchanged by the process of coming-out” (p. 296). By showing positive dispositions of the ‘out’ LGB people, the texts create a positive view of coming-out in the sense that it leads to a better life. The texts advocate visibility of LGB people. As Chirrey concludes: “[by] normalizing them as individuals, these advice texts disrupt canonical heterosexist narratives and challenge anti-LGB-discourse” (p. 296).
3.3 Summary
The TV show “KRO’s Uit de Kast” aims to create more understanding about homosexuals, and does this by showing the struggle of coming-out. The structure of the show is schematically pictured in figure
12
(1). Embedded in the social practice of the TV show are the confessions of the participants and those close to them. In the interviews, the participants explain the problem they need resolved, and the TV show presents this to the viewer as the evidence for the need of their show. The presenter establishes himself as a confidant, service specialist, and mediator who supports the participant during the events, while at the same time he is the constant factor and embodiment of the TV show that needs to create a show worthy of watching. The coming-out to others is a trial run and functions as a template for the final coming-out, which is the nucleus of the show. It is the more important obstacle the participants need to overcome, and it is prepared for by a coming-out to peers/siblings/colleagues, in which the participants find support from their own surroundings to face the final coming-out.
The participants’ view on their own sexuality is influenced by their background; together with the stories from their surroundings these form the pieces of a puzzle. And together they create the story of the episode. The resulting texts ‘give off’ information about the speakers’ position on homosexuality. They not only tell the personal story of the participant and why he has so much trouble coming-out, but also provide information on how the power relations in society are shaped, and directly and indirectly affect those involved.
4. The Data
4.1 Selection of the Data
Six episodes (out of twelve, 2 seasons) have been selected for analysis. I have opted for episodes with males participating (there was only one girl). These participants have a similar cultural background: the episode that took place on the Caribbean island Bonaire (special municipality of the Netherlands) has been left out. Because of the Christian background of the broadcasting organization and presenter, and because homosexuality is generally not accepted in Christianity, two episodes in the sample include males whose main issue is their religion. Other episodes where chosen for the practical reason that they were available for transcription2.
The episodes analyzed are:
1. Derk Anne (20) is a Christian and comes out in front of his Christian student society and to his grandparents.
2. Corné (21) is a Christian and comes out to his siblings and parents. 3. Theo (20) comes out to his parents and a group of close friends.
2 Many thanks to Marloes Oomen for transcribing and to SkyHigh TV for providing DVDs of the episodes.
"KRO's Uit de Kast" Interviews
Coming-out
others
Coming-out
parents
Figure 113
4. Niek (15) is already out to his parents and is the only one with a boyfriend. He comes out to his ‘Korfball’ sports team and his high-school peers.
5. Thijs (19) comes out to the fanfare orchestra he plays in, his mother, and his father (divorced).
6. Daan (19) tells his sister, parents, and two groups of friends from his soccer club.
4.2 Participant Stories
Below are short summaries of the episodes that are analyzed to give more context to the analyses.
4.2.1 Derk Anne
The parents of Derk Anne live abroad as missionaries, and they and Derk Anne’s brother know already about his homosexuality. Arie meets him at his dorm, which he shares with other students. He has been supported by his grandparents throughout his life and he wants to tell them about his homosexuality. Derk Anne is a member of a religious student society, and he actively attends meetings. Before telling his grandparents, he goes to an official meeting of the student society to come out to the whole crowd that he is gay. In between the coming-outs, Arie talks with Derk Anne about how he found out he is gay and they meet with his brother who will also join Derk Anne to support him during the final coming-out to his grandparents. This coming-out is not shown visually on television: we only hear what is said. Initially, the grandparents invited the camera crew in, but afterwards they declared that they did not want to appear on television. After a few weeks, Arie meets with just Derk Anne to talk about the follow-up after the days of his coming-out.
4.2.2 Corné
Corné wants to come out to his siblings and his parents. He comes from a very strict religious background, in which homosexuality is highly condemned; even pop music and television are barely accepted. Arie meets Corné on an indoor speed-skating track far away from his hometown, because Corné is afraid he will bump into people he knows. For the coming-out, Corné has arranged for him and his siblings to visit an amusement park. During lunch, Corné leads them to a back area where Arie is to support him during the event. Afterwards, they decide to go back to his parents’ place to tell them, but because of their faith, this cannot be filmed. Nonetheless, the microphones are welcome and the coming-out is audiotaped while the viewer sees the outside of the house. When Arie comes to check-up after a few weeks, Corné’s parents are still not keen on appearing on television, so they wrote a letter, which Corné reads out loud.
4.2.3 Theo
Arie meets Theo on a campsite where Theo works as a member of the entertainment crew. Theo has his own mobile home to sleep in, but he is so anxious that people would overhear their conversation that they move to a more open space to talk about the coming events. Theo is planning a trip around the world on his own and wants to tell his parents and siblings about his sexuality beforehand. After
14
this coming-out, he also tells a group of close friends. The follow-up is at the airport, when Theo is about to leave for his trip.
4.2.4 Niek
Niek is the youngest boy to come out in the program, and the only one with a boyfriend. He has already come-out to his parents, who have no problem with his sexuality, but he still hides it in public. He has been bullied before and switched schools because of it, but now he wants to tell his schoolmates during school hours and his sports team after practice. The follow-up is in front of the school, together with his boyfriend.
4.2.5 Thijs
Thijs’ parents are divorced and do not know about his sexual orientation. He has not told them or his siblings because he is afraid of his father’s reaction. The father is a masculine man with tattoos, who, according to Thijs, together with his friends has made rude and hurtful comments about homosexuals in the past. Thijs imagines his father will be disappointed or even ashamed of his son. First, Thijs comes out to his mother during a walk in the park, where he asks Arie to step in to help him make the move. Then, he comes out during the practice of the Fanfare orchestra he plays in. Again, Arie plays an active role: he comes in after the practice and announces Thijs wants to tell something. Finally, Thijs comes out at his father’s place. The follow-up is held together with his father.
4.2.6 Daan
This episode revolves around the taboo of homosexuality on the soccer field. Daan has four coming-outs ahead of him in the episode. First, he visits one of his sistesr who no longer lives with their parents, so she can support him during the coming-out to his parents. This is not shown on television. Daan’s parents only appear during the aftermath. Then, Daan en Arie are shown at the soccer club where Daan will come-out to two different groups. Before practice, Daan comes out to a group of close friends from soccer who are not in his own team in the canteen. After practice, he tells his team in the changing rooms. The follow-up is together with the parents.
5. Analysis of the data
The analysis is divided into sequences that represent different parts of each episode in chronological order to compare the content of the episodes. Finally, the role of the presenter is revisited within the context of the entire analysis.
5.1.1 Introduction
The participants are introduced together with the particular theme of the episode involved. The theme is linguistically constructed as irreconcilable with homosexuality. First, we see Arie talking to Daan:
15
DAAN 1 ARIE: JA WANT VOETBALLEN EN:: EN HOMO’S HHH DAT GAAT OVER HET
2 ALGEMEEN
3 NIET HEE:L LEKKER SAMEN.3
The presenter states as a fact that soccer and homosexuality are not compatible. On what grounds this statement is based is not even addressed. The presenter confirms this prejudice of homophobia on the soccer field, so the problem of the participant takes shape. In the next frame, the presenter addresses the audience and says:
DAAN 10 ARIE: DAAN IS VOETBALLER (.) EN HO:MO
DAAN 16 ARIE DAAN ZIT AL VANAF Z’N ZEVENDE OP VOETBAL.HIJ TRAINT TWEE KEER 17 IN DE WEEK EN IS ELKE ZONDAG OP DE CLUB TE VINDEN.VOETBAL (.) IS 18 Z’N LEVEN.DAAN HEEFT VEEL VRIENDEN OP DE CLUB EN GAAT OOK VAAK 19 MET DEZE JONGENS STAPPEN.TOCH KAN HIJ HIER NIET HELEMAAL 20 ZICHZELF ZIJN, WANT IN DE VOETBALWERELD BESTAAN ER NOGAL WAT
21 VOOROORDELEN OVER HOMO’S.
In lines [16-19] Daan’s identity is constructed as a dedicated soccer player. This description serves to picture the participant as “like any other”. In lines [19-21] however, his sexuality is problematized. His stigma is presented as overshadowing all of his other characteristics. Two quotes from soccer players and friends that will appear later on in the episode are brought forward to support this stance:
DAAN 223 TINUS: JA:: HOMOSEKSUALITEIT JA.(0:01)IK ) ALS IK ’T ZIE VIN IK
224 ’T BES WEL VIES.
DAAN 389 THIJS: JA G’WOON ‘K VIN DA- DA EH JA (.) ANDER- ANDER SOORT MENSEN, JA IK 390 WEE NIE DA:(.) PAST NIE HELEMAAL BIJ MIJ IK HOU DAAR NIE ZO VAN.
Before they know their friend is coming out, the boys make these comments in response to a general question on their stance on homosexuality. It can be argued that they have been singled out in this part of the program because they are the only two, of the three boys that are interviewed and shown in the show that express homophobic behavior. Also at least one of them expresses a reconsideration of his thoughts on homosexuality after the coming-out. Next, we see Daan talking to the webcam:
((DIARY WEBCAM))
DAAN 24 DAAN: NIET ALLE HOMO’S (.) ZIJN NICHTERIGE TYPES (.) DIE: HHH OP DE 25 BOTEN VAN DE GAY PARADE TE:: STAAN TE DANSEN.(.)JA.(.)’T
16
26 KOMT OVERAL VOOR, ZELFS (.)•HH BIJ ’T VOETBALLEN.
Here Daan tries to distance himself from homosexuals that display very feminine behavior and/or are extravagant [lines 24-25] and presents himself as more masculine. At the same time, he makes a plea for recognition of gender diversity among homosexuals by pointing out there are different types of homosexuals. He argues homosexuality is ubiquitous: even among soccer players [line 26]. The presenter summarizes the introduction:
DAAN 27 ARIE: TSJA, ZELFS BIJ VOETBAL KOMT HOMOSEKSUALITEIT VOOR.
The discourse marker “tsja” (transl. “well”) signals hesitation, resignation, or uncertainty4. In this
context, it seems that the presenter concurs with Daan “against the odds” that “even” on the soccer field, homosexuality is present.
The episode with Corné focusses on the supposed irreconcilability between religion and homosexuality:
CORNÉ 1 ARIE: CORNÉ IS ÉÉNENTWINTIG EN HIJ VALT OP JONGENS.MAAR HIJ KOMT UIT ‘N 2 HE:LE STRENGE KERK DUS NOG HELEMAAL NIE:MAND WEET DAT.
After it has been announced that Corné is gay, the presenter emphasizes this fact as contradictory to being religious by the use of “but” and then concludes from this by use of “so” that nobody knows about his sexuality because of his religion. This presentation confirms the position of homosexuality as a stigma that is supposedly automatically hidden for its discreditable status [in this context].
In the introduction, Corné’s religion is stressed several times:
CORNÉ 9 ARIE: DIT IS CORNÉ.HIJ WOONT IN ’T MIDDEN VAN DE BIBLE BELT EN WERKT IN 10 DE KASSEN.Z’N AUTO IS Z’N GROTE LIEFDE
CORNÉ 33 ARIE: CORNÉ KOMT UIT ’N ZWAA:R GELO:VIGE OMGEVING WAAR POPMUZIEK EN 34 TELEVISIE NIET OF NAU:WELIJKS WORDEN GEACCEPTEERD.COLLEGA’S, 35 VRIENDEN, FAMILIE,(.) IEDEREEN IS LID VAN DE OUD GEREFORMEERDE 36 GEMEENTE.CORNÉ GAAT MET Z’N OUDERS ELKE ZONDAG TWEE KEER NAAR 37 DE KERK, EN DAA:R IS HOMOSEKSUALITEIT ’N GROOT TABOE.
The people Corné surrounds himself with are brought forward as his problem. Colleagues, friends, family, and fellow churchgoers are pictured as his opponents. While the viewers at that point have no knowledge of the actual opinions of those Corné comes out to, they are pictured as homophobic and not tolerant.
17
Both Daan and Corné are introduced as facing the prejudices of their surroundings. Spelling out the problem creates tension and increases the curiosity of the audience, which means that the program makers are very oriented to pleasing the viewer.
5.1.2 The participant interviews (pre-coming-out)
After the introduction, the participant is interviewed on his motives to come-out, how he found out about his homosexuality, and to which peers and family members he wishes to come out to. The following analyses show how the presenter is actively trying to draw out the boys to express their negative emotions towards their homosexuality.
In the introduction, Corné is introduced as from a fundamentally religious background. After Corné has relayed how he found out about his homosexuality, he expresses how he previously felt about his sexuality:
CORNÉ 78 CORNÉ: IK HAD DUS TOEN IK E::H TOEN ‘K VEERTIEN WAS OFZO DA ‘K-(0:02) M -79 (0:01) TE GR-’S OCHTENDS DAT ‘K A:L- GING BIDDEN VAN E::H (.) VAN 80 ‘K WIL DAT ’T O:VER MOCHT GAAN, DAT JE TOCH WEER OP- OP- OP- OP 81 (0:01) OP MEISJES EH DAT J- DAT JE DIE TOCH LEUKER GING VINDEN.HHH, 82 DAS TUU’K NOOIT GEBEURD MAAR E:H,(0:03) IK HAD ’T TOEN DAT->OP 83 DAT MOMENT HAD ‘K ‘R ECHT< HOOP OP, VAN, JA MISSCHIEN KOMT ‘T
84 NOG WEL GOED EN:
85 ARIE: MAAR ALS JIJ ’N KEUS HAD, WEL OF NIET HOMO? 86 CORNÉ: JA:: NATUURLIJK NIET HOMO.
87 ARIE: NATUURLIJK?
88 CORNÉ: JA.HHH.(ALS NOU OOIT) EFFE: TWEE BENEN VANAF MOEST HAKKEN 89 HA'K ’T GEDAAN.(.)
Corné clearly expresses that in the past he used to pray and hope that his homosexuality would disappear, but he now knows that this is impossible. He has come-out to himself, and his participation in the TV show proves that he is ready to presents himself as a homosexual to others. There is no such thing as choosing your sexuality, so this question the presenter poses in response to Corné’s “confession” [85] is irrelevant to the subject. At the same time, this response does not encourage Corné to ‘own’ his sexuality. The question serves to generate more confessions. Corné’s responses in line [86] that he “naturally” does not want to be gay, which expresses that he naturalizes heterosexuality and sees homosexuality as an abnormalty, this gives the presenter opportunity to question Corné’s use of “naturally” [line 87]. The question could have been seen as empowering if the presenter had continued trying to convince Corné that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, but here it only functions to encourage Corné to elaborate on his struggle.
18
Only after lines [88-89] in which Corné even compares being crippled favorably to being gay, the struggle with his sexuality seems explored to the presenter’s satisfaction and the theme of the episode, “coming-out in a religious environment”, is brought forward explicitly:
CORNÉ 97 ARIE: (0:04)EN DE WAT- WAT ZWAA:RDERE HOEK (.) EH ZEGGEN ZE
98 BIJVOORBEELD VAN HOMOFILIE (.) HE VAN- VAN MANNEN HOUDEN, DAT IS 99 GOED.MAAR HOMOSEKSUALITEI:T, DAT MAG NIET, DUS DIE RELA:TIE (.)
100 UITGESLOTEN
101 CORNÉ: JA.
102 ARIE: IS DAT HOE ’T BIJ JULLIE IS? 103 CORNÉ: JA.
Here the presenter introduces the theme by introducing what he knows about the stance of the Christian church on homosexuality. Corné just confirms the presenter’s statement [line 101]. Now the presenter continues by asking if this also holds true for the church Corné belongs to [line 102]. Again, Corné’s affirmative reply is not satisfactory to the presenter. The presenter then explicitly addresses what he had implied before [lines 104-105]:
CORNÉ 104 ARIE: (0:01)EN BEN JE WEL ’S BANG DAT JE:: DAN OOIT MISSCHIEN MOET
105 KIEZEN?
106 CORNÉ: (0:03)JA: IK HEB EIG’K DE KEUZE AL GEMAAKT HHH!
107 ARIE: DUS A:LS ’N RELATIE VOOR JOU BETEKENT DAT JE MET JE FAMILIE BREE:KT,
108 DAN ZOU JE DAAR VOOR KIEZEN?
109 CORNÉ: (.)JA.
The presenter assumes that, because homosexuality and religion are not reconcilable, Corné has to make a choice. Instead of problematizing the stance of the church, the presenter projects homosexuality as a problem irreconcilable with religion, and therefore, a personal problem of Corné. Also, since Corné has not come out up till now, and the personal opinions of his family are yet unknown, suggesting that Corné has to choose between his sexuality and his family is very pessimistic and in the least encouraging or empowering. The presenter does not consider the possibility that the unconditional love parents have for their child could trump religion in this context, which would mean that Corné might have to choose between religion and a relationship, but not between his family and a relationship.
In another episode, the presenter meets Theo at the campsite he works at in the entertainment crew. Because Theo is afraid others will hear them talk about homosexuality while sitting in his mobile home,
19
which would be discretable, they move to an open area. In the voice-over, the presenter introduces the situation as follows:
THEO 66 ARIE: ’T IS BIJ:NA NIET TE GELO:VEN, MAA:R WE VLUCHTEN WEG VAN DE 67 CAMPING ZODAT THEO VRIJ KAN VERTELLEN OVER Z’N HOMO-ZIJN, EN NIET 68 STIEKEM BETRAPT KAN WORDEN.MAAR JA(HHH), WAAR KAN JE NOG JE 69 VERHAAL DOEN ZONDER DAT IEMAND ’T HOORT?
The presenter projects himself as being astonished that Theo wants to talk elsewhere and exaggerates by saying that they have to “flee the campsite” [lines 66-67]. The words of the presenter create an atmosphere of fear and sensation, so the audience becomes even more eager to hear what Theo has to say about his struggle with his homosexuality.
In the interview, Theo tells that he is angry with himself because of his homosexuality. The presenter then asks him his motives for being angry and not wanting to be gay [lines 96-97]:
THEO 96 ARIE: NOU JA, IK VRAAG ME MEER AF WAA:ROM DAT ZO IS.(0:01)H- EH HEB 97 JE: WAA:ROM VOEL JIJ:, VAN NOU <DIT WIL IK NIET ZIJN>?
98 THEO: (0:02)NEE, H’T S- H’T IS TOCH VEE:L HA:NDIGER (.) OM HETERO TE ZIJN? 99 ARIE: HA:NDIGER?
100 THEO: HA:NDIGER EN NORMA:LER.(0:01)JA.VOORAL NORMA:LER.JA.(0:01) 101 JA, NEE, IK E:H (.) JA ’T LIEFSTE ZOU IK TOCH GEWOON (.) ZEG
102 MAAR GEWOON JA ’T LIEFSTE JA ‘K WEET NIE HOE ‘K DAT UIT MOET LEGGEN.
103 ┌NEE.
104 ARIE: └ALS D’R EEN PILLETJE WAS DAT JE KON NE:┌MEN OM OM HETERO TE=
105 THEO: └JA, AE- ABSOLUUT!
106 ARIE =ZIJN DAN ZOU JE ’T DOEN. 107 THEO: ABSOLUUT!JA.
Just as in the fragment with Corné, the presenter echoes a word that catches his interest [line 99] with a question intonation to encourage the participant to elaborate. Theo’s answer [lines 100-102] shows that he grew up in an environment without role models from the LGB community. Theo has a heteronormative view of the world in which his homosexuality is both a burden and an abnormality. Instead of scrutinizing this view in order for the audience to understand this is an obstacle for LGB youth, the presenter again tries to elicit more confessions by essentially the same offer of choice for heterosexuality as he put to Corné: this time he frames homosexuality as a disease that could be treated with medication.
20
5.1.3 Pep-talks/ pre-coming-out
Just before the coming-out events, the presenter talks with the participant about the upcoming event. Most of the boys are presented as needing some kind of encouragement because they are afraid to make the move and/or cannot find the right moment. The following analyses show data from right before the coming-outs. These show that the choices made by the makers serve to increase the tension and keep the audience watching in anticipation of what the result of the coming-out will be.
The following data derives from the conversation between the presenter and Derk-Anne before his coming-out at the Christian student society. They talk outside around the corner of the building in which the society has its meetings [line 104].
DERK 131 ARIE: BEN JE AL NERVEUS?
132 DERK ANNE: JA!(0:01)VRESELIJK.
133 ARIE: JA?
134 DERK ANNE: JA BANG.BENIEU:WD OOK NAAR SOMMIGE REACTIES (.) EN VAN ANDERE
135 BEN IK OOK WEL EEN BEETJE BANG JA.
136 ARIE: <MAAR>, WAAR ZIT DE ANGST DAN?
137 DERK ANNE: (0:01.5) EH:: PFF JA.DIE ANGST KOMT GEDEELTELIJK DOORDAT IK BE -138 BANG BE- BEN FF- VOOR HELE NEGATIEVE REACTIES.
139 ARIE: EN WAT ZOUDEN DAT KUNNEN ZIJN?
140 DERK ANNE: (.) EH: PFF M- HET ERGSTE WAT KAN GEBEUREN IS DAT ZE NIET MEER MET 141 ME OM WILLEN HEBBEN.OM WILLEN GAAN, MAAR OOK HELE NEGATIEVE
142 OPMERKINGEN IN ’T ALGEMEEN.
143 ARIE: ZOALS?
144 DERK ANNE: •HH EH- DAT HET VERKEERD IS:, DAT ’T EIGENLIJK NIET MA:G. 145 DERK ANNE: ┌DAT (.) DAT ZE
146 ARIE: MAA:R └J- BEN JE DAN BANG DAT ZE JE DE GROEP UIT STOTEN?
147 DERK ANNE: (0:00.5)DAT GEBEURT DENK IK NIET OMDAT IK WEET DAT ER GENOEG 148 MENSEN OOK ZITTEN IN DE GROEP DIE ECH:T HELEMAAL ACHTER MIJ STAAN. 149 ARIE: MAAR HET IS NIET LEKKER ALS JIJ JE IN EEN GROEP BEWEEGT WAAR
150 SOMMIGE MENSEN ‘N CONFLICT MET JE
151 HEB ┌BEN EN ZEGGEN WAT JIJ DOET IS NIET GOED.
152 DERK ANNE: └NEE!KLOPT. 153 DERK ANNE: KLOPT.DAT IS ZO.
154 ARIE: EN DAN?
155 DERK ANNE: EN I- JA.EN DAN ZOU IK NU NIE WETEN WAT ER NOG GEBEURT.
The presenter starts by assuming that Derk-Anne will be nervous for the coming-out [line 131], confirming the discreditable status of his homosexuality, and in the following questions [lines 133, 136, 139, 143], the presenter actively encourages Derk-Anne to elaborate on his fear. The question in line
21
[139] also has Derk-Anne speculating about the expected negative result of his coming-out, which is up to that moment still uncertain. Not only is this demoralizing for Derk-Anne, it once again confirms the supposed irreconcilability of homosexuality and religion. The question in line [146] is an inference that the presenter makes from the answer of Derk-Anne in lines [140-145]. It is a closed question, which forces Derk-Anne to consider the possibility of being expelled from the group because of his homosexuality. This implies that it is not unimaginable that it overshadows all of his other characteristics and discredits his complete personality. Then, in lines [147-148], after a short pause, the audience learns that Derk-Anne has already come-out to some of his close friends in the Christian student society, who support him despite of his homosexuality and in favor of his other characteristics. The presenter ignores this however, and continues along his doomsday line of thinking [lines 149-151]. When Derk Anne acknowledges the possibility of conflict [line 152], the presenter once again encourages the boy to elaborate on his fear [line 153]. Derk Anne’s final response can be seen as a cliffhanger: not only does the fragment end, but it also summarizes exactly the expectations and fear of both the participant and the audience [line 154]. The excerpt is immediately followed by homophobic comments from students in the Christian student society, as a response to a general question about homosexuality (see section: 5.1.4.: [lines 161-170]). This again creates more curiosity in the audience and keeps them watching to find out what will be the outcome.
The same strategy is used right before the coming-out of Daan to his soccer friends, when the presenter talks to Daan and asks:
DAAN 201 ARIE: WANT WAAR BEN JE ’T MEEST BANG VOOR?
202 DAAN: JA AFWIJZING!GEWOON E::H DAT ZE ’T NIET KUNNEN ACCEPTEREN EN NIET 203 E:HM (0:01.5) ZO E:H EH (.) JA ALS GEWOON EEN EIGENSCHAP VAN MIJ 204 KUNNEN ZIEN EN E:H DAT, JA!DAT IK VERDER GEWOON •HH NORMAAL BEN 205 >DAT ZE DA, DAT ZE DA< NIE INZIEN EN DAT ZE ‘T- GEWOON NIKS MEER 206 MET MIJ TE MAKEN W- WILLEN HEBBEN.
Asking Daan for his greatest fear serves to remind the audience of why the participant needs the help of the TV show in the first place. Daan explains that he wants his friends to accept his homosexuality as just one characteristic. He normalizes himself, accommodates to heteronormative expectations to be accepted. Again, it creates curiosity in the audience for the outcome of the coming-out. Again, this exchange is followed by of homophobic comments by soccer players. Now the audience will expect the worst (and will be extra relieved when a positive outcome follows). Moreover the supposed irreconcilability of homosexuality and soccer is once again confirmed by implying that Daan should be afraid for the reactions of his soccer friends and teammates.
22
5.1.4 Introductions to the coming-out
Before the participant comes out to a particular group, members of this group are interviewed. In front of the camera, they answer general questions about sexuality and relationships without knowing what the TV crew’s actual intentions are. Only the answers of the interviewees are shown in the program; the questions are left out.
Niek comes out to his sports team. He plays ‘Korfball’, which is a mix-gendered sport that is often made fun of as not being very macho. Especially the boys are affected by these jokes: because they share a team with girls, they are seen as lesser athletes. The following data consists of a collection of fragments from the interviews. The boy and girls do not appear together in the frame.
NIEK 207 JONGEN B: TIJDENS DE: TRAININGEN BESPREKEN WE F- G’WOON VEEL OVE:R •HH OVER 208 DAGELIJKS ZE MAAR.EN (.) IN DE KLEEDKAMERS MEER OVER (.) JA 209 (VERDER) OVER MEISJES ENZO: EN: JA.DUS.
210 MEISJE A: JONGEN:S (.) DIE OP KORFBAL ZITTEN WORDEN VAAK MIETJES GENOEMD 211 HHH.’N MIETJESSPORT, JA, EN: DAT ’T MAKKELIJK IS EN E:H WEINIG 212 RENNEN ENZO.(0:01)MA (.) DAT IS WE:L (0:01) DAS NIET ’T GEVAL. 213 VIND IK.•HH ‘K VIND VOETBAL MAKKELIJKER HHH.
214 JONGEN B: ONZE JONGENS UIT ONS TEAM ZIJN E::H HELEMAAL NIET HOMO OFZO DUS 215 (.) ZIJN E:H (.) G’WOON E:H (.) JA, STOERE GASTEN JA!
216 MEISJE C: NEE,‘K VIN ’T GEEN MIETJES.
In lines [207-209], B presents himself and his male teammates as guys who talk about girls in the dressing room. This serves to give the impression that they are ‘healthy’ heterosexual boys with heteronormative gender roles, who are macho despite of the reputation of their sport. In lines [210-213], A defends the boys in the team. She refers to the way others jokingly call the boys playing the sport ‘pansies’, a term with clear connotations of homosexuality. Boys are seen as superior athletes to girls. So boys who play together with girls are degraded to their status: they are seen as feminine and therefore gay. Another clip of the interview with B. shows him defending himself and his teammates [214-215]. According to him, the boys in the team are not homosexual, but tough guys. This comment serves to elevate him and his teammates in the heterosexual hegemony. Finally, another girl [C]stresses once more that her teammates are not to be seen as ‘pansies’ [216]. The data, then, frames Niek’s teammates as negative about homosexuality and serves to increase the tension just before the coming-out. These scenes are therefore geared to making “interesting tv” rather than benefiting the cause.
23
After the pep talk (see section: 4.1.3.), some members of the Christian student society Derk Anne will come out to, are interviewed separately from each other. Again, they have been simply asked about their opinions on homosexuality:
DERK 161 JONGEN A: IK ZEG DAN NIET DAT HOMOSEKSUELE GEVOELENS VERKEERD ZIJN,•HH 162 MAAR IK GELOOF NIET DAT GOD DAT VAN OORSPRONG ZO: IN DE SCHEPPING 163 GELEGD HEEFT.DAT MAN (.) MET MAN OMGAAT OF DAT VROUW MET
164 VROUW OMGAAT.
165 JONGEN B: IK BEN OOK GELOVIG EN WIL DAAR RADICAAL IN ZIJN EN MISSCHIEN 166 EN DAT- MAAR DAT WEET IK NIET HEB IK DAAR VANUIT DE BIJBEL MOEITE
167 MEE.
168 MEISJE C: HOMO’S (ZIJ) EEN ECHTE RELATIE HEBBEN DAT- VIND IK GEWOON BEST 169 WEL LASTIG.•HH OMDAT IK- EH: M- ALTIJD VAN THUIS HEB MEEGEKREGEN 170 DAT H’T NIET- NIET HOORT OF NIET- NIET GOED IS.
All three members clearly express negativity towards homosexuality, based on their faith. A first excuses himself [lines 161], using the ‘tolerance’ strategy by saying he does not believe homosexual feelings are wrong. He then, however, shifts to the ‘difference’ discourse by condemning homosexual relationships, as if these two are different things. B also excuses himself by stating he is religious [line 165], and his reason for condemning homosexuality is his will to be fundamentalist. He claims the Bible supports his view. C expresses that she finds it difficult when “they” are in a relationship, because she grew up learning that is “not right” [lines 168-170]. This is an egocentric homophobic stance on homosexuality, because she has the option to not get involved with, or be affected by homosexuality. Instead, she seems to blame homosexuals for behavior that she was taught to think badly of and hides behind her religious upbringing to justify that, as the other two did.
In the interview with Derk-Anne, the audience learned that some of his fellow members in the Christian student society already knew about his sexuality and plans to come out, and that they supported him. Note that the makers of the TV show have chosen not to interview and show these members, but the members that express homophobia and negativity towards homosexuality. This, again serves to increase the tension just before the coming-out to enhance the relief of the audience when the outcome is positive.
The day after the coming-out at the Christian student society, the presenter meets with Derk Anne and his brother Wieger at a local café. After this interview, Derk-Anne and Wieger will together go to their grandparents so Wieger can support Derk Anne during his coming-out. The following transcript is made up of fragments from this conversation:
24
307 DERK ANNE: (0:01)ZENUWACHTIG VRESELIJK ZENUWACHTIG OVER HUN REACTIE. 308 ARIE: (0:01.5)JULLIE ZIJN NATUURLIJK ZENDELINGENKINDEREN DUS M-‘N
309 GELOVIG GEZIN, HE.•HH JE OPA EN OMA OOK?
310 WIEGER: HEEL STERK.E::H
In line [307], Derk Anne expresses that he is very nervous about the upcoming event. The presenter cuts straight to the point by referring to their status of missionary children and asks about the religion of their grandparents [lines 308-309]. Wieger confirms that they are very religious [line 310], which give the presenter the cue to ask about their opinion on homosexuality [line 311]:
DERK 311 ARIE: HOE DENKEN ZIJ D’ROVER? 312 WIEGER: •HH DAT WEET IK NIET.
Because the answer does not give them much to discuss, the presenter continues to ask about Wieger’s opinion on his brother’s homosexuality [316]:
DERK 316 ARIE: └HOE REAGEERDE JIJ
317 ZELF EIGENLIJK BEDENK IK ME NU INEENS.
318 WIEGER: •HH IK HAD ALTIJD ZOIETS VAN N- JA, HET IS ’N ZIEKTE.(.)HET IS IETS (.) 319 EH WAA:R >MENSEN VAN KUNNEN GENEZEN< WAAR EH E:H E:HM MET (.) 320 GEBED >EN EVENTUEEL< THERAPIE MENSEN IN KUNNEN VERANDEREN. 321 E:N (0:01) DAT WEET IK NU NIET MEER.(.)IK BEN ‘T ‘R NOG 322 STEEDS NIET MEE EENS.DA- BEN ‘K ┌EERLIJK OVER
323 ARIE: └WAARMEE?WAARMEE?
324 WIEGER: MET (.) E::H HET (.) PRAKTISEREN VAN HOMOSEKSUALITEIT.•HH. 325 ARIE: WANT JIJ VINDT DAT DAT (.)
326 JE MAG DE GEVOELENS HEBBEN MAAR GEEN RELATIE OFZO? 327 WIEGER: JA.(.)TEGELIJKERTIJD REALISEER IK ME DAT DAT HEEL HYPOCRIET IS. 328 ARIE: (WANT) JULLIE HEBBEN HET DAAROVER GEHAD, WAT ZEI JIJ TOEN,DERK
329 ANNE, TOEN (.)WIEGER DAT VERTELDE?
Wieger does not reply directly to the question but describes his thoughts on homosexuality in general, which leaves the question unanswered. Wieger explains that while before, he believed homosexuality was a disease that could be treated with therapy and prayer [lines 318-320], he is now uncertain whether that is true [line 321]. Then he continues by saying that he ‘does not agree’ with homosexual relationships and that he wants to be ‘honest’ about this opinion [lines 321-322, 324]. By saying he wants to be ‘honest’, he refers to the right of having an opinion and in this way, it is an excuse to be homophobic and advocating for the ‘difference’ discourse. The presenter then, summarizes his words in a closed question [line 326], to which Wieger replies that he understands this position is hypocritical [line 327]. By saying this, he acknowledges his homophobic behavior, admitting it is not justifiable, but
25
hides behind his faith as an excuse. The presenter does not respond to it but asks Derk-Anne what he thinks [lines 328-329]. By taking up this neutral position, the presenter shows no support for Derk Anne and this frames his brother’s homophobia as a personal problem, that he has no right to interfere in, instead of a religious problem that needs to be addressed in public. At the end of the conversation, Wieger makes a remarkable meta-comment:
DERK 352 WIEGER: (0:03)WIE ZIJN WIJ OM IEMAND TE VERAN- VEROORDELEN OMDAT ZE
353 ANDERS ZIJN DAN ┌WIJ?
354 DERK ANNE: └ HMM. 355 DERK ANNE: ┌JA.
356 ARIE: └JA.
357 ARIE: KOMT GOED?
Wieger asks whether we should be allowed to judge others for being different. Derk Anne only reacts with a minimal response in lines [354-355]. His reaction is understandably hesitant: who is the “we” his brother refers to? It probably does not include him. The presenter, however, is determined to end the conversation on a positive note and concludes with a statement in the form of a question that signals the end of a conversation [lines 357]. Instead of leaving the audience with the feeling that the brothers will never be on the same page about homosexuality, the presenter leaves both Derk Anne and the audience with hope. Wieger is framed as Derk-Anne’s ally: a reluctant ally, but the only one he has within his family.
In the introduction of Daan, two homophobic comments of soccer friends confirmed the assumed irreconcilability of homosexuality and soccer. It is important to keep in mind that from all Daan’s soccer friends and teammates, these were picked out to show the audience. Also, Tinus and Thijs are the only soccer friend and teammate that are identified with their name.
DAAN 223 TINUS: JA:: HOMOSEKSUALITEIT JA.(0:01)IK VI:N (.) ALS IK ’T ZIE VIN IK
224 ’T BES WEL VIES.
225 MAAR NIE DAT ‘K DAN (.) IETS TEGEN HUN (.) GA ZEGGEN 226 OF WEET IK VEEL MAAR (.) JA, IK VIN ’T WEL G‘WOON ALS ‘K ’T ZIE, 227 PERSOONLIJK VIND IK BES WEL VIES GEWOON OM TE ZIEN OMDAT JA, IK
228 VIN GEWOON (.) MAN VROUW HOORT GEWOON DAS GEWOON IETS WAT
229 GEWOON, JA VAST STAAT EN (.) JA:, KIJK ZE MOGEN VAN MIJ OOK BEST 230 DOEN, MAAR IK F- ALS IK IN ’T OPENBAAR ZIE DAN EH •HH LOOP ‘K ‘R WEL
231 (.) DAN KIJK WEL EVEN ANDERE KANT OP ZEG MAAR HHH.
Tinus presents his comment as his personal opinion [lines 223, 226, 227]. He opposes homosexuality because he thinks of it as ‘dirty’. In this way, he reduces homosexuality to the act of intimacy and
