Connor Williams
July 25, 2011
WRTG 3020
Taking the middle road:
Understanding the queer rhetoric of Will & Grace
Social rhetoric, not unlike most political issues, often emerges in extremist views. Take any hot-button topic in today’s media, and most opinions spouted about it will weigh heavily to either side of the debate. The middle ground goes widely untouched, leaving the public to fend for themselvesdeciphering truth from mere opinion. The various political and social debates currently raging in the limelight dealing with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community are no exception to this trend. With groups like the Westboro Baptist Church traveling thousands of miles each year to wave “God Hates Fags” signs at gay-related events, and political organizations like the It Gets Better Project that strives to help struggling LGBT youth in the coming out process, it comes as no surprise that the debate regarding the position of LGBT people in the United States has become polarized. Yet, where are those who have ventured out to land less traveled, searching for a more moderate perspective on the issue?
Although, undeniably, there are individuals and organizations alike that have produced more mid-line rhetoric about topics such as gay marriageand Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, other outlets like television shows and movie productions have become important tools in furthering a more balanced rhetoric. One such example is the popular television show Will & Grace, whose gay-related topics are often negotiated with the larger theme at hand: the relationship between a man (Will) and a woman (Grace). Despite the homosexuality laced throughout, the show’s producers and actors together create astrong image of heteronormativity for their audience.It should be noted however, that the mere perpetuation of gay themes in the show also simultaneously defies the hegemonic standard of sexuality. By doing so, the show’s rhetorical effect is arguably farther-reaching than a purely one-direction approach.
Negotiating a Heteronormative Perspective
Before exploring the binary between homosexuality and heterosexuality present in Will & Grace, it is important to understand the original intentions of the show’s creators. According to Warren Littlefield, programming chief at the National Broadcasting Center (NBC), the show was never aimed at only representing a queer perspective. Instead, the relationship between Will and Grace was to be the highlight of the show (Mitchell, 2005). Of course, the sitcom’s cocreator and openly gay man, Max Mutchnick, claims to push a queer political agenda (Mitchell, 2005). However, even actors such as Debra Messing (Grace) reiterated Littlefield’s sentiment that, “[Will & Grace] is not a gay show” (Mitchell, 2005).Through statements such as [Messing’s], Will & Grace is consciously and conscientiously framed as an apolitical comedy about friends rather than a site of a counterhegemonic politics of sexuality” (Mitchell, 2005). Thus, it becomes difficult to pinpoint an exact rhetorical intention for the sitcom.
However, despite the clash between Mutchnick and his co-producers and actors, a definite queer rhetoric matures throughout all 8 seasons of the sitcom. After all, Will & Grace was one of the very first national television shows to represent a queer protagonist. Most other shows dabbled with the “issue” of homosexuality, introducing fleeting gay characters who did little to bring light to the world of the sexual Other. While the producers of the show may have had a more heteronormative intention, a much different queer-ness emerged as the show progressed. For instance, the non-conforming ways of life for the sexual Other are discussed in the sitcom. Although the Will and Grace dyad stayed essential to the show’s core, other themes began to emerge that helped perpetuate its undeniable queer-rhetoric. Take for example, the progression of both Will and Grace into adult romantic relationships. As the show progressed in plot and characterization, it became less about the relationship between Will and Grace, and more about the romantic relationships, both straight and gay, that they formed away from one another. In this sense, the rhetorical goals, whether consciously or not, began to emerge as more gay-minded than heteronormative.
When the Rhetorical Goals Got Gay(er)
Even in the pilot episode of Will & Grace, the rhetorical goals of the producers are unclear. The episode depicts Grace’s marriage woes as she begins to question marrying the man to whom she is engaged. After leaving the poor fellow at the alter, Will takes Grace out for an alcoholic remedy. While at the bar, the guests of the specific establishment mistake the two as newlyweds for they are dressed in wedding atire, asking them to repeat their vows. In this scene, heteronormative images are brought forth. Despite having made Will’s sexual orientation unquestionable earlier in the episode, there is a bonding of the two through fake marriage vows that seems to diminish queer identity. It is in this particular scene that the producers reveal to the audience that this is truly a sitcom about Will and Grace as a semi-platonic couple, not Will and his gay life with splashes of Grace, his “fag-hag,” here and there. Given this scene alone, it would be easy to justify Littlefield’s comments, arguing that the real focus of the sitcom is truly the relationship between these two characters. However, the relationship is delegitimized immediately after the two share a “newlywed kiss.” Grace turns to Will questioning, “Nothing huh?” And Will replies with a, “nah, not really,” whilst shaking his head in dis-acknowledgement of being “turned on” by the recent sexual encounter.
Will’s reaction, which could have just as easily been dismissed as a smile instead of outright admitting to not liking the exchange, gives rise to the hidden rhetorical goals argued for in this paper. While the more apparent goal is to communicate the love two people, regardless of romantic interest, can share for one another, an undeniable queer rhetoric emerges. Will’s reaction clues the audience in that while we might have moments in which we forget about his sexual orientation, the truth will always stay unwavering: Will is in fact gay.
As the sitcom matures with consecutive seasons, so do the queer themes present in its writing. For instance, the difficulties of coming out are brought forth in the second season when Jack, Will’s flamboyant best friend, faces the fear of telling his mother that he is gay. While humor is presented in this episode that pokes fun at the obviousness of Jack’s queer identity, there is a serious note that underlies the laughter. Jack is a representative of all queer people who struggle with their own coming out experience. This fact alone helps reveal the true rhetorical goal of the sitcom. While the relationship between Will and Grace is still going strong at this point in the show, the queer rhetoric is allowed to flourish, showing the audience the reality of those who identify as homosexuals. The heteronormative privilege of not having to come out to parents is made apparent, after all, heterosexuals do not have to face the consequences of coming out or straying from the sexual norm. The writers present to the audience in this scene that being heterosexual comes with many privileges, clearly pointing to the hegemonic sexual standard. By exhibiting this concept to the audience, the show is able to deconstruct heterosexual privilege, as well as reveal the inequity between the homosexual experience and heteronormativity.
Targeting the Hetero-Audience
While critics have applauded the humorous plots often present in Will & Grace, crediting superb writing for the long run that the show enjoyed, it can also be contended that the sitcom’s longevity is due to its broad audience appeal. “Rhetorical success in thisscenario is based on what Sarah Schulman summarizes as a program's ability to ‘address [the] emotional need [of the sexual Others] to be acceptedwhile selling a palatable image of homosexuality to heterosexual consumersthat meets their need to have their dominance secured,’ (Mitchell, 2005). The writers of Will & Grace are genius in the sense that they are able to write for a general hetero audience while simultaneously appealing to homosexual watchers. Gay issues embedded within the faux-heteronormative relationship between Will and Grace allows for perfect breeding grounds for a queer rhetoric. The prime target of Will & Grace then is not necessarily a homosexual audience since, in many ways, the show would be preaching to the choir. Instead, hetero viewers are drawn in with the male-female relationship dynamic between Will and Grace that is often mistaken for an actual romantic affair, allowingthem to be tricked into being introduced and educated on queer life. As Michael Warner, Professor of English and American Studies at Yale University contends, since “gay social life is not as ritualized andinstitutionalized as straight life, each relation is an adventure in nearly uncharted territory” for many viewers (Quimby, 2005). Thus, Will & Grace is able to highlight the way of life for many homosexuals in America for a hetero audience often uneducated about queer life.
How to Make ‘Em Laugh Without Offending
The rhetoric laced throughout Will & Grace is effective not because it is purely humorous, but because the comedy of the show is presented in a way that deconstructs heterosexual naivety about the homosexual life. As previously discussed, the program is able to bring in a wide array of viewers due to the simultaneous semi-heteronormative and homosexual perspectives presented. Grace, a “fruit fly” or “fag hag” if named through stereotypes, is represented as a heterosexual woman well versed in all things gay. Yet, the writers go beyond Grace’s presence by adding in other heterosexual characters that are often presented as completely oblivious to any sort of queer-related behavior. Including such characters allows for a deconstruction of the ways in which heterosexuals and homosexuals interact with one another.
In one particular episode, Will encounters Officer Bob, a heterosexual character who is quite unaware of gay culture. Bob’s presence in the sitcom is intriguing because he portrays a very masculinized social role, being that of a “peace protector” and “law enforcer.” While representative of masculinity, Bob isalso made out to be completely naïve.
Turning to Will, Bob asks, “Let me ask you something. I know this guy and I think he might be a gay, but how do I know for sure?”
Will’s reaction is testimony enough of Bob’s ignorance on the subject, “A gay?” Will asks, taken aback by Bob’s language. Bob refers to this apparently “gay” friend of his, but talks about him as if he is completely separate from himself. Saying that his friend might be “a gay” paints Bob’s friend as something to be questioned, a topic of discussion rather than a person. Bob even admits his ignorance by merely asking “how do you know?” --- a question that is often posed by hetero and gay people alike. In this scene, the writers are utilizing a burlesque frame. Bob is undeniably presented to the audience as a fool, someone completely lacking in knowledge about gay culture and homosexuality. He even discusses the topic in a silly manner, obviously deficient in vocabulary to discuss his friend with Will. The humor in the scene is in fact, present in Bob’s description as well. He uses the phrase, “a gay” so matter-of-factly that the audience is probably amused by his candor, possibly finding him cute rather than offensive.
However, Bob’s character inclusion is tactful in the grand scheme of the show. This particular scene comes from season 3, and loyal viewers have already established themselves as fans of Will, and his general story line. This viewer loyalty allows for the writers to take risks, such as including Bob in a brief social commentary. Bob’s character plays into stereotypes, as he begins listing off characteristics of his friend that he thinks are inherently gay: “he wears shorts, he is always working out, he has really well defined biceps, really tight abs…” However, because Bob has already been presented to the audience as foolish, his description becomes delegitimized. The audience knows not to give much credit to Bob’s questioning, being as he is obviously flawed in his view of homosexuals from the get-go. The way in which Bob discusses his possibly gay friend, and thus the way he refers to gays in general, becomes a “no-no” for the audience. Since Will is a character that the audience is most likely going to side with as he is the protagonist of the series, Bob will be rejected as socially unacceptable. His behavior becomes a social-taboo for those heterosexuals watching, being as they do not want to come off in the same way as Bob.
Secondly, the manner and depth of Bob’s description of his friend is also a source of comedy and further social commentary. For instance, after Bob has finished listing off his friend’s physical characteristics, Will asks him, “how’s his ass?”
Bob readily responds, “Oh good! Nice … and hard.”
Will replies, “oh yeah … I think somebody’s gay,” insinuating that Bob himself might be into his friend, hence the curiosity about his sexuality. This short bit of dialogue also reverses the direction in which the satire is occurring in the scene. Before, the audience saw Bob as representative of masculinity and heterosexuality due to his social position as an officer. By turning the tables and making Bob a homosexual inexperienced with his own sexuality, rather than a heterosexual uneducated about queer life, the writers are able to delegitimize those gay people who fail to accept their own sexuality. The dialogue is amusing because Bob’s sudden role reversal is surprising. Yet, it also serves as a mechanism by which the commentary is able to go in two directions. The writers are poking fun at the naivety of both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This sharing of fault appeals to both types of audiences, causing each group to pay attention to the messages being presented. Neither feels judged or belittled, yet both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to laugh at the foolishness of the situation
Bob’s inclusion is well placed, and effective in laying out a pro-queer rhetoric in the sitcom. To some extent, Bob is just a normal guy whose intentions are by no means meant to offend. He is simply uneducated about queer life. The ignorance given to him in this segment helps hetero audiences to realize what sort of questions can be perceived as offense, even if they are not meant to be. After watching a screening of this segment, heterosexual identifying Will & Grace fan Amanda Grant, commented that, “I have said things like that before, I know I have asked my gay friends, ‘so you think he is gay, how do you know?’ I probably even brought up reasons why I thought he or she was gay without realizing my reasons were complete stereotypes.”
Furthermore, the character of Bob is a much more moderate view of the homosexual-heterosexual interaction. If the writers wanted to completely reject the often-terrible way in which homosexuals are treated in society, they could have easily included a character that was malicious and uncaring towards Will. Instead, Bob comes off as foolish yet curious. The way in which he speaks about gay people may not be entirely politically correct, but he is by no means hateful. Thus, the interpretation of the homosexual-heterosexual interaction is not overly extreme. The writers choose to take a more middle-ground approach, representing both gays and heterosexuals in a much more positive light.
It should be noted though, that several viewers of the show feel as if an entirely queer centered rhetoric is pushed, which has been voiced as offensive to some. Comments have been posted on youtube.com videos of the show that state hateful words like, “faggots!” or “Everyone should know that being gay is a sin.”[1] Such people seem to feel as if the agenda of the show is loud and clear, which they do not agree with or appreciate. Other youtube.com users have come out in support of the show, claiming that the agenda is just to present queer life, not to push pro-gay politics. User IIRobertII commented in April 2011: that “… propaganda is defined as programming that is designed deliberately to sway opinion for self-benefit or to harm others. The clip depicts gay people without presenting a moral judgment, positive or negative. It by definition isn't propaganda.” While a queer rhetoric is most likely developed in the show, the writers avoidmaking moral judgments about certain groups or individual people. The Officer Bob segment might try to illuminate the less than perfect interactions between gays and heterosexuals, but it does not necessarily depict heterosexuals as morally wrong. Instead, the Bob character is made to be naïve, which in his defense, is not necessarily his fault if he does not often intermingle with gay men or women. Due to the moderate way in which the social commentary is presented, the rhetoric of the show is much more effective. Viewers are thus, less likely to feel judged by the show’s messages, and more inclined to listen to the issues being presented.