In 2005, Helene Shugart analyzed
“poster child” logic surrounding Rosie O’Donnell’s coming out and subsequent
support of equal rights adoption. Shugart concluded that the mass-mediated
interpretations of O’Donnell’s projected narratives—that of being simultaneously
a maternal figurehead, as well as a childlike presence in popular culture—in
conjunction with her politically charged stance on adoption, worked to reify an
ideological division between heterosexual and homosexual parents. Shugart argues
that the public’s understanding of O’Donnell as an outsider—a “misfit with a
heart of gold”—who is concerned with the care and safety of similar misfit
children, categorically marginalizes both these broken children and their gay
(adoptive) parents. Essentially, because both are already in the margins of
society, it establishes a view of gay parents as the only suitable “beasts of
burden” capable of parenting troubled youth.
Shugart’s conclusion, however,
relies on a particular reading of O’Donnell’s narratives. While I agree with
Shugart’s analysis and conclusions, I feel compelled to voice my concern for
the supposed totality of this reading. Personally, at some points in the
article, I perceived a disconnect with the author’s interpretation, and my own
recollections about O’Donnell. As Shugart noted, O’Donnell’s performance
“could be understood as presentational,
in a mediated context, it, too, ultimately is rendered representational,
available for consumption and interpretation … by multiple audiences.”
It is this flexibility in interpretation that allowed
(apparently) a large portion of the American population to perceive O’Donnell
as a kind and caring figure. Many of the adults by whom I was surrounded in my
youth did not share this view. Constantly, I can remember Rosie being talked
about as a “loud bitch” who “used her celebrity to butt into people’s lives.”
Shugart was right in some respect here, in that O’Donnell’s sexuality was
“absorbed” by the context of her coming out—very rarely was her sexuality mentioned
in these critiques. These acquaintances and family members to which I am
referring were more traditionally conservative, and so O’Donnell’s tireless
efforts to increase governmental regulations, including gun control, did not
sit well with them.
As I read
Shugart’s article, I found it eye-opening as I lacked the frame of reference
necessary for this interpretation of Rosie O’Donnell. However, as I continued
to read, I was able to follow—and agree with—Shugart’s analysis quite well. I
feel it should be made apparent that although this analysis is sound, without
the reading of O’Donnell’s narratives that Shugart describes, it changes her
whole argument. When she claims that the
“characterizations of O’Donnell as
opportunistic, greedy, and deceptive were so far afield from her mainstream
persona … that they quickly fizzled as fodder for discourse,”
it must be understood that not everyone felt these
characterizations were completely off the mark. Therefore, this then
deconstructs the “misfits caring for misfits” marginalization Shugart had
established. To people, consumers, who do not share in Shugart’s narrative
interpretation of O’Donnell, this application of heteronormative logic does not
ring so assuredly true. This results in a separation of O’Donnell, and the
parents for which she was fighting in the first place. O’Donnell, to some, was
marginalized because of her highly publicized, brash, exploitative and
“opportunistic” behavior.
Granted,
this interpretation is very possibly the viewpoint of only a few, but it
altered how I read this article from the onset. What is interesting to note is
that in the seven years since Shugart penned this piece, the visibility of
queer bodies in the mainstream media has increased. While Shugart expressed a
very real concern for the secondary and diminishing nature of queerness as
represented by the media, we are seeing growth today. A cursory Google News search
for “gay parents” resulted in over 2,000 results that trended more towards the
positive. Research supporting family units—regardless of any member’s sexuality—as
the key to happiness and positive development is becoming more widespread.
Public discourse, especially with recent debates about the institution of
marriage, is giving more attention to queer issues. While this does not
necessarily change the media’s representations of queer individuals, it
provides room for change. Maybe now, seven years later, is when we need a “poster
child” as Shugart established O’Donnell, to rally the troops.
