The New Woman, Triangulated: Feminist Resistance to Cultural Myths in The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men By: Pamela Hyde University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta April 2015 Supervisor: Dr. Dawn Johnston Acknowledgements I’d be remiss if I didn’t open this thesis with a heartfelt “thank you” to my supervisor, Dr. Dawn Johnston. Your guidance and support through this process has been appreciated beyond words. Your teaching has made me a better writer and scholar. Thank you for believing in me! I’d also like to thank my committee members, Angie Chiang and Dr. Samantha Thrift for taking part in the process. To my Mom and Dad – thank you for your love and support through this project and my entire (seemingly endless) stint of undergraduate education. I wouldn’t be here without you. To my Gran and Papa – thank you for always pushing me to do more for myself, even if you didn’t realize you were doing it. To my girl gang, the New Women who inspire me every day–Jennilee, Jaim, Bevan, Chels, Jenny and Andrea–thank you for letting me bounce ideas off you, for editing very lengthy drafts, for pushing me to write when I didn’t want to, for making sure I was having enough fun, and for always telling me that I was gonna be okay. I’m so fortunate to have all of you in my life. Lastly, to my partner in crime and romance, Kyle – people told us that traveling together was the best test of the strength of a relationship, but I think it’s actually when one of you writes a thesis. Good thing we nailed them both. We’re a great team. Thank you for everything. Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 3 Semiotics and Cultural Studies …...........................................................................................................…. 3 Negotiated Readings: Feminists Viewing TV for Pleasure ................................................................ 6 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 9 The New Woman ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Cultural Myths about Women in the Workplace ............................................................................... 11 Triangular Narrative Structures ............................................................................................................. 14 Existing Negotiated Readings .................................................................................................................. 16 Methodology – Feminist Content Analysis ................................................................................. 18 My Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Dataset Overview ............................................................................................................................... 21 The Good Wife: Alicia, Will and Diane .................................................................................................... 21 Grey’s Anatomy: Cristina, Owen and Teddy ......................................................................................... 21 Mad Men: Megan, Don and Peggy ............................................................................................................ 22 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Analysis Part 1: The Cross-­‐Class Relationship Cultural Myth ....................................................... 24 Analysis Part 2: The Woman-­‐Woman Mentorship Relationship Cultural Myth ..................... 35 Analysis Part 3: The “Having it All” Cultural Myth ............................................................................ 47 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 62 References ............................................................................................................................................ 66 Chapter One: Introduction According to television critics and media scholars we are currently in a “Golden Age of Television”, which began in the late 1990s and has been steadily intensifying ever since (Reifová, 2008, p. 1237; Greenwald, 2012; Carr, 2014). This era of television earned its name by prioritizing directorial vision, complex storytelling, and characters with breadth and depth previously reserved for film. Critics purport that this trend has resulted in increasingly rich, complex roles for women, bolstered by the resurgence of feminism in popular culture (Hugel, 2013; Ulaby, 2013; Vincent, 2014). However, prime-­‐time television portrayals of women are still hindered by sexism: in 2013 just 15.9% of major characters on television were women in the workplace, and just over a third of these women were shown actually performing their job (Lauzen, 2013, p. 4). Portrayals of women that fall within this small percentage–only 5.9% of major television characters–resist the statistical norms for women on television by simply being a woman with a career. For feminist viewers, this small percentage of resistant narratives is appealing to latch on to. The relationship between feminist resistance and television is two-­‐fold: it involves both the resistance of the viewer, and the perceived resistance within the television program itself. Engaging in a deliberately negotiated reading can be an act of feminist resistance; it requires viewers to choose to interpret a program’s messages through a feminist lens, which allows them to derive pleasure from the program. The messages that they derive pleasure from will likely align with their feminist values, which resist the ideological undercurrents of dominant popular culture. Analyzing television programs with these assumptions in place allows researchers to look for feminist messages underlying a text, without requiring proof of authorial intent to legitimize their work. In this thesis I will 1
employ these assumptions in my examination of New Woman character archetypes in relationship triangles in television programs The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy, and Mad Men. It was my informal identification of these triangles as appealing to my own feminist values that led me to pursue this path of research. In these triangles I saw women that I relate to and look up to, and I wanted to understand why. The relationship triangle that I have identified occurs between three workplace colleagues: a high-­‐level professional man, a low-­‐level professional woman, and a mid-­‐to-­‐
high level professional woman. The high-­‐level man and low-­‐level woman engage in a romantic relationship, while the mid-­‐to-­‐high level woman has a close professional relationship with the man, and acts as a mentor to the low-­‐level woman. Studying triangulated relationships allows for examination of how those involved prioritize career, romance, friendship, and mentorship, and how those decisions impact the group dynamic. I will show how these decisions and interactions serve to refute cultural myths about women’s roles in the workplace. I begin by summarizing the theoretical framework of my analysis, based in cultural studies and third-­‐wave feminism. I then explore the historical precedence for my work, focusing on the cultural myths at play in the triangle, and previous iterations and analysis of the New Woman character archetype and woman-­‐woman-­‐man (W-­‐W-­‐M) relationship triangles. Based on that foundation of theoretical and historical elements, I conduct a content analysis of the triangle in each program. My analysis breaks the triangles into identifiable, repeated events that are recognizable moments of feminist resistance to cultural myths. I conclude with reflection on the New Woman’s role in popular culture today, and offer consideration for future research on these unique narrative structures. 2
Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework My second and third chapters explore the theoretical and historical precedence for my analysis. First, I explain semiotics and cultural studies as the theoretical framework of my analysis. Next, as an extension of my theoretical framework and Stuart Hall’s theory of Encoding/Decoding, I explain negotiated feminist readings of television programs. In my literature review I give a brief recounting of previous literature on the New Woman character archetype, cultural myths about women in the workplace, and relationship triangles. I conclude with a short overview of existing analysis on my chosen television programs and its relevance to my work. Semiotics and Cultural Studies Semiotics and cultural studies are closely linked in my theoretical framework; cultural studies uses semiotic analysis in a specialized manner to ascertain underlying ideologies of texts. What follows is a review of how cultural studies leverages semiotics in its own unique way. Semiotics is the study of signs. When conceiving the theory, Ferdinand de Saussure described semiotics as “a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I shall call it semiology (from Greek semeion ‘sign’). Semiology would show what constitutes signs [and] what laws govern them” (qtd. in Berger, 2004, p. 6). These foundational ideas advanced into a full-­‐fledged theory: the concept that all words are signs that are made up of a signifier and what is signified, and Sauserre’s opinion that the relationship between the two was arbitrary (Berger, 2004, p. 4). Semiotician Roland Barthes added to the work of Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, focusing on how 3
cultures generate and circulate meanings as myths, which those cultures accept as truth: “nothing exists except in the absolute, there is no symbol, no allusion, everything is presented exhaustively. Leaving nothing in the shade, each action discards all parasitic meanings and ceremonially offers to the public a pure and full signification, rounded like Nature” (1972, p. 25). Barthes’ work Mythologies extended semiotics beyond linguistics to include cultural products, developing his theory that cultural products were built on myths that served the dominant classes, while functioning as sense-­‐making apparatuses for all audiences (Fiske, 1985, p. 176). Theorist John Fiske cites Barthes’ work Mythologies as the foundation for the application of semiotics to television. Fiske and John Hartley used this theory in their 1978 book Reading Television to assert that television meanings are mythic cultural meanings, and act as a sense-­‐making apparatus for audiences. In this book, semiotics intersects with cultural studies to deepen theorists’ understanding of television meanings. The cultural studies approach to semiotics is shaped by a Marxist perspective, founded in the beliefs that meanings are linked to social structure, dominant classes attempt to naturalize their meanings, and that all culture is ideological (Fiske, 1992, p. 285). In cultural studies, semiotics serves as a foundational analytical tool to gain a deep understanding of the text, the results of which lead to inquiry of reproductions of ideological and economic structures, and how audiences read encoded meanings (Fiske, 1992, p. 306). Fiske’s 1987 book Television Culture exemplifies the cultural studies approach to semiotics. His work draws on cultural studies under Stuart Hall at the University of Birmingham's Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, focusing on television as a site of tension between dominant and subordinate groups in which they are both active 4
generators and circulators of meaning (Fiske, 1992, p. 284). A semiotic analysis within cultural studies focuses on three areas: semiotics, discourse, and audience readings (Fiske, 1987, p. 12). Semiotics is used in cultural studies to comprehend a text’s meanings, which reveals the hollow structure within that reinforces dominant values of culture and enlists support for the status quo (Fiske, 1987, p. 269). In cultural studies, semiotics maintains its structuralist roots but is motivated by the cultural studies understanding of discourse and ideology. The ideology underlying a text is that of who created it: “we must never be content with asking and revealing what view of the world is being presented, but must recognize that someone’s view of the world is implicitly or explicitly, obviously or subtly, inscribed within it” (Fiske, 1987, p. 33). Discursive power is used in television to naturalize the ideologies of groups in authority to the degree that it is perceived as reality by audiences, thereby subordinating them to ideologies that do not benefit them (Fiske, 1987, p. 33). However, according to cultural studies, discourse does not solely lie with those in power: because they are socially produced, discourses cannot be absolutely controlled in how audiences take meanings from them, or how they reproduce and circulate those meanings (Fiske, 1987, p. 11). In this second level of discourse–which varies by audience and individual–meanings are taken, transformed, and incorporated into social practice (Hall, 1980, p. 128). Based on this, Stuart Hall’s essay “Encoding/Decoding” introduced the idea of polysemic readings of television texts. Hall identifies three positions from which audiences may read a text: the dominant-­‐hegemonic position, the negotiated position, or the oppositional position. A dominant-­‐hegemonic reader accepts the meanings from a program how they have been coded; a negotiated reader will decode a program according 5
to the dominant code, but make exceptions based on “local conditions”; and an oppositional reader will “detotalize the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference” (Hall, 1980, p. 138). Based on Hall’s theory, Fiske proposes that because television audiences are composed of a wide diversity of subcultures, engaging in diverse readings, television programs must be polysemic and flexible to be popular (Fiske, 1986, p. 392). Programs will gain popularity by including “unresolved contradictions that the viewer can exploit in order to find within them structural similarities to his or her own identity” (Fiske, 1986, p. 392). A successful exploitation of a narrative will result in members of subordinate groups generating meanings that resonate within their own cultural experiences (Fiske, 1986, p. 405). Negotiated Readings: Feminists Viewing TV for Pleasure Negotiated meaning-­‐generation can be undertaken as an act of feminist resistance. Negotiated readings prioritize a viewer’s agency to derive pleasure from cultural texts (Johnson, 2007, p. 16). This theoretical stance contrasts oppositional-­‐reading media critics, many of whom assert that feminists are naive or misled for finding pleasure in television texts. This pleasure-­‐centric media criticism is characterized by negotiated readings in which audiences find ways to identify with the text, even if their interpretation of it is radically different from the intended meaning of the producer (Johnson, 2007, p. 16; see Johnson, 2007; Baumgardner and Richards, 2000; and Heywood and Drake, 1997 for examples of feminist activism intermingling with pop culture appreciation). 6
Theoretical postfeminism1 supports many of these negotiated readings: it emphasizes an understanding of differences, as opposed to the second-­‐wave feminist focus on similarities among women and the “universalised feminist sisterhood” (Boyle, 2005, p. 175). In the book Postfeminisms: Feminism, Cultural Theory, and Cultural Forms, Ann Brooks provides a definition of postfeminism that offers a starting point for understanding the proliferation of negotiated readings amongst third-­‐wave feminists: Postfeminism as understood from this perspective is about the conceptual shift within feminism from debates around equality to a focus on debates around difference. It is fundamentally about, not a depoliticization of feminism, but a political shift in feminism’s conceptual and theoretical agenda. Postfeminism is about a critical engagement with earlier feminist political and theoretical concepts and strategies as a result of its engagement with other social movements for change. Postfeminism expresses the intersection of feminism with postmodernism, poststructuralism and postcolonialism, and as such represents a dynamic movement capable of challenging modernist, patriarchal and imperialist frameworks. In the process postfeminism facilitates a broad-­‐based, pluralistic conception of the application of feminism, and addresses the demands of marginalized, diasporic and colonized cultures for a non-­‐hegemonic feminism capable of giving voice to local, indigenous and postcolonial feminisms. (1997, p. 4) Theoretical postfeminism and third-­‐wave feminism have significant alignment (Heywood, 2006, p. 255). Theoretical postfeminism aligns with the third-­‐wave emphasis on intersectionality of identity, and engages in cultural critiques to “grapple with questions of power and structure that fortify gender distinctions and social institutions” (Heywood, 2006, p. 256). The “broad-­‐based, pluralistic conception” (Brooks, 1997, p. 4) is what Amanda Lotz posits is the connection between postfeminism and negotiated readings of 1 Using the term “postfeminism” comes with its pitfalls–it has a breadth of definitions associated with it, many perceived negatively by the feminist community. However, this discussion is focused on theoretical postfeminism, which opposes the ideals of the postfeminist backlash era of the 1980s. Theoretical postfeminism focuses on a “broad-­‐based, pluralistic”
feminism (Brooks, 1997, p.4), while the postfeminist backlash rejected the need for feminism because gender equality seemed to have been achieved.
7
popular television shows. She sees the complexity of contemporary lived feminism reflected in current television, which requires a more nuanced criticism than one that categorizes characters and programs as simply “good” or “bad” for women: “Especially when series and characters resonate with audiences to the degree that many recently have, we must explore what is in these texts with an eye to their complexity instead of quickly dismissing them as part of a hegemonic, patriarchal, capitalist system” (Lotz, 2001, p. 114). In third-­‐wave feminism critical engagement is a form of activism: “cultural production and sexual politics [are] key sites of struggle, seeking to use desire and pleasure as well as anger to fuel struggles for justice” (Heywood and Drake, 1997, p. 4). This negotiated and oppositional engagement with cultural objects echoes Fiske’s sentiments on engaging in socially motivated praxis. He saw it as critical to ensure that subordinate groups are able to strip the dominant authority’s hegemonic powers of production through transgressive discourse (Fiske, 1986, p. 406), resulting in “a more equal but diverse society” (Fiske, 1992, p. 321). I consider this thesis to fall into Fiske’s category of “transgressive discourse”: I am reading and analyzing The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy, and Mad Men through a third-­‐wave feminist lens, critically engaging with the texts in order to use desire and pleasure to fuel my own socially-­‐motivated praxis. 8
Chapter Three: Literature Review The triangle at the centre of my analysis is made up of three characters: the low-­‐
level woman, the mid-­‐to-­‐high level woman, and the high-­‐level male. Each player fulfills a recognizable character archetype: the high-­‐level male is an “alpha male” (heteronormative, sexual, strong masculine character), the mid-­‐to-­‐high level woman is an “independent woman” (heterosexual and single with stereotypically masculine traits, who has achieved career success), and the low-­‐level woman is a “New Woman” (heterosexual, single and in pursuit of her career goals [Lotz, 2006, p. 88-­‐89]). The New Woman is the primary operative in the triangle: both other players are invested in her development, and of the three she experiences the most significant progress throughout the narrative arc of the triangle. For that reason, the New Woman is the primary focus of my analysis. The following section will examine how New Woman characters have historically been the site of feminist resistance, the cultural myths they resist, and how the W-­‐NW-­‐M relationship triangle is a transgressive take on a classic narrative structure. The New Woman The New Woman archetype has been included in representations of feminine identity since the late 19th century. The archetype “[celebrates] assorted female roles and practices as improved and emancipatory versions of womanhood” (Genz, 2010, p. 97). The iteration of the New Woman who seeks career success has been connected to the mainstream rise of liberal feminism in the 1970s. Liberal feminism sought wage parity and an end to discriminatory laws, and was put front and center by the media’s coverage of the National Organization for Women and related groups (Dow, 1996, p. 29). Mainstream 9
liberal feminism had widespread appeal amongst women 18-­‐49, one of the most highly sought-­‐after audiences based on their buying power (Dow, 1996, p. xx). To harness the purchasing power of this audience, networks began writing programs that catered to both independent, working women and those who idealized a more traditional version of femininity. Beginning in the 1970s, these programs featured the New Woman, who evolved through the decades in tandem with socio-­‐cultural climate and feminist discourse. The New Woman has served as a site of feminist resistance since her introduction. The Mary Tyler Moore Show was widely accepted to be the first successful iteration of this archetype on television (Dow, 1996, p. 27). The Mary Tyler Moore Show ran from 1970 to 1977, and reflected the ideals of the era’s liberal feminism: Mary was able to choose a life outside of the home and take a traditionally male job in an all-­‐male office, while retaining her physical and social markers of femininity. However, Mary was still a transgressive character for her time. She disrupted the hegemony of the “happy homemaker” character of domestic sitcoms, and expanded the sitcom genre to include liberated, single career-­‐
focused women (Dow, 1996, p. 34). Each iteration of the New Woman that followed Mary built on the ground that the previous iteration of the archetype laid out. Since The Mary Tyler Moore Show, numerous successful network programs have featured New Woman characters, including sitcoms Murphy Brown and Designing Women, and comedy-­‐dramas Sex and the City and Ally McBeal.2 The New Women featured in these programs embodied the traits that the New 2
For a detailed recounting of New Woman characters and their development, see Bonnie Dow’s Primetime Feminism and Amanda Lotz’s Redesigning Women.
10
Women prior to them had secured, and added new traits to the archetype based on contemporary issues. The New Woman archetype had progressed significantly by the 1990s, most notably portrayed in Sex and the City and Ally McBeal. These New Women challenged pre-­‐existing family and marriage structures by building their own “families” of close girlfriends, while engaging in non-­‐traditional romantic relationships that include non-­‐monogamous relationships, women as the primary family wage-­‐earner, and casual sex with multiple partners. They redefined the idea of a “career woman” to include embracing stereotypically feminine pursuits as viable professional options (interior designers, publicists, secretaries, etc.) as opposed to the masculinized “career woman” tropes that came prior. They began to struggle with the concept of “having it all”, the cultural myth of women who are exemplary wives, mothers, and career women all at once (Genz, 2010, p. 98). This group of New Women also engaged in competition with other women who threatened their romantic or professional status, attempting to out-­‐perform perceived-­‐competitors and dismissing them as “bitches” (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 30). They also relied on personal, individualized solutions to structural inequalities as opposed to seeking social reform, in spite of choosing to form close social bonds to gain support for their actions (Lotz, 2006, p. 114). The New Women examined in my thesis from The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men build on this iteration of the archetype. Cultural Myths about Women in the Workplace Cultural myths serve as sense-­‐making apparatuses for the audience, and act as a foundation of understanding that programs leverage to communicate their ideologies. The 11
three myths that the current iteration of the New Woman addresses through her actions in the triangle are the cross-­‐class relationship myth, the woman-­‐woman competition myth, and the “having it all” myth. In the cross-­‐class relationship cultural myth, a low-­‐level woman takes advantage of “the marriage gradient” by marrying a man that she can both “look up” to and gain social and financial power from (Engstrom, 2014, p. 93). This creates a pervasive cultural myth and character archetype of the “gold digger” who “exploits men’s natural sexual desires to effect a redistribution of wealth in her favour” (Campbell, 2006, p. 149). Closely aligned with the gold digger is the trophy wife, who marries a man, functioning as enviable “arm candy” for him while taking advantage of his wealth. Thematically, these myths serve to reinforce “appropriate” gender roles: the high-­‐level man is able to provide financially for the low-­‐level woman, while the low-­‐level woman must sacrifice her employment and independence in order to benefit financially from their romance (Sharot, 2013, p. 98). The cultural myth of woman-­‐woman competition emerges from patriarchal power structures that offer women limited opportunities for workplace advancement and achievement based on gender discrimination (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 177-­‐179). These power structures give way to the belief that women cannot have meaningful workplace relationships because they are either competing for a romantic partner, or for one of the limited roles for women in a workplace. In patriarchal cultures, the perceived cattiness and gossip involved in this competition is considered a predominantly feminine trait, and to be evidence of women’s inherent irrationality (Campbell, 1999, p. 211-­‐212, Ashcraft and Pacanowsky, 1996). This has resulted in a cultural myth of woman-­‐woman workplace relationships as being defined 12
by rivalry as a means to achieve personal and professional gain. In popular culture this myth manifests itself in portrayals of women as “ruthless and cunning” competitors, who will do anything to one-­‐up the women in their midst to ensure they are regarded as “the best” at their job and are rewarded as such (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 28). This myth often includes the “Queen Bee”, a “difficult female boss” who identifies with her male colleagues and “disassociates herself from the fundamental issues of equality for women”, while denying the impact of sexism in the workplace (Staines, Tavris and Jayaratne quoted in Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 200). The cultural myth of women “having it all” focuses on the alleged struggle of women who strive to achieve career success while maintaining a happy, heteronormative marriage and family. It indicates the perception of an inherent separation of public and private spheres for women, and its surrounding discourse implies that the preferable sacrifice of the two spheres is the public career sphere (Taylor, 2011, p. 17). Media portrayals of women determined to have it all show women who “refuse to dichotomize and choose between her public and private, feminist, and feminine identities” (Genz, 2010, p. 98). Having it all becomes a dilemma that these women must navigate under the pressure of being a “superwoman” who has mastered the skills required to be an accomplished wife, mother, and career woman. The myth of having it all has led to a polarized response in the news media in articles such as, “Why it’s so damaging to tell women they can’t have it all (and why I’m sick of hearing it)” (Caprino, 2014) and “Why women still can’t have it all”
(Slaughter, 2012). These conflicting and lively dialogues demonstrate that this myth has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory way, and still looms large in cultural discourse. 13
Triangular Narrative Structures The primary work referenced when analyzing triangular narrative structures is Rene Girard’s Deceit, Desire and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure. Girard’s theory has been applied to novels, television and film to explore the desires of characters embroiled in a relationship triangle of some kind (see Humbert, 2010; Burkhead, 2008; and Binhammer, 2006 for examples of applications of the theory). In it, Girard outlines his theory of triangular desire, which is comprised of three points: the subject, the object, and the mediator. The subject is the one doing the desiring. The object is what and/or whom the subject desires. The mediator inspires the subject to desire their chosen object, which Girard calls mimetic desire. He categorizes this structure into two groups: external desire and internal desire. External desire occurs when the subject and the mediator are separated to such a degree that they will never meet. Internal desire occurs when the subject and mediator are closely linked, leading to competition between the two, transforming the mediator into an obstacle that the subject must overcome in pursuit of their object. Girard’s theory is focused on triangles in which two men function as the subject and mediator, and the triangle’s object is a female love interest (M-­‐W-­‐M triangles). In 1985 book Between Men, Eve Sedgwick applied Girard’s theory to English literature through the lens of feminist and queer theory. She focuses on Girard’s internal desire, and takes issue with Girard’s assumption that the triangle is “symmetrical” and would remain unchanged if one member of the triangle were of a different gender (1985, p. 200). She relates the male homosocial bonds in M-­‐W-­‐M triangles to the “structures for maintaining and transmitting patriarchal power” (1985, p. 201), and cites Gayle Rubin’s theory that patriarchal heterosexuality reflects the exchange of women as a way to cement 14
bonds between men. She calls for examining erotic triangles as a way to reveal relationships of power and meaning, and how individuals use them to gain power (1985, p. 202). The works of Girard, Sedgwick and Rubin have been applied to explore instances of transgressive hetero and/or homosexuality and gender performance in television and film. In “Triangulated Desire in Angel and Buffy”, Alyson R. Buckman links the programs’ M-­‐W-­‐M and W-­‐M-­‐W erotic triangles to their expressions of sexuality and masculinity (2010, p. 48). She explores how triangles can function to both destabilize and reassert heteronormativity in social and romantic relationships, within the context of a feminist narrative (2010, p. 50-­‐
52). Studies also examine external-­‐desire based triangles that place a philosophy or concept as the mediator. In “Deceit, Desire, and the Medical Soap Opera: Triangular longing in Grey’s Anatomy”, Cynthia Burkhead places Medicine in the mediator role, and explores how it mediates the desires of the characters for basic needs, but also sexual and emotional connection with others (2008, p. 3). Burkhead finds that “these affairs rarely bring the pleasure people expect from gaining the object of their desire” (2008, p. 9). W-­‐M-­‐W triangles traditionally serve to assert the heterosexual attractiveness of the man, indicated by a plot that shows two women fighting over him (Buckman, 2010, p. 48). The triangle that I analyze is a transgressive version of the traditional W-­‐M-­‐W triangle: instead of focusing on women fighting over a man, they focus on how women prioritize career, romantic relationships, and female mentorship relationships. Instead of the male being in the centre, it is the New Woman character who is the apex of the triangle. In this triangle the New Woman must negotiate the expectations of her mentor and her romantic partner, as well as the expectations she has of herself. 15
Existing Negotiated Readings Negotiated readings of The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy, and Mad Men have been published in both academic and non-­‐academic contexts3. They contain varying degrees of explicit feminist theory in their discussions and expose the variance of opinion on these programs. While none have dealt explicitly with the triangle and New Woman archetypes in the combination that I am, many explore one or more aspects of my research topic, albeit not drawing on the same specific examples. All three programs have a lively fan discourse surrounding them, involving episode recaps, active Twitter hashtags, fan forums and Wikis, and more in-­‐depth analysis articles in personal blogs and formal publications. Feminist website Bitch Flicks has devoted significant coverage to all three programs, exploring their depictions of gender, sexuality, workplace politics, and female friendship. No two articles exhibit identical conclusions, but all work through a “feminist lens … We want to give women a unique voice, and we want to engage women and men in conversations about persistent sexism in film. We also wish to publicly demand that Hollywood and filmmakers across the United States and the world stop pandering to inaccurate and sexist views about who women are and what women want” (Bitch Flicks, N.D.). These articles, and others in the same vein from publications such as Bitch magazine and Fem Pop, engage in negotiated readings that demonstrate how viewers can make use of the narratives in ways that satisfy their own desires as a viewer. 3
To qualify these readings as “negotiated” I applied Stuart Hall’s definition of a negotiated reading: “it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules–it operates with exceptions to the rule … reserving the right to make a more negotiated application to ‘local conditions’” (1980, p. 127).
16
Published academic work exercises that same type of engagement, backed up with a theoretical framework that provides a specific precedent for the analysis of the program. Academic television critics approach analysis with a similar mandate as pop culture publications. In the introduction to Third Wave Feminism and Television: Jane Puts it in a Box editor Merri Lisa Johnson explains “ultimately [this book] is about liking television without being duped by it, adopting a differential consciousness … balancing on the shifting grounds between hegemony and agency” (2007, p. 22). Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men have inspired academic media criticism with a basis in numerous theoretical frameworks (see Burkhead and Robson, 2008; Carveth and South, 2010; and Engstrom, Lucht, Marcellus and Voss, 2014 for examples). The Good Wife has not inspired the same degree of academic analysis; at this time, there is comparably little peer-­‐reviewed writing on the program. 17
Chapter Four: Methodology -­‐ Feminist Content Analysis I have chosen content analysis as my research methodology because of its versatility of application. Content analysis pairs well with both semiotics (Stokes, 2003, p. 65) and feminist perspective (Leavy, 2007, p. 224), while providing systematic guidelines for conducting research. From a personal perspective, it is a natural fit: informal content analysis lead me to my research topic, and the emancipatory quality of feminist content analysis (McIntosh and Cuklanz, 2014, p. 267) is what inspires my research. The works of Patricia Lina Leavy4 and Shulamit Reinharz strongly inform my methods. Content analysis is the unobtrusive, qualitative and/or quantitative examination of cultural products, such as novels, magazines, films or television programs (Leavy, 2007, p. 227), which are non-­‐living but produced by people (Reinharz, 1992, p. 147). Content analysis is often thought of as a purely quantitative process, to tally instances of a certain phenomenon in a text, revealing patterns that generate or test hypotheses (Reinharz, 1992, p. 155). However, the application of a qualitative layer is what elevates an analysis beyond the mathematics (Stokes, 2003, p. 66). First, a researcher selects a dataset of cultural products to analyze; next, they break it down into distinct units of analysis (scenes, characters, etc), which are then classified into categories (Leavy, 2007, p. 231). Those categories are then examined for thematic patterns that repeat throughout the artifact. Audiovisual datasets, such as television programs, are complex datasets to break down: 4
The work of Leavy is from the 2nd edition of Feminist Research Practice, published in 2007. When Feminist Research Practice: A Primer was re-­‐published in 2014, chapter “The Feminist Practice of Content Analysis”
was removed, and much of the information was reformatted into a chapter called “Feminist Media Research”, written by McIntosh and Cuklanz. This may indicate that I am using an outdated term by calling my work “feminist content analysis”, however, based on the strength of Reinharz’s work on the subject, I am choosing to stick with it.
18
they involve sound, visual images, dialogue, as well as abstract aspects such as mood and style (Leavy, 2007, p. 243). The units of analysis, categories and themes must be clearly defined, and remain mutually exclusive. This enables the researcher and their readers to apply it and identify other incidents of it (McIntosh and Cuklanz, 2014, p. 283-­‐284). The findings of content analysis can then be examined for the meaning behind their thematic patterns. This process of dissecting texts into meaningful parts is why Reinharz also refers to feminist content analysis as “deconstruction” (1992, p. 148). Finding meanings is a central component of feminist content analysis. This type of research is conducted under the assumption that analyzing the products of a culture provides insight about its social norms, ideologies, and values (Leavy, 2007, p. 229; Reinharz, 1992, p. 147). It is also assumed that cultural products contribute to the way that norms and values are shaped in a society (Reinharz, 1992, p. 151). These assumptions are paired with a feminist perspective on culture, leading researchers to “critically [interrogate] the texts and products that comprise culture to resist patriarchal understandings of social reality” (Leavy, 2007, p. 224; also see Reinharz, 1992, p. 147). This interrogation of power structures closely links feminist content analysis with cultural studies and its postmodern and poststructural critiques, leading to research that deconstructs texts to reveal their underlying ideologies in relation to cultural power (Leavy, 2007, p. 228). This results in consideration of both the text and the processes that produced it, as well as processes that may have prevented texts from being created in the first place (Reinharz, 1992, p. 145). 19
My Methodology Feminist content analysis of The Good Wife, Grey’s Anatomy, and Mad Men will serve as the foundation of my research. I have examined the introduction, development, and conclusion of each triangle, and coded relevant interactions. Interactions were included if they involved two or more members of the triangle or if a conversation regarding the triangle occurred. Once coded, the analyses were compared and elements that occurred in all three triangles were considered to be the defining traits of the relationship triangle. Those defining traits were then analyzed for the meanings according to a third-­‐wave feminist negotiated reading. 20
Chapter Five: Dataset Overview The Good Wife: Alicia, Will and Diane The Good Wife is a legal drama which premiered on CBS in 2009. It tells the story of Alicia Florrick (Julianna Marguiles), a lawyer who rejoins the workforce after her husband Peter Florrick (Chris Noth) is jailed for political corruption. She joins the law firm Stern, Lockhart & Gardner, run by her law school classmate Will Gardner (Josh Charles) and Diane Lockhart (Christine Baranski). The program revolves around the romantic and professional lives of Alicia, her family, and her co-­‐workers. The relationship triangle that I examine occurs between Alicia, Will, and Diane, taking place during Season One through Five. When Alicia joins Stern, Lockhart & Gardner, Diane offers to be her mentor, though Alicia is drawn to Will based on their past relationship. Will is a ladies’ man, with a suave demeanour and professional scruples. Diane is a highly regarded professional with feminist politics, and she and Will often form a united front in workplace politics. Over the course of Seasons One and Two Alicia and Will develop a romantic relationship, leading to an affair in Season Three. Throughout the series, Diane acts as a mentor to Alicia, though often from a distance. Their triangulation runs throughout the first five seasons of the program, with varied prominence throughout. Grey’s Anatomy: Cristina, Owen and Teddy Grey’s Anatomy is an ensemble medical drama that premiered on ABC in 2005. It tells the story of Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo), an intern in the surgical residency program at Seattle Grace Hospital. The program focuses on the professional and romantic lives of Meredith’s fellow interns and their supervising surgeons and doctors. 21
The relationship triangle I examine is between Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh), Owen Hunt (Kevin McKidd) and Teddy Altman (Kim Raver), taking place in the sixth, seventh and eighth seasons of the program. Cristina and Owen’s romantic relationship begins in Season Five. Cristina is an ambitious surgical intern focused on cardiothoracic surgery, while Owen is the head of trauma surgery and an Iraq war veteran. Their relationship does not begin smoothly: Owen has post-­‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his tour in Iraq, which manifests as unpredictable outbursts of violence that scare Cristina. By the end of the fifth season they have overcome their initial difficulties and are in a serious romantic relationship. During the sixth season Owen introduces Cristina to Teddy Altman, a colleague from Iraq who is a cardiothoracic surgeon. Teddy acts as Cristina’s mentor, but also has romantic feelings for Owen. Owen does not initially reciprocate Teddy’s romantic feelings, but relies on her as a trusted friend and fellow veteran. Cristina and Teddy respect each other and deeply value their mentor-­‐protégé relationship. Cristina, Teddy and Owen are triangulated for two and a half seasons, the duration of Teddy’s role on the program. Cristina and Owen’s romance continues until the end of the tenth season. Mad Men: Megan, Don and Peggy Mad Men is an American period drama, which premiered in 2007 on cable network AMC. It tells the story of Don Draper (Jon Hamm), the Creative Director at ad agency Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. The program takes place in the 1960s, and focuses on the professional and romantic lives of Don’s colleagues and family members. The relationship triangle I examine occurs between Don, Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) and Megan Calvet (Jessica Paré), taking place in Seasons Four through Seven. Don is 22
a driven professional who engages in numerous romantic relationships, many adulterous, throughout the series. Peggy begins the series as Don’s secretary, and works her way up to copywriter under Don’s tutelage. In the fourth season Megan begins work as a secretary at SCDP. During her term as Don’s secretary she expresses her desire to be a copywriter. Shortly after, Megan and Don begin a romantic relationship and get married. Megan is then promoted to the role of junior copywriter under the leadership of Peggy. Megan looks up to Peggy; Peggy initially resents Megan’s promotion to junior copywriter, but grows to be supportive of her work. Don and Megan’s marriage is passionate, while Don and Peggy’s workplace relationship deteriorates. Megan, Peggy and Don are most markedly triangulated during Seasons Four and Five, though Don and Megan’s romantic relationship is central to Seasons Six and Seven. 23
Chapter Six: Analysis My analysis is divided into three sections, one for each cultural myth that the relationship triangle confronts. Within each section, isolated elements of the narrative triangle’s progression are recounted and then related to the cultural myth that they refute. Analysis Part 1: The Cross-­‐Class Relationship Cultural Myth The cultural myth of the cross-­‐class relationship is confronted when the New Woman takes action to directly counter the cultural implications of her relationship with the high-­‐level man. The cross-­‐class relationship subverts the cultural myth by rejecting its two primary assumptions: that cross-­‐class relationships are driven by the woman’s ulterior motives of financial and professional security as opposed to genuine romantic interest, and that cross-­‐class relationships always result in the woman being subjugated to the man because she is indebted to him for choosing her. These assumptions rely on sexist stereotypes that claim a woman’s value is primarily sexual and decorative, and that a man’s value lies in his ability to provide for a woman. These stereotypes normalize the act of “marrying up” by a low-­‐level woman to “solve” the issue of her low status (Sharot, 2013, p. 106). What the cross-­‐class narrative in the triangle asserts instead is that women engage in cross-­‐class relationships based on genuine attraction, and that the relationship neither controls nor negatively affects their career performances. The New Woman expects her cross-­‐class relationships to be founded on mutual respect, and does not consider herself dependent on or indebted to the man she is with. Her expectation is that they are autonomous colleagues professionally, and genuine romantic partners in their relationship. 24
When these expectations are not met, she ends the relationship romantically and professionally. The Cross-­‐class Relationship in Mad Men In Mad Men the cross-­‐class relationship is between Don Draper and Megan Calvet. Their relationship is shown developing based on mutual attraction, but when Megan is promoted from secretary to junior copywriter, their relationship begins to shift. Megan and Don begin to struggle for power in their relationship as Megan attempts to forge her career and avoid the perception of favoritism as Don’s wife. Don attempts to control Megan at work, which she responds to negatively. When her desire for autonomy goes unanswered, even after she proves her skills, Megan breaks ties with Don professionally to pursue her acting career. As she begins to experience success in her new career, their romantic relationship falters, and Megan moves to California to pursue her career rather than life in New York with Don. Engstrom pinpoints Mad Men as exemplifying what happens when women rebel against the marriage gradient: romantic relationships cannot survive when a woman is “well-­‐educated, self-­‐sufficient … seeks an equal,” or “[compromises her] own values for love” (2014, p. 102). Naturalization of the Cross-­‐class Relationship Myth in Mad Men Don and Megan’s relationship is met with varying degrees of contempt by their colleagues. These feelings are rooted in the in-­‐universe norms of Mad Men: it isn’t uncommon for a man to romance his secretary, but the behaviour is judged harshly by women and laughed off by men; the trope of men sleeping with their secretaries is well-­‐
25
explored in the series. Peggy and head secretary Joan Holloway are incredulous upon finding out that Don and Megan are engaged, Joan predicting that, “He’ll probably make her a copywriter. He’s not going to want to be married to his secretary.” Once they are married and Megan has been promoted, their colleagues mock Megan behind her back. Roger compares Megan to his own former-­‐secretary trophy wife, warning Don that, “They’re all great girls, at least until they want something.” Rejecting the Assumption of the New Woman’s Ulterior Motives To reject the assumption of ulterior financial and professional motives, Megan and Don are established as fitting mates for each other. Megan is introduced as an attractive and sensitive young woman. As her part grows, she is shown as a friend to other women at the office and as an object of the desires of both men and women (04.04 The Rejected, 04.06 Waldorf Stories, 04.09 The Beautiful Girls). In The Beautiful Girls, Megan is shown comforting Don’s daughter. Don looks on, surprised and appreciative. Megan is established as a nurturing mother figure, and as a suitable potential partner for Don. In 04.10 Hands and Knees, the final shot sequence of the episode is from Don’s point of view, as he looks out at her from inside his office. Megan stands at her desk while she puts on lipstick. An instrumental version of the Beatles song “Do You Want to Know a Secret” (lyrics: “You'll never know how much I really love you / You'll never know how much I really care”) plays in the background while Don stares at Megan, entranced. This frames the desires of the couple to be genuine and not motivated by professional gain. The word “genuine” should not be mistaken for the traditionally virtuous, however: they may be motivated by lust or sexual desire as opposed to long-­‐term partnership. Professional 26
gain, however, does not factor into their initial attraction. Megan’s characterization is in direct opposition with the cross-­‐class relationship myth, which portrays the low-­‐level woman as calculating and morally depraved from the start (Sharot, 2013, p. 94). During their first sexual encounter in 04.11 Chinese Wall, Megan defines her role and desires. Megan expresses her desire to eventually be a copywriter or creative director, like Peggy or Don. However, Megan lets Don know that she is capable of separating their sexual relationship from their working one, saying, “This has nothing to do with work.” She also makes it clear that she will not become irrational as a result of having a sexual relationship with Don: “Let’s be clear. I’m not going to run out of here crying tomorrow, I just want you right now.” Megan’s assertiveness and desire for a casual sexual encounter exemplify the New Woman’s comfort with unconventional, pleasure-­‐centric relationships with men (Lotz, 2006, p. 112-­‐113). After Megan and Don have sex for the first time, Megan then takes an assertive, dominant tone with Don, telling him what to do, saying, “I want you to go home, and I want you to sleep, and I don’t want you drinking anymore tonight.” By asserting her desires and prioritizing them, Megan shows the agency and self-­‐awareness of the New Woman. Megan states her desire to remain an autonomous professional despite their romance, and defines the terms of their relationship to separate work from romance. Megan proves herself a formidable copywriter in 05.06 At the Codfish Ball. She shares an idea for the Heinz Beans pitch with Don, and he is enthusiastic. He tells her to “get over here” onto the sofa with him, presumably for sex, and Megan says, “No, I don’t want to change the subject.” Later that evening, Megan and Don launch into an impromptu pitch of Megan’s idea for Heinz Beans to the client. Back at the office, their colleagues congratulate them on the successful pitch, and Don deflects praise onto Megan for the idea. 27
As opposed to “riding the coattails” of her romantic partner, Megan brings the same level of skill to their profession as Don; they are shown as having the potential to be equal partners. However, when Peggy tells Megan that “this is as good as it gets”, she looks underwhelmed. After achieving professional success, Megan makes the decision to leave the agency to go back to acting. In 05.08 Lady Lazarus, Megan expresses her feelings to Peggy. Peggy is shocked and reassures Megan of her talent as a copywriter, but Megan has made up her mind. That night, Megan wakes Don up to tell him that she wants to quit her job at the agency to continue acting, and he tries to convince her to stay based on her talents. When she tells him that copywriting will never make her as happy as it does him, Don relents. Megan is thrilled that he has agreed to support her acting career, but Don lies in bed awake, clearly bothered. This is Megan’s decision to pursue her career on her own terms. She is motivated to do so based on her dislike of the way Don has chosen to pursue success; she does not desire him as a professional partner, in spite of their abilities as a team. This series of events rejects the assumption of the New Woman’s ulterior motives by highlighting their mutual attraction, and proving her significant professional skill that she achieves without the assistance of the man. Concluding this series of events with the New Woman severing her professional ties with the man asserts that she is both capable of success without him, and desires the autonomy and blank slate available to her by leaving his sphere of influence. Rejecting the Assumption of the New Woman’s Subjugation and Indebtedness To set up Megan’s rejection of subjugation and indebtedness to Don, she is first put into the traditional subservient role of wife to Don. In episode 06.13 Tomorrowland Don 28
asks Megan to join him on a family trip to Disneyland, acting as his children’s nanny. While there, Megan continues to show desirable traits for a romantic partner: she is maternal, sexually attractive, and defers to Don for instruction. When they return home from Disneyland, Don proposes to Megan while they are in bed together. He tells her that she makes him feel “the way I’ve always wanted to feel”. Megan excitedly says yes, after momentary hesitation. Don is directing the relationship toward a traditional heteronormative partnership of marriage and children. A power struggle then begins between Don and Megan: both are attempting to assert control over the direction and terms of the relationship. Don is attempting to dictate Megan’s behaviour at home and the office, and Megan is pushing back against Don’s attempts to suppress her. In 05.01 and 05.02 A Little Kiss Megan throws Don a surprise party, to which he responds unenthusiastically to–he is good-­‐natured during the party, but then tells Megan afterwards not to spend money on things like that. The next day at work, Megan is the butt of jokes for her sensual singing performance at the party. Megan’s sense of rejection and isolation grows throughout the episode. When Don comes home to Megan cleaning the apartment in her lingerie, they argue: 29
Don: What are you doing? Megan: I’m cleaning up, I don’t want to get sweaty. Don: Like that? Megan: Don’t you look at me. Don: I’m talking to you. Megan: I’m cleaning up. Don: Really. Megan: Stop looking at me, you aren’t allowed to look at me. Don: Then put some clothes on! Megan: I said stop it. You don’t deserve it. Don: Come on. Megan: You don’t like presents. You don’t like nice things. Besides. You’re too old. I don’t need an old person. You probably couldn’t do it anyway. Don: (grabs Megan’s arm) Get up. Megan: No. I don’t want people to think that you’re getting this. Don: You want it so badly. Megan: I don’t want it! I don’t want you! You don’t get this, go sit over there. All you get to do is watch. (Don pulls Megan towards him and begins to kiss her. They fall to the floor in a passionate, mutual embrace.) Megan’s calculated execution of dominance and submission in their sexual relationship puts her back in control, after Don’s rejection of the party subjugates her. This power struggle is the first of multiple arguments that will occur between the pair as each attempts to gain a sense of stability in the relationship. Don’s desire for control of Megan leads him to take advantage of his position of power at work by sabotaging Megan with her colleagues. In 05.05 Far Away Places, Don is asked to go tour a Howard Johnson’s Motor Inn in upstate New York. He tells Megan that she is coming with him, to her frustration–she, Peggy, and their team are supposed to pitch to Heinz Beans that day, and it is Megan’s first important pitch. Megan’s sudden exit in the morning draws surprise and disappointment from the rest of the Heinz Beans pitch team. Megan is upset, but Don dismisses her frustration: “There has to be some advantage to being my wife.” While sitting down to eat at Howard Johnson’s, Don begins to brainstorm a pitch for Howard Johnson’s, sketching his ideas enthusiastically on the back of a placemat. Megan is upset, saying, “You like to work, but I can’t like to work.” Don tells her that they didn’t have to go, cynically saying, “I ruined the whole damn thing by pulling you off that crack team”. “I am on the team,” Megan replies. Don accuses her of trying to embarrass him, and she 30
sarcastically replies, “Maybe you could make up a little schedule so that I’ll know when I’m working, and when I’m your wife. It gets so confusing.” Megan recognizes Don’s attempt at sabotage, and feels manipulated by Don. When they arrive home they again engage in a physical power struggle. Don’s physical overpowering of Megan is a further embodiment of the hegemonic masculinity at the root of his desire to control Megan in both her career and their romantic relationship. In the cross-­‐class myth, this masculinity is regarded as a desirable outcome of the relationship (Sharot, 2013, p. 98), but in Mad Men it is what drives Megan and Don apart. When Megan leaves the agency, Don continues to attempt to control her career decisions. They fight about their divergent careers: Don makes snide remarks about her rejection of advertising (and Don by extension), and Megan tells him that if forced to choose between him and acting, she would choose him but hate him for it (05.09 Christmas Waltz and 05.10 The Other Woman). This rift leads Megan to then reject Don as a romantic partner, in addition to her rejection of him as a professional one. Don and Megan’s relationship deteriorates further as he has an affair and Megan’s acting career flourishes. Megan later relocates to California without Don to pursue her career there. Shortly after, Megan expresses her desire for a divorce. This series of events rejects the assumption that the New Woman is willing to be subjugated by and indebted to the man by asserting her desire for equal treatment in their romantic life. She is not content to be romantically or professionally submissive, nor will she allow the man’s inability to treat her as an equal hinder her potential. While Megan entered the cross-­‐class relationship as an ideal low-­‐level partner for Don, her growing dissatisfaction with his expectations lead Megan to reject the rules of the marriage gradient 31
and becomes single yet again. She has become a “self-­‐sufficient woman who seeks an equal”, who can no longer fulfill the role of submissive romantic partner (Engstrom, 2014, p. 102). The Cross-­‐class Relationship in Grey’s Anatomy and The Good Wife The cross-­‐class relationship plays out in similar ways in Grey’s Anatomy and The Good Wife. In Grey’s Anatomy, Cristina and Owen are introduced as mutually attracted to one another: Cristina witnesses Owen perform a tracheotomy in the field with a pen, and then he tends to her injuries after she is impaled by a falling icicle. Owen’s struggles with PTSD come to light, and Christina is tender and supportive in her attempts to help him recover. She also clearly states her ability to manage her emotions in the situation, telling him repeatedly that she knows her limits. Owen expresses a desire for a serious relationship with Cristina by telling her that he wants to be there to “rip the scalpel from her hands in 40 years”, when she is too old to practice surgery. Owen’s desire for a heteronormative relationship with Cristina conflicts with her career goals, leading to a power struggle between them. The power struggle begins when Cristina recognizes that her mentor Teddy is attracted to Owen. Teddy wants to leave the hospital because of her feelings for Owen, but Cristina tells Teddy that she can “have [Owen]”, choosing Teddy’s mentorship over her romantic relationship with Owen. When Owen learns that Cristina said this, their physical relationship becomes more aggressive: Cristina refers to their sex life as, “…caveman-­‐like. And it’s hot. Vaguely disturbing, but mostly hot.” As Cristina continues to choose surgery with Teddy over time with Owen, he 32
attempts to sabotage her at work by distracting her from Teddy’s pages. They struggle again when Cristina accidentally gets pregnant. Cristina refuses to yield to Owen’s desires for their relationship: he wants them to have children, but Cristina is firm in her decision to forgo motherhood because of her commitment to her career. She chooses to have an abortion against Owen’s wishes. Teddy leaves the hospital at the end of Season Seven. Shortly thereafter, Cristina and Owen’s professional and romantic relationship ends: Owen cheats on Cristina during the emotional fallout of the abortion, and Cristina decides to leave the hospital to pursue her career in another state. While they try to rekindle their romance multiple times over the remainder of Cristina’s time on the series, her choice to not have children prevents them from making it work. Cristina ultimately chooses to pursue her career autonomously in Europe, permanently ending her romance with Owen. In The Good Wife, Alicia and Will’s cross-­‐class relationship plays out largely in secret. Their relationship is marked by the temptation of the forbidden: Alicia is still married to Peter, while Will is her superior at work and their relationship violates office policy. They begin their affair at the end of Season Two, just hours after Alicia receives a promotion at work. Alicia doesn’t want their affair to be discovered or to be accused of receiving preferential treatment from Will, so they fake disagreements and tension at work in an effort to disguise their feelings. Alicia asserts that she isn’t interested in the emotional labour of a serious romantic relationship with Will; she calls herself “easy breezy”, and tells Will that she doesn’t want to discuss their relationship becoming more serious. Will is disappointed by this, but does not push her. Instead, he asserts his control over her career, sabotaging Alicia at work by undermining her decisions. He puts Alicia in charge of hiring a 33
new associate, but then coordinates behind her back and selects the candidate Alicia rejected. Alicia then finds out that Will hired her by calling in a favour, not because Alicia was the best candidate for the job. Alicia is disappointed in Will’s actions, and feels “used”. Shortly after, Alicia decides to end their affair because it is “too much”–it takes her focus away from her work and her children. Their attraction remains, but they both make a conscious decision not to act on it. To reject the assumption that she is subjugated and indebted to Will, Alicia asserts her autonomy from Will in the workplace. Their power struggle takes shape when they have differences of opinion about office politics and Alicia’s partner track. Alicia grows progressively more frustrated with Will and the activities of the firm, and during a mock trial Alicia and Will spar with one another and while arguing they share a passionate kiss. They agree it was wrong, and decide to avoid being alone together. Shortly after, Alicia and the other fourth year lawyers band together and plan in secret to leave and start up their own law firm. When Alicia is discovered trying to steal clients from Lockhart/Gardner for her new firm, Will is furious with her. After he has flashbacks of Alicia in bed with him and at the office, Will lashes out and tells her that he “took her in”, that “no one wanted [her]”, and that she was “poison.” Alicia tells him that leaving was not a personal decision, but he doesn’t believe her. This ends their romantic and professional relationship. In each of these instances, the cross-­‐class relationship asserts the New Woman’s desire for romantic and professional autonomy. When a heteronormative romance that subjugates them and threatens to damage their professional reputation is being thrust upon them, Megan, Cristina, and Alicia all reject it. Instead of letting their career or autonomous sense of self suffer at the hands of a man, they assert their abilities and 34
prioritize their career goals to enable their success. Megan, Cristina and Alicia’s actions in their cross-­‐class romances advance the New Woman character archetype to subvert cultural assumptions that serve to subjugate women in heteronormative relationships that suppress their career goals and personal agency. Analysis Part 2: The Woman-­‐Woman Mentorship Relationship Cultural Myth The cultural myth of woman-­‐woman competition is founded on the assumption that in the workplace, women’s relationships are marred by their tendency towards competition with other women. This myth, paired with the cultural myth that women are overly emotional, irrational decision-­‐makers and prone to cattiness and gossip, results in a lack of portrayals of mentorship relationships between women. Previous iterations of the New Woman exemplify this myth by showing the New Woman in direct competition with women who pose a threat to her professional success and her romantic relationships (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 30). The triangle confronts this myth by rejecting the assumptions that women are too fixated on rivalry to have a fruitful mentorship, and that women cannot prioritize professional relationships over personal ones. The woman-­‐woman mentorship relationship presents a subversive version of the cultural myth of male-­‐male mentorship by having women fill the roles of both mentor and protégé. They do so by building a narrative arc that resembles the linear career model-­‐mentorship traditionally reserved for two men (Buzzanell and D’Enbeau, 2014, p. 698): the two women build a mentor-­‐protégé
relationship in which the New Woman develops a well-­‐rounded, renowned skill set, 35
eventually becomes her mentor’s equal, and steps away. This mentorship is successful in spite of romantic and emotional issues that surface during its course. The Woman-­‐Woman Mentorship Relationship in Grey’s Anatomy Cristina Yang and Teddy Altman represent the mentorship relationship in Grey’s Anatomy. When Teddy joins Seattle Grace, she is brought onboard as both a cardiology specialist and a new mentor for Cristina. As Teddy begins to mentor Cristina, she tests her with increasingly more difficult surgeries. She develops Cristina’s skills in intense ways, drawing criticism from her peers, but Cristina thrives on the pressure and is dedicated to Teddy. Cristina’s skills increase, and she proves her abilities by performing a difficult surgery that Teddy cannot. Cristina’s skill eventually becomes equal to Teddy’s, and she chooses to break away from Teddy’s mentorship to move her career forward. Naturalization of the Woman-­‐Woman Mentorship Myth in Grey’s Anatomy Grey’s Anatomy portrays diverse friendships and professional relationships between women. However, one-­‐on-­‐one mentorship relationships between two women are shown as difficult to maintain. The romantic entanglements (demonstrated by Meredith Grey, Izzie Stevens and Addison Montgomery-­‐Shepherd) or personality clashes (demonstrated by Erica Hahn and Cristina Yang) of those involved overwhelm the mentorship relationships, resulting in their failure. This is in contrast to the program’s long-­‐standing male-­‐female mentorship relationships (Derek Shepard and Meredith Grey, Miranda Bailey and Richard Webber, Alex Karev and Arizona Robbins), and woman-­‐woman friendships between women of the same standing in the hospital. 36
A Successfully Executed Woman-­‐Woman Mentorship Relationship To reject the assumption that women cannot successfully mentor other women, Teddy and Cristina’s relationship is shown developing along a traditional mentorship track. Their relationship is established, Teddy challenges Cristina’s technical and personal skills with positive results, they develop trust, become equals, and Cristina steps away from their relationship. In 06.09 New History, when Teddy arrives at the hospital, she is introduced as an old army friend of Owen’s who was brought to Seattle Grace as a contract cardiology specialist. Owen brings Cristina to the ER to show her “a present”: Teddy is performing an open-­‐chest procedure on a patient, and Cristina looks on excitedly. Owen tells Cristina that Teddy is the “cardio goddess” that she has been waiting for to learn from. Cristina is initially suspicious of Teddy’s abilities when she sees that Teddy is not up to speed with the latest surgical technology: when Teddy discovers a heart defect without technological diagnostics, Cristina is skeptical. However, Teddy quickly asserts her dominance as Cristina’s attending surgeon and mentor. Teddy gives Cristina the opportunity to assist on the patient, and Cristina is thrilled and enamored with Teddy. This establishes their relationship and its mentor-­‐protégé power structure. As the mentorship continues, Teddy challenges Cristina’s technical skills in new and high-­‐pressure ways. In 06.11 Blink, she makes Cristina lead surgeon on a valve replacement surgery. During the procedure, the patient’s condition begins to worsen rapidly. Teddy is sitting to the side, reading a magazine, while Cristina begins to panic. Owen comes into the OR and demands that Teddy assist Cristina, saying that “she needs help”, but Teddy refuses because she knows Cristina is capable. Cristina snaps at Owen for distracting her, gains 37
control of the surgery, and saves the patient. Afterwards she excitedly tells Owen, “I was on fire, I was learning, I felt alive for the first time in I don’t know how long”. As their mentorship relationship grows, Cristina continues to develop confidence in her technical skills while Teddy works to develop Cristina’s sense of humility and empathy as a means of sharpening her abilities as a surgeon. In 06.10 Holidaze, when Cristina is overjoyed at the sudden availability of an organ for one of her patients, Teddy sternly walks her over to the room of the organ donor. A man is standing over the donor’s body, weeping. “This is not a celebration,” Teddy snaps at Cristina. Cristina looks on, visibly reminded of the painful reality. Doing this, Teddy is subverting the masculine mentorship model that favours “competitive and utilitarian behaviours” over the trivial “feminine behaviours, such as caring, compassion and a willingness to listen” (Buzzanell and D’Enbeau, 2014, p. 698). In 06.16 Perfect Little Accident, a patient is in need of a lung transplant, but is an undesirable candidate. Cristina pushes Teddy into performing a risky, groundbreaking transplant procedure because of the potential for awards and recognition. Teddy scolds Cristina, saying “all of this ambition of yours, this desperate need to win prizes, it means your priorities are off … [awards] turn us into monsters.” They perform the surgery successfully, and afterwards Teddy tells Owen that “Cristina was amazing … you tell her I said that and you’re dead,” not wanting the success to inflate Cristina’s ego. Cristina later says to Meredith, “I’m in love with Teddy… what can I say, my heart lives in my scalpel.”
Teddy and Cristina’s mentorship relationship has developed into mutual respect for each other’s abilities, while maintaining the mentor-­‐protégé dynamic. In 06.20 Hook, Line and Sinker, their mentor-­‐protégé relationship is threatened by the presence of a potential new mentor for Cristina, Dr. Thomas Evans. Teddy feels 38
vulnerable, as Cristina is enamored with Evans and the hospital is courting Evans to be the hospital’s new head of cardiothoracic surgery instead of her. When Cristina excitedly tells Teddy about her day with Evans, she responds by reminding Cristina that she is her mentor first and a great surgeon second: “when we’re operating, do you think that I need you to hold my instruments? I do it so that you can learn, Cristina. I’d be a lot faster in the OR without you.” Teddy then tells her that Evans is there to become head of cardiothoracic surgery (which would leave Teddy unemployed), and Cristina quickly goes into action trying to ensure Teddy keeps her job. Cristina proves her abilities to Teddy by performing a surgery that Teddy is unable to perform. In 07.18 Song Beneath the Song, a pregnant patient has an injury to her heart that Cristina believes she can fix using a high-­‐risk procedure that Teddy has not performed before. Teddy does not agree, saying that it’s too dangerous, and does not allow Cristina to proceed. When the patient begins to worsen during surgery Cristina offers again to do the procedure. Owen overrides Teddy’s decision and has Cristina perform the procedure. She is successful; the patient and her baby survive. Cristina believes that Teddy will be pleased by her efforts, but instead she is angry and tells her, “If you refuse to learn, if you won’t listen, I can’t teach you anymore.” In 07.20 White Wedding, Teddy explains her logic for punishing her protégé: “Cristina got lucky. She thinks she was right; she always thinks that she’s right, and that is not being a good doctor. That is dangerous.” In 08.01 Free Falling, Teddy begins to teach Cristina again by ensuring that she has “a good foundation”, forcing Cristina to focus on basic procedures in a way she never had to. Teddy is doing so to help Cristina become a better doctor: “Your arrogance is not your fault, you’re arrogant because you’re so good … They gave you the hard stuff, but let you skip the easy stuff.” Teddy’s actions 39
subvert the cultural myth of woman-­‐woman competition: instead of being threatened by the skills of a younger woman and undermining her successes (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 199), Teddy chose to focus on her role as mentor to improve Cristina’s abilities. Through Teddy’s mentorship, Cristina’s skills develop to the point that she is able to perform at a level comparable to Teddy’s. This results in enough trust between the two for Teddy to have Cristina operate on Teddy’s husband, Henry, in 08.09 Dark Was the Night. Teddy is unable to do the surgery because she is a family member, so she requests that Cristina do it because she is, “…the next closest thing. She’s the only one that would do it the way I would”. The surgery is unsuccessful and Henry dies. In 08.11 This Magic Moment, Teddy quizzes Cristina repeatedly about Henry’s surgery, searching for errors. Teddy then tells her not to apologize, because Cristina “…did every single thing that [she] would have done. [Cristina was Teddy] in that OR.” Their bond remains solid. Cristina eventually prepares to move on from her residency position in Seattle for a surgical fellowship program elsewhere. In 08.20 The Girl with No Name, Cristina begins interviewing for residency positions at other hospitals. Teddy wants to keep Cristina there, and tries to convince her to stay by offering her more surgical opportunities and reminding her of the life she has built herself in Seattle. Cristina eventually decides to go to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, but not because she wants to leave Teddy: she found out that Owen cheated on her, and wants to leave Seattle. In their last episode together, 08.24 Flight, Cristina has been in a plane crash, while Teddy is back in Seattle. They are shown performing simultaneous identical procedures–
Cristina in the woods without proper equipment, Teddy in the hospital with everything she needs. Both are successful, and by intercutting their scenes together they are viewed as 40
equals, and it is implied that Cristina is ready to move on from Teddy’s mentorship. They have reached the expected conclusion of their mentor-­‐protégé relationship, with the mentor’s legacy being preserved and her protégé finding success external to their relationship (Buzzanell and D’Enbeau, 2014, p. 698). Overcoming Romantic and Emotional Obstacles to Mentorship Teddy and Cristina found their mentorship relationship threatened by the romantic and emotional obstacle of Teddy and Owen’s friendship. In 06.09 New History, Teddy admits to Owen that she has romantic feelings for him, which upsets him, as he loves Cristina but cares deeply for Teddy. Teddy almost leaves the hospital because of the pain of her unrequited feelings for Owen. In 06.11 Blink, Cristina promises Teddy research labs and more money if she will stay, but Teddy tells her that she only “wants Owen”. Cristina impulsively replies, “take him”. In 06.12 I Like You So Much Better When You’re Naked, Cristina tells Teddy that she won’t apologize for “choosing [her] gift” over Owen, saying, “I want to be great, and I want to learn from you”. Teddy decides to stay, and Owen and Cristina do not end their relationship. Cristina’s willingness to both subjugate herself to a powerful woman and give up her romantic partner refutes the cultural myth of the “ruthlessly competitive woman” (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 27): the myth would have Cristina feeling intimidated by Teddy, and scrambling to both claim Owen as her own and finding a less-­‐threatening mentor. Owen briefly entertains an attraction to Teddy as well. Owen begins to show romantic feelings for Teddy in 06.19 Sympathy for the Parents; Owen’s PTSD flares up and Cristina is unable to comfort him. Teddy understands what he’s going through, but doesn’t 41
feel that it’s appropriate for her to help. When Owen realizes that he is developing romantic feelings for Teddy in 06.20 Hook, Line and Sinker he attempts to have her let go from the hospital, saying that she will “land on her feet” if she isn’t hired to be head of cardiothoracic surgery. When Cristina and Teddy find out about Owen’s feelings for Teddy and how he betrayed Teddy, they are both furious with him. In 06.20 Sanctuary, Cristina asks Owen if he loves her or Teddy, and when he doesn’t reply, Cristina tells him that “it’s over”. In spite of this romantic drama, Cristina still looks up to Teddy as a mentor. In the same episode Cristina thinks back on her mentorship during a stressful emergency surgery, asking herself “what would Teddy do?” and recalling the valve replacement in 06.11 Blink, where Teddy forced her to save a patient solo. Owen eventually chooses Cristina over Teddy, but the mentorship relationship stays strong. Teddy and Cristina’s mentor-­‐protégé relationship subverts the woman-­‐woman competition cultural myth in its basic elements and its progression. Their mentorship relationship follows a career model traditionally reserved for men: Cristina and Teddy form a relationship built on trust and mutual respect, and Cristina excels professionally under Teddy’s tutelage. Teddy subverts the traditionally masculine system of mentorship by instilling values of compassion and caring in Cristina, values which are typically rejected as “feminine” and therefore less than (Buzzanell and D’Enbeau, 2014, p. 698). Their mentorship is successful in spite of romantic and emotional issues that threaten its progression, which thwarts the cultural myth of women-­‐women relationships being too catty and competitive to result in a mutually beneficial partnership. 42
Woman-­‐woman mentorship in The Good Wife and Mad Men The woman-­‐woman mentorship relationships in The Good Wife and Mad Men follow a similar narrative structure as Cristina and Teddy’s in Grey’s Anatomy. In The Good Wife Alicia Florrick acts as Diane Lockhart’s protégé. Diane initially appears to be a “Queen Bee” character, a high-­‐powered woman in a male-­‐dominated field who denies systemic sexism (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 200), but she subverts the stereotype by asserting herself as a feminist and a potential mentor for Alicia. Diane mentors Alicia on how to compete in the aggressive legal world, helping her to attune her moral compass in a way that enables her success. Their mentorship relationship is threatened by both Will and Alicia’s romance, and Will and Diane’s professional power struggles. Diane believes that Will and Alicia’s relationship is a liability for both the firm and their individual careers, and she demands that Will end it. When Will and Diane’s professional relationship becomes strained, Alicia is often put in the middle. In spite of this, Diane continues to support Alicia because she recognizes her importance to the firm because of her connections and her legal abilities. When their romance ends, Diane re-­‐asserts herself as Alicia’s mentor and encourages her to pursue partner. At the beginning of the series, Alicia re-­‐joins the workforce after over a decade away. Diane offers to be Alicia’s mentor, telling her “women helping women is the closest thing we have to an old boy’s club.” Diane ensures that Alicia understands the power structure she must work within, and has her work hard to succeed. During her first case, Alicia changes trial strategy without consulting Diane or Will. Diane is upset: “She’s a junior associate who doesn’t think she’s a junior associate … it’s not just teaching an old dog new tricks, it’s teaching an entitled dog new tricks.” Diane continues to have Alicia prove 43
herself, progressively giving her more responsibility and guiding her through the law’s morally murky territory. Alicia is hired at the same time as fellow first-­‐year associate Cary Agos with the understanding that only one of them will be kept on after their probationary period; they are pitted against one another. When decision time looms, Alicia approaches Diane about how she can pull ahead of Cary. Diane tells her that she will “never be Cary,” because he has no family or other responsibilities to distract him from work. Instead, Diane encourages her to use her name and connections to help net new clients for the firm. Alicia takes Diane’s advice and secures Peter’s campaign manager Eli Gold as a client for the firm, which convinces Will and Diane that Alicia deserves the position. After Will and Alicia break up, Diane approaches Alicia about pursuing partner track at the firm. She tells her that in her experience, being closely associated with a powerful man has its advantages to a point, but will often result in people “not giving [her] credit for [her] own successes”. Diane offers herself to Alicia as a friend and advisor. In the same episode, Alicia finds evidence that overturns a verdict in the firm’s favour and Diane praises her: “That’s what I was talking about. That will get you partnership.” Diane then begins to provide Alicia opportunities that will move her career forward at a quicker pace. When Alicia makes partner in Season Four, she is upset by the circumstances; she was asked to be partner in order to provide some financial relief to the firm. When Diane finds Alicia brooding over the situation, she advises Alicia, “When the door that you’ve been knocking at finally swings open, you don’t ask why. You run through.” When Alicia and Cary decide to leave Lockhart Gardner to start their own firm, Cary convinces Alicia by telling her that they can be “the new Will and Diane”; Alicia smiles at this notion, and takes Cary 44
up on the opportunity to step away from her mentor and put herself in a equivalent position. In Mad Men, Peggy Olson is mentor to Megan Draper. Their brief mentorship relationship takes place over only six episodes while Megan is a junior copywriter at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Don and Megan’s romance impedes Peggy’s ability to mentor Megan as effectively as she would like. Peggy believes that Don’s marriage is affecting his abilities as a creative director, causing him to be more accommodating to client demands instead of defending the work of his team. When she remarks on it, it causes tension between her and Megan. Because Don is Peggy’s boss, she is forced to adhere to Don’s rules when engaging with Megan, instead of managing Megan in the same manner that she does the rest of the creative team. When Don tells Peggy that he and Megan are engaged, he tells Peggy that Megan “has the same spark” as her, and that Megan admires her. Joan points out to Peggy that Don will probably make Megan a copywriter, because he won’t want to be married to his secretary. Peggy is incredulous initially, but when she is first shown mentoring Megan, Peggy is encouraging and honest with her. Peggy tells Megan when she has done something well, encouraging her to take risks even if they don’t pay off. Peggy ensures that Megan feels like part of the creative team, even when her male co-­‐workers make jokes behind her back. Peggy remembers what it was like to be in Megan’s position, and wants her to succeed. Megan begins to prove her skills while working on the Heinz Beans account. She achieves what Peggy cannot: an ad concept that satisfies the picky client. Megan comes up with an idea for Heinz Beans that Don thinks is great, and they decide to pitch it to the 45
client. When Megan finds out that Heinz Beans is going to fire the agency, Megan pushes Don into pitching the idea early. The client loves the idea and the pitch is successful. Megan’s success solidifies the mentor-­‐protégé relationship between Megan and Peggy. Peggy enthusiastically congratulates her, saying, “I tried to crack that nut. If anything, I should be jealous! But I look at you, and I feel like, I don’t know, I’m getting to experience my first time again. It’s a good day for me.” Peggy also encourages her to enjoy the victory, which the men at the office might downplay. She tells Megan, “I know what you did, and it is a big deal. When it happened to me, they acted like it happens all the time. It doesn’t.” When Megan tells Peggy that she still wants to be an actress, Peggy encourages her to stay at SCDP: “I know copywriting is hard, but you’re doing great. You shouldn’t give up. I wouldn’t tell you this if I didn’t think you have talent.” Megan then tells Peggy that she wants to quit, and Peggy is angry at her for “taking up space” at SCDP when there are people out there who would “kill” for the job. Even so, when Megan announces to the team that she is leaving Peggy makes one last attempt at convincing her to stay, but Megan declines and tells her that she “has always appreciated what [Peggy did] for her.” Peggy and Megan don’t achieve equal roles through the mentorship relationship, but they do develop mutual respect: Peggy calls Megan’s decision to pursue her acting dreams “brave”, and rejects Joan’s accusation that she’s playing Don for a fool by leaving a difficult job to be a “failing actress”. Megan’s exit from SCDP ends the mentor-­‐protégé relationship between Peggy and Megan. The woman-­‐woman mentorship relationship in all three shows refutes the cultural myth that women cannot have meaningful, productive workplace relationships. It rejects 46
the assumption that women are too fixated on rivalry and office gossip to achieve professional success, or to be mentored by another woman. It also rejects the assumption that there is only enough room for a few powerful women at the top. Cristina and Teddy, Alicia and Diane, and Megan and Peggy subvert these assumptions by developing an effective mentor-­‐protégé relationship. The mentor guides the New Woman as she progresses in her career, helping her protégé eventually become her equal and step away from their mentorship relationship. This relationship is a significant shift in the New Woman archetype: previous iterations emphasized the necessity of competition between women to achieve career and romantic success (Tanenbaum, 2002, p. 30). Instead, this relationship advances the New Woman archetype to include the positive power of woman-­‐
woman mentorship, and the possibility of workplaces without unnecessary woman-­‐woman competition that serves only to uphold patriarchal social structures. Analysis Part 3: The “Having it All” Cultural Myth The cultural myth of “having it all” is the alleged desire of all women to be married and have children, while also maintaining a successful career. It is founded on three primary assumptions: that women inherently desire traditional feminine fulfillment in the form of motherhood and marriage, that the project of successfully having it all is a defining desire of all modern women, and that to be successful women must perform each role at a very high standard. Previous iterations of the New Woman, as seen in Ally McBeal and Bridget Jones’s Diary, respond to the challenge of having it all by developing an “offbeat neuroticism”, and cracking under the pressure for comic value (Lotz, 2006, p. 94). 47
The relationship triangles subverts the myth of having it all by showing the New Women consciously rejecting the cultural assumption that they want to have it all. When they are given the opportunity to reduce or adjust their professional duties to allow them to focus on their marriage or family, they refuse them and assert their commitment to the workplace and career. They then tell their family or romantic partner that they will need to adjust their expectations of her, because of the requirements of her career. The New Woman rejects the expectations of the having it all myth through her ambivalence about the performance5 of wife and mother roles, while excelling at performing in her career. The careers of all three women are focused on public performance–Alicia in the courtroom, Cristina in the operating room, and Megan when pitching to clients–giving them the opportunity to prove their ability to perform professionally. At work, they are shown working determinedly to improve their career performance and learning from their mentor how to succeed at their chosen career within its system. However, for their roles of wife and mother, they are shown wrestling with performing to the standards of the heteronormative constructs of traditional marriage and motherhood. This rejects the assumption of women’s inherent abilities and desire for success in the marital and maternal spheres. The “Having it All” Cultural Myth in The Good Wife Alicia Florrick rejects the having it all cultural myth by consciously rejecting efforts of her colleagues and family members to have her fulfill the role of wife and mother in what 5 I am using the term “performance” in the sense of “performing a role” as an actor does on stage. This is not to be confused with Judith Butler’s theory of gender performance, which while potentially relevant to this analysis, carries a different meaning, which I do not wish to invoke here. 48
they believe is an “appropriate” way. When colleagues attempt to adjust her responsibilities based on their perceptions of what she “should” want based on her role as wife and mother, she rejects them and asserts her commitment to her workplace. Alicia also rejects the romantic ideal of the having it all myth by choosing romantic relationships that are centred on pleasure and romance, and not on long-­‐term emotional commitment or shared familial responsibility. Alicia is required to perform publicly as a lawyer, but also as a wife and mother. At the beginning of the series, Alicia’s husband Peter is a State’s Attorney who is jailed for accusations of political corruption. This puts Alicia in the media spotlight and under constant pressure from Peter’s staff to perform the role of ideal wife and mother as he works his way back into the public favour. Alicia wrestles with performance requirements of her roles as wife and mother, while embracing her role of professional woman in the workplace. Rejecting the Assumption of the Universal Desire to “Have it All” Alicia Florrick actively rejects the assumption that she wants to have it all by rejecting expectations of what appropriate behaviour for a wife or mother is. In 01.15 Bang, when Peter has returned home from prison, Will chooses to pull Alicia off of a prestigious case and put her on a lesser one. When she goes to him to ask why, he tells her that he was “feeling guilty … I just thought that with Peter coming home, your life is complicated enough. I should give you a break. Will’s assumption is based on the cultural standard that dictates women should (and desire to) choose the private home sphere over the public career sphere when given the opportunity (Taylor, 2011, p. 17). The concessions that Will 49
is offering to Alicia will negatively impact her performance at the firm and prevent her from making upward career progress. Alicia, bothered, tells him that she doesn’t want a break, that she wants to be at the office doing a good job, and that “Peter can take care of himself. He’s irrelevant to this. I want to be here.” Alicia asserts to Will the importance of her work over tending to her husband, and makes it clear that her career is her priority. Alicia also supports the right of other women to choose to not have it all. In 03.17 Long Way Home, Alicia’s protégé Caitlin makes the decision to leave Lockhart/Gardner because she is pregnant and wants to get married. When Caitlin is telling Diane and Alicia her decision, she rejects Diane’s offer of “a generous maternity package”, and then hesitantly says, “I just, uh, want to be…a mom.” The camera pulls back to a wide shot, showing the distance between the three women and the resignation on Alicia’s face. Alicia initially reacts poorly to Caitlin’s decision, remembering her own choice to do the same thing 13 years earlier. Alicia later attempts to convince Caitlin to stay, telling her that if she gives the job up for someone, “there’s a chance that [she’ll] regret it”. Caitlin tells her, “I’m not giving it up for my fiancé, I’m giving it up for myself.” Alicia tells her that she can have a marriage, children, and a career, but Caitlin tells her that she wants to choose because she doesn’t “have to prove anything”. Caitlin’s decision resembles the concept of “downshifting”, the decision that women make to leave the workplace for home life as a “hybrid … between the feminist and the housewife” to “interrogate the notion of having it all” (Hollows cited in Genz and Brabon, 2009, p. 59). Alicia apologizes to Caitlin for “not being a great mentor”–Alicia thinks that she has been too hard on Caitlin and has not inspired her with the confidence she needs. Caitlin tells Alicia that she was “a great mentor”, and Alicia looks contemplative. While the audience does not get insight into 50
precisely what changed Alicia’s mind about Caitlin’s decision, her reaction clearly shifts to a positive one. Diane later says to Alicia, “I don’t think the glass ceiling was broken for this.”
Alicia disagrees, saying, “I think it probably was,” and that she didn’t think Caitlin would be back because she wasn’t conflicted about her choice. Alicia sides with Caitlin’s right to choose her own path, which asserts Alicia’s belief that all women can and should make choices based on their own personal desires as opposed to what is expected of them. Alicia rejects the heteronormative romance prescribed by the having it all cultural myth by pursuing romantic relationships that provide her with sexual pleasure as opposed to a long-­‐term partnership. Alicia has two romantic relationships: with her husband, Peter, and with her boss, Will. Alicia’s relationship with Peter is troubled from the beginning of the program: in 01.01 Pilot Peter is put in jail for accusations of political corruption and a proven sexual relationship with a sex worker. They stay married, but their relationship is at varying levels of strain throughout the program. While Peter is in prison for the first half of the first season, Alicia maintains a romantic distance from Peter, unable to forgive him because of his dishonesty. When Peter returns home from prison, Alicia sets up his bedroom separate from her own. They have sex for the first time since his imprisonment in 01.17 Heart. Alicia directs the situation: she refuses Peter’s suggestion to have sex in “the bedroom” instead of his makeshift bedroom, and Alicia climbs on top of Peter, pushing him down and holding him at the wrists. While Peter is relieved that Alicia wants to resume a sexual relationship, Alicia is acting in response to a kiss that she shared with Will earlier in the episode. Alicia then rejects Peter’s advances later in the episode, to his confusion. Throughout Seasons Two and Three Alicia and Peter maintain a cordial relationship for the sake of their children, while their careers and Alicia’s affair with Will often keep 51
them at odds. Peter and Alicia are shown in a few sexual encounters, but they do not begin to rekindle their romance in earnest until Season Four. In 04.12 Je Ne Sais Quoi?, Alicia visits Peter on his campaign bus under the guise of having dinner, but Alicia initiates sex instead. Alicia directs this situation as well. They have sex standing up, face-­‐to-­‐face, while Eli is knocking on the door from outside. When Peter tells him that they’ll be “just a minute”, Alicia alludes to needing more than just a minute with him and tilts her head back in pleasure. When they’re getting dressed, Peter asks her about the status of their relationship. She laughs and brushes it off, and leaves him looking mystified by what happened. In 04.15 Going for the Gold Alicia is shown getting dressed in the campaign bus after sex. Peter asks her if she wants to have dinner, and she is surprised when she realizes he’s asking her out on a date. She considers, seemingly amused by the idea, and accepts. For the next few episodes, Peter and Alicia are happily dating. In 4.21 A More Perfect Union Peter asks Alicia to renew their wedding vows in Hawaii after the election. Alicia hesitates to give him an answer, saying, “Just because things are good right now, doesn’t mean that they’ll stay that way.” However, by the end of the episode she decides to accept under the promise that Peter will “never put [her] through the same thing again”. However, they never go through with it: when Alicia and Cary break away from Lockhart/Gardner to start their own firm, Alicia tells Peter that “Hawaii will have to wait.” Their romantic relationship dissolves again shortly thereafter. The sexual tension and subsequent affair between Will and Alicia are a central part of the program for the first four seasons. Alicia’s affair with Will is brief, but highlights Alicia’s sexual agency and prioritization of her desire for low-­‐maintenance romance. In 03.01 A New Day Alicia and Will are shown having sex for the first time. Will prioritizes 52
Alicia’s pleasure by performing oral sex on her and bringing her to orgasm at her request. In subsequent sexual encounters, Alicia is shown on top of Will and in control of the situation. While in 03.04 Feeding the Rat Will accidentally says, “I love you” to Alicia on the phone. He apologizes for misspeaking, but attempts to engage her in a conversation about their relationship. Alicia brushes off his concerns about their status, and when he begins to tell her that he’s “not interested in anyone else”, she tells him not to talk about it. When they end their relationship in 03.10 Parenting Made Easy it follows a conversation in a previous episode about things getting “complicated”, which is the opposite of the “easy breezy” situation that Alicia told Will that she was looking for. In 03.11 What Went Wrong Alicia tells her brother that she isn’t in love with Will, and that instead she was in love with the affair itself: “the attention” and the “raw, animalistic sex”. Alicia’s relationships with Peter and Will demonstrate the New Woman’s desire for pleasure-­‐centric relationships with men (Lotz, 2006, p. 112-­‐113), as well as serve to reject the assumption of a woman’s inherent desire for a long-­‐term romantic partner (Taylor, 2011, p. 17). Alicia’s rejection of the cultural myth of the universal desire to have it all is founded on her desire to make choices based on her own desires, as opposed to what others expect of her. It is assumed that because she has the means to have it all, she should want to–
however, Alicia has determined her own priorities and will act accordingly to achieve them. Embracing Professional Performance while Ambivalent about Performing Heteronormative Romance or Motherhood To fulfill the having it all cultural myth Alicia would need to perform all three roles–
wife, mother and lawyer–at a high level and without ambivalence or resentment. Instead, 53
Alicia is shown pursuing a high level of career performance without personal consequence, while struggling with or rejecting the expectations and consequences of her performance as a mother and wife. This ambivalence was also experienced by prior iterations of the New Woman in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, instead of “fluctuating between a backlash pessimism and a girlie optimism” in her attempts to navigate cultural expectations (Genz, 2010, p. 103) as her predecessors did, Alicia rejects expectations in an attempt to autonomously determine her future. The performative nature of Alicia’s actions in her roles is apparent in the brief moments on screen before and after a confrontation, conversation or action: Alicia will often pause, take a breath, and gather herself. She is either preparing herself to perform, or collecting herself after the fact. Throughout the series Alicia is shown working determinedly to excel in her performance as lawyer. She works long hours, takes on additional tasks to prove herself, and enjoys the praise that comes with her hard work. Alicia’s career follows an upward trajectory throughout the program: she begins the series as a first-­‐year associate, and by the fifth season is a name partner in her own firm. To accomplish this, Alicia must get comfortable with coming close to, but not crossing, moral and legal lines. She adapts to this, and is willing to perform to Will and Diane’s expectations of her in order to achieve success. When Alicia struggles with the moral implications of the firm’s actions, she learns to rationalize it based on the moral guidelines that Will and Diane set. When Alicia breaks away from Lockhart/Gardner to start her own firm, it is because she no longer wants to be involved with the type of law that Lockhart/Gardner is practicing: she is uncomfortable with the performance requirements, and decides to move on. 54
When Alicia’s performance of motherhood is called into question, it is with the assumption that she is failing as a mother because of her career. Being an exemplary mother is central to the having it all myth, considered the path to “gendered fulfillment” for women, sometimes even moreso than a happy marriage (Taylor, 2002, p. 62-­‐63). Criticism of Alicia’s mothering most frequently comes from Peter’s mother, Jackie. When Jackie takes on a part-­‐time caregiver role while Peter is in jail, she accuses Alicia of working too much and attempts to manipulate Alicia and Peter’s children Zach and Grace to side with Peter instead of Alicia. Alicia and Jackie go head-­‐to-­‐head frequently on these issues, but Alicia refuses to yield to Jackie’s opinions. In 03.09 Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Alicia goes so far as to change the locks on her apartment to keep Jackie out. Jackie tells Alicia that she is “hurting [her] children”, and Alicia replies, “I might be, but that’s between me and them”. Jackie says, “they’re your children, you need to be their mother”, and Alicia closes the door in her face. Alicia then takes a deep breath, thinks for a moment, and offers to buy Zach a car so that he and Grace no longer need to rely on Jackie for transportation. Here, Alicia is outright rejecting the performance expectations of her as a mother. Rival lawyer Louis Canning also asserts that Alicia performs poorly as a mother because of the expectations at Lockhart/Gardner. In 03.10 Parenting Made Easy, he tells her that because Will and Diane don’t have kids their work is their home, and that if she “wants to spend more time with [her] kids, [she] should be at [his] firm”. Later that episode, Grace goes missing and Alicia panics. After Grace is found at the end of the episode, Canning offers her a job again, telling her, “kids need their parents”. Alicia looks upset by this, but instead of sacrificing the career path she is forging at Lockhart/Gardner, she chooses to end her romantic relationship with Will in order to focus more on her kids. 55
Alicia is ambivalent and often defiant when asked to perform the role of wife according to someone else’s expectations. When she does choose to submit to their expectations, there are negative consequences for Alicia that reinforce her desire to reject exepctations in the future. 01.01 Pilot opens on a news conference, where Peter is apologizing for his “personal failings” of paying for sex, while Alicia stands behind him and news cameras zoom in on her expressionless face. Alicia is visualizing her husband in bed with a blonde woman as Peter claims that the money he used to pay the sex workers was “his and his alone”. Afterwards, as Alicia and Peter are leaving the news conference she stops walking, and Peter asks if she is “alright”. She slaps him hard, and he is taken aback. The slap represents Alicia’s defiance and rejection of the “good wife” performance: she has just performed the role of “the good wife” in the public eye, while Peter admits to betraying her and diminishing their partnership. Later in the episode, Peter thanks her for “playing the breadwinner for a while” and tells her that life will eventually go back to normal. Alicia scoffs and tells him that things will “never [go] back to normal.” Alicia is back in the public eye as Peter’s wife when he is released from jail and runs for State’s Attorney. Peter’s campaign manager, Eli Gold, insists that Alicia being in the public eye as “the good wife” will help win Peter the election. In 02.20 Foreign Affairs Eli asks Alicia to do a television interview about her marriage. She refuses, and when it appears that Eli has manipulated Diane to give Alicia the day off to do the interview, Alicia snaps at him, “You don’t meddle with my life … I’m not doing the interview and I don’t care if Peter loathes me for the rest of his life.” When Alicia finds out that it wasn’t Eli who arranged for her to have the day off work, she relents and agrees to do the interview. When Eli is prepping Alicia for the interview, she practices answers that imply her love for Peter 56
and assert that she has forgiven him. When Eli asks her if they’re true, she smiles and asks, “do they sound true?” He concludes their session by reminding her to stay relaxed and “real”. The interview is a success, and helps Peter to win the election. However, while Alicia is basking in her success at the victory party, she is told about another one of Peter’s infidelities that he lied to her about. In the same manner as in 01.01 Pilot, Alicia has performed the role of “the good wife” for Peter in public while being betrayed in private. The consequences for Peter are worse this time: in 02.21 In Sickness Alicia kicks him out of the apartment, and Alicia tells Peter that she is considering divorcing him. In the next episode Alicia and Will begin their affair. When Peter runs for Governor in Season Four Alicia must again contend with media scrutiny, but this time she is less accommodating and more guarded when asked to perform. In 04.01 I Fought the Law, Alicia gives an interview that is far less cordial than previous ones. She gives pointed, brief answers and tells the reporter, “My husband slept with prostitutes. That made our marriage difficult,” and reveals that she and Peter are separated. Eli reprimands her afterward, telling her to “stay on message” regarding her marriage. Later on in the campaign in 04.13 The Seven Day Rule, Alicia abandons Eli’s coaching entirely and reveals to an interviewer that she’s an atheist after being told to say that she is “open-­‐minded about religion. When Alicia does decide to perform in the media in a way that benefits Peter, she does so once their romance has been rekindled. In 04.21 A More Perfect Union after Peter asks Alicia to renew their wedding vows, she gives a television interview that helps Peter’s polling numbers improve. The consequences of this decision manifest slowly over the first half of Season Five: Alicia finds out that Peter’s campaign was involved in vote tampering to 57
ensure he would win the election, and she is furious. This erodes her trust of Peter, and when Will Gardner is killed in 04.15 Dramatics, Your Honor, Alicia’s grief for her former lover adds to the rift, and drives them apart. Alicia engages with all three aspects of the having it all myth: marriage, motherhood, and career. Alicia is shown working persistently at the high level expected of her by her colleagues, ensuring her career success. However, Alicia is ambivalent about performing as a mother and wife in a sanctioned way. She struggles with or rejects the expectations of others in these areas to maintain her autonomy, but consistently throughout the series, on the occasions that she submits to the expectations of others, there are emotional consequences for her. The “Having it All” Myth in Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men In Grey’s Anatomy Cristina engages with the marital and professional aspects of the having it all myth, but actively rejects motherhood. When Owen and Cristina are dating in Season Six, Cristina is very clear about her desire to remain childless. In 07.22 Unaccompanied Minor Cristina accidentally gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion, but Owen is reluctant to support her. He attempts to convince her to carry to term: “There is a way to make this work without it ruining your life or derailing your career…I want them and I think maybe you could too”. This decision drives them apart, and leads to the end of their romantic relationship. Cristina, however, does not regret her choice and openly embraces her future without children. While Cristina does not reject the romantic relationship aspect of having it all, she does make clear to her partners that her career is her priority. Owen tells Cristina that he is 58
“trying to love her” when he tries to pull her away from surgery, which jeopardizes her career progress. Cristina explains that the last man who did that to her “took little pieces of [her]” and made her into what he wanted her to be, and she agreed to it. She tells Owen that when he tries to “screw her into submission” he is taking pieces of her too, and that she will never let it happen again. Cristina excels at workplace performance. Throughout her time on the series she is regularly referred to as either the top of her class or one of the best residents for her age. She is openly devoted to her career, telling her peers that she would choose surgery over love and motherhood. However, when Cristina is required to perform the heteronormative role of wife or girlfriend, she often rejects what is expected of her in the interest of what she desires to do to. She says or does things in the interest of prioritizing surgery over everything else, like telling Teddy that she can “have” Owen so that Cristina can keep Teddy as her mentor. Actions like this lead to consequences for her romantic relationships, which she struggles to navigate. Her best friend Meredith will often advise her on what people expect of her, and how she can fix the damage she’s caused. Mad Men takes place in an era when having it all wasn’t yet part of the cultural myth for women. Instead of being expected to have it all, Megan is expected to defer to her marital and familial obligations over professional ones, both as a copywriter and as an actress. Joan dismisses Megan as using “the second wife playbook”, saying that she’s taking advantage of Don by becoming “a failing actress with a rich husband” (05.08 Lady Lazarus). Megan rejects this assumption by asserting her commitment to her career. While at SCDP she puts in long hours, working overtime and on weekends, and resents when Don pulls her away from work because of how it impacts her relationship with the creative team. As 59
an actress, Megan takes classes and goes on as many auditions as possible in an effort to find roles. When people tell her that she “has it easy” and doesn’t have to work because she’s married to Don, she resents it. Megan is rebelling against cultural expectations by even having a job, let alone wanting to prioritize her career over her husband’s career, or their marriage. There are firm expectations of Megan as Don’s wife and stepmother to his children. Megan is expected to perform the part of wife in a very specific way: she is supposed to be attractive but not sexual, and a vibrant partner who doesn’t upstage Don. In public, Megan performs this part perfectly; at the Heinz meetings she dazzles the client and his wife with her youthful beauty and charm. At home, however, she and Don argue about his expectations of her. She resents him for expecting her to drop her priorities for the kids and his career. Megan also takes issue with how he disrespects their marriage, by coming home drunk and not telling the truth about where he has been. Megan grows tired of the toll that performing the role of Don’s wife takes on her, and she decides to go to California while he stays behind in New York. The New Women reject the myth of “having it all” by asserting that they do not wish to split their time equally between career, marriage, and motherhood. Instead, they prioritize their career and adjust the other commitments in their life to give themselves the chance to achieve professional success. Each woman rejects the expectations of the myth in her own way. Alicia adopts a parenting style that works for her family, while putting long-­‐
term romantic relationships to the side. Cristina completely rejects the idea of motherhood, and leaves the romantic partner who cannot accept her all-­‐encompassing commitment to 60
surgery. Megan attempts marriage with a partner who seemingly supports her career goals, but their relationship dissolves when she begins to resent his expectations of her as a wife and mother. The actions of the New Women affirm the need for a woman’s autonomy when planning her future, instead of defaulting to aspiring to the heteronormative, patriarchal standards of the cultural myth of having it all. 61
Chapter Six: Conclusions What initially drew me to this triangle was the New Woman characters, and how they felt somehow familiar to me in their motivations and identities. I identify with Alicia, Cristina, and Megan, and this analysis has helped me to understand why. As a third-­‐wave feminist, I find myself frustrated by the limited roles I still see for women on television, in spite of the Golden Age of Television that we are in. We are held back by the cultural myths that still dominate popular culture, and the idea that often-­‐sexist representations of women function as sense-­‐making apparatuses for such large audiences is disheartening. However,
these three women and the way that they challenge the damaging cultural myths upheld by the dominant patriarchal ideology thrills me. They embody third-­‐wave feminist cultural politics as a “natural site of identity-­‐formation and empowerment, providing … motifs available for contesting, rewriting and recoding” (Karlyn, 2009, p. 180). Conducting my analysis from my personal position as a third-­‐wave feminist enabled me to search for meanings that showed evidence of feminist resistance to dominant ideologies. The cultural studies approach to semiotics was a natural fit with my perspective because of its focus on how audiences can read texts as an act of resisting cultural myths and dominant ideologies. Once I had identified the overall pattern of the relationship triangle, I found that certain character interactions repeated themselves in all three iterations of the triangle. When considered as a whole, I found that these repeated interactions served to refute cultural myths about women in the workplace. The New Woman takes on the cultural myths of cross-­‐class relationships, woman-­‐
woman competition, and having it all. Through her cross-­‐class romance, the New Woman rejects the assumption that low-­‐level women date high-­‐level men in the workplace solely 62
for financial and professional gain. She asserts her autonomy and prioritizes her professional success, thereby rejecting the assumption that as the lower class member of a romantic relationship she should be subjugated to her partner. In her relationship with her mentor, the New Woman refutes the cultural myth of woman-­‐woman competition in the workplace. Together they reject the assumption that women are too catty and competitive with one another to have a meaningful mentor-­‐protégé relationship. They subvert patriarchal expectations by creating space for talented women in the upper ranks, instead of furthering the cultural myth that there isn’t room for more than a few powerful women in each workplace. The New Woman disrupts the cultural trend of neurotic, flustered women who crumble under the pressure of having a career, marriage, and motherhood that meets the standards dictated by patriarchal cultural norms. Instead, she rejects the cultural myth of “having it all” by asserting her right to determine her path based on her personal, autonomous desires as opposed to the expectations of society and her colleagues. When the New Woman’s actions within the triangle are considered as a whole, her choices add up to a character that is asserting her autonomy and reluctance to conform to gendered expectations. She emphasizes the third-­‐wave feminist priorities of connection and interdependence (Heywood and Drake, 1997, p. 13), while embodying the principles of resistance: her “refusal to accept the social identity proposed by the dominant ideology and the social control that goes with it ... [maintains and strengthens] a sense of social difference that is a prerequisite to any more direct social challenge” (Fiske, 1987, p. 243). I acknowledge the challenge posed by my choice to analyze “living texts” such as these. As of April 2015 Grey’s Anatomy, The Good Wife and Mad Men are still airing new episodes, and although some of the characters in the triangle have left the program, the 63
triangle itself is not completely resolved because one or more of its characters are still locked into a narrative trajectory. The Grey’s Anatomy triangle is closest to resolved because the New Woman is no longer part of the narrative: Cristina left Seattle to lead a cardiovascular institute in Europe, while Owen stayed behind. Alicia and Megan, however, are still part of their respective programs. The characters in the triangle that remain demonstrate the impact that the triangle has had on their lives. Alicia is haunted by memories of her romance with Will, and is navigating being a name partner alongside Diane at Florrick, Agos and Lockhart. Owen is reluctant to begin new romantic relationships and move on from Cristina. Peggy is struggling to reach the next level of career success. Whether or not Megan will find acting success in California, or if she and Don will divorce, remains to be seen. While I don’t believe that the endings of these programs will change my findings, I am curious and would recommend future research into how each ending impacts the triangle’s engagement with cultural myths. This iteration of the New Woman indicates a positive shift in representation: she takes on entrenched social norms of heteronormative romantic relationships and woman-­‐
woman competition and demonstrates positive alternatives. If Fiske is correct in his belief that resistant readings can destabilize social order and are the basis for social action, this iteration of the New Woman could foreshadow an improvement in the depiction of women in the workplace on television. There is room to grow, however–this iteration of the New Woman does not do much to address other intersections of inequality that women face in the workplace, including racism, classism, ageism, and ableism. Nonetheless, I am optimistic. The New Woman character archetype has a strong history of addressing 64
contemporary feminist issues, and I believe that should this trend continue, the New Woman will evolve to fully embrace the plurality of women’s experiences in the workplace. 65
References Ashcraft, K. L. & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1996). “A woman’s worst enemy: Reflections on a narrative of organizational life and female identity”. Journal of Applied Communication Research 24. 217-­‐239. Baumgardner, J. & Richards, A. (2000). Manifest: Young women, feminism and the future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. (Jonathan Cape Ltd., Trans). New York: Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957) Berger, A. A. (2004). Semiotic analysis. Media analysis techniques (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Binhammer, K. (2006). Female Homosociality and the Exchange of Men: Mary Robinson’s Walsingham. Women’s Studies 35(3). 221-­‐240. Bitch Flicks (N.D.) About us. Retrieved from: http://www.btchflcks.com/about-­‐us Boyle, K. (2005). Feminism without men: Feminist media studies in a post-­‐feminist age. In C. Brundson, & L. Siegel (Eds.) Feminist television criticism: A reader (174-­‐
190). New York: Open University Press. Brooks, A. (1997). Postfeminisms: Feminism, cultural theory, and cultural forms. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Buckman, A. R. (2010). Triangulated desire in Angel and Buffy. In E. B. Waggoner (Ed.) Sexual rhetoric in the works of Joss Whedon; New essays. Jefferson NS: McFarland & Company. 48-­‐92. 66
Burkehead, C. (2008). Deceit, desire, and the medical soap opera: Triangular longing in Grey’s Anatomy. In C. Burkhead, & H. Robson (Eds.) Grace Under Pressure: Grey’s Anatomy Uncovered (2-­‐10). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub. Buzzanell, P. M., and D’Enbeau, S. (2014). Intimate, ambivalent and erotic mentoring: Popular culture and mentor-­‐mentee relational processes in Mad Men. Human relations (67)6. 694-­‐714. Campbell, R. (2006). Wisconsin film studies: Marked women: Prostitutes and prostitution in the cinema. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Caprino, K. (2014 July 4). Why it’s so damaging to tell women they can’t have it all (and why I’m so tired of hearing it). Forbes. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2014/07/04/why-­‐its-­‐so-­‐damaging-­‐to-­‐
tell-­‐women-­‐they-­‐cant-­‐have-­‐it-­‐all-­‐and-­‐why-­‐im-­‐so-­‐tired-­‐of-­‐hearing-­‐it/ Carr, D. (2014, March 9). Barely keeping up in TV’s new golden age. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/media/fenced-­‐in-­‐by-­‐televisions-­‐
excess-­‐of-­‐excellence.html?_r=1 Carveth, R., & South, J.B. (Eds.). (2010). Mad Men and philosophy: Nothing is as it seems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Dow, B. (1996). Prime-­‐time feminism: television, media culture, and the women's movement since 1970. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Engstrom, E., Lucht, T., Marcellus, J., & Voss, K.W. (2014). Mad Men and Working Women: Feminist Perspectives on Historical Power, Resistance and Otherness. New York: Peter Lang. 67
Engstrom, E. (2014). Mad women and the marriage gradient: The risks and rewards of highly competent women. In E. Engstrom, T. Lucht, J. Marcellus., & K. W. Voss (Eds.) Mad Men and Working Women: Feminist Perspectives on Historical Power, Resistance and Otherness (88-­‐104). New York: Peter Lang. Fiske, J. (1985). The semiotics of television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2). 176-­‐183. Fiske, J. (1986). Television: Polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3(4). 391-­‐408. Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. Florence, KY: Routledge. Fiske, J. (1992). British cultural studies and television. Channels of discourse, reassembled: Television and contemporary criticism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Genz, S. (2010). Singled out: Postfeminism’s “New Woman” and the dilemma of having it all. The Journal of Popular Culture 43(1), 97-­‐119. Genz, S., & Brabon, B. (2009). Postfeminism: Cultural texts and theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Girard, R. (1965). Deceit, desire, and the novel. (Y. Freccero, Trans.). Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. (Original work published 1961) Greenwald, A. (2012, March 27). The return of Mad Men and the end of TV’s golden 68
age. Grantland. Retrieved from: http://grantland.com/features/andy-­‐greenwald-­‐
don-­‐draper-­‐mad-­‐men-­‐twilight-­‐golden-­‐age-­‐television/ Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., & Willis, P. (Eds.) Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-­‐1979. London UK: Routledge. 117-­‐127. Heywood, L. (2006). The women's movement today: An encyclopedia of third-­‐wave feminism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Heywood, L. & Drake, J. (1997). Third wave agenda: Being feminist, doing feminism. Minneapolis: Regents of the University of Minnesota. Hugel, M. (2013, December 13). 2013 was a huge win for women in television. Mic. Retrieved from: http://mic.com/articles/76521/2013-­‐was-­‐a-­‐huge-­‐win-­‐for-­‐women-­‐
in-­‐television Humbert, D. (2010). Desire and monstrosity in the disaster film: Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 17. 97-­‐103. Johnson, M. L. (2007) Ladies love your box: The rhetoric of pleasure and danger in feminist television studies. In M.L. Johnson (Ed.) Third wave feminism: Jane puts it in a box. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. 1-­‐28. Karlyn, K. R. (2009). Scream, popular culture, and feminism’s third-­‐wave: “I’m not my mother”. In M.K. Goodwin-­‐Kelly, E. Roth, & H. Addison (Eds.) Motherhood misconceived: representing the maternal in U.S. films. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. 177-­‐198. 69
Lauzen, M. M. (2013). Boxed in: Employment of behind-­‐the-­‐scenes and on-­‐screen women in 2012-­‐13 prime-­‐time television. Retrieved from: http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/files/2012-­‐13_Boxed_In_Report.pdf Leavy, P. L. (2007). The feminist practice of content analysis. In S. N. Hesse-­‐Biber & P.L. Leavy (Eds.). Feminist Research Practice. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 223-­‐248. Lotz, A. D. (2001). Postfeminist television criticism: Rehabilitating critical terms and identifying postfeminist attributes. Feminist Media Studies 1(1), 105-­‐121. Lotz, A. D. (2006). Redesigning women: Television after the network era. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. McIntosh, H. & Cuklanz, L. (2014). Feminist media research. In S. N. Hesse-­‐Biber (Ed.) Feminist research practice: A primer (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 264-­‐291. Reifova, I. (2008). ‘It has happened before, it will happen again’: The third golden age of television. Czech Sociological Review, 44(6). 1237-­‐1238. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rhimes, S., Heinberg, A., Beers, B., Parriott, J. D., Renshaw, J., Rafner, J., … Rater, J. (Producer). (2005). Grey’s Anatomy. [Television series]. Burbank, CA: American Broadcasting Company. Scott, R., Johnson, D., Zucker, D. W., King, M., King, R., Kennedy, B., Scott, T. 70
(Producers). (2009). The Good Wife [Television series]. New York: CBS Broadcasting Inc. Sedgewick, E. K. (2009). “Gender Asymmetry and Erotic Triangles.” In R. Warhol Down, & D. P. Herndl Feminisms REDUX: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press. Sharot, S. (2013). Wealth and/or love: Class and gender in the cross-­‐class romance films of the great depression. Journal of American Studies 47(1). 89-­‐108. Slaughter, A. (2012 June 13). Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-­‐women-­‐still-­‐cant-­‐
have-­‐it-­‐all/309020/ Stokes, J. (2003). How to do media and cultural studies. London UK: Sage Publications, Inc. Tanenbaum, L. (2002). Catfight: Women and competition. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. Taylor, A. (2011). Single women in popular culture: The limits of postfeminism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, A. (1999) Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women’s intrasexual aggression. Behavioural and brain sciences 22. 203-­‐252. Ulaby, N. (2013, May 18). Working women on television: A mixed bag at best. NPR. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/05/18/184832930/working-­‐
women-­‐on-­‐television-­‐a-­‐mixed-­‐bag-­‐at-­‐best 71
Vincent, A. (2014, December 30). How feminism conquered pop culture. The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11310119/feminism-­‐pop-­‐
culture-­‐2014.html Weiner, M., Hornbacher, S., Jacquemetton, A., Jacquemetton, M., & Leahy, J. (Producers). (2007). Mad Men [Television series]. New York: AMC Networks Inc. 72