In Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal, J. Jack Halberstam puts forth a theory of feminism informed by anarchism and queer theory. Gaga feminism, named after but not limited to Lady Gaga’s cultural creativity, is anarchist in its repudiation of the establishment, anti-capitalist in its disavowal of competitive individualism, and skeptical of status quo categorizations that seek to organize a tremendously diverse and complex world. Thus, to not only cultivate suspicion towards “normal” assumptions, but to unequivocally reject them, dive into the unknown, and embrace alternatives is to “go gaga.” To describe this philosophy, Halberstam offers numerous references from popular culture and conducts sophisticated analysis of a variety of texts, from television shows and films to critic reviews. Gaga feminism is indeed best witnessed through the lens of popular culture, especially when popular culture is understood as a site of contestation for hegemony, a tussle between structural forces and individual agencies. As such, popular culture is also the site of false resolution, whereupon anxieties about gender nonconformity are subdued through recourse to hegemonic, compulsory heterosexuality. What is most telling in its attempted but inevitably failed resolutions are the underlying anxieties which speak to societies that are increasingly going gaga — that is, rejecting institutionalized unions, spirituality, education, and more.
Popular culture offers an exceptional window into the challenges to hegemony and the threats to normalcy that the repeated resurgence of “normal” belies. Inherent in this understanding of popular culture is the notion of societies in flux, responding to and precipitating cultural shifts, far from static or suspended in time. This state of change is what Halberstam points to in encouraging readers to look to the margins to witness “inevitable” transformation.1 Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony as a “terrain of ideological struggle” is useful here,2 especially as the tussle for dominance can be read in texts of popular culture. John Storey summarizes Gramsci’s ideas as follows:
It is the “Gramscian insistence’ (before, with, and after Gramsci), learned from Marx, that we make culture and we are made by culture; there is agency and there is structure. It is not enough to celebrate agency; nor is it enough to detail the structure(s) of power. We must always keep in mind the dialectical play between resistance and incorporation. The best of cultural studies has always been mindful of this.3
In other words, popular culture is not an all-powerful force for ideological domination; this perspective would imply that individuals are ignorant “cultural dupes” who readily and indiscriminately accept any information presented to them.4 Rather, popular culture is dialectical, in a sense “reading” the tropes and anxieties of certain people at certain times, responding to them, and simultaneously shaping while being shaped by readers of cultural texts — whether in the form of film, newspapers, music, advertisements, or literature. As John Storey writes, “We make history and we are made by history; we make culture and we are made by culture."5 Therefore, popular culture is neither entirely hegemonic nor entirely subversive.
Halberstam makes precisely this observation as he draws upon several examples of cultural texts. In the example of Lady Gaga, he explains that she “does not emerge from a vacuum, nor does she spring fully formed in the space vacated by Madonna, Gwen Stefani, and Britney Spears."6 Just as there exist mainstream, heteronormative films such as Bridesmaids and The Hangover, there are also the more unconventional character portrayals in animated films. Dory in Finding Nemo is offered by Halberstam as one example.7 Her forgetfulness allows her to sidestep many of the institutionalized expectations of her, such as motherhood. Fantastic Mr. Fox is another creative work that suggests new possibilities for masculinities — i.e., through a detachable tail (read manhood) that can be re-attached when desired — and pushes the bounds of what is normal.8 Though audience reception cannot be homogenized or inferred from this, it is safe to say that viewers do not simply mimic what they see on screen, but rather that films influence viewers in different ways depending on a number of contextual and cultural factors. The way it is read as a cultural text will look different among various audience members. Like a Paint-By-Number kit, in which colors and shape are predetermined and yet each resultant painting is inevitably different, the impact of watching films of popular culture are without a doubt specific to individuals, even when operating within preexisting constraints.
Because hegemony cannot be unilaterally established and uncontested, Halberstam astutely points to the perpetual attempts at re-asserting hegemony.9 Namely, Halberstam speaks to the ways in which cultural texts can play a prescriptive role. In his section titled “White Weddings?” he describes the kind of unions that are made permissible while other possibilities are foreclosed, sometimes through unmentionability, at times by terminating alternatives prematurely, and sometimes by invisibilizing alternatives altogether.10 One example is that even as the denouements of many romantic films portray marriage as an inevitability,11 unions that cross racial or class divides are implicitly deemed unallowable.12 In another example, popular culture plays a role in defining the meaning of progress, specifically in the context of a neoliberal capitalistic world order, as upward economic mobility often at the cost of creativity.13 By extension, people must conform to the politics of respectability in order to “win” or “earn” their happy endings. Given the dialectical nature of popular culture, this has strong implications for the forms of rebellion that both precede and arise from such capitalistic encouragements, including gaga feminism, which disavows profit-making as a goal for living.
Therefore, in heeding Halberstam’s advice to look beyond the everyday for signs of change,14 it is perhaps very useful to look precisely at the everyday for evidence of anxieties surrounding change. The attempt by many cultural texts to foreclose possibilities for alternative ways of living speaks to underlying anxieties about an audience’s capacity for imagination beyond the status quo. Therefore, without explicitly proscribing particular possibilities, cultural texts may engage in the contestation for hegemony by offering repeated imagery (e.g., formulaic romantic comedies) and arguments for pragmatism over revolution. Cultural texts may even employ the form of a meta-narrative to describe hegemony itself, as though flexing their muscles in warning, an excellent example of which is the chess game in an episode of “The Wire” that is described by Halberstam.15
What might make this episode subversive and therefore a “gaga” text at the site of popular culture is its questioning of institutions made up of “the corrupt, the cheaters, and the liars,"16 and its depiction of “the game” that must be played in order to get ahead.17 But the diverse potential readings of this text precisely embody Gramsci’s caution against seeing audiences as cultural dupes and a reminder that intentions of production do not mirror the impact of texts and the ways audiences respond.18 Do audiences read the chess game scene as a “gaga” critique of cultural hegemony and oppressive institutions, or do they see it as a hegemonic ploy at identifying its own critique in order to mollify audiences into feeling that a critical consciousness already exists?
Another key ploy used in the contestation for hegemony, as described above, is the rendering of alternatives as unmentionable and therefore invisible. However, this ultimately fails because the very act of repudiating and suppressing alternatives renders them even more visible. Halberstam describes the depiction of homosexuals in films of the mid-twentieth century as “pathological” and “antisocial,” so unthinkable so as to become unmentionable.19 Given the dialectical nature of popular culture, this unmentionability is not invented purely by film, but both reflects preexisting societal feelings while disseminating them. Films may be seen as “raising lesbianism as a joke but then casting a sexual relationship between the two women as impossible, unthinkable, and ultimately unmentionable.” Halberstam continues, “the specter of lesbianism continues to haunt these comedies despite the explicit rejections of lesbianism within the plots themselves."20 Particularly fascinating here is the notion of a sexuality that is made more present in its absence. The disavowal of lesbianism is so strong so as to betray an anxiety about a very real phenomenon. In other words, its disavowal only makes it more real.
Socio-historical contexts undoubtedly play a key role in popular culture’s depiction of anxieties of the times.21 For example, films that conclude with the redemption of men as necessary components to the arc of a woman’s life speak to underlying fears about the obsolescence of men and fathers, or “the end of men” as Halberstam writes.22 During a time of greater reproductive technologies and independence, biology and “blood” are suddenly given “mysteriously magnetic qualities” in attempts to rebuild the nuclear, biologically-related family.23 Hollywood movies almost self-consciously recognize the precariousness of marriage now, or what Halberstam puts as marriage’s “own fragile plot."24 At the same time, for communities under threat, films may depict the risk, not of marriage’s increasing obsolescence, but of relationships under threat of racialized troubles in an increasingly unequitable world with socioeconomic vulnerability and mass incarceration threatening family structures.25 This is further evidence of popular culture’s role as a site of contestation, depicting unique anxieties and ways that films are sensitized to various contexts and different communities.
Thus, the ways that cultural texts attempt resolutions of anxieties can also be very telling of the inevitable transformations of which Halberstam writes. Films, as Halberstam shows us, may reveal many failures of marriage only to ultimately beseech their audiences to place their hopes in the institution nonetheless.26 They may resolve anxieties surrounding homosexuality and the redundancy of men by invoking the power of male sexuality within a lesbian relationship.27 In this way, popular culture serves as a vehicle for transmitting the myth that compulsory heterosexuality is “the only game."28 Mainstream cultural texts often conclude a narrative without offering resolutions that adequately address the real and complex issues raised. Halberstam explains that “even as the men stumble, bumble, and collapse, fail to be good husbands, boyfriends, or sons, these films raise, only to dispatch quickly the question of whether men are necessary."29
Most interestingly, a cultural text may invoke the critique of itself, usually in an anemic form — but sometimes, as Halberstam shows us, powerfully and eloquently — only to sidestep it later in the film.30 This may signify an attempt to make popular culture more potent a tool for manufacturing ideological consent, as the critique is raised and acknowledged only to be left unfulfilled and ignored. For example, legitimate critique of marriage may be rendered asinine in relation to the grand “cum shot” ending of a wedding and inevitable marriage.31 In anticipating its own critique without radically changing outcomes,32 and at times engaging in acts of deflection,33 a cultural text serves to uphold its hegemonic position. Nonetheless, these attempts at resolving anxieties ultimately suggest the fragility and instability of institutions, which films and publications must protect and prop back up.34
Halberstam ultimately guides his readers to notice the ways that cultural texts can be used in order to contest hegemony at the site of popular culture, a fascinating possibility for counter-cultures and where gaga feminism and queer anarchy might enter. This includes Lady Gaga becoming the telephone that harasses her in the music video of “Telephone,” a song of halting, repetitive rhythms.35 Halberstam writes that “Lady Gaga coolly dissects the pop market and finds new sounds, new messages, and new forms of political engagement."36 This runs contrary to other cultural texts that seek to invisibilize queer alternatives and contestations of hegemonic representations. Even one of Halberstam’s compelling alternatives is depicted in popular culture, namely the right not to have rights, or perhaps better put, the right to reject concessions — often long overdue, originally premised upon inequality (e.g., gay marriage), and made by dominant parties (e.g., the state) — that are masquerading as “rights."37 This creates interesting new possibilities and poses the question of what role popular culture can play for those who reject “the carrot dangled by the state."38
A recent example of such a “gaga” rejection, found in popular culture, is the television show Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. Set in 1950-60s New York, the protagonist, Miriam “Midge” Maisel (played by Rachel Brosnahan) goes gaga when her unfaithful husband leaves her, and she, through her very hard work as well as her much desired physical appearance (structure and agency both playing a role), becomes a wildly successful comic. Each of the show’s three seasons contains one major character going gaga: first Midge, then her father, Abe Weissman (played by Tony Shalhoub), who leaves his stable employment as a mathematics professor at Columbia University in his desire to foment revolution, and finally Midge’s mother.39
In the show’s third season, Midge’s mother, Rose Weissman (played by Marin Hinkle) travels from New York City to Providence, Oklahoma to request an increase in her trust fund income after her husband leaves his job.40 Upon arriving, Rose’s brother Oscar calls a “special meeting of the trust board.” Rose finds herself entering a room full of men and one boy. When trying to take a seat at the table, Oscar tells her to “take a seat back there, Rosie,” pointing to a bench behind him.41 The all-male trust board, despite being comprised of Rose’s family members, refuse her a seat at the decision-making table — though a seat lies unoccupied, vacated by her grandmother — while, in clever, hyperbolic writing, a young boy sits at the table with the men. Oscar calls the meeting to order in a show of masculine bureaucratic procedure and introduces Rose as “Little Rosie from the North."42 All the while, Rose’s unraveling is underway as she witnesses the patronizing attitude of a brother who she sees as incompetent and chauvinistic. Her face is set in anger and bitter compromise. The gaga moment is imminent.
As Halberstam describes the refusal to take the carrot dangled by the state, Rose refuses the money dangled by the trust board, which is offered to her on the condition that she not realize her full right to participate as a member of the family. When told that she knows nothing about business and is too old to learn, she immediately points to Oscar’s façade of professionalism and respectability. Rose, in Halberstam’s words, becomes “crazy in a room full of nice and normal people."43 She calls Mendel, the child with a seat at the table, a “dumb little boy” and “little nitwit” who does not understand decision-making. She grabs a fan out of the hands of a maid who is on her third round of attempting to fan Rose. Then she calls out the authority figure directly, questioning his knowledge about the family business, brazenly pointing to his incompetence, and says, “I could do that.” She leaves the room with, “It’s very simple. If I don’t get a say, I don’t want your money.” Then, on her way out the door, she turns back and seizes a portrait of her grandmother from a wall, as she says, “Come on, Grandmama. Women aren’t welcome here.”
Rose, like her daughter before her, went gaga in this scene, and she later cites her daughter as being the reason she was not willing to settle (note the turning of generational tables, where old learns from young). In the spirit of popular culture as inherently dialectical, this is not to say that viewers would go gaga as a result of watching this episode, for as Storey reminds us, to assume that intention is equivalent to response is a great mistake.44 As has been documented before,45 could the portrayals of women’s rebellion lead to a complacency, perhaps through vicariousness, and cause audiences to feel that gaga feminism is now superfluous? This possibility notwithstanding, could popular culture be a site for anarchist experimentation? Midge, Abe, Rose, and Lady Gaga certainly illuminate possibilities. “Creative anarchy, gaga anarchy, gaga feminism are all born of a spirit of experimentation, cooperation, change, motility, combustibility, and urgency."46 It must be that popular culture cannot help but engage in this motility as it reads the temperature of societies and responds.
There are a number of important political implications for the work that popular culture can accomplish. Halberstam suggests a rejection of packaged social values and imperatives, such as marriage repurposed for gay individuals, and instead proposes the “creative invention of new ones."47 Surely popular culture can play an important role. For example, what new forms of intimacy can be explored that may value the “ephemeral” over the permanent,48 or that may treasure fictive kin in ways that restructure notions of belonging?49 An argument can even be made that texts of popular culture, through their creativity and lack of necessity to adhere strictly to “reality,” can accomplish what straight-forward activism cannot.50 To take up these possibilities is not only to engage in new imagination, but also to actively work towards contesting the hegemony of existing, mainstream representations. For example, the homogenizing “’global gay’ discourses” tend to export hegemonic Euro-American constructions of sexual identities to other parts of the world, helped by the universalization of the English language and cinema, which neglects to acknowledge the vast sexual and cultural diversity globally, and therefore almost serves as a form of cultural imperialism.51
Thus, it becomes amply clear that popular culture is a site of “established and contested” norms, an “arena of struggle and negotiation,” and “a contradictory mix of forces from both ‘below’ and ‘above.’"52 In the conclusion to Halberstam’s lecture at Portland State University’s 2013 Kellogg Awards Ceremony, he says,
We can’t consent to the notion that the queer and carnival-esque occasions of revolt that we engineer are in fact engineering us. We have to be smart enough to know that…our efforts to create space may sometimes form new modes of colonization. But we still have to be hard-headed enough to believe that there is life beyond the world we inhabit here and now.53
Here, Halberstam channels the consciousness with which Gramsci and Storey write of hegemony and popular culture as an interaction of structure and agency, resistance and incorporation.54 Storey writes, “We need to see ourselves – all people, not just vanguard intellectuals – as active participants in culture: selecting, rejecting, making meanings, attributing value, resisting and, yes, being duped and manipulated."55 Finally, it will be helpful to turn to popular culture once more — the words of The Fleet Foxes in “Helplessness Blues”:
And now after some thinkin’
I’d say I’d rather be
a functioning cog in some great machinery
serving something beyond me.
But I don’t, I don’t know what that will be.
I’ll get back to you someday
Soon you will see.56
The lyrics capture not only the interplay between structure and agency, but the individual as a conscious participant, exercising choice within prescribed limitations. Hegemony as shifting and undecided, witnessed through popular culture, is not entirely prescriptive nor entirely revolutionary. The possibilities need to be taken up by individuals.
1. J. Jack Halberstam, Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal (Boston: Beacon Press, 2012), 27.
2. John Storey, Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction, Fifth Edition (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2009), 10.
3. John Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” in Inventing Popular Culture: From Folklore to Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 61.
4. Storey 52. “Cultural dupes” is Gramsci’s expression.
5. Storey 60.
6. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 138-139.
7. Halberstam 129.
8. Halberstam 93.
9. Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” 49. “Hegemony is maintained (and must be continually maintained: it is an ongoing process) by dominant groups and classes ‘negotiating’ with, and making concessions to, subordinate groups and classes.”
10. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 122. For a fascinating parallel, see M. Madhava Prasad, “Guardians of the View: The Prohibition of the Private,” Gender and Censorship 4 (2006): 242-254. Prasad describes the informal 30-year ban on kissing within Indian cinema, not as a sign of Indian moral probity, but as eschewing the autonomy of an independent couple in favor of upholding the institutions of kinship. Because the kiss would inaugurate the sphere of private conjugality, which would allow women limited subjectivity, this would afford a level of autonomy that is unacceptable. Therefore, the couple must be re-inscribed into larger networks of kinship and community. The ban on private conjugality, even though informal, reveals anxiety towards a couple with relative autonomy that is only answerable to the state.
11. Halberstam 121.
12. The Notebook, directed by Nick Cassavetes, (2004; Seattle, WA: Netflix, 2019), https://www.netflix.com/title/60036227. Based on a novel of the same name by Nicholas Sparks, this movie tells the story of a class divide between a young couple, which is not given a true resolution. The heroine, Allie, who has great generational wealth, is separated early on from her working-class beau, Noah, after her mother emphatically calls him “trash, trash, trash” and forces Allie to move away. Noah enlists in the military during World War II and upon his return, he builds a large house as he once promised Allie. Given the substantial resources this implies, he is decidedly no longer poor. His newly built house, featured in the paper and a signifier of wealth as a fixed asset, is further symbolic because he refuses to sell it, which indicates not only his undying love for Allie but also his ability to survive by other means. Allie reunites with Noah at a time when their class differences are no longer as stark. Suddenly Allie’s mother remembers that she too once rejected love for money, and the film resolves a complex issue rather simplistically, once again lending ambiguity to the harshest aspects of class conflict. In the end, Allie and Noah die together, clutching one another’s hands in a nursing home, Allie with Alzheimer’s and Noah without. This movie’s ending almost delivers death as though it were a great equalizer, as if saying that all people eventually die, privilege notwithstanding.
13. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 124.
14. Halberstam 27.
15. Halberstam 146-47. It is worth reading Halberstam’s insightful analysis in full, but here is an excerpt: “D’Angelo disabuses his audience of the idea that they can win the game—they can convert to queens, they can run wild, but more likely they will be gunned down and ‘out of the game early.’ The king stays the king, the queen lives in glory for short spells but has everyone gunning for her, and the pawns are sacrificed along the way for bigger prizes. And that’s the game.” The meta-narrative produces a meta-audience; an audience watches as D’Angelo imparts wisdom on his audience. “The series ends on this note—kings stay kings, queens do damage and then get neutralized, pawns leave the game early, knights and bishops make the moves they make but ultimately stay in the middle of the board not moving up or down. And that’s the game, the game by which we all live and die; while a few win, most lose, and ultimately the game plays us.”
16. Halberstam 147.
17. Halberstam 145.
18. Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” 56-57. “It is crude and simplistic to assume that the effects of consumption must mirror the intentions of production.”
19. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 99.
20. Halberstam 39.
21. Storey, Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 11. “Thus a text is made up of a contradictory mix of different cultural forces. How these elements are articulated will depend in part on the social circumstances and historical conditions of production and consumption.” For a contemporary example, see Chris D’Elia, “No Pain,” directed by Matt D’Elia, aired April 2, 2020, on Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/title/81036229. This is one of several recent comedy sketches arising in the shadow of the #metoo movement. In this particular sketch, D’Elia implores white men, “keep [it] in your pants” lest they hear a “clink.”
22. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 41.
23. Halberstam 38.
24. Halberstam 114.
25. Halberstam 124. “These films are less worried, in other words, about marriage per se and more concerned with the survival of the black family and, by extension, the black community.”
26. Halberstam 55.
27. Halberstam 56.
28. Halberstam 61.
29. Halberstam 44.
30. Halberstam 121.
31. Halberstam 115.
32. Halberstam 124-25.
33. Halberstam 117. In the movie Bridesmaids where women fall sick during a wedding dress fitting and alternatively vomit or lose control over their bowel movements, Halberstam points out that the film portrays women and not their wedding dresses as “the place of horror.”
34. Halberstam 124.
35. Halberstam 64.
36. Halberstam 139.
37. Halberstam 128.
38. Halberstam 128.
39. Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, season 3, episode 2, “It’s the Sixties, Man!” directed by Daniel Attias, written by Amy Sherman-Palladino and and Daniel Palladino, featuring Rachel Brosnahan, Alex Borstein, and Michael Zegen, aired December 6, 2019, on Amazon Prime, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07WSD8XWF/. The show skillfully lampoons not only institutionalized education but also revolution itself, showing the propensity of reactive resistance movements to descend into vapid preoccupations with minutiae related to their image and presentation.
40. Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, season 3, episode 2, “It’s the Sixties, Man!”
41. Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, season 3, episode 2, “It’s the Sixties, Man!” This creates striking imagery of Rose in the background, behind the head of the table (occupied by her brother), and constantly attempting to include herself by drawing nearer to the table, only to be asked to recede back to the bench again.
42. Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, season 3, episode 2, “It’s the Sixties, Man!” The scenes leading up to this one artistically build up to not only the unraveling of Rose, but the brilliant portrayal of people holding different identities depending on context. In an eloquent show of the instability of identity, the respected Mrs. Weissman of the Upper West Side becomes the doted upon, infantilized Rosie in Providence.
43. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 141.
44. Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” 54. Storey cautions against “making a fetish of the ‘determining’ role of production.”
45. See Susan J. Douglas, “Introduction: Fantasies of Power,” in The Rise of Enlightened Sexism: How Pop Culture Took Us from Girl Power to Girls Gone Wild (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010).
46. Halberstam, Gaga Feminism, 140.
47. Halberstam 102.
48. Halberstam 109.
49. Halberstam 110-11.
50. Halberstam 103. “And while Lady Gaga’s words in political speeches are ordinary, her performances, her costumes, her gestures, the worlds she creates and peoples are extraordinary.”
51. Halberstam 75, 77, 81. Halberstam goes on to say that this kind of exporting of sexual categories, such as transgenderism, tends to confirm the “inevitable priorness of US/European sexual economies,” a sentiment that is riddled with presuppositions and imperialist notions of cultural supremacy.
52. Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” 51.
53. Portland State University, “Jack Halberstam – ‘No Church in the Wild: Queer Anarchy and Gaga Feminism,’” YouTube Video, 1:15:04, May 15, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIL9k8dCtwU.
54. Storey, “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony,” 58.
55. Storey, Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 234.
56. Fleet Foxes, “Helplessness Blues,” recorded 2010-2011, track 6 on Helplessness Blues, Sub Pop and Bella Union, studio album.
Bibliography
Cassavetes, Nick, dir. The Notebook. 2004; Seattle, WA: Netflix, 2019. https://www.netflix.com/title/60036227.
D’Elia, Chris. “No Pain.” Directed by Matt D’Elia. Aired April 2, 2020, on Netflix. https://www.netflix.com/title/81036229.
Douglas, Susan J. “Introduction: Fantasies of Power.” In The Rise of Enlightened Sexism: How Pop Culture Took Us from Girl Power to Girls Gone Wild. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010.
Fleet Foxes. “Helplessness Blues.” Recorded 2010-2011. Track 6 on Helplessness Blues. Sub Pop and Bella Union, studio album.
Halberstam, J. Jack. Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012.
Portland State University. “Jack Halberstam – ‘No Church in the Wild: Queer Anarchy and Gaga Feminism.’” YouTube Video, 1:15:04. May 15, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIL9k8dCtwU.
Prasad, M. Madhava. “Guardians of the View: The Prohibition of the Private.” Gender and Censorship 4 (2006): 242-254.
Sherman-Palladino, Amy and Daniel Palladino, writers. Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. Season 3, episode 2, “It’s the Sixties, Man!” Directed by Daniel Attias, featuring Rachel Brosnahan, Alex Borstein, and Michael Zegen. Aired December 6, 2019, on Amazon Prime. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07WSD8XWF/.
Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction, Fifth Edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2009.
Storey, John. “Popular Culture as an Arena of Hegemony.” In Inventing Popular Culture: From Folklore to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
Comments
Post a Comment