Literature Review- In and out of the Closet
Barabara hunt Lazerson, 1981, The American Dialect Society: In and out of the Closet, American Speech, Vol. 56, No.4, pp. 274-277
In “Barbara Hunt Lazerson”’s journal, it has given me a different meaning of the word “Closet”. For my own understanding the word “closet” is mainly relating to homosexuality. It is a term that we describe people who hide their sexuality in the society. But in this journal it has described much more compare to what I have just describe from above. From the journal, I learnt that “closet” is a place that we can isolate ourselves from the public, in that place it gathers our own entire secret that we couldn’t tell to the public. “Closet” involved in many situations, it mainly because of the pressure from the public, instead of express it out people normally decided to hide to them. In the journal it has also mentioned about people who go in and out of the closet and it made me wondered that what made the people decide to hide their own secrets and what made them to come out of the closet and honestly speak out to the public about things they were hiding?
In the journal it said, “Archie Bunker’s Place…in1980”, “M: You mean Tom is in the closet? F:……a dirty old closet it is too.” It showed to me that there is a connection between homosexuality and closet. When people realise they have a different sexual orientation they wouldn’t say or show it out at the first place. Some of them will even hide this secret to themselves, which is the “closet”. I believed there is a reason for it. And from reading this journal, it showed to me that some people has already established stereotypical view towards the homosexual. Their eyes, opinions and actions have forced the people to go into the closet and hide in it. And at this point I wonder why people have such a view and opinion on the homosexual, have they read or listen to any media?
“Some closet conditions cause people to behave in ways exactly opposite to the behavior…….” Hiding in the closet is not only about keeping secret towards us, it actually means our feelings; emotions and reactions have to hide as well. Also people have to act “normal” and “normal” is the standard that set by the society. When people cannot be honest with their identity how can they have a normal life like others? In this democratic society, if people are not allow to have their own sexual views then it would not be truly democratic. The homosexuality have to carry the discrimination by others but also the pressure that they gain from their own daily life e.g. family and religion. As the misunderstanding by others and the increase of people hiding in the closet, this will only create a larger negative affect in the city.
“…many Americans have been eager to “let it all hang out.” In the article it also mentioned that from 1971 onwards more and more people has gradually come out from the closet and it showed that it is a good sign that more and more people willing to speak up for others and for themselves as well. It is getting more towards the equal rights and society approve.
This journal has made a direct link for my research project and group project. It has given me an idea of how does homosexuality go in and out the closet and what is the meaning and purpose of the closet. This journal article has given me inspirations for carrying on further research to deepen my understanding towards this topic area and researching the influences of media and the psychological aspect on homosexuality can do this.
Literature Review2-Psychosocial Aspects of Homosexuality
Sidney Crown, 1980, Psychosoical Aspects of Homosexuality: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol.6, and No. 3, pp.130-132
In this journal, it is about the psychological side of homosexuality. Homosexuality may have a different view and life compare to us. They easily get judged and compared with others. In the journal the author has given some opinions and thoughts about the homosexuality, the negative opinions have made me wonder whether he has stereotype the homosexuality or not. As a media which side is he representing? Also has his view slightly affected our thoughts toward homosexuality? On the other hand he also talked about the psychological aspect of homosexuality and opinions of these people going for therapy.
“…A person should form a mature relationship with someone with the opposite sex….”and “homosexuality is a normal sexual variant.” The author had created a contradiction in one part of his journal. At first he used the word “should” meaning that people need to have relationship with an opposite sex and have a family. This is a normal life. But on the other hand he said that homosexuality is normal relationship in the society. I believed he was making a contrast and being sarcasm that homosexuality is a normal change in sexual relationship. He believed and agrees a normal relationship with a different sex is a normal relationship. And although he showed to us that he understands that homosexuality is normal change but he didn’t show us that he is agree with this fact. He is slightly bias on one side.
“Homosexuality is unique in that ….not only form with a whole person…. to part of a person (e.g. a foot fetish)” In this passage I believed that the author has given out such a negative view of homosexuality to the audience. It has a direct connection between my own research project and group project. The author has a stereotype on the homosexual and he has showed it out in here. He seems like he has made a conclusion that all homosexuality are the same and all of them have a different form of sexual deviance. But has he consider that not all of the homosexuals are like this?
In the research it said “Fathers of homosexuals tended to be detach…rejecting towards the potentially homosexual son”, “Mother… is close binding intimate” and the homosexuals were more attach to mother than father…” As a conclusion of the three quotes from above, fathers of homosexuals were more close to their mothers when they were young, they didn’t have a good relationship with their fathers due to fathers were away from home for long period during their childhood. So when the homosexuals have become parents, fathers of homosexuals tend to have troubles of accepting their homosexual’s children. They have no idea how to act as a father in front of their children; they will gradually just copy what their father did to them when they were young. As mothers of homosexual have learnt more from their own mother when they were young, they have the ability of understand more on their child but on the other hand since they lost the love of father when they were young they will be more over controlling on their own kids and worry for them that they will miss anything in their childhood. I realise this is something that I will know and research for my own project this is because this is the one type of pressure that the outsiders will never understand. Homosexuals want to have a normal family like others but they have far more difficulties no matter from the society or in the family. Who will care about them? Instead who will even notice about them?
“The idea of ‘cure’ in the sense of changing homosexual orientation is unfashionable.” And “therapist and potential client need to discuss goals and methods before embarking on therapy” I agreed with what quote from above by the gay organization. I believed the word “cure” is not sensible to use in this situation. I believed there is nothing to cure homosexuality is not a disease, it is a choice that these people chose. At the end I believed that having therapy doesn’t mean change for an opposite sex for relationship. These therapies showed that they have the same or more pressures that the outsiders who called themselves ‘normal’ will never understand.
Literature Review 3-The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Voters
James N. Drickman and Michael Parkin, 2005, The impact of media bias: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No.4, pp.1030-1049
This journal is about the honesty and objective view that media should have when they present news to their readers. In the journal it has been shown that media has been bias by using several methods and these methods have both directly and indirectly affected voters’ decision. It has directly built up a connection between my group project and research project. From this journal I have built up a question, have the media being bias on homosexuality and stereotype them negatively so they can gain more readers to read their newspaper? Have they slowly attach their thoughts on to us the readers to make us believe what they said is true?
In the journal the authors did a research, they have a small conclusion that editorial slant do affect the decision of the voters. In one of the passage they explained that although they cant prove the percentage of the media effects towards the voters but their data has proved that media always give out an answer inside their texts and this action will easily make the readers believe tat this is the truth.
“A pollster asked every third voter to complete a brief, self administered questionnaire in exchange for $3…” and “… the Star Tribune has substantially more readers.” Aren’t the media supposed to be honest and objective? From the quotes they showed to me they have an aim. It is not sharing about sharing the news to the public. For my own opinion they only trying to gain more people to read their newspaper, they have no responsible to present the truth to the audience. It could also explain in another way is that they believed what they wrote and showed to the audience is the truth, their texts made the audience to believed what the media said is true. And when this happened, the media will make a direct hit to the readers, readers’ thoughts and decisions may change. The media’s stereotype of one person or one thing will directly transfer into the readers’ brain. At this situation is it fair to the people that got stereotype negatively by the media? And on the other hand has the media been bias when they positively stereotype someone in their news?
“…Reading the Star Tribune does not shape vote choice directly, but it has an indirect impact through its effect on both integrity and empathy…” this quote is similar to what I have mentioned from above. Although it has proved that the media didn’t directly change the vote choice but this is only because not all the readers fully agree with what the media said, they remain the own thoughts and decision. Also although there was a large number of people reading that newspaper but there may be a small percentage of people that decided to read something else which have a different opinions compare to what the media said. When people start to question about the truth and honesty of media, is that mean the media is starting to lose the trust from their readers?