Written by Katrina Varey

Is 'Australian-ness inherently heterosexual? 



The field of queer theory when looking at Reality Television is often difficult to utilise due to the eschewing of homosexuality on many reality television programs. This is particularly so on popular lifestyle reality shows like My Kitchen Rules yet it is precisely the omission of homosexuality that positions such programs as homophobic. Especially when examining typecasts that are used for the homosexual contestants who do make it on to the show.  

As Rosalind Hanmer argues in her article Queer Television Discourse- Reality TV in reality television “an assumed heterosexual gaze has built into its psyche a blindness that privileges both its language and its position in society. The conflict created by this blindness functions as an oppression that sends signals outwards forcing the voice of disclosure (the other) to retreat from any social or cultural position.”(2005, p.108) This is epitomised in My Kitchen Rules generally by their near to complete lack of homosexuality on the show, but furthermore through the continual avoidance of any labelling or recognition. Such as when the couple in season 3 Gary and Pete, I refer back to this season purely because no couplings in season 4 are homosexual- a comment in itself -they are categorised only by their jobs, “Doctor and Lawyer”. Whereas the other contestants all have labels that specify how they know each other and the relationship they have e.g. “Married Scientists”. This omission, especially in comparison to the other heterosexual contestants is reminiscent of the old ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy in the army. 

It is from exclusion that the alignment between performing Australian-ness and The ANZAC battler is rife with army beliefs and regulations, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ being one of them. This concept of unease at mentioning homosexuality has been translated to the television screen communicates that it is easier just to ‘not know’, often this viewpoint is regarded as being helpful and progressive, whereas in actuality it is excluding and denying a person’s beliefs and values. 

Furthermore when examining Hamner’s case study on the reality series Fame Academy 2 she utilises internet postings from viewers as evidence of the messages being communicated to audiences around homosexuality. When one contestant on the television program ‘comes out’ a viewer posts this comment “‘It's funny because ... I did think she might be gay. But I can't really say why. It wasn't that she wore trousers and had short hair - because I'm not an idiot - it was just a vibe’.”( 2005, p. 110) Hamner describes this vibe as a "mechanism that substantiates Butler's theory that 'when it is not spoken' queerness is always there lurking in the shadows of numerous narratives" (Butler, 1991, p.13). This "intuitive notion or vibe has become part of a post-modern collective consciousness, a narrative that lies below the surface. It posits an understanding of identity in terms of sexuality that emphasises shifting boundaries, ambivalences and cultural constructions that are temporal." (Hamner, 2005, p 110-111). With this in mind the actual inclusion of gay and lesbian contestants in My Kitchen Rules is always merited as something unspoken and lurking under the surface. The characterisations of these contestants are also generally stereotypically ‘camp’ or ‘bitchy’, presenting homosexuality within existing generalisations and consequently in a critical way. 

Performing homosexuality is a performance that is aligned generally with stereotypes of the effeminate, ‘camp’ male. The contestant Jake in season 4 of MKR epitomises this stereotype. He is introduced to us as a ballet dancer, and throughout the season we consistently see the same clip of him doing a plié, utilising an upward camera to over dramatise the movement and therefore over dramatise this effeminate occupation – as being a ballet dancer in Australia has been generally aligned with females rather than males.  

Additionally vilification of Jake, Pete and Gary as ‘bitchy’ reinforces negative typecasts of homosexual males. The footage in the programs shows the men saying rude comments to other contestants, such as “game on mole”, and “the advantage we have is we know how to cook”. Even in conversation between Peter and Gary, Gary expresses “Oh god you can be a bit bitchy, you make me a bit bitchy too I think.” This is further emphasised by the nick naming that the other contestants give Peter and Gary, as “Dr Evil”, the producers utilise this in the intro section where both Peter and Gary are petting their animals whilst sitting down, in the same fashion as the ‘Dr.Evil’ character from Austin Powers.  

These backsliding categorisations of homosexuals have to be understood as production of society, as is heterosexuality as MacDowell and Sharp suggest in their study 'Space, Gender, Knowledge', "Hetero-sexuality is as much a social construction as lesbian sexuality, [h]owever, such is the strength of the assumption of the naturalness of heterosexual hegemony, that most people are oblivious to the way that it operates as a process of power relations in all spaces' including television texts or internet chat rooms" (MacDonald and Sharp 1997, p.150) Therefore the taken-for-grantedness that comes with the performance of heterosexuality in reality television is further intertwined in these shows with the performance of Australian-ness, which omits and shies away from homosexuality. The belief that not asking what sexuality someone is or not defining it is ‘helping’ them to be accepted and integrated in to society, and accepted on reality television by audiences is a degrading one. 

Readers at this point way have noticed that I have not even mentioned representation of lesbians on My Kitchen Rules. This is basically because there are no lesbians on the show to analyse. There are not even lesbians that fit within the stereotypes as producers choose to show with the male gay contestants, there is just a complete omission. 

This disregarding of an entire group of society communicates that they are not within the concept of Australian-ness that My Kitchen Rules idolises. A concept where homosexuality is either performed as overtly camp, or is completed excluded. As Hanmer argues "Reality TV and its element of queer discourse continue to produce internalised homophobic language and populist or reactionary conversations." (2005, p116)  In saying this, Hamner does offer a glimmer of hope, suggesting that discussions of audiences on the internet allows differing perspectives from those presented as normal and accepted on television, as she reasons "that young people do reflect upon and consider the different social and cultural practices of marginalised groups. While arguing that not all queer identities represented in Reality Television are progressive these on-line discussions suggest that homophobia can at least be tackled and debated and these forums can be used to instruct and challenge homophobic assumptions" (2005, p 116). Similarly these forums do exist for shows like My Kitchen Rules, however although the conversation extends past the original viewing it is what impact this has on reality television format and content that is still in question. The discourse has not so far disrupted or altered the representations on My Kitchen Rules, prompting further investigation in how these challenging views can be adapted to the lifestyle reality television format. 



(References in Part 4)