According to Yep and Russo (2016), the “new visibility” is the third stage in LGBTQ+ representation. The first two stages were those of “silence/invisibility” and “emerging visibility.” Without referring to specific years, the new visibility begins with the globalization of television entertainment. The appearance of gay and lesbian identities led to processes of normalization and the trivialization of sexual difference. Walters (2001) was the first to outline the characteristics of this “new gay visibility.” The reference to Ellen’s (DeGeneres/Morgan) coming out is significant because it marked a key moment in the development of this new visibility—both a peak and a starting point for the new forms of representation that would appear on television just a few years later.
The concept of hypervisibility refers, on the one hand, to the profusion of LGBTQ+ representations in television fiction produced in the Global North. It is a concept that allows us to move beyond the debate between the absence and presence of sexual and gender diversity on television. Likewise, it sets aside the binary of evaluating representations as either positive or negative. Hypervisibility begins with the premise that there are (many) diverse characters on television. For this reason, it becomes necessary to refine our critical lens to problematize these representations and identify the dynamics of the spectacle of the Other (Hall, 2013). The concept of hypervisibility has previously been addressed—though in other contexts—by Hammonds (1999) and Halberstam (2005). According to GLAAD reports (2010), the years 2010 and 2011 were marked by both a quantitative and qualitative improvement in the representation of diverse characters on U.S. television.
This third stage is still in the process of being theorized. We still need to review the literature on how current responses to productions featuring sexually and gender-diverse characters or narratives are being discussed—particularly in relation to anti-woke backlash. However, what is already evident is that, for the past few years (perhaps since around 2021?), specialized and public reception has become increasingly polarized. Moreover, the production and circulation of telecinematic content now largely depend on the cultural and ideological battles (“culture war”) being waged among audiences.
Villanueva-Jordán, I. (2021). Metasíntesis de estudios publicados sobre traducción audiovisual y estudios LGBTQ+ (2000-2020): dimensiones teóricas y conceptuales. Meta, 66(3), 557-579.
Villanueva-Jordán, I. & Chaume, F. (2021). Revisión sistemática de bibliografía sobre traducción audiovisual y estudios LGBTQ+ (2000-2020): dimensiones epistemológica y metodológica. Hikma, 20(2), 95-126.
GLAAD. (2010). Where We Are on TV Report: 2010 – 2011 Season.
Halberstam, J. (2005). In a Queer Time and Place. Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York University Press.
Hall, S. (2013). The Spectacle of the Other. In J. Evans, S. Hall, & S. Nixon (Eds.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (pp. 215–271). Sage Publications.
Hammonds, E. (1999). Toward a Genealogy of Black Female Sexuality: The Problematic of Silence. In J. Price & M. Shlidrick (Eds.), Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures ( pp. 93–104). Routledge.
Yep, G., & Russo, S. (2016). Media Representations of LGBTQ People. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies (pp. 757–760). SAGE Publications.
Walters, S. D. (2001). All the rage. University of Chicago Press.
