Learning About Mobile Sexual Identities from Queer as Folk

  • Rob Cover


This chapter explores how the British television program Queer as Folk functions as popular sex education about mobile sexual identities. In a digital/media-saturated contemporary culture, identities—including marginal and youth subjectivities—are constituted in the context of new digital technologies, and the processes of relationality that these produce. These include mobile phones. Such pervasive devices encourage interactivity with texts, narrative, discourses, and new relationalities with other users that re-configure the constitutive power of space and place in identity. Russell T. Davies’ Queer as Folk (UK 1999–2000) presented an early representation of the centrality of mobile technologies to community support, networking, sexual identity, and resilience. The program teaches viewers about the ways in which digital communications are pivotal in the everyday performativity of selfhood.


  1. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Billingham, P. (2003). Sensing the city through television. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (Orig. 1996 2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Cover, R. (2000). First contact: Queer theory, sexual identity, and ‘mainstream’ film. International Journal of Gender and Sexuality, 5(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cover, R. (2002). Re-sourcing queer subjectivities: Sexual identity and lesbian/gay community media. Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), 103, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cover, R. (2010). Object(ives) of desire: Romantic coupledom versus promiscuity, subjectivity and sexual identity. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 24(2), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cover, R. (2012). Queer youth suicide, culture and identity: Unliveable lives? London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Creed, B. (2003). Media matrix: Sexing the new reality. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, G. (2007). Queer as folk: TV classics. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, S. (2008). Introducing queer youth cultures. In S. Driver (Ed.), Queer youth cultures (pp. 1–18). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78 (trans: Burchell, G., Ed. Senellart, M.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature & difference. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Giroux, H. A. (1999). Cultural studies as public pedagogy: Making the pedagogical more political. Encyclopaedia of philosophy of education. Accessed 25 Feb 2012.
  17. Giroux, H. A. (2003). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giroux, H. A. (2004). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goggin, G. (2013). Youth cultures and mobiles. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross, L. (1998). Minorities, majorities and the media. In T. Liebes & J. Curran (Eds.), Media, ritual and identity (pp. 87–102). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, D. (2010). Popular culture, the ‘victim’ trope and queer youth analytics. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyrowitz, J. (1997). The separation of social space from physical place. In T. O’Sullivan & Y. Jewkes (Eds.), The media studies reader (pp. 41–52). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  23. Munt, S. R. (2000). Shame/pride dichotomies in queer as folk. Textual Practice, 14(3), 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munt, S. (2007). Queer attachments: The cultural politics of shame. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Raj, S. (2011). Grindring bodies: Racial and affective economies of online queer desire. Critical Race and Whiteness Studies, 7(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  26. Rasmussen, M. L. (2006). Becoming subjects: Sexualities and secondary schooling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Russo, V. (1981). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the movies. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  28. Skeggs, B., Moran, L., Tyrer, P., & Binnie, J. (2004). Queer as folk: Producing the real of urban space. Urban Studies, 41(9), 1839–1856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Unger, M. (2012a). Introduction to the volume. In M. Unger (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unger, M. (2012b). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Unger (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13–31). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warner, M. (2009). Pleasures and dangers of shame. In D. M. Halperin & V. Traub (Eds.), Gay shame (pp. 283–296). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Cover
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social Sciences [M257]The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations