Popular Culture Review Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002 | Page 23

“The Whole World’s Gone Gay!”:
Smithers’ Sexuality, Homer’s Phobia, and Gay
Life on The Simpsons
“Deviations can only be perceived against a norm.”
David Lodge
Those who are not regular watchers of The Simpsons might be inclined to
raise an eyebrow at a topic such as gay life on The Simpsons. However, those who
are among the faithful are likely to recognize that such a discussion is not
inappropriate, considering both the show’s cast of characters and its political aims.
As is well known. The Simpsons very quickly established itself as a biting satire on
American society and culture; and, although its satirical edge has waned somewhat
in recent years, it continues to function in this capacity week after week. The
Simpsons most commonly offers its satire from a leftist political position, and it
works from this position to lambaste, among other things, so-called “traditional”
family values. “Family values,” which appeared to be the catch-phrase of the 1990s,
is a concept that has had increasingly strong cultural purchase ever sin ce the 1992
presidential debates, during which George Bush made his infamous call for “a
nation closer to the Waltons than the Simpsons” (Stein 31). Not surprisingly, the
conservative attitude returned full force in the 1996 presidential election, with
Bush’s sentiments strongly echoed by Bob Dole. The political rallying was for a
return to “traditional family values”—meaning, it seems, male dominance, female
submission, and compulsive heterosexuality. Concurrent with this was a push for
the reflection of these values in mainstream popular art forms such as film and
television.
I highlight the focus on family life here to provide a context for my
discussion of gay life on The Simpsons, an element of the show that has not yet
received due critical attention. More often than not, mainstream media represent
gay life as existing outside the confines of traditional nuclear family structures.
The Simpsons is no exception; however, due to its ideological agenda, I believe the
show enacts a different kind of representation, one that does not position
homosexuality as a threat to the traditional family. Of special relevance to my
purposes here is the fact that the show consistently deplores America’s exclusionary
practices: in particular, it repeatedly provides critiques of the treatment of various
minorities in American culture, notably those whose status is based on gender,
religion, race, and age. Though done in a less strident manner, I believe the show
also intends to deplore exclusionary practices based on sexuality. To do so, of