What Exactly Is Representation?

 

Image description: Sheldon Cooper from the comedy series, The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon makes up a great deal of today's post, mostly because of how he was portrayed with aspec tendencies that never seemed to go anywhere. Was this bad representation? And, a better question, what is representation in the broader sense? Join me today as I explore these questions and more.

A while back, I found myself unexpectedly reading an article about a character I’ve discussed on the blog a great deal – The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper. If you’re a regular reader, you probably know I often discuss how Sheldon has certain tendencies that, although not explicitly described as asexual and/or aromantic, nevertheless seem very closely related to these identities, enough that the parallels are easy to draw. This article was centered on that very fact, discussing how these tendencies seemed to exist and then were no longer honored as the show went on. Again, regular readers or anyone familiar with the show knows Sheldon eventually [spoilers] goes on to get a girlfriend, have sex, get married, and even have children.

It is, of course, completely true that asexual people are still asexual even if they have sex, get married, have children, etc. and that these things do not invalidate their asexuality; so too with aromantic or other similar identities across either the asexual or aromantic spectrums. However, in Sheldon’s case, I’ve always believed there were many other reasons why it seems like his aspec tendencies were treated as having been non-existent or otherwise invalid, such as the way the show had him describe these things as something to “get over” or the way his friends and his girlfriend always seemed to bully him into being more “normal.” For those reasons and many others, I definitely agreed with the article’s discussion of how those tendencies seemed to disappear as the show went on. However, two things surprised me when reading this article and the comments surrounding it.

The first was that the writer of the article described Sheldon’s fleeting moments of aspecness throughout the show as being respectfully handled, a description which personally baffled me since, from where I’m standing, they were anything but. The second thing that surprised me were that many people in the comments were adamant that Sheldon was still asexual by the end of the show, despite the many ways his circumstances had changed.  I clearly didn’t interpret the character the way these people had. Instead, I was relating Sheldon’s portrayal to my own experiences as a sex-repulsed aromantic asexual, keying in on the many ways he was often mocked, belittled, and treated as "less than" because of what seemed like a genuine lack of interest in these things, or even worse, the notion that these things were somehow “uncomfortable" for the people around him.

And yet, other aspec people were seeing these things through a very different lens. Their focus was less on these bad moments, and more on the validity of the fact that having sex with a partner is not dependent on sexual attraction. Again, this is extremely valid, and it was interesting to see these other points of view. But it also got me thinking about something I don’t often articulate as well as I could on this blog. I often speak very passionately about the need for aspec representation in media; it’s even in my blog’s description. But what exactly does it mean to have aspec representation in media? The asexual and aromantic spectrums are full of many different types of people, identities, and lifestyles. Some aspec people are like me, and do not have sex or romance as a part of our life; but some people may have lives that more closely resemble Sheldon Cooper at the end of The Big Bang Theory, and do have spouses or even children, or who don’t have a problem with having sex for the sake of a partner.

So when I say “representation,” what exactly am I hoping for? What exactly qualifies as “good” representation when so many people define that in so many different ways, as the comments on this article exemplified? We all have unique lenses we view media through, so I believe this is actually a bit of a complicated question. As such, it’s one I want to explore in today’s post, acting as something of a “back to basics” look at the concept of asexual and aromantic spectrum representation in media.

Spoiler warning! 

The Big Bang Theory

BoJack Horseman

House ("Better Half")

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia and other discrimination

-------------------------------------------------------

Let’s Talk About Representation as a Concept

If you look up the concept of representation in media with something as simple as a Google search, you’ll find several very basic definitions that get to the heart of the matter. One of the most straightforward definitions referred to representation in media as being the way certain aspects of society are presented to audiences. So, in the case of my analysis, I’m interested in how asexuality and aromanticism – often hidden or invisible aspects of society and culture – are presented to audiences through the media we all consume. I believe that also answers the question of why representation is so vital, since media of various kinds helps form our attitudes on so many things and is a powerful tool to expose us to things we would otherwise never experience.

Whenever I think of the concept of why representation is important, I always tend to come back to the anecdote of how actress Whoopi Goldberg first saw the character of Uhura in the television series, Star Trek. As a young black girl, she was thrilled to see a black actress on television playing the type of role she hadn’t often seen represented, and this was cited as part of what inspired her to become an actress. Of course, she then went on to appear as the incredible character Guinan in Star Trek: The Next Generation and its related movies and spin-offs, doubtless inspiring other generations just as she was inspired. Still using Star Trek as an example, we’ve also seen plenty of stories of how people who eventually became scientists, astronauts, etc. were likewise inspired by the show, such as astronaut Mae Jemison, who once again cites Uhura as her inspiration.

Obviously, it’s completely possible that both of these women would have eventually ended up on these paths even without the representation they saw in media. But on the other hand, it’s just as possible that they wouldn’t have, or that they wouldn’t have believed in themselves nearly as much if they hadn’t had a role model in both Lieutenant Uhura and her actress Nichelle Nichols. Therefore, I don’t think representation can be dismissed or trivialized as unimportant. Of course, there are ways to make representation something everyone can enjoy and learn from, and I believe the best representation is natural and intrinsic, like Uhura was in Star Trek.

Image description: Nichelle Nichols (left) with astronaut Mae Jemison (right). Jemison was given a small role in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and got to meet her hero on set. Image taken from Memory Alpha.

However, these things all become a bit tougher when it comes to aspec identities, in large part because aspec identities are still not widely known. Although I have seen representation increase over the years, it’s still very far from the mainstream, and that can lead to various problems. For instance, in early 2023, I did a post specifically focused on what I referred to as “vague representation,” a multi-layered problem where characters are not defined as aspec and thus are more difficult to analyze with precise, helpful language, leading to their “aspec vibes” being more easily dismissed or erased.

Like I said in that post, not being able to have concrete representation makes it difficult to have necessary conversations because there’s no way to really define what we’re seeing. I believe this is why there was so much variation in interpretation for Sheldon Cooper, because he was never defined one way or another and so there was no way to actually discuss his character. How can I have an accurate conversation about his portrayal when I don’t even really know what that portrayal was supposed to be? In other cases, I’m referring to characters as “non-sexual” because this is how they are portrayed, but asexuality does not automatically equate to non-sexual, rendering the conversation limited in its scope.

While “vague representation” can be good because it can allow for a diversity of interpretations where none might otherwise be able to exist, it can also be very restrictive. Worse, it can become a slippery slope in which aspec people can’t really get much of a foothold and doesn’t do much to advance representation due to it not being “canon” or confirmed. If the idea behind representation in media is to present a certain aspect of society to an audience, then vague representation can sometimes be a problem precisely because its vagueness doesn’t really define or showcase aspec concepts. This is why I often preface any discussion of representation as saying it should be “good” representation. But if you’ve read my post on redefining the concept of good, sometimes that description is also too vague, and so I think this discussion would be incomplete if we didn’t try to drill down on that specific concept a little more as well.

Just What Is “Good Aspec Representation” Anyway?

So, if we go with the idea that representation is important, especially to people who find themselves otherwise underrepresented, would it be enough for aspec people to just be shown more in media? Well, yes and no. In the case of young Whoopi Goldberg or Mae Jemison, it may be enough to see a black character doing important work as Lieutenant Uhura did. However, sometimes showing something is not enough; that is to say, representation has to be “good” in order for it to be effective. But what does that mean? When it comes to the concept of specifically aspec representation, the experience I detailed in the introduction of this post got me thinking that “good” representation may actually be two-pronged.

The first prong is, of course, what the representation means for an aspec individual, but the second prong is how that representation is interpreted by non-aspec people, which is why I believe Sheldon Cooper is not good aspec representation. Even if many people identify with Sheldon’s experience and personal journey, the rest of how he’s portrayed is a problem because of how the other characters interact with him and how he’s supposed to be perceived by the audience. Sheldon was no doubt the show’s most popular character, but that doesn’t mean he was respected. Rather, although Sheldon’s quirks and tendencies are funny, they’re not meant to be accepted or seen as normal. Therefore, to me, Sheldon’s journey is less about finding himself and embracing how he wants his life to work the way a real-life aspec person might; rather, it’s about normalization, the way some allosexual people may want for all aspec people or even just people with vague aspec tendencies.

Image description: Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory giving the Vulcan salute. Not only does this keep the Star Trek theme from earlier going, but it also serves as a good example of how Sheldon was portrayed. All the show's nerds were frequently disrespected for their nerdiness, but Sheldon in particular was treated as strange and different because of this coupled with his aspec tendencies.

Canon asexual character Todd Chavez from BoJack Horseman is a good example of this phenomenon while the House episode “Better Half” is an example of another bad one. In BoJack Horseman, Todd’s aspec journey seems to be treated with respect more often than not (even if the character himself may not always be), and many non-asexual people were able to understand asexuality better because of this fact. For that reason, Todd was not only good representation for aspec people watching the show – the first prong I mentioned – but also served as good representation for non-aspec people who may be trying to understand their asexual friends and family members. Not only does this nicely fulfill the second prong discussed above, but it also serves as a good example of that earlier definition of representation, because it presented asexuality and the asexual spectrum to people who may not have otherwise had a chance to learn about those things, doing so in a thoughtful, respectful, nuanced way.

“Better Half,” on the other hand, is bad representation (in fact, possibly some of the worst representation) precisely because it fails both prongs. Not only is it a horrible story from an asexual point of view, but it’s horrible from a non-aspec perspective as well. I’ve talked about this episode at great length in another post, so I won’t belabor the point here, but to briefly summarize, House is a medical show and this particular episode featured a side plot about two supposedly asexual characters, both of whom are revealed to not be asexual by the end of the episode. From an aspec perspective, this is anti-representation, because it tries to frame asexuality as either a medical condition or just a straight-up lie, both of which are very harmful real-world ideas. Thus, allosexual people for whom this might be their first introduction to asexuality are given the notion that aspec identities are invalid, and so the way this is being interpreted for and presented to them is not showing them a true picture. Therefore, it fails as representation in all ways, and actually moves representation backwards rather than forwards.

The potential negative effects of bad representation are part of what makes these issues so complicated. Especially when it comes to aspec representation, how can all the various identities on the spectrum be accurately portrayed when good representation for one group might be bad for another? For example, something many aspec people are often forced to endure when they’re just figuring out their identity is being told “you just haven’t met the right person yet” when they express potential aromantic and/or asexual thoughts and feelings. However, for demisexual and/or demiromantic people – for whom sexual or romantic attraction are only felt after forming a deep emotional bond – this is often literally the case. Therefore, if you were to try and tell a demisexual/demiromantic story and you relied on that trope of not having found the right person yet, you’re telling a story that might be useful to that particular part of the spectrum and harmful to others. It’s certainly a quandary, but not, I believe, impossible.

How to Build “Better” Representation

If “good” representation means different things to different people, how can we possibly hope to have representation for various aspec people? While I don’t think that question has an easy answer, I do think there are some things that can be done to ensure that representation is better for all people on the spectrum. Many of these are things I’ve discussed before, and as always, these are just my own opinions, but I definitely think some of these notions help to at least follow the two-pronged representation I discussed earlier, functioning both to tell aspec stories and to present these in healthy ways to non-aspec people trying to learn.

For a start, I think one of the best ways to lean into this issue is to acknowledge that it’s a complicated one. No single story is going to perfectly represent all aspec people, nor should it pretend it can. By acknowledging that aspec identities are varied, we can embrace the idea of a story only telling part of the whole. Again, this is something that seems to be well portrayed in BoJack Horseman. Although I myself have never watched the show, I know that at one point Todd is at an asexual meeting, during which they discuss that some aspec people are also aromantic and some are not. This is a great way to show that, even if Todd himself chooses to have romantic relationships, not all aspec people will, so Todd’s story is just one of many.

Image description: Todd (pictured to the left in the yellow hat) heads to an asexual meet-up in the animated Netflix series BoJack Horseman. I love how the sign says "All aces welcome".

Another tip would be to consider how other people will react to the character and how they’re being portrayed – and this counts even if a character is not explicitly aspec, like the aforementioned Sheldon. If a character is being portrayed as “weird” or “abnormal,” and the rest of their arc or their storylines exist to make them more “normal,” this is most likely bad representation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t automatically follow that portraying these stories with sensitivity and depth will lead to people seeing them as valid and accepting them, but some might. That leads me to another point for both content creators and fandoms, which would be to not automatically assume that a character being aspec would be a bad thing. Nothing kills good representation faster than the idea that aspec identities are somehow an unwelcome addition to a piece of media or that headcanons by aspec fans have no place.

To that end, something else to consider is how a certain plot point would feel if it were portrayed for a different type of group. Obviously this doesn’t work in every instance, and different identities are so varied that it can be difficult to do this accurately all the time, but I think it can serve as a good broad test in some situations. For example, think how horrible it would be to show a gay character being pressured to live a more “normal” life (as in, a more heterosexual one) and then doing so, much to the joy and triumph of their friends. To me, that sounds more like the plot of a horror film, and yet we see these types of plots happen a great deal for aspec characters.

For another example, let’s turn back to the House episode “Better Half.” Consider how awful it would be if a same-sex couple was medically disproved in a medical drama; such a notion is nightmarishly archaic and vulgar, and yet we see it happening with aspec characters, and being dismissed as just a silly side plot. The name of the game here is empathy; if you wouldn’t want to see yourself or your own identity or the identity of someone you love treated this way, it’s probably not a good idea to do it for aspec people either.

That of course also extends to fandom attitudes too. While not every aspec headcanon or aspec opinion is one that has to be accepted or even tolerated if they lead to erasure of other identities, not every aspec headcanon is inherently bad. Furthermore, aspec people finding comfort in a piece of media is not a bad thing to be discarded, and this lesson is deeply important. Ironically, I believe these types of attitudes might improve with better representation, but we need fandom cooperation in order to get the representation we need. Rather than see that as an unbreakable, unwinnable cycle, however, I think it can be seen as an opportunity. If we actually try to come up with aspec representation – named, defined, and not vague or undefinable – then we might be able to see real progress.

-----------------------

Overall, I believe we’re still going to have many questions about aspec representation for years to come – questions I myself have discussed when I’ve wondered if vague representation can be too vague or when I debated the merits of having aspec villains. More than that, everyone is going to have different answers to these questions. But the differences in interpretations we all have was a fascinating enough concept to me that I realized it deserved to be discussed in its basic form. Sometimes I take it for granted that everyone is familiar with the idea of representation or that everyone believes it’s important, so I think it was valuable for me to slow down and explain my own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I’m not going to pretend like “good” (or even “better”) representation is the magical cure-all to all aphobia. After all, I’ve discussed some examples of excellent aspec representation that does nearly everything right that is still viewed by some people as invalid or dismissed because it’s not explicitly spelled out as being aspec. While these things are disappointing, that doesn’t mean these portrayals are unimportant. To me, although there’s still a long way to go, examples of good representation are the difference between the task of asexual and aromantic visibility feeling impossible and feeling that much more bearable – it’s the difference between trying to dig towards the light with a spoon versus a shovel.

When done with careful consideration and respect, representation can be the tool we need to get that much further in this journey. More than that, it’s exciting to imagine what kinds of characters and stories we could get moving forward if we all stop to think about how to portray these characters and stories better – or at least in a way that benefits aspec people of all kinds. We may have a long way to go to even get to a good baseline for aspec people, but representation is like stepping stones in that path to finally being recognized; I hope, with each passing day, we can learn to make stronger foundations that aspec people can benefit from and use to grow for years to come.