All works created by Daniel Tarsetti
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Intensive Mothering in Practice
Intensive Mothering in Practice:
Interview and Analysis of a New Mother
Mr. Daniel C. Tarsetti
University of Maine
--------------------------------------
In her
groundbreaking work from 1996, Sharon Hays introduced the term “intensive
mothering” to describe the unfair social expectations for how a mother should
treat her child. Intensive mothering speaks to the expectations that motherhood
today should be (and usually is) child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally
absorbing, labor intensive and financially expensive (Hays). Her book, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood uses
this term as the backbone to an argument that criticizes mainstream ideology
for telling mothers they must be whole-heartedly selfless towards their
children in a society that otherwise rigidly promotes self-interest and
independence. Hays’ work is a landmark piece of literature within the field of
mothering and countless scholars have referenced her book within their own
works. I have conducted my own interview with a young mother and will outline
how this interview may conform with or challenge Hays’ ideas, as well as how it
relates to other such works within the field of motherhood.
Marissa is the
twenty-one year old mother of a newly born baby Anthony, fathered by her
current boyfriend of twenty, Josh. Marissa and Josh, as well as their son
Anthony, have all been given pseudonyms to protect their identity. Because of
their young age both Marissa and Josh live at home with their parents in
southern Maine, alternating living with one another until they are financially
stable enough to rent a place their own place. Josh currently attends Endicott
College in Massachusetts while Marissa splits time working at a nursing home
and attending college locally at Southern Maine Community College. Josh’s and
Marissa’s parents are both very active in helping to raise young Anthony.
In my first
attempt to interview Marissa, we had to cancel the interview last minute
because Marissa had a traveling conflict with her husband Josh. Immediately I
was given a taste of the hectic lifestyle of parenting, before I was even able
to sit down with her. Rescheduling proved to be equally as difficult, as
Marissa’s schedule was crowded with school, work, and care-giving. We were able
to find a time however and our agreed upon spot was at Josh’s house. Right when
I arrived I noticed a distinctive aura to the home, a sort of “babyfying”
transformation that had taken place at a house I had been to before. There was
a rattle on the counter, baby clothes on the table, diapers in the corner, and
several toys strewn across the floor in the living room. When I walked in the
whole family was waiting for me, as if anticipating some big event. Both Josh’s
mother and father were there along with his brother and another unidentified
middle-aged woman who I speculate may have been an aunt. Of course the child
himself, Anthony, was there as well. In a rocker in the center of the kitchen,
a loose circle was formed around him clearly making him the center of
attention. I spoke briefly with the family before and after the interview and
unsurprisingly Anthony was the focus of conversation at all times.
Simply by being
submerged into Anthony’s environment I could detect signs of intensive
mothering. Intensive mothering states parenting should be child-centered and
there was no doubt the child was the center of attention- both figuratively and
literally, physically in the center. The toys and baby materials around point
to the primary attention Anthony is given; though they also speak to the
intensive mothering idea that parenting is financially expensive. None of the
things present, including items such as diapers, toys, and his rocker could
even be there without the financial resources to purchase them. With such
tidbits in mind, I sat down with Marissa to delve deeper into the mind of this
one mother.
Dan: Do you think people hold
mothers responsible for how their child turns out?
Felicia: I think they do, yup.
Dan: Is this fair?
Felicia: Um, to a certain extent. I
think when children are not disciplined, and they act out, I think that does
fall a lot on the parents, because… well I just think about kids I see in the
grocery store, where when they are just absolutely crazy, and they don’t
listen…I feel like that was probably a lack of discipline.
It’s seems like a
common and reasonable response: that if children misbehave, it’s the parents,
or more specifically, the mothers fault, and we can see that sediment reflected
here by Marissa. In fact, Susan J. Douglas and Meredith W. Michaels in their
piece, The New Momism talk to the
exact same scenario that Marissa referred to of having screaming kids in the
grocery store. “To distract yourself, and to avoid the glares of other shoppers
who have already deemed you the worst mother in America, you leaf through People Magazine” (617). It’s commonly
agreed upon, the mother is responsible for the outcome of their child, “As I
have noted, parents (especially mothers) understand themselves as largely
responsible for the way their children turn out” (Hays 120). This assumption
that mothers are responsible for their children’s behavior is usually so strong
that many couldn’t fathom how this couldn’t be the case. But as scholars like
Douglas & Michaels and Hays have shown, this can assumption can be
problematic. This overpowering assumption puts enormous amounts of pressure on
mothers to be perfect, and the fact it’s so assumed gives this expectation
extreme strength. Ivana Brown recognizes this in her work, Ambivalence of the Motherhood Experience: “Cultural expectations of
the idealized mother, who never has negative feelings toward a child, can cause
ambivalence to grow into anxiety” (122). Marissa’s confirmation of this believe
helps reinforce such cultural standards, as well as promotes a type of “mommy
wars” that isolates mothers, something we’ll further discuss later in this
paper. “Now, if you were a ‘good’ mom, you’d joyfully empty the shopping bags
and transform the process of putting the groceries away into a fun game”
(Douglas & Michaels 617).
One might ask,
“Why are mothers held so largely responsible for their children’s behavior?” This
assumption makes sense when we realize another commonly agreed notion, that the
mother is the primary care-giver. If we believe this to be true, the
correlation that the mother is responsible when her child acts up appears only
logical. The idea that mothers should be the primary care-giver is one of Hays’
intensive mothering: “Implicit in such characterizations is the additional
stereotype of women as nurturers and, by extension, those best suited for
raising a child” (55). This notion the mother is the main care-giver goes
hand-in-hand with the assumption that she is responsible for the outcome; these
assumptions are only so powerful because mothers themselves believe in them
too.
Marissa: I feel safer when I’m with
him (becoming quieter), then when he is with someone else.
Here, Marissa doesn’t want to leave
her son’s development to chance by admitting she’s worried when Anthony is with
anybody else. Mothers indeed want to be with their children the most, in part
because they understand that they will be held responsible for their child’s
behavior and outcome, for better or worse.
As mentioned by
Hays, this “stereotype of women as nurturers” stems from a biological argument
that is at the core of the concept that mothers are best suited to care.
Marissa: I think a lot of it- or
some of it [mothering]- is natural. I think everybody- well most people- have a
mother instinct.
Marissa isn’t totally sold here,
but we can see the notion that mothering is “natural” is definitely active
within her thought process. Hays describes the standard narrative: “Thus one’s
“natural” love for the “inherently” sacred child necessarily leads one to
engage in [intensive mothering]” (129).
Dan: Who are the people, or the
person, who you talk to the most about Anthony?
Marissa: Um, probably my sister,
just because I’m the closest to her. So I don’t feel like ugh, it’s a silly
question if I ask her something.
Marissa’s worries about asking a
question she doesn’t know reflects society’s expectations that mothers should
instinctively know their child’s desires and needs. She can only confide in her
closest family members in order to avoid being judged for not already having
the answers to motherhood. However outside the act of giving birth itself,
evidence for mothers naturally being better caregivers runs thin: “The
historical analysis also makes it clear that little of what we think of as
crucial to appropriate child rearing today is an absolute or biological necessity”
(Hays 22). Shaking this notion that women are biologically more fit to parent
is a key aim of feminist work. Evelyn Glenn understands in her piece, Social Constructions of Mothering: A
Thematic Overview, “In order to free women from the inevitability of
current mothering arrangements, feminists have had to challenge theories that
tie women’s position to biological imperatives” (4). In truth, it’s been
historical decision making that has led us to the current culture of
expectations in motherhood we face today. As Glen further explains, “Agency is
central to an understanding of motherhood as a social, rather than biological,
construct” (2).
It’s important to
note here that though this motherhood “instinct” may lie within all women, it’s
never unleashed until she has a child.
Marissa:
Now I feel like it would be weird, and like, empty if I wasn’t a mother.
As Ann Snitow
writes in her work Feminism and
Motherhood, “There is…the nonmother’s guilt that she has evaded this mass
sisterhood now elaborated for us all as full of joy and pain, blood and
passion, that she has evaded the central life dramas of intimacy and
separation” (299). There is a notion that remaining childless is an
unfulfilling life, and even more, that having a child unlocks some all-knowing
motherhood instinct. Ideas of valuing mothers over nonmothers were evident
within Marissa’s dialogue.
Marissa: yup, so when she gives
advice she compares it to when she was raising her kids- so I value it more
than if the doctors didn’t have kids.
Marissa: I think anyone that’s had
a kid, is an expert…in their own way. So I do take, obviously, mothers advice
more than someone whose never had kids…
The idea that a mother is more
capable than a nonmother is so assumed Marissa takes it to be obvious. This
reflects the powerful norm outlined in intensive mothering and new momism that
says women must be mothers to reach their full value.
Though we’ve
already touched on it, Douglas & Michael’s concept of “the new momism” is
an important idea that shares many of its beliefs with intensive mothering.
They describe new momism as:
the instance that no woman is truly
complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary
caretakers of the children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a women
has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual
being, 24/7, to her children” (619).
New momism and
intensive mothering (along with majority of motherhood academics) agree that
women are expected to be primary caretakers, but the new momism really focuses
on the idea that women can never fully live up to the popular expectations of
motherhood even when giving 100% of their being. As Douglas & Michaels say,
“From the moment we get up until the moment we collapse in bed at night; the
media are out there, calling to us, yelling, ‘Hey you! Yeah, you! Are you really raising your kids right?’” (618).
Like most mothers, Marissa wasn’t able to escape the media’s spotlight on
motherhood and as new momism suggests, it didn’t help her, but instead added
more pressure to her becoming a mom.
Marissa: When I was pregnant I used to watch- it’s called “A Baby Story”,
it’s on TLC and it’s a story like from their pregnancy until delivery, just so
I could get an idea of what delivery would be like.
Dan: Did that make you feel better
about it? Or a little more worried?
Marissa: A little more worried.
Douglas & Michaels speak
directly to potentially frustrated mothers: “You may be worn down by media
images that suggest that however much you do for and love your kids, it is
never enough.” Marissa has felt the need to seek out helpful sources, but they
never seem to be enough for her. Even outside of television, the media’s
pressure can be felt in all forms, including online.
Marissa: As bad as it is to say, I
did use Goggle sometimes. Just like, how can I help my baby stop crying, and
stuff like that. So I do look to the internet once in a while even though I
know I shouldn’t, because if anything it worries me more than it comforts me.
Marissa’s repeated citations of
unnerving media experiences support new momism’s claims that the media place an
unfair amount of pressure on mothers to live up to unobtainable standards.
This
trend towards copious media advice on mothering is a part of the expert-guided,
intensive mothering ideology; it also has been largely derived from a movement
known as “scientific motherhood.” “Scientific motherhood,” as outlined by Rima
D. Apple in her essay Constructing
Mothers: Scientific Motherhood in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, “is
the insistence that women require expert scientific and medical advice to raise
their children healthfully” (161).
Marissa: …I had a knowledge of
babies and I think its helped. I think its made it easier for me. I think it
would have been a lot harder and less successful if I was going into it
blinded.
Ivana Brown see’s the continued
market growth for motherly advice: “Indeed, more than seven hundred books on
motherhood were published in the U.S. book market in the last two decades of
the 20th century” (123). From the early 20th century
onward, mothers have been expected to seek out “professional” resources in
order to properly raise their child and this has placed enormous power into the
medical media’s ability to influence the ideology of motherhood.
Dan: For books and child raising
advice, have you read books on him?
Marissa: Yup! We read What to Expect When You’re Expecting”,
which is a big one.
Dan: Classic, yup.
Marissa: Then we read, or we’re
reading every month, What to Expect in
the First Year.”
Popularized sources such as What to Expect reach millions of mothers
as a sort of guidebook for normalcy. These sources tend to promulgate
stereotypical female roles while reinforcing popular oppressive motherhood
practices. The irony is, as we discussed earlier, there is supposedly a
“natural, biological instinct” that mothers have that make them most suited for
primary caretaking; this conflicts with the idea they simultaneously are in
need of constant professional advice (often times formed by men). As Apple
states it simply, ‘Such instruction positioned mothers as both responsible for
their families and incapable of that responsibility.” (161)
Despite
the pressure and contradictions mothers constantly face, it’s important to
remember she should unequivocally love her child at all times to be a truly
good mother, and any ambivalence is intolerable: “When acknowledged, ambivalence
is often considered deviant or problematic (Brown 121). Societal expectations
say if you don’t enjoy your mothering experience, you must be a bad mother: “The
dissatisfied mothers feared hurting their children if they admitted how little
they had liked mothering” (Snitow 290) In my interview with Marissa I noticed
she was aware of these expectations and specifically made sure I knew that even
if caring for her baby was challenging at points, she was not upset about it.
Marissa: I don’t think it’s
demanding in a bad way. He…when he wants things he wants things. So it’s
demanding in that way, but it’s not like a…it’s not annoyingly demanding, like
“agh, I don’t want to do that.”
Marissa: …So it’s not advice in the
sense of, do this, do this, but that’s my most important piece of advice, to
enjoy everything.
Whether or not Marissa truly has
never thought her baby’s been annoyingly demanding or truly has always enjoyed
her experiences is unknown, but I’d hypothesis is probably has more to do with
the expectation she shouldn’t ever feel annoyed. As Brown explains, societal
pressure to be an ever-loving mother can have its side effects: “Ambivalence is
made unmanageable because of every woman’s desire to be a good mother according
to social definition” (122). To what extent each mother may feel ambivalence
towards their child will surely vary, but societal expectations definitely
create mothers who are more prone to hiding these feelings.
With such weighted
responsibility placed squarely on the backs of mothers, it doesn’t come as much
of a surprise that one of the major characteristics of both intensive mothering
and new momism is making her child the top priority in her life. As we touched
on earlier, this type of child-centered care is about attending to the child as
much as possible, and we can see this type of care in a multitude of occasions
with Marissa’s mothering.
Marissa: For the first few weeks it
went everything on Anthony’s schedule. And then, now that he’s a little older,
we try to keep him on a schedule, but there is leeway. If he doesn’t want to
eat right at six, it’s not a big deal, we wait until he’s hungry…in a sense…He
has a bath every night, after his bottle, so he does have a schedule, but it’s
not too…set in stone.
Marissa: Though in a sense I feel
like [working] takes away from him a little bit, because it’s time that I
could…spend with him.
Marissa: He…when he wants things he
wants things.
Marissa: it’s not just about
me…it’s about Anthony.
This type of care can result in
heavy coddling and at times Marissa seemed worried that if she doesn’t coddle
enough she might lose her role as primary caregiver.
Marissa: I just don’t- I get
nervous that he’ll be attached to his teachers, instead of…his parents…because
he’s with them so much.
Furthermore, in speaking about her
own experiences, she critiques her mother for not abiding by such
child-centered expectations.
Marissa: I don’t mean to sound
negative about my mom but…I don’t think she had the mindset that it had to be
all about her kids. She was a little bit, self centered…
Clearly we can see Marissa relates
“not being all about your kids” as a “negative” trait here, and this is a
sentiment shared by most in current society. “Affectionate nurture is
considered the absolutely essential foundation for the proper rearing of a
child” (Hays 57). The standard for attention given to a child is high, and
those mothers who don’t give adequate attention are deemed lacking and
undesirable.
With
all the discussion about mothers’ responsibilities, it seems prudent to at
least touch on the father’s role as a parent as well. As has been outlined,
mothers are the primary caregivers while fathers are left with less family
responsibility yet more power. As Hays says, “In this scenario, fathers were
the shepherds, mothers were the sheepdogs, and children were the sheep” (23). Amber
Kinser, in Amber O’Reilly’s book Feminist
Mothering, reflects a common scenario: “Somehow I had reproduced with him [husband] a
model where the mother is responsible for all thinking and activity related to
the children and the home” (132). When considering Marissa and Josh, Marissa
seems quite pleased with the father’s role in the family.
Dan: Do you
think Josh does as good a job as you?
Marissa: He
does…very well. We take turns at feeding, and diapers, and who gets up with
him.
However it’s
relevant to note that Josh is away at school during the week. This supports the
idea that a man’s career holds more merit over a women’s, whose primary focus
should be with the family.
Marissa: When
he’s at home we- it’s pretty equal. When Josh is at school, it’s me and
Anthony.
Despite
Josh spending substantially less time with Anthony than Marissa, she seems very
accepting of his fatherly role. We could possibly point to societal norms here
in that fathers simply aren’t held to the same high standards as mothers. As
Douglas and Michaels understand, “After all, a dad who knows the name of his
kids’ pediatrician and reads them stories at night is still regarded as a
saint; a mother who doesn’t is a sinner” (622).
Intensive
mothering has become such a popularly studied ideology mainly because of the
extent to which it is grounded in truth. We must be very careful not to
over-generalize, as no two mothers are exactly alike in their parenting styles.
However, as we can see in my interview with this one particular mother, many
practices of intensive mothering, as well as new momism, are predominately
displayed. In fairness, Marissa can’t be pinned exactly to either of these
ideologies as she showed some forms of resistance in recognizing the need to
give her child space at times.
Marissa: I think at a certain point
it’s developmentally important for them to be around other kids at day care.
She even admitted that she as a
mother needs an occasional break as well.
Marissa: I would like not working
because I could spend more time with him, but then, I think it is good to get
away every once in a while.
Her
small forms of resistance are a reminder that all mothers fall into some hybrid
form of motherhood, even if they remain within most mainstream ideologies. It
is also a reminder that motherhood is constantly changing, and as soon as we
think we can identify its common practices, the ideologies can shift. Marissa
is a loving mother who can’t easily be categorized into any one identity.
However, we can see Sharon Hays’ intensive mothering is still very relevant
today and intensive mothering still seems to have a place within common
mainstream mothering practices.
Apple, R. (1995). "Constructing
mothers: Scientific motherhood in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries."
Social History of Medicine 8(2):
161-178.
Hays, Sharon. (1996). The Cultural Contradictions of
Motherhood. Yale University Press.
O’Reilly, Andrea.
(2008). Feminist Mothering. State University of New York Press.
Culture of Objectification
The Culture of Objectification:
An Overview with Advocacy Proposals
Mr. Daniel C. Tarsetti
University of Maine
-------------------------------------
Introduction
Today’s media has
a tendency to objectify individuals, particularly women, through increasingly
sexualized images and messages. (Hatton & Traunter 2011) People are
objectified whenever their bodies, or parts of their body, are viewed as a commodity,
without regard to their sense of self (Gay & Castano, 2009). In this paper
I will explain what objectification is, who it affects, and why objectification
is a current issue worth our consideration. I will do this, in part, by
investigating the many potential negative consequences from such
objectification. I will then explore three different possible ideas to combat
objectification. From these, I will choose one plan to outline in detail and
explain why it is has the best chance to reverse the harmful effects of
objectification.
Objectification: Why We Need Change
Sexualized
images saturate American culture, and this trend only seems to be increasing.
“We find that sexualized images of men and women have increased, though women
continue to be more frequently sexualized than men” (Hatton & Traunter,
2011). Glorification of thinness,
“photoshopping”, and extreme models all contribute to what Fredrickson and
Roberts call “unrealistic standards of beauty” (1997). “There is no doubt that
Western women are subject to a great deal of pressure to conform to the thin
ideal of feminine beauty” (Harper & Tiggemann, 2007). This nearly
impossible to achieve, sexualized standard has led to varying degrees of
objectification by virtually all (Noll at el., 1998). Muehlenkamp &
Saris-Baglama understand the prominence of objectification on women: “Objectification
of women is prominent in our society, occurring in a variety of contexts, thus
it is assumed that most women encounter objectification and are affected by it
to some degree” (2002). An increasing
field of research is amounting in the study of the objectification of women in
western culture and though certain direct causes are unverified there is a
virtually unanimous agreement that such objectification has negative
implications for both the physical and mental health of all women.
People are
objectified whenever their bodies, or parts of their body, are viewed as a
commodity, without regard to their sense of self (Gay & Castano, 2009).
Fredrickson and Roberts, in their 1997 report in Psychology of Women Quarterly,
constructed a framework for objectification theory that pushed forward the
thought process on critiquing the effects of media on American women. Objectification theory states that American
culture socializes women to adopt observer’s perspectives of themselves as
solely a physical entity, to be evaluated without consideration of their
abilities (Noll et al., 1998). That is, women are looked at as objects whose
physical body is considered an asset that can be obtained. Since then
innumerable numbers of reports have been published in support of this theory.
Most scholars agree the objectification of women is a vital area of study for
its links to an array of physical and mental health problems, among American
females in particular.
Iconic scholars
like Cooley have long since established the idea of self that says, in its most
basic sense, we perceive ourselves as others perceive us (Cooley 1902). This
idea is widely accepted in the social sciences, and Cooley’s concept of “the
looking-glass self” is a staple in sociology- that individuals view themselves
as they believe the public views them. (Cooley, 1902) This is vital groundwork
in understanding that women measure themselves not to their own standards, but
to the standards that the public, and media in large, have set. Many scholars have
found this to be problematic when we consider the hyper-sexualized images of
women in the media and the virtually unachievable standard of beauty that’s
been set; this has led to an increase in study of objectification and its
possible effects.
Though men aren’t
necessarily unaffected, women have been shown to be disproportionally affected
by objectification: “Empirical studies have documented that in both of these
arenas, women are targeted for sexually objectifying treatment more often than
men” (Noll et al., 1997). An experiment by Noll et al. found out of 42 women
and 40 men, effects on body shame and restrained eating replicated for women
only (1997). Additionally, self-objectification diminished math performance for
women only. As an example, print media and artwork tend to portray men with an
emphasis on the head and face, with greater facial detail, while women are more
commonly shown with an emphasis on their body, sometimes containing no face at
all (Noll at el., 1998). Mainstream media, particularly in print and
advertising, display women’s bodies have with more importance and pressure
placed on them then men’s, and for this reason women are the main subject of
concern around objectification. (Mercurio & Landry, 2008).
Objectification could
be broken up into two main subcategories, sexual objectification and
self-objectification, both of which fit into the broader definition of
objectification while bringing their own more specific meanings. Sexual
objectification can result in direct sexual oppression from objectification.
“Sexual Objectification of women occurs in a variety of contexts and forms,
such as sexual gazing, commentary, and evaluation; sexual harassment; and
sexual violence” (Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002). Sexual objectification
has been thought to be able to contribute to women’s mental health problems via
two main routes. The first form is quite direct and the more extreme of the
two, involving actual sexual victimization (e.g. rape, sexual assault and
sexual harassment) (Szymanski & Henning, 2006).
The second form is
more indirect and involves women’s internalization of objectifying experiences,
or self-objectification (Szymanski & Henning, 2006). Self-objectification
may be more subtle and hence the more problematic of the two terms and is the
main focus of this paper. Self-objectification is quite simply, the
objectification of one’s own self. Self-objectification occurs when the self is
viewed from an external perspective, as a physical body, rather than from an
internal perspective, which emphasizes one’s inner states and abilities
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). This, of course, has been more prominently
seen in women who are particularly likely to internalize a societal view that
sees them as sexual objects (Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002). Self-objectification is thought to increase
body surveillance, or self-monitoring, and to have several negative
psychological consequences (Greenleaf & McGreer, 2006). Tiggeman and Slater
(2001) found that, in a sample of 50 former dancers, self-objectification led
to habitual body monitoring, which in turn led to less flow, greater body
shame, and greater appearance anxiety. In an experiment conduct by Mercurio and
Landry, they showed BMI was unrelated to self-objectification, which supports
the idea that females can be preoccupied with their body regardless of their
size (2007).
The effects of
objectification on women have been documented both physically and mentally. One
of the most documented effects is increased body shame and increased appearance
anxiety (Mercurio & Landry, 2007). In the report, “Effect of Thin Ideal
Media Images on Women’s Self-Objectification, Mood and Body Image”, Harper and
Tiggemann concluded women who viewed thin-idealized magazine advertisements
showed higher levels of state self-objectification, weight-related appearance
anxiety, negative mood and body dissatisfaction, as opposed to those who viewed
product control images. (Harper & Tiggemann, 2007)
It has also been
suggested that conditions that result from objectification, such as increased
body shame, appearance anxiety, and less flow (or full immersion in activity),
lead to higher rates of depression. Szymanski and Henning cited increased body
shame, appearance anxiety and less flow (or full immersion in activity) all as
variables that led to depression (2006). However Szymanski and Henning (2006)
found no significant relationships between self-objectification measures and
internal awareness or between internal awareness and depression. This is in contrast
to Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama whose research demonstrated that internal
awareness was positively correlated with depression and that depression
mediated the relationship between self-objection and depressive symptoms
(2002). Though not all researchers agree on the connection between internal
states and depression, the link between objectification and depression through
body shame and appearance anxiety appears strong (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
One link of
self-objectification that seems logical and easy to follow is the connection to
eating disorders. Eating disorders are a substantial problem in this country
with studies that show up to 61% of college women engaged in some form of
disturbed eating (Myers & Crowther, 2008). It seems very sensible to link
the media’s images of super-thinness and its relation to self-objectivity as it
relates to disordered eating. Roberts and Gettman (2004) found that girls who
showed increased eating disorder symptomatology had experienced significant
increases in their exposure to fashion magazines, magazines being considered a
key outlet of sexual-objectification. In
her study, “Self-objectification among physically active women,” conducted by Christy Greenleaf (2005) she
found a relationship between self-objectification and an increase in disordered
eating for both young and old. “For both physically active and sedentary women
in this study, body shame and appearance anxiety were significant predicators
of disordered eating, which is consistent with previous research” (Greenleaf
2005). Another finding by Myers and Crowther took the connection further,
examining introspective awareness and finding that “introspective awareness
mediates the relationship between self-objectification and disordered eating”
(2008). However, these results aren’t consistent, for in her own attempt to
connect flow and eating Greenleaf found, “flow did not mediate the relationship
between self-objectification and disordered eating” (2005). Still, these
studies show many of the undesired effects of objectification on women.
Self-objectification
also led to a decrease in the appeal of the physical aspects of sex. In an
experiment by Roberts and Gettman (2004), they found using words that
highlighted body’s appearance (e.g., weight, attractiveness, physique) as
opposed to its health and functioning, led to increased feelings of
self-objectification and body shame. This culturally duplicated pressure on
appearance over function may lead to self-conscious “spectatoring” which has
been identified as a key barrier to women’s comfort with sex (Roberts &
Gettman, 2004). Fredrickson and Roberts, in their important work (1997), also
found that increased self-objectification led to a decrease in the appeal of
the physical aspects of sex.
Possibly one of the
most concerning findings of objectification is its link to decreased awareness
of internal states, capacity to reach peak motivational states, and cognitive
function. “This self-conscious appearance monitoring can disrupt an
individual’s stream of consciousness, and thereby limit the mental resources
available for other activities” (Noll et al., 1998) Noll theorizes that mental
resources are depleted as the individual preoccupies themselves with
envisioning an observer’s view of her body (1998). An experiment conducted by
Gay and Castano (2010) appears to confirm this notion; “The two studies here
show not only that cognitive load is indeed increased by state objectification,
but also more importantly, that this occurs primarily among women high in TSO [trait
self-objectification].” A women being self-objectifying not only loses
cognitive resources but experiences a loss in personal agency.
“Objectification, therefore, is detrimental to performance, either physical or
mental, in which concentration is required and cognitive resources need to be
garnered” (Gay & Castano, 2010).
More broadly,
Mercurio & Landry found the combination of the effects previously discussed
have been linked to an overall lowered self-esteem and satisfaction with life
(2007). Self-esteem can be defined as a personal judgment of overall
self-worth. Self-esteem is seen as a fundamental component of mental health as
well as a protective factor that promotes and contributes to health and
adaptive behavior (Mercurio & Landry, 2007). Research by McKinley (1999) showed a negative association between body surveillance
(the core of self-objectification) and autonomy, environmental mastery,
personal growth, positive relations, purpose in life and body self-esteem. The
chain of reason is relatively straight forward: self-objectification leads to
body shame, body shame leads to self-esteem, and finally self-esteem leads to
life satisfaction. Mercurio & Landry (2007) found:
Additional evidence that a preoccupation with
the body is not only associated with depression, disordered eating, and other
negative emotional and physical outcomes but also this it is associated with
aspects of well-being such as the degree to which one feels satisfied with
one’s life as a whole.
Research has
suggested, however, that women of different ages are affected to different
degrees by objectification. Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) suggested that
during midlife women have the chance to move out of the “objectification
lime-light” and reclaim an inner connection with their bodies. The situations
and environments for women of midlife may be less pressure filled to conform to
the societal ideas of beauty and this presents them the opportunity to distance
themselves from objectification, therefore experiencing fewer of the negative
psychological consequences of self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). Research done by Tiggemann and Lynch in “Body image across the life span
in adult women” (2001) found support for this claim, finding younger women
report higher levels of self-objectification and self-surveillance than do
older women. Related research has also provided some support for the contention
that middle-aged women report fewer body-image related concerns than do college
women, which could suggest less self-objectification (Greenleaf, 2005). A study
done by Christy Greenleaf (2005) confirms most other findings in that she also
found younger women reported higher levels of self-objectification, body shame
and dieting than older women. “Younger women may gain their self-worth from
their appearance, whereas middle age and older women may focus more on their
accomplishments as a source of self-esteem” (Greenleaf, 2005)
Just how much
exposure to objectification is necessary to induce feelings of body shame?
Fredrickson and Roberts conducted a study in which women, all alone, tried on
either a bathing suit or a sweater and then proceeded to complete a math test
(1997). The study showed women who tried on the bathing suit were induced into
a state of self-objectification and therefore performed in an impaired state on
their math test (Fredrickson & Roberts 1997). A study by Roberts and
Gettman, “Mere Exposure” (2004) wondered if even less could induce such
self-objection. The researchers “primed” their participants by showing them a
flurry of words in which just a few of them were sexually objectifying words;
the participants asked afterwards reported no clue to what they were being
primed for. “Our results indicate that a state of self-objectification can be
activated automatically for women by merely encountering words that highlight
the body’s physical appearance, as opposed to its health and functioning”
(Roberts & Gettman, 2004). The increased levels of shame and disgust
reflected the notion that women were reminded by the prime of greater cultural
demands (even if just words) to live up to the culturally prescribed standards
of beauty that they perceived themselves as a constant failure at.
Many scholars
agree that education efforts are the best way to begin the fight against
objectification. Roberts and Gettman (2004) suggest that if women can be
educated on mass media’s objectification of the female body that they could
utilize a more critical, aware eye that could work against the negative effects
of objectification. “The objectification of women’s bodies must be reduced
before positive body images can be developed” (Greenleaf, 2005). A redirection
of values towards interpersonal skills, athletic ability and critical thinking
is largely agreed upon as a pertinent move for the future (Szymanski &
Henning, 2007). Noll and company cite the importance of informing women and men
alike that women’s appearance obsession is really a survival tactic more than
it is “natural” (1998). Muehlenkamp and Saris-Baglama also recognize that most
studies have been done on primarily Caucasians and ponder the different ways
objectification affects minorities and women of color (2002). Similarly, Gay
and Castano, among others, question the role men have in objectification, and
request further study on the possibility and to what extent men are also
objectified in society. Many authors hope that their work is examined closely
to further the discussion of objectification in our culture. Almost all
scholars within the work of objectification agree that education and a
continuous critical eye towards media and its gender portrayals are vital
moving forward.
Objectification Advocacy Proposals
Objectification is
the treatment of an individual as a mere object, a commodity there for others,
and to be consumed as such. Women are the main targets of this objectification
as they are primarily looked at as sexual beings with a strong focus on their bodies
and particularly their thinness. Society’s view of what it means to be
“beautiful” is socially constructed and it is an ideal near impossible to
reach. The social pressure to reach this potentially unhealthy standard is
increasingly heavy and the effects on females across the globe could be
disastrous. As researchers in the field continue to understand the severity of
the situation, more studies are being conducted and more information on the
possible consequences are arising. Links between self-objectification and
depression, increased appearance anxiety, bodily shame, eating disorders and
sexual dysfunction have already been established, and research between
objectification’s effect on inner psychological states, flow, and overall
well-being continue to be examined. As we continue to study objectification we
can only expect a more detailed understanding that may be able to solve this
problem. As for now, there are still
steps we can take as a society to work towards at least improving the issue,
through both legislative and literary efforts, and here I lay out three
different proposals.
Public Service Announcements
The first of these
ideas that I propose comes in the form of literacy efforts- a series of public
service announcements broadcasted across America. These P.S.A.’s will be
delivered across all media: television, radio, print and online alike. The goal
of these PSA’s is simple: to educate the public on the harms of sexual
objectification, and to encourage consumers to be aware of such practices.
These ads will highlight the disconnect between most people’s reality and the
productions of the studio. They will offer the suggestion to be healthy for
yourself in lieu of falling for the deception of the unrealistic idealized
standard of beauty currently being promoted. This effort will be vital in the
literacy effort to raise awareness among the general public at a national
level; right now the level of awareness is far too low to be effective in any
mass change. Quite simply put, you can’t
fix a problem the public doesn’t know is a problem. This P.S.A. effort will
work to put the problem of objectification into focus for Americans.
One important
strength of this effort is the mass audience in which the message hopes to
reach. By utilizing a different medium for every P.S.A. spot, the message
should reach majority of people regardless of how they retrieve their news and
information, albeit TV, radio online etc. With all media covered, only a total
recluse should miss the message. Launching a government run website where
people can gain more information plus explore the many consequences of
objectification will be a must. This will ensure citizens access to the details
of objectification that won’t be able to fit in the 30 second spots, or print
ads. The website will be designed to be entertaining and user friendly to keep
people interested while still proving the necessary information, including the
negative consequences of objectification. The most important part of this
P.S.A. campaign is the awareness this should bring to the less informed who
currently do not know what objectification is, no less understand its
consequences. Awareness is the foremost goal in this effort and the mission is
to inform as many people as possible.
Possible
weaknesses for the plan do exist however, and will have to work at being
minimalized at all costs. One of these concerns is competing in the cutthroat
world of marketing. Advertising today is a bombardment of sensationalistic ads,
so our team will have to design spots that are sensationalistic enough to be
intriguing without sacrificing our core message that the standardized ideal of
beauty isn’t the only beauty. Another possible challenge awaits in reaching our
target audience. Even though our goal to hit as many Americans as possible is a
good one, it’s an ambitious one that could backfire to some extent. The target
audience may be too broad to the point our message isn’t as effective. For this
we would have to explore honing in on a younger audience, possibly giving up
senior citizens for those who may be able to make more of a difference long
term. Potentially the largest concern is the complicated nature of the message
we are trying to get across. It will be a very tricky to accurately deal with
objectification in a simple 30 second spot or print ad. One creative yet
effective possibility could be to show a model before she’s had any makeup put
on, or had her hair styled in any way. The P.S.A. could then follow her through
the process of makeup, wardrobe, photo shoot, then most telling, Photoshop. The
before and after could act as a startling wakeup call to the concerning gap
between media and reality.
Proud To Be You Campaign
The second plan I
propose to combat the ills of objectification is an education campaign targeted
directly at youth. Staying within the field of literacy efforts, I believe
working through the school systems is a fantastic way to directly speak to
America’s children. The plan, working specifically with Middle Schools across
the country, would speak of the perils of objectification while promoting the
celebration of each child’s individuality. The movement would be named the Proud To Be You campaign, or P2BU for short. P2BU, roughly targeting seventh
graders, would also promote healthy lifestyle choices through both exercise and
healthy eating. An official P2BU week, a flurry of posters and banners, and an
entertaining yet informative presentation at each school should make the
movement highly visible. The campaign would also try to work with school
cafeterias to create a healthy lunch schedule for the week of P2BU. P2BU would
deconstruct the norm of objectification while endorsing healthy choices and
celebrating uniqueness in each student.
The primary
strength of this campaign is its ability to directly target youth. The youth audience is ideal for this movement
and there are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, youth are the most
open-minded audience members, as they have yet to cement rigid ideals that many
older people have and are unwilling to change (here, based on traditional
gender roles). Prepubescent students have a still developing brain, perfect for
a movement trying to establish long-term commitment to gender equality and the
valuing of “what’s inside”. Young people
hold the key to the future, and this campaign hopes to plant the seed that has
the power to develop this change. Moreover, by working through the schools,
attendance to these events is mandatory, and the movement should hit all
American students who aren’t in some form of private education, which is
obviously the vast majority. Schools are places of education, so what better
place to enact an educational movement? P2BU should be especially effective
because it’s not optional- all publicly schooled children will be there and
their attention will be required- a perfect formula for getting a message
across.
Working through
the schools could also be an obstacle however. Even though the pros are
overwhelmingly beneficial, if kids are forced to watch something educational in
school they might not think it’s worthwhile, or “cool” enough. Think
stereotypically how unenthused most children are to go to school to learn; a
lack of interest in the matter can put a real strain on the children’s ability
to take in the information. The answer here would be to make the campaign as
entertaining as possible, but herein lies another possible weakness: packaging
the P2BU message in an easily understood and entertaining presentation. The
subject matter, inherently complex, will have to be delivered in its most
simplistic form in order to be understood by children. Not only must it be
understood, but also presented in a way that will capture the student’s
attention. If both of these aspects can be achieved however, the results of the
campaign should be powerful and effective.
Regulation
My last effort in
the reform of current objectification ideology veers from awareness efforts and
into the world of politics. Though education movements are vital in educating
the public, legislation in the field could better protect the public regardless
of their background on the subject. Ultimately I would like to see a bill
passed completely outlawing the use of Photoshop (and other software editing
tools) on any human subject without a clear and obvious disclaimer. This move
would help close the gap between reality and media production and for those who
still choose to Photoshop, the disclaimer next to the photo would inform its
customers that what they’re seeing isn’t actually “real”. Now because this
effort would surely face opposition from magazines and deregulationists alike,
I propose easing into the law, with a reward system for those companies who
voluntarily comply to start. These companies could receive a stipend from the
government for voluntarily leaving their human subjects unedited and other
companies could see this incentive as a reason to comply as well. These
magazines (and such media) could proudly display a note that tells of their
unedited subjects and wear it like a badge of honor. Individuals concerned with
the practice of Photoshop would surely lean towards these magazines and a
popular movement started in favor of unedited models would provide a compelling
reason for other magazines to jump on board. The task would be difficult but it
can be achieved.
One of the aspects
that would make this difficult is the assured backlash from many large media
conglomerates who are not looking for more regulation on their media. This is
where easing into the idea and possibly garnering a social popularity to the
movement would be key (as well as government stipends). If these companies see
a financial benefit to this move, they will take action. However another
downfall is the difficulty in regulating such a law. How do we truly know if
someone touched up a photo? This is a problem with practically every law though
and is no excuse not to try. Plus, if customers want the untouched models, why
wouldn’t you give the customers what they want? Still, the law couldn’t
prohibit models who are truly super-skinny or males who are truly
super-muscular. Nonetheless we would see a reduction in over-the-top images of
men and women in magazines.
The “all natural”
bodies of individuals in print media would have an enormous effect on how
people view celebrities and the like. The portrayal of actual bodies would help
further close the gap between reality and media production, and in turn lessen
the unachievable standard of beauty that’s promoted today. This glorification
of the natural human form could have a ripple effect into other fields too,
allowing for more pushes in legislation to further reduce how prone the public
is to objectification. Though it may not be ideal, public figures act as role
models to children across the country. If we can provide more realistic looking
role models, not only will youth feel less pressure to conform to such
unobtainable standards, an emphasis on who people are and what actions they’re
capable of may begin to emerge.
Passing this law,
starting P2BU, or even just spreading P.S.A.s could be difficult, but the
effort is worth the cause. None of these measures would be a panacea for sexual
objectification by any extent, but it’s worth taking small steps in the right
direction in hopes of someday taking leaps and bounds. Raising awareness is the
first move in gaining support from the public, and once a movement has support,
it becomes an unstoppable force. The real issue right now is the lack of
understanding about objectification and how it’s connected to all of our
well-beings. Legislation in the field will help the progression of fixing this
problem but the real change will come in individual’s attitudes towards the
subject. If people come to realize the potential harm in objectification and
demand something better, producers and cultural gatekeepers will heed the
message. It’s all about taking the first step.
Advocacy Plan
When
it comes to the challenge of reversing the trend towards objectification,
changing attitudes should be the primary focus. Forcing change through
restrictive legislation could help to some extent, but a true shift in attitude
must be done voluntarily. For this reason I’ve decided to construct a specific
advocacy plan for literacy efforts on the matter. The suggestion for P.S.A.’s
has potential but presents a real challenge in the scope of the projected
audience. Sensationalist marketing campaigns would be hard to compete with, and
successful thirty second ad spots would be challenging with the complexity of
the message. Because of this, I propose an advocacy plan for the outreach
program I’ve tentatively labeled as P2BU, or the “Proud To Be You” campaign.
Designed to work with middle schools across the country, P2BU would be
given a specially designated week for a slew of educational activities and
learning material. A presentation to kick off the week would outline what
objectification is and how it’s problematic; additional activities during the
week would complement this process. Working with schools across America would
provide many benefits for the program and should raise the likelihood of
success drastically.
At
the heart of the P2BU campaign is the goal to raise awareness in children about
the effects of objectification in the media. One way to do this is to promote
individuality and encourage children to embrace their uniqueness- hence the
name Proud To Be You. This is in attempt to demote the unrealistic,
hegemonic, standardized ideals of beauty that currently lay at the root of
objectification concerns. One way to do this would be to show a model before
makeup or Photoshop, and then show the grueling transformation that actually
takes place before people see her as a final “product.” This should provide a
compelling insight to many kids about the disconnect between “normal people”
and how they’re presented in the media. Similarly, taking the weight and
numbers of a particularly small celebrity and comparing it to the statistics of
the average woman may provide a comparable effect. Another possible activity could feature the popular
Barbie doll. Blowing Barbie up to life size and reading off her inhumanly
disproportionate measures could also be eye-opening to many children. Most
children recognize Barbie as a staple female toy, and identifying how
unrealistic her features are could help children realize that much of what’s
produced doesn’t reflect reality. These displays should work towards making
children more comfortable in their own skin while raising awareness about
objectification.
Alongside the goal
of raising awareness on objectification are the goals to promote healthy
lifestyles that include regular exercise and consuming wholesome healthy foods.
One way to help implement the campaign into all parts of the school would be by
working with school cafeterias. During the P2BU week school cafeterias could
upgrade their food selection to serve up particularly healthy choices. By
working with school cafeterias all children who have school lunch would
necessarily be exposed to new healthy options. If done well, these courses would
be tasty and nutritious, proving to kids that healthy food doesn’t always have
to mean a downgrade in taste. As for exercise, I propose a week long class
tournament in a relatively gender neutral sport such as basketball, softball or
tennis. Different classes could make different teams that would encourage
teamwork, togetherness and friendly competition, while also supporting
exercise. Though missing a fraction of class time could be seen as negative,
for children missing some class would be seen as exciting and would help the
image of the campaign in their eyes. The fun these children have playing these
games would likely be remembered by the students for a long time afterwards and
be positively linked to the P2BU campaign and the ideals it encourages.
The
major strength of P2BU lies in its specific and targeted audience, America’s
youth. By working through the school systems, the campaign should hit basically
all seventh grade children excluding outliers in private or home school. This
would ensure that all children receive important awareness information on the
issues of objectification. Because school is mandatory, the presentations would
also be mandatory, and the posters and flyers around school would be seen by
all children throughout the day. Additionally, children haven’t yet fully
developed rigid ideologies and so they will be more open-minded and prone to
accepting new ideas. Introducing our deconstruction of objectification at a
young age should hopefully relay a positive message objectification has already
negatively impacted the youth. Children hold the key to the future and a
successful campaign promoting positive body images could go a long way in
changing attitudes on women’s bodies down the road.
Conclusion
Objectification is
a large-scale issue that affects virtually everybody. It is a problem deeply
rooted within our culture and this makes it an extreme challenge to reform. The
negative effects of objectification outlined in this paper point to the need
for change within this arena. Major shifts in ideology will be required in
order to reverse the harmful effects of objectification, and this will be a
slowly evolving process. Literacy efforts and education will be necessary to
inform the public of such effects and to give an outline of how to challenge
and resist these ideals. Other such actions such as regulation prohibiting the
advancement of objectification could also work to slow the problem. With an
idealized standard of beauty already in place, the media simply helps maintain such
ideologies; changing how the media, particularly print media, portrays messages
of the role of women will be a vital step in changing how our culture views the
role of women. The good news is ideologies are always in flux, so change is
always possible, but it will take action and understanding in all fields. We
must make a concentrated effort to understand women as more than physical
entities made for consumption in the name of greater wellbeing for all humans.
Works
Cited
Cooley,
C. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons
Fredrickson,
B., & Roberts, T. (2006). Objectification theory. Psychology Of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.
Gay,
R., & Emanuele, C. (2010). My body or mind: The impact of state and trait
objectification on women's cognitive resources. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 695-703.
Greenleaf,
C. (2005). Self-objectification among physically active women. Sex Roles,
52, 124-156.
Greenleaf,
C., & McGreer, R. (2006). Disordered eating attitudes and
self-objectification among physically active and sedentary female college
students. The Journal of Pyschology, 140, 187-198.
Gurung,
R., & Johnson, V. (2011). Defusing the objectification of women by other
women: The role of competence. Sex Roles, 65, 177-188.
Harper,
B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on
women's self-objectification, mood and body image. Sex Roles, 58,
649-657.
Hatton,
E., & Trautner, M. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The
sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality
& Culture, 15, 226-278.
McKinley,
N. M. (1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’
body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35, 760-769.
Mercurio,
A., & Landry, L. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being: The impact of
self-objectification and women's overall sense of self-worth and life
satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58, 458-466.
Moradi,
B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A
decade of advances and future directions. Pyschology of Women Quarterly,
32, 377-398
Muehlenkamp,
J., & Saris-Baglama, N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological
outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26,
371-379.
Myers,
T., & Crowther, J. (2008). Is self-objectification related to interceptive
awareness? an exampination of potential mediating pathways to disordered eating
attitudes. Pyschology of Women Quarterly, 32, 172-180.
Noll,
S., Quinn, D., Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T. (1998). That swimsuit becomes
you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 75,
269-284.
Roberts,
T., & Gettman, J. (2004). Mere exposure: gender differences in negative
effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 51,
17-26.
Szymanski,
D., & Henning, S. (2007). The role of self-objectification in women's
depression: A test of objectification theory. Sex Roles, 68, 45-53.
Tiggemann,
M. & Lynch, J. E. (2001), Body image across the life span in adult women:
The role of self-objectification. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 243-253.
Tiggemann,
M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers
and non-dancers. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 25, 57-64.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)