Audiences

“The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional, exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked at-ness” (Mulvey, 1989) Discuss.

Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze claims that certain texts privilege the male spectator. The woman’s appearance on screen is focused on her beauty as well as her eroticism. Mulvey uses examples of past generation texts to illustrate her theories as well as the influence of Freud but the question I pose is that can texts be truly clear cut in their portrayal of women and are there any problems in Mulvey’s theory in its application to the text and its relation to studying female audiences. I will first address the participants involved in the male gaze and question their roles in the theory. I will then offer the different approaches and criticisms to Mulvey’s theory in general before offering suggestions on studying female audiences. The first step in examining the male gaze is the person who does the gazing; the spectator.

Mackinnon (2003; 126) addresses the issue of Mulvey’s ‘spectator’. He comments that Mulvey does not talk about the spectator as an actual person, rather as a viewing position created by the film text. Since it is not an actual person, but rather regarded as the perfect construct of a person this means that the ‘spectator’ could be termed ‘apparatic’ (Mackinnon, 2003; 126). This is the first problem of Mulvey’s theory. Since the spectator is constructed as the “ideal” viewer we encounter the problem of generalization of the viewers of texts. Not everyone that watches the same show gets the same gratifications and interpretations of the text. This generalization is evident in many aspects of Mulvey’s theory which is counterproductive in studying gender.

It was later in her ‘Afterthoughts’ paper that Mulvey (1981) confirms the spectator not just as masculine, but male gendered which further problematises the aforementioned generalization as well as the problem of what other sort of spectator could an actual female spectator be separated from and contrasted with (Mackinnon, 2003; 127). Mulvey talks about the female spectator’s experience as a woman imbued with masculinity, this means that the female has no other interpretation of texts other than though a male point of view. This is problematic in itself as the female is reduced to a singular esoteric interpretation which does not give room for female (or any other kind of) perspectives as she also does not discuss the male spectator as capable of feminization. What she also ignores is that men as a gender are not homogeneous. Not all men have equal access to power in social terms. Black men are more sexualized while homosexual men are deemed less socially privileged. Therefore the maleness of the ‘apparatic’ spectator exceeds the maleness of the actual men (Mackinnon, 2003; 127).

Although Mulvey bases her male gaze theory on Freud she doesn’t pay mind when he problematises the association of male masculinity and female femininity: “distinguishing between male and female in mental life, we make use of what is obviously an inadequate empirical and conventional equation: we call everything that is strong and active male, everything that is weak and passive female” (Freud, 1964; 188)

Mulvey’s (1989) assumption is that there is such an easy fit between patriarchy and masculinity and that the ‘apparatic’ male spectator might as well be the actual male spectator. What she doesn’t realize is that gender terms such as masculinity are not rigid but complex and shifting. They must be social, and thus must shift as the social itself shifts (Mackinnon, 2003; 127). What could be deemed feminine in the past (pedicures, facials) could now be deemed unisex or non-gender associated. By not giving consideration for the leaking of femininity into masculinity we can find no common ground between social female and social male in terms of their fantasy. What we will see is basic assumptions of polar opposites which segregate the different genders. Men/Women, Masculine/Feminine, Blue/Pink.

The blurring of such lines is talked about in Gorton’s (2007) paper on “The Point of View of Shame” where she discusses about how traditional views of men in texts are portrayed as active while the women are depicted as passive and how such stereotypes are challenged in films like Romance (1999) and Anatomy of Hell (2004). She talks about the empowering of women though submission; that it is not shameful to feel this way because they are in control even when it seems that they are not. This then creates a kind of ‘female gaze’; where the woman allows herself to be objectified or dominated by a man by choice and not force. Therefore Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze is no longer applicable in this situation.

After highlighting the problems with such the roles in Mulvey’s male gaze I will discuss the different approaches and criticism by other scholars as well as evaluating their methods.
Mary Ann Doane (1989, 7) offers the alternative of the female spectator’s resistance to the dominant codes of male text through Masquerade. This masquerade is the woman spectator’s over-identification with a body that flaunts it femininity is able to deny the patriarchal “production of femininity as closeness, as presence-to-itself, as, precisely imagistic (1989; 7).” It involves the creation of the “missing gap or distance” necessary for enjoyable looking. This is called the recalcitrant gap, where the female acknowledges the masculine meanings of the text but chooses to interpret it in her own way.

Gaylyn Studlar (1985, 2001) argues that the moment of cinematic reception is reconstructed as pre-Oedipal and masochistic rather than Oedipal and sadistic and thus reversing the sexes but reinscribing the basic dichotomy between activity and passivity, viewing and being viewed.
The two scholars give more space for the possibility of different interpretation of texts in contrast to Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze, however the dualistic structure is the limitation of each of the above theoretical alternatives. Whether describing the position of the female spectator (which begs the question of other differences like class or race) or the masochistic loss of self in watching movies, these approaches remain dependent on a pre-determined system of twos. Hierarchies are reversed (from low to high) or positions shift (from enclosed to marginal), but the model for female spectatorship remains oppositional; the options for women watching movies are either/or appropriated from established (male) theoretical discourses. What seems to be missing then is a view that is different but not dualistic, a view of difference may be found in a carnivalesque resistance to old ways of seeking. (Fuchs in Dotter &Bowers, 1992; 37).

There have been more productive lines of gender study such as Queer theory which, based on the philosophies of Michael Foucault, refuses to accept commonsense binaries (male/female, masculine/feminine) as they are socially constructed. An example is Jackie Stacey’s (1987, 61) Screen article which she argues ‘the rigid distinction between either desire or identification, so characteristic of psychoanalytic film theory, fails to address the construction of desires which involve a specific interplay of both processes’ (Stacey, 1987; 61).

McHugh & Sobchack (2004; 125) have argued feminist film theory and media work is no longer dominated by psychoanalytic concepts such as ‘the gaze’ and ‘desire’; instead they believe that the theory is an increasingly heterogeneous and dynamic set of concepts and practices.
Mikhail Bakhtin’s Heteroglossia (1930, 1981) can also be used to replace the theory of the male gaze. Its dialogism, or “multi-voiced discourses” allows multiple, repetitive and non/sense figures to play across meaning and to expand textual boundaries. Instead of the directed “gaze”, we engage in a process of “gazing”. This ties into my suggestion of taking an ethnographic stance in studying female audiences which I will address soon.

To summarize the points I have made so far in the problems of Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze; the generalization of gender and the narrow definition of masculinity and femininity by Mulvey gives no space for the evolution of its terms and thereby segregating males and females to their stereotyped roles which cannot explain the willing surrender of a woman to a man and the female gaze of the audience that arises from such choices. There have been other scholars who have disagreed with the theory yet still fall into the trap of gender essentialism when offering their own methods in approaching the study of audiences. However queer theory and heteroglossia have shown that by not adhering the traditional roles of masculinity and femininity we can begin to understand fully the portrayal of females on screen as well as the different interpretations and ways of gazing of texts. Such methodology would only be possible though ethnographic means as its research process concentrates on the qualitative rather than quantitative. For example Skelton’s (2002) work on constructing dominant masculinity and negotiating the male gaze focused on young girls and the way they negotiated and challenged male teachers and their dominant masculinity in classrooms. This kind of ethnographic research enables us to fully explore gender through various combinations of methods without excluding one theory for another. It is then that we can gain a better understanding of audience studies without discriminating against anyone.


References:
Mackinnon (2003; 126) Kenneth Mackinnon (2003) Male Spectatorship and the Hollywood Love Story; Journal of Gender studies, Routledge.

Mulvey, L (1989) Visual and Other Pleasures, London; Macmillan

Freud, S (1964) An Outline of Psychoanalysis. Standard Edition XXIII (1937-1939) London, Hogarth Press/Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

Gorton, K (2007) The Point of View of Shame: Re-viewing female desre in Catherine Breillat’s Romance (1999) and Anatomy of Hell (2004) in Studies in European Cinema 4:2

Doane, M and Bergstrom, J (1989) The Female Spectator: Contexts and Directions in Camera Obscura 20/21 May/September

Studlar, G & Bernstien, M (1985, 2001) Sacred duties, Poetic Passions: John Ford and the Issue of Femininity in the Western in John Ford Made Westerns, Indiana University Press

Fuchs, C (1992) Desperately Seeking a Subject: Postmodern Sexuality, Seidelman and Madonna in Sexuality, the Female Gaze, and the Arts: Women, the Arts, and Society Dotterer, R & Bowers, S (eds.) Susquehanna University Press

Stacey, J (1987) Desperately Seeking Difference, Screen 28

McHugh, K & Sobchack, V (2004) ‘Introduction’, ‘Beyond the gaze: Recent approaches to Film Feminisms’, Signs, 30: 1, pp. 1205-1208

Bakhtin, M (1930s, 1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press

Skelton, C (2002) Constructing dominant masculinity and negotiating the ‘male gaze’ in Inclusive Education vol. 6 no 1 pg17-31