Background
Today in Theatre History I guest taught a class where we discussed Alfonsina Storni's Master of the World, its relationship to Naturalism, and the feminist theories located within. One of my classmates posted a video on Facebook to continue the conversation and whoa, has the conversation started.
I am not one to shy away from feminist issues, but I find that when it comes to my personal body, I am not as adept to discuss my position. So I went to the closest female I knew to talk it through. My roommate and I just spent the last half hour criticizing the term sexy and what it means for us as women. For the purposes of this post, I am interpreting the term "criticism" through Adorno as the location where the mind tears at its bonds. Both our reactions to the word "sexy" were vastly different.
Sexy
For my roommate, it does not matter what a person is calling her because that is their perspective of who she is. If a person chooses to call her "sexy," then that is their own decision and she is not going to change her clothing choices or beliefs. She refuses to assign value to their point of view. When I think back to the discussion in class today, I am reminded of the character Margaret. There is a moment in the play where she is talking to the male character Claudio who asks her why she does not merely create a new world. She replies: "Why? It's alright as it is." She [both Margaret and my roommate] recognize that the world is as it is and there does not necessarily need to be a second world. My roommate embodies this by refusing to conform or usurp that position; she subtracts herself from the situation. This theory* continues into all aspects of her life because of where she comes from and her refusal to conform to her previously engrained familial and societal perspectives.
The term "sexy" has been used to define me in purely physical terms. By telling me that I am "sexy," you take my identity as a human being (and subject) and deflate me to the level of object. My roommate argues that this feeling stems from a need to be liked. While I agree to an extent, I also feel that it is imperative that I be considered at the same level as everyone else. I recognize my theory can be refuted by discussing my background: I grew up in a fairly conservative home where my sister and I were constantly told to cover up and not draw attention to our breasts and behinds. I went through a phase where I decided I no longer cared what others thought, but the older I get, the more I feel that theory is slightly naïve. While I have no control of how others choose to perceive me, I do have control over how I allow them to perceive me. That may not necessarily mean I choose to dress in a way that is not provocative (though this term could be deconstructed another time), but that I do not want to allow the term "sexy" to sit there and be considered an acceptable way to address me.
Intellectual Objectification
After we talked through the term "sexy," my roommate and I started discussing other ways in which we may or may not feel objectified. While my roommate maintains the view that it does not matter what others say, I equated the term "sexy" and physical description with the comments I receive about my educational/ academic pursuits. My family jokes about the fact that I am in the process of receiving my second Master's degree. Comments such as "how long are you going to be in school again," "why are you doing a PhD program," and "you're just a perpetual student" are meant to be good-natured, but they devalue the work and passion I have for learning. By doing so, they reinforce a form of intellectual objectification that is just as difficult for me to discuss.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, this is not a conversation I am prepared to answer with absolute certainty. My inability to stand fast to a theory may weaken my argument, but I ascertain that it only goes to show how theories are complex and abstract in their existence and it is by applying and criticizing those theories that we grow and learn. As new information presents itself, I observe, define, deconstruct, and criticize what it means and where I align myself.
Thoughts? Email me at hmcarnahan@gmail.com or facebook message me.
*Theory here indicates not merely an application of belief, but the active practice of it. Since I am still learning how to understand, the term theory applies to the constant reflection of the practice of the application of belief. I think that makes sense. (Think bell hooks or Matthew Goulish: we have to learn how to see).
