Monday, August 30, 2004
(7:02 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
"Objectification"
Today, I read Ogged's post about the controversy caused by his admiration for female beach volleyball players. Some have suggested that by looking at images of such females and encouraging others to do the same, he is participating in the "objectification" of women.Now I can see how "objectification" in general would be a serious thing. Simply turning another person into a prop for one's own power play or one's own pleasure is a very serious offense. But the only way I can think of to make "objectification" into a rigorous concept is to equate it with either rape or torture, then perhaps shade down to related behaviors (sexual assault, etc.). However, to claim that looking at attractive women -- women who have worked hard to be in peak physical condition -- is "objectification" is nothing but prudishness and puritanism. Looking at a woman because she's beautiful is not violent. It is not morally wrong on any level.[1] It is a natural and salutary thing.
It's true that the mainstream media often presents us with a very narrow and constricted idea of what beauty is. It's also true that that narrow idea leads some people who fall outside that range to have very negative feelings about themselves. That's terrible. I regret that deeply. However, the answer, it seems to me, is not to ditch the concept of beauty altogether and forget that we have bodies, but to expand our idea of what kind of bodies can be beautiful -- to make the category of "physical beauty" into a multiplicitous open network in which everyone could potentially belong rather than a singular Platonic form to which everyone must aspire. We could even admit it: yes, those who fall into the "mainstream" view of beauty actually are beautiful, and so are a whole lot of people who don't.
And once we get rid of this supposed objective standard for beauty, we find ourselves able to respond on an intersubjective level to people -- those who are "objectively" beautiful but are horrible people suddenly don't seem so attractive (viz. Ann Coulter); those who fall outside the realm of Cosmopolitan's idea of beauty but bring joy to those around them seem very attractive. And as a general rule, anyone who seems to be comfortable in his or her body, without wielding it in such a way as to degrade others, is attractive. I saw this at the show I went to this weekend -- a group of (mainly) women of a variety of body types were all dancing on stage in a sexually provocative manner, and each was very sexually attractive in her own way. I don't understand why the corporate media should be able to rob us of the experience of enjoying physical beauty.
That's why I think that Anthony's posts on sexiness are so important. At bottom, the person isn't attractive because of the body -- the body is attractive because of the person, because of their accomplishments and carriage. This seems to apply to the beach volleyball players, as well. Watching a game between two two-person teams, one definitely gets an idea of what kind of people are really involved here, and that will inevitably color one's idea of who is attractive.
So in short, the puritanism of feminism has to stop here -- and so, with this blog post, I fully intend to change the course of several puritanical strands of feminist discourse. I thank everyone in advance for their cooperation.
- Notes:
- One may note here the infamous claim of Jesus Christ: whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery in his heart. Since the Sermon on the Mount is a compressed commentary on the Torah, and since in the Torah matters of adultery and rape were closely intertwined, it seems to me that Jesus is referring to looking at a woman and conjuring up rape fantasies is the real problem. However, in most sexual fantasies of healthy people, some kind of intersubjective encounter is assumed. No one generally wants to have sex with an unwilling partner or with someone who is limp and unresponsive. I would say that most sexual fantasies are tied up with a desire for reciprocal respect and esteem -- I really like this person, so much so that I want to fuck her, and I hope she likes me just as much. There are situations in which people engage in sexual fantasies that involve humiliating or violating the person, and those are definitely a very bad thing, but just applying the blanket label of "objectification" to every inkling of sexual desire is ludicrous -- unbiblical, even! (See T. Jennings, The Man Jesus Loved.)
