#objectification theory

How might we understand the shifts in sociality associated with the kinds of activities, communities, networks and publics enabled by social media platforms?

The internet has fundamentally changed social interactions on both a small and large scale (Burnett & Jaeger, 2010) especially transforming the notion of public space (Bainbridge, 2011) and how people interact with one another and represent themselves online (Ching & Foley, 2012). Social media has been particularly influential on the construction of self as becoming a constant pursuit (Ching & Foley, 2012). 

The public sphere has been expanded to include the internet as traditional print media such as newspapers, journals and magazines have to expand online and change their approach to fit in with the now internet-saturated world (Young, 2010). Sociality has been transformed by the creation of online social media.  However, this transformation does not and should not come without substantial criticism. There is a significant digital divide that impacts who interacts with online content, how they interact with it and why they interact with it. 

Women are significantly disenfranchised by the blossoming of social media and the online public sphere and are regularly recognised merely commodified and objectified to new levels online(Rey, 2012) and Americanisation and Euro-centrism still dominates the online sphere, especially through Neo-Liberal American politics that enable the dissemination of propaganda material and the creation of thought filter bubbles in the guise of news, politics and infotainment through the notion of pluralism, “prosumerism”, the free market and consumer choice (Pariser, 2011; McChesney, 1998; Hedges, 2009).

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) propose objectification theory as the: “…theoretical framework places female bodies in a sociocultural context with the aim of illuminating … sexual objectification…is the experience as being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others.” (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) (Emphasis in the original.)

Objectification theory has long been applied to advertising, mass media and pornography with liberal, radical and Marxist feminist theory (Dworkin, 1989; Firestone, 1971; Dahlberg & Zimmerman, 2008). However, the rise of neoliberalism, pluralism and “prosumerism” alongside objectification theory is seldom attributed to the rise of the self-objectification exhibited by girls and women on social media and their online sociability (de Vries & Jochen, 2013)(Graham et al, 2008). Firestone (1971) proposes the application of Marx’s theory of class to the sexes, where the female sex class is exploited for their sexual and reproductive labour capabilities. 

Rey (2012) submits that during the 20th century the understanding of the class analysis shifted from one of material production to media consumption to the notion of the prosumers (Rey, 2012). The effect that the notion of the prosumers is particularly evident on the forum/link-sharing website Reddit and its subforum (“subreddit”) “redditgonewild”.  Redditgonewild features nude “self”-portraits of predominantly thin, white and attractive females and derives its name from corporate pornographic franchise Girls Gone Wild . (van der Negal, 2013). 

Like van der Negal (2013) who focuses on the issue of anonymity, Hasinoff (2012) attempts to frame teenagers sending sexually explicit photographic messages (“sexting”) to each other as an issue of media production and consent. While van der Negal (2013) highlights the dangers of being “outed” from online anonymity and Hasinoff (2012) attempts to remove sexual abuse, the virgin/whore dichotomy and hazing arising from “sexting” from a broader cultural problem of sexual abuse and the commodification of women. Both of these particular accounts of nudity and sexually explicit digital media fail to highlight the obvious, that men are requesting and creating a demand for this kind of imagery, that it is women who are harmed by it and this ultimately has consequences for female online sociability and not males. Dworkin (1989) posits that pornography exists as a way of ensuring the dominance of the male sex class, ensuring the subordination of the female sex class and in the case of “female created” imagery such as that found in redditgonewild or teenage girl created sexting:

“…by a woman, a conceit common enough in the kind of pornography that is easy … for the author … in the shortest possible time…the goal is to please the male consumer whose tastes are entirely predictable… The female name on the cover is part of the package, an element of the fiction.” (Dworkin, 1989)

Dworkin, like Firestone, could not have predicted the rise in “prosumerism” that would occur in the 21st century. Dean, Jurgenson and Ritzer describe “prosumerism”: “...prosumer, one who is both a producer and a consumer, and of prosumption, involving a combination of production and consumption...” (Dean, Jurgenson & Ritzer, 2012).

Rey (2012) asserts that everything that is done online is an act of prosumption; that the commodity being traded is the user and that user-generated content is largely a form of revenue raising for the site in question.

This implies that the user-generated content, and therefore, the creators of this content, on redditgonewild are still made into commodities for both the site itself and the predominantly male users of this particular subreddit (van der Negal, 2013). Problems arise with the use of this user-generated platform format unique to women: cyber-bullying associated with the sharing of sexually explicit images (Stanbrook, 2014); self-objectification, the development and perpetuation of mental illness (Calagero & Thompson, 2009) as well as having detrimental effects on the wider community (Carr & Syzmanski, 2011). This type of stereotyping and use of stereotype threat is considered to be a contributing factor to the digital divide between men and women (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). The understanding of prosumerism springs from the idea of a participatory culture, where expression; engagement with political discourse is possible and encouraged; and most importantly a culture based on sharing, where each member feels as though they are connected socially (Jenkins, 2009). It is commonly asserted that online communities and user-generated content platforms are collaborative (Gulbrandsen, 2011) however there is criticism to be made to these notions as Rushkoff (2001) points out:

“Even the so-called ‘interactive’ media, like computer games and most Websites, simply allow for the user to experience a simulation of free choice.” (Rushkoff, 2001)

While pre-dating contemporary social media and networks, Rushkoff (2001) warns that an increased speed, streamline, interactive and user-friendly online experience will do little to foster living communication that does not rely on merely reflecting the existing world back at us (Rushkoff, 2001). 

Similarly, Pariser (2011) reflects on the role personalisation plays in online social media as well as general internet use. Social Networking site Facebook relies on the notion of the prosumers to profit. Facebook users enter their information and what they share and who they interact with is carefully monitored to tailor the content and advertising displayed to them, as is with television where the viewer is the product for advertisers, Facebook relies on its users as their product to sell to advertisers (Pariser, 2011). Social media and social networking online have made communication and sociability a commodity (Rey, 2012). The idea of expressing oneself through a constant stream of prosumerism through social media/networking (Ching & Foley, 2012) combined with the commodification of communication and sociability that creates a culture of self-indulgence and narcissism – essential for the dissemination of American and Euro-centric neoliberalism.  As Hedges (2009) articulates:

“The cult of self dominates our cultural landscape. This cult has within it the classic traits of sociopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, manipulation, and the inability to feel remorse or guilt. This is… the ethic promoted by corporations. It is the misguided belied that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality.” (Hedges, 2009)

The transition to social media and social networks as the primary mechanism for inter-personal socialisation has enabled new possibilities for the commodification of women, information and communication. 

As McChesney (1998) suggests neoliberalism is the “…policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much possible of social life in order to maximise their personal profit.” (McChesney, 1998) which is an accurate reflection of Facebook, Google and other social media and networking corporations aspirations (Parsier, 2011). 

It is also through the processes of personalisation as discussed by Pariser (2011) and the streamlined, user-friendly approach that Rushkoff (2001) predicted that causes the cult of self to assist in disseminating neoliberal ideology (Hedges, 2009). 

Hedges (2009) posits that where propaganda is valued over ideas or genuine political ideology, consumerism is mistaken for personal expression and the spectacle of the image is valued over the importance of literacy and critical thought. Facebook and other online social media and networking are instrumental in this process, where pre-existing information about the user is used to shape their entire online experience (Pariser, 2011). Google’s search personalisation feature now operates in a similar manner, every click is stored and every page viewed is stored and used to shape a user’s search experience, to reinforce and recreate pre-existing ideas, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour (Pariser, 2011).  

 Reference

Burnett, G. and Jaeger, P. T 2010 “Introduction” Information Worlds: Behaviour, Technology and Social Context in the Age of the Internet, Taylor and Francis

Bainbridge, J. 2011 “The Public Sphere” in Bainbridge, J., Goc, N. and Tynan, L. (eds) Media and Journalism: New Approaches to Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press: South Melbourne

Calagero, R.M. and Thompson, J.K. 2009 “Sexual Self Esteem in American and British College Women: Relations with Self Objectification and Eating Problems” Sex Roles, 60, pp.160-173

Carr, E.R. and Syzmanski, D.M 2011 “Underscoring the Need for Social Justice Initiatives Concerning the Sexual Objectification of Women” The Counseling Psychologist, Sage Publications, 39 (1), pp. 164 - 170

Ching, C.C. and Foley, B.J 2012 “Introduction: Connecting Conversations about Technology, Learning, and Identity” Constructing the Self in a Digital World, Cambridge University Press

Cooper, J. and Weaver, K.J 2003 “A Threat in the Air” Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing: London

Dahlberg, J. and Zimmerman, A. 2008 “The Sexual Objectification of Women in Advertising: A Contemporary Cultural Perspective” Journal of Advertising Research, 48:1

Dean, P., Jorgenson, N. and Ritzer, G. 2012 “The Coming Age of the Prosumer” American Behavioral Scientist, Sage Publications, 56: 4, pp. 379-398

De Vries, D.A and Jochen, P. 2013 “Women on Display: The effect of portraying the self online on women’s self objectification” Computers in Human Behaviour 29, pp. 1483 - 1489

Dworkin, A. 1989 Pornography: Men Possessing Women Plume Books: USA

Firestone, S. 1971 The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, Paladin Books: Great Britan

Fredrickson, B.L. and Roberts, T.A. 1997 “Objectification Theory” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21:2,  P.173

Graham, M.B., Greenfield, P.M., Manago, A.M. and Salimkhan, G. 2008 “Self presentation and gender on Myspace” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, pp. 446-458

Hasinoff, A. A., 2012 “Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking social media and sexuality” new media and society, 15:4, Sage Publications, pp. 449-465

Jenkins, H. 2009 Confronting the Challenges of a Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, MIT Press: United States

McChesney, R. 1998 “Introduction” in Chomsky, N. 1999 Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order, Seven Stories Press: New York

Pariser, E. 2011 The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is hiding from You, Penguin

Rey, P.J 2012 “Alienation, Exploitation and Social Media” American Behavioral Scientist, Sage Publications, 56:4, pp. 399-420

Rushkoff, D. 2001 “The Information Arms Race” in Kick, R. (ed) You are being Lied to: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths, The Disinformation Company Ltd: New York

Stanbrook, M.B. 2014 “Stopping cyberbullying requires a combined effort” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186:7

Dozens of published studies suggest that women do worse, and feel worse, after self-objectifying - that is, focusing on their own appearance.

Social psychologists Barbara Fredrickson (University of North Carolina) and Tomi-Ann Roberts (Colorado College) proposed objectification theory. From this perspective, the heavy emphasis that culture and the media places on the appearance of females, specifically their sexualization, leads women to place a high value on their appearance. Specifically, they argue that women are more likely than men to take on an "outsider' perspective, such that they view their own appearance from a third person perspective. This requirescognitive and motivational effort, which in turn, impairs women's cognitive performance.

  In one study testing this, these authors had women try on a bathing suit or a sweater. After trying on a swimsuit, but not a sweater, women performed worse on a math test. These same effects did not occur for men. Other studies have found similar effects when women look into a mirror (or not), are videotaped by a male or receive feedback about their appearance.

When women are self-objectifying, they also are more likely to restrain their eating, and to experience shame and guilt related to their physical appearance.

The cultural expectations and norms surrounding women's physical appearance are vast and stringent. From the perspective of objectification theory, women internalize these standards, and in turn, they suffer, both cognitively and emotionally.

References:

Fredrickson, B.L., & Roberts, T.A., (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women, 21, 173-206.

Fredrickson, B.L., Roberts, T.A., Noll, S.M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating and math performance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 269- 284.