Berger's and Mulvey's theories on sex and gender

John Berger

Berger's theory: 'Ways of Seeing'

Historical Context

17^th/18^th century - rise of the middle classes – merchants, bankers, land-owners who had made money themselves (as opposed to aristocracy who inherit money)

Very rich men wanted to show off what they owned. They held lavish dinner parties to show off their wealth. This would often be paintings of their houses, horses and estates.

Men and Women in 17^th-19^th century

Women had a very low social status at this time, even in middle class culture. Often after social dinner events, women would retire to a female-only room to gossip and do needle-craft. Men, on the other hand, would retire to the ‘drawing room’ to smoke, drink and talk about ‘serious’ topics like business, politics and wars.

Women as property

Often the drawing rooms would contain the paintings that showed off the owner’s wealth and women were often portrayed as just another object to be owned.

Ownership is thought to create sexual excitement: even in the language of romance we still use today… “She surrendered to him”, “He took her in his arms”, “We belong to each other”. Power for the owner is erotic.

Paintings and Pornography

Often the paintings would depict the woman as helpless, exposed and vulnerable, and typical poses would be laid back, arms aloft, distracted by something.  They were portrayed as passive.  Seeing gives the illusion of ownership and power. This excites both the spectator’s Libido (gives them the power to take sexually) and Thanatos (the power to destroy)

That’s supposedly why teenagers put pictures of their favourite stars on their bedroom walls. Being able to gaze at the object of their desire, whenever they want to, creates a feeling of power over the objects. Pornographic images offer the same audience a pleasure, the object of desire is naked, and usually spread-eagled so every part of them can be seen. Berger said this itself is sexually exciting, the act of gazing.

Feminist art critics view this kind of art as a misrepresentation of women, portraying women as not thinking, feeling individual human beings, instead they are dehumanised and objectified – treated as an object that belongs to someone.

Therefore, the danger of sexist art show that it is very disempowering for women to see themselves this way and it encourages girls to be passive and to present themselves as sex objects. It has a negative effect on men too - it encourages them to disrespect and objectify women in real life, and this is why many women object to pornography or eroticised images of women.

Mulvey's theory:

Laura Mulvey analysed the way mainstream films ‘construct an ideal viewer’, i.e. she analysed the way men and women were represented in films, and speculated about how this would appeal to a spectator. She mixed psychoanalytic film theory (the ideas of Freud and Lacan) for a ‘politically feminist’ end. She said that ‘spectatorship’ and the act of looking itself provided a form of sexual gratification.

Mulvey added to Freud's theory of Scopophilia, where the viwer feels guilt for experiencing sexual pleasure from looking at other people. Mulvey also suggested that cinema was the ideal place to get ‘scopophilic’ pleasure because

a.) the people in the film aren’t aware the spectator is watching (so can’t be made to feel guilty)

b.) no-one else can see the spectator getting pleasure because the theatre is in darkness, plus everyone else is watching the screen, too

Mulvey said the cinema provides voyeuristic pleasure: pleasure achieved through watching others who don’t know they’re being observed.

Mulvey’s Conclusions include:

That most mainstream films are made by male filmmakers for male spectators: so there are active male characters (they are the protagonists i.e. a subject whose actions push the narrative forward; so the audience are encouraged to identify with them), Female characters are usually passive (they are often seen as a ‘prize’, an object of desire that men fight over; don’t act or think for themselves)

Mulvey said that mainstream films appeal to the ‘Male Gaze’, women are presented as ‘spectacle’ – something pleasurable for the male spectator to look at, in her own words, popular films “are obsessively subordinated to the neurotic needs of the male ego”.

Narcissistic Identification

Narcissism = loving your own image

Narcissistic identification = male spectator sees male hero on screen and gets pleasure by both feeling similar to the hero (he’s a man, too, so the screen is like a mirror) and admiring/loving the idealised image of masculinity, for example James Bond – personification of what men wish they were; get pleasure from admiring him and identifying with him, because they aren’t like him in real life.

Voyeuristic objectification

When the male spectator gets pleasure by desiring the female character, and feeling he owns her because she is passive (like an object) and because he can look at her with out guilt (because she doesn’t know she is being watched)

The only issue with Mulvey's theory is that she only based on a psychoanalytic approach and didn't carry out any audience research, questioning the credibility of the theory above.