The Confusion of Miley Cyrus

The Miley Cyrus performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards last night was fascinating.

A few opinion pieces came across my desk this morning before I watched it myself. As the performance unfolded I felt a combination of shock, awe, revulsion, and despair. Was this the worst possible outcome of (white) feminism? White women lowering themselves to the basest of male behavior while joining men in sexually objectifying themselves and treating black women as lower beasts?

Some opinion pieces paint Cyrus as merely giving the audience a stronger dose of what the public already rewards in young women. Others focus on the racist misogyny in the performance, with Cyrus treating black women the way both white and black men routinely treat women of all colors on stage. Robin Thicke’s mother weighed in, expressing her disapproval of Cyrus’ lewd gestures toward her son, which is funny, given her son's video of naked women portrayed as stupid animals in need of "domesticating." A thoughtful analysis suggested Cyrus is facing backlash for joining “the boys’ club.” Cyrus' gyrating, pelvis-thrusting, and tongue-sticking ways were reminiscent of certain male rock stars, and similar to their performances, she was wild and bold.

As a social psychologist, I'll employ a favorite tool-of-the-trade: A 2x2 formed by the following questions:

1. Who was powerful, or in control, during the performance?
2. Who was objectified, or demeaned, during the performance?

Usually these two dimensions are considered opposite ends of a continuum: Those in power tend to demean as objects those over whom they have control.

What's confusing about Cyrus' performance is that Cyrus seemed both in control and demeaned. Cyrus displayed power over everyone on stage, including a visibly uncomfortable Thicke, who she intimated sexual command over and use of while simulating having a penis herself.

Cyrus also objectified everyone on stage, from the black women dressed as animals she slapped and pushed around, to Thicke, who served as a mere post to rub up against, to Cyrus herself. But that's were I got stumped: Did Cyrus objectify and demean herself? The many men who have acted powerfully, shown their skin, and simulated sexual acts on others during rock shows have generally not been viewed as objectified or demeaned. 

Regardless of what invisible strings may have been pulled off stage, on stage Cyrus was running the show. Whether she was demeaned ultimately depends on how she views herself and how we as an audience choose to see her. Given its sociohistorical context, her performance is likely to make others view her in a demeaning light (which is a sadly lucrative light for young women). But that demeaning view of her tends to be based on her violation of specious gender principles, not on general principles like the body is private or sex is sacred.

What demeans her in my eyes is not the fact that she wore less clothing or acted more sexually than usual, but that she treated others in a demeaning way. Black women are not animals to be slapped and pushed around, and even if Thicke "had it coming," he is more than just a pole to rub up against. To objectify others is to dehumanize others, but those who objectify others dehumanize and degrade themselves in the process.