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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Tale of Two Women -- Who Exercised Their Professional Independence

Image
May 2018, Vancouver BC Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story has triggered memories of professional trauma for me, like watching Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony last fall triggered memories of sexual trauma for many women. The way Wilson-Raybould has been treated represents a pattern of pressure applied to women who dare assert their professional independence, voice, and decision-making power. Most cases just aren’t made public. Wilson-Raybould and I were each welcomed to our professional appointments (as Attorney General of Canada and as Montalbano Professor of Leadership Studies: Gender and Diversity at UBC’s Sauder School of Business , respectively) with publicity and fanfare that celebrated diversity and the goodness of the White men who put us there. But when those men realized they couldn’t control how we carried out our professional duties, everything came crashing down. Each of us got in trouble for exercising our right to make independent judgments in our professional capaci...
Read more

Jack Dovidio, Yale: Included but Invisible? The Benefits and Costs of Inclusion

Image
The following are my notes from Dovidio's talk at the  HBS Gender & Work Conference , February 28, 2013. Social inclusion is essential to equality. Discrimination is systematic exclusion. Exclusion is painful. But superficial inclusion cloaks injustice and takes the form of subtle contemporary bias. Contemporary bias: there are explicit attitudes about racism and sexism and there are implicit attitudes. Explicit and implicit attitudes are only weakly correlated. Most Americans (80%) say they're not racist or sexist [explicit attitudes], but 60-70% of the population is racist/sexist according to implicit measures of bias. Most people will rely on explicit attitudes when a situation is unambiguous, and when what needs to be done is absolutely clear. Most discrimination occurs when a situation is ambiguous (i.e., what is right and wrong behavior is not defined) or justifications are possible for racism and sexism (such as "merit"). Devine (1989) study of Black and ...
Read more

Peter Glick, Lawrence University: BS at Work: How Benevolent Sexism Undermines Women and Justifies Backlash

Image
The following are my notes from Glick 's  HBS Gender & Work Conference  presentation, February 28, 2013. “The battle of the sexes will never end -- there's too much fraternizing with the enemy” - Henry Kissinger Paradox: The interdependence of the sexes -- male dominance coexists with intimate dependence on women. Ambivalent sexism theory ( Glick & Fiske, 1996 ): Dominance & intimate interdependence lead to hostile sexism (HS, directed toward women who threaten male power) and benevolent sexism (BS, directed at women who conform to feminine ideals, serve men’s needs), respectively. Sample items of HS and BS . BS is a pedestal: A narrow and confined space, difficult to stay up on, especially in high heels. BS justifies HS, fosters unrecognized, patronizing discrimination, elicits backlash when resisted, saps women’s career ambitions, makes inequality more palatable. For men, BS protects self image, they can see themselves as not an oppressor, but rather as a pr...
Read more