The Gaze: Power in the Look

[lesbiaphrodite]

In looking often at the ways that women are depicted in advertisements, pornography and films, I come back to a concept that I was introduced to back in my graduate school days: the power of the male gaze to define women and their perceptions of themselves. Below is an excerpt of an article dealing with the subject. I find it fascinating in its way. I'd be very interested what others think.

The Gaze
by Hammad Ahmed

The famed French Freudian psychologist Jacques Lacan watched infants looking at mirrors and thought that there was a profit to be turned in writing about it. So he defined le regard—the gaze—as an awareness that what is looking back in the mirror at us is ourselves. Sort of a tough concept to swallow if you’re still teething. But later on, he thought, the gaze develops into this sense that what we are looking at is looking back at us with an uncanny consciousness, whether it’s our reflection in the mirror or a pigeon in the park. For all his perhaps underwhelming insight, he was among the first to write about the power and mystery that pure staring could encompass.

It took a little while longer for Michel Foucault, that theory queer par excellence and alleged lover of bondage, to write about the cruel power of the gaze. Inspired by the Victorian era prisons, hospitals, and other places of “treatment,” he described a cold, all-knowing “clinical gaze” that modern doctors use in his groundbreaking book The Birth of the Clinic. He writes that it is a kind of stare that confers all the power upon the doctor to know his subject and to cure that subject. So in other words, whoever wields the gaze has the ability to control and dominate the one being looked at. And this is almost certainly true of Victorian prisons at least, but I’ve always felt that this is a poor mirror for day-to-day life among strangers. It’s worthwhile remembering how the stare can be frighteningly oppressive, but also important not to take this idea too far... Which is perhaps just what some feminist scholars in the 1970s and 80s, such as Laura Mulvey, did. Building off the ideas of Foucault and Lacan, they criticized the fact that men control the gaze, that they do all the looking and that women act as passive screens for their fantasies. They argued that images of women in the media and in pornography consistently demeaned the female form, and that men were socialized to stare at women as objects in order to control them and prevent them from talking or, well, looking back.

Were the feminists right? To an extent, yes, but less so as time has gone on. Certainly, the prevalence of men as objects-to-be-seen alongside women has increased dramatically, as exemplified in advertising and in popular culture. In fact, where I went to school, the men’s water polo team—and not the women’s—posted flyers of themselves all lined up wearing speedos as a gimmick, urging people to come to their games, presumably to see their sexualized bodies in action. So, at least from where I’m standing, I don’t see that men are never the objects of the gaze.

Newer feminist critics have taken account of these complexities. Indeed, the question has moved out of academia and into popular culture. “The Female Gaze” is a weblog that attempts to reverse the direction of the classically defined male gaze, for example. But what still often goes uncontested is the notion that the gaze objectifies its target and empowers its owner; in other words, watching is better than being watched.

 

[cloudy]

Mothers use the gaze just about every day with their children. With one look I can convey an entire message to one of my kids, and they listen.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it can be used as stated in the article with the gaze a doctor uses, but then, I'm a firm believer that no one can wield any power over you unless you hand it to them yourself. In fact, I think it has more to do with the socialization of women than it does men. If humans (not women) don't have the self-confidence to hold on to their own power, doesn't that lay the issue more at their feet than the one using the gaze?

I don't know...at some point shouldn't we stop blaming men for all the ills of the world, and look to our own selves, and what we've done/are doing? To say that this is something that men "have done to us" puts women in the role of victims, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

 

[starrkers]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the Gaze gains its power from the gazee not the gazer.

 

[TE999]

In the words of a once popular rock song:

"There ain't nothin' in the world like a big eyed girl
Make me act so funny, make me spend my money
Make me feel real loose, like a long neck goose
Oh baby, that's a what I like.'

A look of interest in a woman's eyes is like a tonic, it can make a man feel good for hours.

No sexual repression there.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is a deep, deep subject. The gaze of the dominant animal. Dogs will look away faster when faced with a man's gaze than a woman's gaze, so this is not an artifact of human sexism. There's something pan-species in the male gaze, something recognizably predatory. Do women lock eyes when they confront one another? Or is that just a male thing?

Does a woman's gaze always imply a threat like a man's does? I don't think so. Certainly not to a man. To a man, it's an invitation. A man would go up to a woman who's staring at him, but would a woman approach a man who's staring at her? I don't think so.

The ideas of beauty differ. A man's beauty to a woman is largely behavioral. Of course he's nice to look at, but that's not as important as the way he acts, and that can't be determined by staring at him. You have to interact with him to determine his character. A woman's beauty to a man is iconic, though. At a first approximation it's there on the surface and can be judged by looking. And so men stare at women and fantasize. Everything he wants to know is pretty much visible.

The privilege of controlling the stare goes to the dominant animal. The whole question of dominance is a question that matters mostly to the male, I think. Females just aren't that concerned with that foolishness, and so she cedes that control to the male and gives him the power of the gaze during sex. He's more visual anyhow. He wants to see what's happening.

The obverse of the gaze is being observed, which is not necessarily a passive experience. As with the gaze, women seem to have a harder time with this than men, although I think they get a bigger thrill out of it too. I'm not just talking about being observed by The Gaze in a public place, but more about being seen naked in private. This is a commanding situation where one can be totally possessed by a look; one's privacy utterly breached. That makes it very personal and threatening, and in such a situation a man's eyes and a woman's eyes are not equally potent.

The man, of course, is looking at the woman as an object. But how else can you possibly look at something?

 

[DeeZire]

I think the dominant angle has more to do with the situation than the sex of the people involved (assuming we're talking about interpersonal relationships, as opposed to human/animal, or human/space alien, or the most stressful of all, compassionate-liberal/soulless-conservative.)

When I meet a fellow musician, most likely I'll be greeted by a welcoming gaze, unless the musician is insecure or an asshole. When I meet a concert promoter, I will most likely be fending off a threatening gaze, since we would probably be in an adversarial situation (especially if tickets sales didn't reach expectations.)

When I meet the gaze Cloudy talks about, and it's coming from a woman I'm intimate with, it may make my blood run cold. On a different day, it could be the 'come hither and eat me' gaze, or the 'sit down and listen to my problems' gaze. Or there could be no gaze at all, which is fairly common when people are preoccupied. Trying to pin the gaze exclusively on men, or women, seems like trying to catch the wind, put it in a box, and stick it in a museum.

If 'the gaze' is actually a polite word for leering, anyone can do that - some better than others. (I make this claim with a lifetime of experience from which to draw.)

Now I'm going to go gaze at Holly Hunter, who has become quite gaze-able in her old age.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

To further broaden the discussion (and whether you buy into it is another matter), there is also what is called the 'cultural or normative gaze.' This is defined by Wiki as a concept defined by critical theorists such as Cornel West to describe the way in which the idea of Eurocentric racial identity provides the lens through which other races are viewed and socially constructed. According to this theory, the euro-white-powerholder is the one who defines what is most pleasing to the eye. (eg caucasians, other members of the powerholding majority).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The 'gaze' is how we sort ourselves in terms of power. My personal opinion is your gaze expresses how you feel about your own comfort level. That is, if your gaze is hostile and toxic, while mine is relaxed and alert, you'll likely leave me alone because youre not scaring me and I have you on radar.

Criminals like to target people who are internally focused and anxious.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LESBIAPHRODITE

I think what Cornel West has in mind is how we express our biases with facial expressions. That is, I can relish Europeans but still be hostile/friendly to specific individuals. An ugly European female may fail to arouse me even if I prefer the European ethnicity.

 

[Guest]

In looking often at the ways that women are depicted in advertisements, pornography and films, I come back to a concept that I was introduced to back in my graduate school days: the power of the male gaze to define women and their perceptions of themselves. Below is an excerpt of an article dealing with the subject. I find it fascinating in its way. I'd be very interested what others think.

<snip>

But what still often goes uncontested is the notion that the gaze objectifies its target and empowers its owner; in other words, watching is better than being watched.

In day to day activities I have a killer gaze that has stopped children, students, actors and musicians (and occasionally a husband) dead in their tracks.

But sexually? I prefer to be watched.

And that's my choice. I can choose to leave myself open for that gaze, to be submissively receptive.

So I disagree with the notion that the watcher has all of the power. If the watchee dismisses or ignores their gaze, the watcher has nothing.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

To further broaden the discussion (and whether you buy into it is another matter), there is also what is called the 'cultural or normative gaze.' This is defined by Wiki as a concept defined by critical theorists such as Cornel West to describe the way in which the idea of Eurocentric racial identity provides the lens through which other races are viewed and socially constructed. According to this theory, the euro-white-powerholder is the one who defines what is most pleasing to the eye. (eg caucasians, other members of the powerholding majority).

Okay, this is broadening it a lot, by making it into an abstraction, meaning "gaze" as viewpoint or perspective, right? This is a big generalization from what is actually physically done with the eye.

I'd be happy to concentrate on DeeZire's question of whether the Dominant Gaze is really different than the Sexual Gaze, or just how many sexual gazes there are. (I love the leer, by the way. Especially its generally Northern variant, the drunken leer.)

But again, I do think it's a little naive to complain that a gaze turns one into an object. What else can you be when you're looked at?

I can also attest to the fact that, for some women at least, the predatory gaze is terribly arousing under the right circumstances.

EDITED TO ADD: I agree with Sarahh that it's a fallacy that the watcher has all the power. Why else would women dress the way they do? Why would there be voyeurs? The passive-aggressive power of the observed is ideally suited to a woman's sexual expression, playing between her sense of license and shame.

 

[Guest]

Okay, this is broadening it a lot, by making it into an abstraction, meaning "gaze" as viewpoint or perspective, right? This is a big generalization from what is actually physically done with the eye.

I'd be happy to concentrate on DeeZire's question of whether the Dominant Gaze is really different than the Sexual Gaze, or just how many sexual gazes there are. (I love the leer, by the way. Especially its generally Northern variant, the drunken leer.)

But again, I do think it's a little naive to complain that a gaze turns one into an object. What else can you be when you're looked at?

I can also attest to the fact that, for some women at least, the predatory gaze is terribly arousing under the right circumstances.

EDITED TO ADD: I agree with Sarahh that it's a fallacy that the watcher has all the power. Why else would women dress the way they do?

A brilliant man, this.

 

[Guest]

I can also attest to the fact that, for some women at least, the predatory gaze is terribly arousing under the right circumstances.

Absolutely. Very much so.


And I also agree with Sarahh... usually the one being gazed upon is quite literally the captor, therefore the one with the power over the other.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Interesting comments and discussion on all fronts. I don't pretend to have all the answers to the questions raised, but they certainly widen the perspective.

I'm a person who doesn't believe in black & white answers to any question related to something as subjective as the gaze and the sociocultural issues inherent in this discourse. However, I will go so far as to say that for those women who 'choose' to be objects, more power to them. If that's what pleases them. But, if they are blind enough to believe that gives them power, well, it depends what kind of power they are talking about. If it's the power to provoke a man to desire her sexually, then she is merely using her object status to give him what he wants (and presumably what she wants too if she likes being an object). But, for those women who do NOT CHOOSE to be objects, there is a conundrum. How does one step away from the whole of socioculturalistic identity formation in terms of what it means to be a woman, what it means to be beautiful, what it means to be feminine if the identity itself is being shaped by someone who prefers that the woman have no identity other than an object? Just a question.

 

[Guest]

Interesting comments and discussion on all fronts. I don't pretend to have all the answers to the questions raised, but they certainly widen the perspective.

I'm a person who doesn't believe in black & white answers to any question related to something as subjective as the gaze and the sociocultural issues inherent in this discourse. However, I will go so far as to say that for those women who 'choose' to be objects, more power to them. If that's what pleases them. But, if they are blind enough to believe that gives them power, well, it depends what kind of power they are talking about. If it's the power to provoke a man to desire her sexually, then she is merely using her object status to give him what he wants (and presumably what she wants too if she likes being an object). But, for those women who do NOT CHOOSE to be objects, there is a conundrum. How does one step away from the whole of socioculturalistic identity formation in terms of what it means to be a woman, what it means to be beautiful, what it means to be feminine if the identity itself is being shaped by someone who prefers that the woman have no identity other than an object? Just a question.

I have no difficulty deflecting an unwanted leer with a sneer, if that's what you mean.

Men do ogle, sometimes wanted, sometimes not. Sometimes annoying, sometimes arousing.

But if I don't personally feel objectified, they have no power over me.

 

[Guest]

Interesting comments and discussion on all fronts. I don't pretend to have all the answers to the questions raised, but they certainly widen the perspective.

I'm a person who doesn't believe in black & white answers to any question related to something as subjective as the gaze and the sociocultural issues inherent in this discourse. However, I will go so far as to say that for those women who 'choose' to be objects, more power to them. If that's what pleases them. But, if they are blind enough to believe that gives them power, well, it depends what kind of power they are talking about. If it's the power to provoke a man to desire her sexually, then she is merely using her object status to give him what he wants (and presumably what she wants too if she likes being an object). But, for those women who do NOT CHOOSE to be objects, there is a conundrum. How does one step away from the whole of socioculturalistic identity formation in terms of what it means to be a woman, what it means to be beautiful, what it means to be feminine if the identity itself is being shaped by someone who prefers that the woman have no identity other than an object? Just a question.

I think a lot of that depends on how happy you are in your own skin; how much self-confidence you have. I'm very happy with who I am and how I look and I also know how men's minds work (for the most part - I am generalising here) and that doesn't bother me one bit. I never feel like an object, even if I might be being observed as one; they are looking at me from the outside, they don't know what's going on in my head. That gives me a rush, I can't deny it.

The kind of gaze I was talking about was the gaze of a lover - someone I already know intimately. His "predatory gaze" can make me crumble and lower my last defences... if that's what I want. If not, he just gets a grin.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I respect your positions, Sarah and Tatelou. I'm all about multiple perspectives, and understanding the vantage points of what I presume to be two primarily hetero females is a gift, so thank you for sharing your insights.

My greatest concern is for the young women in their formative years who internalize their status as objects and fail to see what they truly are or can be. By doing so, they lose all of their power in society, not just with men, but with women too. They face a stereotype threat. "The threat comes from internalizing stereotypical images as a part of your own personal identity. These traits, portrayed on television, may seem unrealistic to some, but for others there can be real damage done when an individual feels like that is a standard up to which they must live." (online e-zine....can give the link if anyone wants to read more)

 

[oggbashan]

Years ago, when Og was young, I visited a Balkan Country as part of a group of 22 people.

I, and only I, was singled out on three separate occasions in different locations as having "The Evil Eye". The people made averting gestures because they thought their gestures could divert the evil influence I was supposed to convey.

WTF? Why me? Apart from being taller than anyone else in the group and heavily tanned after three hot summers in 18 months, I didn't think my eyes or gaze were any different from my companions.

What distinguishes "The Evil Eye" from another person's eyes?

Og

 

[Guest]

Years ago, when Og was young, I visited a Balkan Country as part of a group of 22 people.

I, and only I, was singled out on three separate occasions in different locations as having "The Evil Eye". The people made averting gestures because they thought their gestures could divert the evil influence I was supposed to convey.

WTF? Why me? Apart from being taller than anyone else in the group and heavily tanned after three hot summers in 18 months, I didn't think my eyes or gaze were any different from my companions.

What distinguishes "The Evil Eye" from another person's eyes?

Og

Perception, perhaps. Intuitive intelligence?

Edited to add: Not in their eyes, Ogg, in yours.

They saw these things in your eyes.

 

[Guest]

I respect your positions, Sarah and Tatelou. I'm all about multiple perspectives, and understanding the vantage points of what I presume to be two primarily hetero females is a gift, so thank you for sharing your insights.

My greatest concern is for the young women in their formative years who internalize their status as objects and fail to see what they truly are or can be. By doing so, they lose all of their power in society, not just with men, but with women too. They face a stereotype threat. "The threat comes from internalizing stereotypical images as a part of your own personal identity. These traits, portrayed on television, may seem unrealistic to some, but for others there can be real damage done when an individual feels like that is a standard up to which they must live." (online e-zine....can give the link if anyone wants to read more)

When the attention is wanted, and despite pleas to cease it continues, it could be considered harassment.

But as for counteracting stereotypes, we certainly have a long way to go.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Anyone who presumes to read minds is psychotic, or lucky at guessing. No one really knows what a look means.

OGG: Freud used to call it negative transference.

 

[Guest]

I respect your positions, Sarah and Tatelou. I'm all about multiple perspectives, and understanding the vantage points of what I presume to be two primarily hetero females is a gift, so thank you for sharing your insights.

My greatest concern is for the young women in their formative years who internalize their status as objects and fail to see what they truly are or can be. By doing so, they lose all of their power in society, not just with men, but with women too. They face a stereotype threat. "The threat comes from internalizing stereotypical images as a part of your own personal identity. These traits, portrayed on television, may seem unrealistic to some, but for others there can be real damage done when an individual feels like that is a standard up to which they must live." (online e-zine....can give the link if anyone wants to read more)

And that, primarily, is down to us Mums (and Dads). When it comes to our kids and how they see themselves in the world, the buck stops right here.

I have two beautiful daughters (ages 10 and 12) and I believe they are strong, confident individuals, who don't conform to supposed stereotypes. I am not bringing them up to be potential "victims of society" so I don't believe they will be. My eldest is turning into a woman, it's very visible, yet she is so determined and bloody-minded, I don't think she'll ever be a "sheep" (as she puts it herself). She is a beautiful girl, who I believe will be quite a stunner when she is older, and while how she looks is important to her (she wouldn't be human, if it wasn't), to her that isn't the be-all and end-all. She wants to be an astrophysicist, and is already doing an astronomy GCSE (usually taken at 16), and she will be. That girl will do and be whatever she wants to be and the same goes for my younger daughter. They mock "celebrity" and everything that that entails... maybe because I do...

If girls are brought up believing they are individuals, with their own individual strengths, and with self-belief, hopefully they will not fall into the trap of being the "helpless victims" of modern society.

 

[gauchecritic]

How does one step away from the whole of socioculturalistic identity formation in terms of what it means to be a woman, what it means to be beautiful, what it means to be feminine if the identity itself is being shaped by someone who prefers that the woman have no identity other than an object? Just a question.

I think you're trying to have your cake... here.

How people see you is how you present and react to being seen. Then you make a choice, which of the many ways that you are seen is the one you want..

The choice is always there. Take the metaphorical beating or succumb. In most cases, succumbing is the easiest path. As you grow older and learn things for yourself then you get a second bite. Often the first time you succumb (be as others see you) leads you down a path much more difficult, if not impossible to break from.

But those opportunities (extra bites of the cherry) present themselves throughout your life and still you have that decision to make but more often than not the path you're on is the easiest to follow.

ETA the path I chose was mixing metaphors willy nilly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TATELOU

There have always been Marie Curie's and Rosalind Franklin's in the world, but climbing aboard the affirmative-action bandwagon for a handout pays a lot better money, a lot sooner. The science-dole may be too tempting for your kid.

LESBIAPRHRODITE

Everyone gets stigmatized. Someone always has a problem with however you are, and there are always people who adore serial killers. Everyone has to avoid snares as they go thru life.