Everyone and their dog has had their say on Page 3 of late, and I’m happy to take a back seat on that one. That probably tells you everything you need to know about my position on the question. Nonetheless I couldn’t resist following the unfolding carnage debate with interest. One issue it has raised is the question of objectification, the very nature of which was challenged on the MoronWatch blog on the topic.
I’d already been mulling over the concept when the Guardian ran Decca Aitkenhead’s interview with feminist Kat Banyard today. Among many baffling and befuddled claims from interviewer and interviewee alike (already brutally eviscerated by my friend jemima101), Banyard discussed the pressing question of Dove soap adverts, and referred to “an entire culture of objectification.”
If you’ve ever attempted to discuss or debate objectification you’ve probably found it a frustrating task. It seems to mean slightly different things to different people, or different things to the same person. It sometimes seems to mean different things to the same person in the same bloody sentence. Objectification, it seems, can mean whatever you want it to mean.
A couple of years ago I started to read back at feminist theory to get a better grasp, and really struggled. Somewhere between Immanuel Kant, Melanie Klein and Andrea Dworkin the trail went cold. Then last year I whooped with delight when I found a couple of papers by feminist philosopher Lina Papadaki which provided the best overviews I’ve seen of the links between Kant’s theory of objectification and modern feminism. As you might expect, they’re hard to wrap your head around, but this one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is the easier, and you can get a good grasp by skipping from the introduction to the conclusion if your brain’s already full.
In non-traditional fashion, I’ll give you the conclusion first:
“Undoubtedly, objectification is a concept difficult to define… since it turns out to be ‘slippery’ and ‘multiple’ (Nussbaum 1995, 251). How to best define objectification, and whether this notion should be restricted to describe the morally objectionable, or expanded to cover benign and/or positive aspects of the way we see and treat each other in our daily lives is an ongoing debate.”
Objectification can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think I just said that.
In her introduction, Papadaki lays out seven features that Martha Nussbaum claimed are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:
- instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
- denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
- inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
- fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
- violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
- ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
- denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Rae Langton has added three more features to Nussbaum’s list:
- reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
- reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
- silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.
I find this list incredibly useful. Most obviously, it displays the vast diversity of meaning which can be attached to the word. Langton’s three look to me closest to the usual feminist definitions of (specifically) sexual objectification, but Nussbaum’s original seven better capture the economic elements of commodification and reification which typically accompany feminist references to objectification. They also perhaps illustrate how and why feminists use the term objectification so much in respect of prostitution and other forms of sex work beyond visual pornography and nude modelling.
Looking at Nussbaum’s list, I don’t doubtthat there are some people in the sex industry, as either consumers, clients or profiteers, who view sex workers in those terms. But what I find striking is that they offer a much more accurate description of how anti-porn/anti-SW advocates (whether feminist, religious or social conservative) portray sex workers.
- The treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes? Check. This is self-identifying feminist Tanya Gold on a beauty pageant: “Miss University 2008 – an inter-British higher education slagfest where girls answered questions such as, “What Sex and the City character do you most relate to?” At that point I wanted to strip them of their degrees – and their over-moisturised heads – and use them as battering rams. Or tampons.”
- The treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination? Check. Too many instances to list, but here’s Sheila Jeffreys: “Prostitution is not about or for women, but for men. It does not, therefore, matter whether women claim the right or choice to be prostituted or whether they see themselves as victims of men’s abuse.”
- The treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity? Check. Jeffreys again: “Anti-prostitution campaigners use the term prostituted women instead of prostitutes. This is a deliberate political decision and is meant to symbolize the lack of choice women have over being used in prostitution.”
- The treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects? Check. Jane Anthony: “one class of women is granted status as wives or girlfriends at the expense of another class, whores, who are reduced to sperm receptacles for numerous men.”
- The treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity. Check. Every time a sex worker has been involuntarily ‘saved’ from others or from him/herself, their integrity boundaries have been violated. See the real consequences of the Olympic sex trade clampdown, Operation Pentameter, or the brilliant open letter circulating about the arrest of sex workers in Ontario, Canada.
- The treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold). These are too numerous to need listing, but every time someone uses the phrase “selling her (or his) body,” as opposed to selling sexual services, the sex worker is being reduced to a possession rather than an agent.
- The treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. Where to begin? Perhaps here, with Glasgow Sex Worker’s account of a meeting with members of the Scottish Parliament.
I don’t for a moment present this as some kind of killer argument against the various anti-prostitution and anti-porn campaigns. There are plenty of writers and campaigners who want to reform or further criminalise the sex industry, or to restrain the spread of pornography and sexual materials, who do not resort to the crude demonization, dehumanisation and, yes, objectification of sex workers above. I should also acknowledge that there are plenty of sex industry advocates (whether amateur or professional) who employ degrading, demeaning and misogynistic language themselves.
Barring some utopian revolution, the sex industry is not going away any time soon and that means debates about the sex industry are not going away either. It is necessary and important that the debate continues. Personally I think the debate would be more constructive if, in condemning the objectification and dehumanisation of sex workers, we could all refrain from doing the precise same thing ourselves.
Thank you, a far clearer presentation of the objectification of sex workers by the anti’s than rage would ever allow me to produce. For those who might argue this is not ongoing, I point out (as I do in the piece Ally links too,) that this weekend I was told ” We cannot trade fairly in bananas, how can we in women ?”
I have been tempted to out the person who said that to me, but I honestly do not think she realized how dehumanizing she was being, this is what women who choose non conventional sex live with every day, and sex workers bear the brunt of the abuse.
Oh and brutal? Moi? what made the page was fluffy!
One further problem with ‘objectification’ is that it’s like what Orwell wrote about the use of the term ‘fascist’ as meaning ‘something the author doesn’t like.’ And no matter how many times one points out the logical fallacies, use of emotive language, and the repeated dismissal of any testimony that doesn’t ‘fit’, those same groups of ‘anti-porn/anti-SW advocates (whether feminist, religious or social conservative)’ keep using exactly the kinds of language and arguments that you neatly criticise here. Thank you.
PS: re. examples 3 and 6 – see also the use of the term ‘pimp’ (invariably male) rather than, say, ‘agent’ (like an actor or athlete).
[…] following the unfolding carnage debate with interest. One issue it has raised…. read more here. Share this:FacebookTwitterStumbleUponRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]
I love objectification. and I have written quite a few times about the ironies of anti-sex work feminists ‘objectifying’ sex workers too. But you stick to Nussbaum she’s far more feminist-friendly!
I would love to read anyone who has written on this, can you point me towards your stuff Elly?
Thank you, this is a topic that’s been on my “to write about” list for a while. I find it immensely frustrating to hear some feminists complain about “objectification” in the same breath that they reduce all sex workers to “prostituted women”.
Wow, someone get the pot because the kettle is screaming black at it…
Neither the post or the backslapping comments note that many women in sex work (now or after they leave) are feminists and thus perfectly placed to talk about this issue themselves.
Read this paragraph “There are plenty of writers and campaigners who want to reform or further criminalise the sex industry, or to restrain the spread of pornography and sexual materials, who do not resort to the crude demonization, dehumanisation and, yes, objectification of sex workers above. I should also acknowledge that there are plenty of sex industry advocates (whether amateur or professional) who employ degrading, demeaning and misogynistic language themselves.”
Where is the mention of sex workers speaking for themselves there? Why do we need writers and campaigners to do anything for us? We have mouths and feelings and thoughts and ideas and a blog about not objectifying female sex workers fails to acknowledge that and wrings its hands about how the right people of your choosing will speak for the ones doing the work.
If you don’t want to objectify sex workers you could mention them as autonomous people. This blog fails to. You actually mention people in the sex industry here “I don’t doubt that there are some people in the sex industry, as either consumers, clients or profiteers, who view sex workers in those terms. But what I find striking is that they offer a much more accurate description of how anti-porn/anti-SW advocates (whether feminist, religious or social conservative) portray sex workers.” And not once do you mention the actual sex workers, just how everyone talks about them.
Was this piece an actual pisstake? Or did you just miss the wood for the trees? I expected better of you Ally. I’ve already been talked over for years by many of the commenters
I take it you ignored his link to my post then? The idea that men cannot comment on this issue ignores 3 very important points.
1,Not all sex workers are female (something feminism constantly ignores)
2. Men are at the forefront of being called abusers and objectifiers for visiting sex workers. When some feminist claim that men are unable to see women as anything other than objects, I think a man can look into those claims.
3.Why should someones gender or job disqualify them from having a view on something? I have strong views on MGM, should I not express them? (whilst of course giving prominence and space to male voices first, since it directly affects them)
Where did I say men couldn’t comment? Or that only women were sex workers? Or that men couldn’t have opinions?
I asked that feminism and sex worker weren’t seen two separate camp with no overlap and that in a post about sex work, that sex workers might actually get a mention. The fact that you seem to think that’s controversial fills in all the blanks I got when I read your post before it was linked to here.
I don’t feel Ally was giving prominence and respect to the voice of sex workers here in the way you suggest women should over MGM and actually in talking about objectification in the context of women, he was the one making it seem like all sex workers are female.
You complained he did not give sex workers a voice, he has pointed out the link to Glasgow Sex worker, and I pointed out my link. Sex workers are mentioned and referenced throughout. As for not mentioning he is a man, no you did not explicitly, however you seemed to believe he was unqualified to comment. However I sense a chip on your shoulder about this, so I am not sure it is worth pursuing.
I would like to know what blanks you found were filled in about me though, has it occurred to you that you might be making a massive assumption about me? Feel free to take this to hobby to answer that specific point rather than massively going off topic here.
Hi Helen
Sorry you feel like that. I don’t claim to speak on behalf of sex workers or anyone but myself and I had no intention of pretending that’s what I was doing here. I fully agree that there are sex workers who can and do make similar points themselves and indeed I linked to at least one of them (Glasgow Sex Worker) doing exactly that in the article.
If I didn’t explicitly state that sex workers are autonomous people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, then it was because I thought it was so obvious from everything else I say that it was unnecessary. Perhaps I misjudged that.
I can’t speak on behalf of sex workers because I am not a sex worker. I cannot represent their range of opinions, beliefs or experiences and nor would I try to. There are plenty of great SW blogs around, and I link to some of them from blogs and my blogroll, and I hope people read them. I’m certainly not shoving any sex workers off platforms in order to speak on their behalf.
I speak as someone who is actively involved in political debates around gender issues, including those relating to sex work. I keep this blog as a place to offload some of my thoughts about those issues. This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’d genuinely like to know – would you rather I, and others like me, simply did not participate in these debates at all? Because if you’re happy for me to participate, I’m not sure what limits you’re trying to set on what I can/should be saying?
No one is saying you can’t debate but to not explicitly state the autonomy of the sex workers or actually reference them once even when listing others who participate in the debate feels immensely crass and suggests that their input is minimised. It’s a little bit like writing about an elephant and then not mentioning what an elephant actually is.
I’ve been talked over by both sides of the sex work fence, the police, the courts, society in general and certainly by the clients for years so when an industry that wouldn’t exist without your input is talked over in bullet points and your work doesn’t even get a mention while every other bit part player does, it’s like a slap in the face.
You should be acknowledging that only a few sex workers get to the relatively priviliged position of being able to write about or speak out through blogs. They are the utter minority and talking about them as if they are the norm and some kind of chosen voice for those don’t have the chance to speak to a wider audience. That’s lipservice to me as it fails to acknowledge the wider marginalisation of sex workers.
I like to see those things at least referenced and no assumption that people reading this will think to include the experience of some of the most maligned people in society if you don’t actually mention them yourself.
I’ll have a think about what you say Helen, and will certainly bear your points in mind for next time. Not making any promises though…
Possibly because of what I was working on when I viewed this. Good typology for soldiers too. Except possibly for agency. This led me to consider other jobs that require objectificiation, It seems the list could be quite long. Seems to be danger, dirty or moral ambiguity are key factors. Seems we have to objectify those who do the things we ‘d like to forget about.
[…] by the debate about Kat Banyard’s use and abuse of objectification, as slaughtered by Ally Fogg here and by Jemima […]