Lisa
Park's "Bringing Barbarella Down
to Earth" provides a feminist critique to Barbarella that notes how the protagonist's feminine agency may
carry a disruptive potential to patriarchal conditions and institutions.
Ostensibly, the movie justifies the prevailing discourse at the time that labels
female astronaut as an impossibility. Parks discusses how Barbarella's parodic narrative "deflected attention away from
the issue of women's professional mobility" (263). Additionally, the movie
re-affirmed the logic that NASA and political leaders used to exclude women
from the space program: Barbarella's expressive and overt sexuality in the
movie constituted a "a refusal to imagine the feminine body as anything
other than sexual," and NASA/political leaders were worried about the
unpredictability and dangers of female sexuality in space (263).
Yet Parks's key argument revolves around Barbarella's potential resistance and subversion, that in the movie, she is able to exert sexual and bodily agency and power under limiting patriarchal conditions. Barbarella transforms her body into a "technology of self” (a Foucauldian term) in which she constitutes herself as an ethical subject in terms of a "self-directed regime of bodily behavior and style," and in which "the relations of oneself to oneself are intensified and valorized" (266). In Barbarella's case, she stylizes her sexuality as a weapon that "advances the interests of the Republic" and also "multiplies her own pleasures and rejuvenation" (268). She is able to externally exert power through her sexuality, and also internally exert power by claiming her sexuality as her own, advancing her own pleasure and selfhood.
Though I remain skeptical of some parts, I'm a big fan of Parks's analysis because I'm interested in assessing the different forms of subversive power that women use to navigate and negotiate with highly restrictive patriarchal institutions. Though for me, the question always remains: if women can only gain agency by working within the bounds of male-dominated structures and cultures, do they automatically re-inscribe the systems that attempt to police them in the first place? In Barbarella's case, her sexuality--the source of her agency and external/internal power--also justifies the discourse that female astronauts, with their unpredictable sexuality, do not belong in space. The male-gaze reduction of Barbarella to a sexual object reinforces patriarchal ideas that women can only be understood in sexual terms.
I also find it interesting how the threat of Barbarella was mitigated, as it echoes the "containment" idea in one of our earlier readings. Parks discusses how the threat of Barbarella is suppressed: her traits that threaten patriarchal social order--"her aggressive, non-reproductive sexuality and her adept use of machinery--are overvalued and transformed from icons of male fear into objects of intense desire" (263). Her threatening traits are diminished to objects that men can gain pleasure from, therefore making Barbarella only legible in sexual terms and also reducing her power to objects of pleasure for men. While Parks argues that Barbarella uses these traits as a form of autonomous sexual power, I wonder if her power was actually subsumed and ultimately channeled to serve as a tool for the Republic, and therefore men's social and political needs. This reminds me of our reading from last week - Elaine Tyler May's "Explosive Issues: Sex, Women, and the Bomb." Women were called upon to embrace domesticity and quit pursuing autonomy in the spirit of national security. When people began feeling anxious about female sexuality and changing social roles, society worked to “contain” women. They subsumed the threat of the independent women and channeled this energy into domestic power, so women could also serve as useful tools for the nation. I think in both cases, the state co-opts and uses female sexuality for its own benefit -- non-reproductive, female sexuality is only okay if sanctioned by the state, meaning it must serve a higher purpose for the nation. Parks discusses "state-sanctioned on reproductive sexuality" that is mobilized for "pleasure or politics" as something more progressive, yet I find it more constraining.
Yet Parks's key argument revolves around Barbarella's potential resistance and subversion, that in the movie, she is able to exert sexual and bodily agency and power under limiting patriarchal conditions. Barbarella transforms her body into a "technology of self” (a Foucauldian term) in which she constitutes herself as an ethical subject in terms of a "self-directed regime of bodily behavior and style," and in which "the relations of oneself to oneself are intensified and valorized" (266). In Barbarella's case, she stylizes her sexuality as a weapon that "advances the interests of the Republic" and also "multiplies her own pleasures and rejuvenation" (268). She is able to externally exert power through her sexuality, and also internally exert power by claiming her sexuality as her own, advancing her own pleasure and selfhood.
Though I remain skeptical of some parts, I'm a big fan of Parks's analysis because I'm interested in assessing the different forms of subversive power that women use to navigate and negotiate with highly restrictive patriarchal institutions. Though for me, the question always remains: if women can only gain agency by working within the bounds of male-dominated structures and cultures, do they automatically re-inscribe the systems that attempt to police them in the first place? In Barbarella's case, her sexuality--the source of her agency and external/internal power--also justifies the discourse that female astronauts, with their unpredictable sexuality, do not belong in space. The male-gaze reduction of Barbarella to a sexual object reinforces patriarchal ideas that women can only be understood in sexual terms.
I also find it interesting how the threat of Barbarella was mitigated, as it echoes the "containment" idea in one of our earlier readings. Parks discusses how the threat of Barbarella is suppressed: her traits that threaten patriarchal social order--"her aggressive, non-reproductive sexuality and her adept use of machinery--are overvalued and transformed from icons of male fear into objects of intense desire" (263). Her threatening traits are diminished to objects that men can gain pleasure from, therefore making Barbarella only legible in sexual terms and also reducing her power to objects of pleasure for men. While Parks argues that Barbarella uses these traits as a form of autonomous sexual power, I wonder if her power was actually subsumed and ultimately channeled to serve as a tool for the Republic, and therefore men's social and political needs. This reminds me of our reading from last week - Elaine Tyler May's "Explosive Issues: Sex, Women, and the Bomb." Women were called upon to embrace domesticity and quit pursuing autonomy in the spirit of national security. When people began feeling anxious about female sexuality and changing social roles, society worked to “contain” women. They subsumed the threat of the independent women and channeled this energy into domestic power, so women could also serve as useful tools for the nation. I think in both cases, the state co-opts and uses female sexuality for its own benefit -- non-reproductive, female sexuality is only okay if sanctioned by the state, meaning it must serve a higher purpose for the nation. Parks discusses "state-sanctioned on reproductive sexuality" that is mobilized for "pleasure or politics" as something more progressive, yet I find it more constraining.
ReplyDeleteIn her posts, Carrie asks if, by exercising agency within the limitations of a male-dominated society, women "automatically re-inscribe the systems that attempt to police them in the first place"? The question she poses is interesting, and worth further consideration within the context of Barbarella and this week's readings.
There is a notable and obvious element of voyeurism in Barbarella, as we discussed in class on Thursday. This voyeurism, within the context of this week’s readings causes me to question the limitations of women in relation to the control of the patriarchy. I wonder, as an extention of Carrie’s question, if a woman can assert control over her image that’s already being controlled by a sense of voyeurism? Can she use what she’s being subjected to (here, the Male Gaze) as a means to an end? Is that the extent to which women have control over the issue of being seen as an erotic object? Mulvey considers theories of voyeurism in relation to filmmakers such as Hitchcock. I thought considering my questions in relation to a Hitchcock film would be interesting in particular. In Marnie, the titular female lead uses her “wiles” to woo a man named Sidney, convincing him to give her a job as a secretary. She robs the company and uses the money to remake her self as a new person. In this case, the answer to my previous questions and Carrie’s pondering would be yes, women can act within the boundaries of a male-dominated society, and use their physical qualities (which are being controlled by the Male Gaze) to achieve a goal. Is Marnie reinforcing the systems of control over her? She’s ultimately forced to marry someone blackmailing her for her crimes, which she committed by initially wooing a man using her status as an erotic object, so arguably, yes. Within the frame of our readings this week, she’s strengthened the boundaries that constrain her as a woman.
Carrie's response to the Parks reading really got me thinking about subversion of the "male gaze" and the power options available to women who are subjected to either a voyeuristic or fetishistic gaze through the camera's eye. Central to these concepts is the Foucauldian idea of the "technology of self." I agree with Carrie's assertion that such concepts only reinforce the idea that women are solely sexual objects and thus can only gain power in that sense, and I've been considering these ideas not just as we look at Barbarella, but as mainstream culture is saturated with images of female celebrities who purport to use "body positiveness" or their sexuality as a tool of feminism. Obviously Beyoncé is the biggest example of this having performed in front of a giant FEMINIST sign at the VMA awards, but I recently had an argument with a friend who described Iggy Azealia as "inspiring" due to her "body positiveness." As someone with little gender studies experience, I may not fully understand the implications of this, but Parks' defense of Barbarella and Carrie's critique of Parks have added to my reconsideration of the ways women can achieve power or status, obtaining a proud self-image. Is there a way to do so without utilizing the "technology of the body," particularly on film?
ReplyDeleteI think there is a way for women to achieve power and status in films without utilizing the technology of the self, but in order to do so, the writers have to write women as people, and not primarily as sexual objects. There are plenty of women in pop culture that fit this description, but Barbarella isn't one of them. In fiction, there is a general rule of "show, not tell". We are only told that Barbarella is a decorated diplomat and skilled astronaut, but we are never shown those skills in action. The only skills she possesses are sexual ones. When her ship breaks down, she needs to enlist the help of strangers (even though she is in space on her own, she should know how to fix her own ship). Yes, she does present a rather radical representation of the strength of female sexuality for the time, but like Carrie said, that sexuality is only used to further the needs of the Republic of Earth, not strictly for her own sexual pleasure. Her main actions in the film are tied to her being a sexual object, and any intelligence or agency she might have is undermined by what I think is her primary purpose in the film, which is to be looked at.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion on the tension between exerting agency and limitations posed on it by a male-dominated social structure seems to relate to a recent conversation with a friend. This afternoon, as I wasted time talking instead of beginning this comment, we got into a discussion regarding the gendered participation in social action projects. My friend is organizing a service program on campus that will engage students in social action work. The application deadline passed yesterday, and of the 10 applications only 1 was from a male student. In response to this realization, we tried to rationalize this gender disparity, coming to the conclusion that non-profit work is seen to be less valuable to men than women– an occupation marked as softer, women’s work. As such, we identified a norm in our society that functions to limit the occupational and extracurricular experiences of women.
ReplyDeleteBarbarella also depicts such a tension. Lisa May Parks, channeling the work Michel Foucault, explains that Barbarella’s sexuality acts “as a technology of self” that provides “a significant, though limited, expression of feminine agency” (Parks 266). This agency is made evident through both Barbarella’s sexual enjoyment and her position as a “Five-Star, Double-Rated” astronaut that is trusted to save the Universe from Duran Duran. Nevertheless, the film’s depiction of feminine action is limited by its male-dominated society, most thoroughly expressed by the film’s clear intention to evoke the fetishistic masculine gaze. Further, while Barbarella is supposedly an expert in diplomacy and space technology, she nonetheless is dependent on male strangers for assistance at all junctures in the narrative. Thus, the ‘liberated’ Barbarella is still characterized by the norm of women as sexual objects reliant on men.
Similarly, the career prospects and extracurricular activities of women seem to be limited by gendered notions of action. While 10% more women enroll in college than men, seemingly opening a wide range of careers, “men still dominate many of the majors with the highest earning potential” (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/most-popular-college-degrees-for-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education-business.html). Further related to social action, 73% of workers in the non-profit sector are women, a number that does not reflect the overall working population (http://www.ncncf.org/2013/04/12/
gender-in-the-nonprofit-sector/). This disproportionate gap may show that “men do not even glance at the nonprofit sector” as it does not seem to the right job for “the main breadwinners in [the] household” (http://www.ncncf.org/2013/04/12/gender-in-the-nonprofit-sector/). Accordingly, social action has been designated to be the responsibility of women.
This societal explanation appears to be evidenced by the gap in applications to my friend’s program. While women and men do have the choice to participate in a wide range of activities on campus, male students seem to have avoided this volunteer opportunity, possibly because of its social connotation with femininity. Thus, as a result of norms identifying certain activities with different genders, females will make up the preponderance of my friend’s social action program.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete