Download loleffect.docx

The Lolita Effect, (2008) M. G. Durham, published by Duckworth
Overlook
The author of this book is a professor of journalism and mass
communication at the University of Iowa in the USA. That’s not quite the
same thing as a sociologist, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t learn
anything from the book. Durham states that she is pro-media and progirls, but living as we do in a media-saturated environment where the
media are driven by the need for profit and ratings, she says that we
need to learn to differentiate between healthy and exploitative
expressions of sexuality. We don’t need to be repressive about sexuality,
says Durham, in post-feminist mode (or as she puts it, she is a ‘pro-sex
feminist’), in fact precisely the opposite; we need more openness.
Durham considers that we are living in a time when the sexuality of
young girls is being presented in an exploitative manner. Durham cites
several anecdotal but persuasive examples. Abercrombie and Fitch
created thong underwear for ten-year-olds adorned with slogans such as
“Wink, Wink” and “Eye Candy.” Wal Mart stocked girls panties carrying
the slogan, “Who Needs Credit Cards” emblazoned on the crotch. As
Durham notes – “it’s hard to not to see this as implying that selling sex is
a great option for teenage girls.” Other retailers to come under criticism
include the UK stores BHS and Tesco, the latter of which sold a pink pole
dancing kit in its ‘Toys and Games’ section in 2007.
The name ‘Lolita’ comes from the famous novel by writer Vladimir
Nabokov. The book tells the story of an older man who has an affair with
a young teenage girl. As Durham explains, in much of our popular culture,
reference to Lolita has turned her into a fantasy figure, whereas in the
novel, she is in fact a tragic and sexually abused figure. The image and
idea of Lolita has become a metaphor for the sexy girl, argues Durham,
which is to utterly distort and miss the point of the novel. This image of
‘Lolita’ which pervades our ‘mediascape’, says Durham, is a fabrication
and yet it is framed in a clever rhetoric of power and choice; making it
seem as if it is the ‘Lolita’s’ who are in charge, skilfully choosing and using
their sexuality to get what they want. As Durham asserts, “ Rather than
offering girls – and the rest of their audiences – thoughtful, open-minded,
progressive, and ethical understandings about sexuality, our media and
our culture have produced a gathering of ‘prosti-tots’ - hypersexualised
girls whose cultural presence has become a matter of heated public
controversy. This is the Lolita Effect.”
In other words, Durham is claiming that the media representation of
female sexuality is turning girls into a generation of ‘Lolita’s’.
Durham points out that we have to understand media representations of
sexuality in their current context. We are living in a time when views
about sexuality are highly polarized; on the one hand we have highly
conservative views in favour of censorship and sexual abstinence. We
often hear fundamentalists (from Christian and other religions) expressing
such views. On the other hand we see extreme examples of overt
sexualisation, often portrayed as being emancipatory and empowering.
Durham argues that we badly need a middle ground in this moral and
social climate.
Myths of Sexuality
Durham identifies ‘five core myths of sexuality’ which are being
perpetuated by the media representation of what Durham calls ‘the Lolita
Effect’. These are:





the
the
the
the
the
myth
myth
myth
myth
myth
of
of
of
of
of
sex as girls’ exhibitionism,
sex in terms of an ideal body type,
sex as linked to youth,
violence against women
the male gaze.
Myth of girls’ exhibitionism
Durham devotes considerable space to reflecting on the pervasiveness of
the idea of ‘hotness’. These are the qualities, the physical and sexual
qualities, expected of women. Durham points out that they are cultural
and constructed. The effect of many influences in modern society,
including the media of course, is to focus girls’ attention insistently on this
aspect of their identity – they learn and are encouraged by many media
representations, to present their bodies in ways that attract boys’ sexual
interest. But this relentless focus on ‘hotness’ diminishes girls (and
others) ability to see that other aspects of life are also important; “
‘Hotness’ as an imperative belittles the value of intelligence, artistic
ability, spiritual growth, political awareness, or indeed any other aspect of
personality that could enrich girls’ lives and translate into potent
adulthood.” Sexuality, says Durham, is a significant part of being alive,
but so are other things and yet our culture refuses to acknowledge that
sex is no more or less important than any other aspect of social life and
human development. Durham claims that girls are in effect ‘coerced’ into
thinking so much about ‘hotness’ that they begin to see themselves
primarily as sexual objects on display, rather than as multidimensional
people. The first myth of the Lolita Effect, Durham concludes, is that it
translates girls’ sexuality into the visual metaphors of sex work.
Myth of the ideal body type
Although sexualisation is portrayed as liberation, says Durham, it seems
that it is only certain types of bodies that are positioned as being sexual
and only certain types of sexual display count as desirable. Desirability,
Durham asserts, is most frequently defined in terms of what is attractive
to men, to ‘the male gaze’. Most media aimed at adolescent and preadolescent girls focuses on how to attract male desire. The route to
success in these terms says Durham, involves developing the right sort of
body: large breasts, flat abs and slender thighs. Also preferred are facial
features approximating to a Caucasian ideal and a wardrobe and supply of
ever-changing cosmetics in order to stay fashionable.
Myth of sex linked to youth
The third myth, argues Durham, is that the ‘Lolita Effect’ links female
sexuality to youth and implies that the younger a girl is, the sexier she is.
Durham’s own values lead her to express concern over what she sees as
the assumption that young girls can have the same sexual awareness as
adults. She also observes that there is a larger problem – that the
sexualisation of young girls means that children are engaging in sexual
activity at younger and younger ages. As Durham points out, the
scientific evidence is that girls do not usually experience sexual desire
prior to puberty. After adolescence, desire can, as Durham puts it, ‘wax
and wane’ and it varies from individual to individual and between
cultures. Durham sees the media as having an important role in
propagating the myth that female sexuality is linked to youth and argues
that a key motivation is commercial. Durham says that the emphasis on
youth as sexy is an ideological manipulation that fuels the sale of antiaging cosmetics and products like Botox to the value of around $57 billion
per year. The media contribute to a cultural landscape in which the sexual
objectification of girls is acceptable and even normal. A commercially
motivated construction of sex seems to be our only way of defining
female sexuality.
Myth of violence against women
The fourth element of the ‘Lolita Effect’ is that media representations
make violence against women seem sexy. Durham gives one example of
a Dolce and Gabbana magazine advert which portrays a man having sex
with a woman, while other men stand around watching. The scene, says
Durham, implies a gang rape. The models are beautiful, the woman does
not appear to be afraid, and so, concludes Durham, the gang rape is
implicitly justified – and sexual violence is made to look ‘sexy’. In the
book, Durham draws on lots of other examples. She refers to the linkage
of violence and sex in rap music, discusses slasher films, ‘horror porn’
films, and computer games like Grand Theft Auto. Durham acknowledges
that in some cases, assessments of whether the representations of
sexuality in these media is intended to condone sexual violence against
girls is controversial. Durham argues that many of the films are simply
conservative morality tales, with killers taking revenge on licentious
females. Arguing against those who see such films as more complex
reflections on power and gender, Durham says that if such media really
were dismantling gender barriers, one might expect to see boys’ sexuality
treated in similar ways – but that never or very rarely seems to happen.
But Durham is at pains to point out that there is no direct causal effect at
work here – it is not media representations which cause people to link sex
and violence. In fact, says Durham, it is the other way around; slasher
films for example are distorted versions of sexuality that help to
perpetuate an environment in which violence against women is already
commonplace. They simply act to reinforce what is already there.
Nevertheless, Durham refers to (without giving proper references)
research by American psychologists which demonstrates – she argues –
that video games in this instance – do increase aggressive feelings and
behaviour. She mentions another piece of research which purports to
show that when exposed to rap videos, African American girls showed
that they were more accepting of teen dating violence. In both of these
cases the media representations haven’t created something out of
nothing; they have had a more indirect effect on feelings and attitudes,
building on things that were already there – a more subtle shaping,
influencing effect.
Media images don’t directly cause people to act in violent ways, concludes
Durham. They work, she argues instead, in much more complex and
subtle ways; they are cultural mythmakers. They supply us with ideas
which seep into our minds over long periods of time and which desensitise
us – with variances between individuals of course. They accentuate some
parts of social life and underplay others. They can reinforce some
behaviour patterns and not others; they gradually contribute to our ideas
of what is normal and what is deviant.
Myth of the male gaze
The fifth and final myth is to cast girls in the roles that are all about
fulfilling male, not female, desires and fantasies. It is about fulfilling boys,
not girls’ needs. These roles make girls subservient to boys. The idea of
a mutual, reciprocal and equal relationship is not part of this myth and it
does not acknowledge that boys have responsibilities towards girls. Boys,
claims Durham, are predominantly constructed as sexual aggressors,
whose goal is to coerce girls into physical relationships, while girls are
positioned as ‘defenders of their virtue’.
There are a couple of points tacked onto this fifth myth. One is the idea
that girls don’t feel desire or have an interest in sex: this, says Durham,
prevents girls from taking an active role in creating relationships that fulfil
their needs. The other is that alternative sexual orientations don’t exist,
or at least, if they do, they are deviant.
So what does the term ‘male gaze’ mean? It simply reflects the idea that
girls and women are always seen and always have to think of themselves
in terms of how men will view them. You can think of this as a powerful
form of social control; negative informal sanctions can be applied to
women who don’t conform; they may be described as ‘tramps’ or ‘tarts’ –
this is also called ‘reputational labelling’. Discussing a magazine for girls
called ‘Seventeen’, Durham says that in this magazine, boys ‘were the
arbiters [judges] of girls’ sexuality and it was their desires and
preferences which were of paramount importance. It seemed that a girl’s
job is to focus on how best to appeal to boys. Drawing on the art critic,
John Berger, Durham claims that the’ male gaze’ means that there is a
power relationship at work here; it is men who ‘gaze’ at women and the
gazer is the one who judges, approves or rejects the object which is being
gazed at.
Maybe not in a nutshell, but that sums up most of Durham’s claims.
Critical Evaluation
Durham presents an interesting account of the media and gender. You
could argue that there is not much which is really new there – in many
ways Durham’s analysis is really a sort of Marxist-Feminist approach.
What marks it out is that it is contemporary and discusses a media
landscape which we are all familiar with. You can quibble perhaps with
the lack of references – but it has to be remembered that Durham has
written this book for a mass popular audience – and they won’t be keen
on having lots of footnotes and references to other studies.
Durham presents us with what is basically a ‘cultural effects’ model of
the media. This has numerous advantages over other models of media
effects:
Advantages



Media representations are seen in social context
Causal claims are avoided, other factors are considered
The complexity of social phenomena is acknowledged
However, note that in this particular case, Durham’s study involves
several potential weaknesses:
Weaknesses








The empirical basis for Durham’s claims is unclear
What studies were conducted?
What methods were used?
How big were the samples?
How representative were respondents?
How were behavioural attitudes operationalized?
The theories outlined may be convincing, but they are also vague –
do all men (and women) think as Durham suggests? Are there
differences between different social classes or different individuals –
if so, why.
Some of Durham’s claims may be exaggerated or over-generalising.