Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Examining the "interdiscursive space" in which Girls are Produced and Consumed

The tattooed girl provides an interesting example for the ways in which girls are positioned as producers and consumers of texts and products. Using McRobbie’s concept of the “‘interdiscursive space’ of production” we can begin to articulate a more nuanced relationship between the production of meaning and the diverse ways in which meanings are consumed by readers of cultural texts (Gough-Yates 16).
A creative cultural consumption which
turns the image of the ideal beauty
queen back on itself. "Monstrous beauty
promises a sense of identity that escapes
 the voyeuristic  Playboy culture and
engages the freedom of senses"
(Harlow 5). This woman's tattoo is
 a creative reproduction of
Palihnuk's novel, Invisible Monster.
In a world where women’s bodies are continuously fragmented in commodified consumer culture through ideals of beauty—i.e. in commercials with focused, close up shots of ideal lips, hair, breasts, and legs—we see the mediated production of our “womanhood” fragmented in a sea of “material” female subjectivities. One thing you almost never see in these commercials is—tattooed skin. Why? Because tattoos hold a potential for performing in a way that subverts the silence of women’s skin in material culture—giving the skin a voice to articulate female beauty outside the realm of normative beauty.  The following quote asserts this idea, explaining that “the act of tattooing holds the ‘possibility of individual agency subverting externally imposed inscriptions’” (Harlow 6; Schildkrout 323). Thus, girls’ tattooed skin may be seen as a site for resistance of societal norms of girlhood and culturally constructed girl subjectivities. Many tattooed girls are seen creatively consuming and recycling social and cultural identities for their own purposes as they creatively partake in the rhetorical meaning-making process with the medium of skin. This creative consumption and artistic expression of women’s identities with tattoos further connects to our recent readings on quilting as outlet for artistic expression, self-definition, and commemoration of relationships.  

Tattoo creating a "narrative pattern" signifying 
this woman's connection to her family ,
The dandelion represents this woman's parents
and the girls represent this woman's
sisters (Rohan 379).

Moreover, it is important to address how tattooed representations of women and girls act as a kind of double-edged sword in the sexual subjectification of women, or the contemporary—postfeminist sexual subject. The sexual subject is a commonly reproduced product of mainstream, dominant culture. Here the subject positions herself as a “bearer of meaning” for an active male desire—and not a maker of meaning for her own desire, i.e. not as an empowered sexual subject (Mulvey 59).  The Suicide Girls website falls into this sexual subjectification of tattooed women, with normative, nude, White and thin female material bodies adorning the site.  It further presents tattooed women under the postfeminist paradigm of sexual subjectivity, as constructing herself as the empowered—tattooed—sexual subject.
The following video, although not a tattooed female representation, discusses the discursive ways in which images of women are consumed. We see this in Miss Aniela’s own artistic project that attempts to “subvert the male gaze.” Is Miss Aniela positioning herself as a maker of meaning for her own desire? Does her video embody a postfeminist production and consumption of womanhood? I'm not really convinced of either—but what I do see is Miss Aniela asserting the concept of the “‘interdiscursive space’ of production” in discussing the controversy of her photographs consumption on the web, and the great diversity of opinions and interpretations that are made of her photos. She further explains her "subject" production of herself in these images as a site for self-portraiture, identification, and meaning making in which she creatively constructs her presence in her own depictions. Miss Aniela may not necessarily be producing herself as an empowered sexual subject—but there are still elements in her production and consumption that gives way to that potential. Thus, her video helps us to articulate an "interdiscursive space" for her production and consumption.

Finally, the idea of an “‘interdiscursive space’ of production” becomes important to our understanding of how women are positioned as producers and consumers of texts and products. The examples of the tattooed girl and Miss Aniela open up a space for our examination of the interdiscursive, multilayered, and diverse ways in which girl identities are positioned and repositioned by girls as producers and girls as consumers of girlhood culture.  


Supplemental References

Harlow, Megan J. “Suicide Girls: Tattooing as Radical Feminist Agency.” Advances in Communication Theory and Research 2 (2009): n. pag. Web.



Gough-Yates, Anna. Understanding Women’s Magazines: Publishing, Markets and Readerships. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

5 comments:

  1. Robyn,

    I *loved* this post.

    I have a friend who partially attributes body modification for her recovery from borderline personality disorder. She recently published her memoir:

    Loud In The House Of Myself: Memoir of a Strange Girl

    Hayley

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So much for THAT hyperlink.

      http://www.amazon.com/Loud-House-Myself-Memoir-Strange/dp/0393340791/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

      Delete
    2. It looks like a great book to read after we finish this class:) Thanks for sharing!

      Delete
  2. This is a great post. Thank you both for posting the links, and thanks Robyn for supplying your references. I'm definitely very interested in your idea of "interdiscursive space" in understanding how women are positioned as consumers and produces.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This video is amazing - as is the whole post. I love teaching this class cause I always learn so much and am given new material to include. I really wanna teach the Suicide girls tattoo piece now!

    I'm not sure what to make of the idea of tattoos as subverting the gaze. In a way I see a tattoo as a way to force others to look at you differently - or to look at you in a certain way or at a certain point. The thing I notice about images from the video is that they seem to reinforce existing images of the normatively beautiful female form. They don't seem to challenge what the male gaze has taught us to desire.

    Can women and those being looked at also enjoy the objects we look at and the ways we have been taught to see? Do tattoos have to be radical? Is the tattoo itself the product or is it the act of being tattooed that is the product?

    ReplyDelete