Page 154 - Decoding Culture
P. 154

G E N D ERED  U B J E C TS, WOM E N ' S   TEXTS   147
                                    S
           its  links  to  an  allegedly  'empiricist'  problematic.  Mulvey's
           approach, rather, encloses its topic within a theoretical system, seek­
           ing illumination by absorbing it into a pre-given framework. This is
           Theory' at work.
             Leaving epistemological issues aside, the most remarked impli­
           cation  of  her  analysis  is  the  predicative  claim  that  the  visual
           pleasures of classical Hollywood cinema presuppose a subject who
           takes pleasures that are essentially male.  Once, that is, we  have
           identified  the  central constitutive  features  of visual  pleasure  in
           Hollywood  cinema,  then  the  form  itself is  seen  to  interpellate  a
           male  subject.  It  is  this aspect  of her  argument that  precipitated
           much of the subsequent debate and, therefore, proved most influ­
           ential  in  forming  the  terms  in  which  'spectatorship'  came  to
           prominence in (feminist) cultural studies. Most critical discussion
           (see,  for  example,  the  essays  collected  in  Gamman  and
           Marshment, 1988, and in Screen, 1992) revolved around the role of
           the female spectator. Where is she to place herself in relation to a
           form offering only  male  pleasures?  Are  there  other  (gendered)
           pleasures available? What of the male figure as an erotic object, or
           the female protagonist in film narratives? Surely gendered specta­
           tors can take up various subject positions in relation to Hollywood
           film?
             These, and other more sweeping questions about the very util­
           ity of the psychoanalytic framework and its distinctive account of
           'pleasure',  ensured  that  a lively  and  sometimes fractious  debate
           followed the publication of Mulvey's essay. Her position was widely
           disputed, variously adapted, and frequently misunderstood. Some
           of the misunderstandings, it must be said, were born of an overly
           literal reading of her claim  about the 'masculine' character of the
           spectator's  look,  and  as  time  passed  Mulvey herself sought to
           restate  her  position  in  a  more  measured  way.  In  1981,  in  an
           'Afterthought' that Gamman  (1988: 191) not unfairly describes as





                              Copyrighted Material
   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159