Immortal Objects: The Objectification of Women as Terror Management

Abstract

Philosophical theorizing, research on self-objectification, and the newest empirical research on the objectification of others converge to support the notion that the objectification of women entails rendering women, quite literally, as objects. This chapter begins with a review of this literature and then moves onto the question of why women are viewed as objects. The answer offered is informed by terror management theory, and suggests that the need to manage a fear of death creates a fundamental problem with the physical body, and such difficulties resonate especially in reaction to women's--menstruating, lactating, childbearing--bodies, and men's attraction to them. Evidence is presented to support this, and for the position that this situation plays a role in, not just expectations for women to be beautiful, but in the literal transformation of women into inanimate--immortal--objects.

An Integrative Terror Management Theory Perspective on Media Effects: A Model and 12 Hypotheses for Research

“…When you are reminded of your animal-like, creaturely nature, and a physical body that inevitably will disintegrate, it is hard to sustain faith in grand, meaning-imbuing projects that will endure over time immemorial. Thus, mortality salience reduces men's attraction to a sexually attractive woman, presumably because she carries the reminder that body trumps mind, and physicality (however alluring) will spell the end of symbolic efforts to deny death (Landau, Goldenberg, Greenberg, Gillath, Solomon, Cox, Martens, & Pyszczynski, 2006;Goldenberg, 2013). But here is where the dynamic takes an intriguing turn.…”

Objectifying Women’s Bodies is Acceptable from an Intimate Perpetrator, at Least for Female Sexists

“…The first level is aesthetic/decorative, where the beauty of the body is primarily to be viewed/admired (like a sculpture), whereas the second level depicts the female body to be used (as a sexual/erotic object), partially or entirely for male pleasure. Heterosexual men’s sexual attraction to the female body may represent a threat, which is resolved at least in part “through a literal association between women and objects” (Goldenberg, 2013, p. 89). Further, objectification (aesthetic/decorative and sexual/erotic) is a form of dehumanization (Haslam, Loughnan, & Holland, 2013) that involves a similar disregard for reality where people are not treated as human beings (Gervais, Bernard, Kelin, & Allen, 2013).…”

Toward a Unified Theory of Objectification and Dehumanization

“…Consequently, early work in both of these traditions has treated objectification and dehumanization in somewhat one-dimensional ways; objectification was conceptualized as a specific focus on the appearances, the bodies, the sexual body parts, or the sexual functions of women (Calogero 2013;Goldenberg 2013;Moradi 2013). Similarly, dehumanization was conceptualized as a mode of appraisal that emerges in intergroup relations, particularly in the context of racial and ethnic outgroups, in which someone is regarded as less than human through the denial of secondary emotions.…”

“…Building and elaborating on Haslam et al (2013) and Fiske's (2013) models of the content (thoughts, emotions, and behaviors) of dehumanization (and to a lesser extent objectification), Goldenberg (2013) and Calogero (2013) adopt classic social psychological theories, that do not stem directly from research on objectification or dehumanization, to understand when and why people objectify others and themselves. Goldenberg (2013) first adopts terror management theory as a lens through which to understand when and why people objectify themselves and others.…”

“…Goldenberg (2013) first adopts terror management theory as a lens through which to understand when and why people objectify themselves and others. Specifically, Goldenberg reviews classic philosophical theorizing on selfobjectification and presents the latest empirical research on objectification of others.…”