Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131957| 題名: | 美貌新神話：數位化的美貌觀看與女性的對應觀點 To Be Beautiful and More: Exploring Digitalized Beauty Myth and Corresponding Women’s (In)Actions |
作者: | 黃宣萓 Huang, Hsuan-I |
貢獻者: | 柯裕棻 Ko, Yu-Fen 黃宣萓 Huang, Hsuan-I |
關鍵詞: | 美貌 數位化 規訓 觀看機制 厭女 蕩婦羞辱 審美勞動 女性能動性 beauty digitalization apparatus of gazing discipline misogyny slut-shaming aesthetic labor agency of women |
日期: | 2020 | 上傳時間: | 2-九月-2020 | 摘要: | 網路媒介中的行動與交流使得觀看視線複雜化，對美貌的觀看機制於焉新生。女性正面對著舊有觀看方式的變異，和於數位化環境中蔓生繁盛的美貌神話。循此背景，本研究關注數位化的美貌觀看機制和女性行動，如何重構美貌的概念與實踐，和背後的觀看權力關係流動。以PTT表特板貼文和貼文主角為研究對象，本研究首先藉由批判言說分析，論證納入女性身體、資本與被觀看意願的數位化美貌論述，再透過深度訪談，瞭解女性的對應觀點和行動策略，探討觀看的性別社會意義。\n\n本研究發現，數位化的美貌觀看藉由繁複的言說策略以行使動態的觀看權力，不視女性為整體，在言說中將其拆解、評量、給予獎懲，是無所不在的監視手段。數位化的美貌觀看機制首先創造了完美身體的神話，比典型觀看方式更加細膩地探查、幻想女體，使女性主體性在言說中消失。其次，資本在數位化的觀看機制中被揭露，扁平化、性化為美貌的價值符碼，以建構並擴大虛假的美貌階級和真實的規訓。資本相應的社會價值被取消，甚至用以在想像中貶低、蕩婦化女性。最後，女性對自身美貌的認知和被觀看的意願也同樣受到觀看，成為檢核美貌價值的最終判準。女性被觀看意願和她的可看性之間存在反向的升降關係，意在規訓女性被觀看時的順從姿態。\n\n女性具此發展出對美貌的自我覺察和無止盡的身體焦慮，不斷回看自己於美貌論述中的相對位置，進行審美勞動與情感勞動。而美貌論述在吸收資本後擴張的反射作用，使女性陷入有口難言的困境中，任何批評美貌觀看的嘗試，都可能換來對她外表、資本和性可得程度的質疑和貶低。被觀看的意願更是如今女性內化觀看時新添入的自我審查。女性只能單純視美貌被觀看的現象為無可避免的風險，更加謹慎地使用社群媒體，以免落入「想紅」、「還不是自己願意被看」的指責。然而，女性仍可能在同理她者的經驗中突破美貌對女性群體的制約，透過遠離網路或積極展演、介入觀看等線上行動展現能動性，翻轉看與被看的權力關係。 With the Internet penetrating the modern world, the apparatus of gazing is now discursive, and has transformed with the randomness of the women it gazes at, the proliferation of criteria it examines, and the subtle yet powerful tactic of misogyny it manifests. A digitalized beauty myth has, therefore, come into being. By exploring the digital apparatus of beauty gazing and the corresponding women’s (in)action, this paper aims to expound on the flourishing beauty myth──how it is expanded and practiced──and the mutable power relation of gazing online.\n\nBy conducting critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the posts and comments in PTT Bulletin Board System, the largest anonymous online forum of Taiwan, this paper argues that the digital apparatus of beauty gazing has sophisticatedly included not only a woman’s appearance, but also her capital and (un)willingness of being gazed at. The discourse of beauty first creates a non-existent state of perfection for women`s body, in a more explicit and obscene fashion, compared with the offline beauty myth. Women’s subjectivity is erased by the obscenity wrapped in compliments and criticisms of sexual fantasy. Then, a woman`s social and cultural capital is scrutinized in order to re-negotiate or to stigmatize a woman’s desirability or integrity. All her capital becomes shallow and sexual symbols in a fabricated, all-round hierarchy of beauty which creates authentic discipline. Ultimately, a woman’s attitude toward her own beauty is inspected. Her worth of and her (un)willingness of being gazed at have a negative correlation, which serves the purpose of disciplining women to be docile while facing the apparatus of beauty gazing.\n\nDrawing on in-depth interviews with seven women being featured in the posts, this paper reveals the corresponding prevarication and actions of these gazed women. Submerged in the ubiquitous beauty myth, women evolve endless awareness and anxiety over their body and their relative ranking in the hierarchy of beauty, with aesthetic labor, both physically and emotionally, thereby induced. The reflex for women to discuss the beauty myth as a structural issue has also expanded along with its inclusion of capital. Women become evasive while facing the apparatus of beauty gazing, since any attempts to challenge it can lead to ridicule and contempt of her appearance, capital or sexual availability. The inspection of women’s willingness of being gazed at is now part of their inner surveillance also, forcing her to view the apparatus of gazing as an inevitable personal risk. Women then cautiously self-examine their social media use to avoid the condemnation of attention-seeking. However, women’s breakout from the beauty myth still happens with their experience of empathizing with others. As some retreat from the digital environment and some start to counterattack online──such as performing actively with feminist initiatives and disordering the apparatus of gazing on their own social media──women’s agency and the possibility of overturning the power relation of gazing can be seen. |
參考文獻: | 王宣蘋（2008）。《瘦不了的苦：網路媒體美貌迷思建構及大尺碼女裝購買者認知研究》。交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。\n方念萱（2019）。 〈無人加害、純粹活該？──女性數位性私密影像如何成為厭女的報復式色情〉。《這是愛女，也是厭女：如何看穿這世界拉攏與懲戒女人的兩手策略？》，頁57-72 。臺北：大家出版。\n王雅玄（2005）。〈社會領域教科書的批判論述分析: 方法論的重建〉。《教育研究集刊》，51(2)：67-97。\n成令方、吳嘉苓（2004）。〈科技的性別政治：理論和研究的回顧〉，《科技、醫療與社會》，3：51-112。\n何修譯（1992）。《美貌的神話》。台北：自立晚報社。（原書 Wolf, N. [1991]. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. US: Harpercollins.）\n何雯琪譯（2005）。《厭女現象：跨文化的男性病態》。台北：書林。（原書：Gilmore, D. D. [2005]. Misogyny: The male malady. University of Pennsylvania Press.）\n余貞誼（2019）。 〈我說妳是妳就是：從 PTT 「母豬教」的仇女行動談網路性霸凌的性別階層〉。《這是愛女，也是厭女：如何看穿這世界拉攏與懲戒女人的兩手策略？》，頁29-56 。臺北：大家出版。\n吳莉君譯（2010）。《觀看的方式》，台北：麥田。（原書 Berger, J. [1995]. Ways of Seeing. USA: Penguin.）\n吳珮琪（2003）。《解讀少女雜誌廣告中的美貌迷思》。中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文。\n李紹良（2012）。《十五萬人的BBS是如何煉成的：批踢踢實業坊技術演變歷程之研究（1995-2008）》。政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n杜玉蓉（2004）。《誰在訴說女人的身體?－－以瘦身類資訊式廣告為例》。政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。\n林美純（2012）。《美貌對教授教學評鑑的影響》。世新大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。\n林意仁（2011）。《網路群眾文化及其民主意涵—以PTT Gossiping 看板為例》。政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n林語苓（2017）。《瘦身女性身體意象與美貌迷思經驗之探討》。高雄師範大學性別教育研究所碩士論文。\n林穎孟（2011）。《我在「女僕喫茶」工作：跨／次文化中的女性身體與表演勞動》。臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n林婷婷（2008）。《從「拜物」到「拜美」：解讀美妝節目敘事公式與美貌迷思之建構》。世新大學新聞學研究所碩士論文。\n洪凌譯（1998）。《擬仿物與擬像》。台北：時報文化。（原書 Baudrillard, J. [1981]. Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée.）\n高宣揚（1999）。《當代社會理論》。台北：五南圖書出版公司。\n邱宇翔（2013）。《美貌的效果？青少年外表吸引力對於受歡迎程度的影響》。臺北大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n莊承達（2008）。《美貌、工讀型態與學業成就》。政治大學經濟研究所碩士論文。\n孫智綺譯（2002）。《布赫迪厄社會學的第一課》。台北：麥田。（原書 Bonnewitz, P. [2002] Pierre Bourdieu: vie, œuvres, concepts. Ellipses Marketing.）\n張玉佩、葉孟儒（2008）。〈美貌的詛咒：男性凝視在網路相簿的權力探索〉。《資訊社會研究》，15：249-274。\n張君玫譯（2010）。《猿猴、賽伯格和女人：重新發明自然》。台北：群學。（原書 Haraway, D. [2013]. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge.）\n張錦華（2002）。《女為悅己者瘦？媒介效果與主體研究》。台北：正中書局。\n黃上詮（2013）。《「鄉民」的誕生：線上論壇中認同語意及娛樂功能之歷史考察》。臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n黃上詮（2016）。〈技術活化石的春天：一段BBS站獨大的歷史〉，黃厚銘（編），《婉君妳好嗎？：給覺醒鄉民的PTT進化史》，頁75-116。新北：群學。\n黃正玫（2009）。《美貌、身體與自我認同：台北年輕女性的妝扮經驗》。世新大學口語傳播研究所碩士論文。\n黃厚銘（2010）。〈Mob-ility：重探虛擬社區（virtual community）的社區議題（the community question）〉，「2010 年第七屆台灣資訊社會研究學會年會暨學術研討會」，新竹：國立交通大學。\n黃麗群（2019）。《我與貍奴不出門》。臺北：時報文化。\n陳怡潔（2007）。《美貌！資本？場域。─女性業務外貌價值剖析》。南華大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n陳侑汶（1991）。《美貌刻板印象與人格特質的社會好惡度使用頻率的關係》。中原大學心理學研究所碩士論文。\n陳淑芬（2000）。《她們的美麗與哀愁─女性雜誌的美貌建構與讀者使用之研究》。政治大學廣告研究所碩士論文。\n許可函（2017）。《以女性主義角度探討具角色扮演性質之女性工作者與美貌津貼及情緒津貼相關之研究》。高雄餐旅大學觀光研究所碩士論文。\n游美惠（2000）。〈內容分析，文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用〉。《調查研究》，8：5-42。\n趙景雲（2004）。《共謀或抵抗？瘦身女性身體的主體性與客體性》。東吳大學社會學研究所碩士論文。\n蔡佩芳（2003）。《我是女生，漂亮的女生？！廣告中的美貌迷思與青少女的性別認同》。中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文。\n劉子綾（2009）。〈化妝的性別權力拉鋸：以PTT表特板、美妝板板眾為例〉。《傳播與科技》，1：46-64。\n劉北成、楊遠嬰譯（1992）。《規訓與懲罰─監獄的誕生》。台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。（原書Foucault, M. [1977]. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. New York, NY: Random House.）\n劉芷妤（2020）。〈嫦娥應悔〉。《女神自助餐》，頁59-111。臺北：逗點文創結社。\n劉祐銘（2012）。《台灣大學生BBS流行語文化現象之研究》。國立暨南大學課程教學與科技研究所碩士論文。\n鄭美瓊（2003）。《某大學女生外表吸引力知覺與塑身美容行為之研究》。臺灣師範大學社會學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。\n蕭煒馨（2016）。〈湊熱鬧就不孤單：網路大眾的情感力〉。黃厚銘（編），《婉君妳好嗎？：給覺醒鄉民的PTT進化史》，頁35-52。新北：群學。\nBartky, S.L. (1988). Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power. In I. Diamond, L. Quinby, S. Benhabib, & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on Resistance (pp. 92-112). Boston: Northeastern University Press.\nBerger, J. (2008). Ways of Seeing (Vol. 1). 1972. Penguin uK.\nBoler, M. (2007). Hypes, Hopes and Actualities: New Digital Cartesianism and Bodies in Cyberspace. New Media & Society, 9(1), 139-168.\nBonnewitz, P. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu: vie, œuvres, concepts. Ellipses Marketing.\nBordo, S. (1985). Anorexia Nervosa: Psychopathology as the Crystallization of Culture. Philosophical Forum, 17(2), 73–103.\nBordo, S. (1990). Reading the Slender Body. In M. Jacobus, E. F. Keller & S. Shuttleworth (Eds.). Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science (pp. 83-112), New York and London: Routledge.\nBordo, S. (1993). Foucault and the Politics of the Body. In C. Ramazanoglu (Eds.). Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions Between Foucault and Feminism (pp. 179-202). Routledge.\nBourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge university press.\nBourdieu, P. (1989). Les trois états du capital culturel. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 30, 3-5.\nBourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge.\nBourdieu, P., & Richardson, J. G. (1986). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. The forms of capital, 241-258.\nBourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory, 7(1), 14-25.\nBourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.\nBrickell, C. (2012). Sexuality, power and the sociology of the internet. Current Sociology, 60(1), 28-44.\nChatterjee, B. B. (2002). Razorgirls and Cyberdykes: Tracing Cyberfeminism and Thoughts on its Use in a Legal Context. International Journal of Gender and Sexuality Studies 7(2/3): 197-213.\nClegg, S. (2001). Theorising the Machine: Gender, Education, and Computing. Gender and Education, 13(3): 307-24.\nCockburn, C. (1991). In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organizations. London: Macmillan.\nCobb, N. (1995). Gender Wars in Cyberspace. The Boston Globe, 29, 32.\nDaniels, J. (2009). Rethinking cyberfeminism (s): Race, gender, and embodiment. Women`s Studies Quarterly, 37(1/2), 101-124.\nDean, D. (2005). Recruiting a self: women performers and aesthetic labour. Work, employment and society, 19(4), 761-774.\nDworkin, A. (1974). Woman-Hating. New York: Dutton.\nEllison, N. B., & Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. The Oxford handbook of internet studies, 151-172.\nEntwistle, J., & Wissinger, E. (2006). Keeping up appearances: aesthetic labour in the fashion modelling industries of London and New York. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 774-794.\nEverett, A. (Eds.). (2007). Learning Race and Ethnicity. MacArthur Series, Digital Media and Learning. Boston: MIT Press.\nFernandez, M., Wilding, F., & Wright, M. (Eds.). (2003). Domain Errors! Cyberfeminist Practices. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.\nFlanagan, M., & Booth, A. (Eds.). (2002). Reload: Rethinking Women + Cyberculture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.\nFoucault, M. (1972). “Two Lectures”. In Gordin, C. (Eds.). (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings, 1972–1977, (pp. 78-108). New York: Pantheon Books.\nFoucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. New York, NY: Random House.\nFoucault, M. (1983). The Subject and Power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.\nFoucault, M. (1985). The History of Sexuality (Vol. 2): The Use of Pleasure. New York: Pantheon.\nGajjala, R. (2003). South Asian Digital Diasporas and Cyberfeminist Webs: Negotiating Globalization, Nation, Gender, and Information Technology Design. Contemporary South Asia, 12(1): 41-56.\nGill, R. (2005). Review: Technofeminism. Science as Culture, 14(l): 97-101.\nGill, R. (2007). Gender and the Media. Polity Press.\nGimlin, D. (2007). What is ‘body work’? A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 353-370.\nGong, L., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Sexting and Slut-shaming: Why Prosecution of Teen Self-sexters Harms Women. Geo. J. Gender & L., 13, 577.\nHalliwell, E., Malson, H., & Tischner, I. (2011). Are contemporary media images which seem to display women as sexually empowered actually harmful to women?. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 38-45.\nHarcourt, W. (2000a) World Wide Women and the Web. In D. Gauntlett (Eds.). Web Studies (pp. 150-158). London: Arnold.\nHarcourt, W. (2000b). The Personal and the Political: Women Using the Internet. CyberPsychology and Behavior 3: 693-97.\nHipkins, D. (2011). `Whore-ocracy`: Show Girls, the Beauty Trade-Off, and Mainstream Oppositional Discourse in Contemporary Italy. Italian Studies, 66(3), 413-430.\nHochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.\nKendall, L. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.\nLemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.\nManne, K. (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.\nMcCormick, N., & Leonard, J. (1996). Gender and Sexuality in the Cyberspace Frontier. Women & Therapy, 19(4), 109-119.\nMulvey, L. (1989). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. In Visual and other pleasures, 14-26. Palgrave Macmillan, London.\nNa, M. (2001). The Home Computer in Korea: Gender, Technology, and the Family. Feminist Media Studies, 1(3): 291-306.\nNyboe, L. (2004). `You said I was not a man`: Performing Gender and Sexuality on the Internet. Convergence, 10(2), 62-80.\nO’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1994). Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.\nPham, M. H. T. (2015). “I Click and Post and Breathe, Waiting for Others to See What I See”: On# FeministSelfies, Outfit Photos, and Networked Vanity. Fashion Theory, 19(2), 221-241.\nPlant, S. (1997). Zeroes and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. London: Fourth Estate.\nPlant, S. (2000). On the Matrix: Cyberfeminist Simulations. The Cybercultures Reader, 325-336.\nRosser, S. V. (2005). Through the Lenses of Feminist Theory: Focus on Women and Information Technology. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 1-23.\nSassen, S. (2002). Towards a Sociology of Information Technology. Current Sociology, 50(3): 365-88.\nScott-Dixon, K. (2004). Doing IT: Women Working In Information Technology. Toronto: Sumach Press.\nSenft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). What Does the Selfie Say? Investigating a Global Phenomenon Introduction.\nShea, V. (1995). Not Afraid to Flame. Computerworld, 29(34), 81-82.\nSingh, S. (2003). Gender and the Use of the Internet at Home. New Media and Society, 3(4): 395-416.\nSwartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power – the Sociology of Peirre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nTate, E. (2016). Challenging Women’s Digital Agency: The Frequency of Slut Shaming in Social Media. The iJournal: Graduate Student Journal of the Faculty of Information, 1(1).\nTrekels, J., & Eggermont, S. (2017). Beauty is Good: The Appearance Culture, the Internalization of Appearance Ideals, and Dysfunctional Appearance Beliefs among Tweens. Human Communication Research, 43(2), 173-192.\nTurkle, S. (1997). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.\nTurner, S. L., Hamilton, H., Jacobs, M., Angood, L. M., & Dwyer, D. H. (1997). The Influence of Fashion Magazines on the Body Image Satisfaction of College Women: An Exploratory Analysis. Adolescence, 32(127), 603-615.\nValenti, J. (2010). The purity myth: How America`s obsession with virginity is hurting young women. ReadHowYouWant. com.\nVan Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2): 249-283.\nVeum, A., & Moland Undrum, L. V. (2018). The selfie as a global discourse. Discourse & Society, 29(1), 86–103.\nWarhurst, C., & Nickson, D. (2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and hospitality. Work, employment and society, 21(1), 103-120.\nWellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 8(3), JCMC834.\nWhite, M. (2015). Producing Women: The Internet, Traditional Femininity, Queerness, and Creativity. Routledge.\nWolf, N. (1991). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. US: Harpercollins.\nWollstonecraft, M. (1992). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1792. The Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, 5, 79-266. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 105464027 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105464027 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 402701.pdf | 4.93 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.