SOTL, Objecting to Objecification

The statement “[Clarice Starling] knows that if Bill “sees Catherine as a person and not just an object,” it will be harder to destroy her” (Garrett 1) introduces the main foci of attention of Objecting to Objectification, as well as some of the major themes of the movie Silence of the Lambs. One of the most interesting aspects of Garrett’s paper is that this “objectification of” versus “respect for” an individual is applied not only to the character played by Jodie Foster, but also to Doctor Lecter a.k.a. Hannibal the Cannibal. Oddly, the 14th footnote posits that the phonetic “…similarity between “Doctor” and “Lecter” seems to indicate the degree to which Hannibal Lecter’s position and his person are one” (11). This seems to objecify (or functionify?) Lecter and thus clash with the argument that part of the reason Hannibal treats Clarice with such respect is that, “Clarice, who knows what it is to be an object, treats Lecter as human rather than an object” (8). If he were meant to be objectified as his “position”, why would the theme of his need for camaraderie be an issue? The answer, it seems, is that neither professional courtesy nor personal worth (as evaluated by the Doctor) would be enough to gain his respect – both are needed. I think that it would be more accurate to say that his name signifies that on a personal level Hannibal is a cannibal, but professionally Lecter is a Doctor. His use of the F.B.I. trainee’s first name serves to highlight that his interest is in what is inside her whereas her interest in him is in what he can do for her professionally. As Garret notes, “Clarice’s empathy works differently [than Graham’s]; she does not see things through the eyes of the serial killer who objectifies his victims. Her connection, instead, is to the victims” (7-8).
This interest in her “true nature” serves to elevate Lecter above both the other prisoners (like Miggs) and, more notably, above most of the other males in the work (like Chilton, whose intelligence and manhood were surgically and humorously removed from the equation when Starling rejects him, and then banishes him from the room… putting him on a lower level than herself and Dr. Lecter) (2). As Garrett points out, “Intelligent men, it seems, are those who recognize a woman’s worth and let her do her job” (4) – which most definitely places Hannibal in that category. Simultaneously, “what Lecter seems to respect most about [Clarice], as Terence Rafferty notes…is Starling’s moral core” (8).
Now that I’ve spoken more than enough about the relationship between Starling and the “Good Doctor”, it is time to refocus attention to one of the items that places SOTL as a debated candidate for a feminist work – the objectification of Clarice by the not-so-Intelligent men in the story. In reference to the various walks down the “male gauntlet” (5); I agree with Rober Ebert that “rarely in a movie have I been made more aware of the subtle sexual pressures men put upon women with their eyes”. Having worked in construction, I can affirm that professions (like the military) which are made up mostly of males can tend to exude a more-than-normal overt, aggressive and degrading projected sexuality… possibly to try to justify why a heterosexual male would choose to spend most of his time in the company of men. The habitual “leer” of men serves to objectify women and proliferate an already insidious power dynamic – there is no pretense than a man is looking at anything more than the most superficial level of a woman’s sexuality, and wants her (or more often the other males) to know it. Which brings me to an interresting point, that such objectification of women is designed to affirm a man’s heterosexuality in the mind’s of both others and himself. This points to an insecurity that is not exhibitted by the “intelligent men” in the book. The issue is not in that the man’s gaze becomes fixed on the female body, but rather that the gaze is fixed for the reason of establishing or highlighting a superficial power dynamic, a dynamic which still plagues almost every workplace and has the power to destabilize women and ultimately afirm Clarice’s notion that, “she knew what happened to a woman if she’s ever pegged as a secretary—it sticks until the end of time” (Harris 4).
Clarice proves her strength to Lecter by remaining resilient in the face of a man who, “is accustomed to crushing people through the power of his insight and well-chosen words” (Garrett 3). Her intelligence is undeniable, and she is forced through professional hurdles through which no man of equal intelligence would have to travel. Furthermore, she makes it over the Hannibal Lecter hurdle – which felled every man who tried. While many women may have tried to use their sexuality both for professional advancement and to get to Lecter, Clarice shows a depth of character and an insistence on remaining true – which is what ultimately leads her to success.

My thoughts on "The Mystery of Marie Roget"

I enjoyed reading Poe’s 1842 short story, “‘The Mystery of Marie Roget’ : A Sequel to ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’”. At first, it was a little confusing as to what was going on with the mysterious and dark undertone of the writing; however, we were slowly introduced to the characters and details regarding the murder of Marie Roget though the unnamed narrator. By having the story told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator, I almost felt as if I was deliberately detached from the story he was describing.

The detective, Dupin, used a clever tactic to gather information about the murder, by reading the various newspaper reports, such as L’Etoile, Le Commerceil, and the Le Soleil, which all had varying opinions about the discovery of Roget’s body in the Seine. It was hard to gather truthful evidence in this case, which I found interesting because the officers were offering a huge reward for any information that anyone had.

Eventually, even though there were several suspects, and many loose ends, Dupin was able to use reason to determine that it was a single murderer who dragged Mme Roget’s body across the woods and eventually dump her into the river. Dupin’s character was great, as he was able to look at the case without any emotional attachment. He went beyond the violence of the crime to pick up the details that remained as evidence. This is true detective work!

In one part of the story, Dupin discussed how this case was “a far more intricate case than that of the Rue Morgue; from which it differs in one important respect. This is an ordinary, although an atrocious, instance of crime. There is nothing peculiarly outre about it”. I thought it was ironic how he claimed the case was ordinary, thus was considered easy to solve, and unnecessary to offer a reward… especially, since this story was based off of the murder of Mary Cecilia Rogers, which still remains an unsolved murder case in New York City today. Nevertheless, it was an interesting and enjoyable mystery to read.

Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body: Visit

Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body
This is a fantastic exhibit at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, MD. If anyone has the time to go up there one weekend, it would make for an interesting paper or blog entry! In the meantime, take a look at their site and see what the exhibit is all about. There's a series of entries on the rise of forensics, how to view a body, laboratory examples, what kinds of surveillance systems have been used and the new forensics with DNA and advances in medicine, viewing technology and legal systems.

have you heard?

Here is a photograph of measured ears for Bertillon's criminal sorting process.