Passivity and Violence

How have we come to associate violence with masculinity and passivity with femininity? Jackson Katz (1995) suggests that the root of violence being gendered as male has to do with the feeling of economic powerlessness among working class males, who make up for this "through the use of their body as an instrument of power, dominance, and control...the physical body and its potential for violence provide a concrete means of achieving and asserting 'manhood'"(145). Ludmilla Jordonova (1980) suggests that these notions of passivity and motion, nature and culture, woman and man, oppressed and oppressor imply a distinct power relationship, suggesting that men are powerful, while women are powerless (43). These cultural gender relations, she argues, have historically been legitimized in scientific terms, giving a clear recognizability and power to gendered images of passivity and violence. Referencing the medical wax figures of the eighteenth-century, the theorist notes, "These 'Venuses' as they were significantly called lie on velvet or silk cushions, in a passive, almost sexually inviting pose. Comparable male figures are usually upright, and often in a position of motion (54). Thus, modern Western associations of masculinity with violence and femininity with passivity have acquired not only a historical, but also a biological legitimacy, especially as scholars such as Steven Pinker embark on missions to prove that all human action and motivation is actually derived from a genetic and evolutionary basis, in which it would only make sense for men to be dominant, aggressive bread-winners, and women to be maternal, docile home-makers.

What does it mean when these attributes of violence and passivity are embodied by the "wrong" gender?

Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have gained a reputation for their highly controversial advertising campaigns. Two major themes in their ads is the playing with gender and defying stereotypical gender roles, as well as the interplay between violence and passivity. The designers' ads have repeatedly been accused of conveying sexist or excessively violent themes. The two designers, however, maintain that their constand re-defining of gender norms is, far from damaging, actually empowering for women. In response to the scandalized response to one of their 2007/2008 campaigns portraying women "dominating" men in situations reminiscent of BD/SM (Bondage Domination/Sadomasochism), Gabbana publically announced to the magazine WWD, "Since these images have offended someone, we want to stress that we wanted to represent a strong and dominatrix woman, as in today's woman." While some aruged that these advertisements (pictured below on the top right and left, and in the bottom center) were offensive solely because of their violent content, others protested that the only reason these ads were receiving such negative attention was because the objectification was focused on men here, rather than on women. As part of the world of high fashion -- a realm that considers itself more in line with high art than with practicality -- there is a horizon of expectations for D&G's ad campaigns to contain provocative subject matter, in a similar way that audiences expect artists to challenge their comfort zones. And, indeed, Dulce and Gabbana's advertisements are extremely popular, with dozens of websites devoted to showcasing the photography of D&G ad campaigns, featuring desktop backgrounds and social netwroking site layouts with photographs from the ads. What kinds of messages are these gender bending advertisements communicating, and how are they being read by those who consume them?

Print Ad Analysis

More Related Dolce and Gabbana Advertisements

(Top left, right and bottom center: Fall/Winter 2007/2008;
top center: Spring/Summer 2007;
bottom left and right: Fall/Winter 2006/2007)

Main Menu