The function of Female representation in British World War Two propaganda
Chapter One
Women as carers
War propaganda was described “as instruments for promoting and disseminating war aims, social cohesion, ideological purpose and various forms of citizenship” (Aulich, J, 2007:2 War Posters: weapons of mass communication, London, Thames & Hudson).
Throughout most of the First World War, the purpose of women was obvious, and war propaganda kept it’s promise by clearly promoting this purpose to the public.
Purpose being, of course, this stereotype that labeled all women as carers, housewives, the ones that didn’t go to War, the ones who barely contributed in it for that matter. It could even be that in some posters, the representation of women could be eliminated all together, as their ‘purpose’ was so pointless, that there was not much point in addressing it at all. Their duty within most First World War propaganda was to accompany the Men, their role being far less superior. Studying Figure 64, the woman is represented only by words. There is the striking image of the soldier, dressed in his authoritative uniform, perched with all his necessary attire and two ‘working’ men in the background. The connotations behind this image suggest high levels of importance. The man is the main focus; he immediately communicates war, masculinity and purpose. The recognition we get of ‘her’, is the letter he is writing to her. The amount of ‘caring’ aspects that are expressed through this poster are numerous; The type that reads ‘Keep on sending me OXO’, not only does this sound more of a demand, which addresses the fact that he is superior enough to ask for such treatment, but it explores the idea of it being her job. The repetitiveness that is shown in, ‘keep on sending me’ is the idea that she has to serve him, whilst he serves his country. Automatically her social status is degraded. Her role as a woman, her role as a contribution to the Great War, is to keep on sending her ‘working’ husband OXO. Her role is to care for him. She does not have a face, or a name, but she isn’t important, the soldier in the poster is, and so he must be cared for.
This idea of propaganda promoting social cohesion, is discussed some what differently through Ellul. This idea that an individual was addressed as a group, “that the individual never is considered as an individual, but always in terms of what he has in common with others, such as his motivations, his feelings, or his myths” (Ellul, J 1973:7 Propaganda, the formation of men’s attitudes, United States, Random House). This could relate to both men and women. Roles of both were distinguished by what was portrayed through such propaganda, the idea that all men should be in uniform, at war, receiving OXO in parcels from their caring, slave-like housewives. Immediately we are confronted with visual representations (even without an actual image of the woman) of how both gender groups should be. Such a large aspect of successful propaganda was that it was able to attack an individual’s independent beliefs, issues and opinions, but when “propaganda is addressed to a crowd, it must touch each individual in that crowd, in that whole group” (Ellul, J 1973:7 Propaganda, the formation of men’s attitudes, United States, Random House). Therefore this idea of individuality is actually non-existent, both men and women were given roles, the same roles running throughout each gender group. This apparent segregation of men and women is caused by the lack of social cohesion promoted by propaganda. It glues fraudulent societies together, one society being men, the other, women, conjured up by Government opinion (not an individual).
However, independence is weakened further for women. This iconic poster (see Figure 102), shows two women and a child in a state of security. They are labelled as ‘Women of Britain’, which once again, clearly states that particular social group, and their clothes and overall situation connotes a mixture of messages. The image actually centralises the woman figure, portraying her as quite important, she is higher up than the small group of soldiers, who also seem to be leaving the frame. However, this idea of the men leaving, does communicate their ability to go, their independence. The text even states ‘Women of Britain say GO!’, so already we are confronted with a lack of purpose on the women’s behalf. The fact she is looking out of the window suggests she cannot leave the house, her role obviously being the role of a ‘housewife’. We can now link this with the other poster (see figure 64), our visual representation of the women who sent the soldier Oxo, is similar to that of the women stood inside the house. Gender grouping is shown with such clarity within this poster (figure 102), the soldiers are in an actual, structured group in uniform, with their large weapons. Then there is a cluster of women and children, in the corner, in the safety of the house.
Why does propaganda set out to group individuals? Why are there groups? “We accept to a greater or lesser extent the goals and expected behaviour patterns of a group to which we belong” (Burton, G 1998:106, More Than Words: An introduction to Communication, UK, Routledge). This can be analysed ideologically, in the sense that people joined groups to evenly distribute the work load, to achieve goals that may be far more difficult without doing so. The government portraying these gender groups as they did, enabled them to target the right individuals to join the right jobs. Their authority instantly granted them this luxury of luring in others, giving them more of a chance of success within whatever roles they considered hard to achieve individually. It could be described as “ideological abuse” (Barthes, R, 2000:11, Mythologies, London, Vintage), individuals are roped into joining groups that completely disable their chance of really being independent. So whilst it seemed women were seen as less independent because of the social, gender group they were in, actually, were men’s groups also decreasing their independence too? “We assign status to various groups although there may not be universal agreement on which groups confer which status. One person wears a uniform with pride which another person wouldn’t be seen dead in” (Burton, G 1998:104, More Than Words: An introduction to Communication, UK, Routledge). Once reading this, you automatically stage the authoritative character being that of perhaps a Sergeant, or someone of higher value amongst your average soldier. Perhaps it suggests a government figure instead, someone who’s authority, grants him power over everyone’s roles in life. Although, could this statement of ‘uniform’ be so literal, that it suggests the divide between men and women throughout The First World War? There were those who wore the uniform, and there were those who “wouldn’t been seen dead in it”. So without this stereotypical uniform that women were rarely seen in, what other roles could they possibly contribute to other than caring for those who were able to wear it?
Female: a male’s object
“Woman as image, Man as bearer of the look”
(Mulvey, L, 1989:19, Visual and Other Pleasures, New York, Palgrave)
As women began to appear more so in later First World War propaganda and then far more amongst World War Two propaganda, outlooks onto this propaganda varied between sexist, and respectful. A later piece of World War One propaganda produced in 1917, shows a women slicing a loaf of bread for her child, (see figure 111). If this were a form of contemporary advertising, the women would not be sexually appealing, connotations behind her clothes suggests plainness, and show no sign of trying to show her off sexually. In a long-sleeved shirt, and long skirt, she is completely covered, the lack of thighs and cleavage suggest perhaps men saw women differently in 1917. However, gaze theoretically speaking, she was still an ‘object’, her role in First World War was very much so to do with caring, and being a good housewife. “What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents” (Mulvey, L, 1989:19, Visual and Other Pleasures, New York, Palgrave). So a women dressed in dreary, dull clothes, could be seen as unattractive, but did the loaf of bread, and sense of hospitality reassure the Men, in the sense that perhaps a women’s sexual attraction was not within her sex appeal, but more so, her role as being that particular sex, that specific gender, that men could not live without. Did they fantasise over having the luxury and security of the perfect housewife, than the perfect female figure and sex instead?
“Men govern themselves and others” (Fiske, J, 1998:51, Understanding popular culture, London, Routledge)
Another British poster produced in 1916 (see figure 1) could also represent this image that women had, attracting men. Semiotically analysing this image, once again, her clothes are in no way ‘sexually appealing’, and she is holding a pot of ‘food’ which communicates she is a worthy cook and housewife. She is dressed in a non-provocative way (therefore the likeliness of her being seen as a sex symbol for other men is unapparent, which could enhance security within her own, one relationship), and her situation suggests she can cook, she can look after you. So was it this idea of lack of sexual appeal that actually made the image of a women sexually appealing? Could it be that the idea of ‘owning’ a perfect housewife was what men found attractive. Analysing this through feminist views, it could be that the authority men had over women, the feeling of power they had, where women served as their slaves, was it this that attracted them to women. Is this propaganda exploiting women as objects, and highlighting this “domination in which men as a group have power over women as a group” (Storey, J, 1993:135, Cornwall, MPG Books Ltd). This also links again with the segregation of men and women, into two social groups, one in uniform, one not.
Conversely, as propaganda progresses into the Second World War, we begin to see different representations of women. The posters that aimed to prevent bad Chinese whispers, are those labelled with the tagline ‘Careless talk costs lives’, (see figure 211). “The woman provided an obvious stereotype as sexually alluring” (Aulich, J, 2007:172 War Posters: weapons of mass communication, London, Thames & Hudson). This poster connotes women in a more familiar way, more skin is shown, she is wearing make up, her feminine figure is more visible and overall, her sexual appeal,(in our contemporary understanding of it), is much more obvious. In fact, her appearance within the image is a lot more superior then what has been seen before of women within war propaganda. She is most definitely the main focus, and her social status seems to have grown to maybe a little higher than the men surrounding her? The text is negatively positive, it suggests an improvement of how women were viewed, but also clearly states how women once were viewed. ‘Keep mum she’s not so dumb’, stating how women were once perceived as ‘dumb mums’ is extremely degrading, however the text and image combined shows a big improvement for how this ‘group’ were now seen as. Although men may have the more authoritative jobs, and purpose within the War, in this image, especially, do women seem to have a peculiar power over men, in which they simply flaunt their femininity. Men become less strong, their masculinity weakened when women are “looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact” (Mulvey, L, 1989:19, Visual and Other Pleasures, New York, Palgrave). This impact being stronger than the uniform men dressed in, the structured, monotonous uniform that the male group all wore. This idea of individuality seems to be creeping back into the female society, whilst all the men surrounding her are dressed in what appears to be uniform, she is sat, confidently wearing a dress that no other women has to wear.
“She is isolated, glamorous, on display, sexualised. But as the narrative progresses she falls in love with the main male protagonist and becomes his property, losing her outward glamerous characteristics, her generalised sexuality, her show girl connotations; her eroticism is subjected to the male star alone. By means of identification with him, through participation in his power” (Mulvey, L, 1989:21, Visual and Other Pleasures, New York, Palgrave
Does the lack of her being within a group actually make her the hierarchy figure? The joining of a group meant she would have had to “sacrafice some individual freedom of action” (Burton, G 1998:106, More Than Words: An introduction to Communication, UK, Routledge). Now as a more independent figure, does this women, although still an object, bear a far more superior purpose. Studying the image further, the men are talking around her, looking at her, she seems separate from the men. However, does this independence grant her with a better social status or does it in fact lower it. She seems too much like an object too be looked at only, there seems to be a lack of interactivity that could eliminate her from society completely. The lack of her having a label/group could distance herself from having that role, that crucial role that made her a part of society. Does she still need that uniform that labeled her, is her as an object actually forcing her into having less of an objective within society.
Women as producers
“Even though the differentiation of sexual stereotypes is rightly being challenged, there still presently remain some expectations about appropriate behavior for men and women” (Burton, G 1998:108, More Than Words: An introduction to Communication, UK, Routledge)
In 1917, the first and biggest women’s service for World War One was established. It was the ‘Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps’, by the end of the war it consisted of 40,000 women. Other organisations and institutes were formed, some being, The Women’s Royal Navy service (founded in 1917) and the Women’s Royal Air Force (formed 1918). This introduction of women working productively in the war not only raised their employment rates to 7,310,500 women, but also increased their purpose and social status within society.
Is Burton’s quote referring to the “expectations about appropriate behaviour for men and women” (Burton, G 1998:108, More Than Words: An introduction to Communication, UK, Routledge), still acknowledgeable throughout this new era of pro-feminine propaganda, or do women of war actually metaphorically fall into the same group as men. Studying figure 238, the representation of women is most definitely a strong, purposeful ‘producer’. Semiotically analysing the image, the producers lye within both the man and woman, they are both in uniform, (which remains to be a strong representation of status within society), and the woman is placed closer, and higher up in the image. This suggests her authority literally, in terms of the subject being communicated through the image.
Foucault explores how “power produces knowledge, power and knowledge directly imply one another, there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge” (Storey, J, 1993:97, Cornwall, MPG Books Ltd). Immediately the perception of women has changed drastically, through one image, women are seen differently. However this is due to the representation of her through this image, she is defined as a producer. This knowledge that she seems to now behold has granted her power. She is no longer being referred to as “dumb” or “mum”, but as a server, a producer alongside the men in the WAAF. Her role as a producer has given women the chance to gain more power within society, among her own gender group.
Conversely, has this image, theoretically, also confronted the issue of women serving men. Although they appear to be serving proactively in war, they seem to have this new established power, this authority, the text “Serve in the WAAF, with the men who fly”, could disagree with this. “He is merely a man at the service of a party, a State, or some other organisation, and his task is to insure the efficiency of that organisation” (Ellul, J 1973:197 Propaganda, the formation of men’s attitudes, United States, Random House). Is the collaboration among the ‘men who fly’ what gives the women their new power? Are they still serving men, as they always have done? Ellul states that part of a man’s success lies within the efficiency of his organisation. Is a women’s involvement in that, a women working for men to ensure success. Is that power, or merely women reverting back to their original role as ‘carers’. Were the expectations of women’s roles prior to 1917 too damaged to permit them any more commitment to war work, than serving alongside men, or “as we are all born equal, we should be treated as equals” (Hughes, C, 2002:33, Feminist Theory and Research, London, Sage Publications Ltd). Should women be serving with the men who fly, or as the men who fly.
No comments:
Post a Comment