''Good Girls'': Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on Campus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Social Psychology Quarterly 2014, Vol. 77(2) 100–122 ‘‘Good Girls’’: Gender, Ó American Sociological Association 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0190272514521220 Social Class, and Slut http://spq.sagepub.com Discourse on Campus Elizabeth A. Armstrong1, Laura T. Hamilton2, Elizabeth M. Armstrong1, and J. Lotus Seeley1 Abstract Women’s participation in slut shaming is often viewed as internalized oppression: they apply disadvantageous sexual double standards established by men. This perspective grants women little agency and neglects their simultaneous location in other social structures. In this article we synthesize insights from social psychology, gender, and culture to argue that undergrad- uate women use slut stigma to draw boundaries around status groups linked to social class—while also regulating sexual behavior and gender performance. High-status women employ slut discourse to assert class advantage, defining themselves as classy rather than tra- shy, while low-status women express class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy sluts for their exclusivity. Slut discourse enables, rather than constrains, sexual experimentation for the high-status women whose definitions prevail in the dominant social scene. This is a form of sexual privilege. In contrast, low-status women risk public shaming when they attempt to enter dominant social worlds. Keywords stigma, status, reputation, gender, class, sexuality, identity, young adulthood, college women, qualitative methods Slut shaming, the practice of maligning university in the Midwest, women labeled women for presumed sexual activity, is other women and marked their distance common among young Americans. For from ‘‘sluttiness.’’ example, Urban Dictionary—a website Women’s participation in slut shaming documenting youth slang—refers those is often viewed as evidence of internalized interested in the term slut to whore, bitch, oppression (Ringrose and Renold 2012). skank, ho, cunt, prostitute, tramp, hooker, This argument proceeds as follows: slut easy,orslug.1 Boys and men are not alone in using these terms (Wolf 1997; Tanen- 1 baum 1999; White 2002). In our ethno- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 2 graphic and longitudinal study of college University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, USA women at a large, moderately selective Corresponding Author: Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Department of Sociology, 1‘‘Slut.’’ Urban Dictionary. Retrieved Decem- University of Michigan, Room 3001 LSA Building, ber 18, 2013 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/ 500 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. define.php?term=slut). Email: [email protected] ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 101 shaming is based on sexual double stand- INTERPRETING SLUT DISCOURSE ards established and upheld by men, to AMONG WOMEN women’s disadvantage. Although young We outline three explanations of women’s men are expected to desire and pursue participation in slut shaming. These sex regardless of relational and emotional approaches are not mutually exclusive, context, young women are permitted sex- in part because the concept of status is ual activity only when in committed rela- central to all three. We treat status as tionships and ‘‘in love’’ (Crawford and the relative positioning of individuals in Popp 2003; Hamilton and Armstrong a hierarchy based on esteem and respect. 2009; Schalet 2011; Bell 2013). Women This approach is fundamentally Weber- are vulnerable to slut stigma when they ian and consistent with (often implicit) violate this sexual standard and conse- definitions of the concept in social psy- quently experience status loss and dis- chology (see Berger, Ridgeway, and Zel- crimination (Phillips 2000; Nack 2002). ditch 2002; Ridgeway 2011; Lucas and Slut shaming is thus about sexual Phelan 2012). Those with high status inequality and reinforces male dominance experience esteem and approval; those and female subordination. Women’s par- with low status are more likely to experi- ticipation works at cross-purposes with ence disregard and stigma. While status progress toward gender equality. systems among adults often focus on occu- In this article, we complicate this pic- pation, among youth they develop in peer ture. We are unconvinced that women cultures (e.g., Eder, Evans, and Parker would engage so enthusiastically in slut 1995; Milner 2006). Since the publication discourse with nothing to gain. Synthesiz- of Coleman’s (1961) The Adolescent Soci- ing insights from social psychological ety, research on American peer cultures research on stigma, gender theory, and has found that youth status is informed cultural sociology, we argue that women’s by good looks, social skills, popularity participation in this practice is only indi- with the other gender, and athleticism— rectly related to judgments about sexual traits that are loosely linked to social activity. Instead it is about drawing class (Adler and Adler 1998). In this class-based moral boundaries that simul- case, status is produced and accrued in taneously organize sexual behavior and the dominant social world on campus— gender presentation. Women’s definitions the largely Greek-controlled party scene of sluttiness revolve around status on (also see Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). campus, which is largely dictated by class From a social psychological stigma background. High-status women employ approach, sexual labeling is primarily slut discourse to assert class advantage, about distancing the self from a stigma- defining their styles of femininity and tized, and thus low-status, sexual cate- approaches to sexuality as classy rather gory. Another approach suggests that than trashy. Low-status women express labeling regulates public gender perfor- class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy mance. A final, cultural approach sug- sluts for their wealth, exclusivity, and gests that labeling facilitates the drawing participation in casual sexual activity. of class boundaries via distinctive styles For high-status women—whose defini- of performing gender. Individuals at tions prevail in the dominant social both ends of the status hierarchy seek to scene—slut discourse enables, rather apply their definitions of stigma, but than constrains, sexual experimentation. only high-status individuals succeed in In contrast, low-status women are vulner- the spaces where status is produced. able to public shaming. 102 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) Sexuality, Stigma, and Defensive code already imposed by a dominant Othering group’’ (Schwalbe et al. 2000:425). Social psychologists view the attribution In this case, however, the above model of negative meaning to a human differ- does not fully apply. As we will demon- ence as initiating the stigma process strate, women’s criteria for applying the (see Link and Phelan’s 2001 model; also slut label were not widely shared. There Lucas and Phelan 2012). The focus of appeared to be no group of women consis- tently identified as sluts—at least by most contemporary work in this tradition women. Everyone succeeded at avoiding is on how individuals cope once a ‘‘social stable classification. Yet slut stigma still identity, or membership in some social felt very real. Women were convinced category, calls into question his or her that actual sluts existed and organized full humanity’’ (Crocker 1999:89; see their behaviors to avoid this label. Thus, also Jones et al. 1984). Research on the an explanation that ends with women’s management of stigma offers insight attempts to evade slut stigma by deflect- into how the stigmatized respond to their ing it onto other women is unsatisfying. situations (Goffman 1963; Major and We employ a discursive approach to O’Brien 2005; Killian and Johnson explain how individual efforts to deflect 2006; Saguy and Ward 2011; Thoits stigma reaffirm its salience for all women. 2011). One strategy involves deflecting stigma onto others (Blinde and Taub 1992; Pyke and Dang 2003; Payne 2010; Gender Performance and the Trautner and Collett 2010). This process, Circulation of Stigma referred to by Schwalbe and coauthors The ‘‘doing gender’’ tradition suggests (2000) as ‘‘defensive othering,’’ helps that slut stigma regulates the gender pre- explain women’s participation in slut sentations of all girls and women (Eder et stigma. The perspective suggests that al. 1995; Tanenbaum 1999). The empha- women—as subordinates to men—fear sis is on how women are sanctioned for contamination and thus work to distance failing to perform femininity acceptably themselves from stigma. This model cor- (West and Zimmerman 1987). This sug- responds with the taken-for-granted gests that slut stigma is more about regu- approach described at the start of the lating public gender performance than article. regulating private sexual practices. The framework outlined by Schwalbe Taking this approach further, Pascoe et al. (2000) and applied by a variety of (2007) draws on Foucault (1978) and But- scholars makes several assumptions: sub- ler (1990) to analyze the circulation of the ordinates accept the legitimacy of classifi- fag epithet among adolescent boys. She cation while distancing themselves from shows that the ubiquitous threat of being the stigmatized category. There is a clear labeled regulates performances by all line between subordinates and oppres- boys, ensuring conformity with hege- sors, with some people stably located in monic masculinity. Boys jockey for rank the subordinate category. Distancing is in peer hierarchies by lobbing the fag seldom fully successful; those engaged in label at each other in a game of ‘‘hot defensive othering do not escape