Miss America Contestants and the Self: Evidence for
Empowerment
By Brook Matthews
2
Table of Contents
I. Dedication
II Introduction
A. Description of Topic
III. Literature Review
A. History of Miss America
B. Pageant Boot Camp: Legitimizing the Queen
C. Empowerment
D. The Male Gaze
E. Gender Oppression
F. The Self and TST
IV. Methodology
A. Research Questions
B. Measuring the Contestant Self
V. Results and Analysis
A. Part One – Nature of the Self
B. Part Two – Subject Matter
C. Part Three – Strength of the Self
VI. Conclusion
VII. About the Author
VIII. Appendix
A. Table 4: Tally Sheet for Parts One, Two and Three
B. Coding Instructions
C. Coding Sheet
D. I-statement examples
IX. Bibliography
3
Dedication
“Empowerers seek to foster growth in others by assisting
individuals in finding and using their own power” (Muller, 1994).
This work is dedicated to the empowerers in my life; those who have
helped me find and use my own power to do things I only dreamed about as a
child. I often speak about my first experience as a pageant contestant and what a
defining moment that was. For the first time in my life, I truly felt proud of who I
was and what I was doing. That experience translated into a philosophy that has
guided me ever since: I can accomplish great things by believing in myself and
taking a chance. However, it took the encouragement and open-heartedness of the
following empowerers to provide the direction and opportunities for me to
exercise that philosophy:
Dr. Montgomery, who told me four years ago, “Everyone has a story.”
She has since assisted me in writing a new chapter in my own story, by spending
countless hours reviewing the work you are about to read. With an eagle-eye for
recognizing the potential of her students, she works selflessly in helping them
achieve their dreams.
Dr. Wicks, who has an uncanny way of pushing her students until they are
intellectually exhausted and think they can go no further. Just when we think
we’ve reached the edge, her understanding of life as a student emboldens us to go
one step further than we ever imagined.
4
Bill Matthews, my father, who I have always turned to for advice. He
served as an objective critic and has reviewed this work several times, helping me
remove my “pageant blinders” so I could see MAO for what it is – warts and all.
Rhonda Matthews, my mother and confidant, who has stood beside me
every step of the way. She is who I turn to for an ear to gripe at or a shoulder to
cry on…Lord knows there were plenty of those moments during the past few
months!
My “pageant family”: Directors, volunteers and fellow contestants. The
experiences I have shared with you are what started me on this “journey of selfexploration.” I hope this work will help us all better understand ourselves and our
critics, that we may be able to improve and more effectively defend MAO.
I am pleased to share with these people the result of their encouragement
and direction. One of the most important lessons learned in writing this is that
empowerment is a chain linking people together through the relationships they
build. My hope is that following graduation, I will be able to continue the chain
of empowerment through the new relationships I build. Seeing the results of such
an endeavor will truly be one of life’s “crowning” achievements.
5
Introduction
Description of Topic - For more than 80 years, the Miss America pageant
has prompted positive and negative emotional responses from contestants and
viewers alike, signaling society’s ambivalence “when female beauty is equated
with competitiveness and must be judged” (Watson & Martin, p. 123). Protests of
the pageant that began in the 1920s led to regulations and changes aimed at the
systematic legitimization of the pageant as a way to empower women. Such
legitimization has come in the form of rules and contestant contracts, judging
procedures, changes in telecast format, and most importantly, the pageant’s
position as a scholarship program that empowers women.
This study examines the rule changes that led to today’s Miss America
(MA) pageant’s main focus – awarding scholarship to women – which the Miss
America Organization (MAO) claims sets the program apart from “beauty
contests” and gives it a noble raison d’etre.
MAO is the world’s largest provider of scholarships to women, awarding
more than $40 million each year in scholarship monies to thousands of contestants
(Greco, p. 53). While scholarships are the cornerstone of MAO, a focus on
personal growth, development and empowerment is also a key component of the
program’s mission:
“The Miss America Organization is a not-for-profit organization that has
maintained a tradition for many decades of empowering American women to
achieve their personal and professional goals, while providing a forum for them to
6
express their opinions, talents and intelligence,” (Miss America Mission
Statement).
Despite the organization’s attempt to focus on scholarship, personal
growth, development and empowerment, the pageant has long had a “meat
market” reputation in which young women’s bodies are displayed and ogled at
during swimsuit competition. “The basic, and base, pageant appeal is and always
has been, girl-watching – and the fewer clothes, the better,” (Deford, p. 11).
Beauty contests were not uncommon in the years leading up to the first MA
pageant. However, what set MA apart from early beauty contests was its
inclusion of the bathing suit competition. This early focus on young women in
bathing attire proved to be a successful promotional gimmick benefiting Atlantic
City resort owners, as over 100,000 spectators gathered to watch (Timeline). It
was during this time that, “Producers of even ‘legitimate’ theatrical venues found
that the display of women, particularly in scanty attire, was lucrative business,”
(Latham, p. 154).
Critics charge that “the display” of female bodies, which the MA pageant
seems to represent, contributes to the objectification of women. This
objectification is said to occur through the pageant’s ability to set up “the gaze,”
or “visual inspection of the body,” (Kaschak 1992; Fredrickson & Roberts, p.
175). Stage competition, especially swimsuit competition, is where “the gaze”
primarily occurs within the pageant. In addition to objectification during stage
competitions, contestants also face the objectifying gaze on a day-to-day basis
from other contestants, parents, directors and coaches. Consequently, the meat-
7
market atmosphere of the pageant is said to contribute to the objectification of
contestants that may put them at risk for developing psychological problems,
including depression, eating disorders and sexual dysfunction (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997).
However, contestant testimonials such as one made by Miss Nebraska
2000, Jill Pennington, support Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) observation that
not all women respond to objectification in the same way:
“My participation in the Miss America Program has given me so much;
friendships, public speaking skills, memories, scholarships. However, I believe
the most valuable benefit for me has been an increased sense of self,”
(Pennington, 2001).
Maintaining a sense of personal power in the face of objectification is
essential to success in the pageant world and some say MA contestants have
mastered the art of not letting anyone “rattle their cage.” In doing so, these young
women may have found a strength that could be used to help other women
overcome the negative impacts of objectification.
This paper examines whether MA is accomplishing its mission of
empowerment by exploring the phenomenon of personal power among MA
contestants in terms of the nature and strength of the self, as well as subject matter
they talk about when referring to the self. The lack of research on this topic and
the need to improvise quantitative measurement tools mean that this thesis cannot
answer this question definitively; instead, this is a pilot exploration. The author
acknowledges that the pageant does, in fact, judge physical beauty, which may
8
cause some contestants to feel objectified. However, the study suggests that some
contestants read the objectification in the reverse of the first-glance meaning
(what some authors call a “subversive reading” that is the opposite of the firstglance meaning), thereby turning their situation into an opportunity for personal
growth. The following framework will be used to gauge MA contestant
empowerment:
Strong Sense of Self=>Personal Power=>Empowerment
Many aspects of the pageant process are examined with special attention
to questions MA contestants must answer in front of an audience during
competition. The next section, the literature review, explains some of the steps
taken by MAO to legitimize the pageant, the components of empowerment, and
the link between objectification and “the gaze.”
9
Literature Review
History of Miss America - Atlantic City resort
owners began the pageant in 1921 as a promotional gimmick
to extend the summer vacation season. The Inter-City
Beauty Pageant, part of Atlantic City’s Fall Frolic, was
MA 1921 Margaret Gorman
sponsored by several national newspapers and attracted eight
contestants. Thousands of onlookers watched as 15-year-old Margaret Gorman of
Washington, D.C., was crowned Miss America in a swimsuit. (Timeline)
Latham (1995) claims that the pageant acted as a catalyst in the
legitimization of public displays of female nudity. At a time when swimwear
censorship was strictly enforced,
the Miss America pageant sprung
up uninhibited by rules applied to
beach-goers. Rules included
proper skirt length and the donning
of tights to cover the lower part of
the leg (Latham, p. 152). “They
1921 Swimsuit Line-up, Gorman on far right.
(women) may blister their backs and necks if they wish, but not the lower part of
their legs,” said Long Island Police Capain, Walter Barriscale, of the restrictions
(“Bars Beach Lizards”, New York Times, 27 May 1921). Women who broke the
rules faced serious penalties such as arrest and jail time. However, police officers
that enforced dress codes on the beach flocked to watch scantily clad contestants
model the forbidden swimsuits on the stage. In 1921, the pageant became an
10
“acceptable” display of feminine “nudity” and swimsuit competition became a
mainstay of American pageantry.
The “display” provided by the pageant proved successful, and by 1923
more than 70 contestants converged in Atlantic City to participate (Timeline).
However, the looming depression and negative media attention brought on by,
“Charges of fraud, contestants being married, falsifying residences and other
factors,” shut the pageant down from 1929 to 1932 (Latham, p. 108; Banner, p.
12). In 1923, “Miss” Boston came to the pageant with her husband and seven
month-old baby and “Miss” Alaska, also married, was a resident of New York
City (Watson & Martin, p. 107-108). Religious and women’s groups labeled the
pageant “indecent” and accused the program of corrupting national morality, as
one early protestor stated, “Before the competition, the contestants were splendid
examples of innocence and pure womanhood. Afterward, their heads were filled
with vicious ideas,” (Transcript).
Lenora Slaughter was hired in 1935 to polish the pageant’s reputation.
She made changes that improved and protected the pageant’s
reputation. Age restrictions were put in place (women ages
18-26); and talent competition was added (Timeline).
Slaughter installed the society matron chaperone system that
is still in place today to guard contestants from “unscrupulous
Executive Director Lenora
Slaughter
men.” Contestants were also required to sign contracts guaranteeing that they
had not committed acts of “moral turpitude.”
11
In 1940, the pageant name was officially changed from “The Showman’s
Variety Jubilee” to the “Miss America Pageant” and was moved to its current
home in the Atlantic City’s Convention Hall (Watson & Martin, p. 109). Only
one contestant was allowed to represent each state; Mu Alpha Sigma, the pageant
sorority, was organized; and contestants were limited to a one-time opportunity to
compete at the national pageant (Watson & Martin, p. 109).
WWII turned Convention Hall into Army barracks, and pageant officials
considered postponing the pageant until the war was over (Watson & Martin, p.
109). However, it was decided that the pageant should continue so that it could
provide a “positive moment in an otherwise sad time” (Watson & Martin, p. 109).
This decision foreshadowed a similar decision made by contestants of the 2001
competition, following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. During the war, MA became
a symbol of patriotism as demonstrated by MA 1943 Jean Bartel, who turned
down a movie offer to sell a record number of war bonds (Timeline).
1944 marked a turning point in MAO history as Lenora Slaughter began
gathering sponsors for a pageant scholarship fund
and enlisted Junior Chambers of Commerce
across the country to sponsor local and state
pageants. Bess Myerson, the first and only Jewish
MA, was the recipient of the first MAO
1957 MA Parade
scholarship in 1945. Slaughter had raised $5,000 from sponsors including Joseph
Bancroft & Sons, Catalina Swimwear, F.W. Fitch Company, and the Sandy
12
Valley Grocery Company (Timeline). From that year on, MA became more than
a typical American beauty pageant—it became a grassroots scholarship program.
The press corps stormed out of AC in 1948, when for the first time in
MAO history, the winner was crowned in an evening gown rather than a
swimsuit. Movement away from focus on swimsuit competition was accelerated
when MA 1951 Yolande Betbeze refused to appear in a swimsuit. Event sponsor
Catalina Swimwear was alienated by Betbeze’s decision and dropped its
sponsorship of the pageant. Several years later, the company started the for-profit
Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, in which swimsuit competition accounts
for 30 percent of contestant scores. (Timeline)
Despite a rift over swimsuits in the late forties, the
1950s was a golden age for MA. With Philco Electronics as
a sponsor, MA went live on ABC in 1954 and 27 million
viewers tuned in (Timeline). By the end of the decade, Bert
Parks was the official pageant emcee, representation all of 50
Pageant Emcee Bert Parks
states had been achieved, the viewing audience had tripled
and the scholarship fund had grown to $250,000 (Deford, p. 193; Watson &
Martin, p. 110).
The civil and women’s rights movements of the 1960s led to difficulties
for MA. The pageant was declared racist and
sexist, and by 1965, MAO Chairman Albert
Marks faced “accusations that the pageant was
exploitative and degrading to women,” (Watson
1968 Protest
13
& Martin, p. 111). The 1968 pageant was the target of a “zap” action orchestrated
by the New York Radical Women’s group. Hundreds of angry women, traveling
from as far as California, gathered in front of Convention Hall to protest the
pageant, because, as protest organizer Robin Morgan put it, MA represented a
“…degrading, mindless-boob-girlie symbol,” (Timeline). Rita Freedman, author
of Beauty Bound, said the pageant, “…seemed to epitomize woman’s role as a
passive, decorative object,” (vii). During the protest, participants threw curlers,
girdles, high heels and bras into the famous “freedom trash can.” Rumors of bra
burning were false because protestors were unable to secure a fire permit from the
city (Watson & Martin, 111; American Experience).
Following the protest, the pageant lost support from sponsor Pepsi-Cola,
which said the pageant no longer represented the changing values of American
society (Timeline). The company’s observations were reflected by the fact that
the number of articles published in newspapers and magazines dropped to 20—
fewer than in any other decade (The Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature;
Watson & Martin, p. 111). “The pageant was the antithesis of much of the
American culture at that time,” (Watson & Martin, p. 111).
Strong criticism from civil rights activists throughout the 1970s led to the
quiet elimination of Rule #7 in the MA contract signed by contestants, which
required them to be, “in good health and of the white race,” (Timeline). Cheryl
Brown, Miss Iowa 1970, was the first black contestant to compete on the national
level. In 1980, Miss Washington Doris Hayes and Miss Arkansas Lencola
14
Sullivan became the first black contestants to make Top 10 (Sullivan also became
the first black woman to land in the Top Five as fourth runner-up).
Vanessa Williams became the first black MA in 1983 and faced
opposition from several groups. White supremacists sent death threats, and the
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) issued a statement that her looks were not
“black” enough (Watson & Martin, p. 113). Her reign ended in shame when the
networks announced that Penthouse Magazine was going print nude pictures of
Williams. In July 1984, she relinquished her crown.
Another breakthrough for the program occurred when Kaye Lani Rae
Rafko, Miss America 1988, became the
first MA to dedicate her year of service to
a social issue as an advocate for the
terminally ill (Timeline). Inspired by her
mission, in 1989 MAO began requiring all
MA 1988 Kay Lani Rae Rafko
contestants on the local, state and national levels to develop a platform issue
(Timeline). The requirement marked another turning point in the role of MA—
she was no longer just a beautiful girl, but a woman who could use her power to
make a difference.
The 1990s opened the doors for many different types of contestants, from
the crowning of the first disabled MA, Heather Whitestone (deaf), to the diabetic
MA 1998 Nicole Johnson. Angela Perez Baraquio, MA 2001, was the first Asian
American to win the title. The current MA 2003, Erika Harold, has been
described as a “one-woman melting pot,” with a mixture of African American,
15
Native American, Russian, Greek, German, Welsh and English roots (Greco,
2002).
Pageant Boot Camp: Legitimizing the Queen – Contestants must
successfully compete and win on the local and state levels before competing at the
national pageant in Atlantic City. On each level, contestants are scored in
swimsuit, evening gown and talent competitions, and a 12-minute interview.
They are assigned a composite score, which reflects a contestants’ overall
impression on the judges. Each member on a panel of five judges gives each
contestant a score ranging from one to 10, with 10 being a perfect score, in each
phase of competition.
Prior to competing, contestants are required to fill out fact sheets listing
activities and accomplishments and write a critical issue statement, or essay,
about a platform they would like to promote as a titleholder. A platform is
“nothing more than a particular issue that is a significant concern to us and one
that we want to dedicate much of our effort to during the 365 days we have our
respective jobs,” (Baker, p. C-5). This requirement, enacted in 1989, prompted
500,000 hours of community service completed by contestants in 2002 (Greco,
2002). The paperwork provided by contestants is given to judges as a resource
for generating interview questions. Judges are also permitted to ask questions
about current events reported in the media.
At the national pageant, contestants spend three nights competing in
“preliminaries”, which consist of the competitions mentioned above. Divided into
three groups – Mu, Alpha and Sigma – contestants compete in one phase of
16
competition per night. Finals are traditionally held on Saturday night, during
which time contestants with the highest scores proceed onto further competition.
In recent years, MAO has changed the Saturday night format from a strictly Top
10 competition in the 2000 telecast, to a Top 20 competition in the 2001 telecast,
and to a Top 15 in the 2002 telecast.
Regardless of how competition is narrowed down, contestants who
advance are required to compete for a second round in all phases of competition
and are eventually narrowed down to a Top Five. These remaining contestants
are asked a series of questions similar to those asked during the interview.
However, during the 2002 telecast, Top Five contestants were required to answer
questions in a format similar to the popular game show, “Who wants to be a
millionaire?”. For the purposes of this study, the 1960 and 2000 telecasts
employed the traditional Top Five question-and-answer format.
MAO has tried to legitimize the pageant by downplaying the focus on
physical beauty through changes in the official names and in scoring weights
given to all phases of competition, as noted in the “You be the Judge” section of
the MA 2002 Competition program book (Greco, 2002). These changes were
made to more accurately reflect what MA does during her year of service – speak
to civic groups, schools and government assemblies such as Congress.
Scoring Breakdown as of 2002 (Greco, 2002): Talent competition (30
percent of preliminary score and 20 percent of final score) is referred to as
“Artistic Expression in Talent.” Talent is judged on the following criteria:
Technical skill, quality of performance, stage presence, and interest/entertainment
17
value of the performance. Swimsuit competition (10 percent of preliminary and
final scores) is referred to as “Lifestyle and Fitness in Swimsuit” and is judged on
the following criteria: Lifestyle of good physical, emotional and intellectual
health; drive, energy, charisma and expression; and sense of confidence,
attractiveness and presence. Evening gown competition (10 percent of
preliminary and final scores) is referred to as “Presence and Poise in Evening
Wear” and is judged on the following criteria: Compelling charm, presence and
personality; and beauty, sense of style, composure and allure. The interview, also
known as “Community Achievement in Interview,” accounts for the majority of
the preliminary score (40 percent of the score). This competition allows
contestants to show their “inner beauty” and intelligence. During finals, a
composite score from all events in preliminary competition is carried over and
accounts for 40 percent of the score. Scores from two other competitions are also
added – “Peer Respect and Leadership” (10 percent) and the “Miss America
Quiz” (10 percent).
* This weighting system was enacted during the 2002 competition, and
does not apply to the telecasts used in this study.
Scoring Breakdown, Prior to 2002 (Benedetti, 2000)): The 1960 and
2000 telecasts used a system during preliminaries that weighted talent at 40
percent, interview at 30 percent, evening gown at 15 percent, and swimsuit at 15
percent. A composite score from preliminaries was carried over, accounting for
40 percent of the final score. During finals, Swimsuit accounted for 10 percent,
18
Evening Wear accounted for 10 percent, Talent accounted for 20 percent and the
On-Stage Platform Interview accounted for 20 percent.
Swimsuit was judged on the following criteria: Overall first impression;
Statement of physical fitness and health; Walk, posture, poise and grace; Sense of
confidence and comfort; Display of energy, charisma and comfort; and Beauty of
face and figure. Evening Wear was judged on the following criteria: Overall first
impression; Sense of confidence; Personality and stage presence; Technique
(walk, posture, carriage and grace); Appropriateness of evening wear; and Beauty
and sense of attractiveness. Talent was judged on the following criteria:
Representative’s skill and ability; Interpretive ability; Technical skill level
(execution, technique and synchronization); Stage presence (on-stage
personality); Totality of all elements (including costume, props, voice, use of
body, choreography). On-Stage Platform Interview was judged on the following
criteria: Overall first impression; Response to on-stage questions; Personality,
beauty and a confident, commanding presence; Independence and a sense of
‘courage of her convictions’; Eloquence of communications; and Sense of
commitment as a role model.
Public reaction to legitimization in the scoring breakdown: All of these
attempts at legitimization have not persuaded the public that physical beauty is
secondary to inner beauty at the MA pageant. Viewers of the 1994 pageant were
polled about whether the swimsuit competition should be continued and 79
percent of respondents voted in support of the competition, while 21 percent
voted against it (Latham, p. 163). In a 2000 pageant poll, 51 percent of viewers
19
who responded reported that they would not watch the pageant if swimsuit
competition was discontinued (MA telecast 2000).
The results of these polls suggest that in the public mind, MA attempts to
take focus away from physical beauty have not succeeded. Reasons for public
sentiment that the pageant does judge beauty could be tied the pageant’s history
as a bathing beauty contest.
Despite public sentiment about the pageant, MA has changed with times.
It is arguable that critics’ pressure changed the pageant and resulted in its
legitimization and continued acceptability. However, legitimization does not
change the fact that contestants are judged, in part, on physical beauty and are
thus objectified. Even if the judges did not base scores partly on appearance,
many audience members apparently are still dissecting women according to how
they look. Contestants are acutely aware of this, as a comment from one
contestant clearly demonstrates: “For many of us, this is our first national
television debut, and we wanna look good” (MA telecast 2000).
Empowerment – While MAO has never officially attempted to define
empowerment, a “strong sense of self” and personal power have been directly
linked to the process of empowerment. However, some critics claim that the term
“empowerment” has a fuzzy definition, leading to its overuse and trivialization
(Muller, 1994).
Some writers find the value of the term “empowerment” in its lack of
definition. “I like the term empowerment because no one has defined it clearly
yet; so it gives us a breathing space to work it out in action terms before we have
20
to pin ourselves down to what it means” (Kabeer, p. 436). Julian Rappaport
likened the term to U.S. Supreme Court Justice’s statement on obscenity, in that
while we may not know exactly what it is, “we know it when we see it” (1984, p.
2; Muller, 1994).
Empowerment became a buzzword in educational, psychological and
political discourse of the 1980s (Muller, 1994) and has since found its way into
the MAO mission statement. Because this study examines the MAO mission, a
definition of empowerment and the implications of such a definition must be
explored.
The debate about the definition arose from “…transliteration from noun
(power) to verb (empower),” (Muller, 1994). Inconsistency in use has been
further compounded by the term’s use without reference to what one is
empowered to do (Muller, 1994).
In a case study of six female leaders, Muller defines empowerment as:
“The process of acknowledging the latent potential of others and assisting them to
act purposefully and assertively to reach their growth potential,” (1994). This
definition implies a relationship between one who empowers (a leader) and one
who is empowered (a follower). Power is treated as a unit of exchange shared
between two entities for the purpose of reaching a common goal. The process of
empowerment occurs on the personal, interpersonal and institutional level (Heng,
1995). Personal power involves a “sense of self” as confident, effective and
capable; interpersonal power is the ability to affect others; and institutional power
21
is the ability to work with others to improve lives and change social institutions
(Heng, 1995).
The “power” in empowerment is essentially “the ability to move or
produce change” and does not involve domination or “power over,” but rather
“power to” and “power with.” “Power to” refers to personal power and “power
with” involves interpersonal and institutional power. In order to have “power
with,” one must first have “power to.” The idea that “power to” is a prerequisite
for “power with” comes from the Heng (1995) study on the emotional
subordination of women. Heng (1995) reports, “Most efforts have been directed
at improving women’s visible material conditions, their economic livelihoods and
participation in decision-making,” (1995). However, the study suggests that to
achieve the improvement of women’s visible material conditions, their emotional
subordination in the form of gender oppression must be dealt with first.
“Power to” implies leadership in terms of the
ability to empower, according to the Muller (1994)
definition of empowerment. Cantor and Bernay, in
their book, Women in Power, The Secrets of Leadership
(1992), reduce the leadership involved in empowerment
to three basic ingredients. Leadership involves creative
MA 2001 Angela Perez
Baraquio with President Bush
aggression, womanpower and a competent self.
Creative aggression is described as the ability to speak out and take initiative.
Womanpower is the ability to make a difference for the greater good and a
22
combination of what Cantor and Bernay consider to be the best of male and
female qualities: strength, force and nurturance.
For this study, competent self is the most important ingredient in the
Cantor-Bernay leadership equation. Competent self involves the ability to see
“possibilities instead of obstacles” and a “strong sense of self,” similar to what
was mentioned by Heng in his definition of personal power (Denmark, 1993).
Having a competent self or a “strong sense of self” is vital to personal
power and thus empowerment. “Personal power is the basis of all other kinds of
empowerment…A loss of personal power is caused by experiences of
domination/subordination, oppression, and exploitation,” (Heng, 1995).
Issues of domination/subordination, oppression and exploitation come up
in many critiques of the MA pageant. Critics argue that the pageant’s emphasis
on ideal physical beauty causes MA to become a symbol and vehicle for the
disempowerment of women through sexual objectification. Closely linked to
objectification is “the male gaze.”
The Male Gaze – “Objectification and preoccupation with isolated body
parts dehumanizes women, but it also degrades men when they become so
obsessed with ankles or breasts that they forget the woman within,” (Freedman, p.
69). Some feminists argue that the pageant perpetuates “the male gaze,” leading
to objectification – the notion that the worth of a woman is decided upon the sum
of her parts (Watson & Martin, p. 121).
Objectification is most often experienced through “the gaze,” or “physical
inspection of the body,” (Kaschak, 1992; Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 175). This
23
phenomenon may be directly linked to heterosexual attraction via the Beauty
Myth and to the reinforcement of patriarchal dominance.
The Beauty Myth is Darwinian in nature, replacing “survival of the fittest”
with “survival of the prettiest.” In this construction, all women want to be
beautiful, and all men want beautiful women, so it follows that beautiful women
are more reproductively successful. This leads to the conclusion that humankind
is evolving towards one standard of beauty through sexual selection.
Wolf challenged the myth with her contention that beauty “…is not based
on evolution, sex, gender, aesthetics or God. It is about men’s institutions and
institutional power,” (13).
Because Wolf believes that men impose beauty standards, she contends
the pageant—which appears to be a celebration of beauty—reinforces the
patriarchal suppression of women. Until the
1980s, the MA pageant did appear to support this
position, based on body measurement studies
done on MA winners. Deford reports that the
average contestant of 1971 was 19 years old, stood
MA Contestants “weighing in”
five feet and six inches tall, weighed 119 pounds and almost always came from
the South or the Midwest (Watson & Martin, p.117).
The MA pageant demonstrates the gaze in three distinct ways: through
depictions in interpersonal encounters (contestant interaction with the emcee),
through depictions of objectification (judges watching contestants) and through
24
the creation of the gaze (camera focus on each contestant) on the part of the
viewing audience.
By requiring contestants to model swimsuits, the pageant is reducing them
to objects that can be broken down into breasts, hips, waists and thighs. Critics
charge that such objectification leads to eating disorders, depression and sexual
dysfunction among women. Sexualized objectification represents a form of
gender oppression (Heng, 1995).
Gender Oppression – The media are saturated with images of sexualized
objectification from MTV’s spring break footage to advertisements touting
shampoo. This phenomenon represents a form of gender oppression touched on in
the Heng (1995) study. Gender oppression “enables other forms of oppression,
such as unemployment, discrimination, sexual violence and trivialization of
women’s work and accomplishments,” (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 174).
While not all women respond to objectification the same way, many
women who become oppressed by objectification face serious complications that
lead to psychological disorders previously mentioned. Those who are oppressed
tend to take a viewer’s perspective of the self, leading to what in known as selfobjectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 177). Effective Socialization describes
the process of internalization that results in self-objectification (Costanzo, 1992;
Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 177).
Effective socialization starts with external
pressure, such as that provided by media depictions of
the benefits of being beautiful. Over time, exposures
Preliminary winners from the 1980s
25
to such depictions cause women to equate beauty with power, popularity and
success. Under these circumstances, attempting to improve one’s appearance
becomes a matter of strategy that will determine how one will be treated. In
attending to appearance, women begin inspecting themselves and soon think that
the compulsion to improve appearance is natural and in some cases, freely chosen.
Because women have no control over their objectification, they learn to be “their
own first surveyors” and by doing so, internalize a viewer’s perspective
(Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 178).
Self-objectification leads women to believe they are sights to be
appreciated by others (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 180). The pressure to meet
other’s expectations can lead to chronic self-monitoring and self-consciousness
that may deteriorate the sense of self, and cause a special set of psychological
circumstances (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). These circumstances include
feelings of shame, anxiety, lack of flow and lack of attention to internal bodily
states.
Feelings of shame are the result of “negative self-evaluations” brought on
by self-monitoring (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 181). The potential for the
exposure of shortcomings causes many who feel shame to “shrink away” and
become timid as a defense mechanism. However, a “shameful” appearance is
difficult to hide or change. Therefore, women who experience shame about
appearance because of constant self-monitoring find it difficult to overcome.
Anxiety is characterized by ambiguous feelings of danger and threat
(Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 182). Women who are objectified can feel anxiety due
26
to appearance. Lack of control over when or where one might be sexually
objectified through the gaze, contributes to appearance anxiety. Appearance
anxiety is compounded by the fashion industry, because certain clothing styles
require constant adjustment to avoid “shamefully” showing too much skin.
Women are forced to adjust themselves to avoid shame, while still appearing at
ease.
Lack of a desirable state called “flow” is caused by objectification. Lack
of flow creates a lower quality of life for many women. Flow is described as a
situation in which, “a person’s body or mind is stretched to the limits in a
voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile,”
(Csikszentmihalyi 1990, p. 3). A complete loss of self-consciousness is necessary
to achieve maximum flow. Objectification interferes with flow under two
circumstances: when attention is called to a woman’s appearance or bodily
functions during an activity, or when self-objectification causes a woman to
become self-aware during an activity (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 183). Because
flow is a “Prime source of optimal experience,” and signifies “those rare moments
when we are truly living, uncontrolled by others, creative and joyful,” it follows
that flow increases quality of life through higher productivity and greater
enjoyment (Fredrickson & Roberts, p. 183).
Objectification is linked to lack of attention to internal bodily states in
terms of hunger, pain and arousal. The shame and anxiety that result from selfmonitoring increase the likelihood of dieting, and a woman learns to ignore her
hunger. This self-imposed numbness can carry over into other sensations. In
27
addition, energy devoted to self-monitoring is taken away from energy that should
be used to identify and attend to internal bodily states. (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997)
These emotional circumstances constitute the deterioration of a strong
sense of self and personal power necessary in the empowerment process. Women
who experience these emotions and circumstances are disempowered by the
objectification they face, often in the form of the sexualized gaze.
The Self and TST – The self is described as an, “individual’s attitudes
(plans of action) toward his/her own mind and body viewed as an object,”
(Hickman & Kuhn, 1956, p. 46). Kuhn was a symbolic interactionist who
believed that social interactions shape the self through internalized social
reflection where “identities, psychological qualities and social relationships form
the basis for self-understanding and behavior,” (Grace & Cramer 2002).
Measurement of the self among college students has been conducted since
1957 using the TST, or Twenty Statement Test, which was validated in 1964.
“The TST reveals the frequency of positive self-evaluations (positive moods, selfesteem and sense of well-being),” (Driver, p. 393). The test requires respondents
to list 20 answers to the question, “Who am I?” Answers are then coded
according to a four-referential coding scheme (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954);
including Type A, or Physical responses (I am blonde.), Type B, or Social
responses (I am a Tri-Delta.), Type C, or Reflective responses (I enjoy going to
football games.) and Type D, or Oceanic responses (We are part of one
sisterhood).
28
The four modes of self are best understood by placing them on a
continuum that slides from a concrete sense of self (Type A, or Physical) to an
abstract sense of self (Type D, or Oceanic). Studies have shown that sense of self
changes from the concrete to the abstract with increased age, and that this change
represents a higher level of development in the self-concept (Brinthraupt & Lipka,
1985; Montemayor & Eisen, 1977).
Results of TST studies of college students from 1957 and 2001 are
important for the purposes of this study because of their close proximity to the
telecast years under study and respondents closeness in age to the contestants
under study. Hartley (1968) reported findings from a study of University of Iowa
students in 1957. The sample included 1,653 students, of which 2 percent
indicated Type A responses, 51 percent indicated Type B responses, 31 percent
indicated Type C responses and 16 percent indicated Type D responses.
Grace & Cramer (2001) reported findings from a sample of 324 Southern
Ontario Canadian university students. They predicted a predominance of Type C
responses and an increase in Type D responses compared to past research,
because of social changes and the proliferation of information technology. Their
hypothesis was correct, with Type C responses accounting for 91.3 percent of all
responses, showing that, “During the turn of the century, the the nature of self
among students continues to be focused on ways of behaving, moods, feelings,
preferences and dislikes,” (Grace & Cramer, p. 277). There were no Type A
responses, 8.4 percent of Type B responses and .3 percent of Type D responses.
29
Methodology
Research Questions – The primary goal of this research is to explore
whether the MA pageant competition might empower women. By critics’
definition of the term objectification – the judgment of women on the basis of
physical beauty – MA contestants are objectified. However, literature also
suggests that not all women react in the same way to being objectified. Are some
contestants empowered, despite overt objectification they face during
competition? Because the “sense of self” is the root of empowerment according
to Heng (1995), research questions focus on the “contestant self” from 1960 and
2000. The “contestant self” is most clearly demonstrated during Top 5
competition, and will be examined in a three-part study designed to answer
questions in the following areas:
I. Nature of the Self – What is the nature of the self among contestants in the
1960 and 2000 pageants? How does the nature of the contestant self compare to
the nature of self as reported among student contemporaries during the same time
periods? Did the nature of contestant self change from 1960 to 2000?
II. Subject Matter – What subjects do contestants talk about when referring to
themselves during Top 5 competition? Has that subject matter changed from
1960 to 2000?
III. Strength of the Self – Do contenders maintain a Strong Sense of Self during
Top 5 competition? Has the strength of self during Top 5 competition changed
from 1960 to 2000?
30
Few studies have been conducted on the MA pageant, and of those, none
are quantitative. Because there is no prior research to draw methods from, this
study has not been tested for validity and some of the comparisons made may
appear to be problematic. However, absent any other data, this study has
attempted to find instruments of measurement and comparison data that best fit
the task at hand – the exploration of empowerment among MA contestants
through the examination of the self, which is most clearly demonstrated during
the Top 5 competition.
Measuring the contestant self – This study is a three-part analysis of
contestant answers to the Top 5 questions during the MA telecasts from 1960 and
2000. The first part uses the four-modal scheme of the TST to quantify the nature
of the self among pageant contestants. The second part of the study is a qualitative
analysis that explores subject matter themes in contestant answers. The third part
of the study is a quantitative analysis of the strength or weakness of the self as
demonstrated by contestant answers.
Contestant answers were transcribed from video onto note cards and
broken down into individual statements, with records kept referencing the year
each statement was made. A contestant may have made several statements to
prove a point during the course of an answer. For example, in explaining her
dedication to raising awareness of heart disease, a contestant could make several
statements, including, “Heart disease is the nation’s No. 1 killer,” “It doesn’t
discriminate on the basis of race, sex or age,” “and it certainly hasn’t left my
31
family out,” “yet, there are things we can do everyday to prevent it,” “that’s the
message I want to convey.”
Once answers were broken down into statements, “I-statements” were
separated. I-statements included any instance in which a contestant spoke of her
own opinions, attitudes, behaviors and feelings. These statements were
operationalized by reference to oneself or one’s group, through the use of terms
such as “I,” “me,” “we,” “our,” and “us.” The I-statement constituted the unit of
analysis used in Parts One, Two and Three of this study.
I. Nature of the Self – Two coders coded I-statements according to the
four-modal scheme developed by Kuhn (1954). The scheme included Physical,
Social, Reflective and Oceanic responses. Physical responses included reference
to the self in terms of physical being or body. Social responses included reference
to the self in terms of a social context or group. Reflective responses included
references to the self in terms of feelings, moods, opinions, attitudes, preferences,
dislikes, and behavior. Oceanic responses transcended social context and
suggested the self’s interconnectedness with the world in general, rather than with
one specific group.
The number of responses in each category was divided by the total number
of I-statements to provide a percentage of the total, as suggested by Grace &
Cramer (2001). Results for the 1960 telecast were compared with results from the
1957 TST study. Results for the 2000 telecast were compared with results from
the 2001 TST study. Results for both telecasts were compared to determine if the
nature of contestant self changed between the 1960 and 2000 pageants.
32
II. Subject Matter – I-statements were analyzed on the basis of subject
material. Two key words were picked out of each statement and put on a separate
list. Identification of two key words increased inter-rater agreement.
Key words were those that carried the weight of a statement’s meaning;
without them, the statement would not have made sense. The statement, “I have
faith in my family,” would not make sense without the words “faith” and
“family.” Upon completion of the list, words were grouped into broader thematic
categories. Each statement was placed in a category based on the word that was
used to code it.
III. Strength of the Self – I-statements were compiled into two broad
categories, Strong Sense of Self and Weak Sense of Self, based on the following
five criteria: Mood, Self-Esteem, Sense of Wellbeing, Self-consciousness and
Attitude toward Others. Each criterion was rated as positive, neutral or negative.
A predominance of positive ratings placed an I-statement in the Strong Sense of
Self category. A predominance of negative ratings placed an I-statement in the
Weak Sense of Self category.
The Strong Sense of Self category was defined as a “greater sense of
potency or strength” and was indicated by statements of positive mood, high selfesteem, positive sense of well-being, lack of preoccupation with the self and
benevolence toward others (Rushton, 1980). The Weak Sense of Self category
was defined as a “lesser sense of potency or strength” and was indicated by
statements of negative mood, low self-esteem, negative sense of well-being,
preoccupation with the self and hostility toward others (Rushton, 1980).
33
The years of each statement were referenced and number of statements
that indicated a Strong or Weak Sense of Self for each year was tallied. A year
with more units indicating a Strong Sense of Self was considered moving toward
empowerment. A year with more units indicating a Weak Sense of Self was
considered moving away from empowerment.
34
Results and Analysis
A total of 68 I-statements were used in this study; 29.41 percent
(20) were from the 1960 telecast and 70.58 percent (48) were from the 2000
telecast. Inter-rater reliability rates were 91.17 percent, 97 percent and 94.1
percent for Parts One, Two and Three, respectively. These rates were determined
by dividing the number of I-statements agreed upon by both coders by the total
number of I-statements. Results from all three studies are recorded in Table 4
(Appendix).
I. Nature of the Self – What is the nature of the self among contestants in
the 1960 and 2000 pageants? How does the nature of the contestant self compare
to the nature of self as reported among student contemporaries during the same
time periods? Did the nature of contestant self change from 1960 to 2000?
This set of questions was answered using the Kuhn (1954) four-modal
scheme of the self. This system allowed contestant I-statements to be coded for
showing the following self-concepts: Physical, Social, Reflective and Oceanic.
Two new categories, Neutral and NA (no agreement), were added to the study
because coders were unable to place some I-statements into the four-modal TST
coding scheme.
I-Statements coded as Neutral did not fall into any category of the fourmodal scheme. I-Statements coded as NA indicate that coders did not agree. Istatements coded as Neutral or NA were excluded from analysis in Part One:
Nature of Self, because these categories were not used in the 1957 or 2001 TST.
There were no I-statements coded as Neutral or NA for the 1960 telecast. There
35
were four I-statements coded as Neutral and six I-statements coded as NA for the
2000 telecast, leaving 38 I-statements for analysis. The results for each telecast
are recorded in Table 1.
Table 1
Comparison of MA I-statements and TST answers
Part 1 1960
Physical
Social
Reflective
Oceanic
Neutral
NA
Part 1 2000
Physical
Social
Reflective
Oceanic
Neutral
NA
MA
Number
0
1
19
0
0
0
N = 20
MA
Number
0
3
34
1
4
6
N = 48
College
MA
TST
Percentage
Percentage 1957 Study Difference
0%
2%
-5%
51%
-90.19%
95%
31%
206%
0%
16%
-------N = 20
N = 1,653
College
MA
TST
Percentage
Percentage 2001 Study Difference
0%
0%
0%
7.89%
8.40%
-6.07%
89.47%
91.30%
-2%
2.63%
0.30%
776.67%
------N = 38
N = 324
I-statements from the 1960 telecast indicate that the nature of the
contestant self was 90.19 percent less Social and 206 percent more Reflective
than their contemporaries from the 1957 study. There were minimal or no
indications of Physical and Oceanic views of contestants’ nature of self.
I-statements from the 2000 MA pageant and the TST from 2001 are more
varied in the nature of self represented. While there were no Physical responses
for either contestants or students, there were 6.07 percent fewer Social, 2 percent
fewer Reflective and 776.67 percent more Oceanic responses among MA
36
contestants compared to TST contemporaries from 2001. While the percentage
increase in Oceanic responses is high, it must be taken into account that this
percentage only represents one occurrence, which may render this finding
insignificant.
Inter-pageant rate of change for the nature of self shows that from 1960 to
2000, contestants were 25 percent more likely to identify the nature of the self in
terms of social interactions and 25.44 percent less likely to identify the nature of
the self in terms of reflection. Contestant I-statements from the 2000 telecast
were also less likely to be placed in the traditional four-modal coding scheme of
the TST; and 8.33 percent and 12.50 percent of I-statements were placed in the
Neutral and NA categories, respectively. While no 1960 I-statements were found
to be Oceanic, one Oceanic statement was found in the 2000 telecast.
What is the nature of the self among contestants in the 1960 and 2000
pageants? The results from Part One showed that contestants from 1960 and
2000 had a highly Reflective sense of self, with 95 percent and 89.47 percent
(percentages exclude I-statements coded as Neutral or NA) of responses,
respectively.
How does the nature of the 1960 contestant’s self compare to the nature of
self reported among college students in 1957? Contestants from the 1960s had an
overall more abstract sense of self than their contemporaries. This finding
suggests that contestants may have been less likely to view themselves as objects,
as shown by the fact that none of their I-statements were coded as Physical, while
2 percent of their contemporaries did give Physical responses to the TST.
37
Because evidence suggests 1960 contestants did not view themselves as objects
(self-objectification), they were more likely to have a stronger sense of self,
leading to greater personal power and ultimately empowerment.
However, an abstract sense of self for contestants in the 1960s stopped at
likes, dislikes, moods, behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. There were no Oceanic Istatements, which would have suggested contestants’ ability to connect
themselves with the world around them. This finding suggests that while
contestants of the 1960s had a more highly developed sense of self in terms of
abstraction, that abstraction remained on a lower level. Their contemporaries may
have been less likely to use abstractions when describing the self, but when they
did, they tended to do so at a higher level with 16 percent of their responses being
Oceanic.
This finding may be caused by stunted development of the 1960
contestants’ self, or by the fact that only 5 percent of I-statements were Social.
Without social interaction, it is difficult to connect oneself with the world at large
and espouse a transcendental view of the self, as would be demonstrated by an
Oceanic response.
How does the nature of the 2000 contestant’s self compare to the nature of
self reported among college students in 2001? I-statements of contestants from
2000 more closely resembled TST responses of their contemporaries. Because
2000 I-statements were more complicated, inter-rater agreement was lower and
the Neutral category was used more frequently. I-statements lacking inter-rater
38
agreement (NA) or those coded as Neutral were excluded from percentage
calculations.
Both groups demonstrated a highly developed sense of self through
abstract responses represented by the Reflective and Oceanic categories. MA
Contestants were slightly less Social and Reflective than their contemporaries.
This slight difference, approximately 2 percentage points, could be caused by a
higher frequency of Oceanic responses by contestants. Oceanic responses
accounted for 2.63 percent of MA contestant responses (N = 38) and only .03
percent of their contemporary’s responses (N = 324), adding up to a 776.67
percent increase in Oceanic responses among contestants compared to their
contemporaries. This may appear to be a significant increase, but it represents
only one Oceanic response for 2000 MA contestants. Based on percentages, it
can be concluded that both 2000 contestants and their contemporaries have a more
abstract sense of self, but MA contestants demonstrate that abstraction at a higher
level more frequently.
Did the nature of the contestant self change from 1960 to 2000? From
1960 to 2000, I-statements became dramatically more Social (57.8 percent
increase) and slightly less Reflective (5.82 percent decrease). This indicates that
the contestant self has regressed by becoming more concrete over time. However,
there were no Physical responses from either telecast, which provides evidence
suggesting contestants do not view themselves as objects (self-objectification).
Based on this evidence, it can be assumed contestants from both years are able to
maintain a strong sense of self, personal power and empowerment.
39
However, the apparent regression towards more concrete
conceptualizations of the self from 1960 to 2000 must be explained. The platform
requirement has made a significant difference in how contestants approach the
interview and on-stage questions, not to mention their perceptions of a
titleholder’s role. There was no platform requirement in the 1960s and
contestants were not compelled to participate in community service activities.
Today’s contestants participate in community service to build their platforms and
to use their position as a titleholder to make a difference in their communities.
Because the platform and community service activities are central to the
interview, 2000 contestants may have been more apt to share their affiliations in
their answers to on-stage questions, leading to more I-statements within the Social
category. This phenomenon may be a natural outgrowth of community service
and the platform requirement or an attempt to impress the judges.
Experience with community service and other social interactions may
have led to the emergence of Oceanic responses among 2000 contestants.
Oceanic responses signal a sense of self that is in harmony with its environment;
they provide evidence that the respondent is able to look above one-on-one social
interactions by making transcendental statements about the self. Community
service may provide the experiences necessary to develop the self at this level.
II. Subject Matter – What subjects do contestants talk about when
referring to themselves during Top 5 competition? Has that subject matter
changed from 1960 to 2000?
40
Based on key word identification, I-statements were placed in eight
thematic categories: Situational, Professional, Dealing with Others, Action, As a
Contestant, Learning, Appearance, Relationships.
The results of Part Two were largely influenced by the Top 5 question
format, which changed between the 1960 and 2000 telecasts. The 1960 telecast
used a straight question-and-answer session in which each contestant was asked
two questions – one of a “frivolous nature” and another of a “more serious
nature,” as described by Bert Parks. The 2000 telecast used a combination format
involving a roundtable discussion with all contestants and a question-and-answer
session with each contestant individually. Results are recorded in Table 2.
Table 2
Comparison of MA 1960 and 2000 Key Word Responses
Part 2
Situational
Professional
Dealing with others
Action
As a Contestant
Learning
Appearance
Relationships
Total
Total
Number Percentage
8
11.76%
4
5.88%
5
7.35%
7
10.29%
5
7.35%
9
13.23%
15
22.05%
15
22.05%
N = 68
1960
Number
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
12
N = 20
1960
Percentage
25%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
60%
2000
Number
3
4
5
4
5
9
15
3
2000
Percentage
6.25%
8.33%
10.42%
8.33%
10.42%
18.75%
31.25%
6.25%
N = 48
Statements from 1960 show little variety in subject matter, with responses
in three categories: Situational 25 percent, Action 15 percent and Relationships
60 percent. Statements from 2000 show variety by having responses in all eight
categories, with a concentration in Appearance 31.25 percent and Learning 18.75
percent. Rate of change in responses from 1960 to 2000 could be calculated for
Difference
-75%
NA
NA
33%
NA
NA
NA
-90%
41
the three categories with responses from both years: Situational, Action and
Relationships. From 1960 to 2000, Situational showed a 75 percent decrease,
Action showed a 33 percent increase and Relationships showed a 90 percent
decrease.
What subjects do contestants talk about when referring to themselves?
The roundtable discussion from the 2000 telecast played a major role in providing
I-statements dealing with appearance, which accounted for 22.05 percent of all 68
statements used in this part of the study and 31.25 percent of I-statements from
the 2000 telecast. Actress Marie Osmond was the moderator, and she began the
discussion with the following question: “Is there a competition look? What is it
and how do you answer critics who say it’s outdated?” All five contestants
commented on appearance, which explains why the percentage was so high in
2000.
Contestants unanimously agreed that there was no “pageant look,” but that
contestants did want to look their personal best while representing their states and
families on national television. They reported using make-up “to enhance
features that make them look their best” and laughed at their early pageant
experiences when contestants let hairstylists create “big pageant hair” (2000 MA
telecast). The winner, Angela Perez Baraquio, summed up the conversation by
noting changes that occurred within herself through pageant competition: “Now,
I want to be me, not someone else’s interpretation of me,” (2000 MA telecast).
Relationships dominated the question-and-answer session of the 1960
telecast, accounting for 60 percent of all I-statements from that telecast and 22.05
42
percent all I-statements combined. I-statements in this subject area dealt with
family, dating and marriage. At the root of Relationships as a subject area was
the controversy over “woman’s place” and “proper role” in society.
This subject was appropriate for the time period, because traditional
gender roles were just beginning to be challenged and the full force of the
women’s movement was less than a decade away. Yet, contestants tended to
subscribe to patriarchal dominance by espousing that “a young woman’s place is
at home with her husband and children” and that an ideal wife “…depends
entirely on the viewpoint of the husband,” (1960 MA telecast). One contestant
said she would not vote for a female presidential candidate because “women are
emotional and unreliable,” rendering them unable to make important decisions.
These conservative views were not only consistent with what was
acceptable for women at the time, but also with the traditional reputation of the
MA pageant itself. The 2000 telecast saw a 90 percent decrease in instances of Istatements dealing with relationships. Furthermore, most of those statements
dealt with professional, rather than personal, relationships. This change reflects
the shift of the women’s movement from the private to the public sphere.
Did the subject matter change from 1960 to 2000? Many of the questions
from the 1960 telecast were Situational in nature (15 percent) and attempted set
up a scene within which a contestant would react, such as: “You are walking
down the runway during swimsuit competition and your high heel breaks off.
What would you do?” (1960 MA telecast). By the year 2000, Situational
questions had decreased by 75 percent and were replaced with questions about
43
real-life experiences contestants reported on their fact sheets. Many of these
questions elicited responses about life lessons that contestants had learned
(Learning, 18.75 percent), how they dealt with others (Dealing with Others, 10.42
percent), their experiences or aspirations in the professional world (Professional,
8.33 percent) and their experiences as a pageant contestant (As a Contestant,
10.42 percent).
The shift from Situational questions to real-life questions suggests that the
pageant has recognized a change in its contestants and a change in American
expectations of women. The fact that questions are no longer drawn from
fabricated situations may indicate that contestants have experience and interests
outside of the domestic realm, and that they are no longer the passive,
inexperienced debutantes of the 1960s.
There was a 30 percent increase from 1960 to 2000 in I-statements dealing
with Actions contestants have taken or performed. This finding is consistent with
Part One of this study because these statements tended to also be categorized as
Social from the TST four-modal coding scheme. This may be an indication that
contestants have become more empowered over time because the ability to “take
action” is an important part of personal power.
III. Strength of the Self – Do contenders maintain a Strong Sense of Self
during Top 5 competition? Has the strength of self during Top 5 competition
changed from 1960 to 2000?
This set of questions was answered by Part Three of the study, which used
positive, negative or neutral evaluations of five indicators to determine if
44
contestant I-statements demonstrated a Strong or Weak Sense of Self. The five
indicators were: Mood, Self-esteem, Sense of Well-being, Preoccupation with the
Self (or lack thereof), and Attitude toward Others.
Similar to Part One, two categories were added to account for statements
that did not fit into the Strong/Weak Sense of Self scheme (Neutral) or statements
that did not have inter-rater agreement (NA = no agreement). Results are
recorded in Table 3.
Table 3
Comparison of Strength/Weakness of Self from MA 1960 to 2000
Part 3
Strong
Weak
Neutral
NA
1960
Number
8
9
2
1
N = 20
1960
Percentage
40%
45%
10%
5%
2000
Number
40
4
1
3
2000
Percentage
83.33%
8.33%
2.08%
6.25%
Difference
108.32%
-81.48%
-79.20%
25%
N = 48
There was a dramatic shift in contestants’ sense of self between the 1960
and 2000 telecasts. Strong Sense of Self increased by 108.32 percent and Weak
Sense of Self decreased by 81.48 percent, Neutral statements decreased by 79.20
percent and NA statements increased by 25 percent.
Do MA contenders maintain a Strong Sense of Self? Contestants from
1960 tended to maintain a Weak Sense of Self with 45 percent of responses being
Weak and 40 percent of responses being Strong. Contestants from 2000
maintained Strong Sense of Self with 83.33 percent of responses being Strong and
8.33 percent of responses being Weak.
45
Has the strength of the contestant self changed from 1960 to 2000? Part
Three may be the most convincing evidence that between the years 1960 and
2000, MA contestants have become more empowered or that the MA pageant
emphasizes empowerment of women over physical beauty, which leads to
objectification. The empowerment gap widened as instances of I-statements
representing a Strong Sense of Self increased (+108.32 percent) while instances of
I-statements representing a Weak Sense of Self decreased (-81.48 percent).
Neutral I-statements also decreased (-79.20 percent), suggesting that over time,
contestants became less ambiguous about how they felt about themselves.
However, I-statements about which coders could not agree (NA) increased by 25
percent. This indicates that while there was less inter-rater agreement about the
2000 telecast, there was also less “gray area” in the form of Neutral statements
when there was agreement.
While Part Three appears to be quite telling, it must be taken into account
that I-statements from the 1960 telecast were judged by today’s standards of self
and empowerment. As stated earlier, contestant answers from that telecast were
indicative of the time period. The fact that the pageant gave contestants a
platform to voice their opinions as women is significant.
On the other hand, the 1960 contestant responses clearly reinforced
patriarchal authority that many feminists have fought hard to overcome. Also,
there was evidence that some answers were rehearsed, indicating that the opinions
they expressed may not have been their own, but those of their coaches. This
evidence includes the lack of natural eye expression and the repetition or
46
stumbling over words, as if memorized, during the Top 5 question-and-answer
session.
47
Conclusion
This study is a starting point in the exploration of contestant
empowerment in the MA pageant. Because this is the first study of its kind, there
is significant room for improvement in methodology and for the expansion of
research into the impact the pageant has on women in general. The next step in
research should move beyond the reporting of the status of self among
contestants, as this study does, to the examination of how exactly the contestant
self is affected by the pageant process.
In the process of dissecting and quantifying contestant answers, some of
the depth of meaning behind each I-statement may have been lost. A qualitative
study would permit a fuller understanding of the context of I-statements in
contestant answers. The four-modal coding scheme from the TST for Part One of
the analysis is not a perfect fit for this study, although it is the best instrument that
the author could locate. The TST and MAO contestants’ answers were not
designed to be compared. However the author chose the TST to compare with the
MAO contestants’ answers because they touch on similar, if not exactly the same,
dimensions of one of the main variables in the study, how women feel about
themselves.
The contestant self has larger percentages at higher levels (Reflective and
Oceanic) of development than the self of contestant contemporaries in both 1960
and 2000. Higher levels of self development show that contestants have a more
abstract view of themselves, leaving them less likely to partake in self-
48
objectification that leads to disempowerment. Ironically, this phenomenon occurs
in the face of overt objectification during pageant competition.
The MA pageant telecast sets up the male gaze to look at women’s bodies
during stage competitions. However, contestants who reach the highest levels of
competition are able to maintain a strong sense of self that is vital to
empowerment. That strong sense of self allows them to achieve optimal flow that
is necessary during pageant competition. This clearly demonstrates Fredrickson
& Robert’s observation that, in spite of overt objectification, not all women
respond to objectification in similar ways.
The pageant competition experience may cause many pageant contestants
to become immune to the hazards of objectification. Continuous exposure to
objectification could build up “self-armor” that allows contestants to remain
uninfluenced by their situation. By looking at the criteria they are judged on, such
as “confidence,” “presence,” and “comfort,” we can see that the competition
requires contestants to lose self-consciousness and move to a state of “flow”
mentioned earlier in the study. Through repeated experience under these
circumstances, contestants learn to ignore judgments being made on them by
others (this is often done through objectification) and they develop an internal
locus of control. Contestants with an internal locus of control may be less likely
to worry about uncontrollable circumstances, allowing them to be more at ease in
the objectifying pageant environment.
Contestants, who try to put themselves in the best possible position to win,
spend a great deal of time, energy and in some cases, money, in their pageant
49
endeavors. They learn to avoid comparing themselves to others and focus on
what is best for them in each area of competition. Knowledge about what is “best
for me” requires self-exploration, which explains the high levels of Reflective and
Oceanic responses among 1960 and 2000 contestants, respectively.
The most recent competition added to the MA telecast, “Peer Respect and
Leadership,” provides evidence that empowerment is an important component of
the program. The Top 5 contestants are judged by their peers, as to who best
represents the ideals of MA and inspires others to display those same ideals. The
ability to inspire others requires community involvement and the ability to reach
out to others, two qualities that are often mentioned in definitions of
empowerment (“power with” or interpersonal and institutional power).
Contestants tend to learn this through platform development.
Platform development may explain the shift from Situational questions in
the 1960s to questions about “real experiences” contestants have had, in 2000.
The program not only expects contestants to have real world experiences, but also
recognizes those experiences during on-stage questioning. Having “real
experiences” may directly relate to change in the types of relationships
contestants talk about when referring to themselves. No longer do they only
associate themselves with the family and romantic relationships. Today, they are
more likely to speak of professional relationships that may have developed as a
result of platform development, as many contestants aspire to build a career
around their platforms.
50
By today’s standards, 2000 contestants have a much stronger sense of self
than 1960 contestants. Some of this has to do with pageant training, but even
more of it has to do with the changes in the roles women are expected to play in
society. Women have moved out of the domestic sphere and into public life,
where they are independent, professional and educated. Consequently, many
women with the highest aspirations gravitate toward pageant competition.
Whether paying for a college education, starting a career or something as simple
as improving self-confidence, becoming MA is more than a crown to contestants,
it is a means to an end.
Many critics are leery of the scholarly image MAO is trying to build,
because there are ways to award scholarship to young women without
objectifying them on-stage. However, the decision made by MAO to continue
“the display” through the pageant telecast, is a business strategy. The long-term
success of the MA scholarship program is dependent on the annual telecast for
ratings to attract sponsors who support the scholarship fund. If the pageant and
“the display” were separated, one could not exist without the other, and the
positive effects of MAO would vanish. The positive effects include scholarship,
dedication to community service and activist leadership on the part of contestants,
plus a self-reported feeling among contestants of a “strong sense of self” and
personal power.
No matter how many scholarships are given away or how the telecast
format is changed or what new rules are added to contestant contracts, critics may
always be leery of the pageant and MAO may never rid itself of the bathing
51
beauty image. It may better serve the organization to get in touch with its own
sense of self, as it requires of contestants. By embracing a colorful history rich in
tradition and acknowledging its ability to improve the lives of contestants through
scholarship, personal growth, development and empowerment, MAO may find
itself on a new level…one on which critics respect rather than rebuke. Then,
lessons about the self and personal power learned by MAO and contestants could
be used and applied to women in general, who face objectification in more subtle
ways on a daily basis, but suffer more greatly as a result.
52
About the Author
Brook Matthews, Miss Douglas County 2003 for the state of Nebraska, is a
senior at the University of Arkansas. She is an honors student in the JournalismAdvertising/Public Relations sequence.
Matthews has conducted this study to resolve issues that have arisen as she
competed in MAO contests and to help her understand the often-negative reaction of
her professors and peers when they learn she competes. It is her wish that the study
might benefit those with partial or erroneous information on what the MAO system
is. Also, MAO could benefit from examining how it is perceived and why. Most
importantly, she hopes the study will enlighten and empower MA contestants, whose
responsibility as titleholders include the ability to defend MAO knowledgably and
objectively in the face of criticism.
Matthews competed in the Miss Arkansas Pageant in June of 2002 and won
the New Comer of the Year Award. She began competing in pageants five years ago
and has since won 2nd runner-up at the national Miss United States Teen Pageant, was
crowned the University of Arkansas Pledge Queen in 1998 and has funded half of her
college education through pageant scholarships.
She graduated from high school in Blair, Neb., and has held several titles in
Nebraska, including Miss Omaha 2001 and Miss Douglas County 2000 and 2003.
She placed top five at the Miss Nebraska Pageant in 2000 and 2001. By competing in
Miss America program, Matthews says she has been able to become an advocate for
raising heart disease awareness. Matthews is preparing for her next state pageant,
Miss Nebraska, which will take place on June 4-7, 2003 in North Platte.
53
Appendix
54
Table 4
Results Tally for Parts One, Two and Three
Unit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
1960
1960
2000
2000
1960
2000
1960
Nature
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Sense
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
NA
Strong
Key Word
Relationship
Relationship
Relationship
Situational
Situational
Appearance
Relationship
Reflective
Category
Mother
Family
Others
Students
Choice
Make-up
Disapproval
Compete,
Pageants
8
2000
Strong
2000
2000
1960
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1960
2000
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Social
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Identify, Kids
Hope, Leave
Enjoyed, Living
Look good
Make-up
NA
4-H
Interpretation
Expect
Glad
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2000
1960
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1960
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Social
Strong
Neutral
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
27
28
29
2000
1960
2000
Reflective
Reflective
NA
Teach
Order, Milk
Comfortable
Pageant, Look
Look
Remember
Life
From, Carolina
Competed,
Scholarship
Faith, Family
Looking, Good
As a contestant
Dealing with
others
Professional
Actions
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
Actions
Learning
Situational
Relationship
Dealing with
others
Actions
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
Relationship
Learning
Actions
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
30
31
32
2000
2000
2000
NA
NA
NA
Respect, Students
Represent, Family
Will, Pediatrician
Strong
Strong
Strong
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1960
Reflective
Reflective
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Reflective
Tell
Beauty
Pride
Pride
Goal
Experience
Faith, Family
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
As a contestant
Relationship
Appearance
Dealing with
others
As a contestant
Professional
Dealing with
others
Appearance
As a contestant
Appearance
Learning
Learning
Relationship
Agreement
Part 1
91.17%
Part 2
97%
Part 3
94.10%
55
40
2000
Reflective
Draw, Line
Strong
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2000
1960
2000
2000
2000
2000
1960
2000
1960
2000
2000
1960
1960
2000
1960
1960
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1960
2000
2000
2000
1960
1960
Reflective
Reflective
NA
NA
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Social
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Oceanic
Reflective
Social
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
NA
Weak
Strong
NA
Weak
NA
Strong
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Neutral
Neutral
Strong
Strong
Weak
Weak
68
2000
Reflective
Treat, Equally
Care, Women
Teacher
Unique, Individuals
Will
Make-up, Learning
Faith, Love
Goal, Purpose
Trust
Fun, Gloss
Respect
Woman
Wife
Kids, Worked
Broke
Female
Believe
Look, Different
NA
Grew, Farm
Decisions
React
Awkward
Profession
Learned, Value
Family, Smarter
Overlook
Competing,
Pageants
Actions
Dealing with
others
Relationship
Professional
Appearance
Actions
Learning
Relationship
Learning
Relationship
Appearance
Appearance
Relationship
Relationship
Professional
Situational
Situational
Appearance
Appearance
Situational
Actions
Learning
Situational
Situational
Learning
Learning
Relationship
Relationship
Weak
As a contestant
56
Coding Instructions
READ EACH STATEMENT CAREFULLY AND REMAIN AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE!
Part One:
1. Determine the appropriate “sense of self” each statement represents.
“Sense of self”: “individual’s attitudes (plans of action) toward his/her own mind
and body viewed as an object” (Hickman & Kuhn, 1956, pg. 46).
3. There are four categories of “self”:
1. Physical: description of self in terms of the body (I am blonde.)
2. Social: description of self in terms of social interaction or
involvement (I am a Tri Delta.)
3. Reflective: description of self in terms of feelings, moods, opinions,
attitudes, dislikes and preferences (I enjoy being a Tri Delta.)
4. Oceanic: description of self that transcends social interaction (I am at
one with nature.)
4. Mark “sense of self” on the back of each card.
Part Two:
1. Pick out the two key words from each statement.
Key Words: words that are central to the meaning of a statement. Without them,
the statement would make no sense.
2. Rank key words in order of importance.
The more important word should reveal the most about the speaker’s “self”.
“I love my family.”
#1) Love – this tells us something about the speaker’s values or feelings
#2) Family – this tells us what the speaker values or feels about
3. Write key words on the back of each card, in order of importance
Part Three:
1. Evaluate statements for characteristics of a strong or weak “sense of self”
2. Circle your choices on the back of each card
57
Coder #2
Part One: Sense of Self
□ Physical
□ Social
□ Reflective
□ Oceanic
Part Two: Key Words
#1____________________________
#2____________________________
Part Three: Strong/Weak Sense of Self
Mood:
Positive
Self Esteem:
High
Sense of Wellbeing:
High
Self-consciousness:
Low
Attitude toward others:
Benevolent
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Negative
Low
Low
High
Hostile
58
I believe a woman needs to
take care of her husband and
children.
I imagine the ideal wife
depends entirely on the
viewpoint of the husband.
I think beauty comes in a lot
of different forms.
59
Bibliography
Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21-41.
“Bars Beach Lizards.” (1921, May 27). New York Times, 14.
Baker, D. (1997). How we prepare and why we prepare in this manner. Don Baker’s
Communications Plus. Bedford, Texas. A1-E3.
Banner, L.W. (1983). American Beauty. New York: Knopf.
Batwalia, S. (1993). Empowerment of Women in South Asia: Concepts and
Practices. New Delhi: FAO-FFHC/AD. Pg 48
Benedetti, E.T. (2000). You be the Judge. The Miss America Pageant 2000. Harry
Eaby. 33.
Bernay, T., Cantor, D.W. (1992). Women In Power. The Secrets of Leadership.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. New York: Linden.
Burke, P.J., Tully, J.C. (1977). The Measurement of Role Identity. Social Forces,
55(4), 881-898.
Cohen, L.L., Ferguson, M.J., Hyers, L.L., Swim, J.K. (2001). Everyday Sexism:
Evidence for Its Incidence, Nature, and Psychological Impact From Three
Daily Diary Studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 31-53.
Cohen, L.L., Swim, J.K. (1997). Overt, Covert, and Subtle Sexism. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103-119.
Costanzo, P.R. (1992). External Socialization and the development of adaptive
individuation and social connenction. In D.N. Ruble, P.R. Costanzo, and
M.E. Oliveri (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Mental Health (pp. 55-80).
New York: Guilford.
Cramer, K.L., Grace, S.L. (2002). Sense of Self in the New Millennium: Male and
Female Student Responses to the TST. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 30(3), 271-280.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a Psychology of Optimal Experience. In L.
Wheeler (Ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper Perennial.
60
Deford, F. (1971). There She Is: The Life and Times of Miss America. New York:
Viking.
Denmark, F.L. (1993). Women, leadership and empowerment. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 17(3), 343-357.
Dennis, J. (2002). The women of SNCC: Struggle, Sexism, and the emergence of
feminist consciousness, 1960-66. International Social Science Review,
77(3/4), 185-191.
Dominick, J.R., Wimmer, R.D. (2000). Mass Media Research: An Introduction.
Sixth Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Driver, E.D. (1987). Self-Evaluation and Altruistic Behavior. Journal of Social
Psychology, 127(4), 393-395.
Fredrickson, B.L., Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification Theory. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 21(3), 173-207.
Freedman, R. (1986). Beauty Bound. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Gallery. Miss America. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from PBS American Experience
Web site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/gallery/index.html
Greco, K.L. (2002). Behind the Dreams: Today’s Miss America Organization. Miss
America Competition 2002 Program. John Patrick McElwee. 14-15.
Greco, K.L. (2002). You be the Judge. Miss America Competition 2002 Program.
John Patrick McElwee. 53.
Hahn, E.D., Spence, J.T. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and attitude
change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 17-34.
Hartley, W. (1968). Self Conception and Organizational Adaptation. Omaha,
Nebraska: Paper presented at the meetings of the Midwest Sociological
Association.
Heng, C.L. (1995). Women’s empowerment: Addressing emotional subordination.
Convergence, 28(3), 78-86.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resouces, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the
Measurement of Women’s Empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3),
435-465.
Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered Lives: A New Psychology of Women’s Experience.
New York: Basic Books.
61
Kuhn, M. (1964). Major Trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five
years. Sociological Quarterly, 5, 61-84.
Kuhn, M., and McPartland, T.S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes.
American Psychological Review, 19, 68-76.
Latham, A.J. (1995). Packaging woman: The concurrent rise of beauty pageants,
public bathing, and other performances of female nudity. Journal of Popular
Culture, 29(3), 149-168.
Levin, G., Swift, C. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 8 (1&2), 71-94.
Lu, S. (1990). The development of self-conceptions from childhood to adolescence
in China. Child Study Journal, 20(2), 129-138.
Matthews, B.A. (2002). A Content Analysis of Advertising from the 1960 and 1980
Miss America Telecasts. University of Arkansas. Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Miss America Mission Statement. Retrieved October 8, 2002, from the Official Web
site of the Miss America Scholarship Competition. Web site:
www.missamerica.org
Morgan, M.Y., Rhoden, L.J. (1995). Change is White College Women’s
Understanding of Sexism: Empowerment through Critical Reflection. NWSA
Journal, 7(2), 35-58.
Muller, L.E. (1994). Toward an understanding of empowerment: A study of six
women leaders. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 33(2),
75-83.
Pennington, J. (2001). Testimonials. Press Kit. New and Events. Retrieved March
28, 2003, from Offical Web site of the Miss America Scholarship Competition:
http://www.missamerica.org/news/presskit/testimonials.asp
Rappaport, J. 1984. Studies in Empowerment: Introduction to the issue. In J.
Rappaport, C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in Empowerment: Steps toward
understanding and action. New York: Hawthorn.
Rappaport, J. (1985). The Power of Empowerment Language. Social Policy, 17(2),
15-21.
62
Riverol, A.R. (1992). Live From Atlantic City: The History of the Miss America
Pageant Before, After and in Spite of Television. Bowling Green: Bowling
Green State University Popular Press.
Rushton, J. (1980). Altruism, Socialization and Society. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 83-84.
Sobel, B. (1931). Burleycue: An Underground History of Burlesque Days. New
York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Swanson, J.L. (1991). The new sexism: A response to DeVoe. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70(2), 350-353.
The Changing Ideal. Special Features. Miss America. Retrieved January 13, 2003,
from PBS American Experience Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/sfeature/sf_decades.html
Timeline. Miss America. Retrieved January 13, 2003, from PBS American
Experience Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/timeline/index.html
Transcript. The Film and More. Miss America. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from
PBS American Experience Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/pt.html
Watson, E., Martin, D. (2000). The Miss America Pageant: Pluralism, Femininity,
and Cinderella All in One. Journal of Popular Culture, 34(1), 105-127.
Wolf, Naomi. (1991). The Beauty Myth. New York: W Morrow, 1991. Reprint ed.,
New York: Anchor Books, 1992.