• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

“Freedom, Equality, Beauty for Everyone”— Notes on Fantasizing the Modern Body Laura Bieger ABSTRACT “Freedom, Equality, Beauty for Everyone”—these were the words of a recent advertising slo- gan of one of the world’s leading producers of purely natural cosmetics. Drawing on the emphatic creed of the French Revolution and capitalizing upon its iconic formulation of democratic values, the slogan captures a powerful double bind of modern culture that plays out with special force in its dominant mode of bodily production. For implied in this call for a radical democratiza- tion of physical beauty is the idea that one has to work for it; that universal beauty is, indeed, not given but the product of achievement; and that it takes commitment, for example by buying the right cosmetic products and using them with dedication and care. As something that one ‘has’ and cultivates rather than ‘is,’ the modern body is, indeed, a primary resource to gain recognition in a society of equals. In turning to material as diverse as Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Vitruvian Figure,’ Theodor Dreiser’s Sister Carrie, the godfather of body-building Eugene Sandow, the video-clip for Pink’s song “Stupid Girls,” the Madonna of the album Hard Candy, and the work of contemporary artists such as Vanessa Beecroft, Cindy Sherman, and Orlan, I argue in this article that the history of the modern body as a primary site in the struggle for recognition evolved from an immensely productive (and equally problematic) conjunction of the actual and the imagined body. But the call for universal beauty not only captures this basic constitution of modern bodily production. In promoting ‘natural’ rather than surgical enhancement, it also speaks to its latest installment: a mode of production that, in blurring the different ontologies of the material body and its virtual image, creates substantial problems for living in the bodies thus produced. In a world in which we are judged by how we appear, the belief that we can change our appearance is liberating. Sander Gilman, Making the Body Beautiful Distortion is part of desire. We always change the things we want. Siri Hustvedt, The Blindfold ‘Having’ vs. ‘Being’: The Body as Capital We live in bodies that are indispensable as capital.1 They are dressed and undressed according to latest fashion trends, decorated with jewelry, expensive watches, ties, make-up, piercings and tattoos, enhanced with vitalizing creams, pills, and injections, shaped by diets, exercise, and surgery. The clothes that our 1 The company referred to in the abstract is Yves Rocher; the slogan was used in May 2008. An earlier, substantially shorter version of this essay was published under the title “Schöne Kör- per, hungriges Selbst” in Der schöne Körper edited by Annette Geiger. 664 Laura Bieger bodies wear mark social position and individual style, while their physical fea- tures make claims about a good and healthy life. Our contemporary culture is obsessed with beautiful surfaces and effective display—demands that turn our bodies into stage and material, player and script of these obsessions. The body is thus predominantly perceived as something that one has. Its existential real- ity—the being-a-body that underlies and permanently challenges this having-a- body—is systematically bracketed as it contradicts the vehement imperative of our times to fashion and display our selves. And while it may seem tautological to say that ‘beautiful bodies’ are by definition adored and desired, the conjunction of being and having a body of which this truism is emblematic promotes a paradigm of bodily production in which the existential reality of the ‘material’ at hand is pushed back with special force and consequence. The body’s sheer appearance is rigorously drawn into the foreground—a transcendent surplus exceeding the body’s material confines, the ultimate destination of its beauty is to become an embodied image of itself.2 The purpose of addressing this problematic is not to investigate which specific bodies are assumed to be beautiful for whom and why; rather, I am interested in the cultural function of the ‘beautiful body,’ its material and symbolic value, and its mechanisms of production. The claim at stake here is not an exclusive but an ex- emplary one in the sense that not only do beautiful bodies evoke this image qual- ity, but that they do so in especially poignant ways. To be perceived as beautiful, a body needs to be visible; it has to become an object of our gaze and is, in modern consumer cultures, inevitably fashioned for this purpose.3 From this perspective, the surplus quality of the beautiful body can be understood as an expressivity that is both inherent to and invested in this object of perception. The perceptive mode that this evokes within the viewer removes the beautiful body from its everyday existence and makes it seem detached, potentially sublime.4 Think of an actress in an evening gown on a red carpet. On screen she might have last been overweight, in a state of physical neglect, soaked with blood, sweat, and tears, distorted from pain or fear, and we might have admired her for her acting skills. As if to com- pensate for such cinematic ‘veiling’ of her beauty, the red carpet sets it center stage and lets it shine. Her perfect figure is brought out by the extravagant cut of her evening gown, her beautiful face is adorned by a flattering hairstyle, and par- ticularly attractive parts of her body are highlighted with jewelry while her entire appearance is set-en-scene by means of self-asserting poses and a radiant smile. Through their effective positioning and display, beautiful bodies claim a heightened value. They do not only assume visibility, but they actively claim and affirm this visibility—in other words, they produce recognition. Not only ‘beauti- 2 The body as site of social and cultural production evoked here is drawn from Butler. When I talk about the ‘beautiful body’ I am assuming that both components—the body and its alleged beauty—are historically specific social realities. At the risk of being redundant, I will use quota- tion marks whenever I want to stress the image-quality of this construct. 3 For a more extensive discussion on the body’s relation to fashion see Bieger and Reich, as well as Vinken’s and Loreck’s contributions to the volume Mode. See also Entwistle’s landmark study on this topic. 4 The perceptive mode evoked here is drawn from Dewey. “Freedom, Equality, Beauty for Everyone” 665 ful bodies’ are visible in this specific way, but their desire to be adored and the resulting double removal of these bodies—from the existential realm of being-a- body and the practical dimensions of having-a-body—makes the mechanisms of their production especially tangible. And while their beauty often comes along with an aura of naturalness or givenness, it is not so much a gift as it is an arti- fact. Consciously dressed, deliberately decorated and put on display, the visibility of these bodies is enhanced through poses and gestures that have been studied in front of many mirrors. Modes of conduct have been habitually internalized or rigorously trained, and shapes have been adjusted by dieting, exercising, or by tucking and snipping away any undesired features. Creation and discipline, art and work, convention and self-expression intersect at their site/sight, and a substantial share of their appeal lies precisely in dressing these efforts in an ap- pearance of ease and comfort. Yet immediately underneath this graceful surface lies an urgent (and often quite anxious) wish to have a body that suits one’s self. And while Georg Simmel’s ‘psychology of fashion’ invites us to consider that ev- erything done to produce this body is driven by the contradictory yearnings to express one’s individuality and to belong to a certain group, underlying both of these strivings (and generated precisely by the paradoxical nature of this wish) is an even more fundamental longing to be seen and recognized. The modern body is the ‘natural’ currency to cash in on this desire.5 The Invention of the Modern Body From the perspective of this ‘wish economy,’ today’s obsession with the body— the incredible amounts of time, energy, discipline, creativity, and pain that so many of us invest in it—can be seen as symptomatic of an immense yearning for visibility and recognition that is deeply inscribed into the uneven and constantly changing formation of western modernity. In its quest for individuality and self- expression, its belief in equality of opportunity and the freedom of choice, this ‘wish economy’ is driven by a logic of consumption that constitutes the body as an object of possession and design rather than that of a natural or fateful state of being. One’s place within this cultural formation, and the sense of worth that can be derived from having a place in it, is not given by birth or rank. It has to be achieved. Yet at the same time, the imperative to position oneself within this social order is inextricably linked to having an affirmable appearance; in other words, to assume a place means to be seen and acknowledged in them.6 The vis- ibility of the modern body thus not only raises questions about what is being seen. 5 In his pioneering fashion studies essay, Simmel addresses precisely this recognition-based tension between self-expression and group belonging when writing: “On the one hand, [fashion] caters to the need for social recognition, and thus to imitation; yet on the other hand, it satisfies the need to distinguish oneself, catering to the longing to be different, to change, and to stand out” (58; translation mine).

Load more

  26

Copy Link