Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of

Fall 2007

Trailer Park Royalty: Southern Child Beauty Pageants, Girlhood and Power

Elisabeth Blumer Thompson

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd

Recommended Citation Thompson, Elisabeth Blumer, "Trailer Park Royalty: Southern Child Beauty Pageants, Girlhood and Power" (2007). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 471. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/471

This dissertation (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1

TRAILERPARKROYALTY:SOUTHERNCHILDBEAUTYPAGEANTS,

GIRLHOODANDPOWER

by

ELISABETHBLUMERTHOMPSON

(UndertheDirectionofWilliamM.Reynolds)

ABSTRACT

Childbeautypageantsareaphenomenoninruralcommunitiesthroughout

Georgia.Mybeliefisthatmostofthosewhocompeteinthesepageantsarefromthe lowersocio-economicbracket,participatingforamultitudeofreasons.Abricolageof post-structuralfeminism,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandculturalstudies lenseswillanalyzehowtheperformancesofparticipantsandthepowerexercisedbythe beautypageantcultureworktoformulategirls’identities.Analysiswillalsoincludehow poweroperatestoperpetuatethissubcultureandits“right”todictatenormsforbeauty andacceptanceandwillbesituatedinthecultureofgirlhood.Examinationofwhatis depictedinpopularculturethroughvideos,documentaries,andtelevisionshowswillalso occur.Isuggestthattheruralbeautypageantculturedoesworktocreategirlhoodidentity andawayinwhichtheparticipantsviewtheworldandthemselves.Infact,Ibelievethat theruralbeautypageantculturedoesintricateculturalworkintermsofgenderandclass.

INDEXWORDS:Childbeautypageants,Girlhood,Bricolage,Post-structuralfeminism,

Criticalethnography,Criticalhermeneutics,Culturalstudies,Gender,Class

2

TRAILERPARKROYALTY:SOUTHERNCHILDBEAUTYPAGEANTS,

GIRLHOOD,ANDPOWER

by

ELISABETHBLUMERTHOMPSON

B.S.,TheUniversityofGeorgia1992

M.Ed.,GeorgiaSouthernUniversity1995

ADissertationSubmittedtotheGraduateFacultyofGeorgiaSouthernUniversityin

PartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegree

DOCTOROFEDUCATION

STATESBORO,GEORGIA

2007

3

©2007

ElisabethBlumerThompson

AllRightsReserved

4

TRAILERPARKROYALTY:SOUTHERNCHILDBEAUTYPAGEANTS,

GIRLHOODANDPOWER

by

ELISABETHBLUMERTHOMPSON

MajorProfessor: WilliamM.Reynolds

Committee: DeloresD.Liston JohnA.Weaver ShirleyR.Steinberg ElectronicVersionApproved: December2007 5

DEDICATION

MydaddyalwayssaidhecouldprovidefourthingsformewhenIwasa child:food,clothing,shelter,andaneducation.Throughthissetof“rights”outlinedfor me,Ibecameayoungladywithanenormousloveoflearningandanundyingdesirefor academicexcellence.Theconsummategentlemanandanunendingfountofinformation,

JohnFrederickBlumerIIIencouragedmetoapplyforthedoctoralprogramin

CurriculumStudies.Uponmyacceptance,hewasafaithfulcheerleaderanddogged encouragerformetocompletemystudiesandwritethisdissertation.Healmostlivedto seethatdreamtocompletion.OnMay30,2007,Daddylostacourageousbattlewith metastatichepatoma.Myprospectusdefensewasheldtheverynextday.Hewitnessed thebeginningsoftheculminationofmywriting,onlytowatchfromheavenasIstood beforethecommitteeanddefendedAugust13,2007,andhewillbetherewiththatgreat cloudofwitnessesinDecembertowatchme–donnedinmyhoodandgraduationregalia

–walkacrossthestageandhavethisdoctorateconferreduponme.Withgreatlove, undyinggratitude,andthepromisetocontinueDaddy’sloveoflearning,Idedicatethis dissertationtohim.Ididit,Daddy!Spreadthewordinheaven.

Inlikefashion,Idedicatethisworktomymother–theladywhomadetripstoo manytocounttokeepmysonswhileIwrote,mostattheheightofDaddy’sdecline.You arethetrueexampleofaladyandaGodlywoman.Yourwisdomandyourexample providemewithamodelofwhoIdesiretobe.Andyourdetermination,loveoflearning, anddemandfornothinglessthanthebesthavemademeintothelearned,multi-faceted womanInowam.YouareamazingandIloveyouso. 6

Andwithoutfail,Idedicatethistomytwoangels,ZachandTyler.Youhave beenverypatientasMommyhastraveledbackandforthforclasses,lockedherselfinher roomtotype,hauledyoutoStatesborotoattendclassesorto“dropsomethingoffquick asabunnyintheCollegeofEducation,”andforcedyoutoeatoh-so-muchfastfoodas mytimewasdivertedtotheall-consumingdissertation.Youaremyheart–andIam whoIambecauseyouinspiremetobethebestforyou.

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ItiswithheartfeltgratefulnessandthanksthatIacknowledgethepeoplewho supportedmeonthisfour-yeararduousjourneyintotheworldofchildbeautypageants.

Dr.WilliamM.Reynolds,chairofmycommittee,wasaguideinmattersof educationandcareer.Thanksforbeingmymentorandfriend.Ioweadebtofgratitude toyouforleadingmetothistopicandagreeingtobemychair-onlyifIdelvedintothe worldofSouthernbeautypageants!Youhadnoideawhatyouwereaskingfor.

Dr.ShirleyR.Steinberg,outsidememberofmydoctoralcommittee,contributed increasedinsight,constantandmuch-neededguidance,editorialdirection, encouragement,andexcitementthroughoutthisentireproject.Allofthisstemmedfrom a“chance”conversationinareceivinglineatGeorgiaSouthernUniversityin2003.

Nothinghappensbyaccident,andIamindebtedthatmyplanincludedourmeeting.

Dr.DeloresD.Listonservedonthedoctoralcommitteeandprovidedadvicewith datacollection,feminism,andanalysis.Iappreciatehermarkonmylifeandmywork.

Dr.JohnA.Weaverservedonmycommitteeandgenuinelyofferedhistimeand advicethroughouttheprocess.Bothhisadviceandsupportwereinvaluable.

Myparentsloved,encouraged,andmotivatedmetoworkfromthemomentIwas acceptedintotheprograminAugustof2001–witha3yearoldanda7montholdin tow.NotmiraculouslyhaveImadeittothisjuncture,butbythewonderfulsupport,both physicalandemotional,youhaveprovided.

Becky,Joe,andJohn,youhavegivenmethedeterminationtocompletethisall along–fromhecklingmetowritetocheeringmeinmysmallandlargevictories.Your voicesareinhere! 8

MaryAnnFoster,“MaeMae,”madepossiblemyattendancetoclassintheearly daysofthisventure.Thanksforbeing“mom”soIcouldbecome“Dr.Blumer-

Thompson.”

PollyandMichelle,yourreadingofmaterialyourarelyunderstoodandyour keepingmeontrackwithschoolandfamilyweremorevaluablethanyouknow.Just think,Ididnotevenneedthatbookof3000spellstodothis!

AnnRogers,fromthatfirstdayofclasseswhenyoulentmepaperandapen,I knewyouwouldbemyrock.OurridestoStatesboroweretoomanytocountandour emailsandcallswhilewritingpapersprovedmorepreciousthanwordscantell.You helpedmemakeit,andIpromisetoreturnthefavor.Thanksforreadingand encouragingme!

DonnieHodgesandGenieFulcher,friendsofmyparentsandmyEd.Dcandidate predecessors,youwerethedrivingforcesbehindmyapplicationintotheEd.Dprogram.

Thanksforconstantlyprovidingmeencouragementtowardsaccomplishingthisgoal.

Toallofmyotherfriendsandstudentswhohaveencouragedmeandhavetaken specialinterestinmydoctoralpursuit,yoursupportandbeliefhelpedmeachievethis goal.Itistrue–Iamnolongerwritingthisbook.Itisfinished!

Mostimportantly,tomyLordandSaviorJesusChrist–youbeganthisgoodwork andIammostthankfulthatyouhaveseenitthroughtocompletion.Nothingispossible withoutyou.

9

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….7

LISTOFTABLES……………………………………………………………………….13

LISTOFFIGURES...... 14

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………15

CHAPTER

1 RURALSOUTHERNCHILDBEAUTYPAGEANTCULTURE,

GIRLHOOD,ANDPOWER………………………………………………..19

HistoricalRootsofBeautyPageants……………………………………..24

PageantCommunityandCulture………………………………………..28

BeautyPageants,Girlhood,andSocialClass……………………………30

GirlhoodStudies:ABriefBackground…………………………………..34

ResearchProcess…………………………………………………………40

Bricolage:CulturalStudies,PostculturalFeminism,andPoststructuralist

Ethnography……………………………………………………..……….41

2 SITUATINGTHEBRICOLAGE:RESEARCHANDTHECRITICAL

TRADITION………………………………………………………………...44

CurriculumStudies:TyingSchoolsandCulture…...... 45

BecomingaBricoleur……………..…………………………………...... 47

TheoreticalBricolage:TowardsaCriticalApproach……………………51

Epistemology…………………………………………………….………58

CriticalEpistemology………………………………………………...... 60 10

ReachingaCriticalApproachtoResearch……………………………....62

Foucault:TheRoadtoPoststructuralAnalysisofPower…………..……70

CriticalTheory………………………………………………….………..71

Foucault………………………………………………..…………………75

TheMovetoPostmodernThinking……………………………………...76

EmancipationfromExistingPowerStructures…………………………..78

Power,Knowledge,andDiscipline………………………………………79

ThePower/KnowledgeRelationship…………………………………….84

TimeandPlace:DocileBodies…………………………………….…….86

MeasuringDisciplinarySuccess…………………………………………89

WorkingTowardsaFrameworkforAnalysis…………………………...91

3 BRICOLAGE:CULTURALSTUDIES,CRITICALHERMENEUTICS,

POSTSTRUCTURALFEMINISM,ANDPOSTSTRUCTURALIST

ETHNOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………....95

WorkingtowardsInterpretation:CriticalHermeneutics...... 100

ContinuingInterpretation:PostStructuralFeminism…………………..113

CompletingtheResearchLens:CulturalStudies………………………122

CommonGround:MakingtheBricolage………………………………136

Reflexivity…………………………………………………….………...138

Analysis………………………………………………………..………..139

ValidityandCredibility………………………………………………...144

4 PAGEANTCULTURE,SOCIALCLASS,MEDIA,ANDPOWER……150

MediaInfluence:WhatisaPageantGirl?...... 152 11

SocialStatusandPageantParticipation:WhatMotivatesParticipation?.155

OpportunitiesofFutureSuccess……………………………………….157

PageantsasPlatformforFortuneandPrizes…………………………..159

PageantsasaTickettoStardom……………………………………….161

PageantsasaTickettoClassMobility…………………………………163

PageantsProvideWaytoLiveUptoSociety’sFocusonWinners…….164

PageantsProvideWaytoImproveSocialandEconomicStanding……167

PageantsElevateSocialStatusofFamily………………………...... 171

PageantsProvideProofofBeauty……………………………………...172

PageantsOfferWaytoPlay“DressUp”andBeaPrincess……………174

PageantsMakeWinnersHoldersofValuesorIdeals…………………..175

PageantsProvideDefinitionofBeautyinTermsofRace……...... 176

PageantsCreateMoralIdeals…………………………………………..178

PageantsCreateBeautyIdeals…………………………………………178

PageantsAdultifyChildren…………………………………………….179

PageantsareVehiclesforDevelopingSelf-Esteem……………………183

PageantsInstillSkillsforCompetition…………………………………184

SuccessfulPageantGirlsAreOftenSeenasSuperficial……………….185

PageantsCanBeRiteofPassage……………………………………….186

Conclusion……………………………………………………………...187

5 CONCLUSIONSANDDIRECTIONSFORFURTHERSTUDY………...189

ChangeasaChoice………………………………………...... 188

AcknowledgementofPowerOperations……………………………….192 12

CausingChangeinStructuresofDiscipline……………………………197

FutureResearch………………………………………………………...199

ReflectionsonFindings………………..……………………………….203

FinalThoughts………………………………………………………….206

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………208

FILMREFERENCES………………………………………………………………….228

13

LISTOFTABLES

Page

Table1:LiteratureSummary……………………………………………………………55

14

LISTOFFIGURES

Page

Figure1:Akindergartenbeautyqueen………………………………………………….15

Figure2:MediaTranscription………………………………………………………….142

Figure3:ThemesFoundinVideos…………………………………………………….143

15

INTRODUCTION

Figure1:Akindergartenbeautyqueen.

PerhapsitisduetothefactthatthefirstrecordedbeautypageantinSpa,Belgium, in1888washeldonmybirthday,September19 th thatIamfascinatedwithpageantryand findmyselfinthemidstofthisstudy.Ormaybeitcomesfrommyexposuretothe subcultureofpageantsinruralGeorgia–asIamlivinginatownof4000peoplewith5 dancestudiosandapageanteveryweekendatthe4-HClubhouseorthemall30miles away.Orperhapsitstemsfromtheimagesinpopularculturethatstate“she’sMiss

America,andI’mjustthegirlnextdoor…”amongotherthings.AsIponderthesethings andpossiblereasonsformyinterest,Iamremindedofthephenomenonthatcontinuesin ruralcommunitiesthroughouttheSoutheast–mostspecificallyinGeorgia.Dothegirls 16 whoparticipateintheseweekendpageantsonecanfindthroughoutthestatedoso becausetheywanttostandapart–ordotheyparticipateforthat“one-in-a-million” opportunitytogainfameandfortune?

ThepageantsIrefertoarenottheMissAmericaorMissUSAsystems,norare theyquitethe“JonBenetRamsey-esque”pageantsseenontelevisionagainrecentlydue totheresurfacingofherstory.No,thesearethefestivalandfairpageants,thepageants perpetuatedbysmallgroupsandcivicorganizationsthroughouttheruralSouth.My chiefbeliefisthatmostofthosewhocompeteinthesepageantshappentobefromthe lowersocio-economicbracketandtheypursuethecrownandtitlesforamultitudeof reasons.

Sinceitisevidentthatbeautypageantsdooperatetoconstructfemaleidentity,

TrailerParkRoyalty beginswithaninvestigationintowhatconstitutesanddefinesthe ruralbeautypageant.Chapteronewillfocusonpageantstructureandwillgiveahistory ofbeautypageantsandtheirplaceinculture.Thegroundingofandframeworkforthe methodologywillbeprovided.Thischapterwillalsogiveinformationongirlhoodand theimplicationsoffemaleinvolvementinpageants.

Chaptertwowillsituatetheresearchprocessinthecriticaltraditioninrelationto thebeautypageantculture,andmorespecificallytheruralbeautypageantculture.A reviewoftheliteraturesurroundingthebeautypageantculturewillbeincludedaswell.

Chapterthreewillprovideapoststructuralfeminist,criticalethnography,critical hermeneuticsandpopularculturecommentonbeautypageantperformance.Theselenses willbecombinedtoanalyzehowtheperformancesofparticipantsandthepower exercisedbythebeautypageantcultureworktoformulategirls’feminineidentityas 17 poweroperatestoperpetuatethissubcultureandits“right”todictatenormsforbeauty andacceptance.

Chapterfourwillprovideanalysisoftheinformationgatheredfromthestudyof pageants,workswrittenonpageantry,andmediadepictionsofpageantryinrelationto thepowerthatoperatesandtheeffectsongirlhood.Itwillalsobeacommentonthe waysinwhichpageantparticipantsexperiencebothsuccessandvictimizationfrom participation.Inaddition,theironyofappearances–theacceptabilityofmakingchildren looklikeadults–willbeexplored.Thisdiscussionwillbesituatedinthecultureof girlhoodandaroundwhatpromptsparentstoentertheirlittlegirlsintopageants.Inorder tomakethedecisiontopaytheentryfeeandbuytheclothingandothernecessaryitems, therehastobesomedrivingforce,somereasonbehindtheseactions.Whatisdepictedin popularculturethroughvideos,documentaries,andtelevisionsshowswillalsobe examined.

Chapterfivewillnotbethetraditionalfocusonconclusions.Instead,knowledge thatcanbe“usedforsocialactionthattransformsgrandnarrativesanddiscourses”will bediscussed(KincheloeandBerry,2004,p.106).Iwillconsidertheimplicationsofpost structuralfeminism,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpopularcultureand willusethesefindingsforfutureinvestigationsofpageantryandthecultureofgirlhood asitrelatestopageantry.

Isuggestthattheruralbeautypageantculturedoesworktocreategirlhood identityandawayinwhichtheparticipantsviewtheworldandthemselves.Therural beautypageantcultureattemptstoprovideadefinitionofgirlhoodfemininityina commodifiedculturewherefemininityisunstableandunfixedasacategory.However,it 18 cannotaccommodateallofthetensionsthatariseindefining“femininity.”Infact,I believethattheruralbeautypageantculturedoesintricateculturalworkintermsof girlhoodandclass.

19

CHAPTER1

RURALSOUTHERNCHILDBEAUTYPAGEANTCULTURE,GIRLHOODAND

POWER

SouthernruralbeautypageantsareverymuchapartofSouthernculture.They offeraviewintothewaysfemaleidentityisformed-morespecifically,Southernfemale identity:Whocountsasfeminine?Whatdoesitmeantobeaspecificallyfeminine memberofagroup?Howaresocialconcerns–suchasracism,multiculturalism, economicstanding,andvalues–mediatedinandthroughgirls’bodiesonapublicstage?

Whatarethesocialandculturalconditionsthroughwhichparticularkindsof representationscanoccur?

Ourpostmodernculturefocusesonquestionsandconcernsaboutidentityandits formation,alongwiththeintensityandspeedofidentitychange.Theevidenceofour nationalfocusonidentityanddifferenceareseeninthesocialissuesofminorityequity, immigration,sexualorientation,andsocialprogramssuchaswelfare.Ineachofthese, identificationwithacertaingroupandthedifferenceofthatgroupfromothersiswhatis atquestion;asaculture,wearequicktodefinethecriteriaofwhatitmeanstobeofa certaingender,tobeofacertainrace,ortobeofacertainclass.Alloftheseareasare alsodefinedanddiscussed(orsilenced)onthebeautypageantstage.SarahBanet-Weiser

(1999)states“incontemporarypopularculture,unrulycelebritiesandriotouspopular eventsforceourattentionandourfascination(ifbynothingotherthantheirsheer ubiquitouspresence)overdebatesconcerning‘appropriate’boundariesofcontemporary racial,gendered,andsexualidentities”(p.2). 20

Thebeautypageanthasbecomeatheatreformeaningsofindividualandcultural identitiestobecreated,discussed,anddisputed.Itprovidesbothagendered representationandaregionalrepresentationoftheseidentities.Itisacivicritualinthatit givespeopleanarenainwhichtotellstoriesofthemselvestothemselves.Being commodity-driven,itbecomesamass-mediatedspectaclethatisdeeplyembeddedinthe cultureinatimewhenalmostallformsofsocialparticipationareshapedbythe continuousinterplaybetweenrepresentationandconsumption.Asavisibleperformance ofgender,theactsthatconstructgirlsasfeminineareseenaspositiveandgood,and theseconstructionsaretobedesired.And,sincethepresentationandreinventionof identitytakesplaceonthebeautypageantstage,thepageantthenbecomesapolitical arenaasitproducespoliticalsubjects.

Thisstudywillcenterontherural,Southernbeautypageantcultureandhowthese pageantsworktoformidentity.Thedivergentviewsofhowpageantsaredamagingand howtheyarestilldesirablewillbediscussed.Thedichotomyofbeingawinnerandyeta victimofthepowerthatoperatesinthepageantsub-cultureasaresultofparticipationin pageantsandbythepageantsystemitselfwillbeatissue.Theconservativestandpointof thepositiveimpactoftheeverelusive“poise,”self-confidence,andindividual achievementwillbehighlighted.Anditwillbecomeevidentthatthereisnoone definitionofthe“rural,Southernbeautypageant”andthatthereisnoonemeaningofit tobegarneredforallgroupsorindividuals.This,therefore,willnotdefine,onceandfor all,theentityandmeaningoftherural,Southernbeautypageant,butwillworkto understandthepowerthatoperatestoformgirlhoodidentityinthebeautypageant culture. 21

Thesignificanceofthisstudyisseeninmanyways.First,therearefewworkson beautypageantsasaformofpopularculture,mostspecificallyruralsouthernbeauty pageants.ManyworkshavebeencompletedontheMissAmerica,MissUSAandMiss

Worldsystemsofpageantsandhowtheyworktocreateanationalidentity(Banet-

Weiser,1999;Brewer,1999;Cohen,Wilk,andStoeltje,1996;Dick,2002;Giroux,2000;

Lovegrove,2002;Savage,1998;Tice,2006;Latham,1995),butfewworksexistonthe impactofthesmaller,morepervasiveruralpageantsandtheirimpactongirlandfemale identityconstruction(Heltsey,2004;Boyd,1996;Levey,2002;Cross,2004;Roberts,

2002,Tice,2006;Pannell,2004).Andevenfewerexistonthecultureofgirlhoodand howpageantsaffectthatculture(Cross,2004;LalikandOliver,2005;Harris,2004;

MitchellandReid-Walsh,2005).

Fromafeministstandpoint,thisstudywillnotbeonefromthetraditional feministstandpointonbeautypageantsthatseesgirls’bodiesasobjectified,norwillitbe froma“post-feminist”standpoint,whichsaysthatthecurrentfeministideologieshave createdbeingsthatarevictimized,andvulnerableandneedingprotection.Thisstudy willapproachthepopularculturesubjectofbeautypageantsandthewaysinwhichthey operatetoformgirlhoodidentityfromapost-structuralfeministviewpoint.

Poststructuralfeminismemphasizesfeminismasthe

quintessentialpostmoderndiscourse.Asfeministsfocusonandaffirm

thatwhichisabsentand/orperipheralinmodernistwaysofseeing,they

groundthepoststructuralistcritiqueinlivedreality,inthematerialworld

(Steinberg,2004,p.8). 22

Theideasofclassissuesinrelationtowomenandtheirplacelowerinthisrealm insocietyandoftheoppressionofwomenbymalesinsocietyarecentraltothe poststructuralfeministapproachtoanalysisofthelivedexperiencesofwomen.Andthis lenswillallowfortheinjectingof

feeling,empath,andthebodyintotheactofinquiry,blurringthe

distinctionbetweenknowerandknown,viewerandviewed–lookingat

truthasa process ofconstructioninwhichknowersandviewersplayan

activerole(Steinberg,2004,p.8).

Thiswillcallforareadingofthebodythatisdeconstructive,nottobuildnew formulationsbuttoopenpossibilitiesforfurtherstrategies.“Sinceourbodiesbearthe marksofculture,practicesandpolicies,”thisstudywillallowforthethinkingbeyond currentboundariesandwill“exposewhatisgenerallyoverlookedbecauseitistoo uncomfortabletodiscussandwillbringtolightthosethingsthatgenerallyremain obscured”(Pillow,2000,p.214).

Asawomanwhocompetedinbeautypageantsonvariouslevelsandhasworked withintheMissAmericasystemandinlocalpageantsystemsasacoachandpageant coordinator,Ihaveseenthepositivesandnegativesofbeautypageantinvolvementand thewaysthatpoweroperateswithinthisculture.However,whatinterestsmeisthe phenomenonofidentitydevelopmentinthepageantsub-culture.Formanygirls,who theyare,howtheyviewtheirbodiesandtheirselfworth,andhowtheyviewtheworldis largelyshapedbytheirparticipationinbeautypageants.And,Inoticedthatinrural

Georgia,thetitlesthathavebeenwondonotfallbythewaysideasoneages;instead, theyarecontinuallyusedtodefinewhoagirlorwomanisandwhysheiscrediblein 23 certainjobandculturalareas–danceinstructor,etiquetteinstructor,pageantdirector, publicspeaker,entertainmentcoordinator,civicgroupmember,andmore.Allofthis promptedmetoinquirewhythishappenedandwhatinthepageantcultureworkedto formulatetheidentitiesofthesegirls.

Thisstudylooksathowbeautypageantsworkasapartofculturetoproduce feminineidentity–especiallyintheareaofgirlhoodandinrelationtosocio-economic standing.IamagenderedfemaleinthecontemporaryUnitedStatescommodityculture.

Itisbecauseofmyplaceinthecultureandmyinvolvementinpageantsthatthisis importanttomeandothersinterestedinfeministstudiesandpopularculture.According toBanet-Weiser(1999),

Popularculturalformssuchasthebeautypageanthavebeenboth

celebratedandvilifiedassitesforscholarlyinquiryinthelastdecade;

thoughmanyhavechallengedanunderstandingofU.S.popularcultureas

merelyavehiclefortheculturalindustry,thelegacyoftheFrankfurt

Schoolhasnonethelessprovedtoberemarkablyresilient(p.5).

Popularcultureisnotjustareificationofthedominantideology,butitisclosely tiedtothecommodityculture.Identityisnolongerseenassomethingthatis“given”or

“done”tosomeone;rather,acultureofcreationandonethatGeorgeLipsitz(1990)says competesfordominanceinamultiplicityofdiscourses.Inthislight,pageantsarea publicdisplay,theyfocusonarchaicsystemsofmedievalpageantry,andtheycreateand articulatefemaleidentitynorms.Forthesereasons,theyaresituatedinpopularculture andcalltobestudied.

24

HistoricalRootsofBeautyPageants

AlthoughhistoricallypageantscouldbesaidtohavebeguninGreekmythology withthestoryofParisandhisselectionofthe“mostbeautifulwomanintheworld”–

Helen–andhissubsequentsnubbingofthegoddessesofMountOlympus,thefirstreal

“beautifulbaby”andothercontestsinAmericawerebegunbythefamedP.T.Barnumto drawcrowdsandaddtohistravelingshows(Riverol,1992).Thisconceptofhaving competitionstofindthe“mostbeautiful”ledtoAtlanticCity’sfamed“MissAmerica

Pageant,”developedin1921asawaytokeeptouristsinthecoastaltownafterLabor

Day.MissAmericahadmanyupsanddownsovertheyears,butitcannotbedeniedthat thepageantitselfledtothecurrentsystemsofpageants(nowmorecommonlyknownas

“beautycontests”)seenacrossthenationtoday.

In1953,themodernworldwatchedwithraptattentionasElizabethIIwas crownedinornatesplendoratWestminsterAbbey.Myownmotherrecalls,withdreamy voice,thatherwholeschoolgottogethertowatchthecoronationliveontelevision.And eachlittlegirldreamedofwearingajeweledcrown,soitseemed.Theworld– specificallytheUnitedStates–becameenamoredwiththeideaofroyaltyandpageantry.

AndthisledtoincreasedinterestinMissAmericaandthedevelopmentofotherlocaland nationalpageantsystemsintheUnitedStates.Infact,by1957,theMissAmerica

PageantSystem,alongwithitssponsorstheJaycees,createdtheAmerica’sJuniorMiss systemtohonorhighschoolseniors–andtherebydevelopanew“crop”ofcontestants readyfortheMissAmericastage(PageantCenter,2007,p.3).Asthebaby-boomer generationbegantogrowupandparticipateinthesepageants,themovewasbeingmade 25 tohavingyoungerandyoungerfemalesascontestantsinthesebeautyandscholarship pageants.

Itdidnottakelongfortheideaofdressingupandbeingconsideredroyaltyto becomevogueforgirlsintheUnitedStatesundertheageof10.Justthreeyearsafterthe

JuniorMiss Systembegan, LittleMissUniverse –aninternationalpageantforchildren– beganinMiami,Florida(PageantCenter,2007,p.4).Thisledtomorechildren’s pageants,amongthemthe LittleMissAmericaPageant inNewJersey,whichwasthe creationofthePalisadesAmusementParkin1961.P.T.BarnumandtheAtlanticCity creationhadledtoanationalloveofroyalty,crowns,competition,andbeautystandards

–forgirlsundertheageof16.Pageantsforteenspoppedupalloverthecountry-Miss

TeenageAmerica in1961, MissNationalTeen-Ager in1971, MissUnitedTeenager in

1971,and MissTeenAllAmerica in1976–andoneofthelongeststandingpageant systemsforchildren, CinderellaPageants ,beganin1971andbecamealeading scholarshippageantforchildren(PageantCenter,2007,p.6).

Itseemed,fromthebeginningofthemodernbeautypageant,thattheNordic peoplesofNorthernEuropewerethemodelsforbeauty(Savage,1998,p.62).Thiswas furthernotedintheculturalphenomenonofwomenwithdarkerskintonesusingpowder tolightentheircomplexionstoattractattentionfromtheoppositesex.“Whenitcame rightdowntoit,whitewasbeautiful”(Savage,1998,p.62).Inthebeginning,only white,Anglo-Saxonwomenwereallowedtocompeteinthepageants.Andforthelittle girlpageants,thesameheldtrueinthebeginning.Overtime,thebarrierscamedown andAfrican-American,Jewish,andwomenofotherraceswereadmittedtocontests.But 26 evenwhenthishappened,theyconformedtotheacceptedstandardsof“whiteness”or theyseemednottofarewellinthecompetition.

ItisawellnotedfactthatwhenAfrican-Americansareportrayedinmainstream representation,theyusuallylookthemost“white.”FormanyAfricanAmericans,this wasclearlythecasewithVanessaWilliamswithherstraighthairandherCaucasian features.Williamsdidnotembraceawhitefemininity,butconsideredherselfawoman ofcolor,despiteherwide,greeneyes,fullmouth,andoblongframedbyshoulder- lengthhairfallinginloosewaveshighlightedingold.Yes,shedidseemtofitthe“white isright”billforMissAmerica,andthatseemedtoworkforthepageantrealmatlarge.

Thisideaofraceandpageantryasasiteforracetobediscussedandsituated continuestoexist.Andeventhoughtherehavebeengreatstridestoincludegirlsfrom manyraces,therestillseemstobeamongtherural,Southernbeautypageantculture,a beliefthattheNordicnorthernEuropeanstereotypeisthemodeltostrivetomeet.Blond, blue-eyed,andrelativelyfair-skinned(thetanningbedischangingthingsabithere!) seemstobethelooktohaveforthepageantcircuit,pastandpresent.

IntheUnitedStatescurrentlythereareabout3,000annualpageantsgeared towardsthosegirlsundertheageof11.Thesepageantsaremostoftenheldinstateson theWestCoast(California,specifically)andtheSoutheast(Texas,Mississippi,Alabama,

Georgia,Florida,SouthCarolina,NorthCarolina,andVirginia).Infact,mostofthese pageantsareheldinshoppingmallsandhotelballroomsinmid-sizedtownsandcities acrosstheseareas.Andthese“pageantsystems”haveasetofrequirements,competition types,registrationfees,andmodelingstylesspecifictothemselves.Inordertocompete andhopetowin,onemustbeawareoftheserequirements(Gleick,1997,p.2). 27

Contestants’arejudgedintheareasofwritingskills(grammar,spelling,and mechanicsontheapplication,essayportion–ifrequired,andshortanswerquestions), interviews,talent,poise,personality,modelingstyle,andattractivenessinmostpageants.

Therearealsoadditionalcategories,suchasprettiestdress,prettiestsmile,prettiesthair, photogenic,supremebeauty,overallbeauty,overallpoise,highestscore,etc.Thereare generallyanoddnumberofjudges–mostofwhomare“trained”onthecriteriaforthe particularpageantsystem.Andeachofthesephasesofcompetitionrequiresanentryfee aswellascostumingandpreparation,sothereismoneytobemadebothfromthe competitionandthepreparation.Manyapplicantsseekprofessionalsinthepageantrealm tocompletetheirapplications,coachthemoninterviewskills,createtheirplatformsor guidethemoncommunityserviceactivitiesandextracurricularactivitiestosettheir applicationsapart,andpreparethemformodeling,talent,andotherportionsofthe competition.Asaformerinterviewcoachandapplicationwriter,Ihaveknownparents topayupwardsof$250forthecompletionoftheapplicationwithsuggestionson activitiesandthenpay$50to$75anhourformetocoachtheirdaughtersforthe interviewportion.Andmyfeesseemtopaleincomparisontothefeeschargedby modelingcoachesandtalent(dance,singing,gymnastics,etc)coaches.

Pageantcoordinatorshavetheopportunitytoclearagreatprofitfromstaging beautypageants.Often,well-runpageantscannetanywherefrom$5000towell-over

$100,000(Nussbaum,2007,p.1).Theseprofitscomefromregistrationfeesforbasic competition,add-oncompetition,“People’sChoice”competitions,adsalesby contestants,gatereceipts,andprogramsales.Thecostforcontestantsandtheirfanscan beastronomical. 28

Formanyofthestateswherepageantsareheld,thereisnotsetoflawsgoverning theoperationofthecompetition.Often,theindividualpageantshavewell-developed criteriafortheirparticipants,butthesearenotsubjecttothelawsofaparticularstate

(Nussbaum,2007,1).Infact,asIresearchedtheguidelinesforpageantsandtheir conductforthepurposesofthisstudy,Iwasamazedtofindthattherearenolawsthat existinGeorgiatogovernthepracticesofpageantsystems.Therearelawsfornon-profit andfor-profitpageantsintheareaof“fundraising,”butnonethataffectordictatethe requirementsandrestrictionsfortheactualparticipantsorjudgingcriteria.This,inlight ofchildlaborlawsandchildabuselaws,isfrightening.Sincemuchcanbesaidforthe waysthatpageants“work”children,andthewayspageantscancausepsychological anguishand/orrequirechildrentobecomeoverlyanxiousornervousaboutcompetition, itisamazingtothinkthatmorelawsthatspecificallyaddressthesystemdonotexist.

PageantCommunityandCulture

Pageantscreateasenseofcommunityfortheirparticipantsinthelargercultural sphere.Theyoccuratprescribedplacesandtimesandtheyfocusondivergenttypesof contestantsandjudgingcriteria,asdiscussedabove.Pageantsoftenhaveasharedsetof symbolsofethnicity,race,femininity,andidentity.Thesearenotthesameforall pageantsystems,buttheyareconstructedandsymbolizedincertainbehaviorsandmodes ofappearance.

Eventhoughbeautypageantsdonotdirectlyconfrontthedifficultissuesofrace orclass,theydocreatenormsfromwhichthesecanbeviewedandconstructed.Banet-

Weiser(1999)commentsthat 29

pageantsdonotnecessarilyattempttoeraseexistinginequalities(whether

thoseofclass,race,ethnicityorgender)asmuchastheyperformthe

functionofconfrontingthoseinequalities,incorporatingthemintoa

commonlanguageandpractice,andultimatelyprovidingsomesortof

idealisticsolution(p.7).

Fromafeministperspective,thisstudyisnotcompletedtoexposepageantsas demeaningtogirlsandasritesoffeminineobjectification.Iwanttoseehowpageants, themedia’srepresentationofpageants,andtheinfluenceofsocialclassworktoconstruct thegirlswhocompeteinthemascommoditiesandworktocreateidentities.The objectificationofthebodyisoneareainwhichthepageantsworktocreatethis commodifiedidentity.Inadditiontothis,Iwanttofurtherinvestigatethedualnatureof pageants,oneinwhichparticipantsarebothrewardedandvictimized.

Thislookatwaysthatgirl’sidentitiesareconstructedascommoditieswilltake thefeministperspectiveastepfurtherthanthesurfacelevelattackleveledbythemedia, somefeministgroupsandculturaltheoristsattheproblemswithbeautypageants(asseen inthedocumentariesonbeautypageantsinthewakeofJon-BenetRamsey’sdeathandin thecommonobjectionstowomenandchildrenseenas“cattle”tobejudgedbyopponents tobeautycontestsorpageants).Itwillworktoseewhattypeofsubjectsandidentities areproducedbypageantsandwhatpractices,media,andinstitutionsworktosustainand revisethisproduction.SusanBordo(1993),SandraLeeBartky(1990),Teresade

Laurentis(1986,1987),andmanyothershavediscussedtheoriesofpowerandagencyin differentfeministtheorieswhichviewgenderedandracedbodiesnotaspassivesites constructedbypower,butastheeffectsandmandatesofpower.Thisviewofpoweris 30 essentialtogenerateamorecomplexunderstandingofproductionsoffemininity–those representedbydominantcultureandthoseself-representedwithindominantculture.

AccordingtoFoucault(1977),thiscallsfortheanalysisofgenderedandracedbodies, whichareinapolitical,cultural,andsociallandscape,tobeanalyzedintheparadoxical waysthattheyaredisciplinedandregulated.

BeautyPageants,Girlhood,andSocialClass

Inkeepingwiththisdiscussion,Iwillfocusonthecultureofgirlhoodinsteadof lookingatadultwomen,teenagers,oryoungwomen.TheworksofClaudiaMitchell

(2002,2005),JacquelineReid-Walsh(2002,2005),ValerieWalkerdine(1990,1998),

AngelaMcRobbie(1991/2000,1994,1998),andotherswillbeusedtodefine“girlhood” anddiscussthecharacteristicsofthiscultureandtheinfluenceswhichaffectit.In lookingspecificallyatthecultureofgirlhood,aclearerreadingofpowerandhowit operatesintheruralpageantculturecanbeobtained.Fromthatpoint,gleaning informationonhowthemedia,howparents,howpopularculture,andhowparticipation inpageantsaffectsgirlscanbemoreeasilydone.Andtheeffectofsocialclassonthe perceptionsofgirlsinthepageantrealmcanbebetterunderstood.

Genderisperformative.Weconstantlyacttoproduceourselves,butwedonot performasifitwerearole.JudithButler(1990)hasarguedthat

becausethereisneitheran‘essence’thatgenderexpressesorexternalizes

noranobjectiveidealtowhichgenderaspires,andbecausegenderisnota

fact,thevariousactsofgendercreatetheideaofgender,andwithoutthese

acts,therewouldbenogenderatall(p.140). 31

Genderdoesnotexistasapregivenfactofnature.Justhavingananatomicalpartdoes notnecessarilymakeonea“girl.”Itiswhatonedoes–howonespeaks,acts,dresses, etc.,-thatworkstoconstructgender.Andthemoreone“does”theseacts,themore–or less–“girlike”onebecomes.Individualsdonotdothesethingstocreateaperformance; theydothembecauseculturedictatestheactionsandthenindividualscontinueto performthemtocontinuallyredefinethemselves.

Wecannotescapethefactsthatgenderbothproducesandisproducedbya particulardefinitionofself.Tojustsaythatweshouldnotparticipateinbeautypageants willnotmakethedominantdefinitionofgirlhoodassituatedas“feminine”goaway.

Sincethereisacertainamountofenjoymentandaspirationassociatedwithgirlhoodasit iscelebratedandperformedonthepageantstage,itisdifficulttohaveparticipationin beautypageantsstop.Contestants,ortheirparents,seemtobenefitfromparticipationin thepageantsandthissatisfactionderivedfrombeing“girly”isdesired.Theexcessive natureofappearance(hair,makeup,clothes,physicalfitness,bodylanguage,and gestures)isequatedwithaspirationanditsconnotation.Formanyofthesegirls,coming fromalowersocio-economicareaorbackgrounddoesnotallowthemtheopportunityto dressuporbeconsidered“pretty”or“sparkly”onadailybasis.Noraretheydotedupon liketheyareonpageantdays.Tohavetheopportunitytobe“girly”andtohavethe attentiongiventothemwhentheydressandactthiswaygivesthempositive reinforcementforparticipationinpageantry.Andtheawards,attention,andaccolades receivedbythegirls,inturn,giveattentiontotheparents,whowantthestatustheir daughtersreceive.Sothecycleofperforminggirlhoodonthepageantstagecontinues. 32

Theparticipantsreceiveaccoladesandphysicalgratificationfromtheir appearanceandperformanceofgirlhood.Inaddition,therearetangibleandintangible benefitstopageantparticipation.Awardsaregivenandachievementsarerecognized.

Scholarshipsandothermonetarygiftsaregiven.Opportunitiesforcareersandfame arise.These,andmanyothers,arepositiverewards.Butthedamagestoagirl’sidentity andconstructionofrealitystillexist.

Withinthefeministperspective,Idonotfindmyselfworkingfromapost- feministstandpoint.Idonotseeallbeautypageantcontestantsasvictimsbecausethis viewpointdoesnotrecognizehowpoweroperatesinconstructingidentity.Post- feminism,asseenintheworksofCamillePaglia(1990),KatieRoiphe(1993),and

NaomiWolf(1991),takesissuewiththeideathatispervasiveinmostpostmodern feministstandpointsthatgirlsandtheirbodiesarevulnerable.Thepost-feministview seesthatthetraditionalfeministtheorieshavecreatedasocietyofvictimsandtendto reinforcefemalepassivityandpowerlessness.Sincethisdoesnotaccountforthe workingsofpowerintheproductionofgirlhoodidentity,Ichoosenottoviewthisstudy fromthisviewpoint.

Poststructuralfeminismseemstobeamuchmoreaccuratelensthroughwhichto studytheworkingsofpowerinbeautypageantsasitcreatesfemaleidentity.St.Pierre andPillow(2000)statethatpoststructuralfeminism

continuestotroublethesubjectofhumanism–therational,conscious,

stable,unified,knowingindividualwhosemoralityallowsatrocities

beyondimaginingbutstillclaimsinalienable‘rights’thatprotectitfrom

responsibilitytotheOtheritdestroys.Thesubjectofpoststructuralismis 33

generallydescribedasoneconstituted,notinadvanceof,butwithin

discourseandculturalpractice(p.6).

Thepoststructuralfeminististroubledbycategoriessuchas“woman”or“girlhood”and attemptstoloosenthesecategoriesandmakethemmoreunstableandundefined.These looseinterpretationsgivemeroomtodiscoverhowthepoweroperatesinbeauty pageantstocreategirlhoodidentity–notonethatisstagnant,butonethatisina constant,commodifiedstateoffluxduetothechangingrulesofwhatgirlsneedtoposses todowellinthecultureaswellastotheforcesandentitiesthatgainfinanciallyandin areasofpowerduetotheparticipationofthesegirlsinthepageantrealm.

Theresearchwillfocusonthreemaingroupsofquestions:

1.Howdoespoweroperateinthebeautypageantsubculture?

Howdoesitcreateandmaintainthissubculture?Whateffectsdomedia

andsocio-economicstatushaveonthiscultureandthepowerthatworks

therein?

2.Whatinspiresentryintoabeautypageantforagirlsorforthe

parentsofgirls?Isthereacorrelationbetweenthemediarepresentationof

whygirlsenterpageantsandthereasonsstatedbyparticipants?Whatis

thecorrelationbetweensocio-economicstatusandpageantentry?

3.Whatdichotomiesexistinthepageantsubculture?Whatcan

weassumeabouttherelationshipbetweenrepresentationandthe“real”

whenconsideringbeautypageantsandbeautypageantcontestants?How

dothegirlparticipants(ortheirparents)inruralbeautypageantsreconcile

thefactthattheyarebothrewardedandvictimizedordotheyrealizethat 34

theyarebothwinnersandvictims?Howisthediscrepancybetweenthe

adultificationofchildrenandthechildificationofadultsreconciled?

SomanymorequestionsexistandIwouldlovetopursueandanswerthem.Butforthe sakeofbrevityandasmallerscopeforthisresearch’spurposes,thestudywilllimitedto thesethreemaingroups.

GirlhoodStudies:ABriefBackground

Inthisresearch,thefirstthingthatmustbediscussedis“girlhood”-asthese pageantstargetlittlegirls,whatmakesthemfeminine,andwhatisdeemedacceptable andappropriateforbeauty.Anditisnounderstatementtosaythatbeautyisdefinedina multitudeofwaysbyeachindividualpageantineachindividualcommunity.Thereexist somecommonthreads,however,amongallofthem.Butasforgirlhood–tounderstand thesubgroupandsubcultureofgirlhood–onemuststartwithitshistoricalcontextto childhoodstudies.

GaileS.Cannella(2002)commentsthat“thosewhoareyoungerhavebeen historicallydisqualifiedandinvisible(especiallywithinacontextof2000yearsof patriarchy)”(p.11).Thisideathatchildrenwereseenasagroupthatwasnotimportant orcalledtobestudiedhasleadtolittleworkpriortothetwentiethcenturybeingdonein theareasofchildhood,boyhood,orgirlhood.Morecurrenttheorists,likeJoeKincheloe

(2002),propose

theconsciousconstructionofaprogressivepoliticsofchildhoodwhich

involvesmediaandpowerliteracyforchildrenaswellasadultsthatwould

continuallyexaminepoweragendasthatgenerateandsupportparticular

knowledge(s)(p.13). 35

Sowhatdoesthismeantothoseofuswhowishtounderstandchildhoodstudiesand beyond?Thismeansthatthestudiesofchildhoodarenolongerjustdiscussionsofthe waysthatchildrenarelikeadults,but“recognizethatyounghumanbeingsdonotescape thecomplexitiesofsociety”(Cannella,2002,p.15).

Kincheloe(2002)states

toillustratetheconfusionandconflictaboutperceptionsofchildhoodand

howweshouldaddresschildren,itisimportanttonotethatrightatthe

timetraditionalassumptionsabout,andcategorizationsof,childrenhave

beencrumbling,themobilizationoftheiconographyof“theinnocent

child”hasbecomeomnipresent”(p.77).

Childrencannolongerbeseeninthesamelightastheywerepre-twentiethandpre- twenty-firstcentury.Societyhaschangedinsuchwaysthatmedia,toys,entertainment, parentingstyles,andsomanymorefactorsmakechildhoodamuchmorecomplexand confusingsub-culturetostudyandnavigate.

Theideathatchildhoodandadolescenceareseparatedevelopmentalstageshas alsobeenchallenged.Thenotionsofadefinableageofcompetencyandaclear demarcationbetweenchildhoodandadolescencearepassé–the“tween”phenomenon andthecontinued“adultification”ofchildrenindress,mediacreations,videogames, musicandsomuchmorehaveworkedwithotherforcestocreateafluiddefinitionofthe differentstagesofdevelopment.AsKincheloe(2002)confirms

inthenewchildhood,thedistinctionbetweenthelivedworldsofadults

andchildrenbeginstoblur.Whilecertainlychildhoodandadulthoodare 36

notoneinthesame,theexperiencesofadultsandchildrenaremore

similarnowthantheywerebefore(p.79).

Thisleadstotheexaminationofchildhoodandthefactorsthatimpactand influenceit.

Intimesleadinguptothe1700s,therewasnotmuchthoughttochildren,with exceptionoftheirbeinglittleadults.HenrySwinburneinhis“TreatiseofSpousals”in

1686describesthematurationofboysandgirlsintermsofripeningfruit.

FemaleBodiesaremoretenderandmoisterthantheMale:andsoMens

Bodiesbeingharderanddrier,theyaremoreslowinripening;and

WomensBodies,becausetheyaresofterandmoister,aremorequickly

ripe;likeasitistobeseeninPlantsandfruits,whereofthatwhichismore

softandmoistissoonerripe,thanthatwhichishardanddry(citedin

MitchellandReid-Walsh,2005,p.191).

Thisideamakescurrentreadersuncomfortableandseemstobefullofflawsinreasoning, butoddlyenough,thereisevidenceofthislineofthinkingaboutgirlsandboysinour currentculture.Theideaofgirlsmaturingmorequicklyandbeingmore“juicyand rounded”ismirroredinchildhoodbeautypageantsandmanyotheraspectsofpopular culture.Thecurrentstudyofgirlsandgirlhoodseemstobetiedtothis17 th centurybelief inthewaysthatpopularcultureviewsthedifferencesbetweengirlsandboysstillexist.

ButastheEnlightenmentchangedthinkinginsomanyareasoflifeand academics,italsochangedtheviewsofchildhood,andgirlhoodspecifically.According toClaudiaMitchellandJacquelineReid-Walsh(2005), 37

inthe18 th and19 th centuries,itseemsthatideasaboutgirlsandgirlhood

weregenericcatagories.Girlsofthelowerclassesstillexistedinabinary

systemofchildandadult,whilegirlsofthemiddlingclassandhigherhad

athirdstageof“younglady”(pp.11–12).

ThisideaaboutgirlsseemstostemfromthefamousworkdonebyRousseauinhis studiesofSophieandEmileandthedifferencesbetweenboysandgirlsinchildhood.

Rousseau(1963)attributestwotraitstogirlsinrelationtotheireducation:loveof fineryandaneedtobenoticed.Hesays“notcontentwithbeingprettytheywantnotice takenofthem,”(p.135)asopposedtoboyswhodonotcareifothersnoticethem.Itis thispreoccupationwithwhatothersthinkthatledRousseautoconcludethatgirls“canbe controlledbytellingthemwhatpeoplethinkofthem”(ibid.).

Inadditiontotheinfluenceoftheopinionsofothers,Rousseau(1963)also discussedthedifferencesinboysandgirlsandtheirtoys,indicatingthatgirlsplaywith dollsinpracticeforherlifework.Thisviewofgirls“practicing”fortheirfuturesisnot heldbyothertheoristsofthetime,mainlyMariaEdgeworth.Edgeworth(1730)saw dollsanddollplayforgirlsasmimickingadultplayandencouraging“facile”behavior.

Edgeworth,inapositivelight,believedthatgirlslearnedaboutfashionfromdollplay, buttheydidhavetheabilitytocreateandconstruct,justasboysdid.

ItisRousseau’sideasaboutgirlsandtheirpredispositiontodressingupand pretendingtobewomenthatfindsaninterestingparalleltothestudyofgirlsandrural beautypageants.MitchellandReid-Walsh(2005)comment,

torealizethetenacityofthistypeofthinkingwehaveonlytocompare

Rousseau’sviewswiththepredominanceofpreschoolbeautypageants, 38

theever-movingdownwardedgeofsexualizedfashionforgirls,andthe

knowledgethatmarketresearchhasdemonstratedthatlittlegirlsliketo

combandadornlonghair(p.183).

ButthestudyofgirlhoodisnotlimitedbythewritingsofRousseauandothersfromthe

18 th and19 th centuries.Presentdayculturalistsandsociologistshavecontinuedtostudy thecultureofgirlhoodandidentifymanydifferentelementsofthesubculture.

Theideaofgirls(orchildren)asminiatureadultscontinuedthroughtheVictorian period.Itwasduringthistimethatdollplayanddressingupbecamepopularpastimes andplayforgirlsandwasseenasappropriateandfittingforgirlsastheylearnedskills neededforbecomingculturedandwell-roundedwomen.Ironicallyenough,itisthe present-day’sturntochildrenwearingadultfashionsthatleadsmanywhostudychildand girlculturetosaythatthereseemstobeareturntotheVictorianlineofthinkingthat childrenareminiatureadults.KarenCalvert,inMitchellandReid-Walsh’s Researching

Children’sPopularCulture (2005),statesthat

presentdaychildren’sfashion–whichisoftenaminiaturereproductionof

adultstyles–[is]akindofreturntoGeorgianandcolonialattitudesofthe

childas(necessarily)asmalladult.[This]require[s]anearly

sophisticationofattitudesonthepartofthechildasnecessaryforsurvival

inaworldwhere“innocence”hasbecome“vulnerability”andthe

“uniformedchildisthechildatrisk(pp.190–191).

Soastheevolutionofchildhoodstudieshasleadtospecificnotionsofgirlhood

(andboyhood),itisimportanttospecificallyunderstandwhatgirlhoodstudiesactually encompasses.MitchellandBlaeser(2000)statethat“girlhoodismorethanjustastage 39 ofdevelopment;itisaculturalsitewhereissuesofrace,class,power,dominationandso onareplayedout”(p.1).Andtiedtothisdefinitionistheunderstandingthatduetothe manydifferentsourcesofinfluence,girlhoodasawholedoesnotimplyasenseofpower overenvironmentorotherfactors.Itseems,inlightofmystudyofgirlsinruralbeauty pageantsandinstudiesofmultitudesofothergirlsinaninfinitenumberofother scenarios,thatgirlsareoftenmanipulatedbysourcesofpoweroutsidethemselves.

DiederickF.Janssen(2006)givesfurtherdefinitiontogirlhoodstudiesandhas compiledacomprehensivebibliographyofresourceswrittenonandaboutgirlhood.

AccordingtoJanssen,

“GirlhoodStudies”isanemerginginternationalresearcharea.The

currentstatusquoof“girlhoodstudies”asafieldofinquiryallowsthe

imageofanexus,niche,orintersectionprojectedfrom“established”

panoramicframesofendeavoursuchas“feministstudies,”feminist

pedagogy,queerpedagogy,and“genderstudies”ingeneral.Thus,toward

theendofthepreviouscentury(pre)adolescentfemininitieshavebeen

elaboratedwithinvariousinterventionalistandnormativeparadigms(anti-

“abuse,”anti-“sexism,”anti-“harassment,”anti-“violence,”anti-

“underachievement”)aswellaswithinpanacademicparadigmsof

embodiment,identityandself-image,localityandpositionality,powerand

participation,emancipationandactualization.Researchershavebegun

examininghowgirl’hoods’aremodeled,reproduced,reinvented,

managed,negotiated,andarticulatedintermsofracialization,authenticity, 40

multiplicity,hierarchiesandhegemonies,transgression,andritual(pp.3–

4).

AnditiswithinthisdefinitionofgirlhoodandgirlhoodstudiesthatIfindmyself focusingonfemalesbetweentheagesofbirthand11yearsoldandtheimpactofpower andparticipation,emancipationandactualizationwithintheritualofruralbeauty pageantsandthemediadepictionsofthem.Andtiedtothiswholestudyistheinfluence ofsocio-economicfactorsontheparticipantsandtheirperceptions.

Myquestionsconcernwhygirlsareenteredintobeautypageants,howsocio- economicstatusinfluencesandisinfluencedbytheparticipationinbeautypageants,and whatinfluencevariousworksfromthemediainthecurrentculturehaveonthegirlswho competeandthebeautypageantcultureitself.

ResearchProcess

Toanswerthesequestions,Iwillframethisstudyaroundtheruralpageantsthat areprevalentinSouthGeorgia.Thiswillprovideanavenuetostudythepowerstructures andwaystheyoperatetoconstructidentityinruralpageantsystems.Inthissamelight,I willendeavortodefinehowthemediadefinesthepageantcultureandthepageant participantbystudyingthedocumentariesSmilePretty , PaintedBabies , LivingDolls ,and

LittleBeauties:TheUltimateKiddieShowdown ,andvariousotherinvestigativereports alongwiththemovies LittleMissSunshine , Beautiful ,andDropDeadGorgeous .In additiontothevideosanddocumentariesonpageantculture,Iwillalsorelyontheworks ofvariousauthorsonpageantryandpopularculture.Inalloftheseareas,Ihopeto analyzethecharacteristicsoftheparticipantsinandwinnersofruralpageantsintermsof 41 socialclassandfurtherusethisinformationtoanswertheresearchquestionsposed above.

Bywatchingthefilmsanddocumentaries,Idiscovertheparticipants,characters, andpageantryculturesportrayedinthemandcanthenrelatetheseelementstothelarger realmofSouthernbeautypageantcultureoutsideofthefilmsanddocumentaries.Using theworksofShirleySteinberg(2004)asaguide,Iamabletolocatethepatternsof culturalexpressionandsocialinteractionasdepictedintheworksonpageantry.And, throughthiscarefulwatchingand“reading”ofthefilmsanddocumentaries,Iamableto identifythehiddenagendasandassumptionsthat“reflectandshapeculture”(Steinberg,

2004,p.5).And,asIstudythesefilms,Iambetterabletopositiontheminrelationto otherfilmsonbeautypageantcultureinrelationtothemesorgenre.Thisallowsfor seeingsidesofthisgenrethatcanoftenbeoverlooked.

Bricolage:CulturalStudies,PoststructuralFeminism,andPoststructuralist

Ethnography

AsIbegantoconductmystudyandtocollectandstudythedata,Ididnotwantto restrictmyselftoasinglemethodology.Thisdissertation,initsentirety,ispartcultural studiesresearch,partcriticalethnography,partcriticalhermeneuticsresearch,andpart poststructuralfeminismresearch.Theseapproacheswillbeusedtogetherinabricolage, astheyaredivergentlensesthatareallfocusingonacommontopic.AccordingtoDenzin andLincoln(1994),

theproductofthebricoleur'slaborisabricolage,acomplex,dense,

reflectivecollagelikecreationthatrepresentstheresearcher’simages,

understandings,andinterpretationsoftheworldorphenomenonunder 42

analysis.Thebricoleurwill…connectthepartstothewhole,stressing

meaningfulrelationshipsthatoperateinsituationsandsocialworlds

studied(p.3).

Asculturalstudies,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpoststructural feminismaloneareunabletoadequatelycollectandanalyzethemediaportrayalof pageants,pageantcultureandthewaythatpoweroperateswithinit,abricolageofthe methodologiesseemstobethebestdesign.Inthisway,Iwillhavemoreopportunitiesto createmeaningsthanwithanarrowmethodologythatwouldconstrainmyresearchand forcemetofollowonecourse,insteadofseeingwherethestudyandanalysiswilltake me.Thiscausesmetoholdanawarenessoftheconceptsrequiredinmakinganinformed choicebetweendifferentmethodsandresearchtraditions.Andthisprocessillustrates

DenzinandLincoln’s(1994)ideathat“theinterpretivebricoleurproducesabricolage– thatis,piecedtogethersetofrepresentationsthatarefittedtothespecificsofacomplex situation”(p.4).

Usingfourdivergentlensesthatfallundertheumbrellaofqualitative,theoretical research,Ifeltthatusingabricolageapproachwouldbebest.Itwouldallowmetogrow morepracticedatresearchingusingseveralmethodsandemployingnumeroussources.

Asthisstudyfocusesontheoryandsubjectsonwhichthereisnotmuchmaterialalready available,beingabletohavethefreedomtomakedowithwhatwasathand,ratherthan havingtoconformtosetstandardsthatwouldexcludeorde-valuemyresearch,was liberating.AsShirleySteinberg(2004),citingKellner(1995),states

Bricolageinterprets,critiques,anddeconstructsthetext…Pedagogical

bricoleursattempttowidentheirperspectivesthroughmethodological 43

diversity.Innowaydotheyclaimthatasaresultofthemultiperspective

bricolagetheyhavegainedthe“grandview.”…Thebricoleurattemptsto

gainexpandedinsightviahistoricalcontextualization,multipletheoretical

groundings,andadiversityofknowledgebycollectingandinterpreting

methodologies(p.2).

Knowingthatmyresearchwouldbemoreaworkinprogressandnota“onceandforall” definitionofruralbeautypageantcultureandtheywayspoweroperatedinrelationto classwithinitmadethetaskmuchlessdauntingandmoreopentostudy.

Thelensesofculturalstudies,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpost structuralfeminismwillbeusedtoidentifyhowpageantcultureoperatestocreate identity;howpageantcultureoperatesinaregionalculturewithintheUnitedStatesand withintheissuesofclassandgender;andhowthis“pageantidentity”effectstheways thattheparticipantsviewtheworldanddefinethemselves,and,therefore,howtheyrelate tootherpartsoftheworld.

Knowledgewillbeacquiredfromwhatmotivatesparticipantstoenterpageants andwhatisrequiredtobesuccessfulatpageants.Inaddition,knowledgewillcomefrom whatbarriersandlimitationsexistforparticipantsandwhatadvantagesand disadvantagescomefromparticipation.Theworkingsofthepageantculturetocreatethe identityoftheparticipantsinrelationtotheabovecriteriaandinrelationtosocialclass willbetheprimaryknowledgegained.

44

CHAPTER2

SITUATINGTHEBRICOLAGE:RESEARCHANDTHECRITICALTRADITION

Thefieldofcurriculumstudieshasbeenreconceptualizedastherewasamove fromdevelopmentofconcretepractices,methodsandevaluation,toafieldthatwas centeredondialoguetoachieveunderstanding.Itiswithinthisdiscursiveviewof curriculumthatIfindtheframeworksfromwhichtocreatemyresearch.Seeing curriculumasagendered,poststructural,culturaltext,Iwillbeworkingfromacultural studies,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpoststructuralfeministangle.

Thesefourframeworksemployaspectsofpoststructuralismasthefocusisonlanguage anddiscourseandthemovementofpowerinculture.Allfouralsoemployaspectsof genderastheyseethatidentitiesaresocialconstructsthatcomefromlanguageand culture.

Thefocusofmyresearchwillinvolvethediscursivefieldoftherelationship betweenlanguage,socialinstitutions,subjectivity,class,andpower.Weedon(1997) explains,

Languageistheplacewhereactualandpossibleformsofsocial

organizationandtheirlikelysocialandpoliticalconsequencesaredefined

andcontested.Yetitisalsotheplacewhereoursenseofourselves,our

subjectivity,isconstructed(p.21).

Feministpoststructuraltheoryexaminestherelationshipthatliesinthisdiscursivefield, includingtimeandspace,inrelationtoaspectsofgender.Itisthroughfeministpost structuraltheorythatwecanseethediscursivefieldthatisreinscribedeveryday.Inher researchonpoststructuralfeminism,St.Pierre(2000)comments, 45

Poststructuraltheoriesofdiscourse,likepoststructuraltheoriesof

language,allowustounderstandhowknowledge,truth,andsubjectsare

producedinlanguageandculturalpracticeaswellashowtheymightbe

reconfigured(p.486).

Thistheoryallowsustoreconfigurelanguage,power,subjectivity,anddiscourseby exposingthe“expectedandaccepted”aspectsoflife.

Butler’s(1990)theoryofperformativityfurtherinformspoststructuralfeminism asitrecognizesthesubjectasconstitutedthroughmatricesofpoweranddiscourse, matricesthatarecontinuallyreproducedthroughprocessesofre-significationor repetitionofhegemonicgendereddiscourses.Attheveryleast,poststructuralfeminism seesitselfasaformofresistancetothepatriarchaldiscoursethatpermeatesthelivesof women,nottomentionthosepersonsofvariousraces,classes,andsexualities.

CurriculumStudies:TyingSchoolsandCulture

Curriculumasafieldhasmovedfromonefocusedondesigntoonefocusedon discourse.TheTylerrationaleandtheindustrialmodelsthatcharacterizedthe curriculumfieldattheturnofthe20 th centurydesiredtohavecurriculumfollowaset designfocusedonimplementationandevaluation.Thisservedtolimiteducationandto denystudentsandothersinvolvedinthecurriculumfieldavoiceintheeducational practices.BeginningwiththeworksofDwayneHuebnerandJamesB.Macdonaldinthe early1970s,curriculumtheoristsbegantoseecurriculumthroughthelensesof philosophy,aesthetics,andtheology.Inotherwords,insteadofworkingfromadesireto createnewmethodsofteaching,thedesirewasmovedtoacurriculumthatworkedto createunderstanding.Andthisunderstandingrequiredthatdiscoursetakeplace. 46

Huebner’sworkcenteredonexaminationofcurriculumhistoricallyasitis situatedinthoughtandaction.Curriculumtheoristsworkedwithintheframeofhistory andinenvironmentswithotherpeople.Becausetheyexistedinthiscontext,itwas necessaryforthemtogeneratealanguagewithwhichtoeffectivelydescribeand conversewiththosearoundthemanditwasnecessaryforthemtoevaluatethephysical andenvironmentalformsthatservedasthebackdropsforeducation.Itisinthisthought abouteducation,thediscourse,andtheactionstakenfromthisthatactualcurriculum developmentcame.Throughpraxiscamegrowth.Macdonald’sworkmirroredthisin part,ashesawthatthereneededtobenewwaystotalkaboutcurriculum.Again,thekey questioninvolvedinteractionswithothersandtheenvironment.Andtoanswerthe questionsthatarose,Macdonaldsawthatautobiographicandpoliticaldiscourseswere needed.

In1973,thefirstoftheconferencesthataddressedthefutureofcurriculumasa fieldwasheld.TheUniversityofRochesterConference,organizedbyWilliamPinar, sawacoregroupofcurriculumtheoristswhowerewritingandresearchingabout curriculumasitwasenactedinpoliticalandculturalfields.Theresultsfromthis,andthe futureconferences(fromwhichBergamoemerged),includedthedesiretoseecurriculum aspolitical,historical,andautobiographicaltexts.Thismirroredtheideasexpressedby

HuebnerandMacdonald.Butevenwithinthisgroup,thereweredivisionsthatoccurred alongpoliticallines–onegroupsawthepurposeforcurriculumasameanstoworkfrom aMarxistperspectiveinordertobringaboutpoliticalchangeortoaddressthewaysthat socialentitiesinfluencecurriculumandtheothergroupsawthepurposeforcurriculumas ameansbywhichanindividualcouldlearnmoreaboutthemselvesandthateducation 47 shouldbemoreofanautobiographicalwork.Fromthestanceofgirlsinthechildbeauty pageantculture,thereneedstobeamovetowardshearingtheirvoicesandnotjust listeningtotheirparents,ina“Tyler-esque”mannerofcurriculum.Thesegirlsare learningatthehandsofthepageantcultureandareindividualswhosevoicesneedand demandtobeheard.Andadialogueneedstobedevelopedtolistentotheirstoriesandto allowthemtounderstandthelessonsandthechangesthattheyareundergoingas individuals.

ThemajorcriticismthatthereconceptualistsfacedcamefromtheTannersand

McNeil,membersofthetraditionalcurriculumcamp,whobelievedthefocusof curriculumshouldbeondevelopingastandardcurriculum.Theysawthatthe reconceptualistsweremoreinterestedincultureanditseffectsoncurriculum,schools, students,teachers,etc.Thecruxofthisargumentcenteredontheoryversuspractice,one thatstillwagestoday.

BecomingaBricoleur

Levi-Strauss(1962)describesabricoleurasa“jackofalltradesorakindof professionaldoityourselfperson”(p.17).Usingwhatevertoolspreferredbyindividual methodologicaltrades,thebricoleuremployswhatevermethods,tacticsorpractical materialsareavailable.Byexaminingtheresearchquestionsbeingposed,thebricoleur determineswhichresearchpracticestouseandtheresearchquestionsdependonthe contextfromwhichtheissuesbeingstudiedarise(Grossberg,Nelson,andTreichler,

1992,p.2).Asmyresearchspannedthetopicsofgirlhood,socialclassandbeauty pageantparticipation,severaldifferentmethodsofdatacollectionwererequiredto exploretheintricaciesofparticipation.AsIbeganthisworkasaresearcher,Icame 48 equippedwithasetofmethodologicalskillsaswellasbeliefsinequity,autonomy,and theindividual’srighttochoose.Mybackgroundinpageantryasaparticipantandasa pageantcoordinator,aswellasmyworkintheareasofinterviewandstagepresencewith girlsandteenswhowerepreparingforpageants,enlightenedmetotheimportanceof seeingeachparticipantasanindividualandseeingthedamagingaspectsaswellasthe positiverewardsofthepageantculture.

Abricoleurisdescribedasbeingskilledatabroadrangeofdiversetasks,from interviewing,observingandinterpretingdocuments,tointensiveself-reflectionand introspection.Inadditiontothesejobs,bricoleursarecalledtoreadawiderangeof topicsandbereadilyabletoworkbetweendivergentandoverlappingperspectivesand paradigms(DenzinandLincoln,1994).Butevenmoreimportantthanthis,abricoleur hasthecomprehensionthatresearchisaninteractiveprocessshapedbytheindividual’s history,gender,class,andbiographyaswellasthosebeingresearched.

Inthebeginning,Iwasuncomfortablewiththeideaofbeinga“jackofalltrades.”

Iwantedaclear,cut-and-driedmethodologywithwhichtoconductmyresearch.

However,asIbegantoformulatemyresearchquestionsandcompiledata,Irealizedthat atraditionalmethodologywouldnotwork.Infact,Iquicklyrealizedthatnoone methodologyadequatelyallowedmetoanalyzemyinformationinlightofmyresearch questions.Andgiventheprevalenceof“do-it-yourself”showsontelevision–infact,an entirenetworkdevotedtosuch–Iwasafraidofa“whatever-feels-right-to-you-and- meets-your-needs-and-preferences”appearancetomyresearch.AsIresearchedLevi-

Straussandtheideaofbricolage,myfearsabatedwhenIsawthatLeviStraussmadeit quiteclearthatthebricolageinaresearchcontexthasadifferentandverydignified 49 connotation–verydifferentfromtheideaof“HandymanNegry”thatIhadfromthe children’sshowIwatchedasachild(Crotty,1999).

Mediaanalysis,poststructuralistethnography,culturalstudies,andmorecan provideimportantinsightsandknowledgeinresearch.Inthisway,researchersdonot havetobeconstrainedbyknowledgeusuallygarneredinthetraditionaldisciplines becauseabricoleurworkswithabroadrangeofmaterial,drawnfrommultiple disciplines(Crotty,1999)tocreatemeaning.Inrelationtomyresearch,Iwantedtosee myselfasabricoleurchargedwiththetaskofcreatingabricolage.

Envisioningmyselfasabricoleurprovidedmeguidanceandmademoreclearmy roleinmyresearch.DenzinandLincoln(2003)statethattherearemanywaysofbeinga bricoleur.Atheoreticalbricoleurreadswidelyandisknowledgeable;abricoleurtheorist worksbetweenandwithincompetingandoverlappingperspectives.Amethodological bricoleurisadeptatperformingalargenumberofdiversetasks.Aninterpretive bricoleurunderstandsthatresearchisshapedbyhisorherownpersonalhistoryanda politicalbricoleurknowsthatscienceispowerasallresearchfindingshavepolitical implications(DenzinandLincoln,2003,p.9).Comingtotermswithmyroleasa bricoleurasonewhoisengagedinthetaskofcreatingabricolagegavemeavehicle throughwhichtoarticulatethediversityofmyresearchprojectandtoorganizethis dissertationbyusingaquiltmetaphor.

Assomeonewhothinksthroughdecisionsandcontemplatesrelationshipsand newinformation,Ifeltaconnectionwiththeideaofbeingaresearcherwhonotonlywas interactive,butwhowasalsoself-reflective.Abricoleurisbothofthesethings,among others.IknowthatmyresearchisshapedlargelybywhoIamandtherelationshipsI 50 developedwiththosewhoparticipatedinpageantsinthemediaorinpageantswithwhich

Iinteractedpersonallyasacontestant,official,orcoach.Timespentinthefieldorin watchingdocumentariesandmovieswereperiodsofreflectionandofcriticalanalysis.

AsCrotty(1998)notes

Researchinthemodeofbricoleurrequiresthatwenotremainstraight

jacketedbyconventionalmeanings.Instead,suchresearchinvitesusto

approachtheobjectinaradicalspiritofopennesstoitspotentialfornew

orrichermeaning(p.51).

DenzinandLincoln(2003)describeabricoleurasaquiltmakerwhouses aestheticandcreativeabilitiestocarefullycraftaresearchproduct,suggestingthat“the quilterstitches,edits,andputsslicesofrealitytogetherinacreativeprocessthatbrings psychologicalandemotionalunitytoaninterpretiveexperience”(p.7).Theideaofa quiltmetaphorappealstomeandbecamequitecentraltomyresearchasIsee opportunitiesforrepresentingmultiple,competingcomplexaspectssimultaneously, allowingallvoicestobeheardatasimilarlevel.Nooneaspectcoversupanother.

Inthisdissertation,Iseemyselfasabricoleurwhoseroleitistocraft,pieceby piece,aworkthatreflectsmultipleideasexistinginrelationtosocialclass,girlhood,and ruralchildbeautypageantculturewithoutlosingtheclearnessofthecomplex, contrastingissuesuncoveredbyintimateinteractionswithpeopleinthefieldofresearch.

Withtheideaofthequiltcomestheideaofdifferentthingsgoingonatonetime.A mixtureofvoices,perspectives,andpointsofviewexistinonecreation.Thetexts become“dialogicalandcanmovefrompersonaltopoliticalandlocaltohistorical”

(DenzinandLincoln,2003,p.8).Inthislight,mydesiretoconductresearchthat 51 combinescriticalethnography,criticalhermeneutics,culturalstudies,andpoststructural feminismisgivenaplatformtocreatepossibilitiesofrepresentingmultipledifferent anglesandemancipatoryperspectives.Tobegin,Iamcalledtoexaminethedifferent disparateviews.

Aftermuchdeliberationandbeginningmyresearch,IconcededthatImustuse thelensesofculturalstudies,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpost structuralfeminismtoanalyzethatdata.Usingallfourlensesallowsmetheopportunity tomovewiththefindingsfrommyresearchandtomorerichlyexamineculture,ataskso complexandimpossibletoisolatethatbeingabletomovewiththefindingsandtotake advantageofnewinformationdiscoveredisimportant.Thesereasonsfirmlysupportmy decisiontoapproachmyresearchasabricoleur,abridge-maker,aquiltmaker,tosee wheremyresearchtakesmeandtobuilda“bridge”betweenmyresearchandthe possibilitiesthatexistinitsexaminationora“quilt”thatexpressesbothmyresearchand thepossibilitiesthatexistinitsexamination.

TheoreticalBricolage:TowardsaCriticalApproach

Sincetherearesomanysourcesofcurriculumineachindividual’slife,itis importanttoanalyzethewaysthattheindividualcanreactandchangeasaresultofthe interactionwiththecurriculum.PauloFreire(ascitedin SacredHeartShowcase ,2004) states

educationeitherfunctionsasaninstrumentwhichisusedtofacilitatethe

integrationoftheyoungergenerationintologicofthepresentsystemand

bringaboutconformitytoit,oritbecomesthepracticeoffreedom,the 52

meansbywhichmenandwomendealcriticallyandcreativelywithreality

anddiscoverhowtoparticipateinthetransformationoftheirworld(p.1).

AsIcontemplatedthestudyofruralbeautypageantcultureandthewayspower operatedwithinthatculturetoshapetheidentitiesofgirlsinrelationtotheirsocialstatus,

Ibegantoformulatequestionsrelatingtothecreationofknowledgeandthewaystoreact orchangeasaresultofthatknowledge.Thepurposeofmyresearchneedstocenteron findingsourcesofknowledgeandpowerandthengivingvoicetothevariousreactionsor consequencesconnectedtothosewhoworkwithinthatknowledge.

Mydiscussioncentersonbringingtolighthowknowledgerelatedtoparticipation hasbeengeneratedandarguesthattheconceptofparticipationinruralbeautypageants needstobeexploreddifferently.Asaresult,theuniquenessofknowledge-howwe knowwhatweknow-isbrieflyconsideredandpossibilitiesfordevelopingacritical epistemologicalapproachareexplored.Theaimofthisresearchistoprovide opportunitiesforunderstandinghowruralbeautypageantsaffectidentitydevelopmentin younggirlswithrelationtotheirsocialstatusandtoidentifypowerasitoperatesinthis realm.Acriticalapproachmightmakethispossible–andculturalstudies,poststructural feminism,criticalhermeneuticsandcriticalethnographygrowoutofacriticalapproach.

Theopportunitytounderstandhowruralbeautypageantsaffectidentity developmentandthewaysthatpoweroperatesinthissub-cultureinfluencedmydecision toadoptacriticalapproachtomyresearch.AsIexaminedwhatothershadresearched andwrittenaboutgirlsandtheirparticipationinchildbeautypageants,Inotedanumber ofissuesaboutthecurrentknowledgeinthisarea.First,therearealimitednumberof studiesongirlhoodcultureandtheimpactofruralSouthernbeautypageantsonthat 53 culture,specificallyinrelationtosocialclass.Muchofwhathasbeenwrittencenterson thelargerpageantsystems(MissAmericaandMissUSAortheJon-BenetRamsey-esque pageantsystems)andthewaysthatgirlsarevictimizedorthatcultureatlargeis impacted.Secondly,studiesthatareavailableaboutgirlhoodandhowbeautypageant cultureimpactstheconstructionofidentityusedtraditionalinterpretivemethodology.

Andlastly,thedamagingeffectsofpageantparticipationaretheresultofthestudies conductedfromresearchandtheoreticalbaseddiscussions.Discussingthemedia portrayalofpageantparticipationandtheeffectsofthisparticipationonchildhoodand girlhoodisthepurposeofthestudies.

Areviewoftheliteraturefrom1987tothepresentrevealedacross-sectionof researchandtheoreticalpapersrelatingtopageantparticipationandtheeffectsonwomen andgirlsorcultureatlarge.Workscenteringonpageantparticipationanditseffects fromnationalcontextswereaccessed. Table1 onpages55,56and57givessummaries oftheresearchreviewed,methodologicalapproaches,andtheoreticalcommentsmadeby theresearchers.Researchthatfocusesoninternationalpageantsorpageantsthatoccur onlyincountriesotherthantheUnitedStatesisnotincluded,asthesepageantsdonot focusonthespecificphenomenaofruralSouthernbeautypageants.Table1 onpages

55,56and57isnotguaranteedtobeacompletelistofalltheworksonbeautypageants intheUnitedStatesandtheirinfluenceonfemaleidentitydevelopmentandculture,but everyattemptwasmadetocompleteacomprehensivereview.

Actingasatheoreticalbricoleur,itwasimperativeformetoreadabroadrangeof information.Ihadtoestablishwhatresearchhadalreadybeenundertakenanddiscern patternsandknowledgegeneratedthroughthisresearch.Inmyreading,Irealizedthat 54 therewerevariousmethodologiesusedandvariouswaysofknowingdiscussed.Ididnot wantthelimitsofthepreviouslyusedmethodstointerpretiveandquantitative investigationsthathadneglectedotherpossibilitiesofknowledgetolimitmyresearch,so

Iturnedtotheoreticalunderstandingsofepistemologytofurthermyexploration.

55

Table1LiteratureSummary Author/Year ResearchFocus Methodology TheoreticalComments ofPublication Tice CommodificationofFemale CulturalStudies,Critical Powerinpageantculture 2006 Bodies Theory leadstocommodificationof women. Banet-Weiser Beautypageantsandreality CulturalStudies Changingroleofmedia andPortwood- televisionshowperformances CriticalTheory (presentationofsubjectsin Stacer needtobeunderstoodfromas CriticalEthnography– beautypageantsand 2006 emergingfromtheculturaland Mediaobservationand makeoverprograms)speaks politicalpositionsfromwhich criticism tothenormalizationof theyareproduced performancesoffemininity andtheaffiliationofmany youngwomenwithpost- feministpoliticsinUnited States. Lalikand Critiqueofthewaysgirls’ Ethnography–Casestudy Criticalandfeminist Oliver bodiesareimplicatedinthe highlightingparticipation pedagogiesledtogirls 2005 schools’hiddencurriculum patterns criticallyengagingwith topicofwaysbodiesare implicatedinhidden curriculum Roberts Examinationtools,practices, Culturalstudies Consumercultureand 2005 andinstitutionsassociatedwith Ethnography- modernityimpactonbeauty beautyinJimCrowcultureof historical/archivalresearch andthepursuitofitcan theSouth providewomenwiththe meanstosubvertrestrictive andreactionarysocial mores Wonderlich, Associationsbetweenchildhood Ethnography-Interviews, Beautypageant Ackard,and beautypageantsandadult surveys,andquestionnaires participationinfluence Henderson disorderedeating,body adultbodydissatisfaction, 2005 dissatisfaction,depression,and interpersonaldistrust,and self-esteem impulsedysregulation Pannell CreationandContestationof CulturalandMediastudies; Childbeautypageants 2004 BeautyinChildBeautyPageants Visualsociology becomeculturalsitefor creationandexploitationof childappearance Valdez Novelontwocousinswhoturn NarrativeInquiry Questionsvaluesofsociety 2004 topageantryanddanceto Bildungsroman imposeduponwomenand achievedreams. effectsonindividuallives Heltsley ConstructionofthePageant Ethnography-Interviews Socialworldtheory 2004 Child andpageantobservation integratedwithSocial constructionismand Exchangetheory-vendors andthepowertheywieldto shapeparticipants’ identitiesandappearance Foley Investigationoftheintersection Systematiccomparative Femaleentertainers 2004 betweenmeansofrepresentation analysisofbeautycontests performacarefully andideologyinthefieldof andexoticdancing calibratedmixtureof femalepopularentertainment revelationandconcealment inordertonegotiatewithin culturallyprescribednorms ofmorality Lowe PageantParticipationandBody Culturalstudies,Social Impactofrace,genderand 2004 Image History educationonbodyimage 56

Author/Year ResearchFocus Methodology TheoreticalComments ofPublication Cross MediainfluenceonInnocencein CulturalStudies,Critical Powerandconsumerismin 2004 Children’sCulture Theory childhoodandpopular culture Bryer Examinepopularimagesof Culturalstudiesandsocial Culturalstudiesreveal 2003 women’sbeautyandsexualityin historicalmethodsandthe internaldebatesabout contextofAfricanAmericans’ textualanalysisofprimary respectabilityandracial strugglesforrightsand sourceswithoralhistories pridewithinAfrican respectability andsecondaryliterature Americancommunity Lovegrove Cultureofbeautycontestshas Culturalstudies-Critical Popularcultureforms 2002 leadtotheobsessionwith Theory–Ethnography- throughbeautypageants aestheticsandbeautyforwomen Pageantobservation createculturalobsession throughouttheworld withbeauty Levey ReasonsforParticipationin Ethnography–Interviews Powerinchildhoodandin 2002 ChildBeautyPageants andpageantobservation popularculture. Dick MissAmerica’sinfluencein Culturalstudies Pageantprovidescultural 2002 society Ethnography–social symbolofbeautyand historicalmethodsand nationalidentity textualanalysisofprimary sourceswithoralhistories andsecondaryliterature Gleickand SocialConcernsofChildBeauty Ethnography–interviews Troublingquestionsemerge Booth PageantParticipation andpageantobservation onwhetherpageantsbenefit 1997/2001 Culturalstudies childorparent–orjust pageantorganizations themselves Giroux Mythsthatfunctiontolimitthe Culturalstudies-Critical Culturalpoliticsmustuse 2001 welfareofchildrenandto Theory besttheoreticalresources promotetheexistenceofthe availabletochange “innocentchild” contextsofpowerthat structurechildren’slives Guiling Differencesbetween Ethnographicresearch Girlswhocompetedin 2000 preadolescentbeautypageant throughstandardizedtests pageantshadhigherself- participantsandnonparticipants andquestionnaires imagescoresandlower oneatingbehaviorsandbody instancesofeating image disordersthancontrol group Watsonand ImpactofMissAmericapageant Culturalstudies MissAmerica’spopularity Martin onUnitedStatesculture Ethnographicfieldwork supportscontentionthat 2000 withhistorical/archival pageantrepresentsa researchandfeminist microcosmofchangein analysis U.S.cultureandreflectsthe valuesandbeliefsofgreater U.S.society Boyd Culturalperformanceof Ethnographicfieldwork Femininepractices 2000 femininityinthreecontemporary (audiotapedinterviewsand reinforcethemythofthe rituals:beautypageant,sorority participant/observation) southernladyandtheritual rush,andConfederatepageant. withhistorical/archival performancesthatgiveit researchandfeminist life analysis Banet-Weiser Pageantassitesforthe Ethnography-Interviews Popularcultureformswork 1995/1999 constructionofnationalidentity, andpageantobservation asvehiclesforstudying femininity,andethnicity Culturalstudies idealized,genderednotions ofnationalidentity 57

Author/Year ResearchFocus Methodology TheoreticalComments ofPublication Hilboldt- Psychologicalimpactofbeauty Ethnography–Interviews, Childpageantcontestants Stolley contestsonkidsandmeritsof participantobservation, areconfident,well- 1999 childbeautypageants pageantobservation mannered,andarticulatein Culturalstudies spiteofthesuggestive costumesandroutines Savage PageantHistoryandimpactof Culturalstudies– Popularcultureformssuch 1998 beautypageantsonpopular Ethnography-Interviews asthebeautypageantwork culture andpageantobservation toestablishnormsofbeauty forwomen Neimark WhyweneedMissAmerica Culturalstudies MissAmericainformsus 1998 CriticalTheory aboutourculture’sideas andconflicts Cohen,Wilk, Entanglementofbeauty, Ethnography-Interviews Criticaltheoryandcultural andStoeltje contests,andpower andpageantobservation politicsprovidethe 1996 backgroundforadiscussion ofthehistoryandpervasive influenceofbeauty pageants Welker Howintentionallysymbolic Ethnography MissAppleFestival 1995 performanceslikesmalltown Interpretiveanalysisof pageantbotharticulatesand beautypageantsmanifeststhe contestantbehavioron reifiescommunitypower ideologyandvaluesofthe stageandoff relationsinbroadest participants politicalsense Latham Theritualizedlegitimizationof Culturalstudies RepealsofCensorship 1995 thepublicperformanceof Ethnographicresearchwith codesforthefemalebody feminine“nudity”withinthe historical/archivalresearch influencednormsofboth beautypageantformat andfeministanalyis beachandstageandledto legitimizationofthebeauty pageant Wolfe Howtheemergence,evolution, Culturalstudies Lesseningofclassand 1994 anddeclineofbeautycontests Ethnographicresearchwith otherdistinctionsin reflectsthechanging historical/archivalresearch women’srolesandthe relationshipbetweenphysical andpageantobservation pursuitophysical attractivenessandwomen’sroles attractivenessinmid-20 th andtheAmericanidealsof centurymademore womanhoodinthe20 th century plausibleasingularideal forwomenwhichcouldbe capturedinabeautycontest likeMissAmerica Maginnis Analysisoffashionshows,strip Ethnography “Theatreofthefeminine 1991 shows,andbeautypageantsin Audiencestudies, ideal”isarguedtobe relationtothe“theatreofthe participantobservation, flexiblebythe feminineideal” demonstrationofthewidely divergentwaysthethree genresofperformancehave adaptedtheircommon formattodifferentusers. Napoleon Systematicmeasureofthe Ethnography Culturalstudies-Family 1987 relationshipbetweenphysical Standardizedtestsand environmentutilizesthe attractiveness,family questionnairesadministered beautifulcontestantsas environment,andpersonality to58beautypageant receptaclesforthefamily’s contestants needtobespecialand achievepositiveesteemand thatcultureatlarge recreatedthissamefamily dynamic.

58

Epistemology

Epistemologyfurnishesabasisfromphilosophywhichhelpswithdecidingwhat knowledgeispossible.Sinceitdoesgrowoutofphilosophy,epistemologyhelpsto answerquestionsaboutwhatmakestrueknowledgedifferentfromfalseknowledge,or knowledgebasedoninadequateinformation(Heylighen,1993).Thisepistemology,asa result,leadstothedevelopmentoftheory,whichleadstothedevelopmentof methodology,andultimatelymethod.Becauseofthis,itisimperativetodiscussthe differencesbetweenthebasisofphilosophythatinformresearch.

Howknowledgeisacquiredandmadevalidhasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebate.

Knowledgeisdividedintobasiccategorieswhichincludepropositionalknowledge

(knowledgethatsomethingisso,orjustis)andnon-propositionalknowledge(knowledge gainedbydirectawareness,oracquaintance).Usingthesetheoriesofknowledge,the argumentismadethatthereareabsoluteorpermanentpositions.Latertheoriesmoved fromthisabsoluteposition,emphasizingrelativity(situationdependentknowledge)

(Heylighen,1993).Asepistemologyevolved,itunderstoodthatknowledgecomesfrom relationshipsbetweenobjectsandsubjectsandthewaysthattheyinteractintheworld.

Asaresult,knowledgecreationhasmovedfromastatic,passiveviewtoamoreadaptive, activeone(Heylighen,1993).

Objectivism,constructionism,andsubjectivismcomprisetherangeof epistemologies(Crotty,1998)andthesearenot“watertightcompartments”(p.9).

Objectivismisapartofposterioriepistemology,onebasedonscientificprinciplesthat statethattruthisaformofknowledgeindependentofconsciousnessandexperience

(Moser,2002).Relatedtopositivism,objectivismsharesabeliefthatthereisobjecttruth 59 yettobediscoveredasmeaningfulrealityandthisobjecttruthexistswithoutdirect awareness(Crotty,1998).Thisideathatunderstandingpeopleandvaluesareobjectified providedthebasisforearlyethnographies.Thebeliefwasthatifpeoplewerestudiedthe

“right”way,thenobjectivetruthwouldbediscovered.

Incontrastwiththisideathatthereisatruthindependentofconsciousnessand experience,constructionismisawayofknowingthatrejectsobjecttruthandfocuseson prioriepistemology,onethatstatestruthormeaningisgeneratedbyinteractionor engagementwiththeworld.Meaning,inthisway,isconstructedinsteadofdiscovered

(Crotty,1998).Thisepistemologicalapproachallowsfordifferentpeopletoconstruct differentmeaningindifferentways.Duetothisrangeofcreationofknowledge, constructionismisafavoriteamongqualitativeresearchers.

Subjectivismstatesthatmeaningisnotgeneratedbyrelationshipsbetweensubject andobject,butisimposedupontheobjectfromsomewhereelse(Crotty,1998).Itfinds itshomeinstructuralist,Poststructural,andpostmodernworks.Subjectivityand objectivitycannotbeseparated.Becauseofthecriticalrelationshipbetweenhuman experienceanditsobject,objectscannotbedescribedinisolationfromthose experiencingit.Inthesameway,noexperiencecanbedescribedinisolationfromits object.Thereisaninherentrelationshipbetweensubjectandobjectaspeopleengagein theirworlds.

Thereisakeydifferencebetweenconstructivismandconstructionismwhich centersontheargumentbyCrotty(1998)thatconstructivismneedstobeusedonlyfor epistemologicalconsiderationsthatseektofindmeaningfromanindividualperspective.

Ifcreatingandtransmittinginformationisthepurposeofgeneratingmeaning,then 60 constructionismshouldbeused.Constructivismfocusesoneachindividual’swayof makingsenseoftheworldasvalid,therebystandinginthewayofacriticalstancein research.Socialconstructionism,incontrast,takesintoconsiderationtheculture surroundingtheindividualandhowthatcultureshapesthewaytheworldisviewedby theindividual.Usingthisperspective,constructivismresistsacriticalapproachwhile constructionismfostersit(Crotty,1998).

Whengeneratingresearchfromaconstructivisttradition,onemustusemethods andapproachesthatareuncriticalintheexplorationofculturalmeaning.

Constructionism,incontrast,allowsforapositioninresearchthatencouragesamore criticalexplorationofmeaning.Crotty(1998)statesthatcentraltoidentifyingthe limitationsinresearchapproachesisunderstandingtheepistemologicalbasisforthe research,andhehighlightsthedifferencesbetweenconstructionismandconstructivismto showthis.

CriticalEpistemology

Usingacriticalepistemologicalapproachbecameobviousforuseinmyresearch forthisprojectbecauseitprovidedawayformetomovebeyondtheusualviewsand explorationofchildbeautypageants,girlhood,socialclass,andidentity.Workingfrom existingknowledgeaboutparticipationinruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsrather thanusingapredeterminedpreferenceofknowledgeinfluencedmydecisiontoapproach myresearchfromacriticalstandpoint.Criticalmethodologyhascomponentsthatare epistemologicalandarenotdependentuponthevalueorientationsoftheresearcher

(Carspeken,1996).Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthevaluesheldbytheresearcher 61 arenotimportant,butitdoesmeanthatthevaluesoftheresearchercanbekeytothe researchduetothelackoflimitationsincreatingknowledgeandtruth.

Criticalapproachestoknowledgegenerationdifferfrominterpretiveknowing.

Believingthattheworldiscomprisedofunequalresourcesandpoweristhestanceof criticalapproaches.Knowledgethatiscreatedfromcriticalepistemologicalperspectives doesnotacceptpositivismandinterpretivescience.Itseestheseepistemologiesas separatefromtheworldandfocusingonstudyingtheworldratherthanactingonit.

Fromthecriticalepistemologicalstandpoint,knowledgeispowerthatcanbeusedto controlothers(Neuman,1997).

Communicationiskeytocriticalepistemology.Thisviewallowsfortheideathat truthandpowerareinterconnected.Ifpowerisunequal,thentruthisdistortedinrelation toclaimsmadebyresearch.Thecriticalepistemologistneedstobeveryclearonhow powerandknowledgearecreatedasheorsheconductsresearchandviewsthefindings ofthatresearch.Sincepowerandauthorityarecreatedbyculture,differentgroupsare silenced.Thiscanoftenraisequestionsofthevalidityortruthofresearch(Carspeken,

1996).Thisisillustratedinthecontinualclaimsofpageantparentswhosaythat participationinpageantsoffersrewardsandwaystodeveloppoiseandpresence,but thesesameparentsdonotallowthechildrenwhoaretheactualparticipantsinthe pageantstorespondtothequestion.Thisraisesthequestionaboutthepowerrelationship betweenparentsandthechildrenwhoaretheparticipantsinthebeautypageants.

Researcherswhocomefromacriticalepistemologicalstancemayhavecomefroma differentoutcomefromtheresearchasparentsmayhavenotconsideredthepointofview ofthechildormaynothavecaredaboutthechild’sperspectiveatall.Thispoint,inthe 62 researchcitedabove,wasnotconsideredasunderstandingwasconstructedfroma descriptionofeventsastheytookplace.

ReachingaCriticalApproachtoResearch

AsIreviewedtheliteratureconcerningchildbeautypageantsandtheconstruction ofgirlhoodidentityanditsrelationshiptosocialclass,Irealizedthatusingan epistemologicalperspectiveallowedmetoidentifypossiblegapsintheknowledgeabout theparticipationinthesepageants.Ialsobecameawarethatknowledgemightbe distortedovertimebecausetheresearchmethodssilencedotherwaysofknowing.Often researchersreinforcewaysofknowingthatareacceptedbythemajoritybyusing languagethatcontinuestheinequitiesduetotheunconsciousnessoftheusingoftheir positionsofauthority.Asacriticalresearcher,Ineedtobeawareoftheseissuesand workdiligentlytotrytouncovertheunbalancedpowerrelationshipsthatexistinthe childbeautypageantculture.

Reificationistheprocessoftreatingtheacceptedpatternsofbehaviorasobjective realities.Thisphenomenoninterfereswithbeingcriticalasitsuggeststhattheindividual makessenseofthingsbasedonthewaytheyareandthencontinuesthislineofthinking astruth(Agger,1991).Thinkingpassedonthiswaymaybecomeacceptedandwemay findourselvesvictimsofbelievinginthethingsthatarefamiliartous.Sedimentation,a similarprocess,allowsforadistancingfromtheoriginalengagementinrealityaslayers ofinterpretationandmeaningsareplacedontopofeachother.Iftheoryisbuiltupon theseexistingideas,thistheoryisatriskofbecomingfalseculture.

Oftheliteraturereviewedinconjunctionwiththisresearch,severalofthe dissertations,studies,booksandpaperswerewrittenusingaculturalstudiesmethodology 63 fortheresearchprocess.Whiletheydoapproachtheresearchfromthisstandpointand thisstandpointisonethatIhavechosentouseintheresearchbricolageforthisstudy,the angleoftheirapproachesandthefindingstheyunearthedfromthisapproachdiffersfrom thisstudy.Tice(2006)seesthatculturalforcesinpageantryhaveleadtothe commodificationofwomen–anapproachthatdiffersfrommyresearchinrelationto girlhoodandinrelationtothefindingofan“answer”ratherthanopeningadialogueor questioningofthepoweroperationspresent.

Usingthesameframeworkandfindinganswerstoresearchquestionsthatunearth negativeeffectsofpageantryandpageantparticipation.Pannell(2004)findsthat participationinchildbeautypageantsleadstoanexploitationofchildappearances,an oftencitedcriticism.Cross(2004)andGiroux(2001)bothdiscussthepoweroperations inchildbeautypageantsandtheobjectificationandexploitationassexualobjectsof participants.Thequestionsofwhoactuallybenefitsfrompageantparticipation,thechild, theparents,thepageantorganizers,orthepageantvendorsareaddressedbyGleick

(2001)andHilboldt(1999).Andthedangersofpageantryleadingtoanobsessionwith appearanceandbeautyisdiscussedintheworkbyLovegrove(2002).Again,allofthese researchersapproachthesubjectofchildbeautypageantcultureorbeautypageantculture ingeneralfromanegativeperspectiveandwiththeintentofprovinganegativefinding.

Thisdiffersfromtheresearchinthisstudy,asmyintentistoopenadialoguetoseeboth sidesofthepageantrycultureandtofindquestionstoleadtofurtherdiscussion.

Severaloftheauthorsusingtheculturalstudiesframeworkhadneutralorpositive findingsintheirresearchinrelationtobeautypageants.Seeingpageantryasawayof normalizingtheperformanceoffemininityorofgenderednorms,Banet-Weiser(2006), 64

Banet-Weiser(1999),Savage(1998),andNeimark(1998)discusshowtheMissAmerica pageantorchildbeautypageantsprovideaplatformforappearanceandperformance norms.Lowe(2004)discussesthewaysthatbeautypageantsleadtopositiveand negativeimpactofrace,gender,andeducationonbodyimage.Dick(2002)andWatson

(2000)providepassionatediscussionsonwaystheMissAmericapageantandotherstate andlocalpageantsprovidesymbolsofbeautyandnationalidentityforwomenandWolfe

(1994)revealswaysthatclassandotherdistinctionsaresolessenedinourcurrentsociety thatanywomanhastheopportunitytobecomeasymbolofbeautyornationalidentity throughpageantry.InrelationtoAfricanAmericanwomenandbeautypageants,Bryer

(2003)believesthatcompetitionandparticipationinpageantscanleadtorespectability andprideintheAfricanAmericancommunity.Latham’s(1995)workgivesanin-depth lookatthecensorshipofwomen’sapparelandappearanceinrelationtostage performancesandswimmingandhowthisledtothelegitimizationofthebeautypageant culture.Again,therearedifferencesbetweenthesefindingsandapproachesandthose associatedwiththisresearch.First,thefocusonfindingdefiniteanswersisdifferentthan myobjectivetoopenupadialoguebetweenthedivergentsidesofthisculture.Secondly, thefocusofmanyofthesestudiesontheMissAmericapageantsystemandthesystems thatinvolveteenagersandwomenmovesawayfrommyfocusongirlhoodandthepower operationsfoundinpageantparticipation.

Onlyoneoftheworksreviewedusedacriticalethnographyapproachtoresearch.

Banet-Weiser(2006)reviewedmediaproductionsofpageantryinrelationtothepost- feministviewingsthatresultedfromtheyoungwomenwhowereexposedtothem.

Ethnographyasamethodologywasusedbymanyoftheworksastheydiscussedthe 65 effectsofpageantryonparticipantsandothers.Inrelationtobodyimageandeating disorders,Napoleon(1987)andGuiling(2000)usedstandardizedtestsand questionnairestopollcontestantstogleaninformationforthepremisesoftheirresearch.

Theuseofinterviewsandpageantobservationwasavehicleemployedby

Wonderlich(2005),Levey(2002),Gleick(2001),Boyd(2000),Banet-Weiser(1999),

Hilboldt(1999),Savage(1998),andCohen(1996)astheseresearchersworkedtofind participantopinionsandculturaleffectsofpageantparticipation.Asseveralresearchers workedtofindthehistoricalrootsofpageantryanditscultureortofindthecultural normsestablishedbypageantry,theyemployedhistoricalandarchivalresearchand textualanalysisinrelationtoethnographicresearch.Thesestudiesincludethose completedbyRoberts(2005),Lovegrove(2002),Dick(2002),Watson(2000),Latham

(1995)andWolfe(1994).

Maginnis(1991)approachestheethnographicmethodologywithresearch conductedfromaudiencestudiesandobservationsofparticipantsandofpageants themselves.Welker(1995)employedyetanotherethnographicapproachinworkingwith interpretiveanalysisofcontestantbehaviorfromwatchingvideosorobserving participantsatpageants.AndLalikandOliver(2005)employedacasestudyoffour youngAfricanAmericanwomenastheyreactedtothehiddencurriculumpresentintheir school’sannualbeautypageant.Alloftheseethnographicmethodsdifferfromthe criticalethnographyIwillemployasIfindthethemesandpatternsinmediaassociated withthechildbeautypageantculture.

CriticaltheoryapproachestoresearchwerefoundintheworksofTice(2006)as herresearchdiscussedthepowerstructurespresentinthepageantcultureandtheways 66 thatthesepowerstructuresleadtocommodification.Likewise,Cross(2004)researches theoperationsofpowerandconsumerisminchildhoodandpopularculture.And

Lovegrove(2002)analyzespowerfoundinthepageantcultureasitleadstoanobsession inourlargerculturewithbeauty.Giroux(2001)carriesthisfurtherashecritically analyzestheobjectificationandsexualizationofchildrenthroughpageantparticipation.

Banet-Weiser(2006)alsoemployscriticaltheorywithmediastudiesinherresearchon thewaysrolesarechanginginmediadepictingbeautypageantsandmakeoverprograms.

Foley(2004)criticallyanalyzesperformancesbyfemaleentertainersandpageant participantsinrelationtotheirrevelationandconcealmentintheparametersofculturally prescribednorms.AndinrelationtotheMissAmericapageantsystemanditsabilityto informourcultureofbeautyandidentityidealsandconflicts,Neimark(1998)employsa criticaltheoryapproach.

Eventhoughitseemsthatmanyoftheresearchprojectsapproachbeautypageants andchildbeautypageantsfromanegativeviewpoint,therearemanythatpointoutthe positiveeffectsorproductsfrompageantparticipation.Fortheseresearchers(Banet-

Weiser,2006;Roberts,2005;Heltsley,2003;Dick,2002;Guiling,2000;Watson,2000;

Boyd,2000;Banet-Weiser,1999;Latham,1995;Wolfe,1994;andNapoleon,1987),it seemsthatpageantparticipationoftenleadstopositiveidentityconstruction,waysto achievesuccess,orpositiveself-image.

Thefindingsthatcenteronthenegativewaysthatpoweroperateswithinthe pageantcultureoftencenterontheobjectificationorthecommodificationofpageant participantsandthosewhosupportthesepageants(Tice,2006;Roberts,2005;Heltsley,

2003;Cross,2004;Levey,2002;andGiroux,2001).Andthereareothersthatfindother 67 negativeaspectsofpageantculture.LalikandOliver(2005)discussestheimplications andeffectsofthehiddencurriculumthatexistsintheschoolsponsoredbeautypageant andWonderlichetal.(2005)findsthatmanypageantparticipantsarevictimsofbody dissatisfactionastheygrowolder.Pannell(2004)andGiroux(2001)discussthe distortionofappearancethatoccursinmanyofthechildandadultbeautypageantsand

Valdez(2004)takesthisfurtherwithadiscussionofwaysthatsocietalvaluesforbeauty andwortharecreatedthroughpageantry.Hetlstley(2004)findsthatvendorsinSouthern stylebeautypageantsaretheoneswhobenefitthemostfromparticipantinvolvementand

Gleick(2001)questionswhoactuallybenefitsfromchildpageantparticipation–the organizers,theparents,orpossiblythechild?Napoleon(1987)visitsthisquestionby suggestingthatfamilieshaveavestedinterestinpageantparticipantsdoingwellasthere areaccoladesandsocialstatusassociatedwithhavingapageantwinnerinthehousehold.

Lovegrove(2002)looksattheobsessionwithbeautyoursocietydevelopsandhowthat obsessioncomesfrombeautypageantparticipationandmediadepictionsandBoyd

(2000)seesthisobsessionallowingforthecontinuationofthemythoftheSouthernbelle andtheconstructionofbeautyideals.

Millerand(2004)statethatinterpretivedataaresocialconstructions, reflectingthevaluesandideasoftheproducingresearchers.

Discoursesprovidepersonswithcoherentinterpretiveframeworksand

discursivepracticesforconstructingdifferentsocialrealitieswithinwhich

particularkindsofpeoplereside,relationshipsprevail,andopportunities

arelikelytoemerge.Weenterintodiscoursesaswegoaboutthepractical

activitiesofourlives.Thediscoursesareconditionsofpossibilitythat 68

provideuswithresourcesforconstructingalimitedarrayofsocial

realities,andmakeotherpossibilitieslessavailabletous(MillerandFox,

2004,pp.42–43).

Researchers,whendescribingparticipation,identifyfamiliarpatternsofbehaviorand familiarpatternsoflanguage.Existingdiscursiveframeworksmayhaveconstrainedthe researcher’sdescriptionsofbehaviorandmaybefurthermadelegitimatebyotherswho havesimilarresearchissuesorrealities.Asaresult,processesofassociation, sedimentation,andaggregationhavecontinuedwaysofknowingthathavebeencreated withinapaternalisticdiscourse.

Simplyacknowledgingthatinterpretivedataassocialconstructionsdoesnot meanthatthedatageneratedisnotuseful.Thisdataoutlinesveryrealdiscoursesof everydaylifethatrequiresfurtherexamination(MillerandFox,2004).Takingona differentperspectivetoresearchrequirestheresearchertorecognizepracticesoftentaken forgrantedbysteppingoutsideoftheusualandacceptedexplanations.Thisisnoteasy, astheresearcheriscalledtoquestiongroupsanddivisionsfamiliartous,aswecannotbe surewhenweusesuchdistinctionsinthepracticeofeverydaylife(Foucault,1972a).

Foucaultsuggestedthatthedivisionsthatexistareautomaticcategoriesorganizedusing normativeruleswhichcalltobeexaminedastheyhavecomplexrelationswitheach other.Focault(1972a)states

onetriestorediscoverbeyondstatementsthemselvestheintentionofthe

speakingsubject,hisconsciousactivity,whathemeant,or,again,the

unconsciousactivitythattookplace,despitehim-self,inwhathesaidorin

thealmostimperceptiblefractureofhisactualwords;inanycase,wemust 69

reconstituteanotherdiscourse,rediscoverthesilentmurmuring,the

inexhaustiblespeechthatanimatesfromwithinthevoicethatonehears,

reestablishthetiny,invisibletextthatrunsbetweenandsometimes

collideswiththem(p.27).

Afterexaminingtheliteraturerelatedtogirlhoodandtheparticipationinchild beautypageants,Ifoundthattherearepotentialgapswhichcallforfurtherresearchfrom acriticalperspective.Researchexploringthespecificareasofgirlhoodandthecreation ofidentityinrelationtosocialclassintheruralSouthernbeautypageantcultureis limited.Moreover,thereisanabsenceofstudiesthatspecificallyexaminethepowerthat operatesinthisspecificcultureinrelationtogirlhoodidentitycreation.Researchstudies thathavebeencarriedouttodatehavegenerallyadoptedquantitativeorqualitative methodsandhavenotalwaysfocusedonemancipation.Inthislight,someofthese studies,unintentionally,mayhavereinforcedtheacceptedwaysofknowingthroughthe processesofreificationandsedimentation.

Studiesperformedbycriticalperspectives,whenexaminedaccordingto epistemologicalorientations,generatedifferentunderstandingstothosethatadoptother approaches.Criticalepistemologicalstudiesseethatpowerandknowledgearerelated andrejectpositivistvaluefreeapproachesasmythbecausepowerisusedtocontrol people(Neuman,1997).Approachingproblemsdifferently,criticalresearchersreflect thisinthequestionstheyaskandtheirpurposesforconductingresearch.Thetheory garneredfromthistypeofcriticalepistemologymayprovidepeoplewithopportunitiesto participateinthetransformationoftheirworld.

70

Foucault:TheRoadtoPoststructuralAnalysisofPower

KincheloeandMcLaren(2000)statethat

Criticalresearchcanbestbeunderstoodincontextoftheempowermentof

individuals.Inquirythataspirestothenameofcriticalmustbeconnected

totheattempttoconfronttheinjusticeofaparticularsocietyorsphere

withinaparticularsociety.Researchthusbecomesatransformative

endeavorunembarrassedbythelabelpoliticalandunafraidtoconsummate

arelationshipwithemancipatoryconsciousness.(p.291).

Withsuchamindset,IdecidedtoadopttheroleofbricoleurinmyresearchasImove withinandbetweencompetingparadigms.Abricoleur,accordingtoDenzinandLincoln

(2000/2003)isaquiltmaker,andWeinsteinandWeinstein(1991)believethatthe metaphorofquilt-makingallowsforacreationthatcontinuestoevolveasaresultofthe bricoleursmethodsofresearch.Idecidedtouseseveraldifferenttechniquesandmethods ofanalysisinconductingtheresearchforthisdissertation,andthesemethodsareself- reflective,strategic,andpragmatic.DuringmyliteraturereviewandthefieldworkI completed,Ideterminedthetechniquesneededtocompletetheresearch.Usingthequilt makingmetaphor,thepiecingtogetherofwaysofanalysisproducesdifferentwaysof seeingthecomplexissuesthatinfluencewhylowersocio-economicparentsentertheir childrenintoruralSouthernbeautypageantsandhowthissubcultureworkstocreate girlhoodidentityinthecontestants.

Makingthechoiceofacriticalframeworktosupportmydissertationresearchwas important,becausecentraltocriticaltheoryistheunderstandingofposition,power,and 71 politics.Asthediscussionmovesfromcriticalepistemology,Ineedtoprovidea backgroundtounderstandthecriticalethnographic,cultural,andfeminismmethods detailedlaterinthischapter.Postmodernismandemancipationwillbeexploredanda criticismofFoucault’sworkwillbeconsidered.Thisdiscussionwillprovideabackdrop toanalysesofpowerrelationshipsandstructureswithintheruralSouthernbeautypageant cultureinrelationtogirlhood,identity,andsocialclass.

CriticalTheory

Criticaltheory,accordingtoAgger(1991),grewfromanattempttoaddressthe effectsofoppressionandledtotheformationofaschoolofinterdisciplinarythought ratherthanasingledogmaticapproach.Agger(1991)furtherdescribedcriticaltheoryas afamilyofapproachesfromwhomanumberofemancipatorymethodologicaldirections haveemerged.Inordertounderstandcriticaltheory,itisimportanttounderstandthe conceptofcriticalconsciousness,ortheabilitytoanalyzeassumptionsandsocial expectationsthatdeterminehowindividualsinteractwithandrelatetotheirworlds.Key tothisideaisreflection,whichistheprocessthroughwhichself-understandingandan awarenessofculturallyandsociallyembeddedideologiesemerges.Thisallowsforthe exposureoffalseconsciousnessandtheemancipationoftheindividual.Felski(2000) explainsthatscholarswhoapproachedresearchwithacriticalconsciousness reconceptualizedandproblematizedthefamiliaraspectsofpracticeandrequiredtheuse ofrigorouscritiquetoopposeoppressiveprocesses.Theyareunwillingtoacceptideas andpracticesbasedonauthorityandtheirfocusturnstoaskingquestionsoftenleft unasked.Agger(1991)furthersthisexplanationbyincludingtheideathatcritical 72 consciousnessalsorequirestheresearchertoexposemeaningthatisnotoftenobviousor easilyfound.

TheearlybeginningsofcriticaltheoryarefoundintheworksofMarxin1818,

Freudin1856,andFrommin1900,buttheFrankfurtschoolinGermanyin1930brought theideasofcriticaltheorytotheforefront(Sarup,1993).TheFrankfurtschooltookissue withtheviewsofpositivesciencethatignoreddemocracyandhumanismandthese researchersdevelopedtheoriesthatrevolvedaroundemancipationanddomination,duein nosmallparttothepoliticalandworldeventsthatoccurredduringtheearly20 th century

(Agger,1991).Horkiemer,Marcuse,Adorno,andHabermas,earlyphilosopherswho workedinaEuropeanatmosphereworkingtoassimilatetheideasofsocialismand capitalismintotheirculture,suppliedthebasisforstudyingsocietyandtherelationships betweensocialconditionsandtheindividualandtheyusedthisknowledgetochallenge oppressionintheexistingsocialstructuresandhelpemancipateindividuals(Sarup,

2002).

Eventhoughthetheoristswereworkingtowardsimilarthemesandwere connectedtotheInstituteofSocialResearchattheUniversityofFrankfurt,theywerenot unifiedintheirapproachtotheirresearch(KincheloeandMcLaren,2000).Regardlessof thedifferencesinapproaches,thefocusoftheirworkwastherelationshipbetweentheory andpractice,andtheeffectsofscience’sdominationandgrowthasanideologyinthe

20 th century.Thetheoristssawthatsciencedidnotalwaysdevelopnegativeoutcomes, butthechallengeoccurredinthecombinationofpraxisintentandexplanatorystrength oftenignoredbymodernscience. 73

ThiscriticaltheorydevelopedbytheFrankfurtschoolattempted,accordingto

KincheloeandMcLaren(1994),toexplainwhyMarx’ssocialistrevolutiondidnotoccur andthetheoristsattheFrankfurtschooltriedtoreconstructMarxismtofitthecapitalist societythatwasemerginginthe20 th century.Marxismtheoryisoftenconsideredtobe thecornerstoneofcriticaltheoryasitemphasizeseconomicexploitationandthe dehumanizingofworkersoppressedbyaworldwhodisregardedtheircontribution

(Agger,1991).AccordingtoMarx,humanitycanbreakfromthisestablishedoppression, ashestated,

Wedonotanticipatetheworlddogmatically,butratherwishtofindthe

newworldthroughcriticismoftheold;eventhoughtheconstructionof

thefutureanditscompletionforalltimesisnotourtask,whatwehaveto

accomplishatthistimeisallthemoreclear:relentlesscriticismofall

existingconditions,relentlessinthesensethatcriticismisnotafraidofits

findandjustaslittleafraidoftheconflictwiththepowersthatbe(citedin

CarrandKemmis,1986,p.137).

Ascriticaltheorybecamereconceptualizedinthelate20 th century,itbeganto turnitsbackontheMarxists’notionsofhumanexistencebeingbasedoneconomicforms ofpower(KincheloeandMcLaren,2000).EvenwiththismovefromMarxisttheory,the goalforcriticaltheoryremainedsomewhatthesame:constructinganewfuturethrough interrogationofestablishedwaysofthinking.

Nowaswemoveintothe21 st century,criticaltheorycontemplatesthemultiple formsofpowerthatoperateinrelationtorace,gender,andsexualdomination.Thatis nottosaythateconomicforcesarenotshapingcultureandthelivesofindividuals, 74 becauseoftentheseforceshaveanimpactonthedominantculturalareasofrace,gender, andsexualdomination(KincheloeandMcLaren,2000).Thestudyofthewaysthat poweroperatestodominateisadifficultoneforcriticaltheorists,onethatisan

“extremelyambiguoustopicthatdemandsdetailedstudyandanalysis”(Kincheloeand

McLaren,2000,p.283).

Society,intheeyesofcriticalresearchers,isunfair,unequalandoppressiveand changeisnecessary.Agger(1991)statesthatcriticaltheoryshouldaimtocreateastate ofemancipation,anditisthisideathatmanyresearchingchildbeautypageantculture haveadoptedtoreconstructpowerrelationsparticulartochildbeautypageantcultureand girlhood.ThisresearchisbuiltontheideasofcriticalepistemologyandFoucault’swork andthisframeworkallowsforactionsofemancipationasunderstandingisdevelopedfor knowledge,power,anddisciplinarystructures.Indecidingonaframeworkformy research,IknewthatfocusingjustonFoucault’sworkorcriticalsocialtheorywouldnot beenoughonitsown.Thedesiretomovebeyondidentificationofandinterpretationof thepowerthatoperatesinbeautypageantculturepromptedmetosearchforatheoretical frameworkthatwouldallowmetomovetoofferingopportunitiestoaddressthe injusticesthatexistsinthissubculture.

WhyisFoucault’sworkappropriatefortheanalysisinthisresearch?Agger

(1991)commentsthatcriticalsocialtheoryandFoucauldiananalyticshavetensions betweenthem.Often,Foucaultiscriticizedforbeingpessimisticandlacking constructiveopportunitiestoendoppression.SomeclaimFoucault’sworksees individualsasmarionettesmanipulatedbyanotherpowerinsteadofseeingthemas 75 individualswhothinkindependently.Thesecriticismsarevalid,andIhaveconsidered theminlightofmyresearch.

Foucault

Foucault,aprofessorofhistoryofSystemsofThought,workedasasocial scientistandideahistorianattheCollegedeFrance(Rabinow,1984).Thoughhediedin

1984,FoucaultcontinuestoberecognizedasacontroversialFrenchwitha varietyofinterestsandchangesofposition(Frasier,1989).Thethreeprevailingthemes inFoucault’sworkarethedisciplinesofknowledge,questionsofpowerandcontrol,and theoryoftheself(McHoulandGrace,1993).Foucault’sworkscenteredontheideasof powerandknowledge,mostspecifically MadnessandCivilization (1967)and TheBirth ofaClinic (1973)(Frasier,1989).

EventhoughFoucaultwascriticizedasamoderntheoristinthe1970sand1980s, heisnowseenbycurrentcriticaltheoristsasoneofthemostinfluentialthinkersofthe currenteraasmuchofhistheoreticalthinkinghasinfluencedourwaysofthinkingofand understandingtheworld.Sarup(1993)warnsthatmakingFoucault’sthinkingintoan acceptedorthodoxywouldgoagainstFoucault’sintentions,anditisdangeroustoassume thatwefullyunderstandFoucault’sideasifwehavereadonlytranslationsofhisoriginal work.ThereisariskthatFoucault’sworkmaybeerroneouslyusedtoaddrespectability andglamourtowhatwouldotherwisebeseenasordinaryresearch.

Foucault’spopularityisseeninthemanyworksthathavebeenwrittenabouthis researchandtheories.SomeseeFoucaultasaphilosopher,historian,andpolitical activist,whileotherstargethispersonallifeasfodderfordiscussion(Sarup,1993).

Foucaultdidnotonlyworkinthescholarlyrealm,buthealsoworkedatthepractical 76 leveltosupporttherightsofprisoners,immigrants,thepoliticallyoppressed,andthose heldinhealthinstitutions.

ChallengestoFoucault’sworkarevaried,andmostlyfocusonFoucault’s thinkingbeingfunctionalistandfocusingmoreonsociety’sbeingruled“byaninvisible handratherthanbyanaccountable,legitimatestatepowerandrationalruleoflaw”

(CouzensHoy,1986,p.10).HabermasbelievedthatFoucaultwasanirrational

“fortunatepositivist”andHabermasdidnotacceptFoucault’spanopticangeneralization andstatedthatFoucaultwasoutdatedinhisattackonhumanscience(Habermas,1987,p.

276).Habermasalsocriticized DisciplineandPunish anditsgeneralizationofthe panopticanasbeingirrelevant,duetoitsspecificcontextandgeneralizations(Habermas,

1987).

TheMovetoPostmodernThinking

Foucault,acriticalthinkeraccordingtosomeandatheoristwhoseworksidentify withpostmodernthinking,deniedtheconceptofideologyintheanalysisofsocial structures(Palermo,2002).Sarup(1993)sawFoucault’sviewsongovernmentalityasa guideforunderstandingrelationshipsbetweencultureandsocietyandunderstanding theserelationshipsisparamounttomakingtheconnectionbetweenresistanceand techniquesofpowerinourcurrenttimes.CurrentthinkingquestionsFoucault’sbeliefin theupholdingofmodernsocietiesbytruthclaimsofexpertknowledgewhichstipulates normativerulesofbehaviorandaskswhypeoplearewillingtoacceptthisauthorityand whatmaintainsit.

Sarup(1993)statesthatpostmoderntheorygrewoutofthinkinginthe1960s, whichquestionedmodernity,ortheagethatgrewoutoftheAgeofEnlightenmentand 77 wasbasedonrationalismorpostitivismwhereknowledgeisbasedonscientific,objective factsfreefromoutsideinfluences.Postmodernists,accordingtoSarup(1993),rejectthe ideaofascienceofthesocialworldanddonottrustanysystematicempirical observation.Infact,postmodernistsrejectclaimstotruthasitreferstologic,rationality, andreasonbasedvalues.

Initsmovefromscientificauthority,postmodernismsupportsindividualityand differentviewsbychallengingpositivisticscienceandpowerandcapitalism’s dominance.Themultipleviewscreatedbyapostmodernthinkingcomefromthefreeing aspectwhichallowssocietytomovefromthedominationofoneworldvieworideology

(Palermo,2002).Andthisaspectleadstotheconclusionthatpostmodernismcannotbe definedasasingleperception(Sarup,1993).

Thecriticismsofpostmodernismaremanyandvaried.Oneofthestrongestisthe failureofpostmodernismtoaddresstheideasthatweliveinasocietywherecapitalism andconsumerismdominate(Sarup,1993).Palermo(2002)discussestheproblems betweenthewaysthateducationandknowledgeareorganized,citingthatknowledgeis nowmeasuredintermsofeconomicpotentialratherthanintermsofthepromotionof justiceandtruth.Oneindicatorofthisistheprivatizationofeducationinitsattemptto attractbetterclientsorstudents.Andinbeautypageantculture,advertisingthepresence oftalentandmodelingscoutsintheaudienceorawardsintheformofmonetaryorother prizesleadstotheattractionofcontestants(consumers).

AnothercritiqueofFoucault’stheoriescentersinhisreluctancetoprovide solutionstotheinequitiesbroughttolightbyhisanalysis.However,Foucaultnever intendedonbeingapostmoderntheoristbutthathisworkgivesusthetoolstoreassess 78 theunderstandingofpowerandhowitisexercised.Foucault’sworks,asaresult,offer illuminationofwaysinwhichpowerisunderstoodandthisprovidesuswithwaysto identifyinjusticeandthewaysweworktochangeourpractices.

EmancipationfromExistingPowerStructures

KincheloeandMcLaren(2000)identifytheworkofcriticalresearchersas politicalactionfocusingonaddressinginjusticesidentifiedintheprocessofdoing research.Thisemancipatoryactionisproducedbytheabilityoftheresearchertobringto lightthesociallyacceptedwaysofseeingtheworld.Foucault’sworkisemancipatoryin natureinitsattractionofjustice,liberty,andhumandignity(Sawicki,1991).Helocated poweroutsideconsciousdecisionsandopeneduppossibilitiesthatmightbeconsidered emancipatory.Thisreliedontheideathatpowerproduceseffects(McHoulandGrace,

1993).Thisemancipationasagoalofempowermenthasmovedtheobjectivesofcritical theoryembracedbyacademicstotheaddressofsocialinjustices.

Foucaultbelievedthatpresenthappeningswerenotnecessarilybetterthanpast happenings,butthisdoesnotmeanthatemancipationisnotacomponentofhistheory

(Frasier,1989).Rather,Foucault’sviewofprogressdidnotembracetheideathat emancipationgrewfromincreasedknowledge–especiallyfrommodernscience.Our abilitytoseechangeisnotbasedonseeingbetter,butseeingdifferently(Frasier,1989).

AproblemwithemancipatoryresearchidentifiedbyAgger(1991)centersonthe ideathattheresearchisbasedonabeliefthatonepersoncanactasanemancipator insteadofseeingthatthegoalofemancipationneedstoberegardedinresearchdesigns.

Iftheresearcherseeshimselforherselfastheemancipator,thenthequestionbecomes howdoesheorshedecidewhichpeopleneedliberating.Therefore,researchthatworks 79 toidentifypowerstructuresandworkstoliberateoremancipateneedstobereciprocal withtheresearcherandthepeoplebeingresearchedhavinganopportunitytoexperience changeinunderstanding(Lather,1991).

AsIworkedonmydissertation,myintentwaspartofmyresearchfromthe outset.Idesiredtoworkinareciprocalrelationshipwiththecontestantsintherural

Southernbeautypageantculturetolearnfromeachother.Todothis,anunderstanding ofFoucault’sideasofpower,knowledge,anddisciplinewasnecessary.

Power,KnowledgeandDiscipline

Foucault’sworkdiscussesthreedifferentframesoftimeorphases:discourse, power,andsubject(McHoulandGrace,1993). Discourse referstoquestionsof knowledge, power referstopoliticalquestionsofsurveillanceresultingincontrolthrough discipline,and subject seeshumanbehaviorasinternallycontrolledbyrelationshipswith externalsurveillance.Thesecondphase,power,istheframeusedasIdevelopedthe criticalframeworkforthisstudy.Myinterestliesinunderstandingthewayspower controlsindividuals–specificallygirls–throughdisciplinarypractices.But,because powerandknowledgearesocloselyrelated,itwasimportantthatIexamineFoucault’s workinregardtopowerandknowledgerelationships.

Powerandknowledgeareconnectedonanintimatelevelandareexpressedasone unit.Rejectingpowerasafragilerepressiveidea,Foucault(1972b)states:

…powerisstrongthisisbecause,aswearebeginningtorealize,it

produceseffectsatthelevelofdesire–andalsoatthelevelofknowledge.

Farfrompreventingknowledge,powerproducesit.Ifithasbeenpossible

toconstituteaknowledgeofthebody,thishasbeenbywayofan 80

ensembleofmilitaryandeducationaldisciplines.Itwasonthebasisof

poweroverthebodythataphysiological,organicknowledgeofitbecame

possible(p.59).

Powerandknowledgewillbestudiedtogetherinrelationtothisresearch.The understandingofhowdiscourserelatestodiscussionsofdisciplinarypracticesthatexist inbeautypageantculturemakesitrelevanttothediscussiongeneratedbythis dissertation.Therefore,Foucault’srecognitionofunitsofknowledgeasdiscoursebefore discussingpower/knowledgeisappropriatetotheresearchperformed.

McHoulandGrace(1993)state

…theterm“discourse”refersnottolanguageorsocialinteractionbutto

relativelywellboundedareasofsocialknowledge(p.31).

Usingthisinterpretation,discoursebecomeswhateverconstrainsaswellasenables writing,speakingandthinkingwithinahistoricaltimeframe.Inkeepingwiththis thinking,researchersarerequiredtothinkaboutdifferentideasthathappentohave namesthattheyalreadyknow.Discoursesseemtointersectandoverlapinhistorical changesandformcomplexnetworkscalleddiscursivefields(Martusewicz,1992)and,in lightofFoucault’sresearch,formasetofconstraintsthatinfluenceourthinkingand actions.

ForFoucault,discoursereferstobodiesofknowledge,atheorythatdivergesfrom theideaoflanguageandgrammarandturns,instead,toaconceptofdiscipline(McHoul andGrace,1993).Discipline,asusedbyFoucault,hasdivergentmeanings:scholarly disciplinessuchassociology,medicineandpsychology,anddisciplinaryinstitutions whichexercisecontrolsuchasprisons,schools,andorganizations(likebeautypageants) 81

(Danaheretal,2000).Thisshowstherelationshipbetweenbodiesofknowledge

(disciplines)andsocialcontrol(disciplinarypractices).

Discoursebecomesmorethanwhatisoutwardlyspokenorwrittenabouta particulardiscipline.AsFoucault(1972a)explains,

Tothisthemeisconnectedanotheraccordingtowhichallmanifest

discoursesissecretlybasedonan“alreadysaid”andthatthis“already

said”isnotmerelyaphrasethathasalreadybeenspoken,oratextthathas

alreadybeenwritten,buta“neversaid,”anincorporealdiscourse,avoice

assilentasabreath,awritingthatismerelythehollowofitsownmark(p.

25).

Foucaultsawdiscourseasanoppressivepresenceofthatis“neversaid”andwhatisnot saidcanundermine,initssilence,whathasbeensaid.Thiscallsforresearchersto question“whatissaid”discoursesinlightofthesilentruleswhichcalltobedisrupted andmadeknown.Admittingthatdiscourseisanambiguousterm,Foucault(1972a) statedhehad“usedandabused[theterm]inmanydifferentsenses”(p.107).Ina generalsense,Foucaultsawdiscourseasverbalperformances,including“groupsof signs,”“actsofformulations,”and“seriesofsentencesorpropositions”(p.107).To explainthatdiscourseisrepresentedbyagroupofstatementsthatcanbeassignedtoa particularmodeofexistence,Foucault(1972a)commentedthat“discoursecanbedefined asthegroupofstatementsthatbelongtoasinglesystemofformation”(p.107).Inthis light,discursiveformationbecomestherulesthatexistinrelationtoagroupof statements(discourses). 82

Canastatementbeconsideredaunitofdiscourse?Isthiscomparabletosayinga sentenceisaunitoflanguage?Many,includingMcHoulandGrace(1993),believethat astatementcannotbeconsideredaunitasasentenceis.Astatement,unlikeasentence oractofspeaking,carrieswithitmuchmoremeaninginkeepingwithFoucault’s(1972a) beliefthatastatementhastobeafunctionalunitusedto“bringabouteffectsratherthan merely‘represent’statesofaffairs”(p.37).Usingthislogic,Foucaulthimselfarguesthat astatementisnotthesameasalinguisticsentence,asstatementscantaketheformof unwrittenmedia(maps,films,pictures,)withhiddenorsilentmeanings.Withthis understanding,astatementbecomessomethingfunctionalduetotherulesthatsurround theirunderstanding.

Foucault’slogic,limitations,rulesandexclusionsgovernthewaysthat knowledgeisproducedindiscourses.Discoursesandeventshappenaccordingtorules andotherconstraintsandtherefore,accordingtoMcHoulandGrace(1993),alwaysfind theirfunctioninginrelationtopower.Thesediscursivepracticesworktoregulate culturalinstitutionslikebeautypageantsbecausedominantdiscoursessuchasbeautyand feminineidealshaveproducedpowerfulcultureswhich,inturn,producedominant discourses.

Thesediscoursesaffectourdailylivesastheyprovideframeworksfor interpretationandpracticesofdiscoursethatconstructdifferentsocialrealities(Miller andFox,2004).Discourses,asaresult,become“conditionsofpossibilitythatprovideus withtheresourcesforconstructingalimitedarrayofsocialrealities,andmakeother possibilitieslessavailabletous”(pp.42–43).Knowledgethenbecomespowerasit 83 providesrulesthroughwhichcontestantsunderstandwhatistrueandwhatisimaginary.

Knowledgetellsthepersonwhatisimportantaboutherexperience.

Foucault(1980)callsdominantdiscoursesregimesoftruthwhere“truthiscentred ontheformofscientificdiscourseandtheinstitutionswhichproduceit”(p.131).The statusofthepersonorpowerwhoisresponsibleforsayingwhatistrueiswhat determinesthetruthorfalsenessofstatements.ToFoucault(1980),

“Truth”istobeunderstoodasasystemoforderedproceduresforthe

production,regulation,distribution,circulation,andoperationof

statements.Truthislinkedinacircularrelationwithsystemsofpower

whichproduceandsustainit,andtoeffectsofpowerwhichinducesand

whichextendit–a“regimeoftruth”(p.133).

Inthisway,Foucaultarguesthattruthistheproductofmanyformsofrestraintandtruth workstoencouragecustomaryformsofpower.Inwesternsocieties,truthisoftenthe productofscientificresearchandFoucault’sconcernwaswiththecircumstancesthat allowedthispositiontobeproduced(McHoulandGrace,1993).Socialrelationsandthe institutionsproducedbythemheldFoucault’sfocus,muchmorethannaturalscience,as thesocialrelationsworkedfromthebasisofhumansituationsandthetruthsrelatedto them.

Pageantparticipantsandtheirparentsuseamultitudeofregimesoftruthor discoursestosupporttheiractivitiesandactionsandthesediscoursesdependonthe pageantsystemswithinwhichtheycompete.Forsomeofthesegirlsandtheirparents, acceptanceofthediscoursesproducedbythepageantsystemwithinwhichtheywork becomestheirbasisforunderstandingbeauty,feministideals,andqualitiesofwinners. 84

Investigatingthewaystheseregimesoftrutharedevelopedthroughdominantdiscourses allowsforalternativeformsoftruthtobeexposedandopportunitiesarethenprovidedto findingotherwaysoffunctioning.

ThePower/KnowledgeRelationship

Inhiswork,Foucaultconcentratesontherelationsofpower/knowledgeandthe bodyinmodernsociety.ThisisseeninhisworksDisciplineandPunish (1977)and The

HistoryofSexuality (1979),asbothmoveinthinkingfromanalysisofknowledgetothe diagnosisofpower/knowledgerelationships.Foucault’sattentiontotheroleofpowerin hisworkseemstopointtoamoveinhisthinkingfromknowledgeanalysisto power/knowledgerelationshipsandthisshiftmustbediscussedinrelationtohis examinationoftruth.IfresearchersattempttodiscussFoucault’sunderstandingofpower withouttakingintoconsiderationtheroleoftruth,thentheyignoreimportantties betweenpowerrelationsandtheabilitytoconstructthetruthsindividualsliveby.

PowerandknowledgearecloselyrelatedandFoucault(1977)confirmsthis saying,

Powerproducesknowledge(andnotsimplybyencouragingitbecauseit

servespowerorbyapplyingitbecauseitisuseful);thatpowerand

knowledgedirectlyimplyoneanother;thatthereisnopowerrelation

withoutthecorrelativeconstitutionofafieldofknowledge,norany

knowledgethatdoesnotpresupposeandconstituteatthesametimepower

relations(p.27).

Inthisway,Foucault(1977)seesthatpowerisimplementedbutisnotpossessedas property,possession,privilege,orassomethingthosewhodominatehaveandthosewho 85 areoppressedlack.Thisleadstoabandoningtheacceptedconceptsofpowerwhichlead tothebeliefthatknowledgeexistsoutsidepowerrelations.

Movingfromthisviewthatknowledgeiswhatmakespeoplemorepowerful,

Foucault’sworkindicatesthatknowledgeworkstomakeussubjectsbecausewebeginto defineandmakesenseofourselvesinreferencetotheknowledgeanditssources

(Danaheretal,2000).AccordingtoDanaheretal(2000),powerisnotsomethingthatis imposeduponpeople,butpeoplesubmitthemselvestoactionsorwaysofoperatingthat fitspecificcircumstances.Inthebeautypageantrealm,thisisevidencedinthat contestantsperformanddressincertainwaysdependentuponthepageantsystemin whichtheyarecompeting–usingdifferentdresses,modelingtechniques,talents,and costumesforparticularsystems.

Foucault(1980)workedto“reversethemodeofanalysis”ofpowersothatpower wasnotdescribedinnegativetermswhichtendtoexclude,repress,andconcealthe effectsofpower.Hewantedtochangetheperceptionsofdominationtoshowtheentire machinewithallitsparts.Danaheretal.(2000)suggestthatFoucaultwantedto“cutoff theking’shead”toallowpowertoberecognized,insteadofasthepropertyofthe forceful(likekings,presidents,judges,orpageantsystems),butratherasforcesthat createpositionsandwaysofactingindailylife(p.48).

AsitisanoutgrowthofMarxists’thinking,theFrankfurtschool’sperceptionof powerwasonethatsawpowerassovereign,arepressiveandnegativeforce,andasa classstrugglebetweenthebourgeoisieandworkingclassandcapitalistmodesof production(Frasier,1989).Foucault’snotionofpowerpointedouttheinadequacyofthis thinkingofpowerasitseespowerasastrategywiththosewhoare“dominated”beingas 86 muchapartofthesystemofpowerrelationsasthosewhodominate(Frazier,1989).

AccordingtoFoucault(1980)

Inanysociety,therearemanifoldrelationsofpowerwhichpermeate,

characterize,andconstitutethesocialbody,andtheserelationsofpower

cannotthemselvesbeestablished,consolidated,orimplementedwithout

productionaccumulation,circulation,andfunctioningofdiscourse.There

canalsobenopossibleexerciseofpowerwithoutacertaineconomyof

discoursesoftruthwhichoperatesthroughandonthebasisofthis

association.Wearesubjectedtotheproductionoftruththroughpower

andcannotexercisepowerexceptthroughtheproductionoftruth(p.93).

ForFoucault,powerwasnotseenasageneralconceptbutasasystem.Power canbeunderstoodbythetechniquesthoughwhichitisexercised(Fiske,1993).The ways,accordingtoFoucault,thatpowercanberecognizedandcomprehendedinsociety arethroughlegal,administrative,andeconomicformsandtechniques.Asthereareno universalwaystoexercisepower,oursocietyisgovernedbycertainpracticesthatreveal tousthewaysthatpoweranditsrelationsfunction.ForFoucault,thesepracticesare visibleinourculturethroughstructureslikethebeautypageantorganizationswhich producedocileandpassivebehaviororactionswhichleadtopositivereinforcements.

TimeandPlace:DocileBodies

DisciplineproduceswhatFoucault(1977)called“docilebodies,”oronesthatcan betrainedormanipulated,used,subjected,andtransformed(p.136).Theprocessby whichbodiesbecomedocile,ordevelopapoliticalanatomy,isnotsudden,butoccurs overtimeduetoforcesthatcomefromvariousdirectionsandwhichhavesimilar 87 intentions.Thisisillustratedinthemethodsusedbyschools,themilitary,beauty pageants,contests,andmanyothersocialstructures.Foucault(1977)workedto“mapa seriesofexamplesoftheessentialtechniquesthateasilyspreadfromoneinstitutionto another”(p.139).Disciplinedoesworkwithintheseinstitutions,butdoesnotbecome theinstitutionitself.Thetechniquesthatworktocreatethisdisciplinarypoweris adaptabletoanyinstitutionandFoucaultdiscussedthatthesepoweroperationsworkin conjunctionwiththeknowledgethatcomesfromtheirexistence(Fiske,1993).Docility, accordingtoFoucault(1977)isachievedthroughfourdisciplinarytechniques:(1)spatial distribution,(2)activitycontrolthroughtimetableuse,(3)genesesorganization,and(4) compositionofforces.Inrelationtothisstudyonruralchildbeautypageants,Foucault’s workonspatialdistributionandactivitycontrolthroughtimetableusearerelevant.

AccordingtoFoucault(1977)individualsareplacedintospacesaccordingto disciplinebywayofseveralmethods.Byenclosingtheindividualintoaspecifiedspace, a“protectedplaceofdisciplineandmonotony”(p.141),disciplineworkstocreatespatial distribution.Foucault(1977)followsthisideaintheconfinementofbeggarsandthe poorinFranceinthe17 th centuryandinmoremodernwaysofboardingschools,military institutions,andreligiousorganizations.Thisextendsto“partitioning,”wherethegoalis tocontroldisappearancesbyfocusingonwhoispresentandwhoismissinginagroup

(Foucault,1977).Inchildbeautypageants,thisisdemonstratedbywhoisonstage duringthecall-backs,whoiscountedamongthetop-tenortop-five,andwhoisnamed queenoramongthe“royalty.”

Inkeepingwithpageantry’swayofcreatingdocilebodies,Foucault(1977) discussedthatitisnotjusttheplacethatoneoccupiesbutthepositionorstatusoneholds 88 inthatplacethatcreatesthedocilebody.Thisisalsoseeninschoolswiththedifference inrankbetweenteacherandpupilorinthemilitarybetweenofficerandsoldier.

Hierarchicalpositiondoescreateobedience,aspositionorstatusisafluidstatewhichis abletobechangedduetoitsrelationshipwithknowledge.Ifoneknowstheright informationandusesthatinformationcorrectly,thenachangeinstatuscanoccur.And oncepeopleareallowedtomoveupinstatusorposition,theythenbecomesubjectedto othertechniquesthatmaintaindiscipline’spowertocreatedocility.

AccordingtoFoucault(1977),“timepermeatesthebodyandwithitallits meticulouscontrolsofpower”(p.152).Theuseoftimetablestocontroldatesbackto monasterieswiththeirdailyrhythmsandcyclesofrepetition.Thisideaofdiscipline throughtimeisseeninmoremodernorganizationslikeschools,hospitals,and workplaces.Inthisway,timeregulatesthebodybyimposingrhythmfromtheoutside.

Throughthisregulationofthebodyusingtime,thefocusbecomesefficiencyand speed.ForFoucault(1977),thisallowsforthe“correctuseofthebody,whichmakes possiblethecorrectuseoftimeasnothingmustremainidleoruseless”(p.152).As wastingtimehashistoricallybeenseenasnegative,thisuseoftimetoregulatebodies reinforcedtheideaofmakingthemostoftimecreatinga“positiveeconomy”asFoucault

(1977)discussed,

Disciplineontheotherhand,arrangesapositiveeconomy;itposesthe

principleofatheoreticallyevergrowinguseoftime:exhaustionrather

thanuse;itisaquestionofextracting,fromtime,evermoreavailable

momentsand,fromeachmoment,evermoreusefulforces.Thismeans

thatonemustseektointensifytheuseoftime,asiftime,initsvery 89

fragmentation,wereinexhaustibleorasif,atleastbyanevermore

detailedinternalarrangement,onecouldtendtowardsanidealpointat

whichonemaintainedmaximumspeedandefficiency(p.154).

Inthisway,disciplinestrengthenstimeandtheideathatusingeverymomentis paramount.InFoucault’smind,justaspositionorspatialdistributionproducesdocile bodies,thecontrolofactivityproducesthemaswell.Toperformcompetentlyan individualisrequiredtobeobedienttotheconditionsexpectedofittofunctionin.In ordertodothis,thebodymustbetrainedandpeopledeveloptheseactionsbasedonthe knowledgeofwhatisconsideredtobe“true”(Fiske,1993).

Developingtheseactionsisillustratedthroughthetrainingpageantparticipants receiveontalent,modeling,interviewskills,wardrobeandotheraspectsofcompetition.

Andthedevelopmentoftheseskillsfocusesonbeingabletoperformthemefficiently.

Makingtheuseofeveryavailablemomentfortrainingorpracticingisimportant.For manyofthecompetitions,thereisarequired20to30secondon-stageintroductionora required30to60secondintroductionintheinterview.Orthetalentportionmayenforce atimelimitonroutines(usuallyoneminuteandthirtysecondstotwominutesandthirty seconds)–andcertainmodelingroutinesarelimitedtocertainamountsoftimeaswell.

Thismeansthatperformingefficientlyandoptimallyisparamount.Andthebehavioris reinforcedthroughlosingorwinningcontests.Pageantparticipantsbecomecaughtina networkofpowerrelationsthatdisciplinesthemtobehaveincertainways.

MeasuringDisciplinarySuccess

Hierarchicalobservationandnormalizingjudgmentscombinetocreatewhat

Foucault(1977)termedthe“examination.”Itisthroughthesemechanismsthat 90 disciplinarysuccessismeasured.Hierarchicalobservationisbasedontheideathat surveillanceisparamounttocontrol(Martusewicz,1992).Thereisanunequal connectionbetweentheobserverandtheobserved,asthepersonbeingobserveddoesnot havethepowerorknowledgetoreversetheprocessontheobserver.

Surveillanceallowsdisciplinarypowertobecomeanonymouspower.Foucault

(1977)usesthemodelofBentham’spanopticon(1791)asanexampleofthisanonymous powerbecause

…thePanopticonbringstogetherknowledge,power,thecontrolofthe

body,andthecontrolofspaceintoanintegratedtechnologyofdiscipline

(p.189).

Thefunctionofthispowerisonindividualsaswellasnetworks,workingtoptobottom, bottomtotop,andlaterally(Foucault,1977).Thesupervisorsarecontinuallybeing supervised.Inthepageantsystem,contestantsarejudged(supervised)bythejudges, whoareinturnsupervisedbythepageantofficials,whoaresupervisedbytheaudience andparticipantsinthepageantsystem.

Thereisastandardthatunifiestheoperationsinthisdisciplinarysystemand allowsforpunishmentsatthemicrolevelofoperationknownasa“normalizing judgment”(Martusewicz,1992).Foucaultcalledthis“micropenalty”asmoreandmore levelsoflifearesubjecttopower.Micropenaltycanincludepunishmentsforlateness, laziness,disobedienceandmorethroughminordeprivationstohumiliation(Foucault,

1977).Eventhesmallestdeviationsfromproperbehavioraresubjecttobeingpunished.

Thosewhoareslightlynonconformists,evenforasmallamountoftime,canbesubject todiscipline.Thisisvisibleinbeautypageantsasthosewhoarenon-compliantwiththe 91 acceptedrules,dress,modelingtechniques,etc.,donotwinorareridiculedbyothers whoarecompeting.

Fornormalizingjudgments,nonstandardbehaviorisdeterminedwhenoneperson isjudgedbyanotherusingknowledgepossessedbythepersonmakingthejudgment

(Fiske,1993).Power/knowledgeusageinthismannerisalsoseeninexaminations,as theprocessiscreatedbysomeonepossessingknowledgeanditiscarriedoutonthose whoareseekingit.

Theideasofsurveillanceandnormalizationcometogetherintheprocessof examination,sincepeoplebecomeobjectified,individualized,andrankedaccordingly.In pageants,theimportanceofexaminationisbasedonsubtlereversalsofpower.

Disciplinarypowerreversesthetraditional,visiblesovereignpower.Powerbecomes invisibleandtheobjectsofpower–thoseonwhomitoperates–aremadethemost visible(Martusewicz,1992).Constantsurveillancebecomesthemeansbywhich disciplineismaintained.

WorkingTowardsaFrameworkforAnalysis

WorkingwithFoucault’sunderstandingsofpower/knowledgeanddiscipline allowsforanotherwayofexaminingrelationshipsbetweengirls,theirsocialclassand childbeautypageantculture.Admittingthatpowerisdemonstratedthroughdisciplinary techniquesinherenttoculturespresentsexplanationsastowhypeoplemaybewillingto acceptandparticipateinbeautypageantsthatdictateanadultifiedorseemingfalseor exaggeratedformofbeauty.Understandingthetechniquestiedtodisciplineallowfor highlightinghowthebody(people)canbeseenasobjectssubjectedtosurveillance

(observation)thatproducesdocilebodies.Pageantaccoladesarerecognizedastrue 92 knowledgeandthroughnormalizationprocessespeoplearejudgedandgiventitlesand otherlabels.Deviantdisplaysofbehaviorbyparticipants,parentsorpageantofficialsare correctedbyvisiblepunishmentsandconformingbehaviorisencouraged.Disciplinary technologiesarethewaysthroughwhichpowerisexercisedandexaminationofthis allowsforwaystoidentifychangesthatmightsupportparticipantstobeinvolvedinthe waysthatbeautyandsuccessaredefinedinthepageantculture.

Inmyresearch,Iamworkingtolookbeyonddescriptionsofpossessionand complianceandthisisinkeepingwithFoucault’snotionofpowerwhichrefusestheidea thatpowerissomethingthatispossessed.ForFoucault,thereisnoonefundamental principleofpower,butpowerisexperiencedinmanydifferentwaysatthemostbasic levelswhentheindividualissubjectedtoparticularexercisesofpower(Fiske,1993).

Beingabletounderstandandthenchangetheworldreliesontheunderstandingthat powerisanopennetwork.Foucault’saimofanalyzingdailypracticesinwhichpeople workunder“micropowers”iskeyintheresearchIamconductinginthisstudy.

Idobelievethatchangeispossibleinthepageantcultureandthisissupportedby

Foucault’s(1980)understandingthatpowerrelationsdonotexistwithoutresistance.

Thistakesplacewherepowerisexercisedandresistancecanbeseeninmanydifferent forms,justlikepower,asresistanceisopen-ended.Usingthisviewofpowerrelationsin conductingthisresearchhelpedtoidentifythewayssomeindividualsinthisresearch resistedthedisciplinaryprocessesthataccompanypageantculture.UsingFoucault’s workasaframeworkforanalysisallowsforaskingquestions,seeingnewwaysofdoing things,andparticipatinginsomesmallwayinunderstandingthesub-cultureofpageants astheyrelatetosocialstatus.Foucault’sworksaresituatedinrelationtomyresearch 93 throughthediscussionofcriticaltheory,currentmodesofthinking,andunderstanding.

Theworksrelatedtopower/knowledgeanddisciplinecreatethecriticalframeworkfor thediscussionrelatedtocriticaltheoryandprovidesthebackgroundtothemethodsof criticalethnography,criticalhermeneutics,culturalstudies,andpoststructuralfeminism.

ThemethodsofcriticaltheoryandtheFoucaultianperspectiveofferwaysof understandingandthereforetheyhavebeenusedinthisresearch.Myroleasaresearcher wastoidentifyopportunitiesforreflectionandexposealternativewaysofseeingtaken forgrantedoperations.

Therearesocialdynamicsthatshapemediaandpopularculture.Tostudythese socialdynamicsandtobringtolighttheinternalstructuresandforcesatworkinthem, onemustadoptatheoreticalframeworkthatisethnographic,orthathastheabilityto studytheexperiencesofothers.Theframeworkmustalsoincludewaystostudythe politicalandepistemologicalconcernsoftenstudiedinPoststructuralfeministresearch, astheseforceshaveinfluenceonmediaandpopularculture.Theremustalsobea methodofresearchinplacetofocusonthesocialtheoriesthatinfluencemediaand popularcultureaswell.Inthisway,theorybecomesafiltertoallowtheresearcherto approachtheinformationbeingstudiedandtodesignatefactstobeacknowledged.

Theoryalsoallowstheresearchertobeabletoidentifyproblemsintheinformation gatheredandthenbeabletodevisesolutionsforthoseproblems.Differenttheoriesallow fordifferentviews–andindecidingonthetheoryortheoriesforresearch,onemustbe surethatthescopeisnottoobroadnortoorigid.

Approachingmyresearchfromacriticalpoststructuralisttheoreticalstandpoint seemedtobethemostimportantforme.First,thistheoryfocusesonindividualsmaking 94 meaningfrompersonalexperienceandresearch.Thismeansthereisindependenceinthe researchprocessandthereisanopportunitytocreatedialoguewiththephenomenon beingstudiedinordertolearnanswersasresearchisconducted.Inthisway,context becomeskeytotheresearchprocessandtheresearcherherself.Criticalpostructuralist theoreticalframeworksbringtolightandseethegapbetweenwhatreallyhappensand theideasofwhatcouldhappen.

Whenstudyingmediaandpopularculture,onemustadmittheexistenceof dominantforcesinculture.Criticaltheorytriestoidentifyculturalproductionfrom insidethesourcesothatthereisanewunderstandingoftheeventorphenomenon.For thisresearch,childbeautypageantculture,girlhood,socialclass,andidentityformation willbestudiedtonotecontradictionsinthepoweroperationsandtoseekthepossibilities thatexistwithinthesestructures.Criticaltheoryallowstheframeworksthroughwhichto findthisinformation.

Withincriticaltheoryframeworks,researchcanbeginbydrawingonpersonal experience.Researchingothersallowstheresearchertheopportunitytoalsostudyinner experiences.Nowtheresearchercanwatchculturalormediaphenomenaandstudythe phenomenafromwithin.Thisallowsforknowingdirectlyandforwatchingand experiencing.Inthisway,privateismadepublic.Andthecriticalframeworksofcritical ethnography,criticalhermeneutics,postructuralfeminism,andculturalstudiesallowme thelensesthroughwhichtostudyruralchildbeautypageantcultureinrelationto girlhood,socialclassandidentityconstruction.

95

CHAPTER3

BRICOLAGE:CULTURALSTUDIES,CRITICALHERMENEUTICS,

POSTSTRUCTURALFEMINISM,ANDPOSTSTRUCTURALISTETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnographyisregardedasholisticinitsapproachasitsaimistounderstand individualsandtheirbehaviorinthecontextofculture(Fetterman,2000).Accordingto

Chambers(2000),ethnographyasthevarietiesofinquirythatworktodescribeculture andhumanaffairsdelineatingthatethnographyisdefinedbythesubjectmatterandnot bymethodology.Notastagnantmethodology,ethnographyrequiresanongoingprocess ofplacingindividualsandeventsinmeaningfulcontexts.Eachoftheethnographic traditionsshareacommongoalofgatheringfirst-handexperiencesandexploringspecific cultures(Atkinson,Coffey,Delamont,Lotland,andLotland,2001).

Brewer(2000)definesethnographyas

Thestudyofpeopleinnaturallyoccurringsettingsorfieldsbymethodsof

datacollectionwhichcapturetheirsocialmeaningsandordinaryactivities,

involvingtheresearchersparticipatingdirectlyinthesetting,ifnotalso

theactivities,inordertocollectdatainasystematicmannerbutwithout

meaningimposedonthemexternally(p.6).

Inthisway,researcherslearnaboutothersbylearningfromthem.Ethnographybecomes understoodthroughacombinationofactions-fieldwork,design,andmethodsofinquiry thatcreatepersonal,historical,andpoliticalaccountsofpeople’slives.Ethnographic researchworkstorecognizethecharacteristicsofgroupsofpeoplebyspendingmuch timeinobservationandusingdiversemethodsofdatacollectiontounearthallfacetsofa givencultureorsituation(Fetterman,2000). 96

Inthemoderneraofthelate19 th andearly20 th centuries,modernethnographyis seenasanoutgrowthofBritishanthropologyandtheChicagoschoolinAmerica.Some eventraceitbackto18 th and19 th centuryGermanphilosophyortotheRenaissnace

(DenzinandLincoln,1998).Criticismofethnographystemsfromrelevanceasa researchmethodology,astherearequestionsofconflictbetweenpositivistscientificand qualitativemethodsfromethnography’sinterpretivestart.Inresponsetothisargument, scholarscitethefocusofearlyanthropologistsonanthropologyasascience(Denzinand

Lincoln,1998).

Asthemoderneraturnedfromtheearly20 th centurytoWorldWarII,the

TraditionalPeriodofethnographyemerged.Thiswascharacterizedbyafocuson objectiveaccountsoffieldexperiencesbasedonpositivistscientificparadigms(Denzin andLincoln,1998).Itisduringthistimethatethnographybecameseenasthescientific sideofanthropology.Evenwiththisperception,theChicagoschoolfocusedmoreonlife storiesratherthananthropologyandmovedtocreateaninterpretivemethodology

(DenzinandLincoln,1998).

Notspecifictoanydiscipline,ethnographycombinesaspectsofallofthemand workswithinthoseaspectsofthedisciplinesthatareparallel.Nowdifferentapproaches withindifferentparadigmsarebeingusedinethnography–education,medicine,social sciences(Brewer,2000).Ethnographynowallowsfortheuseofdifferentperspectives andtheinclusionofdifferentintellectualcultures.Inthisway,itisnotconstrainedby conventionalframes.Somecommonfeaturesofeachofethnography’sdifferent traditionsincludetheuseoffirsthandobservation,theuseofparticipantobservationasa keypartofunderstanding,andtheimportanceofobservationnotbeingdoneinisolation. 97

Criticalethnographyfocusesonemancipation,astherewerecriticismsofmodern ethnographycitingitslackofrecognizingoppression(Hammersley,1992).Incritical research,theconcerniswithsocietalinequalitiesandthefocusisonpositivesocial change.Researchinthisfieldisdisturbedbypowerrelationshipsandcultureandhow inequalitiesaffecthumanbehavior(Carspeken,1996).Throughcriticalethnographic researchunequalpowerrelationshipscanbeexposed,sowithinthisframeworkpageant participantsandviewersofpageantmediacanbegintounderstandtheseinequalities leadingtochangesinpractice.

Thereismuchdebateovermethodsandobjectivityinrelationtoethnography whenquestionsariseoverhowresearchersseparatethemselvesfromthedatabeing collected.Thisisespeciallytruewhenresearchersareperformingparticipant observationsinthefield.Howdoresearchersdistancethemselves,orisdistancingeven necessary?Incriticalethnography,researchersadmitthattheirresearchissubjective, citingtheirdesiretouncovertheintrinsicpowerrelationswithintheprocessofgathering information(DenzinandLincoln,1998).Duetotheirinvolvementandinfluenceina certainareaofculture,researchersbecomepartoftheresearchprocessandcaptureone versionofreality(DenzinandLincoln,1998).Inlightofthis,itisimportantfor researcherstoadmittheirtheoreticalperspectivesandbehonestaboutthewaysthey producedata.Theperspectivemustbeclearlyidentifiableintheresearchbecause ethnographyrequirestheresearchertocreatevaliditythroughareflectiveaccountofthe researchprocess(Brewer,2000).

Ethnographerscenterondescribingsocialscenesandculturefromaninsider’s perspectiveand,asaresult,thereisareflectionofmanyformsofreality(Fetterman, 98

2000).Whentheyareinvolveddirectlywiththeindividualstheyarestudyingwithina cultureorsocialsetting,researchersmustmaintainaprofessionalstanceasanoutsider.

Thusthereisacombinationofinsiderandoutsiderperspectivesthatallowforadeeper understandingofculturalorsocialsettings.Thisrequiresresearcherstobeactivewhen workingwithindividualsorcultureandthenstepbackandanalyzetheinformation collected.

Coffey(1999)statesthatitisthistotalimmersioninthefieldthatyieldsstrength forethnographicresearch.Inhereyes,thistotalimmersionisnotaweaknessleadingto familiaritywhichcausesdistortionandlimitationstoresearch,asHammersleyand

Atkinson(1995)espouse.InCoffey’sargument,shestatesthatimmersionisnota weakness,butthelackofacknowledgementofthepresenceandroleoftheresearcheris.

Thisimmersion,however,mustbedonewithcritical,analytical,andself-conscious awareness,inCoffey’sopinion.Thisrequireskeepingextensivefieldnotesandjournals thatincludespersonalreflectionsasaresearcherinordertokeeptheproperawareness requiredforcriticalresearch.

Itisimpossibletoseparatetheethnographicresearcherfromthepersonalin researchreports,accordingtoDenzinandLincoln(1994),astheyaddresstheplaceofthe writerinrelationtotheextentone’spersonalselfshouldbeincluded.Accordingto

DenzinandLincoln(1994),itisnotpossibletoconductresearchandwritewithoutthe selfbeingpresentsince“alltextsarepersonalstatements”(p.578).Researchersshould balancetheiradmittanceofselfpresenceandtheirobjectivenesswithoutbeingthefocus orthedominatingforceintheproject.Thisrequiresareflexiveaccountinwritingandan intenttopresentrealisticresearchaccountswithauthenticityestablished,leavingoutthe 99 ideaofselfprivilegeintheaccountsoftheirfieldwork.Asabricoleur,Iamableto supportmyintentiontobalancemyuseofselfwithoutdominatingothers’viewsinthe research.

Researchersusingacriticalethnographyapproachcanconsiderseveraldifferent organizations,socialsituations,andresearchprocesseswithinpowerrelationships.And thisallowswaystomovebeyondthelimitationsofsocialstructurestoshowhowpower relationshipsaffectindividualbehaviors.Criticalethnographyisconnectedto illuminatingtheexerciseofpowerandlocalknowledgeinculturallyspecific,socially reproductiveprocesses(Lather,2001).AccordingtoLather(2001),criticalethnography includesreworkingFoucault’stheoriesaswellasfeminist,post-colonial,andcultural racetheories,tofocusontheconstructionofconsentanduncoveringinequalities(p.

479).Latherencouragesthemovefromtraditionalethnographicpracticestoworkand collaboratewithdominatedgroups.Thisideaisreflectedinmyrelationshipwiththe participantsinchildbeautypageantcultureaswellasthepageantstructuresthemselves withinthisresearch,asIwasaparticipantin,anorganizerof,anobserverofbeauty pageants.Asmydesirewastobeactivelyinvolvedintheresearchofruralbeauty pageantculture,itwasimportantformetoadoptacriticalethnographicframework.

Unliketraditionalethnographicframeworks,criticalethnographycandescribethe deepstructuresthatsupporteducationalsettingsandsocialpatterns.Byusingcritical ethnographyinabricolage,Icangaininsightintothefilmsanddocumentariesthatcenter onchildbeautypageantculture.Ratherthanconductingtraditionalaudiencestudieslike

JohnFiske(1998),Iwanttoinvestigatethecultureandcharactersportrayedinthese filmsanddocumentariesandtoinvestigatethesocialdynamicsthatexistoutsidethe 100 films.Documentingpatternsofculturalexpressionandsocialinteractionwhilewatching thesefilmsanddocumentariesallowforidentificationofideologiesatworkinthem.

Andinsodoing,therewillbeadialoguebetweenresearchandresearcherthatfocuses notonprivilegingadominantnarrativeorviewpoint,butonbreakingdownthe hierarchiesthatexistbetweenresearchandresearcher.Meaningsfromsuchresearchare constructedfromthecontext(Aronowitz,1993).Circumstanceandcontextbecomekeys tofindingmeaningwhenresearchingfilmsanddocumentariesaspartofcultureand history.

WorkingtowardsInterpretation:CriticalHermeneutics

Historically,hermeneuticsgrewfromtheinterpretationofancientandbiblical textsandwasthenappliedtogeneralhumansciences.Fromthere,hermeneuticsnowis acknowledgedtoencompassallactsofinterpretationinhumansciences(Rorty,1991).

Hermeneutics,then,isfocusedonmediatingtheprocessesofhumanunderstandingand interpretation.Itrevealsthemediatedprocessesofallhumanunderstanding(Rorty,

1991)andisconnectedtoqualitativeresearchasqualitativeresearchhassimilargoals.

Hermeneutics,however,takesthisconcernwiththemediatedprocessesofhuman understandingastepfurtherandquestionsthelimitationsofpositivistapproachesto research.Gadamer(1990a)claims“wemustaskrepeatedlyifsomethinghasnotbeen omitted…”(p.153).Itisjustthis“omitted”aspectthatqualitativeresearchand hermeneuticsworktounderstandanduncover.Therefore,hermeneuticsgivesabasic foundationtoqualitativeresearchandofferswaystoenrichanddeepenthefoundations ofresearchfromthequalitativeperspective. 101

Gadamer(1992)citesthat“hermeneuticsisaprotectionagainstabuseofmethod notagainstmethodicalnessingeneral”(p.70).Asanapproachtoresearch,hermeneutics doesworktofindunderstandingoverexplanationofeventsorindividuals.Italso acknowledgesthatinterpretationissubjecttosituatednessoftheresearcherand interpretationalsoissubjecttolanguageandhistoricity.Inquirythenbecomesa conversation,ordialogue,thatisnotlookingfor“be-all-end-all”knowledgebutis comfortablewithambiguityintheprocessofbuildingunderstanding.

Asthegoalofhermeneuticsistobuildunderstandingratherthanprovidean explanationoranauthoritativereadingofatext,Jardine(1992)states

Hermeneuticinquiryhasitsgoaltoinduceunderstanding,tobringforth

thepresuppositionsinwhichwealreadylive.Itstask,therefore,isnotto

methodicallyachievearelationshiptosomematterandtosecure

understandinginsuchamethod.Rather,itstaskistorecollectthe

contoursandtexturesofthelifewearealreadyliving,alifethatisnot

securedbythemethodswecanwieldsuchalifeourobject(p.116).

Thepoint,then,ofhermeneuticresearch,accordingtoGadamer(1996)becomesthe clarificationofinterpretiveconditionsinwhichunderstandingtakesplace,giving attentiontotheindividualprejudicesbroughttotheinterpretiveeventbeyondwhatison thesurfaceofthepresent.Gadamer(1996)explains

Thehorizonofthepresentiscontinuallyintheprocessofbeingformed

becausewearecontinuallyhavingtotestallourprejudices.Animportant

partofthistestingoccursinencounteringthepastandinunderstanding 102

thetraditionfromwhichwecome.Hencethehorizonofthepresent

cannotbeformedwithoutthepast(p.306).

Inlightofthis,understandingbecomesmakingwhatissaidone’sown.Tomake thisclear,Gadamer(1996)writes

oneintendstounderstandthetextitself.Butthismeansthatthe

interpreter’sownthoughtstoohavegoneintore-awakeningthetexts’

meaning.Inthistheinterpreter’sownhorizonisdecisive,yetnotasa

personalstandpointthathemaintainsorenforces,butmoreasanopinion

andapossibilitythatonebringsintoplayandputsatrisk,andthathelps

onetrulymakeone’sownwhatthetextsays(p.388).

Thehorizonoftheindividualisnotstatic,butthetextcombineswiththequestionsofthe interpreterandafusionofthehorizonstakesplace.

Bontekoe(1996)pointsoutthatunderstandingtakesplacewhentheanalystor researcheracknowledgesthesignificanceofthevariousaspectsofwhatshenoticesand recognizeshowtheseaspectsrelatetoeachother.Rorty(1991)seesthesechangesin understandingasareweavingofhumanbeliefsanddesires.Heseesthisofbelief shouldnotbeseenasjusta“reweaving”butonethatproducesacatalysttoactionforthe individual.

Centraltothisideaofunderstandingisthehermeneuticcircle,amethodological processofunderstanding.Schwandt(2001)statesthatthehermeneuticcircleallowsfor theunderstandingofthewholeofatextthoughthe“construingofmeaningofthewhole

[by]makingsenseofthepartsandgraspingthemeaningoftheparts[depending]on 103 havingsomesenseofthewhole”(p.112).Bontekoe(1996)explainsthatthetraditional hermeneuticcircle

…haswhatmightbecalledtwopoles–ontheonehand,theobjectof

comprehensionunderstoodasawhole,and,ontheother,thevariousparts

ofwhichtheobjectofcomprehensioniscomposed…Theobjectof

comprehension,takenasawhole,isunderstoodintermsofitsparts,and

…thisunderstandinginvolvestherecognitionofhowthesepartsare

integratedintothewhole(p.3).

Heidegger(1996)andGadamer(1996)sawthiscircularityofinterpretationasan essentialcomponentofallunderstandingandknowledge,notjustasaproceduralprocess.

Insteadofseeingtheprocessastheilluminationofindividualpartsthatbrings understandingofthelargerwhole,HeideggerandGadamersaweachinterpretation relyingonanotherinterpretation.Gadamer(1996)explains“thecircularmovementof understandingrunsbackwardandforwardalongthetextandceaseswhenthetextis perfectlyunderstood”(p.293).GadamerillustratesthisincontrasttoHeidegger’sbelief that“theunderstandingofthetextremainspermanentlydeterminedbytheanticipatory movementoffore-understanding”(p.293).Or,toexplain,completeunderstandingdoes notmeanthewholeandthepartsaredissolved,butunderstandingisbestrealizedinthe exchangebetweenthemovementoftraditionandthemovementoftheinterpreter

(Gadamer,1996).Gadamer(1996)explains

Theinterpretationofmeaningthatgovernsourunderstandingofatextis

notanactofsubjectivity,butproceedsfromthecommonailtythatbindsus

tothetradition.Traditionisnotsimplyapermanentprecondition;rather, 104

weproduceitourselvesinasmuchasweunderstand,participateinthe

evolutionoftradition,andhencedetermineitourselves.Thusthecircleof

understandingisnotamethodologicalcircle,butdescribesanelementof

theontologicalstructureofunderstanding(p.293).

Thishermeneuticalcircleopensuptotheindividualmanydifferentmetaphors thoughtwhichanalysiscanoccuroutsideofthetraditional,familiarmodesof interpretation.Inthislight,wecouldbegin,asSteinberg(2004)states,

thinkingofmoviesasmass-mediateddreams[to]helpusreconceptualize

theinterpretiveactasapsychoanalyticformofdreamstudy.Inthisway,

educationalscholarscouldexaminepsychoanalyticalworkintheanalysis

ofdreamsymbolizationforinsightsintotheirstudiesofthepedagogyof

popularcultureandthemeaningsithelpsindividualsmakeviaitsvisual

imagesandnarratives(pp.16–17).

AsI,asaresearcher,begininterpretingthevariousmoviesanddocumentariesconnected toruralchildbeautypageantcultureandgirlhood,Iwillneedtobeawareofthe metaphorsIbringtotheinterpretiveprocess.Thiswillinvolvetheculture,thelanguage, thehistoricalera,andsocio-economicpositionthatimpactmeasanindividual.Thiswill allowmetoproperlyworkwithinthehermeneuticalcircle.

Hermeneuticsacknowledgesthatallinterpretationorunderstandingislocatedor situated,orgivenaviewfromsomewhere.Gardiner(1999)discussesthis,saying,

Thehermeneuticapproachstressesthecreativeinterpretationofwordsand

textsandtheactiveroleplayedbytheknower.Thegoalisnotobjective

explanationorneutraldescription,butratherasympatheticengagement 105

withtheauthorofatext,utterance,oractionandthewidersocio-cultural

contextwithinwhichthesephenomenaoccur(p.63).

Thissituatednatureofinterpretationisagrowingthemeinhermeneutics.

Thereisauniquenesstoeachvantagepoint,andasEisner(1998)pointsout,each vantagepointisuniqueashowweinterpretwhatweseebearsourownsignature.This uniquevantagepointbecomesastrengthinsteadofaliabilityduetotheindividualinsight thatisbroughttoasituation.Smith(1999)focusesontheinfluenceofsocialgroupsand socialpracticesbypointingoutthatallinquirybeginsfromaparticularsociallocation whereeveryknowerislocated,stating,“sheisactive,sheisatwork,sheisconnectedup withparticularpeopleinvariousways”(p.4).Itisthesesocialnetworksandlocations thatinfluenceinterpretiveperspectivesandwaysofconstructingmeaning.

Eachperson’sperspectiveisalwaysbiased(Haraway,1991)andasaresult objectivityisnotasstrong.Whenwevieweventsortextswithsuchaview,weare calledintoaccount,asmuchasweareable,toacknowledgethesituatednatureofour subjectivity(Harding,1991).Theresearcher’sperspectiveandexperience,therefore, becomethehistoricallyandculturallysituatedlensthroughwhichtextsareconsidered.

Hermeneuticalthinkersarguethatlanguageandhistoryareconditionsand limitationsofunderstanding(Wachterhauser,1986).

Hermeneuticaltheoriesofunderstandingarguethatallhuman

understandingisnever“withoutwords”andnever“outsideoftime.”On

thecontrary,whatisdistinctiveabouthumanunderstandingisthatitis

alwaysintermsofsomeevolvinglinguisticframeworkthathasbeen 106

workedoutovertimeintermsofsomehistoricallyconditionedsetof

concernsandpractices(Wachterhauser,1986,p.6).

Gadamer(1996)seesthisawarenessofprejudicesinformedhistoricallyasbasicto understanding,citing

Apersonwhobelievesheisfreeofprejudices,relyingontheobjectivity

ofhisproceduresanddenyingthathehimselfisconditionedbyhistorical

circumstances,experiencesthepoweroftheprejudicesthatunconsciously

dominatehim…Apersonwhodoesnotadmitthatheisdominatedby

prejudicedwillfailtoseewhatmanifestsitselfbytheirlight(p.360).

Sonomatterwhoweare,thebackgroundofourlivedlivesandthejudgmentswemake priortosituationsformthetraditionsweuseasweinterpretandcreateunderstanding.

Gadmer(1992)describeshermeneutics“astheskilltoletthingsspeakwhich cometousinafixed,petrifiedform,thatofthetext”(p.65).Thismakesthe interpretationoftextmorelikeatranslation,fullofintonation,focusingoncertain features,andsuppressingotheraspects.Highlightingcertainfeaturesispartofthis interpretationortranslation.Andinlightofthis,ahermeneuticconversation,thepartners shouldworktowardsacommonlanguage.Gadamer(1992)expoundsuponthis,saying

Findingacommonlanguageisnot,anymorethaninrealconversation,

preparingatoolforthepurposeofteachingunderstanding,butrather,

coincideswiththeveryactofunderstandingandreachingagreement.

Evenbetweenthepartnersofthisconversationacommunicationlikethat

betweentwopeopletakesplacethatismorethanaccommodation.The 107

textbringsasubjectmatterintolanguage,butthatitdoessoisultimately

theachievementoftheinterpreter(p.388).

Theremaybearangeofvoicesadoptedastheindividualfostersaconversation betweendifferenttexts.Andwhilethiscacophonyofvoicesmaybedistractingforthe readerandinquirer,itisthenecessarypriceforengagingtheconversationbetweentexts writteninlanguagesforeignfromeachother.Thiscallsfortheneedtobroaden

Gadamer’sinterpretationfromaconversationtoadialoguewhichallowsforthe multitudeofvoicesthatbecomeapartoftheinterpretiveprocess.

Hermeneuticsalsoembracestheideaofambiguity,orasGadamer(1992) describes,“allthatisunfamiliarandstrikesusassignificant”(p.70).Partofthistaskis torestorelifetoitsdifficulty(Jardine,1992).Andtherefore,hermeneuticsrejectsthe ideathatonesingleauthoritativeviewexistsforthereadingofatextandembracesa complexinterpretiveendeavor.Thegoalis“tounderstandatextalwaysmeanstoapply ittoourselvesandtoknowthat,evenifitmustalwaysbeunderstoodindifferentways,it isstillthesametextpresentingitselftousinthesedifferentways”(Gadamer,1996,p.

398).Asingleinterpretationthatiscorrectinandofitselfdoesnotexistbecausethe historicallifeoftraditionisdependentuponconstantassimilationandinterpretation.

Thusthehermeneuticapproachisopentotheambiguousnatureoftextualanalysis, resistingtheurgetoofferauthoritativereadingsandneatreconciliations.

ThemergerofHeidegger’sviewofhermeneuticswiththedeconstructionistwork ofDerridaleadsustotherealmofcriticalhermeneutics(Caputo,1987).Inthisnew realm,theowningupoursituationsorourvulnerabilityallowsforanewdirectionforthe understandingdevelopedthroughhermeneuticinquiry.Thisdoesnotmeanthatatrue 108 synthesisonallsideswilloccur,butcriticalhermeneuticshasasitsaimrespectand opennesstowardtheperspectiveofthe“other”andthewillingnessoftheindividualto suspendpositiontoachieveunderstanding.Inthislight,insightsgainedfromcritical perspectiveswithrespecttopower,thepotentialofthemisuseoflanguage,the acknowledgementofdistinctandcommunicativeselves,andanawarenessofthestateof things,havethepotentialtoinformhermeneuticalinquiry.Inmydissertation,thiscritical socialtheoryispartoftheinterpretiveprocessofthehermeneuticalinquiry.Usingthis criticalsocialtheorywillallowmetounderstandthehiddenstructuresandimplied culturalactionsthatworkbehindthescenes.AsIstudythemediaconstructionsof pageantryandtheculturalconstructionofbeautypageantsandIsituatetheseinthesocio- historicalstructurespresentinsociety,Iwillbeconductingthecentralhermeneuticofmy research.

Hermeneuticsdoesnotrequiretherepetitionoftraditions,butit“incitesthe particularitiesandintimaciesofourlivestocallthesetraditionstoaccount,compelling themtobeartothelivesweareliving(Jardine,1999,p.2).Gadamer(1976)sees hermeneuticreflectionasthatwhich“exercisesaself-criticismofthinkingconsciousness, acriticismthattranslatesallitsownabstractionsandalsotheknowledgeofthesciences backintothewholeofhumanexperienceoftheworld”(p.94).Asaresult,consciousness abouthowhermeneuticsinfluencesourinterpretiveexperiencesasindividualsandthe limitsofwhatwecanknowisareflectionofacriticalcondition.

Inthiscriticaltradition,theindividualcanrecognizethatallinterpretationandall communicationtakeplacewithinwhatRich(2001)callsa“tangleofexpressions.”

Criticismbecomes,asaresult,“anartofsayingusefulthingsaboutcomplexandsubtle 109 objectsandeventssothatothers…seeandunderstandwhattheydidnotseeand understandbefore”(Eisner,1998,p.3).Theframesofsocialreferencehelpthe researchertoshapethequestionsheorshewishestoanswer,andthesequestions influencethenatureoftheinterpretation.Asaresearcher,Iamnotexpectedtoremoveall worldlyinfluence,butIamencouragedtoidentifythemandunderstandthewaysin whichtheworldaffectsthewaysIapproachruralchildbeautypageantsandmediaand thewaysthattheyworkascurriculum.Thisallowsfortheilluminationofsituationsso theycanbeappreciated.

Criticalhermeneuticapproachestoinquirysearchforawaybetweendualities,or anintermediarycoursebetweensimplisticpolarities(Kearney,2003).Kearneyfurthers thisideabystatingthatinorderfortheindividualtoriseabovethedangersofthinkingin apolarizedmanner,theindividualmusttakeapartordeconstructthebinarydualisms“so astomuddlethroughwiththehelpofacertainjudiciousmixofphoneticunderstanding, narrativeimagination,andhermeneuticjudgment”(p.187).Feministepistemologyand philosophyembracesthisideasimilarlyasmanyfeministperspectivesworktowardsa wayto“resistdichotomous,dualistic,divisivemodesofthinking”andarguethatsuch modesofthinking“imposeunnecessarilyartificialdistinctionsuponexperience,and oftendrawsonunwarrantedevaluativeconclusionsfromthem”(Code,Mullet,and

Overall,1988,p.6).Thiscallforanacknowledgmentofdualitiesandresistanceto polarizedpositionssituatesacriticalhermeneuticapproachtoinquiry.

Incriticalhermeneutics,thedissectionofthewaysthatpeoplebridgethegap betweentheireverydayexperiencesandtheculturalrepresentationsofthoseexperiences iscentraltotheanalysis(Steinberg,2004).Whileviewingandanalyzingthe 110 documentariesandmoviesconcerningchildbeautypageantculture,Iwillworkto identifyandunderstandtheideologicalcodingsthataredeeplyapartofthesecultural representations.Thereismuchmeaningthatisassumedor“takenforgranted”embedded intheculturalrepresentationsofchildbeautypageantry,andthiscomplicatestheprocess ofunravelingastheseassumedmeaningsareacceptedintodailylife.Thekeywillbeto identifythose“takenforgranted”meaningsanddiscusstheminrelationtotheaspectsof mediacurriculumthatisnotusuallydiscussedorcommentedoninrelationtochild beautypageantculture.

Everyhumansituationismarkedbydialect,withbothsidesofthe“conversation” beingequallysignificantandbeingunabletobefullyresolved(Green,1995).Thisidea isfurtheredbyMerleau-Pontywhoidentifieswiththeideaoftheimportanceofthe dialectic,outsideoftheHegelianorMarxistsenseoffinalintegration,inamulti-faceted, endlessdialoguebetweenpolarities(Gardnier,1999).Theopen-endedconceptofthe dialecticcanbecreatedandusedthroughacriticalhermeneuticdialogue.Withinthese open-endeddialogues,there“alwaysremainsthepossibilityofasuddenshiftingof polarities,surprisingreversalsandtransformations,inexpressiblycomplicatedcrossovers, overlappingsandimbrications–noneofwhichcaneverfullyanticipateorexertcomplete controlover”(Gardnier,1999,p.137).

Throughpostmodernism,thereseemstobeasecondaryculturethatis“filtered andpre-formedinthemarketplaceandconstantlycommunicatedviapopularcultureand massmedia”(Steinberg,2004,p.20).Asacriticalanalyst,itwillbeimportantformeto understandtheaspectsofcurriculumthatareformedthroughthis

111 mediatedculture–boththeideological(orpolitical)andtheepistemological(cognitive).

AsSteinberg(2004)discusses,

…thesituatingeffectsofprintmediatendtopromoteaformoflinearity

thatencouragesrationality,continuity,anduniformity;ontheotherhand,

electronicmediapromoteanon-linearimmediacythatmayencourage

moreemotionalresponsesthatleadindividualsinverydifferentdirections

(p.20).

Soitwillbeimperativeformetoidentifytheepistemologicalorideologicalprocesses thatarepresentinthedifferenttypesofchildbeautypageantmediaandidentifythesein thecontextoftheresearchprocessitself.

Throughcriticalhermeneutics,researchersworktosituatetheworldaspartof largerworkofevaluationandpositivechange.Thisisaccomplishedthroughthe attentiongiventodominationasanactiveforce,asitislimitingtoself-directionandthe buildingofcommunity.Theanswertothisdominationisemancipationthroughthe identificationofwaysindividualscanunderstandtheideologicalprocessesthathave entangledtheminthedominantviews.Thisexposureofdominantforcesandthe identificationandcritiqueofdominantideologyistheprimaryconcernforcritical hermeneutics.Thosewithrace,class,andgenderpositionsofpowerhavetheresources availabletothemtocontinuetheseideologiesthatthosenotintheirpositionscannot.

Entertainmentandcommunicationindustriesareusedbythoseinpowertocreatea culturalconsciousnessandindividualsubjectivity(Denzin,1992).

Itisthisfocusthatcriticalhermeneuticshaswithpopularcultureanditsimpact onepistemologicalandpoliticalconstructionsthatdrewmetoitasamethodological 112 framework.Asmystudyofchildbeautypageantcultureisinterestedinexposingthe waysthatpoweroperatestoconstructgirlhoodidentityinrelationtosocialclass,akey aspectofthestudyisthesocio-politicalimpactofmediainthisgenreonthewaysyoung people–specificallygirls–aresocialized.Oneofthemainaspectsofcritical hermeneuticsisthebeliefthatallpopularculturethatisconsumedandthatmakesan impactonitsaudienceiscalledtobestudieddespitetheoutwardjudgmentsthatso-called

“elite”culturalscholarsmightoffer(Berger,1995).Inthisway,criticalhermeneutics notesthatmoviesandotherpopularculturetextsinfluencesubjectivityandcanonlybe understoodwhensituatedinthesocio-historicalandpoliticalcontextsthatsupportthem

(EllisandFlaherty,1992).

Culturaltextsdomuchworkintherealmofthecreationofidentitywithina humansubject.Denzin(1992)andMills(1959)focusonthesubjectivityor consciousnessaspectofcriticalhermeneutics,theideathatvarioustypesofcultural productionsleadtopersuasiveconsequencesforhumans.ThroughMills’work,Denzin bringstotheforefrontofcurrentcriticalhermeneuticstheconnectionthatmaterial existence,culturalpatterns,processesofcommunication,andtheformationofhuman consciousnesscreate.Whatcomesfromthisisastudyofthewaysthatpeopleuse particularculturalcontextstocreatestoriesthatdefinetheiridentitiesinordertomake senseoftheireverydaylives(Denzin,1992).AsSteinberg(2004)states,“How,Denzin wantstoknow,doindividualsconnecttheirlivedexperiencestothecultural representationsofthesesameexperiences(Berger,1995;Denzin1992)”(p.21).

Challengestoanindividual’sidentitythatarecausedbyculturalexperiences

(suchasmoviesanddocumentariesoractualpageantparticipation)becomethefocusof 113 thisdissertation,asitseekstoidentifythepedagogicalaspectsofidentityformationand waysinwhichtheseexperiencesleadtooppressionorliberation.Eventhoughthese experiencesmayoccurthroughrationalmeans,thereisanelementofemotionthatis oftenignoredbysocialscientistswhoworkfromalogicalframework(EllisandFlaherty,

1992).Workingfromacriticalhermeneuticalframeworkwithinthebricolagewillallow metoofferwaystoempowerindividualstounderstandtheirexperienceswithpopular cultureandinterprettheseexperiencesinwaystheyhavenotordinarilydone.

ContinuingInterpretation:PostStructuralFeminism

Asanoutgrowthofcriticaltheoryandpostmodernthinking,poststructural feminismseemstobeanotheraccuratelensthroughwhichtostudytheworkingsof powerinbeautypageantsasitcreatesfemaleidentity.St.PierreandPillow(2000)state thatpoststructuralfeminism“continuestotroublethesubjectofhumanism–therational, conscious,stable,unified,knowingindividualwhosemoralityallowsatrocitiesbeyond imaginingbutstillclaimsinalienable‘rights’thatprotectitfromresponsibilitytothe

Otheritdestroys.Thesubjectofpoststructuralismisgenerallydescribedasone constituted,notinadvanceof,butwithindiscourseandculturalpractice”(6).Thepost structuralfeminististroubledbythecategory“woman”andattempttoloosenthe categoryandmakeitmoreunstableandundefined.Thislooseinterpretationgivesme roomtodiscoverhowthepoweroperatesinbeautypageantstocreatefemaleidentity– notonethatisstagnate,butonethatisinaconstant,commodifiedstateofflux.

JoanWallachScott(1990)explainshowpoststructuralismmaybestfit feminism’stheoreticalneeds: 114

Weneedtheorythatcananalyzetheworkingsofpatriarchyinallits

manifestations–ideological,institutional,organizational,subjective–

accountingnotonlyforcontinuitiesbutalsoforchangeovertime.We

needtheorythatwillletusthinkintermsofpluralitiesanddiversities

ratherthanofunitiesanduniversals.Weneedtheorythatwillbreakthe

conceptualhold,atleast,ofthoselongtraditionsof(Western)philosophy

thathavesystematicallyandrepeatedlyconstruedtheworldhierarchically

intermsofmasculineuniversalsandfemininespecificities.Weneed

theorythatwillenableustoarticulatealternativewaysofthinkingabout

(andthusactingupon)genderwithoutsimplyreversingtheoldhierarchies

orconfirmingthem.Andweneedtheorythatwillbeusefulandrelevant

forpoliticalpractice…Itseemstomethatthebodyoftheoryreferredto

aspoststructuralismbestmeetsalltheserequirements(p.134).

Scott(1990),inthissense,arguesthatpoststructuralismandfeminismshareadesireto addressthe“self-consciouscriticalrelationshiptoestablishedphilosophicalandpolitical traditions”(p.135).

AccordingtoHekman(1990),feministpoststructuralepistemologycanbe distinguishedbytwoconcepts.First,weasfemales,andasknowingsubjects,andthe knowledgewecometoknowareconstructedthroughvariousformsofdiscourse.

Therefore,andsecondly,therearemultipletruthsratherthanonesingletruth.Research aboutwomenandgirlhoodasisseeninfeministempiricism,andresearchthatisdonefor womenandgirlsasinstandpointfeminism,bothseektocreateknowledgebasedonthe essentializingconceptof“woman”or“girlhood”whichallows“woman”or“girl”tobe 115 theobjectofwhatisknowneveniftheknowingsubjectisalsoawomanoragirl.

Standpointfeminism,asitisgroundedinexperience,beginstoaddressthisissueby includingthecontextsofboththeknowingsubjectandtheknownobject.Feministpost structuralismgoesfurthertoascribethatrealityforallparticipantsisconstitutedor constructed.

Poststructuralfeministtheorytakesintoconsiderationthevaryingsocial constructsthatcompriseeachperson’sindividualidentity,ratherthancollapsingallof thosecharacteristicsintothegenericcategoryof“girl.”NancyFrasier(1989)statesthat poststructuralfeminismmustbe“explicitlyhistorical,attunedtotheculturalspecificity ofdifferentsocietiesandperiodsandtothatofdifferentgroupswithinsocietiesand periods”(p.101).Usingthisdefinition,poststructuralfeminismavoidsuniversalizing claimsintheconstructofgenderaswellasinotherareasofanalysis.

Thecriticismsofpoststructuralfeminismstemfromtheideathatthesubject, specificallygirlhood,iscontinuallyreproducedandinastateofflux.Amongthefirstof thesecriticismsisoutlinedbySt.PierreandPillow(2000)astheystatethatoftencritics seethecreationoffreespacesascreatinganotherfictionandgiverisetothebeliefthat wecouldultimatelygetthedefinitionof“female”or“girlhood”right.Thecritics challengethenotionoftheliquefiedsubject(specifically“girlhood”)that,intheir opinion,isgivennoboundaries.LindaAcoff(1995)questions,“Howcanwegrounda feministpoliticsthatdeconstructsthefemalesubject?Nominalismthreatenstowipeout feminismitself”(p.271).Shefurtherquestioned

Ifgenderissimplyasocialconstruct,theneedtoandeventhepossibility

ofafeministpoliticsbecomesimmediatelyproblematic.Whatcanwe 116

demandinthenameofwomenif“women”donotexistanddemandsin

theirnamesimplyreinforcethemythsthattheydo?Howcanwespeak

outagainstsexismasdetrimentaltotheinterestsofwomenifthecategory

isafiction?(p.272).

Inkeepingwiththisargument,RosemaryTong(1998)pointsoutthatpoststructural feminismmaybeseenas“afeminismforacademicians”(p.231).For,initslanguage usedinexaminingandanalyzingsituations,itmayprovetoalienatethosewhohavenot beenintroducedtotheimportantconstructsinpoststructuralthought.

ThecommentthatSt.PierreandPillowgivetorefutethiscriticismisthatpost structuralfeminismdoesnotdesiretofindtheonerealtruth.Instead,theyseethefocus ondifferencesasawaytopossiblyprovidechangesforthebetter.JudithButler(1990) addressesthisconcernin GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofIdentity when shearguesthatidentityisnotnecessarilyaprerequisiteforsocialaction,“thatthereneed notbeadoerbehindthedeedbutthatthedoerisvariablyconstructedinandthroughthe deed”(p.142).Further,Butler(1990)suggeststhatidentityisasignifyingornaming practiceinwhich“culturallyintelligiblesubjects”are

theresultingeffectsofarule-bounddiscoursethatinsertsitselfinthe

pervasiveandmundanesignifyingactsoflinguisticlife.Thesubjectis

notdeterminedbytherulesthroughwhichitisgeneratedbecause

significationisnotafoundingact,butratheraregulatedprocessof

repetitionthatbothconcealsitselfandenforcesitsrulespreciselythrough

theproductionofsubstantializingeffects.(p.145) 117

Inotherwords,asthediscoursesmadeupofrulesandimplementedthrough languageareconstructingus,wearenotpermanentlyconstructedbythesediscourses becausethediscoursesarenotconstant.Inaddition,thevarietiesofdiscourseswhich createsignificationarenotnecessarilybalanced.Theresultis“avarietyofincoherent configurationsthatintheirmultiplicityexceedanddefytheinjunctionbywhichtheyare generated”(Butler,1990,p.145),soweexperienceavarietyofrealitieseventhoughwe areinfluencedbysimilardiscourses.SusanHekman(1990)continuesthisthoughtasshe statesthat

discourses,evenhegemonicdiscourses,arenotclosedsystems.The

silencesandambiguitiesofdiscourseprovidethepossibilityof

refashioningthem,thediscoveryofotherconceptualizations,therevision

ofacceptedtruths(p.187).

Therelationshipsbetweenandamongdiscoursesresultinapluralityofsubjectsand knowledges.Thisfurtheraddsstrengthtopoststructuralfeminismasitallowsforan understandingofdiversity.Thistreatsexperiencecontextuallyandoffersthepossibility ofdealingwithmultipleandlocaltruths,ratherthanattemptingtoessentialize“girlhood” andassumethatallexperiencesaregeneralizedtoallgirls.

LorraineCode(1991)rejectstherelativismofpoststructuralismduetothe perspectivethatpoststructuralismtakesonmultiplerealities.

Politically,feministscouldnotoptforanabsoluterelativismthat

recognizednofactsofthematternoobjective,externalrealitybutonly

my,your,orournegotiatedreality.Itwouldflyinthefaceofthewell-

documentedexperiencesofcountlesswomentodenythatthese[sexism, 118

etc.]arerealities.Iftherearenotobjectivesocialrealitiesinasensethat

allowsforperspectivaldifferencestherearenotoolsforrealizationof

feministpoliticalprojects(pp.319–320).

Code’sargumentstressestheexperiencesofwomenandrejectspoststructuralfeminism onpoliticalgrounds.Thepossibilityoftheconstructedsubjecthavingagencytoachieve changeisnotCode’spoliticalconcern.Rather,sheassertsthattotakeactionitis necessarytohaveaprovablecause.Herobjectiontopoststructuralismisamoralone basedintheideathatisitnecessarytobeabletoprovethatfeminismisright.

Acoff(1995)offersafurthercritiqueofpoststructuralfeminismonpolitical grounds.Shearguesthat“intheirdefenseofatotalconstructionofthesubject,post- structuralistsdenythesubject’sabilitytoreflectonthesocialdiscourseandchallengeits determinations”(p.269).Thisconcernarisesoutofadesireforindividualandgroup agency.Ifweareconstructedasproductsofsocialfactorsoverwhichweultimatelyhave nocontrol,thenhowcanweactwithinthattheory?Further,atheorythatinsistson differencesandtheabsenceofunifyingstructurescreatesproblemsfortheabilityofa politicsthatfocusesongenderasoneofthosestructures.

JudithButler(1990)answersthesecriticismsbysuggestingthatapractical feministpoliticsiswhatisneeded,notanewuniversality.Itwouldbeapoliticsthatwill

“contesttheveryreificationsofgenderandidentity”(p.5).Shedevelopsthisperspective in GenderTrouble andconcludesthatinsuchapolitics

culturalconfigurationsofsexandgendermightthenproliferateor,rather,

theirpresentproliferationmightthenbecomearticulablewithinthe 119

discoursesthatestablishintelligibleculturallife,confoundingthevery

binarismofsex,andexposingitsfundamentalunnaturalness(p.149).

Otherscholars(Lather,1991;Scott,1990)haveaddressedthecriticismofpost structuralfeminismonpoliticalgroundsstatingthatithasthepotentialtobeparticularly usefulinpoliticalfields.Manyfeministscholarshaveworkedovertheyearstorazethe traditional,universalizedideasonsocialconstructsandtogivecarefulattentiontothe differencesthatexistwithinsocialcategories.Poststructuralism,withitsfocusonpower asitfluctuatesinasociety,aidsthiswork.Thisfocusondifferencesisaidedby feminism’sattentiontopoliticalaction.Poststructuralfeminismactsasatoolto deconstructrelationshipsandthereforeilluminatesandanalyzesthemyriadof intersectionsofsocialstructures.

Wedonothavecontroloverourpositioninlife,asascribedbypoststructural feminism,butweareabletorecognizeandchoosetoactwithinthesocialconstructsthat havehelpedtocreatethepositionswefindourselvesin.AsFoucault(1977)pointedout,

“Assoonasthereisapowerrelation,thereisapossibilityofresistance.Wecanneverbe ensnaredbypower;wecanalwaysmodifyitsgripindeterminateconditionsand accordingtoaprecisestrategy”(p.123).Inkeepingwiththis,poststructuralfeminist approachescancreatespacesforindividualagencyandconsciousness,accordingtoChris

Weedon(1987).Shestates

Inallpoststructuraldiscourses,subjectivityandrationalconsciousnessare

themselvesputintoquestion.Weareneithertheauthorsofthewaysin

whichweunderstandourlives,norareweunifiedrationalbeings.For

feministpoststructuralism,itislanguageintheformofconflicting 120

discourseswhichconstitutesusasconsciousthinkingsubjectsandenables

ustogivemeaningtotheworldandtoacttotransformit(p.32).

Inlightofthereconceptualizedcurriculumfields’desiretofocusonindividualsin adiscursivesense,poststructuralfeminismoffersatheoryonknowledgeproductionthat stemsfromdialogueandexperience.JoanWallachScott(1990)explainsthisfocus, saying,

Weneedtheorythatcananalyzetheworkingsofpatriarchyinallits

manifestations–ideological,institutional,organizational,subjective–

accountingnotonlyforcontinuitiesbutalsoforchangeovertime.We

needtheorythatwillletusthinkintermsofpluralitiesanddiversities

ratherthanofunitiesanduniversals.Weneedtheorythatwillbreakthe

conceptualhold,atleast,ofthoselongtraditionsof(Western)philosophy

thathavesystematicallyandrepeatedlyconstruedtheworldhierarchically

intermsofmasculineuniversalsandfemininespecificities.Weneed

theorythatwillenableustoarticulatealternativewaysofthinkingabout

(andthusactingupon)genderwithoutsimplyreversingtheoldhierarchies

orconfirmingthem.Andweneedtheorythatwillbeusefulandrelevant

forpoliticalpractice…Itseemstomethatthebodyoftheoryreferredto

aspoststructuralismbestmeetsalltheserequirements(p.134).

Scott,inthissense,arguesthatpoststructuralismandfeminismshareadesiretoaddress the“self-consciouscriticalrelationshiptoestablishedphilosophicalandpolitical traditions”(p.135).Thisfocusonrelationships,dialogue,andinteractionstocreate 121 personalmeaningsworkswithinthereconceptualizedfieldastheyfocusonthe individualtodevelopmeaning.

Manyfeministscholarshaveworkedovertheyearstorazethetraditional, universalizedideasonsocialconstructsandtogivecarefulattentiontothedifferences thatexistwithinsocialcategories.Poststructuralism,withitsfocusonpowerasit fluctuatesinasociety,aidsthiswork.Thisfocusondifferencesisaidedbyfeminism’s attentiontopoliticalaction.Poststructuralfeminismactsasatooltodeconstruct relationshipsandthereforeilluminatesandanalyzesthemyriadofintersectionsofsocial structures.

Inrelationtomyresearch,Ifindpoststructuralfeminismanextremelyusefullens throughwhichtoconductmystudy.AsIhavestatedearlier,Idonotdesiretoanalyze theruralpageantcultureinanattempttoshedlightonhowtheyaredemeaningtogirls, nordoIwanttoexposepageantsasnegativesitesinculture.Instead,itisthewaythat poweroperateswithinthepageantculturetoaffectgirlsastheydefinetheiridentitiesand thewaysinwhichgender,socialclass,andpageantcultureinteractintheformationof thisidentitythatIdesiretostudy.Thereisnotonedefinitionoftherural,Southern beautypageantandthereisnotonedefinitionofapageantparticipantorherfamily.

Therefore,totrytocategorizethemassuchwouldlimitmystudy.Idonotdesiretofind theTruth,onceandforall,aboutthepowerissuesasrelatedtogender,identity,and class.Poststructuralfeminism,withitsfocusonthefluidityofidentityandtheimpactof culture,class,society,andgenderonidentityallowsme,asabricoleur,toadjustandfine tunethelensthroughwhichtoconductmyresearch.

122

CompletingtheResearchLens:CulturalStudies

Inasimilarvein,culturalstudiesisaframeworkthatanalyzesthepowerof cultureinvariousaspectsoflife.Aswithpoststructuralfeminism,therearevarious divisionsofculturalstudiesandamongthemembersofthisgenre,therearedifferences ofopinionastothedefinitionandthepurposesofthisresearch.Whatcanbesaidisthat culturalstudiesworkstoexplorethenatureofpowerfoundinvariousaspectsofculture

(gender,race,class,colonialism,etc.)andthentoseehowthispowerisinterconnected amongtheseaspects.Inaddition,culturalstudiesseeksto“developwaysofthinking aboutcultureandpowerthatcanbeutilizedbyagentsinthepursuitofchange”(Barker andGalasinski,2001,p.25).Culturalstudiescreatestheoreticalknowledgetoactasa politicalmannerwhere,accordingtoFoucault(1977),“thetheorytobeconstructedisnot asystembutaninstrument,alogicofthespecificityofpowerrelationsandthestruggles aroundthem”(p.26).So,accordingtoJohnFiske(1998),“theculturalanalyststudies instancesofcultureinordertounderstandboththesystemthatstructuresthewholeway oflifeandthewaysoflivingthatpeopledevisewithinit”(p.371).

Culturalstudiesdrawsfrommanyfieldstocreateknowledgeandactsasakindof processwhichworkstoproduceusefulknowledgeaboutthebroaddomainofhuman culture.Becauseitdrawsfromsomanyfields,culturalstudiesdoesnothaveaset methodologythroughwhichtoconductresearch.AccordingtoLawrenceGrossberg,

CaryNelson,andPaulaTreichler(1992),

Thechoiceofresearchpracticesdependsuponthequestionsthatareasked

andthequestionsdependontheircontext.Itisproblematicforcultural

studiessimplytoadopt,uncritically,anyoftheformalizeddisciplinary 123

practicesoftheacademy,forthosepractices,asmuchasthedistinctions

theyinscribecarrywiththemaheritageofdisciplinaryinvestmentsand

exclusionsandahistoryofsocialeffectthatculturalstudieswouldoften

beinclinedtorepudiate(p.2).

Becauseculturalstudiesdoesnotdelineatewhatquestionsareimportantorwhat answersarecorrect,nomethodologycanbeendorsedwithtotalsecurityandconfidence.

Textualanalysis,semiotics,deconstruction,ethnography,interviews,phonemicanalysis, psychoanalysis,rhizomatics,contentanalysis,surveyresearch–thesearebutafewofthe methodologiesemployedbyculturalstudiesresearchers.Grossberg,Nelson,and

Treichler(1992)offerthisdescriptionofculturalstudies,statingthat

Keepingthoseeffortsinmind,onemaybeginbysayingthatcultural

studiesisaninterdisciplinary,transdisciplinary,andsometimes

counterdisciplinaryfieldthatoperatesinthetensionbetweenits

tendenciestoembracebothabroad,anthropologicalandamorenarrowly

humanisticconceptofculture.Unliketraditionalanthropology,however,

ithasgrownoutofanalysesofmodernindustrialsocieties.Itistypically

interpretiveandevaluativeinitsmethodologies,butunliketraditional

humanism,itrejectstheexclusiveequationofculturewithhighculture

andarguesthatallformsofculturalproductionneedtobestudiedin

relationtootherculturalpracticesandtosocialandhistoricalpractices.

Culturalstudiesisthuscommittedtothestudyoftheentirerangeof

society’sarts,beliefs,institutions,andcommunicativepractices(p.4). 124

Assuch,culturalstudiesdoesnotattempttocreatetheorythatwillstandthetest oftime.Instead,itseesitstheoriesassubjecttotimeandplace,andifthetheories continuetobeusefulovertime,itisbecausethetheoryhasbeenrearticulatedtothenew situations.Itworksnotmerelytocreatetheoriesinreferencetopowerandculture,butit workstobea“bridgebetweentheoryandmaterialculture”(Grossberg,Nelson,and

Treichler,1992).Culturalstudieshasthecapacitytodescribethecomplexnatureof representationitself,asconstructedthroughlanguageandinthecontextsoflifeand death.Assuch,culturalstudiesisalwayssituatedincontextandmustberearticulatedto fitnewsituations.

Inrelationtocurriculumandthefieldofeducation,culturalstudiesseemstohave existedoutsidethetraditionalstructuresofeducationalresearchandtheory.Infact,itfits rightintothereconceptualizedfieldasitspurposeseemstobeassociatedwith experimentaldesigns,evaluation,andanalysisofpolicies(Girouxetal.,1996).Inthe beginning,culturalstudiesemergedfromtheworksofPauloFreireandAntonioGramsci, bothofwhomworkedwithadultsandaddressedtheissuesofadultilliteracy,povertyand thepossibilityofsocialchangethrougheducation.

TheFrankfurtschoolinGermanyalsoprovidedthebackdropforthedevelopment ofculturalstudies.RaymondWilliams,RichardHoggart,E.P.Thompsonworkedinthe areaofliterarycritiqueinEnglandwhilethefocusonculturalcritiquewasundertakenby

StuartHall,AngelaMcRobbie,PaulWillis,andothersattheCentreforContemporary

CulturalStudies(CCCS).

Duetoincreasedimmigrationandconcernsaboutraceanddiscrimination, culturalstudiesintheUnitedStatesdevelopedasaprogramthatanalyzedanddiscussed 125 theintersectionsbetweenrace,gender,andclass.Thismarkedamoveinculturalstudies awayfromitsrootsinadulteducationasseenintheworksofFreireandGramsci.Now culturalstudiesfindsitselfasanintellectualanduniversity-drivenresearchprojectthat hasmultiplefocuseswhichincluderace,pedagogy,media,nationalism,popularculture, science,technology,art,andmanyothers.

Thetietopowerasanagentinsocialchangeisoneofthecharacteristicsthatcan befoundinsomeaspectsofculturalstudies.Infact,inthislight,culturalstudiescanbe seenaslessofadisciplinethanamannerofsocialresearch.Itis,inasense,alens throughwhicheducatorsteach,research,andobserveculture.Andthis“framework”has founditselfinstitutionalizedinvariousuniversities,mostnotablytheCentrefor

ContemporaryCulturalStudies(CCCS)atEngland’sUniversityofBirmingham.From there,culturalstudieswasbornasmoreofanactivistprojectineducationandfounditself housedintheeducationalandmassmediadepartmentsofuniversities.

Thismovetotheuniversitychangedthefocusofculturalstudiesresearch.Now thefocuswasoncontemporarysocietyandthemovetowardsocialchangethrougha politicizedagenda(Thompson,1963).Educationalresearchcametobeinformedby symbolicinteractionism.Symbolicinteractionismwasthedrivingforcebehind qualitativeandinterpretiveresearchineducation.HerbertBlumersawthreemajor premisesuponwhichsymbolicinteractionismwasdeveloped:thatpeopleacttowards thingsonthebasisofthemeaningsthatthethingshaveforthem;thatthemeaningsof thingsarederivedfromsocialinteractions;andthatthesemeaningsaremodifiedthrough interpretiveprocesses.Inotherwords,socialinteractionismfocusesonwhattheworld meanstopeople.Perspectivesofthepeoplewhoarepartofastudyisamajorconcern, 126 andtheremustberecognitionofthewaysthatindividualsarealwayssustainingand challengingthesocialandculturalstructuresaroundthem.

Throughthenewconcernwithurbanareas,poorandworkingclasspeopleand socialproblemscameawayofstudyingthatattemptedtocapturethemeaningsthat peoplemadeoftheirworlds.GeorgeHerbertMead,HerbertBlumer,andEverettHughes playedamajorroleindevelopingthesetheories.Theirwork,combinedwiththatofthe

CCCS,gaverisetoaresearchmethodthat“departedsharplyfrompositivisticor utilitariancategoriesofexplanation”(Thompson,1994,p.201)andwasassociatedboth withsymbolicinteractionismaswellasqualitativeresearchandethnography.

Thisnewethnographicformofresearchhadtwocentralelementswhich, accordingtoWillis(1990),includedanattachmenttolivedexperienceandtheyoung createsymbolicmeaningbasedintheireverydayinformallifeandthismeaninginfuses withthewaytheyseetheworldingeneral.Youngpeopleornot,howpeoplemade meaningoutofeverydayexperiencesandtherebyconstructedtheirworldswasseenby thenewresearchersasinfluencedbysymbolicinteractionismandthiswasessentialto understandingsociety.Theregrewabeliefinboththeconstraintsandstructureson whichsocialinequalityisbuiltandtheabilitiesofpeopletochallengethestructuresand bringaboutchange.Symbolicinteractionismrecognizeshowculturewithitsstructures andpatternsisbothproducedaswellasreproduced.

Thissocialinteractionismhasmovedintotherealmofeducationwithafocuson youthandstudentculture.Embeddedinsymbolicinteractionism,ethnography,and criticaltheory,researchinculturalstudiesofeducationhasengagedyouthcultureand 127 schoolculture.NancyLesko(1996),inherstudyofhighschoolgirls,notedthe following:

Firsttheunderstandingofteenagegirls’identityconstructionismore

complex,symbolic,andnon-rationalthanthesub-culturaland“learningto

labor”studiessuggest.Second,thisidentityconstructionappearstobe

createdthroughongoinginteractionsamongdifferentlydefinedgroupsof

girlsanddoesnotappearhomogenouswithinsocialclassgroupings(p.

125).

Thesenewresearchersinculturalstudiesofeducationinterestedinthe“symbolicand nonrational”and“ongoinginteractions”ofindividualsmakeuseofsymbolicinteraction toarguethedailyactivitiesofschoolaremuchmorecomplexandmessythanmany class-basedstudiesofyouthculturehaveshown.

Newresearchershavemadeimprovementsinresearchastheytakeseriouslyhow interactionsproducenotonlyperspectivesontheworldthataregenderedandraced,but categoriesofpeopleandunderstandingsabouttheworldthatareembeddedinlanguage.

Thefocusonsocialcategoriesastheyaredefinedbylanguagehasbroughtcultural studiesofeducationalongsideeducationdiscourseanalysis.

Discoursetakesintoaccounthowlanguageshapessocialrelationsandhow peopleinteractwitheachotherandtheworldaroundthem.Foucault(1977)discussed howsymbolsofthespectacleandbodyintegraltothepublictortureofcriminalswere replacedinthenineteenthcenturywithwhathecalled“pedagogy”ofrehabilitationand correctionbasedonnewpsychologicalmodelsofdeviance.Thedesiretochange criminalsratherthantoinflictpainbroughtaboutnewwaysofthinkingaboutand 128 constructingmethodsofpunishmentanddiscipline.Attheheartofthis,Foucault(1980) sawtheconstructionsof“truth”:

Eachsocietyhasitsregimeoftruth,its“generalpolitics”oftruth:thatis,

thetypesofdiscoursewhichitacceptsandmakesfunctionastrue;the

mechanismsandinstanceswhichenableonetodistinguishtrueandfalse

statements;themeansbywhicheachissanctioned;thetechniquesand

proceduresaccordedvalueintheacquisitionoftruth;thestatusofthose

whoarechargedwithsayingwhatcountsastrue(p.131).

Foucaultemphasizedthatdiscoursescirculateinourworldandhaveasignificanteffect onpeople’sdailylivesandstruggles,andhaverealconsequencesonshapingourpolicies inschools,thebuildingofourcities,andthedevelopmentofourlawsregardingsex, crime,andinsanity.

Thisdiscourseanalysishascombinedelementsofpostmodernism,post structuralism,andfeminisminitscreationofworkthatdiscusseseducationasitoccurs bothinandoutsideschools.Symbolicinteractionismanddiscourseanalysishave developedalongsideculturalstudiesandhaveallowedthedevelopmentofaspacetotake seriouslythedailyinteractionsthatpeoplehavewiththeworld.Thisspaceallowsforthe evaluationandunderstandingoftheindividuals,thestructuresaroundthem,andthe interactionsbetweenthem.

Withinthespaceofpeople’sdailyinteractions,popularculturefoundaniche.In thebeginning,studiesofpopularculturewereundertakenbythosewhowereinterestedin howmediaintheformofmassmediaandadvertisingaffectedindividuals,especiallythe young.Itisthroughculturalstudies,withitsnewideasandmethodologiesthatallowed 129 forthisnewtopicofstudy.Theresearchinformedbyculturalstudiesnotonlyaddressed thecontemporarychangesintheworld,butitalsochallengedthepublicacademic opinionofwhatwasworthyofstudy.AccordingtoGordonandNachbar(1980),there arethreebasicwaysthatculturalstudiesviewspopularculture.First,popularcultureis foundinmovies,books,videos,magazines,andothermediaobjectsthatareaproductof businessesthatproducepopularculture.Second,popularculturereferstopopular activitiesoreventslikeweddings,proms,andgraduations.Lastly,popularculturerefers toplaceswhereconsumerism,culture,entertainment,education,andleisurecome together,likemalls,fairs,oramusementparks.

Ideasaboutclassdistinctions,behavior,exploitation,andsocialchangeare understoodinnewwaysifseeninrelationtopeople’swaysofseekingouttheir pleasures,entertainment,andformsofeducation,muchofwhichoccursthroughpopular culture.Culturalstudieshaschallengedthetraditionsofsomeacademicfieldsthathave ignoredpeople’severydayandpopularactivities.

Giroux(1997)noteshowcriticalanalysesoffilms,doneinacomplexwaywhich examinesgender,race,nationality,classamongothercriteriacanbecomeanintegralpart ofclassroompedagogyandcanhelpstudentsunderstandconnectionsbetweentheirown popularentertainments,theireducations,andthepowerandpoliticsofsocietyatlarge.

Dimitriadis(2001)addressestheneedtobridgethisgapstatingthatthetextscreatedby theireverydayexperiences

arecirculatinginaspacevacatedbytraditionalschoolinginstitutionsand

curricula,bothofwhichhavebecomeincreasinglyroutinized,increasingly 130

attheserviceofcorporateimperatives,andoutoftouchwiththeparticular

concernsofyoungpeople(p.7).

Hefurtherstatesthatthereexistsavastchasmbetweenin-schoolandout-of-school culture,withunofficialcurriculaandlearningsettingstakingonincreasingsalience.

Muchoftheworkdonebyeducationalresearchersofpopularcultureiscommittedto socialcritiqueandtheimprovementofsocietythroughanexaminationofpedagogyin theareasofbothformalandinformaleducation.

Culturalstudieshasbeenassociatedwithpopularculture,butitisnotsimply aboutpopularculture.Itisinterestedinpopularcultureindeeplychallengingways.It looks,first,atthe“interrelationshipsbetweensupposedlyseparateculturaldomains[asit] interrogatesthemutualdeterminationofpopularbeliefandotherdiscursiveformations”

(Grossberg,Nelson,andTreichler,1992).Secondly,itlooksatthewaysthatcultural practices“speakto,forandof”(Grossberg,Nelson,andTreichler,1992)theeveryday livesofpeople.Andbothofthesethingsmustoccurwithinspecificcontexts.Inother words,culturalstudiesrequiresustoidentifytheoperationofspecificpractices,ofhow theycontinuouslyreinscribethelinebetweenlegitimateandpopularculture,andofwhat theyaccomplishinspecificcontexts.

Inthestudyofbeautypageantcultureanditseffectsonidentityinrelationto girlhoodandclass,Ifocusedonthepowerthatisexercisedinthisculture.Specifically,I desiredtoanalyzethemediaconstructionsasseeninvarioustelevisionshowsand moviesandthediscoursesofotherswhoobserveandparticipateinthisphenomenon.

ThroughthisIdesiretofindhowmeaningandidentityarecreatedandhowthese vehiclesworktomakemeaning–foridentity,class,gender,etc.–fortheparticipants 131 andthoseinvolvedotherwise.AsGregDimitriatis(2001)states,“culturecanbefoundin thematerialpracticesofeverydaypeople”(p.74),andthebeautypageantculture,asit impactsthemiddleandlowerclasses,certainlyfitsthatdefinition.

Beautycontestsallowidealizedversionsoffemininitytobeactedoutonstagein acompetitionwhichawardsthewinnerwitha“royal”titleandacrown.Theyevoke passionateinterestandengagementwithpoliticalissuescentraltothelivesofbeauty contestants,sponsors,organizers,andaudiences–issuesthatfrequentlyhavenothing obvioustodowiththecompetitionitself.Bychoosinganindividualwhosedeportment, appearance,andstyleembodiesthevaluesandgoalsofanation,location,orgroup, beautycontestsexposethesesamevaluesandgoalstointerpretationandchallenge.

Thesecontroversiesinvolvewhatqualitiesshouldcountinacompetition,howgirls shouldact,andwhattheoutcomemeans.Sincebeautypageantsshowcasevalues, concepts,andbehaviorthatexistatthecenterofagroup’ssenseofitselfandexhibit valuesofmorality,genderandplace,theybecomeastagewhereculturesandidentities aremadepublicandvisible(Cohenetal.,1996).

LikeDickHebdige(1979/2002)inhis Subculture:TheMeaningofStyle ashe lookedatvarioussubculturesinBritain,Iwantedtostudyasubordinategroupinour presentsociety.Thesegroupshaveexpressiveformsandperformritualsthathavea meaningbothtothoseinvolvedandtothelargerculture.Thissubculture,astheteddy boys,mods,rockers,skinheads,andpunksdescribedbyHebdige(1979/2002),isoften

“dismissed,denouncedandcanonized”(p.2)andcanbebothseenasathreattopublic orderaswellasaharmlessevent.Thesmalleventsandobjectsoftheculturetakeon symbolicmeaningandworktoseparatethosewhoareinvolvedinthepageantcultureto 132 standoutagainstthelargersociety.AccordingtoGenet(1967)wemustseektorecreate thedialecticbetweenactionandreactionwhichrenderstheseobjectsmeaningful.

Sincethepageantcultureissituatedinthelargercultureandis“castinalanguage thatisgenerallyavailable”(Hebdige,1979/2002,p.87),itcreatesmeaningsbothforthe membersofthesubcultureanditsopponents.Hebdige(1979/2002)suggeststhat

subculturesare,atleastinpart,representationsoftheserepresentations,

andelementstakenfromthe‘picture’ofworkingclasslife(andofthe

socialwholeingeneral)areboundtofindsomeechointhesignifying

practicesofthevarioussubcultures.Theyalsoarticulate,toagreateror

lesserextent,someofthepreferredmeaningsandinterpretations,those

favoredbyandtransmittedthroughtheauthorizedchannelsofmass

communication(p.86).

Thesubculturealsoworkstobringtolightsomeoftheproblemsincontemporary society,eitherbyparodyingthemorbyshowinghowcurrentculturerequiresgirlstolive byruleswhichdictatebeautyaccordingtounattainablebody,facialfeatures,andfashion standards.Itisthissituatednessinthelargerculture,theexposureofcultural inconsistenciesandtheuseofcommonlanguagetodescribethesubculturewhichallow thesubculturetoattractnewmembersandtocontinuetobringcriticismandoutragefrom the“moralmajority.”

One’ssenseofselfisoftenconstructedinrelationtoone’senthusiasms.Baldwin etal.(1999)suggestthatyouthsubcultures 133

seemedtobeaplaceforresistanceandoppositionataparticularstagein

thelifecourse,wheremovementfromonesetofrelationsinthefamily

wasmanagedintheprocessoftransitiontoanewset(p.356).

Iseetheruralbeautypageantcultureasasubculture,onethatinvolvesprimarilythe youthculture,amongothers.Itisasubculturethatseemstobeaplaceforresistanceand oppositiontocertainclassissuesforthemiddleandworkingclasses.Theage-old“rags toriches”Cinderellastorycanbeactedoutonthepageantstage.Andthesemblanceof beauty,talent,money,andstatusareconstructedthroughmakeup,performances,and clothing.Inthisway,pageantsactasasubculture.

Withinthissubculture,thereexistsymbolsandrituals,bothofwhicharestudied intherealmofculturalstudies.Symbolismhasbeenmostwidelystudiedintherealmof youthsubcultures(Hebdige,1979/2002;McRobbie,1994,1991,1976).Thevaried symbolsusedbysubculturesconveydifferencesanddistancesfromconventionalsociety andchallengethehegemony(Hebdige1979/2002).Ritualsinvolveastandardized sequenceofactsandutteranceswhichsymbolizethoughtsandfeelingsthatholdspecial meaningfortheparticipants.Pageants,withtheirritualisticnaturesandtheirfocuson costumes,workwithinthisrealmofsymbolsandritualsandcalltobestudiedfroma culturalstudieslens.

Inadditiontofocusingonsubcultures,culturalstudiesalsodelvesintotheissues ofcultureanditsinfluenceonthebody.Infact,culturalstudiesseesthatthebodyisa culturalobject.Whoandwhatweareperceivedtobeisboundupwiththeappearance andmovementsofourbodies.Inpossessingabodyofanygivenageorgender,weare expectedtobeacertainkindofperson,anditisnotwidelyacceptabletobreachthese 134 expectations(Baldwinetal.,1999,p.267).Itisthisfocusthatculturalstudieshasonthe bodyandtheculturalinfluencesonitthatalsomakesitappropriateforuseinmystudy.

Thedesiretouseculturalstudiesasawaytoseethebodyasasitefortheplayingoutof socialandculturaldifferenceinterestsme.Foucault’sworksonthediscoursesand technologiesthroughwhichpowerisimprintedonhumanbodyareofparticularinterest andbegintheculturalstudies’focusonthisarea.Inaddition,feminismhasworkedin thisrealmtosuggestthatanalysisshouldbeginwiththespecificityofgirl’sembodied experiences.Culturalstudiesgoesfurthertodividethisstudyofcultureanditseffectson thebodytoincludeboththephysicalembodimentofself(orthe“subject”)aswellasan objectthatotherscancategorizeandIcanpossess(orasan“object”).Thisstudyof powerandcultureandtheeffectsonthebodyarecentraltomystudyofthepageant cultureandthemessagesitconveys.

Dimitriatis(2001)suggestsin PerformingIdentity/PerformingCulture thatthere isanareaofculturalstudiesthatanalyzeshowparticularaudiencespickupandusethe messagesgiventothemaboutlifeintheculturearoundthem.Heentitlesthissub-section

“Audiencestudies”andencouragesthoseinterestedinaudiencestudiestoworktostress thepowerthatoperatesintheculturalphenomenaaswellasthefactsthatoftenthese phenomenaactinwaysthattheaudiencehasnocontrolover.Hestatesthat“the meaningsthatpeoplecreateherearecircumscribedbyforcesbeyondtheircontrol”(p.

75).ItisthissortofanalysisthatIwanttobegin.Iwanttolookathowthevarious aspectsofthepageantcultureasseeninmediaandasexperiencedbysomeworkto createmeaning,andatwhatmessagesandinformationaboutpowerandidentityin relationtoclassandgirlhoodresult. 135

Thecriticismstoculturalstudiesmirrorthosefoundinpoststructuralfeminism.

First,criticsquestionthevalidityoftheresearch.Ifthereisnorealistobjectivity(one thatseesanabsenceofhumanfactorsinobservingthephenomenon)possibleincultural studiesresearch,theremustbeaproblemwithhavingvalidresearch.Culturalstudieshas amorepragmaticorcurrentdefinitionof“objectivity.”Thiscriticismisansweredfrom thecurrentdefinition–onethatseesobjectivityasimpossibleorirrelevant.Thecultural studiesapproach,ashasbeenespousedbyPattiLather(1993)andD.Gordon(1988), wouldsaythatvaliditywouldcomefromthediscoursethatresultsfromtheresearch.

Researchthatproducesfurtherdiscoursewouldindicatethatresearchersandother interestedpartiesseethefindingsasimportantincontinuedconversations.Inthiscase, thevaliditycomesnotfromobjectivity,butfromself-reflection.Thisallowsacultural studytobesituatedasaquestioningofrepresentationandrealityastheyhavebeen createdatacertainplaceandtime.

Culturalstudieshasalsobeencriticizedduetothelackofstandardmethodsof research.Whatseparatesitfromtraditionalresearchmethodsisthefocusonlanguage.

Theself-reflexiveapproachtovalidityspeakstothis.Culturalstudies,likepost structuralfeminism,seesthattheworldisknownandconstructedthroughlanguage.

Therefore,culturalstudiesmethodologiesoftenemploystudiesoflanguageordiscourse, ratherthantraditionalqualitativeorquantitativemethods.Inadditiontothefocuson language,culturalstudiesalsotendstoseethatthemundaneandeverydaypracticescan besignificantfactorsinknowledgemaking(Hall,1980).

136

CommonGround:MakingtheBricolage

AsIhavestatedearlier,Idonotdesiretoanalyzetheruralpageantcultureinan attempttoshedlightonhowtheyaredemeaningtowomen,nordoIwanttoexpose pageantsasnegativesitesinculture.Instead,itisthewaythatpoweroperateswithinthe pageantculturetoaffectgirlsastheydefinetheiridentitiesandthewaysinwhichgender, socialclass,andpageantcultureinteractintheformationofthisidentitythatIdesireto study.Thereisnotonedefinitionoftherural,Southernbeautypageantandthereisnot onedefinitionofapageantparticipantorherfamily.Therefore,totrytocategorizethem assuchwouldlimitmystudy.IdonotdesiretofindtheTruth,onceandforall,about thepowerissuesasrelatedtogender,identity,andclass.Abricolageofcritical ethnography,criticalhermeneutics,poststructuralfeminism,andculturalstudies,with theirfocusonthefluidityofidentityandtheimpactofculture,class,society,andgender onidentityallowsmethebestlensthroughwhichtoconductmyresearch.

AngelaMcRobbie(1999)discussestheintersectionofculturalstudiesandpost structuralfeminismin IntheCultureSociety:Art,Fashion,andPopularMusic. She statesthat“thestudyofpopularcultureinitsmostexpandedsenseallowedfeministsto revisethetraditionalstance’(p.33).Inotherwords,culturalstudies,poststructuralist ethnographyandpoststructuralfeminismallseektofindthewaysthatspecific phenomenaincultureworktocreateidentity.Shefurtherstatesthat

thefactthatreasonandpoliticalanalysistellsusthatfemininityisbad,

whiletheunconsciouscontinuestoproduceguiltypleasuresrevolving

aroundthepracticesofconventionalfemininity,evokesatleasta 137

complexitywhenitcomestothinkingabouthowweconsumecommercial

culture(p.49).

Culturalstudies,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandpoststructural feminismalsoseektounderstandhowcultureworkstocreatemeaning.OliverandLalik

(2002)speaktothissaying,

Culturalmessagesofthefemalebodyareafocalpointforthepractical

actionofcritiqueweseektodevelopthroughthisresearch.Ashasbeen

explainedbyWalkerdine(1990),culturalmessagesaboutfemalebodies

havelongbeenpersistentandubiquitous.Throughthosemessagesfemale

bodieshavebeenpathologized.Theyhavebeenfoundinsufficiently

developedforsophisticatedreasoning.Girlsarekeenlyawareofthese

messagesasconveyedthroughpopculture(p.201).

Inthisway,popularculture,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandthe constructionoffemaleidentityareintertwinedandcalltobestudied.

Poststructuralfeminismsuggestsstudiesonwaysmediaandculturalarenasare structuredbygenderedthemes.Feminism,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneutics, andculturalstudiesfocusonthedifferentpowerpositionsorwomenandmenasthese influencewritingandreading(Agger,2002).Allseethatthereisnosingularvantage fromwhichknowledgeisdeveloped,butrather,theyseethattheknowledgeoftheworld isstructuredbydiscoursesthatreflectconflictsoverpower.Inthediscoveryand analyzesofthesediscoursesandpowerstruggles,allfourmethodologiesseektodecode thediscoursesaspoliticallysalient. 138

Basedintheideasofcurriculumasagenderedanddeconstructedtext,post structuralfeminism,criticalethnography,criticalhermeneuticsandculturalstudiesareall situatedinthereconceptualizedcurriculumstudiesfield.And,giventheirdesireto analyzecultureanddiscourseastheyworktocreatemeaning,identity,andpower,they adheretothemantraofthereconceptualizedfieldwhichfocusesmoreatunderstanding ratherthandevelopment.

Inrelationtothestudyofruralbeautypageantculture,thefocusoncultureasa placewherelearningandmeaningtakeplaceallowsittobeconsideredasavalidtopicof research.Theculturaldiscourseswhichsurroundthissubcultureworktocreatemeaning foragroupofstudentswhoarelearninginthisout-of-schoolsettingwhichisoftengoing unnoticedinthetraditionalschoolsetting.Studentsneedtobegiventhetoolstomake senseoftheculturalmessagestheyreceive.

Reflexivity

Writersarereflexiveintheirwork,asthetwoareas(writingandreflexivity)are inseparable.Reflexivitygivestheresearchervoiceasitbringstolighttheresearch processandactstobridgeinterpretationandthewaysthatmeaningisexpressedinatext

(Brewer,2000).Asaresult,reflexivityimpliesreflectionontheprocessesthat influencedthedata.ForBrewer,therearetwotypesofreflexivity:descriptiveand analytical.Reflectingonallpossibilitiesthatimpactresearchoutcomes(location, researcherpreconceptions,powerrelations,interactionsbetweenresearcherandsubjects, historicalcontext,socialcontext)comprisestheconceptofdescriptivereflexivity.More difficulttodefineisanalyticalreflexivity,asitisconcernedwithepistemologyand knowledgeclaimsthatworktoforman“intellectualbiography”(Brewer,2000,p.130). 139

Analyticalreflexivityallowsfortheexplanationoftheprocessofdata understandingandinterpretation.Thefocusbecomesfindingchangesinthedataand howthosechangesoccurred.Ontheotherhand,descriptivereflexivityhasseveral aspects.Itshowshowfieldnoteswerekept,howthecoding,recordingandorganization ofdatawasperformed,waysthekeyideaswereidentified,andhowtheprocessofdata analysiswasperformed.Analytic,however,ismoreintensethandescriptivereflexivity.

Thisisduetothereflectiononandhighlightingofthetheoreticalframeworkand methodologyusedintheresearch.Thisallowsfortheacknowledgingofvaluesand commitmentsthattheresearcherbringstotheresearch.Theresearchermustidentifythe passionandissuesshebringstotheprocessandthenallowthoughtsconnectedtothe researchtobeacknowledged.

Inconductingthisresearch,Iadoptedareflexiveapproachinallstagesandwas carefultobebothdescriptiveandanalyticalasIworkedtoilluminatealloftheprocesses

Iemployedtothereader.AsIbecameabricoleur–onewhobuildsabridgebetween variousresearchmethodologies–itwasimportantformetosupportreflexivityand acknowledgethediverserolesthatwererequiredofmeinconductingtheresearch.The metaphorofthebricoleurshedslightonallthevariousstagesoftheresearchprocess movingbetweentheoretical,interpretive,andpoliticalbricoleurroles.

Analysis

Criticstoresearchconcerningpopularcultureoftencitethatitlackstheacademic disciplineandscholarshipassociatedwithmethodologiesfromtheolder,established disciplines.Iarguethatapproachingthisresearchfromacriticalstancethroughthe lensesofculturalstudies,poststructuralfeminism,hermeneutics,andethnography,my 140 researchisinterestedinfindingandunearthingquestionsinrelationtothepower structuresintheruralchildbeautypageantculture.AsIstudythemediasurrounding childbeautypageantcultureandtheworkswrittenaboutthatculture,myresearchismost definitelychallengingwithchangesaroundeverycornerandwithabeginningthatlacks theusualassumptionsassociatedwithresearch.

Sincemyresearchfindsitsrootsintheculturalandpoststructuralcondition,itis takingplaceina“re-determinedandre-defined”(Steinberg,2004,p.26)arenaof researchmethodsandpractices.Beingabletoviewvideosatmyleisureandwiththe optionofstopping,orrewinding,orskippingforwardaffordedmeoptionstobettermap themessagesandunearthcodesandthemesinthedocumentariesandmovies.As

Steinberg(2004)notes,

Unlikeviewer/historiansofthepast,weareabletore-visitanevent,atext,

andlookforthetacitassumptionsthatresidewithineachsignifier,floating

signifier,codeandideologypresentedwithinthefilm(p.26).

Workingasamethodologicalbricoleurandabricoleurtheorist,thecriticaltheory andmethodsthatprovidethefoundationforthisstudyhavebeendiscussedindetail.The detaileddiscussionworksaspartoftheanalyticreflexivitydiscussedearlier,asthe frameworkusedfortheanalysisofdatainthisdissertationisoutlinedinchaptertwoand chapterthreeandisappliedinchapterfour.Uptothispoint,therehasbeennoaccount ontheprocessofanalysis.Descriptionswillbegivenonhowfieldnoteswerekeptand howdatawasrecorded,anddetailsofhowthemesandideassurfacedanddatawere analyzedpriortowritingwillbedescribed.Theideaofcreatingabridgeandaquiltwill becomethemetaphorforthecreationofthefinalproductusingthedatacollected.As 141 documentariesandmovieswereviewed,andpageantswerewatchedandevaluatedand themesthenbegantoemerge,itbecameobviousthatthecopiousamountofdataand materialwouldrequireamonumentalamountofeditingtocraftanendproductthat wouldbeunderstandableandcoherent.

Intheprocessofwatchingandrecordingthethemesandpatternsineachofthe documentariesandvideos,themethodsIemployedwereimportant.Asitwasessential formetobeabletoviewthemediaseveraltimesandtovisitthethemesandpatterns overandover,itwasparamountthatIhadcopiesofthedocumentariesandvideosofmy own.Numeroushourswerespentinfrontofatelevisionwithmyremotesinhand,oneto controlthetelevisionandonetostop,rewindandfastforwardthevideostoreview certainpointsofcontent.Ialsousedalargescrapbooktypenotebookwithplainpages forinitialnotetakingandalsogrid-likedivisionstorecordthepatternsandthemesasI watchedthevariousformsofmedia.Usingdifferentcoloredinksandpencilshelpedto identifythedifferentideasandpatternsaswell.

Iviewedeachvideo2-3timesbeforebeginningdetailednotetaking.Noteswere takenusingalargescrapbooktypenotebook(seeDiagram1).Ialsoreadtyped transcriptsofdocumentarieswheretheywereavailable,makingnotesinthescrapbookas well.Imadecommentsandhighlightedtheemergingthemesfromthenotestaken.

Thesethemeswereusedascodestoguideanalysis.Thisresultedinallthedatabeing codedwhichthengavemeaccesstoandapplicationofthedatainvariousformsbeyond theinitialviewing.Usingthecodes,Iwasabletodiscoverdataaboutpower,girlhood, perceptionbyparticipants,perceptionbyworld,reasonsforentry,impactonfamilies, andmore.Beforewritingthisdissertation,Iwentbacktothepagesofnotesandthe 142 videosthemselvesandwatchandreadthemagaintobeabsolutelycertainthatIhadnot leftbehindanynecessarymaterial.

Usingthebridgeandquiltmetaphorsmadethisresearchallthemorerealtome.I wasable,asisseeninthediagramsofmynotesandcoding,tocapturevisuallyimportant aspectsofthebeautypageantcultureanditsdepictioninthemediathatwerecentralto theanalysis.Findingthethemesandpatternsinallofthefieldnotesmadesurethatall thecodedinformationthatwaspertinentandimportantwasincluded.Thesecoded sectionswerecomparedtoothernotestakenduringmyreadingresearchtomakesureI hadnotmissedanydetails.

Figure2:MediaTranscription

Thisfiguregivesanillustrationofthenotestakenwhilewatchingthe

documentariesandvideos.Thesenotesbroughttolighttheuniquenessof 143

eachvideoaswellasthesimilaritiesbetweenthevideosonceallofthem

werecoded.

Figure3:Themesfoundinvideos

Thelargescrapbookallowedmetobeabletoflipbackandforthto

reviewmynotesandcheckmyprogress.Thediagramaboveshowsthe

waysIcrosscheckedthecodesandthemesintheviewedworks.

Emergingthemesbecametheheadingsatthetopofthepageandthetitles

ofthevideoswereheadingsfortheindividualrowsdowntheleftsideof

thepages.Eachboxcontainednotesonaspectsfromthevideosthat

illustratedthethemesandasnewthemesemerged,theywereadded.It

wasfascinatingtowatchtheemergenceofpatternsamongstthe

recognizedthemesintheworks. 144

Theprocessofanalysistookplaceinlayers,astheearlyrevelationsand understandingsledtoquestioningthat,inturn,revealedotherpossibilitiesforresearch.

Aprocessofintellectualinquirywasemployed,withconstantquestioningand engagementwithdatawassupportedwithtechnology.AsThorneetal.(2004)suggested thatresearchersavoidline-by-linecodingasthistakesawayfromtheabilitytorecognize patternsandretracethoughteventsinthedata,Idecidedtousevisualaidsandmind mapping.

Diagrams1and2showthestepsusedwhenviewingandanalyzingthe documentariesandvideosusedinthisresearch.Theserecordsshowhowpatternswere keptregardlessofaneedtoleavebehindsmallamountsofrawmaterial.Incraftingmy quiltorbridgeasabricoleur,Iwasabletoincludeothermaterialsintothefinalproduct.

IncludingcriticalmaterialconstructedapicturethatwasdifferenttothedescriptionsI originallycraftedandthiswasmadepossiblewithoutgivinguptheoriginalideasand whilestillcreatingpossibilitiesforusingseveraldifferentperspectivesforviewingthe finalproduct.

ValidityandCredibility

Qualitativeresearchisoftencriticizedintheareaofvalidityestablishmentand thisissuemustbereviewedsothatresultsandconclusionsfromqualitativeresearchwill beconsideredreliable,believable,andauthentic(CutcliffeandMcKenna,2004;Sparkes,

2001).Withthedevelopmentofnewandcuttingedgeapproachestoinquiryare developed,thequestionsofvalidityarerevisitedinlightofwhatconstitutesvalid research.Thedifferencesfoundinthesenewmethodologiescallstobeacknowledged 145 andtheremustbethedevelopmentofcriteriatooutlinetheinternalframeworkforthese modesofinquiry(Caelli,Ray,andMill,2003).

Thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisanattitudeofallisokayinqualitativeresearch, butitdoesdemandtheconstructionofcriteriafordeterminingvalidityofresearchthat reflectsthefindingsandpurposeofindividualstudies.Todothis,acknowledgementof thevaliditydebatemusttakeplaceandacknowledgementthatinflexibleformulasand rulescannotbeappliedmustbeunderstood.Sincequalitativeresearchdoesnothold itselfoutasholdingauniversalsetposition,therearemanydifferentpositionsfrom whichresearchcanbeevaluated(Sandelowski,2002).

Meetingcredibilityrequirementspresentschallengesinlightofthevalidityin qualitativeresearchargument.Inquantitativeresearch,validityisestablishedthrough rigorousmethodobservance.However,whenqualitativeresearchisviewedthroughsuch alens,itisfoundtobeunscientificandwithoutrigor(Angen,2000).Approaching researchfromaculturalpositionloosenstheboundariesofvalidityasresearchersattempt tolegitimizeworkwithoutgivingintoscientificauthority(Angen,2000).Withthe attempttomoveawayfrompositivistsciencecomesthedifficultyofneedingauthorityin anacademicenvironmentandthedifficultyofneedinglegitimacyforresearch.Many qualitativeresearchershavebeenledtoadoptpracticessimilartothosefoundin quantitativeresearchinanattempttokeepvalidityissuesfrommakingresearchvoid.

Issuesareraisedbyqualitativemethodsofethnography.First,thereisthe relationshipbetweentheresearchprocessandwritingofthetext.Thisleadstoan emphasisontheauthor,authenticity,andresponsibility.Inrevisitingethnography, thinkinghasembracedcriticalprocessesintherelationshipbetweentheresearcherand 146 theresearched.Reflectionofthisrelationshipledtowriting’sbeingseenascreationof meaningfuldata.Writingbecameawayofself-consciouslyshowingdifferentviewsand situatingresearcherinrelationtothetextandpointofobservation.Therefore,research meritrestswiththeresearcher.

Mygoalinthisresearchwastoactasabricoleurusingthequiltandbridge metaphorstosymbolizetheindividualandcollectivevoicesandmessagesofthemedia andpageantculture.Inaddition,Iwantedtoseethesedifferentmediainlightofa criticalmethodology.Asthestructureofthisdissertationwasdevelopedusingthe bricolageprocess,IwasguidedbythewaysIpiecedthedifferentversionsofmediaand textstogether.InchapterfourviewsofthevideosandthetextsarerepresentedasI becomeaquiltmakerandbridgebuilderattemptingtojoinsimilarthemesandpatterns andcreateaworkthatleadstoaconstructionthatblendsthesethemesandpatterns.The differentversionsofrealityarepreservedinthisinterpretivechapterandinchapterfive whichdiscussestheconclusionsfromtheresearch,andasthecriticaltextsareplaced withintheseinterpretationsthenotherpatternsemerge.

Theintentofresearchisfoundintheaspectsofcredibilityandtrustworthiness.In thecriticalpositionofculturalresearch,thereisareflectionofthisintherevisitingof interpretiveresearchwithrespecttoquality.Ifthepurposeofresearchistoquestion, createdialoguewith,orprovideemancipationformembersofacommunity,then reviewingprocessbeyondmethodologyisimportantindevelopingconclusionstoaffect changeinlearning(Thorne,1997).Thismeansresearchersarechargedwiththejobof insuringfindingsarenotjustevaluationsbutareabletobeinterpretedandusedin specificfields. 147

Thisinterpretationmustbelogicallysituatedinrelationtotheresearchquestions posedandtheresearchconducted.Thorne(1997)seesthisasbasedinthetheoretical basisforresearchleadingtointerpretationofdataandcreationofknowledge.Thereader musthavetheguaranteethatthedecisionsmadebytheresearcherarecompetentandthe analysisisconductedwithinterpretiveauthority.Thus,theresearcher’saimof knowledgerevelationofaspecificsubjectiseasilydiscernablebythereader.

Forresearchtobeconsideredcredible,itseemsthattherearefourimportantareas toconsider:theresearcher’stheoreticalpositioning,thesimilaritybetweenmethodand methodology;theestablishmentofstrategiestoinsurerigor;andthedefinitionofaclear, analyticalframeworktoillustratehowtheresearcherwillinteractwiththedatacollected

(Caelli,2003).Withinthesefourareas,therearefourthemesthatworktoinsurethe researchconductedisofhighquality:

1. “Process”orhonestyandtrustworthiness.

2. “Writing”whichallowsforwell-written,impacting,andbelievablereports.

3. “Outcome”whichindicatesthatresearchrelatestopracticeandpointsto

furtherstudy.

4. “Excellence”tobeestablishedbyrigourrelatingtoprocess,writing,and

outcome.

UsingthesethemesbyEmdenetal,(2001)inconjunctionwiththeareasoutlinedby

Caellietal.(2003)givestheresearcherthetoolstodevelopaproductthatillustrates quality,rigor,andcredibilityinrelationtoqualitativeresearch.AsIconductedmy researchontheruralchildbeautypageantcultureandthewaysthatpoweroperatesin 148 thatculture,Ipaidcloseattentiontotheareasoutlinedaboveandemployedthethemes discussedinordertoensurethetrustworthinessandconsistencyoftheproject.

Asaresearcher,itisimportantformetopresentmyfindingsinsuchawayasto appealtoandringtruewiththeaudienceItarget(Thorne,1997).Thisrequiresmeto approachmyresearchandtowritemydissertationusingartisticmethodstocreatean aestheticallypleasingproductthatallowsforarelationshipbetweentheproduct,myself, andthereader.Myrolebecomesmoreartisticinconstructionratherthanjustobjectively reporting.

Asabricoleur,Iworkeddiligentlytocreateaprojectwhichisagreatmixtureof aninterestingandintriguingstorywithastronglygroundedintentionforresearchand scholarship.Thefindingsandknowledgeproducedbythisstudydoeshavearealimpact onsectionsofsocietyandIhaveaveryrealresponsibilitytothosewhoseideasofthe positiveornegativeaspectsofruralchildhoodpageantparticipationareimpacted(even thoughIamnotworkingtodelineatethepositiveornegativeaspectsofparticipation,but amworkingtowardsadialoguebetweentheaspectofsocialclass,mediaconstruction, andthesubculture’spower).Thiscallsformetoidentifythosewaysthatmyresearch maywellinitiateunintentionaleffectsonthesubcultureandtoinsurethatIhaveethically consideredtheconsequences.

AsIdidnotengageintraditionalethnographicresearchthatinvolvesinterviews orpageantobservationofspecificsubjects,thequestionofprivacy,anonymity,and confidentialityarenotconcerns.ButImustbecertaintoframethefindingsinrelationto mypersonalrecollectionsandexperiencesinsuchawayasnottohaveanegativeimpact onanyotherpersonwhowasinvolved.Thiswastrickyformeasaresearcherand 149 bricoleur,andIworkeddiligentlytomakecertainmyresearchwasethical,trustworthy, rigorous,andcredible.

150

CHAPTER4

PAGEANTCULTURE,SOCIALCLASS,MEDIA,ANDPOWER

Ididnotgrowupinthemidstofthepageantculture–oratleastIdidnotthinkI diduntilIbeganastudyofit.Now,Irealizejusthowmuchapartofmylifethatthe beautypageant–andtheculturethatsurroundsit–hasbeenandcontinuetobe.Ihave spentyearslearningaboutit–bothdirectlyandindirectly.

IrememberwatchingtheMissAmericaandMissUSApageantsontelevision eachyear–andcallingmyfriendsduringcommercialstocommentonMissTennessee’s hair,orMissIowa’sdress,orhowMissTexaswouldcertainlybeinthetop3,because

MissTexasalwaysdidwell.AndIrememberbeingabletogobackstageattheMiss

SouthCarolinapageantintheearly1980s,asoneofmymother’sfriendswasthestate pageantdirector.Seeingallthebeautifulgirlsandwatchingthemfromtheothersideof thestagewaseye-openingandawe-inspiring.Iwasenviousoftheirbeauty,grace,talent andglamour.Iwantedtobelikethem.

Forme,itwasthewholepackage–theclothes,thehair,themake-up,the cameras,thelights,thestageandtheattention.Allofthesewomenhadbeautiful headshotsandtheyspentmuchtimesigningtheirautographsandgivingthemtotheir adoringpublic–mainlythrongsoflittlegirls,wide-eyedattheirpresence.Iwasoneof thoseinthethrong–andIwasableto“dineout”onthisexperienceforweeksonthe middleschoolplaygroundandlunchtables.

MyfriendsandIplayedbeautypageantathome,learningtheritualsfrom watchingnumerouspageantsontelevisionandhavingparticipatedinafew.Wehadthe dressupclothes,pretendjudges,andacrownandsash.Weallhadsavedourallowances 151 andhadboughtourowntiarasatthelocaljewelrystore–fornoneofushadeverreally wonapageant.Ourexposuretopageantswaslimitedtotheoneswesawontelevision andtheyearlyschoolpageant(whereweallworeourEasterdressesandtheoldergirls woretheirpromdresses)andtheForestryPageant(whichwasheldinhonorofourarea’s majorindustryandfedintoastatepageant).Wewerenotbornandbredintopageants– butweknewaboutthem–andtheritualthatsurroundedthem.

SinceIwastall,big-boned,andatomboy,mypageantdreamsfellbythewayside asIgrewolder.Iknowthe“pageantlook”fromfriendsthatparticipatedinthem–andI certainlydidnotfitthatimage.That,andmyparentsdidnotcondoneit.SoIwas destinedtoneverseetherealsideofpageantry.IwatchedgirlsfromSwainsboroand

EmanuelCounty–pageantMeccaaswecalledit–whohadpageanthair(itlookedlike cottoncandyinthebackandhadperfectwingsinthefront–justtherightplacefora tiaratositperfectlyforpictures)andpageantdresses(nottheEasterdressesandchurch shoesIhad)andgottoweareyeshadow,mascara,blushandlipstick.Thesegirlswere amazing,andcreaturesIdidnotunderstand.

Ienteredtheirworldadaylateandadollarshort.At19,Ienteredalocal

SouthernSweetheartpageantpreliminaryinmyhometownofLouisville.AsIwasthe onlyentrantintheMissdivision,I“won”thetitlebydefaultandwasthedelegatetothe statecontest.Mymother(JuneCleaver,atherbest)andmysister(whocouldnotbe moremiddleAmericaifshetried)workedwithmetoprepare.Wethoughtmychoices forhair,makeup,interviewsuit,casualwear,andeveninggownwereperfect–andmy applicationwasabovereproach.ItwasnotuntilwearrivedattheSheratoninDowntown

AtlantathatwerealizedhowfaroutofmyleagueIwas.ItseemedthestereotypesIhad 152 seensincemychildhoodweretrue–andthensome.Thewomen–andIsaywomen becausethiswasallbusinessandnotjustagirl’sdress-upgame–werepreparedtowin andhadbeengroomedandpreparedfarbeyondmywildestimagination.Itwasthenthat

IrealizedtheindustryandtheculturethatsurroundedpageantryandIfinallysawthe codes,signsandbehaviorsthatdictatedanddeterminedthesuccessandmobilityinthe pageantworld.

Fromthere,IcompetedintwoMissGeorgiapreliminaries(intheMissAmerica

System)andthenwentontoworkinvariouscapacitiesinthepageantcultureonvarious levelswithintheMissAmericasystemandinlocalpageantsystems.Asacoachand pageantcoordinator,Ihaveseenthepositivesandnegativesofbeautypageant involvementandthewaysthatpoweroperateswithinthisculture.However,whatbegan tointerestmewasthephenomenonofidentitydevelopmentinthepageantsub-culture.

Formanygirlsandyoungwomen,whotheyare,howtheyviewtheirbodiesandtheirself worth,andhowtheyviewtheworldislargelyshapedbytheirparticipationinbeauty pageants.And,InoticedthatinruralGeorgia,thetitlesthathavebeenwondonotfallby thewaysideasoneages;instead,theyarecontinuallyusedtodefinewhoawomanisand whysheiscredibleinacertainarena.Allofthispromptedmetoinquirewhythis happenedandwhatinthepageantcultureworkedtoformulatetheidentitiesofthese women.

MediaInfluence:WhatisaPageantGirl?

Whatisapageantgirl?HowdoesthemediaworktocreatehowIviewpageant girlsandpageantculture?ItwaswhenIbegantoponderthisquestionthatIrealizedhow varied–andhowimportanttheimagesofpageantrythemediahadgivenmehadbeen. 153

Thepervasiveideawasofpageantgirlsbeinglowclassormiddleclass,two-faced, bitchy,superficial,back-biting,over-achievinggirlswhofalsepersonalitiescoincided withtheirheavymakeup,physicalenhancements,undergarments,expensivewardrobes, andunbelievablepageanthair.Inotherwords,therewasnothingrealoruncoachedabout them–astheyweredepictedinthemedia.IbegantolookbackatthepageantsIhad watched,organizedorparticipatedin.Ialsoviewedthedocumentaries SmilePretty

(1999), PaintedBabies(1995), LivingDolls(2001),and LittleBeauties:TheUltimate

KiddieQueenShowdown(2007),thetelevisionshow DesigningWomen(1983-1989), andthemovies LittleMissSunshine(2006), Beautiful (2000),and DropDeadGorgeous

(1999)whichhavegivenusviewsintotheworldofchildbeautypageants.Italsogave depictionsofapageantgirlstereotype:SuzanneSugarbakerin DesigningWomen ,Mona in Beautiful ,andAmberAtkinsandBeckyLeemanin DropDeadGorgeous. Werethese depictionsthesameasothersIhadknownwhoparticipatedinthepageantculture experienced?DidtheyagreewiththeexperiencesIhadhad–ordidtheyflyintheface ofthem?Andwhatdidmyobservationsandexperiencesalongwiththethemesfoundin thesevideossayaboutthewayspoweroperatesintheruralchildbeautypageantculture andtheimpactofsocialclassinthisrealm?

Thefocusofthisdissertationandtheresearchcentersonthefollowingquestions:

1.Howdoespoweroperateinthebeautypageantsubculture?

Howdoesitcreateandmaintainthissubculture?Whateffectsdomedia

andsocio-economicstatushaveonthiscultureandthepowerthatworks

therein? 154

2.Whatinspiresentryintoabeautypageantforagirlorforthe

parentsofagirl?Isthereacorrelationbetweenthemediarepresentation

ofwhygirlsenterpageantsandthereasonsstatedbyparticipants?What

isthecorrelationbetweensocio-economicstatusandpageantentry?

3.Whatdichotomiesexistinthepageantsubculture?Whatcan

weassumeabouttherelationshipbetweenrepresentationandthe“real”

whenconsideringbeautypageantsandbeautypageantcontestants?How

dothegirlparticipants(ortheirparents)inruralbeautypageantsreconcile

thefactthattheyarebothrewardedandvictimizedordotheyrealizethat

theyarebothwinnersandvictims?Howisthediscrepancybetweenthe

adultificationofchildrenandthechildificationofadultsreconciled?

Thissearchintothedevelopmentofmeaningthroughcultureisnothingnew.

HenryGiroux(1994)statesthat

thepoliticsofrepresentationthathasoccupiedthecenterofitsanalysis

hasbecomeindispensableforunderstandinghowpoliticsreachesinto

everydaylifetomobilizeparticularlivedexperiences,desires,andforms

ofagency.Whilecertainvisionsofpostmodernismmayhave

overestimatedthedegreetowhichtheboundariesbetweenimagesand

realityhavebecomeblurred,thepostmodernistapproachdoesnot

underestimatetheexpandingpowerofrepresentations,texts,andimages

inproducingidentitiesandshapingtherelationshipbetweentheselfand

societyinanincreasinglycommodifiedworld(p.3). 155

Theviewofhowwhatweviewontelevisionandinthemediahasconstructed andcrossedtheboundariesofreality–toevencallustowonderwhatrealityreallyis,is whatisatquestion.Whyisitimportanttoseewhatimagesarebeingpresentedasrealin themoviesandinthemediaandhowdotheseimagesimpacttheperceptionthatI,and othersinthesocietyatlarge,haveofpageantryandthegirlsandwomenwhoareapart ofit.Giroux(2002)laterstatesthatthevisualculturefoundintelevisionandthemedia becomesanewformofpedagogywhichsignalsa“newformofliteracy,andexemplifies amodeofpoliticsinwhichculturebecomesacrucialsiteandweaponofpowerinthe modernworld”(p.5).Thisuseofpowerthroughthemediaisinsidious–weusethese imagestocreateourofreality–andoftenthatvisioniswildlyincorrect.Wasthat thecaseinpageantry?

SocialStatusandPageantParticipation:WhatMotivatesParticipation?

Whatpromptslower-classparentstoentertheirlittlegirlsintopageants?Inorder tomakethedecisiontopaytheentryfeeandbuytheclothingandothernecessaryitems, therehastobesomedrivingforce,somereasonbehindtheseactions.Andwhatisthe relationshipbetweenthesereasonsandtheclassstatusofthecontestantsandtheir families?Afterobservingparentsandgirlsatpageants,workingasapageantcoordinator, watchingvarioustelevisionshows,documentariesandmoviesonpageants,andreading worksbyauthorsonpageantryandpopularculture,Ihavefoundseveralpossiblereasons forpageantparticipation.

HenryGiroux(2000)seesthelureofbeautypageantsstemmingfromthe opportunityforfameandclassmobility.Inordertojustifypageantparticipation,many legitimatethechildbeautypageantcultureas 156

aroutetogettheirkidsintolucrativecareerssuchasmodeling,ortowin

collegescholarships,financialrewards,andotherprizes.Themost

frequentlyusedrationalefordefendingpageantsisthattheybuildself-

esteeminchildren,helpthemtoovercomeshyness,andteachthemhowto

growup(p.53).

Manytaketheseargumentsfurtherandpointtoevidencethatthoseinvolvedin pageants,andespeciallythosewhoexcelinthepageantculture,tendtobesuccess stories.Lovegrove(2002)echoesthesecommentscitingthatthecontestantsandtheir supporters“allhaveonethingincommon–adesiretowin.Thelureoffame,and perhapsofasmallfortune,atleastinproduct-sponsorshipterms,meansbigbusinessfor theorganizers”(p.5).Giroux(2000b)furtherstatesthatmanyseechildbeautypageants as“good,cleanentertainment”andtheydefendthem“fortheircivicvaluetothe community”(p.58).Cohenetal(1996)indicatethat“thebeautypageantisa fundamentallybourgeoisplayform:thewinnersgetmaterialgoodsintheformofmoney, trips,cars,scholarships,clothing,modelingcontracts,andsoon”(p.41).

Beautycontestsallowidealizedversionsoffemininitytobeactedoutonstagein acompetitionwhichawardsthewinnerwitha“royal”titleandacrown.Theyevoke passionateinterestandengagementwithpoliticalissuescentraltothelivesofbeauty contestants,sponsors,organizers,andaudiences–issuesthatfrequentlyhavenothing obvioustodowiththecompetitionitself.Bychoosinganindividualwhosedeportment, appearance,andstyleembodiesthevaluesandgoalsofanation,location,orgroup, beautycontestsexposethesesamevaluesandgoalstointerpretationandchallenge.

Thesecontroversiesinvolvewhatqualitiesshouldcountinacompetition,howwomen 157 shouldact,andwhattheoutcomemeans.Sincebeautypageantsshowcasevalues, concepts,andbehaviorthatexistatthecenterofagroup’ssenseofitselfandexhibit valuesofmorality,genderandplace,theybecomeastagewhereculturesandidentities aremadepublicandvisible(Cohenetal.,1996).

So,itseemsthatparentsandcontestantsenterthesepageantsforoneofseveral reasons.Itcouldbethefocusoursocietyplacesonwinnersandthedesiretobeseenas one.Itcouldresultfromclassissuesstemmingfromtheideathatthepageantmakes themsomekindofroyaltyandcouldmovethemfromlowerormiddleclasstotheupper crust.Itcouldbesothattheyhaveavisiblesignthattheymeasureuptothecultural definitionsofbeauty.Possibly,andtiedtothebeautyandclassissues,theparentsand thecontestantscouldseethepageantasavehicleforalaunchintostardomandfame.

Stillothersmayenterpageantsasawaytobuildself-esteemandself-worth,ortobecome anembodimentofavalueoridealasespousedbyagrouporlocale.Afewmay participateinpageantsasariteofpassage,somethingthatallgirlsofaparticularagedo inaparticulararea.Theevidencepointstoanyoftheabovereasons.

OpportunitiesofFutureSuccess

In SmilePretty ,onecontestantcomments,“Ithinkpageantscanopenalotof doorsforyou–itcanspeedupyourfuture.”Shegoesontosaythatshehasaspirations ofbecominganewsanchorandknowsthatherexperienceinpageantswillhelpopen doorsforherandprepareherforthisfield.Theideathatpageantsprovideaplatformfor futurecareersisfurtheredbyBrooke’sdadin PaintedBabies ,ashediscussesBrooke’s mother’scareerasamodelandtheaspirationsbothofthemhaveforBrooke’sfollowing inhermother’sfootsteps.Astheprettiestofthethreechildrentheyhave(theother 158 childrenarereferredtoonlybrieflyandarenotseenoncamera),Brookeisthelikely candidateforbecomingamodel,asherparentshope.

Asacareerplatform,pageantsareseenasastepintothemoreglamorousfieldsof work.Theparentsandgrandparentsofthechildrenfeaturedin PaintedBabies are staunchlymiddleclass,holdingjobsasbeauticians,housewives,firemen,andthelike.

Theydreamof“showbusinessjobs”(asAsia’smomdescribesit)fortheirdaughters– andtheyfocusonthemoneyandglitzofthepageants.Thegirlsin LivingDolls seemto begroomedforalifeofperformanceandappearance,asmuchisinvestedintheir clothing,appearance,modelingroutines,talentroutines,andsoforth.Ascareersgo, thesegirlsarebeinggroomedforperformancecareers–inonecapacityoranother.One justwondersiftheirdreamscometrue,oriftheybecomeimagesoftheiroverweight mothersinspandexorjerseyshortoutfitslivingdreamsthroughtheiryoungdaughters, hopingthistimethey“doitright”andlaunchthemintostardom.

LittleBeauties ,adocumentarycreatedbyandairedonVH1,couldhavehadan influenceonthecareersofthegirlsincludedintheirviewofchildpageants.Forthese contestantsandtheirfamilies,notorietyinthepageantrealmandinpopularculturein generalwasincreased.Asaresult,itiscertainlypossiblethattheirgoalsofhaving pageantorshowbusinesscareerswillhaveabetterchanceofbecomingreality.

Theopeningscenesof LittleMissSunshine ,theIndyandOscarwinningfilmof

2006,showOlive,apageantwanna-be,watchingthecrowingofMissAmericaand mimickingthemotionsandactionsofthewinner.Fromthis,andfromotheraspectsof thefilm,itisapparentthatOlivewantstobeconsideredawinner–anddoingwhatever thewomenwhowinMissAmericadoisastepinthatdirection.Herdreaminlife–and 159 forthemoment–istobeinthelimelight.Acareerinshowbusinessordancing(not exactlythetypehergrandfatherteaches!)orsomeotherperformanceareacertainly appealstoher.

Likewise,Monain Beautiful seeshergoalinlife–andthereforehercareer– becomingMissAmericanMiss.Shewantstheglitzandglamourassociatedwiththe pageantworldanddesiresajobthatwillallowhertoperformdutiesrequiredofa pageantqueen.Herwholelifeandpurposebecomesaperformance–notwhoshereally is,butwhosheimaginestheworld(ortheviewingpublic)wantsorexpectshertobe.

AlloftheseexamplesworktosupportGiroux’s(2000b)beliefthatpageantsprovide“a routetoget…kidsintolucrativecareerssuchasmodeling,ortowincollegescholarships, financialrewards,andotherprizes”(p.53).

PageantsasPlatformforFortuneandPrizes

Pageants,indeed,areplatformsforfortuneandprizes,asGiroux(2000b) suggests.Mypersonalexperienceasapageantcoordinator,pageantjudge,andpageant observerhasallowedmetoseethetiaras,trophies,savingsbonds,scholarships,donated gifts,jewelry,andotherprizesawardedtothewinnersandrunners-up.Andmany contestantsandtheirmotherstalkopenlyaboutthevastnumberofprizesandtheamount ofmoneyandsavingsbondswonasaresultofcompetition.Forthem,itisquantitymore sothanquality–butqualitydoesplayalargepart.ThisisfurtherevidencedbyBrooke’s commentin PaintedBabies ,“Weliketogowheremoneyandcarsare,becausewewant money,money,money.”Brooke’sgrandmothersupportsthisideaearlierinthe documentarybystating,“WehavemovedfromtheSaturdayNightSpecialstopageants withbiggerprizes.”Thefocus,forthem,isthemoneyandtheprizes–cars,tobe 160 specific.AndAsia’smotherandgrandmothermakeabigproductionoutofdiscussing thecarAsiahasalreadywonasaresultofhercompetition,inadditiontothethousands ofdollarsinprizemoney.

Thegirlsin SmilePretty discusstheprizesassociatedwithpageantparticipation, focusingmoreonthescholarshipmoneyandtheattentionthatboysoftenaffordthe winnersofpageants.Italsoseemsthatgirlswhospendtimeinthepageantworldare perceivedasbeingmoreattractivetoboys–aby-productthatisnotscoffedatbythe youngladies.Thelong-termfortuneaspectisechoedbythemothersin LivingDolls who seetheimportanceofgoalsettingandachievingsuccessinthefutureasaplatformfor fortuneandgoodthingsfortheirdaughters.Andthegirlsin LittleBeauties havechances towinhugecrowns(someofthemappeartobe3feettall),clothing,photographyshoots, modelingcontracts,prizemoney,andcars–allaspectsoffortunethatmovethe contestantandherfamilyupintheirperceivedsocialstatusandallowfortangible evidenceoftheirsuccessand“wealth.”

Inthemotionpictureandtelevisiondepictions,thisideaofpageantsasawayto increaseone’sfortuneisillustratedaswell.Monain Beautiful seesthosewhoare outwardlybeautifulandacceptedassuccessfulandrich,assheistryingtoovercomeher humbleandmodestbeginnings.Shetreasuresthecrowns,sashes,trophies,andawards shehasacquiredthroughpageantry,asshedisplaystheseinherbedroomeventhough sheisanadultwhoshouldhavemovedpastthis“displaying”stage.Shebecomesthe contestantandthe“proudMama”rolledintoone,sinceherownmotherisnotsupportive ofMona’spageantcareer. LittleMissSunshine ’sfocusonwinnersandwhatittakestobe awinnerallowsforthecontinuedideathatwinningapageantleadstofortune.Olive 161 desirestobeawinner–somethingsheknowsisprizedbyherfamily,dysfunctionalas theyare.Andwithbeingawinnerwillcomethecrown,thebanner,theaccolades,the trophies,andsomuchmore–inOlive’sperception.

EvenSuzanneSugarbakerstillhashertiaraandawardsfromherpageantdays– andshelivesthroughthefortuneandfameshegainedfromthisparticipation.Theshows thatcenteraroundherreturntothepageantsthatmadeher“famousinGeorgiaandinher ownmind”allowfortheviewertobetterunderstandhowthe DesigningWomen character isshapedbythispreviouscompetition.Andthedesireforhavingfortuneandfame associatedwithpageantparticipationbecomesthebasisforthedarkcomedyin Drop

DeadGorgeous ,asBeckyLeemanandhermotherwantalloftheawardsforBecky– evenresortingtokillingoffanycompetitiontoinsuretheprizesgotoBecky.Andthis ideaisnottoofaroffthecompetitivemark–numerousaccountsexistofparentswho workbyquestionablemeanstolessenthenumberofcompetitorsfortheirdaughtersin cheerleading,iceskating,gymnastics,andothercompetitiveevents.Thefocusthen movesfromwinningtohavetheintrinsicsatisfactionofdoingone’sbest,andbecomes winningtohaveallthe“trappings”tobeabletophysicallyshowothershowmuchofa winneranindividual(orone’sdaughter)is.Ironic,tosaytheleast!

PageantsasaTickettoStardom

Formanyparentsandcontestants,beingchosenthewinnerinabeautycontestis seenasthetickettostardom.In PinkThink ,LynnPeril(2002)commentsthatthe quickestwaytoarichhusbandandstardomashiswifeistobecometheidealbeauty–by usingthelatestproductsandadheringtothelatestfads.Beinginthepubliceyeiskey.

Giroux(1999,2000a,2000b,2002)atteststhisrepeatedlyashesaysthatthedesirefor 162 successandcelebrityarekeyinbecomingthebestkidontheblock.Parentsseetheneed tosuccessandpushtheirchildrenintothismodeinanattempttoseethemrisetofame andfortune.Mostoftenitisthemiddleclassparentswhospendfortunesonlessonsand chancesathavingthat“onebigbreak.”

ValerieWalkerdine(1997)commentsthat“fameisoneofthefewpromisesand hopesopentomanyofthese[middleclass]girls.Itisalsooneofthefewwaysthatthey canstopbeingaschoolgirl”(p.143).Thedesireforfame,andthepossibilityoffame thatrisesfrompageantparticipation,istheonethingthatcan“counterboringschool,itis thedreamofescape,offame.Escapeiswhattheworkingclassesaresold,fromholidays inMarbellatoHondacars”(p.157).Thedesireforthatonebigbreakthatwillvault themintostardomandtakethemawayfromthemiddleclassrealityiscertainlya drawingpointforsomepageantparticipants.CandaceSavage(1998)indicatesthatthe famemightbemoreinlinewiththeCinderellastory(ormorelikely,the“Fancy”story fromtheRebaMcIntyresong).Agirlneverknowswhomightbeintheaudience;a talentscoutormodelingagent,butifnotthat,thenapossiblerich,handsomehusband

(pp.50–51).

Tiedintothebeliefthatpageantsareavehiclethroughwhichtostartacareerorto gainfortuneistheideathatparticipationinruralchildbeautypageantsisanentranceinto alifeofstardom.Asia’smomin PaintedBabies discussesonnumerousoccasionsthe

“showbusiness”aspectofpageants.Shedrives500milesroundtriptwiceamonthto haveAsiaworkwithsingingandmodelingcoaches–asacrificeoftimeandmoneythat wouldnotbeworthitunlesstherewassomehopeofpayoffintheend.SinceAsia’s momhopesthatacareeronstageisinherdaughter’sfuture,pageantparticipationand 163 hoursofcoachingareinvestmentsinashowbizfuture.Brooke’sparentsalsoinvest muchinsingingandmodelingcoachesandlessonsandtheiraspirationsareforBrooketo haveamodelingcareermoresuccessfulthanhermother’s.In SmilePretty and Little

Beauties severalcontestants,mothersandgirlsrefertojudgesandpeopleintheaudience whopotentiallycouldgiveacontestanta“bigbreak”intoperformanceoracareeron stage.

Frommotionpicturestheideaofstardomcomingfrompageantparticipationis depictedagainandagain.Olivein LittleMissSunshine discussestheimportanceof beingconsidereda“winner”withhergrandfatherandherparents,assheseesbeinga

“star”onthepageantstageasastepintoaworldofwinners.Inaddition,sheworships thewinnersoftheMissAmericaPageant,watchingthecrowningscenesoverandover andmimickingtheexpressionsandmotionsofthevictors.Thisseemstobeaversionof

“stardom”forOliveandshelongsforthatstatus.ThisisalsothecaseforMonain

Beautiful assheseesbecomingMissAmericanMissasthepinnacleoflife–thatisthe ultimatestardomandsignofsuccess.ItistherethatMonafeelsshewillbea“star”– lovedandenviedbythosewhohaveshunnedherorwhoseloveandadorationshehas craved.EvenBeckyin DropDeadGorgeous seesbecomingqueenasasteptowards beingahometownstar–andAmbermakesreferencetothepageantasthewayforgirls toescapealifeofdoominMountRose.

PageantsasaTickettoClassMobility

Inreferencetoclassissuesastheyapplytoculture,DickHebdige(1979) commentsthat“wemustfirstconsiderhowpowerisdistributedinoursociety…wemust askwhichgroupsandclasseshavehowmuchsayindefining,ordering,andclassifying 164 thesocialworld”(p.14).Inthepageantculture,manyseeroyalty,thehighestclass,as thegroupthathasthelargestsayindefiningthesocialworld.Andwiththatview,they seethatwinninga“royaltitle”isasteptowardwieldingthepowerittakestochangethe world.JohnFiske(1998)continuesthisdiscussiononclassasheseesthat

theboundariesofworking-classexperienceoroffemaleexperienceleave

plentyofroomfordifferentinflections,foranyonepersonissubjectedto

awidevarietyofsocialdeterminations(p.81).

Inthisway,Fiskseesthatthedesireforclassmobilitymaybeinterpretedandis interpreteddifferentlyforeachfemalewhoparticipatesinthepageantculture.

Beinginapageantisseenasawaytomoveupintheworld.In DropDead

Gorgeous ,Amberlivesinatrailerparkwithhersinglemotherandworksasamakeup artistforcadaversinafuneralhome.Shesays,“GuysgetouttaMountRoseallthetime forhockeyscholarships…andprison.Butthepageant’skindamyonlychance.”Thatis, thepageantseemstobetheticketoutofalowclass,trailerparklife.Andthissentiment issharedwithSuzannein DesigningWomen ,assheoftenreferstothefactthatwhat allowedhertheopportunitytohaveseveralrichhusbandsandtheaccesstosomuch affluenceisherparticipationinpageantsandherbeingnamedasMissGeorgiaUS1975.

Itwashertickettostardom.EvenMonain Beautiful istryingtoescapeherlowclass, incestuoushomebybecomingMissAmericanMiss.

PageantsProvideWaytoLiveUptoSociety’sFocusonWinners

Societyplacesvalueuponwinnersinallaspectsoflife.Realitytelevisionisfull ofshowsthatfocusoncompetitionandwinning–andweareinundatedwithimagesof beingthebestatourjobs,havingthebesthouseorthebestvehicle,orthebestclothing 165 andmore.Beingthebest–beinga“winner”–isexceedinglyimportantinourculture.

Andthiscarriesovertotheworldofchildbeautypageants.Thecontestantsin Little

Beauties showthatitisimportanttohavetherighthair,makeup,andclothesinorderto beconsideredasuccessandtowinthecrownandtitles.Theparentsandgirlswho

“buck”thesystemanddonotfollowtheexamplesofthe“winners”donotdowell.For thesecompetitors,winningisindeedeverything.Andwithwinningcomesanincreased statuslevelinthepageantculture.

“Whenyoufinallygetthatcrownandtitle,youfeelreallygoodbecauseyou’re like,‘Wow!She’sreallyhardtocompeteagainstandIbeather.’It’snotjustcompetition.

Wewanttobeallasone,butwewanttobecompetitivemore,‘causethat’sthebasicfun ofitalso,”saysacontestantin SmilePretty .Thisgirlverbalizestheperceptionof winningandcompetitionthatsocietyimpressesuponyoungandoldalike.Althoughshe triestoincludethepoliticallycorrect“wewanttoincludeothersandbeasone,”she focusesinthebeginningandendofherstatementonthegloryandfeelingofgleethat comesfrombeatingsomeoneelseandbeingdeclaredthewinner.Thatisastrong incentiveforthosewhocompeteinpageants–thelureofbeingnamed“thewinner.”

In PaintedBabies and LivingDolls ,thegirlsandtheirparentsfocusonthe winningofbiggerandbiggerawards.Swan’smothercommentsthatcompetitionis healthyandgoodforSwan,andthatitisnodifferentfromsportingeventsorother childhoodcompetitions.Andsincesheisformermilitary,shetreatsSwan’spreparation forcompetitionasadrillsergeant,demandingperfectionandtellingSwanthatnothing lessthanthecrownwilldo.AsiaandBrooke’sparentsin PaintedBabies alsofocuson thecrown.Theywatchtapesofeachotherinordertoknowwhatcompetitionexistsand 166 inordertoplanstrategytodefeattheotherinthevariousdivisionsofthepageant.And whenAsiaisnamed“SupremeWinner”andBrookeisjustaqueeninheragedivision,

Brooke’smotherisquicktosaythatthejudgeswerenotfairandthecompetitionwasnot conductedcorrectly.Thereisnowaytheywilladmittoactuallylosing.Beingawinner isofparamountimportance.Societydoesnothavemuchofaplaceofthosewhoarenot first.

Society’sfocusonwinnersisalsoreflectedin LittleMissSunshine and Beautiful , aswellas DropDeadGorgeous .Olive’sfamilyin LittleMissSunshine isobsessedwith winning.Whenshelearnssheisabletogotothefinalsforthepageant,Oliveworries aloudaboutherchances.Herfatherasksher,“Doyoubelieveyouareawinner?Then youare…”Histhinkingisthatwinningisamatterofbelieving–butthepageantrealm squashesthatdreamreadily.Many–Idaresaymost–pageantmothersandfathers believethattheirdaughtershouldandwillwinanypageantentered.Buttherealityis thatonlyonegirlcanbenamedthewinnerofanydivision–thatisthenatureofthe competition.Sojustbelievingisonestepofmanytoachievethatgoal.AsFoucault’s theoryofdocilebodiesreflects,thebehaviorsthatleadtothedesiredresultsaretheones thattheindividualswillemploytobeaccepted.Andthosewhobecomepageantwinners learnthebehaviorsandtacticsdemandedbythepageantsystemsinordertoobtainthe titleandwearthecrown.AsiaandBrooke’sreviewingofeachothers’competitiontapes isevidenceofthis.

Andtofurtherthefocusonwinningasallimportantin LittleMissSunshine ,Olive tellshergrandfather,“Grandpa,Idon’twanttobealoserbecauseDaddyhateslosers.”

Shehaslearnedearlythatwinningisimportanttoeveryone,includingherparents.Olive 167 wantstowininordertomeasureupandbeworthyinherparents’eyes.BeckyLeeman in DropDeadGorgeous echoesthisideawhensherelatesanotewrittentoherbyher motherstating,“Jesusloveswinners.”AndMonain Beautiful goestoextremesto preventthosewhoarehermoststaunchcompetitionfromwinning,evenresortingto sabotagetoobtainthecrown.Winningisindeedeverythingtoher–soimportantthat shedeniesVanessaasherdaughterinordertobecomeMissAmericanMiss.Society’s pressureiscertainlypartofthepageantrealm.

PageantsProvideWaytoImproveSocialandEconomicStanding

Improvingsocialandeconomicstandingthroughwinningisanotherreason parentsentertheirdaughtersinpageants.Anditalsoprovidesevidenceforwhygirlsare interestedincompetinginpageantsaswell.Asonecontestantin SmilePretty states,

“Everybodystartschangingthroughmiddleschool.It’sjustapeerpressurething,to changefromwhatyouaretoagirl…”Inordertobeacceptedandtobepartofthe“in” group,girlsmuststartacting“likegirls.”Andwheredotheylearnbehaviorassociated with“girl-dom”?Popularculturesitesliketelevisionshows,movies,pageants, magazines,andmoreprovidedefinitionsof“girl”andwhatbehaviorsandmodesof appearancearedeemed“feminine.”Beinga“pageantgirl”solidifies,itwouldseem, one’splaceasagirlinsociety.

Pageantsalsoprovideawaytoensurethatagirlwillmoveupinsocialstatus.

Swan’smilitarymomin LivingDolls commentsthatSwan’spageantworkwillprovide herawayto“goplaces.”Swan’sbrother,incontrast,will“endupinjail”accordingto hismother.Hedoesnothaveanoutletforhisenergyandhasnotlearnedtoplaythe

“winning”game.Asaresult,hisfutureisdim.Swan,becauseofherpageant 168 participationorperhapsbecausehermotherlavishesattentiononherandignoresher siblings,isheadedforalifeofgoodthings,accordingtohermother.Thispouringof time,money,andattentiononthepageantchildinordertoimprovesocialoreconomic statusisalsoillustratedin LittleBeauties .Overweightmothersdressedinjerseyshorts ensemblesfawnovertheirdaughterswhoaredressedinvariousoutfitsembellishedwith spangles,sequins,crystals,andthelike–embellishmentsthatsymbolizemoneyandclass and“glamour”accordingtothemoms.

Asameansbywhichtomoveupinsocialstatusasanindividualorasafamily, pageantsworkinvariousways.ThecontestantsinLivingDolls spendmuchtime watchingvideosofotherwinnersorcontestantswhoconsistentlydowellinthepageants.

Thisteachesthemthebehaviors,dresscodes,hairstyles,modelingroutines,andmorethat areemployedbythosewhoaresuccessfulinthepageants.Oncetheyperfectthese aspectsofcompetition,thegirlsbecome“winners”inthepageantrealmandarerevered andemulatedbyothers.Thisaffordsthemahigher“socialstatus”amongthoseinthe pageantculture.Interestinglyenough,itseemsthateventhoughtheyhavethetrappings ofwinnersandtheexpensivewardrobesandthenumeroustiarasandtrophiesandshould havemovedtoahighersocialclassinreality,mostofthemremainaslowermiddleclass orlowerclassintherealsocialrealm.

Thisconceptofthepageantwinnerbeingsociallyhigherthanthosewhoare workingtowardsthecrownisfurtherdiscussedin PaintedBabies .Thejudgesand pageantcoordinatordiscussthewinnersasbeing“thetotalpackage”–beautiful,well- dressed,poised,confident,talented,andmore.AndtherivalrybetweenBrookewhois notaSupremeWinnerandAsiawhoiscrownedtheSupremeWinnersshowcasesthe 169 differenceinstatusassociatedwithtitlesandwinning.Theparents,however,seemfar moreconcernedwiththisdifferenceinsocialperception.

Tiedtotheimageofthepageantcultureisthedesireforsuccessandthecrown.

Inthemedia,weseethatthedesiretowinisthedrivingforce.Giroux(2000b)discusses theparentsofthecurrentgenerationwhoseethatiftheirchildrenarenotwinners,then theyarecompletelosers.Thereisthementalitythatifyouarenottheonewearingthe crownorcarryingthetitle,youjustaregoodenough.Nolongerisit,“Didyouhavefun,

Honey?”Nowitis,“Didyouwin?”Whatmessagedoesthissendtoyoungpeople?

Andwhyisitseenthattheremustbeawinnerinthesecontests–whyisimprovementor havingfunnotemphasized?Inherbook,Cohen(1996)statesthatthereisacorrelation betweenthosewhoaresuccessfulinpageantsandtheirinvolvementandsuccessat schoolandinextracurricular.Thedrivetobethebestcanbeseeninallthattheydo.

AngelaMcRobbie(1991)saystheculturethattellsgirlsthatbeingwinnersis whatisimportant,evenifthematerialsneededtoachievethelookofawinnerare“well- beyondthegirls’reachatthismoment”(p.109).Whatismostimperativeisthatthegirls beseenaswinners,bothinappearance,dress,andachievements.

Again,thiscanbeseeninthemedia.Monain Beautiful worksdiligentlytomake themoneytoenterinpageants–evenwithoutherparents’supportoracknowledgement.

Shetakesmodelingclassesandsabotagesotherswhoareseentobethreats.Sheeven hideshermotherhoodinanattempttoattaintheprizeandbeconsideredawinner.Weare overjoyedattheendwhenshebreaksoutofthisshallowshellandbecomesawomanof substance–onewhowilltakecontrolofherlifeandlivewhoshereallyisandnotlive 170 thelieofthebeautyqueen.Butitwasherdesiretobeconsideredawinnerthatledherto theplacewhereshecouldtakeastand.

In DropDeadGorgeous ,JamesBrewer(1999)saysthat“thepageantisnotabout beauty,butaboutwinning,andwinningbyanymeansnecessary”(p.2).BeckyLeeman alsoshowsusthisdesiretowinatallcostswhenshediscussesthegungiventoherby hermother.Shesaysthatthecardthataccompaniedthegiftread,“Jesusloveswinners.”

Thispointstothefactthatresortingtomurder(andthisisastretch-butcomestofruition inthemovie)isacceptableifyourgoaliswinning.AndSuzanneSugarbakerrepeatedly statesthattheonlypointinenteringapageantistowin–thereisnoneedtosocializeor playnice.Winningistheonlygoal.Whowantstobearunner-up?Thelikelihoodof fillingtheshoesofthewinnerifsheis“unabletoperformherdutiesasqueen”isa remoteasbeingstruckbytwice.

In LittleMissSunshine ,Olivediscussestheimportanceofwinningandbeing sociallyacceptablewithhergrandfather,stating,“Grandpa,Idon’twanttobealoser becauseDaddyhateslosers…”Whenherauntcallswith“goodnews”aboutOlive’s beingabletocompeteintheLittleMissSunshineregionalpageant,itisunderstoodthat participationinandwinningofthispageantwillcatapultOliveintoasocialstatusthat willbeacceptabletohersuccessobsessedparents.Andthisobsessionwithwinningso thatotherswillseethecontestantasgood,beautifulandworthknowingandemulatingis alsoillustratedbyMona’sactionsanddreamsin Beautiful .Beingawinnerandmakingit tothenationalfinalsofMissAmericanMissisofutmostimportancetoher.Sheeven wantsthelittledetailstobeperfect,likehavingtherightnumberoffamilymembers 171 sittinginher“section”sothatwhenthecamerapanstothemduringthepageantshewill havetheacceptablefamilyandperceivedlife.

PageantsElevateSocialStatusofFamily

Evenmorethanjustthecontestant’simprovedsocialstatus,thefamilyof contestantsoftengainimprovedsocialstatusfromtheirdaughter’sorsister’spageant participationandwinning.BeingmoreacceptedasanimmigranttoAmericaisasocial benefitforonecontestant’smotherin SmilePretty .Shestates,“Mymothergrewupin

China,soit’smuchdifferentfromAmerica.She’dneverseenlipstickbeforebutshe learnedwhenshecamehere–eyeshadow,eyeliner,moisturizer,thewholeregime…”

Andthisnewknowledgeputtouseinthepageantrealmgaveherthestatusofhavinga daughterwhometatrulyAmericanstandardofbeingbeautifulandaccepted,withthe trophies,titles,andtiarastoproveit.

Brooke’sgrandmotherin PaintedBabies focusesonpageantsthatoffermoney, cars,and“bigprizes.”Shespendsseveralminutesofthebeginningofthedocumentary explainingtheprocessbywhichtheydecidewhichpageantstodo–andthequalityand quantityofprizemoneyandawardsarethedecidingfactor.ShethenturnstoBrookeand says,“Grandmaneedsanewcar,baby.”Sothetrappingsthatcomewithwinning becomeimportant,andtheyimprovethelifestylesandperceptionsofthefamilyatlarge.

Thisfocusonwhatthegirlswhocompetecandofortheirfamiliesisalsoreflectedin

LivingDolls .Parentsfocusonwhattheyhavedonetoprepareforthepageantandrelish intheirdaughter’ssuccess.Manyofthemfalltothefloor,weepingandscreamingwhen theirchildwins,andseveralrushuptothestagetohugandkisstheirdaughter.This becomesevenmoreinterestingasastatusboosterfortheparentsandthefamilywhen 172 analysisofhowmanyofthesemothersandfathersareoverweightandunattractive.

Havingabeautifuldaughter–onewhohasbeenjudgedbyoutsideforcestobeso– seemsevenmoreimportanttothem.

In LittleBeauties manyofthecontestantsarefromthesouthernUnitedStates.

Forthesecontestants,certainpageantsandpageantsystemsareseenasworthyor“the ultimate,”asonemotherdescribesthem.Winningoneoftheseparticularpageants allowsforstatusamongmothersandfamilies.Adviceissoughtfromthemandother mothersanddaughterstrytoemulatetheirbehaviorsandmethods.Inaddition,their neighborsandotherswhotravelintheirsocialcirclesseemtobeinaweastheydiscuss recenttitleswonorpageantsattended.

ValerieWalkerdine(1998)pondersthesocialstatusaspectofpageantryaswell, asshesaysthatherdesiretobeonstageasachildstemmedfromherdesiretobe discoveredandwhiskedawaytoalifeofglamour,fame,andlove.Andinherbook,

ColleenCohen(1996)statesthatthegirlswhocompeteinthebeautypageantsacrossthe worldseethemtiedtosocialcharacteristicsandwaystoescapethelowerormiddleclass existencetheycurrentlyhold.Eventhehistoryofthebeautypageantitselfistiedtoa moveupinclassandstanding.NaomiWolf(1991)continuesthisdiscussionasshe relaysthefactthatworkingclasswomenhavelongknownoftheimportanceofbeautyin attainingjobsthatpaywellandthatofferchancesforadvancement.

PageantsProvideProofofBeauty

Fromheavymakeup,taped-upbosomsorfalsies,toclothingthatisnotnormally wornineveryday,theairofmake-believeisprevalentintheconstructionoftheperfect beauty.Girlsarenotwhattheyseem.ItremindsmeoftheinfomercialonSaturday 173 morningsthatdiscussestheuseofmakeupandthepropertechniquestocreateyourself intoabeauty–andthatopensthedoorforallthesuccessesthatlifecanoffer.Tiedtothe desiretomoveupwardinclassistheCinderelladesiretolooklikesomethingotherthan youare.Itisanewtwistontheoldgameofdressup.Andtheimagesseeninthemedia gotoprovethis.

AngelaMcRobbie(1991/2000)notesthattiedtothenotionoflookinggoodisthe expectationofbeing“treatedassomethingspecial,evenprecious.Beautylikethisisthe girl’spassporttohappinessandsuccess”(pp.103–104).Culturedetermineswhatis beautifulandyoungwomenareawarethatinordertobeseenasworthyofloveand affection,muchlesshappiness,onemustfittheimagesculturedictates.Pageantstake thisastepfurtherbyofferingatangibletokenthatletsthe“world”knowthatoneis desirableandbeautiful.Itwouldseemthatbeautywouldbeevidentandtherewouldbe noneedtohavetoearnatitletoshowthatoneisbeautiful.

Theobsessionwithbeingbeautifulandacceptedassuchisrepeatedinthevideos anddocumentaries–Olivein LittleMissSunshine andMonaandRubyin Beautiful watchthecrowningofwinnersoverandover.Italmostseemsthattherealmofbeauty androyaltyisaworldawayfromthemandtheylongforthattypeofrecognition.Thisis furtherevidencedbytheirlackofsophisticationandappearancethatmeasureuptothe

“beautiful”idealofthewomenandgirlswearingthecrownsinthetelevisionshowsand videostheyreview.Beingbeautifulinthewaysdefinedbythebeautypageantrealm becomesanobsessionwiththem.Iftheyareabletoearnthetitle,thentheywillprove notonlytothemselvesbutalsototheworldaroundthemthattheyarebeautiful,theyare winners,andtheyaredeservingofloveandacceptance. 174

PageantsOfferWaytoPlay“DressUp”andBeaPrincess

Oftenparentsexcusethisobsessionwithpageantsandtheexcessivenessofdress as“playingdressup.”Girlsseeminglyliveouttheirdreamsandfantasiesofbeing

“princesses”and“queens”onthepageantstage.Howmanytimeshavegirlsbeentold,

“Youlooklikeaprincess”whentheyhavebeendressedupintheirfinest?Inthe documentariesIreviewed,momsspentmuchtimeexplainingtothevideographersthe amountofmoneyspentoncostumesanddressesandtheimportanceoftheseitems.They discusstheclothinganddressingoftheirdaughtersasatypeof“dollplay.”The homosexualcouplein LivingDolls notonlyworkwiththeirdaughtertogetreadyfor pageants,buttheyalsodohairandmakeupforothercontestants.Astheydiscusstheir daughterandtheirclients,theyrepeatedlyrefertothemas“littledolls.”Pageants, accordingtotheseparentsandcoaches,thentakeontheairofbeingagameofdressup androleplay.Perhapsthatmakesthesuggestivenessofthegirls’dressandbehaviora littleeasiertoexcuse?

Thisideaofthebeautyaspectofthecompetitionseenasatypeof“make-believe” or“dressingupgame”isfurtheredbyAsia’smomin PaintedBabies .Sheconfidesthat shespendsinexcessof$3500ayearonAsia’swardrobe.Shelovinglyrevealsthe variousoutfits,referringtothemas“littleworksofart”astheyhavebeencustommade forAsia.Shespeaksofthemaslittle“dollclothes”–andshejustlovesdressingAsiain them.Infact,Asiaseemstoperceivethepageantsasadressupgame,asshelooks forwardtotheWesterncompetitionbecauseshelovestheWesterncostume.Asshedons theclothing,shegetsexcitedanddancesaroundandaround,statingthatshejustloves 175

“playinglikeacowgirl.”Thepageant,whilestilldictatingbeautynormsforthe contestants,becomesinnocuousbecauseitcanbeexcusedasa“play”activity.

Itisinterestingthatin LittleMissSunshine Olivedoesnotadheretothe“dress up”norms.Herdress,swimsuit,andtalentoutfitsarenottheexcessivetypesseenonthe othercontestants.Shewearsherhairinasimple,straightponytail,ordownwitha headband.Asaresultofherignoranceofthedressing“rules”(andperhapsthattalent routine!),OlivedoesnotdowellintheLittleMissSunshinepageant.

PageantsMakeWinnersHoldersofValuesorIdeals

Often,girlsenterpageantsinordertobeseenastheholderofcertainvaluesor ideals.CandaceSavage(1998)seesthatmanywinnersofearlytwentieth-century contestsrepresented

atypeofwomanhoodAmericaneeds–strong,red-blooded,ableto

shouldertheresponsibilitiesofhomemakingandmotherhood.Itisinher

typethatthehopeofthecountryrests.Intheverybestoffairytales,they

don’tsaythingslikethat(33).

Inthisweseethatthepageantcultureallowedayounggirltosurpasstheclassissueand evenfametobecomeaculturalicon–someonethatothersaspiredtobeandemulate.

Whatawonderfulroletofill!Savage(1998)goesontoindicatethatthewinnersof currentcontestsoftengoonto“becomeametaphorforeverythingandanythingthat couldbeconstructedasdesirable”(p.110)astheyareusedinthecommoditycultureto advertiseforthesponsorsoftheirtitles.Withina50mileradiusofmyhometown,there aretitlessuchas“MissWashpot,”“MissCatfish,”“MissRattlesnakeRoundup,”among others.Ineachofthesecontests,thequeenisrequiredtobea“spokesperson”forthe 176 eventandisseentoembodythevaluesofthepeoplewhocreateandmaintainthe festivalsthatprovidethepageants.

Manywhoparticipateinpageantshave“ahighprofileinhighschoolviaactive participationmanyactivities:sports,cheerleading,schoolclubsandpublications,youth groups,andsoon”(Cohenetal.,1996,p.33).Thesegirlsoftenareoutgoingandshowa commitmenttotheirschoolaswellastotheentitysponsoringthepageant.Inthislight, theyseemtoembodythevaluesforwhichthecontesttheyhavewonstands.Thisthen vaultsthequeentothestatusofbeingasignofsuccessandvaluesinherlocale.

PageantsProvideDefinitionofBeautyinTermsofRace

Anotherpartoftheconstructionofthebeautypageantcontestantconcernsrace.

Itseems,injustlookingatthemoviesandtelevisionshowImentioned,whitewomen weretheoneswhowerestereotypedasbeautypageantcontestants.Eventhosewomen whoweresuccessfulontheMissAmericaorMissUSAstagethatIrememberedfrom mychildhoodwere“white”looking.VanessaWilliamsisaprimeexample–asareHalle

Berryandscoresofwomenwhowerenot“White,Anglo-SaxonProtestant”whohave excelledonthepageantstage.Itseemsthat“whiteisright”whenitcomestobeinga winnerinthebeautypageantrealm.Mostallofthemaincharactersandcontestantsin thevideosanddocumentariesmentioned–Suzannein DesigningWomen ,Monain

Beautiful ,andAmberandBeckyin DropDeadGorgeous ,Olivein LittleMissSunshine , andmanyofthegirlsinthedocumentaries–areaswhiteaswhitegirlscanbe.Andeven thosegirlswhoplaytheothersinthepageants–theextrasandthecompetition–theyare allcharacteristicallywhite–whetherethnicornot. 177

Thegirlswhodowalkawaywiththecrownandtitlesofthepageantsoften becometheembodimentofculturalidealsinthepageantworld.Theblond-haired,blue- eyed,slenderbeautyseemstobetheidealforphysicalappearance.Thejudgesin

PaintedBabies commentthatattractivepeoplearethemoresuccessfulintheworld–and thisbeautyidealisperpetuatedthroughthepageantwinner.Sincepageantsseemtobea

“wayoflifeintheSouth,”accordingtothepageantannouncerin LivingDolls ,itisnot surprisingthattheappearancesofthelittlegirlswhoparticipateinthemaresimilar.

Eventheethnicgirls(African-American,Oriental,PacificIslander,etc.)appearsimilarto theCaucasian-lookingpageantideal.

Parentsbecomeobsessedwithhaircolor(manyhavetheirhairprofessionally colored),teeth(“flippers”aremadetofillingapsmadewhenbabyteetharelostor permanentteetharegrowingin),skin(girlsarespray-tannedandarenotallowedtoplay outsideorberoughbeforeapageant),andweight.In LittleMissSunshine ,Oliveorders wafflesalamodeatadiner,andischastisedbyherfatherforeatingicecream.Heasks

Olive,“IsMissAmericafatorskinny?”WhensherespondsthatMissAmericaisskinny, hethendiscussesthefactthatMissAmericaprobablydoesnoteaticecream.Therestof thefamilyishorrifiedathisdiscussionwithOliveandtheyencouragehertoeatand enjoytheicecreamaslittlegirlsarewanttodo.Butthepageantidealofasveltebodyis therealitywhenOlivearrivesatthehotelforthecompetition.Herpudgy,reallittlegirl bodyinherrealclothingstandsoutagainsttheslenderpageantgirlphysiquesdressedin figure-hugging,be-jeweledcostumes.

178

PageantsCreateMoralIdeals

Theidealscreatedbypageantsincludeotherthingsthanjustappearance,social statusandmodelingstyles.In Beautiful ,whoqualifiesasacontestantiscalledinto question.MissAmericanMissdoesnotallowmotherstocompeteinthepageant.Since

MonahashiddenherpregnancyanddaughterVanessa,revealingthissecretonstagein frontofastudioandtelevisionaudienceistroubling.Moralturpitude(whichwould includehavingachildoutofwed-lockinthecaseofMissAmericanMiss)isnot toleratedoracceptablebehaviorinmostpageantcompetitions.Contestantsmustsign waiversattestingtotheirbehaviorandmore.Inthisway,pageantsalsoprovideidealsfor the“perfectgirl”inrelationtomoralsandbehavior.

PageantsCreateBeautyIdeals

Butmostdefinitelypageantsprovidedefinitionsofbeauty.Contestantsoften embraceandendureuncomfortablethingsinthenameofbeauty.Hotrollers,tapedup bodyparts,heavymakeup,itchycostumes,painfulshoes,blisters,soremusclesfrom practicing,andsomuchmorecanmakepageantparticipationuncomfortable–andallof thesethingsworktomakethecontestant’sappearanceseemeffortlessandperfect.In

LivingDolls ,amakeupartistcommentsthat,“Icantakeanuglygirlandmakeher beautiful.”Fromthis,onecandeducethatitisnotnaturalbeautythatisofimportancein apageant;rather,itisconformingtotherequirementsandexpectationsestablishedbythe pageantthatdefineswhatisbeautifulandworthyofbeingnamedthebest.

In SmilePretty onecontestantadmits,“Prettymuchat12or13iswhenIdecided

Ineededtogrowupandbeagirl.”Itisinterestingthatshechosepageantsasthevehicle throughwhichtodevelopheridentityasagirl.Thedirectorofthepageantsfeaturedin 179

PaintedBabies statesthat,“Likeitornot,theworldrevolvesaroundbeauty”andshe seesthatthegirlschosenaswinnersinherpageantsmeasureuptothetitleof“beautiful.”

Forthisgroupofgirls,elaboratecostumes,exaggeratedhair,adultmakeupandspecific modelingroutinescombinetoequatebeauty.Andfortheparentsin PaintedBabies and

LivingDolls ,usinghaircoloringtoachievethedesiredblond,andflipperstomake smilesperfectand“showy,”andspray-ontanningtomakechildrenlooksun-kissedand notwashed-outunderthelightsisseenasacceptablebehavior.Beautyisnotnatural–it isacreatednotionforthesepageantsandinordertoachievethestatusofbeingbeautiful, onemustconform.ItiseerilyallusivetotheStepfordWives.Thesegirlsseemtoo perfecttobereal–and,infact,theyarenotwhattheyseem.Underallthegliltzand glamourandbighairandmakeuparelittlegirls.

PageantsAdultifyChildren

Theadultificationofchildrenintosexualbeautiesisalsopartofthisbeautymyth.

ImagesofJonBenetRamseycometomind–withhercoygrinandheradulthairand makeupmovingsuggestivelyacrossthestageinanadultgownpullingamask almostseductivelyacrosshersix-year-oldeyes.Sheisnotanadult,butherlooksand actionsseemtomakeherone.Thisisthefirstofmanyimagesoffalsificationand idealizedbeauty.Pageantsseemtobefullofthisdeception–andtheyaredependent uponitaswell.

Againandagainin SmilePretty thecontestantsspeakoftheextremestheygoto inordertosubmittothedefinitionofbeautygivenbythepageants.Thisismuchlikethe extremesadultwomengotoinordertomeetthedemandsofsociety–girdles,facelifts, liposuction,tummy-controlswimsuits,breastaugmentation…thelistisendless.Stating 180 that“ithurtstobebeautiful”and“Ican’tstandwearingalotofmakeup.Ihateit.But,I mean,you’vegotto…,”onecontestantdiscussesthewaysthatgirlsareexpectedto conformtothebeautyrequirements,waysthatareusuallyreservedforadultwomen.The useofmakeupandclothingtocreateillusionsofbeautyarecharacteristicallyadult.

Whatmessagedoesthissendtoyounggirls?Youcannotbeconsideredbeautifulanda girlunlessyouusedeceptionandillusiontocreatethesethings?Whatdoesthatdoto themastheygrowolderandattempttofindtheirnicheintherealworld?

PaintedBabies , LivingDolls , LittleBeauties , LittleMissSunshine ,and Beautiful alldepicttheadultificationoflittlegirlsthathappensonthepageantstage.Thehairstyles areelaborate,big,andusuallyseenongrownwomen.Themakeupisheavy, accentuatingtheeyesandlipswitheyeliner,fakeeyelashes,glitter,gloss,andred lipstick.Dressesarecustommadeoralteredtofitfiguresandtoaccentuatecertainareas

–andtheyarefullofspangles,cut-outs,sequins,rhinestones,andmore.Bathingsuits, usuallyassociatedwithpageantsforteenagersandadults,arereadilyfoundinchild beautypageantsandareoftenbikinis.Itisalsointerestingthatthehairstylesandmakeup areasexaggeratedforthebathingsuitcompetitionastheyarefortheotheraspectsof competition.

Talentisanotherareainwhichthesedocumentariesandmoviesagreein excessiveness.Girlsaredressedinsuggestivecostumes(onelittlegirlin LittleBeauties donsaVegasshowgirlcostumecompletewithheaddressandgyratesinasexualized dance)andoftensingofadultsituations.Asiain PaintedBabies sings“BillBailey”with facialexpressions,gestures,anddancestepsthatinsinuatetherelationshipbetweena womanandthemanshewantsdesperatelytoreturntoher.Theangstinhervoiceand 181 thedemandsofhermotherto“Comeon,baby…doit,girl”alludetoamuchmore maturemeaningtotheperformance.

Olive’stalentroutinein LittleMissSunshine ,thoughanintendedfarce,isactually aroutineperformedinastripclubandtaughttoOlivebyherirreverentgrandfather.Itis horrifyingtotheviewerthatagrandfatherwouldteachhisgranddaughterthesemoves, muchlessthatalittlegirlwouldperformsucharoutineinpublic.However,itisjustthis typeofadultbehaviorthatistaughtbyhigh-pricedtalentcoachesandmodeling instructorstolittlegirlsinthepageantworld.Theparentsofthesegirlsdiscussthe lengthstowhichtheygotohavethese“professionals”workwiththeirdaughtersto preparethemforcompetition.Andtheseparentsspendhoursmakingtheirdaughters practicetheseroutinesonmake-shiftstagesinspareroomsorbasementsintheirhouses.

Ironically,theparentsandpageantorganizersin LittleMissSunshine takeoffenseto

Olive’sroutine,eventhoughtheydonotquestiontheadultbehaviorandappearanceof theotherlittlegirlsinthebathingsuitcompetition,theeveninggowncompetition,or whenthefrighteningemceeserenadesthecontestants.

Giroux(2000b)expandsupontheadultificationofchildrenandthedeceptionin pageantryrepeatedlyin StealingInnocence .Hediscussesthepageantsofthe1970sin lightoftheRamseycase,citingthatparentswhohadchildreninthepageantsystem duringthe1970shadtheirdaughtersinappropriatedresses,notatalltheeroticized costumesthatarecommonplacetoday.Infact,myownsister-in-lawwasbiginthe pageantsceneduringthe1970sand1980s.Mymother-in-lawbelaborsthefactthatthe dressesandhairandmakeupthattheyusedwerenatural–notatalllikewhatispresently acceptable.Andthepicturesandvideostheyhaveattesttothisfact.Thefascination 182 withchildrenandtheeroticizationoftheminthemediaandpopularculturehascrossed thelineintotheworldofpageantry.Itwasinevitablethatitwoulddoso;anditisironic thatwearedoingourbesttochildifyadultwomenatthesametimeweadultifythe childrenamongstus.ValerieWalkerdine(1997)remarksonthisproblemaswell,stating

“popularportrayalsoflittlegirlsandpopularculture…engagethedebatesaboutthe specificallyclassedmeaningsthatenterintoconcernsaboutpopularportrayalsoflittle girlsandrelateparticularlytosexuality,eroticism,andinnocence”(139).Thischangein identityiscloselytiedtothepageantculture.Andthosewhodefendthisculturecitethe factthattheclothescanbechangedandthemakeupandhairwashedout,sothatthechild returns.Butwhatoftheandidentitythatarecreatedduringthetimeitisworn?

AccordingtoWalkerdine(1997)“manylittlegirlsandtheirfamilieshavewantedtotake partinmediapresentationsofgirlswhichare,inmanyways,highlyeroticized”(139).

Sohowdotheyjustifytheimageofadulthoodforthemomenttotheirdaughterswhoare notevenadolescents?

Popularculture,specificallythepageantstageinthemediadepictionsIviewed andinmyexperience,becomesaplacewheretoddlersandlittlegirlsbecomesexualized womencompletewiththehair,makeup,andclothing.Andthisisfurtherdevelopedwith alluringmodelingroutinesandtalentperformancestoentertainthejudgesandthe audience.AccordingtoAnnScott(1998)thisseductivenessisseenasaformofparental intrusion,inwhichchildrenareseducedintothefantasiesoftheirparents.Imighteven takeitastepfurtherandsaythatthepageantcultureseducesthemintothefantasiesofits cultureaswell.Thiscultureseemstoalsoprovidetheselittlegirlsasphereoflifethatis unlikeanywhereelse,arealmoutofreality.Andinthisrealm,theycanbeassexualas 183 theywantandexerciseatypeofpoweroveracrowdandothersthattheyhavehere-to- forenotexperienced.Perhapsthatispartoftheallureoftheadultificationofchildren.

Andperhapsthatiswhyparents,orsomeparents,arewillingtoallowtheirdaughtersto participate.Theyarelookingtogivethemtheskillstocompeteintheworld.What betterskillthanpowertoimpart?

In Beautiful ,Monaspendshundredsofdollarsonbraces,lessonsonmodelingand pageantry,andcostumesinherpursuitofherdream.Onstage,sheisnotatallthe gangly,ugly,self-centeredwomansheisoffthestage.And,inthecoupdegras,sheisa mother;afactthatshehidesinherquest.Sheisdefinitelysomethingotherthanwhatshe portrays.

PageantsAreVehiclesforDevelopingSelf-Esteem

Manywhoseektojustifypageantinvolvementcitethedevelopmentofself- esteeminthosewhocompete.Oftenitis“thelessonsinsociallifethe[pageant]cangive them–instructionsonpoise,onself-presentationandgoodgrooming,ongoodmanners, ongettingalongwithothermembersofasmall-townmiddleclass”(Cohenetal.,1996, p.34).Theselessonsworktogethertoimproveaparticipant’sself-esteem,itissaid.

Giroux(2000b)observesthiswithacriticaleye,stating

Self–esteeminthiscontextmeansembracingratherthancritically

challengingagendercodethatrewardslittlegirlsfortheirlooks,

submissiveness,andsexappeal.Coupledwiththewaysinwhichthe

broaderculture,throughtelevision,music,magazines,andadvertising,

consistentlybombardsyounggirlswithasexualizedidealoffemininity

fromwhichallthreateningelementshavebeenpurged,self-esteemoften 184

becomesaeuphemismforself-hatred,rigidgenderroles,and

powerlessness(p.55).

Thereisanironyinthefactthatself-esteembuildingisusedtodefendchildbeauty pageants,sincethepageantcultureprovidesstandardsofbeautyandsuccessthatonlya minisculenumberofparticipantswillactuallymeet.

PageantsInstillSkillsforCompetition

ParentsofthechildreninthedocumentariesIviewed,manyofwhomseemedto belowermiddleclassorlowerclassfromthedepictionsinthevideos,citedcompetition asahealthyandnecessaryskillfortheirdaughterstolearn.Fortheseparents,itseems thatlifeisfullofcompetitionandthosechildrenwholearnhowtomaneuverwithinthe realmofcompetitionwillbethesuccessorsinlife.Andthesocialskillsachildcan developfrompageantparticipationcanbeinvaluable.“It’sapageant.WhatelsedoI havetodobutwalkacrossastage?Itwasthehardestthing.Mystomachhurt.My shouldersweretightanditwasuncomfortable,”saysacontestantin SmilePretty .But thisgirllearnedtoadapttotherequirementstowintheprize.Thisisanincreasingly valuablesocialskillforgirlstodevelop,accordingtopageantparents.

Fortheseparents,itisimportantfortheirgirlstolearnhowtowinandtolose.

Anditseemsthatlearningtoreadtheunderlyingrulesandmessagesandconformingto themisanequallyvaluableskill.Thosepeoplewhocandothat,fromasocialclasspoint ofview,willbetheoneswhocanmoveupinthesocialrealm.Thisisaninvaluableskill forgirlstolearn.Thesegirlsalsolearnhowtoadapttheirroutinesandotheraspectsof competitiontothechangingtimerequirementsandentryrequirementsforthevarious 185 pageantsystems.Again,thesocialskillofadaptabilityiskey.“Achildwhosmilesand haspresenceisthechildwhowins,”remarksAsia’smomin PaintedBabies .

Learningtoplaythegamebecomesalifeskillalsoimpartedbypageantsand evidencedinthemakebelieveworldsofBeautiful and DropDeadGorgeous .Mona learnsto“playthegame”andhideherreallifefromothers.Sheisabletokeepothers fromlearningaboutherhorriblehomelifeand,mostimportantly,fromlearningabouther pregnancyanddaughter.Beingabletoshowthe“right”facetotheworldtoachievethe goalsshehassetforherselfandtomeettherequirementsofthepageantcultureisa remarkableskillforher.Itiswhathelpshereventuallylearntocastoffthefalseidentity andembracewhoshereallyis.AsGrandpatellsOlivein LittleMissSunshine ,“Areal loserissomeonewhodoesn’teventry.”

SuccessfulPageantGirlsOftenSeenasSuperficial

MostofthepeopleIdiscussedthispaperwithcommentedonthefactthatthey seemostofthesuccessfulpageantgirlsasback-bitingbitchesthatareonlyoutfor themselves.And,ifyouwatchthemoviesandseethedocumentaries,youwouldbein agreementwiththem.Mona’scharacterin Beautiful ,isbannedfromfuturecontestsin herhomecountyaftersheisaccusedofgluinganothercontestant’shandtoherfire-baton

(notwithstandingthefactthatthecontestantinquestionattemptedtosabotageMonain thepageantbydoingherexacttalentroutineandruiningMona’schancesatsuccess–it seemedlikeatruecaseof“what’sgoodforthegoose,isgoodforthegander.”).For thoseofuswatching,wethinknothingoutofcharacterforbeautyqueenstoactthisway.

Infact,Ihadheardforyearsthattherewereoftencasesofcontestantsandtheirmothers ruiningothers’dressesanddoinghorriblethingstothosegirlsperceivedtobeathreat. 186

ThisissowidelybelievedthatineverypageantIhaveeverdirectedorbeenapartof,itis necessaryandexpectedfortheretobesecurityforthedressingroomsand“hostesses”in alldressingroomsatalltimestomonitorwhathappens.Itseemsthatthelinesbetween realityandmediahavebeencrossed!

Thisideaofcontestantsortheirmothersbeing“bitches”andsuperficialisseenin manyotherinstances.In DropDeadGorgeous ,BeckyLeeman’smothercommentsthat theyare“Godfearingfolk”andyettheyresorttomurderinordertoassurethatany competitionthatBeckyhasiseradicatedbeforethepageanttoinsurehervictory.

SuzanneSugarbakerisonceheardtocommentthatsheneverenteredapageantinorder tomeetothergirlsandhavefun.Shecouldmeetgirlsanyoldtime.Shewastheretowin andshedidnotcareifanyonelikedher.Thatwasnotthepoint.Inadayandagewhere manypageantloyalscitetheabilitytomeetothersandbecomewell-rounded,themedia imageseemstodispelthisbelief.Sowhichisthereality?Orcoulditbeabitofboth?

PageantsCanBeRiteofPassage

Asmallgroupofpageantsupporterscitepageantsactingasariteofpassageasa reasonforparticipation.Inasocietythathasfewprofessionalsportsforwomen,andthat doesnotidolizefemaleathletesandcorporatemogulsinthesamemannerthatitdoes males,thereseemstobealackofritesofpassagetoindicatethatgirlshavemovedfrom childhoodtowomanhood.Insomeplaces,thepageantisseenasthis.Sincethe participantstendtosignifysocialchangesas“actedoutinritualperformancejustasthey areinpremodernsocieties”(Cohenetal.,1996,p.14),thepageantsbecomesitesthat indicateachangeofstatusfortheparticipant. 187

Highschoolhomecomingcontests,fairqueens,andthelikeoftenhaverulesthat statethatonlygirlsofacertainageorstatuscancompete.Anditisseenasimportantto holdthistitle,butitisalmostasimportanttobeapartofthegroupthatcompetesforthe crown.Involvementinthecontestmarksachangeinstatusofgirlsfromchildtoyoung woman,readytotakeontitlesandresponsibilities.

Inresearchingthereasonsforpageantparticipation,thosefoundinrealityand thosedepictedinthemedia,Icameuponthemany“pageantgirl”constructslistedabove.

Thesewereideasthataregenerallyputforthastruthinmoviesorcommercialsor televisionshows,andoftenwereproventrueintheexperiencesIhadasapageantcoach, pageantparticipant,andpageantcoordinator.

Conclusion

StuartHall(1996)statesthat“moderncultureisrelentlesslymaterialinits practicesandmodesofproduction”(p.233).Itiseasytoseethatthepageantsubculture usesmaterialmeansthroughwhichtocreateidealsofbeautyanddefinitionsofsuccess, winners,andfame.Youngwomenwhocompeteinthesecontestsandtheirfamiliesand supportersallarechangedandredefinedasaresultoftheirworkinginthisculture.Hall

(1996)seesthesymbolicrepresentationsinsociety,asthepageantculturecreates,asa wayfor

menandwomen[to]expressintheirpracticallivesnotonlywhatthey

needforexistencebussomesenseofwhotheyare.Oneshouldnotmiss

thedrivetotakepartorcomeoninthetheatreofthesocial–evenif,as

thingsstand,theonlystageprovidediswithinthe‘fetishizedspectacleof

thecommodity(p.235). 188

Thissymbolicrepresentationinsocietyisatypeofeducationfortheindividual.

Andeducationalworkisgroundedinculturalpoliticssinceitisinthe

realmofculturethatidentitiesareforged,citizenshipritesareenacted,and

possibilitiesaredevelopedfortranslatingactsofinterpretationintoforms

ofintervention.Pedagogyinthisdiscourseisaboutlinkingthe

constructionofknowledgetoissuesofethics,politics,andpower(Giroux,

1996,25).

Itisevidentthatthepageantcultureworksintherealmsofethics,politics,andpowerto educatethosewhoarepartofitscultureandeventhosewhoareawareofitsculture.

Thereismuchtobestudiedaboutthemotivationsforpageantparticipation,the waysthatpoweroperatesinthepageantcultureandinthelargerculturetoeducateyoung womenontheirplacesandidentitiesinlargersociety,thewaysinwhichpageantculture influenceshowparticipantsandothersviewthemselvesandtheworld,andtheinfluences thepageantculturehasonclassandmobility.Theimagesinthemedia,thecomments madebyculturaltheoristsofourtime,andtheactualspectacleofpageantsthemselvesall giveimmensefodderforstudyandresearch.

189

CHAPTER5

CONCLUSIONSANDDIRECTIONSFORFUTURESTUDY

Ihavereflectedonthevideos,documentaries,andmypersonalexperiencesand observationsaspartofthisresearchmanytimessinceIspenttimereviewingthemvia videotapeandpersonalrecollection.Additionally,Ihavespentcountlesshoursagonizing overtheproblems,patterns,andthemesreflectedintheexperiencesofgirlsandthe peopleinvolvedintheruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculture.Attimes,Itoohave yieldedtothefeelingsofbeingpowerlessandineffectualinthetaskofsortingoutthe diversecomplexitiesassociatedwithissuesofpageantparticipation.Duringperiodsof confusionandconsternationthepurposeandpower(andpowerlessness)demonstratedby thoseinvolved(girls,parents,andothersinvolvedintheruralSouthernchildbeauty pageantculture)inthisprojectencouragedmetocompletetheresearch.Ifound affirmationofmyfeelingsinthewritingsofFrank(2004),wherehestates

Ibelievewehavetodiscoverabodyinourwritingandwehavetoaspire

totellingthetruth,atleastatruth.Buttheculturalsenseoftruthdoesnot

requireanexplanationthatcountsasasolution;culturaltruthseestoo

manyperspectivestoaccepttheclosureofexplanation.Ifthisrejectionof

closurecanleaveusfeelingineffectualandpowerlessinthefaceof

complexity,wecanalsofeelwehavegainedpowertolookhardatthis

complexityandnotbeturnedtostone.Overcomingourinnatefearof

complexityisnotsmallthing.Wegainpowertoseewhatisandtosay

whatis(p.10). 190

Inwritingthisfinalchapter,Irejectapositionthatcallsforabsoluteclosure.

Frank(2004)saysthatthefutureisopentootherpossibilitiesandSmith(2005)continues thisthoughtwiththeunderstandingthatwearesearchingforchangesthatarewithinour reach.Lookingtothefutureofthisresearch,IamoptimisticbecauseIhavelearnedto moveaboveandawayfromthemediaviewedandthepersonalexperiencesand observationstofinddifferentwaysofdisruptingtheacceptedandtraditionalsuppositions byaddingthedifficultandunsettlingquestionsoftenignoredorsilenced.

Byembracingtheroleofabricoleurandthediverseandnumerousrolesthatare employedbyabricoleur,Iwasabletoaugmentandimprovemylearning.Themost valuablelessonslearnedinthisprocessweretheimportanceofreadingwidelyandthe allowancetomovebeyondselfimposedrestrictivemethodologyboundaries.Freedomin thiswayenabledmetomoveamongdiverseandoftencompetingparadigms,theresultof whichwastheabilitytobemoreopentoscholarlysupportfromotherresearchersin variousfieldswhosephilosophicalbeliefsfoundcommongroundwithmyresearch.

Endingthisparticularprojectismadepossiblebyenumeratingdifferent possibilitiesforfuturedirectionsforresearch.Asafinalchapter,thischapteridentifies opportunitiesforviewingmediaandfurtherresearchthatarewithinreach.Astheintent ofthiscriticaltheorybasedresearchwasemancipationfromusualconstraints,these possibilitiesforfuturestudiesandresearcharenotpresentedasasetofstructured strategiesthatcanbeemployedasa“fix”or“solution”totheproblemofpowerandthe constructionofgirlhoodfoundintheruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculture, especiallyasitisinfluencedbysocialclass.Whetherpageantcoordinators,media, pageantparticipants,andothersinthepageantculturechoosetoadopttheseopportunities 191 willbeuptothem.However,bymakingavailablealternatewaysofunderstandingrural

Southernchildbeautypageantcultureandgirlhoodculturemightstimulatethose involvedtoconsidertheirownwaysofdisruptingthestructuresofdisciplineintheir worlds.

Theboundariesofthisresearchprojectwereclearlydefinedfromtheoutsetand thestudy’spurposewastoexaminegirlhoodandtheconstructionofidentityinrelationto socialclassinthesubcultureoftheruralSouthernchildbeautypageant.Thisstudy employedmediaanalysisandstudytoexploretheconstructionsofrealityandmeaningas garneredfromvariousmoviesanddocumentaries.Researchwithinthesedefined boundariesallowedfortheraisingofnumerousquestions,butmanyofthesequestions wereleftunanswered.Asaresult,itisnoteasytobringclosure,inthetraditionalsense, tothisresearchduetotheidentificationofopportunitiesforfurtherresearchbeyondthe scopeofthestudyasoutlinedabove.

ChangeasaChoice

Whiletherewereobviouscommonthreadsthatemergedfromthedatareflecting mediadepictions,documentaryaccounts,andmypersonalobservationsfromrural

Southernchildbeautypageants,thereareclearlydifferencesinopinionthatneedtobe understoodifpowerasitoperatesinthiscultureistobestudied.Ratherthanfocusingon disparateissuesthatmayonlyleadtonegativesuppositions,mygoalistoofferdirection forenhancingunderstandingsofpowerasitoperatesinrelationtosocialstatusinthe creationofidentityforgirlswhoparticipateinruralSouthernchildbeautypageants.

Improvingtheunderstandingofpowerbythoseinvolvedinorganizingpageants,parents ofcontestants,observersandcontestantsthemselvesrequiresamultifacetedapproach. 192

Therefore,ideasforchangestopageantstructuresarealsoidentified.Parentsand contestantsdesiretopromoteindependenceandchoicewhilenotvisibleinthe conformitytopageantrulesthereflectionsandperceptionsseeninvideos,documentaries andobserverstothebarrierstoparticipation.Contestants,parents,andpageantobservers sharedtheirexperiencesthroughobservation,interviewsondocumentaries,and depictionsinvideosincludeddiscussionofpotentialstrategiesforovercomingbarriers andlearningskillstoimprovetheoutcomeofparticipatinginruralSouthernchildbeauty pageants.Thesestrategies,aswellaspossibilitiesuncoveredduringdataanalysis provideabasefortherecommendationsmadeforimprovingunderstandingofhowpower operatestocreateidentity.

AcknowledgmentofPowerOperations

Whilereviewingandexaminingtheinformationanddatacollected,Ibegantosee patternsofcontestantsandparentsstrugglingtounderstandthemeaningoftheir participationinruralSouthernchildbeautycontests.Inaddition,thisanalysisrevealed thatthecontestant’sandtheparents’perceptionsoftheirparticipationwaslimitedtotheir involvementaspartofthepageantspectacleanddidnotincludereferencetothepeople whowereinvolvedasvendors,judges,organizers,ordecisionmakersinothercapacities.

Observationofcontestantsandparentsincludedstudyingandquestioninghowtheycould beextendedtheabilitytounderstandtheirparticipationinthelargerscopeandinrelation tothewaysthatpowerwasoperatinginvariousmanners.Inreflectiononthis,Irealized thateducatingthoseinvolvedwouldhavetobeginwithspecificeducationalsessionsfor contestantsandtheirparentsthroughtheparticularpageantsystems.Thecreatorsofthe documentariesandthewritersofseveraldissertationsandpapers(Banet-Weiserand 193

Portwood-Stacer,2006;LalikandOliver,2005;Pannell,2004;Levey,2002;Gleick,

2001;andHilbolt-Stolley,1999)supportthisideathateducationofpoweroperationsin childbeautypageantsisawayofexposingcontestantsandparentstodifferentwaysof approachingparticipation.

Inidentifyingeducationasastartingpointforextendingunderstandingsof participation,questionsareraisedinrelationtohowthesesessionsmightbeorganized andwhatpractical/theoreticalcontentmightbeoffered.Pageantparticipationrequires engagementwithpeoplewhoknowtherulesofparticipationandholdthekeystosuccess inthepageantsystemsandparticipantsandtheirparentsneedtobeopentoforming relationshipswithsuchpeopleiftheydesiretosucceed.Itisthisholdingontothese centraltenantsofpageantparticipationthatisthebiggestchallengefacingpageant participantsandtheirparentsinthe21 st century.Weneedtoexaminepageant participation,practices,andpoliciestoensurethattheopportunitiesforpeopleinvolved indecisionmaking,modesofcompetitionandchoicearemaximized.Allowingfor partnershipstodevelopbetweenparticipantsandthosewhorunthepageantsystemsisa prioritytobesalvagedagainsttheoddsofdominantpageantpracticesandinstitutional spaces.Itisofconcernthatacknowledgementofpowerandidentityconstructionare seenascentraltenetsinpageantparticipation,butthisphilosophyhasbeenlostina culturewhichplacesbeautyandpageantdiscoursesinadominantpositionrelativeto powerandidentityformingpractices.

Afocusonconformingtopageantrequirementsandpracticesisvisibleinpageant systemsthatoccuracrossthecountry.Iamnotsuggestingthatweabolishcurrent pageantsystemsandpracticesthatensuregirlsandtheirparentsarepreparedto 194 adequatelyandskillfullycompeteinallaspectsofcompetition.Rather,Isupport recommendationsthathavecomefromthethemesandobservationsmadewhile conductingthisresearch,whichsuggestthatknowledgerelatedtounderstandingthe meaningofparticipationneedstobepartoftheorientationandcommunicationbetween theparticipants,theirparents,andpageantcoordinators.Basedonfindingsfromthis research,thesegroupsneeddevelopmentoverseveralareas.First,thereneedstobea definitionofthemeaningofparticipationinruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsfroma perspectiveofthecontestantsandthosewhoareviewingthepageants.Thiswouldallow foradialoguetobegintodevelopthatwouldbemoreevenlymatchedthancurrently exists.Thiswouldalsoallowforthosewhoarecontestantstobetterunderstandtheways thattheyholdpowerinthecultureofchildbeautypageants.

Secondly,thereneedstobeawaytoprovideforcontestantsandtheirfamiliesto engageinopportunitiesforpromotingindependenceandchoiceinthechildpageant realm.Thiswouldgivethemgreaterpowerinthedialogueandcultureandwouldinsure thatthedevelopmentofidentitywouldnotbesolelyshapedbythepageantculture,but wouldhaveinputfromtheparentsandcontestantsaswell.Thiswouldcertainlyallow foranddemandtheirvoicesintheprocess.

Thirdly,theremustexistthepromotionofinformationexchangewhichinvolves communicationthatincludeslisteningtotheviewsofthecontestantsconformingto definitionsofbeautyandacceptability.Thismightrequirehavingpageantsystemsbegin toholdquestionandanswersessionstoallowforcontestants,judges,audiencemembers, familymembers,andotherstocomeandvoicetheirconcernsandhaveinformation disseminated.Havingaforumlikethisprovidedforallthepartieswouldcontinuethe 195 dialogueandinsurethatpowerwouldpossiblybemoreevenlydispersedamongthose involved.Thiswouldalsoallowforthevoicesofthoseoftensilenced(namely,the contestants)tobeheard,iftherewerethedevelopmentofaforumthatrequiredthe contestantstobeaskedcertainquestionsandrequiredthattheirresponsesbelistenedto withrespectandbegivenproperattention.

Finally,thereshouldbeunderstandingofhowcertainpageantrequirementsand practicespreventcontestantsandtheirparentsfrombeingawareofthewayspoweris operatingtocreateidentity.Oftenthosewhoparticipateinthepageantculturedoso withoutfullyunderstandingthecultureitself.Bybeinginvolvedindiscussionslikethose listedabove,orbybeingrequiredbypageantsponsorstositdownone-on-oneand discusstheimplicationsofpageantinvolvement,bothfinanciallyandpsychologically,on theirfamilies,thosewhoareinvolvedinthepageantculturewouldhaveamuchbetter understandingofthewaysthatpowerworksintheculturetocreateidentity.Itisonly throughtheseandothermethodsofopeningdialogueandbringingothersintothe conversationwitheducationthatpowercanbesharedmoreequallyinthebeautypageant realm.

Conversationsandeducationaldiscussionsneedtofocusonchallengingtakenfor grantedassumptionsthatgirlsandtheirparentsinruralSouthernchildbeautypageants prefertotakeapassiverole.Thereisaneedtoadvocatestrategiesforcreating relationshipsbasedonlisteningandprovidinginformation.Pageantcoordinators,judges, andothersinvolvedinthecreationandcontinuationofpageantsystemsneedtobe exposedtoknowledgethatraisestheirawarenessofhowworkingtoatimetablethat focusesoncompletingasetofrequirementsratherthanindividualcyclesmarginalizes 196 girlsandtheirfamiliesfrombeinginvolvedinthepracticesthatdefinewhotheyareas girlsandasfemininechildren.

Ratherthandevelopingforumsordiscussiongroupsthatfocusonprescribing pageantactionsinarulegovernedapproach,learningactivitiesneedtoprovidepageant coordinators,judges,andothersinvolvedinthecreationandcontinuationofpageant systemswithaforumwheretheycanidentifytheparticipatorypracticesthatarespecific totheirpageantsystemsbasedoninclusionandchoice.Thisapproachsupportsthe performanceofskillsandroutinesbasedonacombinationofthinkinganddoing.

Exposingpageantcoordinatorsandalltoanunderstandingofthebarrierstoparticipation shouldenablethemtocomeforwardwithideasofhowtoovercomestructuresthatinhibit girls’andtheirparents’acknowledgementofthewaypoweroperatestodefinetheir identities.Perhapsinaworkshopstylesettingpageantcoordinators,judges,andothers involvedneedtohaveaccesstoresearchthatdemonstrateshowvulnerable,andtherefore passive,girlsandtheirparentscanbecomeinpageantenvironments.

Providingforumsforpageantcreatorstoreflectontakenforgrantedwaysof practicewillprovideopportunitiesforcontinuedidentificationofnewdirectionsfor pageantorganizationandpractices.Pageantorganizersinvolvedinworkshopsorganized andcreatedbythoseinvolvedwillbeabletocreateanopendialoguewithpageant participantsandtheirparents.Theseworkshopscanprovideaforumwherebestpractices andbarriersrelatedtoformingpartnershiprelationshipscanbediscussed.Workshops engagingpageantcoordinatorsandthelikeandpageantparticipantsandtheirparents couldbeachievedifindividualpageantsystemsadoptedthisprocessasameansof raisingawarenessandindentifyingpowerandidentityformingstrategies.Collaborative 197 processesacknowledgethatpowerrelationsexistandprovidesomestrategiestoaddress theseissuesinapositiveway.Commitment,creativity,andsupportfrompageant organizersandothersarerequiredtochallengeexistingdisciplinarystructures.

CausingChangeinStructuresofDiscipline

Creatingopportunitiesforpageantcoordinatorsandpageantparticipantsandtheir parentstoextendtheirknowledgeofparticipationwithoutaccompanyingchangesto pageantsystemsmaynotnecessarilyleadtochangesinpractice.Disruptingexisting disciplinarypatternsofpracticewarrantsseveralapproachestochangeandrequires flexibilityandunderstandingbythepowersthatcreateandoperatethepageantsystems.

Allowingpageantcoordinatorstofindtimeforworkshopsforanddiscussionswith pageantparticipantsrequiresresources,skillsinconversationandnegotiation,anda supportivemethodoftimeandpageantmanagement.

Pageantsystemsneedtochangeinwaysthatwillencouragegirlsandtheir familiestounderstandthewaysthatidentityiscreatedinrelationtosocialclassandthat willalsoencouragepageantcoordinatorsandotherstounderstandthefar-reaching ramificationsofprovidingdefinitionsofbeautythatarebasedonfalseappearances.

Thereneedstobeachangeinpageantculturesothatpageantcoordinatorswillseethe needandwilldesiretomakethenecessarychangestotheirsystems.Thispossible changetothepageantrealmwillbedifficultanditisimperativethatrecognitionof pageantsystemsresistanttothesechangesoccur.However,appropriateleadershipcould overcometheseissues.

Pageantcoordinators,judges,andothersinvolvedinpageantoperationsneedto reviewcurrentpoliciesandprocedureswithaviewofbringingthemintolinewiththe 198 goalsofthegirlswhoarecontestantsinthesepageantsandwiththeirparents.And examinationofthesepoliciesneedstobeconsideredinlightoftheidentifiedreasonsfor pageantparticipationandtheimplicationsforidentitydevelopmentforthesegirls,as thereisaresponsibilityforthosewhocreateandoperatechildbeautypageantsinrelation toimplementingconsumerparticipationpractices.Participationpracticesneedtomove beyondrhetoricdocumentedinresearchreportstoembracestructuredprogramsthat followthroughwithactualplanstoacknowledgethepowerstructuresthatoperatewithin thechildbeautypageantculture;identityformationasaresultofbeautystandardsand idealsisagoodstartingpoint.

Thisethnographywasconfinedtovideosanddocumentariesonchildbeauty pageantsandtomyownpersonalpageantparticipationandobservation.Therefore, knowledgeofruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculturewasgainedthroughcareful, repeatedviewingofvideosanddocumentariesandthroughcarefuldocumentationof observationsandexperiencesofmyownpageantworkfromatheoreticalperspective.

ThereisaneedforanexaminationofspecificindividualruralSouthernchildbeauty pageantstoidentifyorganizationalchangethatmayleadtochangingprocessesthatresult inpromotingacknowledgmentofpoweroperationsandidentityformationforgirlsin relationtosocio-economicbackground.Forexample,theapplicationandparticipation processespriortotheactualpageantcompetitionareworthyofexaminationwithaview tointroducingcontestantsandtheirparentstopartnershippracticesattheirinitialpointof involvementwithapageantsystem.Applicationandpageantprotocolreinforcedocility throughdisciplineandauthoritativebehaviorandstaffotherthanpageantofficialsmight alsobenefitfromeducationrelatedtocontestantparticipationbeyondcustomerservice 199 techniques.Thereseemtobe“gatekeepers”presentinmanypageantsystemsviewed andstudied.These“gatekeepers”worktoinsurethatthe“right”contestantsmakeitto thecompetitions.ThistermresonateswithFoucault’sunderstandingofdisciplinary techniquesandilluminatesthatprocessesbeyondapplicationandpageantprotocolneed tochange.

FutureResearch

Thistheoreticalanalysisandstudyofchildbeautypageantmoviesand documentariesandpersonalobservationsandexperiencespavesthewayforfuture possibilities,throughboththerecognitionofapproachesthatmightleadtogirlsbetter understandingthewaysthatcultureimpactstheiridentityandbybringingtolight opportunitiesforfurtherresearch.WorkingfromaFoucaultianbackground,powerand knowledgearerelatedonamostintimatelevel(Foucault,1977).

MillerandFox(2004)warnthataswearesearching(orresearching)fortruths, wemustacknowledgethedominantdiscoursesthatarelimitersofunderstandingofsocial reality.Andinworkingwithtruths,wemustnotbecomeimmobilizedbythecomplexity, butratherweshouldgainpowerincontinuingtosearchfortruths(Frank,2004).Inthe beautypageantworld,discursivepractices(dominantregimes)regulatetheinstitutionof pageantryandproduceapowerfulculture.Asaresult,thereisaneedtooutlinefuture researchprogramswhichfocusonuncoveringvaryingunderstandingsthatcomefromthe exposingofdominantdiscoursesthatconstrainourviewoftheworldwelivein.

Confiningmyvisiontohowwecanmakegirlsawareofthewaysthatpower operatesinruralSouthernchildbeautypageantcultureisnotgoodenough.Theconcept ofbeautyasadefinitionofsuccessandsomuchmoreneedstobeexplored.This 200 necessitatesamovebeyondfocusingofthephysicalaspectsandpsychologicalaspectsof ruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculturetotheofteninvisible,assumed,ortakenfor grantedconstructionsofwhatchildbeautypageantparticipationisbelievedtobe.Girls donotoftenfitintoaplacethathasbeensetuparounddiscoursesofeconomyand efficiency;therefore,theyareoftencategorizedasnotbelongingorbeingdifficultto manageincertainsocialsettings.Inadvocatingchage,theremustbeashiftinfocus from“girlsconformingtotherulesofpageantparticipation”toacknowledgementof powerasitoperatesinrelationtogirl’sidentityformationinconjunctionwithsocial class.

Smith(2005)speaksoflookingbeyondthefrontlineofpowerbyarguingthat questionsneedtobeasked,requiringustodelvedeepertoidentifyhowpoweris organized.Whilethisresearchidentifiedthatmanydifferentreasonsweregivenforwhy parentsandgirlsenteredintochildbeautypageantandthesereasonshadenormous impactonthegirlsandtheirparents,knowledgeofhowtomakechangesforthesegirls andtheirparentsaswellasforthepageantcoordinatorsthemselvestochangetheways poweroperatesatanculturallevelwaslimited.Developingaculturalethnographyina ruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsettingwouldallowforobservationofthissub- cultureoutsidetheconfinesofthemediaandtheoreticalenvironmentsinwhichthis researchwasconducted.Institutional,traditionalandculturalethnographywould examinerecords,policies,processes,andindividualstoidentifyhowspecificpageant systemsarecontrolledfromoutsideandinsideforces(Smith,1999).

Thisresearchspecificallyfocusedonexploringthewaysthatpoweroperatedin ruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculturetocreategirlhoodidentityinrelationtosocio- 201 economicstatus.Ididnotexamineviewsorideasofpeopleoutsidethiscontext.Ialso completedthisresearchinatheoreticalrealm,relyingonmediadepictioninvideos, documentaries,andtelevisionshowsconcerningchildbeautypageantsandonmy personalreflectionsandobservationsfrommypageantparticipationandorganization experience.FurtherresearchembracingotherareasofparticipationinruralSouthern childbeautypageantsiscrucialifthewayspoweroperatestodefinegirlhoodidentityin relationtootheraspectsofculturearetoberealized.Furtherethnographicstudiesor researchembracingindividualexperiences,participantobservation,questionnaires, interviewsandmoreneedstobecarriedoutatvariousruralchildbeautypageants.

Studiescouldbeextendedtoincludetheroleofthefamilyinthenetworkofpageant participation.Projectsthatincludeotherindividualsinvolvedingirl’spageant participationwouldbeinvaluableasthisresearchdidnotfullyordirectlyembracethe viewsofjudges,audiencemembers,extendedfamilymembers,opponentsandothers.A programofparticipatoryresearchispossiblewhichwouldprovidesmallandlarger projectsthatcouldbecombinedtodeliveraholisticpictureofthiskeypoweroperation.

Extendingresearchinthisareawouldprovidecleardirectionalstrategiestoguide partnershippracticesinpageantcultures.

Ihavealsoidentifiedotherimportantissuesthatareworthyoffurtherexploration.

Parentswhoentertheirdaughtersintochildbeautypageantsoftendosoinordertoteach themskillstosucceedintheworld,toteachthemwaystohandlecompetitionand winningandlosing,andtoteachthempoiseandconfidence.Theparentswhodothisare oftenfromlowerclasstolowermiddleclasssocio-economicstatusandseethisas impartingvaluablelessonsandknowledgetotheirdaughters.Thesamecouldbesaidfor 202 parentswhoenrolltheirchildreninenrichmentcoursesorothereducationalsituationsto teachskillsforsuccess.Astudyoftheseclassesandpageantswouldbeinterestingand informativeinlightoftheimpactonsuccessforthechildrenaswellasimpactonsocio- economicstatusandsocialstatusfortheparentsandthechild.

Oftenparentsseetheopportunityforfame,fortune,orstardomasaresultoftheir daughters’participationinchildbeautypageants.Thislower-classmindsetisseenin variousothersocialandcompetitiveenvironmentsforchildren.Astudyofhowparents useotheravenuesforfuturesuccessfortheirchildrenwouldbeinterestinginlightof childbeautypageants.ThismightincludeLittleLeague,DixieYouthbaseball,soccer, gymnastics,softball,dance,golf,tennis,performingarts,martialarts,4-H,andsomany more.

Formanyofthegirlswhocompeteandsucceedinchildbeautypageants,thereis alsoastrongcorrelationwithsuccessfortheminclassroomandextra-curricular activities.Astudyonthiscorrelationwouldbevaluable,especiallytodetermineifthe successinpageantsisaresultofsuccessintheclassroomandotherareas,orifsuccessin theclassroomandotherareasisaresultofskillslearnedfromthechildbeautypageant stage.Oristherearelationshipbetweenthedisciplineandpracticeforoneontheother.

Ofteninmyobservationatactualpageantsandintheviewingofthevideosand documentariesofchildbeautypageants,itisinterestingthatthemothersofthegirlsare overweightandunattractive.Astudyintothelivesofthesemothers–theirpast experiencesinpageantsandtheirphysicalappearancebeforehavingchildren–wouldbe fascinating.Researchingthereasonstheybelievetheirdaughtersneedtocompeteand 203 thepossibilityoftheirlivingvicariouslythroughtheirdaughterswouldbevaluableto ascertain.

Evermoreprevalentontelevisiontodayarebeautypageantrealityshows.Most specifically InstantBeautyPageant ontheStyleChannel, TheSwan onnetwork television,andothersonMTVandVH1providedivergentviewsonthebeautypageant culture.Astudyofthemessagesandimpactsofthemediainthisgenrewouldprovide muchforthosewhostudypopularcultureanditsinfluenceonviewersandcultureat large.

Inasimilarlight,astudyofrealitytelevisionshowsthatfocusonbeautyand appearanceinconjunctionwithtalent,ability,orpublicperformancewouldalsoprovide fascinatingresearchandfindings.Anotablefocuswouldbetherelationshipbetween socio-economicstatusandthosewhocompeteandthosewhodowell.Itwouldalsobe interestingtofocusonthephysicalattractivenessandappearanceofthosewhosucceedin theseprograms.Amongthoseprogramsthatwouldbeofinteresttostudywouldbe

AmericanIdol , America’sGotTalent , SoYouThinkYouCanDance ,and American

Inventor .

Thesearejustafewofthepossibleresearchprojectsthatstemfromtheresearch anddialoguecreatedfromstudyinggirlhoodinrelationtotheruralSouthernchildbeauty pageantculture.Muchmorecallstobestudiedandotherswillcertainlybeinspiredto followotherresearchdirections.

ReflectionsonFindings

InDecember2003Isetoutwiththepurposeofmeetingthreebroadresearch aims,workingwithspecificvideos,documentaries,andpersonalexperiencesand 204 observationsoftheruralSouthernchildbeautypageant.Inreviewingthesevarious mediums,itbecameapparentthatdevelopingadialoguebetweenthepageant coordinatorsandpageantparticipantswouldimprovethewaysthatpoweroperatesinthe pageantculturetocreategirlhoodidentityinrelationtosocio-economicstatus.This wouldinvolveunderstandingthecomplexityofwhatparticipationmeanstopeopleinthe childbeautypageantcultureaswellasknowinghowthepageantcoordinatorsandothers facilitatedthisconcept.AsIbringclosuretothefinalchapterofthisdissertationIreflect onthoseaimsandaskiftheoriginalquestionsoutlinedwereanswered.

Myfirstaimwastocharacterizethewaysthatpoweroperatesintherural

Southernchildbeautypageantsubcultureinrelationtomediaandsocio-economicstatus.

Initialexaminationofdataraisedconsiderableconcernascontestantsandparents appearedunabletoarticulateclearlyinthevideosanddocumentariesviewedwhat pageantparticipationmeanttothem.Earlyentriesintomypersonaljournalreflectmy strugglewithuncoveringthemeaningofthedata.AsIlistenedtoandviewed(and reviewed)themedia,itbecamequiteclearthatthroughthedescriptionsofwhatwerenot reasonsforparticipationinruralSouthernchildbeautypageants,determinationofwhat wassurfaced.Iamnowconfidentthatfortheindividualsviewedinthevideosand documentariesandfortheindividualswithwhomIwasinvolvedduringmypageant organizationandparticipantdays,pageantinvolvementmeansawaytoimproveand movebeyondthecurrenteconomicstatusofthecontestantandherfamily.

Thesecondaimwastoidentifywhatinspiresentryintoabeautypageantforagirl orfortheparentsofagirl.Italsoconcerneddiscoveringacorrelationbetweenthemedia representationofwhygirlsenterpageantsandthereasonsstatedbyparticipantsin 205 relationtosocio-economicstatus.Thisaimwasreflecteduponatlengthpriorto commencingvideoreviewanddocumentationandanextensivereviewoftheliterature supportedmydecisiontoadoptacriticalmethodologythroughabricolage.Barriers discussedbyothersinrelationtomediareviewdirectedconsiderablejudgmentandblame tocontestantsbeingpassiveandpageantofficialsforbeingoblivioustothewaysthat theyimpactgirlhoodidentity.Iwantedtomovebeyondtheselimitingdominant discourses.Theemergenceoftimeassuchapredominantbarrierwasunexpectedanda criticalFoucaultianframeworkhasprovidedotherwaysofseeingthisscarceresource.

Importantly,Foucault’s(1977)understandingofpower/knowledgeanddisciplinary techniqueshaveraisedquestionsinrelationtothebeliefthatgirlswhoarecontestantsin ruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsandtheirparentspreferapassiveroleintheways poweroperatestocreategirlhoodidentityinthepageantrealm.Barrierstomanipulation ofbeautyidealsandrequirementsinruralSouthernchildbeautypageantcultureinvolve anetworkofdisciplinarystructuresthatcreatedocilebehaviorandpeopleinthese pageantsystemsadoptvariousstrategiestoovercometheseconstrainingforces.

Mythirdaimwastoidentifywhatdichotomiesexistinthepageantsubculture.

Thereismuchweassumeabouttherelationshipbetweenrepresentationandthe“real” whenconsideringbeautypageantsandbeautypageantcontestantsandthereare numerouswaysinwhichthegirlparticipants(ortheirparents)inruralbeautypageants reconcilethefactthattheyarebothrewardedandvictimizedthoughttheadultificationof girls.Fromtheoutset,Iwasdeterminedthatthisresearchwouldhavethepotentialto makeadifferencetopeopleinvolvedintheruralSouthernchildbeautypageantculture.

Criticaltheorysupportedmyemancipatoryintentandprovidingtestablestrategiesis 206 articulatedthroughopportunitiesforfurtherresearchandexampleofapproachesthatcan beadoptedtochangepractice.Iembracedapraxisapproachwhicharguesfora relationshipbetweentheoryandpracticeandstrategiesforimprovingawarenessofpower asitoperatesinthechildbeautypageantculture.Changingpracticeandbelievingin emancipationwasinfluencedbythewisdomofDorothySmithwhochallengesallofus toidentifychangesthatarewithinourreach.

FinalThoughts

DominantregimesoftruthregulateruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsystems producingpowerfulcultures(ManiasandStreet,2000).Thesedominantdiscourses privilegeonetruthoveroraboveanother,andcansilentlyinfluenceourunderstandings aswearetemptedtoaccepteconomictruth,ratherthanpowerandthewaysthatitcan operatetocreateidentity.Similarlyinaninstitutionthatissetuptodeterminebeauty andacceptabilityandwinners,judgesandpageantcoordinators’opinionsareoften privilegedorvaluedmorehighlythanthosewhoarecontestants.

Adoptingtheroleofresearcherasbricoleurguidedmethroughthemany methodologicalstagesrelatedtothisdissertation.Maintainingthevisionofcreatinga bridgeorquilthasenabledmetoweavemultipletruthsthroughthisresearch.Usingthe metaphorofaquilthashelpedmegraspthemanycomplexissuesrelatedtoparticipation inruralSouthernchildbeautypageants.Toviewasituationfromonepositionwould resultinseeingonlyonepatternordiscourseinsteadofmany.AsItakeastepbackand viewthiscompletedresearchproject,thestoriesofthosegirlsandtheirparentswhowere depictedinthevideosanddocumentariesandinmymemoryarereflectedinthetext,and 207 soarethestoriesofthepageantcoordinators,judges,andothersinvolvedinthepageant realm.

Myintentionwasnottoprivilegeonesetofperspectivesoveranotherandmy voiceisveryvisible.Iamthenarratorresponsibleforweavingthethemesgatheredfrom myrepeatedviewingsofmediaandmyobservationsandexperiencestogether.These storiesarereflectedinthethemesinterwovenwiththemanythreadsofacritical frameworkresultingindifferentwaysofseeingthesamestories.Dependingonthe positiononeadopts,thisdissertation,likemanypatternedquilts,canlookquitedifferent fromotheranglesandtheendresultcaninvolvealternativeviews.Ianticipatethatthe quiltmetaphorwillhelpotherswhoaretroubledbydifferentperspectivestounderstand thatparticipationinruralSouthernchildbeautypageantsinamultifaceted,complex conceptinfluencedbyanetworkofconstrainingstructures.

Iwouldliketothinkthatonedayverysoonwecanaddresstheseconstraining structuresandacknowledgetheforcesofpowerthatworktodefinegirlhoodwithinthe childbeautypageantinstitution.Ibelievethatthrougheducationthosewhocoordinate, judge,andorganizechildbeautypageantscanpromoteindependenceandchoicein definingidentityforgirls,actingasfacilitatorsratherthanexpertsinmanagingtime tablesandrulesdrivenbyinstitutionalanddisciplinarystructures.

208

REFERENCES

Acoff,L.(1995).Culturalfeminismversuspoststructuralism:Theidentitycrisisin

feministtheory.InR.TongandN.Tuano(Eds.). FeminismandPhilosophy .

Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Agger,B.(1991).Criticaltheorypoststructuralismpostmodernism:Theirsociological

relevance. AnnualReviewSociology ,17,105-131.

Agger,B.(1992). Culturalstudiesascriticaltheory .NewYork:FalmerPress.

Agger,B.(2002).Criticaltheory,poststructuralism,postmodernism:Theirsociological

relevance.RetrievedNovember1,2003from

http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/agger2.htm .

Alloway,N.(1995). Foundationstones:Theconstructionofgenderinearlychildhood.

Carlton:CurriculumCorporation.

Angen,M.(2000).Pearls,pith,andprovocation:Evaluatinginterpretiveinquiry:

Reviewingthevaliditydebateandopeningthedialogue. QualitativeHealth

Research ,10(3),378-395.

Aronowitz,S.(1993). RolloverBeethoven .Indianapolis,IN:Wesleyan.

Atkinson,P.,Coffey,A.,Delamont,S.,Loftland,J.andLoftland,L.(2001).Editorial

Introduction.InAtkinson,P.,Coffey,A.,Delamont,S.,Loftland,J.andLoftland,

L.(Eds.). HandbookofEthnography .London:Sage.

Baldwin,E.etal.(1999).Resistanceandtransgression.In IntroducingCulturalStudies .

UK:PrenticeHall. 209

Banet-Weiser,S.(1995). Crowningidentities:Performingnationalism,femininity,and

raceinUnitedStatesbeautypageants .SanDiego,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,

SanDiego.

Banet-Weiser,S.(1999). Themostbeautifulgirlintheworld:Beautypageantsand

nationalidentity .Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Banet-Weiser,S.andPortwood-Stacer,L.(2006).“IJustWanttoBeMeAgain!:”

Beautypageants,realitytelevisionandpost-feminism. FeministTheory ,7(2),

255-272.

Barker,C.&Galasinski,D.(2001). Culturalstudiesanddiscourseanalysis:Adialogue

onlanguageandidentity .London:Sage.

Bartky,S.L.(1990). Femininityanddomination:Studiesinthephenomenologyof

oppression .NewYork:Routledge.

Bell,E.,Haas,L.,&Sells,L.(Eds.).(1995). FromMousetoMermaid:Thepoliticsof

film,gender,andculture .Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.

Berger,B.(1995). Anessayonculture:Symbolicstructureandsocialstructure .

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Blumer,H.(1969). Symbolicinteractionism:Perspectiveandmethod .NewJersey:

PrenticeHall.

Bontekoe,R.(1996). Dimensionsofthehermeneuticcircle .AtlanticHighlands,NJ:

HumanitiesPress.

Bordo,S.(1993). Unbearableweight:Feminism,westernculture,andthebody .

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. 210

Boyd,E.B.(2000). Southernbeauty:PerformingfemininityinanAmericanregion .

Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasatAustin.

Brewer,D.(2000). Ethnography .Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Brewer,J.(1999).ThebeautypageantandotheruglyAmericanphenomena–winningby

anymeansnecessary. WorldSocialistWebSite. RetrievedApril22,2003,from

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/drop-a07_prn.shtml .

Bryer,M.L.(2003). Representingthenation:Pinups,Playboy,pageantsandracial

politics,1945–1966 .Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesota.

Butler,J.(1990). Gendertrouble:Feminismandthesubversionofidentity .NewYork:

Routledge.

Butler,J.,andScott,J.(Eds.).(1994). Feministstheorizethepolitical .NewYork:

Routledge.

Cannella,G.S.andKincheloe,J.L.(Eds.).(2002). Kidworld:Childhoodstudies,global

perspectives,andeducation .NewYork:PeterLang.

Caputo,J.(1987). Radicalhermeneutics:Repetition,deconstruction,andthehermeneutic

project .Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.

Caelli,K.,Ray,C.,andMill,J.(2003).Clearasmud:Towardgreaterclarityingeneric

research. InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods .2(2).

Carspeken,P.(1996). Criticalethnographyineducationresearch:Atheoreticaland

practicalguide .NewYork:Routledge.

Chambers,E.(2000).Appliedethnography.InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.).

Handbookofqualitativeresearch .London:SagePublications. 211

Code,L.(1991). Whatcansheknow?Feministtheoryandtheconstructionofknowledge.

Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

Code,L.,Mullett,S.,andOverall,C.(1988).Editors’introduction.InL.Code,S.

Mullett,andC.Overall(Eds.). Dialogueanddeconstruction:TheGadamer-

Derridaencounter .NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Coffey,A.(1999). Theethnographicselffieldworkandtherepresentationofidentity .

London:SagePublications.

Cohen,C.B.,Wilk,R.,&Stoeltje,B.(Eds.).(1996). Beautyqueensontheglobalstage:

Gender,contests,andpower .NewYork:Rutledge.

Corrigan,P.&Frith,S.(1975).Thepoliticsofyouthculture.In ResistanceThrough

Rituals:YouthSubculturesinPostwarBritain .London:Hutchinson.

CouzensHoy,D.(1986).Power,repression,progress:Foucault,Lukes,andtheFrankfurt

School.InD.CouzensHoy(Ed.). Foucault:Acriticalreader .Cambridge:Basil

Blackwell.

Crotty,M.(1998). Thefoundationofsocialresearchmeaningandperspectiveinsocial

research .St.Leonards,NSW:AllenandUnwin.

Cross,G.(2004). Thecuteandthecool:WondrousInnocenceandmodernAmerican

children’sculture .NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Cutcliffe,J.andMcKenna,H.(2004).Expertqualitativeresearchersuseofaudittrails.

JournalofAdvancedNursing ,42(2),126-135.

Danaher,G.,Schirato,T.,andWebb,J.(2000). UnderstandingFoucault .St.Leonards:

AllenandUnwin. 212

DeLauretis,T.(1987). Technologiesofgender:Essaysontheory,film,andfiction .

Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

DeLauretis,T.(1986). Feministstudies/criticalstudies .Bloomington:Indiana

UniversityPress.

Denzin,N.(1992). Symbolicinteractionismandculturalstudies .Oxford:Basil

Blackwell.

Denzin,N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S.(1994).Introduction:Enteringthefieldofqualitative

research.InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.).Handbookofqualitativeresearch .

ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Denzin,N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S.(1998).Enteringthefieldofqualitativeresearch.InN.

DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.). Collectingandinterpretingqualitativematerials .

ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Denzin,N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S.(2000).Introduction:Thedisciplineandpracticeof

qualitativeresearch.InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.). Handbookofqualitative

research(2 nd edition) .ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Denzin,N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S.(2003).Thedisciplineandpracticeofqualitative

research.InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.). Strategiesofqualitativeinquiry .

ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Derrida,J.(1989).ThreequestionstoHans-GeorgGadamer.InMichelfelder,D.P.and

Palmer,R.E.(Eds.). Dialogueanddeconstruction:TheGadamer-Derrida

encounter (pp.52-54).NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. 213

Dick,A.(2002). MissAmerica:Antiqueremnantorsociety’smirror .Documented

Argument.RetrievedMarch22,2003,from

http://www.goshen.edu/~alisonmd/miss%20america.htm

Dimitriadis,G.(2001). Performingidentity/performingculture:hiphopastext,

pedagogy,andlivedpractice .NewYork:PeterLang.

Dreyfus,H.andRabinow,P.(1982). MichelFoucault:Beyondstructuralismand

hermeneutics .Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Edgeworth,M.(1730).InS.ManlyTheWorksofMariaEdgeworth (Vol.11).London:

PickeringandChatto.

Eisner,E.W.(1998). Theenlightenedeye:Qualitativeinquiryandtheenhancementof

educationalpractice .UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill.

Ellis,C.andFlaherty,M.G.(Eds.).(1992). Investigatingsubjectivity:Researchonlived

experience .NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Emden,C.,Hancock,H.,Schubert,S.,andDarbyshire,P.(2001).Awebofintrigue:The

searchforqualityinqualitativeresearch. NurseEducationalPractice ,1,204–

211.

Felski,R.(2000). Doingtime:Feministtheoryandpostmodernculture .NewYork:New

YorkUniversityPress.

Fetterman,D.(2000). Ethnographystepbystep .ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Fine,M.&Macpherson,P.(1992).Overdinner:Feminismandadolescentfemalebodies.

InM.Fine(Ed.). Disruptivevoices:Thepossibilitiesoffeministresearch .Ann

Arbor,MI:TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Fiske,J.(1987/1993/1998). TelevisionCulture. NewYork:Methuen. 214

Foley,B.K.(2004).Imageasidentity:Beautycontestantsandexoticdancersas

merchantsofmorality.Ph.D.dissertation,BrownUniversity,UnitedStates–

RhodeIsland.

Foucault,M.(1972a). Thearcheologyofknowledge (Am.M.SheridanSmith,Trans.).

NewYork:PantheonBooks.

Foucault,M.(1972b). Power/Knowledge:Selectedinterviewsandotherwritings .New

York:PantheonBooks.

Foucault,M.(1977). Disciplineandpunish:Thebirthoftheprison .TranslatedbyAlan

Sheridan.NewYork:PantheonBooks.

Foucault,M.(1980). Power/Knowledge:Selectedinterviewsandotherwritings,1972–

1977 .NewYork:Pantheon.

Foucault,M.(1994). TheOrderofThings .NewYork:RandomHouse.

Frank,A.(2004).Aftermethods,thestory:Fromincongruitytotruthinqualitative

research. QualitativeHealthResearch ,14(x),1–11.

Fraser,N.(1989). Unrulypractices:Power,discourse,andgenderincontemporary

socialtheory. Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Freire,P.(1972). Pedagogyoftheoppressed .Hammondsworth:Penguin.

Freire,P.(1974). Pedagogyoftheoppressed .NewYork:TheSeaburyPress.

Gadamer,H.G.(1976). Philosophicalhermeneutics .(DavidE.Linge,Ed.&Trans.).

Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Gadamer,H.G.(1990a).Thehermeneuticalproblem.InOrmiston,G.andSchrift,A.

(Eds.). Thehermeneutictradition:FromAsttoRicouer. (pp.273-297).New

York:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. 215

Gadamer,H.G.(1992).Interview:Writingandthelivingvoice.InMisgeld,D.and

Nicholson,G.(Eds.). Hans-GeorgGadameroneducation,poetry,andhistory

(pp.63–71).NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Gadamer,H.G.(1993). TruthandMethod .NewYork:Continuum.(Originalwork

published1960).

Gadamer,H.G.(1996). Truthandmethod (2 nd rev.ed.).TranslatedbyWeinsheimer,J.

andMarshall,D.NewYork:Continuum.

Gardiner,M.(1999).Bakhtinandthemetaphoricsofperception.InHeywood,I.and

Sandywell,B.(Eds.). Interpretingvisualculture:Explorationsinthe

hermeneuticsofthevisual (pp.51–71).London:Routledge.

Geertz,C.(1973).Thickdescription:Towardaninterpretivetheoryofculture.In The

interpretationofculture (pp.3–30).NewYork:BasicBooks.

Genet,J.(1967)Thethief’sjournal.QuotedinD.Hebdige(1979/2002). Subculture:The

meaningofstyle. NewYork:Routledge.

Giroux,H.(2002). Breakingintothemovies:Filmandthecultureofpolitics .Malden,

MA:Blackwell.

Giroux,H.(2003). Theabandonedgeneration:Democracybeyondthecultureoffear .

NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.

Giroux,H.(1994). Disturbingpleasures:Learningpopularculture .NewYork:Rutledge.

Giroux,H.(2000a). Impureacts:Thepracticalpoliticsofculturalstudies .NewYork:

Routledge.

Giroux,H.(1996).Isthereaplaceforculturalstudiesincollegesofeducation?InH.

Giroux,C.Lankshear,P.McLaren,&M.Peters(Eds.). Counternarratives: 216

CulturalStudiesandCriticalPedagogiesinPostmodernSpaces .NewYork:

Routledge.

Giroux,H.(1997,Summer).Rewritingthediscourseofracialidentity:Towardsa

pedagogyandpoliticsofwhiteness. HarvardEducationalReview 67(2):285–

320.

Giroux,H.(2000b/2001). Stealinginnocence:Youth,corporatepower,andthepoliticsof

culture .NewYork:Palgrave.

Giroux,H.(1999). Themousethatroared:Disneyandtheendofinnocence .NewYork:

Rowman&Littlefield.

Gleick,E.andBooth,C.(1997).Playingatpageants. Time ,149(3),48-50.

Gordon,D.(1988).Writingculture,writingfeminism:Thepoeticsandpoliticsof

experimentalethnography. Inscriptions 3.4:726.

Gordon,M.&Nachbar,J.(1980). Currentsofwarmlife:PopularcultureinAmerican

highereducation. BowlingGreen,OH:BowlingGreenUniversityPopularPress.

Green,M.(1995). Releasingtheimagination:Essaysoneducation,theartsandsocial

change .SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Grossberg,L.,Nelson,C.,&Treichler,P.(Eds.).(1992). Culturalstudies .NewYork:

Routledge.

Grossberg,L.,Nelson,C.,andTreichler,P.(1992).Culturalstudies:Anintroduction.In

L.Grossberg,C.Nelson,andP.Treichler(Eds.). Culturalstudies .NewYork:

Routledge. 217

Guiling,S.F.(2000). Differencesbetweenpreadolescentfemalebeautypageant

participantsandnonparticipantsoneatingbehaviorsandbodyimage .

Mississippi:MississippiStateUniversity.

Habermas,J.(1987).Somequestionsconcerningthetheoryofpower:Foucaultagain.In

PhilosophicalDiscourseofModernityCambridge:Polityinassociationwith

BasilBlackwell .

Hall,S.etal.(1980). Culture,Media,Language:Workingpapersinculturalstudies,

1972–1979 .London:Hutchinson.

Hall,S.,andduGay,P.(Eds.).(1996). Questionsofculturalidentity .London:Sage

Publications.

Hammersley,M.(1992). What’swrongwithethnography .NewYork:Routledge.

Hammersley,M.andAtkinson,P.(1995). Ethnography:Principlesinpractice (2 nd ed.).

London:Routledge.

Haraway,D.(1991).Situatedknowledges:Thesciencequestioninfeminismandthe

privilegeofpartialperspective.InHaraway,D. Simians,cyborgs,andwomen (pp.

138–163).Ithica,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Harding,S.(1991). Whosescience?Whoseknowledge?Thinkingfromwomen’slives .

Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Hebdige,D.(1979/2002). Subculture:Themeaningofstyle. NewYork:Routledge.

Heidegger,M.(1996). Beingandtime:AtranslationofSeinundzeit .(J.Stambaugh,

trans.).NewYork:SUNY.(Originalworkpublishedin1927)

Hekman,S.(1990). Genderandknowledge:Elementsofapostmodernfeminism. Boston:

NortheasternUniversityPress. 218

Heltsley,M.(2003).FromlollipopstoLolita:Themakingofthepageantchild.Ph.D.

dissertation,SouthernIllinoisUniversityatCarbondale,UnitedStates.

Heylighen,F.(1993).Epistemology,introduction.PrincipiaCybernetica.Availableat:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html .

Hilboldt-Stolley,L.(1999).Prettybabies. GoodHousekeeping ,228(2),102-110.

Janssen,D.F.(2006). GirlhoodStudies:Abibliographicexploration .RetrievedJanuary

5,2007,from http://www.growingupsexually.tk .

Jardine,D.(1992).Reflectionsoneducation,hermeneutics,andambiguity:Hermeneutics

asarestoringoflifetoitsoriginaldifficulty.InPinar,W.F.andReynolds,W.

M.(Eds.). Understandingcurriculumasaphenomenologicalanddeconstructed

text (pp.116–130).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Jardine,D.(1999). Todwellwithaboundlessheart:Essaysoncurriculumtheory,

hermeneuticsandtheecologicalimagination .NewYork:PeterLang.

Kearney,R.(2003). Strangers,Gods,andmonsters:Interpretingotherness .London:

Routledge.

Kellner,D.(1995). Mediaculture,culturalstudies,identityandpolitics:Betweenthe

modernandthepostmodern .NewYork:Routledge.

Kincheloe,J.andMcLaren,P.(1994).Rethinkingcriticaltheoryandqualitativeresearch.

InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.). HandbookofQualitativeResearch .Thousand

Oaks,CA:SagePublications.

Kincheloe,J.andMcLaren,P.(2000).Rethinkingcriticaltheoryandqualitativeresearch.

InN.DenzinandY.Lincoln(Eds.). HandbookofQualitativeResearch .Thousand

Oaks,CA:SagePublications. 219

Kincheloe,J.L.&Berry,K.S.(2004). Rigourandcomplexityineducationalresearch:

Conceptualizingthebricolage. NewYork:OpenUniversityPress.

King,D.W.(Ed.).(2000). Bodypoliticsandthefictionaldouble .Bloomington,IN:

IndianaUniversityPress.

Lalik,R.andOliver,K.(2005).“Thebeautywalk”asasocialspaceformessagesabout

thefemalebody:Towardtransformativecollaboration.InP.BettisandN.Adams

(Eds.) Geographiesofgirlhood:Identitiesin-between .Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence

ErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Latham,A.J.(1995).Packagingwoman:Theconcurrentriseofbeautypageants,public

bathing,andotherperformancesoffemale“nudity.” JournalofPopularCulture ,

29(3),149-167.

Lather,P.(1991). Gettingsmart:Feministresearchandpedagogywith/inthe

postmodern .NewYork:Routledge.

Lather,P.(1991).Deconstructing/deconstructiveinquiry:Thepoliticsofknowingand

beingknown. EducationalTheory ,41(2):153-173.

Lather,P.(1992).Criticalframesineducationalresearch:Feministandpoststructural

perspectives. TheoryintoPractice ,31(2):87–99.

Lather,P.(1992).Post-criticalpedagogies:Afeministreading.InC.Luke&J.Gore

(Eds.). Feminismsandcriticalpedagogy, NewYork:Routledge.

Lather,P.(1993).Fertileobsession:Validityafterpoststructuralism. Sociological

Quarterly 34:673–693. 220

Lather,P.(2001).Postmodernism,post-structuralism,andpost(critical)ethnography:Of

ruins,aporias,andangels.InP.Atkinson,A.Coffey,S.Delamont,J.Loflandand

L.Loftland(Eds.). Handbookofethnography .London:SagePublications.

Lesko,N.(1996).Thecurriculumofthebody:LessonsfromaCatholichighschool.In

Roman,L.,Christian-Smith,L.,Ellsworth,E.(Eds.) BecomingFeminine:The

PoliticsofPopularCulture .London:FalmerPress.

Levey,H.L.(2002).Thecultureandhistoryofchildbeautypageants:Who,how,and

whymothersanddaughtersparticipate.M.Phil.Mastersthesis,Harvard

University,UnitedStates.

Levi-Strauss,C.(1962). Thesavagemind .Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Lipsitz,G.(1990). Timepassages:CollectivememoryandAmericanpopularculture .

Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Lovegrove,K.(2002). Pageant:Thebeautycontest. NewYork:teNeues.

Lowe,M.A.(2004). Lookinggood:Collegewomenandbodyimage,1875–1930 .

Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Maginnis,T.M.(1991). Fashionshows,stripshows,andbeautypageants:Thetheatreof

thefeminineideal .Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgia.

Manias,E.andStreet,A.(2000).PossibilitiesforcriticaltheoryandFoucault’swork:A

toolboxapproach. NursingInquiry ,12,412-421.

Martusewicz,R.(1992).Mappingtheterrainofthepost-modernsubject:

Poststructuralismandtheeducatedwoman.InW.Pinar&W.Reynolds(Eds.).

UnderstandingCurriculumasaDeconstructedText . 221

Mazzarella,S.R.&Pecora,N.O.(Eds.).(1999). Growingupgirls:Popularcultureand

theconstructionofidentity .NewYork:PeterLang.

McHoul,A.andGrace,W.(1993). AFoucaultprimer:Discourse,powerandthe

subject .NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

McLeod,J.(2000).Qualitativeresearchasbricolage.PresentedJune22,2000atthe

SocietyforPsychotherapyResearchAnnualConference .Chicago.

McRobbie,A.andGarber,J.(1976).Girlsandsubcultures.InS.HallandT.Jefferson,

ResistancethroughRituals ,London:Routledge.

McRobbie,A.(1991/2000). FeminismandYouthCulture .NewYork:Routledge.

McRobbie,A.(1999). Intheculturesociety:Art,fashionandpopularculture .New

York:Routledge.

McRobbie,A.(1994). Postmodernismandpopularculture .NewYork:Routledge.

Miller,G.andFox,K.(2004).Buildingbridges:Thepossibilityofanalyticdialogue

betweenethnography,conversationanalysis,andFoucault.InD.Silverman(Ed.).

Qualitativeresearch:Theory,methodandpractice .London:SagePublications.

Mills,C.W.(1959). Thesociologicalimagination .NewYork:Oxford.

Mitchell,C.andBlaeser,M.(2000).Globalgirls:Genderandeducationasaplatformfor

action . McGillJournalofEducation.35(3):213etseq.

Mitchell,C.&Reid-Walsh,J.(2002). ResearchingChildren'sPopularCulture:The

CulturalSpacesofChildhood .London:Routledge.

Mitchell,C.&Reid-Walsh,J.(eds.)(2005). Sevengoingonseventeen:Tweenculture

withingirlhoodstudies .NewYork:PeterLangAssociates. 222

Morley,D.&Chen,H.(Eds.).(1996). StuartHall:CriticalDialoguesinCultural

Studies .NewYork:Routledge.

Moser,P.K.(Ed.).(2002). Oxfordhandbookofepistemology .NewYork/London:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Napoleon,A.B.(1987). Physicalattractiveness,familyenvironment,andpersonality .

California:UnitedStatesInternationalUniversity.

Neimark,J.(1998).WhyweneedMissAmerica. PsychologyToday ,31(5),40.

RetrievedTuesday,May15,2007,fromthePsychologyandBehavioralSciences

Collectiondatabase.

Neuman,W.(1997). Socialresearchmethods (3 rd ed.).Sydney:AllynandBacon.

Nussbaum,K.(2007).Childrenandbeautypageants.AMinorConsideration .Retrieved

March2,2007,from http://www.minorcon.org/pageants.html .

Oliver,K.&Lalik,R.(2001).Thebodyascurriculum:learningwithadolescentgirls.

JournalofCurriculumStudies ,33(3):303–333.

Oliver,K.&Lalik,R.(2002).Thebeautywalk:Interrogatingwhitenessasthenormfor

beautywithinoneschool’shiddencurriculum.RetrievedOctober21,2003,from

http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/oli02625.htm .

Orenstein,P.(1995/2000). Schoolgirls:Youngwomen,self-esteem,andtheconfidence

gap. NewYork:AnchorBooks.

“PageantHistory”(2007).RetrievedMarch12,2007from PageantCenter at

http://pageantcenter.com/history-90s.html .

Paglia,C.(1990). Sexualpersonae:ArtanddecadencefromNefertititoEmilyDickinson .

NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. 223

Palermo,J.(2002). Poststructuralistreadingsofthepedagogicalencounter .NewYork:

PeterLang.

Pannell,S.(2004).Mothersanddaughters:Thecreationandcontestationofbeautyand

femininity.Ph.D.dissertation,VanderbiltUniversity,UnitedStates.

Peril,L.(2002). Pinkthink:Becomingawomaninmanyuneasylessons.NewYork:W.

W.Norton.

Pillow,W.S.(2004). Unfitsubjects:Educationalpolicyandtheteenmother .NewYork:

Routledge-Falmer.

Pipher,M.(1994). RevivingOphelia:Savingtheselvesofadolescentgirls. NewYork:

BallantineBooks.

Pinar,W.&Reynolds,W.(Eds.).(1992). UnderstandingCurriculumasa

PhenomenologicalandDeconstructedText .NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Pinar,W.,Reynolds,W.,Slattery,P.,&Taubman,P.(Eds.).(1995/2000).

UnderstandingCurriculum .NewYork:PeterLang.

Rabinow,P.(1984). TheFoucaultreader:AnintroductiontoFoucault’sthought .

London:Penguin.

Rich,A.(2001). Artsofthepossible .NewYork:W.W.NortonandCo.

Riverol,A.R.(1992). LivefromAtlanticCity:ThehistoryoftheMissAmericaPageant

before,afterandinspiteoftelevision .BowlingGreen,OH:BowlingGreenState

UniversityPopularPress.

Roberts,K.B.(2005).Prettywomen:FemalebeautyintheJimCrowSouth.Ph.D.

dissertation,TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,UnitedStates. 224

Roiphe,K.(1993). Themorningafter:Sex,fear,andfeminismoncampus. Boston:Little,

Brown,andCompany.

Rorty,R.(1991).Inquiryasrecontexualization:Ananti-dualistaccountofinterpretation.

InHiley,D.,Bohman,J.andShusterman,R.(Eds.). Theinterpretiveturn:

Philosophy,science,andculture (pp.59–80).Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity

Press.

Rousseau,J.(1963).InJ.Broome Rousseau:Astudyofhisthought,London:Edward

Arnold.

SacredHeartShowcase .(2004).Geelong:SacredHeartCollege.

Sandelowski,M.(2002).Focusonresearchmethods:Combiningqualitativeand

quantitativesampling,datacollection,andanalysisinmixedmethodstudies.

ResearchinNursingandHealth ,23,246-255.

Sarup,M.(1993). Anintroductoryguidetopost-structuralismandpostmodernism (2 nd

ed.).Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgiaPress.

Savage,C.(1998). Beautyqueens:Aplayfulhistory. NewYork:AbbevillePress.

Sawicki,J.(1991). DiscipliningFoucault:Feminism,powerandthebody.NewYork:

Routledge.

Schwandt,T.(2001).Hermeneuticcircle.In Dictionaryofqualitativeinquiry (pp.112–

118).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublication.

Scott,A.(1988).Feminismandtheseductivenessoftherealevent. FeministReview ,28.

Scott,J.W.(1990).Deconstructingequalityversusdifference:Ortheusesof

Poststructuralisttheoryforfeminism.InM.HirschandE.Fox-Keller, Conflictsin

Feminism ,NewYork:Routledge. 225

Scott,J.W.(1986).Gender:Ausefulcategoryofhistoricalanalysis. American

HistoricalReview 91(5):1053–1075.

Smith,D.(1999). Writingthesocial .Toronto,ON:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Smith,D.(2005). Institutionalethnography:Fromasociologyforwomentoasociology

ofpeople .PaperpresentedattheSixthAnnualInterdisciplinaryConference:

AdvancesinQualitativeMethods,Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.

Sparkes,A.(2001).Myth94:Qualitativehealthresearcherswillagreeaboutvalidity.

QualitativeHealthResearch ,11(4),538-552.

St.Pierre,E.A.(2000).Poststructuralfeminismineducation:Anoverview. Qualitative

StudiesinEducation 13(5):577–515.

St.Pierre,E.A.(2000a).Thecallforintelligibilityinpostmoderneducationalresearch.

EducationalResearcher ,29(5):25–28.

St.Pierre,E.A.&Pillow,W.S.(Eds.).(2000).Workingtheruins:Feministpost

structuraltheoryandmethodsineducation .NewYork:Routledge.

Steinberg,S.R.&Kincheloe,J.L.(Eds.).(1997/2004). Kinderculture:Thecorporate

constructionofchildhood .Boulder,CO:Westview.

Steinberg,S.R.(2004).Criticalresearchmethods:Bricolage.InJ.KincheloeandK.

Berry. Rigourandcomplexityineducationalresearch ,Buckingham,UK:Open

UniversityPress.

Tanenbaum,L.(2002). Catfight:Rivalriesamongwomen–fromdietstodating,fromthe

boardroomtothedeliveryroom .NewYork:Perennial.

Thompson,E.P.(1963). ThemakingoftheEnglishworkingclass .NewYork:Vintage. 226

Thompson,E.P.(1994). Makinghistory:Writingsonhistoryandculture .NewYork:

TheNewPress.

Thorne,S.(1997).Theart(andscience)ofcritiquingqualitativeresearch.InJ.Morse

(Ed.). CompletingaQualitativeProject .London:Sage.

Thorne,S.,Reimer,S.,andO’Flynn-Magee,K.(2004).Theanalyticchallengein

interpretivedescription. InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods ,3(1).

Tice,K.W.(2006).Forappearancessake:Beauty,bodies,spectacle,andconsumption.

JournalofWomen’sHistory ,18(4),147-156.

Tong,R.(1998). Feministthought:Amorecomprehensiveintroduction.Boulder,CO:

WestviewPress.

Valdez,T.(2004). Paradeofbeauties .Fresno,CA:CaliforniaStateUniversity.

Wachterhauser,B.(Ed.).(1986). Hermeneuticsandmodernphilosophy .Albany,NY:

StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Walkerdine,V.(1990). Schoolgirlfictions .NewYork:Verso.

Walkerdine,V.(1998). Daddy’sgirl:Younggirlsandpopularculture .Cambridge,MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Ward,L.H.(2000). Royalrhinestones:Thebeautypageantandthefemalebeautyin

Americanliterature .Champaign,IL:UniversityofIllinoisandUrbana-

Champaign.

Watson,E.andMartin,D.(2000).TheMissAmericaPageant:Pluralism,femininity,

andCinderellaallinone. JournalofPopularCulture ,34(1),105-126.

Weedon,C.(1987). Feministpracticeandpoststructuralisttheory. Oxford:Blackwell. 227

Weedon,C.(1997). Feministpracticeandpoststructuralisttheory(2 nd ed.). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Weinstein,D.andWeinstein,M.(1991).GeorgSimmel:Sociologicalbricoleur. Theory,

Culture,andSociety ,8:151–168.

Welker,L.S.(1995). Anethnographyoftheperformativeconstructionofselfandother

inasmalltownbeautypageant .Carbondale,IL:SouthernIllinoisUniversityat

Carbondale.

Willis,P.(1990). Commonculture:Symbolicworkatplayintheeverydayculturesofthe

young .Boulder:WestviewPress.

Wolf,N.(1991). Thebeautymyth:Howimagesofbeautyareusedagainstwomen .New

York:W.Morrow.

Wolfe,D.S.(1994).Beautyasavocation:WomenandbeautycontestsinAmerica.

Ph.D.dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,UnitedStates.

Wonderlich,A.,Ackard,D.M.,andHenderson,J.(2005).Childhoodbeautypageant

contestants:Associationswithadultdisorderedeatingandmentalhealth. Eating

Disorders ,13(3),291-301.

228

FILMREFERENCES

Bloodworth-Thompson,L.(Director/Producer).(1983–1989). DesigningWomen

[Televisionseries].

Cassidy,C.(Producer/Director).(1999). SmilePretty [documentary]. GirlsinAmerica

series.IndependentTelevisionServiceandCorporationofPublicBroadcasting:

UnitedStates.

Cookson,S.(Director/Producer).(2001). LivingDolls [documentary].HomeBoxOffice

(HBO):UnitedStates.

Dayton,J.andFaris,V.(Directors).(2006). LittleMissSunshine [motionpicture].20 th

CenturyFox:UnitedStates.

Field,S.(Director),&Driver,K.,Japhet,W.,&Vane,R.(Producers).(2000). Beautiful

[motionpicture].UnitedStates:DestinationFilms.

Jann,M.P.(Director),&Polstein,C.R.,Langley,D.,&Williams,L.(Producers).

(1999). DropDeadGorgeous [motionpicture].UnitedStates:NewLineCinema.

LittleBeauties:TheUltimateKiddieQueenShowdown[documentary].(2007).VH1

News:UnitedStates.

Treays,J.(Producer/Director).(1995). PaintedBabies [documentary].BBC:United

Kingdom.