I was initially attracted to Carl Elliot's chapter The Identity Bazaar because of its account of the Mall of America. I work at Nickelodeon Universe (the theme park in the middle of the mall, what was previously Camp Snoopy). I dress up as Dora the Explorer and Spongebob Squarepants. I am intimately aware of the horrors to be found there; the smarmy add campaigns, the zombie shoppers, and the all encompassing celebration of good old fashioned capitalism. But after reading this chapter, I've got to ask, what's your point, Carl?
The reading brought up some interesting things to ponder; that there is a stigma of phoniness with cosmetics and surgery, and whether they be ways of expressing your true inner self or hiding behind a mask, the idea of “anti consumerist consumers” who buy products in order to escape from the consumerist culture, the fact that we're all sending messages to other people with our appearance, even if that message is that you don't want to send a message (Hipsters, anyone?). Companies have used liberation and rebellion, even the idea that consumer culture doesn't exist, in order to sell things.
Okay, but Carl, of course this is true. You base your argument on the ideas of Thorstein Veblen and his notion of “conspicuous consumption,” that we buy things in order to be seen as a certain kind of person with a certain kind of class, style, and grace, and that our purchases are not for ourselves. But of course! We don't buy new clothes in order to more thoroughly enjoy our own reflection in the mirror, we want to be seen! Even if you say, “I'm doing this for me,” the idea that we all deserve new things is an ideal that was placed in our heads by add campaigns. It's not for you, it's for them. And this is not a matter of bioethics. Its a matter of capitalism. So why are nose jobs such a big deal? We already have this unquenchable thirst for unattainable physical and financial perfection, so why is this so surprising? I think that the comparison of the success of cosmetics and the widespread desire for breast augmentation is a valid one. Both are ways of, depending how you look at it, expressing your inner-self or hiding your outer one. Technology has grown, so we can meet more needs. Rhinoplasty did not create the desire to have a smaller nose, that desire was what created the market. People have always wanted to look “perfect,” and now they have the means to attain it.
This article puts brunettes who want to be blonds and men who want to be women in the same category, and I think that's problematic. The chapter attributes the desire for hair coloring to successful ad campaigns. I don't think you an argue that it was the commercials with so many beautiful women that made John want to be Jane. This is where I hesitate to use “bioethics” as the umbrella term that it has seemed to attain. This should be considered on a case by case basis.
Although I agree that things people buy are mostly for show, some are necessities, like a place to live, clothing, and food- although the case that they are minimal would have to be made, and I doubt that is the case for most people (at least Americans). I think nose jobs are so controversial stems not only from the fact that they are facial, and the face, in our culture, is thought to symbolize a person's inner nature, but also that nose jobs are a case of extreme excess. I believe the core argument against them is because they are so expensive, and the dislike of artificiality and vanity.
ReplyDeleteMuch as I like Elliot, I do sense a small puritanical streak (which I may share). Somehow (with John Savage) he argues for misery--'normal' misery--as necessary for full humanity.
ReplyDeleteAnd MOA troubles him for its cheery unreality.
BTW: the idea of Madelyne as Dora is pretty wonderful.