This picture — a woman marked up for the plastic surgery she would require if she were to look like Barbie — captures in a moment what Dove’s Evolution video took over a minute to convey — the media images and fashion icons that we aspire to emulate are constructions. Like billboard signs and magazine editorials, the pictures are manipulations that distort our sense of normal bodies.
We are trapped in a narcissistic world of images, where we must self-surveil our bodies with beauty as one of our primary goals. We invest in and manipulate our bodies and engage in body regimes to cultivate our physiques, often towards unattainable goals of perfection. We become subjects (in the Foucauldian sense) to our own projects of becoming, as we police ourselves and internalize a normalizing gaze. The only way to achieve these kinds of bodies, like Barbie’s proportions in this image, is through dramatic, invasive cosmetic procedures. Yet, we still labor over our bodies, continually trying to shape it in accords of dominant ideals. We have forgotten (or simply ignored) that these kinds of bodies are fantastical images.
As Naomi Wolf argued in The Beauty Myth, we are trapped in a cycle of cosmetics, beauty aids, diets, and exercise fanaticism; however, our bodies are no longer the same prisons Wolf envisioned. With the new advances in cosmetic surgery, we can achieve the near impossible. The important question to ask is why do we do this to our bodies? Increasingly, we have gone from being judged on our “good works” to our “good looks.” We place a high premium on the look and shape of our bodies, as it is the visible sign of our moral status and class position. Here, the Barbie physique may be possible if you have enough cash.
Amanda M. Czerniawski is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Temple University. She specializes in bodies and culture, gender and sexuality, and medical sociology. Her past research projects involved the development of height and weight tables and the role of plus-size models in constructions of beauty. Her current research focuses on the contested role of the body in contemporary feminist discourse.
Comments 41
Casey — November 27, 2011
"Increasingly, we have gone from being judged on our “good works” to our “good looks."
Nonsense. Women were never judged by their "good works."
Fsd22 — November 27, 2011
why do women look to a doll or other inanimate objects to get a sense of self worth?
seems this is an ongoing problem with women either it is Barbie or Roseanne that they are taking their self image from. why is it that thin women want to be thinner and heavier women seem to want to be heavier?
Larrycharleswilson — November 27, 2011
A lot of people would be out of a job if men and women were not so easily manipulated.
Stephen — November 27, 2011
Speaking of media images, that screen-still from the Dove Campaign totally reinforced SEVEN other body ideals at the same time as it struck down one (body shape). Ample lips, small photogenic nose, white teeth, carefully shaped eyebrows, perfect makeup, styled hair, suntan skin...
If we're going to start becoming aware of how the media controls us, let's go all the way. Dove, for marketing purposes, still has paired their logo with the ideal. If I were a woman, this picture would not remove the pressure I might feel to be perfect.
Luke Latham — November 27, 2011
The difficulty with using images and films or any type of 'shortcut' for getting accross points like this - rather than carefully worded argument - is that through you will end up preying upon and thus reinforcing some ideology or another.
As Stephen noted below, the presentation of this individual woman's body as a 'control' representing 'normal women', and then comparing this to the barbie doll the form of which is cultivated by a distorting and controlling culture, reinforces aspects of body fascism and the imposition of beauty norms. As well as those, it imposes 'blonde and white' as 'normal', erasing all women not assigned white or blonde.
As well as *that*, by using the word 'normal' it alienates any woman whose proportions in any way approach barbie's. Look at the lines dotted for the waist. Any person whose waist happens to be smaller than the model's whilst larger than the barbie's is automatically rendered 'abnormal'. This is what Nietzsche called 'ressentiment', the tendency for subcultures/counter-cultures to invert/reverse an imposed hierarchy rather than to destroy it. I wonder if you can see the subtle difference between 'big is beautiful' and 'real women have curves'?
But this is not me criticising this particular attempt at exposing body fascism. It is me criticising any attempt to do so using creative imagery and shortcuts rather than arguments and napalm. To make statements that are legible to people raised in this culture you need to hook into the symbolism and language of this culture. It's dangerous enough to do this with words and their meanings, but with images of people the risks outweigh the potential gains. This image that was created to make a good point has - completely unwittingly *and I would argue unavoidably* - reinforced aspects of patriarchy. Seeking a person of colour as a model will not convey the message to a population that has mostly been taught to identify white as good and people of colour as unimportant or invisible. So to get that message accross, this other message of invisibility will tend to be reinforced. Seeking someone with what the beauty myth considers 'flaws' in skin or shape or muscle tone will not convey the message to a population that has mostly been taught to identify 'flawless' as good and 'flawed' as unsightly. To make a legible artistic point about the abusive nature of one of the symbols of patriarchy, to denizens of the patriarchy, you are going in general to have to depend upon or prey upon other symbols - either from patriarchy itself or from other institutions such as racism, colonialism, etc. That's a fundamental problem with art and the use of 'whole symbols' in cultural criticism, instead of breaking them all down. It's also a not-insignificant problem with using words.
CleansingFire™ — November 27, 2011
The difficulty with using images and films or any type of 'shortcut' for getting accross points like this - rather than carefully worded argument - is that through you will end up preying upon and thus reinforcing some ideology or another.
As Stephen noted below, the presentation of this individual woman's body as a 'control' representing 'normal women', and then comparing this to the barbie doll the form of which is cultivated by a distorting and controlling culture, reinforces aspects of body fascism and the imposition of beauty norms. As well as those, it imposes 'blonde and white' as 'normal', erasing all women not assigned white or blonde.
As well as *that*, by using the word 'normal' it alienates any woman whose proportions in any way approach barbie's. Look at the lines dotted for the waist. Any person whose waist happens to be smaller than the model's whilst larger than the barbie's is automatically rendered 'abnormal'. This is what Nietzsche called 'ressentiment', the tendency for subcultures/counter-cultures to invert/reverse an imposed hierarchy rather than to destroy it. I wonder if you can see the subtle difference between 'big is beautiful' and 'real women have curves'?
But this is not me criticising this particular attempt at exposing body fascism. It is me criticising any attempt to do so using creative imagery and shortcuts rather than arguments and napalm. To make statements that are legible to people raised in this culture you need to hook into the symbolism and language of this culture. It's dangerous enough to do this with words and their meanings, but with images of people the risks outweigh the potential gains. This image that was created to make a good point has - completely unwittingly *and I would argue unavoidably* - reinforced aspects of patriarchy. Seeking a person of colour as a model will not convey the message to a population that has mostly been taught to identify white as good and people of colour as unimportant or invisible. So to get that message accross, this other message of invisibility will tend to be reinforced. Seeking someone with what the beauty myth considers 'flaws' in skin or shape or muscle tone will not convey the message to a population that has mostly been taught to identify 'flawless' as good and 'flawed' as unsightly. To make a legible artistic point about the abusive nature of one of the symbols of patriarchy, to denizens of the patriarchy, you are going in general to have to depend upon or prey upon other symbols - either from patriarchy itself or from other institutions such as racism, colonialism, etc. That's a fundamental problem with art and the use of 'whole symbols' in cultural criticism, instead of breaking them all down. It's also a not-insignificant problem with using words.
Eden Miller — November 27, 2011
Actually, "beauty" has always been a status asset for a woman, in all times and cultures on this planet, with the possible exception of matriarchies. The definition of "beauty" has varied tremendously, however; and both genders have done incredible things and endured much pain to conform to the norm of beauty for their time and place: footbinding, headbinding, corsets, neck rings, high heels, long fingernails, hair plucking, tattooing....the list goes on. What most of these have in common: making it obvious that one is too rich to need to do physical labor, because one cannot while so bound.
Espiusa — November 28, 2011
Dove is owned by Unilever which makes the Axe body spray for men commercial - how can one company hold 2 contradictory views?
Tom Megginson — November 28, 2011
Constructive (if snarky) criticism from a fellow blogger: You start by saying that the picture tells the Dove "evolution" story better and more precisely, but then you ironically spend almost 300 words explaining why. You could have let the picture do most of the work and spared us academic shibboleths like "foucauldian". I realize this is a social science blog, but I think both writers and readers will benefit from a commitment to plain language and concise arguments.
meika loe — November 28, 2011
Love the connection to Brumberg's "Body Projects" here -- bring in the mirror and the media and our lives change dramatically...
anyc — November 29, 2011
The real point that is being ignored is that regardless of whether women are praised for being tall and slim, or short and 'voluptuous', 'thick', 'real', etc, we are STILL BEING TOLD THAT THE PRAISE AND APPROVAL of our bodies is a truly important thing, and one that should be first and foremost on our minds every single moment of every single day until we're in the ground. If society, media or some f-ing marketing campaign suddenly allows women who are not Barbies to be ogled and sexualized, as well, HOW is this a good thing? "Goody! You big girls get to be objectified, now, too! We've come so far!"
Barbie vs. Woman « Introduction to Sociology at TCD — November 30, 2011
[...] Amanda M. Czerniawski/societypages.org - This picture captures in a moment what Dove’s Evolution video took over a minute to convey [...]
Consider Magazine » Blog Archive » More on Body Image — December 7, 2011
[...] of the blogs I check out most consistently is Sociological Images, a site with a sociological but accessible take on everything from pop culture to high politics. [...]
Barbika vs. žena » Centar za društveno-humanistička istraživanja — January 30, 2012
[...] Amanda Czerniawski Prevela: Marija Šarić Izvor: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/11/27/barbie-vs-woman/ Posted by Urednik on siječanj 30, 2012 at 3:47 poslijepodne var addedComment = [...]
Are You Ugly? - Adam Goldfein — August 13, 2013
[...] The Society Pages, Barbie vs. Woman: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/11/27/barbie-vs-woman/ [...]
Barbie vs. Woman | Amanda M. Czerniawski — March 12, 2015
[…] published in Sociological Images on November 27, […]