Critical Response Essay to "Cosmetic Surgery And the Televisual Makeover: A Foucauldian feminist reading"

Cressida Heyes suggests that there is a paradox of authenticity at the heart of cosmetic makeovers: “our uniqueness is best expressed through conformity” (29). Self-transformation (via the cosmetic makeover) is seen as a way to actualise one’s inner authenticity. However, this supposedly authentic desire for self-transformation is really just a desire for conformity to extrinsic norms—and therefore not truly authentic. In this essay, I will show that normalisation eliminates the possibility of authenticity (§1), and then show that it is impossible to escape normalisation (§2), proving that authenticity is impossible.

§1

Normalisation eliminates the possibility of authenticity. Under normalising processes like cosmetic makeovers, authentic uniqueness is seen as a deviation from societal norms that must be corrected, and normalisation corrects this through homogenisation. Heyes, through an intersectional approach, demonstrates the homogenising effect of normalising processes like cosmetic makeovers. She states, “emphasis on heterosexual, youthful gender is blatant, disability and working-class status...must be flattened without overt comment” (22). If important aspects of the self like “working-class status” are removed, then it seems that the self cannot exist in its most real and authentic form under normalisation. The self must exist in a modified state, adapted to societal norms, that differs from its original.

Existentialists may object to this view by arguing that authenticity is not something predetermined and intrinsic to the self, because authenticity is something to be created or constructed (Sartre). Thus, it could be argued that even if normalisation changes the appearance of intrinsic—or predetermined—aspects of the self like age, this does not mean that one’s authenticity is removed. This is because these intrinsic aspects do not affect authenticity at all, since the existentialist message is that authenticity can be constructed

without depending on anything predetermined. Perhaps authenticity can even be invented within a system of normalisation.

However, this objection is flawed because normalisation does not just affect intrinsic aspects of the self, but it also affects its constructed aspects that arise through experiences of the world. Heyes supports this by saying there is a “trope that cosmetic surgery can negate experience” (22). For example, if cosmetic surgery removes a person’s scar, the surgery will essentially remove a physical marker of a past experience. Existentialists value past individual experiences as crucial to creating the authenticity of the self. Hence, if normalising processes like cosmetic makeovers “negate experience,” then normalisation negates the very means by which authenticity may be constructed. Therefore, normalisation cannot coexist with authenticity.

§2

It is impossible to escape normalisation in today’s society. As Heyes said, “taking charge of one’s destiny, becoming the person one always wanted to be...are all...within a regime of normalisation” (28). It therefore seems that any attempt at striving towards authenticity is constrained by normalising processes in society.

This is a compelling argument because it is supported by panopticism (Foucault). Foucault argued that postmodern society is structured like a panopticon prison: a self-regulating system where everyone internalises norms out of a fear of social nonconformity and being judged by others for it.

A possible counterargument to this is that normalisation can be escaped if entirely new beliefs and values are constructed. However, this is invalid because by establishing new

beliefs and values, new norms are established. Therefore, it is simply a transition from one normalising system to another, and normalisation as a whole is still not escaped from.

In summary, I have explained how normalisation removes authenticity (as revealed by Heyes’ analysis of cosmetic makeovers), and defended this idea against an existentialist objection. Since I have shown that normalisation is always present, I conclude that authenticity is impossible.

Bibliography

Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan, New York, Vintage Books, 1977.

Heyes, C. J. (2007). Cosmetic Surgery And The Televisual Makeover: A Foucauldian feminist reading. Feminist Media Studies, 7(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770601103670

Sartre, Jean-Paul (2007). Existentialism is a Humanism. Yale University Press.