The central theme to this genre has been the individualistic ideology of self-improvement (Rimke, 2000:62, Weber, 2005: 4) with a narrative of progress whereby any woman, if she tries hard enough, and consumes the right products, can become her ‘true’ self (Weber, 2005).
Conversation with one of the presenters in a set that is symbolically designed to look like a psychotherapist’s office. Friends and family are interviewed on the subject of the women’s ‘style’, Trinny and Susannah examine their wardrobes, often discarding or destroying items.
Watch their videos and discover ‘what people really think’ of them. Scrutinise themselves and scrutinised by the presenters in a 360 mirror, often in a favourite piece of clothing. Given a set of style ‘rules’ to follow when shopping and given £2,000 to spend. The shopping task is divided into two days – on the first, they shop on their ‘own’ while being filmed, on the second, Trinny and Susannah evaluate the clothing that has been bought, then shop with the women to direct them. Their hair and make-up is styled by stylists. The revelation – the ‘new’ woman is revealed to herself in a mirror. The ‘new’ woman is revealed to (usually) delighted friends and family.
The formula for the show illustrates the discourse of the production of the self (Rose, 1989). This self is by no means finally produced, but requires constant re-production under an internalized and external gaze (Weber, 2005).
What Not To Wear presents a discourse of self-fulfilment through consumption.
This fairly essentialist concept that ‘inside’ each of these women is a ‘true’ self, waiting to be unveiled is demonstrated in the language used by the presenters throughout the ‘Young Mums’ episode. Particular to this episode is the discourse surrounding ‘being a mother’ and the effect of this on a woman’s subjectivity. At the end of the episode, Trinny comments of Michalina’s husband: “he got back a woman he thought he’d lost, and I think that’s a big thing for a man when a woman has kids, that they sort of – sometimes stop being a wife” (BBC1, 2004). The way in which both women are portrayed throughout the episode is as a collection of identities; mother, employee, wife . The premise of the episode is that their ‘mother’ identities have taken over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The role of the 360 mirror in What Not To Wear, is structurally similar to the Panopticon and serves to act as the focal point for ‘self surveillance’ of the women. Asked to scrutinise her body from every angle, the woman inhabits the central, supervisory space and looks into each cell onto the divided aspects of her body that must be disciplined.
ReplyDeleteMichalina is laughed at by the women in a display of class elitism, when her assertion that the clothes she is wearing look “quite classy” is met with schoolgirl-style ‘cruelty and viciousness’ (McRobbie, 2004:106).
ReplyDeleteThe language used by the presenters often takes on a patronising tone; the difference between Trinny admonishing Sara’s children for not eating with their spoons, and the order to Michalina to get “back in your box, try the other thing on” (BBC1, 2004) is barely noticeable in tone. The way in which the presenters grab, pull and on one occasion rip the knickers, from the women is intrusive and humiliating at times for the women .
ReplyDeleteTrinny and Susannah also touch the women in a way that would usually be associated with animals; they are ‘herded’ around and continually have their thighs patted and slapped. Although this form of touch is presented as jest, it echoes the power hierarchy within a society where women are often subject to un-requested touch and bodily intrusion, including high incidence of rape . The message given out that it is acceptable to herd and intrude on women ‘for their own good’ is a dangerous one.
The mirror reminds me of bits in Butler's 'The Lesbian Phallus and Morphological Imagery' which I was reading through today. She talks about the Lacanian mirror stage and 'body in pieces' (corps morcelé) which could easily be adapted.
ReplyDelete'But some parts of the body become the tokens for the centering and controlling function function of the bodily imago: "certain organs are caught up in the narcissitic relation, insofar as it structures both the relation of the ego to the other and the constitution of the world of objects." (Lacan II, 95/119). Although these organs are not named, it seems they are, first of all, organs [les organes] and they enter play in the narcissistic relation; they are that which act as the token or conjectured basis for narcissism. If these organs are the male genitals, they function as both the site and token of a specifically masculine narcissism. Moreover, insofar as these organs are set into play by a narcissism which is said to provide the structure of relations to the Other and to the world of objects, then these organs become part of the imaginary elaboration of the of the ego's bodily boundary, token and "proof" of its integrity and control, and the imaginary epistemic condition of its access to the world. By entering into that narcissitic relation, the organs cease to be organs and become imaginary effects."
You could argue easily that the whole holding people up to a mirror and pointing out their bodily elements represents a kind of excision or re-vivisection of the complete body down into component parts which can be either absorbed or rejected from that narcissitic relation. Maybe that's a bit extreme though.. Certainly, it's an attempt to change or intensify the imaginative effect.