Here at NYU, I’ve taken a course called the Geopolitics of Beauty. It’s a class in which we talk about beauty and how the politics of certain geographical areas affect beauty standards. For my final project, I was asked to pick a dilemma presented in the readings we did, and find a topic I was interested in that could shed some light on this dilemma. I decided that I would talk about the Debra Gimlin V. Susan Douglas debate. Its the question of whether engaging in beauty practices like putting on makeup, dressing a certain way, or getting your nails done is narcissistic or empowering.
In Narcissism As Liberation, Susan Douglas makes the argument that for women, having choice over how you want to feel is impossible in our society. She supports this argument by suggesting that the feminist agenda has been co-opted by capitalism. In the feminist world, taking pride in your appearance became equivalent with being a “liberated woman.” This brings her to the idea of narcissism as liberation. However, Douglas makes a critique of this idea, essentially saying that being “vain” should not be the source of women’s liberation, and that real feminists such as should reject the narcissistic culture in which we live by not partaking in beauty work.
On the other hand, in Body Work As Self Work, Gimlin argues that women who participate in beauty work are not narcissistic, and that they are actually participating in activities that empower and liberate them. She asserts that beauty work is the way in which women reconcile the differences between female beauty standards and their imperfections. Gimlin believes the starting point of identity for women is the body because it’s a medium of culture. Once societal rules and pressures are projected onto the body, women use beauty work on their bodies as a way to defy these cultural rules, and that is where the true sense of empowerment and liberation comes from. Gimlin states that beauty work seeks to give women options on how to defy cultural norms and liberate them, and therefore the women who participate in beauty work are indeed genuine feminists.
Contextualizing this debate into my own life, I tried to think about what beauty work means to me as a black woman. The first thing I started with is “What kind of beauty work do I participate in?” And the answer was hair, I change my hair a lot. I think that’s something most black women can relate to.
My personal beliefs align more with Gimlin’s idea that beauty work is a means of liberation or empowerment. However, I do feel strongly that not all women receive their sense of empowerment in the same way when participating in beauty work and that Gimlin should not assume that they do. Black women are not necessarily struggling with this idea of the perfect self, but rather they happily participate in beauty work because it was something that their skin color prevented them from participating in before. Our sense of empowerment comes from exercising freedoms that they were not afforded in the past as well as challenging eurocentric beauty standards. Also, not all beauty work is considered narcissistic. I will admit that there are some women who can be considered narcissistic. However, there are women who do “simple” beauty work on themselves that does not point to them being narcissistic or vain. By simple beauty work I mean things like shaving and getting a haircut. This points to a blurred line when talking about beauty work as narcissistic or empowering.
This issue is way too complicated for someone to be able to classify women who do beauty work as narcissistic fake feminists and those who don’t participate in beauty work as real feminists. Would Douglas directly call black women fake feminists once she realized that they weren’t participating in beauty work purely for aesthetics but to exercise rights that their ancestors didn’t have? Probably not. And would these black women agree that Douglas has the right to call herself a real feminist solely based off her not participating in beauty work? Probably not. As a black woman myself, I’d only be comfortable with her giving herself that title if she spent her time advocating for the rights of women and minority groups. This issue is tricky, and that’s the point I’m making here.
