With such blatant advertising promoting extreme ‘before and after’ shots, it’s not surprising how cosmetic surgery has become so prevalent in the East.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1264103.htm

China’s man-made beauties line up

Media coverage of plastic surgery often innately ridicules the trade- creating a double bind that at once encourages women to go under the knife, yet chastises them for it. Some select lexicon from the article:

* The women, wearing one-piece dresses and boots, paraded across the stage, mugged for group portraits and presented gifts that would be auctioned online to raise money for poor children.
* “At first the changes were not that significant,” said Liu Yajuan, who does not work but practices Japanese-style dance in her spare time.

This ‘man made’ beauty contest raises a number of issues. Can it simply be seen as promoting the cosmetic surgery industry, ’sanitizing’ it (if we weren’t told these women had gone under the knife, would we be able to tell the difference? We don’t even see these procedures, which in turn places the blood and flesh at a distance), and handing out an ideology that says cosmetic surgery is ‘alright’, and even prized?

Or can it be seen as subversive? These women are not ashamed to admit that they have had plastic surgery, many of them multiple procedures (up to 13). In parading their newly constructed bodies and faces, they in turn become self reflexive and spits the scorn back into the faces of critics- “Yes, I’ve had plastic surgery, and I look gorgeous. So?”

The debate can go on forever… it can be linked to the same arguments about hyperfemininesexuality and the willingness to again become ‘pin up girls’ for men. “Because you’re worth it”. Afterall, the people who control the cosmetic surger industry are mainly men- no doubt this contest was created by men who wanted to convince more women that going under the knife is not shameful, but warrants admiration and reward.

In 1963, a Malayan doctor, Khoo Boo-Chai, pushed his popular non-incision method of “Oriental Blepharoplasty,” the creation of “double eyes.” He believed that desire for the surgery stemmed from three reasons: socioeconomic (the western look being more accepted); local beliefs and superstition (to eradicate suspicious “mousy” eyes); and “domestic” (better chance to snag a prospective husband).

“Our Eastern sisters put on western apparel, use western makeup, see western movies, and read western literature,” Khoo Boo-Chai wrote in 1963. “Nowadays, there even exists a demand for the face and especially the eyes to be westernized. This upper eyelid operation can be considered a purely cosmetic surgical procedure amongst Asians.”

“The notion of Westernization has sparked some criticism in the Asian American community. Authors Maxine Hong Kingston and David Mura are uncomfortable with the popularity of the surgery, and believe that altering eyes, features by which Asians are so easily identified, is an attempt to conceal or deny Asian heritage and conform to mainstream American beauty ideals.“It’s evidence of internalized racism,” says Mura. “It really indicates something about the way in which Asians in America are indoctrinated by white standards of beauty. They feel less beautiful than those who fit the Caucasian standard of beauty.”

This view is extremely problematic in that it assumes that the Asian “identity” can be reduced to a single element of the body. There is also an underlying assumption that racial identity is purely essentialist and natural and must not be tampered with.

There is a popular rhetoric in society that these ‘ethnic’ women should not tamper with what they are born with. In comparison, there is hardly an equalled amount of criticism held towards the white female population. In the case with ethnic women, any kind of aesthetic surgery is automatically assumed to be some sort of effect of ‘cultural imperialism’ or a desire to become more ‘Westernized’. This kind of view is widely spread in the Anglo-centric world of discourse.

The notion of ‘internalized racism’ however is an interesting one. As in Kaw’s analysis of cosmetic surgery in Asian American women, the individuals interviewed all expressed dissatisfaction with their own distinctive ethnic features- associating them with dullness and passivity. In this case, there is clearly a sense of embodied self hatred, towards the ‘Asian’ feature.

However, remembering that 50% of the Chinese population (although comparitively, only 1/3 of the Korean population) are naturally born with double lids, can this really be seen as ‘racism’ when single-liddedness is not a given feature? Indeed it is a hatred towards the self (for having single lids), but hardly a racist statement towards their own ethnic group. If any, they only wish to resemble their counterparts.

Asian Americans who disagree with Mura’s interpretation often point out that a large percentage of Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese are born with creased eyelids, although they certainly tend to be shaped differently than those of, say, Caucasians. In fact, in some regions, such as in southern China, as many as 70 percent are born with them. In addition, double-eyelid surgery is enormously popular in Asia, and has been considered attractive since well before the infiltration of Western media. Therefore, many argue, Asians seeking double eyelids are simply trying to look like the more attractive members of their own race.

Anglocentric discourses have categorized this specific type of cosmetic surgery to accuse Asians of wanting to become more Westernized, an interesting debate. How has this phenomenon been spun? How has this emerged? 

e-book

Just some interesting tidbits I can pick out from the text… It is also worth noting that the cover of the book features an Asian girl, and all the illustrative examples in the text are of women.

• In contemporary practice, cosmetic procedures seldom represent requests for ‘westernization’ of the face. Most patiens desire relatively conservative chages that improve facial balance and harmony while maintaining ethnic identity. (p ix)
• “Westernization” procedures that were popular two decades ago have now been replaced by more understated surgical endeavours in which the essential ethnic identity is not violated…Using Western aesthetic values for Asian surgery should be discouraged, as this does not take into consideration the cultural sensitivity of the Asian and may render the Asian face unnatural and foreign. (p xii)
• A common request in 21st century Asian rhinoplasty is “Please don’t make my nose too high;I want it to match my Asian face!” This is a fortunate attitude… (p48)
• The “puffy” eyelid appearance characteristic of the Asian upper eyelid. (p115)

The detail put forward to analyse, design, and carry out procedures on the female face is extraordinary. There seems to be a strong argument for not ‘Westernizing’ the face, which in itself creates a norm.

bondagegeisha
2007-03-30 01:40 am (local) (送信元: 71.232.31.92) (リンク)

She brings up a very valid point. Why do we always automatically assume that this certain mode of surgery is a form of Westernization? There seems to be some form of ‘accusation’ involved.

A double bind. They can be accused of looking ‘too Chinese’, then doubly accused of ‘wanting to be Western’. Ien Ang touches on this, albeit via the issue of spoken language, but I feel that this can be applied to this problem. There is an exclusion.

“An exclusion effected by imposing the identification with a fetishized and overly idealized Chinese.” (Ang, 1999:557)

When 50% of the Chinese population are already born with double eyelids- why is it that this statistic is ignored? Surely it is an aesthetic judgement that is self contained within the community. Why aren’t we saying ‘they want to look more Chinese’? Why do we keep saying ‘They want to look more Western’, when in fact they just want to look more like their counterparts?

I’m starting to think that maybe people are too quick to jump to conclusions when one says they prefer double eyelids, taking it to mean that they’re ‘disowning’ their ethnic background… it’s just another aesthetic judgement, regardless of race.

But how has this been embodied?

Medicalization
As used by Eugena Kaw in her essay “Medicalization of Racial Features: Asian American Women and Cosmetic Surgery”
Linked to Foucault’s birth of the clinic
Body parts that are isolated/fragmented and examined, problematized (in this case, the single eyelid) – redefined as inherently flawed and pathological
Carol Spitzack – the physician’s clinical eye functions like Foucault’s medical gaze

“But the cosmetic surgeon’s gaze doesn’t simply ‘medicalize’ the female body, it actually redefines it as an object for technological reconstruction.” (Balsamo, 1997:57)

Westernization
A term thrown about loosely in the discussion of the body and facial features concerning Asian/ethnic women. Undertaking blepharoplasty or rhinoplasty is seen as succumbing to the Western patriarch, a desire to become one that one is not.

“It is striking to learn how great is the demand for cosmetic alterations that are based on Western markers of beauty.” (Balsamo, 1997:62)

I see this term as problematic. It assumes that all ethnic women (it is notable that there is often only this dualism between ‘Western’ and ‘Ethnic’ in the discussion of race) aspire to a Western ideal of beauty, and are all cultural dupes.

“I am not sure why so many people think double eyelids looks more Western, because Caucasians have entirely different bone structure with recessed eye sockets, not just a superficial fold in their eyelid.” -bondagegeisha/Livejournal

Whitewashed/Whitewashing
A term that has been applied to many ethnic women who choose to undergo these particular cosmetic procedures. Seen as an attempt to become more ‘Western’ and less ethnic. Assumes a direct correlation between self-image and the desire to change ones features. Assumes an internalized racism towards one’s own race. A denial of one’s own ethnic traits and features.

Also: Banana, twinkie (Yellow on the outside, White inside) – assuming an entirely superficial embodiment of racial norms. A reading focused on the skin, on the body, as a means of problematizing and speaking of ethnic disavowal.

Body as machine, as production
Body as a project. Cyborg. Fluidity of identity. Increasing plasticity of the human body. Material productions of beauty. Resculpting. Improving. Manipulate.

The response should focus on a particular theoretical perspective, preferably one which appears substantially within the course reading material.

Foucault & The Docile Body

Response to the application of Foucault’s technologies of the self and the docile body to the issue of cosmetic surgery among Asian American women. A critical affirmation of his works will touch upon how the bodies of ethnic women have been placed in a Western-based discourse that seeks to problematize not only their bodies, but facial features.

The docile body: on that is manipulated increasingly through an ever finer net of surveillance, regulation and control.

A discussion of two main themes, including ‘regulation’ and ‘resistance’
- The clinical gaze of the surgeon that seeks to problematize the Asian eyelid
- A changing political anatomy
- Cosmetic surgery in Asian American women seen as evidence of ethnic regulation; controlling of universal standards of beauty that are geared to the West

- Cosmetic surgery as an act of resistance: “Foucault became much more interested in the ways in which individuals act on their bodies, souls, thoughts and conduct, so as to ‘transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality.” (Foucault 1988b:18)
- Blepharoplasty as a means to achieve a state of beauty that aligns with one’s own self perception, as opposed to succumbing to a so-called ‘Western’ standard of beauty
- Issues of autonomy, reflexivity and critique