You are more beautiful than you think… but why does beauty matter?

In class, we’ve had occasion a few times in the past week to think about the double-edged nature of any message, from cholera statistics (Briggs) to Chevron’s greenwashing (Sawyer).  On the one hand, we have the explicit message, which might seem to run counter to the interests of those in power: cholera statistics may run counter to the government’s messages reassuring effective containment, or Chevron’s “Human Energy” campaign might call upon corporations to exercise responsibility in their use of natural resources.

But the covert subtext of these messages actually serves to reinforce systems of inequity. Briggs makes a compelling case that cholera statistics implicitly mark statistics as the most authoritative form of information in circulation, privileging the few Venezuelan institutions capable of generating statistics.  And Sawyer points out how entirely disingenuous and dangerous it is for Chevron to posit a false equivalency between the civic responsibilities of corporations (as “people”) and the civic responsibilities of ordinary consumers.

I’m thinking about this today as many of my Facebook friends, several of whom are self-described feminists, are posting a Dove commercial that is clearly designed to go viral- and it seems to be working.  It shows women describing themselves to a sketch artist, and then we see contrasting sketches resulting first from their self-descriptions, and then from how others describe them, which is invariably more flattering.  The tagline: “You are more beautiful than you think”.

I am immediately reminded of the point Kaw makes in her analysis of Asian-American cosmetic surgeries: the message in both of these examples is about gender, emphasizing that what should really matter for women is their physical appearance.  Watch the commercial again and you’ll see how clearly this is emphasized.  So if this ad is supposed to be empowering for women, it’s a kind of empowerment that clearly serves the interest of Dove.  If Dove really wanted to empower women, it would argue that physical beauty is really not that important anyway- but then they wouldn’t have a way to sell their product.  Or am I missing something here?

I think about this every time I see a bank advertisement announcing that they don’t care about the money, they care about you and your well-being.  This is not in the nature of banks, at least not those banks who are seeking to maximize profits for their shareholders.  But it is a very effective way for corporations (who are not actually human!) to package human values (altruism, compassion,  environmentalism, women’s empowerment) as a way of selling themselves to consumers.

What do you think? Is Dove’s message really empowering, and I’m just cynical?  This is the new mode of advertising, and in many ways I find it far more insidious than the overt commercials we’re used to.  For example, there’s a recent, feel-good Coke commercial designed for viral consumption that I also find incredibly sinister, but for other reasons.

3 thoughts on “You are more beautiful than you think… but why does beauty matter?

  1. This is a case of corporate gaslighting on many levels. Dove is superficially placing themselves in a different category than other cosmetics companies (“We care about the REAL you!”), but the undertones of this ad campaign still follow the the Bernaysian principles of psychoanalytic manipulation. As you stand in the soap aisle at the store, you’ll see the Dove logo, and think “I AM beautiful!” but… you forget that it was Dove that planted the self-doubt in your mind in the first place.

    Without even delving too far into the other fallacies of the commercial (appeal to aesthetic authority via sketch artist is quite creepy), maybe the most disheartening part is the implication that individual women cannot be trusted to have accurate judgement, and must rely on others (and corporate others) to show them the “truth.”

    • Creepy is right- and why a male artist and a male gaze for the supposedly neutral and objective technician?

      That’s why I put in the Coke commercial at the end- how interesting that the technologies (sketch artists and CCTV cameras) for learning about our “true” nature (our beauty, our altruism… but also our compliance, our consumerism) happen to also be the instruments of state surveillance.

  2. I’m with you, empowering consumers is not actually in the interest of large corporations. Making one feel they are empowered through consumption is the goal.

Add to the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s