Beauty, femininity and capitalism
By Avijit Pathak

YUKTA MOOKHEY — yet another Miss World from India — symbolises the changing cultural landscape in which the notion of femininine beauty is being shaped by the instrumental rationality of global capitalism. True, at this intense moment of her glory a critique of the philosophy of beauty contests is not likely to be appreciated by her innumerable fans. Yet, we ought to raise critical questions relating to femininity, consumerism and mass culture in order to make sense of the new phenomenon: recognition of ‘Indian beauty’ in the global market!

It is, of course, true that the search for beauty is natural. Because what distinguishes the human species is its ability to go beyond the immediate/material needs of existence, and strive for aesthetic joy and creativity. It can be said that man lives for beauty. This explains the growth of culture — its symbols, its creative expressions in art and poetry, in the ideals of love, courage, masculinity, and femininity. The celebration of beauty is, therefore, not a bad thing. The perception of beauty, it should not be forgotten, is intensely subjective. For example, beauty can be felt and experienced in divergent forms of expression: a tribal girl dancing in her local milieu of togetherness, an old grandmother narrating folktales to little children, a P.T. Usha running for excellence, or a Mother Teresa merging with the wretched of the earth. To experience beauty in these divergent forms is to experience the innate strength of humankind: love, courage, dedication and solidarity. That is why the experience of beauty is the experience of immense joy and creativity. It softens the mind, and purifies the environment.

The meaning of beauty in ‘beauty contests’ is, however, different — almost a total negation of what we are talking about. First, we witness the denial of the richness of beauty: its divergent forms, and its multiple culture-specific expressions. Instead, we see uniformity — a notion of standardised beauty, something that can be graded and hierarchised in terms of a scale which, as the experts of beauty industry argue, is universally valid. In other words, in beauty contests we see the assertion of a civilisation that attaches excessive importance to the cult of quantification and measurement. That is why, beauty — which, as we have already said, is primarily a qualitative/aesthetic experience — is quantified and measured. Second, we witness how the rationale of commerce replaces the spirituality of aesthetics. The rhythm of beauty — its simplicity and innocence, its spontaneity and naturalness —is forgotten. Beauty begins to bring money. Beauty is now a commodity sold in the form of an attractive package, and legitimised in the name of ‘complete personality’, reconciling the body and the mind. To put it otherwise, the domain of beauty gets colonised by the logic of the market.

This is not surprising. Because in our times we are witnessing the proliferation of what can be called ‘culture-industry’. Here is an industry in which we can see an unholy alliance of capitalism and patriarchy. No wonder, the objectification of femininity becomes natural; its reduction into a spectacle. for mass consumption is inevitable. Essentially, the male desire of sexual consumption is intensified. A brand of femininity — with its sleekness and eroticism — is constructed to seduce the consumers. Every product — from cosmetics to detergent powder — needs its female imageries to present itself in the culture of consumerism. No wonder, the industry promotes and encourages all these cultural spectacles: from fashion shows to beauty contests. Not solely that. The culture-industry manufactures images of ‘beauty’ and ‘success’. Beauty-queens become models to emulate. The narratives of their success — popularised through glossy magazines and television interviews — begin to have an impact on vulnerable minds. In other words, they tend to internalise the logic of ‘having’ mode of existence that the expanding culture of consumerism needs to legitimise itself.

In a way, we see the changing cultural landscape. In the age of globalisation — or, to put it more specifically, global capitalism — the metropolitan middle class receives and internalises new symbols and images of cultural practice. Bangalore or Mumbai, Delhi or Chandigarh get linked with the global village; money, mobility and success become new mantras for the middle class. Everything is altered. Even the traditional notion of womanhood gets transformed. From an oppressed mother limited to the confines of the domestic domain to a seductive beauty queen decorating the market of global capitalism — the journey is inevitable. In fact, in the language of beauty queens we see the articulation of the aspirations of the new middle class.

This critique, let it be stated, is not to retain or restore the ‘purity’ of womanhood. A great deal of feminist writing has already sensitised us. We know that this ideal of ‘purity’ is essentially a patriarchal device designed to rob women of the agency they need to make their life-projects meaningful. What we are arguing is that the confidence or freedom that these beauty queens seem to represent is terribly superficial. The male gaze — in this culture of patriarchal/global capitalism — has already reduced them into dolls or puppets. Money and glamour, it has to be realised, do not necessarily emancipate the second sex. What is therefore, needed is the cultivation of an alternative notion of beauty: beautiful women realising the strength of humankind, fighting against brutality, violence and injustice, and radiating the message of love, reciprocity and solidarity. To rediscover these beautiful women, we need to go beyond the hyper-real world of the TV screen, and enter the everyday world of struggle and liberation.