« Brainwashed | Main | Web policing »

Why not just let them eat cake?

From the NY Times: "The French parliament’s lower house has approved a bill that would make it illegal for anyone — including fashion magazines, advertisers and Web sites — to publicly incite extreme thinness, The Associated Press reports." Another story here, with information on penalties and the like.

I understand the concern over pro-ana websites, and can see that they do indeed "publicly incite extreme thinness," but I'm not sure about the fashion industry. There's an implicit argument behind the law that the fashion industry *makes* people think and behave in certain ways through their images. I don't buy that.

Comments

Like you, I understand how this law could be important for preventing pro-anorexia web sites, and I think it's a good idea since I've seen lives destroyed by the disease. But, when it comes to fashion, I think that's a whole other planet. On one hand we all have independent thought, and the idea of an industry forcing you to do anything, let alone kill yourself, is unlikely. I make my own choices and no one's ever tied me down and forced me to do anything. On the other hand, there is a huge amount of social pressure to be the right way, and some people are very susceptible to that. There are also the models that who have to live within that culture, most are naturally thin, but I have to imagine that there is a competitive spirit. I remember seeing a Vh1 show about thinness in Hollywood, and it touched on how Kate Moss ushered in a fad of extremely thin models. I have no facts to back up these assumptions, but models probably lost work for not being thin enough, and in turn, I'm sure many lost weight to save their jobs. That sounds like "inciting extreme thinness", and though people make their own choices, I think asking someone choose between their health and livelihood is extremely low.

One presumes the fashions will change again. Ironically, full bodies are so much more popular when most people are starving, so in a twisted way, the fetish for thin is just a sign that most of us are doing really well. Maybe too well!

Essentially, it's unenforceable. You can point to several thousand pro-anorexia websites all over the world, but if they're not IN France, originating in France, there's no recourse. Same thing with adverts, magazines and the fashion industry. Nobody will be responsible except for the end user, so to speak.
For instance: 5th Ave marketers didn't FORCE the magazine to buy the advert showing a model so thin you can count her ribs so they're not responsible, the magazine head didn't approve the advert personally so they're not responsible, the store selling the magazine gets them in on a monthly basis and by contract puts them out so they're not responsible, little Judy Smith buys the magazine, scans the advert and puts a placard on it on her website that says "I wish I looked like this". Little Judy Smith is responsible for promoting extreme thinness... Let's fine her $40K! That'll make her feel alright!
It's a law 'with teeth', but in the end it's just another dog barking at the end of its chain.

Part of the problem in enforcing it will be the nationality issue and the other will be proving intent. I don't think it will last.

There was a time when I thought the whole garbage in, garbage out was complete bunk, but I'm not as certain anymore. In general, I think things like this most affects those with existing tendencies and issues rather than those without predisposition towards certain attitudes, behaviors, etc. However, repetition of "norms" do have an effect on people. If the fashion industry consistently shows the heroin models as the standard of beauty, it starts to seep into the subconscious of the viewer. To put it another way, the Republicans have become masters at manipulating public perception through repetition of falsehoods (ex., iraq=terrorists/WMD). The repetition becomes a sort of truth. Media images can do the same, although they don't always succeed at it. I won't argue the fashion industry "makes" or "forces" but it certainly influences and I'd argue has the most effect on those that are the most vulnerable. They're setting the terms, norms and limits of the discourse. You can resist and fight it, but the influence is certainly there.

I think there have been plenty of articles on the changes in the norms of body image and increasing cases of eating disorders among Pacific Islanders (Samoa?) after getting satellite tv and watching US TV. Sure, no one is forcing them to do it, but that doesn't change the nature of influence and power between media and viewer, not to mention among friends and peers.

Of course, issues of enforcement, freedom of expression, etc. are whole different can of worms.

GB, you make a good point. Given enough repetition and reinforcement, certain ideas can become part of the "ether", part of the conglomeration of ideas that we simply accept as true or acceptable.

But the question is, what do we can about this? How the fuck do we enable a counter-hegemony to flourish? If we think that the proliferation of a narrow beauty standard is unacceptable, I think our only recourse is to demand -- or to create -- alternatives.

Granted, the ability of corporations to dominate major media outlets can drown out our small voices, but hell, great changes have come about in the past from grassroots movements.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)