Embedded Files
well as broader dynamics of social change – in order to better understand their mutual dynamic. Methodologically, the current research employs interviews about appearance and cosmetic surgery with a sample of Canadian men. A grounded theory Rosemary Ricciardelli and Philip White 951 approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) that employed inductive analyses, allowing themes, patterns, and trends to emerge from the data, was used. As usual with qualitative research, the tradeoff of low generalizability to the population is offset by the richness of the data and how it lays open the meanings embedded in cosmetic surgery. Identity and Appearance As argued above, life in late modernity is associated with a sense of increased risk and lack of control (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1994). Beck’s (1992) concerns were heavily due to “modernization risks” resulting from the scientific and technological development, of which we argue, like Williams (1997), cosmetic surgery and its associated technologies are a part. The rise of individualization, defined as the increased responsibility of people to manage the risks that were once the responsibility of institutions, has affected understandings of gender, gender appropriateness, and gender roles. Correspondingly, conceptualizations of masculinity and the associated understanding of what is normative for men are challenged (Connell, 2005; Kimmel, 1992). Thus, men express, negotiate, and manage risk through their bodies as a means of gendered cultural expression. The sociological literature on masculinity and appearance is devoid of research specifically investigating the physical appearance or body concerns of Canadian men in a society shaped by risk. In terms of body modification, Bordo (1995) has argued that individuals have responded to this lack of control by focusing on what they can control – the body. Moreover, researchers found that among females looking good was highly valued, yet participants were quick in expressing dislike of their bodies (Bordo; Frost, 2003, 2005; Wolf, 1991). Physical appearance appeared to be embedded in meanings where different bodily appearances have become associated with negative or positive connotations and the interpretation and construction of such meanings has been incorporated into presentations of self (Frost, 2005; Goffman, 1976). Consequently, one’s corporeality and identity become inseparable. Frost (2005) further argued that “women and girls, and indeed men and boys, are all engaged in the continuous production of gendered identity via visual display” (p. 66). In this sense, the mind/body dualism – implying that the mind is superior to the body and active while the body is inferior and passive – allows for the body to be viewed as the enemy and a source of temptation. As such, the body is a physical site that can be controlled by the mind, as evident in Giddens’ (1991) conceptualization of self-reflexive identity construction in high-risk society. He argued that people are constantly making and remaking themselves in accordance with conventional notions of perfection, as part of a self-reflexive project. The self is grounded in self-control; thus further explaining why anxiety can be experienced about weight gain, aging and other perceived bodily imperfections (e.g., such imperfections demonstrate a lack of control to oneself and others as they are displayed by the body). In recent years, there has been an academic “corporeal turn” (Braun, 2000, p. 511) marked by an increased research interest in the body and embodiment. This has sometimes involved revived attention and criticism of the Cartesian Dualism particularly regarding the relationship between the body and identity. Descartes (1968) argued in the 17th century that the mind is more important for the creation of the self, not the body 952 The Qualitative Report July 2011 which is simply the mind’s container. In a recent critique of the dualism, Paechter (2006) argued against this dualism. The “relationship between the body and the world has clear implications for identity, breaking apart the mind/body split and understanding individuals as body and mind compiled, interacting together with the social world” (Paechter, p. 124). In terms of gender, the sex/gender distinction suggests that the body’s appearance is independent of gender, because gender, not sex, is socially constructed in the mind, thus independent of one’s physicality. Yet, many have also argued that the body is socially constructed through interactions (Bourdieu, 2001; Chanter, 2000; Laqueur, 1990). How one carries oneself, dresses and looks have implications for identity because in interacting with others the way the body is presented plays a role in the self that is constructed (Cooley, 1933; Goffman, 1963, 1968). Specifically, Featherstone (1991) argued that in being attentive to physical appearance (e.g., paying attention to the body), a viable and consistent self-identity is constructed and maintained. Evidence suggests that physical attractiveness affects both life outcomes and how individuals are perceived by others (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995; Mulford, Orbell, Shatto, & Stockard, 1998). Jackson, et al. (1995) found that attractive people were perceived as being more competent than less attractive individuals. People were also more likely to want to associate
Google Sites
Report abuse