Chidobe Umeasor
Professor Geoghan
FIQWS 10113
11 Nov 2019
Applying the Critical Lens to compare Singer and fashion models
In From the Medical Gaze to Sublime Mutations, the author Benjamin T. Singer makes the claim that the photographical depictions of human bodies have an effect on what society deems normal. Singer claims that most of the time, we begin to see the people being depicted as abnormal. A part of Singer’s evidence for this claim is how the eyes of the people being depicted in anatomical imagery meant for a medical gaze are blurred. The people with these blurred eyes have bodies that are meant to depict intersexuality, transexuality, or any other kind of body that does not fit into a male or female box. Singer argues that the blurring of their eyes allows them to be subconsciously dehumanized and desexualized by the viewer. We see this relationship between a viewer and the viewee in other aspects of society. In the high fashion industry, the models that are used on runways are usually very tall and thin. Judith Warner was one of the first people to compare models to clothes hangers in her New York Times article “Fashion Models and Role Models”. These models are placed on a runway to show off a designer’s clothing. The attention is on the clothing, not the model, not the person. Singer argues that by blurring the faces of the people who’s anatomical images are provided in medical textbooks, they are being depersonalized and dehumanized, similar to how very tall and slim fashion models are placed on a runway to wear clothes that don’t emphasize their bodies.
To explore this point, Singer says that even though blurring the faces of the people “ensures anonymity, it also creates the effect of scientific subjectivity through desexualizing, defamiliarizing, and ultimately depersonalizing the represented figure” (Singer 602). He goes on to say that “such photographs ultimately strip away…the inherent personhood of the subject” ( Singer 602-3). The blurring detaches normal human characteristics like sex, emotion, personality, and livelihood from the people, which in turn makes the condition being expressed in the image less of a “human” issue. It becomes weird, not beautiful, and nonhuman. In the world of fashion, there have been many instances where models are compared to clothes hangers and are subject to harsh treatment by their agencies, designers, and the media. Why is that? When we see these models who look human copies of each other on the runway with neutral facial expressions, we focus on the clothes they are wearing. Their bodies are slimmer and taller than average, as to emphasize, but not distract from the clothing. It seems as though they are nothing compared to the clothing, literally and figuratively. The clothes are meant to fit on them like they would on a hanger, not as though a real person was wearing it. This perspective is held all across the board, from fashion companies, to viewers, and even the models themselves. The problem that arises from this, is the models view of themselves. Because they are being referred to as cheap, replaceable objects, they often allow themselves to be subject to the harsh treatment inflicted on them by their agencies.
Singer states that the blurring of the eyes of people being depicted makes the people seem less human, as they are “a clinical shadow cast across a face that might otherwise be recognized as belonging to a fellow human being.” (Singer 603).When models are paraded down a runway wearing, they are seen as objects who are only there to serve a purpose to show off the clothes. And while that is true, it causes the viewer to unintentionally ignore the human wearing the clothes. It’s like looking at a clothes hanger rather than an actual person. We see the extension of Singer’s claims in fashion shows. The people being paraded down a runway wearing high fashion clothing removes the individualism of the models. Both the clothing and the blurring act as a sheet that prevents viewers from making the connection that the people in both situations are in fact, human and should be perceived as such.
So why do these sentiments run so rampant in society? Source credibility is why. As best phrased by Singer: “As a product of the medical gaze, it carries the stamp of documentary truth, realism, authenticity,and authority. The viewer imagines this to be an unmediated view [of a person]… yet a closer inspection reveals a carefully constructed and codified image” (Singer 604). People are conditioned to believe that what is shown in medical textbooks is a completely unbiased truth. However, that is an illusion. The viewer does not realize that they are subliminally affected by these images. The Singer text states that because people already trust medical information, they think that everything stemming from that source is a completely unbiased, unaltered, just-as-it-is portrayal of what is being shown. This idea can be seen in the fashion industry as well, where people believe that designers and brands are beauty and aesthetic experts, so their dehumanizing depiction of models is accepted without question. In high fashion, people view these designers and brands as entities that know everything about fashion, trends, beauty, and physical perfection. People unconsciously accept these truths and have only recently started to recognize how it is affecting their view on models, and even themselves.
In both contexts, the viewers are being affected by what they are seeing. In the medical gaze, people begin to view these non normative bodies as forms of “physical pathology” (Singer 603), a disease, instead of other humans just like them that have a slightly different anatomy. Likewise in the world of fashion, people begin to view these models as objects without humanly characteristics. To extend this issue further, the problem is that people now stigmatize non-normative. Similarly, people do not care or think twice about the harsh conditions models live under because their “humanity” has been stripped away from them.
There are parallels in the way that medical books and the fashion industry remove the humanity from the people being shown. Medical books blur the people’s eyes, and fashion designers choose people of a certain body type, coupled with certain facial expressions to place all attention on the clothes. What allows these ideologies to be so common is that the perceptions get across to the viewer more easily because of a pre established trust of the sources, and therefore a supposed impartial representation of what is being shown.So what can be done about these issues? In the world of medicine, it is difficult to change these perceptions without having people lose trust in medical practice. However, as a society, we can work to destigmatize bodies that do not fit into certain boxes by portraying them as normal people beyond the medical textbooks, beyond a physical pathology. Nonetheless, it seems as though people are becoming more aware of the false representation of models. The models are speaking out against the designers and agencies that are mistreating them. They also have support from others For example, Warner wrote that female politicians are “using the privilege of their public platform to stake out a position on an issue that would normally pass under the radar.” There are numerous fashion shows and media campaigns that feature people of different body sizes and emphasize the idea that society should embrace the beauty of fashion and the beauty of the human body.
Works Cited
Singer, Benjamin T. “From the Medical Gaze to Sublime Mutations: The Ethics of (Re)Viewing Non-Normative Body Images.” The Transgender Studies Reader, by Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle, Routledge, 2013, pp. 601–620.
Warner, Judith. “Fashion Models and Role Models.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2006, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/taking-a-stand-against-stick-thin-models/.
