Makeup and the Workplace

Taking the suggestion to check out some articles on JSTOR, I found an article titled: "Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace", by Kristen Dellinger and Christine L. Williams.

The main question of the article is, why do women wear make up to work? There are positive elements to make up at work; people who are perceived as 'more-attractive' often can advance further in their career, as appearance-based judgements in their favor will open up opportunities. Additionally, it gives women a sense of confidence having a 'professional' and 'polished' appearance in the workplace. There are downsides as well; women often find they are not taken seriously by male coworkers when displaying a feminine appearance. Additionally, if a woman chooses not to wear makeup her femininity and sexuality are questioned, and regardless of her ability to complete a job she'll be judged on appearance.

Dellinger discusses the theories of a few feminist writers, and their worry that women are duped by the misconception that makeup (and cosmetic surgery) are empowering, when in reality women are still placating to a male conception of beauty.

The study used to complete this article included twenty women, from a variety of ethnic, economic, and sexual backgrounds. They were asked a variety of questions, mainly on their feelings regarding makeup in of itself, dress code and appearance in the workplace, the responses they've gotten from their coworkers about their appearance (with or without makeup), and if they've experienced any negative outcomes from makeup in the workplace.

During the interviews for the study, it was made clear there was no dress code requiring makeup at any of the locations where the women worked. For some women, the process of putting on makeup was habit, a process that they underwent each morning before work without much thought. Some only chose to wear makeup when it suited them, and then others did not wear makeup at all. What most of the women experienced, regardless of their makeup practices, was the women who wore makeup to work were viewed as having a healthy appearance, were heterosexual/feminine, and were 'credible'.

One of the women who chose makeup occasionally, said she received remarks about her appearance when she would arrive at work without makeup. Comments about how she looked ill or tired, and in turn the comments would make her self-conscious about her appearance. A similar experience happened with an older woman who was interviewed. Because of the comments about her appearance when not wearing eyeliner, she began to make a conscious choice to wear makeup everyday. Two other women, a DJ and a massage therapist, talked about how their appearance is what makes them convincing and authoritative in their professions. To not wear makeup would mean not being taken seriously.

Thus, women who regularly wear makeup to work and do not wear it for some reason on a particular day receive extremely positive comments about their appearance on occasions when they did wear it. (Dellinger and Williams, 157)

In that way, women are using makeup as a mask or a facade to appeal to the standards of the world once they are outside their homes. One of the women interviewed, who was a homemaker, felt the need to put on mascara and lipstick when running errands so she didn't appear homely when she went out. In this particular case, the homemaker was Taiwanese and she felt that the use of mascara give her more Caucasian features.

This brings us back to the standards of beauty that all the women who use makeup are trying to achieve. Dellinger points out that "Cultural images of healthy, energetic, and successful working women are, for the most part, young, white or Anglo-featured, thin, and made-up" (159).

Another cultural perception is that women are all (or should be heterosexual). Four of the twenty women identified themselves as lesbian, and there seemed to be a general idea that a tomboyish appearance was not feminine, thus if they did not appeal to the sexuality of their gender they were not considered professional.

One of the straight women earlier interviewed mentioned being present while her husband interacted with a new hire for his company, and regardless of her intelligence and capabilities, he was considering letting the new hire go for not 'taking care of her appearance'.

The first of the lesbian women, a social worker, did not wear makeup at work because her office environment was more lax. Still she received comments from her coworkers about improvements to her appearance, that way she may be taken more seriously. However, she's more concerned that her being single and less outwardly feminine in her style might peg her as a lesbian at work, and at the time she was not prepared to 'come out' to her office. (This was in the 1990's.) The other two women who were lesbian, a copywriter and a lawyer, both choose to wear makeup as they find it easier to interact with their male coworkers and blend in with the other women. Once again, their credibility as professionals isn't questioned because they conform to the standards.

So while they are not dressing a certain way and putting on makeup to appeal to men specifically, they have to conform to ideas of female sexuality that were instilled in the workplace by men. The social worker listed 2 other jobs she held/applied for, a waitress and a dance instructor, where her lack of makeup and feminine appearance cost her the position.
The last lesbian did not feel the need to wear makeup at work, because she worked at a print shop where the dress code was lax and she was 'out' to her coworkers. She suspected many of her male coworkers just assumed that her lack of makeup was apart of being 'lesbian' .

In the section of the article that discusses credibility, it seems that women are faced with the idea that if you are not pleasing to look at you are not valid. A beautician that was interviewed said a nice hairstyle and makeup is essential to convince her clientele she is legitimate as a beauty consultant. The lesbian lawyer noticed that women in court who do not wear makeup are not received very well, so she took to wearing makeup to maintain being competitive in a male-dominated field.

Race and age are also considered, the sexual objectification of a young white woman is still the beauty standard in the United States, but only applicable to certain kinds of professions. Youth can also connote inexperience, so some teachers and lawyers interviewed explained that to appear too young will also jeopardize their credibility.

When it comes to youthful appearance and status, women must negotiate societal standards of beauty, the demands of their particular workplace and occupation, and the difficult task of trying not to look like they are trying to look too young. (Dellinger and Williams, 167)

The last portion of 'Makeup and the Workplace' is how women try to make the use of makeup their own choice and iconic of being a woman, despite the male-based demands in the work environment. Many of the women discussed makeup and cosmetics with their female coworkers, that they often go shopping for makeup with friends, and that such conversations form bonds with other women. Other women in the study disagreed, that discussing makeup or suggesting beauty tips could also be detrimental to one's self confidence, much like the remarks about their appearance at work.

For some of the women, makeup was a personalized beauty regiment that was pampering when they were alone. Other wore makeup to work, and then simply did not think about it the rest of the time. During the study, it seemed the majority of women wore makeup for pleasure and not to undermine the gender roles imposed in the workplace.

In closing it seems that most of the reasons women whose to wear makeup were sociological, economical, and psychological. In order to advance economically, they had to conform to society's beauty standards. However, it is the beauty standards themselves that made women feel inadequate and require makeup in the first place.

I've definitely felt pressure to wear makeup at work before. When I was a waitress, and did not have time to put on makeup before my shift, I noticed people were quicker to dismiss me conversationally and would be less warm during interactions. The same is when I've worked at retail jobs, customers - men in particular, are less inclined to interact with you. However, when I've been wearing a full face of makeup, they're much more relaxed about being assisted.
My sister and I once experimented with this idea when we went out ourselves. One of us would wear no makeup while the other would wear the whole 9-yards, most often the made up individual would receive more attention. We even experimented with glasses, and we found that women wearing glasses often were ignored in a similar way.

Works cited:
Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace
Kirsten Dellinger, Christine L. Williams
Gender and Society
Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 151-177
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/190541

Chapter 2: Restoration of Behavior (POST IN PROGRESS)

Chapter two mainly covered the documentation and recreation of ritual. Between all the confusing diagrams, restorative behavior was discussed in terms of authenticity.

Restorative behavior is representational and a reflection on previous situations, people, and emotions. Many of these can be expected behaviors based on cultural prefrences, the shy bride on her wedding day is an example in western culture of said expected restorative behavior. The unwavering emotions of a boy undergoing tribal innitiation rights, even the passion of Christ play is an example of restorative behavior.

The chapter was trying to examine the authenticity of theatrical anthropology; when the rituals, environments, and stories are retold overtime by different generations (or different perspectives) are the recreations of the theatrical performances genuine?

To explain how we try to recreate an 'authentic' experience, but adjust it to fit to contemporary society, Schechner first used the example of widelife parks that we create. We try to replicate the environment of the wildlife in the park with folliage and terrane, yet we'll include technological implementations of touring monorails, concession stands, and souvenir shops. The animals did not eat their natural diet, nor did they exist in an environment that was habitual to them, but the brochures to the park prided itself on the "genuineness".

To connect this example to theatre, the religious sect of Shakers is mentioned. The Shakers no longer exist, as their religious beliefs excluded marriage and reproduction. When they were in their prime, they were famous for their form of worship of synchronized dance performances and song. There was little to no documentation of Shaker dancing, except for drawings or paintings from the 19th century that create a romanticised portrait of the Shakers.
It was based on these images that choreographer Doris Humphrey created her piece 1938 piece The Shakers. While some of the performance elements to the piece attribute to Shaker culture, there is no guarantee of authenticity to Humphrey's interpretation of what Shaker dancing was like. However, her piece became the go-to reference for what Shaker dancing was like despite no real connection to their culture. Because her piece was recorded through Laban notation, it could be reacreated by any performance troupe and further preserve a piece that is not authentic.

Dance scholar Maricia Siegel told me that after The Shakers people regarded Humphrey as an authority on Shakers; she recieved letters concerning them and her advice was solicited. But it wasn't until 1955 that Humphrey even met a Shaker. (Schechner, 47)

Authenticity on historical events, the theatrical interpretation, and restorative behavior is also mentioned in the practices of the villagers of Magendo in Papua New Guinea. There is a bird dance performance based on the death of a boy named Wok. Whether the boy actually existed, or if he only survives in folklore is up for speculation. But the story of a boy killed by a spirit (or angry uncle) for entering a tribal temple that was reserved for innitiated members, evolved into a mythology attributing the tribes achievements/advancements to the spirit of the deceased boy.

The theatrical representation of this story is a tribal performance of male and female combined choreoraphy, mimicking the movements of birds to embody the lamentations and mournings of Wok's mother. The performance is not an exact retelling of how Wok was killed, but an example of restorative behavior and how it shaped their culture.

Also mentioned was the 1980's documentary Altar of Fire, which documented the 1975 performance of an 3,000 year old Indian rite in Kerala called agnicayana. It appears the main purpose and funding of documenting these rites was to record and preserve a dying tradition, yet everything about the filming's process was criticized for making the experience unauthentic. Having a filmcrew present in the area drew in more visitors and tourists, who often interfered with the ceremonies and footage when they wandered in. Additionally, having it documented on film catagorized it more as a performance for viewers than a ritualistic practice.
Despite being an essential part of the agnicayana, the fight involving goats that could not be filmed due to the nature of the violence, and the sensitivity of the film's potential audience.

When people want to see the agnicayana they will not go to Kerala (where it may not be performed again), they will rent Altar of Fire. [...] Theories will be built on items extrapolated from strips of restored behavior. (Schechner, 63)

Makeup and Mask in Chapter One

Lani Barry

Anthropology in Makeup and Mask

Between Theater & Anthropology

Chapter one – Points of Contact

Richard Schechner describes two types of theatre, Japanese Noh and the Deer Dance rituals of the Yaqui Indians, which seem unrelated considering the distance between the places of origin. However, Schechner uses two aspects of these different theatres to show how they could be related.

Structurally they have similar ritualistic elements to them. With Japanese Noh theatre we know of the Jo-Ha-Kyu arrangement that slowly builds tension to the sudden rush and climax of the play’s story. Noh does not require a resolution to the conflict of the story, but it could simply repeat the aforementioned pattern. While watching the Yaqui Indians, they displayed a similar structured pattern to their performance. The Pascola dancers, who represent demons or spiritual beings, and the main Deer Dancer all have specific points of entry into the performance and designated points of interaction. These interactions all develop on a gradual tension building, until the interactions of the dancers pinnacles, resulting in the Deer Dancer to end the performance in solo before an abrupt end.

What we have is my application of a Japanese theory of aesthetics to a Native American drama. (Schechner, 13)

The transformative powers of mask were also a correlation Schechner made when discussing the Yaqui and Noh. The headdress of the Deer Dancer sits atop their own head without obscuring the face, yet the head and antlers of the deer compile the headdress itself. The result is an interpretation of a creature not completely a deer, and not wholly human. The mask gives the performer the ability to embody the character, such as a deer, yet still reveal enough of themselves to translate the character as they wish. Noh drama was described similarly as the face of the Shite actor is exposed beneath the smaller mask of his character.

It isn’t that a performer stops being himself or herself when he or she becomes another – multiple selves coexist in an unresolved dialectical tension. (Schechner, 8)

Later the book goes on to discuss how preparation for a performance can be considered part of the ritual. When looking at Indian theatre such as Kuttiyatam or Kathakali, the 2 hour process of putting on the elaborate make up is considered essential training to becoming your character and preparing for the performance. In the Indian tradition of Ramlila, the theatrical retelling of the Ramayana, the young boys who play the key roles of Rama, Sita, and Hanuman are carried to their dressing rooms once they leave the stage. While still in full costume, they embody the characters they play, and to have their feet touch the ground is desecration.

The other aspects of a performance, such as rehearsal and cool-down are looked at. Rehearsals occur in customary forms of Asian theatre in Japan and India, however, because the characters are so well established in tradition it isn’t considered to be as vital as in western theatre.

In Euro-American theatre it is not so important that an artist be shaped to conform to a particular set of performative expectations already laid down by tradition. (Schechner, 20)

Cool down traditions vary by culture. While actors may be fed or go to temple after a performance in India, Western theatre traditions have enabled actors to come mingle with the audiences after a performance. The stage space is still considered sacred as audience members are not allowed to go backstage unless given a tour before or after the performance.

During the conclusion of chapter one, Schechner evaluates how our theatrical traditions are passed down. Cultures with an oral tradition revere their Gurus and scholars who maintain the traditions and practices of their theatre, like living historians. However, he continues on to look at how international study and workshops of theatre between genres introduce new concepts to each culture. We can adapt each other’s traditions and give our theatrical practices new ideas borrowed from other cultures. Grotowski’s name comes up a lot in the chapter, especially towards the section on blending theatrical traditions, as he integrated international techniques into his Western theatre practices in the 1970’s.

Whatever the theatrical tradition is, it appears that in Western, Asian, or Indian cultures, the preparation of becoming a character is linked with the application of makeup or mask. Once in makeup or mask the actor becomes an embodiment of the character he represents, yet the actor is still appreciated for their interpretation. They are to not lose their grounding as a performer by becoming personified in the role, hence the full or partial exposure of the face during a performance.

The removal of the mask and makeup is also essential to exiting the role and performance, as Western actors are to not interact with audiences once they are out of costume (character), and Indian/Asian theatrical practices encourage the same.

Citations:

Schechner, Richard. Between Theater & Anthropology . Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1985. 8-20. Print.