Brenda Weber Into the Makeover Maze Makeover TV

5/13/2018 Brenda Weber Into the Makeover Maze Makeover TV

1/19

MAKEOVER TV....................... .......................... .......................... .......................... . ,. .

CO NSO LE -ING PA SSION S S el fh oo d , C it iz en sh ip , a nd C ele br ity

Ed it ed b y Lynn SpigelBrenda R. Weberelevision and Cultural Power

..." .DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS

.............. ., , .D ur ha m a nd L on do n 2009


2/19

I N TROD UC TI O N

INTO TH E M AKEO V ER M A ZE

A M eth od in th e M adn ess

I just can't wait until I see the whole complete me.-Barbara, makeover subject, H ow D oI ook?I don't feellike that [Before]person was ever me.-Amy, makeover subject, Th e Bigges t LoserI guess we'll know in a few seconds ifeveryonelikes the new me.-Jeremy, makeover subject, Trick My TruckerAre you you? Oh my gosh, you look great!-Friend to subject Samantha, Extreme MakeoverI'm not a coldperson. I'm warm and inviting, andI want my kitchen to be warm and inviting.-Angela, makeover subject, Color Correct ion

The makeover has long been a mainstay of advice columns and entertain-ment literature targeted at women, yet in this new millennium televisionhas launched a seemingly unprecedented proliferation of makeover-themedshows for the house, car,and body that preach the pleasures and possibili-t ies of transformation, rejuvenation, and alteration for everyone. The listof makeover shows is extensive: from Ma ke ov er M an o r, which specializesin helping African American single moms, to A M ak eo ve r S to ry, W ha t N otto W ea r, and 10 Y e a rs Y o u ng e r, which perform "miracle transformations"within the blink of a chemical peel and wardrobe change, to Qu ee r E y e f orthe S tr aig ht G uy , which has given new meaning to queering (or not) men,to L oo k- a- Li ke , S ty le H e r F amo us , and I W an t a F am ou s F ace , which make over


3/19

"average" people so that they might more closely approximate celebrities.There's Head 2 To e and H ow D o I L o ok? , which invite friends and families toexert makeover mandates, and the more hardcore makeovers ofD r. 90210,F at M ar ch , B ig M ed ic in e, P la stic S ur ge ry B ev er ly H ills , B ra nd N ew Y ou , P la sticS urg ery : B efo re a nd A fte r, E xtr em e M ak eo ve r, T he C ra ze , R ub y, B ulg in g B rid es ,W eig hin g In , T he S wan , I L ost It!, S h aq 's B i g Ch a ll en g e, and T he B ig g es t L os er ,which forcibly reshape the body through plastic surgery or intense weight-loss boot camps. Makeover segments are a cri tical element of afternoonprogramming on network talk shows, such as O pr ah , M au ry , R ic ki L ak e,and the 1Jra Bank s show. There are also a countless number of house, car,motorcycle, boat, restaurant, kid, marriage, salon, and manners makeoversthat have set a new benchmark for telev isua l transformations.' To put itmildly, U.S. television is inundat ing viewers with imperat ives about self-appraisal, self-critique, and self-improvement.

My fascination with television makeovers began at a very prec ise mo-ment. In early 2003, r watched ABC'S plast ic surgery makeover show,E x tr eme Ma k eo v er , in preparation for a c lass I would soon teach. Amy, oneof the makeover participants described by the show as a "painfully shycake decorator," said in her post-makeover interview, "I'm beautiful! Ijustdon't care what people think of me anymore. If I'm happy with myself,that's all that matters."

At the time, Amy's comments struck me as contradic tory since it wassocial disapproval ofher own appearance that had ini tial ly led to her feel-ings ofpoor self -worth and "debil itat ing shyness." As her story indicated,Amy's fai lure to approximate the gendered indicators of personhood hadleft her feeling powerless. Post-makeover, beautiful, and able to please thegaze, Amy states that social judgments no longer matter to her . Bythe t imeof her "big reveal," we get the clear sense that by capitulating to socialstandards about appearance, Amy becomes empowered with the abilityto transcend those very standards. The makeover thus answered Amy'scry for recognition by inscribing intelligibility onro her body through largebreasts, a bright smile, and a pert nose .

This transformation-where subordination empowers , where a normal-ized appearance confers individuation-reflec ts the la rger terra in of themakeover i tself . In i ts messages about gender and identity, the televis ionmakeover is an elaborate maze, a complicated labyrinth of pa thways anddead ends, of cul-de-sacs and trap doors. There is both the promise ofcause and effect, of Before and After, and the absence of any direct line-

Amy, Before and After. Ex t reme Makeove r . www.abc.corn

ari ty-the shows themselves, however, bel ie this fact. Given this, the onlyway to understand the contradictory logics of the makeover maze is toventure more deeply into that maze. This book is an attempt to do justthat.

Since 2003, I have watched and analyzed upward of 2,500 hours ofmakeover televis ion-everything from body and style shows, to home andgarden programs, to kid, dog, car, restaurant, truck, clutter, debt, marriage,and motorcycle rejuvenations. Doing so has enabled me to realize that themakeover as text is both amazingly d iverse and remarkably similar. As arecognizable genre, however, makeover TV contains a number of startlingcontradictions; it is the re lationship between these tensions tha t unifiesthe genre. The makeover's thematic paradoxes begin with the fol lowing:
http://www.abc.corn/http://www.abc.corn/


4/19

_ to be empowered , one must fully surrender to experts;_ to become "normal," one must endure "extreme" body-altering

interventions aimed at one's gender, sexual ity, race, class , and eth-nicity:

_ to be "truly" feminine or masculine, one must be hyper-gendered;_ to communica te an "authentic self," one must overwrite and replace

the "false" s ignifiers enunciated by the natural body;_ to be unique and special, one must look and act like everyone else;_ to be looked at appreciat ively, one must f irst be cri tically condemned

by the social gaze;_ to achieve a state of privacy where ugliness does not code as trans-

gressive, one must appear on nat ional and international televis ionand public ly expose the shame of the "ugly" body.

A basic quest ion fuels my continuing pass ion with make overs : how canAmy's sta tement make sense? Or, in other words, how does Amy's desireto be both normal and extraordinary, to be a law-abiding cit izen and abovethe law, to be out of the gaze but loved by it inform a way of knowingthat both endorses and undermines class ic binar ies of subject and object,ac tive and passive, powerful and weak , mastermind and dupe? To beginanswering these quest ions , we must fi rs t consider Amy's comment as botha valid statement about her own experience of empowerment throughtransformation and an art iculat ion of cul tural makeover logics writ large.Amy's desire for submission and control is not ev idence of her personalconfusion but the articulation ofa powerful, internally contradictory featureofdesire and anxiety expressed through and constructed bymakeover TV.Given this, i t is cri tical that we do not dismiss Amy's posi tion or opinionsas idiosyncratic, irrational, or nonsensical.

Amy's story i lluminates the vexing tensions about selfhood, gender,and conformity that are expressed through most makeover narratives. Themakeover maze funct ions as what Michel Foucault terms a social pract ice,in that it combines imperatives, attitudes, and modes of behavior thatbecome inst il led into r ituals that people perfect and teach (Care 45). Theconsolidation of these pract ices around the concept ofselfhood, Foucaultargues, intensifies and valorizes "relations of oneself tooneself" throughimperatives about individual behaviors that have direct bearing on systems

of social relations (Care 43). How we believe we care for the self thus speaksto and informs what we understand the self to be . In turn, such iterationsof the self offer cri tical information about other ident ity-related conceptsart iculated through the makeover, such as individualism and pluralism,defiance and conformity, value and worthlessness, regulation and freedom,authenticity and performance.

Makeover TV focuses very spec ifically on te levision's imagina tion ofthe reasons one must be made over, the shame of refusing alte ration, andthe glory in becoming a polished, refined , beautiful, and confiden t indi-vidual, what I cal lhere anAfter-body. Importantly-and in some contras t toFoucault- the makeover as social pract ice does not teach individuals howto cultiva te the se lf but how to locate it. These do not tend to be mediatedstories about what Foucault terms "retreats within oneself" where theindividual strives for self-improvement. Instead, makeovers depict storiesof fai led or imperiled selfhood, the locus of ident ity stal led or s tagnated.In these media ted transformation texts, the body stands as the ga tewayto the self. Importantly, it is not just the physical body altered throughplast ic surgery, weight loss, or s tyle, but the symbolic body representedby rooms, cars, or kids that functions as the key that will unlock the self.On make~ver TV, that which is subjec t to change marks the site of theemerging s.elf.

On these shows, selfhood links to social locat ions and pract ices markedas normative, f requently designated through images that connote upwardmobility, heterosexuality, consumer-orientation, conventional attractive-ness, ethnic anonymity , and confidence. For instance, when Q u ee r E y ere-meets i ts former subjects at i ts 100th episode, "Straight Man Pageant ,"subject George describes his Before appearance: "That person was hidingin a shell." George then says with feeling, "When you guys came to myplace and showed me what I could do, what I could be, lt just put me toanother level . I 'm a new man today." Another Queer Ey e subject, Jeff, says,"I believe I was hiding under a mountain of hair," which led to a "lack ofconfidence , a belief in myself inside , ... you guys showed me that I couldshed that facade and le t the rea l me out." Tellingly , bo th George and Jeffspeak their grati tude in the terms ofa reconst ituted masculinized selfhoodmade intel ligible through the makeover, and important ly, both men directthe new currencies tendered through their After-bodies to starting busi-nesses; their masculine prowess made manifest in the marketplace.

Even on those shows where Before-subjects already seem to value theirsense of self, makeovers intervene with class, race, and gender-inflected


5/19

"improvements" that gain legitimacy by speaking through the idiom ofidentity. On the long-running What Not to Wear, hosts Stacy London andClinton Kelley often lead subjects , part icipants, or victims through whatthe show describes as an "identity crisis," in order to achieve an appearancecoded as feminine, sophisticated, and refined. When in the fifth seasonthey encounter Cristina Hernandez, who is coded as a hyper-sexualized,"passionate," Latina woman of color, they deem her their most challengingmakeover yet. Crist ina, who proudly displays her body in ways that visu-allymark her as sexy, resists What Not toWear's rules, arguing through themakeover's own logic that her clothes are an outward manifestat ion ofheridentity. When Stacy and Clinton literally trash Cristina's tight sequinnedskirts and deavage-revealing blouses, she screams, "That'S Crist ina thatyou're throwing out!" Yet,as in all episodes, Cristina experiences a conver-sion. The makeover 's "painful" process leads her to recognize Stacy andClinton's superior expertise, including their demand that she change from"skank to chic." Crist ina reflects to the camera in a "private" interview,"There's something sweet and sad about the old Cristina. I sort of lookback at her and think, 'Oh honey, you were trying too hard'. " Clinton andStacy's tutorial teaches Cristina that her sense of self needed adjust ing,that what she had misunderstood as manifestations of her identity wereactually compensatory gestures masking her lack of confidence. "Maybeinsecure Cris tina is gone," Crist ina confides to the camera, "and this new,very confident, secure, smart, intelligent, sexy, fun Cristina is here."

Because of how often these scenes centered on concepts of the selfare repl icated across the makeover canon, we see that makeover shows-whether of car, body, style, kids, or home-work toward similar goals:the achievement of a cer tain l ifestyle, a part icular appearance, a codif iedset ofraced and classed signifiers, and a professional ident ity that meritswhat the makeover deems valid selfhood.' This self is a pr iori understoodas worthy, sexy, empowered, confident, gender congruent, and stable.As Crist ina's story makes clear, even when subjects bel ieve they alreadymanifest the requisite qualities that mark identity, the makeover possessesgreater powers of taste and discretion that individuals need in order toclaim selfhood. Jus t as with Amy's extreme makeover, capitulating to theidiom of ident ity expressed through the makeover is the prerequisi te forempowerment.

This message ofsalvation through submission, although similar to manyother ideological and religious systems, indicates that the public instructionwe receive through TV makeovers is often internal ly inconsistent, fi lled

T . ~ ~ J. ~~-..

with "ill-logics." Typically, a jumble of contradictory ideas is stigmatizedas incoherent or trivial, without cul tural and intellectual gravi tas. Whensuch labels adhere to the media content found in such debased culturalforms as tabloids, soap operas, or reality TV, their stigma infects the prod-uct, producer, and consumer. I believe the dilemma may be not so muchan intrinsic incoherence in the makeover but a scholarly commitment tothe idea that what constitutes rationality is always immediately recogniz-able and constant. In this regard, the contradictory elements ofmakeovershows may be as much due to a hyper-rat ional ist ic mode of interpretationas to any systemic contradiction in the makeover i tself . Makeover TV thusseeks to develop a revised way of knowing that can accommodate the(ill)logics of the makeover rather than simply dismiss them as incoherentor pathologicaL

You-Only Better!Over the past three decades, theorists have argued that in a postmodernand media-driven society, identity and gender are fluid and contingent, orasSherry Turkle observes, "our views ofthe self" have come to be representedby images ofrrnuitipliciry, heterogeneity, flexibility, and fragmentation"(178). In such a worldview, Victoria Pitts-Taylor succinctly articulates,"nei ther psychic self nor physical body are f ixed or natural or authentic,but rather continual ly created or in process" (23). Makeover television,however, tel ls a wholly different s tory ofcoherent and stable subject posi-tions, located in and expressed through the made-over body. Before-bodiesquite often lack valid me-ness and After-bodies mark the zone ofcelebratedselfhood where subjects rejoice, "I'm me now!" Such exclamations beg thequestion: "Who were you before, if not you?" The answer from both thetelevision makeover and a larger makeover cul ture, as the cover to a LadiesHome J ou r na l proclaims, is that you can be "You-Only Better!'?

One of the makeover's more critical premises is that it does not con-struct, it reveals. That is to say, the makeover does not create selfhoodbut rather it locates and salvages that which is already present , but weak.Though a "you" may exist , these s tories suggest the "better you" can onlybe achieved through the makeover.

In contrast to the celebratory state of selfhood available to After-bodies,the selfhood connected to Before-bodies is, by the makeover's definition,not only worse but pract ical ly null and void. The makeover suggests thereis really no choice to make about whether to engage in transformation,


6/19

"YOU~Only Better." L ad ie s Hom e j ou r na l , January 2007

since the difference between Before and After is radicaL On Intervention,for example, Sara says about her self in a Before-state: "I'm not a goodmom. I'm not a good daughter. I'm nothing. I'm nobody." Following hertreatment for drug addiction, she exclaims in her After-state that "for thefirst time in my lifeI feel like a person." Similarly, on Th e B i gg e s t L o se r , Martyis dejected about his Before-body. In his After-body he reflects , "I camehere to lose weight, but I f ound a new person inside of me. When I get upin the morning and look at myself in the mirror, I say, 'I can accomplishanything!' I feel good about myself, who I am inside and out." The post-makeover self occupies ajoyful posit ion represented as rich in agency andself-reflexivity. After-bodies possess the language to express pride in thework they've done=or let others do to them-i-to achieve their improvedstate of identity. As such, they more frequently reference themselves inthe first-person ("I'm me again") rather than in the third-person ("thenose is too broad, the breasts are too small").

The fact that the makeover endeavors to offer subjects either the recla-mation or the first- time-ever experience of me-ness might be one reasonto praise it as a positive cultural site that is the locus of identity work.Indeed, theorists such as Kathy Davis and Debra Gimlin have transformeda traditional feminist critique of plastic surgery by demonstrating theways in which surgery and other forms of body-work often allow women,and increasingly men, to express a self," Rather than being passive in thehands of surgeons or a wider beauty culture , those who choose cosmeticoptions often do so with a sense of agency, thus contributing to their ownself-making. Moreover, i t is true that to live in accord with dominant ide-als about the body grants a person greater social privilege and extends tohim or her a greater advantage and opportunity, which, in turn, influencesself-perception.

I expand on these ideas throughout the book, but Iwant to think morefor a moment about the self that the makeover calls into being. I havealready said that this self, announced through the After-body, is depictedas empowered and conventionally gendered. These two aspects of themakeover are made visible in After-footage of newly muscled men flexingtheir arms in bicep-bulging poses or newly slimmed women holding theirbodies in a model's stance-the man made powerful through signifiers ofstrength, the woman made powerful through her evocation of idealizedbeauty (even when she also has biceps).

The makeover's iteration of self is also marked by normative signs ofsexuality, race, class, and ethnidty. Occasionally, the makeover welcomes


7/19

After-body as hegemonic masculine.Erik, Th e B i g ge s t L o se r . www.nbc.com

After-body made conventionally feminine.Ali, the first female T h e B ig g es t L os er in "Got Milk?" ad.
http://www.nbc.com/http://www.nbc.com/


8/19

people of color and the working class; people who are explicitly markedas " too ethnic" or outside the middle class are given makeovers express lyto make them feel "normal." Transformation from the aberrant to thenormative is meant to increase confidence and wage-earning potential, bothcritical components of the makeover's conception of valuable selfhood.

Depending on the type of show, race and ethnic ity are either rarely ex-plicitly mentioned or are handled as aesthetic details that can be "tweaked"in service of the desired After-body outcome. This oblique managementofwhat often codes as shameful in the Before-body underscores the tacitvalue of middle-class whiteness , which, as David Roediger notes, is typi-cal ly perceived as "natural and normative" rather than "constructed andremarkable" (B6).5Along with a discourse of whiteness, sexuali ty normsrelentlessly swing to the heteronormative. Those subjects who have "stalledout" in romance are revitalized through the makeover's changes , a renais-sance that invariably heightens female/male erotic bonds. Though themakeover can imagine a place for the gay-coded but rarely gay-announcedmale s tylis t, i t is completely f lummoxed by the lesbian exper t or subject.Inthis mediated domain that Iall Makeover Nation where identity mark-ers are expressed through style codes that col lect ively create an ideal izedcitizen-subject, no space is allocated for female-female desire, even onsuch shows as A me ric a's N ext T op M od el where, over the course of multiplecycles, several lesbian and at least one trans-woman have appeared, onlyto be summari ly dismissed ear ly in the competi tion.

Such representation leads one to bel ieve that the self arises in the make-over candidate through the effort involved in achieving a demanding goal,which shows like T he B ig g es t L os er , T he S w an , and E x tr em e Ma k eo v er painfullyi llustrate. The agony of throwing out clutter or trashing unfashionableclothes on How Do Iook?, W hat N ot to W ear, C lean H ouse, neat, and Mis-s i on : Organ iz a ti o n also underscores the labor of change. Home and gardenmakeovers equal ly require hard work, both physically and emotional ly, asevidenced in a scene from T he C it y G a rd en er when the host puts his armsaround the weepy subject Emma and asks, "Is this tears of joy or tears ofsadness?" "Joy," she answers, "Not because I'm sad but because Ican'tbelieve this is mine." Emma's experience suggests that the makeover'saffective labor includes not only Before-exper iences of shame and alien-ation but After-adjustments for self- recognition. Even on shows such asM y C eleb rity H om e, Pim p M y R id e, T rick M y T ruc k, or E xtr em e M ak eo ve r: H om eEdition, where teams of experts do the work of transformation, subjectshave prepaid for their makeovers through the suffer ing they have already

endured, either through the loss of loved ones, the care of others, or thesheer embarrassment of enduring their Before-bodies.

The makeover also indicates that the self emerges as the par ticipant 'Sphysical or symbolic body increasingly emits signs of the ideal, As anoverweight woman takes on an hourglass shape, her sense of her owngendered identi ty becomes clearer, leading to statements l ike "I'm confi-dent. I 'm sexy. I'm a woman now!" Equally, as a young couple's backyardtransforms from weeds and overgrown grass into a "family oasis," subjectsspeak of feeling they can now be bette r moms and dads, functioning moreresponsibly as neighbors, a trope fully manifest on such shows as Th eU g li es t H o us e o n t he B lo ck , D e sp er at e L an ds ca pe s, and De se rv in g D e si g n. Movinginto fuller iterations of idealized bodies, in turn, shapes the desires andpract ices of transforming subjects so that both men and women talk offul lyparticipating in scripts of bourgeois heteronormativity through romance,marriage, children, and middle-brow careers.

This glorification of the normative is troubling in i tself , but the larger ,and to my mind more disturbing, implication of the makeover's notionof selfhood is that Before-bodies can never rightfully claim such status.For se lfhood to be the metaphoric pot of gold at the end of the makeoverrainbow indicates that there is no valid self absent the After-body producedby the makeover process. Those who are s loppy, cluttery, overwrought,overdrawn, and overweight can lay no claim tolegitimate selfhood withinthe makeover's constitution ofidentity. In the makeover's heteronormativeeconomy, they are what Judith Butler has described in U n do in g G e nd er as"unreal people," those so far outside a normative frame that they have nointelligibility as valid subjects (26). Though Butler speaks here of identityformations related to gender and sexuality, specifically citizenship debatesfor same-sex partners and subject-legit imacy for transsexual and inter-sexed people, her analysis directly per tains to the makeover, par ticularlysince citizenship and gender/sex identity are critical to the makeover'stransforming mandates. Butler leads us through a series of questionsthat have relevance to Before-bodies: Who counts as human? Whose l ivescount as l ives? What makes for a grievable l ife? (16-17). More implici tly,she asks: Whose lives merit representation? Whose lives are outside ofintelligibility? How is it possible to achieve a sense of gendered identityif self-determination comes only as the consequence of external affi rma-tion, that is, i fwe are always" gendered f or o th er s" ( Un do in g 25)? What doyou do if the norms support ing the empowered intel ligible subject do notcreate the person you want to be?6


9/19

It seems to me that one of the critical first moves that must happen tobetter answer these questions and to more fully understand the makeover'smaze is a conceptual disjoining of selfhood and empowerment. Though themakeover has an investment in posit ioning these terms as synonymous,their conflation situates the Before-body as passive and enervated. Thisconceptualization of the self-in-absence allows the makeover to authorizei ts practices as "saving the l ife" of makeover participants. Though themakeover's rhetoric is tempered by its format, so high-concept shows likeThe B igge st Loser or Ex tr eme Make o ve r: Home Ed i ti on make claims for total l ifealteration, while smaller shows like De se rv in g De si g n or C ar te r C a n makepromises of new potential for living a more fulfilled l ife, most TV make-overs evoke tropes of identity lost and found. Further, by linking selfhoodto empowerment the makeover suggests it can bring forth a material andvisible element ofwhat constitutes the self, which the evidence of desolateBefore and jubilant After images in celebratory reveal ceremonies makeexceedingly evident. As Micki McGee suggests about self-help discourses,the very enthusiasm of a reveal works to authenticate the invented sel f,since celebration bolsters both authenticity and self-mastery (167-71). Inorder for the transforming magic of the makeover to work, then, the selfmust simul taneously be represented as the most important mani festa-t ion of existence and as not fully attainable without the aid the makeoverprovides.

Makeover logic insists that feelings of sadness, depression, and evendesolation contribute to alienation from an experience of consummatedselfhood, leading to the notion that "1am not me." In so doing, the make-over positions itself as a potent cure for the postmodem condition, bringingcoherence, solidity, and empowerment to the fractured and schizophrenicstate hypothesized as intrinsic to our highly mediated moment. Accord-ing to the messages mapped out in these narratives, altering feelings ofdespondency consti tutes a form of self-making. Similarly, moving closerto social ideals offers a feedback loop that allows for the experience ofa newly consti tuted experience of sel f. This is not to say, however, thatBefore-bodies lack all forms of recognition. They are made intelligible andsympathetic precisely due to their misery, which is attenuated by a mis-matched ontology where outsides do not accurately reflect insides. Before-bodies are lif ted to a field of sympathetic visibili ty precisely because theyare willing to exchange their stories ofmisery (or frustration or discontent)for improvement. They want to be a "You=-Only Better!"

Id eo lo g ic al O pp or tu ni sm a nd T h eo ri zi ng t he M ak eo ve rHow the makeover goes about achieving celebratory selfhood for its par-t icipants is varied, employing a vast range of ideological systems and dis-courses necessary to achieve its self-making goals.' These shows thereforemobilize a wide gamut ofrationales, including neoconservative and new-agereligious rhetorics, neoliberal marketplace ideals, feminist and postferninisrempowerment justifications, hyperconsumerist entitlement discourses,celebri ty and fairy tale transformation scenarios, intervent ionist anti-addiction campaigns, SWAT-like property raid re-enactments, talk-basedtherapeutic rejuvenations, boot camp behavior modifications, and rnedi-calized cautionary tales." Though many of these ideological modes-suchas neoliberalism and government-enforced disciplinarity~share authori-tarian features that compel compliance, others like feminism or therapyoffer potential empowerment and liberation. All of these discourses playa part in creating the celebrated self who emerges in the makeover's greatmoment of culmination: the reveal.

Despite such ideological elasticity, the makeover is pointedly not post-modern nor is itperformative.? As Ijust indicated, there isone place wherethe makeover draws strong lines of demarcation between what it aimsto create and the methods it wil l use. Regardless of the type, makeoversardently promote an essentialized and authentic idea of self that is stable ,coherent, and locatable, where gender unambiguously correlates to sexedidentity. Though the makeover authorizes change in order to achieve thisstable self, such transformation is teleological and unidirectional. Before-bodies become After-bodies, end of story. 10 As I discuss throughout thisbook, the makeover does not create a set ofnarratives in which transforma-tions are random, mercurial , endless, or erratic . Though it can sometimesconceive of difference or resistance-and indeed, it uses such points oftension to reinforce the rightness of its agenda~the makeover perceivesit sel f as an agent of care so that, as the theme song to Quee r Ey e announces,"things can only get better ." This idea of assistance is reinforced througha number of shows, from S ha q's B ig C h al le ng e, H o ne y, W e 'r e K il li ng t he K id s,and The B igge st Loser , which are determined to "rescue America," to SimplifyYourLife , whose host says at the end of most shows, "Now let's go out andhelp somebody else!" The disturbing implication is that those who resistsuch help resign themselves to lives as perpetual Before-bodies. Thingscan only get worse.


10/19

Given reality TV'S central role in this discourse on identity, it's importantto be reminded that the name "reality" is a bit of a misnomer. The factthat the majority of reali ty programs are shot and edited digitally allowsdirectors and producers far more options about how to splice footageand create narrative tension now than they did in the days of film andvideotape. Because the makeovers analyzed here are a part of reality TV,they broadcast but also efface actual events. And yet, though we woulddo well to remember that real people are not the same as representedpeople, we must also bear in mind, as John Fiske theorizes, that there isno"clear distinction between a 'real' event and its mediated representation."Because of this, Fiske opines, a mediated event is "not a mere represen-tation of what happened, but it has its own reality" (2). Makeovers areconsequently both representatives of the real and representat ions thatcreate our notion of the real.

In this discursive construction of reality and identity, gender is central.Reality TVmakeovers urge us to adopt whatever means necessary to findand fix the self and to mark it as conventionally masculine or feminine.The reassurances offered by the makeover, in turn, point to, though do notarticulate , a larger anxiety about the dangerous fluidity ofboth gender andselfhood, a slipperyness that has translated, the makeover suggests , intoa mass of people adrift in depression, desolation, and despondency. Suchchaos manifests symbolically through iterations of the imperiled self; theblubbery and cel1ulited body that testifies to a lack of discipline and seIf-care; the decrepit jalopy that barely runs down the st reet, indicating aninability to materialize public status markers of the self; the overcluttered,overgrown, or ramshackle home and garden that suggests an unwilling-ness, indeed a lack of capacity, to see ourselves (and thus regulate ourbehaviors) as others see us (and wish us to behave). The home makeovershow, Room Se rv ic e , is none-too-subtle about the interconnection betweenselfhood and style. "If a room is an extension of who you are," it asks,"then what does this mean?" The screen immediately fi lls with images ofdilapidation-cracked plaster, broken lathes, wall insulation strewn aboutthe floor. The show answers it s own question, punctuat ing its responseby floating words across the screen; "It 'S a terrible mess!" The voiceovernarrator soothes: "But that's not you. You're vibrant. You're eclectic. You'recreative." We see a clear indicat ion that the makeover includes both theshame of an imperfect self made visible and a cure for the imperi led self-as-signifier. In many ways, the makeover is a master semiotician, altering

the sign (self) bychanging the relationship between signifier (appearance)and signifed (perceived meaning).

In addition to semiot ics as a mode of analysis for theorizing the make-over, feminist theory is critical. Since a larger U.S. and international cul-ture is similarly awash in a tide of plastic surgery options, age-reducingtechnologies, and transformation mandates aimed primarily at women,feminism offers a cri tical lens through which to interpret the surge inmakeover programming. IINot surprisingly, the increase in technologiesof beautification has also given rise to a complicated chorus of scholarlyanalysis that ranges from reject ion to praise." I believe it is importantto bear in mind the breadth of these feminist debates, particularly thosethat reject the automatic conflation of beautification and passivity. Thisrequires analyzing television make overs, whether surgical or not, in lightof analyses that caution against reversing binaries that situate aestheticsurgery patients as either completely co-opted or as always fully empow-ered. Such analysis , in turn, requires problematizing structure-agencybinaries that si tuate doctors as act ive, knowing, and masculinized, andpatients as passive, ignorant, and feminized.

The problem with such a call for nuance as it relates to television make-over shows, however, is that the shows themselves seldom allow for suchcomplexity. On occasion, makeover narratives will depict moments whendoctors acknowledge they are under the same spectatorial gaze as theirpatients. For the most part , however, makeover narratives tend to playby fairly old-school rules of power dynamics. Doctors and style gurus areall-knOwing, great looking, and never wrong; patients are miserable anddepressed, aware oftheir short-comings, unsure ofhow to help themselves,willing to put themselves in the hands of experts for complete renovation,untroubled by any potential medical or financial complications, and fullysatisfied and grateful for After-results.

Though actual phenomena directly influence makeover narratives andso sociological analyses can offer one version of reading people' s real-world choices, makeover narratives rarely communicate the ambiguityand complexity that is part of everyday decision-making. These stories ofself-hatred, submission, and rejuvenation parallel what Virginia Blum calls"plastic surgery culture" and Meredith Jones terms "makeover Culture,"and yet television makeovers are constructed stories, real in themselves,but designed, like all tales, to capture interest through character, conflict ,and climax. The stories, lives, and confessional moments we


11/19

from 1945to 1957,Q u ee n fo r a D a y became a local Los Angeles television showbefore transitioning to national television prominence in 1956. It ai redon NBC until 1960 before moving to ABC from 1960-64, with occasionalresurfaces into the 1970s. Q ueen for a D ay asked four female participantsto compete against each other by showcasing stories of their sorrows anddisappointments. Those subjects whose experiences generated the high-est applause from the studio audience were anointed with a velvet robeand golden crown, given a bouquet of red roses and prizes, l ike a washingmachine or dryer, meant to alleviate their suffering. Q ue en fo r a D ay standsas a signal text for mediated confessionals of personal misery that endin celebratory "rewards" for suffering. Much like the network-produced,higher-profile, and big-budget makeovers I examine in this book-programslike E xtrem e M ak eo ver, T he S wa n, T he B ig gest L ose r, and E x tr eme Ma k eo v er :H om e E dition-Q ueen for a D ay established a mediated affective economywhere miserable subjects trade stories of abjection for the ~ounty prom-ised through televisual benevolence. 13 It may also offer us a moment fromearly television where the savvy viewer was able to t ranslate her tale ofwoe into a form of cur rency, or, in other words, entertainment value, thatcould yield the cessation, even iftemporary, of domestic trials.

Despite these similarit ies , the postmillennial grouping of makeoverprogramming considered in Makeover TV differs from Q ueen for a D ay insignificant ways. Perhaps the most obvious variant is that Q uee n f or a D aywas a stand-alone text. Though other shows like Strike it Rich (airing on CB sradio and TV from 1947-58) also exploited hard-luck stories for entertain-ment value, Q ue en fo r a D ay stands in the contemporary popular imagina-tion as a singular forerunner of reali ty TV'S exploitation-as-entertainmententerprise. In our present moment, no one makeover program stands asthe signal text apart from the rest of the genre. As I have said above, itis the sheer quantity of transformation-themed formats, as much as anyindividual program, that marks this moment as singular.

We know that narrative does not exist in a vacuum. The stories thatdel ight us and the stories that frighten us offer significant informat ionabout the particular historical moment and cultural circun;,s tances out ofwhich those nar rat ives ari se. Just as a t ransformat ion story like Dracula(1897) or T he S tra ng e C ase o f D r. J eky ll a nd M r. H yd e (1886) articulates fearsabout Victorian identity in the nineteenth century, the preponderance ofmakeover programming in the early part of the twenty-first century offersimportant informat ion about our own moment, primari ly the hope that

in controlling the "real" physical body made legible through reali ty TVwemight better regulate and protect the vulnerable social body.

Social theorists such as Mary Douglas and Bryan Turner have under-scored the interconnection between narrative and bodies, arguing thatthe individual body is a microcosm of the larger social body, so that bothmaterial and metaphorical bodies influence one another. The ordering ofone's physical body extends to and makes possible forms of social control.Conversely, the very social stabili ty out of which such control manifestsis a product of individual bodies. The makeover takes such ideas andexpands the constituent symbolic representatives of self, so it is not onlythe physical body but kids, cars, dogs, clut ter, and marriages that createthe web of relat ions necessary to produce the social body. Just as we sawin the discussion of selfhood above, the makeover's formulation positionsi ts interventions as a necessi ty- the detri tus of bodily living must be re-formed and regulated in order for the larger social body to be sustained.The makeover's logic is both a truth statement and a scare tactic of thehighest order, and ultimately, the makeover's discourses set up a climateof panic that requires the elimination of impurities or pollutants thatmay potentially contaminate the larger social body. Collective policingof what Douglas has termed the culturally and context -specific not ion ofdirt is not new; indeed, Douglas sees such behaviors as the hallmark ofprimitive cultures. But television'S role in organizing the constructionof the social body through the regulation of symbolic manifestations ofthe individual body marks these stories as different not only in kind butalso in degree.

Though the fascination with personal-change stories manifests throughall cultural texts, television'S small screen arguably does a more persuasivejob of selling transformational ideologies, largely because reality program-ming seems removed from the artifice that so saturates other forms ofcultural and celebrity construction. As Su Holmes indicates, particularlyon shows that require audience votes to determine outcomes, reali ty TV"quite literally claim[s] to invite us 'behind-the-scenes ' of fame produc-tion" ("Starring" 16). Such glimpses into "authenticity," in turn, obscurethe fact that illusion is present. Joshua Gamson suggests that star maga-zines have often worked "by embracing the notion that celebrity imageswere artif icial products and inviting readers to visi t the real self behindthose images." This, Gamson contends, "partia lly defuses the notion thatcelebrity was really derived from nothing but images" ( '1I .ssembly Line"


12/19

270). Similarly, in explicitly announcing the purported presence of au-thenticity bynaming the genre "reality TV" and even inviting the viewerbehind the scenes, producers are able to anticipate and deflect audiencesuspicion and resistance."

The ostensible realness of people depicted within the mediated realityTV text becomes all the more vivid when contrasted with reminders ofcelebrity construction. Everypicture of a star without make-up and everydocumentary exposingcelebrity cellulite and starlet plastic surgeries serveto remind us ofthe glittering facadeof fame. Reality TV is as full ofartificeas Hollywood'sfictions,yet the process ofwatching "real"people engageintransformations minimizes the idea that such changes areconstructed and,in so doing, underscores the appeal ofthe illusion ofauthenticity. Becausetheviewer haswitnessed the entire passage from BeforetoAfter,the After-body, narratively speaking, stands as the moment ofgreatest authenticity,not to be undone or reversed byfuture parts in films or tabloid momentswhen realness is exposed.

Though there isalwaysthe chance that makeovers won't stick-that theBiggestLosermight regain allthat weight or the Swanmight return to uglyduckling status-the terms ofthe narrative allowfor no such backsliding.These areteleological stories grounded in progress tropes about continualimprovement. Although makeovers rarely feature moments when subjectsresist transformations-when a Swan stomps out of the competition orwhen a Iadette flashes her bare backsideafter beingexpelled-scenes ofde-fianceoftenwork to validatethe accomplishment ofseeinga transformationthrough tothe end.If a personwhomakes it to the status ofAfter-bodylaterrecedes, she or he willdo so outside the scope ofthe narrative. Evenwhenthe makeover offers "where are they now" updates, the imagined zone ofreality TV does not allow for the messiness of real lives. In postrnakeovercheck ups, subjects may bemarginally struggling, they might have pickedup a pound or two, or they may be battling recurring bouts of cancer orcontending with divorce. But the transforrnative self-making propertiesoffered by the makeover are depicted as ever-present and final, now andfor the future, the self in full residence due to the process of change asbroadcast through cable and satellite services across the world. Much likethe tree falling in the forest, if the After reverts to Beforebut the cameraisn't running, we can assume such reversal never happens. Wemay won-der what occurs after "the end," but the onlything we can know for sureis what takes place during the narrative. Across the makeover canon wesee repeated stories of humiliation, desire, rescue, tribulation, fortitude,

and triumph, all played out before the camera's eye,and all leading to theultimate prize of celebrated selfhood with little continuation of the nar-rative that might undo or problematize After-outcomes.

Mess a g es o f No rm al iz a ti on ?

Somewhat ironically, in addition to filling the airwaves with stories cele-brating transformation, U.S.television also supplies viewers with an abun-dance of cautionary tales, thus functioning as both good and bad cop inthe regulation economy of the makeover. Documentaries such as PlasticD is as te rs , D ra st ic P la st ic S u rg e ry , THS I nv e st ig a te s : p la s ti c S u rg e ry N i g htm ar e s,and T he S ec re t L iv es o f W o me n: S ur ge ry A dd ic ts offer a surfeit of frighteningstories about plastic surgeryprocedures gonebad.Plasticsurgerymakeovershows themselves sometimes allude, though obliquely,to the down sidesof their rejuvenating interventions. Ex tr eme Mak eo v er , for instance, notedin a follow-up offormer subject, Paula, that her bodyhad rejected its newbreast implants. Likewise, in an episode of I W ant a F am ous F ace, which Idiscuss more fully in chapter 5, while one subject desired breast implantsto more closely resemble Britney Spears, another subject bemoaned herimplants (intended to make her look likeJulia Roberts) because they hadcompromised her immune system. On shows such as B ra nd N ew Y ou, D r.90210 and P la st ic S u rg e ry : B e fo re a nd A ft er , upwards of fiftypercent of eachepisode's narrative time functions in the service of documenting medi-cal consultations and procedures. Depictions of surgery on these showsskewtoward the graphic, making much of the cutting, blotting, sucking,and restructuring--and al l ofthe blood and gore-that are part ofa majormedical operation. Rather than normalizing plastic surgery makeovers,as some scholars have argued, such graphic depictions may function aseffectiveviewer deterrents.

I don't mean to argue here that makeovers do not situate plastic sur-gery,specifically,and transformation, more broadly, as normal, for theydo. But normalization is not the extent of their message, since in manywaysthe Cill)logicsof makeovers use the discourse of normalcy to callinto question the verynotion of normal itself. Consider, for instance. twoprograms, E x tr em e M a ke ov er and T he S wa n, both of which deploy plasticsurgery as well as diet, physical training, life coaching, and style adviceto achieve After-bodies. At first, the makeover rationales seem entirelyopposite to one another, so that Kacie on Ex tr eme Mak eo v er notes, "1don'tWantto be a super model. I just want to be normal," whereas Rachel on


13/19

TheSwan acknowledges that she is a "self-confessed average girl" and soneeds a makeover because she is too normal.

In this regard, it would seem that Ex treme Makeover corrects deformi-ties , converting people who consider themselves "side-show freaks" intomore conventional embodied subjects. The Swan, by contrast, patholo-gizes the ordinary, so that to be average is something to confess. On bothshows, however, postmaker outcomes line up side-by-side. When Kacieand Rachel appear at their respective reveals, their After-bodies are resplen-dent in tight-fi tting designer evening gowns, their hair long and si lken,their faces artful ly made up. Both women stand on elevated plat forms,overlooking adoring audiences (athrong ofjoyous family and friends forKacie, a group of applauding surgeons and makeover experts for Rachel).Both have learned to pose, turning their bodies in ways to be fully seenand admired. In this regard, discourses of normalcy produce outcomescoded as extraordinary, here, quite specifically, saturated in signifiers thatdenote celebrity.

We can see a similar tension about what constitutes the normal inshows not specifically centered on the physical body. S imp li fy Y o ur L i fe ,which aims to ease over-stressed lives, often enacts intricate makeoversof living spaces, finances, menus, schedules, and wardrobes as a way ofreducing heterosexual relationship tensions. Much like the shows Mergeor Desi gni ng f or t heS ex es , S imp li fy Y o urL i fe teaches negotiation and compro-mise skills, offering strategies for each family member's style-expressionin the shared semiotic spaces of the home. Normalcy here is marked asa place of representational balance. Itis the makeover 's job to facil itate"domestic harmony" by creating the aesthetic indicators that will producethe combined personalit ies of a home's owners. And yet, just as often,shows cri tique home spaces as too "blah" and deficient in "ooh la la." Inthis case, homes too accurately signify their occupants' personalities, and tomake the subject more interesting, the markers of self inwhich the subjectresides must improve. Makeovers are here predicated on the idea that tobe "too average," just as we saw with TheSwan, is evidence of shame thatmust be turned to more sophisticated and class-based ends.

The degree to which the ordinary merges into the extraordinary str ikesme as less important for what such discourses produce (more plasticsurgeries, a greater desire for home improvement) and more meaningfulfor how these discourses put normalcy at the center of every narrative.Whether it's change to be more like everyone else or alteration to beextraordinary, the makeover insists that transformations are the crit ical

pathway to producing the unique and stable, read here as normal, self. Inthis regard, the only totally abnormal State exists outside the makeover'sself-making rejuvenations.

Why Now?The reasons for the saturation and appeal of makeover narratives arevaried, and as with most sociological and representational phenomena,there is not a linear relationship between cause and effect. I can, however,speculate about a number of influences that Imap out more fully in the in-dividual chapters ofthis book. For instance, the increasing shift to a globalmarketplace has privileged employees with (typically feminized) social andtechnological skills rather than those possessing (typically masculinized)physical power or mechanical savvy. As I discuss in chapter 1, appear-ance in the twenty-first century functions as an indicator of professionalcompetence and ability, and in an increasingly globalized economy whereneoliberal subjects circulate the globe, such appearance-based citizenshipis critical for business success. The makeover is thus depicted as a criticaleconomic tool for rectifying the forms of neglect and lack of self-care thathave had detrimental consequences for earning power. Coupled with suchchange has been women's increasing social and economic power, whichhas led to a contestation ofmen's "automatic" right to professionally andSOciallydominant positions. In this regard, men not only need the makeovertocompete with one another, they require the makeover's outcomes sothatthey might compete with women, giving new credence to Gloria Steinem'sadage that women have become the men they wanted to marry.

It is somewhat ironic, given this, that it may be post feminism, ratherthan feminism, that constitutes another factor leading to the presentsurge in makeovers. In her 1982 opinion piece fi rst account ing for a risein postfeminist attitudes attuned to the polit ics of personal style, SusanBolot in noted that young women castigated second-wave feminists as"icy monsters" who had "let themselves go physically," and thus had"no sense of style." Susan J. Douglas observes that the term postfeministindicates how "women have made plenty ofprogress because of feminism,but that feminism is now irrelevant and even undesirable because it hasmade millions of women unhappy, unfeminine, childless, lonely, and bit-ter, prompting them to f il l their closets with combat boots and really badIndian print skirts." Charlotte Brundson further adds, somewhat tonguein cheek, that "second-wave feminism is remembered, and demonized,


14/19

as personally censorious, hairy, and politically correct" ( U2 ) .1 5 Given thedegree to which style thus connects to concerns about and backlashesagainst a feminist politics, the rise in makeover narratives might plausiblybe correlated with the current hostile climate toward feminist practices. I tisanother sign of the makeover 's ideologic opportunism, however, that i tequally claims the rhetoric offeminism in its statements of empowerment,sisterhood, and solidarity.

The flood ofvisual messages about ideal bodies and behaviors throughtelevision, advertising, the internet, and other forms of popular culturemeans that both men and women experience greater demands to worktoward, if not to fully achieve, perfect bodies. Celebrity culture plays asignificant role in both modeling and affirming the rightness of theseideals. Constant reminders of beaut iful bodies also take place amidst asocial backdrop of a critical mass of middle-aged consumers (the babyboomers) who possess considerable financial means and an atti tude thatif something bothers you, change it. These consumers, increasingly awareof the aging body, are enacting technologies of self-care, creating culturalinvestments in "good health" by arresting the signs of time's progress andactively fighting for positive self-esteem through the beautiful body. Thishas consequently altered, though not entirely erased, the social st igmaattached to plastic surgery or other nonsurgical appearance-altering pro-cedures such as Botox or even hair dye. Technological advancements incosmetic surgery procedures, recent challenges to socialized and privatizedhealth coverage, and an escalating imperative to meet market demandsmean that doctors and other medical personnel are increasingly turn-ing to cosmet ic options as a way to create new revenue streams outsideof insurance-based economies. Furthermore. makeover culture perfectlydovetails with other cultural trends, in particular those identif ied by Brit-ish sociologists Anthony Giddens, who argues that the intensification ofuncertainty has compelled a higher degree of self-reflective regulation. andFrank Furedi, who contends a heightened sense of cultural vulnerability,coupled with declines in tradi tion, religion, and pol itics, have led to awidespread therapy culture where self- improvement gurus take on iconicstatus (84-89). Given the makeover 's sweeping promises to bring abouta better you and promote happier relations at home and in the office, itsappeal is perhaps no surprise.

And finally, in order toanswer that question-why now?=-we should notdismiss how changes in television itself allow for a greater preponderanceof makeover narratives-and wi th the mandatory turn to high-definition

resolution, a heightened mandate for perfect complexions. 16 In the last tenyears, for instance, the increase of expanded cable, the diminishment of amarket share typically held by the major networks, the rise of real ity TV,and the flexibili ty of what constitutes a television season have all allowedfor an unprecedented proliferation of shows, each offering variations onthe same theme. Real ity TV i s both inexpensive to produce and appeal-ing to viewers-and, in the wake of unionized writer strikes, real ity TV,which primarily employs nonunion writers and production agents, offersa route to programming free of the labor politics that stymie big-ticketproductions. The makeover further offers a basic format reproducible andexportable across specialized cable niches-so we see The Weather Channeloffering green makeovers, World Harvest Television airing A N ew Y ou , G od 'sWay , Discovery FIT making space for the yoga-infused GuruzGo, and RFD(Rural Free Delivery) showcasing A nim a l M a ke ov er TV. Though Discovery,HGTV, Style, and TLC lead the way in airing programming, the reali ty TVmakeover is a democratizing medium that puts mul tiple networks on themap, including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BRAVO, PBS, WHT, FOOD, CMT, A&E,E!, MTV, FIx, KIDS, NGTV, MTV2, MTV3S, TVl, VHl, OXGN, FINE, DIY,HSN, WE, ESPN, HALL, Sundance, Comedy Central, Lifetime, TVLAND,and BBC America. The preponderance of demand also offers independentproduction companies a toehold in a compet itive media market, so thatNew Harbor Entertainment, as one example, sells programming to Style,TLC, and Discovery Home. Makeovers seemingly offer the cure for everywoe, so as environmental concerns move into a dominant mediated posi-tion, the makeover has responded with such shows as Wa s te d , Ou tr ag e ou sW a st er s, T he G -W or d, and Greenovate. The makeover also functions as a siteofhybridity, since 2008 witnessed the introducti~n of a number of showsinvolving format blending, including G r oo m er H a s I t, which combines ele-ments of Q ue er E ye fo r th e S tra ig ht G uy . P ro je ct R un wa y, and Dog Wh is pe re r(and is produced and narrated by T h e B i gg e st L o se r' s creator and executiveproducer, J. D. Roth), or Y o ur P la c e o rM i n e? , which amalgamates game showand makeover formats.

T yp if yi ng t he G e nr eGiven the sheer mass of programming, one can easily begin to wonderjust exactly what constitutes a makeover and, therefore, which programsshould be included in a study such as this. As a rule, I tend to be ecumeni-cal in my definition of makeovers, grouping together shows that revamp


15/19

bodies, clothes, rooms, psyches, marriages, houses, behavior, cars, kids,restaurants, motorcycles, and dogs. I do this largely because the showsthemselves seem aware of their like-mindedness and often speak throughthe same idioms, deploying similar imagery. For instance, D e bb ie T r av is ' F a ceLift or Too lbe lt D i va both talk about a room that needs some nip and tuck ora table requiring a facial; Ex tr em e Mak eo v e r suggests that a body requires acomplete overhaul, and Cesar Milan on D o g Wh is pe re r notes that a poodlehas had an extreme makeover. P im p M y R id e paints subject]ason 's jeep in"gIamouflage" rather than camouflage, and B eau ty an d T he G eek instructsits beautiful women to "pimp your geeks!" Furthermore, many of realityTV'S producers, writers, and production companies work across makeovermodalities, so, for instance, Thorn Beers has been the executive producer ofboth P l as t ic S u r g er y : B e f or e a n d A f te r and Mons te r G a ra g e. Though I think thereare important relationships of content, theme, and affinity between suchdisparate shows as P im p M y R id e, D og W his pe re r, A me ric a's N ext T op M od el,and E x tr em e M a ke o ve r: H om e E d it io n , myprimary concern in this book isnotso much to differentiate between the generic specifics of the makeoversthemselves but to use the makeover as a location through which to betterunderstand how television informs a gendered sense of identity.

My organizing criteria has been to include all programs, no matterwhere produced, that air on expanded U.S. cable and satelli te, includingthose programs such as B ra nd N e w Y ou , L a de tt e to L ad y, and W hatN ot to W earmade in Britain or M axe d O ut, H olm es o n H om es , and S ty le b y J u ry producedin Canada. In so doing, I deliberately privilege on-air exhibition sites overproduction locations. Though I think there is a valuable conversation tobe had about the comparative transnational differences voiced throughmakeover programs, in this book I focus on those shows purchased andproduced for u.s. viewer consumption. I argue that their collective mes-sage speaks to and helps const ruct a broader cultural imaginat ion of theliberal subject, for whom confidence, freedom of choice, and individualismare keyelements ofselfhood. Indeed, to describe these narratives as one ofAmericanness rather than American, as I do in chapter 1, further dislocatesproduct from place, allowing any culture or nation (or production company)to lay claim to the sel f-making values that are a pan of how '1\merica" isconceived and manufactured.

Although the shows I examine are largely produced in the United States,they, like many media products, have a wider international distribution andsubsequently leave a much more vast ideological imprint. Fox's makeover/pageant show for women, T h e S w a n, for instance, though cancelled in 2004,

was still airing as of 2009 in more than fif ty countries. (It a lso continuesto air on expanded U.S. cable). Other shows, like ABC'S E x tr em e M a ke o ve ror E xtre me M ak eo ve r: H om e E ditio n have similar international audiences.The makeover mandate is now a core element of television programmingoutside of the United States, from Australian, British, Dutch, and Israelifranchises of T h e B ig g es t L o se r to Holland's Ma ke M e B e au ti fu l. Ido not meanto indicate here, however, that all other countries derive their makeoverprogramming from the United States. Indeed, in many cases such as Wha tN otto W ea r, H ow to L oo k G oo d N a ke d, A me ric an Id ol, and 10 Y e a rs Y o u n ge r , U,S.format inspirations have come from Britain. Yet,as I note in chapter 1, thenarratives of triumph and self-making depicted in makeovers are oftenrepresented as distinctly American. I t isworth noting, in this regard, thatwhen the Sydney-based T he A us tr ali an B ig g es t L os er aired its final show ofthe second season, it included a remote link to Los Angeles where theAmerican creator, ]. D. Roth, offered blessings and congratulations tothe formerly fat Australian contestants who had proactively engaged inmaking their lives better," This idea that one rises or falls on the basis ofhis or her effort i s a critical cornerstone in the mythology of a class~freemeritocracy that underscores Arnericanness,

Overall, there are three common themes that typify the makeover genrein this book. First, the makeover must employ narratives that work throughan architecture of renovation and rejuvenation. The ideological theme ofthese shows is therefore not only about change but also about improve-ment. Makeovers teach a way of being, a care of the self (as manifestedthrough the body or dog or house or car) that can be visually discerned andpopularly celebrated. The transformation, in turn, unblocks barriers thathave led to dejection, sadness, and self-r idicule, instead allowing for the"free" expression ofhappiness, self-esteem, confidence, and optimism. Thisis why at the end of P im p M y R id e, Tin, a Vi~tnamese national, can celebratehis newly forged belief in the American Dream, saying, "Now I really dobelieve that anything can happen!" Itis also because of the makeover'steleology of improvement that I do not include a show like W ife S wa p,which plays with but does not encourage difference, and Faking It, whichcelebrates plasticity, but I do include Am er ic a n I do l and Intervent ion, due totheir focus on progress desired, if not always earned or maintained.

Second, makeovers work on a premise that when confronted with thevisible evidence of humiliating neglect, makeover subjects will becomeeager proponents of the beliefs espoused by the shows, which includesurveillance, regulation, shame, and normalization, but also attentiveness,


16/19

imagination, celebration, and uniqueness. This is why I would argue HowC le an is Y ou r H o us er , O ne W ee k to S av e Y ou r M arr ia ge , T ria l b y C ho ir , or Super-nanny qualify as makeovers but O n th e L o t and Pr o je c t R u nwa y do not, thoughboth of these contest-oriented reality shows contain elements, such astense elimination ceremonies and narrative arcs of difficulty and triumph,that we also see in makeovers. Unique to the makeover narrative is theway that experts point out flaws in a combined gesture of humiliation andcare, what I call affective domination. Though a show like Pr oj e ct R unwa yequally involves a panel ofjudges who are painstaking about highlightingproblems, the intent of such scrutiny is to accentuate, in the words of thethe show's host, Heidi Klum, the "brutal business of fashion, where oneday you are in, and the next day you are out." Contestants thus rise andfallon the strength of their immanent talents rather than as consequenceof their transformations. Additionally, though career-based competitionshows like T he A pp re ntic e, P ro je ct R un wa y, A me ric a's N ext P ro du ce r, or To pChe f and romance-based contests such as Th e B a c h el o r, T h e B a c h el o re tt e , andF la vo r o f L ov e clearly ask subjects to risk potential failure, nowhere do weget the sense that their selfhood is at stake. On the makeover show, bycontrast , subjects need the transformation made possible by the programsince without the aid the makeover provides, subjects would be compelledto live abjectly in their Before-bodies forever.

A third element that unifies these shows is the mandatory "big reveal"that showcases the work of doctors, style gurus, fitness coaches, dog whis-perers, nannies, or mechanics. Reveal ceremonies differ in how they arestaged, most suggest that the transformed subject has gained new accessto a better self and a nicer life, thereby invoking images of the rarif ied ce-lebrity. Celebrities themselves can either facilitate change or be the subjectofmakeover renovations, but I exclude reality shows that attempt to makea celebrity seem "more real," such as T ha t's S o N o to rio us , T he O sb ou rn es , orT h e S im p le L if e, since these shows do not play out narratives of change thatculminate in the revelation of a celebrated selfhood,

Reveals are the moments when makeovers make good on all their prom-ises. Subjects typically emerge jubilantly to be received back into the lovingarms of family and friends, all equally delighted by the changes that havetaken place during the subject's time of transformation. Whether theceremony offers a new body, a revamped wardrobe, a more stylish livingroom, or a pimped-out ride, reveals are sanctioned zones for emotionalrupture, the dynamics ofwhich I discuss in greater detail in chapter 2. Forall of their importance in the display of the After-body, reveal moments

are largely significant for their narrative emphasis on During. The revealstands as evidence of the combined powers ofmakeover renovations andthe fortitude of the subject'S will , tell ingly illustrated in the necessaryjuxtaposit ion between Before and After images that dominate the climaxof reveals. In many ways, elongated televisual narratives offer us a betterContext for understanding the typically invisible space between Beforeand After than that provided by magazine or talk show makeovers. TV'Sdramatizations of labor, suffering, punishment, and reward consti tutealmost the entirety of the reality makeover's textual t ime, positioning theDuring as the heart of these programs.

Though there are many conceptual differences between makeover pro-grams, most of the shows I study adhere to a formulaic regularity thatincludes 1) the initial shaming ofthe pre-made-over "ugly" subject, 2 ) mo-ments for surveillance by audiences and experts, 3) pledges from thesubjects that they will put themselves fully in the hands of the authori-ties, 4) the actual work of the transformation (somet imes with didacticteaching moments included for benefit of subject and audience), 5) themandatory "shock and awe" of reveals, and 6) the euphoria of the new-and-improved subject and satisfied experts. Though viewers are madeto understand that transformation price tags are steep, makeovers varywidely in how explicitly they enumerate actual costs and who actually paysfor them. Some shows, like M y C el eb ri ty H o me or D e co ra ti ng C e nt s, build acost ceiling into the narrative tension of the show, and so their carefulaccounting of items purchased plays into the overall narrative arc of thestories they tel1. Other shows, like E x tr em e M a ke o ve r or P im p M y R id e, payfor makeovers and comment on their expenses but do not provide detailsin terms of dollars spent. Other shows, l ike M ovin g U p or 1W an t a F am ou sFace , purport to document but not to fund individuals engaged in costlyrenovations of home or bodies.

Depending on the program, there are both explicit and impl icit goalsfor the transformations, expressed by the shows themselves and by themakeover subjects. Sometimes these goals are abstract: empowerment,self-confidence, happiness. Other times the goals are concrete: "I want tosmile," says one makeover subject. At T h e S w an 's second pageant, Delisa,the eventual winner, states her makeover goal as, "I've worked very hardfor this new body and I want to show it off." In Delisa's case, as withmany makeover participants, positive attention is the earned payment forbodily labor. IS Attention is not the only objective. Across the makeovergenre, goals are directed at achieving congruence between gender and sex:

Into the Makeover Maze . 31


17/19

female bodies can be carved into more feminine shapes and male bodiesmade to emit masculine signs. The not-so-subtle suggestion is that anindividual whose sex and gender markers operate in semiotic tandem willbe able to function more successfully in a market economy, ideas that Iexamine more fully in chapter 1. As Paula on E x tr em e M a ke ov er says in herpostmakeover interview, "I walk differently. I look like a woman. Nothingcan hold me back now." Such regularity, both of gender types and ofnar-rative form, tends to create a safe zone where makeover outcomes promisepredicted ends, and where it i s possible at all times to chart how far onehas traveled in the transformation simply by noting how much narrativetime has elapsed.

We can also better understand what consti tutes the makeover genre byattending to absence, by thinking through what sorts of stories the genreitself cannot imagine. Across the broad swathe of makeover programming,for example, there are no shows that advocate letting the pleasure principlerun amok. Although there are ample narratives dedicated to enforcing or-der, for instance n e at , C le a n H o us e, and H o w C le an is Your Houser, there are noshows called Messy or Chaos! Similarly, though we can receive instruction onweight loss through such programs as I Lost ltl, there is no comparable cele-bratory IGained It! The makeover genre cannot imagine certain outcomes,be it plastic surgery to create noses that look like snouts or to implantcats on the side of the head, as one S at ur da y N ig ht L iv e skit enacted, or toarrive at reveal parties only to be met with disinterest or disappointment."Knowing what rnakeovers will not bring forth helps us better understandwhat they constantly endeavor to create: self-regulation, gender conformity,pleasing personalit ies and appearances, and power in the currency of thegaze. Moreover, countless programs endeavor to bring the aberrant intothe norrnative-goths and punks made to look like "normal college girls"on E x tr em e M a ke ov er and How Do I Look?, tomboys redesigned as promprincesses and debutantes on Made . Makeover logic can bring the marginsto the center, but it cannot imagine stories of reversal that challenge thecenter or change only for the sake of variety and newness.

Makeovers create a discursive culture that allows for a fixation on whatis non-normative as a way of reinforcing the hope that we can identify andinscribe the normative on the body. As such, the makeover phenomenonclosely mirrors other historical moments of panic and distress wheretaxonomies of order and discourses of aberrance could find a place ofcoexistence. The makeover, however, also speaks of optimism, happinessachieved, desires fulfi lled, and confidence gained. Though fear and dis-

satisfaction fuel the makeover, the story of transformation itself appealsto the hope that we can, asAmy describes, transcend such non-normativemalaise.

Though individual shows tend to set up and adhere to tight formulas,more broadly makeover programming can be incredibly diverse. Giventhis, it is important not to treat one show as metonymic for the entiremakeover television phenomenon. It is true, as Beth Berila and DevikaDibya Choudhuri have argued, that individual shows, like Qu ee r E y e, mightenact an ideology of consumerism that often plays as an unattainable fiscalfantasy and in so doing reinscribes the privileges of elite culture, yet it isnot accurate to say that allmakeover shows do this. Many other programs,like Head 2 To e or Am bu sh M a ke ov er , take subjects to Target, use Nice andEasy hair products , or, in the case of T he S wa n, L oo k- a- Li ke , M ak eo ve r M an or ,and Covershot , dispense with shopping altogether. Consumerism unar-guably manifests through the exchange of Before for After even whenproducts are not mentioned or cost five or ten dollars, yet we need to becautious about too quickly assuming that all makeovers equally enact thesame consumerist ideology.

M ap pin g th e M ak eo ve r M az eIn the mediated domain of Makeover Nation, belonging functions as themost ardent goal of makeover subjects, and good looks are the primarymeans by which one enters into, and has power within, the democraticfold. Chapter 1hus investigates the language of exclusion and inclusionthat works to reinforce the gendered and sexed logics in the production ofthe citizen, an idiom of entry predicated on an ideology of Americanness.To have self-esteem, happiness, and confidence, what these shows takeas a form of necessary precursors to personhood, also functions as thegateway to democratic citizenry. At the crux of this analysis are the gen-dered, raced, and sexed connotations ofcitizenship, including a pervadinglogic of neoliberalism that situates care of the self as an entrepreneurialinvestment.

Sustaining the metaphor of Makeover Nation, chapter 2 examines theways in which these discourses of belonging work through a form ofcritical observation, often resulting in shame. Every makeover show hasan elongated Before-moment that puts the pre-madeover body on displayand demonstrates why a makeover is not only desirable but necessary.These staged moments of humil iation often involve friends and family


18/19

in the "outing" of the unstylish, or ugly,individual. Simi-"shockand awe" of r~veals reinforces that the body is seen and

atalltimes.Though I argue that in shaming the subjects, showsupan unspoken critique of the style experts, the overall effect

publiccensure accelerates fears of being looked at and assessed.than critiquing the gaze, which the eye of the camera embodies,glorifyit, suggesting that in the culture of spectacle, removal from

the gaze is neither desirable nor, at its extreme, permissible. The onlyfreedomis tobe looked at approvingly.Such a visual economy,however,teachespotential modes of resistance, since the viewers' gaze can oftentum backon both the show and style experts, allowing for a third-spaceofdiscursive critique.

In chapters 3 and 4, I look at the gendered logics that are maintainedthrough the makeover. In chapter 3 I analyze the makeover's goal ofenablingwomen to be "normal," thus making them more confident andpowerful since they are now "finallycomfortable in their own skin." Onmakeover programs, a primary mandate is no gender ambiguity (wheregender is a polysemous term also denoting normative formations of sex,race, sexuality, and class). Female bodies must look feminine, and thisoften means augmenting secondary sex characteristics such as the size ofthe breasts, the proportion of the hips, and the smoothness ofthe skin.Normalcy also requires reducing overly ethnic or hyper-sexual markersthat attach to the body and the home. Chapter 3 in consequence exam-ines the raced, classed, and gendered investments at stake in eradicatingpathologized semioticmarkers, specificallymomisms and tomboyisms. Thechapter interrogates an assumption ofmakeoverprogramming that femalesubjects aremotivated bythe heterosexual attraction their makeovers willyield=-either from new partners or in the revitalized interest of presentspouses. The makeover's use of change to achieve authentic (unchange-able) selves further offers an important cultural site that nuances ourunderstanding of identity and performativity,

In chapter 4, I look at masculinity and male body image. Since a com-mon truism suggests that women perform their gender but men simply"are," the makeover directly challenges the raced and classed foundationalprinciples ofAmerican conceptualizations ofmasculinity. In this chapter,I analyze how the shows diffuse the threat they offer,often bygiving menmore screen time for resistance to experts, allowing them self-governingagency, or encouraging them to proactively participate in the makeover,often even depicting men who drive themselves to reveal ceremonies.

In so doing, makeovers reinforce the "naturalness" of manhood, whilehelping to nudge individual men a bit higher up the stratified ladder ofmasculinity.

The final chapter builds on these ideas ofcitizenship, surveillance, andgender through an examination ofthe ongoing theme repeated across themakeover canon ofattaining the appearance ofmovie star looks. Though,asI suggest throughout the book, discourses about averageness vary acrossand within the shows, the glamour ofthe movie star, while revealing itselfas constructed, comes to stand as the Signifierfor an authentic, celebratedselfhood. In its use of celebrity. the makeover performs another series ofinterventions that it ties to identity-work, including deliberate image-production and active consumerism. Such objectives tie the makeover tonarcissism, falSity, and commodification, and yet I argue we cannot tooeasilydiscredit such broad concepts. Instead, we must examine them fortheir putative roles in the construction ofmediated identities. Trueto the(iH)Iogicsof the makeover, not only narcissism, but so-called falsehoodand targeted consumerism, collectively create the celebrated self thatcomprises the After-body.

In each ofthe chapters I discuss positive possibilities of the makeover.These include the makeover's relentlessly optimistic economyofsolutionsperfectlysuited forthe problems eachsubject faces;its stable of "experts,"be they stylists, surgeons, nannies, dog whisperers, architects, chefs, orinterior decorators, whose lives seem to revolve around the subject indistress; and the way in which the verynotion ofa makeover itself under-scores possibilities for agency,renewal, and self-efficacy.In the conclusionI revisit these points and elaborate on them more fully,leaving necessarytime for my own contested relationship to the makeover, for although Iam too aware of the (iIl)logicsof submission"as-salvation that govern themakeover's ideologicalpremise, I willfully,hopefully, and frequently enterinto renewal contracts that closelymirror the narrative arcs ofredemptionthrough revision that we see on makeover TV. Todose the book, I comebackto those series ofcompeting logicsthat started this introduction, sug-gesting,overall, that the televisionmakeoverfunctions as both aspirationaIfantasy and cautionary tale, ready to delight with romantic possibilitiesand to frighten with dire outcomes.


19/19

NO T ES

I nt ro d uc ti on : I nt o t he Mak eo \ le r Ma ze1 Bymost accounts, makeover programming. as we now experience it began

in the United Sta te s wi th the home renova tion show Trad ing Spaces in2000, a varia tion on the British Chang ing Rooms (1996-2004), though othershows, such as Th is O l d Hou se (1979-present), had been creating miraclet ransformat ions for more than a decade . For an extensive l is t of shows, seethe videography tha t appea rs a t the end of this book .

2 For more on TV and identity, see Gay Hawkins "The Ethics ofTelevision";Annette Hill, Reality TV; Anthony Giddens, Mode r ni ty a n d S e lf -I de n ti ty ; andFrances Bonner, Ordi lUlTY Television.

3 Lad ie s Home Journa l, January 20074 Feminist deba te s about the meanings and impl icat ions of p la st ic surge ry

are r ich and varied . .For helpful surveys, as well as provocations to existingscholarship, see Victoria Pitts-Taylor, Surgery Junkies: Cressida Heyes, SelfTransformations: Meredith jones, Skintight: and Suzanne Fraser, CosmeticSurgery , Gender and Culture.

S For more on critical whiteness studies, see David R. Roediger, Th e Wage so f Whi t eness; Alexander Saxton, Th eR i s e a nd F al l o f t h e Wh it e Republic; ToniMorrison, Pla y in g i n t h e Dark; Diane Negra , ed. , The Ir ish in Us ; Eric L.Goldstein, The Pr ice o f Whi t eness; Matthew Frye Jacobson, Root s To o;JasonSokol, ThereGoes M y Everything; and Winifred Breines, Th e Tr ou b le b e twee n Us .

6 More broad ly, might we ask if the "unintelligible subjects" leading"unliveable lives" that Butler addresses have already worked tocreate"a c ri tica l distance from norms tha t makeover sub jects seem eager toapproximate? Can we thus conclude that desires for recognition between"queer subjects" and makeover participants are incommensurate? I don'tthink so. The makeover 's stark repre sentat ion ind icates tha t absen t the codes

Documents

Brenda Weber Into the Makeover Maze Makeover TV