|
BELIEF SERIES LECTUREImage & IdentityCovered or choked? Have our modern-day fig leaves stifled our true identity? Revd Joanna Jepson Curate of St Michael’s, Chester 11 July 2005 Thank you for inviting me here to speak as part of your Lecture Series. I understand that this is a series on ‘Belief’ and I think I’ve been invited here as a person with faith seeking to sift through the topsoil of our celebrity culture to find out where the roots really lie. Because although some might see me as a young woman closeted away with the anachronistic ivory tower of the Church of England I see the subject we’re going to think about this evening as something that impacts all of us, whether we like it or not, in how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us. And it is out of concern for the place which image has in our culture that I have begun to think and respond. The title of this evening’s talk hints at the place clothes have in our society however, I think image today certainly goes beyond clothing as I will unpack later. However, clothing is a good starting point because in many ways clothes have always had more than a practical function within cultures of the past. While primarily an issue of warmth and protection clothes and the image they portray have had huge cultural and sociological significance throughout the ages.
These laws were all about keeping people in their place: maintaining the social order by preserving the place of the social elite and keeping the poor firmly in their place. Because clothes, textiles, fashion and style speak a language, and by controlling people’s image it was possible to control their place in life and society. Much of the rise and fall of fashion within society has occurred in reaction to the religious climate of the day. Calvin, for example, brought in sumptuary laws in order to overturn these legally-safe-guarded social hierarchies and bring an end to such arrogant trampling on the poor. So while he might have a reputation for introducing rather dull, prudish and plain dress, set in the social context of the time, we can see a sense of egalitarianism driving his attempt to give dignity to the common person. And even though Christians and religious figures through the ages have wrestled with the ‘artificials’ versus ‘authentics’ there is a clear emphasis put on fashion and style within Biblical history. Even there we can see that clothes and the status they portray have their place within the people of God. In the Old Testament the instructions given to the Israelite people and especially the priests were given in order to attribute meaning and value. And God worked with that - whether it was to denote purity, holiness, priestly or royal identity God used the language of textiles and clothing to express anointing or identity, while making it clear that whatever these things meant in the eyes of men and women – it could never fool Him. ‘I do not judge as man judges. Man looks at the outward appearance but I look at the heart.’ In the New Testament we meet in Christ someone who recognised the importance and meaning of style and yet who was never sucked into the superficiality of it. He was a man who was able to celebrate the creativity of style – evident as he wore a seamless robe – a fashionable garment in those days. Yet refused to allow such enjoyment become a slave driver: ‘Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes . . . Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labour or spin. Yet not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these.’ Well that’s the brief history lesson. But where are we today? We are free from the tyranny of 16th century laws dictating who can wear silk and who must wear sackcloth. But I think we can see clearly how the image that clothing portrays maintains a system in which people are divided and certain groups are disregarded or stigmatised. A very good example of this is the ‘Chav’ Culture. Having done some research on the ‘Chav’ I came across a website called chavscum.com which made it very clear how to identify such a person.
But as this website so evidently declares the chav is the scum of society and their uniform of gold and Burberry marks their identity as such. T.V. shows such as Little Britain have milked the point by creating entire characters, such as Vicky Pollard, on the distinctive chav citizen. On a less jocular note, and perhaps reminiscent of the Elizabethan sumptuary laws, recent proposals to ban hooded sweatshirts in shopping malls have caused a furore while playing on the growing fear that the chav species is not only scum but also a threat to society. Writing about the breeding of fear between people, Jean Vanier summed it up, ‘Because of fear the body of humanity began to fragment, groups formed, each governed by rigid laws, traditions and customs, trying to maintain the strict unity felt necessary to survive against all the powers of death and destruction…’2 But there is a difference. And the difference is choice. While in the Elizabethan era one had little choice about the clothes one wore, today we have that which is most highly prized of all – THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE! Yesterday I read came across this article – Even chavs, some would say, have a choice. We are consumers and our voracious appetite to choose and buy has actually made people slaves to advertisers dream: Slave to the false needs they feed us. We are a culture of people who only have to be told that we need this newest product or accessory to give us the life we want and we bite! And nowhere is this more apparent than in the increasing debt problems many are facing. Credit card and finance advertisements are brazen in their offers – it could barely be more obvious: Get into debt but get the lifestyle that you’ve always dreamed about. And advertisers play on the assumption that the consumer believes it is their RIGHT to have the lifestyle they choose. The lifestyle I want is there on offer, it’s mine for the taking – and it’s my right to choose that. But the choice goes deeper than that... Because it doesn’t stop at what we possess and the lifestyle we are perceived to have because of the kitchen or car that own. Who we are is also up for grabs. As Starkey wrote, ‘Identity is a game where the rules have been replaced by choices. I can be anybody I choose to be. Out of the window go notions of an unchanging essence of personal identity. Rather, today’s identity is a malleable commodity, an aesthetic product to be shaped through lifestyle purchasing.’3 It is no longer simply about our clothes representing our class; it is about OUR ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHO WE WANT TO BE. In the last few decades we have become consumers not of functional necessities but of our very identities. Image is the flat-packed product that we choose, construct, and call identity. While our car and kitchen may say a lot about the kind of life-choices we have made, our bodies and our physical appearance says everything about who we choose to be. And because choice is so highly prized and available to us it is assumed that however we look is the product of our choice of identity. However, it seems as if there is only one valid option worth our aspiration – physical perfection. The idea of marking or decoration one’s body as a form of distinction or political predilection or belonging has always been part of culture and is certainly nothing new within ours. We have observed various groups of people using body art or decoration or markings to express identity within a particular group. So the punks made radical and political statements by the physical markings and art they wore. Just as the hippies, by marking themselves with the symbol of the flower and the CND sign, protested against the establishment of the 1960’s. But the pursuit of physical beauty isn’t about a political subversion nor is it a way of really distinguishing oneself because with the vast choice of surgical and non-surgical procedures available today anyone can look like the stereotype. Now I’m saying all this and realise that as a priest in the Church of England I can sound like the anachronistic voice of conservative morality lambasting popular culture. However, I assure you I feel more like a twenty something young woman than a woman with a collar round her neck. This is something that I engage with because I enjoy the creativity of the fashion industry – I worship the Creator God – but can see the casualties it takes. I have also been through corrective and reconstructive facial surgery, which has left me looking unrecognisably different to how I used to look. And perhaps this experience has led to tensions I’ve had to work through for many years. Our bodies are texts by which we tell our stories and on them our stories are etched and shaped. I have a friend who is 13, she can’t walk due to spina bifoda, but when asked whether she would have an operation to enable her to walk she says ‘I wouldn’t have that operation, because not being able to walk makes me the person I am – it’s part of my identity – and I’m not sure I want to change that.’ She shows a powerful insight into the reality of how our deepest identity is shaped and given expression and voice by our physical nature. And she knows better than all her peers the value in that. Meanwhile many of the other 13 year old girls I come into contact with through church and schools work are all too aware of the identity they want to take on: The Paris Hilton brand. Paris Hilton: 23 year old heir to the Hilton Hotel fortune, and ultimate celebrity idol and aspiration for many a teenage girl. For those who haven’t encountered her I’ve brought a clip of her and her best friend in The Simple Life, a programme of their journey through the rural Deep South without credit cards, cash, or mobile phones. We all need our role models to give us focus and inspiration. Yet what happens when our role models model nothing more than vacuous pouting and disenfranchised sexual exploits? It’s the whole Famous For Being Famous Syndrome. And so another round of reality TV shows kicks off with a handful more hopefuls aspiring to reach the party circuit D-List. Being on TV is a must for being someone – it validates a nobody into a somebody. Being on TV is the making of a celebrity and a step closer to the young girl’s dream of being the next Paris Hilton or Barbie doll. It was brought home to me a few weeks ago when a concerned mother in my congregation confided in me that her daughter was turning into an unkind, insecure, divisive girl as the Hilton phenomena sucked her and her friends into this image obsession. Who needs an identity when you only need be an image? And this poor mother looked on in horror as her daughter began to discard and trample over any one who doesn’t meet the external criteria. That same week I came across a column in the Observer written by a mother about the angst of having a teenage daughter who is only concerned with being a model. I think that we don’t have heroes these days so much as supermodels. Achieving physical perfection and beauty is not the pursuit of some elite it is the aspiration of ordinary people, especially the young. Because in the celebrity culture the people worth celebrating are the beautiful, slim, young, glamorous people whose worth is proved by the fact that they are on TV and in magazines. Identity as an intrinsic and unique gift seems to be disregarded as only those who are on TV, or emulate those who are, are given validity. Becoming a model is, for too many young women, the goal which brings about acceptance because it bestows the only identity worth anything in our billboard and TV driven culture – ‘I am the model showing all you what it is to be someone: fulfilled, happy, successful, perfect.’ The sad irony is that the very industry perpetuating such drivenness is itself enslaved to the unceasing race to find the next ‘face’ and ‘look’ which will maintain their brand’s status at the top. This pursuit of THE FACE even took us through the phase of being confronted by the UGLY model! But I just want to show you this clip of how fast and furious the beauty industry churns its way through the swathes of girls coming forward, particularly now Eastern Europe has opened up. (A clip of a model life was shown here) Because these girls and boys are basically products that get sold in order to sell. What is the effect on the several generations of ordinary men and women who believe their identity lies in becoming a product? The pursuit of beauty may not be a new phenomenon but when its standards become entirely normal where do people go to find their unique place? Where is identity located? Because having seen this clip I believe it isn’t located in the flat and paper-thin marketable product of this season’s FACE. How is suffering handled? How is this shaping and preparing our young for life? How do we prepare them to cope with suffering when they are taught that imperfection and weakness isn’t to be tolerated but needs to be covered up, sliced off, or masked. How does that which is less than perfect accommodated and accepted? In an age where tolerance is so highly regarded are we anywhere near tolerance? Do we really know what that means? Because I’m not at all convinced we are responding out of a healthy sense of identity. When year 6 girls are talking about going on diets, or the pretty 12 year old daughter of my friend speaks about wanting surgery to correct her perfectly proportioned nose, and when 24,000 under 18’s are treated for self-harming injuries every year I think we have indications that all is not well beneath the constructed exteriors. Being beautiful is about becoming a product. And as consumers and products our beauty becomes currency. The value fluctuates according to the standard of the product. But what is the currency good for… currency is worth nothing if it doesn’t have something to back it up. So where does this gold reserve lie in the human market? And what will be the true cost if we don’t invest in it? In 1978 Christopher Lasch, wrote in his book The Culture of Narcissism, about the cost of our cultural obsession. For him, ‘narcissism is not so much about self-admiration as an inadequate sense of self. The insecure modern narcissist demands constant admiration from other people, and if this is not forthcoming, then all sense of his/her own self-esteem vanishes. Unless others ‘reflect back’ to me positive images of myself, I see myself as worthless… It does not help us to know ourselves as we are, but instead we try and create pretend selves. We then look at the public fronts we put on, and think we understand who we really are.’ We as a society need to find stories and symbols of substance, which will give us solid places in which real identity is allowed to unfold and be discovered…. Where vision of true and unique identity is embodied and nurtured. And this is in a way the difficulty. How can these things be developed? If modern day hero worship is for the most part directed at the beautiful and the famous then in a sense it means that such folk will need to play a part in leading the way towards inner beauty. But this is part of the problem because spirituality, from yoga to therapy to the hunt for oneself, has become part and parcel of the product. Every celebrity worth her hair extensions knows that spirituality, and I use that word broadly, is a must-have facet to one’s persona. Spirituality has ironically become a fashion accessory in a way that being pregnant became all the rage for girl-band pop idols a few seasons ago. Spirituality as a commodity has been identified by religious leaders as the altar on ‘which personal integrity is being sacrificed’. Last year Rowan Williams said that the ‘portfolio approach to identity is a trend that is affecting people’s sense of who and what they are’, and went on to argue that spirituality was not something that could just be ‘bolted on at the edges’. The Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks took up Williams’ point saying, ‘The great paradox of our time is that we face huge long-term problems while our lives have become more short-term . . . yet we find ourselves with no stable point from which to survey the territory that lies ahead, or, indeed, any values to connect us to the past and to the future. We need to assemble every resource of wisdom we have. And that will require something deeper than the short attention span and sound-bite culture we have at the moment’. If celebrities are not the answer then there needs to be a more subversive response, and I’m not entirely sure it is something that can be manufactured. But what is clear is that for the health of our society, we need to place our hope and security in more than our fading façade. Youth cannot be clung to forever not matter how much we slice away at our flesh to create a fading echo of former glory. Imperfection might be disguised but will surely burst the seams of our carefully constructed mask in one way or another unless it is accepted and incorporated into the whole. This is the case on both a corporate and individual level. We have seen through the progression of medical technology and genetic engineering how this can and will be used to eliminate physical deficiencies but what about those for whom there is no cure? Those with Downs Syndrome and Spina Bifida for example. My young friend is well aware of why she meets so few other children with Spina Bifida, like herself. I’m wondering whether that which we are looking for is to be found in an unsuspecting place. In the very place that we strive to mask, eliminate, reconstruct or negate. I believe it is people like Alastair and others I’ve spoken of, who do have a powerful witness to the truth of where image and identity lie: partly because she has been allowed existence and is therefore an intrinsically counter-cultural witness. I have also seen this take place in Alastair, my own brother’s life… Christopher who died of Edward’s Syndrome… Paradoxically, those from whom we often hide are the ones who show us the way to the truth of who we are: our fragmented inner selves so in need wholeness, acceptance and restoration. This is all too often the identity we cannot face within – so we shun those who remind us. Recently, there have been some extraordinary people who have caught our attention and subverted our lookist, ageist value system. It hasn’t been so much in their words as in what they have embodied. On a recent and perhaps unprecedented scale people worldwide were exposed to the witness of John Paul II as he refused to hide away, and die privately, after his final illness. 1 Starkey, M.Fashion and Style (Monarch: Crowborough, 1995): 66-7. 2 Vanier, J. The Broken Body (DLT: London, 1988): 24. 3 Starkey (1995): 76. |
