Cosmetics

views updated

COSMETICS

The term cosmetics comes from the Greek kosmos for order, referring in this case to the well-ordered face or appearance. Cosmetics are substances applied to the skin or hair to create a pleasing appearance. In the early-twenty-first century, they are alternately seen as the bane of modern women's existence (creating a time-consuming third shift [Wolf 1991] for women) and as a simple, popular tool for personal transformation. Some feminists deride the cosmetics industry as an ethically corrupt patriarchal institution that intentionally makes women feel that their natural faces are inadequate and exacerbates the identification of value with superficial appearance (Bordo 1995), whereas others cheer the liberating effects of bringing control over self-image and appearance within the grasp of every person. Ethical concerns raised in the history of the cosmetics industry remain and are exacerbated by technological innovations and the increasing consumer culture.

History of Cosmetics

The practice of painting and tattooing the body dates back to early-Neanderthal humans, when natural mud, ash, and natural dyes were used for not so much for enhancing beauty, but for camouflage, inspiring fear in others, and representation of animal gods in ritual ceremonies. In ancient Egypt, body painting focused on the eyes, with black antimony powder and green malachite lining used for protection from the sun as well as for decoration. Cosmetics and perfumes were used by both sexes in ancient Egypt and Rome. Later, in medieval Europe, strict religious norms identified cosmetics as the devil's work—a sign of vanity and deception. The Renaissance period brought cosmetics back in style, emphasizing the human ability to improve upon nature. In Elizabethan England, both sexes powdered their faces for a pale complexion, while women also used rouge and lip color, and covered the entire face with egg white for preservation. Men and women of the upper classes devoted significant amounts of money and time to maintaining an aristocratic appearance (Gunn 1973).

In Hope in a Jar (1998), social historian Kathy Peiss tells the story of the cosmetics industry in the United States. The American Revolution led to a rejection of the English tradition of wigs and facial powders as signs of aristocratic standing for men. Yet women's virtue continued to be linked with appearance. Women kept instructions for homemade cosmetics intermingled with potions for curing rashes and maintaining good health. Traditional family recipes (using household items such as oatmeal, lye, charcoal, and berries, among others) were commonly exchanged through social networks; for advice, one went to a friend or family member, not a pharmacist or physician. But more efficient and less risky substances were often available at the pharmacy, and soon women began buying special ingredients for their beauty concoctions. Pharmacists recognized an opportunity for packaging recipes of their own and selling them as finished products. Advertising created brand recognition and motivated women to seek the lifestyles they saw in print. Thus by the early 1930s, most women in the United States reported that putting on a face was a daily activity involving commercial beauty products (Peiss 1998).

Despite this increasing popularity for commercial cosmetics, early critics voiced concerns. Some questioned the monetary and time costs invested for such temporary results. Others expressed moral contempt for a practice that was viewed as an enemy of authenticity, a way to fake one's way into beauty. Early associations between cosmetics and women of low status (e.g., prostitutes and vaudeville showgirls) contributed to this distrust. Yet in a society that historically undervalued women's intellectual capacities and overemphasized their aesthetic value, the cosmetics industry flourished. Looking good was a ticket to increased social status. Even women who initially rejected cosmetics as an inappropriate solution to problems of inequality felt social pressure to use them. Similar pressures have more recently led to increased use of cosmetic surgery for women, the expansion of the cosmetics market to men's products, and biotech research into more effective and individualized cosmetics products.

As the cosmetics industry has become more dependent on science and technology, significant ethical issues have been highlighted, and termed cosmethics. The issues range from gender equity to safety concerns and animal testing. Codes of ethics have been formulated by the cosmetics industry to begin to address these issues as they arise in development, manufacturing, distribution, and advertising (ICMAD). In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require cosmetics safety testing prior to public sales because cosmetics are not considered drugs. However the FDA publishes guidelines for good manufacturing, and all cosmetics manufacturers must comply with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act; products without substantiated safety must bear the warning, "The safety of this product has not been determined."

Equity Issues

The contemporary cosmetics industry was largely founded by women (e.g., Elizabeth Arden, Madam C. J. Walker), who recognized the opportunity to make use of recalcitrant appearance norms for their benefit (elevating women's status by turning men's weaknesses against them) and built on the tradition of women's home-beauty networks. Women who were overworked, under-appreciated, lacked self-esteem, or simply desired attention for themselves were offered a medium through which to connect with other women, pamper each other, and share concerns. Furthermore women could experiment with new identities for themselves through the use of cosmetics. Such benefits continue to be heralded in the early-twenty-first century. Of course, for convenience, most women settle on a standard routine that best fits their sense of themselves. Thus, in order to maintain a normal appearance, they come to rely on regular purchases of the associated products. Consumer purchases are required simply to be oneself. How ironic that the product heralded as an opportunity for self-creation, self-care, and shared intimacy among women turns into a requirement of time, energy, and financial investment. In a society highly attuned to appearance, serious consequences ride on conforming to the norm: preservation of jobs, relationships, and self-esteem. Indeed the pernicious dynamic of commercialization and biased norms of appearance has resulted in studies showing that many contemporary women spend significant time each day applying cosmetics, find them essential to wear in a wide variety of circumstances, and believe that their attractiveness depends on cosmetics (Cash and Wunderlee 1987, Kelson et al. 1990).

This situation is problematic for several reasons. First, although emphasis on men's grooming is increasing (Bordo 2000), the value placed on appearance is still decidedly greater for women than men. For women, the use of cosmetics is tied to social status and credibility in the workplace (Dellinger and Williams 1997). Second the image of beauty proclaimed by the industry is decidedly narrow, favoring a white, Western ideal, even when models are from different racial or ethnic groups (Perlmutter 2000, Bordo 1995). This imposition of one version of beauty on all reinforces the historically unjust social status of many women of color. The Western beauty bias can also be seen in scholarship on racialized uses of cosmetic surgery (Kaw 1993).

Safety and Animal Testing

To ensure that cosmetics are safe for human use, animal testing has been employed to determine toxicity and likely reactions to chemicals in the products. The LD-50 test (lethal toxicity for 50% of the animals tested) started in 1927 (Singer 1999) and was developed to determine the strength of various drugs for medical purposes. The testing quickly spread to other applications, including ingestion of lipstick and other cosmetics. It was an industry standard until the early 1980s, when animals rights groups pressured the industries to rethink both the efficacy and ethics of the test. Given species differences and drastic disparities in the amount and time frame for ingestion, the applicability of the test for human usage was unclear at best, and half the experimental animal populations had to die to complete the test. As one activist wrote, "The test defies common sense. Does one really need to know how many bars of pure Ivory soap kill a dog?" (Singer 1999, p. 10). Following public pressure, in 1985 the cosmetics industry moved to a limited test that feeds a smaller amount of the product to a smaller group of animals, and discontinues the study if no harmful effects are found. Similarly, since the 1940s, the Draize eye test has used conscious but immobilized rabbits to ascertain effects such as redness, blistering, and blindness that might result from direct contact of a cosmetic product with the eye. Rabbits' eyes are dabbed with the product, and observed over time to record eye damage and discomfort. Pressure from animal rights activists for alternative models to ensure safety convinced the industry to contribute its own funds to research aimed at refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal use. Animal-free testing now has marketing appeal as well as ethical grounding. In 2002 the European Parliament banned the sales of animal-tested cosmetics produced throughout the European Union, a ban that will, in the future, apply to animal-tested cosmetics produced in other areas of the world.

Although contemporary cosmetics has advanced significantly from the heyday of animal testing and the previous dangers of unregulated and untested products (e.g., in the Elizabethan period the use of ceruse, or white lead, for complexion whitening led to toxic reactions, sometimes with deadly consequences), the risks of cosmetic use have not been eradicated. Advances in science and technology have brought the advent of cosmeceuticals or beauty products designed to make use of medical and pharmaceutical advances for nonmedical purposes. These include Retin A-enriched facial cream to diminish wrinkles, baldness treatments, and other cosmetic products with biologically active agents. In the United States, this rapidly growing industry (Lamas 2003) is not subject to regulation and testing by the FDA because cosmeceuticals are not considered drugs (which affect the body's structure and function). Yet this claim is difficult to confirm without the very testing that has been waived due to the categorization scheme. Cosmeceuticals are often sold in the offices of dermatologists and other physicians, and may be easily mistaken for tested medical treatments by patient-consumers. Even overlooking the likely ethical conflict of interests, one wonders whether such new and improved cosmetic treatments really advance human options or instead quietly increase burdens, as people try to keep up appearances.

SARA GOERING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bordo, Susan. (1995). Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bordo, Susan. (2000). "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body." In Beauty Matters, ed. Peg Brand. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wide-ranging, accessible coverage of issues related to gender and the body.

Cash, Thomas, and James Wunderlee Jr. (1987). "Self-Monitoring and Cosmetics Use among College Women." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2(4): 563–566.

Dellinger, Kirsten, and Christine Williams. (1997). "Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace." Gender & Society 11(2): 151–177.

Gunn, Fenja. (1973). The Artificial Face: A History of Cosmetics. New York: Hippocrene Books. Coverage of the world history of cosmetics from Neanderthal times through the twentieth century.

Kaw, Eugenia. (1993). "Medicalization of Racial Features: Asian American Women and Cosmetic Surgery." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 7(1): 74–89.

Kelson, Tamar; Ann Kearney-Cooke; and Leonard Lansky. (1990). "Body-Image and Body-Beautification among Female College Students." Perceptual and Motor Skills 71: 281–289.

Lamas, Daniela. (2003). "The Business of Beauty." Miami Herald, September 23, p. 11E.

Peiss, Kathy Lee. (1998). Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Perlmutter, Dawn. (2000). "Miss America: Whose Ideal?" In Beauty Matters, ed. Peg Brand. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Singer, Peter. (1999). "Henry Spira's Search for Common Ground on Animal Testing." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8: 9–22. Interesting discussion of one individual's contributions to the animal rights movement.

Wolf, Naomi. (1991). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used against Women. New York: Bantam/Doubleday. Popular work on beauty and the pressures to achieve it.