Constructing Our ‘Selves’: How Did We All Agree Who We Are? — Part I

I usually stay away from society and its constructs and imaginings (a detrimental habit, I’ve been told- as one is supposed to constantly engage in the social and political, and take interest in worldly affairs when living in a ‘society’! But that is a dispute for another day.) However, having just completed a study of society’s construction of meaning around the colour ‘pink’ and the strange ways in which humans assign meaning to arbitrary things in this world, my mind has been revolving around these thoughts for a while. Hence, the need to jot them down here — for note taking? revisiting in future? someone else’s use if need be? — before I lose interest and forget my temporary fascination with these man-made concepts altogether :)

Life, especially in awareness, is a process of constantly learning that what we had always unquestioningly accepted as ‘normal’ was in fact, lies or mere stories woven for us by the societies we live in. One interesting thing I learnt (or un-learnt) during my recent study was that ‘pink’, which we’d always been conditioned to view as the girls’ colour, was never originally ‘meant for girls’ as we were taught (Having always disliked the colour pink myself, this came as a freeing, and newly self-validating, revelation :D). Soft pink was supposedly the much-preferred colour for males prior to the 20th century; reason being that it was viewed as a lighter shade of purple and red- the colors of valor and courage- and therefore more masculine, strong and powerful. In contrast, during the Renaissance period blue was considered a delicate, calm colour (think the Madonna’s robes and mantle): and this complete switching of colour codes only took place after the post-war 1950’s. An interesting article analyzes this process, noting how:

In the post-World War II years, marketing radically reshaped the fate of this color [pink], feminizing it. The strategy was functional to establish a clear division of female and male roles, also in terms of clothing, aesthetics, and, therefore, chromatics. If men wore serious, formal colors, the perfect housewives of the 1950s could easily wear lighter and more carefree colors, which represented their alleged frivolous spirit. Soft pink was the ideal color to wear within the walls of the house. The association of blue and pink for babies came soon after, in the 1980s. Once again, it was the marketing that changed the course: the increasing use of fetal sex identification imposed a differentiation even in consumer goods, from baby clothes to birth ribbons, up to the Barbies.

Such interesting food for thought on how the entirety of society, (notions of ‘masculinty’ and ‘femininity’, notions of colour and associated meanings; basically, notions of who ‘we’ ourselves are in the end) is a construct, a ‘matrix’ that we all live in — and that most of accept unquestioningly as set reality and define ourselves by until we die. Even more interesting to look at the processes in which these constructs were created; bit by bit, little by little, until they infiltrated into the mass consciousness and became mainstream ideas. I’m adding here two (three?) images that I came across during research and found fascinating:

Figure 1: Portraits of two children from the 1800’s; note how the boy is dressed in pink (a dress with a fussy collar, no less) and the girl is in lighter, delicate and more gentle blue. Figure 2: A well-known personality, also in a frilly dress, which I shall leave for you to guess and perhaps look up on the internet ;)

So all these social constructs define our reality, so long as we remain unconscious human beings existing within the system. A social construct can be defined as a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction, or simply, an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society (Merriam-Webster). So “certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said reality” (Buddhist thought in a nutshell!). We live, then, within a collectively agreed consensus of what ‘reality’ is, instead of experiencing it for ourselves. (Can you really blame one then, for wanting to break away, detach from society and individuate?!) Among these many, infinite social constructs is that of the ‘feminine’ and what is defined by society as ‘femininity’: resulting in what is often, for most of us, the tragicomedy of being a ‘woman’ in this confused human world.

The set of advertisements which we looked at through a feminist lens for deconstruction in our study, were from an extremely cool website named Retro Musings/Ghost of the Doll. Having studied the Lustre-Creme ads for their construction of ‘pink’, I was intrigued by coming across a whole other, vastly different set of advertisements for the selfsame brand, but in the 1940’s — two whole decades before ‘pinkvertising’ and the mass wave of pinkwashing in the advertising industry with regard to the ‘female’ construct began. The second set of Lustre-Creme ads belong to the comic-strip style era of newspaper advertising and are a veritable breeding ground for feminist analysis (The 1940’s Lustre-Creme ads will be looked at, further down in the post :) ).

The newspaper comic-strip style adapted in print advertisements of the 1930's & 40’s continued for several years. We all know that vintage advertisements for us today serve as an endless source of shock, outrage, comic entertainment and elicit a whole range of mixed feelings in their utter lack of political correctness or social consciousness, and the complete dearth of sensitivity which they portray. However, we must remember that these were the products of society, despite in a by-gone era, that shaped previous generations of us humans and still trickle down its influence to us even today. :) Some of these advertisements are downright outrageous (and outdated, of course) in their thinking; posting here a couple for reference:

Figure 3: Two Colgate toothpaste adverts from 1939, showing how all women inherently aspire to ‘husband’ — even when at college, education is worth nothing if you can’t get a ‘man’ while at it! Might as well go home ;)

Another fascinating aspect is the use of children to re-enforce gender roles in adults (particularly in females; but also sometimes in male adults as expected breadwinners and ‘successful’ men), as well as a study of how their own gendered performances are being shaped in childhood itself (again, strongly portrayed in the Colgate ads):

Figure 4: Boys as ‘defenders’ of their mother’s honor and performing masculine roles at a very young age, girls as gossip-bearers and tattle-tales; and wives (mothers) being shamed & blamed by society for straying husbands!

According to Colgate (and the social views of the time), it appears that women have only two prime objectives in life: One, find a man — then two, somehow keep the man. If he isn’t returning home after work, of course it has to be something to do with you! And possibly your bad breath, and overall lack of attractiveness. Keeping her husband interested in her is a woman’s prime duty in life.

Masculinities, femininities, gender roles and social expectations.. These Colgate comic-strip ads really shine a light on the social constructs in Western societies back in the day. It’s interesting to note how Colgate also features an increasing number of adverts featuring lovelorn soldiers, heartbroken Navy men and sailors who wish to marry and settle down, during the WWII era. In contrast, here’s a look at women’s perceived (!) duties during the wartime, while their men are away in combat:

Figure 5: Note the frightening implications of mass ‘brainwashing’ (almost Nazi-reminiscent) — juxtaposed with patriotism — of an entire group of women in the background

Figure 6: And guard your ‘loveliness’ — and that ‘schoolgirl complexion’ (?!) just “for him”, until he returns back home from guarding his homeland & country!

These interesting ads from Etiquet also dictate the etiquettes for women while their men are away fighting the big wars :) :

Figure 7: So many ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ for women — but the biggest of them all is not maintaining oneself… Bad breath, underarm perspiration and odor — all clear signs to be avoided by females for the sake of their men! Even if not for their own concerns of personal hygiene.

Well, well, well. Society, aren’t you interesting?

Looking at the ways in which femininity and society’s norm of ideal ‘woman’ is constructed, brings me back again to the Lustre-Creme ads which were the root of this post’s thread of thought. The rather funky, pink-themed 1960’s ads which we analyzed for the product were problematic in their own way, but a previous version of the company’s advertisements — in the1940’s — were even more problematic for a different reason. As the Retro Musings site wittily puts it: “these shampoo ads from 1948 all had a very similar theme: shiny hair does a husband find.” In the 1940’s, the notions of “feminized” pink had not still entered the market and advertising industry, and the difference in approaches to marketing between the two decades is stark:

Figure 8: Sad, unruly-haired females, moping bachelorettes, lonely college-girls, and unfulfilled career women all realize their [hair’s? life’s?] true potential through… finding their dream husbands!

Times have changed now, yes. The way in which we view femininity and gender norms in general as constructs have changed, yes (thank god!). But the residue of these influences on the mass consciousness — especially through media and sustained advertising propaganda — remains, and impacts us in society even to this day. A Part II to this post will follow later, with more exploration on how femininity, otherness and the patriarchy’s ideals have been constructed, packaged and offered for our consumption while infiltrating our collective human consciousness all this while. :)

*Special gratitude to Retro Musings for their amazing collection of vintage/retro advertisements all categorized with immaculate precision on the website; a joy to peruse.