The Tyranny of Flawlessness

Interesting article today on Slate ("Tuck Off,"€ by William Saletan), about how the sagging economy will yield more sagging skin, as people put off elective cosmetic surgery. A self-proclaimed "big fan of capitalism," Saletan nevertheless hails the downturn as a worthy corrective, not least of all because it might get more doctors to choose health-related medicine (risky and messy and futile as it often is) over the $12  to 20 billion a year "luxury healthcare sector."

My beef with cosmetic surgery is that people often choose it out of fear, laziness, entitlement or some combination thereof. You can stand there all day and tell me the 329,000 American women who in 2006 chose breast augmentation did it because it made them feel empowered, and sure I defend their freedom to choose well or badly, but I'€™d rather give them all library cards and make them use them for a year, then see if new titties is as far as their purview goes. Also, the aesthetic verisimilitude much of this surgery yields is pretty awful, and I'€™m not just talking on Hef'™s gals: a recent article in the Times about rich women in Northern California included a photo, a photo in which they all had the same noses, the same taut foreheads, the same flat-ironed, professionally streaked hair. As ExPat Jane blogged today, "œif everyone has the same features that's not very good looking at all."

This reminded me of an interview I recently did with Micki McGee, author of Self-Help, Inc: Makeover Culture in American Life. We were talking about life coaching, whose popularity I suggested has run in tandem with cosmetic surgery's. She agreed, while painting the dual rise into the larger picture.

Is the stratospheric rise in life coaching due to the fact that anyone can be one? And what are the contributing economic factors?

My sense is the emergence of personal coaching coincides with the downsizing of middle management, around 1992 and 1993. This is when you see the very beginning of personal coaching. Of course, you'd always had analysts trying to change neurotic unhappiness into garden-variety unhappiness. But this is when you had people that had retool themselves to stay in the workforce, and they started hanging out their own shingles [as life coaches].

It also coincides with the rise of the HMO and the decline in coverage for mental health. Previously, the population had coverage that provided for therapy; with the rise of managed care, people didn't want to have to choose from a small list of providers, people often working for very little money.

Coaching also coincides with the rise in psychopharmacology, which also started to displace traditional therapy. Analysis is long and time-consuming and expensive; it tries to get to the roots of behavior. Coaching, like behavioral drugs, promises a speedy recovery. It's very proactive.

Besides middle management, I also noticed a lot of people coming to coaching from the financial industry. Coaching emerges at a time of the highest wealth inequality since the Gilded Age, when a tiny fraction of the American population owns such a great portion of the wealth;€“ this was the full impact of Reaganomics. You see Americans really struggling with what we expect to obtain and what we can obtain. There was a huge gap, which was filled with consumer credit, and we see where that's led us. There was the expectation that we should all be able to afford the flat-screen TV and the fabulous vacation and the college tuition for the kids. My family didn't have these things when I was a kid, and we didn't feel as though we were supposed to. Since 1972, real wages have not really increased, not when you adjust for inflation. The gap was closed by consumer credit, and also, this bootstrapping self-improvement, that says, if I only work harder, or lose more weight, or get some Botox, I'll be able to be employed, and get what I want.

The promise of better just over that horizon, so long as we keep perfecting ourselves into the zenith, preferably with pockets full of cash. In this way, coaching strikes me as running parallel with the cosmetic surgery industry: we should all appear flawless, as quickly as possible. But who is this really making things more comfortable for?

I think you'€™re on to something with the cosmetic surgery analogy. There was an article in the New York Times a few years ago called something like, "Fearing the Ax? Then Men Choose the Knife," about how men were choosing cosmetic surgery to avoid appearing old, because they were being dismissed from middle management. Age is equated with fatigue, and so we'€™re expected to spend more time appearing vibrant or energetic or what I call hypo-manic. In coaching, from what I've seen, there's a great concern with presentation of self; your whole life is a job interview, no crabbing at the other employees, no bad days, you're supposed to be a perfect little automaton of productivity and creativity, which is not possible but is what coaching suggests. It's disturbing, and it's sort of, the culture of the visual, or what's called compulsory happiness... It'€™s been found that this regiment of happiness is antithetical to political organizing. People who organize are basically complaining; you organize out of shared miseries. Having a big smile plastered on your face is an impediment to organizing. Which is one reason why business loves coaching. It's one of its biggest clients.

The difference between cosmetic surgery and coaching is, your boss can pay for coaching. Cosmetic surgery remains a medical if putatively individual decision --€“ though if everyone around you is having it, you have to explain why you're not.

I can explain why not: compulsory prettiness doesn't interest me. Nor does compulsory happiness. Why would we want to look like everyone else, or pave under that which is dark, terrifying, shameful? Imagine Dostoyevsky saying to a life coach, "I am tortured by memories of my despotic father, of the firing squad in Siberia," and the coach saying, "Fyodor, you're making everyone uncomfortable, let's bring out the positive--you like borscht, right?" Both the cosmetic and coaching industries bank on the idea that you want to be flawless, as if this were something to strive for.

Comments

[Jackie Danicki]

No offense, but it's pretty funny to read my super-practical, organized, accomplished, drop-dead attractive, brilliant friend opine on this topic. Not that you're not allowed an opinion - of course you are - but this take seems to lack a degree of empathy.

[Micki McGee]

Nancy, Great to see a piece of our interview here! One thing:

The title of the New York Times article I mentioned was:

"Fearing the Axe, **Men** Choose the Knife," rather than "Then Choose . . .".

The Times wasn't prescribing! They were discussing the rise in cosmetic procedures among men.

Such are the hazards of telephone interviews!

[nancy]

Thanks Micki - changed!

As for lacking empathy: I don't see it that way. (I also don't see myself the way Jaq sees me, and therein may lie some of the disconnect, and certainly fodder for another post.) I have nothing against people trying to "perfect" themselves into the zenith. If we don't strive, then what is life? I mean, besides waiting for the seventh season of "The Shield"? If people want to have DDD size boobs stuck in their chests, or to whittle their noses down to tiny pencil points, I have plenty of empathy, as is, why are you doing this? What are the encouragements? Why this "solution"? And what do you think it will solve? (Obviously, this is a simplification; many people undergo body modifications because they seek invention, rather than detraction. They have hope. I want their hopes to be founded. Imagine being a cosmetic surgeon listening to these hopes, and knowing your livelihood depends on fostering them.) Anyone who's overcome an addition or a compulsive behavior knows, once you stop the behavior, you get to deal with the whole bloody bag of circumstances that got you there. And what's wrong with that? It seems to me fixing the nose but not why you want to fix the nose is pretty futile. And please, let us not spread this position to include elective surgeries that seem to me considered, e.g., lose 200 pounds and choose to have brachioplasty to remove that extra arm skin? Cool. Considering buttock implants? Can of worms.

[SteveT]

Who/where are all these "flawless" people preoccupied with physical perfection, anyway? Maybe I'm mixing with the unhip crowd, but I see Americans obese and out of shape in historically unprecedented degree and number. It's revealing to look at crowd scenes from old newsreels of the 1950s, 40s, and on back, then take a visual sample of the passing parade at your local shopping mall, Costco, etc. The contrast is striking. A huge % of the population today is literally hobbled by overweight. Even kids are not the scrawny, skinned-knee types we once were, but pale, flabby and flaccid. Far from being over-concerned with flawlessness in appearance, I think more Americans care less than ever how they look.

[Amy Alkon]

I agree with you about the uni-look. It's really scary to see all these people who look like fembots.

I left a comment on this on a post about plastic surgery on Consumerist today, and I'm actually writing about breast implants for my column this month.

Anyway, on Consumerist, they quoted a woman who said: "It's almost a statement if you don't have Botox."

My response:

Yeah: "I'm secure enough that I don't have to have my face frozen."

There are people who have plastic surgery and don't go overboard, but you see a hell of a lot of women in Los Angeles with cat face and volleyball boobs, and they really just look scary and pathetic.

And Nancy, you have real beauty. The kind plastic surgery would ruin.

[ExpatJane]

Glad you're on my side on this topic.

I don't think you lack empathy at all. You don't have to agree with something to empathize with it.

[Bill Dueease]

They say any publicity is better than no publicity. I have to dispute SOME of the statements by Micki McGee that you apparently endorse because you published them, and some of your statements about coaching, and unfortunately, I have to agree with at least TWO of Micki’s statements.

First lets discuss this question/statement. “Is the stratospheric rise in life coaching due to the fact that anyone can be one?”

The overwhelming reason for the rise in the growth of the personal coaching industry since about 1991 is because true Personal Coaching Works! The personal coaching process fulfills a human void that none of the other 9 major human improvement processes even touch, and personal coaching fills this human need better than anticipated. The human void I am referring to is the desire many people have to discover and unravel the mysteries of themselves. Once people truly discover and accept their own individual and unique humanity, they can very easily change the conditions around them to achieve remarkable coachable goals. They now KNOW themselves, versus GUESSING whom they are.

Unfortunately, I also agree that another reason for the rise in coaching is that anyone can CALL THEMSELVES a coach. This is especially true during the past 6 to 7 years. First, there is the herd or bandwagon process. The true successes generated by personal coaching during the 90’s brought in others. Since it cost nothing to call yourself a coach, thousands of people jumped in to give it a try. In addition, the coaching INDUSTRY promoted this tidal wave of new coaches through the meteoric increase in coaching schools. The number of FOR PROFIT coach training schools has grown from about 14 in 2000 to over 250 today, by SELLING the promises of training students to become successful coaches by buying their training, which is frequently given via long distance learning (read very low costs). The reason the number of coaching schools grew is because they made lots of money selling anything that resembled coach training to the many people who wanted to join in on the bandwagon of coaching.

Lets discuss this statement “Coaching, like behavioral drugs, promises a speedy recovery. It's very proactive.”
Personal coaching is not about promising speedy recovery, because personal coaching does not fix anyone nor alter minds like behavioral drugs. The true self-discovery that a personal coach assists clients to achieve is not fixing, but discovery and acceptance. Drugs alter the chemical makeup of the mind and CAUSE thinking, behavioral and emotional changes.

But, I agree that personal coaching IS very proactive. Personal coaching is about moving forward towards achieving future based coachable goals by taking advantage of the newly discovered clear knowledge a person gains about him or her self. It is an extremely powerful and successful process that only some people can benefit from. To succeed at coaching people must want and seek to take full RESPONSIBILITY of their lives, which in turn allows them to gain control. No blaming others or seeking quick fixes through drugs, or surgery.

I fully disagree that the rise in coaching had anything to do with the “downsizing of middle management,” or “the rise of the HMO and the decline in coverage for mental health,” or “because a lot of people coming to coaching from the financial industry.” These comparisons reflect the writer’s assumption that virtually all work related matters emanate from the corporate world and the “money, power, status, control, fakeness, and politics” of the corporate world drive everyone.

True personal coaching focuses on people seeing and ACCEPTING their true selves, in all aspects, without judgment or guilt. I completely disagree with the statement “coaching strikes me as running parallel with the cosmetic surgery industry: we should all appear flawless, as quickly as possible.” I also fully disagree with your statement “Both the cosmetic and coaching industries bank on the idea that you want to be flawless, as if this were something to strive for.” The flashy world of the media and corporations where image, spin, and fiction are everything and substance and truth are meaningless, can be considered a major force in driving people to cosmetic appearance enhancing surgery. You even support my belief by providing an example that is based solely on the corporate culture. Cosmetic surgery is all about fake image that others see. True personal coaching is only about self-discovery, self-awareness to change the conditions around you, not changing the person’s physical appearance to suit others.

However, I do not blame you for your confusion and disdain for coaching. You have a right to express your perspectives. The coaching industry has grown in size and complexity such that it does not offer the general public a clear understanding of what true personal coaching really is. In addition, the thousands of people who call themselves coaches provide anything but coaching, but call it coaching. Many new coaches discovered that claiming to be specialty “niche” coaches will attract attention and hopefully some unsuspecting people who fall for their charades. The media does not help, because they eagerly publicize the more outlandish and controversial of these niche coaches, which legitimizes them in the eyes of the public. You have probably come in contact or been told about these supposed coaches.

Explaining the true personal coaching process is not easy and it is an educational process. Consequently, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Please forgive my long post. I just got carried away.

[Bill Dueease]

Nancy,

I thought responding to your blog and to Micki’s book was so important that I wrote my own blog response to you both. This blog will give coaching, cosmetic surgery and you and Micki more exposure. You may read it at http://findyourcoach.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/19/3648679.html

Bill

[Francis Dutton]

Sociological analysis can yield insights for understanding trends and societal dynamics. However, Nancy's assessment of coaching and accompanying trends is quite frankly way off base. Coaching as a distinct discipline began outside of the corporate world and before the "downsizing" of corporate growth, and was initially called personal coaching. The success of personal coaching was so great, and the resistance to corporate interventions that were really forms of therapy led many management consultants to call themselves coaches and apply their analysis and therapy principles in the guise of coaching in order to reinvent themselves and gain access to executives. Personal coaching does have its shams, charlatons, and gurus, but being "flawless" is hardly a direction promulgated by the best of the real coaches.