Aesthetic violence - harm we put onto ourselves

Due to my personal background in fat activism, in this article I would like to focus on a topic often mentioned in literature about oppression. Namely, the disproportionately gendered aesthetic violence - how societal beauty standards and norms inflict harm on individuals who do not conform to these ideals. Regarding the terminology, aesthetic violence is a term most often used in Spanish literature (violencia estetica), while in English we might find some of the themes under the term aesthetic injustice or appearance based violence while the particular connotations are slightly different. They all, nonetheless, denote a form of social injustice, or unjust power relations - described in more detail in the last part of this paper.

In this work I adopt the broader term. Besides the explicit appearance based physical and emotional violence towards individuals who look different (bullying, hatespeech, bodyshaming, etc.), I also wish to include and point at the internalized and self-directed (but often inflicted by external factors) violence in pursuit to fit into these patriarchal standards. These manifest in the form of plastic surgeries, harsh diets and other painful and body-altering procedures especially pressured onto women, and promoted through narratives in media and cultural canons across the world. On top of that, social practices that prioritize certain aesthetics over others cause marginalization and discrimination, and thus can be explored from a variety of critical perspectives discussed within Feminist literature - lookism, racism, ageism, colonialism, sizeism and many more. I will elaborate on some of these later in the text.

Gendered violence perspectives from literature

Based on the course literature, the three perspectives towards violence are as follows. Gender/Feminist theoretical perspective considers violence as a consequence of gender inequality and patriarchal structures of power (Hernandez, 2018, p.1455; Ohman & Emmelin, 2014, p.115). Men’s violence is seen as a tool to manage and maintain dominance and express patriarchy (Cannon et al., 2015, p.670), while women take over such beliefs and act within these systems of control (Ohman & Emmelin, 2014, p.117). Perhaps, one of the most prevalent and discussed themes in this perspective is an array of topics that start with the Liz Kelly’s concept of continuum of violence (1988) that was then adapted to elaborate by many authors - as continuum thinking by Boyle (2019, p.20), and plurality of other continuums mentioned by her. In the traditional Feminist thought women are seen only as victims (Cannon et al., 2015, p.672), but it further develops in poststructuralist approaches where violence is seen as more complex - any gender can be both victims and perpetrators of violence (p.668, p.670, etc.; Carbin, 2021, across paper).

Gender neutral perspective could be used as a policy strategy on using different terms to broaden the discussion to include all genders and other groups such as children, elderly, LGBTQI as potential victims of violence (Carbin, 2021). It treats all forms of violence as similar and is often used as a base for public discourses/policies, but it entails risks of undermining the efforts and making the highly gendered issue at hand invisible instead (Strid et al., 2013, p.575). Some authors highlight that this approach can lead to risks of bringing responsibility to an individual instead of seeing systemic and structural causes for violence (Kriszan & Popa, 2014, p.762)

Intersectional perspective, on the other hand, takes other categories of identity (gender, ethnicity, age, disability, family and household status, economic resources, immigration status and others (Strid et al., 2013, p.559) and recognizes them as crucial in shaping the experiences of violence. Different authors claim and highlight how these intersecting identities create additional barriers and unique vulnerabilities for different groups. Meanwhile, some authors explore intersectionality as a necessary approach in the context of policies that address violence, and highlight particular groups as examples (e.g. indigenous communities by Kuokkonen, 2015, etc.). Additionally, usage of intersectionality is critiqued to mask more complex issues like racism and heteronormative privilege (Kuokkonen, 2015, p.282), and some authors emphasize that just naming intersecting identities alone is not enough to address issues at hand (Carbin, 2021, p.113). Besides developing and acting in deeper understanding, in a postcolonial approach, one should meanwhile elaborate on narratives that construct “the Other” in public consciousness (Abu Lughod, 2011, pp.19-20) or the words and language used (Carbin, 2021, p.113).

Aesthetic violence in this context of feminist theory about violence

I will argue that aesthetic violence can be analyzed in the context of several of these perspectives, rather than just one - all of them offer a possibility for exploring particular discourses. I suggest a few similarities between theories of the course and the understudied term personal views for a discussion, primarily with power relations in mind.

Firstly, the most obvious is the explanation of aesthetic violence in the traditional Feminist perspective. It considers that women are subjected to violence because they are objectified and thus subordinate to men (Hernandez, 2018, p.1455). As a broad array of literature outside of this course describes, objectification is one of the claims within Feminist critique of the existing culture and beauty standards (e.g. the conversation about the male gaze).

Even though aspects of appearance might be reason for explicit violence (e.g. male partner getting aggressive when a woman wears something they consider too revealing), it is more so a systemic violence - similarly to bureaucratic violence towards disabled people described by Nordberg (2021). A systemic violence that is especially maintained in shaming, bullying and other aspects of violence in the continuum. I would compare it to a toxic partner - the media and culture that through direct accounts (visual representation as well as systemic - like the beauty industry, etc.) and by proxy through our closest people keeps obedient womanhood “intact”. In a place of constant fear and pursuit of something that is not realistic or attainable, keeping women busy and away from taking social action (Rhode, 2016, p.700). Besides taking away money and time from women, it has also permeated the culture so far that women, motivated by internalized beliefs, willingly subject themselves to painful (yet unnecessary) procedures or other practices like constant dieting that in long term directly harm the health or at the very least are making life less enjoyable. This internalization of values and obedience to various practices is similarly described by Ohman & Emmelin (2014, p.117) and Crenshaw (2019, p.1266) as characteristic to women subjected to violence who believed they deserved to receive punishment due to misbehaving.

Meanwhile, not subjecting oneself to these expected norms places you at a disadvantaged position - aesthetic injustice and discrimination is widely described by authors from many perspectives (employability, romantic relationships, and other). I describe this in much detail to highlight the fact that such systemic violence keeps men and patriarchy at a constant position of power - with more time, money and less barriers for living authentic lives.

Gender neutral perspective might be at the centre of discourse on aesthetic violence in following light - it opens up the conversation to include more people as suffering from the patriarchal systemic forms of aesthetic violence. It is not just women who should look “feminine” enough, but also men are expected to maintain a “masculine” look. Simultaneously, Queer bodies are extensively policed too.

It brings me to the second point of the previously described perspectives - intersectionality. Some of the aesthetic gendered issues are inherently intersectional. For example, the oppression of the fat has racist beginnings as curvier body shapes of slaves were distinguished from higher classes (Strings, 2019). And nowadays assumptions as well as public narratives of fat being stupid, lazy, without willpower still prevail. It makes Black women especially vulnerable (Ciciurkaite & Perry, 2018, p.24) and this is consistent with the already established broader framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991, p.1244).

As many of the parts of identity are most often externally visible (gender, race, weight, age, etc.), aesthetic concerns are always a part of discussion, and central to aesthetic violence. In the context of power relations it is most often the intersection between womanhood (the oppressed part of the equation in patriarchal power relations) and another aspect. Namely, beauty and diet industries are particularly gendered, and it is an easy predictor that people with intersecting identities will suffer an exponentially broader injustice and systemic violence (and requirements to maintain the white, slender beauty ideal). For example, weight stigma is an especially gendered issue (inflicted both on fat and not fat individuals) (Fikkan & Rothblum, 2012), people with darker skin are motivated to make their skin lighter, or shorter individuals do bone enhancement operations to make them taller (a common trend lately in Asian countries).

An intersectional perspective on externally inflicted violence is the extremely prevalent cyber fat shaming. For example, in the Facebook group “Women Who Eat on Tubes” where besides privacy violations, photos of women eating in public are used to shame them publicly (Alberti, 2021). The author refers to historically gendered surveillance of women’s relationship with food and eating (p.1304). Besides surveilling a natural need for food that can in itself be a form of violence, fat shaming online can be a painful experience, a.k.a. violence, in some of more recent research - even deemed as crime (Polyzoidou, 2024). While elaborating on other authors who discuss different aspects on what should be allowed to be named as violence, Boyle also describes how image-based violence is gaining momentum as something that limits female engagement in the digital sphere (Boyle, 2018, p.8). Even though this is primarily referred to sexual violence, the above mentioned example of the Facebook group entails significant similarities and could be explored more.

These are just a few of the aspects one might connect aesthetic violence to the different perspectives in feminist theory, but one undeniably clear. Female bodies in this world do experience lasting gender inequality connected to unrealistic expectations and pressures, and over time it accumulates into systemic violence routinely experienced and rarely contested.

References

• Abu-Lughod, Lila. (2011). Seductions of the “Honor Crime”. Differences 2011, vol. 22 (1): 17–63.

• Cannon, C., Lauve-Moon, K., & Buttell, F. (2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through

• post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social Sciences, 4(3), 668-687.

• Carbin, M. (2021). Towards a politics of uncertainty : difficulties of naming the relationship between

• gender and violence. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 5(1), 95–109.

• Ciciurkaite, G. and Perry, B.L. (2018), Body weight, perceived weight stigma and mental health among women at the intersection of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status: insights from the modified labelling approach. Sociol Health Illn, 40: 18-37.

• Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color, Stanford Law Review, 43, 6, 1241–99.

• Hernández, M. (2018). “Killed Out of Love”: A Frame Analysis of Domestic Violence Coverage in

• Hong Kong. Violence against women, 24(12), 1454-1473.

• Fikkan, J. L., & Rothblum, E. D. (2012). Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the gendered nature of weight bias. Sex Roles, 66, 575-592.

• Kelly, L. (2012). Standing the test of time? Reflections on the concept of the continuum of sexual violence. Handbook on sexual violence, xvii-xxvi.

• Krizsan, A., & Popa, R. M. (2014). Frames in contestation: Gendering domestic violence policies in

• five Central and Eastern European Countries. Violence against women, 20(7), 758-782.

• Kuokkonen R. (2015) Gendered Violence and Politics in Indigenous Communities. International

• Feminist Journal of Politics, 17:2, pp. 271-288.

• Norberg, I. (2022). Austerity as bureaucratic violence: understanding the impact of (neoliberal) austerity on disabled people in Sweden. Sociology, 56(4), 655-672.

• Polyzoidou, V. (2024). The Crime of Fat Shaming. In Handbook on Cyber Hate: The Modern Cyber Evil (pp. 409-424). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

• Rhode, D. L. (2016). Appearance as a feminist issue. SMUL Rev., 69, 697.

• Strid, S., Walby, S., & Armstrong, J. (2013). Intersectionality and multiple inequalities: Visibility in British policy on violence against women. Social Politics, 20(4), 558-581.

• Strings, S. (2019). Fearing the black body: The racial origins of fat phobia. In Fearing the Black Body. New York University Press.

• Öhman, A., & Emmelin, M. (2014, September). Development policies, intimate partner violence, Swedish gender equality and global health. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 46, pp. 115-122). Pergamon.

Latest posts in this category