Utilizing the MakeoverReflexivity, Subversion, and Panopticism in What Not to Wear

Mandie Bauer

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Gender/Cultural Studies

Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts

The author grants Simmons College permission to include this thesis in its library and to make it available to the academic community for scholarly

purposes.

© May 1st, 2015 Mandie Bauer

Advisor: ____________________________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

Date: ____________________________________________________________

GCS Program Director: ________________________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________________

Mandie BauerCapstone Project

Utilizing the Makeover:Reflexivity, Subversion, and Panopticism in What Not to Wear

Intro-

Reality television, making its contemporary debut with shows such as

The Real World and Survivor in the late 1990s and early 2000s, has

dominated the airwaves in recent years, quickly expanding into its own

genre. Makeover-themed shows in particular have grown significantly in the

last decade, and according to Brenda R. Weber’s book, Makeover TV:

Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity, they surged from approximately 25 in

2004 to more than 250 by 2009. While critics are quick to jump on makeover

television’s perpetuation of dominant ideology, this critique leaves out one

vital aspect: understanding its continuing mass appeal. Why does this genre,

often referred to as “trash TV,” continue to grow exponentially, despite its

evident and numerous flaws? Beginning with a look at the current scholarly

work on reality television, this thesis combines Katherine Sender’s study on

the reflexive audience in The Makeover: Reality Television and Reflexive

Audiences, John Fiske’s analysis of popular culture’s subversive potential in

Reading the Popular, and Michel Foucault’s exploration of surveillance in

Discipline & Punish, to re-center the analytical focus to the viewer. With an

in-depth look at TLC’s long-running makeover program, What Not to Wear,

this paper frames makeover television not only as the often-explored

perpetuation of dominant ideals in the name of beauty, self-confidence and

1 | B a u e r

individual success, but highlights its subversive potential and use as an

individual utility to its viewers.

2 | B a u e r

Mainstream Critique-

Despite the takeover of reality television in the last fifteen years,

nicknames such as “trash TV” and “guilty pleasure TV” make it clear that

critiques are not difficult to find. Jennifer Pozner’s, Reality Bites Back: The

Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure TV, provides an example of a

stereotypical critique, beginning with the book cover which shows human

puppets turned toward a TV. A faceless puppeteer stands over them in the

shadows. Taking on reality television as a whole and deconstructing many

popular shows, from current shows such as America’s Next Top Model and

The Bachelor, to shows that only lasted a few seasons, such as The Swan

and Charm School, Pozner critiques the genre’s array of underlying issues,

including the rampant racism, misogyny, and classism that pepper virtually

every program. With chapter titles such as, “Resisting Project Brainwash”

and “Bitches and Morons and Skanks, Oh My!” Pozner’s accessible, satirical

tone leaves nothing untouched, including the participants to the fairytale

motif that runs extensively in many of the shows, the ideology they all

promote, the networks that create them, and even the viewers who tune in.

Determined to show just how toxic reality television is, simultaneously

assuming that the viewers are not already aware of the multiple messages

and problematic themes in their favorite programs, Pozner leaves no stone

unturned as she blasts the genre’s wide range of underlying issues. Due to

the fact that this paper’s primary focus is makeover reality programming, not

all of Pozner’s critiques of the reality genre apply specifically to shows such

3 | B a u e r

as What Not to Wear, my focus here. However, some of her critiques are

worth mentioning, despite their narrowness.

Pozner begins her book with broad generalizations like the following:

“[t]hese shows exist for only one reason: They’re dirt cheap. It can cost an

average of 50 to 75 percent less to make a reality TV show than a scripted

program” (Pozner, 14). Given the volume of reality programs currently on

television, this statement is probably not a surprise, especially compared to

popular dramas such as Game of Thrones, its large viewership likely one of

the primary reasons it comes back every season. However, to say that low

cost is the only reason reality television exists is entirely too simplistic. This

claim also ignores widely popular, more expensive reality programs,

including What Not to Wear, America’s Next Top Model, and The Bachelor,

programs that Pozner herself cites quite frequently in her study. Additionally,

low overhead costs may make it easy to get a reality program on the air, but

it does not guarantee popularity. What Not to Wear, for example, garnered

over 2.3 million viewers in its first season alone (Sender, 220). While it is

safe to assume that some shows are simply time-fillers, it is incorrect to

assume they all are. Ignoring numbers such as those and believing this

genre only exists because of low overhead costs is dismissive, incorrect, and

over-simplified, particularly for a study such as this one. The shows that do

bring in large numbers of viewers, such as What Not to Wear, require both a

deeper analysis and an acknowledgement of their high production costs and

popularity. Not all of them require much in the way of scholarly critique

4 | B a u e r

compared to one of the more popular programs, simply because, the more

popular a show, the more people tune in, and the wider an audience there is

to perpetuate the ideals in that particular show. “At the end of the day, this

is about branding, this is about marketing, and this is about getting to as

many eyeballs as possible.” (Pozner, 280)

Advertising, on the other hand, poses an interesting spin on production

costs. It is true that costs of this type of programming are skewed by the

amount of embedded advertising these shows encompass. “The genre of

reality TV would not exist as we know it today without embedded

advertising” (Pozner, 281). Sweeping, generalizing statement aside, Pozner

does the research to show just how much advertising fuels the networks in

their production of reality television. Sidestepping technology such as Netflix

and DVRs, which allow viewers to skip through commercials that help pay

the costs of these programs, embedded advertising is a major feature in

makeover television in particular, often featuring the same products the

skipped-through commercials offer. Additionally, the products are often

linked to the shows’ websites, in case viewers want to purchase items

featured in a particular episode (Pozner, 280-281). The synergy between

advertising, production costs and reality television is an important feature of

it, despite Pozner’s oversimplified claim that it would not exist without it.

In Pozner’s critiques specific to makeover programming, she says,

“Makeover subjects discover ‘people are always judging you,’ and the proper

response is to never reject these external pressures. The stylists use words

5 | B a u e r

like ‘hootchie,’ ‘hooker,’ and ‘butch’ to keep in line those who deviate from

an ‘appropriate’ feminine appearance, especially in episodes featuring

women of color, straight women with short hair, and athletes” (Pozner, 76).

Stressing the ideology that is perpetuated in this show, making women who

deviate from the norm step back into the dominant narrative is something

that can be seen regularly in What Not to Wear.1 It is rarely the case that the

makeover contestant in question just needs a few minor changes to embrace

a new look; instead, she often needs a completely different style. However,

the end result is often the same: “reality TV has defined “Woman” nearly

universally as heterosexual, domestically inclined, obsessed with thinness

and beauty, and desperate to be married” (Pozner, 261). More often than

not, women of color get their hair straightened, and all women are told to be

either more or less feminine, depending on how they are dressing, often

falling into the category of too overtly sexual or not feminine enough. In

these programs, there is rarely an “in between.” Stressing the neoliberal

message that these shows perpetuate, simply defined as the belief that the

individual is in control of her own personal success rather than the state,

these shows perpetuate the idea that a new set of stilettos and a dash of

confidence can make anyone successful. Anyone who fails is held personally

responsible for their own misfortunes, instead of looking at other institutional

barriers that prevent them from moving up. “Needless to say, these

programs never discuss actual barriers to women’s success, such as lack of

1 Pozner does look at What Not to Wear, though her critiques are based on the British version.

6 | B a u e r

childcare, pay inequality, sexual harassment, gender or race discrimination

in hiring and promotion, or domestic violence” (Pozner, 154). She continues,

stressing that the problems any individual has moving up in the work place is

“presented as individual misfortunes rather than institutional problems”

(Pozner, 155). A noteworthy critique, and one that should be taken into

account in any analysis of makeover programming.

Though Pozner has many more valid critiques of reality television not

addressed here, her argument fails to fully address why people continue to

tune in; she merely states why they should not. The few reasons she does

offer up in an attempt to explain why people choose to tune in are limited,

often assuming viewers are completely unaware of the mixed, often

conflicting, ideologies the programs are reinforcing, lacking any agency of

their own. “We tune in for numerous reasons, some conscious (mockery of

reality series’ typecast characters is an amusing sport for many viewers) and

some subconscious (from fantasy escapism to the superiority we feel when

watching human train wrecks display their shortcomings under a national

spotlight)” (Pozner, 46). For a genre that shows no signs of slowing down,

ignoring makeover TV’s allure to audiences, regardless of each show’s

individual popularity, is not enough to deconstruct them, let alone slow them

down. Pozner seems to believe that by telling anyone who picks up her book

just how evil the genre truly is, its mass appeal and popularity will disappear.

Of course, knowing something is bad for one does not automatically mean

that the behavior stops; Pozner’s critique ignores deeper meaning for

7 | B a u e r

viewers, and reduces viewer pleasure to negativity like schadenfreude, a

German word that roughly translates to taking pleasure out of other people’s

pain. (Pozner, 16) Though schadenfreude is analyzed in much of the research

done for this thesis, it is not common that this is seen as the only appeal

What Not to Wear has to offer its viewers. Not only is this analysis

condescending, it is also severely limited. It implies that people have no idea

of the messages they are shown in the form of a television show, lacking any

agency or awareness of the often problematic messages makeover television

throws their way, something discussed later on.

Believing she has taught the unsuspecting viewer about all the hidden

messages of racism, sexism and consumerism embedded alongside the

advertising in reality television, Pozner wraps up her study with “reality

television drinking games” and the belief that viewers will now understand

exactly what they are watching when they tune in to their favorite programs

and be ready to push back against it. “Now that we’ve unraveled reality TV’s

twisted fairytales and examined how advertiser ideology influences

depictions of women, people of color, and class and consumerism, my hope

is that you’ll be better armed against the subtle indoctrination these shows

engage in” (Pozner, 268). As previously stated, just because viewers know

what they are watching is bad does not mean they will suddenly stop

watching. Pozner also believes that this book will help consumers of reality

television be better able to pull out the “good” reality shows and leave the

8 | B a u e r

“bad” ones behind.2 “The more you hone your media criticism instincts, the

less affected you will be by sexist, racist, hyperconsumerist representations –

and the more easily you can predict whether new reality shows are likely to

offer harmless entertainment or antagonist attacks” (Pozner, 268). Have

readers who happened to stumble upon this book learned something about

reality television they did not know before? Certainly. Were viewers aware of

all the conflicting feelings they were having as they were tuning in to the

very programs many deem as trash? Probably. Is it simply low production

costs and a malicious joy viewers get from watching other people’s

misfortunes that have made reality television such a giant in recent years, as

Pozner seems to believe, or is it something else entirely? It is safe to say that

it is a little bit of all of those things, but that explanation merely scratches

the surface of all the potential reasons viewers tune in to these various (and

multiple) programs. Moreover, it is important to dig more deep if one hopes

to open the eyes of the viewers Pozner seems to be trying to save.

Current Scholarly Work-

Seeking to provide an answer to at least one of those questions, the

research for this thesis began with a look at current scholarly work of reality

television, particularly those specific to makeover programs. While Pozner’s

critique is of the entire reality television genre, many other scholars have

taken a critical look at makeover programming specifically, beginning with

2 Amazing Race was among the shows she deems positive for viewers.

9 | B a u e r

Dana Heller’s, The Great American Makeover: Television, History, Nation

(2006). Credited as “the first book to examine the makeover television

phenomena, its origins and its pervasive influence in modern American

cultural life” (Heller, 6), it consists of a collection of articles from various

authors, all of which stress the connection between the “American Dream”

and the makeover. Heller combines works from a multitude of scholars,

separating the book into two sections, and adding an introduction of her

own. The first half of her book takes a look at what she calls the “’makeover

mythos,’ or the historical currents, practices, and precedents that inform

contemporary makeover television programs. These chapters emphasize

connections between past myths and the national imaginary” (Heller, 6). In

other words, the first half of the book looks at how the makeover became

rooted into the reinvention narrative of the American Dream. The second half

looks specifically at a few contemporary makeover programs and their

various critiques.

Because this paper does not look into the history of makeover

programs, the first half of the book will not be looked at into great detail. The

second half, however, does look into shows such as Glamour Girl from the

1950s and Queen for a Day from the 1960s, two shows that have much in

common to the makeover shows of today, easily regarded as the foundation

of contemporary makeover television programming. “The Cinderella

Makeover: Glamour Girl, Television Misery Shows, and 1950s Femininity,” by

Marsha F. Cassidy, looks at “the country’s first nationally broadcast daytime

10 | B a u e r

program that celebrated the beautification of women in a dramatic before-

and-after format” (Heller, 125). While the exploitation of misery was a

common critique of the show at the time, Cassidy looks at the show as being

much more than just women competing to have the saddest stories. Instead,

this show highlighted the woes of being a housewife and the struggles that

came along with it, particularly in a time when there was previously no space

for such discussion. “Like other misery shows, Glamour Girl granted

contestants a kind of public forum that was never available before to

women” (Heller, 135). Speaking against Pozner’s assumption that

schadenfreude fuels people’s attraction to this genre as they watch other

people suffer, Cassidy shows how that misery could instead be seen as

common ground and comradery, noting that second-wave feminists would

later on call this same girl talk “consciousness-raising” (Heller, 136). Amber

Watts’ article, “Queen for a Day: Remaking Consumer Culture, One Woman

at a Time,” the next chapter, relays a similar message, highlighting how the

misery in this show, just like Glamour Girl, challenges the post-World War II

mythos of middle-class domestic bliss,” while simultaneously re-inscribing it

through hyper-consumerism (Heller, 141). Though the exploitation of misery

is an important thing to consider when critiquing a genre that profits off of

peoples’ misgivings, it is also important to look beyond that and into what

happens below the consumeristic exterior that makeover shows generate.

Moving from Heller, Brenda R. Weber’s book, Makeover TV: Selfhood,

Citizenship, and Celebrity (2009), takes a broad look at the makeover genre,

11 | B a u e r

including body, house, and car makeover shows, and into how these shows

have grown in the last decade. As stated previously, Weber notes on the

back cover of her book that makeover shows have grown exponentially: from

approximately 25 in 2004 to more than 250 just five years later in 2009.

Determined to stay away from a strictly negative critique, Weber’s study of

makeover television seeks “to recognize it as a set of rich texts that offer

quite specific information about what we desire and what we fear, as

clustered around a pervasive cultural concern about what defines the self”

(Weber, 258). Additionally, she recognizes that condemning a genre that has

grown so much in popularity does nothing in the grand scheme of

deconstructing it; “[s]uch saturation indicates a critical mass of interest that

is both about the specifics of what the makeover has to teach and also the

ideological and gendered messages communicated through the makeover’s

tutorials on taste” (Weber, 260). With chapters that discuss the

transformation from what she names the Before-body to the After-body, the

transformation of which helps to assure citizenship in an individualistic,

neoliberal society that forces its subjects to constantly improve themselves

as a way of maintaining that citizenship. Discussing multiple layers of the

genre, including the politics of shame (schadenfreude), neoliberalism,

citizenship, masculinity, race, and class, Weber’s analysis is quite thorough.

However, it does limit its focus to the makeover participants and the shows

themselves, not specifically considering its viewers. Questioning the viewer’s

participation in the makeover genre is critical to analyzing its popularity.

12 | B a u e r

The Framework-

Incorporated into the framework is the last and most recent scholarly

work on makeover television this paper will be using: Katherine Sender’s,

The Makeover: Reality Television and Reflexive Audiences. Published in

2012, Sender states almost immediately that she is, “[s]uspicious of popular

and scholarly critiques that dismiss the genre and disparage the people who

enjoy it.” (Sender, 6) Though Heller and Weber make it a point to not

disparage the genre either, their studies differ from Sender’s, as Sender

turns the focus of her study to the actual consumers: the viewers of

makeover television shows. Important in an analysis of the popularity of such

a problematic genre, Sender’s work is critical, giving viewers the voice and

agency many other studies lack. Believing that not everyone who watches

reality television are the “cultural dopes” Pozner and other critics seem to

believe, Sender conducts an actual study of makeover show viewers, taking

their responses from four specific makeover shows, What Not to Wear, Queer

Eye for the Straight Guy, Starting Over, and The Biggest Loser, all of which

focus on body makeovers. What she finds disproves what many believe,

including Pozner, and instead concludes that the viewers are far more aware

of the multiple and conflicting messages the shows offer than some may

believe, everything from the construction of the show to the embedded

advertising. “I do not see makeover shows as yet another example of how

media dupes audiences into being ideologically docile. Far from being duped,

13 | B a u e r

audiences are well able to recognize and articulate the shows’ constructions”

(Sender, 25). She focuses her critique on reflexivity, which she defines as

“the ability to see a phenomenon –the self, social structures, a text, or a

method –in context, and to be able to consider the influences of this context

on the phenomenon” (Sender, 192). Whereas Pozner views reality television

as strictly good or bad, Sender’s study complicates the relationship viewers

have with makeover programs, simultaneously highlighting just how dense

the subject of makeover television really is. To give simple answers to the

questions of “how” and “why” reality television has expanded so quickly, as

Pozner attempts to do, is impossible. Situating her critique within what she

describes as “a feminist cultural studies approach,” Sender asserts that

“there is no single preferred meaning in texts which media scholars are

privileged to discern. Even while there are textual factors at work . . .

audiences are also active makers of meaning, and they experience pleasures

in doing so.” (Sender, 9) Though Sender’s study is far more complex than

described above, it will be referenced and described further throughout this

paper, in relation to the framework and What Not to Wear.

The second piece of the framework (and surprisingly not discussed at

all in Sender’s study of reflexive viewership and makeover television) is John

Fiske and his book, Reading the Popular. First published in 1989 and credited

as one of the first scholars to look at popular culture in a positive light, Fiske

looks at a few specific pieces of popular culture (shopping, video games, and

Madonna, to name a few), acknowledging that, though it tends to feed and

14 | B a u e r

promote dominant ideology, it simultaneously subverts the very ideology it

appears to promote. “Popular culture is made by subordinated peoples in

their own interests out of resources that also, contradictorily, serve the

economic interests of the dominant” (Fiske, 2) Moreover, he says “[i]f the

cultural commodities or texts do not contain resources out of which the

people can make their own meanings of their social relations and identities,

they will be rejected and will fail in the marketplace. They will not be made

popular” (Fiske, 1-2). Similar to Sender’s study of reflexive audiences, Fiske

turns his critique of popular culture away from the cultural commodity itself

and instead looks at the consumers, asking not what the overarching

message of that particular text is, whether it is a department store or a

television program, but how the consumers turn it into something that can

be used for their own means.

Even though Fiske’s analysis of popular culture was published before

the contemporary version of reality television, his deconstruction of the

subversive potential in the act of shopping can be extremely useful while

critiquing makeover television and consumer culture. Noting that the

department store was one of the first public places women were allowed to

go by themselves (Fiske, 15), his analysis of the shopping mall can be

applied directly to makeover programming, highlighting the subversion

underneath the ideology that permeates it, including What Not to Wear.

Though the women on these makeover programs are critiqued on their

appearance, his analysis allows them to take control of that same

15 | B a u e r

disapproving gaze that landed them on the show and use it to their

advantage. “The pleasure of the look is not just the pleasure of looking good

for the male, but rather of controlling how one looks and therefore of

controlling the look of others upon oneself.” (Fiske, 28) Not a radical act

against the consumeristic, bourgeois values promoted in these shows, but

Fiske manages to capture the agency of the individual within an unavoidable

gaze.

Though everything mentioned above does not necessarily lead to

radical political action, Fiske focuses on the minor ways everyday people use

popular culture for their own means, giving them agency within the same

system that oppresses them. Progressive rather than radical, he believes it is

important to see how these individual, micro-resistances are just as

important as the more radical political moves they could become.

These arguments hold that because such resistance occurs within the

realm of the individual rather than that of the social it is defused, made

safe, and thus contained comfortably within the system. But what

these arguments fail to take into account is the politics of everyday life

that occur on the micro rather than macro level . . . (Fiske, 7-8)

Acknowledging that individual resistances do not challenge the system at

work and instead work within it, he stresses that “[t]hey are the tactics of the

subordinate in making do within and against the system, rather than

16 | B a u e r

opposing it directly; they are concerned with improving the lot of the

subordinate rather than with changing the system that subordinates them”

(Fiske, 8) Speaking to this thesis, reflexive audiences and subversive

consumerism are not necessarily radical acts that promote immediate action

and political movements, but a Fiskeian lens allows critics to look at the

micro ways in which this awareness can be used by consumers, something

Sender herself does not necessarily see when she states that, “[n]either

activity nor pleasure, however, guarantees political activity or resistance”

(Sender, 10). Though I do not think Sender believes that consumers never

act based on what they see in their favorite shows, this does call for a need

to define what constitutes a political act in the first place. In an age where

online forums, message boards, and YouTube all allow people to express

opinions on anything they wish,3 these individual resistances are easily

placed in the realm of political activism, all with the potential to become

something far greater.

The last and final piece of the framework is Michel Foucault’s

exploration of surveillance in his book, Discipline & Punish, particularly his

analysis of Panopticism. Using Foucauldian theory to analyze reality

television is a common thread of the research for this thesis, but considering

his deconstruction of discipline and surveillance, the connections to reality

television are frequent, if not obvious. Makeover television in particular uses

the threat of, “This could be you,” in order to perpetuate the ideology of 3 Though online forums are not looked at in-depth in this thesis, an entire study in their own right, they will be discussed in part in relation to the themes of What Not to Wear.

17 | B a u e r

reinvention and neoliberalism that permeate shows such as What Not to

Wear. “Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance” (Foucault,

217). Initially examining British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s

recommendation for a prison design in 1787, the Panopticon features a

circular building, with the prison cells laid out around the exterior and a

watch tower in the center for the guards. With strategically-placed doors,

windows, and staircases, the prisoners cannot see out, nor can they see

other prisoners, but an unseen guard could be looking at them at any time

as they walk up and down the watch tower. Because of this constant threat

of surveillance, the prisoners, Bentham theorized, would police themselves,

worrying that a guard, or anyone in that center tower, could be watching

them at any time. This design required fewer guards, he argues, as the

prisoners began policing themselves. “Hence the major effect of the

Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent

visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault, 201).

Believing power lies not only in seeing, but also in believing one is

seen, Foucault adopts the Panopticon into his own social theory:

Panopticism, which he applies not only to prison designs, but to classrooms,

mental institutions, and military camps. As long as people believe they are

being watched, and as long as that power of surveillance remains invisible, it

can maintain its power. “And, in order to be exercised, this power had to be

given the instrument of permanent, exhaustive, omnipresent surveillance,

capable of making all visible, as long as it could remain itself invisible”

18 | B a u e r

(Foucault, 214). What Not to Wear, described below, uses both a physical

version of the Panopticon and Panopticism, perpetuating the awareness that

anyone can see one at any time. The makeover contestants are not only

being watched, but they are being judged by those who watch them, and this

threat helps maintain the show’s power. At the same time, the surveillance

that society is constantly subjected to does not render anyone invisible,

though for some it is easier to hide. The hosts and fashion experts in the

shows, as an example, are often subjected to critique just as much as the

participants on the shows, even though they are considered to be the

“experts” (Sender, 67). In this society of surveillance, though, no one is

immune.

19 | B a u e r

What Not to Wear-

A concept borrowed from the BBC program of the same name, TLC’s

What Not to Wear ran for 12 seasons, from 2003 – 2013. Garnering 2.3

million viewers in its first season alone (Sender, 220), it quickly proved itself

not just a network time-filler. While not all makeover shows are identical and

using one program to make broad claims about an entire genre is a severe

misdirection, What Not to Wear’s long reign and significant popularity make

it a perfect example of how these shows can be read as potentially

subversive. In order to apply the framework explained above, the following is

a breakdown of the show and how it functions after Season 9.4

As each episode opens, often into a silly skit put on by the “fashion

expert” hosts, Stacy London and Clinton Kelly, they invite viewers to meet

the makeover subject they will be following in each episode. Nominated by

friends, family, coworkers or significant others, each contributor, as they are

called in the show, is secretly filmed for approximately two weeks, capturing

various fashion “offenses” at the grocery store, going out, or even at work,

immediately subjected to Foucault’s Panopticism. As a bit of personal

information of each contributor is narrated by the hosts, usually name, age,

and where they currently reside, secret footage rolls across the screen,

becoming the first images viewers get of each contributor. This footage helps

“prove” why these people, typically women, need the help of the experts. 4 Minor changes, such as showing the prices of the garments purchased by the contributor and the backstage scenes as Stacy and Clinton dress the mannequins, inviting the viewer to watch the process that Stacy and Clinton invoke for each person they help, happened during the course of the program, but the overall structure remains relatively intact. Because of the lack of documentation in regards to this and other programs like it, verifying exactly which season these aspects of the show changed is not possible at this time.

20 | B a u e r

Surprising everyday people and the occasional celebrity, the camera-filled

ambushes are set on the street, at the contributor’s work or often in an

elaborately-schemed set up, put together by the show.5 Emerging on the

other side to cameras, her friends and family, and the hosts of What Not to

Wear, Stacy and Clinton greet their next fashion victim with their signature,

“I’m Stacy!” “And I’m Clinton!” “And we’re from TLC’s What Not to Wear!”

Promptly, they tell her she has the opportunity to go on a week-long, $5,000

shopping spree in New York City; all she has to do is give up her existing

wardrobe and follow the rules given to her once she gets to NYC. As the

cheers from the crowd settle down, the hosts announce that the show has

been secretly filming her for two weeks, and even in the middle of the shock,

she accepts the makeover, sacrificing her current wardrobe for a brand new

one with help from fashion experts.6 With a new haircut, a brand new

wardrobe and some makeup tips, each contributor reveals her new look to

friends and family at the end of each episode. However, before the

contributors hop on a plane to New York City to begin their makeover, they

join Stacy and Clinton to watch the footage taken of them over the last two

weeks. Watching on video and trained to “see” themselves as others do,

each contributor is often a combination of defensive and horrified at the

images they see before them.

Upon arriving the first day, each contributor is greeted by Stacy and

Clinton as she hangs up her wardrobe on the racks provided by the show. 5 In Season 10, WNTW went as far as creating an online fashion game called “Planet Stiletto” to ambush 26 year-old gamer, Victoria (“Tori”), for her makeover, virtually.6 A statistic of the amount of women who rejected the makeover was not located.

21 | B a u e r

Picking out two favorite outfits as Stacy and Clinton assemble the

mannequins that constitute the “rules”, each contributor tries on the outfits

(often including one work outfit and one for going out), walks inside the 360

degree mirror (a literal interpretation of Bentham’s Panopticon), and

attempts to justify why these particular outfits are her favorites and, more

importantly, why she believes these outfits are appropriate for the particular

situation(s) they are worn in. Even the cameras are unseen in these multiple

reflections, and the infinite abyss of self-images is broken only when Stacy

and Clinton open the mirrored door and walk inside. Each contributor does

this twice; first only for the camera, and then again when Stacy and Clinton

walk in (though it is quite obvious that the 360 is not soundproof, as they

often comment on her justifications when they join her in the 360). After

every outfit, she walks with Stacy and Clinton into a different room and is

then shown a mannequin dressed in an outfit they deem far more

appropriate for her age, career, etc. Often, the hosts stress the belief that

better clothing will result in upward career mobility and better dating

success; career and love tend to be, along with embarrassed children, what

these women are sacrificing for their bad wardrobe. Coupled with the

reasons this outfit works better for the given circumstance and often

reiterating why the outfit she has on is not appropriate, the process repeats

itself one more time: into the 360 and then outside of it for another set of

rules. The rules often include wearing dresses that are around knee-length,

22 | B a u e r

accentuating the smallest part of her waist, and wearing tops that hide

cleavage while going to work.

When the rules are set, Stacy, Clinton, and the contributor walk into a

different room, complete with the contributor’s entire wardrobe and a trash

can. As Stacy and Clinton throw out anything that doesn’t follow the new

rules they set out,7 the contributor is often left with nothing except the

clothes on her back and a new set of fashion rules she is meant to follow

while shopping. Frequently, in a video diary-format, the contributor is shown

in presumably what is her hotel room the night before she goes shopping on

her own as she discusses the events that had occurred earlier that day, often

expressing a combination of excitement and hesitancy about what the next

day’s shopping adventure will include.

The second day, the contributor is thrown onto the streets of NYC with

$5,000, a camera crew and a new set of rules, expected to find flattering

outfits that both “fit her personality” but also fit the criteria of the “socially

accepted” wardrobe for her age, career, and social standing. Watching on

cameras as she shops, criticizing choices, cracking jokes and often asking,

“What is she thinking?” Stacy and Clinton critique how well the contributor

has followed the rules or, occasionally, how she has fallen back into her old

habits. Of course, they never acknowledge just how intimidating it must feel

shopping with a camera crew in an unfamiliar, expensive and sprawling city,

especially for the contributors who have never been to a city like New York.

7 Stacy and Clinton repeat frequently that the clothing they discard is actually donated, not thrown out, assuming the piece is still wearable.

23 | B a u e r

Sometimes, the contributor is so intimidated that she falls back into old

ways, mocking Stacy and Clinton as she rebels against the rules. Even more

often, the contributor is so intimidated that she leaves the stores with almost

nothing to show for her day of shopping, deflated and defeated, once again

losing the battle and falling back into “fashion victim” status.

Not to worry, of course, because after shopping on her own, Stacy and

Clinton surprise the contributor in the stores the following day, occasionally

returning items purchased the day before that are not deemed “proper

attire” and together, the trio goes through the stores, picking items that all

three of them agree both flatter and compliment her own style and

personality. Stacy and Clinton also frequently discuss belts, camisoles, and

alterations in order to make clothes fit better.8 Throughout this process, the

hosts explain why these outfits work so well, and why others do not, not only

for the benefit of the contributor, but for anyone tuning in. In the scenes

shown in the episode, the contributor is never forced to purchase anything

she herself does not like, though Stacy and Clinton often plead their case for

particular outfits, finding things that everyone approves of, in the end.

Stressing the importance of trying things on instead of just assuming the

contributor cannot “pull it off,” the fashion expert hosts reiterate that, just

because an outfit does not fit the way that she would like it does not mean

there is something wrong with her, it just means the outfit simply does not

fit. Though this is commodified confidence through the art of shopping, it

8 Weber jokes that What Not to Wear has revitalized the tailoring industry.

24 | B a u e r

does contain aspects of body-positive self-confidence not seen in other

pieces of popular culture or even other reality shows. By the end of the

shopping spree, the contributor is often shown beaming, twirling in the

mirror and happy with her new look.

The fourth day, the contributor is introduced to Carmindy, the makeup

guru, and Ted, the hair guru, and the transformation is complete. Though it

is rare that contributors ever fight against what Carmindy wants (likely

because makeup can be washed off, making it not as permanent as a

haircut), they are often shown resisting the haircut, afraid of the change and

not liking the far more permanent consequences of scissors. Nonetheless,

more often than not, the contributor gives in and gets the haircut and color

Ted feels would best suit her, and though some say it will take some getting

used to, the reaction is usually a positive one. Hair grows back, after all, and

change can be a good thing, stated frequently by the contributors

throughout the seasons.

With the money spent and the hair and makeup segments complete,

the contributor reveals three separate looks to Stacy and Clinton, who are

often thrilled as she steps out of the shadows and into the final reveal. In

fact, though they have seen their hair and makeup, there are presumably no

mirrors as each contributor get dressed in her new outfits, a surprise kept

from her until she is back in front of the hosts and the cameras, just as Ted

and Carmindy spin her around so that she cannot see what they are doing

until each hair and makeup segment is complete. Standing up straighter,

25 | B a u e r

exuding much more confidence, she usually speaks positively about the

whole process, even if there were stumbles, arguments, and tears along the

way. “I’ve finally found the real me!” is a common statement, as if they were

never quite themselves until What Not to Wear stepped in.

Frequently thanking Stacy and Clinton for their tough love and fashion

knowhow, the contributor flies back home to reveal her new look to friends

and family, who all cheer as she walks in the room. Gushing about the

amazing transformation, the results are always shown as positive, with the

contributor and her friends and family smiling and laughing. The reveal is a

quick one; most of the show’s airtime is during the actual process of

transformation. In later seasons, episodes end with an update, roughly two

to three weeks after the makeover, as to how her new look has positively

impacted how she feels about herself, and also how the change has

improved her life. The viewers are left with a positive conclusion, and are

shown just how important fashion can be to self-esteem and personal

success. Additionally, this happy ending undermines the vast assumption

that viewers watch these shows simply to watch other people suffer, at least

in the case of What Not to Wear.

26 | B a u e r

Episode Themes:

1. Approved Surveillance

Applying a Foucauldian perspective to the structure of What Not to

Wear, beginning with the surveillance of the contributors weeks before they

have any knowledge they are on the show to the show’s very own

Panopticon, the 360 degree mirror, is quite simple. Of course, this show goes

beyond mere surveillance and instead lies in approved surveillance. Though

the contributors are filmed without their knowledge and the footage is

broadcasted to anyone with access to a television, it is seen as a necessary

evil, used as a tool to show the latest fashion victim how the rest of the world

sees her and, in turn, how to fix it. As Weber states in her study of the

makeover genre, “Rather than critiquing the gaze . . . these shows affirm it.”

(Weber, 88) Even more than that, it’s portrayed as “caring authorities rather

than as exploitive paparazzi.” (Weber, 90) As Pozner says in her critique,

these shows remind its viewers that someone may be watching at all times,

and the correct response is to listen to it. All of the humiliation and “tough

love” are the sacrifices one makes for a better life, one filled with success in

the work place and often in the dating world, as well.

One example of this is Kathy from Season 10, a 45 year-old widow and

mother of three from Memphis, Tennessee. Ambushed at a car wash she

believes is a fundraiser for Relay for Life, which she volunteers for regularly,

she is confronted with her own sweatpants strung up into the mechanics of

the carwash and a large picture of herself. Emerging to a crowd of her

27 | B a u e r

friends and family, she is stunned to near silence but accepts the makeover

with the urging of her daughters. As clips of her surveillance footage flashes

across the screen, Kathy is often seen in oversized clothing, and she

expresses her body insecurities to Stacy and Clinton throughout the episode.

“I’ve always been made to feel embarrassed about my body,” she says to

Stacy and Clinton as they give her rules for her first day of shopping. Even

while she is shopping with the hosts toward the end of the week, she says

she cannot help but believe she would look better if she were smaller.9

Emerging out of the shadows to reveal her new look to Stacy and Clinton, no

one can believe she is the same person as she steps in front of the mirror,

exuding confidence with happy tears rolling down her face. Not only is

surveillance seen as a positive change in Kathy’s life, she also learns how to

turn the negative gaze she has always felt into a positive one, wrapping up

her episode saying that she can now be choosy when someone asks her out

on a date, whereas before she would have accepted anyone who offered to

take her out. The gaze that has haunted Kathy her whole life finally feels like

a positive one, as Kathy struts around in her new clothes and reveals them to

her loved ones, who are thrilled that Kathy is finally thinking about herself

instead of sacrificing her own wellbeing for everyone else’s. Both Weber and

Sender address this form of approved surveillance, and Fiske addresses the

gaze as well when he states that, “The pleasure of the look is not just the

pleasure of looking good for the male, but rather of controlling how one looks

9 With the occasional exception of a bra size, the contributor’s clothing sizes are not mentioned.

28 | B a u e r

and therefore of controlling the look of others upon oneself” (Fiske, 28).

Controlling the gaze may not be a radical move away from this society of

surveillance Foucault discusses, but this minor subversions still should not be

ignored when it comes to deconstructing popular culture.

29 | B a u e r

2. Sites of Resistance

Resistance is an interesting theme in a show such as What Not to

Wear, which is steeped in reinforcing dominant ideology. However, the

format of this show factors in the somewhat likely event that the contributors

will resist in some form or another, whether it comes to the trash can scene

when they try to fight for pieces of their wardrobe they wish to keep, to a

haircut they are not so sure about. Of course, this built-in resistance

occasionally leads to contributors rebelling more than the hosts are prepared

for. One such episode that actually broke the show’s formula was a Season 9

contributor named Jodi. Available on Netflix for a part of 2014, access to this

particular episode has been unavailable since the beginning of 2015. In fact,

though Seasons 10, 11 and 12 are available for purchase on a few different

websites including Amazon, most of the show’s episodes, including Jodi’s, are

unavailable. Unable to uncover this episode in full, there are still clips of her

footage in the 360 available on TLC’s website, and there are other discussion

boards and articles that discuss her online.10

Though the clips cut out a lot of her disapproval, Jodi struggled through

the whole process and remained defiant the whole week, much to the

annoyance of the hosts. In the final reveal before Jodi is supposed to fly back

home, Stacy and Clinton actually break script and offer to give Jodi back her

old wardrobe, donating her new wardrobe if she chooses to accept. Though a

lot of the message boards see her as “childish” and “unappreciative,” it is 10 The QVC website was one of these sites, where people commented approvingly on what they felt was a needed makeover for Jodi, even though Stacy and Clinton offered to give her old wardrobe back to her. http://community.qvc.com/forums/Fashion-Talk/topic/244936/what-not-to-wear-jodi.aspx

30 | B a u e r

actually revealed in the beginning of the episode that Jodi had been in

abusive relationships, where the men in her life controlled what she wore.

Though there may have been footage where the hosts acknowledged this

abuse (and possibly how similar their style of constructive criticism is to the

abuse she previously suffered), it does not make it into the episode and

instead, Stacy and Clinton are mystified, unable to understand why Jodi does

not appreciate the opportunity in front of her as she tries to hang on to her

old look. She does end up taking the new clothes, and in the follow up a few

weeks later, she states that the makeover had a positive impact on her life

However, by not acknowledging Jodi’s past abuse, What Not to Wear left out

a large part of the institutional factors that keep women from succeeding

that Pozner mentions earlier in this paper: domestic violence. Instead of

acknowledging what Jodi has been through, she is instead seen as a spoiled,

unappreciative child who is the sole reason she is currently not succeeding in

the dating world. Though the scope of this paper does not include a deep

look into the various blogs and message boards related to this and other

makeover shows, it would be interesting to see if everyone bought the

“spoiled child” accusation that What Not to Wear placed on Jodi.

In a different form of resistance, the later seasons seem to embrace a

lot more diversity in their contributors than they did in the earlier seasons,

including making over Minda, a physically disabled triathlete in Season 10,

Joy, a former exotic dancer from Season 12, and Casey, a transgender

woman in Season 11. Locating one’s “true self” is a large piece of What Not

31 | B a u e r

to Wear’s message, and in Casey’s episode synopsis on amazon.com, they

introduce her as:

Casey is a transsexual who has been living as a woman for the past

nine years. Can Stacy and Clinton help this transgender woman find a

style that reflects the confident, happy woman that she is on the

inside?11

Though clearly confusing the terms “transsexual” and “transgender,” which

are not synonymous, the statement that Stacy and Clinton are going to help

her find a style that reflects who she is on the inside is fascinating. The term

“transgender” designates someone who subverts gender, but still remains

biologically as they were born. Casey, though she mentions taking hormones

but makes no insinuation in the cut of her episode that she has gone through

plastic surgery, reads as still biologically male, and yet this episode claims to

help her find out who she really is. Who she really is, it could be read, is not

male, regardless if she has undergone surgery or not. It is important to not

view Casey as any sort of stand in for an entire identity and there are other

issues in this episode, such as the negative portrayal of drag queens, but her

transformation is subversive in its own right as it deviates from ideology in

many ways, and it is definitely worth studying. Unfortunately, Sender’s study

on the reflexive viewer does not look at episodes past Season 8, though it

11 Amazon Prime, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B051FW6?ref=dv_web_yvl_hov_pr_3

32 | B a u e r

would be interesting to see how the viewers respond to this and other

episodes after that.

On yet another aspect of resistance, Season 12 has Stacy and Clinton

dealing with one of their most difficult contributors yet. Opening with a

montage of their toughest contributors to date, this episode makes it clear

from the very beginning that this particular episode is going to include more

than a few fights.12 Ambushing their next contributor, a thirtysomething

“Hollywood real estate agent with barely legal style,” Stacy and Clinton

surprise Megumi at her “home away from home,” her plastic surgeon, as she

plans on getting some Botox.13 Surprising Megumi as she lays on the

operating table, complete with pen marks on her face indicating where the

Botox injections are supposed to go, a confused Megumi asks, “Am I still

getting Botox?”14

Sitting on hospital beds to watch the secret footage, Stacy and Clinton

tend to hit a brick wall when trying to question Megumi’s “happy” and

“harajuku” style, which they believe has her attracting some potentially

questionable attention. Joking around that their advice falls in line with that

of a psychiatrist, she says, “This is like Dr. Phil!” followed a few minutes later

with, “I better be engaged a year after my makeover.” Though much could

12 In one “behind the scenes” scene, Stacy and Clinton are shown drinking what appears to be rum or whiskey, as Clinton yells, “I’m too old for this shit!” He was reacting to a statement from Megumi, who said that he could use some Botox.13 WNTW, “Megumi,” Season 12, Episode 10.14 In all the research on makeover television shows, there is a distinct split between the shows that perform plastic surgery and those, like What Not to Wear, that promote “dressing the body you have.” This split was also shown in Sender’s study of viewers. “Surgery was usually seen as completely superficial and thus useless or suspect” (Sender, 150).

33 | B a u e r

be said of this particular episode, especially in regards to What Not to Wear’s

subversive uses to its viewers, one particular statement inside the 360 is

noteworthy: “I think it’s an interesting experiment to see if my life would

change because I dressed differently!” Even as she shops, Megumi discusses

how she is merely putting on a different persona with her “prim and proper”

wardrobe, much to the annoyance of Stacy and Clinton, who repeat that her

old wardrobe is merely costumes, and the new wardrobe is much more

“Megumi” than the happy costumes she loves so much. This leaves Megumi,

and possibly viewers as well, what designates “costume” from “clothing,”

especially since Megumi maintains her love of costumes even in her final

reveal. Of course, what it really boils down to is how others perceive her, but

Megumi is willing to play the game if it boosts her career and her dating life.

Struggling to walk in heels as she reveals her new look in the What Not

to Wear studio, Stacy and Clinton are shocked at Megumi’s lack of emotional

reaction to her new look. Stressing that she chose the clothes herself, the

hosts are surprised that Megumi does not seem all that thrilled. As she walks

back state, they ask, “What just happened?” clearly confused by the lack of

emotion and unable to tell if Megumi actually likes her new look. As Megumi

sums up her episode, her lack of emotional attachment to her new wardrobe

is not all that surprising as she repeats that she is “going to be doing the

experiment, basically! The social experiment! I’m going to go out pretty

much all the time now that I have all these new clothes and see what kind of

men I meet and then for work I’m going to, you know, see if I close more

34 | B a u e r

deals.” She continues, “Maybe the social experiment will change my life for

the better.” In her three-week follow-up, Megumi tells the camera that Stacy

and Clinton were right, and that her social experiment is a success. Tracking

her on social media, she now considers herself a fashionista, has her own

sunglasses line, and appears to be doing quite well.15 Megumi’s “social

experiment” confronts What Not to Wear for what it is: hyper-consumerism

and ideology masked as promoting self-confidence and success. With that

said, it simultaneously acknowledges the circular predicament consumers

are in that, following the examples set by Stacy and Clinton, one can actually

work that same system that forces them to dress a certain way in their favor,

and for their own means. This leads into the final piece of this paper:

makeover television as a utility.

15 I was able to track her down on Instagram, and she was very excited to hear about this project.

35 | B a u e r

3. Utility

This project started with a question of makeover television’s

popularity, even within its promotion of dominant ideology, often not lost on

its viewers, as Sender’s study shows. Megumi’s episode is a great example

of the individual utility this type of programming possesses, not only for its

participants, but for its viewers. Of the four shows that Sender takes a critical

look at, What Not to Wear was shown to be the one that people would most

often apply to their lives, and also the one that stuck in their heads the most

when they were out shopping. Viewers would often laugh as they admitted to

thinking things such as, “What would Stacy and Clinton say!” if they were to

go outside in sweatpants, rather than something deemed more appropriate

by the show (Sender, 48). It was also the show they would most want to be

on. Regarding the other three shows Sender analyzed, the viewers would

rather be featured on them because of the exposure and humiliation they

would be subjected to. Interestingly enough, “What Not to Wear respondents

were more likely to say that they didn’t want to be on this show because

they would have to give up their existing wardrobe or because they didn’t

like some of the hosts’ suggestions of how to dress. This suggests that What

Not to Wear audiences may be more accepting of its shaming techniques as

a useful corrective of their flaws” (Sender, 104). Megumi did not seem to

have any problems with how she was dressing before What Not to Wear

came into her life, though when offered the chance for greater success in

career and dating, she sacrificed her wardrobe for a new one, despite being

36 | B a u e r

resistant to Stacy and Clinton’s methods. Every episode of What Not to Wear

is steeped in the idea that your wardrobe can change your life, and in a

neoliberalistic society that promotes the individual to take care of

themselves, it is no surprise that these shows have gained so much

popularity, despite the awareness that, as a whole, the messages promoted

in the show are not that great in a broad sense. Hence, in What Not to Wear,

instead of looking at institutional reasons that one may not be getting

promoted (as many scholars cited in this project point out), it is clearly a

question of what one can do on one’s own to get that promotion. In this case,

the solution is a new wardrobe and a new sense of confidence.

Conclusion: Utilizing the Makeover-

Through all of the embarrassment, the on-screen tantrums and the

tears, participants emerge from backstage with a newfound sense of self,

exuding confidence and ready to tackle anything life throws at them.

Dominant ideology, working through a makeover television program that

promotes individual success through neoliberalism, hyper-consumerism and

constant surveillance may be impossible to escape, but as it simultaneously

promotes individual achievement and success, casting it aside is as

completely negative is a mistake. Though this genre is steeped in

consumerism and commodified confidence, there is something positive to be

said about taking the time to prove to everyone who walks on to the What

Not to Wear set, and possibly its viewers as well, that they do deserve to do

37 | B a u e r

something for themselves. Kathy sacrifices everything for her children, and

has neglected herself so much that her needs completely go out the window.

This show proved to her that she deserves to do something nice for herself,

as well.

As What Not to Wear expanded in its last few seasons to diversify the

contributors it introduced, scholars need to expand their notions of what

political activism and resistance can encompass. With numerous message

boards, blogs and other social media sites still connected to What Not to

Wear, despite it no longer being on the air, these viewers are proving

themselves to not just be the “cultural dopes” Pozner and others seem to

believe they are. Of course, reflexivity has its limits, just as Sender

recognizes in the conclusion of her study. Just as pointing out the flaws of the

genre will not make people stop watching it, pointing out the ways in which it

can be seen as deviant and potentially subversive will not necessarily call

anyone to action. But if we are not able to escape this neoliberalistic society

that keeps us in this commodified loop of consumerism and ideology, then

there must be a way one can use it to one’s own advantage, just as Fiske

would say. Otherwise, it would not have become so popular.

Framing reality television, and makeover television in particular, as

something to be used rather than the often-explored perpetuation of

dominant ideals could help to answer the question of its popularity,

simultaneously highlighting the subversive potential underneath the

consumeristic exterior found in the individual episodes, of which only a few

38 | B a u e r

were discussed here. What Not to Wear and its contributors may promote a

certain look, a certain ideal, a certain class, but it simultaneously leaves the

door open enough for viewers to see themselves in the people they see on

screen, leaving them with the ability to apply the advice in the show to their

own lives. As Sender says, “there were many examples of interviewees who

used the shows to make sense of their experiences, struggles, and social

relationships” (Sender, 13). Much like a horoscope is meant to be vague and

generic in order for its reader to relate it to her own life, these texts are filled

with their own multiple messages, and each viewer brings her own

experiences, thoughts, and knowledges into everything she consumes. When

discussing popular culture, that needs to be taken into account.

39 | B a u e r

Bibliography:

Fiske, John. Reading the Popular. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1975.

Heller, Dana. The Great American Makeover: Television, History, Nation. New York: 175 Fifth Avenue, 2006.

Pozner, Jennifer L. Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure TV. Berkeley: Seal Press, 2010.

Sender, Katherine. The Makeover: Reality Television and Reflexive Audiences. New York: New York University Press, 2012.

What Not to Wear. A British Broadcasting Production for The Learning Channel.TLC. 2003-2013. “Jodi” 11/29/2011; “Kathy” 06/12/2012; “Minda” 06/26/2012; “Casey” 02/07/2013; “Megumi” 10/11/2013.

Weber, Brenda R. Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke University Press, 2009.

40 | B a u e r