Masculine domination, as indicated, is perceived as a ‘soft’ and subtle formulation of power for men to use over others, including other men. However, power is not singularly noted as being soft, it is often associated with forms of discipline should individuals not conform to contemporary cultural ideals of behaviour or actions. Discipline, therefore, is a means of power, through which behaviours may be regulated, and is enforced through a system of surveillance. This may prove a useful tool of analysis when considering men and their perceived need to manipulate their identities to conform to current work place ideals of a pleasing masculine appearance.
38 In order to ascertain an understanding of disciplinary power, I use an overview of Michel Foucault and his work in this field. For Foucault, power is not discipline, but rather that discipline is one method through which power may be exerted. Historically, the use of disciplinary power has strong associations with crime and punishment, but the concept can be expanded to embrace welfare and education programmes for example, with an intention of creating a society of docile bodies (McGaha, 2000). Such a society would result in bodies that are easy to control by those with power and authority to do so (Foucault, 1977, p. 298). Using such power to control bodies will, therefore, produce bodies that will be socially productive in relation to social and economic conditions (Oliver, 2010).
Power is unobtrusive, it operates not through the hierarchies of power relations but by way of networks. More specifically, disciplinary power is a mechanism through which power can regulate the behaviour of individuals and is achieved through the organisation of cultures, institutions, activities and actions. Power is highly influential and is the cornerstone of humanity, for hierarchies exist irrespective of culture, helping to define and redefine the norms present within each community.
Westernised cultural practices have witnessed a major shift with the power of the sovereign, based upon coercion, superseded by that of disciplinary power. Such disciplinary power is reinforced through diffuse and insidious forms of social surveillance (Foucault, 1979a) through which, in this instance, appearance medicine is normalised for the participants. Such power both enables and constrains the social actions of the men engaging with the reconstruction of the masculine body; with the websites analysed in this study, and the knowledge they impart, securing their position as agents of social control, from which symbolic capital may be attained by men.
This use, therefore, of disciplinary power, as a means to control the masculine body to conform to contemporary ideals of work place appearances, is not unrealistic. It may offer men a masculine comfort when embracing contemporary beautification which has, until now, been primarily viewed as a feminised practice. The comfort is produced and reproduced through its close association with the comforts provided by traditional hegemonic masculinity and, therefore, has been part of many men’s lives,
39 either overtly or subconsciously. Therefore, men’s active participation in grooming activities, and accessing appearance medicine treatments, depends upon a successful normalisation of contemporary beautification as a practice for both men and women.
This normalisation for men can be achieved through what Foucault described as the ‘normalising gaze’ (Leonard, 2007). The ‘normalising gaze’ of appearance medicine compels men to improve their looks irrespective of their needs or socio-economic background, to ensure they adhere to the required body ideology of contemporary work places. Such normalising techniques are often realised through media representations that infiltrate the male psyche, ensuring men locate themselves within the new social norms of appearance medicine, achieved through the influence of social trends (Slade, 2006). The normalisation of masculine appearance medicine, therefore, involves a diffusion of power, both within and across, the stratified fields of cultural hierarchies. The power, surveillance, judgement and correction of the male body may, therefore, prove influential in men’s engagement with appearance medicine treatments.
Surveillance is of particular relevance to the potential movements occurring within masculinities, as it invokes the notion that being watched and monitored ensures compliance to contemporary ideals. Surveillance is often associated with descriptions of the Panopticon and the principles of ‘them’ watching ‘us’ (Vaz & Bruno, 2003). However, as Foucault suggests, power is everywhere and cannot be pinpointed to a specific location, but can be located within the individual (Foucault, 1977, p. 108). Such a concept suggests that surveillance, of any form, involves a surveillance of the self, achieved through power relations producing the subject (Rose, 1999, p. 243). Therefore, the normalisation of male grooming, contemporary beautification and uptake of appearance medicine, relies upon the ‘Panoptic’ style power of those deemed as knowledgeable or superior, in this instance, the mass media.
Power also relies upon current patterns of masculine imagery but promoted through the process of self-surveillance, and implies a need to care for the self (Vaz & Bruno, 2003). In this instance caring for the self, as a reconstruction of the male body, results from the relational powers within cultural places, as “we move in a world of
40 perpetual strategic relations” (Foucault, 1988, p. 168). The consequence of this is an objectification of men’s bodies, increasingly disciplined by the gaze placed upon them, and normalised in relation to the prevailing ideals of masculine appearance.