Descripción de la base de datos

In this section of this chapter, I discuss different ways that beauty labour can be discursively linked to the idea of ‘Russianness’, whether this was related to Russian national identity or to ideas about how non-Russians looked and performed beauty labour. This idea has been discussed in existing literature on Soviet and post-Soviet Russia (Gradskova, 2007a; 2007b; Bridger, Kay & Pinnick, 1996; Bartlett, 2004). Amongst participants in this research, ‘Russianness’ was defined against other, non-Russian national identities, but it could also be defined in temporal terms in relation to the Soviet era. The linking of femininity to national identity can be seen as one means of defining appropriate behaviour for women in contemporary Russia.

To begin with, some participants perceived the fall of the USSR as a significant point at which gender norms around beauty and femininity began to change:

Previously [lots of personal grooming for women] wasn’t cultivated so much. Before women had a choice… as far as I know, women could wear makeup, but it wasn’t so important and not as popular, and women’s natural beauty meant one large plait and wearing a uniform. Now it’s fitness everywhere – every step you take – advertising, hair removal cream, plastic surgery. It’s becoming more and more idealistic. Now there are lots of girls with fake nails, fake lashes, fake breasts, and men are thinking ‘hurrah!’ Of course there are men who don’t want that, but most of them like it. (Yulia, 27, SP)

Yulia’s perception that pressure on women to look a certain way has grown in recent memory seems to draw a line between the more natural feminine ideal of the Soviet era (Gradskova, 2007b), implied by the plait and uniform of the typical Soviet working woman, and the post-Soviet era in which the accoutrements of a consumer culture obsessed with bodily appearance are visible at “every step”. It is interesting that this participant links the idea of choice to the Soviet past, which contradicts prominent discourses of choice more often linked to the neoliberal, capitalist global order. In other words, Yulia’s view of these social changes is quite pessimistic; however, other participants were more enthusiastic about social change in the post-Soviet era:

I think that now – in Russia anyway, how the situation has developed – women have started to look after themselves more. […] Here a large percentage of women go to beauty salons. I think that it’s really great. In Russia young designers import things, bring in fashion shows. In the city we get all of these fashion shows by the fashionable designers, the industry. It’s interesting, it’s great – I think that we need to introduce young women [to this] so they can look after themselves. And it’s not about whether they can afford it, but rather about a desire to look beautiful all the time. […] I talk to my clients and our partners and those who have already spent a long time in the beauty business, and they tell me: you know, ten years ago we had no work, it was boring, no one went anywhere – well, rarely – and now it’s the opposite. [Even] women on an average wage try to put some money aside for themselves, for their own beauty: to visit a beauty salon, to go to the gym. I think it’s very cool. Demand creates supply – demand grows, and supply grows. (Valentina, 24, NN)

Despite the fact that, as I have previously argued, there was a clear stress on beauty for women in the late Soviet period and the 1990s, Valentina perceives a growth in the amount of beauty labour and focus on maintaining a beautiful body in the past decade alone.

Furthermore, she clearly links this rise in beauty labour to changes in the economic sphere – the supply and demand of capitalism and the growth of a consumer society in Russia. A discourse of beauty as liberation as discussed by Bridger, Kay & Pinnick (1996: 165) is also present here, with consumer opportunities being framed in a language of choice for women who had little access to them in the Soviet or earlier post-Soviet era. Changes could also be viewed as not particularly negative or positive, in a more pragmatic sense:

Understandings of femininity change with the fashions. Previously it was fashionable to be plump. If women used to wear long skirts and an open neckline, everything was on show, but today it’s stylish to be slim, like models. […] All of the models on the adverts for the clothes have that figure. […] In our time it’s fashionable to have your body on display – not just your bust like before, but your legs too. It seems to me that everything changes with the times. In the Soviet era it was fashionable to be athletic – defined muscles, they had gymnasts, all of that… biceps, triceps. It all changed. (Yevgenia, 25, SP)

Although Yevgenia did link harmful diseases such as anorexia to this new female archetype, she saw it in historical context, possibly as a phase that would pass with time.56 Others took a similar view:

HP: Right now in Russia how important is it for women to look beautiful?

Tamara: It’s not only in Russia, it’s in every state – in all countries all women want to look good.

Oksana: In Africa they don’t want to – they don’t need to. Nina: Appearance is very important here.

Tamara: Now in the 21st century, it’s important. If you look at the past, the beginning of the 20th century/end of the 19th century, then they had noblewomen with big dresses and hairstyles. It’s just the style has changed. Women have always wanted in any era to look good all the time.

Oksana: They sacrificed even more.

56 _{Interestingly, Yevgenia’s opinion – that it was previously fashionable to be plump – is in contrast to some}

of the advice in Soviet women’s magazines (Vainshtein, 1996), but it is also possible that she is referring to an earlier time (e.g. the early 1900s, when fashion tended to emphasise a woman’s bust and hips).

Tamara: Now standards are different. Before the beauty standard was Marilyn Monroe, now it’s Pamela Anderson. (Tamara, 21, Nina, 22, Oksana, 22, NN)

Tamara contrasts the different body types with different eras, though interestingly draws upon Western archetypes as opposed to Soviet ones: Marilyn Monroe is used as a cultural icon rather than any of the many Soviet film stars who would presumably be as well known in post-Soviet Russia. However, unlike Yevgenia, these women do not see 1991 as a changing point, but rather perceive continuity in gender terms with earlier periods of Russian history. Another point is the extent to which the discussion of these three women draws upon a culturally Othered idea of feminine appearance – that of the woman “in Africa”, who apparently doesn’t need to “look good”. This demonstrates the significance of ethnicity as a signifier of Otherness in Russian society (Roman, 2002). From another perspective, when I questioned participants on whether they had a perspective on the Russian context in particular, some drew upon a European or American as an arguably negative standard, against which they contrasted as a Russian approach to beauty and femininity:

HP: How important do you think it is for women to look beautiful in Russia? Lyubov: It seems to me that it’s important to most women. It’s not the same here as in Europe. Here every girl tries to look nice. I have friends who meticulously plan their appearance, their clothes. They devote a lot of time to their looks.

(Lyubov, 22, SP)

HP: How important is it for women in Russia to look beautiful?

Valentina: Here [in Nizhny Novgorod] it’s not so visible. Moscow is the capital. When I go to Moscow I feel like I’m stepping onto a big podium. […] Everyone is so beautiful, looks well groomed... I was in America and I couldn’t judge how good or bad the girls were. There women fall into one of two categories: either those you wouldn’t look at, just unnoticeable, or complete Barbie dolls.57

We don’t have the same divisions – here all girls look stylish. All of them. [...] It seems to be that

Russia is one of those countries where women follow the latest fashions and want to look good. (Valentina, 24, NN)

There was, therefore, sometimes an idea of a specifically Russian femininity, which Valentina frames positively in contrast to Western femininity standards, and seems to take pride in. Russian women can be seen as representing a positive feature about a national ideal of ‘Russia’. Clearly, despite the relatively new prominence of Western media and more global beauty norms, some women preferred to highlight what they saw as the special nature of Russian beauty, something Bridger, Kay & Pinnick (1996: 170) also highlight, especially in terms of Russian beauty being somehow ‘deeper’ than the Western ideal. The participants above also saw Russian women as achieving a more desirable standard of feminine beauty: neither the over the top Barbie doll, nor an “unnoticeable” appearance. However, this was not always the case; for example, one participant discussed negative attitudes to Russians that she had encountered during her travels abroad:

HP: How important do you think it is for women to look good in Russia?

Elvira: It’s very important. Really, sometimes women prefer to sleep less but to spend more time getting ready to go somewhere. Sometimes it starts getting absurd, like strong make up in the early morning or something like that. Or wearing [miniskirts] with high heels in the first part of the day. I even read once an article on the internet which was about London and about Russian girls in London. It said that if you see a blonde with bright make up, wearing a mini and high heels at noon in a central London street, you can be sure that she’s Russian. [laughs] Sometimes it makes us think that our national identity as Russians is not as well appreciated by other nations. (Elvira, 22, SP)

Elvira also described going on holiday and trying to look as ‘non-Russian’ as possible (i.e. not dressing glamorously) and trying to challenge stereotypes of Russianness abroad. Another participant, Katya (25, SP), worked regularly in the U.S., had an American boyfriend and spoke fluent American English. She thus seemed to be more Western- oriented than many other research participants. In some instances, Katya spoke about ‘Russian’ as a negative category representing a less sophisticated kind of culture than in

the West (see Pilkington et al, 2002). For example, she criticised Russian magazines for having too much coverage of Russian celebrities as opposed to international celebrities (possibly linked to the lure of icons such as Marilyn Monroe), and perceived their quality as inferior compared to foreign branded magazines. Understandings of the West as a desirable Other, something for Russians to aspire to in its supposedly advanced level of ‘civilisation’, have also been noted in the literature (Pilkington et al, 2002: 7; Bridger, Kay & Pinnick, 1996: 172), and such discourses may also have an influence here.

However, at certain points Katya also highlighted Russia’s lack of difference from Western countries, which she chose to discuss in response to the question of whether she had any final comments for the interview. Katya said that magazines had become popular in the previous decade in Russia and that “[Russia is] not different from any other European country.” This desire to stress Russia’s relevance in a new era of globalisation may hint at the perceived Othering of Russia that is sometimes evident in Western culture – an attitude that Katya may have encountered during her time in the U.S. It may also reflect her wider attitude towards being interviewed as a Russian woman by a researcher from the West; towards the end of the interview, Katya did seem to become more defensive of Russia in her responses, rather than merely descriptive.

Clearly, participants’ conceptions of Westernness/Russianness could be complex and contested. In contemporary Russia, there exists a simultaneous pride in the national ideal as linked to certain standards of feminine beauty, but also a self-consciousness about how Russia is perceived internationally or a perception that the post-Soviet era has brought with it an undesirable emphasis on beauty. Even disregarding this ambiguity, the most important point to take from this section is perhaps the extent to which, beyond the Soviet period,

normative femininity continues to be entwined with the idea of the Russian nation.