Beauty from the Beast: Men’s Underwear Advertising and the Iconography of Manliness Eric Price Expo E-25 Professor Kuzmick 1 May 2008Price 1 More than three decades ago, art historian John Berger summed up the gender roles in advertisements of that time by stating that “men act and women appear.”1 Unlike the depictions of women, those of men highlighted traditional masculine roles and appearance. The male ambivalence regarding physical beauty was the norm in advertisements for much of the twentieth century and served as a stark contrast to the prevalent advertising trope for women that centered on narcissism and body display. Though feminist Susan Bordo agrees with Berger’s assessment of historical advertising images, she asserts that, beginning in the late twentieth century, the gender politics of advertising changed drastically. Advertisers abandoned the traditional imagery of active men and languid women in favor of images that appealed to disparate consumers. To attain such an objective, a “dual marketing” approach is utilized to attract diverse sexual “gazes.” Bordo contends that the predominant sexual “gazes” in contemporary advertising are those belonging to straight and gay consumers.2An analysis of the transformation of advertisements for men’s underwear illustrates both the emergence and the effectiveness of the “dual marketing” approach. However, these advertising images reveal more than the advertiser’s appeal to gay and straight “gazes.” Far more dramatically, they illustrate how this segment of advertising has profoundly influenced the issues of gender identity and sexuality surrounding the iconography of the male body.Price 2 In terms of male iconography, men’s underwear advertisements from the middle of the twentieth century portray men from the traditional masculine perspective discussed by Berger. Furthermore, the imagery in these advertisements served a key role in American social identity. Historian Gary Leonard asserts the function of advertising in this way: Like the popular culture of any modern time, it has a double function: it would seem to contain both the conscious, hegemonic discourse of its time, as well as subversive encodings that threaten to destabilize historically specific ideology and show how its obfuscation of power relations rewrites itself in the anxieties and desires of the individual subject.3Price 3 With Leonard’s argument in mind, let us consider an advertisement for Jockey briefs from a 1954 issue of GQ Magazine (FIG. 1).4 FIG. 1 Certainly, there are iconographic elements in this advertisement that serve to consciously address the “hegemonic discourse of its time.” Any visual elements pertaining to such a discourse, as Susan Bordo described, portrayed men as “oblivious to how they appear,” and “intent only on getting the job done.” Is itPrice 4 reasonable to assume that the male figure depicted in this advertisement is oblivious to his appearance? After all, he is neatly dressed in a suit, complete with a neck tie and pocket square. Indeed, the image that comprises the largest area of visual space is of the suit itself, whereas the image of the man wearing the product is the smallest of the three. However, the varying depictions and the text of the advertisement illustrate the ideology of the time. According to Bordo, to present the man in the action of exhibiting himself as a physical object would feminize him. If the body must be presented, as in the case of a man in his underwear, additional visual elements must be present to preserve his masculinity.5 Not only is the image of the man wearing his Jockey briefs the smallest, he is depicted holding a quintessentially masculine object-a pipe. Therefore, any subversive elements, such as depictions of a man with the feminine trope of body display, are countered by the pipe. There is no artistic attempt to glamorize the underwear or create a sense of their being anything but utilitarian. Additionally, the text of the ad emphasizes the “feeling” rather than the fashion of the underwear. This message suggests that the comfort of Jockey will lead to outer confidence. Rather than an icon of fashion or narcissism, the man epitomizes the image of the 1950’s male: sporting a grey flannel suit and representing masculine success.6 As a starting point, the Jockey ad illustrates how the marketing of men’s underwear--a garment that is not meant to be seen in public--depicted and maintained the gender ideology of the time.Price 5 The gender ideology that mid-twentieth century men’s underwear advertisements consciously evoked was not always reliant on the depiction of the underwear itself. Take for example, another advertisement from a 1954 issue of Collier’s magazine (FIG.2).7 FIG. 2 Whereas the Jockey ad minimized the depiction of the product, this ad for Fruit of the Loom contains no images of underwear, merely an implication that the wrapped gifts contain Fruit of the Loom merchandise. What is being sold is much more than an undergarment. In this case, the central male figure is depicted in a setting that embodies the ideals of the post-World War II era. ThePrice 6 visual narrative presents the consumer with three joyful children in the midst of play acting and gift gifting directed at the father. Without the text and the company’s logo, the consumer would have no idea what product is being sold. The lack of product imagery in favor of an idealized suburban setting and happy family scene perpetuates the masculine advertising trope of action and a state of being. Rather than representing the underwear, the advertisers have chosen to represent a desirable lifestyle and a visual argument that a happy and successful father wears and is given Fruit of the Loom. This advertisement, with its emphasis on the adoration of a father, adheres both to Berger’s formula of traditional depictions of masculinity and Bordo’s assessment that ads from the period avoided any allusion to male narcissism. Beginning in the 1960’s, the line that had been drawn between masculinity and narcissism began to blur. Advertisements for men’s underwear began to incorporate iconography that highlighted the male body within acceptable gender roles. An ad for Munsingwear underwear for men in a 1963 issue of Life magazine illustrates this shift (FIG. 3).8Price 7 FIG. 3Price 8 In sharp contrast to the