The women stand in a line-up; their skin-tight outfits are black to contrast against the white grid used to note their bodily proportions. Individual chalkboards with each woman’s name and a combination of numbers hang above the three women pictured. Though this photograph is not a mugshot or a medical experiment, but rather a supplemental image from an article about gym class. The photograph by Joe Clark appeared in “Fun in Phys Ed for Coed,” an article from a 1959 issue of Life magazine. Within the same issue of Life, there were articles that discussed Civil Rights strikes in Little Rock and the return of the first American astronauts from space; thus, “Fun in Phys Ed for Coed” feels a bit out of place. (“Coed” is a term for a female student attending a mixed gender school). The story described an exercise program spearheaded by Janet Wessel at Michigan State University’s Department of Kinesiology. Taken as a demonstration of posture, this photograph reflects the inter-woman comparison inherent to Western ideals of femininity.
Through the use of contrast and precision in arranging the women’s bodies, this photograph exemplifies the pseudoscientific means taken in the pursuit of establishing the bodily proportions of an ‘average’ or ‘acceptable’ woman. The photographer, Joe Clark, contends with the figures head-on to produce the most accurate bodily representation. Visible markings on the floor direct where each woman is to stand, positioned equidistant from each other in a formulaic manner. The idea that anatomic normalcy can be determined through physiological measurements, endorsed by historical figures like Alphonse Bertillon, is strongly conveyed through this disturbing image (Sekula, 1986, p. 354). The stark avoidance of gray-tones is apparent, which creates a color palette strictly defined by contrast, seen through the dark clothes relative to the pale wall. Shadows reflected off of the white grid wall add to this eerie (and almost medicinal) atmosphere, an effect enhanced by the women’s uncomfortable facial expressions. The woman on the far right even tilts her head slightly away from the camera, perhaps out of discomfort with her own visibility. Though the title of this article includes the word “fun,” none of these women appear to be enjoying themselves. Their rigid bodies make them seem trapped, not by physical restraints, but by their own visibility within this panoptic display (Foucault, 97). The female subjects of this photograph stand like exhibits; complete with name placards on the wall, these women are presented as bodies in one large display.
Considering the work of Allan Sekula, this image fits within a historical continuum of categorizing people into “types.” In this image, the emphasis on comparing women to one another into “basic body types” is notable, and conveys principles similar to those which Bertillon held (Clark, 1959, p. 92). As the father of the mugshot, much of Bertillon’s photographic work featured tightly framed faces and bodies, a technique reflected in this image. Bertillon’s work reflects the invention of statistical normalcy, “the average man” (Sekula, 1986, p. 354), who is only normal relative to other men. This photograph can be contextualized within a similar paradigm, in which women’s measurements are pitted against one another to determine who is the most normal and who is the most abnormal. However, it is likely that this photograph is meant to affirm the existence of an ‘ideal woman,’ evident in its physical setting (a university) and its placement within the magazine (in the “Education” section). Building off this notion of relative perfection of feminine bodies, each woman is trapped by their constant visibility in a manner similar to Michel Foucault’s panoptical ideas.
This photograph exemplifies the social disadvantage placed on women in Western society through its presentation of the female subjects as constricted by their comparative visibility, a notion consistent with Foucault’s ideas about panoptic surveillance. In this image, the subjects are exposed and almost shamed for their bodily differences. In fact, the Life article even acknowledges that the exercise program at Michigan State feeds off shame, calling some of the techniques used to assess fitness “embarrassing” for the subjects (Clark, 1959, p. 89). Michigan State P.E. instructors cite the importance of young people knowing which types of exercise can produce “better figures.” (Clark, 1959, p. 89). While the text does not explicitly target women with this comment, it is implied since only women appear in the photos that accompany the article.
Furthermore, the caption under this photograph equates posture differences to “faults,” suggesting that none of the women pictured can naturally achieve the ideal figure. Rather, some disciplinary and corrective force must intervene to produce perfection, a task which necessitates targeted and intrusive surveillance (Foucault, 1977, p. 99). The visibility of the women in this photograph is almost haunting; there is no escape within the vast whiteness surrounding the female subjects, especially their form-fitting, uniformly-colored outfits. Additionally, all women in the photo are Caucasian, which is unsurprising since the image is from 1959. This racially exclusive representation of feminine bodies exemplifies that comparative visibility exists between bodies that are visible and also in the apparent absence of the ‘other.’ Today, racial divisions continue to define what it means to be a woman.
Though this story dates from 1959, the idea that women must alter their bodies to better fit with cultural standards is still prominent today. Whether through weight-loss advertisements on YouTube or Instagram posts from fitness gurus, women today are constantly bombarded with media that emphasizes their imperfections relative to others. This photograph places these three women as explicit points of comparison; not people, but data. Each woman’s body is defined in comparison to the other, reminiscent of Bertillon’s idea that relative identification makes individuation possible (Sekula, 1986, p. 362). Their comparative visibility traps them, just as the women photographed are frozen and immortalized within this degrading mugshot (Foucault, 1977, p. 98). Between this gym class from 1959 and my own gym class from 2015, the value that society places on bodily comparisons has not changed enough. In my gym class, we performed similar exercises meant to pinpoint our natural weaknesses relative to our peers. Though I never posed for a photograph as a test of my posture, the feeling of constant visibility is strong and reinforced by the everyday misogyny woven into our society.
Especially given the comparative nature of social media, it would be wise to critically consider the meaning and value of comparing feminine bodies. Next time you scroll on TikTok and think about how much thinner or fatter you are than some influencer, consider who benefits from these comparisons. It sure as hell ain’t women.
- Clark, J. (1959, June 8). Fun in phys ed for coed. Life, 46(23), pp. 89-92. ISSN: 0024-3019.
- Foucault, M. (1977). Panopticism. In Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (1st American ed., pp. 94-101). Pantheon Books.
- Sekula, A. (1986). The Body and the Archive. In October, 39, pp. 3-64. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). https://doi.org/10.2307/778312
Leave a Reply