On the morality of Gok Wan

On the morality of Gok Wan

           
There is a certain sort of television program that I find absolutely fascinating they have names like; 10 years younger; Gok’s fashion fix; or my personal favourite snog, marry avoid.  I’m going to focus on snog marry avoid because it is the most illuminating for the purpose of the discussion I intend to have, as well as being the most oddly presented and incomprehensibly preachy and jingoistic of the breed.  Perhaps I have given an indication of my opinion of the show but I’ll forge on.  The premise of this entire genre is that some people are incapable of dressing themselves properly and in fact sport clothes that make them look either; frumpy, or weird, or too made up or something else equally meaningless. Then someone, the prancing stereotype reinforcing queens of queer eye for the straight guy* for example, Tuts throws petrol on the old clothes and forces (sometimes roughly) the often unwilling victim into what the current style consensus dictates is the most appropriate thing to wear.

            


My question is this are these sorts of shows morally sound.  This sounds like a ridiculously petty issue and I think it is but it does open up discussion about a number of moral issues at the very edge of their applications and I believe that if we are to have a moral code it should be applicable to all situations where it applies.  Firstly I will discuss what is probably th6ye prevailing moral philosophy in my own life, aestheticism.  Perhaps the response of aestheticism should be simple these persons who I should really stop calling victims are taken from presenting themselves in an unattractive way to a state where even if they don’t become a famous beauty they are at least no longer shambolic avatars of bad taste. However, and perhaps this is just me, there is something distasteful about a unique, if iffy, visual experience becoming an easier one. From the point of view of the participant this experience could be one of two types of emotional experiences it could be a confidence boosting lesson in making the best of ones assets, this is Gok Wan’s style, or it could be that the participant has created for his or herself state a dramatic style statement that represents her freedom and individuality being quashed and their public face normalized. I suppose that the first kind is a tolerable, if embarrassing, learning experience. But the second is less tolerable it represents nothing less than the obliteration of a unique thing and perhaps the ultimate crime of trying to paper over this newly formed gap with something utterly banal.  What is never done is refining and perfecting an already established style. The sloppy Goth is never transformed into the Goth she dreamed of looking like she is instead thrown directly into autumnal coulours or high waistbands, hipster chic or what the Americans call preppy. 

If this method of changing a person’s outward appearance is in fact an immoral destruction of uniqueness then what of the myriad other forms of influence especially those that are infinitely more important than mere appearance.  I speak of the kind of influence wielded by parents, teachers, and Lord Henry. It was Lord Henry who himself said of influence “there is no good influence… because to influence a person is to give him one’s own soul. he does not think his natural thoughts or burn with his natural passions”*²  and I think that in principle I would agree if it wasn’t for one pseudo- Newtonian fact. An immutable law in human interaction as in physics any influence exerted has an equal effect on both the person influenced and also, albeit more subtly, influences the other party as well be it as small a change as fortifying ones belief in oneself or as monumental as abhorring the change you make in another and changing oneself in response. This is I suppose where the beauty is in social life it is a glittering constantly shifting web beset on all sides by the tidal forces of the media and politics as well as religion all interconnected and in flux. One man’s changes beget another’s alterations. And all this seems chaos but patterns emerge concealed as fads and fashions waves of change building person by person into a tidal surge of acceptance or appreciation. This I would argue is the core of all social change this interconnected web of personal change. Each convert strengthening the cause and passing eternally onwards until that one perspective or mannerism dominates the web then is swept away by something new.  Occasionally a group of people will encounter a shining other who changes their world whist seeming to be themselves unchanged. I am no theist but I imagine that that is what it would be like to be in the presence of a great teacher like Jesus or Ghandi. A man becomes a ripple a ripple becomes a wave then an ocean.  The other side of the coin is that in society change is often resisted. This manifests itself as the religious opposition to gay marriage or campaigns against Tesco’s in Harrogate.  This is perhaps best shown in the picture of Dorian grey, one character Basil is concerned with keeping the young Dorian grey pure and unchanged in order to preserve his natural beauty whereas Lord Henry consciously decides to fill Dorian like a vessel full of his influence and see where the pieces fall.  People who know Oscar Wildes masterpiece will know that this does not end happily. However the story of influence and resistance is not always tragic think of the influence of Ekendu on Gilgamesh or Whoopi Goldberg’s Influence on the kids in the choir in sister act 2.   I suppose the question boils down to weather makeover shows are more like Lord Henry, Whoopi Goldberg, Basil or that kids mother who doesn’t want her to sing for some unknowable reason and whether the distinction between the four makes any moral difference.

* Its ok I have F word privileges and you know what they say most Fs ares Qs. I have strong views on what I will call privileged words but am too scared to do a blog post about it due to lacking N word privileges and recently having my T word privileges revoked (there used to be a reciprocal agreement but now it’s messy)

*²This is probably the last sensible discussion of makeover shows in this blog the rest consists of a rambling discourse on the nature and morality of influence (you know how I get, or if you don’t welcome to an incomprehensible whitter)