Care/Expression Vs. Harm/Oppression
An interview with L’ADN Magazine on the beauty spectrum.
A few months back, I spoke with French magazine L’ADN for its end-of-year print issue. The interview is now available online so I figured I’d share it here. Read on for my thoughts re: the “pro-aging” con, Ozempic’s use of the Botox playbook, and how social media encourages an inclusive sort of sameness.
L’ADN: Where does your critical thinking about the beauty industry come from? What are you trying to accomplish with your work?
Jessica DeFino (me): My critical thinking was born of my complete lack of critical thinking, I think — a black hole of critical thinking that eventually exploded and expanded my world view. In my late twenties, I found myself obsessed with beauty, living in Los Angeles, working with the Kardashian-Jenner sisters to create beauty content for their apps… with a face full of dermatitis (from stress and overuse of free products I was sent by PR) and in a deep depression. It didn’t add up. I had the beauty job, the beauty products — and no beauty, no life! When I started researching the history of beauty culture, I had this aha moment. With my work, I’m trying to create that aha moment for other people who are where I was: obsessed, depressed, trying to solve their problems with industrialized beauty, but starting to suspect that industrialized beauty is the problem (or at least, part of it).
L’ADN: Why can seemingly harmless beauty trends be harmful? For instance: glass skin and its derivatives, celebrity brands, Sephora Kids, but feel free to choose your favorites…
JD: There are psychological, physical, and environmental consequences to nearly every beauty trend, on the individual and collective levels. To use glass skin as an example: On the psychological level, this is literal self-objectification. On the physical level, the excessive product use required to create that glassy effect can damage the skin barrier, disrupt the skin microbiome, and cause inflammation. On an environmental level, we’re continuously producing and consuming products — products often produced with fossil fuels and petrochemicals — in order to meet a definitionally unmeetable goal, which exacerbates the industry’s devastating impact on global warming.
L’ADN: How is “Ozempic the new Botox"? What does the medicalization of beauty practices tell us about the growing overlap between health and beauty?
JD: I could talk about this for hours! Ozempic has followed Botox’s trajectory and business plan step-by-step from the beginning. Both started out as treatments for medical issues, but became more well-known for their aesthetic side effects. Both gained popularity through physicians approving off-label use for patients. The pharmaceutical companies that own both eventually introduced separate drugs with the same active ingredient to be used for aesthetic purposes; Botox for cosmetic treatment is Botox Cosmetic, Ozempic for weight loss is Wegovy. Both have become catchall terms in their respective industries; “Botox” is used colloquially as shorthand for all injectable neurotoxins (competitors include Dysport and Xeomin), “Ozempic” is used colloquially as shorthand for all injectable semaglutides and similar drugs (competitors include Mounjaro and Zepbound). Systems of discrimination are often invoked to justify the cosmetic use of both; ageism for Botox, fatphobia for Ozempic. Both inspired “natural” alternatives that ultimately perpetuate demand for the real thing — anti-aging serums are marketed as “Botox in a bottle" and facial massage is promoted as a non-toxic substitute for neurotoxins; berberine is known as “nature’s Ozempic” and Supergut markets itself as a “clinically-proven natural alternative to Ozempic.” The cultural commentary around Ozempic and Botox tends to pathologize beauty standards — thinness and youthfulness — and ultimately position aesthetic deviation from the ideal as a medical issue requiring medical intervention. For these reasons and more, I do think using Ozempic for cosmetic reasons will be as widespread and accepted as getting Botox in as little as a few years.
L’ADN: How do social media and new technologies influence the creation and dissemination of beauty standards, compared to old school media? Have they allowed for more inclusive representations or exacerbated issues?
JD: It’s a little bit of both. The power of social media can be applied to causes both beneficial and detrimental to the project of dismantling beauty standards. Sure, we see more skin tones and body types today on Instagram and TikTok than we did, say, 15 years ago in print magazines — but we’re also seeing all of those skin tones and body types positioned as needing correction, smoothed by filters or contoured and de-aged by Facetune. This isn’t anything new, of course. Advances in technology have always influenced beauty standards. It started in the early 1900s with the arrival of movies. Low-definition cameras created a super-smooth, unblemished effect which altered the general public's perception of what constituted "celebrity-level" beauty. The standard changes when technology changes. The speed, access, and democratized photo-editing technology that social media offers only exacerbates this cycle — consider “Instagram Face,” which started on social a few years ago and has since infiltrated the material world. I’ve interviewed so many cosmetic surgeons and injectors over the years who tell me that patients will use Instagram filters to alter their own pictures, and then bring those edited pictures in as references in surgery consultations. So while social media seems to champion diversity, in terms of beauty standards it might be more accurate to say that it conditions a diverse range of people to strive for homogeneity.
L’ADN: The beauty industry seems to be oscillating between embracing and rejecting "anti-aging" terminology. How do you view this back-and-forth, especially considering the influence of younger generations like Gen-Z on beauty standards and marketing?
JD: It’s funny — there’s been a lot of back-and-forth about the language of anti-aging products but almost no argument about their function. The industry has consistently put out products that claim to counter the physical realities of growing older, whether they call them “anti-aging” or “pro-aging” or “preventative aging” or whatever. Different words, same effect. Mystifying anti-aging with faux-positive marketing lingo has made anti-aging more appealing to all consumers, but especially young consumers, who are especially vulnerable to outside influence and maybe not equipped with certain critical thinking skills yet. Personally, I think companies that condition their customers to fear aging (AKA living) should die (a surefire way to stay forever young).
L’ADN: What do you say to those who claim to love these practices, equating them with self-care, a passion, self-expression or entertainment?
JD: I would say I get it, I felt that way too for a long time! And of course, duality exists. Beauty can be an act of care and expression and it can be an act of harm and oppression. It’s also possible to be passionate about and entertained by things that don’t support your flourishing.
L’ADN: Your Guardian column takes the form of readers' letters. What does this format allow in terms of vulnerability and connection?
JD: I love answering anonymous personal questions about beauty because beauty culture is so complex and there’s no one right way to navigate it. Critiquing it in general terms leaves a lot of room for caveats and buts and what ifs. Advice that’s tailored to one specific reader’s individual life and circumstances ends up making those caveats clearer and I think — I hope — helps all readers better understand which actions might work for their life and which don’t apply. Plus, vulnerability thrives in anonymity! The questions I’ve received so far have been so, so honest and heartbreaking and hilarious and human.
L’ADN: What's your relationship with the beauty industry and community? Are brands interested in your work?
JD: Well lots of brands subscribe to my newsletter. But I would maybe describe my relationship to the industry as parasitic, lol. I only have something to critique when the industry gives me something to critique. If the industry collapses, my work does too. I truly hope it happens!
There’s more here if you speak French (or just use Google Translate)!
This is perfect: " So while social media seems to champion diversity, in terms of beauty standards it might be more accurate to say that it conditions a diverse range of people to strive for homogeneity."