English 100C USM Fall 2001

English 100C #11
Essay #2

Essay 2: Assignment, sample blue essay, red and green samples.

The assignment

Write an interesting, tightly-built, well-proven argument about Susan Douglas’s "Narcissism as Liberation". You will be proving a thesis about the Douglas essay, but bring in the Percy essay as contrasting evidence.

Choose from one of the following approaches:

- Attack the essay. Prove that Douglas makes a move in her argument that ends up undermining her credibility in some fundamental way. You might focus on the concept of ‘narcissism’ as it’s defined in the essay, or on Douglas’s hypocritical embrace of some specific kind of advertising technique, or on her treatment of other women in the essay… the possibilities are endless. Make sure to include in your attack at least one contrast to a specific and appropriate passage in the Percy essay.

-Defend the essay. Prove that what seems like weakness or self-contradiction is actually a surprising or subtle strength of "Narcissism as Liberation". Hone in on any of the topics listed above ("narcissism," ad technique, sisterhood), or come up with another topic that has particular power to sway someone who might have doubts about Douglas’s message. Make sure to include in your defense at least one specific contrast to a passage in the Percy essay.

-Build your own argument. Feel free to draw on any work that you’ve already done in the Douglas responses—as long as it serves to feed a clearly articulated thesis that is proven, in a step-by-step fashion, over the course of five pages. Make sure to include in this step-by-step proof at least one specific comparison to a passage in the Percy essay.

Sample Essay: Whose Reflection is in the mirror?

Douglas's words play the role of an experienced traveler. Her essay takes the reader on a journey of discovery; the information she skillfully shares is intimate to her. This woman knows her experience can be as harmful as much as it can be helpful; she delivers the information carefully and detached on purpose. After years of analyzing this information obsessively she has reached a higher level of understanding; this enables her to present the topic in a casual way. Douglas is not trying to teach a textbook lesson; her goal is for the readers to see these commercials through her eyes. She brings her reader on a giggling tour of her reactions to her surroundings. Douglas plays the role of a "complex friend"; she puts a great effort in trying to show her honest emotions (567). Her essay could even be used as one of Percy's examples: she stages his "recovery" (566) for her reader. She drags the reader through a familiar area "but at a level above it" (567); Douglas is slowly unwrapping lies through exaggerating, well known versions of the truth, so the reader can find what is hidden in the obvious herself.

One could read Douglas's essay and say she's just ranting female anger because she doesn't measure up to the advertiser's "perfectly airbrushed model" (121). Another reader could say she is so angry that she blames "female dependency" on the "male ['s] approval" of feminism (this same reader would also say "female dependency" will always exist (220)). A female reader could claim Douglas is condemning women because they have "made it in a man's world" (117). Or any reader could easily swear that Douglas has made the same mistake as Percy: by forgetting the greatness of individuality. All these readers would be wrong. Douglas stages a "recovery" for the reader by examining the "narcissistic personality" in various highlights, she tries to touch all sides of the personality. Her intent is to put all examples of the personality on display.

A reader who assumes that Douglas is just sitting on her "high horse" (121), and ranting unjustly about her female inadequacies has to be a "consumer" (571). Of course Douglas is ranting, but these are her natural reactions to her surrounding culture. Douglas never denies being a product of her environment; she is just able to see how it has failed her. She even admits to falling victim to the same ads she condemns "while knowing better"(). She developed the same "love hate relationship" with the ads as she did with her "eye bags" (132). This is why she can curse these ads while "enter[ing] them" (121). Douglas's passive anger in this essay gives it the edge it needs. Plus she backs up her rants with both proof and cultural references. Douglas says she, or any women, can't escape the "horror of horrors" of putting on a bathing suit; or, having to watch "sweet twenty-year olds slather their faces with Oil of Olay so they can fight getting old" (119). When Douglas chose, and it was a choice, to rant it showed her female vulnerability. If she had left out the angry rants she would have been forced to sit on a "high horse" (121).

Douglas doesn't even come close to blaming men for any "female dependency". She is blaming advertisements for confusing "self-love and achievement" with "male approval and admiration" (120). Advertisements claim women have achieved something by "crack[ing] the male code" while remaining "ladies", but what does that have to do with feminism (120)? Nothing. That is another point she is constantly repeating. Through all the ads feminism has been twisted to fit different purposes, while provoking female envy, for profit. Douglas wants women to remember the "underlying principles of the women's movement"; "escapist solitude" is not a goal in regards to feminism. Douglas is telling us all women are standing on the same side so why not just delete "female competition". She doesn't side step around her feelings toward these ads deceit; she calls the "antifeminist weaponry" (131). Douglas never says this is a result of "male approval", but women's dependency on any approval concerning self worth.

Anyone who has watched T.V. ads can understand why she sees the ads promoting "self-doubt even self-hatred" (119). These ads place beautiful models, women who are paid for their beauty, and claim they achieved this "personal success" because of the ads product (118). This idea leaves the average women, at home, feeling like broke "worthless losers" because of their inability to achieve this great "personal success". Douglas does portray sympathy for women, but it is laced with understanding. She is not feeling sorry for women; she is feeling betrayed with women. Douglas is actively showing how advertisements deceive women; she strategically points out no women is immune to the deceit including herself. Douglas is not "standing on the shoulders" of women. Instead she stands on the advertiser's shoulders pointing out his accomplishments; the accomplishments he gained from women's self -doubt.

She tries to demonstrate how the advertisements manipulate women and pull them away from "empowerment" (133) by referring to specific examples of lies. All the ad examples she used where full of false hope; no skin cream is going to cure old age no matter what "victory of science" the product has achieved (123). This is the reason she spends so much time naming different titles of skin care. She even uses words like "white goop" (122) and "Crème Multi Modelante" (124) interchangeable to highlight the deceit. Douglas doesn't condemn women for success. She just wants women to understand achieving success for the wrong reasons is the same as not achieving success at all.

Douglas never forgets individuality. In fact she purposely separates individuality in to two parts: personal failure and personal success. The reason she does this is simple; personal success eagerly becomes "impressive accomplishments" thanks to admiration, but personal failure is the result of lacking "self respect and dignity" (130). Douglas throws these realities in the face of her reader so harshly, that some readers would have to call her a liar because if she's not: they are. She wants individuals to know personal success and failure are equal parts of the same emotion. Douglas encourages individuality especially when she says, "I'm supposed to want to chop them [eye bags] off so I can look like an empty vessel" (132). This is how she feels her eye bags have enhance her individuality; they separate her from everyone else. Douglas's eye bags represent her because she earned them; the eye bags are a reminder of why she isn't an "empty vessel" (132).

Douglas wants both males and females to know buying these products is the same as not buying them; as long as buying the product is a choice and not an illusion. Douglass challenges everyone to find his or her own identity and hold on to it because without it life is as useless as "skin caviar" (122). The difference between Percy's and Douglas's approach to individuality is this: Percy denied everyone access if the had any form of education, but Douglas claims anyone has access if they make "their own empowering and subversive meanings" out of life (133).

Douglas is not trying to teach her reader a lesson; she just thinks it is about time people start paying attention to their surrounding influences. Do people buy products because they want them, or because someone told them they want them? Douglas says it is because someone else created the need. America's "multibillion-dollar industries would crumble" if Americans woke up and decided they were "happy with the way [they] looked" (133). The "recovery" (566) Douglas wants the reader to find is: herself underneath the ideas of herself. For the reader to accomplish this goal she will have to reach "a level above" her existence (567); she will have to separate herself from society to truly see her image. Maybe then she will be able to give "$42.50 to International Red Cross" instead of spending it on "skin spackle" (133). The spell-bounding question is after a face-lift does one still see herself in her mirror image?