The student who came to class yesterday was interested in how the use of "beautiful" women as opposed to "normal" women in advertising played into the advertisement's effectiveness in marketing its product. I got to thinking about how funny it is that the word "beautiful" is clearly used to segregate this one population from the usual, but the positive connotation of this word places this group into a class of "other" which is not abject. This made me think of Lacan and his concept of the "little other" and the "big other."
If normal is defined as "conforming to the standard or common type; usual" (which it is because I looked it up LOL), then anything that does not meet those parameters is by default "abnormal." When we saw the picture of the man in women's clothing, we agreed the depiction was "abnormal," yet we did not use this term to define the beautiful women. Why? Because the "abnormal" women represented a state of achievement, an illustration of "the best" within the construction of our current culture. It was an "other" which we desire. Society finds value in those differences.
In cases in which society does not find value in the quality which makes someone/thing "other", those in possession of that quality are cast out -- they become the abject; therefore, the abject does not define all "other" as we have used it, but a specific category of "other" that implies intentional exclusion by the "normal" population; whereas, this other population of "other" possesses traits which we desire, but lack, leading to an exclusion by consequence rather than intent.
This deliniation is the basis of Lacan's concept of the "Little Other" and the "Big Other."
These women fall into the category of "Little Other."Although they meet the criteria of "other" as contrasted to "normal", the desire to emulate them thrusts them into a specialized category within that larger group. The "Big Other" contains all other "others", be they scorned (the abject) or simply different (not like us, but without any contention).
I know a football allegory is probably not the most effective in a class full of women, but to put into perspective -- I like Alabama. This is my "little other". I very much dislike Auburn. This is my abject. I don't particularly care either way about Clemson. This is simply "other." Both Auburn and Clemson fall into my "Big Other."
You might argue that you have no desire to look like these women. This can be very true. You may not want to look like them per se, but everyone wants to achieve this state of "beauty." When considering this argument, you have to really understand what symbology the word "beauty" really implies. It is not necessarily a physical manifestation observed by others, but rather a more ambiguous state of "something pleasing." The word "beauty" is defined as "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind," so the state we are trying to achieve is this intangible element of satisfaction, "the state of fulfilling the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of." If you think of "beauty" in this broader context, we all want to be beautiful.
This is why we didn't consider these women as the abject in yesterday's discussion. How coincidental was the timing of this exercise with the explanation of Lacan's theory? LoL