Response to “Cultural gatekeeping in cosmetic surgery: Transnational beauty ideals in multicultural Malaysia”, by Alka V. Menon (2019)

Alka Menon’s paper, “Cultural gatekeeping in cosmetic surgery: Transnational beauty ideals in multicultural Malaysia” delves into the role of cosmetic surgeons as “aesthetic agents” in medical and cultural gatekeeping through their ability to perpetuate and concretize beauty ideals (Menon, 2019, p.2). Menon makes several key arguments throughout her piece. First, she argues that cosmetic surgeons facilitate the transnational spread of beauty ideals through concrete surgery, acting as tastemakers of culture. She notes that cultural products are exported from other Asian countries, such as Japan. Korea, and China, but go hand in hand with Western hegemony through global media. However, despite the supposed impact of U.S. hegemony on cosmetic ideals, Menon discusses in-depth how Malaysian cosmetic surgeons deem Caucasian features as “unnatural”, citing Dr. Bala, one of the interlocutors, who described the difference in Malaysian and American cultural ideals. Menon also argues that cosmetic surgery is a symbol of “medical nationalism”, with surgeons becoming “cultural producers” despite a lack of formal institutionalization (Menon, 2019, p.2). Menon asserts that when there is an absence of criteria for “enhanced appearances”, cosmetic surgeons have the authority and the agency to spread “cultural forms from transnational sources” (Menon, 2019, p.3). She postulates that Malaysia has a present-day lack of national identity, attributing it to Malaysia’s legacy of ethnic divisions (or “multiculturalism”) as a byproduct of British colonialism. The racial tensions and “new pluralism” of modern-day Malaysia are reconciled through the existence and persistence of cosmopolitanism, which, Menon believes, enables national and transnational solidarity and a competitive global market advantage.

Menon’s methodology centers around interviews with cosmetic surgeons and their patients, and through these interviews, she uncovers various perspectives that themselves on the role cosmetic surgeons have on perpetuating certain beauty standards. Menon goes into detail about what “looks” are desirable and which are deemed “unnatural” or “passe”. Menon cites the surgeons in saying that there are two general camps of beauty ideals, “Asian” and “Indian”, and these ideals are seen as natural, whereas Western, Caucasian features, as well as an overt Korean “look” were considered unnatural and undesirable. 

Menon makes her last argument about how cosmetic surgeons have translated these ideals and made them palatable for Malaysia’s demographic. Cosmetic surgeons have taken the transnational ideals of beauty, which currently target Chinese and Indian diasporic populations, and made them compatible with the majority Malay population, most of whom are Muslim. Dr. Christine, a Malaysian aesthetic physician, created halal skin products and created products for the Malay skin; other surgeons have opted for non-porcine products when performing surgery. Menin highlights these actions as “the productive potential of translation work” (Menon, 2019, p.8). Menon ends her piece by characterizing cosmetic surgeons as “actors in the middle” of the transnational flow of culture.

Overall, Menon makes substantial claims about cosmetic claims that are supported by her original research; however, there are certain claims that could be expanded upon. Menon seemingly makes claims about Malaysia’s cosmopolitanism being its key to having a global market advantage opens up the door for more interesting questions about the increasing urbanism seen throughout Southeast Asia and around the world. It seems as though Menon is attributing the existence of cultural capital with the existence of cities. Although large, global cities are indeed places where culture seems to be concentrated, it seems reductive to leave out rural areas as if these peripheral areas don’t have cultural significance. However, it does make sense that Menon focuses on large cities as there would be high diversity in the population in a more global area. Another aspect of her research that could be expanded on are the variety of interlocutors she interacts with. She includes many interviews and interactions with the surgeons themselves, which makes sense as that is the focus of the paper. However, it would be very insightful to see more quotes from the patients themselves. Menon includes the opinions of patients in the section in which she discusses natural looks; she mentions a Malaysian Chinese woman who preferred a low eyelid crease to look more natural. However, Menon does not include any specific examples about women who opt for the “unnatural”, Caucasian traits. She only includes the perspectives of the doctors, but it would be interesting to see how women who want a breast augmentation or a higher eyelid crease think as well as the direct reactions of the surgeons. It would be greatly informative to see how that interaction would play out. In general, however, Menon’s arguments are supported with substantial ethnographic evidence.