The Politics of ‘Clean’

JAX WEAFER for MacInStyle

Monday January 15th 2024

---

New Year's Day was just a few weeks ago, my friends and I, taking every opportunity to share our opinions, decided to post our New Year's ‘ins and outs’. For those unfamiliar with the concept of ‘ins and outs’, it is essentially a list of habits, trends, etc., that you are leaving behind in the past year, and things that you are incorporating into your life in the New Year. The New York Times does a good job of detailing the trend in this article if you want to do a deeper dive into the phenomenon.

My friends and I created our ‘ins and outs’ lists separate from each other. These lists, (at least in my friend group), are personal, and relate to things we are abandoning and incorporating personally in the New Year. And yet, despite us composing these lists independently, one phrase kept popping up; The ‘Clean Girl Aesthetic” was determinately, out.

‘Clean Girl’ is a phrase that first emerged on TikTok in late 2021, and was a phrase used to describe ‘effortless’ and ‘put-together’ minimalist aesthetic choices. The aesthetic took off largely in early 2022 and takes inspiration from celebrities such as Hailey Bieber, and Zoe Kravitz. The aesthetic of the ‘Clean Girl’ is sleek, emulated through shiny skin and slicked-back hair, neutral tone matching workout sets. The look has garnered mass popularity, largely due to its inoffensive, approachable nature. However, its claims to ‘effortlessness’ are nullified by the very nature of the sanitation and maintenance it requires to achieve. The ‘Clean Girl’ is an aspirational figure, she sells to us the image of a stress-free and ‘healthy’ lifestyle. A lifestyle that, while presented as effortless and self-effacing, is marred by an inherently high cost of entry. Simply put, a lifestyle centered around appearing as unbothered and put-together as possible, while having the time to maintain that nonchalance, is a lifestyle enjoyed by the wealthy.

Hailey Bieber "clean girl aesthetic"

We know that the ‘Clean Girl’ is a myth. Yet, regardless of our individual styles and aesthetics, we all want, in some way, to appear as the mythologized ‘Clean Girl’. However, we don't all have the privilege to feign her image.

The existence of the ‘Clean Girl’ implies an alternative, Dirty Girl. When the ‘Clean Girl’ is aspirational, the implication is that her counterpart, the ‘Dirty Girl’, is not. What, or who, designates the clean and the unclean?

In the Spring of 1996, then-teenager Michael Lucid documented the social fervor around a group of girls at his high school, who were known for their “crass and allegedly bad hygiene.”

The short documentary, titled “Dirty Girls” was uploaded to YouTube on March 4th 2013, has since amassed (at the time of this article’s release) over 4 million views. The subjects of the documentary are a group of teenage girls, who, in true mid 90’s fashion, wear thrifted cardigans, and espouse their love for the likes of Kathleen Hanna, and Kurt Cobain. While the documentary focuses largely on the girls themselves, it spends a large portion interviewing other students at the high school that the ‘Dirty Girls’ attend. Throughout the documentary’s short, nearly 18- minute run, the ‘Dirty Girls’ peers reproach them for their crass language, and purported lack of hygienic practices. While the girls themselves are relatable to me as a viewer, and in some

respects, ahead of their time, their peers almost interested me more. Primarily, because their accusations against the ‘Dirty Girls’, largely seemed to stem from the girls’ 3’rd wave feminist views. In the documentary, a feminist zine that some of the ‘Dirty Girls’ had created is reviewed

by several students at the school, most poignantly, by other teenage girls, who laugh and mock its messaging. One girl laughs and calls it “so ridiculous”. Admittedly, the zine itself is juvenile, which is pointed out by the students who review it. Yet its amateur composition is attacked not only for its composition but largely due to its underlying feminist and political commentary. It is because of this zine, and the views expressed in it, that the girls responsible for its creation are labeled ‘Dirty Girls’. The label of ‘dirty’ is, therefore, not simply a signifier of the girls' hygienic practices, but of their personhood and politics. Their presentations are not simply dirty, they are. Therefore, the label ‘dirty’ is political fodder, which implies that those who do not associate with the girls are ‘clean’. Simply put, the ‘Dirty Girls’ presentations were a lack of armor. Their lack of put-together appearances and open feminism resulted in their labeling as ‘dirty’.

"Dirty girls" short by Michael Lucid

Cleanliness (or the hyper-presentation of it) is, for marginalized individuals, an armor. Which aims to prevent deeper biases and hate from being attached to how we deliberately present ourselves. Ultimately it is more socially acceptable to publicly ostracize somebody for their appearance than it is to explicitly disparage them for their gender, race, sexuality, class, etc.

In a study published in 2021, researchers from the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology compared the usage of cosmetic, hair, skin, and personal care products amongst different groups of women in California. Through this study, the researchers found that Women of Color were more likely to engage with and use personal care products and cosmetics. While the study itself did not outline the contexts which resulted in this difference, the reason behind these differences has been well documented.

As explained and outlined by YouTuber Intelexual Media in her video essay, “Black Women and The Hygiene Olympics”, women of color, and marginalized women are faced with racist stereotyping and rhetoric which can cause many to overcompensate with respect to their hygiene. This armor, as previously described, aims to deflect these racist stereotypes. As a white author, I cannot speak personally to this issue, however, I would highly encourage giving her video a watch, as she discusses the issue in better detail and with better understanding then I am able to.

Black Women and the Hygiene Olympics; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDwjhxASqA

In many respects, cleanliness is armor, and hyper-cleanliness, especially for women of intersectional identities, such as Trans women, Queer women, Black women, Indigenous women, etc. is armor. Armor that aims to shield us from easy character attacks and barriers that bar us from employment, social circles, and education. In a society that is deeply entrenched in women's bodies, especially intersectional bodies, those subject to additional scrutiny find themselves in a double bind of their own presentation. If one decides to disregard the standard of hyper-cleanly presentation, such as the ‘Dirty Girls’ of Micheal Lucids’ documentary, they are subject to social ostracization. If one seeks to achieve the hyper-sanitized ‘Clean Girl’ Aesthetic, they are focusing their energy largely on their physical presentation, neglecting other aspects of their life.

Ultimately, the ‘Clean Girl’ aesthetic cannot provide us with the fulfillment, productivity, and gratification that it claims to. The rejection of ‘clean’ presentation is a privilege that many

individuals of intersectional identities are not provided. Striving for personal perfection will not lead us to interconnectedness or fulfillment. Therefore, we should instead direct our energies onto uplifting each other in our presentations, in our identities, and personhoods. Working to create a world where our physical presentations are not valued more than our souls is a goal that we can all work toward collectively. Further, it is a goal that will improve our lives more significantly than six A.M. Pilates.

I think that's why my friends and I all decided to reject the ‘Clean Girl’ Aesthetic moving forward.

References (In Order of Appearance)

Roy, Jessica. “What’s ‘In’ for 2024? In-And-out Lists, Apparently.” The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/style/new-year-in-out-lists.html. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Mazurek, Danuta. “Clean Girl Aesthetic.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, Feb. 2023,www.dictionary.com/e/slang/clean-girl-aesthetic/. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Lucid, Michael. “Dirty Girls.” YouTube, YouTube Video, 4 Mar. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3MxEHQk644. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Collins, Hannah N., et al. “Differences in Personal Care Product Use by Race/Ethnicity among Women in California: Implications for Chemical Exposures.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 2, Springer Nature, Dec. 2021, pp. 292–300, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00404-7. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Media, Intelexual. “Black Women and the Hygiene Olympics.” YouTube, YouTube Video, 21 Mar. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDwjhxASqA. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Gaskell, Adi. “The Role Beauty Plays in Our Success at Work.” Forbes, 19 July 2021,www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2021/07/19/the-role-beauty-plays-in-our-succ ess-at work/?sh=4b6201355cbb. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Gordon, Rachel A et al. “Physical attractiveness and the accumulation of social and human capital in adolescence and young adulthood: assets and distractions.” Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development vol. 78,6 (2013): 1-137. doi:10.1002/mono.12060