The term “cosmetics” comes from the Greek word cosmos, which represents “order.” Additionally, cosmos means, “order, ornament, world or universe” (Chico, 4). That is, there is an inherent link between cosmetics and norms and orders present in society. Cosmetics act as technologies of the body. Technologies of the body produce identities that either fit within social norms or outside of social norm. This is evident in my own experience as well as the use of cosmetics requires my dedication and the management of my body in order to promote and image.My "image" essentially acts to disguise my "self" through methods of concealment such as the use of cosmetics. "Kate" is essentially an image, ultimately managed and controlled through societal norms.

In Metaphors of Inscription, author Pippa Brush discusses the theoretical aspects associated with cosmetics use. For example, the author notes that, “Michel Foucault calls the body the 'inscribed surface of events.” That is, the body is malleable to outside elements. These elements are in fact elective but many theorists believe that individuals view these products as necessities.

In Foucault’s, Discipline and Punish, he introduces what he deems, “the power of the norm.” Here, it is the socially acceptable and almost necessary use of cosmetics by females. Foucault states, “ In a sense, the power of normalization imposes homogeneity, but it individualizes by making it possible to measure gaps to determine levels, to fix specialties and to render useful by fitting them one into another ” ( Foucault, 1979;184). The norm disciplines subjects through ranking individuals, demanding recognition and isolation of those persons and meanwhile demanding a homogeneous society. The body is no longer a concrete thing but it now “becomes plastic, inscribed with gender and cultural standards” (Brush, 25). Similar to this ideal, Mary Koust’s article, Flesh and Bone, applies to cosmetics as this technology uses the body as a medium or a raw material through which an “embedded sociology” exists. Bodies govern status, ranks and relationships through the identity the flesh creates. Agency becomes an issue as artificial meanings replace the self with an identity.

Cosmetic use poses multiple theoretical concerns and differing opinions on its application to ideological and aesthetic meanings and constructions. The Arts of Beauty: Women’s cosmetics and Pope’s Ekpharis, author Tita Chico examines Alexander Pope’s poem, “Rape of the Lock,” written in 1714, as it applies to beauty. Chico specifically highlights the idea of “management” of female beauty, revealing an ideology that functions both ideologically and aesthetically. Specifically, the character of woman is managed through increased or added dedication. Here, Chico views Pope as the manager of this imagined woman. This introduces the function of control as an instrument of power. Chico cites the definition of manage as to “make [an object] serve one’s purposes” (Chico, 2). The natural versus the artificial becomes confused as the cosmetics industry grew. However, even in Pope’s day Chico notes that he view the unadorned body as “only an object if curiosity, and that the cosmetically produced image of femininity produces awe and significantly, desire in those who view it” (Chico, 5). In other words, female use of cosmetics is designed for other’s gaze rather than for the user. I do not benefit personally, however, I benefit in social terms.

Theorist Laura Brown presents a Marxist feminist viewpoint furthering Chico’s discussion of management of woman’s beauty through objectification. Brown labels this objectification as a “structure of commodification.” That is, Brown explains a structure of commodification as, “exchange value comes to usurp use values, and relations between people, human beings, themselves can come to be re-defined as objects” (Chico, 4). This point posited by Brown also rings true in my personal experience. Before “going out,” I re-define my image to fit the particular situation or order, which I plan to enter. For example, if going out to a restaurant or bar at night, I will not be seen without mascara. Therefore, cosmetics act as a necessary commodity that comes at both a literal and figurative price.

Similarly, in Kathy Peiss’ works, Hope in a Jar and Making Faces, she notes the societal shift toward the body as a social construction. Brush discusses Peiss work specifically as it deals with attitudinal changes of cosmetics uses throughout the twentieth century. Brush furthers, “Peiss uncovers the role of the emerging industry in constructing a desire for cosmetics in a society which had previously viewed their use as ‘symbols of rampant and material excess,’ but which came to understand cosmetics as ‘respectable and indeed necessary for women’s success and fulfillment” (Brush, 38). In essence, this view represents a postmodern concept of the body as text. Brush describes this function as the “material praxis of construction of that specific; the grueling and continual maintenance of the self-created body is deliberately ignored and only the completed (but always provisional) text is offered to the reader” (Brush, 32). Debates continue over whether cosmetics act to degrade or empower women.

In my own experience, I agree with the concept of cosmetics use as a function of “management.” That is, I curl my eyelashes, put on mascara, and apply foundation. Why? Do I benefit from the application of artificial ingredients to my flesh? No, I do not benefit. However, benefits arise in terms of society. Because I wear makeup, society views me as “normal.” That is in a sense I achieve obscurity through compliance with societal norms by acquiescing to the powers that control. That is not to say that I must use cosmetics to be a beneficial member of society, I do, however, need cosmetics to appear more attractive and normal while benefiting society. This reiterates Foucault’s notion of maintain the body. In a sense my use of cosmetics maintains the social order and regime of truth of which I am subject.