Why is beauty seen as one of the most highly valued attributes in Western society?
I will use beauty and youth as somewhat interchangeable in the following post as although not exactly the same overlap pretty consistently. Beauty would be the one primary one though as there are young ugly people which are not valued in society however old does automatically pretty much mean ugly, in this evaluation. So both young + beautiful.
We can start out by recognizing that beauty is of course a naturally desirable thing as per sexual selection.
It seems though that aesthetics has been 'fetishized' to use Marx's jargon far beyond what is naturally 'useful'.
There are plenty of other evolutionarily useful traits that get sidelined like cooperation and community care in favor of beauty above all else as the highest value.
Is it just a corollary of the runaway principle of capitalism?
Can we compare the superficial West to other societies which do not see youth and beauty as the be all and end all?
Just look at how old people are mainly ignored in society. Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles.
There are the carefree 20s where society tells you it will be the best days of your life (BS like usual from my experience, maybe for some, was not mine) then afterwards you are on a downward spiral to death. I am not saying that is how it has to be just that if you take the latent beliefs of western society then it would be.
Look at how rampant the various forms of cosmetic surgery is now and fake instagram model look that women in mainstream society are so keen to mimic. Then you see the desperate attempts of women after 30 as age catches up with them are trying to maintain this image and all the work that goes into trying to turn back the clock.
What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good rather than getting the most perfect pictures for your insta? Even older people seem obsessed with that stuff just trying to copy what the youngest, and therefore, best people do.
We can start out by recognizing that beauty is of course a naturally desirable thing as per sexual selection.
It seems though that aesthetics has been 'fetishized' to use Marx's jargon far beyond what is naturally 'useful'.
There are plenty of other evolutionarily useful traits that get sidelined like cooperation and community care in favor of beauty above all else as the highest value.
Is it just a corollary of the runaway principle of capitalism?
Can we compare the superficial West to other societies which do not see youth and beauty as the be all and end all?
Just look at how old people are mainly ignored in society. Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles.
There are the carefree 20s where society tells you it will be the best days of your life (BS like usual from my experience, maybe for some, was not mine) then afterwards you are on a downward spiral to death. I am not saying that is how it has to be just that if you take the latent beliefs of western society then it would be.
Look at how rampant the various forms of cosmetic surgery is now and fake instagram model look that women in mainstream society are so keen to mimic. Then you see the desperate attempts of women after 30 as age catches up with them are trying to maintain this image and all the work that goes into trying to turn back the clock.
What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good rather than getting the most perfect pictures for your insta? Even older people seem obsessed with that stuff just trying to copy what the youngest, and therefore, best people do.
Comments (56)
Especially before genetics even existed, the only basis on which to conclude Westerners are superior is superficial attributes. If you grow up believing you're better than other people's because you're from a more perfected race then it's a natural corollary that looks would further differentiate the superior to the inferior within the superior race.
Point is the whole framework of racial superiority is independent of actions, character and morals, you just walk around believing you're of higher value than various lower forms of humanity (or higher forms of our cousin primates, depending on the race theory). If you're conditioned to feel this way to understand your general value position within society you're going to have the same thoughts comparing yourself with anyone, including other "civilized" peoples.
And in general, the more I learn about the nuances of politics, history and sociology, the more, not less, things seem reducible to racism.
Why is the genocide happening right now: racism.
Why do we have a war on drugs that fuels organized crime and corrupts our institutions: racism.
Why do we not ensure everyone in our own societies has basic needs despite having the wealth and technology: racism.
Why do we not even consider providing everyone on the planet with basic needs, or have a reasonable go at it: racism.
Why is capitalist polite society unbothered by the failure of its promises: racism.
Why is Western culture obsessed with superficial beauty: racism.
Because sure, social problems are complex ... but also studied exhaustively and we know can be solved. Why not implement those solutions? Racism.
Imagine if we had to create our own beauty, such as by selecting the universe to be born into, selecting the parents, and competing against others for those selections. This would add a bit of fairness to beauty, as it would have to be earned.
There are some really beautiful people, far greater than the famous, with genetic mutations resulting in larger smiles, more symmetrical noses, carved out, 'arc'd' eyes, sharper complexion and red lips and so forth.
Beautiful people tend to have symmetrical and perfectly shaped body parts, such as perfectly shaped feet and hands. If the genes are the best of the best, everything about you is a higher quality than the rest...
People tend to prefer the more perfect bodies and minds to the lesser ones. It's in our nature to create idols and we idolize beauty because it gives us something to hope for, to hope to become in the future.
I can only provide a dull quotidian rant. Beauty and youth have never been something Ive thought much about or focused on. But the frame youve presented is one Ive heard for decades. When I was young, I was more interested in older people because they had experience and knew things I didnt. Ive always been more drawn to character, originality, and texture than to beauty, and most of my friends are similar. So I struggle to relate to the kind of picture youve presented, though I do recognize that advertising (often appealing to the lowest common denominator) manufactures trends and shapes interests by targeting certain insecurities around perceptions of beauty, etc. But should we give a fuck, and how many of us actually do?
Cosmetic surgery, exercise regimens, dieting, and fashion are all long-standing practices, driven more by peoples lack of confidence than anything else. We confuse physical appearance with success (just as we confuse wealth with success) only because we may not be nuanced enough to recognize that most of us already look fine, and that if we simply relaxed, wed likely be both happier and more successful. In this sense, I dont think we care that much beauty itself, only about the apparent currency or leverage it might hold.
This society teaches, off the top of my head, basically: money, fame, beauty are the major tenets of the good life.
Not sure why there is the resistance to accept that. I am positing why that is but it seems the discussion can't get going on this track yet as the main contention is that society at large does not actually value beauty which I am finding bizarre if anyone looks at mainstream media.
If you want to quibble semantics about they don't really value it then. Value in this context means whatever gets most airtime over other things. The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards.
Beyond that, evolution (or if a theist, the Curse Upon Man), made it so those who are unfamiliar, do not conform, or are otherwise bizarre, ended up reproducing less until given societies ended up more or less uniform and conforming to one another.
It's really not that exciting nor complicated beyond that.
Some discover this and are able to transcend it, whilst most others will inevitably fail to. And that's just how it is.
I doubt you would find many people in their 20s who agree with this. Older people have the money and the power. Older people are the bosses, younger people are the wage slaves. Older people are the politicians, younger people are the canon fodder.
The flaccid noodle becomes a turgid rod and the desire inside you aches for the fantasy some passing image creates.
We desire beauty because it's a sign of good health(the parents had good genetics, the beautiful one is comfortable and healthy in all fields). When sensed, a beautiful person may be more attractive to the senses; this is proof of their good social health.
I was going to say, this seems like a rather strange statement. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc., along with most of the "Big Billionaires" are not remotely young. America currently has a gerontocracy by almost any historical standard. I've written about this before in other contexts:
Cabinet posts aren't any different. They also average at or above retirement age in recent administrations. This is a change from prior decades, but also a huge change from most of human history when the prime of life was considered to be about 25-50. Obviously, part of this has to do with improved lifespans and healthspans on the upper end, but on the lower end it would seem to be an effect of cultural and economic changes (including a prolonged adolescence that lasts for many now into the late-20s).
Obviously, that's more "economics/politics," however it feels to me like "youth culture" has gotten significantly less influential and dominant since the peak from the 1950s - 1990s. I don't have any sort of stat to back that up. It's just that in the 60s-80s in particular, youth culture dominated the zeitgeist. Now, it's sort of crammed online. The kids don't even dominate the nightlife scene anymore.
The preference for looking young seems to be more of a thing for women. Hollywood is full of older male leads. They often look younger than they are, but they're unlikely to be mistaken for people in their 20s. Actually, I'd say the extremely widespread use of anabolic steroids and the growing size of movie stars has actually made romantic/action male leads look a good deal older than prior decades.
I do think there is a shift though in which the archetypes associated with advanced age are pushed out, and a sort of permanent youth is strived for. We have a lot of politicians above 70, but most aren't trying to project "elder statesman vibes."
:up: Right, I've heard it is very popular in East Asia and Brazil. And East Asia's general obsession with not getting tan (and skin-lightening products) seems to go even beyond the West's obsession with getting tan at times.
What?
In evolution, Task #1 is reproducing. Beauty is better at promoting sex than being clever at organizing a group sing-along.
Quoting unimportant
A better word than "aesthetics" would be something more specific like tits and ass; big breasts; big dicks; gym-sculpted body features (6 or 8 pack, pecs, etc.); blond hair. Youth is fetishized. Except that in many countries, young people are the largest demographic, which makes them compellingly important to the political future.
Quoting unimportant
It's somewhere between very difficult and impossible to answer such questions because we may be the product of that corollary. We might be blind to it.
Quoting unimportant
Come now! That's not remotely true. It might be true that after 55--certainly after 60--it becomes much more difficult to find appropriate jobs, because one is likely to be older and more experienced than one's supervisors, for one thing.
It depends where you are. Were I to visit any of the gay bars that I used to successfully cruise and socialize in, I would expect to be flat-out ignored (I'm 79). But political pollsters seem to think my opinions are valuable. I have a great credit rating; bankers like me--I'm finally a good risk.
My peak social and career success was between 40 and 50, without a sharp cutoff.
Quoting unimportant
We don't know, because wisdom and personal integrity have been on offer for thousands of years and people tend to honor it in the breach more often than in the observance.
Quoting unimportant
Because people are alike all over the world and you can't walk 10 feet any place on earth without tripping over at least one shallow air head.
Quoting unimportant
What about the motto of the Communist Chinese reform movement: Getting rich is glorious! Just remember: We are all one species and we tend to be very very similar. However... don't give up.
While we are all quite similar, we all also have unique individual aspirations, goals, needs, wants, wishes, values, strengths, and weaknesses. The condition of the world can look very different by shifting one's gaze from the small number of most noticed people (followed by the press, social media, etc.) and the much larger majority who spend their days working, being quite sensible, and just getting on with life.
And oldie but goodie:
[I]
O love,
O heart,
Find the way to heaven.
Set your sights on a place
Higher than your eyes can see.
For it was the higher aim
That brought you here
In the first place.
Now be silent.
Let the One who creates the words speak.
He made the door.
He made the lock.
He also made the key.
How many men have found tragic ends
Running after beauty?
Why dont they look for you? -
The heart and spirit of all beauty. [/I]
~ Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi
And Plato in the Symposium:
[I]And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is.[/I]
Seems yours is the only reply on a similar track that I was thinking with most taking issue at the question itself being fallacious and misguided somehow. No surprise since we are both Anarchist comrades.
Like I mentioned, I would maintain that it is the runaway principle. Same as how high heels are unnatural but they accentuate the natural attributes of a woman.
That explains the what but not the why. As in, why our society lets beauty and aesthetics dominate over more substantive matters like philosophy or more noble pursuits.
Take an extreme example you will not see skimpily dressed women in muslim countries under sharia. Not saying its right but that has been suppressed there. Over here we are the other extreme of licentious lustful desire.
There are different forms of influence of course, but I am just discussing that which is attributed to beauty. Take any of the above and apart from Trump who people would be very excited to see just because of his celebrity, how many of those would have influence in a nightclub setting? :D They would just be seen as old creepy/boring people. Trump people would love to see because he is so outrageous and kind of transcends his age due to his personality. I don't even think of him as an old person as his strength of character transcends that.
I do agree it was an omission on my part not to mention political power in the OP.
There is also celebrity and social status which is another form. Look at the example of Weinstein and Epstein. Both ugly and gross but had influence regardless.
These are not the topic of discussion. I agree they exist and not denying them. I am just asking why society as a social norm values beauty so highly (not to deny there are other forms of social value but they are usually equally shallow).
I am sticking with the evolutionary trait run rampant, a la the peacock's tail. The nub of the question though is why has happened? With the complaints so far about the question maybe the beauty focus is a red herring, a single symptom of a deeper issue, and the question would better be modified to...why is western society at large so shallow?
EDIT: Ah of course! Not sure why I didn't see it before but my communist/anarchist knowledge kicked in and of course the answer is obvious now...capitalism! The root of nearly all of the world's ills!
Great sex and relationship education, as well as philosophy, would improve the way our society treats beauty.
Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.
Interesting, but isn't that proof it was only when they adopted a mishmash of communist/capitalism which is what it is today? What are your thoughts on this take on this comment ?
Indeed, that is the Eastern philosophy flavor of explaining it. Not saying it is wrong and is a good overall synopsis.
I guess this is tongue in cheek?
I agree with you that media is saturated with beauty, but we agree why that is, right? Media seeks to sell stuff. Beauty sells.
But do you really equate media with culture? I don't. Regardless, are you an "average person" that you reference above? I didn't think so. Sounds like we're in agreement.
Beauty
This is not a uniquely western thing at all. We're hard-wired to make a judgement about the health, youth, fertility etc of those around us and be attracted to people with good traits as partners but data even shows it influences our choice of friendship.
So it is completely natural, and all cultures do it. I have noticed though, particularly in videos about celebrities, that people still talk as if beautiful people have done something right, and plain or unattractive people have done something wrong. Rather than it being 90%+ luck (yes, you can age better if you take good care of yourself, but even how your looks change as you age has a significant luck factor).
Age
This one I'm closer to agreeing with the OP.
I lived in China for a few years, and their culture has a lot more reverence for the old. Most of the parks will have big groups of elderly people doing tai chi, dancing together, playing mahjong etc and really looking like they're having fun and basically owning the space. The old don't hide away there, or try to pretend they are young. (though this is changing; the generation in their 50s now is much more likely to try to stave off the visual effects of ageing than their parents were)
Please don't take it that I am saying Chinese culture is better but definitely in this regard I saw it as a positive.
Why there is this difference, I think will come down to many, many factors, and I would say the aesthetics are probably a side effect. That is to say, western culture is more macho, and more rebellious, so it makes men act a certain way and influences both genders' idea of what's needed to be attractive.
Quoting unimportant
I do not agree that everything is reducible to "imperialist race supremacy". There are several "isms" that can be cited as a universal cause of all problems: sexism, communism/capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, classism, and so on. All these 'isms' have real consequences; they are not imaginary, after all.
If you look at the history of housing and housing finance in the United States, it is very clear that race mattered in the way that housing expansion in the 20th century was managed. THE COLOR OF LAW by Richard Rothstein (2018) closely examines how federal law and policy built white-only suburbs and black-only public housing in cities. The policies have knock-on effects for wealth and opportunities three generations on.
However, class plays a role in housing policy as well. People seem to prefer living among people who are similar to themselves in terms of culture, education, and occupation. Class preferences are going to have racial aspects, because of wealth (and thus class) distribution. Upper class people (roughly 10% of the population) prefer to live among other upper class people. Middle class people (entrepreneurial, economic strivers, fairly well educated, etc.) generally do not want to live with people in the lower working classes, regardless of race.
I don't think that arranging to live with people like one's self (race, class, education, etc.) is pathological.
On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that one goal of racial policy is generally to suppress one racial group for the benefit of another. Economic 'warfare' is a very old game, played in both racially homogeneous and racially mixed populations.
Good to see some unsolicited support as I was a lone voice, except comrade boethius, on this so far. I would put it down to other respondents being under the veil of western propaganda and are more apologists for capitalism.
Your example reminds me of a documentary I once watched where it was showing how some indigenous tribe revered its old, which was highlighted specifically to contrast how the west does not. One of their rituals was shown of an old lady dressed in nothing but a small sumo style loin cloth was being rubbed down all over with some kind of oil by the younger people.
Yet another example I recall from some seminar where the lady of Italian descent spoke of strong Italian role models who were admired and were the 'alpha females' back in the mother land whereas the culture in America is to shut them away.
No worries comrade; clearly still best practice to reply to the OP to avoid this happening.
Quoting unimportant
Good to see this is no longer the case, but I don't think the premise is so much denied by apparent antagonists to it, only that the opposing parties in the debate claim to have personally transcended Western beauty superficiality to arrive at a purer Western aesthetic of more than the eye can see ... that still includes slaying mad hot bitches in near infinite supply as a core value ... but also ... something more.
For example:
Quoting LuckyR
Clearly takes for granted that looks are the main factor of consideration.
It's not as if @LuckyR is ignoring or turning off images to go on dates purely based on indications of character, but rather he only goes on dates with beautiful people but has become tired with getting lucky with an unlimited number of 10's and has to just wait tediously on his trek through the desert of endless 10 to find those few diamonds in the rough who have it all.
But that just begs the question of why apps are looks based in the first place. If beauty was taken for granted by everyone and what they really wanted was character, then that's what dating apps would be designed to swipe on. There wouldn't even be photos, or at least not put forward, but just a list of achievements, maybe a poem or two authored or then at least appreciated by the date-seekers, and other indications of character if that's what people in the West valued more than looks.
Moving on:
Quoting Barkon
Beauty is not even enough for @Barkon, but bodies must be perfect to indicate good genes, but again he's transcended not only the average Westerner but even @LuckyR who certainly is confusing cuteness with perfection to the detriment of his genetic legacy. Another gullible fool in the casino of life. If you're not at the table with a perfect 10 on your arm who's also a brilliant physicist, pulitzer prize winner and composer who never gets ill: you're the sucker.
Again, beauty is yesterday's news, and you better be bringing a great mind and never mention any illness whatsoever if you want your perfect body to even have a chance of copulating with @Barkon's.
.... I'm just going to go ahead and QED on the West's particular obsession with appearances deriving from hundreds of years of Imperial skin-colour based domination ideology and amplified by capitalism that taps into those mental structures if it sells product (which it does).
Goes without saying that Übermensch wear only the superiorist of denim threads as we've been recently reminded.
However, if we agree on the relationship to racism, there is one caveat in that capitalism also promotes non-racism. Wokeism is a corporate philosophy, if we understand wokeism to refer to identify politics completely removed from any economic class based politics.
In order to explain this dichotomy I've had to come up with Racism Optimization Theory (ROT for short) while taking a shower, which seeks to explain the racist dialectic within capitalism.
The three pillars of capitalism as we know it today are corporatist resource extraction, consumerism and imperial domination.
In terms of economic domination of both the foreign people, from whom capitalist elites need the resources and for them to stay poor, and the domestic populations, from whom capitalist elites simply need passivity, these 3 pillars work in complete harmony. Resources are extracted from poor countries to be forced down the gullets of the ignorant masses in the West; fattening up the goose in "goose step".
When it comes to racism however, there is a symbolic tension between the ideals of liberalism that justify "market access", the uniformity sought for efficient consumerism, and the racism required for the foundational imperial power structure.
Racism Optimization Theory describes the mechanisms of how these symbolic tensions are harmonized for smooth oppressive whole.
Make a long story short, contemporary wokeism is the logical terminus of this Rasist Optimziation Theoretical. For, a transnational corporation requires inter-national cooperation within the corporate structure as well as to sell to everyone regardless of race, and so a "colour blind" corporate identity and marketing.
Wokeism provides this ideology with all "unproductive" values that came along with OG liberalism completely removed.
At the same time, the crystallization of wokeism as an oppressive corporate force (it's corporations that do "cancelling" and not any legal process or genuine public outrage; public can be as outraged as it wants, if a corporation doesn't want to use that as a pretext to cancel someone then they won't be cancelled, while a tiny number of super outraged people, regardless of what they're outraged about even making any sense, will be used a pretext to cancel anyone if that's what the very same corporation wants), causes itself the consolidation of naked racism as a potent political force. With anti-racism managed by large multi-national corporations (rather than a religious minister or something like that) and racism securely in the hands of fascists who explicitly want imperial policies, the capitalist system reaches peak efficiency with both cylinders firing at full torque and power.
Quoting unimportant
That's the history of the last 2000+ years lol. I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others.
I think this highlights the comments boethius made above. It is an attempt to shame me for not being beautiful as being bitter, and I am sure the term 'incel' would be thrown a post or two after, which is the western boogeyman for the unsuccessful capitalist man.
It is like if anyone makes a critique of someone rich then they are just 'haters' and jealous. As if to say "the system is perfect, it is only because you are losing that you are taking issue with it".
Not buying into your whip crack attempt to make me a productive wage slave.
Similar to making fun of someone for having a cheap car like they should aspire to buy an expensive one because society says so.
Though let's put it like this, you came here projecting shame onto those who are pretty, including those insecure enough to buy a certain look. And you even tried pretending that "wisdom and integrity" wasn't the past few thousand years' obsession with "the good" since Plato, precisely because you're obsessing over beauty. To me this spells out that you have undigested internalizations. Undigested internalizations often turn into venom.
So youre either not very studied in philosophy (not a bad thing), or if you are studied in philosophy you allowed this feeling to blind you. I'm an immoralist, I'll call it as I see it but not to employ shame or guilt. I invite you to read section 46 (XLVI) of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra the section is titled The Vision and the Enigma.
Read it as many times as it takes for the effect to dawn on you. Part one starts in a Skeptical tone which finishes in a Triumphant tone that gets one ready to attack the riddles of the Vision and the Enigma that Nietzsche presents in part 2. And who gives a damn if reality doesn't work the way in part 2 as Nietzsche details it in the Vision it's fictional story that symbolically speaks to intuition, not consciousness. In fact if you're already consciously aware of the effect because I told you, rather than you discovering the meanings of the Vision amd the Enigma for yourself, then I could completely ruin the effect for you.
So read it as many times as it takes.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html#link2H_4_0053
Don't you think ethnocentrism is maybe a better term than racism for your thesis. Racism emerges more a symptom of thinking one's culture/ideology/class/religious identity is superior to another and then differentiating members by superficial physical features.
[quote=William G Sumner]Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. [/quote]
We'd still treat others like crap if we we're all racially homogeneous by resorting other to means of questionable/unfair in-group out-group differentiation, even if that includes differentiation on the basis of actions, character and morals.
Ethnocentrism seems pretty vague and presumably can include healthy relationships to one's own and others ethnicity; certainly a plausible argument can be made that focusing on one's ethnicity (celebrating diversity) can be healthy. I am referring to what would be commonly understood and unhealthy ethnocentrism which is usual to call racism. Unless I am missing something in your comment.
Beauty can be a way to express individuality, creativity, technical expertise, and inner dignity. It is a practice, not just something you're born with. Even natural beauty, if not taken care of, will fade. Beauty consists of many hours of self-care and aesthetic refinement behind the scenes. It is an open secret that beautiful people are treated better.
I'm confident the argument of the OP is not that beauty is a Western thing, but that there is a particular obsession with beauty in the West, far beyond other society's, past and present, and, more importantly, far beyond any plausibly healthy level of aesthetic appreciation.
The point is not denying things like beauty having evolved for the purposes of things like procreation, nor denying that other societies appreciate beauty.
I rewrote the post to say "valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing." Valuing beauty is a human universal. "Obsession" is really just a pejorative for "valuing," implying that the obsessor values the object too much. Anyone who values something can be accused of obsession.
Anyway, I'd loosely agree with Tzeentch: It's a symptom of modernity stemming from social media and the vast array of new treatments and products available.
We agree here.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That people can be accused of something without merit is not a defence in a different matter in which there is merit to the accusation.
Anyone who speaks can be accused of speaking too loudly. Anyone who eats can be accused of gluttony. Anyone alive, or dead for that matter, can be accused of murder; doesn't imply everyone is a murderer or then no one's a murder, but the merits of each case require consideration.
So in this case it is to be debated who exactly is obsessed with beauty, a whole culture, how other culture's compare etc.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well then I think we are in agreement on the basic premise.
Beyond the connection to racism as the foundational psychological structure, an amplification of this beauty obsession I would argue (along with the advertising and other things) is also isolation within Western societies. The more you are isolated and without deep community connections, the more the interactions you do have are surface level and where your appearance has a disproportionate effect. Further amplifying this trend is that the more late stage capitalism progresses, the less there is even any expectation of what would have previously been called "character", resulting in appearances being even more determinative in the outcome of social interactions.
I'm fine with someone choosing to wear religious garb, but no one should ever be forced into it. In some countries, women face punishment for wearing secular clothes.
I'm not even sure it's fair to say the West is uniquely obsessed with beauty compared with the non-West. Perhaps if we took, e.g., an African tribe from centuries ago, we might find that their women spend many hours styling their hair, creating bead necklaces, and weaving beautiful clothing for themselves. Perhaps many of their women would fit in well in a city like LA or Miami, with its emphasis on fashion, self care, and transformation. Of course, not all of the US is like those cities. America is not one, but many -- as it surely was with non-Western groups. I draw from the past because I want my sample to be uninfluenced by the West.
Until I am given statistics about self-care/makeup/beauty trends across cultures, I'll be skeptical of a unique Western obsession with beauty. I'd be interested to know time spent, not so much money invested (which can be misleading.)
I would link this with globalization and technology giving us greater access to the world. IMO, both a good thing and a bad thing, but likely inevitable.
Murder is binary: It either happened or didn't. With speech, I'd judge according to the norms of the group/culture. When it comes to beauty "obsession," even basic daily skincare could be considered "obsessive" for one who sees no need for it, or believes it is vanity. Skincare has become significantly more advanced over the past century, which is a positive development, as the health of one's skin is essential.
A person's wealth (generation) is also a general measure of fitness, which has always played a huge role in culturally/biologically mediated mate choice. Watch Game of Thrones or Downton Abby or wild horses on the plains of Nebraska. The allure of muscle is a sign of the utility of muscle.
Deep beauty is as much a tyranny as superficial beauty, insofar as what is given is so often unfair in relation to what we naturally desire or are taught desire.
Beauty may be ultimately an expression and sign of power, or the promise/allure of the enhancement of one's power by association, whether it was dispensed by nature or achieved by merit.
As to the former, I think it becomes a subject of philosophical discussion mostly in the case of older men and women; primarily men. They feel its loss or the loss of their ability to fully enjoy it, and dwell on it. It's a kind of romanticized lechery, perhaps. Ever read Thomas Mann's Death in Venice?
Second, when there are modern techniques to create beauty through surgery, drugs, exercise, cosmetics, fashion and Photoshop, the increase in the commonality of beauty, makes the absence of beauty more functionally important (see: incel).
However there seems to be a standard of beauty that most people share, with slight variations based on culture. But with these new technologies and supplements and all that, we're just abusing nature for mere aesthetic appreciation.
Not sure how good that is.
Well, any combination of desirable traits can synergize with the image to make lust more potent.
One can suddenly desire a person by image alone and in the next minute, in the course of discovering new properties/traits, be disgusted or craving can be magnified by learning what they enjoy and their peculiar mannerisms.
What is strange about beauty is how such small features can magnify it. Like how a single earring, say the Christian cross, might be symbolic of an entire domain of meaning, and what kind of work that does in context of other signs of what a person might be like.
Say there are two gorgeous young men, of equal physical beauty, one wearing a Christian cross earring and one wearing a Swastika earring. Don't the meanings of those symbols in some cases go to work on whether or not we find them beautiful at a glance? But even the man wearing the Christian cross is subject to an investigation regarding what kind of Christian he is... Do fundamentalist Christian men, quick to prejudice and full of dogma, wear earrings? Our prejudicial response of disgust is a condition that modifies the object of beauty.
When a women gets buccal fat removal we may find it off putting. Plastic surgery, if we can tell it has been done, may invoke disgust if we think the person is visually less appealing than they were before. It does the opposite of what it intends, insofar as it might tell something of the internal state of the person, their insecurity/fear/concerns.
Body builders, of the the kind that followed Arnold Schwarzenegger lead, in maximizing mass of muscle are nowhere near as beautiful as Michael Angelo's David. But many might share the opposite opinion.
All kinds of behaviors/signs, insofar as they help us make an inference about character, go to work on whether or not we find a person attractive.
Beauty is symmetry. Conformity. If you weren't put off by jagged rocks or something otherwise seemingly unpredictable, you likely died. If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed (often but of course not always a sign of genetic abnormality and likelihood of other unwellness), you likely didn't end up reproducing at much, if at all.
It's all the same sickness. Sorry, "reality" of the world.
Quoting Outlander
A deformity could become a culturally pressured/desirable modification, like with Chinese foot binding. It is a mutilation that goes beyond the superficial cosmetic, causing great pain and disability with the potential for other health problems. I wonder if in bed, uncovered, Chinese men of the time ever found these deformed feet to be a powerfully erotic sexual fetish. Or do the pretty shoes stay on?
[quote=Wikipedia: Foot binding]It has been estimated that by the 19th century 4050% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% among upper-class Han Chinese women.[/quote]
One could imagine the tragedy of this handicap forcing itself downward through lower social classes, where a woman's ability to do domestic work is limited by pain. Say your peasant parents decide to bind your feet but then you are also still pressured to carry out daily duties suited to normal functioning feet. At least you can console yourself with the belief that your feet are either beautiful or sexy...
Beauty is the great stimulus to life affirmation that transfigures suffering into meaning. Without beauty there is only nihilism.
Beauty is subjective, not objective.
Well that's definitely a valid (if not fringe and unique) counter-example of such. I suppose not unlike some earlier culture's practice of neck elongation or lip rings, etc. and other forms of body modification.
One might argue foot binding is a form of beautification by minimization or (simplification), not unlike how the mind of most all persons may find a modern rounded smartphone more "attractive" than a blocky 90s model clunker. Perhaps this has roots in biology where the (male?) mind is attracted or otherwise especially observant of curves as they are often present in the desirable female form. That of course has little to no relation to foot binding, other than perhaps large feet on a female is generally seen as unattractive or perhaps even "mannish"? What do you think? Maybe or too far of a reach?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
True but I find it beyond plausible that mammalian brains have ingrained biological mechanisms that result in a universal (albeit large and scattered) pattern or tendency to prefer certain types and physical proportions of, not just faces, but anything observable in general. "Vastness" is not a physical quality in the way traditional beauty as far as objects are, but we are generally universally "taken away" by things such as overlooking a cliff or a wide valley. We may not call it "beautiful" in specific detail, but it certainly provokes a unique yet consistent response in the brain of not just humans but animals as well.
Are we not universally mesmerized by things such as a kaleidoscope? Do the vast majority of people find super models or such as "attractive"?
No, but you're right. My whole premise is a bit of an unintentional derail. Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. However, you and I would be in the minority as far as those who realize that, I'd wager. :wink:
So yeah, a definition I've given before, beauty being conformity to one's expectations (or perhaps simply what one is used to) is a subjective objectivity, of a sort. No? :confused:
I find asymmetry even in the human to be beautiful at times, especially when it's worn well. I even prefer it over symmetry as far as fashion details.
Example:
https://www.demobaza.com/pages/collections
I have a few pieces of art I enjoy wearing from this designer.
I'm not so sure about foot binding in relation to this idea of simplicity/minimization but it certainly is very relevant/plausible. I think the kind of fitness that foot binding signals is as much the willingness to conform in service of organizational harmony, to participate in the culture, to tow the line. It takes resources/work to bind feet, in addition to everything else one needs to do in life.
I thought about trying to learn throw pottery. But slip caste cups and bowls, the kind you buy a the store, are so perfect and lightweight, the printed designs visually outstanding (Japanese bowls in particular). Potters' mugs seem to suffer from a kind of rustic bulkiness, both in clay content and glaze thickness, which makes them less comfortable to use and heavier.
So I prefer the simplicity/utility/refinement/lightness/consistency/design of industry over the average functional hand made pottery you might encounter. I enjoy what I see in excellent pottery but I don't want to keep that pottery. So why fire pots if I don't know what to do with them.
Another word to add to simplicity/minimization is organization/utility. Maybe they suggest the same thing. A simple thing is an organized thing, such that it remains familiar, stable, and thereby comfortably/predictably functional. A beautiful house is often a well organized one. A beautiful friend often resembles him/herself.
Quoting Outlander
Most people have a sense of this, if you were to ask them. But our sense for what is beautiful is still an artifact of natural selection, if not sexual selection, which I guess isn't saying much. Beauty is both about physical attractiveness and not about physical attractiveness.
It's also about comfort, enjoyment/pleasure and whatever else a philosopher might say about it. :flower: :chin:
Maybe we could also introduce inter-subjectivity to this scheme, insofar that people can share a consensus about what things are beautiful or what things ought to be beautiful. If the world annihilates itself in time, if it is forever in flux, inaccessible in its momentary specificity or wholeness, then the world is never to be properly objectified. Objectivity is a transient and relative concern between a group of subjects, mapping a relevant territory among territories, as a means to many potential (unknown) ends.