There is a common phrase: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But different eyes may need different lenses. Some eyes may not need any lenses. Would such variations affect perception?
That the perception of beauty is inborn, with certain similar features exhibiting universal recognition, is intriguing. Is perception, then, a socio-cultural construct?
From where I come from, for instance, there are tales and ethnic mythologies constructed around beautiful girls who have a gap between their milk teeth.I am using the term "myth" in a very broad and deep sense. Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski sees myths as characters of extant social institutions. They are anything but allegories of physical processes. In various African folklore, we have beautiful village girls escaping unhurt when the ogres strike. Many a times,it is the boy who spears the ogre. The order of patriarchy may explain why.
But let us also think about other forms of beauty - like the one exhibited by the Egyptian Nefertiti, the clean-shaved epitome of feminine beauty in the Egyptian mythology (the beautiful-perfect-woman has come, being the meaning of her name) who lived and mysteriously disappeared more than 3,500 years ago. What about the ancient Greek sculpture of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty? Both were not gap-toothed but beautiful.
A gap-toothed girl from the Kenyan highlands who exhibits features of beauty that makes her a "village belle" may not feature in an American beauty pageant or appear on the cover of the Sports Illustrated magazine. I am not sure she would interest music video companies, unless for other purposes but beauty.
But we can look at it this way, too. As I understand, there are social constructs built on top of "hard-wired" constructs. So, e.g., one culture may prize gap-toothed women, and another despise gap-toothed women; however, men in both would look for symmetry of features and other signs of good health (an asymetrical face would possibly mean a bone malformation - a sign of an ailment or genetic mutation not desirable in a child-bearing woman). This might lead us to another question: Does physical attraction - assuming beautiful women attract men - trigger child bearing psychological circuits?
Other studies show a tendency of women to be sexually attracted to square-jawed muscular men, but to want less square-jawed men to be the parent of their children (quick evolutionary psychology explanation: the square-jawed man can get any female he desires and thus would not stay around as a a parent; the less square-jawed man gets the promise of sex and care in return of sticking around to help with the kids!)
2 comments:
I think that there is a subconscious trigger in people that influences their choices without their knowing. It simply biology, and people like animals aren't exempt from it. Interestingly enough, on a biological stand point, women have to be choosy with their partners to ensure the best outcome for offspring. Often times, despite any shortcomings a potential partner would have, women are more willing to overlook those flaws. Basically, if a man isn't the most handsome or isn't very strong, if he is financially well off, she is assured care for her children. You'll see ugly men with pretty women, but how often do you see ugly women with handsome men?
Every culture has its own idea of beauty. It's hard to say whether this is a good or bad thing; but I will say that it is undeniable. Who knows how these standards begin? True, there are many cultures whose idea of beauty may not seem valid to me, as a young American. Still, I think what we think of physical beauty can transcend many cultures, i.e. a beautiful man or woman would probably be considered so in many different countries. Maybe globalization has something to do with that. Now more than ever, we are in touch with the cultures of industrialized countries. Has what we consider beautiful been evolving more rapidly ever since technology has allowed us to interact with several different cultures and their ideas of beauty?
I agree with the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but it seems like the "beholder" is really a collective of individuals. American culture says that a woman who does not shave under her arms is not beautiful. French culture does not necessarily put that stipulation on beauty. In this case, Americans are one of the "beholders" and the French are another.
Its interesting to look at the more studious aspect, i.e. women statistically being sexually attracted to square-jawed males. Maybe there is a standard of beauty that is rooted deeper than our cultural influences. Its hard to tell, really, since we are constantly being force-fed what is supposed to be beautiful anyway. I do know one thing for sure: even if we as humans are generally in agreement on what is beautiful, we put entirely too much emphasis on its importance.
Post a Comment