Thursday, March 26

Eyes of the beholder


The conception of beauty has varied across both culture and time, and may have biological origins

By Janie B. Porter Daily Bruin Contributor

Beauty isn’t only in the eye of the beholder, sociologists and
anthropologists say. It’s also in their background.

What people see as beauty differs dramatically across cultures,
just as opinions on how the concept of beauty originated vary in
the academic world.

Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, argues that the West’s
idea of attractiveness is socially constructed.

"We are continually bombarded by the media with visions of an
ideal other," Roddick wrote in "The Body Shop Book."

"Our culture tells us, repeatedly, that beauty means slim, taut
and young. Those who are ample, curved, or not young must therefore
be found wanting."

And yet, said Associate Professor of Anthropology Alan Fiske,
arranged marriages are an example of a cultural norm that overlooks
physical attractiveness.

"Beauty is not often a consideration. Attractiveness as a mate,
in the eyes of the people who select that mate, has little to do
with physical appearance. It is social and economic attractiveness
that generally matter," Fiske said.

In contrast, some anthropologists believe standards of beauty
are a product of evolution.

Assistant Professor of Anthropology Daniel Fessler agreed that
beauty has universal definition – youth. This, he said, is evident
by common nature.

"In their ancestral environment – we’re talking about 100,000
years ago – men who had preferences for younger mates would have
more descendants than men who had preferences for older mates,"
Fessler said.

Not many, given our age-obsessed society, will be surprised by
Fessler’s observations.

"We see models on the cover of Sports Illustrated that look like
they’re 17," Fessler said.

Concurring with Fessler’s argument on America’s unique
perspective of beauty, Roddick’s book explains that Western women
alter their bodies in ways that other cultures would consider
lunatic.

Many cultures disagree with the American penchant for a slim,
waif-like body.

Roddick writes the Tuareg of the Sahara believe beauty is
obesity. Some African tribes force-feed their women with balls of
bread, so that they will be thought of as beautiful.

In Roddick’s experience these "’Ideal women’ with rolls of fat
hanging from fleshy necks must crawl because their legs can no
longer carry their weight."

According to "Eat Fat" author Richard Klein, ancient cultures
also glorified largeness. Existing stone sculptures of Queen
Nefertiti, who reigned with King Ahkenaten of ancient Egypt,
accentuate her sloping stomach and solid haunches.

Among the oldest existing sculptures of the naked form, such as
Venus de Milo, chubby waists and full-formed faces predominate.
While these sculptures may be fertility symbols, some authors
believe they could have also been full-figured sex symbols.

Whether fat is fab or thin is in, Fessler maintained that youth
wins out in all cultures.

Smooth, firm skin, childlike facial features, a small waist and
big hips indicate that a woman has not given birth, according to
Fessler’s theory, thus increasing her attractiveness.

Others have calculated beauty using mathematical proportions.
Plato believed that all beautiful faces could be divided into
thirds, using the brow, the mouth and the point of the chin as
boundaries. Medieval experts expanded this theory, dividing the
face into sevenths.

Even so, cultures differ widely in their perception of beauty on
other levels.

"Curves are good," said Sergio Chavez, a first year
business-economics student. "I like more of an hourglass figure –
well-proportioned, nice waist, not skin and bones like Calista
Flockhart."

In his hypothesis that evolution dictates "beauty," Fessler
postulates that those considered attractive have a biological
advantage of having more genes passed to future generations.

Fiske contested Fessler’s stance, saying that evolution does not
work alone in determining perceptions of beauty.

"The evolutionary perspective is essential to understanding the
human disposition, but it’s not sufficient because culture
interacts with evolution," Fiske said.

"Culture is not an irrelevant frosting," he added.


Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.