beauty

[José Rodríguez & Sally Everson]

I think I was the one who posted that "isn't beauty a function of class
anyway" -- and I wasn't trying to be reductionist -- I was referring to the
article abstract that Doug (?) posted where there was a large scale
study done. In that case -- which I only read the abstract -- it seems they
were measuring "physical attractiveness" or something like that, which I
think would amount to fashion and standards that would be associated with a
person's social standing, access to material goods, knowledge about makeup
or dressing or ways to look more attractive, etc.  And I was thinking of the
question in terms of my own, my family and friends experiences and what role
physical attractiveness has played in our lives (as Americans).  Now my idea
of beauty is (I hope) less based on fashion and material wealth, but that
kind of study cited didn't sound like it was interested in subjective
conceptions of beauty.  Living in a somewhat different culture than the one
I was raised in, makes me very aware of how different standards of physical
attractiveness exist -- and acutely aware of how color or race plays into
this as well. Here in Puerto Rico attractiveness is usually a synonym for
'whiteness' or 'europeanness' versus 'black' or 'africanness', which is a
little different than in the states where one is either/or and then the
different standards are then applied, which I understand in the black
community also tend to value lighter skin and eyes, etc. as here.   I do
believe
though that there are certain ideal physical characteristics for each sex
across cultures --  such as the more abstract features such as "symmetry"
which I
rememeber coming across.  So then if one had such good traits I think it
would
help one move up in class if one wanted to and were able to -- and even put
force on a person to do so - or the reverse for those who have bad
traits. But most people would be born with average genes -- so then would
depend on enhancement to bring up their attractiveness and make them more
marketable, which is where I was thinking the class issue comes in. I am not
a leftist intellectual, an economist,  a sociologist or part of the
"Dawkinsite gang" -- whatever that is.  Just a student of Caribbean
literature, who for some reason likes to read this list now and then.  I
just thought I'd state what seems like the obvious in regard to
that study -- though in my personal circles it is something rarely
acknowledged.  Beauty might be in the eye of the beholder but if culture is
the focusing lens, how could it ever be simply biological?

Sally Everson

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Date: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: beauty


>> > >> But isn't beauty a function of class anyway?
>> >
>> > >Of evolution.
>> >
>> > Don't be silly.
>
>Carrol Cox:
>> The simple response probably to such silliness is that beauty isn't a
>> trait, & only traits are inheritable. What we call beauty would be a
>> more or less random assemblage of traits evolved quite independently of
>> their relation ship to "beauty."
>> ....
>
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>More precisely, as a self-appointed pseudo-intellectual, the
>best sort, I would look for _beauty_ in the form of various
>inherited, genetically-specified functions in the nervous
>systems of beauty-beholders which are refined by experience,
>culture, and other teachers, very much like language but
>much more fundamental -- even insects appreciate beauty.
>That's why plants grow flowers for them.
>
>-- Gordon
>