Beauty

[joanna bujes]

At 12:05 PM 08/03/2002 -0400, Sally Everson wrote:
>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?

It's funny you should mention "whiteness" as a synonym for beauty and as a 
means to social "advancement" or privilege. I'm in the middle of reading a 
book by Franz Fanon called "Black Skin White Masks" and it goes fairly 
deeply into the question of the influence of colonialism on aesthetic 
judgment. I recommend it very highly.

I am not surprised that the topic of beauty should elicit sparse and 
nervous responses on LBO; it's a touchy subject. There was a study done 
some years ago, you and others refer to it, and the study revealed that 
physical beauty is not relative: certain aspects-- symmetry, high cheek 
bones, eyes, figure, good skin are universally admired.

But the other issue you raise I think is more key: that life is easier for 
attractive people, that they rise (even that they are forced to rise) above 
the others. Yes, I think that's also a little true. I say somewhat, because 
I'm willing to bet that there are some very beautiful women (and men) whose 
beauty was quickly swallowed by hunger, work, childbearing...and the 
infinite "diabilities" that stalk the poor. For every barefooted Ava 
Gardener that rose up from the Appalachians to be feted as one of the most 
beautiful woman in the world, there were probably thousands whose beauty 
bloomed and was lost in the minute space in which beauty could flower and 
survive under those conditions. But, if you look at the "first" world, it 
is harder to see that beauty is not necessarily privileged.

The real question is, assuming that you have had the good fortune to be 
born comely, what is it worth trading it in for? Money? Fame? And if you do 
will you not become a mere effigy of that beauty....

Or let me put it another way, if beautiful women sell themselves, sell 
their beauty...what reason will men have to be brave? And if there are no 
more brave men in the world, what shall become of the world?

And as for social advancement...what has one advanced to when sitting atop 
a hill of skulls?

Joanna