The aim of this blog is to connect a research study conducted by Hassan Aleem et al entitled “Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder or an Objective Truth? A Neuroscientific Answer” to a recent news article entitled “Toward a Phenomenological Analysis of Historicized Beauty Practices” authored by Allison Vandenberg and published in 2018 in Women’s Studies Quarterly. To make the connection between these two studies, I will first give a background of each study's nature, findings, and implications, then explain how the two studies relate to one another and complement/challenge one another’s understanding of beauty. Lastly, I will explain the implications of each study's findings and how they relate to the overall beauty industry.
Beginning with the study conducted by Aleem et al., the study examined neuroscientific bases of objectivist and subjectivist views of beauty, attempting to understand evolutionary explanations for their development. The researchers gave human subjects artistic renderings derived from artificial intelligence with various degrees of complexity and symmetry and then asked the subjects to rank the renderings in terms of beauty. Participants were also divided into sub-groups based on preference for symmetry and complexity, which served as a prediction for which renderings they would rank more favorably. The researchers theorized that objectivist views of beauty developed as a result of human utility. In other words, humans love the features that remind them of their evolutionary history and survival. However, humans do not like too much symmetry or complexity as it becomes difficult for the brain to discern and distinguish features. Thus, a balance of symmetry and complexity is ideal for the objectivist view of beauty. Because different cultures have different definitions of utility in terms of survival, the subjectivist view of beauty is found between geographies and cultures, which varies the importance that people place on complexity, definition, color, symmetry, and other features of beauty. Thus, the researchers concluded that objectivist and subjectivist views of beauty have a basis in neuroscience and evolution as the brain desires features that distinguish utility and heightened chances for survival.
The second article, by Allison Vandenberg, focuses on the development and impact of beauty standards for women throughout history, as well as how beauty standards have shifted to be more culturally and racially diverse and subjective. She explains the history of beauty standards in America as being limited to whites only and preventing people of color from participating. Thus began a movement urging African-American women to be proud of their natural beauty such as an afro hairstyle instead of straightened hair. Furthermore, protests against beauty pageants were conducted as women felt objectified and forced to conform to unrealistic beauty standards (hourglass figures, heeled shoes, etc). Critics of Miss America and other beauty pageants took issue with both the unrealistic beauty standards that were expected of women and the physical and financial turmoil that came with such standards. She further explains that such standards reflected a certain racial and socioeconomic expectation, as white women were considered more attractive than their colored counterparts, and often came from socioeconomic statuses that allowed them to purchase items that were considered “accessories” to beauty (such as heels, false eyelashes, hair extensions, makeup, etc). Thus, the beauty standards throughout the later 20th century were littered with racial and economic discrimination. It wasn’t until the turn of the century that some of these views changed with discussions of the natural beauty of colored women, as well as the role that economics plays in accessorizing a woman’s natural beauty, but not being necessary for and of itself to demonstrate beauty. In other words, the subjective view of beauty was expanding as different cultures were able to show their own ideas of beauty instead of an objective lens that was established by a group that had more authority and influence. Vandenberg ends by explaining the importance of the development of other beauty standards and how beauty should be inclusive for women rather than a standard that women strive to achieve.
Both studies demonstrate the importance of having a subjective view of beauty, as different cultures and geographies see beauty in different ways, depending on how beauty standards arose in those regions. One argument that is mentioned in the latter study that is not found in the former is that beauty standards (especially those that are considered “objective”) can be abused by groups that have power or influence. For example, because Miss America was controlled by a board of White Americans, they chose to racially discriminate against women of color by establishing an “objective” view of beauty that glorified white women of middle or upper-class status. This however contrasts with the first paper which defines objective views of beauty as those traits that all humans hold valuable, such as features that remind them of utility and survival. It is important to understand the difference between biologically objective views of beauty and standards of beauty that are considered objective by individuals in power. The latter has no place in society and can be extremely detrimental to men and women alike as it sets an expectation to follow a certain model of beauty in order to receive validation or respect. In reality, the subjective view of beauty reminds us that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder as every individual has different preferences and understandings of what their brain deems as beautiful. While science teaches us that certain features developed evolutionarily to aid us in survival, those features are understood differently across different groups and social backgrounds. Therefore, a person should not strive to adopt a beauty standard that makes them deviate from their true self.
No comments:
Post a Comment