Beauty
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
<GUIDE><BODY>
<P>Beauty is a concept that runs pervasively through all classes, races, and other such categories of mankind. Societies are built around it, great sacrifices are made in its name, and it is accountable for our pleasure and our misery in equally enormous proportions. But what is beauty, and why is it of such importance to us? These are large questions.</P>
<HEADER>Natural Selection</HEADER>
<P>Many interesting things have been postulated, argued, suggested, and whatnot, in regard to <LINK HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A366220">evolution by natural selection</LINK>; overly deep discussion here would be redundant and an unnecessary digression. In short however, Darwin (and others) suggested that the traits we, and all organisms, portray are those that give us some sort of advantage over other organisms. This advantage allows us to produce offspring whereas those lacking our advantageous trait do not. Our offspring, moreover, are given our traits, both through the genes they inherit from us, and through the behaviour they learn through our example. Such traits (genetic and behavioural), therefore, are said to be selected for by our environment. Some organisms, however, develop traits whose existence is entirely baffling. The peacock, for example, struts around with an enormous colourful tail that, at first glance, and many subsequent glances, appears to be entirely disadvantageous to it. Much energy is required to develop and maintain this ridiculous ornament. Furthermore, as the peacock is not exactly a large or powerful animal, it is a clear and easy target for potential predators. By natural selection principles, the thing should rapidly disappear from the species (in which case we'd just have regular cocks; hardly the thing of wonder and beauty many people find the peacock to be).</P>
<HEADER>Sexual Selection</HEADER>
<P>This dilemna led Darwin to rethink his original hypothesis. Why do animals often develop bright and conspicuous features such as the peacock's tail, or the robin's red breast? It was decided that these traits, which increase susceptibility to predation as well as the amount of energy intake required for an organism to survive, are required instead to attract members of one's own species, particularly potential mates. This phenomenon, which is called called sexual selection, gives us much insight into the function of beauty in our society. Beauty in peacocks might be considered the size, the symmetry, the pattern of their tails, or a certain combination of these. We can experiment to determine which features are most seclected for, but only peacocks know for sure! In humans, the phenomenon works along very similar lines. Certain proportions, symmetry, movements, facial expressions, colour, and a multitude of other factors determine what features we find beautiful, and which ones are distasteful to us. Even being a human, however, isn't sufficient to simply <I>know</I> what beauty is. Different people have different tastes, desires, and preferences that determine beauty for them.</P>
<HEADER>So what is it?</HEADER>
<P>So how might beauty be defined, if it means so many different things to so many different individuals? And what exactly is its function? We can see that the peacock's tail has evolved because the pea-hens dig it, but <I>why</I> do they dig it? A mate with a smaller tail would certainly stand a better chance of evading predators, and thus be around to help raise the chicks. However, peacocks do very little raising of offspring. Their function, instead, is to attract and mate with as many females as possible. The females, on the other hand, want offspring that stand a better chance of survival than those of other females, and much of this survival depends upon the traits the chicks inherit. Big tails? One theory suggests that the colour, size, and symmetry of such a trait is an indication of the animal's genetic fitness, ability to resist parasites, and overall health. Another suggests that the evolution of the trait is more arbitrary; daughters prefer mates that resemble their fathers, and sons their mothers (a delightful subject in itself), so that the trait developed simply because it existed in a healthy line that preferred mates with which it had something in common. Whatever the case, certain forms of beauty seem prevalent in species, and humans are no exception. While we vary in the specific things we find attractive, many trends can be found to underly our system of aesthetics, or how we define beauty.</P>
<HEADER>Beauty in action</HEADER>
<P>Apart from the science of it, beauty is a constant influence upon our actions and serves as a primary motive for these actions, whether we acknowledge it or no. This is most obvious when we are searching for mates, and much of our capitalist institutions, such as the fashion industry, the advertising industry, the communications industry, et cetera, have developed around ideas concerning what we find beautiful. Within the social systems we have contructed for ourselves, our pursuit of beauty often seems amazingly illogical. We agonize long hours over our lack of personal beauty, our inability to attract a beautiful mate, whether our buddies will think ugly something we find beautiful. The acceptance of something (or someone) "mediocre" into our lives, for some reason, seems to put us on a lower level than those who consider the thing (or person) so. This makes little sense, logically; nonetheless, it is a principle instilled in virtually every human culture. We are obsessed, perhaps, with this idea; beautiful models adorn products from electric razors to Lexuses. This gives rise to the "contrast effect"<FOOTNOTE>Michael Lavine, Why I Hate Beauty. Psychology Today, July/August, 2001, pp. 38-44.</FOOTNOTE>, which, simply put, forms impossible ideals in our heads and causes much distress for both ourselves, who stand a rare chance of attaining such beauty, and those who fall short of our ideals, which constitutes a vast proportion of our neighbours. We become miserable and alienated.</P>
<HEADER>What's to be done?</HEADER>
<P>Beauty doesn't have to be a bad thing. It only becomes so when we take the idea and warp it into something grotesque, as our society has arguably done. We might instead learn to appreciate qualities other than those currently <I>en vogue</I>. It is understandable that we do not want as mates those who are likely to be unhealthy, or abusive, or to associate with undesirable circles, or be otherwise unpleasant to be around, but little of this can be related to our present ideas of beauty. In a society such as ours, it is unlikely our husband or wife will be consumed by predators, or parasites, at least not on the basis of their symmetry or body proportions. Instead, we might find the most invaluable gem behind the mask of mediocrity, and, conversely, the dullest of rock in the guise of an angel. As such notions proliferate, and to an increasing extent they have done so already, we can learn to embrace beauty as one of the most precious resources at our disposal, in the short lives we have to live.</P>
<P>AR, June 28, 2001</P></BODY></GUIDE>
<P>Beauty is a concept that runs pervasively through all classes, races, and other such categories of mankind. Societies are built around it, great sacrifices are made in its name, and it is accountable for our pleasure and our misery in equally enormous proportions. But what is beauty, and why is it of such importance to us? These are large questions.</P>
<HEADER>Natural Selection</HEADER>
<P>Many interesting things have been postulated, argued, suggested, and whatnot, in regard to <LINK HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A366220">evolution by natural selection</LINK>; overly deep discussion here would be redundant and an unnecessary digression. In short however, Darwin (and others) suggested that the traits we, and all organisms, portray are those that give us some sort of advantage over other organisms. This advantage allows us to produce offspring whereas those lacking our advantageous trait do not. Our offspring, moreover, are given our traits, both through the genes they inherit from us, and through the behaviour they learn through our example. Such traits (genetic and behavioural), therefore, are said to be selected for by our environment. Some organisms, however, develop traits whose existence is entirely baffling. The peacock, for example, struts around with an enormous colourful tail that, at first glance, and many subsequent glances, appears to be entirely disadvantageous to it. Much energy is required to develop and maintain this ridiculous ornament. Furthermore, as the peacock is not exactly a large or powerful animal, it is a clear and easy target for potential predators. By natural selection principles, the thing should rapidly disappear from the species (in which case we'd just have regular cocks; hardly the thing of wonder and beauty many people find the peacock to be).</P>
<HEADER>Sexual Selection</HEADER>
<P>This dilemna led Darwin to rethink his original hypothesis. Why do animals often develop bright and conspicuous features such as the peacock's tail, or the robin's red breast? It was decided that these traits, which increase susceptibility to predation as well as the amount of energy intake required for an organism to survive, are required instead to attract members of one's own species, particularly potential mates. This phenomenon, which is called called sexual selection, gives us much insight into the function of beauty in our society. Beauty in peacocks might be considered the size, the symmetry, the pattern of their tails, or a certain combination of these. We can experiment to determine which features are most seclected for, but only peacocks know for sure! In humans, the phenomenon works along very similar lines. Certain proportions, symmetry, movements, facial expressions, colour, and a multitude of other factors determine what features we find beautiful, and which ones are distasteful to us. Even being a human, however, isn't sufficient to simply <I>know</I> what beauty is. Different people have different tastes, desires, and preferences that determine beauty for them.</P>
<HEADER>So what is it?</HEADER>
<P>So how might beauty be defined, if it means so many different things to so many different individuals? And what exactly is its function? We can see that the peacock's tail has evolved because the pea-hens dig it, but <I>why</I> do they dig it? A mate with a smaller tail would certainly stand a better chance of evading predators, and thus be around to help raise the chicks. However, peacocks do very little raising of offspring. Their function, instead, is to attract and mate with as many females as possible. The females, on the other hand, want offspring that stand a better chance of survival than those of other females, and much of this survival depends upon the traits the chicks inherit. Big tails? One theory suggests that the colour, size, and symmetry of such a trait is an indication of the animal's genetic fitness, ability to resist parasites, and overall health. Another suggests that the evolution of the trait is more arbitrary; daughters prefer mates that resemble their fathers, and sons their mothers (a delightful subject in itself), so that the trait developed simply because it existed in a healthy line that preferred mates with which it had something in common. Whatever the case, certain forms of beauty seem prevalent in species, and humans are no exception. While we vary in the specific things we find attractive, many trends can be found to underly our system of aesthetics, or how we define beauty.</P>
<HEADER>Beauty in action</HEADER>
<P>Apart from the science of it, beauty is a constant influence upon our actions and serves as a primary motive for these actions, whether we acknowledge it or no. This is most obvious when we are searching for mates, and much of our capitalist institutions, such as the fashion industry, the advertising industry, the communications industry, et cetera, have developed around ideas concerning what we find beautiful. Within the social systems we have contructed for ourselves, our pursuit of beauty often seems amazingly illogical. We agonize long hours over our lack of personal beauty, our inability to attract a beautiful mate, whether our buddies will think ugly something we find beautiful. The acceptance of something (or someone) "mediocre" into our lives, for some reason, seems to put us on a lower level than those who consider the thing (or person) so. This makes little sense, logically; nonetheless, it is a principle instilled in virtually every human culture. We are obsessed, perhaps, with this idea; beautiful models adorn products from electric razors to Lexuses. This gives rise to the "contrast effect"<FOOTNOTE>Michael Lavine, Why I Hate Beauty. Psychology Today, July/August, 2001, pp. 38-44.</FOOTNOTE>, which, simply put, forms impossible ideals in our heads and causes much distress for both ourselves, who stand a rare chance of attaining such beauty, and those who fall short of our ideals, which constitutes a vast proportion of our neighbours. We become miserable and alienated.</P>
<HEADER>What's to be done?</HEADER>
<P>Beauty doesn't have to be a bad thing. It only becomes so when we take the idea and warp it into something grotesque, as our society has arguably done. We might instead learn to appreciate qualities other than those currently <I>en vogue</I>. It is understandable that we do not want as mates those who are likely to be unhealthy, or abusive, or to associate with undesirable circles, or be otherwise unpleasant to be around, but little of this can be related to our present ideas of beauty. In a society such as ours, it is unlikely our husband or wife will be consumed by predators, or parasites, at least not on the basis of their symmetry or body proportions. Instead, we might find the most invaluable gem behind the mask of mediocrity, and, conversely, the dullest of rock in the guise of an angel. As such notions proliferate, and to an increasing extent they have done so already, we can learn to embrace beauty as one of the most precious resources at our disposal, in the short lives we have to live.</P>
<P>AR, June 28, 2001</P></BODY></GUIDE>
