Good points you have made there. Looking at the
cosmetic products in the market, and many of them claim
to change your skin tone, and even more are about skin
whitening. There seems to be an obsession with looking
fair and shying away from your original skin colour. It
is really hard to say whether mixed race beauty is an
actual thing, or just conjured by by our imaginations.

Hi Anarcissie,

I believe you’re asking for a formulation that race and beauty are not social constructions, and I think we agree that in minute details, they are.

These socially determined details (of race & beauty) are identical to any other linguistic phenomena of humans: the words and meanings are socially defined, but to deny the species-wide, natural drives to communicate via language or assess attractiveness leaves one ignorant to the most important and wide-ranging knowledge of language, attractiveness, and group identification. 

What I reject the position that restricting our view to details is justifiable, as seems to have been suggested, and is implied by the author’s perspective in the article, as well as the horrific number of fallacies presented there.

The non-realist formulation (denial of underlying principles) is not “wrong” per se, especially when clearly labeled as applying to a narrow scope.  However, that formulation is exposed as impoverished when compared to the more robust understandings held by many with only a casual familiarity with the science in this area.

BurntSynapse—I think if we, like the author of the article, are talking about preferences for persons of ‘mixed race’ appearance or the related popularity of Jennifer Lopez’s butt, we’re in the realm of those variances you mention.  We’re also in the realm of popcult, where race is not based on actual ancestral lines, nor beauty on geometrical abstractions, but both are mostly determined by convention, often manipulated by advertising and marketing.  In this sense, race and beauty are certainly social constructions.

But prove me wrong.  Give me a formula for either which corresponds to the popular usage of these terms.

Anarcissie,

I’m happy to engage in rational discussion, but ignoring reasonable questions about how best to approach the topic in favor of discouraging participation of those who disagree suggests one has other priorities than working together on a productive dialog to advance everyone’s understanding.  Let us focus on analyzing the topic, please.

Addressing the issues you raise: “my” theory you purport to challenge has never been described as deterministic, or provable any more than evolution is deterministic and provable.  Rather, such theories accommodate complex environmental factors providing a context for understanding, and are only disproven in favor of something better.  For philosophical and pragmatic reasons, admitting ignorance regarded as superior to asserting “leprechauns” or deities as a cause for observation X. 

In the case of beauty, if the non-realist position you advocate (i.e.: there is no underlying “natural” human beauty) I would need to know more about what the criteria of “going over” means relative to Lopez and Chacon’s butts however as stated: underlying dynamics do not prohibit individual variances.  In this case: societal and cultural variances.

While preferences for a certain body-mass index or chest, waist, hip ratio may vary, the fact that clear preferences exist across all human cultures with common factors, perhaps across all vertebrates, with even insects seeing certain flowers for example as more attractive.

BurntSynapse—if you have a provable deterministic theory of why and when fashions change, you’re wasting your time posting on Truthdig.  Why, in the ample-posterior category, did Jennifer Lopez go over but not Iris Chacón?  What’s the NBT?  There are people who want to know these things so they can sell stuff, and they’ll reward you instead of give you an argument like me.

Hi Anarcissie,

You seem to be saying that it is appropriate to restrict our ourselves to “thinking more of popcult” in isolation, avoiding “elaborate sociological or psychological tests” which might reveal underlying principles.

How can we possibly justify the ignorance which will inevitably result?  The only benefit I see, is that it prevents us from being compelled to challenge our own mistaken beliefs which provide us emotional comfort and higher certainty - even though that certainty is irrational.

BurntSynapse—in the domain of human appearance, besides symmetry (but not too much symmetry) one also observes, I am told, a tendency to regard the average as the apex of beauty in such areas as facial and body proportions, a curiously paradoxical result.  However, I was thinking more of popcult ‘beauty’ than the sort of thing one gets by doing elaborate sociological or psychological tests—the sense in which, say, the Kardashian sisters are said in the media to be unusually beautiful, or attractive, or sexy, or whatever, when they are actually fairly ordinary-looking for the social categories they belong to.  Besides the standards promoted in the media, one also observes related cultural preferences and fashions, for example if you look on an old-time Chinese wall calendar you will see rather round-faced babes who would not be the preference of the many White Americans who prefer angular, chunky faces on young women.  I think this sort of beauty is pretty vacuous, that is, I don’t think it’s attached to any kind of underlying or intrinsic principle.

Beauty is relative and subjective.. personally, any gal that will smile at me is seriously interesting ..

There is something to the eye-appeal of so called mixed-ethnicity women.. if you’ve lived in a closet (or in rural Arkansas) and are not sure what I’m talking about visit Puebla, Mexico.. many more places stand out as well..

One thing that got my attention was the author’s use of the term ‘hybrid vigor’ .. my training and experience with wildlife and captive colonies of wild animals leaves the use of that term to mean the interbreeding of different species or even genera of animals..

Last I heard there was only one genus and species of people.. maybe the Nazis and other proponents of eugenics and so-on (the Rockefellers) think otherwise.

That’s my two cents worth..

Hi Anarcissie,

The entire sentence does not seem to support your interpretation of the author’s meaning, AFAICT.  Rather, the statement seems to be intended to grant plausibility to the idea that “the concept of beauty” does “not exist in nature”.

Symmetry, for example, has been firmly established as linked to attractiveness to which we attach the word “beauty”, but is shown across the animal kingdom as a factor influencing mating preference and hierarchical status in groups.

We tend to regard snowflakes, hearts, and faces as more beautiful because of their symmetry whereas in contrast, asymmetrical faces typify ugliness, as Hollywood monsters will attest.  This is genetic and neurological in a manner similar to the generally-occurring fear of height, falling, or ability to recognize faces - a program so strong that we perceive them in random patterns.

<blockquote>
BurntSynapse, March 8 at 12:06 pm:

‘... It is misleading and ignorant to claim “beauty and race are both social constructions”, without adding that all human cultures possess such preferences….’

It means that the content of such preferences is generally vacuous.  In fact, in the case of ‘beauty’ and ‘race’, the preferences themselves are ill-defined as well as empty, hence the tedious fluffiness of a poll about ‘race’ and ‘beauty’.

A very poor, unscientific article which uses the same flaws of reasoning typically used in the forms of traditional racism and sexism which it properly condemns.

It reminds one of the mutual criticisms between unreasonable Muslim militants, unreasonable Christian militants, and unreasonable Jewish militants, or the political and nationalist analogs. 

It is misleading and ignorant to claim “beauty and race are both social constructions”, without adding that all human cultures possess such preferences.  Although they may differ on specifics as much as any human capacity.  The specific language (speech, gesture, clothing) may vary, but the need to communicate status, reproductive fitness, danger, love, fear, etc. transcends society, our species, and certainly: Allure magazine polls.

The meanings imparted by the author show profound ideological biases, with bizarre conclusions being derived or supported by justifications with no plausible connections.  For example: whether or not our concept of beauty is purely social has nothing to do with whether perception of mixed race individuals as more beautiful is, in fact, on the rise.  What matters is the design and execution of the study! 

Similarly, the author may be correct that the Allure claims are “wishful thinking”, but that has no bearing on whether those claims are accurate.  This piece is a shameful indictment of our educational systems’ inability to teach basic principles of science, critical thinking, and logical reasoning.