The following article is an attempt at pondering on the concept of beauty, its evolution, the biological imperative and the implications of our perceptions. I have drawn heavily from a few research articles written by biologists, philosophers & sociologists and in no small part to my own musings on the subject. Due credit for the spark that ignited this article lies with a friend of mine whose insistence on not wearing make-up stands out in my mind as a wonderful gift of 'self-acceptance' a continum on which the majority still struggle at the lower ends.
What Is Beauty?: While I would be referring to both men & women, the emphasis in the text below would be on women. Lets start at the very basics. Who decided that fair skin is more beautiful than black? Who decided that breast size has anything to do with beauty. Who decided that a pout akin to Angelina Jolie is sexy? Why can't being small, freckle-faced, small breasted, over-weight woman be considered beautiful? Why can't short, thin, round-faced, dark, balding men be considered handsome. One half of the answer is that the concept of beauty is evolutionary over time & though it varies across cultures has a strong root in darwinian selection.
Evolutionary Theory of Beauty: Beauty initially conveyed a language more overtly than at present. Evolutionary scientists including Darwin himself have found that certain features and characteristics considered beautiful are actually indicators of developmental health and is fundamental to the evolutionary process of both humans and animals alike. Diverse observations carried out by evolutionary biologists over time have indicated a positive correlation between attractive physical traits and higher proportion of fertility and good health. Hence, beauty acts as a 'certification of biological quality' to propagate the gene more likely to succeed. One such 'attractive' physical attribute of women that positively correlates in to an indicator of child bearing ability and healthiness is relative waist to hip ratio. Men are observed to 'biologically' prefer women with a striking hour glass figure (a small waist to hip ratio) since these physical features of a woman are what is considered the most salient indicators of her ability to procreate.
Likewise, the heavy lower face that women favor in men is a visible record of the surge in androgens (testosterone and other male sex hormones) that turns small boys into 200-pound spear-throwers. An oversized jaw is biologically expensive, for the androgens required to produce it tend to compromise the immune system. But from a female's perspective, that should make jaw size all the more revealing. Evolutionists think of androgen-based features as "honest advertisements" of disease resistance. If a male can afford them without falling sick, the thinking goes, he must have a superior immune system in the first place. Almost every bodily charecteristic can thus be extended to convey a health & procreative ability that is translated into the sub-conscious realm that helps in propogating the dominant & successful genes and eliminating the bad genes. For example a high percentage of hair on a woman's body could be indicative of higher testosterone levels, leading to an hypothesis of lesser estrogen and lesser chance to procreate.
The 'Short-listing' theory: Why do companies & educational institutions conduct entrance examinations. It is a basis to short-list potential candidates when its not possible to meet personally with all of them. So it is the evolutionary scheme of things. It is not possible for you to invest time with a larger group & get to know everybody & then decide who to be friends with etc. So whether you like this about yourself or not you associate a face with qualities of character or personality like kindness, outgoing, happy, honest, angry, sad, aggressive and hence form a basis to be comfortable to take things forward. Of course its crude but it makes life simple.
Defining Beauty: One key to physical attractiveness is symmetry; humans, like other species, show a strong preference for individuals whose right and left sides are well matched. Denzel Washington's face, is almost completely symmetrical. Babies spend more time staring at pictures of symmetric individuals than they do at photos of asymmetric ones. Moreover, when several faces are averaged to create a composite thus covering up the asymmetries that any one individual may have, a panel of judges deemed the composite more attractive than the individual pictures. For more on this research Click here & here
A configuration close to the population mean is fundamental to attractiveness. So the stereotype that all women prefer tall men may not be necessarily true. They are likely to prefer men maybe a little taller than the average as a departure from the average could probably suggest an uncommon gene chareccteristic that is less likely to succeed than the average one which has already proved its worth. Of course there is a danger in over-generalization. For example, Chinese men used to prefer women with small feet. In some African tribal cultures, men like women who insert large discs in their lips.
Can we redefine society's definition of beauty: In one experiment, a group of babies were shown several slides of faces reliably rated by adults to be more or less attractive. The babies saw the faces of either Caucasian male or female adults, African-American adult females, or the faces of other infants. In each experiment, eight attractive and eight unattractive faces, matched closely for hair length, style, color, and facial expression, were chosen from a large group of faces. Pairs of these faces were projected side-by-side so that each image was about the size of a real face. The amount of time each infant looked at each face was then recorded. The results of all these studies were straightforward and unambiguous. Babies look longer at adult-judged attractive faces than at unattractive faces, regardless of whether the face is male or female, white or black, adult or infant. This study probably shows that the basic ideas of beauty across cultures are ingrained & are probably not shaped by contemporary culture like previously thought.
What about inner beauty?: In one study, 70% of college students deemed an instructor physically attractive when he acted in a friendly manner, while only 30% found him attractive when he was cold and distant. Indeed, when surveyed for attributes in selecting a mate, both males and females felt kindness and an exciting personality were more important in a mate than good looks. Thus charater & personality traits do add to the 'physical' attractiveness of a person. In my personal opinion, it is possible for one to decide to see the inner beauty in people. This happens out of sheer experience and the concepts of beauty ingrained from the media can be de-learnt and be replaced with this wisdom.
Behavioral Consequences: When a person is seen as attractive or unattractive, a whole set of assumptions are brought into play. Across cultures, what is beautiful is assumed to be good. Attractive people are assumed to be more extroverted, popular, and happy. There is truth in this — attractive people do tend to have these characteristics. However, this is probably due to self-fulfilling prophecy; from a young age attractive people receive more attention that helps them develop positive characteristics.
Even parents judge and treat their own children differently based on attractiveness (have you noticed that we gravitate towards those babies that are 'cute' and 'beautiful'?), although they are not aware of it. In a study of more than 150 Caucasian, Mexican American, and African American newborn infants and mothers, it was found that moms of attractive first-born infants were more attentive and affectionate than moms of less attractive first-borns. All the mothers denied that attractiveness should matter in parental treatment of children but their behavior belied their beliefs. Studies have also found out that more attractive people are more likely to succeed in finding acceptance, friendships, promotions in the workplace and in finding a mate than their less attractive peers.
Nature levels it out: So are we saying that if you are not attractive you lose out: A belief probably that leads many to go in for surgery or excessive use of cosmetics to alter appearences to stand a good chance in life and in the mating game. Symmetric men & women have been found more likely to be promiscous in their relationships. Whereas asymetric men, knowing their chances are less in finding an attractive mate, invest more time & effort into their relationships which is valued by women for a stable family environment to raise children in (have you noticed any good looking Hollywood comedians? Nature teaches us to adapt in many ways to find the acceptability we all need) . Women on the other hand opt for symmetric men early on but display no such preference in their later years.
Maybe that is where 'cliches' like 'Dumb Blondes' really crept in. Admitting to the danger of stereotyping now I could state that people who are less likely to find acceptability through their appearences are likely to try various other ways like smartness, knowledgeability, money, sense of humor, 'interesting personality', musical abilities etc to increase their chances of acceptability. While this may not be necessarily an overt reaction it is a natural adaptive reaction to survive in a competitive 'survival of the fittest' society.
Conclusion: Beauty is more than skin deep. It has a genetic and developmental basis which influences perceptions of beauty and human sexual behavior. It is for each person to be happy with his lot, thank his maker and participate in life's scheme of things (Frankly I am able to reconcile God & evolution in this argument). It is sad that many of us are not able to accept ourselves the way we are. No amount of cosmetics or plastic surgery can help us reach that level of self-acceptance. I personally think that there is nothing wrong in enhancing one's beauty using various accessories. But when it only acts as a crutch on which you can find 'self-acceptance' I see that as an issue.
Beauty as a concept wouldn't exist if there wasn't anybody to admire it. So Beauty, defining it, admiring it and being attracted towards it has some universal commonality and a cultural & individual bias which is good. What is wrong is to be solely governed by it. It is good to constantly endeavour to look beneath the skin in all relationships. Beauty draws a man & woman together and I see it as a necessity to propogate the human genome. The initial sexual attraction serves as the spark to motivate two people to pursue the path toward coming together. Without it, singling out one person for intimacy would be boring and lifeless. But the basic premise of that motivation is to make a man & woman know each other intimately at levels other than physical, so as to base their relationship on a true everlasting inner beauty. If not, a shaky union defeats the very purpose of evolution, which is to provide the best environment for your genetic code to be successful generation after generation. I leave you with William Wordsworth's words below that talks about true beauty, a beauty that lovers discover, a beauty beyond physical attractiveness that brought the lovers together in the first place. That kind of beauty discovered is what goes the distance.
True beauty dwells in deep retreats,
Whose veil is unremoved
Till heart with heart in concord beats,
And the lover is beloved
