By: Kate Povey

Introduction

Beauty standards have always been extremely prevalent throughout human history, and today they drastically affect everyday interaction, the media, and the commercial world. They determine what is “beautiful”, from body shape, to facial proportions, to height and weight. Many scholars have sought to explain why they exist, yet there seems to be little consensus. From evolution, to racism, to social media, there are so many influences on our current-day beauty standards. I argue that while the overarching concept of beauty has stemmed from evolution, beauty standards have become extremely impressionable, and are now means for the capitalist system of the US to control its members.

"Human Evolution?" by bryanwright5@gmail.com is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Evolution

The first article that has a common argument within this conversation is “Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain”, published online in April of 2019. It was written by Daniel Yarosh, a retired researcher in the field of Behavioral Sciences, located in New York. It seeks to deconstruct beauty standards in a scientific or evolutionary way. It argues that beauty standards are set by a human nature to seek reproductive health in others, but also explains that people tend to “deceive” others by using clothing, makeup, and other methods to seem more attractive. However, it fails to address the impacts of non-evolutionary influences, such as cultural or social standards. It solely focuses on an evolutionary standpoint. It is unclear whether or not it argues that every beauty standard is set by evolution, or just the ones discussed in the paper, but there are no counterarguments explained in the paper.

` In the “Universality of Attractiveness Judgements'' section of the paper, the author argues that across cultures and within cultures, most people agree on who is objectively attractive. An interesting thing to note is that there is absolutely no mention of skin tone or other indicators of race. The reason I think this would be important to consider is because the effects of western colonialism are extreme on beauty standards across the world, yet nothing was mentioned about this subject in the entire paper. In the “Makeup and Cosmetics” section, however, the text does state that by “lightening skin complexion, cosmetics are used to counter this sign of aging”. It also suggests that eye makeup helps make women’s eyes look bigger which increases their perceived attractiveness. Although this paper does focus on mainly science, it would be useful to at least mention the impacts of culture on these standards.

"My Minimal Makeup" by JillWillRun is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Capitalism

Another frequent system within our society that many suggest is responsible for our beauty standards, is capitalism. The article “A Feminine Double-Bind? Towards understanding the commercialisation of beauty through examining anti-ageing culture” by Anoushka Benbow-Buitenhuis discusses the way capitalism and beauty products combine to create an increasingly inescapable beauty standard on women. It traces the link between capitalism and beauty in the US to the 1920s, “conceptions of what a ‘New Woman’ could be assisted by the emergence of a feminised mass consumerism, as beauty products came to symbolise female freedom and Western political emancipation.” Buitenhuis states that mass consumerism allowed for the ideal of a “beautiful woman” to be appropriated for commercial/political consumption. Thus, it was imperative that these standards were upheld because it allowed for American nationalism to be expanded. Over time, the concept of beauty became very selective, so companies started rebranding their beauty products as a “countercultural advertising campaign that resembles social activism”. They made beauty products seem feminist and empowering, which was just another way for them to reach a new consumer base and sell more products. However, the beauty standard hasn’t exactly gotten more inclusive, just companies have been using a concept known as “generic diversity”, described in this paper. It displays people that almost completely fit the status quo, but with very slight deviations to make others feel more included. The reason this is dishonest is because the products still are meant for “lightening”, “brightening”, or “anti-aging”, even if the models are darker or older. In the conclusion, the text even states that “The cultural capital framework allows us to see how social actors utilise their physical appearance as symbolic power in social environments.” It shows that women still need to utilize beauty as a means of gaining capital, which is why beauty works under this system. This incentive of attaching a nearly moral value to beauty, is what incentivises women to participate in beauty culture, even if they are aware the industry isn’t necessarily honest or empowering.

"iPhone" by goto_ is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Social Media

An article titled “Media Today : Unattainable Beauty Standards” found on the Girls Empowerment Network discusses the impact of social media on women’s self-image. It stated that “out of over 1000 adolescent girls surveyed, 88% of the girls believe that the media puts a lot of pressure on them to be thin.” Younger women don’t receive a lot of education on how “normal” bodies can look, and thus the constant exposure to flawless and edited bodies can be detrimental to self-esteem. There seems to be little diversity in so many aspects of beauty online, which perpetuates really harmful expectations on girls, as well as men. Interestingly enough, the article suggests that “It is important for young girls to seek out these body positive celebrities so that they understand that beauty is being yourself and accepting yourself.” What I find slightly harmful about this rhetoric is the constant emphasis on beauty. The idea that we need to teach girls that “no matter what, they’re beautiful” is slightly harmful because women don’t need to be beautiful. While of course, body-positive influences are making great impacts on our restrictive beauty standard, the focus on bodies can still be slightly counter-productive. Another article titled “Opinion | Stop paying attention to social media’s beauty standards” on The Crimson White suggested that “trends change”, but long-term self love is what really lasts. This hit the nail on the head because it’s true, the ideal body and the ideal appearance is a trend, even if evolutionary scientists state otherwise. From the 90s beauty trend of taller, more slender women, to the 2010s fad of curvier, shorter women, the beauty standard is constantly fluctuating which is why it is even harder to attain.

Contradictions

Through these numerous articles, we have identified three very clear and common reasons that people think beauty standards have stemmed from; evolution, capitalism, and social media. There are even more nuances to these topics, considering that racism and colonialism are sub-topics of capitalism. So, we need to ask the question, What Is the Beauty Standard? Is the beauty standard a fact of nature? Is the beauty standard a mechanism for our country to profit off of women? Is the beauty standard a by-product of the new technological era? While there are so many possible answers to these questions, I believe that while the overarching social construct of beauty has stemmed from evolution, many other social aspects have influenced it over time.

As we learned from the scientific piece, attraction has been an evolutionary mechanism by which humans could choose partners to mate with. So, it is clear that attraction/attractiveness is an age-old concept. However, this concept has been exploited by many different groups to harness power in their societies. Westerners brought their beauty standards to other countries and gained social power in this way. By convincing other races that they were less attractive than white people, they managed to gain social capital amongst their members. White supremacy managed to creep into the everlasting concept of beauty. Then, as capitalism became increasingly prevalent in most societies, people started to exploit beauty standards to profit off of the insecure. From skin-lightening cream, to diet pills, to corsets, so many different forms of beauty standards have been turned into products. This caused beauty advertisements to perpetuate beauty standards to convince buyers that the product would genuinely improve their quality of life. Social media came into play here. What is profitable on social media is determined by capitalism - the main purpose of social media is to sell products and boost the economy. Thus, influencers started utilizing plastic surgery and photoshop as means of making themselves and their bodies more profitable.

The meaning of beauty is no longer a concept between individuals to find others to reproduce with. It has snowballed into a means of power - a way in which one group of people can dominate another and perpetuate an exclusivity in the beauty standard. No matter how much a beauty product is advertised as a way for an individual to gain power over their self-image, the truth of the matter is that beauty companies rely on the insecurities of the consumer base. If everyone was genuinely comfortable in their appearance, they would have no reason to purchase makeup, diet products, hair products, and more. There is no way for an individual to gain freedom through the beauty industry, especially for women, as their beauty is generally commodified and used against them as a form of oppression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, beauty standards are a very complex social process that are perpetuated through many forms of social status. While scientists may hold the stance that evolution has caused beauty standards, many other aspects of society have impacted the ideal appearance. Ranging from racism, to capitalism, to media, beauty has become a way for people to lose agency to a social system. Even while beauty products are marketed as individualistic, they really aren’t, and are mainly profitable to those with capital or social power. Beauty is in a weird valley between a fact of science and a social construct, which is why abolishing the concept is extremely difficult, or even impossible.

There will always be people who justify their perpetuation of this standard with evolution, even when there is a lot more nuance to this concept that needs to be explored. The dangerous thing about the scientific explanation is that it can allow people to legitimize very dangerous standards that may even be misogynistic or racist. Since beauty standards are so deep-rooted in capitalism, and capitalism is super important to the US, beauty is an especially prevalent system within America. The best we can do on individual levels is to be cautious with our self-image, and remain self-aware with the way we personally perpetuate and play into these systems. These issues are systemic, but there is still some agency to be had.

Works Cited

Yarosh, Daniel B. “Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain.” Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 9,4 34. 29 Mar. 2019, doi:10.3390/bs9040034

Benbow-Buitenhuis, Anoushka. “A Feminine Double-Bind?: Towards Understanding the Commercialisation of Beauty through Examining Anti-Ageing Culture.” Social Alternatives, vol. 33, no. 2, 2014, pp. 43–49.

Glatz, Maddie. “Opinion: Stop Paying Attention to Social Media's Beauty Standards.” The Crimson White, 4 Mar. 2021, cw.ua.edu/79868/opinion/opinion-stop-paying-attention-to-social-medias-beauty-standards/.

Gonzalez, Felicia. “Media Today : Unattainable Beauty Standards.” Girls Empowerment Network, Girls Empowerment Network, 25 Apr. 2019, www.girlsempowermentnetwork.org/blog/media-today-unattainable-beauty-standards.