Status
Genres
Publication
Description
A provocative and thoroughly researched inquiry into what we find beautiful and why, skewering the myth that the pursuit of beauty is a learned behavior. In Survival of the Prettiest, Nancy Etcoff, a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and a practicing psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, argues that beauty is neither a cultural construction, an invention of the fashion industry, nor a backlash against feminism-it's in our biology. Beauty, she explains, is an essential and ineradicable part of human nature that is revered and ferociously pursued in nearly every civilization-and for good reason. Those features to which we are most attracted are often signals of fertility and fecundity. When seen in the context of a Darwinian struggle for survival, our sometimes extreme attempts to attain beauty-both to become beautiful ourselves and to acquire an attractive partner-suddenly become much more understandable. Moreover, if we understand how the desire for beauty is innate, then we can begin to work in our own interests, and not just the interests of our genetic tendencies.… (more)
User reviews
It all seems to be related to sexual selection, and good proportions and healthy skin, beautiful lustrous hair and symmetrical bodies advertise health and promise good reproductive future. As far as sexual display is concerned, we join other animals in liking the bigger and the showier- bigger peacock tails, big and symmetrical antlers can be equated to our fondness of broader shoulders and prominent pectorals in a male, and relatively big and well proportioned hips, waists and breasts in a female.
We similarly respond to what we perceive as beautiful in babies: nice skin, big foreheads, big eyes and big heads in relation to the rest of the body. Also to symmetry in the body, and harmony in music. Symmetry is especially interesting, as not only do we perceive it as pleasing, we also mate more eagerly with mates with symmetrical bodies, to the extent that female bodies actually become more symmetrical during ovulation.
Now it only leaves the question why we respond to beautiful landscapes, or a piece of music or a poem, and perhaps why we invented music and literature in the first place.
The book is well written and well researched, and it makes a lot of good points. There is also a good chapter distinguishing fashion from beauty there.
The explanation is systematic and tinged with humor. You appearance (including scent, sound, and interactions with other senses as well as vision) is a way of convincing a potential mate that you are a good draw in the natural selection sweepstakes. For humans traditional standards of beauty are all things related to youth and health (humans are admittedly a little unique here – in most species that use visual clues for mate selection it’s the female that does the selecting and the male that displays). Etcoff has interesting answers to the classic question – if beauty is not socially constructed, why do different cultures have different standards of beauty? There are several components:
* To a large extent, different cultures don’t have different standards of beauty. There are some extremes – the one usually cited is Ubangi women’s lips – but people from all over (even tribal groups with little or no access to “Western” television or magazines) tend to rank pictures of women according to beauty the same way.
* There is an instinctive component – babies as young as three days old spend more time looking at pictures of beautiful people when presented with an assortment. (I admit I would like to know a little more about how these experiments were done. Could there be a “Clever Hans” effect here, with the baby picking up clues from a person presenting the pictures, not the pictures themselves?)
* There’s also a learned component, and it works in an interesting way. Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) attempted to prove that there are “criminal physiognomies” by averaging photographs of prison inmates (I wonder how that was done in the days before morphing?) To Galton’s surprise, the “average” criminal turned out to be a pretty handsome fellow. Further studies show that people’s beauty rankings tend to reflect the distance between the target and the average for that particular culture. Thus it seems that people don’t have an instinctive beauty template, but they do have an instinctive “average”. In the West, as the faces people see on the streets and in the media become more racially and ethnically diverse, the “average” also shifts; and thus people today are more likely to judge racially different faces as “beautiful” than they were 50 years ago (again, this is another one where I’d like to look at the experiments. Were (for example) whites ranking blacks more beautiful in 1990 than they did in 1940 a result of a genuine change in standards or the fear of seeming politically incorrect? A properly blinded experiment would prevent this.)
* Actual attempts to “construct” beauty haven’t been very successful. A lot of Renaissance mathematicians devoted considerable effort to describing the ideal face in terms of proportions and ratios – nose width to lip height, distance from chin to eyebrows, etc. However, the mathematics didn’t end up conforming to what artists of the time (or now) actually portrayed as beautiful.
It’s clear that beauty has rewards. Men presented with a selection of pictures generally picked the most beautiful one (based on previous rankings by other men) as the one they would be the most likely to ask out or offer a ride or help if stranded or protect from a mad dog. (Interestingly, the one thing men were less likely to do for a beautiful woman than an ugly one is loan her money. There is probably a library worth of further studies that could be done on that). Women’s response to handsome men is still there, but much less pronounced.
Ms. Etcoff discusses beauty modifiers – makeup, plastic surgery, clothes – and other components – scent, voice, body hair – at some length. It was interesting but there were no great surprises. All claims are documented in endnotes, and there’s an extensive bibliography. The book (copyright 1999) is a little dated; I wonder if there’s a second edition planned. And based on her photograph in the front matter, Ms. Etcoff is hot.
And in response to another review: I did
It's also an interesting look at how
Etcoff is in explicit if polite polemic against writers who have argued
A enjoyable read, not terribly deep, with a definite feminine viewpoint. Will annoy those convinced there is little innate psychological difference between the sexes.