More to beauty

Facebook has a video beginning to make it way through the ethereal world.  Admittedly, this video is not that new as it is a part of a larger campaign that started a few years ago.  Before reading any further, I would recommend that you see the video first and then come back to this post.  (Don’t worry, I’ll wait for you).

Welcome back.  Here’s my two cents. The video, prior to the concluding commentary, does reveal a systemic problem within modern culture, which is: beauty is superficial and can be easily manufactured (i.e. it’s not real, or it’s simply faked). This type of cultural promotion is indeed damaging to people’s (namely women’s) sense of self-worth and should not be condoned. However, the concluding commentary does not address this problem at the systemic level, which is what I was hoping it would do.

The final tag line of, “Every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is” is basically true but not necessary helpful because feelings are in themselves perceptions (i.e. not reality) and perceptions (not to mention preconceptions), in this regard, are what people use to determine beauty. As long as perceptions and/or feelings are that which define reality, then what is real will never be properly defined–let alone have true, lasting significance.

The website “Campaign for Real Beauty” is well-intentioned but equally unhelpful in the long run. Nearly every page simply talks about “widening the perception [or definition] of what is beautiful” so that people (namely women) can feel better about themselves; however, all this does is simply include other superficial variables into what defines beauty.  In other words: wrinkles, grey hair, fat bodies, stubby legs, pasty-whiteness, etc were once excluded from definitions of beauty but are now included because the new perception regarding these things has widened enough to include them.

The problem for me, however, is that this new and wider definition simply exchanges one superficial perception for another, which ultimately does not constitute a real change in definition.  There is a much larger issue that is being overlooked in this process, and that is: what is beauty, and what constitutes a beautiful person?  If beauty is defined as that which is aesthetically pleasing, then a person’s perception of beauty is at the mercy of that which determines aesthetic appeal–whether that be the narrow definition of Hollywood or the wider definition of Campaign for Real Beauty; however, either determination is ultimately superficial in how it understands and defines beauty.

True beauty needs to be understood and defined in accordance with what it is and not how it is perceived.  A person is beautiful because they are beautiful, not because they appear to be (or feel); thus, definitions of true beauty take into account the whole person, which means including more than superficial features that may or may not be aesthetically pleasing.  While a person may be grouped into the newer and wider definition of beauty advocated by the Campaign, who they truly are might in fact be contrary to what is truly beautiful.  In other words, a person may be considered “beautiful” because they are fat, wrinkly, grey-headed, stubby-legged, and/or pasty-white; however, that same person could be vile, crude, vengeful, deceptive, self-absorbed, and/or downright evil–i.e. features that hardly represent that which is truly beautiful.

As they say, “Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone.”

Thinking out loud

According to a recent poll, Americans (at least, those polled) are becoming disillusioned with the hopes and dreams promised to them by Obama when he ran for office.  Or, to put it more bluntly: Americans (i.e. those polled) are becoming more and more impatient in waiting for the fruits of the (overly) touted ‘change’ which so dominated Obama’s campaign.  The obvious question would be: what is causing this disillusionment?  While I have my own perspective to this question, three options should be noted first with regard to this issue of ‘change’:

1. The promised change was nothing more than a politcal claim made for the sake of winning voters.  If we honestly think that politicians do not say things in order to win an election, then we are sadly foolish. (The first half of this statement is not meant to be all-inclusive; it simply notes a general tendency which has become a part of the political landscape).  If this is the case, then the fault really goes both ways–i.e. the POTUS who duped everyone and the voters who actually believed the rhetoric of change.
2. The promised change is not what people expected.  This should be considered a likely possibility, especially since the definition of ‘change’ was both ambiguous and self-fulfilling (i.e. the definition kept changing) throughout the campaign.  Such things generally lead people to create ideas of their own, which often times end up not being in line with what actually occurs.
3. The promised change simply has not arrived yet.  It is nearly axiomatic that the effects of decisions/plans made during one administration are not often felt until the next.  Thus, the full effect of the change is still in process.

However, I wonder if the cause for the disillusionment also stands behind these three options?  The cause I have in mind is the (modern) ever-growing propensity for impatience.  Or, to come at this from another direction: the cultural fascination with ‘entitlement’ and immediate self-gratification has instilled–knowingly or not–a general attitude of impatience.  (Sadly, in some recent advertisements, this attitude of impatience is being highly praised, glorified, and depicted as normative and even virtuous).  Thus, when things do not happen when we want them to happen and not in way we want them, we throw up our arms in disgust and with feelings of betrayal–both of which typically have no justification.  And when such things happen, it is no small wonder that real progress (or, dare I say ‘change’?) becomes stymied and things of lasting value remain elusive.

Best case scenario would be the third option.  While I do not agree politically with Obama on a few issues, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with what he plans to do.  More times than not, strategies and decisions made by individuals in ‘power’ tend to be either confusing or misunderstood by those not in ‘power’.  The cause for both the confusion and misunderstanding is the same: there is a much bigger picture to be considered, and those without a national vantage point are simply unable to see the details of that bigger picture.  Or, to change the metaphor a little: those in valley do not have the perspective of the one on a hill.  The decisions, guidance, and direction given by the one on the hill might appear to be meaningless, irrational, and even dangerous for the one in the valley; but again, the interpretation of the one in the valley is based on a limited perspective.  Patience must be exercised in the face of the seemingly meaningless, irrational, and dangerous.  Impatience makes matters worse.