Universal Beauty: A Myth or The “New Normal”?

The power of beauty 

"You're beautiful" is the most powerful compliment one could ever get. The word, "beautiful" has come to hold such power in our society that it gives you an all-access pass to many areas of life, from higher wages to lighter sentences in prison. Although by definition the word defines how aesthetically pleasing you are, being labelled such also subconsciously plants the idea that you are intelligent, wealthy, fertile, and feminine, into other people's minds – allowing people to naturally respond favourably to you.

 

With such perks, everyone obviously would like to be beautiful. But the harsh reality indicates otherwise. Not everybody can make the cut. And even those who do, at some point, become "ugly" because they can't keep up with the continuously renewed "terms and conditions" to remain beautiful.

 

What it takes to be beautiful

Before mainstream media was accessible globally, the word beautiful was often used to describe women. Descriptions of what were beautiful was more deeply rooted and localized to the culture of a certain area and period in time. This is evident through the coinciding periods of Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt which have different ideas of beauty. Ancient Egypt associated beauty with youth, having tight glowing skin, with a slim figure and narrow hips which implied that they hadn't mated before. Meanwhile, Ancient Greece labelled those with wide hips, pale skin, and "fat-bottomed" as healthy, wealthy, and fertile – beautiful. These ideals of beauty were also often expressed in the forms of art available at that time, like sculptures or paintings. Moreover, the ancient Greeks considered those who were intelligent as beautiful. Since those who had unibrows were believed to be intelligent, they were beautiful too. The ancient Egyptians also associated beauty with holiness, hence the frequent use of makeup which was used to deter evil spirits.

 

Though I haven't found an explicit reason for beauty standards being set this way, I speculate that evolutionary advantage is an important factor. Ancient Greeks believed that women were only able to manage the household and undergo childbirth since they naturally have less endurance. Assuming that those were the sole function of women, and the need to reproduce was fundamental, people would have to choose partners who appeared to have the prerequisites to create better offspring to survive evolution. Thus, the women had to be healthy, wealthy, and fertile to then inherit those qualities – this was beautiful.

 

Commercialization of beauty 

As capitalism emerged and businesses became hungry for profits, everything had to be commercialized, including beauty. A prominent example of this is the emergence of the notion that body hair is unattractive in women. Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies, Rebecca Herzig, found that the shaving culture for females was a beauty standard constructed by King Camp Gillette to gain revenue. It was at this time that beauty was no longer bound to standards to survive natural selection, but rather bound by a new standard which has been motivated by a prospective financial gain.

 

In the early 1900s, shaving was already a common practice for males. When finding a way to double the profits earned, Gillette had the idea to introduce the practice of shaving to women, making them consumers. But at the time, women were used to draping garments which covered the body up to the chin, so there was never the need to shave one's armpits, legs, nor arms. Later, as women shifted to sleeveless dresses and shorter hemlines, Gillette took on the opportunity to make razors a complementary product to the shifting trends in fashion. To do this, he had to make shaving a need. He planned to do so by inducing the ideas that, firstly, shaving could be a woman's activity too, secondly, the idea that body hair is unattractive, ugly, and embarrassing.

 

As is apparent in today's culture, he successfully planted those ideas into society and constructed a new beauty standard. Initially, the company introduced the notion that shaving was a feminine activity by using the word "smoothing". Then, they promoted the idea that refined and fashionable women had been "smoothing" thus other women should do so too, while also implying that the activity was a means of social mobility as well – it had become a chance to be a part of those refined women. Additionally, as these refined women in pin-up posters had been "boosting the morale" of soldiers at war, a hairless body practically became an act of patriotism. It is alarming to think about how far businesses can go with recent advancements in design and photo manipulation, considering that this hairless ideal for women was embedded in society through advertisements that mostly consisted of drawings and paintings rather than photographs of people. Now, it has never been easier for advertisers to constantly modify how models in advertisements will appear until they've successfully constructed a new idea of what is beautiful, where the product being sold can appear to be an integral part of achieving this new ideal of beauty.

 

These constantly renewed ideals of beauty in advertisements are unattainable. Yet in spite of the plummeting self-esteem, physical and mental health, and body image of its viewers, these ads continue to be generated as they effectively perpetuate the demand for the products being promoted. With the pressure to be beautiful and advertisements blaring at you telling that this product is the only way of achieving it, it would be odd not to fall in line. After all, businesses hadn’t received any consequences for their wrongdoings. Perhaps because there were no means for consumers to revolt against them, and even if there were, the information never spread wide enough and the body positive community remained a minority, history exists to prove so.

  

Reclaiming and Renovating "Beautiful"

The body positive movement dates back to the Victorian Era. Among many of the women who had to wear corsets and used tightlacing techniques to modify their waists, few who found them uncomfortable chose to stop confirming to these standards. With the human nature that longs for acceptance, some other women too joined in the movement. But as the greater consensus was still that tinier waists were beautiful, the group of women were ridiculed into becoming a minority, their voices remain unheard.  

 

With the help of technology, specifically radio stations, information now could spread wider, and faster. People had come together to protest against the discrimination against those who were overweight. Additionally, people now could share their essays on the issue and have their voices acknowledged as the circulation of news became easier. With the help of the representation of other body types in mainstream media, people at least knew they had some place to belong. 

 

Now, with the growth of social media platforms available coupled with the increase in digital and aesthetic literacy of its users, communities which were once overlooked can now amplify their voices. People have been able to collectively and actively challenge the unrealistic beauty standards existing in society. Some contribute to the change by opening up about their experiences with eating disorders. Others contribute by revealing just how heavily edited the photos can be, and how those modifications are not humanly possible. And many continue to advocate for the normalization and increased portrayal of natural bodies and faces through social media.

 

With the rise in the body-positive movement, many companies received backlash and some were even boycotted, thus losing what was once guaranteed to be income. Consumers have now reclaimed the right to define beauty in voicing what they want and how they want products to be. People now dare demand that there be a greater range of sizes in a clothing line. People now dare demand that they are provided with a foundation shade suitable for their skin tone. People now dare demand that race, gender, nor weight be a consideration in choosing models. And if those corporations and fashion designers didn't comply, well, they'll face the wrath of critics and those with the body positivity movement until they do so. Take Victoria's Secret for example, their failure to adapt promptly to the demand for brands to be inclusive has resulted in a plummeting income and market share, as people are shifting to other brands that promote body positivity.

 

Even companies which appear to promote inclusivity by releasing a greater range of shades, aiming to facilitate people of color (PoC), are still carefully monitored by consumers. For instance, during the promotion for Morphe’s 60-shade foundation line release, many consumers had questioned the company’s true motives behind this new campaign. Reviewing its history of frequent underrepresentation of PoC and often glorification of caucasian beauty gurus, customers had speculated that it had been a ploy to boost sales instead of any genuine act of change. Here, it has become evident that brands are held to a new standard. Not only do they need to appear to advocate for diversity through some promotional videos and photoshoots, but their efforts need to be consistent and continuous throughout every aspect of the company – from the selection of models in advertisements to the recruitment and promotion of employees. 

 

Through these brief examples, it has become clear that there is a shift in the power to define beauty, no longer does it solely lie in the hands of megacorps. Being inclusive is no longer an option, it's become an obligation. And this demand for inclusivity is not only reflected in the change of company policies, but also in society’s changing perception of beauty. Collectively, we have given birth to a new definition of beauty, perhaps one which is universally acceptable. 

 

By welcoming all bodies, skin types, genders, and age, clearly this new definition of beauty is no longer ascribed to physical features. It instead challenges us to acknowledge things beyond what the eyes can see, giving us a chance to focus on a person’s confidence and individuality. It no longer holds the judgmental and selective nature it once carried. And with the help of globalization, this new definition can surely transcend historical periods, countries, and cultural values. It’s as if beauty has become an innate feature of us all regardless of who, what, and where we are.

 

But we are now left with the question of whether this new definition of beauty is truly for the better good, or has it instead made the word entirely meaningless? Also, will this new definition of beauty be able to eliminate the segregation between those who were once “beautiful” and “ugly”? How much longer will it be until this revised idea of beauty be embedded throughout society, or will it even be possible at all?