Cows in Heels

THEORIZING FEMALE BEAUTY

“beaut’y (n.) – Combination of qualities, as shape, proportion, colour, in human face or form that delights the eye.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

What we have here, of course, is a classical philosophical dilemma, i.e. are there objective criteria in terms of which female beauty might be impartially assessed or, as the saying goes, is it all relative, all “in the eye of the beholder?” In other words, is the assessment of beautiful women based upon factors which would normally win inter-subjective assent or is it necessarily idiosyncratic, an outcome of subjective judgement. There are difficulties with both approaches.

One can in theory and in conformity with the given definition, advance criteria of “shape, proportion and colour in her face and form which delight the eye” but, and here is the tricky part, it is the determination of the combination of these factors which undermines strict impartiality. But does this mean that it is all subjective, all “in the eye of the beholder?”

It seems counter-intuitive that the radically subjective view can “go through,” as the expression has it. That there exist broad parameters within which beauty can conceivably said to flourish is undeniable, but beyond those parameters one must discount the claim. The question then arises as to just where these parameters might be established.

So there we are. Philosophical reflection has not secured a compelling definition of beauty but, perhaps only incrementally, it has advanced the discussion beyond the start line.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

IS OBESITY AN UNDERCLASS MARKER?

“One can never be too rich or too thin.”

Wallis Warfield Simpson

Wallis Warfield Simpson, The American divorcée whose impending marriage to Edward VIII forced him to abdicate in 1936 as a king was not permitted to marry a divorced woman (and an American at that!) offered us this thought for today. After her marriage to the Duke of Windsor, as he then became, the Duchess of Windsor enjoyed an opulent lifestyle primarily in Paris, at least after the War. So Wallis was rich. She was also thin, very thin. Ultimately she joined the Duke in his tomb under the floor of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. The question for us, however, is was she right? Is obesity an underclass marker?

At first glance this is a straightforward empirical question: To determine its truth one must (a) define obesity and then (b) survey an adequate sample of obese people and rank them in terms of class affiliation (i.e. a compilation of class markers to include income, education, club memberships, sporting activities and so on).

However, difficulties arise at the first step, in defining obesity. What constitutes the baseline body/mass index and how was it determined? Does it vary with fashion over time? Would a Victorian, for example, fail the obesity test yet not be a member of the Underclass? Would an anorexic pass although in fact she was a member?

Similar difficulties attach to ranking in terms of class affiliation. What about the person who had a high income yet minimal educational attainment? In other words, what would be the required level of correspondence between income, education, and so on in order to firmly establish class membership?

Not an easy question, but I bet Wallis could answer it.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!