Sadly I haven't read the book about Helena Valero because it is very expensive. But I have read about that poisoning anecdote and wonder: How can we know the motives of poison-leaf girl? She might have resented Helena for being beautiful, but isn't it possible that she was a xenophobe or something instead?
Sadly I haven't read the book about Helena Valero because it is very expensive. But I have read about that poisoning anecdote and wonder: How can we know the motives of poison-leaf girl? She might have resented Helena for being beautiful, but isn't it possible that she was a xenophobe or something instead?
As far as I know, polygyny in general causes a lot of resentment and conflicts among co-wives. Co-wives factually compete over resources at very close range. In that light, I think that the existence of polygyny at all is a strong indicator of the effectiveness of patriarchy. If men can actually hold women under such conditions without one kicking the others out, that if anything says something about male power.
I also wonder whether the self-esteem problem for modern females is caused by technology or by social factors. Technology enables the dispersal of pictures. But society doesn't say that competition over who is the sexiest is actually bad. I wonder how much self-esteem could be saved if there was a strong ideal saying that instragrammable beauty is actually rather unimportant.
"I wonder how much self-esteem could be saved if there was a strong ideal saying that instragrammable beauty is actually rather unimportant."
My approach to this is to focus on the creation of subcultures in which other things (e.g. intellectual dialogue, moral decency) are more important. There is no "we" who can change how people in general perceive instagrammable beauty, thus no "we" who can say that any particular other ideal is better than instagrammable beauty.
That said, there are distinctive subcultures with their own norms. The Amish, Mormons, Kibbutzim, various communes and intentional communities, etc. have been able to establish distinctive social norms, including distinctive notions of human excellence. At a more modest level, Montessori and Waldorf schools often develop distinctive human norms among their populations. I wouldn't claim they are perfect, but the one's I've visited certainly display a distinctive peer culture, quite different from mainstream public schools.
For instance, almost 25 years ago I created a Montessori middle school in Palo Alto where half the children had been raised in Montessori their whole life and the other half came in from public schools. There were three such girls who were initially very annoyed that there parents had put them in such an "uncool" school. In 6th grade they were already into heavy makeup, sexually provocative attire, and a "mean girl" tough attitude. Meanwhile the girls (and boys) who had come up through Montessori were still sweet, innocent children playing the games of children and not aspiring to be teenagers. How "uncool"! That said, gradually the makeup, provocative attire, and tough girl look vanished as the Montessori culture took over. Three years later, when the girls had to go back to public school (we only went through grade 8), the girls were crying - they hated the thought of having to put the "mean girl" mask back on. It was heart-breaking. I've since seen dozens of similar situations, warm positive microschool environments with better peer cultures that serve as a haven for teens unhappy in regular school environments.
Here is the one scholarly analysis I've found of distinctive school cultures, the tiniest of beginnings,
Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, first describes the obliteration of virtue in modernity over the past several centuries. He then creates an abstract, general, sociological analysis of virtue cultures in general, whether they be Greek, Native American, Jane Austen, etc. He identifies three components:
1. A lifelong conception of human life. That is, a prerequisite for a virtue culture is what our life as a whole means within in our community, not which party are we going to this weekend.
2. A coherent moral tradition, with certain ideals, heroes, jokes which are acceptable vs. jokes which are sacrilegious, traditions, holidays, myths, etc.
3. A set of practices which habituate members into the ways of life in a community.
I see this as a template for contemporary culture design. It is one that I use explicitly at my schools, where we cultivate explicit norms around:
1). Intellectual engagement through Socratic dialogue and
2) The respectful cultivation of moral decency through dialogue about serious moral issues are explicit norms
3). While allowing for a huge degree of epistemological pluralism about beliefs - unlike religion, no dogmas required
My broader point is that whether or not one believes that my particular project (or Montessori, Waldorf, etc.) is viable, the idea that we could change norms on "body positivity" by means of shouting against the ether and promoting norms in the public space (e.g. Sports Illustrated cover featuring Yumi Ni) strikes me as a far too shallow approach in the face of our evolutionarily evolved instincts. Until and unless we raise young people within more coherent virtue cultures, the most cynical views on the future of human relationships are apt to be all too likely. Moloch wins.
But we do know that human beings have created thousands of cultures that were not based on the shallowest standards of physical appearance. The problem is that we began to erase all cultural norms in modernity through the physical dislocations and disruptions of modernity, the deliberate effort by intellectuals to eliminate all traditional cultural norms, and government schooling which gradually lost all ability to inculcate consistent norms of any sort. And, of course, the norms of the past were indeed often racist, sexist, etc. Despite the extreme human cost of cultural erasure, I'm all in favor of the Enlightenment initiative to eliminate bigotry. But now that we're pretty far along in sterilizing the petri dishes, it is time to focus on exploring new, more positive, deliberately created subcultures.
Thus the age of Instagram has appeared after the possibility of rich, thick local cultures has largely been eliminated (at least in the US) outside of Amish, Mormon, Hasidic Jewish, etc. If one combines adolescents who have been raised with no moral expectations with the chaos of the internet, one gets 4chan and the Instagram babe competition.
The recreation of local cultures, starting with intentional communities and with schools based on coherent moral cultures, may sound like much too big a lift in light of the scale of the challenge. Maybe so. But I see creating new, positive identities in robust local virtue cultures as the best chance of turning things around. Once it becomes widely recognized as an ideal with viable strategy and tactics, progress may move quickly. Both parents and children long for connection, community, meaning, and purpose,
Here is a broader evolutionary mismatch account of adolescent dysfunction and mental illness which will appeal to your evolutionary psychologist within,
I think this is a very interesting idea. Who could deny that schools matter a lot for teenage mental health? And who could deny that school seldom is an overwhelmingly positive experience for kids?
I have thought about evolutionary psychology and education too, and reached the same conclusions as you. Many people would probably be much better off with less formal education.
That's what the body positivity movement is trying to do but i doubt it will be successful. The cues to sexual attractiveness must be deeply embeded in our biology because otherwise sexual reproduction wouldn't work. Sure, there's paraphilias and what not but they impact a small minority of people.
Notably, much of that instragrammable feminine beauty is actually targeted at women. That has always been the case with the fashion industry and fashion magazines. While both Vogue and Playboy featured beautiful young women, their body shape, styling and target demographic were very different.
Yes, I think the body positivity movement fails for the exact reasons you mention. Humans are hardwired to prefer some body types to others. It's not possible to change that through saying that being super fat is healthy and beautiful.
Still, there could be some kind of modesty movement saying that OK, obviously most humans like some people's looks more than others, but don't we have better things to do than dwelling on that fact all day?
Yes, really, isn't that a bit absurd? In the world of women, being svelte is/was very high status, but in the world of men, there has always been a preference for women with some curves. But I think the two worlds have converged during the last 20 years. When I was young about 20 years ago, being thin or thinner was high status among women. A little sophistication was also required. Women who catered to stereotypical male preferences too obviously were labelled bimbos. Paris Hilton was on the news for being... rich and thin and having a sex life.
Then a few years later, Paris' good friend Kim Kardashian took over the leader shirt. Suddenly, her ostentatiously unsophisticated looks were in high demand. The word "bimbo" disappeared from the vocabulary. Presumably because being what was previously called a bimbo has become the new normal.
I can't help wondering whether the above development has anything to do with increased male power over females. It could be sex ratios, maybe? Since sex ratios have become more female-heavy in many places, young women can no longer afford to cultivate their own subculture under a thin veil of sophistication?
Sadly I haven't read the book about Helena Valero because it is very expensive. But I have read about that poisoning anecdote and wonder: How can we know the motives of poison-leaf girl? She might have resented Helena for being beautiful, but isn't it possible that she was a xenophobe or something instead?
As far as I know, polygyny in general causes a lot of resentment and conflicts among co-wives. Co-wives factually compete over resources at very close range. In that light, I think that the existence of polygyny at all is a strong indicator of the effectiveness of patriarchy. If men can actually hold women under such conditions without one kicking the others out, that if anything says something about male power.
I also wonder whether the self-esteem problem for modern females is caused by technology or by social factors. Technology enables the dispersal of pictures. But society doesn't say that competition over who is the sexiest is actually bad. I wonder how much self-esteem could be saved if there was a strong ideal saying that instragrammable beauty is actually rather unimportant.
"I wonder how much self-esteem could be saved if there was a strong ideal saying that instragrammable beauty is actually rather unimportant."
My approach to this is to focus on the creation of subcultures in which other things (e.g. intellectual dialogue, moral decency) are more important. There is no "we" who can change how people in general perceive instagrammable beauty, thus no "we" who can say that any particular other ideal is better than instagrammable beauty.
That said, there are distinctive subcultures with their own norms. The Amish, Mormons, Kibbutzim, various communes and intentional communities, etc. have been able to establish distinctive social norms, including distinctive notions of human excellence. At a more modest level, Montessori and Waldorf schools often develop distinctive human norms among their populations. I wouldn't claim they are perfect, but the one's I've visited certainly display a distinctive peer culture, quite different from mainstream public schools.
For instance, almost 25 years ago I created a Montessori middle school in Palo Alto where half the children had been raised in Montessori their whole life and the other half came in from public schools. There were three such girls who were initially very annoyed that there parents had put them in such an "uncool" school. In 6th grade they were already into heavy makeup, sexually provocative attire, and a "mean girl" tough attitude. Meanwhile the girls (and boys) who had come up through Montessori were still sweet, innocent children playing the games of children and not aspiring to be teenagers. How "uncool"! That said, gradually the makeup, provocative attire, and tough girl look vanished as the Montessori culture took over. Three years later, when the girls had to go back to public school (we only went through grade 8), the girls were crying - they hated the thought of having to put the "mean girl" mask back on. It was heart-breaking. I've since seen dozens of similar situations, warm positive microschool environments with better peer cultures that serve as a haven for teens unhappy in regular school environments.
Here is the one scholarly analysis I've found of distinctive school cultures, the tiniest of beginnings,
https://iasculture.org/research/culture-formation/school-cultures-and-student-formation-project
Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, first describes the obliteration of virtue in modernity over the past several centuries. He then creates an abstract, general, sociological analysis of virtue cultures in general, whether they be Greek, Native American, Jane Austen, etc. He identifies three components:
1. A lifelong conception of human life. That is, a prerequisite for a virtue culture is what our life as a whole means within in our community, not which party are we going to this weekend.
2. A coherent moral tradition, with certain ideals, heroes, jokes which are acceptable vs. jokes which are sacrilegious, traditions, holidays, myths, etc.
3. A set of practices which habituate members into the ways of life in a community.
I see this as a template for contemporary culture design. It is one that I use explicitly at my schools, where we cultivate explicit norms around:
1). Intellectual engagement through Socratic dialogue and
2) The respectful cultivation of moral decency through dialogue about serious moral issues are explicit norms
3). While allowing for a huge degree of epistemological pluralism about beliefs - unlike religion, no dogmas required
My broader point is that whether or not one believes that my particular project (or Montessori, Waldorf, etc.) is viable, the idea that we could change norms on "body positivity" by means of shouting against the ether and promoting norms in the public space (e.g. Sports Illustrated cover featuring Yumi Ni) strikes me as a far too shallow approach in the face of our evolutionarily evolved instincts. Until and unless we raise young people within more coherent virtue cultures, the most cynical views on the future of human relationships are apt to be all too likely. Moloch wins.
But we do know that human beings have created thousands of cultures that were not based on the shallowest standards of physical appearance. The problem is that we began to erase all cultural norms in modernity through the physical dislocations and disruptions of modernity, the deliberate effort by intellectuals to eliminate all traditional cultural norms, and government schooling which gradually lost all ability to inculcate consistent norms of any sort. And, of course, the norms of the past were indeed often racist, sexist, etc. Despite the extreme human cost of cultural erasure, I'm all in favor of the Enlightenment initiative to eliminate bigotry. But now that we're pretty far along in sterilizing the petri dishes, it is time to focus on exploring new, more positive, deliberately created subcultures.
Thus the age of Instagram has appeared after the possibility of rich, thick local cultures has largely been eliminated (at least in the US) outside of Amish, Mormon, Hasidic Jewish, etc. If one combines adolescents who have been raised with no moral expectations with the chaos of the internet, one gets 4chan and the Instagram babe competition.
The recreation of local cultures, starting with intentional communities and with schools based on coherent moral cultures, may sound like much too big a lift in light of the scale of the challenge. Maybe so. But I see creating new, positive identities in robust local virtue cultures as the best chance of turning things around. Once it becomes widely recognized as an ideal with viable strategy and tactics, progress may move quickly. Both parents and children long for connection, community, meaning, and purpose,
https://flowidealism.medium.com/addressing-the-adolescent-mental-health-crisis-through-connection-community-meaning-and-purpose-1b047fc62167
Here is a broader evolutionary mismatch account of adolescent dysfunction and mental illness which will appeal to your evolutionary psychologist within,
https://flowidealism.medium.com/evolutionary-mismatch-as-a-causal-factor-in-adolescent-dysfunction-and-mental-illness-d235cc85584
I'm writing a book on this, "The Creation of Conscious Culture through Educational Innovation." Ping me if you are interested, Tove.
I think this is a very interesting idea. Who could deny that schools matter a lot for teenage mental health? And who could deny that school seldom is an overwhelmingly positive experience for kids?
I have thought about evolutionary psychology and education too, and reached the same conclusions as you. Many people would probably be much better off with less formal education.
That's what the body positivity movement is trying to do but i doubt it will be successful. The cues to sexual attractiveness must be deeply embeded in our biology because otherwise sexual reproduction wouldn't work. Sure, there's paraphilias and what not but they impact a small minority of people.
Notably, much of that instragrammable feminine beauty is actually targeted at women. That has always been the case with the fashion industry and fashion magazines. While both Vogue and Playboy featured beautiful young women, their body shape, styling and target demographic were very different.
Yes, I think the body positivity movement fails for the exact reasons you mention. Humans are hardwired to prefer some body types to others. It's not possible to change that through saying that being super fat is healthy and beautiful.
Still, there could be some kind of modesty movement saying that OK, obviously most humans like some people's looks more than others, but don't we have better things to do than dwelling on that fact all day?
Yes, really, isn't that a bit absurd? In the world of women, being svelte is/was very high status, but in the world of men, there has always been a preference for women with some curves. But I think the two worlds have converged during the last 20 years. When I was young about 20 years ago, being thin or thinner was high status among women. A little sophistication was also required. Women who catered to stereotypical male preferences too obviously were labelled bimbos. Paris Hilton was on the news for being... rich and thin and having a sex life.
Then a few years later, Paris' good friend Kim Kardashian took over the leader shirt. Suddenly, her ostentatiously unsophisticated looks were in high demand. The word "bimbo" disappeared from the vocabulary. Presumably because being what was previously called a bimbo has become the new normal.
I can't help wondering whether the above development has anything to do with increased male power over females. It could be sex ratios, maybe? Since sex ratios have become more female-heavy in many places, young women can no longer afford to cultivate their own subculture under a thin veil of sophistication?