Home Alone

That's right, I'm all by myself this week. Z and some of our friends took a trip to Morocco for 7 days. A couple of my other friends went to Paris. I'm stuck in Leicester...reading and dissertating (yes, I just made up a verb, well a gerund to be more specific). But it's good, because I took off 5 weeks in April traveling so now its time to buckle down and get some copious amounts of work done.

Actually, I don't think I mentioned this but my dissertation study has completely changed from what it originally was. After attending this conference on Evolutionary Psychology, my advisor recommended this new idea to me. What I'm researching now is how celebrity culture affects body satisfaction in women. The study is an online survey which asks women to rate different images of celebrities in terms of how ideal they perceive their body, how attractive they find them, etc. Apparently although there's been a lot of research to do with media effects on body image, there's been very little about the celebrity industry and their effect on body image. At first I wasn't thrilled about the idea, because I've never really been fascinated by the celebrity world - but I do really enjoy reading the literature on the body and the Evolutionary perspective of what physical attractiveness is.

I always thought that beauty was such a culturally constructed notion. This myth that the media impresses upon society to live upto unrealistic standards. But the more reading I do, the more I understand how much of what we find beautiful is grounded in our biological necessities. For example, this whole obsession with blondes having more fun and being a blonde 'bombshell' actually has to do with the fact that the majority of blondes tend to get darker as they get older. Something like only 20% of blondes naturally stay blonde into their later years. So blonde hair came to be a symbol of youth - because anyone who was blonde was most likely under 25. And youth (in females) is a universally attractive feature across all cultures because well...there's a greater reproductive value. I mean any caveman who was attracted to the older women in their community probably died out from never procreating. So men evolved to be attracted to mainly younger women because it meant survival of the species. And there's a slew of other features that can be explained in this manner: full lips, fair skin, waist-to-hip ratio, can all be linked to proving a higher reproductive value to the human species (although I'm not sure I'm sold on that last one...because even some anorexic women have an ideal waist-to-hip ratio but they have very low reproductive value so I'll read some more and save the argument for my dissertation).

Of course the opposing view would come from the cultural anthropologists (but I haven't read much of that section yet so I can't really explain too much of their side). I would guess that they study how notions of beauty are learned behaviours rather than biological ones. For example the societies where larger women are viewed as more attractive are usually from the 'developing' world, where food and resources are minimal. Being able to maintain a higher weight means they are well-fed, and capable of having children. More interestingly though (atleast in my point of view), societies where women have a low socioeconomic value - so in other words they're just baby machines - are the communities that prefer 'plumper' women. Conversely, in cultures where women have a higher socioeconomic value where they are educated and maintain their own finances, slimmer women are viewed as more attractive. I guess when you're viewed as not only a producer but a provider, certain features that would have otherwise been restricted for men are now desirable in women too (such as a stronger, fitter physique).

So where do I fit? Well, as my mother would say...I'm always a Wednesday. When it comes to nature vs. nurture, it's always best to accept that both schools of thought offer convincing and true arguments. That said, I believe there is A LOT that science and biology have yet to prove about human beings, and I don't think we give our genes enough credit. Of course though, not everything can be explained solely by science. I'm not about to blame chromosome 16 for my insane pig-collection or my Marilyn Manson phase in grade 7 (and I had just started to forget about that...). And if I start throwing Karmic formulas into this equation well...that would just be an entirely different issue. On the other hand, it would be the bridge to explain both nature and nurture. I guess what you have to realize is that while our ancestors might've been driven by their mating preferences, and while we might have evolved to somehow subconsciously be attracted to certain features because of their reproductive value, we are also evolving beyond the superficial. I think we've mastered Darwin's game of survival of the fittest - and now we're looking to play a different game. Instead of competing against one another for survival, I think we need to learn how to cooperate so that the species survives as a whole. Cancer, AIDS, global warming, nobody's a winner anymore. The next step is the evolution towards our collective consciousness - and Eckhart touches on this in "A New Earth", we've reached a precipice where it's either evolve or die.

Geez this post is awfully morose. I think that's what happens when you spend all this solitary time working and reading. Before the girls left we did manage to see the Sex & the City movie on the night it opened. If you were a fan of the series, you'll be extremely pleased with the film. It was just deliciously funny and heartwarming from beginning to end - a perfect way to conclude the series. I know, not the most intellectual of material to watch but still really interesting from a pop culture perspective. Oh and the other bit of news I wanted to mention is that I have a Skype account so if anyone would ever like to call me on Skype feel free to.