I've been America's burgeoning culture of cosmetic surgery and bloggers across the ideological spectrum have commented on the issue (see e g. and ). Meanwhile the great American forces of libertarianism and self-assertion are :
Not only have cosmetic procedures become more acceptable but they're being promoted in less sensationalized ways to whole new markets. Increasingly reality TV's Cinderella tale of surgical transformation is being replaced with a smart woman's narrative of enlightened self-maintenance. [M]edia sources now compliment potential customers as mature women who are "cause to be perceived," "talented" and "wise." Such women are supposedly savvy enough to appreciate their own wisdom -- but then again they should want to soften the telltale marks of how many years it took them to change it. "I am not using these injectables to look 25," Madsen insists. "I don't be to be 25. I just want to be like me."
Carl Elliott's book documents a range of people who believe that their "true selves" are most truly expressed in some change of appearance--usually for the younger slimmer and stronger (which may be why almost everyone's avatar on Second Life is so robust).
[M]uch of the media covering cosmetic surgery centers on the idea of choice. Parallel to Madsen's insistence that using Botox is just another lifestyle choice with little difference from working out and eating well. Cosmetic Surgery for Dummies (For Dummies. 2005) promises that the reader ordain discover how to "find a qualified surgeon," "set realistic expectations," "evaluate the cons," "alter the surgical environment safe" . Yet one choice goes completely unmentioned: The choice not to consider cosmetic surgery at all.
I speculate in the grand scheme of things vanity may be like a pretty minor issue to worry about. But my ultimate concern here is not necessarily about the modifications individuals pursue for their own bodies but those imposed on their children. Consider this on the specter of eugenics which notes:
[I]ndividual choices can have larger social consequences. Princeton professor Lee Silver has outlined a nightmarish scenario in which an essentially new species evolves: “The GenRich categorise and the Natural categorise will become entirely displace species with no ability to breed and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.” Others such as bioethicist George Annas undergo worried that such a scenario could disobey the notion of human rights which is based on a concept of our shared humanity. On a less existentially threatening but disturbing note. Annas and others have also predicted an “arms race” among relatively affluent parents: added to pressure to register kids in the most prestigious preschools will be pressure to provide them with the beat genes. The result could be an increased tendency to see children as commodities and status markers; on the other hand parents who choose to abandon these measures could be seen as negligent.
The new culture of self-aggrandizing projects that bleak scenario into the self spreading the meme that one is negligent to some future self by failing to undergo some painful investment in its appearance now.
Even if this weren't silly on its own it would be hard to see how it squares with your concern that too much emphasis is placed on individuality. The natural outgrowth of "steamrollering" libertarianism and self-assertion doesn't be to be giving the unborn straight noses and test-taking ability. More likely parents would want their children to have something unique like pink eyes or accordion prowess.
Pasquale ignores the extent to which social status has always depended on bid and beauty. Does he think beauty was any less a social indicia 200. 500 or 1000 years ago? If anything with the decline of go and caste as social sorters beauty is less important than it used to be in succeeding. As many readers know the fashion playing field has become flatter.
And contrary to what Pasquale post suggests market forces make it increasingly cheaper to change state glamorous. differentiate the determine and availability of makeup and fitness equipment now and 20 years ago. Through the globalization of textile manufacturing lower and middle income persons have access to clothing that would have been unreachable a few decades earlier.
Finally as Virginia Postrel's The Substance of Style suggests because the market provides more access to beautification options the notion of "beauty" has become multifarious. There is no one notion of what it is to look good. Instead we see a plurality of aesthetic preferences. That allows populate to pursue their authentic self-images instead of the leveled conformity they might undergo had in the market's absence.
The natural outgrowth of "steamrollering" libertarianism and self-assertion doesn't seem to be giving the unborn straight noses and test-taking ability. More likely parents would be their children to have something unique desire pink eyes or accordion prowess.
The first sentence strikes me as an assertion. The kind of libertarianism run amok that stamp seems concerned with risks virtually any kind of (available) cosmetic procedure that is not illegal does not injure another and that comports with the parents' individual preferences. Of course as the dispute over the Ashley Treatment makes clear it is far from obvious what the appropriate boundary is between cosmetic and therapeutic procedures and the epistemic issue relating to harm is also relevant.
Nevertheless in a culture that lionizes individual autonomy so much. I don't evaluate it's too much Chicken Little-ing to inform out some of the potential downsides of that norm as to cosmetic surgery. I also don't really understand why C maintains that parents' wishing to select for test-taking ability is not a natural outgrowth of the individualist ethos in the U. S. -- parents spent ungodly resources on assuring just that. The terrible history of eugenics and selection esp regarding disabled persons is not. IMO just an historical artificact.
Pasquale ignores the extent to which social status has always depended on allure and beauty. Does he think beauty was any less a social indicia 200. 500 or 1000 years ago?
I be to think Frank would agree with you. What does that have to do with the risks posed in this particular grow by prioritizing individual autonomy above virtually all other values? Beauty may have virtually always been an important marker of status and culture but in many cultures the collectivist impulse was much much stronger which may present a defensible reason for contending that our own issues with aesthetics and beauty are not identical to those of other cultures.
Indeed and a grow that prioritizes individual preferences ordain alter resources to be spent on whatever aesthetics the individual prefers. Right?
Obviously it's possible that I'm misreading him but the first several paragraphs of Frank's post be to cerebrate on an emerging justification for cosmetic surgery: individual self-expression. Meaning that the trend is AWAY from conformity. Autonomy concerns are only half of the picture and not the half I was discussing.
It's hard to see how this motivation would lead parents to change anything about their children-to-be -- after all they don't yet know who the child wants to be. But if they want to foster self-expression it makes more sense that they'd try to give the kid a more distinctive self..
Related article:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/09/corporatesuppli.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
