"Every morning I look in the mirror and thank God for my high cheek bones."
- Suzy Parker, supermodel
One of the most fascinating unsolved problems in biology is the evolution of beauty - aesthetic appreciation. Because it is such a complex and abstract emotion, one finds difficulty in identifying such things as outward signs of artistic enjoyment in other species. So any evolutionary sequence is hard to come by. What I have done in this section is to offer a few ideas bout how some aspects of our aesthetic sense evolved.
The part of aesthetics I am concerned with here is that which underlies human physical beauty. There seem to be two major biological elements. These are undoubtedly affected by the times, cultural context, and one's particular psychological bent, but they form the basic ground plan nonetheless. They come from the two basic elements of our social interaction - (1) sexual attraction (copulatory lures, if you will), and (2) badges of status.
Badges of status consist of two opposing pressures, which at first seem antithetical but are in complement. They are (2a) our love for the dominant and (2b) our love for the subordinate. We love dominants for the security they give us. They can be relied upon for protection or to make difficult decisions. We are attracted to subordinates - infants, pets, or extreme underdogs - who need our care and protection for the security we can give them, which in turn increases our own self-esteem.
These status-associated, aesthetic attractions seem to be derived from the parent-child bond and the child-parent bond. In social-hierarchical terms, we translate these relationships, respectively, as parent-dominant and child-subordinate. Together with the sexual-copulatory attraction, these complete the primary social attraction pattern of parent-child, child-parent, and parent-parent. The underlying ingredients of sex and status are blended and intertwined among all three bonds.
The biological source for these bonds comes from parents who had an (aesthetic) attraction to infants, especially their own, and were able to rear more children well than parents without such attraction. Children, of course, had to develop a respect and reliance on the adult in order to function and survive. Both of these are fostered by the increased requirements for parental care in an animal like ourselves; we occupy a very flexible niche, which necessitates a long learning period. The sexual attractions increase fitness, of course, by offering the occasion to produce offspring. Courtship and pair bonding seem, however, to be a blend of both status and copulatory attraction.
Factors of sex and status affect our own features and model our values concerning our fellows. Let's look at them one at a time - first, the love of dominants.
Desmond Morris has suggested, and I agree, that dominance is why we have gods, superman heroes, etc. We find some satisfaction in not being the alpha, the dominant, and in having him to revere and lean on. A dominant has the privilege but also the responsibility of decision-making. Our reverence for dominance extends beyond human behavior into the physical image of one's stature.
Yet there is a compromise. To be revered for dominance one cannot be so dominant in his behavior as to be overbearing or belligerent; he must tone down the blatant threat to an indirect signal of superiority, to be socially appealing, yet not so subordinate as to invoke the child-parent (infantile) emotions. A mousy man may present as bad an image as an overly aggressive one.
The same is true of one's physical features. There are differences between the sexes in the optimum balance point along this scale. As we have seen, a full, greasy, ratty beard is too overt for most societies, whereas a man with a shaven, strong, square chin is revered (the signals are essentially the same; it is the amplitude which has changed). Movie queens have dominant chins, not so square as to look masculine, but bold enough to be a signal of status. Let us look at cheekbones as an example of how our values about them have been derived from a fundamental biological theme.
An artist would find in the faces of Raquel Welch and Katharine Hepburn the haut monde essence of nobility. Their common quality (along with other admirable features) is the protruding cheekbones flaring outward from beneath the eyes. One who frequents the pages of fiction is familiar with the esteem in which high cheekbones are held in character portrayal. John Steinbeck in The Winter of our Discontent describes his femme fatale: "Her chin was fragile and deep-cut but with plenty of muscle in the cheeks and very wide cheekbones." High cheekbones, for vague reasons, have the flavor of aristocratic beauty. They are as necessary as the rugged square jaw on the face of a stylized superhero. In fact, they are so exaggerated in cartoon characters that one would have to be an almost pathological variant to actually possess such features. Like artificially extending the length of a model's legs, the cartoonist overdramatizes the cheekbones to the point of caricature. It is interesting to note that in the male the upper margin of the beard does not encroach on the cheekbones, but rather complements the line of the cheekbones.
But why do we ascribe social value - personality characteristics - to a protruding bone on the face? Why should such a fixture be so important as to influence your choice of mate and even affect the election of people who will govern your fate?
I believe the answer cannot be found by trying to penetrate deeply into our psyche, nor are there any clues in the dusty annals of history, nor even in human prehistory. In this case, we must look to nonhumans for comparative material.
As we saw earlier, the evolution of social paraphernalia is sometimes based on physical areas that wield the weaponry. Deer look at neck sizes of their opponents for fundamentally the same reason that men in the locker room note thick chest and arm muscles. But deer and men have in the course of their evolution shifted weaponry. The ancestors of both once fought with their mouths, and now deer use their necks to twist and push with antlers, while men use their freed upper limbs to swing clubs and throw objects.
Deer were once similar to their relatives, the pigs, in their weaponry. Pigs fight with their teeth, attempting to slash the opponent's body. Among the pigs who have well developed fighting teeth and ornate head displays, there is a tendency to display frontally, that is, to confront the opponent face to face. The bush pig and warthog have expanded their head-on profiles sideways, thereby giving a more imposing image.
Examples of cheekbone development and ornamentation for display. Top row, left to right: an Entelodont, an extinct pig-like creature, an early man (Australopithecine), a. Warthog, a Forest pig. Bottom row: Baboon, Orang, and two types of human beings showing different degrees of cheekbone development. The living pigs on the top row have fleshy artificial cheekbones, the orang has expandable pneumatic ones and the baboon has false cheekbones in the form of cheek ruffs.
The muscles of the jaw originate on the side of the skull and on the underside of the cheekbones (technically called the zygonia). In essence, then, these are the counterpart to the wrestler's biceps or the deer's neck muscles. In pigs the jaw muscles wield the weaponry. There are tooth displays among pigs (weapon displays) and judging by the accompanying paraphernalia there are also displays of the jaw and cheekbone. There are several independent examples of animals in which the cheekbones have expanded well out beyond the muscular area, sending a bony wing out on either side in a bigger-than-life flaring cheekbone. One of these is among the extinct New World peccary, among specimens as yet undescribed in the American Museum of Natural History. Another is among the pig-like entelodonts, extinct cloven-hoofed mammals. Another is among living pigs. Both the giant forest hog and the warthog have artificially enlarged cheekbones, in part fleshy and in part bony. In the forest hog there are well developed, contrastingly colored facial "warts."
In the case of the "social chin," I argued that the human chin and chin whiskers evolved as an artificial enlargement of a weaponry display area (at least an important ancestral weapon, the mouth). The same is true, I believe, for the flaring cheekbone. Look at some of the massive cheekbones in the reconstructions of early man. These guys don't look much like Raquel Welch, yet I contend that the dominance signal that we still associate with high cheekbones is one of our ancestral social organs. Jaw muscles were once a real indication of fighting ability. In the faces of Raquel and the super heroes, we are seeing a modified version of that old label of stature. I doubt if our perception of and response to this signal is built-in; probably it is an inherent part of our social development in the same way that we learn to associate chin size with social status, but that makes the bond through time with the Australopithecine children (who had to learn its social significance) no less rigid.
Because adults have gotten away from biting one another, for the most part, as a means of settling social issues, cheekbones and chins have theoretically become esoteric clues: but in fact we perpetuate their ancient threat value in a modified form as a symbol or regality (that type of beauty stemming from social stature).
At the other end of the pole is our attraction to subordinates - our protection and love of children, pets, and soft, furry little things. This has been responsible for our physical regression to youthful appearance (neoteny, in technical terms) particularly apparent in women. Infantilism in women is attractive to men because it befits men's social situation. Men are the traditional and biological dominants, however repugnant this may be to the Women's Liberation movement. A burly Amazon may excel in business management, but statistically it is the more infantile women who attract men.
Of course, we are talking about a point along a scale between two opposing loves. Looking "babylike" probably isn't the best of all strategies. One must at the same time present a childlike image and broadcast subtle (not mannishly blatant) threat signals, which in their dilute state are the revered symbols of rank. We can illustrate this with movie stars. Actresses such as Debbie Reynolds, June Allyson, Tuesday Weld, Hayley Mills, Shirley Temple, and Mia Farrow have appeared attractive by combining many infantile signals with an adult (sexually mature) symbol. Other actresses, such as Raquel Welch, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, Marlene Dietrich, and Katharine Hepburn also have infantile signals, but they project a stronger mixture of subtle adult status symbols: not so coarse as moustache fuzz or heavy brow, but dominant chins, jaws, mouths, foreheads and cheekbones. Humbert Humbert expressed this duality:
My world was split. I was aware of not one but two sexes, neither of which was mine: both would be termed female by the anatomist. But to me, through the prison of my senses, "they were as different as mist and mast." All this I rationalize now.
- Nabokov, Lolita
Sexual attraction is to a great extent independent of this status spectrum. For example, one can combine full lips, big busts, broad hips, narrow waists, etc. (the sexual attractants) with or without the status features. Sex kittens such as Brigitte Bardot, Marilyn Monroe, "Candys" or "Lolitas," and virtually all the Playboy foldouts are sex "babies," with virtually no status features, whereas Raquel Welch, the early Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Sophia Loren, and Lauren Bacall are more "dominant sex," more aggressive in their social physique, all the way from noble to tough. The young Elizabeth Taylor is somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy spectrum, though probably at the head of the column in sexual beauty.
There is the same hierarchy spectrum among actors. Humphrey Bogart, Burt Lancaster, Anthony Quinn, Marlon Brando, and Paul Newman are well suited for roles as the dominant male; whereas Anthony Perkins, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon play a more subordinate image. Yet handsomeness runs through the whole spectrum. In males, this is determined not so much by copulatory attraction as by the proper blend of hierarchy signals - the "leading man" face (say, Paul Newman). It is to some extent a mixture of feminine characters with masculine ones.
I suspect that one's personality dictates where, in his or her opinion, beauty lies along the hierarchy spectrum. If a woman has a need to mother a partner she will yearn for an Anthony Perkins type, and if she wants a protector more than anything else, she will want a man like Charlton Heston or Burt Lancaster. The same goes for a man's choice of young women. If one is somewhat insecure about his ability with women, he will lean toward the more diminutive, childlike sort. Men who want to "marry up," to get rewards in sharing spouses' status and having someone to complement or add to their own stature, will be attracted to the larger, more angular - in effect (excluding the copulatory lures) more masculine women. This is a somewhat simplistic view, of course, as first appearances are only one element in courtship.
Courtship gestures and paraphernalia among animals are similar to the ones used in threat (that was why gaudy bird feathers were once thought of as just sexual lures). There is even an almost inherent selection pressure for this combination. A female who picks a male from the upper end of the hierarchy scale could be expected, statistically, to leave more offspring than had she picked a male from the lower end: status has traditionally been associated with privileged access to limited commodities - health, food, shelter, etc. The relationship is more obscure in the other direction - a male choosing a female of high status - but it is still there. Here, direct sexual (copulatory) attractions play a major role, but they are also enmeshed with the status component. Who at the time could have approached the status of the World War II sailor who had dated Betty Grable?
One's spouse or date is not an insignificant part of one's own status. Why is it that the teenager has trouble asking for his first date, or a fairly experienced fellow fears asking a beautiful girl for a date (palms perspiring, throat dry)? Is it because he is intimidated by her rather than because he is overcome with anticipation of copulation?
A spectrum of male beauty from moderately neotenic (left) to a craggy dominant (right). All might be considered handsome by the use of two different values - love of respected dominant and love for childlike subordinate. All are of the same age. Notice how much more prominent the features are on the man at the right - eyebrows, nose, chin, cheekbones, forehead exposure, etc. However, the eyes and lips are much tighter. Some women prefer to mother a more boyish man and others wish to be protected by a more rugged-featured, coarse dominant.
A spectrum of female beauty comparable to the one for males. The one on the left has more childlike features - small chin, small upturned nose, rounded forehead, large lips, eyes and eyelashes. To the right, elements of masculinity creep in - strong cheekbones and chin, high forehead, prominent nose, thinner eyes and mouth. All may be beautiful, but in different ways - the variable is in their status signals. Some men may be intimidated by the one on the right and others may feel the one on the left too dependent.
What then is ugly? Ugliness in human physical features seems to be a factor of either distorted, overly exaggerated social organs (in either direction but, as it turns out, mainly at the upper end of the scale), or social organs disproportionately developed. Dominant noses are all right with dominant chins and foreheads, but a mixture makes one look peculiar - the net signal is garbled. Even if the signals are balanced, one can go to extremes, though - gargantuans with a ten-inch jaw span and heavy protruding brow aren't going to get many dates, nor will Casper Milquetoast.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but nature sets the guidelines - whether it is a prairie chicken choosing her cock on the display lek or a young man girl-watching on 54th Street.
Our organic heritage affects not only values about ourselves and other human beings, but about inanimate things and other species of organisms. We have neotenized several dog breeds (Pekingese, for example) to fulfill our unsatisfied brood-care feelings. And in several species, like bulldogs and giant Great Danes, we have selected for a more threatening signal. In so doing we have made use of human childlike and super dominant features. In the Pekingese there are a snoutless face with a rounded forehead, petite features, and small overall size - but big eyes. Bulldogs have undershot jaws, protruding canines, and broad chests. Great Danes are of extremely large size with deep voices.
We characterize the slit-eyed alligator as secretive and evil. Birds of Prey (e.g., eagles) have become national emblems almost solely because of the determined, dominant look the super-orbital crest gives their eyes. Who would want an eagle emblem with quail eyes? We think of fish as being emotionless because of the "fish-eyed" look. (Many people who enjoy fishing wouldn't think of hunting creatures with more human-like modes of communication, say, oral and facial expression; fish communicate through olfaction and color change mainly, which are removed from human empathy.)
The lines of the female body - mainly her social organs - affect our aesthetic sense about automobiles, gazelles, Arabian horses, dogs, furniture, landscape contours, etc. Wasp-waisted sports cars with teardrop butt-shaped fenders have real sex appeal, especially to teenage boys. The trim legs, smoothly sloping hindquarters and long graceful necks of gazelles remind us of women. Some of the beauty of fleet horses also stems from their resemblance to human curves, both the trim limbs of women and the bulging massiveness of men. There is a lot of hidden love of the human body in equestrian admirers.
The trim waist and bulging breast of the greyhound and the femininely clipped poodle are not unrelated to the female form. And it doesn't take a sex-starved sailor to see women's lines in French and English furniture. Scrolling attracts the eye because it copies and repeats the curve of the hips, waist, hair tendrils and breast. Some scenery elicits the same response. Gun stocks, hot rods, racing boats, artistic pottery or abstract sculpture are often referred to as sexy; a Martian wouldn't notice the resemblance to a human female's lines, but his search-image is not so finely honed as ours.
We are also intrigued by mixed tints of blues and reds, the old primate skin-display colors. There is a little bit of food and sex in the sunset. Much of our common art values relate to the values regarding social organs: the feeling for line and color - values between darks and lights - round eye like designs which grab and hold our own eyes - the power of vertical "height" lines as opposed to the inoffensiveness of horizontal lines - coarse and smooth textures - deep booming sounds and high-pitched ones smooth melodies and sharp noises - musky odors and sweet flowery smells - gentle curves and sharp angles - the weakness of small size and the power of large. There is a lot of biology blended into, "Ah, my dear, how handsome you look tonight!"