Posted by HSG on April 26, 2005 at 18:01:57:
In an off-forum literary discussion with Julie M. (a regular reader and occasional contributor to this site), we noted that, as the dominant voice in literary criticism has shifted over the past half-decade, from a predominantly Christian viewpoint (e.g., F.R. Leavis) to a highly political perspective, the same full-figured temptresses who were once vilified in criticism are still vilified, except on different ideological grounds.
Thus, someone like Ginevra Fanshawe in Bronte's Villette, who was once described as a "negative" character because she embodied anti-Christian principles such as vanity (but in a charming, irresistible way), is now viewed as a negative character because she embodies a feminine (and therefore, anti-feminist) mode of behaviour.
Julie's response was so intriguing, that we would like to quote it in full, below.
Her response also led to a further observation on our part about the relationship between envy, full-figured femininity, and the "material world" in which we live, that readers might find interesting.
I have noticed from time to time how now it's wrong to enjoy being curvy, and dressing to enhance your beauty, and actually enjoying being a woman, because it's hindering "the movement" (whatever the movement is, the feminists change their minds all the time over what is "in" and what is "out" as far as what they will sanction). You're right, it now has very little to do with "religious" standards at all.
By her very existence, an attractive woman appears to be a challenge to human notions of fairness, a repudiation of the belief that "all people are created equal." Nature seems to have endowed her with more than her rightful share of beauty, and, on some level, an individual who envies this fair damsel may subconsciously feel as if someone else must have been robbed of beauty, so that this princess could have so much of it (especially is the envious individual feels that she, herself, has not been allotted her "fair share" of physical appeal).
But those who envy a beautiful woman are somewhat consoled if the object of their envy is painfully thin. This indicates a satisfying humility on the attractive woman's part, as if she is commiserating with those who are less aesthetically fortunate. The envious individual subconsciously thinks, "Well, she may be pretty, but at least I know that she is starving herself." And this perceived suffering on the part of the fair maiden is a source of dark consolation those who secretly envy her. (We are all familiar with the concept of Schadenfreude, yes?)
However, a plus-size goddess appears to have eschewed any such self-imposed guilt. Her luscious, satiated appearance suggests that she is reveling in her own beauty, even flaunting it. It jars with the levelling impulse that is so prevalent in modern society.
But perhaps the most intense emotions (both negative, and positive) are stirred when a full-figured goddess indulges her appetite freely, and dares to augment her beauty even further, by enhancing her dress size.
To those who are envious of her beauty in the first place, this situation seems to be the most outrageous injustice of all. As the attractions of the goddess increase, it seems as if she is willingly appropriating even more beauty for herself, taking even more of something of which she had "better than her fair share," in the first place.
"How dare she?" the envious thin individual thinks. "Here I am starving and torturing myself, trying to look at least a little bit attractive, according to the rules that I have read in all the magazines, while she [the goddess] is flagrantly violating those rules--and enjoying herself doing so. Yet the more she breaks those rules, the more voluptuous and beautiful she becomes, and her "victory" over me is that much more complete! It's not fair!!"
By way of analogy, consider the feelings that a poor man would have towards a rich man, if that rich man were spending his fortune freely, and living life to the fullest--and yet, in doing so, was somehow becoming even wealthier. And all the while, the poor man is denying himself any expenditures, simply in order to survive financially. On some level, the poor man cannot help but think, "The only reason he has so much, is because I have so little. And perhaps if he had less, I could have more."
But useful as that analogy may be in revealing the hidden feelings behind the envy of beauty, it also explains why those negative feelings are so misguided.
The error comes in seeing the world exclusively in materialistic terms.
And yet, that is how we have taught to evaluate existence, in modern times. Critical theorists have instructed us to view the world through a utilitarian prism. We have been trained to assess life exclusively in terms of "modes of production," and "economic conditions." The first questions that we ask are, "Who has how much?" and "How did they get it?"
But beauty is not a finite quantity, like a geologic resource, or like capital. It is not a means of production or distribution. It is not something that others must be deprived of, so that others may have more. It is not a utility.
Rather, we should think of beauty in the same way that we think of artistic talent--or genius of any kind. And we should respond to it the same way that we respond to art, not the way that we react to capital, or to material wealth.
We should respond to it the way that we respond to a symphony of Beethoven, or a play by Shakespeare. When we experience these great works, our minds are not poisoned by envy at the genius of the creators. Rather, we delight in the works themselves, because they are testaments to the glory of humanity.
Popular slogans to the contrary, we are not living in a "material world." We have only been taught to see it that way. And beauty, better than any other quality, reveals the weaknesses and shortcoming of that petty, utilitarian world-view.
Once we throw off the ideological shackles of the politico-economical mindset that the modern world has clamped onto us, we can respond to beauty the same way that humanity responded to beauty prior to the dawn of the modern age--as a source of delight, and inspiration, and Imaginative fulfillment.
The incomparable beauty of Shannon Marie--an image from her last known campaign, for Fashion Bug, Spring 2001--at a time when she was fuller-figured, and more gorgeous (and undoubtedly, the source of more envy, and more inspiration) than at any point in her career:
HWForums.com Message Forums
Copyright © 2001 HighWired Internet Innovations Inc. All rights reserved.