Is beauty all that matters? Or, why Prince Derek's response is what Instagram would have us believe

There was something profound I was thinking when I was walking home this afternoon, but now the moment has passed, and so has the clarity of profundity. But I think (hope) that maybe if I just keep writing, then the meaning will come back, if not crystal clear, then at least still somewhat good (if also somewhat messy).

It began along the lines of thinking of Anne Shirley's classic, over-Pintrest-ed and -Instagrammed line, "I'm so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers," and how I'm glad I live in this particular October, right now, for the first time when I feel like I can actually enjoy this Princeton fall. I'm enjoying it in a way I haven't been able to before--watching the leaves slowly change color, feeling the drop in temperature day after day, witnessing the world unfurl into glory.

And in thinking about Anne Shirley, that delightful, orphaned redhead from Prince Edward's Island (who I know would rhapsodize with me about the raptures of autumn), I thought about an essay I recently read by Jia Tolentino in her book of essays entitled Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self Delusion. There are a few really profound essays in there; two which particularly hit me were her essay on girl literary heroines and how much more appealing they are as people than young adult or adult women literary heroines, and an essay called "Always Be Optimizing," which looks at the way women (in particular, though in no way limited to) are trapped in the cross-hairs of patriarchy, consumerism, the attention economy, and the ways society continues to value appearance and image as related to worth (both character-wise and net-worth-wise). Let's just say it's one of those essays that makes you take a hard look at the ways these systems both benefit and hurt you.

You might think that I might want to talk about the ways how many a childhood (including my own) was shaped by girl literary heroines (Betsy from the "Betsy-Tacy" series, Laura Ingalls from The Little House on the Prairie series, Mary Lennox from The Secret Garden, and, of course, the indomitable Anne-with-an-E Shirley from her eponymous series), but you would be wrong. What I really want to ask is:

Do we think Anne Shirley would have an Instagram account?

And if she did, how would she portray herself and her life?

We'd probably get a lot of pictures of trees. And possibly a lots of Instagram stories centering around shenanigans with Diana.

[I really do think that most of Anne Shirley's feed would be filled with trees, rivers, and lilacs and how everything is beautiful and wonderful and that the world was made for lovers.]

[I think that Princeton needs an Anne Shirley takeover, tbh]

But, in this day and age, we also would probably get a lot of selfies of a young Anne, wanting validation, wanting someone to tell her that her red hair was pretty, wanting to hear affirmation from acquaintances that she was good enough.

I don't know if Instagram would be the best thing for young Anne of Green Gables (but I still think that she would still be fun to follow, especially as she got older). I don't think it would have been good for her because of her obsession of being someone she was not; and I think something like Instagram would have hurt her ability to find out who she truly was, as it would bombard her with a curated vision of the Ideal Woman.  

In her "Always Optimizing" essay, Jia Tolentino talks about the idea of the ideal woman--how she is always generic: She always has glossy hair, a fit body, a personal brand, a validating boyfriend or husband, and she is always "optimizing," or, in Tolentino's words, "She takes advantage of technology, both in the way she broadcasts her image and in the meticulous improvement of that image itself. [. . .] Everything about this woman has been preemptively controlled to the point that she can afford the impression of spontaneity and, more important, the sensation of it--having worked to rid her life of artificial obstacles, she often feels legitimately carefree" (64).

But this optimization is not just for successful models or Instagram influencers, and, as Tolentino points out, mainstream/pop feminism hasn't eradicated the idea of the "ideal woman, but rather, has entrenched it and made it trickier. These days, it is perhaps even more psychologically seamless than ever for an ordinary woman to spend her life walking toward the idealized mirage of her own self image. She can believe [. . .] that she herself is the architect of the exquisite, constant, and often pleasurable type of power that this image holds over her time, her money, her decisions, her selfhood, and her soul" (65-66).

I realize I'm now quoting the entire essay. But the ideas Tolentino talks about in this essay--about the dangers of diet culture parading under the different name of fitness/wellness culture; about the companies we devote our time, bodies, and money to in the hopes that they will make us attractive, beautiful, and valued; the questions she poses about what would happen if we could make beauty matter less were on my mind before I read the essay. And after reading the essay, those ideas, arguments, and questions have been percolating in my mind, creating semi-profound thoughts that leave before I can actually write them down and make them stick.

The world that Instagram (and other social media platforms, but especially Instagram because of its hyper-focus on images) creates changes the way I portray myself and affects how I value myself or how I value others. Although Instagram *can* be about community (and there are a few people I follow who do an excellent job of creating those communities), or sharing your life, the people who seem to be most "successful" on Instagram are those who advertise themselves. They commodify experiences, images, and their "brand" for social capital and net gains.

Since that is the successful model, it is also a very seductive model for the rest of us to follow. It's also a model that can make us feel like we have more control over the system than we really do. Because who doesn't want to fit into that perfect, flawless prototype? Many of us do want that. There is power in that. There is power and satisfaction in having an idealized profile picture, to have validation in the forms of "likes," and "loves", and it feels directly related to our worth. And it can give you the illusion that anything can be bought with this power, and that success is an individual endeavor. Can you buy anything you want in this world? Or are there things that shouldn't be bargained for? How much is our soul worth? Our time? Our relationships? If our lives just become ways to optimize ourselves, our looks, our net worth . . . is that really living?

Is beauty all that matters?

There's a scene from the 90's classic, The Swan Princess (a show which I religiously watched as a 5-year-old . . . which might explain a lot about me), in which Princess Odette and Prince Derek--who have been betrothed since their childhood and have this love-hate relationship going on--grow up (by which I don't really know how old they are when they "grow up." Sixteen? Eighteen? Twenty-one? I'm sure neither of them are over twenty-five), and they both realize that they are into each other. We are never really given Odette's reasons for suddenly liking Derek (maybe she thinks he's sensitive now? I really don't know), but we are given Derek's reasons. It's because Odette has suddenly become drop-dead gorgeous.

Derek announces to everyone that it's time to "arrange the marriage," but Odette stops him and asks him why they should get married, to which he replies (with gusto): "You're beautiful!"

"Thank you," Odette replies, "But what else? Is beauty all that matters to you?"

And then Derek makes his worldview perfectly clear by answering, "What else is there?"

[The Swan Princess. Trying to convince young girls that they should choose someone who likes them for more than their looks, but also portrays women with unattainable body standards. /via/]

I think, that for the Instagram world, beauty is and always will be what matters the most. Because even though Instagram does allow for stories and communities, it was created first and foremost for images--for beautiful, creative images, whether of a landscape, or face, or a perfectly-made slice of pizza. And when this drive for beauty meets with advertising and optimization, we enter a world where yes, beauty is all that matters. 

Realizing this doesn't mean I won't keep using social media. Or that I don't enjoy curating my digital life or enjoy watching friends curate their own digital lives. Because I do and I will. And this doesn't mean that I am anti-makeup or anti-self care (although I think we need to seriously complicate that term and decide what it means for us personally rather than just what skin care or beauty companies think it should mean for us).

But, I do not agree that beauty should be all that matters to us in our choices--of how we live, how we act, or how we view ourselves or others. And I think it is important for all of us (myself included) to critique our assumptions of beauty, which includes our consumption and social media choices. (I say consumption choices, because isn't that where we are now with social media? We consume each other's lives as they appear on screen, and we consume the products and experiences that are presented to us as the most beautiful, the most affordable, the most needed. And I know I've spent too much money on skin care products and clothes because of these seductive presentations.)

I think this critique is especially needed when social media influencers promote a certain lifestyle as "attainable" when in reality they are promoting dangerous diet culture values, or saying that "I'm just showing my normal life" when no one's normal life includes a part-time live-in nanny so that you can work on promoting your headband shop and personal brand.

This isn't a manifesto. And this is hardly as profound as that moment of clarity I had this afternoon when I knew I wanted to write something about these thoughts swirling around my head, thoughts that will continue to develop. But I can feel those swirling thoughts converging around these questions:

What would your world/worldview look like if beauty mattered less? (Either to you, individually, or to the different societies and communities you belong to?)  Or would it matter at all?

P.S. (Almost as important of a question is: What do you think Anne Shirley's Instagram account would look like?)

Donald Trump and the Reincarnation of the Know-Nothings

I usually don't write about politics on my blog, mainly because 1) I think it is better to talk politics face-to-face, and 2) the chances of my writing about politics on my blog actually influencing anything is extremely slim. There will probably be 20 people who actually read this post, most of whom will be my family members and close friends . . . who I would talk politics with face-to-face.

So, usually there is no need.

But I feel compelled to write something, because honestly? I am scared. The rise of Donald Trump frightens me. The thought of a President Trump scares the living daylights out of me--anyone who gets chummy with Putin frightens me, and the thought of Trump anywhere near the nuclear codes? *shudder*

But it's not just Trump who frightens me. The impulses behind his rise make me incredibly uneasy. Not only is Trump's rhetoric inflammatory, racist, sexist, bigoted, etc., etc., but, like the man they follow, Trump's supporters don't seem to care. 

Not only that, but many of them embrace the hate, even issuing death threats to people who disagree with them.

That, my friends, is scary. It is scary when anyone in society decides that the best way to deal with those who disagree with us is to silence them.

I have had an interesting perspective on this year's presidential nomination race. Since I am in England, I am slightly removed from the inside drama (but not as removed as you might think--the Brits I associate with love talking about American politics). Still, being over here has given me some time to disengage and view American politics in a more comparative light . . . particularly through the lens of history.

That will come as no surprise to many of you. I am, after all, studying history, and I often find and make connections with current situations to the past. I think it is healthy, helpful, and needful to use history as a lamp to understand the murky present . . . we're doomed to repeat the past not because we don't learn it, but because we don't care about it. I think we should start to care.

Watching the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign has helped me draw multiple connections, many of which will be left to face-to-face conversations.The connections I see, of course, don't always mean that they are useful or even right.  But there is one that I feel worth mentioning to you, my ever-loyal blog readers.

It is this: the rise of Donald Trump has been facilitated by a reincarnation of the Know-Nothings.

What? you might be asking.

The Know-Nothings, I say.

Who are they? you ask.

Well, let me tell you. Strap yourselves in, kids, and keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times. We're going on a time machine trip to the mid-1800s, when only white males could vote in America, slavery was dividing the nation, a major political party was in demise, and there were strong anti-immigration feelings throughout the Union.

In fact, the Know-Nothing Party started because of those anti-immigration sentiments, in response to a rise of Catholic immigrants from Germany and Ireland. The Know-Nothings called themselves the "Native American Party," not because they were in support of Native American rights, but because they viewed themselves as "pure" or "real" native-born Americans. They were suspicious of Catholics who were taking away American jobs and who they thought were more loyal to the Pope than to America.

[Say hello to "Citizen Know-Nothing." The Know-Nothing's ideal of the perfect American citizen. 

Photo Cred: Sarony & Co., Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Accessed from Wikipedia.]

Because they felt their concerns were not being addressed by the Whig Party, they broke off from the Whig Party and formed their own. Their political party was supposed to be secret. When asked about their activities, they replied "I know nothing," hence, the name. (And it obviously wasn't secret, so I still wonder what the point of that secrecy was if you just told people you were part of this by saying "I know nothing." Hey, everybody! I'm in this secret society called the Know-Nothings, and I am now telling you by saying, "I know nothing!" Anyway. Moving on.) 

They enjoyed a great deal of success, especially in the North, where there were large populations of recent immigrants. The Know-Nothings took away civil rights from Catholics. They could be violent. They were certainly vitriolic in their newspapers. And they contributed to the factions in the United States, leading to stronger divisions between North, South, and West, thereby becoming a small factor in the downward spiral in the decade leading up to the Civil War. They had their own ideas of how they would "make America great again" . . . and their party was founded on  principles of suspicion, racism, and bigotry. 

Although the Know-Nothings of the 1840s and 1850s did not win a presidential election, their influence shattered the Whig Party and changed the course of American politics. This recent reincarnation of the Know-Nothings is changing the face of the Republican Party in some pretty ugly ways (of course there are other factors which have changed the Republican Party over the past 30 years, but these new Know-Nothings have certainly done a number on the Grand Old Party). It is a far-cry from the Party of Lincoln (who, by the way, wrote that he would rather move to imperial Russia "where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy" than live in an America controlled by the Know-Nothings). 

Why do I bring this up? Do I dare say that Trump supporters are ignorant "Know-Nothings"? Am I saying that Americans are on a slippery slope that will lead to our own destruction? Am I suggesting we all move to Canada, Germany, or Russia if Trump wins? 

I wouldn't be so audacious to say any of those things. Blanket statements and over-generalizations lead to trouble. Besides, a historian never tries to predict the future. We're stuck in the past, remember?

But I will say this. Know-Nothings didn't go away after the Civil War. Their remnants can be seen in anti-immigration acts at the turn of the twentieth century. Their echoes can be heard in George Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And yes, they can also be heard in Trump's comments today about Mexicans and Muslims.

Nativists crop up from generation to generation. Now, immigration and border control is a huge issue unto itself (and a crucial one), but the nativist sentiments put forth by Trump and his supporters is very disconcerting. It is just one more reminder that racism has not gone away. Neither has sexism or any form of radicalism. It is easy to tap into these demons of human nature. It is so easy to characterize those who are different from you as enemies. When movements are spurred by hate, vitriol, and anger, you can be sure that division follows. "The center cannot hold," and we enter a world where "the best lack all conviction while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." (see W.B. Yeats's "The Second Coming")

Time will tell if Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination and the general election (although I certainly hope he wins neither). We can predict the future but we never know the exact results. But what I do know is that hate speech will never make America "great" again. Hate is not strength. Racism and division have never made America great. They coat democracy in hypocrisy and keep America from delivering on her promises.

We need leaders today who choose to unify instead of divide. People who truly believe in Lincoln's sentiments of "malice towards none, with charity for all."

Call me an idealist, but I still think that those people are possible to find . . . because I've met people like that. People who I believe could become those leaders; people of wit, class, leadership, kindness, and bravery whom I could fully support as world leaders, even some who I think would make phenomenal Presidents of the United States.

People who realize that politics is, as David Brooks says, about seeing people as people--in all of their forms--and treating them with dignity and respect.


*Frightening Update*
This headline: "Donald Trump Won't Condemn KKK, Says He 'Knows Nothing About White Supremacists." 
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.