The Fashioned Self E-Book

Joanne Finkelstein

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 359

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

This book examines the nature of the self and self-identity in the modern age, and the way in which they have been moulded through the alteration of bodily appearance, exemplified fashions, facelifts and diets. The idea that an individual's character is revealed through physical appearance is, Finkelstein argues, deeply embedded in Western culture. And since fashions and cosmetics are closely linked to sexual difference, the author concentrates on aspects of gender identity, suggesting that the female and male identity are differentiated through opposed experiences of the body.

Leseprobe

The Fashioned Self

JOANNE FINKELSTEIN

Polity Press

Copyright © Joanne Finkelstein 1991

First published 1991 by Polity Press in association with Basil Black-well

Editorial office:

Polity Press, 65 Bridge Street,

Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Marketing and production:

Basil Blackwell Ltd

108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

ISBN: 978-0-7456-6626-6 (Multi-user ebook)

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Finkelstein, Joanne

The fashioned self.

1. Self – Sociological perspectives

I. Title

302.54

Typeset in 11 on 13 pt Garamond

by Graphicraft Typesetters Ltd Hong Kong

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Marston Lindsay Ross International Ltd, Oxfordshire

Contents

Introduction

Part I The Physiognomic Body

1 Character as Immanent in Appearance

2 Refining Appearance, Improving Character

Part II Signs of the Modern Self

3 The Face Lift

4 The Necktie

5 Fashionability

Part III The Fashioned Self

6 The Trial of Character

7 The Self as Sign

Bibliography

Index

Introduction

It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.

Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

In the late twentieth century, our tacit understanding of human character seems to be derived from a motley assemblage of contradictory ideas. On the one hand, we hastily read character physiognomically, from the shape of the individual’s nose and chin, or the colour of the eyes and hair; on the other, we create a sense of identity by dressing or behaving after a particular fashion or style. We know, too, that other people, in all likelihood, are doing the same. They may be wearing a hair piece, using hair dye or displaying a sun-tan or have had plastic surgery or a hair transplant. We know that appearances are created and that dressing after a particular fashion is done in order to convey a certain impression. It would seem that the ideas we hold about personal identity, incorporating as they do these divergent views, suggest that our knowledge of human character and our speculations about the nature of our own consciousness and that of others are incoherent and unsystematized narratives, interwoven with contradictory ideas and assumptions. How we arrived at this point and what consequences it has for our contemporary social relations in the societies of the industrialized West is the focus of this book.

In the consumer culture of modern society, physical appearance has come to be seen as an important means for claiming a degree of social status. High fashion and designer styles in clothing, individualized fitness programmes, exercise equipment for home use, private gymnasiums, diet regimens and cosmetic surgery are readily available as the means for perfecting our physical appearance. The pervasiveness of these goods and services indicates an ethos in which physical appearance is held to be of paramount importance. Indeed, appearance is often conflated with the more spiritual or abstract qualities of character: people are described as having a kind, honest, determined or gentle face as if this expresses their real character.

This conflation of reality with appearance has a long tradition. Sennett’s (1976) historical account of the emergence of the modern sensibility vividly detailed the process by which the enactment or the performance of certain emotions and personality traits became the demonstrable proof of their actual existence. The individual was as s/he appeared to be, the suit of clothes, for example, did reveal character; hence, the stylization of appearance became an important focus of the interpersonal or social encounter. The same conflation of appearance with reality is found in the history of Western painting. The female face has been painted for hundreds of years as if it were artificial and masklike (Ribeiro 1987). The sixteenth-century face had an enamelled look. It was glazed over with an egg-white after being coated with ceruse, a lead base paint which gave a hard white appearance. To contrast with this deadly, harsh whiteness, vivid blobs of red were painted on the cheeks. These cosmetics had a poisonous lead content and their deleterious effects were quite marked; however, the portraiture of the times did not reveal this. The seventeenth-century fashions in appearance continued with these harsh cosmetics while, all the time, representing the fashionable sitters for these paintings as being natural beauties. As fashions changed and the enamelled mask of the female face gave way to a less controlled appearance in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the reliance on cosmetics to bring about an attractive appearance did not diminish. In reality, particularly before the nineteenth century, the effects of a deficient diet, infrequent washing and illnesses such as smallpox could be seen in the face where the skin was pitted and blemished by eczema, scurvy and so on. A general ignorance of dental hygiene and the widespread consumption of sugar also meant that tooth decay frequently marred a good face. The painted image showed none of these signs.

It has been common practice, especially in the upper classes, to employ a variety of cosmetics and devices to alter appearance. For instance, cloth or silk patches were employed to cover skin blemishes, wigs were used to give the luxuriance of curly hair and plumpers of cork, wax or leather were used to replace a lost tooth and round out the cheeks (Ribeiro 1987). In some instances, these techniques acquired other uses; for example, in the French courts face patches were cut into various shapes such as stars, hearts and moons, and transposed into a code that no longer concealed pustules but spoke of sexual intrigues.

While techniques for styling appearances have radically altered over the centuries, they are, nonetheless, as popular in contemporary society as in any previous time; indeed, the availability of goods and services has meant that the fashioning of appearances is probably greater in the twentieth century. This suggests that the perceptual conspiracy which allows the artificial complexion and body shape to be seen as a natural representation of character, and the fashioned styles of beauty to be accepted as expressions of human sensibility, remains as convincing as ever.

Blurring the distinctions between the image and reality by emphasizing appearances has a substantial influence on how we see one another. When we value physical appearance as a means of increasing our success or effectiveness in social interactions, we risk limiting the social experience to a barter or exchange controlled by prevailing stereotypes. For instance, when the assumption is widely held that character is integral to appearance and appearances determine the manner of conduct, then the stereotypes of the jolly fat person, the thin anxious person, the dark-complexioned, untrustworthy person, the fair-haired, open-faced, frank person become the currency of sociality. On the strength of these stereotypes, if we are able to train ourselves to make more detailed observations of others’ physical attributes, we can come to believe we are making an astute reading of their personalities. Within this framework, understanding human character becomes a matter of perception: the tell-tale detail, the odd combination of this with that, the daring use of colour, texture, size and so on, would be the signs from which we deduce the other’s essential self.

How we interpret these signs of character is culturally contingent. What we find aesthetic and attractive about the human body and physical appearance is not determined by nature or any overarching biological principle; our views are not emanations of a universal nature. Rather, our reading of the body is subject to the influences of circumstances; thus the body itself is a contingency which can be made aesthetic or fashioned in accord with prevailing customs. As our evaluations of the body are refracted through the social order, what constitutes the normal physical body – what is physical beauty, what is abhorrent and not acceptable, what immediately repulses us or, conversely, ignites our passions – are ideas and attitudes which are historically and culturally contingent. Régnier-Bohler (1988: 359) has described the medieval individual with a clear complexion as being attributed with a sanguine personality and the dark-skinned individual as saturnine and melancholic. Realizing the cultural and historical contingency of these interpretations should determine that any insight into an essential self which we derive from reading the outward signs is better understood as a reading of a cultural moment than it is an analysis of personality. Yet, this is not often the case.

In industrialized, high technology societies, we have become confident that most of our imagined needs and desires can be translated into material form. We are accustomed to exerting power over our environment and manufacturing all manner of objects to meet our desires. In such a society, the human body, as if no different from other manufactured objects, can be used as a commodity to display power, prestige and status. Like the purchased object, the body can be made a sign of the individual’s accomplishments, talents, capacities and character. The early social theorists, Veblen (1899) and Simmel (1904), both recognized how the characteristics of a burgeoning consumer-oriented culture could be promulgated through attitudes toward the human body. The manner of adornment and the use of the body as a means for conspicuous consumption, say, in the pursuit of leisure activities, or in the display of exclusive and exotic goods, established the practices of conspicuous consumption as effective ways of widely displaying personal characteristics. Thus, the shaping and adorning of the body has become a way for the individual to present his or her desired self-image to others.

In a culture where the possession and control of goods and services are highly valued, transforming the body into a commodity which can be used for the display of coveted items becomes a social goal in itself. In the modern era we treat the body as malleable and have developed the tools by which it can be continuously altered in appearance. Clothes, diet, exercise, pharmaceuticals, drug therapy, micro-surgery, body implants and so on, are the means of producing the modern fashioned body. As long as physical appearance remains of singular importance to our social activities, the cosmetic, health and therapeutic industries are assured of retaining their lucrative businesses.

What does it say of our understanding of identity or human character that we have fused together the capacity for conspicuous consumption with the presentation of personality? What does it say of us that we readily accept appearances and habits of conduct as revelations of the private self? What does it say of our social relations that we frequently employ a fashioned self-image and a style of acting in order to create a certain impression through which we hope to influence the opinions others have of us or how they will act toward us?

The nineteenth century was a period in which appearance and the reading of character from physical features was immensely popular. A physiognomist of the day, Samuel Wells, described the process of how to read character.

We instinctively, as it were, judge the qualities of things by their outward forms. ‘Appearances’ are said to be ‘often deceitful’. They are sometimes seemingly so; but in most cases, if not in all, it is our observation that is in fault. We have but to look again, and more closely and carefully, to pierce the disguise, when the thing will appear to be just what it is. Appearances do not often deceive the intelligent observer.

A strong association between human character and physical appearance would mean that personality was available to us from the details and displays of personal affectations. It is as if the interior qualities of the individual, the essential self, were being exhibited through the contours of appearance. So, to accept that character is immanent in appearance is tantamount to saying we need only observe certain features in the other and we will know his or her character. This assumes, in effect, that there is a subterranean psychology of human character which is capable of being embodied in the material – either in objects or patterns of generic conduct. But, reading character from outward signs reduces the need to ruminate over our impressions or to review their accuracy. If we accept that human character is immanent in appearance, the need to think about the dynamics of social life becomes superfluous.

Intuitively, we, in the modern consumer-oriented culture, respond to this viewpoint that character is immanent in appearance with scepticism. After all, it is commonly the case that we change our opinions of others, we puzzle over their conduct and then reject our first impressions. Furthermore, too much emphasis is placed on our social skills and knowledge of interaction rituals for us to think them unimportant in our human affairs. In the light of these emphases, it cannot be said that appearances are ultimately so important. But even with this in mind, it is apparent that we are inclined to read character from physical appearances, although, not always to admit to doing so. Certainly, the belief in the power of appearance to reveal character gives the pastime credence, and it would be foolish as Oscar Wilde has stated above to ignore the signs before us. Physical features such as colouring, height, weight, agility and prowess have been translated into a modern parlance which defines attractiveness, sex appeal, emotionality, sobriety, virtue and so on. Being in possession of distinct physical qualities is frequently interpreted as a sign of an archetypical character or disposition, and when such attributes go against the grain of convention, then one risks becoming a social pariah.

In our everyday commerce it would seem that we moderns accept that appearances matter without probing into why they should. The physiognomists, in particular, regarded physical appearance as the key to understanding human character, and over the centuries, they mapped human physical features; they systematically typified which nose shape, what angle of the jaw, size of eyes and colour of hair, were indicative of specific human characteristics. To read the physiognomists in the late twentieth century, and learn which facial feature reveals a propensity toward greed or ambition or unreliability may strike us as quaint and relatively useless in comparison with our modern, rigorous techniques for reading human capabilities and potentials. On the other hand, when we do encounter individuals with striking or anomalous physical appearances, say, they are unusually tall, have a strong body odour, perhaps, they blush irrepressibly, stutter in their speech or have uncontrolled body twitches, in short, when our social relations with another become so infested with obvious physiological signs that we cannot see beyond them, then the endurance of the physiognomic perspective into the modern world seems unassailable. It seems that the more obvious the physical trait, the more willing we are to read the other’s character from it. As it is through our public conduct that much of our self-image is presented to others, when the social encounter is dominated by appearances and the mannerisms of the physical body, then our sociality is made more vulnerable to the influences of the received meanings and preconceptions of our times.

To accept, in the twentieth century, that character is summarized in our bodies, that personality and individuality are a function of our appearance and physical prowess, confronts us, to some extent, as an unlikely article of faith. Yet, when we consider the popularity of practices such as cosmetic surgery, strenuous exercise and dieting, which transform our body shape and appearance and which are frequently undertaken on the belief that our sense of self will be more assured when our appearance is different, then we are forced to consider that a continuity of thought with that of the physiognomists may be being expressed. Why else, we must ask ourselves, is there a proliferation of commercially available and therapeutically endorsed strategies and techniques regularly advertised in the mass media which promise to produce a new self and transform the old? Why is so much time and money spent on the shaping of our physical appearance, and how is it that the industries succoured by these efforts, such as the fashion, cosmetic and health industries, are so successful? We may decline to endorse the view that we judge by appearances because it seems such a superficial and inherently unjust idea, but, at the same time, it is apparent that we do so.

Heller (1989) has pointed out that the authenticating narratives employed to explain our times are not necessarily grounded in facticity. Some ideas gain an authority at one level but fail to convince at another. Ideas that go unquestioned in the course of everyday life, and which exist as self-evident truths, may not pass as real or true on a more abstract philosophical or intellectual level. These ideas are myths; in their everyday usage they do not reveal themselves as such, nor do they suggest that there are different ways of looking, that there are differences in kinds of knowledge, differences between fact, interpretation and fiction; instead, they appear as if true. The ways in which we currently understand personal identity or character illustrate the point. Our present views on identity are grounded in the ambiguous principles of physiognomy and other unexamined assumptions of human nature. These ideas, which work as authenticating narratives of the modern age, give a sense of facticity to various patterns of perception and habits of conduct. Yet, such narratives are authoritative without necessarily being factual, and in the following chapters of this book, this is illustrated with an account of the endurance of the physiognomic perspective into the modern era.

The physiognomic perspective is found in contemporary attitudes toward physical appearance, especially those which legitimate the deliberate reshaping of the body to approximate prevailing norms. Where a reliance on physical appearances as an expression of character can be seen to exist, opportunities are created for fictive portrayals of the self in which individuals can be spuriously assigned or claim for themselves a wealth of virtues. Understanding human character from appearances, styles and images is an authoritative narrative of modern social life which has a significant influence on our habits of sociality. For instance, individuals who have physically groomed themselves in accord with prevailing definitions of beauty and attractiveness can feel confident of having constructed for themselves an appropriate and successful social identity. Such individuals have absorbed the prevailing values and have produced a social demeanour and sense of identity which will successfully carry them through the everyday world. Yet, the sense of self enjoyed by these individuals is, ironically, constituted from the received meanings of the times. That is, their sense of self is an embodiment of the representational fiction of a self. This sense of identity is a concatenation of prevailing ideas, yet it is experienced as unique because these elements and ideas have been idiosyncratically arranged by circumstances. Such a self can be said to be accidental (see Heller 1989).

Using the idea of the self as an authenticating narrative of the times is not equivalent to saying that personality is an imposed, uniform, pre-figured or structured phenomenon. The individual’s sense of self has not been perfectly absorbed from the external; unique biographical circumstances have differentiated each individual to a great extent. In our acting in accord with prevailing meanings we come to think of ourselves as being in possession of a personality or character. This belief does not constitute a realm of subjectivity, nor do our unique circumstances constitute a self or sense of personal identity. Importantly, the authenticating narrative which determines that there is an entity known as the self is itself a repository of the received meanings of the times. Thus, the narrative which authenticates the self tells us that we are in possession of a character, a personal identity, a putative reservoir of subjective experience merely because we act in the world. The consequence of such a narrative is that it authenticates a self-centred self.

Such a sense of self works well enough at the prosaic level of daily social intercourse but when the constituents of the self are called for, we find ourselves speaking through cliches, platitudes and received meanings. The authenticating narrative that we have condensed into character reveals a self that is a representational synthesis of contingencies. This is vividly illustrated through our commonsense belief that character can be thought of as immanent in appearance and that human physiognomy can reveal a great deal of the individual’s character.

Physiognomy may be considered a discarded intellectual relic from our pre-scientific days yet, on examination, it can be seen operating in contemporary society, albeit rewritten into a modern form. The tenets of physiognomy are not factual, neither are they systematic nor consistent, rather, they have been modified by many proponents over many centuries. Some physiognomic perspectives maintained that there was an essential or given self which emanated through certain physical features. This meant that human character was a fully formed ‘interior’ and unmodifiable by experience. Other perspectives did not completely overlook the influence that circumstances may have on the individual, and proponents of these insisted that human character could be altered by experiences. This latter approach regarded character more as a summation of both interior predispositions and external influences.

The kernel of the physiognomic perspective was that the physical appearance of the individual reflected much of his or her character. Physiognomy viewed human character as immanent in appearance, yet it could absorb into its paradigm the human desire to fashion, adorn, emphasize and refashion the body. After all, whether appearances were inherited or cultivated, the value of appearance was unequivocal, and the chthonic belief remained that appearances were telling summaries of personal character. Fashioning or cultivating an appearance was merely the opportunity to realize the self more fully by maximizing the virtues suggested by physical attributes. So, in the physiognomic view, hair colour, the size of eyes, ears, nose and chin, the mobility of the mouth and lips, the height of the forehead, the shape of the face and the presence of wrinkles, could all be taken as signs of the self, irrespective of whether these were natural formations or had been deliberately styled and shaped.

At first glance, it would seem that we moderns would not accept the physiognomic idea that character is an inherent quality embedded within us and revealed through appearance; we are more inclined to see ourselves as self-produced, the result of our own efforts, desires and interests. And yet, in our strong interest in appearance and our deliberate attempts to fashion and shape the body, we have tacitly endorsed the essential idea of the physiognomic perspective that the image and appearance of the individual is somehow representative of character and sensibility. In so doing, we have created the opportunity for bestowing upon individuals a host of spurious virtues and vices.

It is the value accorded the image, above all else, which carries the ancient physiognomic perspective into the modern era, even though, at the same time, we recognize that linking self-identity with physical appearance produces a myriad of anomalies. For example, what does it suggest of the individual’s character when s/he possesses an unconventional body which does not demonstrate the usual standards of mobility, dexterity and proportion? Are those individuals with spina bifida, cerebral palsy or Down’s syndrome of flawed character and irreversibly different from others? Does the acquisition of a slow degenerative disease like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s bring about a change in essential character? If so, this would present an anomaly in the physiognomic system. By the same token, we could ask whether the owners of anarchic bodies also become the embodiments of unconventional identities? Furthermore, what sense can be made of conduct which is self-polluting, for example, when individuals regularly imbibe too much alcohol or consume too many calories? Are these instances of an individual in possession of a rebellious body, and by implication, a rebellious character?

Regarding the physical body as being the repository of character and as having a life of its own which can emanate into the social situation and influence the nature of our social relations is not the way we commonly think of the self. At the same time, though, there are numerous circumstances where we do regard the body as capable of independence as if it could act against us, be a liability, even betray character, such as when it succumbs to illness (Sontag 1977) or shows signs of self-abuse or a disturbed self-image as in cases of anorexia nervosa (Bruch 1978).

It would seem, then, that a reading of human character through an interpretation of bodily signs, while a common practice, is thoroughly confused. The knowledge of self and identity that may result from these speculations is replete with anomalies. Yet, it is paradoxical that in the high regard we have for the way we look, we are accepting this narrative as if it were true. To this extent, we cannot claim to be any more sophisticated in our understanding of human character than those in previous eras who interpreted it through the pseudo-sciences of physiognomy, chiromancy, phrenology and astrology. Indeed, the present popularity of astrology and our frequent reliance upon physiognomic interpretations of bodily characteristics indicate that examples of unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific ideas, some of which are quite remote from any principles of orthodoxy, are still widely held (Wrobel 1988). When we blithely apply such ideas to the conduct of our social lives, we, in the late twentieth century, may well be as gullible and as conceptually jejune as any generation before us. It is the argument of this book that as long as we continue to value physical appearances, and sustain the enormous industries which trade on this value, namely, the consumer-oriented cosmetic, fashion and therapeutic industries, we authenticate a narrative of human character which is spurious. Furthermore, by sustaining an emphasis on image and appearances, we prevent the emergence of a narrative which would give birth to a capacity for reflexivity and subjectivity, and a sense of self in which universal rather than narrow and contingent values were predominant.

Finally, a word on how the argument has been presented. The book is divided into three sections: the first, consisting of chapters 1 and 2, explores the physiognomic view and illustrates how its tenets have instructed our contemporary views on the human form; the second section, chapters 3, 4 and 5, describes how the body is fashioned in the contemporary society and how it has been employed as a sign expressive of the individual’s self-conception; and the final section, chapters 6 and 7, presents a theoretical exploration of what consequences may apply to the nature of social life when the signs of the self, that is, appearance and a fashioned self-image, are construed as synonymous with character.

Part I

The Physiognomic Body

1

Character as Immanent in Appearance

Systematic accounts of a relationship between physical appearance and human character have appeared throughout Western history. Physiognomy was one such account in which the prognostication of human character was made from the study of physical features. Astrology was another system for reading character; it assumed that the planets influenced the individual’s physical and mental capabilities and this was evidenced through body type, colouring, movement and gait. Early accounts of Eastern medicine from the tenth, twelfth and fourteenth centuries included a system of character analysis which combined physiognomy with astrology, and this established, amongst other things, that the forehead corresponded to Mars, ‘the right eye to the Sun, the left to Venus, the right ear to Jupiter, the left to Saturn, the nose to the Moon, the mouth to Mercury’ (Magli 1989:111). Whole communities could be characterized as Lunar or Mercurial or Saturnine. Lunar people were small-bodied and lively, Mercurial individuals were smaller still, imaginative with subtle and serious interests; they were engaged with writing, astrology and white magic. Those influenced by Saturn were patient, those influenced by Jupiter were prudent, Mars individuals were courageous, and the Sun bestowed wisdom and magnificence upon those under its influence (Magli 1989:111).

Although the systems of astrology and physiognomy were thought to be closely intertwined, by the Middle Ages a theory of the temperaments had been absorbed into the formula for reading character largely because individuals were often observed to have physical features which were not consistent with their astrological heritage. The unreliability of the planetary signs as indicators of character meant that more rigour was required in the matter of character analysis, and, eventually, a theory which blended the elements, qualities and humours emerged. This new system could account for a more complex character; thus, ‘the man who is irascible not only has the nature of fire, but also that of the lion; the phlegmatic man has both the nature of water and that of the lamb; the sanguine man has both the nature of air and that of the monkey; the melancholic one has the nature of earth and that of the pig’ (Magli 1989:105).

From this melting pot of ideas about human character, a hierarchical ordering of physical features slowly evolved which eventually gave prominence to the physiognomic over the astrological reading of physical features. In such a schema, the head came to be designated the principal repository of character traits, so the head’s own features, namely, the forehead, hair, eyebrows, eyes, nose, mouth, lips, teeth, chin, ears, face, neck and throat became correspondingly important. Of subsidiary importance were the individual’s hands and body. Although, early treatises on physiognomy linked it with astrology, the longest tradition of the idea appears to have descended through Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen, who, in particular, bequeathed a system of humoural influence that characterized Western medicine for more than a millennium (Pack 1974:113–38).

The most ancient work on physiognomy, the third century BC treatise De Physiognomonica, is attributed to Aristotle; however, its authenticity has not been universally admitted. The pseudo-Aristotelian works Physiognomia and Aristotelis philosophi phisnomia both argued for a relationship between human appearance and temperament by drawing an analogy with animals (Foerster 1893). Thus, the individual’s physical approximation to an animal suggested that the character of the individual could be ascertained by analysing the animal. As animal characteristics were well enough known, then the individual who resembled a bull or an owl or a snake was thought to be in possession of those same traits. Specifically, those resembling a lion would be hot-tempered and strong, those resembling a leopard, would have delicate features but would also be proud, deceitful, scheming as well as daring and fearful. The bear was thought deceitful, fierce, irascible as were those who resembled it. ‘The wild boar is full of senseless rage, while the ox is simple and sincere. The horse likes pomp and craves honors. The fox is deceitful and scheming; the monkey likes joking and imitating. Sheep are self-assured; goats are lecherous; pigs are dirty and greedy (and) if a man appears similar to an animal in any of his features, let him be aware that he shall behave in a similar fashion’ (Magli 1989:101–3). The idea was that physical appearance was suited to a particular manner of behaving, so how people looked spoke eloquently of how they would conduct themselves.

In De Physiognomonica, the entire animal world was divided into two parts, the male and female, and these characteristics were echoed in humans, so, for instance, the female like the panther was thought to be treacherous, and the male like the lion was thought to be bold. As Magli has stated, ‘this gives rise to a long list of character masks: Goat-Man, Lion-Man, Bird-Man, Monkey-Man’ (1989:101). Other influences such as those from Hippocratic teachings designated the build of the body as an important sign of character and claimed that the individual’s physical stature was significant as a sign of the individual’s internal disposition, although not as important as the face.

The use of physiognomy as a system for the analysis of human character has endured as a popular narrative. Over the centuries, there have been numerous examples of ancient Greek and Latin texts expressing these ideas which have been translated and reworked. For example, the Eastern text, Secreta Secretorum, was a tenth- or eleventh-century reworking of the Aristotelian thesis which had further influence on other works such as John Metham’s fifteenth-century physiognomic essay, written in English, where he declared ‘the most trwe werkyng off nature ys in a mannys face’ (Craig 1915). A twelfth-century work on facial colouring and complexions by Rasis, written in Arabic, has been reproduced in modern French by Mourad (1939). The manuscript Physionomia Rationalis is a translation from the Latin by Claud de la Bellière, a counsellor to the French king. It used Galen and Aristotle with some biblical references to prove that the individual’s health goes with his or her appearance. The text, consisting of forty questions, was translated into English in the seventeenth century by Robert Baker. In 1586 Giovanni Battista della Porta (1536–1615) published in Venice a physiognomic work, De Humana Physiognomia, which analysed the individual’s character, appearance and destiny. Another sixteenth-century text by the prolific Girolamo Cardano, entitled Metoposcopia, was probably available in an abbreviated German translation made in the late seventeeth-century; Johann Lavater may have used this to establish the modern school of physiognomy. John Spon published Faces: What They Mean and How to Read Them in 1934, and claimed that it was a reworking of an earlier sixteenth-century script which was, in all likelihood, written by della Porta.

The influences of astrology and physiognomy persisted for centuries alongside humoural theory. Indeed, each of these strands of thought can be seen in a popular seventeenth-century book on palmistry and physiognomy written by a priest, which went to six English editions. This text stated that when the sun is in Pisces, the individual will have a ‘fair forehead, clear skin, large and fair eyes’, and when the sun is in Leo, the individual will have ‘a small, comely body, ruddy coloured, mixed with white rolling eyes … and full of diseases in their feet’ (Indagine 1666). In short, the origins and lineage of the physiognomic perspective are difficult to establish, but it is enough to recognize that it has been an idea of enduring appeal which seems to have answered the persistent desire of members of various societies to explain and make predictions about the nature of human character.

In the long history of physiognomic reasoning, there are many different accounts of the ways in which human character is related to the individual’s observable physical features. Generally, physiognomy has dealt with the uncovering of personality traits through the study of facial features, body structure and overall physical appearance. It has been assumed that there was an immanent and univocal essence in humans which was reflected through identifiable body parts, even though some parts, such as the face, seemed responsive and often changeable in appearance and quality. Nonetheless, the physiognomists claimed that character could be read from specific features of human appearance, especially those which were immobile – the chin and forehead, for example, were regarded as especially revealing of the individual’s potential for aggression. George Turner, writing in 1641 on astronomy and ‘astrologic’ (sic), devoted forty pages to ‘phisiognomy’. He had rules by which character could be interpreted from the nose, lips, ears, chin, pitch of the voice, lines on the forehead, movement of the eyes, number of teeth, the size of the tongue and so on. Turner described his work as a collection for his own personal use but which was taken from many authors; thus, it can be regarded as a useful summary of opinions and perspectives prevalent in the mid-seventeenth century. Turner regarded the shape of the nose as the most telling feature; it revealed the individual’s cruelty, revengefulness, benevolence and overall degree of aggression, quarrelsomeness and courage (1641:114). A person’s ears revealed the degree of intelligence, memory and foolishness (Turner 1641:115); the thickness of the lips indicated how much heat the individual held and, as it was heat which dulled the senses, the thickness of the lips (ibid:116–7, 143) indicated much about the individual. For instance, imbecility was reflected in small, thin lips, courage in an overhanging upper lip, uncleanliness and folly in thick lips with a round mouth. Other signs of character were in the ‘overbrows’ or eyebrows, hair, hands, nails, shoulders, ‘ribbes’, neck, throat, beard and laughter. In the case of too much laughter, stupidity was indicated, and a sufficient amount indicated courtesy (Turner 1641:120).

Certain representations of the physiognomic perspective claimed as a fundamental assertion that the human shape and facial features were signs which both foretold and reflected the moral characteristics of the individual. This meant that some features could be interpreted as prognostications of specific character traits. This was an audacious claim because it suggested a behavioural determinism behind an individual’s appearance, thereby making it seem that certain traits were secreted in physical attributes and that appearance was the major impetus behind character. For example, according to this type of physiognomic reasoning, the individual with small, black eyes, a receding chin and thin hair would probably become a criminal or degenerate. There were other claims as well which depicted certain physical features as reflective of character after those features had been shaped by experience. Thus, one could tell much of an individual’s past from his or her features; certain physical features could act as summaries of the individual’s past experiences and, as such, they could inadvertently disclose personality traits. In this sense, one’s physical appearance could be a betrayal of one’s private self.

It was the eighteenth-century work of Johann Caspar Lavater (1741–1801) which stands out as the most elaborated exposition of physiognomy. His huge, four-volume treatise Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntniss und Menschenliebe (1775–8) was a systematic presentation of how physical characteristics corresponded with moral traits. The text was copiously illustrated with silhouettes of the human form. It also contained the writings of other thinkers equally enthusiastic about physiognomy, namely, Herder and Goethe. A further detailed work by Lavater, and not published, was Mélanges de regles Physiognomiques, prepared in 1793, as a gift to his patron, Eric Magnus de Staël, who was himself celebrated for his own extraordinarily handsome appearance (Marwick 1988).

Lavater’s principles of physiognomy enjoyed wide popularity. The novelist Victor Hugo, half a century later, spoke of Lavater as if he were a household name. In Les Misérables, Hugo claimed of one of his fictional characters that ‘Lavater, if he could have studied this face, would have found in it a mixture of vulture and pettifogger; the bird of prey and the man of tricks rendering each other ugly and complete’ (1862:256). The name of Lavater was well known and his system of character analysis widely subscribed to probably because it was so detailed and exact and, thereby, readily understandable. Even though Lavater presented his physiognomic system as a scientific analysis of character, it became a type of parlour game and form of entertainment for the European upper classes of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The laws and tenets of physiognomy were often printed on cards, like playing cards, one of which showed an embossed head sectioned off into physiognomically visible attributes. This format allowed easy reference as well as the wide dissemination of the ideas. Having such a set of cards was itself fashionable. Lavater’s physiognomy even spawned its own satire in 1778–9, a four-volume work known as Physiognomical Travels by a German satirist, Johann Karl August Musäus.

Lavater’s claims for physiognomy were grand. He presented it as a total system of analysis; all three elements of the individual, namely, the physiological, intellectual and moral, were analysed in his system; indeed, they were intimately connected with each other and were ‘expressed in every part of the body’ (1885:10). Physiognomy was, he stated:

the science or knowledge of the correspondence between the external and internal man, the visible superficies (sic) and the invisible contents …

The moral life of man, particularly, reveals itself in the lines, marks, and transitions of the countenance. His moral powers and desires, his irritability, sympathy, and antipathy; his facility of attracting or repelling the objects that surround him; these are all summed up in, and painted upon, his countenance when at rest. (1885:11, 9)

Lavater urged others to see the necessity of physiognomy as a proper mode of social discourse on the basis that everyone was a physiognomist whether they knew it or not. After all, judging others by their outward appearance was a seemingly instinctual law of social life; everyone judged character from ‘those first impressions which are made by (the individual’s) exterior’ (1885:12). One may as well study Lavater’s rules and recommendations in order to do it correctly because, he maintained (1885:47), one could always improve one’s abilities and acquire new interpretive skills. Although, the natural propensity was to judge others by appearance one could, under tutelage, discipline this practice into a more exact science of character analysis – the benefits of which, Lavater predicted, would be immediately apparent.

Lavater’s account of human character was based on the idea that the human body was capable of endless transformations, the face, in particular, showed a panorama of emotions and thoughts, and the body was constantly altering in appearance because of fatigue, excitement, illness and so on. Nonetheless, Lavater regarded the physical appearance of the individual as an accurate summation of moral character. He regarded the face as the most explicit sign of character including the size and shape of the skull, the forehead and the direction of the facial wrinkles. Human beauty proved the inner worth and virtue of the individual and, conversely, ugliness demonstrated vice. Lavater argued further that the moral background of the individual was unequivocally revealed in appearance. Certain characteristics could be inherited, for example, the moral decadence of a family as expressed in their continuous poverty or criminality, were traits that were probably passed on through successive generations and were visible through such outward signs as the texture of the skin and the shape of the jaw. Well-known national and regional characteristics, such as eye and hair colour, body shape, muscular strength and so on, could also be accounted for through physiognomic inheritance. In short, every visible aspect of the individual’s appearance was physiognomical and thus spoke of the submerged universe of personality, character, emotionality and temperament.