Cuteness
September 26th 2010 12:13
Human cuteness
I'm going to be lazy, and I won't try to define how I want to use the word, but I'll simply give examples:
-- things with big eyes are cute
-- things that are soft are cute
-- things that are small are cute
-- things with basic rather than complex shapes are cute.
Now, people have attempted to study cuteness, and the phenomenon does seem cross-cultural. So it couldn't have been long before the following idea developed: that all these qualities of cuteness are qualities of babies -- babies are small, have big eyes, etc; and the reason we're drawn to cuteness is evolutionary -- attraction to cuteness encourages you to care for your young, and caring for your young is a reproductory advantage.
People have advanced similar ideas about beauty (eg, it's a reproductory advantage to find flowing water and greenery attractive -- it encouraged our ancestors to seek out and remain in fertile land).
Three quick thoughts to add to this:
(1) Could there be any other reason for evolving attraction-to-cuteness? For example, it may be relevant that babies themselves find cuteness cute -- babies prefer toys with big eyes, etc -- but they don't necessarily find beautiful or sexy what an adult finds beautiful or sexy, nor like the same foods and sounds an adult likes.
(2) Multiple evolutions and chickens and eggs -- was it just that parents evolved to find babies cute? Might babies also have evolved to take advantage of parental attractions (cute kids getting more attention and resources)? Consider the case of crying -- was it just that parents evolved to be sensitive to crying, or might babies have evolved to piss off parents?
(3) Surely there are social-conditioning reasons as well as genetic? After all, babies are plied with cute toys (at least in Western culture). So part of the adult attraction to cuteness may lie with fond memories of childhood, or a desire to return there.
Non-human cuteness
For whatever reason, we have this attraction-to-cuteness trait, and it naturally extends to the non-human world. We find non-human animals cute. Evolution needn't have learnt discrimination in how cuteness operates.
The same is true, incidentally, of sexual impulses, as people with amorous pets may attest. Kinsey remarked, in his chapter on bestiality, that interspecies sex is not uncommon amongst non-human animals (nor amazingly rare amongst humans).
But here, cuteness may take on moral or prudential dimensions, in at least two respects.
(1) Cuteness may encourage false beliefs.
For instance, often some sort of anthropomorphism is involved -- attributing human feelings, thinking, experience to the non-human, whereas this might be quite misleading.
In addition, there are often Disneyish beliefs here. For instance, a belief in the gentleness and innocuousness of nature (blindsiding yourself to its suffering, randomness, cruelty); or a belief in the universality and innateness of Christian virtues and values.
In other contexts, landscape photography is sometimes allied to argument from design and messages about the greatness of God.
(2) Cuteness may be the wrong affective attitude. It mightn't be the thing you ought to be thinking about, or the way you ought to be thinking.
For instance, there may be issues of animal suffering. Bears dancing, or dolphins doing tricks -- "Oh, how cute" -- but the ethics of training them might be dubious.
Similar issues have arisen elsewhere. For instance, in a documentary on Leni Riefenstahl, there's a scene where she watches the Nuremberg Rally in "Triumph of the Will", and comments on the pleasing balance of the different wings of the parade. -- She's attentive to the aesthetics, and quite indifferent to the fact that these are Nazis goose-stepping.
In a different context, questions have been asked over using young girls as models, or entering them in beauty pageants. The issues are complicated, but amongst them is the appropriateness of regarding girls as mini-adults.
Where cuteness is concerned, what's perhaps problematic is not the having of the "Oh, how cute" attitude per se, but having this to the exclusion of any other attitude, or to the detriment of more appropriate, important or relevant attitudes, or allowing it to influence your behaviour in questionable ways (giving money to the bear-trainer).
A final thought...
We find the composition of these trees balanced -- they frame each other well; or we find these colours striking when next to each other; or we find this animal behaviour or rock formation pleasingly unusual.
Now, of course, a lot of this comes from interpretations placed, projected onto the landscape. The rock formation didn't set out to be unusual. One sees through a very human lens, and that's surely not a bad thing to recognize.
But how is it possible to see other than "through a human lens"?
It's not that there's any objective seeing. The matter boils down to a question of what seeing is better adapted to this or that human purpose, or better serves this or that human value.
Notes
-- Natalie Angier, "The Cute Factor", New York Times, 3 January 2006:
"Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.
Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense."
I'm going to be lazy, and I won't try to define how I want to use the word, but I'll simply give examples:
-- things with big eyes are cute
-- things that are soft are cute
-- things that are small are cute
-- things with basic rather than complex shapes are cute.
Now, people have attempted to study cuteness, and the phenomenon does seem cross-cultural. So it couldn't have been long before the following idea developed: that all these qualities of cuteness are qualities of babies -- babies are small, have big eyes, etc; and the reason we're drawn to cuteness is evolutionary -- attraction to cuteness encourages you to care for your young, and caring for your young is a reproductory advantage.
People have advanced similar ideas about beauty (eg, it's a reproductory advantage to find flowing water and greenery attractive -- it encouraged our ancestors to seek out and remain in fertile land).
Three quick thoughts to add to this:
(1) Could there be any other reason for evolving attraction-to-cuteness? For example, it may be relevant that babies themselves find cuteness cute -- babies prefer toys with big eyes, etc -- but they don't necessarily find beautiful or sexy what an adult finds beautiful or sexy, nor like the same foods and sounds an adult likes.
(2) Multiple evolutions and chickens and eggs -- was it just that parents evolved to find babies cute? Might babies also have evolved to take advantage of parental attractions (cute kids getting more attention and resources)? Consider the case of crying -- was it just that parents evolved to be sensitive to crying, or might babies have evolved to piss off parents?
(3) Surely there are social-conditioning reasons as well as genetic? After all, babies are plied with cute toys (at least in Western culture). So part of the adult attraction to cuteness may lie with fond memories of childhood, or a desire to return there.
***
Non-human cuteness
For whatever reason, we have this attraction-to-cuteness trait, and it naturally extends to the non-human world. We find non-human animals cute. Evolution needn't have learnt discrimination in how cuteness operates.
The same is true, incidentally, of sexual impulses, as people with amorous pets may attest. Kinsey remarked, in his chapter on bestiality, that interspecies sex is not uncommon amongst non-human animals (nor amazingly rare amongst humans).
But here, cuteness may take on moral or prudential dimensions, in at least two respects.
(1) Cuteness may encourage false beliefs.
For instance, often some sort of anthropomorphism is involved -- attributing human feelings, thinking, experience to the non-human, whereas this might be quite misleading.
In addition, there are often Disneyish beliefs here. For instance, a belief in the gentleness and innocuousness of nature (blindsiding yourself to its suffering, randomness, cruelty); or a belief in the universality and innateness of Christian virtues and values.
In other contexts, landscape photography is sometimes allied to argument from design and messages about the greatness of God.
(2) Cuteness may be the wrong affective attitude. It mightn't be the thing you ought to be thinking about, or the way you ought to be thinking.
For instance, there may be issues of animal suffering. Bears dancing, or dolphins doing tricks -- "Oh, how cute" -- but the ethics of training them might be dubious.
Similar issues have arisen elsewhere. For instance, in a documentary on Leni Riefenstahl, there's a scene where she watches the Nuremberg Rally in "Triumph of the Will", and comments on the pleasing balance of the different wings of the parade. -- She's attentive to the aesthetics, and quite indifferent to the fact that these are Nazis goose-stepping.
In a different context, questions have been asked over using young girls as models, or entering them in beauty pageants. The issues are complicated, but amongst them is the appropriateness of regarding girls as mini-adults.
Where cuteness is concerned, what's perhaps problematic is not the having of the "Oh, how cute" attitude per se, but having this to the exclusion of any other attitude, or to the detriment of more appropriate, important or relevant attitudes, or allowing it to influence your behaviour in questionable ways (giving money to the bear-trainer).
***
A final thought...
We find the composition of these trees balanced -- they frame each other well; or we find these colours striking when next to each other; or we find this animal behaviour or rock formation pleasingly unusual.
Now, of course, a lot of this comes from interpretations placed, projected onto the landscape. The rock formation didn't set out to be unusual. One sees through a very human lens, and that's surely not a bad thing to recognize.
But how is it possible to see other than "through a human lens"?
It's not that there's any objective seeing. The matter boils down to a question of what seeing is better adapted to this or that human purpose, or better serves this or that human value.
Notes
-- Natalie Angier, "The Cute Factor", New York Times, 3 January 2006:
"Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.
Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense."
| 92 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by knowershark
But I must admit to not ever having spent time pondering this subject. But I probably will now.
Comment by Anonymous
Good to see, you're still alive and writing though.
From the Arctic Circle,
Pc
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Dear PC, are you PC as in EB? Thanks for dropping by!
Comment by Anonymous
But if I'd have to guess, I'd say "Nope, I don't think so. More like a citron is a lemon!". - Have a happy November!
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Thus, it does seem to me that it was the babies who evolved to be cute, since it brings them a greater advantage. Perhaps the parents evolved too, but I think it makes more sense if the babies evolved, since they are the ones who directly have something to gain.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Reminds me of an interview with... I think it was Katherine Hepburn... Commenting that even from very young she was aware that she could use her beauty/cuteness to get relatives to do her bidding.
Comment by TBB
Really Long Link