Toward a Definition of Cuteness
A few days ago, my inbox was at 700+. Part of the problem of why I have so many freaking emails in my inbox is that I take great comfort in knowing a particular email is there, undeleted, in my inbox, even if I cannot find it. I don't have to worry that it's in some "e-mail folder" and that I'll forget my filing system: it's right there, in the inbox. Surrounded by other emails also in my inbox. Some of this veritable cornucopia of emailness is because I love my friends; however, a great deal also stem from a narcissistic urge to preserve a reply to my own pretentiously witty remark.
In my cleaning, I found this old email to a friend in which I was struggling for definitive definition of the term "cute." What better excuse to delete the email than to reproduce it in my blog? (BTW, my friend responded by cutting and pasting the OED definition of cute. Yes, he is a graduate student.)
""Cute." If it is simply a predicate adjective without a noun (e.g. "that girl is cute"), I contend that the only ideological commitment that one is making is the belief that the person's face is cute; that is, it is only if the adjective is modifying a noun (e.g. "that girl has a cute body," "that girl has a cute butt") that one is committing oneself to cuteness as an attribute of something other than, or in addition to, the face. [My future wife], in contrast, insists that describing a personage as "cute" (e.g. "that guy is cute") entails one's committed declaration that the person's body as a whole is "cute," though not necessarily the face. To clarify her position, the face could have a lesser degree of "cuteness" than is standard, but should the person's body be sufficiently "cute," it would compensate. For instance, someone might think, "Tommy Lee Jones is cute, even though his face is ugly.""
I suppose if I were to revise my definition now, I think I would further clarify that I am presupposing we are using cuteness in the sense of being "physically attractive" (e.g. sexually attractive): so, cute dogs, cute babies, etc., are outside the purview of discussion; I am interested in the scope of the term "cute" when applied to humans. I would further add that a speaker attributing cuteness to another would not have to be personally attracted to that person (e.g. one girl could call another "cute" without being lesbian) but would be claiming that the person/face/whatever has some degree of attractiveness/desirability to mating-type people.
With that added clarification, how do you use the word "cute" when functioning as a predicate adjective describing an attractive person? does it refer primarily to the face? The whole package? Something I have not considered?
posted by Leopoldtulip @ 10:24 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
For an intellectual, you sure are obsessed with cuteness (witness previous posts on the topic)....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yes, I see how I might seem obsessed. The way I see it, cuteness is in fact a subset of aesthetics; arguably, all Ph.D. in English literature types need to wrestle with questions of the essence of cuteness and art. Further, intellectuals are supposed to guard art to make sure it is not used as a tool for manipulation and propaganda--witness the anti-Semitic plays of Nazi Germany. So, in my earlier posts, I discussed the manipulative power of cuteness (e.g. how it often convinces people to leave comments on a blog) or how it might heighten suspense in a thriller (a ticking time-bomb). I feel, as an intellectual, that cuteness must be dissected, even if cute bunnies must not be.
I guess it is also interesting from a psychological point of view, since cuteness, just like the standards for beauty or ugliness, is a purely subjective idea. People argue all the time about the definition of beauty; why not cuteness?
Good point. There was a debate on the internet about a deformed "cyclops kitten" (1 eye, no nose). Some people couldn't stand looking at it, and others thought it was really cute.
Still, something in me is hesitant to say that cuteness is "purely subjective"--at least, I like to think that there can be fairly uniform consensus that certain things are objectively _not_ "cute" (a picture of someone shooting people, for instance).
I paraphrase from a Pearls Before Swine comic in which Pig has been sent on a scavenger hunt by a professor of Philosophy. Pig, holding a list: "Um, I've found the hammer and the book of matches, but I'm having trouble with Truth and Beauty."
My 2 cents: sometimes I use "cute" in the sense of OED def. 1, but also sarcastically, like when someone makes a bad pun or witty response, "Oh, you're cute." I never realized that there was an actual reason for that usage or that it did correspond to a real, live OED definition, I had just heard it around in the South. I also use "Oh, THAT's CUTE" when something is just REALLY not. As in when my 4 year old cousin teases my hair into some kind of mess, or when my friend Jenny puts on some outfit that she knows is heinous and asks my opinion.
So I'm not really helping, just complicating. And, in thinking about your post, I've learned something ELSE new today! YAY!
I'd also like to note that the blogger gods are reading my mind: my word verification was "ypigs," as if in prediction of my comment regarding Pig.
You said:
*...so, cute dogs, cute babies, etc., are outside the purview of discussion; I am interested in the scope of the term "cute" when applied to humans.*
Is a baby not human? If you prick it, doth it not bleed?
Perhaps "adults" would have been a better choice of word. Or PERHAPS you're a closet eugenicist? Hmmm.....
____
I do agree that cuteness is not entirely subjective. Much like I argued that the term "art" cannot be applied to anything the heart desires. There is a subjective standard to aesthetics. The universe does contain a great deal of absolutes. I am reminded of a statement that I oftimes hear from the mouths of so-called intellectuals: "Everything is subjective, there are no absolutes."
Oh. Absolutely none?
Oops, I can't believe my "babies aren't human" mistake. And after I said intellectuals were supposed to safeguard against Nazism...Touche.
I should have included the OED definitions. Definition 1 is "Acute, clever, keen-witted, sharp, shrewd." Definition 2 is with "the sense ‘attractive, pretty, charming’; also, 'attractive in a mannered way.'"
I wonder if sometimes we use the word "subjective" when we really just mean "uninformed" (there is a difference). For instance, I could imagine someone unfamiliar with vultures thinking the animal looked cute, especially if it came up close to the person (maybe it's a "rescue vulture!"). Informed people might not have the same response, given that they know vultures hang out with people they hope to eat soon. (I realize, like the cyclops kitty, I am using "cute" not in the physically attractive sense my post focused on.) Anyway, such a disagreement would stem not so much from the subjectivity of two individuals as from a difference in their outside knowledge.
Erp... I too must acknowledge a mistake. Although perhaps I could explain it away as tiredness, I won't. I'll just say that I mis-typed.
When I said "There is a subjective standard to aesthetics.", I meant to say "There is AN OBJECTIVE standard to aesthetics." That is, aesthetics is often defined as entirely subjective, and I disagree. Thus my reference to the idiotic statement "There are (absolutely) no absolutes." Rather akin to saying "None of the red crayons are red.", or, "I'm a lifetime college student who is well-versed in the realities of everyday life." (Okay, that's below the belt, but it's funny from my point of view.)
You tell it sister!
True feminine liberation is not about women being free to act like men. True feminine liberation is about women being appreciated for who they are.
Besides, men are boors. Who the heck wants to be a boor? (Especially after all those wars in South Africa with the English and the Dutch and whatnot. Goodness.)
Women should be trying to raise men to a higher level, instead of stooping to the lowest common denominator. I could go on for hours, but I won't.
Post a Comment
<< Home