Beauty standards have always fluctuated, but we are entering a new era where they are being rewritten at the genetic level. As cosmetic procedures veer into bioengineering, the line between self-improvement and self-erasure continues to blur. The pursuit of perfection is no longer just about aesthetics — it’s about eliminating difference itself.
We may all be accustomed to rhinoplasties, Brazilian butt lifts (BBLs) and tummy tucks, but the latest surge of new cosmetic procedures signals something more troubling. One of the most extreme is keratopigmentation, a procedure that injects a colored pigment into the cornea to permanently change eye color. Initially intended to restore “severely impaired eyes,” the surgery has recently gained traction in the cosmetic realm. Despite the $12,000 price tag and risk of vision loss, many patients express minimal hesitation to get the surgery.
There’s something more sinister about a surgery like keratopigmentation, in comparison to a BBL. Keratopigmentation modifies our genetic code, rather than a part of our body we could change naturally if we did enough split squats in the gym. The procedure reflects a deeper insecurity with identity. It’s not just that we want other people to see us differently, but that to our core, we think our natural features are flawed.
Some may argue that altering appearance is a personal choice, and to an extent, it is. But the choice reflects an adherence to the Eurocentric beauty standards these surgeries reinforce. At Alexander Movshovich’s Kerato eye center in New York, 90 percent of clients have naturally dark-brown eyes and 60 percent of patients are Hispanic or Black.
The overwhelming preference for light-colored eyes is a rejection of human diversity in favor of an aesthetic ideal. Movshovich notes that Hispanic patients most commonly request honey gold and green eyes, Black patients favor green eyes and white patients favor blue eyes. This trend reflects the ways in which Western standards have infiltrated mass self-perception, particularly in communities of color.
Procedures like these unravel the work we have done as a society toward embracing difference. Skin lightening is already a common practice in many South Asian countries, where colorism remains entrenched. The desire for Eurocentric features shouldn’t be seen as a passing trend; rather, it’s a symptom of racialized beauty hierarchies that continue to persist.
It’s not hard to imagine a world where parents genetically engineer their unborn children’s features, from height to hair color, further entrenching exclusionary beauty ideals. Black and Brown communities have already spent decades healing from violence and discrimination, and their features continue to be systematically devalued.
In the early 2000s, American beauty standards seemingly shifted away from the European craze. Suddenly countless celebrities like Kylie Jenner and Iggy Azalea underwent cosmetic procedures specifically mimicking Black features. Once deemed unattractive by the white public, these features became acceptable via their incorporation into and appropriation of beauty standards.
Now, celebrities are getting their BBLs removed and lip injections dissolved. Biomedical advancements cater to a singular aesthetic ideal: one that cherry-picks certain non-Eurocentric features, just to discard them in due time. The message is clear: whiteness and beauty remain synonymous.
Widely used social media filters slim faces, slim noses, whiten faces and top it all off with a set of sparkly blue eyes. These digital enhancements normalize features only attainable through surgery, priming future generations to see extreme modification as a natural next step in the never-ending pursuit of beauty.
This desensitization to European cognitive imperialism isn’t just about filters and fillers — it extends into the realm of genetic engineering. CRISPR, a revolutionary gene-editing technology co-pioneered by Jennifer Doudna PO ’85, has the potential to cure genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. However, as with any powerful tool, misuse is inevitable.
What begins as a means to eradicate disease is also a gateway to “designer babies,” where wealth dictates access to genetic features, deepening social divides, reinforcing pre-existing hierarchies and reviving eugenic ideologies.
We must also think back to the principles of evolution: at its core, it thrives on genetic diversity. If we continue to accept the unattainable beauty standards drilled into our psyche, then we are spiraling into a grim fate.
Body modifications and surgeries have been around for thousands of years, and they aren’t going away any time soon. There will always be a new impossible standard of beauty. If we don’t break the cycle of homogenization, we may soon find ourselves living in a world where we engineer exclusionary beauty standards, watching ancestral features disappear and profit, not nature, drive evolution.
Zena Almeida-Warwin PO ’28 is on her self-improvement and beautification journey… natural style. Anna Yost PO ’28 is on a lifelong journey to embracing her natural beauty — no fillers, no Botox, just realness. She believes that the only things worth altering are your opinions, not your face.
Facebook Comments