Dr. Guy
English 3010
5/2/2011
Augustinian Neo-Platonism’s influence on Christian Archetypes of Beauty, Modern Consequences, and a Feminist Post-Structural Dismissal
On April 23rd, 1989, the TV series Baywatch premiered and was quickly latched on to by men around the world. It was hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, movies and television shows had been showcasing beautiful men and women as archetypal in nature since their inception and they continue to do so. This has been done with much economic success. Men and, in particular, women have anxiously tried to mimic the fashion and body image of actors, models, and socialites in order to satisfy a cultural standard for years. Some would argue that the media is responsible as it does serve as a medium which emphasizes the cultural norms and perpetuates the problem even more. It is complicit in helping create these physical archetypes which men and women strive to replicate. I would agree to some extent but I believe this is the result of a more longstanding issue.
Western culture, whether some would admit it or not, has been and is greatly shaped by a history associated with Christianity. But though Christianity has shaped our Western culture, modern Christian thought is hardly wholly orthodox and restorative. It isn’t focused on early church theology alone but is constantly seeking to discover new meaning and truth. At what point did Christian theology shift to being so entrenched in a doctrine of perfection that it extends well beyond Christ himself? What helped to shape early Christian thought and what changed the way we perceive perfection and, in turn, physical beauty? I believe that the answer is found in an ideology which began long before contemporary or even “orthodox” Christian thought.
It began about four hundred years before Christ when Plato was developing the Theory of Forms. The theory is based on his “Allegory of the Cave” in which a group of people are trapped in a cave and can only understand the movements of objects behind them by seeing the objects’ shadows cast by a fire onto the cave wall. The people chained in the cave begin to create designations for the different shadows they see, not understanding that the real objects are actually out their view. Plato contends that this is quite similar to how we understand reality. The objects that we see in our everyday lives are mere representations of metaphysical archetypes which are not necessarily material, but substantive nonetheless. The archetypes, like the objects whose shadows are cast, are not visible to us as we have a shallow, fickle understanding of their nature because of the limited way (the shadows) in which we (the people chained in the cave) are able to perceive them (Plato). This concept of perfect metaphysical archetypes was carried on by Plato’s students in the Academy. It can be traced down through these students, and shown to reemerge with new vigor as Neo-Platonism in the 3rd century AD.
One hardly has to look to discover that Christianity and Neo-Platonism indubitably influenced one another. This has to do with geography as well as with the similarities between the two. Between 54 and 57 AD, Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church in Greece from Ephesus - modern day West Turkey (The First Letter to the Corinthians). The church at Antioch, southeast of Ephesus, was the first place where those who followed Christ were called Christians. Greece was just across the Aegean Sea from what was truly the epicenter of Christianity’s outward movement. Christianity’s spread over this entire geographical region ensured that early Greek thought and Christian idealism would be intermingled and there is little controversy over this fact. Thus, as Plato’s Academy was open until 529 AD (Sedley), his Theory of Forms and Christianity’s emphasis on perfection were certain to be compared and, to some degree, have an influence on one another. While there were minor scholars and theologists who found similarities between the two prior to his time, the most obvious example of Neo-Platonism and Christianity coming together to form a coherent theology can be found in one of the great 4th and 5th century theologists, St. Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine, the author of City of God and Confessions, is one of the most cited early Christian theologists and is widely considered to be one of the most prominent influences on Christian thought even to this day. He was also a Neo-Platonist prior to his conversion in 386 AD (Asiedu). Though there were some minor differences between Platonism and Neo-Platonism, Plotinus , one of Augustine’s main influences and the man often considered the “founder” of Neo-Platonism, sought to reconcile the Theory of Forms with some of his contemporaries’ objections, and is widely considered to have done so. Thus, the Neo-Platonism which Augustine subscribed too not only maintained a belief in Forms, but was also deeply influenced by a scholar whose interest in Forms was far from passing (Augustine).
In City of God, Augustine argues that many aspects of Platonism fit well within the confines of Christianity, and that the similarities between Platonic theology and Christian worship indicate an overarching theology which is validated by similar reasoning. He took this as evidence that the great thinkers of the time relied on similar ideologies and that Plato and his followers, given the chance, may have been accepting of Christianity themselves. Augustine believed that Plato found the attributes of the Christian God to be intellectually honest and viable (before his time) and also believed that Plato’s theology easily fell in line with Biblical theology given a few small changes. Specifically, he believed that Forms existed in the mind of God, but more willingly related them as perfect “ideas” (The Medieval Problem of Universals). For example, the archetypal chair does not exist in some sort of ethereal world as Plato may have believed, but the archetypal idea of a chair exists, instead, in the mind of God. It was not exactly as Plato had written, yet this satisfied Plato’s notion that Forms were not necessarily material, but substantive nonetheless.
Augustine seemed to believe that there was a perfect state for everything and this state was governed by the perfect mind of God. His ideas on Universals present the idea of perfection into Christian theology in a way that seemed to be in line with classical New Testament theology and satisfied the intellectual foundation upon which much early Greek thought was based. However, it also put a new emphasis on God having perfect archetypes for everything in mind. In other words, this extends beyond Christ being a perfect sacrifice and moral behavior being right or wrong and implies that God has a perfect end in mind for every physical thing, whether it is a human or a rock – living thing or inorganic matter. Whether or not Christianity was overstepping its bounds, if accepted, this new ideology was sure to become a part of the culture because of how it affects every interaction that God has with his creation. Judging by Augustine’s ever-present influence on the church and its theology, Christianity was bound to undergo a transformation which was clearly influenced by the adoption of Platonic ideals in some sense.
Sure enough, this type of theology, whether true or not, has continued to be a part of Christian theology in the West for the past 1500 years. It has carried over into Christian eschatology in the idea of a perfect New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21:1) as well as into an understanding of God’s character as well as His trinitarian nature (Holy Bible ). This can most obviously be seen in how the character of Christ is viewed by almost all sects within modern Christianity. Jesus is seen as the archetypal human being as he was God and could conform to the idea of perfection. The idea that he was sinless is a cornerstone of Christian theology as, by that theology, he is the only acceptable sacrifice to save man from his sins. This is because a perfect God demands a perfect and flawless sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10-14) (Holy Bible ). Furthermore, his life is seen as an example to Christendom as the perfect way to live. So, whether by explicit influence or by coincidental implication, the archetypes which are so prevalent in Plato’s Theory of Forms are seen as absolutely essential to Christian theology. In fact, some Christian denominations have adopted this idea in a way which I don’t believe St. Augustine even expected.
See, interestingly enough, this emphasis on perfection has moved from the realm of mere religious doctrine into the realm of Christian belief concerning physiology and health. Much of Christendom subscribes to the belief that Christians will be glorified, as Christ was, in a post-resurrection body which is essentially perfect. While this is supported by ancient texts, this type of theology has been taken out of its context and it’s now assumed that God wants his people to be “healthy and wealthy” in the state that they are currently in. In effect, God has an archetypal body in mind for us to strive for because these post-resurrection bodies are perfect ideal bodies. This theology has been perpetuated by American megachurch preachers like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer who are proponents of the prosperity Gospel and insist that if Christians are simply thinking the “right thoughts”, then they will overcome adversity and always be in good health and good financial standing (Tangelder). In other words, there is not only a standard of “right thoughts” but there is a standard for health and wellness. According to the prosperity gospel, if Christians are meditating on what God desires, then their thoughts will mimic His and they will, themselves, seek after His archetypal designs.
Maybe the reference to Baywatch earlier did not seem relevant to Christian theology. Shows like Baywatch have established a singularity upon which beauty is judged. Even though the irony is that this standard is constantly shifting, Americans have gravitated towards these standards because there is an underlying belief that physical perfection is possible where we are now – or at least striving for it is. With 76% of Americans identifying themselves as Christian as recently as 2008 (Kosmin and Keysar), I don’t think that it’s a stretch to say that America’s emphasis on perfection stems from a theological system whose most basic foundation is entrenched in a doctrine of perfection. With the emphasis on being healthy outlined by adherents of the prosperity gospel, the major cultural standards for beauty have become something which are unspoken indicators of success and wellness within the American cultural landscape. This creates a binary in which it is implied that there are those who are blessed with beauty and health and those who are not. Those that are not blessed with beauty seek it out in whatever way they can. This includes methods of transformation which are not natural, but which create a façade of beauty deemed acceptable by the hegemonic power created by the aforementioned actors, models and socialites as well as those who dictate the tenets of the prosperity gospel.
There are many ways in which people may try to satisfy their need to fit into this binary. For example, someone may try to change their appearance by using makeup, trying a new hairstyle, or adopting a new sense of fashion. However, there is one way which may be considered more extreme, or at least more costly and work-intensive, than the others. This is the practice of cosmetic surgery. This practice is more common among women, but is definitely used by all sorts of people, regardless of biological sex. Cosmetic surgery can include liposuction, breast augmentation, botox injections, or any number of surgeries used to improve one’s physical appearance. Though this can be done to get rid of the physical results of an accident or to help someone’s body to function more efficiently, the primary reason people undergo this type of surgery is to make their body image fit better within the confines of social life. This practice indicates that there is a point at which one can reach “beauty” and creates a binary where there is beauty and a lack beauty.
This is where the foundational teachings of post-structuralism as well as the new wave of feminism which it inspired have grounds for approaching this ideology with an enthusiastic skepticism. It questions the foundational assumptions upon which “improving” one’s physical appearance rests. Post-structuralism is an ideology or perhaps better understood as a fundamental lack of ideology which is hard to define adequately. However, its main emphasis is on ridding the culture of the unnecessary bifurcation of any number of issues and understanding that everything is fundamentally subjective. Proponents of post-structuralism believe that everything we engage in and every situation we find ourselves in is run through our own perception filter which is based on our culture and environment and that this filter is inescapable. There is, therefore, no objective view of the world which can be successfully argued regardless of whether or not an objective truth exists. They argue that the binaries which our society creates are responsible for creating oppression for the adherents as well as those who do not feel as if they fit strictly within the confines of these binaries.
The renowned feminist theorist Judith Butler expounds upon this argument by insisting that gender and sexuality have been relegated to falling within the confines of cultural boundaries as well and that a gender binary is oppressive and creates unnecessary duplexes which people are subject to. She believes that these boundaries are inadequate and do not properly explain human behavior. This emphasis on ridding the world of unnecessary binaries can be applied to almost any topic, not just feminism because human behavior is, in fact, so variable. The capitalism which identifies our free mark culture relies on creating products and services which are meant to create a better or worse person and/or life. I think Butler’s understanding of sexuality is applicable to most any topic which threatens to make life “better” or “worse” and this is certainly applicable to the culture and purpose behind the presumption that one can “better” one’s physical appearance as well.
I believe that a critique of a Western definition of beauty based in Butler’s post-structural feminism is the “best” way to understand the fundamental flaws in the way we perceive that beauty. I believe that a look at post-structuralism is integral in order to understand some of the binaries which our history of emphasizing perfection creates. It also serves to emphasize the common ground and methods of criticism which both Butler’s feminism and post-structuralism utilize. The first major binary that needs to be addressed is the dichotomy drawn between perfection and imperfection as it relates to beauty. This may be more properly understood if perfection is akin to beauty and imperfection is to lack-of-beauty. The second binary, which I believe is the more pressing issue is the distinction being made between a good life and a bad life which is implied in the perfect and imperfect binary and the “good life” promised by proponents of the prosperity gospel.
Judith Butler wrote in Gender Trouble that “’female” no longer appears to be a stable notion, its meaning is as troubled and unfixed as “women’” (Butler). I believe that using this idea as a basis for a critique, we can find the trouble with trying to construct an objective definition of beauty and we can come to understand beauty’s ultimately arbitrary and subjective nature. When Butler states that “’female” no longer appears to be stable”, what she is really saying is that the cultural norms have shifted just enough that people are starting to question the foundational assumptions of what it means to be female and whether or not there is truly a definition to be found. In the same way that Butler questions this foundational assumption, we can question the problem of finding a singular definition of what it means to be beautiful.
Our foundation in Augustinian Christian theology has presented us with an assumption that there is a physical perfection to be reached. Similarly, the filter of the American cultural hegemony has led us to believe that this physical perfection is reached in some sense by becoming beautiful and healthy . Unfortunately, this does not provide a means for deciding what is beautiful and what is not. This leads to a fundamental question which is: what is beauty? This question creates even more problems when looked at from a feminist perspective. If God has an archetypal body in mind, then there must be an archetypal male and an archetypal female. But with Butler’s emphasis in Gender Trouble on the fact that “female” no longer has a stable definition, this too becomes a problematic and oppressive assumption. It ignores the undeniable fact that perception varies between individuals and creates another gender binary: attractive female vs unattractive female. There is an underlying assumption that beauty is determined by various features. On a woman, having larger breasts, a flat stomach, a more prominent buttox, bigger lips, or no wrinkles is often considered to be a sign of youth and beauty. However, though there may be a cultural standard, this does not show that the binary is absolutely true for absolutely everyone. This is the point which Butler takes issue with the most. That is that boundaries are imposed on everyone to ensure a cultural stability.
But in a culture that has so many diverse subcultures, this definitional problem is starting to become, just as in Butler’s case, old hat. The problem is that this standardization is obviously misplaced by a culture that so readily proclaims the adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Butler’s rejection of femininity’s rigidity is the exact same rejection that is to occur in this case. Here, the binary between beauty and “lack thereof” which is propagated by the hegemonic power is at odds with American cultural practice. There is a fashion sense which is purported to be in style, or attractive. There are physical characteristics which are also purported to be more attractive – yet this in direct contradiction to one of the major cultural assumptions about the role of beauty in the individual’s life. So which is it? Examining these types of questions leads to a further questioning of the nature of this hegemonic power and presents new ways of understanding what the hegemony truly is.
Those that address these problems can begin to see the boat rocking and the fundamental assumption that beauty can be objectified is exposed as propaganda sold by members of a capitalist society that, quite simply, want the cash. So when the hegemonic powers use their spheres of influence in order to proclaim that something is or is not objectively beautiful and women scramble to meet that standardization, there is an element of inconsistency within the culture – is beauty objective or subjective? Furthermore, the idea that beauty is “objectified” by this hegemony is a misnomer as well. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then the determinacy of beauty is then moved from the cultural hegemony to the spectator.
But this creates a further binary which is fundamentally flawed. This ruling class is really composed of individuals who, as feminism and post-structuralism state, are subject to the biases of their own perception. This is to say that even if the members of this alleged hegemony do have a dominant cultural voice, all they have is a speaking platform and mechanisms of control which other members of the culture do not have access to. There is a proposed objective beauty which the hegemonic forces espouse but it is no more objective than the opinion of anyone else that is a member of the same cultural landscape and is subject to the same amount of skepticism that anyone else’s own subjective perception is. There is no objective perception, and thus the true point of this paper is realized. Any claim to understand what objective beauty is flawed because this statement is directly informed by someone’s personal perception. This is true whether or not the predominant influence is the media, a text, or merely the people that one surrounds oneself with. All binary statements which suppose that they have sufficiently covered all their bases are, in reality, unrepresentative of a diverse, complex humanity.
Understanding this, we are more able to fully attack the presuppositions of the second binary I noted earlier – the idea that physical well-being (and culturally-implied beauty) as well as wealth implies a good life. In 2004, Joel Osteen wrote a bestselling book entitled Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. This book promises Christians that God wants them to have money and health and live in the satisfaction of having these “promises.” As preacher of Lakewood Church in Houston, Osteen preaches the message of the prosperity gospel to a congregation of at least 30,000 every Sunday and is broadcast around the world to as many as 7 million viewers weekly (Duin). In this sense, we can see that Osteen and other proponents of the prosperity gospel are members of a hegemonic power (within the Christian community) and try to establish a normative behavior and acceptance of ideals within that community. Those in the community who hold a minority status, in this case a different theology yet an equally valid perception of Christianity, are almost intercultural subalterns. They do not have the means, as the minority, to overcome the dominant hegemonic powers of the culture and their own voice is ignored.
As noted before, this establishment of normative behavior as “right”, or in this case “your best”, is also flawed in that it assumes a binary in which others, other than Osteen himself, are subjected to a social power which has decided what is good or bad. In Osteen’s view, making money and being healthy are absolutely normative “goods” while poverty and sickness are not. In essence, they are “bad” because Osteen has tried to establish proof that these are the archetypes/ideas/forms for human living which come from the mind of God. Per the earlier discussion of binaries, this assumption must be rejected. Butler would argue that this binary and all other establishments of normality are used to create boundaries which, in their own time, establish a kind of cultural stability which has more to do with comfort than reality or “reality”.
Butler would reject the idea outright from a post-structural, feminist perspective because of the mere fact that it divides a complex cultural idea into an overly-simplified binary. This binary, which purports to understand what everyone views as “the best” is unrepresentative of others within the culture and must be rejected. She would also note that there are those who do not desire health as well as those who do not desire wealth – and it is likely that there are some that desire neither. On one hand, there are many “Christian Anarchists” who often engage in a form of anarcho-primitivism where material possessions (including money) are eschewed. They often intentionally live in impoverished communities together and view their lifestyle as a way of practicing The Golden Rule and taking the words of Christ himself very literally (giving all possessions to the poor [Matthew 19:21]) (Holy Bible ). This is in direct contradiction to Osteen’s presumption that wealth is one of “the best” things that can happen to anyone and this lifestyle is practiced by those who adhere to the same holy text as Osteen himself. They just see the same text through a different lens.
In another, more extreme, example, there are those (mostly in the homosexual circles) that call themselves bug chasers. While they have various reasons for participating in this activity, many of them engage in a type of “adventure” where they try to contract diseases through different means – most of the time engaging in unprotected anal intercourse in order to contract HIV. These people obviously do not desire the same type of health that Osteen does and it is likely that many of them do not even view health in the same way. Once again, Osteen’s binaries do not suffice to address the practice of the culture and are insufficient to determine what is “best” for the culture at large.
So, Platonism and Neo-Platonism have drastically affected the way in which we perceive beauty in the West. The Neo-Platonism of early church fathers such as St. Augustine introduced Forms into Christian theology in a way which still, to this day, is understood as foundational to the practice of Christianity. By introducing a Forms-based theology where God’s thoughts are the ideal even regarding amoral issues, Augustinian Neo-Platonism introduced a theology where it can inferred (if one tries) that there is an archetype for beauty and health. This theology has been used by the hegemonic forces within American Christianity to imply that there are binaries regarding the physiological condition which people are supposed to strive for. Judith Butler’s post-structuralist-informed feminist deconstruction of gender easily parallels a deconstruction of what beauty truly is and recognizes that these binaries are not representative of everyone and are solely the perception of those who espouse to know what is “best”. For this reason, the “objective” binary must be rejected because it is, at its heart, subjective regardless of whether or not there exists an ultimate objectivity beyond human perception.
Works Cited
Asiedu, F.B.A. "Following the Example of a Woman: Augustine's Conversion to Christianity in 386." Vigiliae Christianae (2003): 276-306.
Augustine, St. "Christian Worship Contrasted with Platonic Theology." Augustine, St. City of God. New York: Doubleday, 1958. 186-204.
Butler, Judith. "From Gender Trouble." Leitch, Vincent B., et al. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 2540-2553.
Duin, Julia. "Joel Osteen’s still the name leaders know." 5 September 2008. The Washington Times. 6 May 2011
Holy Bible . Tuscaloosa: Inspirational Gift Company, 2003.
Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar. "American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008)." March 2009. Trinity College. 5 May 2011
Plato. "From Book VII." Leitch, Vincent B., et al. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 60-64.
Sedley, David. "Review: The End of the Academy." Phronesis (1981): 67-75.
Tangelder, Johan D. "Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living Your Full Potential." 2004. Reformed Reflections. 5 May 2011
The First Letter to the Corinthians. 5 May 2011
"The Medieval Problem of Universals." 19 March 2008. Stanford. 4 May 2011
