So you see, this debate isn’t just about commercials and cosmetics, it’s about determining what’s the appropriate relationship between the mind and the body. Are we more fully realized when we minimize the physical part of our natures? And that, you have to agree, is a profound question.
Joseph Weingartner:
After calliagnosia was discovered, some researchers wondered if it might be possible to create an analogous condition that rendered the subject blind to race or ethnicity. They’ve made a number of attempts—impairing various levels of category discrimination in tandem with face recognition, that sort of thing—but the resulting deficits were always unsatisfactory. Usually the test subjects would simply be unable to distinguish similar-looking individuals. One test actually produced a benign variant of Fregoli syndrome, causing the subject to mistake every person he met for a family member. Unfortunately, treating everyone like a brother isn’t desirable in so literal a sense.
When neurostat treatments for problems like compulsive behavior entered widespread use, a lot of people thought that “mind programming” was finally here. People asked their doctors if they could get the same sexual tastes as their spouses. Media pundits worried about the possibility of programming loyalty to a government or corporation, or belief in an ideology or religion.
The fact is, we have no access to the contents of anyone’s thoughts. We can shape broad aspects of personality, we can make changes consistent with the natural specialization of the brain, but these are extremely coarse-grained adjustments. There’s no neural pathway that specifically handles resentment toward immigrants, any more than there’s one for Marxist doctrine or foot fetishism. If we ever get true mind programming, we’ll be able to create “race blindness,” but until then, education is our best hope.
Tamera Lyons:
I had an interesting class today. In History of Ideas, we’ve got this T.A., he’s named Anton, and he was saying how a lot of words we use to describe an attractive person used to be words for magic. Like the word “charm” originally meant a magic spell, and the word “glamour” did, too. And it’s just blatant with words like “enchanting” and “spellbinding.” And when he said that, I thought, yeah, that’s what it’s like: seeing a really good-looking person is like having a magic spell cast over you.
And Anton was saying how one of the primary uses of magic was to create love and desire in someone. And that makes total sense, too, when you think about those words “charm” and “glamour.” Because seeing beauty feels like love. You feel like you’ve got a crush on a really good-looking person, just by looking at them.
That made me think that maybe there’s a way I can get back together with Garrett. Because if Garrett didn’t have calli, maybe he’d fall in love with me again. Remember how I said before that maybe calli was what let us get together? Well, maybe calli is actually what’s keeping us apart now. Maybe Garrett would want to get back with me if he saw what I really looked like.
Garrett turned eighteen during the summer, but he never got his calli turned off because he didn’t think it was a big deal. He goes to Northrop now. So I called him up, just as a friend, and when we were talking about stuff, I asked him what he thought about the calli initiative here at Pembleton. He said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about, and then I told him how much I liked not having calli anymore, and said he ought to try it, so he could judge both sides. He said that made sense. I didn’t make a big deal out of it, but I was stoked.
Daniel Taglia, professor of comparative literature at Pembleton:
The student initiative doesn’t apply to faculty, but obviously if it passes there’ll be pressure on the faculty to adopt calliagnosia as well. So I don’t consider it premature for me to say that I’m adamantly opposed to it.
This is just the latest example of political correctness run amok. The people advocating calli are well-intentioned, but what they’re doing is infantilizing us. The very notion that beauty is something we need to be protected from is insulting. Next thing you know, a student organization will insist we all adopt music agnosia, so we don’t feel bad about ourselves when we hear gifted singers or musicians.
When you watch Olympic athletes in competition, does your self-esteem plummet? Of course not. On the contrary, you feel wonder and admiration; you’re inspired that such exceptional individuals exist. So why can’t we feel the same way about beauty? Feminism would have us apologize for having that reaction. It wants to replace aesthetics with politics, and to the extent it’s succeeded, it’s impoverished us.
Being in the presence of a world-class beauty can be as thrilling as listening to a world-class soprano. Gifted individuals aren’t the only ones who benefit from their gifts; we all do. Or, I should say, we all can. Depriving ourselves of that opportunity would be a crime.
Commercial paid for by People for Ethical Nanomedicine:
Voiceover: Have your friends been telling you that calli is cool, that it’s the smart thing to do? Then maybe you should talk to people who grew up with calli.
“After I got my calli turned off, I recoiled the first time I met an unattractive person. I knew it was silly, but I just couldn’t help myself. Calli didn’t help make me mature, itkept me from becoming mature. I had to relearn how to interact with people.”
“I went to school to be a graphic artist. I worked day and night, but I never got anywhere with it. My teacher said I didn’t have the eye for it, that calli had stunted me aesthetically. There’s no way I can get back what I’ve lost.”
“Having calli was like having my parents inside my head, censoring my thoughts. Now that I’ve had it turned off, I realize just what kind of abuse I’d been living with.”Voiceover : If the people who grew up with calliagnosia don’t recommend it, shouldn’t that tell you something?
They didn’t have a choice, but you do. Brain damage is never a good idea, no matter what your friends say.
Maria deSouza:
We’d never heard of the People for Ethical Nanomedicine, so we did some research on them. It took some digging, but it turns out it’s not a grassroots organization at all, it’s an industry PR front. A bunch of cosmetics companies got together recently and created it. We haven’t been able to contact the people who appear in the commercial, so we don’t know how much, if any, of what they said was true. Even if they were being honest, they certainly aren’t typical; most people who get their calli turned off feel fine about it. And there are definitely graphic artists who grew up with calli.
It kind of reminds me of an ad I saw a while back, put out by a modeling agency when the calli movement was just getting started. It was just a picture of a supermodel’s face, with a caption: “If you no longer saw her as beautiful, whose loss would it be? Hers, or yours?” This new campaign has the same message, basically saying, “you’ll be sorry,” but instead of taking that cocky attitude, it has more of a concerned-warning tone. This is classic PR: hide behind a nice-sounding name, and create the impression of a third party looking out for the consumer’s interests.
Tamera Lyons:
I thought that commercial was totally idiotic. It’s not like I’m in favor of the initiative—I don’t want people to vote for it—but people shouldn’t vote against it for the wrong reason. Growing up with calli isn’t crippling. There’s no reason for anyone to feel sorry for me or anything. I’m dealing with it fine. And that’s why I think people ought to vote against the initiative:because seeing beauty is fine.