What Do We Actually Gain From Exclaiming Eurocentric Featurism? Quickly.

With the rise of cosmetic surgery, the talk of female beauty standards resounds within our daily conversations more than ever. Simultaneously, the battle of debunking [Eurocentric] beauty standards pervades. To be a woman is to perform. So perform, we do.

Particularly for women of colour, society instructs us to practice consciousness of when we desire features seen commonly in our European counterparts. That desired feature has been subliminally shaped through white supremacy – beauty in the eye of the coloniser. Now, I do a double-take whenever I prefer someone else’s features to mine. What about all the women I find beautiful that aren’t white? How do you explain that?

Eurocentric Features

‘Eurocentric features’ is a term used to describe physical features that resemble those of Europeans. The sentiment is that everyone subconsciously views these features as inherently more attractive. For example, these features include large, deep-set eyes, light brown or blonde hair, and a tall button nose. These are a few examples that immediately come to mind. The cognisance of this phenomenon is pioneered by American racial discourse. It has liberated many individuals from internalised racial inferiority. However, the globalisation of Americanism can be extremely dangerous and divisive.

Anok Yai was at the centre of the featurism discourse several months back. People claimed the South Sudanese model had Eurocentric features despite her full lips, upturned eyes and flat nose. Consequently, these pseudo-think pieces by holier-than-thou social justice warriors sought to diminish her success as an ethnic woman. Many of these people think of themselves as enlightened and liberated. Yet, they fail to realise their projection reinforces internalised racial inferiority. Suffice it to say that Anok Yai’s reaction to these claims back in August was fair. Eurocentric my ass. EASTERN F****** AFRICAN.

The speedy exclamations that white supremacy creates beauty standards are incredibly lazy. It lacks nuance, foregoing the millennia of anthropology that has shaped them. Many beauty standards exist today as a result of a nexus of classism, capitalism, environment, biology, ethnic homogeneity, perceived rarity and much more.

Eurocentric: If only we knew better

The infiltration of American theories into the rest of the world greatly curtails fruitful conversations about beauty standards. It is quite insulting to claim Europeans have successfully bewitched the world into thinking they are the epitome of beauty. It is as if no one is capable of knowing better or having agency in thought. Moreover, it is frustrating now that we apparently know better; we hurl these words at fellow women of colour to disparage them. It’s probably for no reason other than to pacify our feelings of inadequacy.

These newfound explanations of beauty are pigeonholed by America’s unique and racially charged history. Yet their dominance in media, unfortunately, foregrounds the proliferation of these theories worldwide.

The term Eurocentric features would never be used on a white person anyway, would it? That would just be stating the obvious. Despite its intention to relieve people of colour, it seems so clear how myopic it was of us not to foresee the division it would go on to create.

Vague words are being thrown around by people to see what sticks. Much of it fuels the racial and colourist divide, and it is particularly rife between women. Is anything productive actually coming out of these conversations? Or are we feigning dialogue?

Where is the conversation going?

To be honest, someone should give credit to the West for its introspective and progressive conversations about beauty standards and gender expectations led by people of colour. In the liberal West, femininity is no longer explained in tandem with men or masculinity. Glamourising coquette in the West is now a reclamation of feminine power, whilst the coquettish hyperfeminity sought in the East, for example, echoes what once existed here. Its rapid globalisation brought forth conversations challenging Eurocentric beauty standards because it is no longer monoethnic, unlike many other countries.

Such cognisance comes with hypervigilance embedded in conversations concerning the female experience—an internal policing of thought and action at every intersection of womanhood. An omniscient phantom of anxiety looming, worried that women have forgotten or will forget the rigid conditions in which they live and have lived. That feminism will regress if our deformed desires are not signposted. Sometimes, it feels like these people want to be the righteous ones in the room. I have been guilty of it.

Turning On Each Other

I mourn, unsure if any choices we have made as women [of colour] have been conscious, imbued with agency and safe from deformed desire. When we use the term eurocentric featurism on fellow women of colour, are we making an observation, a generalisation, or an accusation? I fear our intellectualising, dissecting, and scrutinising may [sometimes] be more reflective of our desire for validation rather than a testament to us living our truth.

I write this article knowing many will disagree and anxious someone will take it wrong. The Western world is trapped in mass psychosis about identity politics. In doing so, we have found differences even in those who share our skin, culture, gender, and politics. What an incredible feat.

I’m not convinced any of this is about liberation anymore. If it was, why does it still come at such a cost?