Standards vs. Ideals

originally posted by chanelle johnson onthemodernfailure

Let us talk for a minute about the difference between a standard and an ideal. These two words are often, unfortunately and imprecisely,  used interchangeably despite their drastic difference in meaning. The genesis of the contemporary conflation of these two disparate concepts is unclear, but perhaps by defining and delineating the space between the them, we can shed some light on why (modern women especially) seem to equate the two.
Ideal: a level of perfection that exists only in the imagination; conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence; the idea of something that is perfect.[1]

Standard: a level of quality or excellence that is accepted as the norm; a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated. [2]

The “standard” that modern women tend to internalize is, in a majority of cases, thoroughly unrealistic and should be defined as an “ideal.” Ideals, bydefinition, can only be achieved or even approached by a small minority of those who strive to achieve them. If too many people begin to achieve the ideal, the ideal must change in order to maintain its “extraordinary nature.”[3] In fact, at the very foundations of Western philosophy, Platonic Idealism defines an “ideal” as a form which does not exist in this world, but only in the realm of ideas.[4] An ideal, therefore, is an abstract concept that allows us to identify the imperfect reflections of objects within the temporal sphere.
In the past, it was understood that an ideal was to be admired, but that we were to each attempt our personal best, that standard we had both the strength and ability to achieve. Modern culture has changed such that it requires individuals to target the ideal as their goal rather than the standard. Because the ideal is, by definition, unnatural, extremely difficult and potentially impossible to achieve, failure and disappointment are inevitable.[5]

Sound familiar?
Why is it that our culture encourages the internalization of the impossible?

Part of the answer, it seems, lies in the extreme democratization by which we conceptualize opportunity in America. That is, every child is raised with to believe he or she could be President, an astronaut, or a supermodel.  If, as it is presented to the American child, every person has the innate capability to be a supermodel-astronaut-president, then every adult has the moral obligation to achieve those goals. If an adult (who has internalized the opportunity/democracy dialogue) does not achieve the stratospheric goals, they fail because of their own weakness.
The “democratization of opportunity” can phenomenon can be encapsulated in an anecdote from one of my favorite people. She, the wonderful lovely feminist mother that she is, had raised her daughter by telling her that she “could be anything she wanted to be.” One day, her daughter, then three years old, came to her and asked:

“Mommy, I can be anything I want to be when I grow up, right?”

“Of course, honey,” she readily replied.

“Anything anything?”

“Yes, anything anything.”

“Okay…” he daughter paused for a moment, “well then can I be a shoe?”

Mom, of course, answered that she could.
Contrast this to the “British” conception of opportunity, as presented by Eddie Izzard in his comedy show “Dressed to Kill”:

English career counselor:
”Tell me, what do you want to be when you grow up?”

Student: “I want to be a space astronaut and discover things that have never been discovered before.”

Counselor: “You’re British, you should tone it down a bit.”

“Alright. I want to work in a shoe shop and discover shoes that have never been discovered before.”

“Tone it down a bit.”

“Alright. I want to work in a sewer and discover things in the sewer that have never been discovered before.”

Surely there is a happy medium.
The point is that modern women have internalized a multitude of ideals (physical, professional, maternal), and completely adopted them as the standard. We measure ourselves by impossible expectations, and judge ourselves failures when we do not achieve them.
Can we confront the democratization-lie? Not every woman can have six-pack abdominals. Not every woman can look like the woman on a magazine. Not every woman has the maternal instinct. Not every woman has the ability, or inclination, to be a doctor, lawyer or judge. Not every woman can have a fulfilling partnership with a significant other.
Nor do we have the moral obligation to do so.

---

[1] wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[2] wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[3] Saltzberg, E.A. & Chrisler, J.C. (1995) Beauty is the beast: Psychological effects of the pursuit of the perfect female body. In J. Freeman (Ed.) Women: A feminist perspective (5th ed., pp. 306-315). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield[4] Plato And The Theory Of Forms”, Tim Ruggiero, Philosophical Society, July 2002, webpage:PhilosophicalSociety-Forms[5] Freedman, R. (1988) Bodylove: Learning to like our looks- and ourselves. New York: Harper & Row.pictures from very interesting article about “The Ideal Female Body Through Time” http://www.babydoll.ws/2008/05/10/the-ideal-female-body-through-time/
Posted by Chanelle Johnson at 5:56 PM

visit themodernfailure.blogspot.com