I don’t read Frank’s post to identify “individual self-expression” as an emerging justification for cosmetic surgery. In the U.S. at least, I’d argue it has virtually always been a significant justification. As such, I’m not sure I agree that the trend Frank is writing about is away from conformity and to individuality; the Thomas Frank piece he cites is over a decade old.

And while your point that parents’ preferences that their children express themselves does not by itself justify selection is well-taken, I daresay that it tends to be extremely difficult for parents to separate out possible differences between what they deem best for their children and what their children as autonomous agents deem as best.

This matters because while parents may have little idea of whom their child wants to be, they have very definite ideas of whom they want their child to be, and it is these latter ideas that have been and continue to be played out in selection scenarios, much to the chagrin of disability rights advocates and other concerned stakeholders.

I tend to think it is important to identify which autonomous agent we are talking about here: an adult deciding what to undertake for him or herself, or the adult parents deciding what if any selective procedures to undertake on behalf of an unborn child. Concerns about the latter are hardly new, and, IMO, they are absolutely connected to “the terrible history of eugenics and selection.” Respectfully, then, I think the connection is there, and troubling.

Of course, this is not a slam on libertarianism per se. The libertarian can obviously claim, as I allowed above, that any given selection runs afoul of the harm principle. But in such cases it is often far from obvious whether harm is present, and in any case, the harm principle is not at all the rationale given by disability studies’ scholars and disability rights’ advocates for their concern.

Obviously it’s possible that I’m misreading him, but the first several paragraphs of Frank’s post appear to focus on an emerging justification for cosmetic surgery: individual self-expression. Meaning that the trend is AWAY from conformity. Autonomy concerns are only half of the picture, and not the half I was discussing.

It’s hard to see how this motivation would lead parents to change anything about their children-to-be — after all, they don’t yet know who the child wants to be. But if they want to foster self-expression, it makes more sense that they’d try to give the kid a more distinctive self.

There are plenty of other reasons parents want intelligent kids; duh. But a vague invocation of “the terrible history of eugenics and selection” does nothing to connect the first phenomenon (cosmetic surgery in pursuit of self-expression) with the “nightmare scenario” above.

C writes:

The natural outgrowth of “steamrollering” libertarianism and self-assertion doesn’t seem to be giving the unborn straight noses and test-taking ability. More likely, parents would want their children to have something unique, like pink eyes or accordion prowess.

The first sentence strikes me as an assertion. The kind of libertarianism run amok that Frank seems concerned with risks virtually any kind of (available) cosmetic procedure that is not illegal, does not harm another, and that comports with the parents’ individual preferences. Of course, as the dispute over the Ashley Treatment makes clear, it is far from obvious what the appropriate boundary is between cosmetic and therapeutic procedures, and the epistemic issue relating to harm is also relevant.

Nevertheless, in a culture that lionizes individual autonomy so much, I don’t think it’s too much Chicken Little-ing to point out some of the potential downsides of that norm as to cosmetic surgery. I also don’t really understand why C maintains that parents’ wishing to select for test-taking ability is not a natural outgrowth of the individualist ethos in the U.S. — parents spent ungodly resources on assuring just that. The terrible history of eugenics and selection esp. regarding disabled persons is not, IMO, just an historical artificact.

2L writes,

Pasquale ignores the extent to which social status has always depended on allure and beauty. Does he think beauty was any less a social indicia 200, 500, or 1000 years ago?

I tend to think Frank would agree with you. What does that have to do with the risks posed in this particular culture by prioritizing individual autonomy above virtually all other values? Beauty may have virtually always been an important marker of status and culture, but in many cultures the collectivist impulse was much, much stronger, which may present a defensible reason for contending that our own issues with aesthetics and beauty are not identical to those of other cultures.

There is no one notion of what it is to look good. Instead we see a plurality of aesthetic preferences.

Indeed, and a culture that prioritizes individual preferences will enable resources to be spent on whatever aesthetics the individual prefers. Right?

And contrary to what Pasquale post suggests, market forces make it increasingly cheaper to become glamorous. Contrast the price and availability of makeup and fitness equipment now and 20 years ago. Through the globalization of textile manufacturing, lower and middle income persons have access to clothing that would have been unreachable a few decades earlier.

Finally, as Virginia Postrel’s The Substance of Style suggests, because the market provides more access to beautification options, the notion of “beauty” has become multifarious. There is no one notion of what it is to look good. Instead we see a plurality of aesthetic preferences. That allows people to pursue their authentic self-images, instead of the leveled conformity they might have had in the market’s absence.

Even if this weren’t silly on its own, it would be hard to see how it squares with your concern that too much emphasis is placed on individuality. The natural outgrowth of “steamrollering” libertarianism and self-assertion doesn’t seem to be giving the unborn straight noses and test-taking ability. More likely, parents would want their children to have something unique, like pink eyes or accordion prowess.

I’m not sure you can fret in both directions at once.