Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 953–966 | Cite as

Through the looking glass: good looks and dignity in care

Scientific Contribution


There are roughly two meanings attached to the concept of dignity: humanitas and dignitas. Humanitas refers to ethical and juridical notions of equality, autonomy and freedom. Much less understood is the meaning of dignitas, which this paper develops as peoples’ engagement with aesthetic values and genres, and hence with differences between people. Departing from a critical reading of Georgio Agamben’s notion of ‘bare life’, I will analyze a case where aesthetics are quite literally at stake: women who lost their hair due to cancer treatment. The analysis shows a complicated interplay between varying evaluations of female baldness by the self and others, mediated by (often strongly negative) cultural imaginaries, and aesthetic genres depicting conventional ways of ‘looking good’. The paper concludes by arguing for a reconnection of the two notions of dignity, and for a rehabilitation of aesthetics in daily life and care as fundamental values for organizing our societies.


Dignity Aesthetic in daily life Cancer Empirical philosphy 



I am most grateful to the women who taught me so much about their lives and the importance of ‘looking good’. Many thanks also to Dick Willems for pushing the idea of aesthetics in care and getting in money for this study. I am very grateful to Amade M’charek, Christine Ceci, Thomas Franssen, and Maartje Hoogsteijns for their critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This project has been made possible through a grant from ZonMW, palliative care, grant number 1151.0018.


  1. Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer. Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. 2003. The coming community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baillie, L. 2007. Patient dignity in an acute hospital setting: A case study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 26: 23–37.Google Scholar
  4. Ceci, C., M.E. Purkis, and K. Björnsdóttir. 2013. Theorizing accommodation in supportive home care for older people. Journal of Aging Studies 27: 30–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chochinov, H.M., T. Hack, S. McClement, L. Kristjanson, and M. Harlos. 2002. Dignitiy in the terminally ill: A developing empirical model. Social Science and Medicine 54: 433–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chochinov, H.M. 2002. Dignity conserving care. A new model for palliative care. JAMA 87(17): 2253–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chochninov, H.M. 2007. Dignity and the essence of medicine: The A, B, C and D of dignity conserving care. British Medical Journal 335: 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Kort, S.J., P.H.B. Willems, J.M. Habraken, J.C.J.M. De Haes, D.L. Willems, and D.J. Richel. 2006. Quality of life versus prolongation of life in patients treated with chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. A review of randomized controlled clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer 42: 835–845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekkers, W. 1999. The lived body as aesthetic object in anthropological medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2(2): 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diederichs, M. 2006. Wie geschoren wordt moet stil zitten. De omgang van Nederlandse meisjes met Duitse militairen [Who is being shaved, needs to sit still. Dutch girls and German soldiers [the main title refers to a Dutch proverb]. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  11. Düwell, M. 1999. Aesthetic experience, medical practice, and moral judgement. Critical Remarks on Possibilities to Understand a Complex Relationship, Medicine, Health care & Philosophy 2(2): 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edgar, 2004. A response to Nordenfelt’s ‘The varieties of dignity’. Health Care Analysis 12(2): 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foer, J.S. 2009. Eating animals. Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. 1971. L’ordre du discourse. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 1990. The history of sexuality, vol. 3. London: The Care of Self, Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Gallagher, A. 2004. Dignity and respect for dignity. Two key health professional values: Implications for nursing practice. Nursing ethics 11(6): 587–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendriks, A., and R.G.A. Kaulingfreks. 2011. Wat is waardigheid? Een briefwisseling tussen een jurist en een filosoof. Den Haag: ZonMw.Google Scholar
  18. Hennion, A. 2003. Music and mediation: Toward a new sociology of music. In The cultural study of music: A critical introduction, ed. Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton. Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Hilhorst, M. 2002. Physical beauty: Only skin deep? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5: 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobson, N. 2009. A taxonomy of dignity: A grounded theory study. BMC International Health and human rights 9: 3. doi: 10.1186/1472-698X/9/3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobson, N. 2007. Dingity and health. A review. Social Science and Medicine 64(2): 292–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landes, J. 1988. Women and the public sphere in the age of the French revolution. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Leget, C. 2012. Analyzing dignity: A perspective from the ethics of care. Medicine Health Care & Philsopophy. doi: 10.1007/s11019-012-9427-3.Google Scholar
  24. Maio, G. 1999. Is etiquette relevant to medical ethics? Ethics and aesthetics n the works of John Gregory (1724–1773). Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2(2): 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malpas, J., and N. Lickiss (eds.). 2007. Perspectives on human dignity. A conversation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Mann, J. 1998. Dignity and health: The UDHR’s revolutionary first article. Health and Human Righst 3(2): 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCrudden C. 2008. Human diginity and juridical interpretation of human rights. International law and justice working papers, New york: Institute for international Law and Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, B. (ed.). 2007. Aesthetic formations. Media, religion and the sciences. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer, B., and J. Verrips. 2008. Aesthetics. In Keywords in religion, media and culture, ed. D. Morgan, 20–30. New york: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple. An ontology of medical practice. Durham: Duke university Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nordenfelt, L. 2003a. Dignity of the elderly: An introduction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nordenfelt, L. 2003b. Dignity and the care of the elderly. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nordenfelt, L. 2004. The varieties of dignity. Health Care Analysis 12(2): 69–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nussbaum .2001. The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in greek tragedy and philosophy, Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  35. Oerlemans, R. (director). 2009. Komt een vrouw bij de dokter (film). Netherlands: Benelux Film distributors.Google Scholar
  36. Pols, J. 2013a, forthcoming. Washing the patient. Dignity and aesthetic values in nursing care. Nursing philosophy.Google Scholar
  37. Pols. 2013b, forthcoming. Radical relationality. Empirical epistemology in care, care ethics for research. In Moral boundaries redrawn. The significance of Joan Tronto’s argument for professional ethics, political theory and care practice, ed. Olthuis, G., Kohlen, H., and Heier, J. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
  38. Pullman, 2002. Human dignity and the ethics and aesthetics of pain and suffering. Theoretical Medicine 23: 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shapin, S. 2011. Changing tastes: How things tasted in the early modern period and how they taste now the hans rausing lecture. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  40. Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review/Random House.Google Scholar
  41. Timmermans, S. 2005. Death brokering: Constructing culturally appropriate deaths. Sociology of Health & Illness 27(7): 993–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van der Stap, S. 2006. Meisje met de negen pruiken. [Girl with the nine wigs.] Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  43. Willems, D. 2010. Varieties of goodness in high-tech homecare. In Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. A. Mol, I. Moser, and J. Pols, 257–276. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Medical Ethics, Department of General PracticeAMC/UvAAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2. Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations