Introduction
Physiognomy is any attempt to correlate an individual's look with aspects of their personality or character. The earliest attempts at this date back at least to Pythagoras, and notable recent attempts include those by William Herbert Sheldon. While inner personality has ceased to be consistently linked with outer looks, the interest in physiognomy over the centuries demonstrates that many are still keenly aware of the associations we form between human appearance and various personality characteristics and psychological archetypes.
More broadly, physiognomy should be understood as any attempt at linking looks and physical traits to aesthetic concepts and archetypes.
Saying someone has an "aquiline nose" is an example of physiognomy.
Physiognomy can be seen as a precursor to anthropometry and physical anthropology (in the sense that it is a study of physical features); although unlike these disciplines, it incorporates aesthetic archetypes and the subjective impression we receive from a face. While there is no doubt that many claims made by historic physiognomists were outlandish, we subconsciously evaluate the association between a character's personality and physical features any time we watch a film or read a comic book.
You can immediately tell who the hero and villain are. It's not just their clothes.
While physiognomy is often called a "pseudo-science" and compared to phrenology (a pseudo-scientific forerunner to psychology and neurology), we must keep in mind that the study of human beauty and aesthetics is much more of an art than a science. Anthropometric measurements of a face may be "scientific" and objective, but the way we perceive faces is highly subjective and cannot be detached from the emotions which viewing a face evokes. Faces are not merely dull tables listing bizygomatic diameter, bimastoideal diameter, orbital breadth, cephalic index, etc.--they are living pieces of art, and their aesthetics must be studied as such.
Artists don't need to use callipers and hyper-realistic measurements to draw a striking face, nor can the use of hyper-realistic measurements alone impart emotion into a drawing.
A skull by itself cannot reveal everything about an individual.
Providing statistical backing for what we already intuitively know, psychological and anthropometric studies have shown that different facial features do indeed connote different meanings and trigger different emotions to the viewer.
External Link: Your facial bone structure has a big influence on how people see you
Sometimes explicit physiognomic conjectures have been backed up by scientific studies.
Above: physiognomist's intuition.
Scientific study:
External Link: Wide Faced Men are More Aggressive
What is "It"?
In fashion and modelling, many successful individuals are described as being "it girls"--that is, in addition to having the good looks required to become a model, they also posses some peculiar and difficult to describe trait which sets them apart. In the past few decades, "it" has been increasingly used to describe a sense of fashion or lifestyle associated with high class socialites, but originally it described personality traits which transcended class.
The term "it" began to be used as a vague quality descriptor around the late 1800s and early 1900s, and its position in popular culture was popularized by the writings of Elinor Glyn and films based upon her work.
"That quality possessed by some which draws all others with its magnetic force. ...'It' can be a quality of the mind as well as a physical attraction." -Elinor Glyn
An even better example of this "it" quality happens when we view a film where the character's personality complements the actor's look. In such a case, it is much easier to forget one is watching a professional actor and instead become so engrossed in the performance that it feels like the actor is "living" their character. The opposite is true when an actor's look and mannerisms do not correspond with their character's personality (even if their talent is top notch)--it causes us to be painfully aware of the actor's presence.
What causes some famous faces to remain household names for decades, while others fade into obscurity?
While many people have suggested that the quality of "it" is merely a euphemism for what is today called "sex appeal" (and certainly this aspect was played up in films and novels in order to appeal to a wide audience) this is far from the only meaning given to it by Glyn.
"It does not depend upon looks, either...it does not depend upon intelligence or character or – anything – as you say, it is just "it"." -Elinor Glyn
Perhaps some of the mystery around this vague term can be cleared up if we consider that physiognomists had been trying to describe precisely what "it" was (with varying degrees of success)! Could it be that the most successful models possess the rare combination of psychological traits which aesthetically correspond with their physical appearance (in other words, they approximate phsyiognomic archetypes)? The strange feeling that someone has "it" is our subconscious whispering to us about the splendid rarity of such an individual.
"To have "It", the fortunate possessor must have that strange magnetism which attracts both sexes. He or she must be entirely unselfconscious and full of self-confidence, indifferent to the effect he or she is producing, and uninfluenced by others. There must be physical attraction, but beauty is unnecessary." -Elinor Glyn
***
Whether we realize it or not, every fashion designer, painter, photographer, etc. has an intuitive understanding of physiognomy. Choices of certain face and body shapes in cartoons, advertising, novels, and so forth are often deliberate in order to evoke certain emotions. Fashion designers and photographers choose their designs and compositions in order to complement their models' looks, or else create sharp contrast. Advertisements choose models of certain appearances not only to create a sense of familiarity among their target audience, but also to create associations between the model's look and the product itself. The list could go on and on. Such choices would be impossible to make and archetypes unable to be conveyed if there was not a real, intuitive emotional response behind them.
Physiognomy of emotions: old vs new.
Aryan-looking faces are often perceived as being more emotionally-sensitive and spiritually transcendent than non-Aryan-looking faces.
Why did the artist choose to combine Snorlax's personality with this particular face and body shape?
Why are people with "neurotic" personalities typically portrayed as ectomorphs and people with outgoing and "carefree" personalities portrayed as the opposite?
Physical features have been associated with certain temperaments and personalities throughout history. While face and body shape cannot predict with certainty what an individual's personality is like, we nevertheless intuitively associate certain looks with various archetypes. Studying the human form is more than just studying biological traits; it's about studying aesthetics and subjective perceptions.
Looks Can Be Deceiving
"Nothing is more common than to hear the study of physiognomy condemned as being calculated to mislead men in their judgements of each other, and the impossibility of its being reduced to science; yet, nothing is more universally prevalent, in all classes of society, than forming judgements from the appearances of the face. How often do we hear these observations--"He has an open countenance"--"That man has an honest face"--"That bewitching eye"--"That stupid face," and many other expressions of the kind. This proves that, although differences of opinion may be entertained respecting physiognomy, all men are, in the true signification of the term, physiognomists." -excerpt from "The Pocket Lavater"
But what if behind an "honest face" hides a liar? Or behind a "dumb face" lies a genius? Or behind an "evil countenance" a noble heart? Herein lies the problem of pre-judging an individual's character based solely off of their looks. While certain looks may carry aesthetic connotations which cause very real psychological reactions (which can lead us to hasty judgements), the only way to truly judge the quality of an individual is by getting to know them as an individual.
Physiognomy, properly understood, is purely a study of aesthetics, while "pathognomy" (as used by Licthenberg above) is truly a study of "racial" quality or biologically-derived character--the study of an individual's innate emotional bearing. In the real world, the inward character of individuals does not always line up the the archetype suggested by their outward aesthetics. This is what Hitler and other authentic National Socialists believed, much to the dissatisfaction of Nordicists, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other tribalists who dishonorably pre-judge the value of an individual solely by their outward appearance:
"We do not conclude from a man's physical type his ability, but rather from his achievements his race." -Adolf Hitler
"Nothing would be more superficial than to measure a man's worth by his physical appearance (with a centimeter rule and cephalic indices). A far more accurate measure of worth is conduct." -Alfred Rosenberg
Racists who can't see past skin color do not have the aesthetic sensitivity to see such things. False Leftists say that there is more variation within "the races" than between them, yet they are unwilling to point out exactly what these physical differences are... For centuries, artists and anthropologists who studied human traits have arrived upon the same answer: face shape is one of the most (if not the singlemost) important aesthetic feature. The differences have been staring us in the face the whole time.
