The Face, the Body, and Virtual Showcases: A Theological Anthropology Approach to the Tyranny of Social Media over Personal Image

Abstract

This article aims to examine how social media has changed the way human beings perceive themselves, exerting a tyrannical influence over personal image, leading people to aesthetic procedures and surgeries. It happens through the imitative dimension of human beings. Social media has created idealized world(s) where people see images of faces, bodies, and lives they perceive as perfect, leading them to question such aspects about themselves in comparison to the presented ideal(s). These idealized world(s) foster a contemporary Gnosticism, where people start seeing their own faces and bodies as flawed or inferior compared to these idealized images. This gives rise to a tyranny of social media over personal image, reshaping how individuals view themselves and pressuring them to conform to these idealized world(s). Theology has a mission to help people appreciate the beauty and goodness of real bodies and guide them toward the fruition of being bodily beings.

1. Introduction1

It is well known that throughout the centuries the human body has been undervalued, instrumentalized, and even thought of as a prison for the soul and/or reason. Similarly, it can be observed that, today, on the one hand, the body is seen as a machine, and on the other, plasticized by and within digital culture. The human body is considered an instrument under a global utilitarianism. In this way, something essential is lost: the fruition of being human in itself, of being a body (e.g., see Mata de Vasconcelos 2019).

Without a doubt, the greatest challenge to the self-fruition of being a body today is digital culture, particularly social media with its virtual showcases. Instagram, in particular, plays a leading rsole as a platform for the display of these showcases. Certainly, social media is not real life, and the showcases displayed on it reflect idealized lives. However, even though they are not real life, they are part of the concrete and real lives of most of the world’s population, becoming part of daily human life. The problem is that, with this digital revolution, a culture of submission to the virtual has subjugated the lives and ways of being of countless people. Moreover, it has a substantial impact on how human beings see themselves.

Nevertheless, as Emily Qureshi-Hurst (2022, pp. 522–23, 532) rightly points out, despite its high prevalence, particularly among young people, social media has not received significant engagement from either philosophy or theology. The work to be done by both on this subject—such as exploring the implications of social media—is considerable, and this lack of engagement is an error. However, while she argues that it is a responsibility of philosophy and philosophers to engage with such a ubiquitous phenomenon, especially in our post-truth era (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 532), I believe it is important to emphasize that theology has an essential role in this discussion. Specifically, in affirming that God’s creation, which includes our bodies—our real bodies—and the experience of being bodily beings is beautiful and very good.

This article has four overall questions. 1. How do idealized images on social media contribute to the pressure individuals feel to conform to unrealistic beauty standards and to resort to aesthetic procedures? 2. How does this human phenomenon occur and how can neurological science and mimetic desire give us an idea about it? 3. How does this phenomenon create a contemporary and infernal form of Gnosticism, leading individuals to view their own existences as flawed or inferior in comparison to idealized images? 4. What are the directions that can be taken to overcome this infernal Gnosticism, and what is the Christian faith and theology’s message and role in addressing these issues?

The route I will follow, aiming to answer the above questions, is as follows: first, I will introduce the issue of how social media exerts a tyrannical influence over personal image, leading individuals to undergo unnecessary aesthetic procedures and surgeries. Second, by engaging with neuroscience and René Girard’s mimetic theory, I will explore how this phenomenon occurs, particularly through the imitative nature of human beings, which is deeply rooted in mimetic desire. Third, I will argue that social media has created idealized world(s) where people perceive certain images of faces, bodies, and lives as perfect, prompting them to compare and judge their own appearance. This occurs either by viewing the virtual profiles of others or through their own profiles, which have often been altered with edits and filters. I will also argue that these idealized world(s) foster a form of contemporary Gnosticism, where individuals come to view their real faces and bodies as flawed or inferior compared to these idealized images. This, in turn, leads to a social media-driven tyranny over personal image, reshaping how people perceive themselves and pressuring them to conform to these idealized standards. Finally, from a theological anthropology perspective, I will explore potential solutions to reverse this trend, encouraging people to appreciate the beauty and goodness of real bodies and guiding them toward the fruition of being bodily beings, briefly highlighting a Christian faith and theology’s view on the fruition of being human bodies.

2. The Tyranny of Virtual Showcases

In 2018, BBC News published an article by Anna Davies (2018) highlighting the exponential rise of young people who, dissatisfied with themselves or wanting to please others and/or society, undergo surgical procedures to resemble the filters found on social media platforms such as Instagram and Snapchat.

The impact of social media on personal image was the subject of Janella Eshiet’s research (2020), which shows the impact that social media and its filters have on young women. It affects their self-esteem and the way they see and perceive their own bodies, particularly through comparisons with filtered images. Together with AJ Willingham, she emphasizes that the issue with filters arises when people start to believe they should look like the filtered images. Eshiet also demonstrated that “fitspiration”2 content can both motivate or make young women feel insecure about their bodies. She highlights that there is nothing wrong with being a social media influencer or user but calls for caution regarding the content we post and its messages, particularly in consideration of young women, who are more affected by society’s high and often unattainable beauty standards (Eshiet 2020, pp. 1, 67–68).

In addition, Brazil has witnessed a tremendous increase in the procedure known as facial harmonization, where many seek a more “sculpted” and harmonious face. Brazilian dentist Fábio Bibancos explains in an interview that his financial income primarily comes from reverse procedures that undo unnecessary aesthetic treatments, including facial harmonization. He says that these aesthetic procedures are meant for people who genuinely need them and provides examples such as individuals with significant enamel wear, accident victims, and those who habitually bite their cheeks. For the latter group, as these lesions can become cancerous, bichectomy becomes essential to prevent further damage to the mucosa. However, he notes that most people seeking these aesthetic procedures do not fit the profile of necessity, that from his professional point of view, most of them are physically and aesthetically fine. Bibancos mentions a case of a 12-year-old girl who approached him, asking if she could undergo an aesthetic procedure. He describes such actions as madness, “crazy things” that lead to distorted individuals; in his opinion, “monsters” who resemble nothing. Furthermore, he asserts that these procedures do not bring facial rejuvenation and that excessive procedures can even result in facial aging. In Bibancos’ opinion, the issue with these individuals is not aesthetic but instead lies in their mind and gaze, especially when looking at themselves in the mirror. He attributes this “social illness” to social media and advocates for common sense and equilibrium (UOL 2021).

From my perspective, of course, people have the freedom to pursue the procedures they wish. And certainly, it is not about devaluing those who undergo such procedures or who have such desires. After all, there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to undergo a procedure on their own, as long as it is done with mental health and equilibrium. The issue I am addressing is the motivation and/or unease that drives so many people to undergo these procedures. In the face of idealized images, whether through social media filters or “virtual showcases” of influencer profiles who have undergone such procedures, these individuals project their own images or an idealized version of themselves onto these images. These social media users no longer recognize—or do not want to recognize—themselves in the mirror, but rather in these plasticized images that many turn to. This movement indeed seems to be a social pathology in a culture and/or dictatorship of the plasticization of the face/body.

Sometimes we fail to see the value and feel the pleasure of being a body, of being a human body. And, of course, the face is part of the body. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben (2020) has expressed very well the value of the human face: all living beings show and communicate themselves, but only humans have a face, the place of their own truth, as this makes their communicational appearance their fundamental experience. It exposes and reveals more than words: what cannot be expressed through them. Unconsciously, one puts their very self at stake in their own face. The openness, exposure, and communication of the human being, more than their state of mind, are expressed in the face. Animals are not interested in mirrors, in the image as image, but humans desire to recognize themselves and be recognized; they desire to own their own image, in which they seek their own truth. Thus, the face is both the place and the condition of politics, through which one enters into a dialectical relationship with others. “It is by looking at each other’s faces that men recognize and become passionate about one another, perceiving similarity and diversity, distance and proximity” (Agamben 2020).

There is a difference between a mirror, in which we see our imperfect reflection and recognize ourselves, and front-facing cameras and social media feeds, where we see perfect and plasticized images, almost unknown, almost unidentifiable, and almost unrecognizable. They are projected images that can evoke tyrannical feelings of dissatisfaction and the desire for change. These images are not only different from a mirror reflection, but, as Qureshi-Hurst argues,

the idealized self is not an artistic representation; rather, it is intended to be an accurate (though enhanced) depiction of the self. Whereas one would not readily and realistically compare oneself to a portrait or poem, the idealized selves on social media are held as realistic standards to strive for. One can create a version of themselves that looks real, in a way that a portrait or poem does not, and though this reflection is sterile and two-dimensional, it can create an unrealistic standard of comparison with which one cannot be reconciled. It is precisely because these images are so realistic that they are so threatening.

(Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 528)

In other words, while the perfect and idealized images are realistic and appear to be real, they can hardly be identifiable and recognizable with concrete life, bodies and faces.

An earlier reader of this article asked me, “Why is it that images dominate our sense of self so much today versus in other eras? Is it because of their ubiquity, or is it because of cultural factors that make us more susceptible to them? Take the body types idealized by Classical Greek sculptures—most walked away from them without feeling that they somehow had to conform to divine standards of beauty but rather were incited to recognize and revere the ideal forms”. Beauty standards differ from time to time and across societies (see, for instance, Eleanor Janega’s assessment of Medieval beauty standards and how they differ from contemporary ideals of beauty in Janega 2023, pp. 202–7). On one hand, I find it difficult to assert that artistic representations such as Classical Greek sculptures did not have any type of influence on people to conform to their depiction of divine beauty during their era. On the other hand, we find beauty standards in Medieval Europe that were not only depicted in art but also were established as standards for women, to which women resorted to means to conform to them, including depilation through perilous chemical cosmetics.

As John Friedman has shown, depilation instructions for women are more than commonplace in medieval cosmetic manuals, and the reduction of hair on the female face and body was a mark of perfection and a beauty standard, achievable only by wealthy women, including the high hairline of the forehead for which cosmetic and chemical means were instructed and used. A wide, high, and even white forehead appeared as an attribute of female beauty as early as the twelfth century, and it was illustrated in paintings from the medieval period to modern times. There were even recipes in the Middle Ages for women to treat unwanted effects caused by chemical depilation (Friedman 2018, pp. 82–92). He also points out that “the distribution of hair on a woman’s body had, by the late Middle Ages, become an important factor in the perception of female social status, not to mention physical perfection (or lack thereof) and even moral value. In turn, extreme hair reduction could be said to be a fashion precipitated by a desire to appear ‘like’ women of a higher social class and to share in their seeming benefits” (Friedman 2018, p. 90).

This suggests that female beauty standards depicted in art and literature are not something new, nor are their social imposition and the imitation and mimetic desire to conform to them. Still, portraits and works of art differ from idealized social media images both because they are representations that do not intend to be accurate or as realistic and concrete as the idealized images on social media and because the latter are idealized images pervasive in ways never seen in human history. Thus, their ubiquity is a factor that must be taken into consideration, as well as the universalization of idealized images and beauty standards. That is, while it is reasonable to presume that the hairless Medieval standard, including the high-hairline forehead, was something Medieval women—at least in the societies where this standard was idealized—desired to conform to and imitate, there was never a socially universal, pervasive, and constant pressure as present as it is in contemporary societies through social media. Social media’s idealized worlds, with their universalized idealized images across all social strata, have made the pursuit of these standards part of human existence and anxiety in a deep existential way. That is why I argue this characterizes New Gnostic World(s). I do not negate a Gnostic human tendency across time and societies, but I do assert that the current situation is one of new Gnostic world(s), where idealized images of faces, bodies, and beauty standards reside, to which human beings strive to conform.

This topic will be resumed in the fourth section. Before that, it is necessary to answer the following question: if these filtered images and idealized selves are so dangerous, along with the comparison to other people’s profiles and pictures, why does this comparison happen? What motivates the imitation and the mimetic desire to have a face and/or body as depicted on social media, whether from filtered images or others’ profiles? I will attempt to better understand this phenomenon by engaging with neuroscience and mimetic theory.

3. Neurological Imitation and Mimetic Desire

I believe that mirror neurons, a recent discovery in neuroscience, and the French philosopher René Girard can help us understand this phenomenon.

According to neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran, mirror neurons could offer as much to psychology as DNA has provided to biology. He considers this discovery of great importance, which may even help explain mysterious mental issues that are difficult to access for experimentation (see Garrels 2005–2006, p. 56). But what are mirror neurons? Scott Garrels explains that “mirror neurons are brain cells that are activated regardless of whether the individual is performing a particular motor movement or observing the same movement being made by another person” (Garrels 2005–2006, pp. 58–59).

Allan Lameira, Luiz Gawryszewski, and Antônio Pereira Jr. states:

Mirror neurons play a crucial role in human behavior. They are activated when someone watches an action performed by someone else. The most impressive thing is the fact that this mirroring does not necessarily depend on our memory. If someone performs a complex corporal movement that we have never performed before, our mirror neurons identify the corresponding proprioceptive and muscular mechanisms in our own corporal system, and we tend unconsciously to imitate what we observe, hear, or perceive in some way.

(Lameira et al. 2006, p. 129)

Imitation provides and plays a special role in learning, which is the foundation of human culture, and the emergence and evolution of mirror neurons explain how imitation and other skills, such as language, learning, and culture, developed (Lameira et al. 2006, p. 130). Such cells have revolutionized the understanding of the mechanisms of imitation and mimetic reciprocity, as well as other inseparable dimensions of social interactions (Garrels 2005–2006, pp. 56–58). However, as Garrels point out, “while mirror neurons provide valuable information about the neural correlates of social reciprocity, the phenomena of human imitation is vastly more complex than the in vivo resonance of affective states and visual motor information” (Garrels 2005–2006, pp. 58–59).

Girard’s thought is fundamental to deepening the issue. For him, desire is mimetic in its essence: a person takes another as a model and begins to desire the object of that person’s desire, thereby starting to imitate them (Godoy 2012, pp. 128–30). That is, human beings have a tendency to imitate others because they desire to have what the other, their model, has or desires. In dialogue with Garrels, Girard even asserts that “all human relations are based on imitation” and that, in addition to gestures, words, and ideas, we also imitate desires, that “we desire something because others find it desirable”. According to him, this is why Aristotle considers the human being the most mimetic animal (Garrels 2011, pp. 216–17).

When asked by Garrels if he considers the discovery of mirror neurons to be important and if he is interested in it, Girard confirms that he does, although he is not a specialist in it. He also states that “the fact that mirror neurons respond to the same thing whether one is observing or participating I think is very important to my ideas” (Garrels 2011, pp. 241–42).

As a theologian, I cannot assert that mirror neurons are activated during the use of social media. However, the discovery of their existence shows us the deep-rooted and archetypal nature of human imitation, a human dimension that Girard explains on a level beyond neuroscience, in which he makes clear how human imitation is closely tied to human desire, what he calls mimetic desire. With the increased access to and development of social media, mimetic desire and consequent imitation have never been so present in human life. Filters and profiles become showcases that exert a totalitarian mimetic desire on users, and as a result, many people seek facial and bodily aesthetic procedures that, otherwise and under different circumstances, they might not even consider. A recent survey which analyzed the relationship between social media use and the desire for cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that “time spent on social media and use of photo-editing applications significantly contributes to desire to undergo a cosmetic procedure” (Khan et al. 2024, p. 42).

The issue arises when the motivation for any procedure is driven by a tyranny of an image, an imposition influenced by exposure to social media showcases. When there is neither an alleviation nor suppression of needs and anxiety, nor an enhancement and/or a restoration of self-esteem after such procedures, the result is merely a submission to these virtual showcases, a fragile and vulnerable conformity to virtual standards subject to sudden changes. The risk of social media in this context is the amplification of the mimetic desire of oneself to transcend their faces and bodies in order to imitate others’ faces and bodies displayed in these new idealized worlds. Here, a vicious and even pathological cycle of dysmorphia and surgeries can emerge.

While the ideal of beauty or beauty standards are forces that drive people to conform to them, and mirror neurons and mimetic desire can be seen as mechanisms through which human beings aspire to achieve the idealized beauty standard, both mirror neurons and mimetic desire are also forces that drive human beings to imitate idealized beauty standards. In this way, both are not only mechanisms through which one aspires to achieve a certain standard but also causes of imitation and/or the desire to imitate it. In other words, they are both the means and the end.

I argue that these created idealized worlds are new Gnostic worlds, consisting of a contemporary manifestation of the old Gnosticism. Let us examine what Gnosticism is and how it manifests today, particularly in relation to social media usage.

4. A Digital and Infernal New Gnosticism

In his thorough research on Gnosticism, Luiz Pinheiro points out that it is a modern category used to describe an ancient and complex phenomenon. While its roots appear as early as the first century BC, it emerged as a “movement” in the second century BC within paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. Gnosticism, or gnosis, is a peculiar form of religious knowledge that asserts that the true reality of the cosmos, humanity, and God exists in a spiritual dimension known as the Pleroma or Totality. However, a disruption occurred within this spiritual realm, resulting in the creation of the material cosmos and the physical body. Humanity is divided into two groups: the spiritual, pneumatic beings who understand their true nature and those who are merely material and physical. It is through gnosis—knowledge—that one can attain salvation, awakening to the true reality of the spiritual world. The spiritual, pneumatic human being is a divine spark trapped within the body, seeking liberation to achieve their fullest existence in the spiritual realm. This awakening is facilitated by a spiritual Being who reveals humans’ true nature. Pinheiro also asserts that Gnosticism not only took on various forms throughout history but also manifests in diverse and specific ways in contemporary times. According to him, one such manifestation of the “Gnostic spirit” in the technological age is Cybergnosticism, also known as Cybergnosis, Technognosticism, or Technognosis (Pinheiro 2022, pp. 13–14, 208, 290, 607).

Pinheiro also discusses various escape routes—from reality—that people seek out, often turning to elevated spaces where they look for security and hope for rescue. Among these, he highlights the metaverse and social media. While the wealthy can escape to resorts, scenic landscapes, and refuges as paradisiacal getaways, the poor often find alcohol to be their only accessible escape, using it to cope with frustration, oppression, and marginalization. In general, young people turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, and even self-destruction in their search for an escape. Religious experiences also serve as a form of escape for many. He notes that social media has globalized escape routes (Pinheiro 2022, pp. 576, 588).

I agree with Pinheiro that social media serves as an escape route from harsh realities and has made these escape routes globally accessible to the majority of social groups. However, social media, especially Instagram, has also created many idealized worlds, as I have discussed previously. These new worlds reflect the resurgence of ancient Gnosticism in contemporary life. Concrete and real faces and bodies are seen as inferior, like potentialities trapped in imperfect faces and bodies. On the other hand, the faces and bodies considered as perfect are those displayed and seen on social media—on the idealized and new Gnostic worlds, where true beauty and perfect lives seem to exist. As a result, masses of people tend to desire and imitate what they see in these “superior” places, leading to this social pathology that we witness today: Many undergo numerous facial and aesthetical procedures in pursuit of these idealized, perfect, Gnostic images portrayed in this modern manifestation of the old Gnosticism. These are the new Gnostic world(s). Each profile on social media can be an idealized and Gnostic world, composed with idealized and Gnostic images in the format of pictures, videos, reels, and stories. At the same time, a single Gnostic image can form a whole Gnostic world, an entire world of projection. A Gnostic image, in this sense, is one which is considered the place of beauty and perfection, in contrast to real faces and bodies, which are seen as bad, inferior, and flawed by comparison, as well as matter with the potential to achieve the Gnostic image and world. In this context, dysmorphia is not uncommon.

The human necessity for validation is also present in the new Gnostic worlds, exacerbated by our digital era. Christopher B. Barnett highlights that the culture of positivity permeates social media, recurring to Jean Twenge’s social concept of “relentless positivity” as a hallmark of the Western world in its current digital age. This is pervasive on social media, since research shows that it is posts with “positive” content, rather than negative, that boost and attract engagement. Barnett then affirms that “there is little doubt that social media both extends and magnifies the human desire for affirmation” (Barnett 2022, p. 165). Still, he points out that mental health issues, depression, and suicide are significant problems in the generations most affected by the digital age, with mental well-being declining especially in the latest generation, which Twenge calls “iGen”—for those born after the emergence of the Internet and its social platforms—and claims that the most probable culprits are smartphones (Barnett 2022, pp. 165–66). It is in this context that Barnett underscores “a dehumanizing trap” in the search for online perfection and validation in our society, where pretending and faking an image of happiness and success—particularly to convince people on social media, mentioning Facebook and Instagram—does not need to correspond to reality (Barnett 2022, p. 179). These fabricated images are new Gnostic worlds, or parts of them, and this dehumanizing search for online validation both can cause and does cause existentially infernal states and totalitarian impositions on human lives—on one’s own life and on the lives of others.

Qureshi-Hurst, while highlighting that social media contains elements that exacerbate anxiety—such as the virtual self, the quantification of social approval, and its failure to facilitate genuine social interactions—points out that this anxiety can lead not only to depression but also to anxiety disorders and body image disorders, citing empirical research to support her claims. As an example of the growing number of people seeking to alter their appearance to match their idealized self-image created by social media filters, including through surgery, she refers to Eshiet’s research, which demonstrates that Snapchat filters, by altering appearance in various ways, significantly impact young women’s perceptions of their body image and beauty. The result is what has been termed “Snapchat dysphoria” or “Snapchat dysmorphia,” a phenomenon where young people, particularly women, pursue aesthetic procedures and surgeries to look like the image manufactured by these filters (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, pp. 528–29, 531; Eshiet 2020).

Psychologically, these aspects of social media and these new and idealized Gnostic world(s) are hells in people’s lives, as they serve as sources and intensifiers of anxiety, depression, and dysmorphia. In the words of Paul Tillich and Qureshi-Hurst, they are also sources and intensifiers of one’s feeling of “estrangement” from the cosmos, from God—or from the ground of being—and notably from oneself (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 525).

Qureshi-Hurst addresses how certain features of social media intensify and heighten negative emotional states, such as feelings of alienation and estrangement (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, pp. 522–23). She explains that “social media acts like a magnifying glass to the extent that it focuses and fortifies aspects of human social existence that lead to [these] feelings” (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 522) and discusses how it causes/exacerbates anxiety disorders—conditions that have increased exponentially among young people, particularly due to social media use (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 523).

Qureshi-Hurst explores three ways in which social media negatively affects its users. The first relates to the individual and their self-perception: social media enables the creation of idealized and artificial versions of oneself—distorted images of one’s face and body—through both social media filters and photo editing software. The second and third ways pertain to the social dimensions of social media. On the one hand, it provides means for quantifying social approval, particularly in group sizes beyond which the human brain has evolved to handle and interact—according to Yuval Harari, humans are, evolutionarily speaking, prepared to exist in networks of around 150 people. On the other hand, while social media significantly extends our social networks, the quality of interactions among people does not improve; in fact, it decreases (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, pp. 522, 526, 529; Harari 2014). As a consequence of these social effects, opportunities for people to experience social exclusion increase, and it can clear the way for one to experience social unfulfillment, since the online interactions are mostly transitory and poor (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 529). Here, Qureshi-Hurst points out a paradox in social media: “the temptation to seek out communion and escape solitude drives social media usage, but the type of impoverished connection provided through these platforms is unable to fulfil the desire that drove the user to log on in the first place” (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 530).

I return to the first way presented by Qureshi-Hurst, which pertains to the individual and their self-perception and is central to the subject of this article. Qureshi-Hurst asserts that

Social media platforms allow individuals to construct idealized versions of themselves. Individuals then see this idealized self as, in Tillichian terms, unactualized potential, which they are unable to realize. This creates yet another environment in which the individual is aware of latent potential that they are unable to manifest in their lives, resulting in another source of anxiety. The idealized self is created in the following ways. Only the “best” pictures get posted, which creates a highlight reel showing only positive experiences. Moreover, and perhaps more damaging for mental health, is an increasing prevalence of photo editing software and the use of filters which distort an individual’s appearance. These create a social experience and physical appearance which functions as a representation of unrealized, often unrealizable, potential.

(Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 526)

In fact, Qureshi-Hurst also highlights the overwhelming quantity of data people receive about others on social media, against which each person can compare themselves. Additionally, the exponential growth of social media users provides even more data for individuals to use in evaluating and comparing themselves. This immensity of data informs people about how their lives should be, the expectations and achievements they should have, as well as how they should look physically. Qureshi-Hurst describes this as a plethora of potentialities displayed by social media, “in terms of both what is possible for humans in general and what is possible for a specific individual to achieve, engage with, or look like” (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 527).

She concludes that intense feelings of estrangement can be caused by comparing oneself to unrealizable potentialities. In addition, due to the massive quantity of users on social media, “with every criterion against which we can be evaluated, there will be another social media user who out-performs us”, which, in turn, “can have a seriously damaging effect on self-worth if by every metric we come up short” (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 527). Anxiety, then, is an effect of the creation of idealized and unrealizable images by an individual, insofar as the person is unable to achieve these creations and satisfy their idealized self-image (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 529). “Striving after such a representation is likely to leave a subject unsatisfied. The individual is faced with a version of themselves that is distorted, and desires reconciliation with the self who is reflected back at them. This is unobtainable, as the reflected, virtual self is an artefact of editing software, not a living, breathing, complex person” (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 528).

5. The Beauty of the Body and a Theological Search for Directions

To sum up, despite being quite useful, social media has significant negative effects on people. Some of these consequences include dysmorphia and the increasing recourse to cosmetic procedures and surgeries in an attempt to resemble idealized images of oneself or conform to beauty standards created by social media societies. Two concrete examples of this are the phenomenon of undergoing surgeries to look like one’s Snapchat-filtered image and the massive, socially pathological pursuit of facial procedures such as facial harmonization in Brazil. This is not to mention the desire for fit or sculpted bodies, driven by the aesthetically modified bodies of others seen as objects of desire on social media—a topic not addressed here, but one that needs to be addressed in future research in theological science.

Imitation and mimetic desire, as explained by neuroscience and mimetic theory, provide an explanation for this, revealing how deeply ingrained the desire to imitate and aspire to what others have, do, or desire is in human nature. The result is a new and infernal form of Gnosticism, where people see their real bodies as bad, ugly, and imperfect, striving to reach the plethora of potentialities displayed in social media’s idealized, Gnostic world(s). These worlds consist of filtered and edited images—either of oneself or others—which present artificial projections. As most people fail to achieve these objects of desire, and the comparing never ends, anxiety disorders, dysmorphia, depression, and other issues such as bulimia arise and/or are amplified from the way human beings interact with these idealized, artificial, and Gnostic world(s), filled by idealized and artificial images. The result is a tyranny of social media over personal image.

What can be done about this situation? How can we liberate human beings, with their faces and bodies, from these Gnostic worlds and this tyranny? Here are some possible directions that we can take towards addressing these questions.

It is not easy to overcome these problems arising from social media. I do not have a definitive answer or solution—nor do I believe such a thing exists. Nevertheless, I think we can find ways to address these issues; by following certain directions, we can learn to free ourselves from the tyranny of social media over personal image and from this infernal form of Gnosticism. I therefore highlight four potential paths in this direction.

First, one should keep in mind the principle of not using life as a utilitarian tool, a teaching present in the Gospel of Mark (2:27), which depicts Jesus reversing the value of the Sabbath over life, showing that the day was made for humankind, not the other way around. Similarly, Instagram, social media, the internet, aesthetic procedures, etc., exist for human beings, and not the other way around. These means and technologies should serve humanity and life, not the reverse. Unfortunately, humanity has become enslaved to them. Although it is the responsibility of Christians and theologians to teach this principle, and despite it originating from words attributed to Jesus, it can be applied and taught beyond Christian circles: people do not need to be Christian to understand that their lives are not meant to serve social media or be enslaved by its tyranny.

Second, it is important to encourage the reduction in time spent on social media, which can be done through campaigns and education. Initially, there is no need to completely abandon it. However, reducing the time spent on social media would undoubtedly be beneficial for all users. In her article, Qureshi-Hurst points to empirical studies showing a link between loneliness and depression and social media usage and that limiting social media use to 10 min a day significantly reduces both feelings of loneliness and depression. She also references a study that shows that interaction and browsing on Instagram are associated with lower rates of loneliness, whereas Instagram broadcasting is linked to higher rates of it (Qureshi-Hurst 2022, p. 531). Yet, it is reasonable to conclude that limiting social media use would benefit everyone, especially young people.

Third, as Eshiet indicates,

Spreading awareness about self-love, confidence, and natural beauty on these social media platforms is one way we can help young women all around the world and generations to come to love themselves and not let society or any beauty images/filters on social media tell them that they are not beautiful enough. With the right resources, we can help the younger generation find beauty within themselves and not these beauty filters.

(Eshiet 2020, p. 68)

Moreover, “by understanding why many young women use these beauty filters it can help and encourage companies to create reliable resources and campaigns that encourage natural beauty and self-love for women all around the world” (Eshiet 2020, p. iii). Still, we cannot rely on companies to promote self-love, especially when the opposite is often in their interest, as it drives profit and revenue. It is a responsibility of Christianity and theology to affirm that God’s creation is very good and beautiful, not only because of the points discussed here but because it is truth—a truth that is part of Revelation. And promoting self-love and the fruition of being bodily beings is part of this Christian Good News.

Four, discussing one of what he calls escape routes, the metaverse, Pinheiro acknowledges that, despite its Gnostic aspects and potential as an escape route, it can also serve as a point of encounter—a space where we can stop and engage in dialogue, where the Good News about the real body and the world can be shared. As he asserts, theology must venture into these escape routes so that, through the kerygma of the salus carnis—salvation of the flesh—they can be transformed into points of encounter. In this way, theology can deliver its salus carnis, that is, its salvation message, in our contemporary context (Pinheiro 2022, pp. 576, 589, 610–13).

Pinheiro, then, argues that points of encounter can be found within escape routes, where fundamental questions can be addressed, such as “the meaning of life, authentic humanization, the preservation of life, care for the planet, the search for an alternative and sustainable economy, the awareness that everything is interconnected, and the importance of a global educational pact on these themes” (Pinheiro 2022, p. 593). According to him, the salus carnis is one of the Christian contributions to these subjects (Pinheiro 2022, p. 593). Moreover, in dialogue with José Comblin, he says that there is no place, no reality, in which the Spirit cannot work, including the escape routes, which can become points of encounter, of salvation (Pinheiro 2022, p. 588).

But what is, after all, the salus carnis? According to Pinheiro, salus carnis is an anti-Gnostic doctrine, particularly from St. Irenaeus of Lyon, which defends the unity of salvation; that the human being, in its entirety, can see God. It is, therefore, regarded as the true gnosis—while the Gnostic doctrine is thus regarded to be false—for it is the human being in its wholeness who is saved. The human being, as a whole, is capax Dei and capax visionis Dei, meaning capable of receiving and seeing God. Christ’s incarnation, then, is the foundation of salvation. The kerygma of salus carnis affirms that God, from creation to its fullness, directs the humanity and emphasizes the unity of salvation, which is the work of the whole Trinity, of the human being in its entirety (Pinheiro 2022, pp. 439–41).

In this sense, the Good News of salus carnis must be shared by us, even through social media platforms like Instagram. We need to find ways of transforming these spaces—currently escape routes where countless idealized and Gnostic worlds flourish and where the infernal tyranny of social media distorts how people see and perceive their faces and bodies—into points of encounter, where the beauty and goodness of our faces and bodies can be shared and celebrated here and now. Moreover, the fruition of being bodily beings can be shared not only by Christians but by all of humanity. Nevertheless, Christians and Christian theology have a mission of declaring the beauty and goodness of creation, as they are so highlighted in Genesis 1.

St. Theophilus of Antioch (1970, p. 57) in the 2nd century already spoke about a dignity and honor of the human being (τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) based on Genesis 1:26 and that God saw it as worthy to create the human being, and the human being solely, with their own hands (Ad Autolycum, II,18), a verse from the first narrative of creation that is in the Old Testament as we have it today. Seventeen and a half centuries later, Dietrich Bonhoeffer asserts that God, whom he claims is the good Creator, created the human being in his image, formed out of mother earth—their womb—which makes the relationship between the human being and the earth part of their very being. Hence, he argues that the human body is the very human being, and not a prison, shell, or exterior; that a human being does not have a body, but is a body, is their body—in the same way that a human being does not have a soul, but is a soul, is their soul. The human being “‘is’ body and soul” and “the man who renounces his body renounces his existence before God the Creator. The essential point of human existence is its bond with mother earth, its being as body” (Bonhoeffer 1966, pp. 45, 66).

It is well known that, in Genesis 1, it is narrated that God describes their creation as good six times and very good once, with the word טֽוֹב—usually translated as “good”—appearing there seven times. But the word has a semantic flexibility worthy of note. It means not only what is good but also what is pleasant, beautiful, prosperous, favorable, and sweet—something that can be seen in other biblical verses such as Genesis 2:9; 41:35; Exodus 2:2; Song of Songs 1:3; 2:3; Jeremiah 6:20; Hosea 4:13; 1 Samuel 25:8; Esther 2:9; Esther 8:17; Esther 9:19, 22; and Zechariah 8:19.

Genesis 1:31, in particular, depicts the good Creator seeing the creation made until then and describing and evaluating it as very good, as very טֽוֹב. And, of course, it includes the human being, with their bodies made by the hands of God and with the earth as their womb, as interpreted by Bonhoeffer. From all this, I argue that the goodness of human bodies is not restricted to something that is not bad. In fact, bad is not a factor in Genesis 1. The goodness of creation, which includes human beings, who are their bodies, is also an aesthetic goodness: it is goodness; it is pleasantness; it is beauty in its own right. Here, in a non-Hellenistic framework, goodness and beauty are related to each other, as well as pleasantness; they are one and the same.

The goodness/beauty/pleasantness of human bodies created by the hands of the good Trinitarian Creator is not subject to the current beauty standard, but it consists in being a bodily being; it is in their own corporeal existence. I am not talking here about any specific type of body, but about human bodies in general, in the diversity of bodies that there are in the world, such as black bodies, Asian bodies, white bodies, intersex bodies, cisgender bodies, transgender bodies, disabled bodies, child bodies, young bodies, old bodies, neurodivergent bodies, and so on. I am referring to all human earthly bodies, which are indeed good/beautiful/pleasant in their own existence, in their own being.

It is, then, a role of Christian faith and theology to assert and proclaim the beauty and goodness of being bodily human beings, of being real bodies. In this regard, I agree with the words of Brazilian pastor Ed René Kivitz (2009, p. 202), who has said that “enjoying life is to celebrate what God made of beautiful and good. When we disregard God’s world, we offend God, and we diminish ourselves. We were created to live into the atmosphere, not in a ‘spiritual sphere’. When we take our human condition lightly, we waste the best part of God’s creation” (Kivitz 2009, p. 202). Earthly existence, in this way, is to be enjoyed and celebrated. Not because of exterior motives and social standards, but for the fruition of being bodily beings in what we are, and we are our own bodies. As I have previously said, one can find “fruition in the paradise one is. By looking at one’s own fullness and stating that the work of art that God made—what one is—is very good” (Mata de Vasconcelos 2019, pp. 154–55). In other words, fruition in being bodily human beings resides in recognizing what we already are.