Beauty is not wholly a social construction as what one considers beautiful is also "hard wired" into the brain as a marker for good genetic health. To what extent that social construction and biology each play in the formulation of the concept of beauty is a moot point, and linking it to the "age old" Nature vs Nurture debate:Gordon Ramel wrote: What you think beautiful is mostly a socially acquired trait, nothing more.
"Humans, like other animals, look for markers of good genetic health in their quest for a reproductive partner. Take facial symmetry, for example: Studies show that, whether they know it or not, people prefer individuals with evenly spaced eyes and other signs of congruence. In evolutionary terms, these markers are associated with healthy conditions in the womb. Infants exposed prenatally to toxins or pathogens may develop facial irregularities and asymmetry. The human brain may be wired to avoid these overt cues of lackluster health, says R. Elisabeth Cornwell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado. "The signs of beauty are the signs of health," she says. Rhodes' findings seem to fit this paradigm: Participants in her study said the Eurasian faces appeared healthier, too."
"Ostensibly, evidence that Caucasians and Asians prefer mixed race faces counters a major tenet of mating theory: that we are drawn to partners who resemble ourselves, such as those with similar hair and eye color."
"So does this new research explain the popularity of Brazilians, who frequently have blended racial heritage, as fashion models? That remains to be seen. Says Rhodes: "If a preference for mixed-race faces occurs for many different mixes, we could be more confident that it is tapping into something fundamental about human perceptions of attractiveness." "https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... retty-face