What do you think?
Rate this book
The Face: A Cultural History
Not yet published
Expected 9 Jun 26A pioneering study into how we interpret faces and what they reveal about us, from a world-renowned cultural historian
What’s in a face?
The face is one of our quintessential features and is the only part of the body where all the senses come smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing. Though your face might change over the course of your life – whether through ageing, accident, illness or lifestyle – it remains a foundational marker of your identity.
In The Face, cultural historian Fay Bound Alberti explores the ways humans have interpreted faces and correlated their features with ideas of morality, social hierarchy, psychology and so much more, revealing some of the cultural biases that inform the interactions of our everyday lives. Bound Alberti charts how new technologies that reflect or alter our face’s appearance have transformed our conception of selfhood over time – from the growth of portraiture in the Renaissance and the mass production of mirrors and photography in the nineteenth century, to twenty-first century innovations, such as digital avatars and face transplants.
Bringing together a wealth of fascinating research, interviews and illuminating personal narratives, Bound Alberti probes beneath the surface to ask what our faces really say about us.
What’s in a face?
The face is one of our quintessential features and is the only part of the body where all the senses come smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing. Though your face might change over the course of your life – whether through ageing, accident, illness or lifestyle – it remains a foundational marker of your identity.
In The Face, cultural historian Fay Bound Alberti explores the ways humans have interpreted faces and correlated their features with ideas of morality, social hierarchy, psychology and so much more, revealing some of the cultural biases that inform the interactions of our everyday lives. Bound Alberti charts how new technologies that reflect or alter our face’s appearance have transformed our conception of selfhood over time – from the growth of portraiture in the Renaissance and the mass production of mirrors and photography in the nineteenth century, to twenty-first century innovations, such as digital avatars and face transplants.
Bringing together a wealth of fascinating research, interviews and illuminating personal narratives, Bound Alberti probes beneath the surface to ask what our faces really say about us.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
288 pages, Hardcover
Expected publication June 9, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
This is a NetGalley ARC
3.5 but rounding down.
I had difficulty picking a star amount, as portions of this book are definitely four star. There are just a few things that bothered me, but they were rather substantial.
So let's start with the basics. This is a cultural history about the face, *mostly from a western civilization perspective. The introduction is interesting, but it feels a bit rambling at times. Each chapter has a 'theme', but the underlying theme is one thing that bothered me most.
I got excited about this book. I love cultural history about 'things'. I love learning about how other cultures, and my own, percieved something throughout history. However, the more I read, the more I realized the book, while largely objective, occasionally shifts into interpretive or ideologically framed language held by the author. A few 'interpretations' throughout are acceptable, but I noticed a very heavy pattern from the very first chapter.
While this is a cultural history, I wasn't expecting a book that essentially took the author's philosophical/political positions and treated them as objective facts. The first example is this:
"Explicit in the work of Francis Galton, and implicit in right-wing propaganda, is the idea that you can judge a book by its cover..."
Now, I'm not any wing politically, but this bothered me. Propaganda is a loaded word, and it puts different ideologies that may have some similarities into one barrel (as in, it's a blanket statement). Francis Galton was indeed associated with eugenics. But the author has essentially lumped Galton's views, and the views of (seemingly all right-wing ideology) as the same. So the two might merge in some minds to become an even bigger blanket statement, implying that all right-wing people believe in eugenics. This is not objective.
Next is a subjective bit about gender. Yes, it is very clear that beauty standards for both men and women change significantly depending on era, class, and ethnicity. I don't dispute that. But several of the gender-heavy passages put philosophical ideas as objective facts, which they are not.
"We tend not to think about the ways in which masculinity is as artificial as femininity in relation to faces and bodies..."
"...and you can't be a historian of the body without knowing how conditional sexed identity has always been..."
Are these statements true? It depends on the person you ask. Therefore, they are not objective facts. Why not frame it something like.... This suggests that masculinity, like femininity, may be shaped by cultural practices and ideology?
The author frequently critiques the white male patriarchy. While I understand the reasoning behind this, and her ideas aren't unfound, the book is constantly, aggressively at times, reminding us. I find this off-putting, as again, I didn't want to read this book for political/personal views of the author.
One more example regarding gender. The story of Mary Toft is well known - the woman in the 18th century who claimed she gave birth to rabbits. The author has interpreted this story to suit her own ideology. She writes,
"Mary’s tale reached the courts because of male anxiety about female rebellion at a time when midwifery was becoming a male profession. There had long been patriarchal distrust about the birth process—including the appearance of monstrous and misshapen offspring."
What Mary did doesn't necessarily reflect what the author implies. Mary's tale likely reached the court because it was a disturbing event (her method was rather horrifying). There is little clear historical evidence that her case reached the courts specifically due to concerns about female rebellion. Is it possible? Yes. Is it documented? No. Therefore, it should at least be written as 'Mary's tale possibly reached the courts...".
Now we move to race. Western civilization has not always been kind to those of 'other' ethnicities that didn't belong to their group. Everyone knows this (though I'm sure there are some that might argue otherwise). Again, I am not against anything the author is saying, only that she is saying it in a subjective, 'this is fact' manner. As an example:
"He documented the journey of the parents, too, in A Child is Born; like every image of a fetus photographed by Nilsson, those parents were white. This was in keeping with the racially homogeneous nature of Sweden in the 1960s, in which more than 99 percent of the population was Caucasian, but also with the ingrained traditions of Western medicine...."
In 1960's Sweden, yes, the overwhelming majority was Caucasian. Does this mean that Nilsson, who likely photographed those in his vicinity, purposefully exluded non-Caucasians? It feels as if that's exactly what's being said here. While not inaccurate, it feels overinterpreted given the historical setting. The observations occasionally seem to impose significance where the context itself already provides a straightforward explanation.
Once again, we place significance out of context in this example:
"Notice, though, that Le Brun does not mention the anatomy of the face, and his description is a caricature—like his sketches. They show generically white and mostly male figures, especially when strong and intense emotions like rage or terror are depicted."
Charles Le Brun lived in 17th century Paris for most of his life. The mention of 'generically white and mostly male figures' is, like with Nilsson (though more subtly), implying some degree of racism. But it implies a lack of diversity representation, which is a more modern concept, not a 17th century European one.
This review is becoming long-winded, so I will give one last example that really bothered me.
"Americans criticize the emotional reserve of Japanese people as aloofness, or, with all its racist undertones, inscrutability..."
Was this the case in the not so distant past? Yes. But this author has used present tense, making it seem like all Americans are racist towards Japanese people, or at the very least, critical. Perhaps this is the personal bias of the author, as she is from Wales, because she mentions a few more 'blanket statements' about America. But again, and my whole point in this review, is that the book has very obvious, repetitive subjectivity. The blurb about the book, and even the title, mislead me into thinking I would be reading an objective history. If I missed any obvious signs that it wasn't completely objective, that's on me. If I got more irked at these subjectivities in a 'history' book than most people would, that's on me, too.
The author seems to apply the same interpretive lens so consistently that it starts to feel overextended and at times, preachy. It's a shame, because a lot of the book was interesting and I enjoyed it. And again, maybe it's just me - I like my history books objective unless made clear that they aren't. It's possible 'cultural history' implies just that, and I misinterpreted in my own mind.
But reading the repetitious 'interpretiveness' literally induced eye-rolling at times. Would I recommend this to others? Probably. Despite those eye-rolling moments, it's still insightful. I just wish it was a little more forthcoming about presenting subjective as fact, not a neutral cultural history. And that it had more on other cultures and how they viewed the face (for a book that seems to detest the Western white patriarchy, there's a surprising lack of diversity on how other ethnicities percieved things).
Bottom line: I don’t take issue with these topics, but with how consistently and definitively they are framed throughout.
Thank you to NetGalley for this Arc. The opinions are my own.
3.5 but rounding down.
I had difficulty picking a star amount, as portions of this book are definitely four star. There are just a few things that bothered me, but they were rather substantial.
So let's start with the basics. This is a cultural history about the face, *mostly from a western civilization perspective. The introduction is interesting, but it feels a bit rambling at times. Each chapter has a 'theme', but the underlying theme is one thing that bothered me most.
I got excited about this book. I love cultural history about 'things'. I love learning about how other cultures, and my own, percieved something throughout history. However, the more I read, the more I realized the book, while largely objective, occasionally shifts into interpretive or ideologically framed language held by the author. A few 'interpretations' throughout are acceptable, but I noticed a very heavy pattern from the very first chapter.
While this is a cultural history, I wasn't expecting a book that essentially took the author's philosophical/political positions and treated them as objective facts. The first example is this:
"Explicit in the work of Francis Galton, and implicit in right-wing propaganda, is the idea that you can judge a book by its cover..."
Now, I'm not any wing politically, but this bothered me. Propaganda is a loaded word, and it puts different ideologies that may have some similarities into one barrel (as in, it's a blanket statement). Francis Galton was indeed associated with eugenics. But the author has essentially lumped Galton's views, and the views of (seemingly all right-wing ideology) as the same. So the two might merge in some minds to become an even bigger blanket statement, implying that all right-wing people believe in eugenics. This is not objective.
Next is a subjective bit about gender. Yes, it is very clear that beauty standards for both men and women change significantly depending on era, class, and ethnicity. I don't dispute that. But several of the gender-heavy passages put philosophical ideas as objective facts, which they are not.
"We tend not to think about the ways in which masculinity is as artificial as femininity in relation to faces and bodies..."
"...and you can't be a historian of the body without knowing how conditional sexed identity has always been..."
Are these statements true? It depends on the person you ask. Therefore, they are not objective facts. Why not frame it something like.... This suggests that masculinity, like femininity, may be shaped by cultural practices and ideology?
The author frequently critiques the white male patriarchy. While I understand the reasoning behind this, and her ideas aren't unfound, the book is constantly, aggressively at times, reminding us. I find this off-putting, as again, I didn't want to read this book for political/personal views of the author.
One more example regarding gender. The story of Mary Toft is well known - the woman in the 18th century who claimed she gave birth to rabbits. The author has interpreted this story to suit her own ideology. She writes,
"Mary’s tale reached the courts because of male anxiety about female rebellion at a time when midwifery was becoming a male profession. There had long been patriarchal distrust about the birth process—including the appearance of monstrous and misshapen offspring."
What Mary did doesn't necessarily reflect what the author implies. Mary's tale likely reached the court because it was a disturbing event (her method was rather horrifying). There is little clear historical evidence that her case reached the courts specifically due to concerns about female rebellion. Is it possible? Yes. Is it documented? No. Therefore, it should at least be written as 'Mary's tale possibly reached the courts...".
Now we move to race. Western civilization has not always been kind to those of 'other' ethnicities that didn't belong to their group. Everyone knows this (though I'm sure there are some that might argue otherwise). Again, I am not against anything the author is saying, only that she is saying it in a subjective, 'this is fact' manner. As an example:
"He documented the journey of the parents, too, in A Child is Born; like every image of a fetus photographed by Nilsson, those parents were white. This was in keeping with the racially homogeneous nature of Sweden in the 1960s, in which more than 99 percent of the population was Caucasian, but also with the ingrained traditions of Western medicine...."
In 1960's Sweden, yes, the overwhelming majority was Caucasian. Does this mean that Nilsson, who likely photographed those in his vicinity, purposefully exluded non-Caucasians? It feels as if that's exactly what's being said here. While not inaccurate, it feels overinterpreted given the historical setting. The observations occasionally seem to impose significance where the context itself already provides a straightforward explanation.
Once again, we place significance out of context in this example:
"Notice, though, that Le Brun does not mention the anatomy of the face, and his description is a caricature—like his sketches. They show generically white and mostly male figures, especially when strong and intense emotions like rage or terror are depicted."
Charles Le Brun lived in 17th century Paris for most of his life. The mention of 'generically white and mostly male figures' is, like with Nilsson (though more subtly), implying some degree of racism. But it implies a lack of diversity representation, which is a more modern concept, not a 17th century European one.
This review is becoming long-winded, so I will give one last example that really bothered me.
"Americans criticize the emotional reserve of Japanese people as aloofness, or, with all its racist undertones, inscrutability..."
Was this the case in the not so distant past? Yes. But this author has used present tense, making it seem like all Americans are racist towards Japanese people, or at the very least, critical. Perhaps this is the personal bias of the author, as she is from Wales, because she mentions a few more 'blanket statements' about America. But again, and my whole point in this review, is that the book has very obvious, repetitive subjectivity. The blurb about the book, and even the title, mislead me into thinking I would be reading an objective history. If I missed any obvious signs that it wasn't completely objective, that's on me. If I got more irked at these subjectivities in a 'history' book than most people would, that's on me, too.
The author seems to apply the same interpretive lens so consistently that it starts to feel overextended and at times, preachy. It's a shame, because a lot of the book was interesting and I enjoyed it. And again, maybe it's just me - I like my history books objective unless made clear that they aren't. It's possible 'cultural history' implies just that, and I misinterpreted in my own mind.
But reading the repetitious 'interpretiveness' literally induced eye-rolling at times. Would I recommend this to others? Probably. Despite those eye-rolling moments, it's still insightful. I just wish it was a little more forthcoming about presenting subjective as fact, not a neutral cultural history. And that it had more on other cultures and how they viewed the face (for a book that seems to detest the Western white patriarchy, there's a surprising lack of diversity on how other ethnicities percieved things).
Bottom line: I don’t take issue with these topics, but with how consistently and definitively they are framed throughout.
Thank you to NetGalley for this Arc. The opinions are my own.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
4.25/5
This was really really interesting to me! Especially as someone who loves art history and is fascinated with faces and how different they can be.
This follows the history of how we as humans interpret the human face.
I didn't find this too dense, but I wouldn't recommend reading it in the middle of the night when you are tired. For a non-fiction book, I really did speed through it. So that should give you a reference as to how not-dense this book is.
I liked that this included lots of example photos and art pieces.
I thought it was interesting how up until the Renaissance, we really didn't care about faces too much. But faces really had a boom with the Victorian era and the development of cameras. Faces being so hyper-analyzed is a rather "modern" thing and that's so fascinating to me. Mainly because we have always clung to them, but not really ever cared to describe them.
Thanks to NetGalley for the e-ARC of this book in exchange for my honest review!
This was really really interesting to me! Especially as someone who loves art history and is fascinated with faces and how different they can be.
This follows the history of how we as humans interpret the human face.
I didn't find this too dense, but I wouldn't recommend reading it in the middle of the night when you are tired. For a non-fiction book, I really did speed through it. So that should give you a reference as to how not-dense this book is.
I liked that this included lots of example photos and art pieces.
I thought it was interesting how up until the Renaissance, we really didn't care about faces too much. But faces really had a boom with the Victorian era and the development of cameras. Faces being so hyper-analyzed is a rather "modern" thing and that's so fascinating to me. Mainly because we have always clung to them, but not really ever cared to describe them.
Thanks to NetGalley for the e-ARC of this book in exchange for my honest review!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews