Brazil was one of the last nations to legally abolish the transatlantic slave trade (officially). It would seem strange then, that a nation whose psychic wounds should be the rawest would have the more celebratory and less oppressive view of race (at least when compared to the Americans or the English).
This is of course an outsider's view of Brazil, and is based mostly on the glimpses we get of things like Carnival and the mass media on offer (ranging from telenovelas to pornography). It's a poor man's way to view another culture, but short of travel or fieldwork, such thumbnail sketches are sometimes all we have to go on.
Alexander Edwards does a good job of showing how, in Brazil, the barrier between elective and medical surgery is blurred by a whole host of beliefs (or maybe neuroses) about which traits it's desirable to have and which are to be avoided like the plague. The general rule seems to be that Europeans age poorly but have finer features, while Caribbean, Latin, and African peoples age better and their bodies withstand the vagaries of life (especially pregnancy) better than the Anglos. In one tragic moment, the author visits a woman who is in a clinic to have her "Negroid nose corrected." In another, brutally candid passage, the author explains that the racial caste system in Brazil is bound (or has been bound) for a long time by the following rule: "Whites for marriage, brown for sex, and black for work."
The case studies, fieldwork, and interviews the author conducts are solid, for the most part. The lattice of theory grates, distracts, and finally maddens. In the end, Edmonds has no good excuse for spending so much time with continental philosophers, whose ideas he and his subjects admit, were maybe in vogue for a generation or two in pre-Revolutionary Brazil, but really have no salience in Latin America. Sigmund Freud himself once claimed that the Irish were impervious to his methods; my guess is that the farther afield of Austria one goes (both in terms of time, away from the fin-de-siecle culture and the actual seats of the Hapsburg Monarchy) the less relevant Freud becomes. Ditto for the other, later European thinkers the author brings up in the course of the book.
There's some good stuff in here, and Edmonds is a solid cultural anthropologist, sociologist, and all-around thinker. In my opinion he would be better served by relying more on his own instincts, his interview subjects, and a little less on postmodern/post-structuralist/post (fill in the blank) theory. Mixed recommendation.