How did historical perceptions of textured hair shape the need for the CROWN Act?

Roots

To truly understand the journey that led to the CROWN Act, one must first listen to the whispers of the strands themselves, those resilient coils and kinks that carry the echoes of generations. For far too long, the inherent glory of textured hair, a living testament to ancestral lineages and diverse cultural expressions, has been misjudged, mislabeled, and diminished within societal constructs. It is a story not merely of aesthetics, but of profound identity, of the very spirit of a people woven into the fabric of their appearance. We delve into this complex narrative, recognizing that the perceptions of textured hair, often rooted in historical biases, have shaped a pressing need for legal protection, a recognition of inherent dignity.

The Sacred Language of Coils and Kinks

Across pre-colonial African societies, hair was never simply an appendage; it was a profound symbol, a living ledger of identity, status, and spiritual connection. The intricate patterns of braids, the purposeful coiling of locs, the deliberate shaping of coiffures—each spoke a silent language, conveying marital status, age, tribe, wealth, and even one’s role within the community. In the Yoruba culture, for instance, hair, positioned as the body’s highest point, was considered a conduit for spiritual energy, a direct line to the divine.

Hair care rituals were communal, social events, strengthening familial and tribal bonds, an act of shared heritage passed down through the ages. This deep respect for hair, for its capacity to communicate and connect, forms the bedrock of textured hair heritage.

Pre-colonial African societies viewed hair as a profound symbol, a living ledger of identity, status, and spiritual connection.

The very structure of textured hair, with its unique elliptical cross-section and varying curl patterns, is a biological marvel, an adaptation to diverse ancestral environments. This inherent difference, however, became a tool of subjugation with the advent of the transatlantic slave trade. Captured Africans, whose hair traditions were a source of immense pride and cultural continuity, were often forcibly shaved upon arrival in the Americas. This brutal act served a dual purpose ❉ to strip them of their cultural identity and to dehumanize them, severing a vital link to their homeland and their people.

How Did Perceptions of Textured Hair Shift during Enslavement?

The arrival of enslaved Africans in the Americas brought with it a systematic dismantling of their cultural practices, including the veneration of hair. European colonizers imposed their own Eurocentric beauty standards, deeming Afro-textured hair as “uncivilized,” “unprofessional,” or even “dirty.” The rich, varied styles that once signified status and heritage were now mocked and denigrated, often compared to “wool” in an effort to portray Black people as animalistic and inferior. This imposed narrative of inferiority compelled many to alter their hair to fit the dominant aesthetic, not out of preference, but out of a desperate need for survival and a semblance of acceptance. The practice of covering hair with head-rags, initially a practical measure for field laborers, also served to obscure the very texture that was deemed undesirable.

The early attempts to straighten hair, using rudimentary and often harmful methods like axle grease during slavery, speak volumes about the pressure to conform. Later, inventions like the hot comb, popularized by figures such as Madam C.J. Walker, offered a means to temporarily straighten coils, a tool that, while creating economic opportunity, also reinforced the notion that straight hair was “good hair” and a pathway to social and economic advancement. This legacy of external pressure and internalized prejudice created a complex relationship with textured hair that continues to resonate today.

Ritual

Stepping into the space of how historical perceptions shaped the need for the CROWN Act means acknowledging a journey from ancestral reverence to enforced conformity, a narrative deeply embedded in the rituals of hair care and styling. The quest for acceptance, born from centuries of imposed beauty standards, transformed hair practices from communal acts of cultural affirmation into often solitary, arduous efforts to align with a dominant aesthetic. This evolution, from organic tradition to reactive adaptation, highlights the profound impact of societal gaze on the personal and collective experience of textured hair. We explore the tangible practices and cultural shifts that reveal this enduring legacy.

The Evolution of Styling Practices and Social Pressure

The shift from pre-colonial African hair artistry to the forced assimilation of the diaspora profoundly altered the rituals of hair care. While in ancient Africa, a person’s hairstyle could indicate their family background, tribe, and social status, the transatlantic slave trade sought to erase these visible markers of identity. Enslaved people, stripped of their traditional tools and communal grooming practices, found ingenious ways to preserve their heritage, sometimes even braiding rice seeds into their hair as a means of survival and cultural continuity, or using cornrows as maps for escape routes.

After the abolition of slavery, the negative attitudes towards Afro-textured hair persisted, fueled by caricatured stereotypes and the promotion of Eurocentric beauty ideals in media. The concept of “good hair” versus “bad hair” became deeply ingrained, with straighter, softer textures being deemed desirable, and kinky, coarse hair considered undesirable. This led to a widespread adoption of hair straightening methods, initially through hot combs and later through chemical relaxers, which, despite their potential for damage, offered a perceived pathway to social and economic mobility.

How Did the “Black is Beautiful” Movement Reshape Hair Narratives?

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s sparked a profound cultural awakening, leading to the “Black Is Beautiful” movement. This era marked a powerful reclamation of identity, where Black individuals began to celebrate their skin, features, and especially their natural hair, as inherently admirable. The Afro, in particular, became a potent symbol of pride, power, and resistance against Eurocentric beauty standards. Activists like Angela Davis sported the Afro as a political statement, transforming it into an emblem of self-love and solidarity within the Black community.

This movement, though significant, faced persistent societal pushback. While afros were technically allowed in some workplaces after the 1976 case of Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, social pressure to conform to Eurocentric hair norms continued to shape decisions.

The journey was not linear. While the 1960s saw a rise in natural styles, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed a resurgence of pressed and permed hair, influenced by pervasive hair-care advertisements. Yet, this period also saw the popularization of braids and cornrows, often showcased by Black celebrities. However, wearing these styles frequently led to legal challenges.

A notable example is the 1981 case of Renee Rogers against American Airlines, where the court sided with the airline, ruling that braids were not an “immutable racial characteristic” and thus not protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This ruling set a precedent that allowed employers to discriminate against styles like braids and locs, creating a precarious situation for Black individuals seeking professional opportunities.

The CROWN Act stands as a legal counterpoint to centuries of discriminatory hair practices and perceptions.

The emergence of the modern natural hair movement in the 2000s, spurred by social media and cultural narratives, represented a renewed commitment to embracing natural textures. This second wave, building on the legacy of its predecessors, brought forth a demand for equal representation and a rejection of harmful chemical treatments. This contemporary movement directly confronted the lingering effects of historical perceptions, highlighting the urgent need for legal protections against hair discrimination.

Relay

How does the historical subjugation of textured hair, and the enduring resilience of those who wear it, culminate in a legislative imperative like the CROWN Act? This inquiry takes us beyond the individual strand, into the societal structures that codified prejudice and the profound psychological toll exacted by a culture that devalued a fundamental aspect of Black and mixed-race identity. We witness how centuries of biased perceptions, from the colonial era’s deliberate erasure to modern workplace policies, laid bare the necessity for a legal framework to protect the inherent dignity of textured hair.

The Legal Landscape of Hair Discrimination Before the CROWN Act

The legal battle for hair equality has been a long and arduous one, marked by judicial interpretations that often failed to grasp the deep cultural and racial significance of textured hair. Prior to the CROWN Act, the legal landscape was fraught with ambiguity and inconsistent rulings. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, courts often narrowly interpreted “race” to exclude hairstyles not considered “immutable characteristics.” This meant that while an Afro might gain some protection, styles like braids, locs, or twists were frequently deemed changeable and thus, unprotected.

A particularly stark example of this judicial reasoning is the case of Chastity Jones. In 2010, Ms. Jones had a job offer rescinded by Catastrophe Management Solutions because she refused to cut her locs. The company’s hiring manager reportedly stated that locs “tend to get messy.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on her behalf, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling against Jones in 2016, effectively dismissing the case.

This ruling, alongside others like the 1981 American Airlines case, cemented a legal precedent that left Black individuals vulnerable to discrimination based on hairstyles intrinsically linked to their heritage. Such rulings highlighted a systemic failure to recognize hair discrimination as a form of racial discrimination.

The psychological impact of this pervasive discrimination cannot be overstated. Studies and community dialogues reveal that hair-based stigma contributes to:

• Internalized Racism ❉ Individuals may internalize negative stereotypes, leading to a diminished self-image and a preference for Eurocentric hair aesthetics.
• Chronic Stress and Anxiety ❉ Constant microaggressions and the pressure to conform in academic or professional spaces can lead to heightened stress responses and hypervigilance.
• Cultural Disconnection ❉ The feeling of needing to hide one’s natural hair can lead to a sense of identity suppression and disconnection from ancestral heritage.

How does the CROWN Act Address These Historical Inequities?

The CROWN Act, standing for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” emerged as a legislative response to these centuries of discrimination and the inadequate legal protections. California became the first state to pass the CROWN Act in 2019, explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles associated with race, including braids, locs, twists, and Afros. This legislation directly counters the narrow interpretations of civil rights laws that previously left textured hair vulnerable.

The Act acknowledges that hairstyles are not merely aesthetic choices for Black and mixed-race individuals, but are often deeply rooted in their cultural heritage, ancestral practices, and racial identity. By protecting these styles, the CROWN Act aims to dismantle the systemic racism embedded in appearance policies that disproportionately penalize Black individuals in schools and workplaces. It seeks to create environments where individuals can wear their natural hair with pride, without fear of losing educational or employment opportunities.

The CROWN Act serves as a vital legal shield, affirming the right to wear natural hair as an expression of racial identity and heritage.

The push for the CROWN Act is a direct continuation of the fight for racial equality, extending the legacy of movements like “Black Is Beautiful” into the legal sphere. It represents a collective effort to shift societal norms, moving beyond mere tolerance to genuine acceptance and celebration of diverse hair textures. While the federal CROWN Act has passed the House of Representatives but awaits Senate consideration, its widespread adoption at the state level signifies a growing recognition of hair discrimination as a civil rights issue. This legislative movement seeks to correct historical injustices, ensuring that the ancestral crowning glory of textured hair is finally seen, respected, and protected within the broader societal fabric.

Reflection

The journey of textured hair, from revered symbol in ancient lands to a contested site of identity in modern society, culminates in the quiet power of the CROWN Act. This legislation is not merely a legal document; it is a profound affirmation, a collective exhale for those whose ancestral strands have long carried the weight of misperception. It speaks to the resilience woven into every coil and kink, acknowledging that hair is a living archive, holding stories of survival, cultural continuity, and unwavering spirit.

As Roothea, we witness this evolution, recognizing that protecting the right to wear one’s natural hair is a testament to the enduring heritage of Black and mixed-race communities, a step toward a world where every strand is celebrated for its inherent beauty and the deep wisdom it carries. The journey continues, a vibrant unfolding of identity, where the past informs the present, and the future promises a deeper reverence for the Soul of a Strand.

References

• Byrd, A. & Tharps, L. (2001). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Publishing.
• Johnson, D. (2001). Hairitage ❉ Women Writing Race in Children’s Literature. African American Review, 35(1), 17–28.
• Patton, T. O. (2006). Hey Girl, Am I More Than My Hair? African American Women and Their Struggles with Eurocentric Hair Standards. Black Women, Gender, and Families, 1(1), 107–120.
• Rooks, N. M. (1996). Hair Raising ❉ Beauty, Culture, and African American Women. Rutgers University Press.
• Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc. 527 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
• Catastrophe Management Solutions v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 784 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2015).
• Gale Review. (2021). African Hairstyles – The “Dreaded” Colonial Legacy .
• BLAM UK CIC. (2022). The History of Black Hair .
• Afriklens. (2024). African Hairstyles ❉ Cultural Significance and Legacy .
• Consumer Notice. (2024). Hair Discrimination in the Workplace ❉ How it Affects Mental Health .
• Bounce Black. (2024). Hair and Mental Health .
• Omotos, A. (2018). The Politics of Black Hair in Post-Colonial Africa. Journal of Pan African Studies, 11(3), 114-129.