Roots
The very strands that crown our heads, particularly those with rich, textured patterns, carry whispers of ancient lands and stories etched across generations. For too long, however, these ancestral declarations of identity have been subjected to a gaze that sought to diminish their inherent beauty, imposing a singular, often Eurocentric, standard upon a diverse world. This historical bias, a shadow stretching from eras of forced assimilation to the present day, is precisely what current legislation seeks to dismantle, acknowledging the profound connection between hair, heritage, and human dignity. It is a profound act of reclamation, recognizing that the way one wears their hair is not merely a style choice, but a living echo of ancestry and a declaration of self.
The Anatomy of Ancestry
To truly grasp the biases woven into history and challenged by modern law, one must first understand the elemental biology of textured hair. Unlike straight strands, which typically emerge from round follicles, textured hair springs from elliptical or highly flattened follicles, creating a unique helical structure. This distinct morphology leads to its characteristic coils, kinks, and waves. The variations in curl shape, strand diameter, and protein distribution within the hair shaft contribute to the vast spectrum of textured hair types.
Historically, these biological distinctions were weaponized. Early classification systems, often rooted in pseudo-science, attempted to categorize human hair based on geo-racial origin, simplifying a complex biological reality into three broad groups ❉ African, Asian, and Caucasian hair. Such reductive frameworks, however, fail to account for the immense diversity within these groups and the myriad of mixed ancestries.
For instance, Eugen Fischer, a German Nazi scientist, created a “hair gauge” in 1908 to measure proximity to whiteness based on hair texture, a stark example of how scientific inquiry was perverted to serve discriminatory ideologies. These historical classifications, devoid of true scientific merit, laid a foundation for societal norms that deemed tightly coiled hair as “unprofessional” or “unclean,” contributing to the pervasive concept of “bad hair” within Black communities.
Current legislation works to unravel the historical threads of bias, recognizing that hair texture is a deeply personal expression connected to one’s ancestral lineage.
Language and Legacy
The lexicon surrounding textured hair also carries the weight of historical bias. Terms like “nappy” or “kinky,” once used pejoratively to demean Afro-textured hair, reflect a colonial mindset that sought to denigrate Black features. Yet, within ancestral traditions, these very qualities were celebrated. In many African societies, hairstyles were not mere aesthetic choices; they were intricate maps of social status, age, marital status, spiritual beliefs, and tribal identity.
For example, the Yoruba people braided hair to send messages to the gods, viewing the head as a portal for spirits. The Mangbetu people of Congo used braided crowns as symbols of wealth and status. These practices highlight a deep respect for hair as a sacred part of the self, a vessel of ancestral wisdom.
Modern legislation, particularly the CROWN Act, directly challenges the discriminatory language and perceptions that have denied opportunities based on these very hairstyles. By explicitly protecting styles like locs, cornrows, twists, and Afros, the law reclaims and legitimizes the ancestral forms of hair expression.
The shift from a Eurocentric ideal to an appreciation of natural textures is a testament to the resilience of cultural heritage. It is a movement that seeks to decolonize beauty standards, allowing individuals to honor their authentic selves without fear of reprisal.
Ritual
As we move from the foundational understanding of textured hair, a deeper appreciation for the applied wisdom of its care and adornment unfolds. The journey of textured hair through history is a testament to the ingenuity and spirit of communities who, despite systemic oppression, preserved and adapted their ancestral practices. This section explores how current legislation intervenes in a history where the very rituals of hair care and styling became battlegrounds against bias, emphasizing the enduring spirit of heritage in every strand.
Ancestral Practices and Their Suppression
Across the African diaspora, hair care was, and remains, a communal and spiritual act. It was a time for storytelling, for sharing wisdom, and for strengthening familial bonds. Traditional practices involved the use of natural ingredients—herbs, oils, and clays—passed down through generations, each with its own purpose in nourishing and protecting the hair. These rituals were not merely about hygiene or aesthetics; they were deeply rooted in identity, spirituality, and a connection to ancestral roots.
However, with the transatlantic slave trade, these rich traditions faced brutal suppression. Enslaved Africans were often forcibly shaven upon arrival, a dehumanizing act designed to strip them of their cultural identity and sever their connection to home. This was the initial, violent imposition of a bias that sought to erase the very essence of textured hair heritage.
| Historical Practice Braiding (e.g. cornrows for mapping escape routes), |
| Bias Faced Criminalization and forced removal in various contexts |
| Historical Practice Headwraps (e.g. Tignon Laws), |
| Bias Faced Imposed as a mark of subservience, later reclaimed as a symbol of cultural expression, |
| Historical Practice Natural Afro (symbol of Black Power), |
| Bias Faced Deemed "unprofessional" or "unacceptable" in formal settings, |
| Historical Practice The historical policing of textured hair reveals a deep-seated bias that legislation now works to correct, allowing for the cultural expression of hair. |
The legacy of this suppression continued long after emancipation. The concept of “good hair,” often meaning hair that mimicked Eurocentric straightness, arose, creating divisions within Black communities and pushing individuals to alter their natural textures with harsh chemicals. Madam C.J. Walker, while a pioneer in Black hair care, also popularized the hair-straightening comb, reflecting the societal pressure to conform to white beauty standards for social and economic advancement.
The CROWN Act and Reclaiming Autonomy
Current legislation, most notably the CROWN Act, directly confronts these historical biases by prohibiting discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles. The CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” aims to end the denial of opportunities in employment, education, and other public accommodations due to natural hair. As of July 2024, 25 states have enacted versions of this law, with efforts continuing at the federal level.
Modern laws like the CROWN Act are a legal affirmation of the right to wear one’s natural hair, honoring ancestral practices and challenging centuries of imposed beauty norms.
This legislation recognizes that hair discrimination is a form of racial discrimination. For instance, a 2020 study found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to receive job interviews, and those styles are often perceived as less professional. Another study in 2019 revealed that Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair. These statistics paint a stark picture of the ongoing impact of historical biases.
The CROWN Act addresses these deeply rooted issues by:
- Expanding Legal Definitions ❉ It broadens the definition of “race” in anti-discrimination statutes to include traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles.
- Protecting Cultural Expression ❉ It explicitly protects styles like Afros, locs, braids, twists, and Bantu knots, which are deeply significant to Black and mixed-race heritage.
- Challenging Eurocentric Norms ❉ The law works to dismantle the idea that Eurocentric hair standards are the default for professionalism or acceptance.
The legal challenges faced by individuals, such as Chasity Jones, who had a job offer rescinded for refusing to cut her locs, highlight the critical need for such protections. The CROWN Act is a significant step towards ensuring that no one is penalized for expressing their identity through their hair, a right that has been historically denied.
Relay
As we delve deeper into the intricate dance between heritage, bias, and legal remedy, the complexities of textured hair discrimination reveal themselves as a profound reflection of societal structures. How, one might ask, does the very biological architecture of textured hair intersect with the enduring echoes of ancestral practices to shape current legislative battles? This inquiry invites us into a space where science, cultural memory, and legal frameworks converge, offering a multi-dimensional understanding of how present-day laws strive to mend historical fractures.
The Interplay of Biology and Societal Perception
The unique helical structure of textured hair, arising from its elliptical follicle shape, renders it distinct from straight hair. This distinction, however, was historically twisted into a basis for social hierarchy. In the Western world, Afro-textured hair was often viewed with disdain, perceived as “unprofessional” or “unclean” by members of all ethnicities. This perception, divorced from scientific reality, created a pervasive “textureism” where looser curls were favored over tighter coils, often reflecting proximity to European ancestry.
The very act of classifying hair, even in seemingly neutral scientific contexts, has been fraught with historical bias. While modern systems attempt to categorize hair types without referring to human ethnicity, earlier approaches often linked hair characteristics directly to geo-racial origins, reinforcing problematic stereotypes. The impact of these historical classifications is still felt, influencing unconscious biases in contemporary settings. A 2023 study found that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as “unprofessional.”, This statistic is not merely a modern phenomenon; it is a direct lineage from centuries of ingrained prejudice against hair textures that deviate from a Eurocentric norm.
The historical context of hair discrimination is not anecdotal; it is a systemic issue with quantifiable consequences. For instance, in the 1700s, the Tignon Laws in New Orleans forced free Creole women of color to cover their elaborate hairstyles, a direct attempt to diminish their social standing and signify their connection to the enslaved class. This specific historical example powerfully illuminates how hair, a seemingly superficial attribute, became a tool for racial control and the enforcement of social hierarchies.
Legislative Remedies and Persistent Challenges
The CROWN Act, passed in numerous states, is a legislative response to this enduring legacy of discrimination. It aims to protect individuals from race-based hair discrimination in various spheres, including employment and education. The legislation specifically addresses policies that prohibit natural hairstyles like Afros, braids, locs, twists, and Bantu knots, recognizing their cultural significance.
Despite its progress, the CROWN Act faces ongoing challenges and limitations. While 25 states have enacted the law, there is no nationwide federal protection, leaving many individuals vulnerable. Furthermore, some state-level versions of the CROWN Act contain loopholes that can still permit discriminatory targeting of Black hairstyles. For example, a Texas judge ruled that the state’s CROWN Act did not apply to hairstyle length, leading to continued disciplinary action against students for their locs.
- Deandre Arnold’s Case ❉ A Texas student, Deandre Arnold, was prevented from participating in his high school graduation ceremony because of his locs, even after the state’s CROWN Act was passed. This highlights the ongoing need for robust legislation and consistent enforcement.
- Workplace Microaggressions ❉ Beyond explicit bans, Black women with coily or textured hair are twice as likely to experience microaggressions in the workplace compared to those with straighter hair. These subtle, yet pervasive, forms of discrimination underscore the deep-seated nature of hair bias.
- Economic and Health Implications ❉ The pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards often forces Black women to incur significant financial costs and potential health risks from chemical straightening treatments. The CROWN Act, by validating natural hair, helps alleviate these burdens.
The persistent policing of Black students’ natural hair sends a message that their hair is inherently unprofessional or inappropriate, leading to disparate academic outcomes. This underscores the need for not only legislative action but also a fundamental shift in societal mindset, fostering cultural competency and valuing diversity in all its forms.
Reflection
The journey through the historical biases against textured hair and the legislative efforts to challenge them reveals a narrative of profound resilience and persistent reclamation. Each curl, coil, and wave, once deemed “unruly” or “unprofessional” by an imposed gaze, now stands as a testament to an enduring heritage, a vibrant declaration of self. The “Soul of a Strand” ethos, at its core, invites us to recognize hair not merely as biological fiber, but as a living archive, holding the memories of ancestral wisdom, the echoes of struggles, and the vibrant promise of unfettered expression. Current legislation, while a significant step, is but one chapter in this ongoing story.
The true transformation lies in the collective consciousness, where the beauty and cultural richness of textured hair are celebrated, unburdened by the shadows of historical prejudice. It is a continuous weaving of past and present, ensuring that the legacy of every strand is honored, understood, and allowed to flourish in its authentic glory.
References
- Banks, I. (2000). Hair Matters ❉ Beauty, Power, and the Politics of Hair in African American Culture. New York University Press.
- Byrd, A. D. & Tharps, L. L. (2001). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Press.
- Loussouarn, G. de La Mettrie, R. & Saint-Léger, D. (2007). Diversity of human hair. International Journal of Dermatology, 46(Suppl 1), 2-6.
- Opie, T. R. & Phillips, K. W. (2015). The natural hair bias in job recruitment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(7), 743-751.
- Owens Patton, T. (2006). Hey Girl, Am I More Than My Hair? African American Women and Their Struggles with Beauty, Power, and Hair. Peter Lang Publishing.
- Russell, K. (2013). The Politics of Hair ❉ The African American Experience. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Walker, A. (1997). Andre Talks Hair. Simon & Schuster.