Lookism

Please do not hesitate to write your subjective opinions which can not be in wikipedia but may be useful for other visitors of this article.
Do you have anything to say about Lookism? (You don't have to register to write a comment, you can write as anonymous.)

History[edit]

Though the term "lookism" is of recent coinage, cultures and traditions worldwide have often warned against placing undue value on physical appearance:

To judge by appearances is to get entangled in the Veil of Maya [in Buddhist thought] [...] From ancient times until relatively recently, there was widespread worry about lookism, because the appearance of others may deceive, especially in romance, or it may be personally or politically imprudent to judge or act on appearances. Judging by appearances was prohibited by monotheistic religions (“no graven images”) and criticized in ancient and medieval philosophies. Skeptics, Stoics, Cynics, Epicureans and Scholastics elaborated various reasons to avoid or subordinate the role of appearances.^[5]

However, the term "Lookism" was first coined in the 1970s within the fat acceptance movement. It was used in The Washington Post Magazine in 1978, which asserted that the term was coined by "fat people" who created the word to refer to "discrimination based on looks."^[6] The word appears in several major English language dictionaries.^[7]

Lookism has received scholarly attention both from a cultural studies and an economics perspective. In the former context, lookism relates to preconceived notions of beauty and cultural stereotyping based on appearance as well as gender roles and expectations. Important economic considerations include the question of income gaps based on looks, as well as increased or decreased productivity from workers considered beautiful or ugly by their co-workers.

Some writers have examined body fascism among gay men. Author Michelangelo Signorile described it as "the setting of a rigid set of standards of physical beauty that pressures everyone within a particular group to conform to them. Any person who doesn't meet those very specific standards is deemed physically unattractive and sexually undesirable. In a culture in which the physical body is held in such high esteem and given such power, body fascism then not only deems those who don't or can't conform to be sexually less desirable, but in extreme sometimes dubbed lookism also deems a person completely worthless as a person, based solely on his exterior. In this sense it is not unlike racism or sexism, or homophobia itself."^[8]

Empirical support[edit]

According to Nancy Etcoff, a psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, "we face a world where lookism is one of the most pervasive but denied prejudices."^[9] Referring to several studies, Angela Stalcup writes that "The evidence clearly indicates that not only is there a premium for prettiness in Western culture, there is also penalty for plainness."^[10]

Research by Dan Ariely found that American women exhibit a marked preference for dating taller men, and that for shorter men to be judged attractive by women, they must earn substantially more money than taller men.^[11]

In the article "Is Lookism Unjust", Louis Tietje and Steven Cresap discuss when discrimination based on looks can legitimately be described as unjust.^[12] Tietje and Cresap quote evidence that suggests there exists "a 7–to–9 percent 'penalty' for being in the lowest 9 percent of looks among all workers, and a 5 percent 'premium' for being in the top 33 percent". While accepting that the evidence indicates that such discrimination does occur, the authors argue that it has been pervasive throughout history. Therefore there can be no clear model of injustice in such discrimination, nor would legislation to address it be practicable. The authors conclude: "We do not see how any policy interventions to redress beauty discrimination can be justified."^[12]

Political lookism[edit]

Lookism has been an issue in politics for centuries, with a long tradition in the United Kingdom of "mercilessly exaggerat[ing]" the physical flaws of politicians in newspaper cartoons.^[13] In the 1960 Presidential race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, it was often believed that Kennedy's more conventionally handsome appearance contributed to his winning more approval in their first televised debate,^[14] but some researchers have challenged this widespread idea and argued that Kennedy's appearance had little or no influence.^[15]

There are several variables that might contribute to the objectification of masculinity and femininity in politics. Scholar Charlotte Hooper argued that “gender intersects with other social divisions such as class, race and sexuality to produce complex hierarchies of (gendered) identities[.]”^[16] Hooper argues that institutional practices, such as military combat in war, have greatly defined what it means to be a man. Furthermore, the symbolic dimension, which includes sports, media, current affairs, etc. has “disseminate[d] a wealth of popular iconography which links Western masculinities to the wider world beyond the borders of the state.”^[17] This is where the ideology of lookism is firmly entrenched according to Hooper. Similarly, Laura Shepherd suggests that men are required to fit into the “matrix of intelligibility”^[18] by acting a certain way, dressing a certain way, and have a mentality that is devoid of emotion or anything effeminate; if they are successful in becoming the ultimate “man’s man” then they are virtually untouchable. However, others have suggested that there is only an explicit interest in the analysis of masculinity within this political sphere, it will be impossible to develop a reliable analysis of femininity within this same sphere.^[19]

Some^[who?] argue lookism affects women in an even more detrimental way than men. Drawing examples from Madeline Albright’s TED talk in 2010, “On Being a Woman and Diplomat”, Albright expressed her frustrations with how her male colleagues and media commentators would pick apart her appearance. Being the first female Secretary of State for the United States, Albright was in the spotlight on the domestic and international stage; everything from her age, weight, hairstyle and choice of dress were scrutinized; yet ironically, the policy positions she believed to be her most important accomplishments (initiation of the G7, attempts to promote gender equality, etc.) were hardly taken into account.^[20] The fact that Albright’s general appearance didn't fit into the narrow category of “attractive” made it even more difficult for her to navigate the space between being a woman and a diplomat. Albright is not the only woman in a position of power, or otherwise, that has been discriminated against because of her appearance. An article published in The Washington Post in 2005 labeled Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as a “dominatrix” when she stepped out in thigh-high black-heeled boots during a visit to Wiesbaden Military Base in Germany.^[21] Although the article was meant to give credit to Rice for “challeng[ing] expectations and assumptions”,^[22] some^[who?] argue that the article gave her a hyper-sexualized image, and further removed the audience from focusing on the purpose of her visit to the military place. Similarly, media commentators have often chosen to report on Hillary Clinton’s “man suits” and Julia Gillard’s short hairstyle, instead of focusing on these women’s professional accomplishments.^{[citation needed]} Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, was the subject of much media attention due to her conventionally attractive appearance,^[23] with Palin suggesting that the focus on her appearance ignored her professional and policy accomplishments.^[24]

Law[edit]

United States[edit]

Until the 1970s, lookism in the United States was sometimes codified into law. In many jurisdictions, so-called "ugly laws" barred people from appearing in public if they had diseases or disfigurements that were considered unsightly.^[25][26] Today, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission considers extreme obesity to be a disability protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a few cities protect against discrimination based on appearance.^[27] Otherwise, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination based on physical appearance.

See also[edit]

Sociology portal

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Albright, Madeleine. "On being a woman and a diplomat." TEDWomen Recorded December 2010. TED Talk February 2011. Web.
• Enloe, Cynthia. "‘Gender’ is not enough: the need for a feminist consciousness." International Affairs.: 97.
• Givhan, Robin. "Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes." The Washington Post, sec. Fashion and Beauty, February 25, 2005. (accessed September 23, 2013).
• Hooper, Charlotte. "Masculinities, IR and the ‘gender variable’: a cost-benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics." Review of International Studies. (1999): 475-480.
• Shepherd, Laura J. Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters. New York: Routlege, 2010.

External links[edit]

• lookism.info – German site on lookism, with English translations
• abcnews.go.com – "The Ugly Truth About Beauty" - article on lookism