The notion of “pretty privilege”, used to describe the potential socio-economic advantages that come with being attractive, has gained considerable following in recent years. It has long been documented that those considered “conventionally attractive” — predominantly white, tall, slim, etc., at least according to Western standards — have more favorable outcomes in the job market, such as in recruitment and promotion. Beauty, which we’ll define as a trait that evokes feelings of pleasure and perhaps lust, can thus be envisioned as a kind of “capital” that can quite literally be “bought” and “sold” in order to advance in the socio-economic system.
Beauty, the Fifth Form of Capital?
Renowned French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu defined four types of capital that, when used collectively, can help establish an individual’s position in the capitalistic system, and thus explain observed differences in inequality. Note that the term capital here is not restricted to the traditional economic understanding, which refers more to the resources that a business might use to derive profit.
The four types of capital are cultural, referring to one’s education, knowledge, skills, etc.; social capital, referring to one’s social network or sense of belonging; economic, referring to one’s level of income or wealth more broadly; and symbolic, referring to one’s perceived legitimacy, which may be dependent on factors such as reputation.
As Bourdieu explained, an individual’s existing “capital stock” could be used to acquire additional capital. For example, the completion of a degree in a prestigious school (cultural capital) might open the door to a social network (social capital) that could help an individual obtain a high-paying job after graduation (economic capital). Those with the highest level of capital overall would clearly be the most well-off in society, or the elites.
It has long been documented that those considered “conventionally attractive” have more favorable outcomes in the job market.
Could beauty be seen as the fifth type of capital? Like the other forms of capital, “beauty capital” can be “acquired”, either through good genes or, more realistically, through consumption. The latter might take place through beauty and fashion products, for example, or services such as cosmetic surgery and other non-surgical procedures (botox injections, laser hair removal, etc.). Similarly, it can also be “sold”, even if in many cases, corporations are selling their own fabricated idea of beauty, rather than a standard most women would set for themselves.
Although beauty alone is unlikely to increase one’s position in the capitalistic system, it is no surprise that attractive individuals have long been able to make an asset out of their appearance, often out of necessity. There are entire industries, some of which are more or less regulated, based almost entirely around beauty or erotic capital, an idea first explored by British sociologist Catherine Hakim. These include, among others, the work of porn actors, escorts and sugar babies, as well as, of course, models and actors.
Clearly, most of these industries are built around the beauty capital of women, as men make up the majority of consumers. I’ll just briefly note the case of female porn stars, who must meet certain standards — body shape, waxing, makeup, manicures, etc. — in order to perform, as compared to their male costars who rarely face the same expectations.
Like the other forms of capital, “beauty capital” can be “acquired”, either through good genes or, more realistically, through consumption.
The relatively recent rise in sugar babies and escort girls provides another example of the exploitative power of beauty capital. Some men are willing to spend enormous sums of money (economic capital) just to be seen in the company of a beautiful woman, thus increasing their social or symbolic capital. Similarly, the exploitation of their beauty capital can help such women increase their economic capital (compensation for their services), social capital (expansion of their social network), and/or symbolic capital (status), or even further their existing beauty capital (spending their compensation on improving their appearance).
Similar to the other forms of capital, losing one’s beauty capital potentially means descending in socio-economic rank, especially for those whose very livelihood depends on their appearance. This can help explain the ongoing demand for cosmetic surgery and other non-surgical procedures, much of which is based around a fear of the aging process designed to “sell” a youthful standard of beauty.
How Beauty Can be Bought
Despite the long-held notion that “beauty is subjective”, it is unrealistic to consider our conception of beauty as being disconnected from wider socio-economic forces. Certain women wouldn’t be willing to spend thousands of dollars on a Brazilian Butt Lift without the cultural prevalence of the “Kardashian look”.
The fashion and cosmetic industry attempts to set a general standard for beauty, before branding themselves as a “provider” of this standard through advertisements and sponsorships. By exploiting the “beauty capital” of models and actresses, companies are able to not only draw a link between this imposed standard of beauty and their products, but they can convey deeper messages as well, i.e. their brand is for the “creative” or the “bold” or what else have you. In this way, consumers can not only increase their beauty capital, but perhaps their social capital or symbolic capital as well.
The fashion and cosmetic industry attempts to set a general standard for beauty, before branding themselves as a “provider” of this standard.
Building on this idea, luxury fashion and cosmetic brands, such as Louis Vuitton and Hermès, have clearly made their fortune from selling “distinction”, i.e. you can “distinguish yourself” from others with similar social standing and thus “elevate yourself” by using our products. This draws on the idea that a higher price tag equals greater value equals more status (even if products from many of these corporations have long lost their artisan quality and are instead fabricated in much of the same conditions as that of fast fashion).
Even fashion and cosmetic companies that cater to more modest budgets rely on this idea, as they often copy designer brands. Such is the logic of capitalism: those with more of it — the elites — have greater societal value, and in order to “better ourselves”, we should try to emulate them. High-end brands thus become a social marker, even if, in reality, the top 1% will always follow a completely different rulebook, a point Pierre Bourdieu made decades ago in La Distinction.
Such brands thus cater to the notion of exclusivity, i.e. only members of the elite use their products, even as they attempt to appeal to a consumer base that is not necessarily wealthy. Many of these brands will even go to the point of destroying their own merchandise to maintain this ideal. We therefore see a paradox regarding the “attainability” of the standards set by such companies.
Such is the logic of capitalism: those with more of it — the elites — have greater societal value, and in order to “better ourselves”, we should try to emulate them.
This also explains why luxury brands are willing to dish out millions in order to partner with certain celebrities or “influencers”. Corporations clearly benefit from the beauty, reputation and publicity of their chosen spokespeople (beauty and symbolic capital), whereas the latter are provided with a platform, brand goods, and economic capital. This allows both parties to influence beauty and fashion trends, helping them to stay publicly relevant and thus financially profitable in a kind of mutually beneficial feedback loop.
And so the curtain falls. The fashion and cosmetic industries among many others implement “beauty capital” as a means of pushing individuals towards consumption. If not already clear, this is also made evident in the fact that most corporations, especially those in the luxury sector, rarely respond to consumer input when designing products, except when they suddenly fear loss of revenue and decide to hop on the performative bandwagon.
Claiming back beauty
Many of us, although especially women, grow up bombarded by images of what is supposed to personify beauty. In our attempt to integrate into society, it is only natural that we should try to emulate what we are told is “desirable”, without necessarily knowing or questioning its wider implications.
The reality is, however, that the exploitation of beauty capital, whether it be as a personal profession (porn actors, escort girls, models, etc.) or as a collective industry, is incredibly lucrative. The latter especially have made billions off an advertising model that emphasizes consumers’ “inadequacy”, “incompleteness” or even “ugliness” without a particular product.
We can deconstruct this socially imposed conception of beauty in order to claim it back for ourselves.
While there has been some pushback in recent years, it is unlikely that such norms will disappear as long as these corporations continue to yield the immense power conferred upon them by their economic and symbolic capital stock. Beauty capital thus appears consequential in explaining at least some of the inequalities we see in what can be referred to as the “aesthetics industries”, such as film and television not to mention the obvious contenders mentioned above.
Although there continues to be an expansive consumer market holding up these industries — whether willingly or not — we can, at the very least, deconstruct their socially imposed conception of beauty, by recognizing its role in profitability, in order to claim it back for ourselves.