No Hair Texture Is Better Than Another — Biologically Speaking
Throughout this series, we have explored the biology of human hair: how follicles shape curls, how genes control texture, how tightly coiled hair may have protected early humans from the equatorial sun, and how hair types trace ancient migrations across the globe.
But biology is only half the story.
The other half is cultural. And it is much darker.
For centuries, human societies have assigned value to different hair types. Straight hair has been praised as “good,” “professional,” and “beautiful.” Curly and coily hair has been called “bad,” “unruly,” “unprofessional,” and worse. These judgments are not based on science. They are based on history, colonialism, and racism.
This article explores the origins of the “good hair” myth, its lasting impact, and the movements working to dismantle it. Because no hair texture is better than another—biologically speaking. The hierarchy was invented. And what was invented can be dismantled.
The Origins of the Hierarchy
The idea that some hair is “good” and some is “bad” did not emerge from nature. It emerged from the transatlantic slave trade and European colonialism.
In slave societies, white women would often hack off the hair of their enslaved female servants because it supposedly “confused white men” . The natural texture of Black hair—tightly coiled, dense, and springy—was seen as foreign, threatening, and in need of control.
This was not just about aesthetics. It was about power. Controlling Black bodies included controlling Black hair.
By the 18th and 19th centuries, European naturalists had begun classifying human variation into racial hierarchies. Hair texture was one of the traits they used. Straight hair was associated with Europeans, who placed themselves at the top of the hierarchy. Tightly coiled hair was associated with Africans, who were placed at the bottom.
These classifications were not neutral scientific observations. They were tools of oppression, designed to justify slavery and colonialism.
The “Good Hair” Myth in Practice
What does “good hair” actually mean? In the United States and many other Western societies, “good hair” has historically meant hair that is straight, wavy, or loosely curled—hair that more closely resembles European hair textures.
“Good Hair” is considered to be hair that is wavy or straight in texture, soft to the touch, has the ability to grow long, and requires minimal intervention by way of treatment or products to be considered beautiful .
“Bad hair,” by contrast, has meant hair that is tightly coiled, kinky, or nappy—a historically derogatory term used to describe hair that is short and tightly coiled . “Bad hair” was seen as unmanageable, ugly, and in need of chemical straightening or other interventions.
These distinctions have real consequences. The Perception Institute reports that Black women are 1.5 times more likely than non-Black women to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair and are 80% more likely to agree with the statement, “I have to change my hair from its natural state to fit in at the office” .
The CROWN Act: Legal Recognition of Hair Discrimination
The harm caused by hair discrimination has become so well-documented that multiple states and countries have passed laws to address it.
In 2019, California became the first state to pass the CROWN Act—an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” . The law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on hair textures or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. Protected hairstyles include: locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros .
Since California’s enactment, dozens of other states have passed their own versions of the CROWN Act, including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Virginia . The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a federal version of the bill, though it has not yet become national law .
The CROWN Act Coalition—founded by the National Urban League, Dove, Color of Change, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty—continues to advocate for federal legislation. Other coalition members include the NAACP, all four historically Black sororities, the Anti-Defamation League, and the U.S. Black Chambers, Inc. .
The History of Policing Black Hair
Hair discrimination is not new. It has been happening for centuries.
In 1786, Louisiana passed the Tignon Law, which forced Black women to wear a scarf or headwrap to identify them as part of the slave class . The law was explicitly designed to regulate the appearance of Black women and prevent them from “competing” with white women in public.
In the late 1960s, after the FBI declared Angela Davis one of the country’s ten most wanted criminals, thousands of other law-abiding, Afro-wearing African American women became “targets of state repression—accosted, harassed, and arrested by police, the FBI, and immigration agents” . Her “nappy hair” served not only to structure popular opinions about her as a dangerous criminal, but also made it possible to deny the rights of due process to young Black women simply on the basis of their hairstyle .
In 2010, a woman named Chastity Jones was offered a job as a customer service representative at Catastrophe Management Solutions in Alabama. When she refused to cut her dreadlocks to comply with the company’s grooming standards, the job offer was revoked. In 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on her behalf. However, an Alabama district court ruled that refusing to hire someone because they wear dreadlocks did not violate federal civil rights law. In 2016, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling .
Cases like these are why the CROWN Act is necessary.
The Natural Hair Movement
In response to centuries of pressure to straighten or alter natural hair, the Natural Hair Movement (NHM) emerged as a form of resistance and self-acceptance.
The movement gained significant momentum in the early 2000s. Women began questioning their hair-care practices, particularly those who straightened their hair with chemical relaxers. One Texas woman described her decision to “go natural” as an “overwhelming urge to come clean and get back to myself,” adding, “I was coming to terms with the fact that I had been subjecting myself to all of those toxic chemicals for all of those years” .
The NHM is not just about hair. It is about rejecting the idea that natural Black hair is unprofessional, ugly, or in need of “fixing.” It is about reclaiming autonomy over one’s own body and appearance. It is about saying: my hair is good exactly as it grows out of my head.
However, the movement has also faced criticism. Some scholars argue that the NHM initially centered too narrowly on the Afro hairstyle as the quintessential representation of natural Black hair, excluding other natural hairstyles such as locs, twists, and even bald heads . This critique highlights an important truth: natural hair is not one texture or one style. It is diverse, and that diversity should be celebrated, not reduced to a single image.
The Psychology of “Good Hair” Beliefs
The “good hair” myth is not just external. It is internalized.
Research has documented how deeply these beliefs can shape self-perception, particularly among Black women and girls. When a child is told repeatedly that lighter skin is prettier or that straighter hair is more beautiful, they do not simply learn that others hold those preferences. They learn to hold them themselves. They learn to see their own hair through that judgmental lens.
This internalization process can have lasting psychological effects. Studies have found that experiences of colorism and hair discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem, lower body esteem, and increased psychological distress.
But there is also resilience. Many individuals and communities actively work to unlearn these beliefs, to celebrate natural hair, and to pass that celebration on to the next generation.
When you sport your natural hair, you are free. Your hair is wild. You have a new “hairstyle” every day. You are radiant. You are regal .
Challenging the Myth: Voices from the Community
In focus groups exploring perceptions of “good” and “bad” hair, participants offered a range of perspectives. Some rejected the categories entirely. As one participant said, “There’s no such thing as ‘good’ hair and ‘bad’ hair because it’s hair” . Another stated simply, “Hair is hair” .
Others acknowledged that they still carry these beliefs, even if they know they are harmful. One participant attributed his awareness of “good” and “bad” hair to his mother being a beautician—he witnessed the whole process of Black women getting their hair done and internalized the idea that some hair is “harder to manage” than others .
Some participants offered alternative definitions. One suggested that “good hair” means “strong, and full, and bouncy, and taken care of, and healthy”—regardless of curl pattern . Another noted that the original definitions of “good” and “bad” hair—European versus African—no longer apply, because some white people have thin, stringy hair (which he considered “bad”) and some Black people have thick, healthy hair (which he considered “good”) .
These voices reveal both the persistence of the myth and the possibility of change.
What Biology Says
Here is what the science says, clearly and unequivocally: no hair texture is biologically superior to another.
Straight hair is not more “evolved.” Curly hair is not “primitive.” Coily hair is not “unmanageable” or “dirty.” Every hair type is a solution to a problem that your ancestors faced.
Tightly coiled hair provided excellent protection from solar radiation in equatorial Africa. Thick, straight hair may have helped with cold protection in northern climates. Wavy hair may represent an intermediate adaptation, or simply the product of migration and genetic drift.
None of these textures is better. They are just different. And they are all beautiful.
The same hair that today gets treated as style, identity, or fashion may have once been part of survival . That does not make it better or worse. It makes it human.
Moving Forward
The myth of “good” and “bad” hair did not emerge from nature. It emerged from colonialism, slavery, and racism. It was invented to justify hierarchy and control.
But what was invented can be dismantled.
This does not mean pretending that hair differences do not exist. They do exist. Curly hair behaves differently from straight hair. Coily hair requires different care than wavy hair. That is not the problem. The problem is the value judgment attached to those differences.
The solution is not to ignore hair texture. It is to see it clearly—as biology, as history, as culture—and to refuse to rank it.
Every time you see a person wearing their natural hair—whether in tight coils, loose waves, straight strands, locs, braids, twists, or an Afro—you are seeing someone who may be resisting centuries of pressure to change. You are seeing someone who may have fought internalized beliefs to accept themselves. You are seeing someone who has decided that their hair is good exactly as it is.
That is not a small thing. That is a radical act of self-love.
And it is backed by science. Because biologically speaking, no hair texture is better than another.
Every curl, every wave, every straight strand tells a story. And none of those stories comes with a ranking.
References
Mokoena, H. (2016). From slavery to colonialism and school rules: a history of myths about black hair. The Conversation.
Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP. (2022). Hair Discrimination – U.S. Senate Voting On Federal Ban. Martindale-Hubbell.
Harris County Commissioners Court. (n.d.). Resolution Supporting the CROWN Act.
Mangen, A. (Ed.). (2021). Exploring the “good hair” and “bad hair” dichotomy [Doctoral dissertation, Morgan State University].
University of Cape Town. (2023). The things we have not seen before: An exploratory autoethnography into the South African Natural Hair Movement [Master’s thesis].
Disclaimer: This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI. All sources are real and verifiable. Readers are encouraged to check the references themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Previous:Hair as a Migration Map
angelexe 
Leave a comment