If there was a prize for political correctness, an aunt of mine would probably put in a bid. In her world, no one is deaf or dumb or stupid; they’re all something-challenged or something-disabled instead. She’s so PC that she gets livid when she hears her cook calling her dark-furred Boxer ‘Kallu’ and once stalked out of a party because the host referred to someone as a Negro. And yet, she thinks nothing of judging people on the basis of their looks. Not only does she prefer her older daughter-in-law over the younger because she’s prettier, aesthetics play a large part in her office hirings as well. “Attractive people tend to have more self-confidence and are taken more seriously,” is her justification, but the truth is she’s an out-and-out lookist.
The dictionary meaning of ‘lookism’ is bias or discrimination based on a person’s appearance. In other words, better treatment for better-looking people. While who we find ‘good-looking’ is subjective, research shows that genetically-blessed persons earn more rewards (financially, professionally and socially) than those stuck with the short straw in the looks draw. Like racism—but within one race—it begins from birth and is all-encompassing. From the shape of a newborn’s head to a bride’s skin colour, it factors in every visual clue.
The term ‘lookism’ may have been coined only a few decades ago, but the practice, and the response to it, has existed across history and geography. Think of the old Indian custom of the swayamvar, or the eyelid and nose alterations in China and Korea. From the late 1860s until the 1970s, some cities in the US reportedly had an ‘ugly law’ in place, which made it illegal for persons with ‘unsightly features’ to appear openly. They were fined, between one and 50 dollars, if they actually showed up in public.
India hasn’t gone so far, or been so cruel, but anyone who has ever skimmed through the matrimonial ads or sat in on a chat among aunts and cousins at a family function will know the brutality with which we Indians diss the physically-disadvantaged. We don’t just put a premium on a pretty face, we levy a strong penalty for plainness. Not in money maybe, at least not socially, but definitely in derision.
On the work front, being physically attractive may be necessary in jobs like modelling, and perhaps comes in handy while selling some products. With little or no correlation between looks and intelligence/talent, there is no reason to believe that looks matter in any other line of work. And yet, they do. Studies show that an employee’s presentation of himself is as important as what he puts on his PowerPoint charts. While very few will admit it, many organisations recruit and promote employees on the basis of how their appearance complies with the company’s image of itself and its staff.
Economist Daniel Hamermesh’s book, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People are More Successful, demonstrates how society favours the beautiful and how good-looking people are far more likely than non-lookers to be employed, work more productively and profitably, negotiate loans with better terms, obtain approvals more easily, and even attract more attractive and educated spouses. Professor-authors Louis Tietje and Steven Cresap are even more specific. In their paper, Is Lookism Unjust, they suggest that there is a 7-9 per cent penalty for being in the lowest 9 percentile of looks among employees and a 5 per cent premium for being in the top 33 per cent.
Clearly my aunt is not the only one to have missed the memo on beauty lying in the heart of the beholder.
Shampa@Newindianexpress.Com
