Erotic Capital
Tell you what, refraining from blogging is a lot easier than abstaining from beer.
I haven’t been around these parts much, but I have had a rich and varied summer: Discussions of aesthetics with John Haldane and Anthony O’Hear. A seminar on marriage and parenthood with W. Bradford Wilcox. Jousting with Timothy Jost on abortion in health care. Trips to the sun-soaked shore with the League’s own David Schaengold and William Randolph Brafford. A reunion with old friends for our third annual celebration in honor of Humanae Vitae, the document that courageously affirmed the consistent Christian teaching against contraception. A discussion with the distinguished Dr. Catherine Hakim on erotic capital.
Erotic capital — the real subject of this post — is a controversial new sociological category proposed by Hakim, a professor at the London School of Economics. She uses it to describe six related traits of market actors: beauty, sexual attractiveness, social charm, liveliness, presentation, and sexual skill. Obviously, erotic capital plays a large role in marriage markets and sexual bargaining. But Hakim also writes in her paper outlining the subject that erotic capital has an unacknowledged influence in the labor market:
The most recent study shows that good looks, intelligence, personality, and confidence all determine income, for men and women alike (Judge et al., 2009). Even after accounting for intelligence, good looks raise income, partly by enhancing educational attainment, personality, and self-confidence. The total effect of facial attractiveness on income is roughly equal to that of educational qualifications or self-confidence, but is much smaller than the impact of intelligence. Attractive people find it easier to interact socially, are more persuasive, and are thus more successful in a variety of jobs.
In her paper, Hakim faults patriarchs and feminists for obscuring the importance of erotic capital. It is, as Jezebel’s response indicates, a theory that seems designed to provoke. But is anyone here inclined to agree with Hakim? If so, how might the phenomena Hakim describes under the heading of erotic capital be addressed in corporate policies and government programs?
And now back to what’s left of summer.
I had a good friend who was strikingly attractive. Actually, I think the reason I only ever wanted to be friends with her was that it was just too interesting to hear her stories about everyone else and how they responded to her. It was also fascinating to go to restaurants or clubs and watch people get flustered by her looks.
There were definitely advantages as far as mating- I don’t think she ever dated anyone who didn’t fall in love with her fairly quickly- although that could be a disadvantage as well. Employment… well, she modeled successfully for some time and her looks probably helped with her regular employment.. But the disadvantages were that she was sort of stunted in other areas. She didn’t really make good choices in most areas of her life and I sort of suspect that she never had to learn how to. Also I think I was basically the only friend she had and that eventually ended.
The other thing Hakim might want to get at is that, if you behave as if you’re very sure of yourself, other people tend to fall in line. So, if you assume that you’re very attractive and act self-confident, but not arrogant, about it, that might bring the same results.Report
If so, how might the phenomena Hakim describes under the heading of erotic capital be addressed in corporate policies and government programs?
I don’t really understand the question. The interplay of looks, intelligence, attractiveness, self-confidence, and natural charm is pretty complex, as is their relative importance in different job functions. I don’t see how a corporate policy or (still worse) a government program could address this, nor why we would want to devote resources to it even if there were a way.Report
@John Henry,
I think that’s a fair response. If there were something to Hakim’s theory, we would presumably want to take account of it in some way when we consider how to align incentives and ensure equal opportunities. It there’s nothing to it though, we can simply move on.Report
@Matthew Schmitz,
It could be that there’s something to it, but that the something is in the eye of the beholder. Not all inequalities are subject to equalization — equalize in the eyes of one, and you’ve probably disequalized in the eyes of another.Report
@Matthew Schmitz, Well, but what’s an ‘equal opportunity’? Everyone has a mixture of characteristics that they use to navigate their way through life, love, and work. One of those traits is intelligence. Another is self-confidence. A third is in the words of Zoolander being “really, really, really, really, good looking,” or just good looking. These characteristics are inter-related but they can often evolve over time (e.g., see 15 year high-school reunions). They also are very hard to disentangle at times in a performance review (X is a great salesperson; she’s also extremely attractive; should she lose points because part of her success is undoubtedly due to her looks?).
I think ‘erotic capital’ as it is broadly defined above is real; but I am not sure it is fairer to dock attractive people points because they wouldn’t be as successful without their looks.Report
@John Henry,
I share your skepticism. I was actually hoping someone would come in here and help show me why and how erotic capital *matters.*Report
@Matthew Schmitz, It’s funny- my first thought when considering this was “Affirmative action for ugly people? Isn’t that what rock & roll bands and academia are for?”Report