Political hair

Occupational Licensing and the Regulation of Race and Gender Identity

Kimberley Johnson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    This article argues that African American hair is a political matter by examining the little-known role of state occupational licensing of African American hair care. By focusing on recent legal challenges and legislative battles over state regulation of hair-care provision for African Americans, the article traces state authorities' responses to struggles over market share between licensed, and often native-born, African American beauticians, and typically unlicensed, and often recent African immigrant, hair braiders. Hair braiders challenged state regulatory oversight by invoking racial deference claims, in which they argued that braiding was a “cultural practice” that should be exempt from state regulation. A statistical analysis of state regulatory decision making revealed that states varied widely in addressing the issue of African American hair care. While racial deference claims, in the form of legal cases, put pressure on states to exempt hair braiders from regulatory oversight, by and large, most states did not choose this path. For states that did choose to address the demands for market protection or market relief, the choices were mostly in the direction of enacting new regulations or actively incorporating hair braiders under existing regulations. Despite the invocation of racial deference claims, African American hair care was not freed from state oversight—state regulators became more flexible in their oversight of Black hair care rooted in their concerns over public safety as well as the demands from a variety of interest groups. The analysis reveals that when race/gender and state regulation intersect, traditional economic theories of occupational licensing are not sufficient; an intersectional approach can better explain policy outcomes.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)417-440
    Number of pages24
    JournalDu Bois Review
    Volume8
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 24 2011

    Fingerprint

    regulation
    gender
    state authority
    market
    market share
    economic theory
    interest group
    statistical analysis
    American
    immigrant
    decision making

    Keywords

    • Gender
    • Immigration
    • Interest Groups
    • Intersectionality
    • Licensing
    • Race
    • Regulation
    • States

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Cultural Studies
    • Anthropology
    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Political hair : Occupational Licensing and the Regulation of Race and Gender Identity. / Johnson, Kimberley.

    In: Du Bois Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 24.10.2011, p. 417-440.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{d8ceeeea7e384207a57f40f4c0223bb1,
    title = "Political hair: Occupational Licensing and the Regulation of Race and Gender Identity",
    abstract = "This article argues that African American hair is a political matter by examining the little-known role of state occupational licensing of African American hair care. By focusing on recent legal challenges and legislative battles over state regulation of hair-care provision for African Americans, the article traces state authorities' responses to struggles over market share between licensed, and often native-born, African American beauticians, and typically unlicensed, and often recent African immigrant, hair braiders. Hair braiders challenged state regulatory oversight by invoking racial deference claims, in which they argued that braiding was a “cultural practice” that should be exempt from state regulation. A statistical analysis of state regulatory decision making revealed that states varied widely in addressing the issue of African American hair care. While racial deference claims, in the form of legal cases, put pressure on states to exempt hair braiders from regulatory oversight, by and large, most states did not choose this path. For states that did choose to address the demands for market protection or market relief, the choices were mostly in the direction of enacting new regulations or actively incorporating hair braiders under existing regulations. Despite the invocation of racial deference claims, African American hair care was not freed from state oversight—state regulators became more flexible in their oversight of Black hair care rooted in their concerns over public safety as well as the demands from a variety of interest groups. The analysis reveals that when race/gender and state regulation intersect, traditional economic theories of occupational licensing are not sufficient; an intersectional approach can better explain policy outcomes.",
    keywords = "Gender, Immigration, Interest Groups, Intersectionality, Licensing, Race, Regulation, States",
    author = "Kimberley Johnson",
    year = "2011",
    month = "10",
    day = "24",
    doi = "10.1017/S1742058X11000415",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "8",
    pages = "417--440",
    journal = "Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race",
    issn = "1742-058X",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Political hair

    T2 - Occupational Licensing and the Regulation of Race and Gender Identity

    AU - Johnson, Kimberley

    PY - 2011/10/24

    Y1 - 2011/10/24

    N2 - This article argues that African American hair is a political matter by examining the little-known role of state occupational licensing of African American hair care. By focusing on recent legal challenges and legislative battles over state regulation of hair-care provision for African Americans, the article traces state authorities' responses to struggles over market share between licensed, and often native-born, African American beauticians, and typically unlicensed, and often recent African immigrant, hair braiders. Hair braiders challenged state regulatory oversight by invoking racial deference claims, in which they argued that braiding was a “cultural practice” that should be exempt from state regulation. A statistical analysis of state regulatory decision making revealed that states varied widely in addressing the issue of African American hair care. While racial deference claims, in the form of legal cases, put pressure on states to exempt hair braiders from regulatory oversight, by and large, most states did not choose this path. For states that did choose to address the demands for market protection or market relief, the choices were mostly in the direction of enacting new regulations or actively incorporating hair braiders under existing regulations. Despite the invocation of racial deference claims, African American hair care was not freed from state oversight—state regulators became more flexible in their oversight of Black hair care rooted in their concerns over public safety as well as the demands from a variety of interest groups. The analysis reveals that when race/gender and state regulation intersect, traditional economic theories of occupational licensing are not sufficient; an intersectional approach can better explain policy outcomes.

    AB - This article argues that African American hair is a political matter by examining the little-known role of state occupational licensing of African American hair care. By focusing on recent legal challenges and legislative battles over state regulation of hair-care provision for African Americans, the article traces state authorities' responses to struggles over market share between licensed, and often native-born, African American beauticians, and typically unlicensed, and often recent African immigrant, hair braiders. Hair braiders challenged state regulatory oversight by invoking racial deference claims, in which they argued that braiding was a “cultural practice” that should be exempt from state regulation. A statistical analysis of state regulatory decision making revealed that states varied widely in addressing the issue of African American hair care. While racial deference claims, in the form of legal cases, put pressure on states to exempt hair braiders from regulatory oversight, by and large, most states did not choose this path. For states that did choose to address the demands for market protection or market relief, the choices were mostly in the direction of enacting new regulations or actively incorporating hair braiders under existing regulations. Despite the invocation of racial deference claims, African American hair care was not freed from state oversight—state regulators became more flexible in their oversight of Black hair care rooted in their concerns over public safety as well as the demands from a variety of interest groups. The analysis reveals that when race/gender and state regulation intersect, traditional economic theories of occupational licensing are not sufficient; an intersectional approach can better explain policy outcomes.

    KW - Gender

    KW - Immigration

    KW - Interest Groups

    KW - Intersectionality

    KW - Licensing

    KW - Race

    KW - Regulation

    KW - States

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864790119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864790119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S1742058X11000415

    DO - 10.1017/S1742058X11000415

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    SP - 417

    EP - 440

    JO - Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race

    JF - Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race

    SN - 1742-058X

    IS - 2

    ER -