CULTURE / TEXTUREISM
The natural-hair movement made curls and coils more visible. It didn’t automatically erase the hierarchy between them.
Natural hair is celebrated far more openly than it was a generation ago.
But pay attention to which textures are most often called beautiful, effortless, manageable or “curl goals,” and another pattern starts to appear.
Not all natural textures are treated the same.
There’s a name for that: texturism.
What exactly is texturism?
Texturism is bias based on hair texture, particularly when straighter, looser or smoother textures are valued over tighter, more Afro-textured hair.
It is closely connected to the Eurocentric beauty standards that have historically positioned straighter hair as more desirable, polished or acceptable.
And unlike hair discrimination between racial groups, texturism can also happen within the same community.
Someone can celebrate Black hair generally and still believe certain Black hair textures are prettier than others.
Which hair textures tend to get rewarded?
Research gives us the clearest evidence at the broader level.
Studies have found bias in favour of smoother, more Eurocentric hair over Afro-textured hair. Black women wearing natural textured styles have also been rated less favourably on measures including beauty and professionalism than women with smoother or straightened hair.
Within natural-hair spaces, the hierarchy can become even more specific.
Looser curls may be celebrated while very tightly coiled hair is still described as difficult, coarse, unruly or something that needs considerably more “work” before it looks finished.
“I like loose curls” is a preference.
“Loose curls are prettier, more professional or better hair” creates a hierarchy.
Didn’t the natural-hair movement fix this?
It changed a lot.
The natural-hair movement helped make curls, coils, Afros, twist-outs and other natural styles far more visible in beauty culture.
It also gave millions of people information about their hair that mainstream beauty had largely failed to provide.
But representation can expand without becoming completely equal.
Women with tightly coiled hair have continued to point out that the most visible version of “natural curls” in advertising, tutorials and social media is often a looser, highly defined pattern.
Even Allure’s recent look at the next phase of the natural-hair movement raised texturism as one of the issues the movement still has to confront.
So yes, natural hair won more space.
The question now is who gets the most space inside it.
Can “curl definition” become part of the problem?
Curl definition itself is not texturist.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a defined wash-and-go.
The problem is when definition becomes the requirement for tightly coiled hair to be considered beautiful.
Some textures naturally form obvious ringlets. Others may form tiny coils, zigzags, fluffy sections or patterns that are much harder to see without close inspection.
Shrinkage is normal too.
If tightly coiled hair is only praised once it has been stretched, slicked, elongated or manipulated into visible curls, we are still quietly telling that texture what it needs to become before it can be admired.
Natural hair shouldn’t have to look like looser hair to qualify as beautiful natural hair.
What does texturism actually sound like?
It is not always somebody announcing that they dislike tightly coiled hair.
It can sound much more ordinary.
“You got the good curls.”
“Her hair is so manageable.”
“Your curls would be so pretty if you defined them.”
“You should stretch it so we can see the length.”
“Her hair is too much.”
Words like manageable, neat, soft, defined and difficult are not inherently bad words.
But it is worth noticing whether the same textures repeatedly receive the flattering ones.
Does hair length play into it too?
It can.
Very tightly coiled hair can shrink dramatically, which means its visible length may be much shorter than its stretched length.
That matters in a beauty culture that has historically rewarded long hair.
A head of tightly coiled hair may be healthy and growing perfectly normally while still appearing much shorter than looser curls of a similar actual length.
So length bias and texture bias can overlap.
Suddenly, the texture that shrinks the most is also being asked to prove that it is long.
What about the curl typing chart?
The familiar 1-to-4 hair typing system can be useful shorthand.
Knowing approximately how tightly your hair curls can help when you’re looking at hairstyles or trying to find someone whose hair behaves similarly to yours.
But it becomes a problem when the chart starts behaving like a leaderboard.
Recent scientific reviews have also pointed out that common curl-typing systems leave out characteristics that can matter just as much for hair care, including density, strand diameter and porosity.
And one head can contain several different patterns.
A classification system can describe a curl. It cannot rank its beauty.
Do beauty brands still contribute to texturism?
Representation has improved considerably, but gaps remain.
Beauty media and creators with tightly coiled hair have repeatedly called attention to campaigns that advertise themselves as inclusive while centring mostly loose or medium curls.
Allure noted in 2026 that mainstream hair care has historically tended to prioritize products and representation for looser curl patterns, even as the textured-hair market has expanded.
There is also a difference between putting one tightly coiled model in a campaign and actually developing, testing and demonstrating products across a range of textures.
If a brand says it is “for curls,” the next question is simple:
Which curls?
A truly texture-inclusive brand should not only show different hair on the homepage.
Look at the tutorials, product demonstrations, stylists, campaign images and people involved in testing the products.
Is having a favourite curl pattern automatically texturist?
No.
People have aesthetic preferences.
You can love big loose curls. You can love tiny coils. You can prefer your own hair stretched one week and shrunken the next.
The more important question is what gets attached to that preference.
Does one texture become prettier?
More feminine?
More professional?
More desirable?
More “mixed-looking”?
Easier to sell?
Better hair?
That is where preference can start turning into a value system.
So how do we actually unlearn texturism?
Start by noticing what you praise.
Notice which textures fill your inspiration folders.
Notice whether you only call tightly coiled hair beautiful after it has been stretched or extremely defined.
Notice what you mean when you describe somebody’s hair as “easy.”
And especially notice the language used around children.
Research on Black women’s experiences has found that messages about hair and beauty often begin within families, with peers and through media.
Those messages can celebrate natural hair.
They can also teach a hierarchy before anyone knows the word texturism.
The bottom line
The beauty standard has expanded enough to include curls.
Now it has to expand enough to stop ranking them.
Loose waves do not need to become less beautiful for tight coils to become more beautiful. There does not have to be a winning curl pattern at all.
Every texture deserves to exist without having to move closer to another one first.