CULTURE / TEXTUREISM
“Good hair” might sound like an innocent compliment. But the phrase comes with a long history of deciding which textures are softer, prettier, easier and ultimately more acceptable.
What exactly makes hair “good”?
For generations, the answer has often had very little to do with whether the hair was healthy.
In Black communities, “good hair” has historically been used to describe hair that is straighter, softer, longer or more loosely textured, while tightly coiled and kinky textures were more likely to be described as difficult, unruly or “bad.”
The language has changed. The hierarchy has been harder to get rid of.
Where did the idea of “good hair” come from?
The phrase developed within a much bigger history of Eurocentric beauty standards.
In the United States, straight hair was associated with dominant white beauty ideals and, at different points in history, could also affect how Black people were perceived socially and professionally.
By the early twentieth century, straightening tools and techniques had become an important part of Black beauty culture. The reasons people straightened their hair were never all the same—fashion, convenience, creativity and personal preference mattered too.
But assimilation mattered.
Straighter hair could make it easier to fit beauty and grooming standards that were not designed around Afro-textured hair in the first place.
Historically, “good” often meant hair that sat closer to a Eurocentric beauty ideal: straighter, softer, longer and farther away from tightly coiled texture.
That is a beauty ranking—not a measure of hair health.
Is this what people mean by texturism?
Yes, this is one way texturism can show up.
Texturism is the preference for certain hair textures over others, particularly the privileging of straighter or looser textures over tightly coiled hair.
That hierarchy can exist in wider society, but it can also be repeated within families and communities.
A child might hear that one sibling has the “easy hair.”
Someone with loose curls might constantly be told they have “good hair.”
Someone with tighter coils might hear that their hair is difficult, rough or needs to be “fixed.”
Those comments can sound small. They still teach people where their texture supposedly sits in the beauty ranking.
So is calling someone’s hair “good” actually a problem?
Context matters.
Saying, “Your hair looks so good today,” is obviously not the same thing as saying someone has good hair.
The second version can imply that certain people possess the desirable kind of hair—and therefore other people do not.
That distinction becomes especially noticeable when “good hair” repeatedly means loose curls while tightly coiled hair is described with completely different language.
Hair can look good. That doesn’t mean there needs to be a category of people who have “good hair.”
Do these ideas start at home?
They can.
Research with Black women has found that family members were one of the primary sources of messages about hair texture and beauty, alongside peers and media.
Those messages were not always negative. Some families actively celebrated natural hair and Black beauty.
Others passed down preferences for straighter or looser textures—sometimes without consciously thinking about where those preferences came from.
That is part of why “good hair” can survive even after someone rejects the idea intellectually.
You can stop believing tightly coiled hair is inferior and still catch yourself calling a looser curl pattern “pretty hair” first.
Does hair texture actually affect how people are treated?
Research suggests it can.
Studies examining perceptions of Black women in professional settings have found that women wearing natural Afro-textured hairstyles can be judged differently from Black women wearing straightened hair.
In one line of research, Black women with straight hair were rated as more professional and more likely to be recommended for certain job opportunities than Black women wearing natural styles.
That matters because it takes the “good hair” conversation outside the beauty aisle.
If one texture is more likely to be read as polished, employable or appropriate, then the hierarchy can have consequences beyond whether somebody likes a hairstyle.
Pretty, polished, professional and manageable may sound like separate ideas.
But historically, they have often been attached to the same narrow range of hair textures.
Did the natural-hair movement get rid of this?
It challenged it. That is not quite the same thing.
The Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s helped reposition natural Black hair as a visible expression of racial pride. Afros became especially powerful cultural and political symbols.
More recently, the natural-hair movement helped normalize curls, coils, twists, locs and other styles across beauty media and social platforms.
But even inside spaces celebrating natural hair, texture hierarchies can remain.
Looser curls can still receive more praise, visibility or commercial attention than tighter coils.
So simply replacing straight hair with “curly hair” as the new ideal does not completely solve the problem.
The point is not to create a different texture at the top.
Is straightening your hair anti-natural?
No.
Choosing a silk press, wig, weave, relaxer or any other style does not automatically mean somebody dislikes their natural texture.
Black hair culture has always involved styling, transformation and experimentation.
The more useful question is whether someone has a genuine choice.
There is a difference between straightening your hair because you love the look and believing you have to straighten it before anyone will see you as attractive, polished or professional.
Hair freedom includes both.
What should we call “good hair” instead?
Usually, just say what you actually mean.
Healthy.
Soft.
Shiny.
Defined.
Dense.
Beautiful.
Amazing curls.
If you mean that someone’s hair looks great, tell them their hair looks great.
No ranking system required.
The bottom line
We are still talking about “good hair” because beauty standards do not disappear as quickly as beauty trends do.
The phrase carries generations of ideas about which textures are easiest, prettiest and most acceptable—and tightly coiled hair has too often been placed at the bottom of that hierarchy.
There is a much simpler definition available.
Good hair is healthy hair. The rest is texture.