1. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
1
Literature Review:
To what extent is facial hair (beards and moustaches, in specific) mobilised in the
construction of class and gender in Popular Culture?
A popular trend in the 21st
century is the wearing of beards. But, beards and moustaches have
been appropriated and re-appropriated over time, in addition to being injected with multiple
values in different arenas of use (ex: professional wearing, everyday wearing,
commercialisation of the beard, etc.). In the Victorian era, beards and moustaches, when
groomed and worn by the elite had completely different symbolic meanings as opposed to the
wearing of facial hair by the middle and working classes. However, the most ostracised by
virtue of being the subjects of judgement, have been the working classes. The aims of this essay
seek to identify the politics of how class and gender is constructed through the wearing of
beards and moustaches in popular culture. This literature review seeks to contribute to already
existing research in the field.
First, both class and gender are categories of identification along with race, ethnicity, sexuality,
age, etc. All these categories are intersectional in nature. Class in specific can only be measured
in relation to another category of identification. Distinction between classes is produced
through that which constitutes the class as a whole. However, difference can be both positive
and negative (Bourdieu, 1984; Hall, 1997). Negative classification depends on a description of
what one lacks, which is the opposite of something that has value (Lawler, 2005). Here,
according to Skeggs (2004) categories of identity are social constructs that ‘mark’ personal
characteristics and nature, which are also social constructs. Gender and sexuality are both
products of class due to the production of certain class formations as a result of the relationship
between gender, sexuality, and race (2004, p.4). But, what makes distinction possible on
whatever basis is the legitimation of the self. In other words, one is challenged to legitimate

2. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
2
their identity. According to the author, similar to the way in which the power of the privileged
classes is ascribed and misrecognised, those that are ‘othered’ in relation to the privileged are
also ascribed with characteristics that are often a misrecognition. This misrecognition is caused
due to a fallacy during exchange of value (see Appadurai, 1986) due to the perceived lack of
social, cultural, symbolic, or economic capital in relation to the ‘other’ in a system of exchange.
Historically, the discourse of hygiene was used not only to produce distinction between the
clean (and therefore, ‘classier’), and the degenerate, unhygienic, but also to market
commodities as essential for the maintenance of the social self. The process of bodily discipline
is a social and ceremonial occasion deemed necessary to prove the worthiness of one’s
perceived application into high society. Here, ‘high society’ is characterised by obedience, and
tradition (see Barber, 2008; Bourdieu, 1984; Kadir and Tidy, 2013). In other words,
disciplining of gender serves to sustain the hegemonic constructions of gender and
heteronormativity in popular culture. “The self is seen not as a subject position, but part of a
system of exchange in which classed personhood is produced through different technologies,
such as narration for legal claims making.” (Skeggs, 2004, p.5). This further aids the production
of the ‘rational actor’, which is a self that attempts to produce and collect “its own value in its
own interests via strategic decisions” (2004, p.6). Such a notion helps support the upheld
notions of uniqueness, where the word ‘unique’ stands for ‘different from everyone else’. The
theory of the ‘rational actor’ supports an understanding of the wearing of facial hair as an
individual ‘style’ following through from non-mainstream ideology. Moreover, this would
imply that the body is commodified; the symbolisms of the body are exchanged for the
production of value, where value is ascribed. Along with value being ascribed to bodies, so
were characteristics and practices specific to that body. For example, the male body was
ascribed with masculinity, and masculine value in the body’s relationship to consumptive

3. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
3
practice. However, ascription of value is relative and dependent on perspective; it is the
dominant perspective that claims power to legitimate or otherwise.
Legitimation produces symbolic capital, which enables embodied entitlement (Bourdieu,
1984). The framing of what is acceptable for a person to do depends on the cultural capital, the
symbolic capital, the social capital, and the economic capital of that person. A useful word
towards studying legitimation and cultural capital is ‘taste’. Kantian theory of aesthetics
considers the distinctions based on taste a betrayal of human nature, while Bourdieu considers
taste an effect of social relationships that gives authority to the middle classes to define the
boundaries of acceptable taste (see Lawler, 2005). Taste is owned by the powerful, or is at least
made to appear so. But, how is ethnic legitimacy projected onto the body? This has been lacking
in Skeggs’ work and is also one of the topics my research aims to look into to understand the
wearing of beards in Sikh communities. Further, Beverley Skeggs’ (2004) extensive work on
the fetishization of the working classes is relevant towards this regard to also understand the
fetishization of the ethnic other. Here, the display of the self is marked in a good-bad binary.
You can either look good with a beard, or bad with one, with no middle ground of ‘okay-ness’.
Fascination with the “unknown”, immoral/bad self, caused it to be associated with danger,
disruption and promiscuity, which caused fetishization. This was again fragmented into the
respectable and the un-respectable, the former of which offered windows of opportunity to
possess exchange value. Moreover, the social body is a site of constructions of identity and
consumptive practices of popular culture. It is a site onto which deference is projected. The
body is an everyday ‘thing’, associated with habit, habitation, and repetitive action. Social roles
are broken down depending on the motility of the body, ex: idle poor, respectable working-
class; giving rise to emotionally charged experiences of class such as ‘primitive phobia’, and
‘primitive mania’ (2004, p.38). Social roles produce class, and classes produce social roles. For
example, the employee is more likely to be considered working class based on the cultural

4. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
4
capital the employee exhibits. A tamed beard would similarly be middle class due to the
association of grooming with an ideology of something that is ‘not careless’ (Bourdieu, 1984).
Lawler, (2005) analyses the role of disgust (emotion) in the production of middle-class identity
and also its importance in producing distinction from working-class identities. According to
the author, the process of ‘othering’ is about the normative, rather than about factual truths. It
is important here to note that there are no factual truths, as all perspectives are subjective.
A discourse inherent in the social wearing of beards is the notion of needing to ‘groom’ facial
hair in order to appear socially acceptable and respectable (Lawson, 1999; Skeggs, 2004;
Walton, 2008). Here, respectability refers to the acquisition of value during the exchange of
social, cultural, economic, and symbolic capital in dominant, institutionalised systems of
exchange (also see Appadurai, 1986; Bourdieu, 1984). This is similar to the phenomena of
‘make overs’ that essentially discipline the lifestyles of women. In this context however,
‘grooming’ is the ‘making over’ of facial hair. According to Angela McRobbie (2004), ‘make
overs’ take effect through their quality of victimising the subject in need of one. Make overs,
and grooming discourses are feminized (Barber, 2008), where femininity is associated with the
work of ‘appearance building’. Lawson’s (1999) research, which deals with the distinction
between barbershops and hair salons, are useful towards understanding gendered and classed
spaces. According to Lawson, the barber shop is associated with something that is outdated,
and the hair salon is associated with something that is new age, therefore creating classed
spaces. In make overs, the class habitus of any individual comes under direct analysis of those
privileged enough to pass judgement that is ‘correct’. Class is in a constant state of production
and reproduction (also see Grimlin, 1996; Skeggs, 2004). McRobbie’s (2004) research
establishes that middle-class women become the gatekeepers of style and the gentlemanly ideal
(for the context of this research), in addition to setting the normative for behaviour, family
value, etc (also see Bourdieu, 1984; Skeggs, 2004). If classes produce each other and the middle

5. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
5
class is produced and reproduced through material and symbolic struggle (Skeggs, 2004); is it
not true that all other classes are produced in relation to the formation of the middle class and
not solely in relation to their relationship with the middle class? The objective of the research
is to identify the production of class distinction in attempting to answer the above question. It
is important to note that persons do not necessarily neatly fit into one social class (Grimlin,
1996). What one does with one’s hair is a reflection of the claim one makes to an identity.
However, there are also different powers at play in the space of a hair salon where grooming
takes place. That of the customer and that of the stylist. Hair is seen as an embodiment of
something temporary. It can be changed to suit the season, hair is versatile in its styling taking
up Foucault’s theory of the docile body which considers bodies to be versatile (also see Kadir
and Tidy, 2013). There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in wearing hair a certain way, but, instead an
‘appropriateness’ and an ‘inappropriateness’ (Grimlin, 1996, p. 521). This indicates the
abstract, non-factual nature of distinction making. The middle class ideology of ‘natural-ness’
is reinforced in grooming practices. But, stylish, spunky, innovative beard-dos (for the purpose
of my research) are also ironically reinforced as a requirement to be the ideal middle class
norm.
Further, grooming discourses are neoliberal and post-feminist in nature where post-feminism
encourages individualisation while advocating for moderate consumption. Neoliberalism
individualises responsibility, where the product of one’s action is one’s own responsibility. In
other words, one has to work on oneself for oneself, and the product of this action is as a result
of the individual’s effort (also see Barber, 2008; Kadir and Tidy, 2013; Skeggs, 2004). More
importantly, gendered individualisation reinforces social divisions more sharply by enabling
symbolic violence.
“People are increasingly individualized, they are required to invent themselves, they are
called upon to shape themselves so as to be flexible, to fit with the new circumstances

6. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
6
where they cannot be passively part of the work-force but must, instead, keep themselves
employable and adapt themselves and their skills for the rapidly changing demands of the
labour market.” (McRobbie, 2004, p.100).
But, does consent to make overs necessarily mean that deference to social hierarchies is
inevitable? Can there not be resistance in circumstances where one has consented to be ‘made
over’? Is grooming not as pressurized a process of re-education for masculine identities? What
about in the case of masculine females? These are some of the questions my research seeks to
find answers to with regard to the construction of class and gendered division through the
wearing of facial hair. Power always claims an ‘other’ to be powered over. However, the
‘powered over’ can exhibit resistant powers (Skeggs, 2004).
What makes my research particularly significant is the fact that it studies the pressures of
masculinity, a section of gender performance which has been studied by but a few scholars.
Barber (2008), for example, provides an analysis of the transgression of gender boundaries for
male salon-goers, while resisting the feminization at the salon space. The author studies the
making of the metrosexual man and the implications of such an identity in the creation of
distinction. On the one hand, the metrosexual man gains a relatively lower status due to his
social perception as effeminate. On the other hand, the metrosexual man assumes a higher
status in society due to his social perception as clean, and well groomed. Barber explains this
tension through her theory of commercialised beauty. Here, beauty is purchased, and the men
with the income transgress feminized space through disposable income (also see Grimlin,
1996). Another author, who studies not just femininity as a gender is Dozier (2005), who
analyses the popular interpretation of sex and gender as defining each other through the visual
characteristics of the body such as beards and breasts. Adopting a Goffmanesque theory of
performative dramaturgy, Dozier emphasizes that construction of gender as a socialized
performance of the self (also see Kadir and Tidy, 2013). Additionally, the interpretation of sex

7. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
7
in popular culture relies on the performance of gender, corporeal or otherwise. However, the
meanings of performed gender in social and sexual interactions are more important than the
perception of performed gender. According to the author, behaviour is gendered based on
physical attributes that suggest assigned sex. Therefore, facial hair is an icon of masculinity,
and as a gendered behaviour, hair is important for the validation of gender identity.
Interestingly Kadir and Tidy (2013) study the lack of hegemonic femininity in comparison to
a hegemonic masculinity in popular culture. According to the authors, who add to Connell
(2005), there exists no hegemonic femininity because femininity depends on the subordination
of women by men. Hegemonic masculinity subordinates other types of masculinities to confirm
legitimation, and therefore becomes a power of those privileged enough to claim it.
Alternitively, according to Lawson (1999), the creation of the mythological ‘real man’, is
perhaps the closest parallel to the hegemonic beauty feminine ideal. Here, they are similar in
the power they claim from their subjects.
Therefore, it is safe to say that the wearing of facial hair is suspended in multiple tensions, in
multiple arenas of use and symbolism. The topics my research seeks to answer contribute to
the wider scheme of work on the construction of class and gender through the wearing of facial
hair in popular culture. Today, beards and moustaches are commercialised to the extent where
it is possible for a party to be themed in such a way that the dress code requires one to have a
moustache (made available for women through stick-on moustaches, spray-on moustaches, and
paint). The privileged would describe this state of everydayness as something belonging to the
masses. By being defined as the mass, taste (which is perceived as individual ownership) is
obliterated. Which begs the question – how individual is the self? It also becomes important to
explore what happens when the middle classes appropriate styles from the so called ‘masses’.
In other words, what happens when the middle classes thrift? Nevertheless, the wearing of

8. Candidate number: 117171
Class and Popular Culture
8
beards and moustaches have had a historically significant existence towards the production of
class, and along with it, distinction, as they continue to do so today.
References:
 Appadurai, A. (1986) ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’, in Appadurai,
A. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-63 [Online]. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511819582.003
(Accessed: 23 November 2015).
 Barber, K. (2008) ‘The Well-Coiffed Man: Class, Race, and Heterosexual Masculinity in
the Hair Salon’, Gender and Society, 22(4), pp. 455-476 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27821663 (Accessed: 29 December 2015).
 Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
 Dozier, R. (2005) ‘Beards, Breasts, and Bodies: Doing Sex in a Gendered World’, Gender
and Society, 19(3), pp. 297-316 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044595 (Accessed: 21 December 2015).
 Grimlin, D. (1996) ‘Pamela’s Place: Power and Negotiation in the Hair Salon’, Gender
and Society, 10(5), pp. 505-526 [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189880
(Accessed: 03 January 2016).
 Hall, S. (1997) ‘The Spectacle of the ‘Other’: Introduction’, in Hall, S (ed) Representation:
Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, pp. 225-238.
 Kadir, S. and Tidy, J. (2013) ‘Gays, Gaze and Aunty Gok: The disciplining of gender and
sexuality in How to Look Good Naked’, Feminist Media Studies, 13(2), pp. 177-191
[Online]. DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2011.604324 (Accessed: 20 December 2015).
 Lawler, S. (2005) ‘Disgusted subjects: the making of middle-class identities’, The
Sociological Review, 53(3), pp. 429-446 [Online]. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
954X.2005.00560.x (Accessed: 15 December 2015).
 Lawson, H. M. (1999) ‘Working on Hair’, Qualitative Sociology, 22(3), pp. 235-257
[Online]. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022957805531 (Accessed: 03 January 2016).
 McRobbie, A. (2004) ‘Notes on ‘What Not To Wear’ and post-feminist symbolic
violence’, in Adkins, L. and Skeggs, B. (eds.) Feminism After Bourdieu. Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 99-109.
 Skeggs, B. (2004) Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.
 Walton, S. (2008) ‘From Squalid Impropriety to Manly Respectability: The Revival of
Beards, Moustaches and Martial Values in the 1850s in England’, Nineteenth-Century
Contexts: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(3), pp. 229-245 [Online]. DOI:
10.1080/08905490802347247 (Accessed: 23 December 2015).