The notion of ‘erotic capital’ is in some respects more interesting than it has been given credit for. This is in no small measure down to its provocative framing in the writings of Catherine Hakim (in her book Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital) and the assiduity with which she publicised her work. Her definition was broader, more generous and encompassing, than is often appreciated. She specified six components of erotic capital: (a) beauty, (b) sexual attractiveness, (c) social attractiveness, (d) vivaciousness and energy, (e) presentation and (f) sexuality. These ‘elements’ are salient, she contended, across a wide variety of fields, including media, politics, advertising, sports and the arts, as well as in everyday social interaction.
Hakim contends that erotic capital is a critical fourth asset to be considered alongside economic, cultural and social capital. She also asserts that women generally have more erotic capital than men, and that it therefore it affords them a greater return in terms of social benefits and privileges. Certainly erotic – or more specifically ‘sexual’ – capital is convertible into other forms of capital, for example when ‘attractive’ employees get pay rises by ‘attracting’ more clients or customers.
I am sympathetic to aspects of Hakim’s thesis, but have fairly severe reservations, as others have had. It might in fact have been better handled by a scholar more keen on investigating the variable properties and reach of what she terms erotic capital by time and place and less keen on evangelising on its behalf (promoting it as a way women in particular can ‘use it’ or ‘fight back’). Is erotic capital really empowering for women, as Hakim claims?
For all Hakim’s specification of six components of erotic capital, it is what might best be called sexual capital that seems to sit at its core. She wrote: ‘today, the financial returns of attractiveness equal the returns of qualifications. Many young women now think beauty is just as important as education.’ As has been pointed out, this glosses over the social structuring of (what counts as) beauty by time and place, most pertinently nowadays by race, class and the privileging of heterosexuality. It ignores intersectionality, that is, how women’s beauty is shaped by historically-conditioned, dominant-minority social relations. As far as sexual capital is concerned, research has found that in the USA white, middle-class men have more resources and opportunities for sexual engagement than, for example, working-class black women; and in Australia white, middle-class, educated women reported more sexual partners (and orgasms) than working-class, less educated men from migrant backgrounds. Other studies focusing on gay or bisexual men, transgender desire, or people with dis-abilities could be cited to equal effect.
Nor can sexual capital be easily nailed down. Adam Green has argued that desirability in a sexual field typically depends on more than sexual attractiveness. He commends the concept of ‘capital portfolios’, intended to capture the particular combination of capitals that make an individual or group more desirable than others. Such portfolios combine sexual with economic, cultural and social capital. Men and women in contemporary Britain might well seek out partners with distinctive capital portfolios.
So if sexual capital is subtracted from erotic capital what is left? Not a lot for Hakim it seems. The kernel of her message would seem to be: if you’re a young woman who conforms to – and ‘reflexively’ internalises – modern western criteria of beauty, you ‘should’ use and have sex strategically, thereby maximising your potential to attract the optimal partner/provider. This will allow you to marry ‘upwards’ and improve your social standing. Hmm.
So where does this leave us? What follows is merely a set of possibilities from a neophyte intruder in this domain. Here goes:
- I can see how the notions of sexual capital and capital portfolios might fuel meso- and micro-accounts of sex work;
- More generally, I note that women, and to a lesser extent men, do in fact use Hakim’s erotic capital to further their agendas and interests, but I do not accept her positive commendation of women’s strategic use of erotic capital;
- There already exists evidence that people perceived to be more physically attractive (the ‘beauty premium’) benefit in terms of socio-economic position in adulthood (Benzeval et al, 2013), and the processes involved warrant further study;
- I would prefer the term personal capital (or, better, assets) in acknowledgement that personal attributes and skills: (a) matter, and (b) remain under-investigated by sociologists.
It would be particularly interesting to explore the relations between people’s personal asset flows and dimensions of social stratification and order like class, gender, race/ethnicity and ageing. What is the nature of the dialectic between personal assets and these dimensions? And how is the possession of personal assets – incorporating the putative beauty premium – fuelled by biological and psychological as well as social factors.
Reference
Benzeval,M, Green,M & MacIntryre,S (2013) Does perceived physical attractiveness in adolescence predict better socioeconomic position in adulthood? Evidence from 20 years of follow-up in a population. Plos One 8 1-7.