Colorism: Why Light Skin Remains Associated with Beauty and Success

Colorism refers to the social preference for lighter skin tones within the same racial or ethnic group, to the detriment of darker skin tones. It appears in compliments, insults, romantic choices, advertising, casting, and cosmetic products. It is not simply a matter of acknowledging that everyone has preferences: the problem arises when a repeated preference becomes a collective hierarchy.

In many African and diasporic contexts, light skin may be associated with beauty, luxury, modernity, desirability, or success. Conversely, very dark skin is sometimes linked to poverty, rusticity, or a lower social position. These associations are neither natural nor neutral: they are learned and repeated through images and everyday language.

This issue relates to the mechanisms discussed in our article on light skin in Africa and the effects of colorism on beauty standards. Colorism does not erase the diversity of individual preferences, but it calls into question the models that determine, on a broad scale, who is considered desirable, credible, or worthy of being put forward.

When appearance signals a social position

Cultural productions often use quick visual codes to place a character socially. In certain series, advertisements, musical works, or fashion campaigns, a poor, domestic, rural, or marginalized woman may be portrayed wearing her natural hair. Conversely, when the aim is to embody a wealthy woman, entrepreneur, celebrity, or glamorous figure, the image may favor long straight hair, sophisticated wigs, more heavily coded makeup, and light skin.

The contrast becomes even more visible when a character’s social ascent is told through a makeover. New clothes, heels, and makeup then signal a change in status; but straightened hair or extensions may also become implicit markers of presumed success. It is as though success required visually distancing oneself from natural features associated with African identity.

These representations do not concern hair alone. Skin color also plays a role in casting and in the staging of beauty. When one complexion is repeatedly selected to represent luxury, love, or success, while another is more often used to represent social hardship, an imaginary hierarchy is created. It can then influence how people are viewed in real life.

Everyday words can perpetuate colorism

Colorism is also transmitted through seemingly harmless exchanges. In some local usages, saying that a woman is “light-skinned” or “brown-skinned” may be enough to suggest that she is beautiful. Information about skin color thus becomes an answer to a question about attraction or beauty.

Conversely, humiliating comparisons directed at very dark skin are sometimes presented as mere jokes. They may be made among friends or family and therefore appear harmless. Yet they establish the idea that being darker is a flaw that can be laughed at.

The problem is not that someone notices differences in complexion. It lies in the value assigned to them. If light skin is automatically interpreted as an advantage and dark skin as a source of mockery, preference turns into a social norm. Children are especially exposed to this: from an early age, they learn which faces receive compliments and which become targets.

Advertising and casting: when complexion becomes an economic criterion

Advertising controversies show just how explicitly images can convey this hierarchy. In October 2020, a Karine Mongwe Laboratories campaign for Carimo cleansing milk sparked widespread outrage in Cameroon. The poster showed a very light-skinned woman sitting on a throne, with darker-skinned people at her feet in a submissive position, beneath the slogan “Put them at your feet.”

Following reactions and petitions calling for the campaign to be withdrawn, Cameroon’s Minister of Communication, René Emmanuel Sadi, intervened. The campaign was removed from billboards and social media. The case notably highlighted the degrading nature of a representation that physically associated light skin with domination and dark skin with subordination.

The entertainment industry has also faced criticism. In Ghana, a controversy emerged in 2014 over allegations that dark-skinned models had been excluded during preparations for a music video involving Akon and Wizkid. More broadly, testimonies from women working in film and music refer to pressure created by selection criteria that favor light-skinned women.

These mechanisms have tangible consequences. When a complexion increases the chances of getting a role, appearing in a music video, representing a brand, or obtaining a front-desk job, the issue is no longer merely aesthetic. Skin color can affect professional opportunities and income.

Image technology does not justify everything

Some professionals have argued that lighter skin is easier to film or photograph. The history of photography partly explains why this issue exists. Calibration cards used for decades in laboratories were primarily designed using white models, which could result in less accurate rendering of darker skin tones.

The famous “Shirley Card,” used as a reference by Kodak, long featured a white woman. This technical standard contributed to making some complexions less visible or rendering them poorly. More diverse cards were later introduced, while digital tools and lighting expertise expanded the possibilities for representation.

Technology matters, but it cannot by itself explain casting choices. Today, it is possible to photograph and film dark skin correctly. The essential question therefore remains one of perspective: whom do decision-makers choose to embody beauty, desire, power, or prestige?

Voluntary skin lightening: a social promise sold as skincare

The market for skin-lightening products thrives on this insecurity. Depending on the country and community, voluntary skin lightening is known by different names. Products are sometimes presented through softer language: “radiance,” “even complexion,” “correction,” “perfection,” or “brightness.” Not all skincare products that promise a more even complexion are skin-lightening products. But when the desired result is to permanently lighten the skin’s natural color, the product follows a different logic.

It no longer sells only skincare: it sells the idea that a lighter version of oneself would be better accepted, more beautiful, or more likely to succeed. This promise can be reinforced by those around a person when a change in complexion is immediately rewarded with compliments.

Stigmatizing people who use these products solves nothing. Mocking a woman for using skin-lightening products while repeating that light skin is more beautiful means perpetuating the very system that pushed her to do so. The health risks mentioned in connection with certain mixtures or improperly used substances, including irritation, infections, and other serious complications, make this issue even more concerning.

Social media amplifies the phenomenon. Before-and-after photographs, filters, different lighting, or retouching can support transformation promises that are difficult to verify. Caution is all the more necessary when the composition and risks of products are not clearly known.

Representation: seeing all skin tones as legitimate

The increased visibility of dark-skinned women in fashion, photography, and certain campaigns is an important development. Lupita Nyong’o’s example has had a powerful symbolic impact: her international success offered an image of beauty and luxury to a complexion long considered, in some markets, less easily “marketable.”

But the presence of a few famous figures is not enough to prove that standards have changed everywhere. The real indicator lies in everyday life: the candidate at a casting call, the employee hired to represent a brand, the hostess selected to welcome the public, or the woman who simply wants to be regarded without her skin becoming a criterion of worth.

Standards surrounding hair are also part of this reflection. Rules imposed on Afro hair, especially in certain school or professional environments, can reinforce the idea that there is a more acceptable way to be Black. On this subject, also read our discussion of respect, boundaries, and dignity in relationships, which reminds us that self-esteem should never depend on a relationship of domination or devaluation.

Combating colorism therefore means questioning the compliments, jokes, beauty criteria, and economic decisions that give an advantage to one skin color. It is not about dictating attraction, but about refusing to let complexion become a social ranking. No one should learn from childhood that there is a “right” or “wrong” way to be Black.

Colorism FAQ

What is the difference between racism and colorism?

Racism is based on a hierarchy between racialized or ethnicized groups. Colorism refers more specifically to the hierarchy of people according to the lightness or darkness of their skin, including within the same group.

Why does colorism affect professional opportunities?

When light skin is selected more often for advertisements, roles, music videos, or appearance-focused positions, an aesthetic preference becomes a concrete professional advantage for some people and an obstacle for others.

Is skin lightening only an individual choice?

A person can make their own decisions about their appearance. However, that choice can sometimes take place in an environment where light skin is constantly associated with beauty, acceptance, and success. It is this social pressure that must also be questioned.