The Image Dilemma

Are we, America, a so called progressive society breeding social injustice? Why is it that we condemn those whose appearance is unconventional as being deviant, an being useless to society? Why do we not look to who a person is, their experience, and their what they can contribute to society, as opposed to how they dress, do their hair; or whether or not they have piercings or tattoos? Does a tattoo indicate an inability to work in a business setting? Can an individual with a pierced nose or eyebrow not wait a table? Does colored hair indicate stupidity and ignorance? Of course not, so why then does society label these individuals as delinquents? Why do they shove them in a stock room instead of offering them a customer service position for which they have experience with and their personality is best suited for? Why is it so difficult for those who fashion themselves alternatively to find a job and acceptance within society? Is society not conditioning an entire group of people into those which can only associate with their "kind." Is society not encouraging the exact antisocial and disconnected behavior that they proclaim is the cause of criminal attitudes and acts? Criminologists of the social process persuasion argue that disconnection with society and community causes delinquency, yet society pushes these individuals into positions in which they have no connection to outside society. Is this not a terrible contradiction and travesty?

Are we not also teaching this injustice to our children as they grow? We label tattoos, peircings, and colored hair as though it were a crime of significant proportion. But really, aren't these people exactly like you? Sure, a child may learn through modeling, perhaps a teacher with colored hair or a tattoo will influence their desire. But perhaps that isn't such a bad thing, especially because the label of the delinquent and useless tattooed and pierced individual is a misconception, rooted in one's lack of understanding, and lack of an open enough mind to view someone for who they are. This colored hair, pierced, and tattooed teacher may teach your child some of the best lessons concerning acceptance, appreciation, and understanding. Not to mention, that individual may hold a degree from Harvard. Is that degree not as good as everyone else's because the way they look. Does that person know less about literature? Can they impart less about history or politics? Do they know less math than you because they look differently? No. Intellects, wise men, and teachers come in all shapes, sizes, and appearances. These people may even know more about economics, business, literature, art, or architecture than most people, they may be kind, honest, loving, dedicated individuals and teachers, and yet society would shun them as being of no use because of the way they look. This is the problem with labeling members of society. It biases us to looking at people as objects, instead of as the people they are, instead of for what amazing insights they have, instead of for what knowledge they can impart to us.

Of course there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to nearly every rule on earth. Just as the big tattooed guy across the street may be a criminal, so too may the business man with the white picket fence. Do we not often hear news stories of embezzlement, the politician cheating on his wife or stealing from his constituents? Do we never heard tell of the suit and tie serial killer or child abuser? Criminals and delinquents come in all shapes, sizes, and appearances, just as do teachers, intellects, and sages. Wealthy, conventionally or "well-dressed" children get in trouble just the same as do those that dress contrary to popular culture. The architect who hides his tattoo underneath his long sleeve shirt works just as well as the one without a tattoo...and yet, had his employer known about the tattoo, he may not have hired him. His upscale clients may have requested a new architect, even though his work is as good as or superior to his coworkers. Why is it that society cannot except alternative appearances? Why do these appearances have to devalue to the person? Is a person's value really determined by their looks? Is a fat person with a good education and personality really more worthless to your corporation than an attractive one with little to no education and conceded personality? Better still, is a fat person with a good education and personality really more worthless than an attractive person with a good education and personality? The answer is no, and to say otherwise is to devalue a human being based on appearances. And yet, who would get job? Of course, the attractive individual, because businesses value appearance over person.

Is this not akin to valuing one skin color over the next? Oh! But would be terrible to say that the minority is not as valuable as the majority, wouldn't it? Then why do we hold the assumption that the minority of "alternative appearing" individuals are not as valuable in the workplace as those who appear "normal?" Half the people businesses turn down based on appearance are probably the better fit for the company. They probably have excellent experience, a great personality, and wonderful work ethic.

So why, you ask, do these "alternative" individuals not just change the way they look? But I must answer with a question, "why should they?" Why can society and corporate America not value them for who they are and what they can offer without asking them to change? Why can society not accept what is evident in the entire country...people are different. Diversity is what makes America what it is. So why should a business, why should work, be any different. People don't look the same on the street, why should they look the same when you walk into the lobby of a hotel, a restaurant, a coffee shop, a real estate agency, or a government office? Why must everyone look the same in order to be viewed as having something to offer? Does not one's resume and personality speak for what they have to offer? Does their smile say nothing? Do their manners seem uncouth because they have a tattoo on their neck?

Labeling is wrong on so many levels. Would you want your child, brother, sister, mother, or father to be labeled based on how they look? Would you want to be turned down for a job you can do better than the next person because of your appearance? Would you think it right? Wouldn't you rather be judged based on your merits? On who you are? On what amazing things you have to offer the world? Would you want to be shunned because your means of expression are not the same? Would we not hire someone for a position for which they are well qualified because they did not listen to the same music as we did? Because they did not like the same movies we did? Because they did not purchase the same piece of art? People are different. America is diverse with many different people, most of which have amazing things to offer society. It's time to start looking at one's merits, instead of one's appearance as a judge of who they are. It is time to start practicing what we preach. Jobs preach equal opportunity, but really that is given on the basis that you look equal to everyone working there, not exactly equal at all. If we're going to preach equality, let's do it on a large scale, on a full scale, instead of picking and choosing what parts of equality are worth practicing and which parts are not.