Beauty Is Meaningless (Or, A Brief History of Empty Marketing Language)

Sure, "clean beauty" means nothing — but so does everything else.

Pexels

Hey, did you hear? It’s hip to hate on clean beauty! All the biggest names in mainstream beauty media are doing it. Editors, influencers, dermatologists, everyone.

And listen, I get what they’re saying. I said it myself two years ago: Clean beauty means nothing.

That was the title of an article I wrote for HelloGiggles in 2019 that touched on the term “clean beauty” and its limitations. To refresh your memory: “Clean” is not defined by the Food & Drug Administration, so any brand can stamp “clean” on its label, no matter the ingredients inside. There is no master list of “clean” and “dirty” ingredients. Companies are just making it up as they go along.

Since then — in the past couple of months especially — it’s become very ~trendy~ to call out clean beauty for its lack of meaning. (Also note: Since then, my own POV has evolved, as I’m an ever-evolving human being, and the articles I wrote two years ago aren’t necessarily the articles I’d write today.) But the current moment’s condescending cries of “clean beauty means nothing!” completely miss the point.

The point is not: “Clean beauty doesn’t mean anything, so we must reject clean beauty.”

The point is: NOTHING MEANS ANYTHING! (Not even “science-backed,” the category all those industry cool kids are embracing instead.)

The point is: You can’t trust the bullshit on the back of any bottle.

The point is: The beauty industry at large has a language problem.

Virtually every descriptor used in marketing is meaningless, unregulated, and unbeholden to any sort of legal definition — including, but not limited to:

• Clean

• Science-backed

• Clinically-tested

• Dermatologist-approved

• FDA-approved

• Non-comedogenic

• Hypoallergenic

• Anti-aging

• Cosmeceutical

• Effective

None of these are regulated by the FDA. All of these are purposely vague and ultimately meaningless marketing terms. (And honestly, should the American government get to decide what all those phrases mean? Probably not. It’s doubtful it ever will. The FDA simply does not have the resources to regulate that many marketing terms in any real way, and even if they did, brands would find ways around it, coming up with new unregulated labels to slap on a bottle.)

Here’s where the next argument comes: “But ‘clean’ is different, because ‘clean’ implies everything else on the market is ‘dirty’ and therefore, not as safe! It’s fear-mongering!”

OK, perhaps.

But.

That is true of every other term on the above list!

“Science-backed” implies everything else on the market isn’t backed by science and therefore, is not as safe.

“Dermatologist-approved” implies everything else on the market isn’t approved by dermatologists and therefore, is not as safe.

“Clinically-tested” implies everything else on the market isn’t clinically tested and therefore, is not as safe.

“Hypoallergenic” implies everything else on the market is allergenic and therefore, is not as safe.

“FDA-approved” implies everything else on the market isn’t FDA-approved and therefore, is not as safe.

“Non-comedogenic” implies everything else on the market is comedogenic and therefore, is not as safe for your skin.

“Anti-aging” implies the natural process of aging is wrong/ugly/something that must be stopped. It’s fear-mongering.

“Cosmeceutical” implies the skin requires pharmaceutical-strength cosmetics in order to be healthy and/or beautiful. It’s fear-mongering.

“Effective” implies that your skin isn’t an intelligent organ that takes care of its own basic functions (it is!), and that “skincare” should effectively change the way your skin inherently looks and/or behaves. It’s fear-mongering.

I don’t mean this as a defense of clean beauty. I am a frequent critic of clean beauty. (My most recent gripe: The sector insists on using the word “non-toxic” to sell products that perpetuate very toxic beauty standards.) It’s just that I’m a frequent critic of everything else, too.

The entire beauty industry is built on murky marketing and fear-mongering. These tactics were the norm long before “clean” came along.

They deserve to be critiqued. If you’re going to be a critic, though, apply those critical thinking skills:

Yes, “clean beauty” means nothing — but so does everything else.

____________________

The Unpublishable is the only beauty publication that won’t push products on you, thanks to paying subscribers. Would you consider contributing?