What Happened to Cosmetology: An Evolution

What happened to the word cosmetology? In the 20th century, the term cosmetology took on a new meaning. Words evolve, of course—but I doubt many cosmetologists today would say their education aligns with the meaning of the word itself.

In 1966, Dr. Ernest Klein’s Etymological Dictionary of the English Language defined cosmetology simply as “the study of cosmetics.” But if you ask a working cosmetologist, it’s unlikely they would say they “study cosmetics.” In fact, many would tell you their education didn’t include in-depth training on products at all. And if they did learn about products, it was likely from product companies—not from a scientific curriculum—limiting how deeply they engaged with cosmetic science.

More often than not, cosmetologists would describe their training as focused on the art of beautifying hair, skin, and nails—an understanding more aligned with the word’s original meaning.

The root of cosmetology comes from the ancient Greek word kósmos, meaning “well-ordered.” For the Greeks, beauty—whether in the stars or the human form—was tied to order and harmony. From this root, we also get the Greek word kósmetos, meaning “well-ordered,” and its feminine verb form kosmētikós, which meant “to be skilled in ordering or adorning.”

(Fun fact: the opposite of the word kósmos was chaos.)

These meanings resurfaced during the Renaissance, when Greek aesthetics were revived. In this neoclassical moment centered on art, humanism, and cultural reinvention, the French brought back the idea of cosmetics as an art form. In 1605, the English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote in The Advancement of Learning, “the art of decoration is called cosmetic.” Bacon’s word “cosmetic” came from the Old French cosmétique, which was borrowed directly from the Greek kosmētikós.

The art of decoration, or cosmetics, began to emerge as a prominent aesthetic at the French courts. By the 17th century, French women were establishing themselves as coiffeuses, styling the hair of the aristocracy. By the 18th century, an increasing number of men were leaving barbering to become coiffeurs. But, we don’t see the word cosmetology until 1855, when it referred to “the study of the art of beauty culture,” not cosmetics. The word, combining kosmētikós with the suffix -ology (“the study of”), literally meant “the study of being skilled in ordering and adorning.” Technically, this means that cosmetology aligns more with “the study of the art of beauty culture” than "the study of cosmetics."

So what happened between 1855 and 1966 to shift cosmetology from “the study of the art of beauty culture” to “the study of cosmetics”?

The answer is industrialization.

From the late 19th to the 20th century, large-scale manufacturing transformed the beauty profession. In fact, the word "cosmetic" has undergone a shift in meaning, as it no longer refers to the act of decorating, but rather to the tools used to adorn the body. By the 1960s, scholars and industry alike began to treat cosmetologists more as technicians of product than artists of adornment. Despite this shift, most cosmetologists were not educated in cosmetic chemistry, which hinders their understanding of the creation of cosmetics. Nor were they being trained in aesthetic theory or the culture of beauty.

By the 1990s, the word cosmetology began to lose traction. In everyday language, the terms "hairdresser" and "hairstylist" have become more common, reflecting the practice but not the depth or scope of the field.

But this is why words matter.

Today, cosmetology—honestly—should encompass both the study of cosmetics and the art of beauty culture. But beauty education in the U.S. often falls short on both fronts. Many cosmetologists receive minimal training in the sciences behind their products, and little exposure to the cultural, historical, or aesthetic traditions that shape beauty itself.

At Beyond the Chair, we believe beauty education reform must begin with reclaiming the word cosmetology. Because words don’t just describe what we do—they shape how the world sees us. And they shape how we see ourselves.

As proud cosmetologists, we should advocate for a curriculum that includes both cosmetic science and the cultural foundations of beauty. Reclaiming this language is not just about semantics—it’s about restoring dignity, depth, and respect to the work beauty professionals do.

Sources

• Klein, Ernest. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1966.

• Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning. Edited by G.W. Kitchin. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1906. Originally published in 1605.

• Oxford English Dictionary Online. s.v. “cosmetic,” “cosmetology,” and “kosmos.” Accessed July 21, 2025. https://www.oed.com.

• Falaky, Fayçal. “From Barber to Coiffeur: Art and Economic Liberalisation in Eighteenth-Century France.” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 34, no. 1 (2011): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-0208.2010.00474.x.

• Sherrow, Victoria. For Appearance's Sake: The Historical Encyclopedia of Good Looks, Beauty, and Grooming. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 2001.

• Peiss, Kathy. Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998.