|
lucern -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (6/27/2008 2:24:26 PM)
|
~FR~After having very short hair most of my life thanks to school, parents, and limited notions of masculinity available in my environment, I never really liked it. I never really liked the way I looked at all until I grew it out. Likewise, well maintained hair on a woman in just about any shape or color just about floors me. No healthy relationship I've ever been in wanted to change this about me. But you guys have basically worked out the crux of the situation as I identify it. I feel the urge to expand on it in the hope that I can help someone think differently about it.
The body is a social space*. If anyone is still having a hard time relating to each other on this issue, think long and hard about that. Those six words say volumes. They take us beyond the cult of individuality that forums bring out to realize that people don't exist in isolated idiosyncrasy - there's nobody quite like you, but lets not blow that out of proportion such that we forget we were raised as social beings. Our feelings about our bodies are shared to some extent, but the diversity in this world will dictate that these feelings are not continuous across humanity. Not even close. To throw in some of my anthropology, all societies 'regulate' the body in some way, generally by presenting ideas of ideal and discouraged bodily attributes through stories, religion, cultural imagery, and the examples of people immediately around us. We know that fat is not an ideal American attribute (though there is idiosyncratic variation here too, no?), but the Renaissance Italians wouldn't agree on our assessment at all. Hair is part of that social space. The Wodaabe of Niger value a very high male hairline, even cutting it back several inches to accentuate their foreheads and cheek bones. Most guys I know, even the ones who enjoy being bald, wouldn't enjoy looking like they were balding. They're not Wodaabe - those guys are chosen first in elaborate mate selection rituals and told that they're the most beautiful. Anthropology shows us the extremes of human difference so that we may understand the subtle differences around us, particularly what about us is socially constituted. Turns out, it's quite a bit. Importantly, the valuing of the hair in such a way that it is available for alteration at a dominant's discretion, or the valuing of it in the way that it is 'just hair' is still socially constituted. In virtually every 'just hair' post the author could give alternate valuations of their own bodies that they held in higher importance to them - even if it was the thought of shaving it off of another.
And just to make a point, this extends to comments about woman and hair. I won't pick on anyone because nobody was explicitly speaking cross culturally, but gender is socially variable wherever you go as well. This is woven into social conceptions of bodies. Therefore, it is not safe to assume that women are always taught to value their bodies in the same way, and one cannot assume that for all women their hair is of the utmost importance to their beauty. Even though this is extremely prevalent, I wanted to point out that this is a function of society rather than womanhood. Lucky Albatross was good to point out that that this is furthermore tied into gender relations within society. I'll add that post WW2 bodily regimens for women expanded in the US at the same time when women were largely culled back from the wartime workforce as an example of that. The two societal trends directly related to the shift in immediate postwar gender roles.
*I realize that space isn't frequently used in this way, but take the following phrases to catch my meaning. Art is a social space. Religion is a social space. Family is a social space. Gender is a social space. These are all socio-culturally defined, and our participation in society perpetuates them. The subtle differences between us can turn into big differences over time. As for society, for you, it's simply anyone you can interact with regularly.
|
|
|
|
