Synnott, Anthony - Shame and Glory. a Sociology of Hair

London School of Economics Shame and Glory: A Sociology of Hair Author(s): Anthony Synnott Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 381-413 Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/590695 Accessed: 04-04-2016 19:18 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair*

Doth not nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. So wrote St. Paul to the people of Corinth (1 Cor. 11: 14- 15); the shame of one sex is the glory of the opposite sex. Indeed the debate over hair symbolism is both ancient and complex, and applies not only to gender but also to politics, as Hippies, Skins and Punks, among others, have recently demonstrated. Hair is perhaps our most powerful symbol of individual and group identity powerful first because it is physical and therefore extremely personal, and second because, although personal, it is also public rather than private. Furthermore, hair symbolism is usually voluntary rather than imposed or 'given'. Finally, hair is malleable, in various ways, and therefore singularly apt to symbolize both differentiations between, and changes in, individual and group identities. The immense social significance of hair is indicated by economics: the hair industry is worth $2.5 billion in the USA (New

York Times, 7.1.85). Hair symbolism has been extensively researched by anthropologists, particularly in initiation, marriage and mourning rituals, and in magic on a pars pro toto basis (Frazer 1935; Malinoswki 1922; Firth 1936). Leach (1958) introduced a comparative perspective to the discussion in an effort to effect a synthesis between anthropological and psychological insights; after reviewing evidence from Hinduism in India and Buddhism in Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, Leach concluded that long hair = unrestrained sexuality short hair' or partially shaved head > - restricted sexuality or tightly bound hair, close shaven head = celibacy Hallpike (1969), using examples from the Bible and from contemporary society, suggested an alternative equation: Thc BntishJournal of Sociology Volumc XXXVIII Number3

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

382

Anthony Synnott cutting the hair = social control

long hair = being outside society

Other anthropologists have studied hair symbolism in Nigeria (Houlberg 1979), Kenya (Cole 1979), Sri Lanka (Obeyesekere 1981) Brazil (Turner 1969), Mali (Griaule 1970), among Hindu Punjabis (Hershman 1974), among the Powhaten Indians of early Virginia (Williamson 1979) and among early Christians (Derrett 1973). Unfortunately, however, with the exception of an excellent chapter by Firth (1973), neither anthropologists nor sociologists have paid much attention to hair in British or North American society; and Firth's study is now 14 years old. Since then much has happened to symbolism and style for both Blacks and Whites: Punks, Skins, New Romantics, braids, the wet look, and the emergence of dreadlocks. Furthermore, feminism has transformed meanings of hair for women, both with respect to certain hair styles, and also to body hair (Greer 1971; Lyons and Rosenblatt 1972) . This paper on the sociology/anthropology of hair is, first, an attempt to describe developments in hair symbolism in North America and Britain over the last forty years, and particularly since Firth (1973); second, in the light of these fresh data, to offer a new theory of hair symbolism modifying and complementing those put forward by Leach (1958) and Hallpike (1969) . This theory of opposites will, hopefully, explain both the range of contemporary hair patterns and symbols in popular culture, and the changes over time. Finally the implications of this theory of hair symbolism for more general theories of symbolism and the body are discussed.

The theory of hair to be developed here can be called the theory of since current symbolic practice can be summarized in three

opposites, proposltlons *

a

* opposite sexes have opposite hair.

* head hair and body hair are opposite. * opposite ideologies have opposite hair. This pattern of triple oppositions indicates the complexity and subtlety of hair symbolism; and this complexity is possible for two distinct reasons. First, although hair grows all over the body, in terms of body symbolism there are only three zones of social significance: head hair (the scalp); facial hair (beards, moustaches, eyebrows, eyelashes, sideburns); and body hair (chest hair, arm-pit or axillary hair, leg, arm, back, and pubic hair). Each of these zones has both gender and ideological significance. Second, hair can be modified in four principal ways. Length can be changed and may therefore range from the zero of bald or shaven heads to the world record of 26 feet.' Colours and styles can also be changed, and even the quantity of hair can be changed with the use of false or artificial hair. It is these multi-

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

**. Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

383

zonal and multi-modal aspects of hair that give it a peculiar, perhaps unique, richness and power as a public and physical symbol of the self; for in all three zones and in all four modes of hair change, the norms for men and women are opposite. In discussing these propositions, we will consider successively, head hair, including length, colour, styles and false hair; facial hair and body hair; and finally the politics of hair for women and for men. Hair symbolism in the Black American and Jewish populations will also be considered. Two points must be emphasized, however. First, reasons of space demand the exclusion of the history, psychology, anthropology and economics of hair, although some references will be found in the endnotes. Second, this discussion of conventional hair norms applies principally to the UK, the USA, and Canada; rules are different in much of Europe and South and Central America, particularly with respect to facial hair for men and body hair for women, apparently.

1. HEAD HAIR

The first proposition states that the opposite sexes have opposite hair, and this is particularly clear for head hair. First there is the genetic factor. Most men eventually show signs of baldness, due to the hormone testosterone: from 12 per cent of men aged 25 to 65 per cent of men aged 65, according to the American Medical Association. Women, however, due to their higher levels of estrogen and fewer androgens, lose much less hair over the years (Pesman 1984: 26-7). Sociology follows biology, and women tend to identify far more closely with their head hair than men do. One woman who had lost her hair following radiation treatments for cancer said: 'When you lose your hair you feel like you have nothing to live for' (New York Times 18.9.83). An advisor on dress for women seemed to agree with this point.

'In writing this book, I had many discussions with my editors whether or not hair should be included. My thinking was that a girl just isn't a girl without her hair' (Hemingway 1979: 143. Emphasis added) .

The belief that 'a girl isn't a girl without her hair' may seem, and may even be, extreme; but surely it could not be said for men. Their gender identity is usually not that tangled up with head hair, but it may be strongly dependent on facial hair (beards and moustaches) and chest hair as symbols of masculinity. Thus head hair and body hair are opposite for men, and they are the converse of norms for women for whom facial hair and chest hair are usually 'unwanted', while head hair, as we have seen, is part of the cultural definition of temlnlnlty.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

384

Anthony Synnott

This brief summary of the first two propositions will be developed below, for in each of the four modes of hair change (length, style, colour and additions), the social norms of our society prescribe different behaviour for men and women. There are exceptions of course, as there are always rebels against the conventional norms; but these rebels tend to exemplify the third proposition: opposite ideologies have opposite hair. To begin with length: perhaps the most obvious difference between the hair of men and women today is that, conventionally, men tend to have shorter (and less stylized) hair than women. This does not mean that all men have shorter hair than all women, still less that they always have, but that is the norm.2 Long hair, however, has for centuries been both a gender sign and a sex symbol in our society. St. Paul was probably not the first to describe a woman's long hair as a 'glory' and contemporary references in advertizing, poetry and fashion magazines to the 'crowning glory' are legion. Men say they prefer long hair because it is 'sexier' (Cooper 1971). And there was even a 'Long and Lovely' competition in England recently (The Times 11.3.86). (One cannot imagine such a competition for men except for beards or as an ideological satire).3 Indeed so powerful is the symbolism that a secretary in New York, whose long hair was shaved offcompletely by a jealous wife, was awarded $117,500 in compensation (Montreal Gazette 25.9.84). Furthermore the appeal of long hair goes far back into western mythology, to the stories of Mary Magdalene, Rapunzel, Lorelei, and Lady Godiva. Milton reinforced it in Paradise Lost when he described Eve's hair She, as a veil down to the slender waist, Her adorned golden tresses wore Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved, As the vine curls her tendrils . . . The feminist Susan Brownmiller brings the issue of length up to date (1984: 55) I harbor a deep desire to wear my hair long because like all the women I know, I grew up believing that long hair is irrefutably feminine. I could certainly use the advantage that long hair confers, but I happen to look terrible when my hair is long. I know what some people think about short hair they say short hair is mannish, dyky . . . So I keep my hair at a middling length and fret about its daily betrayal. Long hair may be 'irrefutably feminine', but it is also, observed Veblen (1934: 171) a status symbol. Like the long skirt of his times, long hair 'is expensive and it hampers the wearer at every turn and incapacitates her for all useful exertion'. It is therefore evidence of

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

SAlame and glory: a sociology of hair

385

wealth and leisure. However, the opposite of'long', 'feminine' hair, Brownmiller points out, is precisely the short 'mannish' (opposite gender) and 'dyky' (opposite ideology) hair which these propositions attempt to clarify.

Length, however, is only one of the modes in which men's and women's hair are opposite; style is another. Hair can be curled or straightened, put up or let down, plaited or tied, frizzed or permed; and flowers, Deads, ribbons, bows, veils or hats can all be added or subtracted as accessories. Yet traditionally women are more likely to use more styles, and change them more often, than men. The fashion books and magazines for women constantly emphasize the number of 'styles' and 'looks' one may create from a given cut. They not only make the same person look different, but the styles may be chosen to project different images of the self as glamorous, exotic, mature, competent, etc. (Bandy 1981). Despite some emerging interest in hair styles and aesthetics for men (Molloy 1976; Fix 1981; Robertson 1985), men are not usually so interested in unique hair styles or in how many 'looks' can be developed from one cut. Men do not change their hair-style for a dinner date.4 Indeed, conventionally, norms for males tend to emphasize uniformity and mutual identity. Not only are male styles generally similar to one another, but they have hardly changed since the 1930s and '40s. One study of a corporation pointed out the importance of the conformity and stability of hair styles for men (Kanter 1977: 47)

An inappropriate appearance could be grounds for complaint to higher management. A new field supervisor was visited by his boss for a 'chat' about setting a good example for the guys after his longish hair, curling the slightest way down the nape of his neck, caused comment. 'Appearance makes a big difference in the response you get around this company,' the boss insisted. Another executive was upset because a staffexpert he frequently called upon for help seemed to change his appearance or hairstyle with each fashion wind. 'What are you trying to do now?' he once asked the staffer exasperatedly. 'We get used to you one way, then you have to change. Why must you always be changing?'

Change is therefore the essence of fashionable and conventional femininity as defined by Vogue, Bandy (1981) and others; non-change, stability and uniformity are required for men. Norms for women emphasize multiple styles per cut and the possibility and advantages of constantly looking a different person different from earlier; and a unique person different from other women. Every year there is a 'new look'.5 Thus King George VI's orJohn F. Kennedy's hair style would be quite acceptable in oflices over 40 and 20 years later; but Jackie Kennedy's would be 20 years out of date and only acceptable at a nostalgia party. The conventional norms therefore are opposite for

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

386

the opposite sexes, at least with respect to length and style. They are

also opposed, though less totally, for colour.

2. COLOUR

As for length and style, so for colour. The two genders differ in many respects: in the social acceptability of dyeing hair, the frequency of dyeing, the motivation, and the colours used. They also differ in the colour they like in the opposite sex and hence in the hair colour of their sex symbols.

A logical place to start is with aesthetic preferences. In a small survey in the USA, 75 per cent of women said they preferred men with brown or black hair, 13 per cent liked blondes, and redheads were the ideal for only 2 per cent. Twenty-eight per cent did not care about hair colour but, conversely, 72 per cent did care (Glamour August 1983: 278). Two surveys of male preferences both showed distinct differences from female taste. In one, men were roughly evenly divided between those who liked brunettes (3 per cent), blondes (29 per cent), and those who did not care (32 per cent) (Glamour April 1983). In the other, 35 per cent preferred blondes compared to 29 per cent who preferred brunettes. But 45 per cent said they disliked dyed hair (New York Times 18.10.86). Thus most men and women did care about hair colour: it is important; but men were two to three times more likely to prefer blonde, while women were twice as likely to prefer brown or black hair.

Just as there are clear differences between the two genders in aesthetic ideals, thee are also clear differences between them in their beliefs about hair colour. According to a survey in the USA, males described redheaded females as 'the active executive type, nononsense and physically rather unattractive', blondes as 'beautiful, rich and extremely feminine', and dark-haired women as 'good, intelligent and familiar' (? friendly). Females, on the other hand, described male redheads as 'good, but effeminate, timid and weak', blondes as 'attractive, successful and happy', and dark-haired men were seen as 'average' (Horn 1979: 116). Beliefs about hair colour therefore seem to be gender-specific, rather than general, and quite

different for dark hair and red hair.

The most popular stereotypes about hair colour refer to blondes, whom gentlemen are alleged to prefer, who are believed to have more fun and to be dumb. The stereotype of the dumb, fun blonde may not be accurate, and it is not entirely positive, but women are more likely to dye, tint, or streak their hair blonde than any other colour. Two women who dyed their hair blonde reported dramatic psychological and social changes. Virginia Graham, an American television personality, exclaimed that 'my whole life changed when I became a

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

387

blond.' She told her father: 'My hair made me feel drab. It pulled me down. Now I feel like a bird about to fly.' She explained that becoming blond made her feel like a woman (1967: 77-9) After seven hours I emerged with white blond hair. White, like Snow White. But I got rid of the biggest problem of my life that day and probably saved myself from an analyst's couch.... I didn't like being a brunette. I didn't like my type. I didn't like what I was. I didn't feel girl-like. And I didn't like the boys' attitudes toward me. But now, suddenlyj it was all changed. Similar changes were reported by another American beauty expert when she became a platinum blonde (Perutz 1970: 85-6) Truck drivers whistled, men tried to pick me up and at parties boys encircled me . . . taxi drivers offered me steak, Scotch and even more, a police car rushed me to the theatre with sirens wailing when I was unable to find a cab and little mementoes from shy men were left outside my door. A Jaguar or Thunderbird carried me off to lunch between classes and boys followed me out of Columbia library. No doubt not everyone who dyed their hair blonde experienced such dramatic changes, or would welcome them, but these examples do clarify both the psychology and symbolism of colour. Indeed the 'blonding' process appears to be accelerating as Clairol reported a 25 per cent increase in sales of blonding products in one year. One woman explained: 'Blonde was more than just a hair colour for me, it was a person who is sexy and happy' (New York Times 18.10.86). These associations may help to explain the disproportionate number of blondes in the entertainment world: disproportionate not only to the number of blonde females in the population, but also to the number of blonde male stars and sex symbols. This list of blonde sex symbols is not exhaustive, but it must include Jean Harlow, Jayne Mansfield, Lana Turner, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe (who once said, 'I like to feel blonde all over'), Brigitte Bardot, Doris Day, Goldie Hawn, Grace Kelly, Ursula Andress, Bo Derek, Dolly Parton, and Madonna. Models have included Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley, and Twiggy; television actresses include Farrah Faweett, Loni Anderson, Suzanne Somers, Linda Evans, Morgan Fairchild, Cybill Shepherd, Heather Locklear, and Cheryl Ladd. In Playboy's 1987 Playmate Calendar, six of the twelve playmates are blonde. This is 10 times the proportion of blondes in the population, for although a quarter of American women are blonde as children, only five per cent remain so after puberty (Freedman 1986: 196). These patterns of stars, sex symbols, and playmates therefore reflect the blond mystique. There are dark-haired sex symbols too but not, it seems, in proportion.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

388

Anthony Synnott

Male sex symbols on the other hand have tended to be 'tall, dark, and handsome': Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn, Cary Grant, Elvis Presley, Paul Newman, Marcello Mastroianni and Warren Beatty; and more recently Burt Reynolds, Alan Alda, Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Richard Gere, Tom Cruise and top male modelJeffAquilon. The only blonde sex symbols that spring to mind are Robert Redford and Don Johnson, and perhaps Rod Stewart and Sting. Blonde, perhaps, is seen as an essentially female colour, like pink; with dark hair as primarily a male colour. In these three dimensions of colour, therefore, aesthetic taste, stereotypes and sex symbols, the opposite sexes seem to identify with opposite colours. This is entirely congruent with the advice of a well-known fashion consultant who advises that dark hair is a 'power colour', whereas blonde hair is a 'fun colour', quite unsuitable for business. This, he believes, is true for both men and women (Molloy 1976: 121; 1978: 86). If dark hair = power, and blonde hair = fun, as Molloy asserts, then perhaps the stereotypes are widely believed and have become self-fulfilling prophecies.6

Blonde and dark hair are polarized as socially opposite, fun and power, and they evoke startlingly different aesthetic and stereotypical reactions. Indeed they are the symbolic equivalent of the gender colours of pink and blue. Furthermore, they are not only opposed as colours, as gender symbols, and as values, but also in terms of their symbolic meanings rooted deep in the English language, and in their cultural associations in western civilizations, as the Oxford English Dictionary makes clear.7 Grey hair is often the first physical and public manifestation of mortality, so the first grey hairs are often removed; and if more appear, then both men and women may consider dyeing the hair. Women have often complained that grey hair on men is regarded as a mark of distinction, whereas on women it is perceived as a sign of age. The double standard is invoked, but so is Clairol. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced some years ago that dyeing the hair may cause cancer, one woman allegedly implied that she would rather die than be grey (Banner 1983: 274). Hair colour is not only entangled with concepts of femininity and beauty, but also with intimations of mortality in a youth-oriented society. For men, however, motivation for dyeing the hair may be quite different. Molloy advises men to take out the grey 'if looking younger is a business necessity. Usually it is the opposite.' Indeed he advises young men in power positions to 'look more distinguished by slightly, very slightly greying their sideburns' ( 1976: l 21-2) . For some women, death may be preferable to grey; but grey for men may mean preferment. The opposite sexes are therefore polarized with respect to colour in a number of ways. First, their aesthetic ideals differ: men are far more

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

389

likely to prefer blondes, and women to like dark hair. Second, their stereotypes of hair colour differ: the same colours symbolize quite different meanings to the opposite sexes. Third, the female sex symbols for the last two generations have been disproportionately blonde, while the men have usually been dark. Fourth, women are far more likely to dye their hair than men. The proportion of women in the USA who colour their hair rises from 11 per cent in the 13-19 age group to 45 per cent in the 40-59 age group but falls to 38 per cent among those aged 60-69 (Henig 1985: 61). Figures for the U.K. are not available. Thirty-five million American women colour their hair, it is said, compared to only one million men the vast majority of the men do so only to hide the grey (New York Times 18.10.86) . Fifth, when women do colour their hair they are likely to colour it blonde not just to remove the grey but also, as our examples demonstrated, to change their identity. Men, too, are likely to dye to remove the grey, but they may also dye the grey in; they are most unlikely to change their hair colour, least of all to platinum blonde.8 Taste, meaning, and hence perhaps sex symbols, frequency, motivation, and preferred colour are therefore all different.

3. HAIR ADDITIONS

The fourth mode of hair change, the use of hair additions, can be considered swiftly. Women may, and often do, wear wigs, switches, falls and extension braids or plaits; and men may wear hairpieces or toupees. None the less, despite these apparent similarities, the two sexes have strikingly different norms with respect to false hair. First, far more women use false hair in one form or another than men;9 and second, they wear it for different reasons. Women may put on the aptly named convenience wigs if they are in a hurry, or for fun, for fashion or for the image (Dolly Parton and Loni Anderson); and just for a change they may wear falls or extension braids. Men, on the other hand, may sometimes wear hairpieces or toupees; this is rarely for fun and still less for a temporary change of identity but to conceal baldness, and therefore to appear younger. Given these differences in frequency and motivation, a third follows: that women can and do whip their hair additions on and off to please themselves, while men 'have' to keep theirs on permanently, at least in public. Consequently attitudes to hairpieces vary: women tend to regard their wigs, it seems, as no more or less interesting than hats or other hair accessories unless, of course, they have lost their hair, in which case their attitudes are likely to be different; men, on the other hand, tend to be rather embarrassed or even ashamed of wearing toupees. Since they have to be worn all the time they can cause men considerable inconvenience; wigs should not get wet in the rain or the showers or

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

390

Anthony Synnott

pools; interlinked wigs, woven into the hair, have to be tightened every month at some expense; body contact sports are out, as are many other sports which require rapid movement and involve perspiration. (Of course, the man in question could always remove his false hair, but if he did not feel extremely sensitive about his baldness he would not be wearing it in the first place). These five related factors, therefore, frequency, motivation, degree of permanence, attitudes and functions contribute to quite distinct norms about false hair. Convenience hair for women is quite inconvenient for men. And the false crowning glory of one gender is regarded with shame by the opposite sex. Even in false hair, therefore, opposite sexes have opposite hair.

4. FACIAL HAIR

The second hair region is the face, which includes beards, moustaches, sideburns, eyebrows and eyelashes; also nasal hair and ear hair, which both sexes minimize. Physiologically, the male beard distinguishes the two sexes in facial hair, just as male baldness distinguishes them in scalp hair. At first this male hairiness is likely to be emphasized as young men proudly try to grow moustaches as a symbol of manhood and adulthood: a visible and bodily symbol of a double opposition: to women and to children. Conversely, women apply various treatments to remove what the advertisements refer to as 'unwanted facial hair'. Indeed Jane Brody observed that unwanted body hair, particularly facial hair, can result in extreme self-consciousness and social isolation (New York Times 18.4.84). What is beautiful for one gender is ugly for the opposite sex the young man's glory is a woman's shame. However, most men after puberty are clean-shaven, particularly conventional, establishment men from cabinet ministers through businessmen and professionals, lawyers, doctors and bankers, to T.V. announcers and servicemen. Appearances are important, particularly in jobs which require working with others or with the public; and so also are beards. John Molloy is firm on the importance of being cleanshaven, and advises lawyers: 'If you have a client with a beard or a moustache, no matter who is on the jury or who the judge is, make him cut it off' (1976: 191). And the Yale sociologist Rosabeth Kanter has noted the rarity of beards in big business (1977: 47) Managers at Indsco had to look the part. They were not exactly cut out of the same mold like paper dolls, but the similarities in appearance were striking. Even this relatively trivial matter revealed the extent of conformity pressures on managers.... The

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

391

norms were unmistakable, after a visitor saw enough managers, invariably white and male, with a certain shiny, clean-cut look. The only beards, even after beards became merely rather daring rather

than radical, were the results of vacation-time experiments on camping trips, except (it was said), for a few in R & D 'but we know that scientists do strange things,' a sales manager commented. In the hairless face, therefore, men are similar to women; but this is the only one of the three hair regions where the opposite sexes have similar norms. This does not mean that faces will be confused for, despite the similarity of facial hair norms, faces are presented quite differently. Make-up, with which women 'put on' the desired face, is the most obvious difference; but a second is accessories like ear-rings, pendants, chains, necklaces, and scarves. Third, women are more likely to use eyelash thickeners or curlers or a range of false eyelashes. Furthermore, women are more likely to pluck or shave their eyebrows, to use liners and even to dye them to match their dyed head hair. Eyebrows have their fashions too. The Mona Lisa and Marlene Dietrich removed their eyebrows. Now, thanks to Brook Shields and Mariel Hemingway, eyebrows are being worn thicker and heavier. So last year's plucker is this year's liner. Finally, the two sexes also differ in the frame of the face, which is the head hair. In these five methods, therefore, men and women can and do present their faces as different, even though not totally opposite. Beards, as we shall see, are more useful today as symbols of political opposition to the male norm rather than as symbols of gender difference.

5. BODY HAIR

The second proposition states that head hair and body hair are opposite. The two sexes have slightly different patterns of hair distribution due to hormonal differences, particularly on the face and

chest; and there are considerable variations by ethnic groups. But these minor physiological differences of degree become major social

distinctions of kind as the opposite sexes symbolically maximize their differences. Men, for instance, conventionally minimize their head hair

and face hair they shave their faces and (compared to women) keep their scalp hair relatively short, unstyled, undyed, and free of false

hair. But they maximize their body hair: they neither cut nor shave the hair on their legs, arms, under their arms or anywhere else. Thus head hair and body hair are opposite.

But, as we have seen, the opposite sexes have opposite hair. Thus, women maximize their head hair but they minimize their body hair: they often remove leg hair and axillary hair and trim or remove the pubic hair. There is a certain irony, as well as a contrast, in this for both sexes. Women may go to a great deal of time and expense to

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

392

Anthony Synnott

cultivate their head hair, with visits to hairdressers for shampoos, rinses, sets, perms, styling, layering, tinting, cutting and so on. And they go to almost as much time and expense to remove their unwanted body hair by waxing, shaving, plucking, bleaching, electrolysis or depilatories. Beauty conscious and fashion conscious women may then glory in the style and profusion of the hair above, and the absence of the hair below. This opposition of head and body styles among both men and women is not only a process by which the two genders are symbolically opposed as 'opposite' sexes, but also, of course, a way in which they are symbolically identified. Deviations from the norms are therefore extremely powerful. European women may be less worried about body hair than North American; none the less even though beauty magazines like Vogue may suggest lesbianism or onanism, they never show hairy legs. This attitude goes back a long way. Ovid advised women to shave their legs in about 2 B.C. (Book 3 line 194; 1974: 159). The European-born American-raised beauty expert, Perutz, insists that 'A hairy leg in America means a man's leg'. And she describes the 'mortification' and 'embarrassment' she suffered when local beauty norms were not followed (1970: 75-6) My mother has never shaved her underarms (though paradoxically, she removed hair from her legs) and I suffered mortification through this quirk of hers. I saw the horror on my girlfriends' faces when they first noticed and, between loyalty and embarrassment, I could only nod mutely. Now, even after years of living abroad, I can't bring myself to wear a sleeveless dress without first making my underarms smooth and hairless. The men are opposite: glorying in the smoothness of the shave and the trimness of a cut, and the tangled hairiness of the chest below. Chest hair is often regarded as a sign of virility and a sex symbol; and a man without chest hair can be very 'ashamed', as witness this Dear

Abby letter (Montreal Star 20.2. 79) DEAR ABBY: I've never seen a problem like mine in your column. I'm a 33-year-old normal man except that I have absolutely no hair on my chest, arms or legs. And that is where I want hair the most. I have plenty of hair on my head and a thick growth in my pubic hair, so I know I can grow hair, but I'm so ashamed of my hairless body I avoid going to the beach. Is there some kind of treatment I can take to promote the growth of hair where I want it? I am miserable in my hairless state. I want to be like the other guys. HAIRLESS IN HILO Indeed, in discussing the new vocabulary generated by the

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

SXhame and glory: a sociology of hair

393

Women's Movement in the 1 970s, Gloria Steinem refers to the 'machismo factor and the hairy-chested syndrome' which are identified as 'a dangerous attraction to aggression and violence on the part of policymakers who seemed to feel the need of proving "masculinity"' (Levine and Lyons 1980: 19). Hairless in Hilo was therefore right to be worried, if hairy chests = masculinity.l° Hair is not just hair, it is a sex symbol; and voluminous chest hair is therefore the equivalent of long, glossy, wavy head hair on a woman. Hence the availability of paste-on chest hair. Women seem to feel the same as men about male body hair. A survey in the women's magazine Glamour (1983: 281) found that 61 per cent of the women surveyed like body hair on men, especially on the chest (44 per cent) and everywhere ( 1 1 per cent); 23 per cent say they are indifferent and only 16 per cent do not like body hair on men. Conversely, both men and women are extremely upset by chest hair on women; again, the glory of one gender is the shame of the opposite sex. In sum, men and women have opposite norms from each other, and opposite norms for the head and the body. In terms of equivalences, therefore, the male head and the female body are equivalent relatively hairless, shaven or short; and the female head and the male body are equivalent hairy. Only faces are presented in the same way with respect to hair, but they are quite distinct when the context is considered. However, these trends only apply to men and women who subscribe to the conventional social norms. Not everyone does; and the exceptions will be discussed next. However, the traditional equation of hair practice is presented below in Table I. TABLE I: The traditional equation of hair practice Male

Female

Head Cut and short; not usually Often longer hair, often dyed dyed or styled; false hair rare. and/or styled; use of false hair. Sex symbol.

Face Clean-shaven usually. Eye- Facial hair removed; eye brows and eyelashes left brows and eyelashes modified. naturalk

Body Hairy. Chest hair a sex Often hairless: axillary and symbol. leg hair removed.

This typology should not be interpreted as implying that all men are on one side and all women are on the other; it is merely intended to highlight the norms, the trends, and the tendencies. There is, in practice, a fair latitude and range, and eccentricities are permitted.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

394

However the principal deviations from these norms are significant, and may be described as ideological, in the broadest sense of the term.

6. OPPOSITE IDEOLOGIES: FEMALE

Opposite ideologies have opposite hair. Hair is not only a sex symbol, it is also an ideological symbol. Opposition to conventional sex roles,

to conventional definitions of femininity and to the conventional norms for women is therefore often expressed in opposition to conventional hair norms. Opposition to, and support of, the body politic are expressed in the body physical.

Feminists like Simone de Beauvoir (1953) have rejected the

traditional beauty ethic in general and hair norms in particular, which she described as 'narcissistic'. At the Miss America Pageant protest in 1968, feminists threw hair-associated curlers, false eyelashes, and wigs into the Freedom Trash Can, to join the girdles and bras and

other symbols of servitude (Levine and Lyons 1980: 27). Germaine Greer forcefully rejected the traditional role of women, and the

stereotypical ideal of women, and she expressed herself in terms of the

symbol of oppression: hair (1971: 61) I'm sick of the masquerade. I'm sick of pretending eternal youth . . .

I'm sick of peering at the world through false eyelashes, so

everything I see is mixed with a shadow of bought hairs; I'm sick of

weighting my head with a dead mane, unable to move my neck

freely, terrified of rain, of wind, of dancing too vigorously in case I

sweat into my lacquered curls. I'm sick of the Powder Room. Not only did feminists attack conventional norms for head hair, with the false eyelashes, wigs and lacquer, they also attacked norms for body

hair. An article in Ms Magazine described body hair as 'The last

frontier' and looked forward to the day when this 'small but intimate

tyranny will be resisted' and 'the hirsute will live happily with the

hairless'. Hair became ideological. Lily Tomlin was photographed

baring her axillary hair; a woman stroking the hair on her legs said: 'it

may seem ugly, but it's me'; and another woman explained: 'I got insulted that my natural body processes were considered disgusting by society', and a fourth decided 'not to add anything that isn't menot to remove anything that is me' (Lyons and Rosenblatt 1972: 64, 131; Levine and Lyons 1980: 208). Another feminist described her progressive liberation in physical, almost geographic terms: 'I saw myself as quite liberated at first and then, rapidly, very liberated. I stopped plucking my eyebrows, shaving my legs . . . wearing bras' (Kampling 1981: 29). Ideology is symbolized in the body. Thus hairy legs, unplucked eyebrows and axillary hair became a

symbol of feminism and egalitarian ideology, and a symbol of

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

o*@ Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

395

opposition to traditional and stereotypical roles. The same physiological 'item' may therefore symbolize quite different things: long axillary hair symbolized both gender (male) and ideology (feminist), depending on the context.

The only hair zone that was not discussed as a potential symbol, and the only zone about which traditionalists and feminists agree, was facial hair. Facial hair, unlike leg and axillary hair, is always 'unwanted' by women but not, of course, by men. An interesting exception occurred recently in Seattle, where a female employee of the Y.M.C.A. was fired for refusing to remove 'excessive hair growth', in the phrasing of her work evaluation sheet, from her chin. 'IfGod gave it to me, why should I have it off?' the lady asked; a Y.M.C.A. official stated: 'Basically, we're asking for good grooming' (Montreal Gazette 26.7.83). This particular case is interesting not so much because refusal to conform to the norm is penalized, as because this particular norm (removing female facial hair) is so universally observed by women. Refusal to shave leg hair or axillary hair would probably not have been so threatening to conventional values about good grooming; (which indicates that the face is a much more powerful social symbol than the leg). None the less, a moustache could be an effective symbol ot temlnlsm.

Germaine Greer (1971: 38) opposed body depilation in the strongest terms, but never questioned facial depilation

The rationale of depilation is crude . . . In the popular imagination hairiness is like furriness, an index of bestiality, and as such an indication of aggressive sexuality. Men cultivate it, just as they are encouraged to develop competitive and aggressive instincts, women suppress it, just as they suppress all the aspects of their vigour and libido. If they do not feel sufficient revulsion for their body hair themselves, others will direct them to depilate themselves. In extreme cases, women shave or pluck the pubic areas, so as to seem even more sexless and infantile.ll

Even pubic hair is now defined as political. Pubic hair is the least visible and public of all the hair regions and therefore might be expected to have the least symbolic utility. While this may be so for the general public, perhaps for that very reason it may have the greatest symbolic impact among intimates. To control the pubic hair, is to control the person, (and such control is even more powerful than the military control over men's head hair, precisely because it is so intimate). Men generally do not cut, dye, style or do anything else to their pubic hair they leave it 'natural'. Some women, or in Greer's term, stereotypical women, in contrast, often shave, wax or pluck the 'bikini-line'. Mary Quant went further and predicted that

pubic hair . . . will become a fashion emphasis, although not

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

396

Anthony Synnott

necessarily blatant. I think it is a very pretty part of the female anatomy; my husband once cut mine into a heart shape; pubic hair is almost aesthetically beautiful anyway (Cooper 1971: 116). It is relevant to observe that she said nothing about cutting his pubic hair; thus it seems that he controlled hers without reciprocity. The symbolism of pubic hair is therefore most instructive, for not only do men and women, conventionally, have opposite styles: not cutting and cutting respectively; but also traditional women and feminists have opposite styles: cutting and not cutting respectively; thus traditional male and feminist styles are similar. However, just as not all women agree about body symbols, nor do all feminists agree. The anti-feminist Marabel Morgan offered this advice on how a women should greet her husband on his return from work (the assumption being that she does not work outside the house) Greet him at the door with your hair shining, your beautifully made-up face radiant, your outfit sharp and snappy.... Take a few moments for that bubble-bath.... Remove all prickly hairs and be squeaky-clean from head to toe. Be touchable and kissable (Morgan 1975: 114- 15) . And the American feminist Flo Kennedy states forcefully: 'Nail polish or false eyelashes isn't politics' (Levine and Lyons 1980: 208). But this raises the question, where do you draw the line? If false eyelashes are not political, is a wig? Are 5 wigs and depilation? The border-line between aesthetics and politics, between looking good and narcissism, seems very controversial. Indeed there is considerable dispute now about the apparent opposition between 'feminism' and 'feminist', although one fashion critic has argued that 'feminism should not preclude femininity' (Fraser 1981: 122). The issue is particularly significant for women in business. Molloy has rejected the traditional feminine appeals of long hair, highly styled hair and blonde hair as totally inappropriate for the boardroom. For power and authority women have to avoid the Scylla of looking too feminine and the Charybdis of not looking feminine enough. Thus hair must be medium-length it can never be so short or styled in such a way that it would look

mannish or boyish . . . but it can't be any longer than shoulder length. . . . Women with very short hair and with very long hair can be very feminine, very sexy, very appealing and very non-authoritative. And 'too many curls and waves will hurt you in business' (1978: 84, 86. Emphasis added). The stereotypical feminine look has been defined by feminists as narcissistic, politically oppressive, expensive and ultimately selfdestructive; but it is also described by Molloy as inefficient in

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

397

business. A case in point occurred in Wisconsin recently, when a bank teller was demoted from the teller's window to the basement because the bank manager objected to her braids and beads coiffure; the manager said it was not the image the bank tried to project (New York Times 17.4.80). The teller's image was feminine, whereas the image the manager was trying to project was masculine. The struggle over images and hair continues; but ironically in so far

as the feminist look is opposite to the feminine look in all zones and modes, as we have seen, so it approaches the masculine look. The feminist ideal includes, or used to include, medium to short hair lengths, easy to manage, without expensive styles and sets; no wigs, false eyelashes or curlers; no make-up; and axillary and leg hair not only unshaven, but even proudly displayed. Indeed the hairier the legs and the longer the axillary hair, it seemed, the greater the commitment to feminism; for the longer the hair, the longer the duration of the commitment and the greater the shock to conventional values.l2 The feminine shame became the feminists' glory. Hair itself was, and is, a visible political statement. The body, therefore, is not only a political symbol, it is itself political.

7. HIPPIES, SKINHEADS AND PUNKS

Males also express their ideologies and status in their hair. Chronologically the first use of hair symbolism is often the moustache of a young man, which expresses his new status as an adult and the dual oppositions of adult to child and male to female. In the 1950s the cleanshaven face and short head hair were the accepted styles for men in North America and the UK; crewcuts were particularly popular in the USA. Styles had changed little since the 1920s when moustaches went out of fashion, although they revived during the war with various styles for the various services. The 1950s, however, brought economic growth and prosperity, and with them came a new freedom of individual self expression, and new hair-styles. Duck-tails or more colloquially, DAs, became fashionable, pioneered by Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis; then the beatnik look of James Dean and Marlon Brando arrived, speaking a language of toughness and motorcycle gangs. Teddy Boys in Britain sported Edwardian dress and long hair. Finally the Beatles introduced the beatle-cut in the late 1950s. Each style identified its wearers with particular stars or singers, and with particular ideologies and peer-groups. Hair was a symbol of musical taste and of values; both a badge and a language distinct not only from the conventional majority but also from each other. The Hippies, however, created a social movement. The movement was initially a middle-class protest in many dimensions at various

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

398

Anthony Synnott

levels: a protest against the Protestant work ethic and the Puritan sexual ethic. Student protests, civil rights protests, anti-war protests, and the campaign for nuclear disarmament were all part of this political movement. Society itself was defined as exploitative, fascist, racist, bureaucratic, militaristic, inhuman and 'unnatural'. The symbols of protest were legion: beads and jeans and sandals as against suits; peace signs as opposed to regimental or club ties; flower power rather than 'green' power; and the weed rather than alcohol. But the most powerful and evocative symbol of protest was hair: long, straight, 'natural' hair for women, with no dyes or tints, nor curlers, lacquers, falls, wigs or perms, i.e., the opposite of the prevailing fashion. Men grew their hair long the opposite of their fathers; they also grew beards and moustaches, which made them not only opposite to their fathers and the conventional norm, but also opposite to the opposite sex. Thus men and women demonstrated in their bodies their (ideological) opposition to the majority and their (gender) opposition from each other. Indeed 'Hair' was the title of a rockmusical celebrating the movement. And the longer the hair, either male or female, the greater the commitment symbolized because the commitment had lasted longer.l3 The Hippy style was enormously popular in the young middle class and their values had enduring political impact; but within 10 years a counter-trend emerged: the Skinheads. The Skinheads, like the Hippies, opposed the Establishment, but not for the same reasons, and they hated the Hippies, especially male Hippies, as effeminate and effete: looking like women with their long hair, flowered clothes, beads and sandals, presenting daffodils to the police and the National Guard, spaced-out on drugs, middle class, pacifist, freaky, lazy and weak. The values considered positive by the young middle class were considered negative by the young working class. With long hair and regular hair pre-empted, the Skinheads or Skins for short, symbolized their opposition by cutting their hair very short, except sometimes for sideburns. The Skinheads differed from the Hippies in class origins, and opposed them in musical taste, dress, attitudes to violence, amusements and aesthetics. Thus their hair (and their style) symbolized their dual oppositions to both the establishment and the Hippies (Knight 1982). As the recession deepened in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so the alienation of youth also deepened; and within a few years of the Skinheads, Britain and then North America witnessed the emergence of the New Wave or Punk Rockers: Punks for short. This movement, like its predecessors, expressed itself in hair. Even the name Punk is evocative since it is slang for hoodlum or vandal. Originally a derogatory term, Punk is now asserted with pride as the chosen identity; Punk Rockers therefore capsize establishment values. What is vice to society is virtue to Punk; hence the safety pins through the ears and the cheeks, chains, dog-collars and leads, bondage,

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

399

swastikas, crosses, torn clothes, on-stage vomit and obscene lyrics. Whatever will scandalize, shock or horrify 'the enemy' or 'sir' is laudable and expresses the rebellious beauty of Punk. Punks glory in precisely what is shameful to the Establishment. Regular hair, long hair, and cropped hair had by now been adopted by others. And Johnny Rotten was emphatic: 'I hate long hair' (Stevenson 1982). Punks therefore had to make a creative leap if they wanted to look different and therefore to be different. So they leaped into technicolour, and into new styles shocking colour and shocking styles: pinks, bright greens, purples, blues and dayglow orange. Even more dramatic than one colour, however, is two. In terms of social impact and visibility, two colours is more than twice one. And still more dramatic is to mix these colours with an unique cut: long here, short there, bald here, or a strip down the middle (the Mohawk), or spikes and wings. Both colour and styles are unique and the Punk Rockers have thereby created a powerful symbolic statement in their hair. From the perspective of popular culture, however, punks are also interesting in that both males and females wear similar hair creations. The opposite sexes do not have opposite hair. This is most unusual for any society. Perhaps it can best be understood as ideological opposition symbolically over-riding gender opposition. Thus all four groups persist among both men and women, each

mutually opposed ideologically to all the others, and each symbolizing their identities and ideologies in hair. However, after 10 years of Punk, which is usually dated from the formation of the Sex Pistols in 1976, Punk is now becoming chic. It can be seen in fashion magazines and universities; and, in modified form, it has been co-opted by the ad-agencies. As one symbol of protest becomes institutionalized, however, others develop.

Two recent developments are remarkable. One is the fragmentation of style that is emerging as various rock groups try to develop a distinctive image which audiences can first identify and then imitate. Indeed one observer has suggested that there are 'something like thirty' distinct and observable styles on the London scene (York 1983: 48-9). These include some basic 'types' (Hard Core, Heavy Metal, Rude Boys, New Romantics), but also re-runs (mods, hippies, rockabilly), take-offs, and mixes; and that does not include individual 'statements' or 'creations' like two I saw recently: a young man who had shaved his head into typical male pattern baldness, and a young woman with jet black hair and a copper wig. The most recent and dramatic development in hair has been the

gender-bending, cross-dressing, and transvestite looks of Boy George of Culture Club and Annie Lennox of the Eurythmics, both of whom were seen as 'opposite' in the Grammy Awards of 1984. Indeed Boy George congratulated America: 'You know a great drag queen when you see one.' David Bowie was perhaps the pioneer of androgyny in

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

400

his incarnation as Ziggy Stardust; but MichaelJackson, with his curly hair, high quiet voice, coy manner, hairless face and sequins has inspired Louis Farrakham, leader of the Black Muslims, to warn Black youth against his 'female-acting, sissified acting expression.' Prince, however, has maintained the expression very successfully, and both have set a hair style with many imitators. The evolution of hair among young people since the 1950s has proceeded, in the main, in a dialectical clash of oppositions: from establishment norms to Hippies to Skins to Punks to a wide range of styles, and culminates now in androgyny (David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Prince) and gender-bending (Boy George and Annie Lennox). Hair is, of course, only a part of the total presentation of the self dress, bearing, and language are also significant; but hair persists as a focal point and prime symbol of new identities and new ideologies. To conclude: the oppositions discussed here, between male and female, and central and deviant roles and ideologies (deviant being used in a nonjudgmental sense), should not be over-emphasized. Between the extremes of symbolic expression lie a wide range of intermediate options and variations in a spectrum ranging from individualism to non-conformity. Among men, for instance, longish hair is coming back as a fashion, not as a protest but as a mode of selfexpression. Furthermore hair colouring, make-up and scents are emerging as a part of the new male presentation of the self. Indeed male grooming and fragrance products are now a £100 million industry in Britain, with fragrance sales growing at 10 per cent per annum (The Times 23.1.85). In these respects, and for as yet only a minority, the two sexes are not so much opposed as symbolically converging.

If men are somewhat divided on these matters, so too are women. Some do not use make-up; and there is a trend to shorter and more manageable head hair; but the marketing of inexpensive and temporary colouring mousses has led to hair colour becoming another fashion accessory, changeable overnight, rather than a permanent or semi-permanent identity change. Mousses have become a $200 million industry within three years in the USA (New York Times 2.8.86). Colour is not what it used to be, neither in terms of price, permanence nor meaning. And the experimentation with hair as a symbol of the self continues.

8. BEARDS, BALDNESS AND BODY HAIR

Hair styles may be carefully chosen for their symbolic significance but equally, meanings may be imposed by others. Such is the case with beards. Molloy, for instance, insists that 'Any man who wears shoulder-length hair or beads or bracelets is anti-establishment'. And

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair 401

he states that 'Most men should not wear facial hair of any kind. The response to facial hair is almost always negative in corporate situations' (1976: 193, 122). Kanter's (1977) research confirms this, as we have seen. Long hair and facial hair are therefore recognized as symbolic of ideological opvosition to the establishment, even if they are not intended as such.l Julius Fast, an expert on body language, is less emphatic, however, and suggests that the effect of a beard depends on the circumstances: it depends on the type of beard, 'on the judge, on the image you want to project in court, on the case you're involved in and on your age. Does it say wisdom or does it say hippy?' (1978: 12). The language ofthe

beard may therefore be difficult to interpret, since it is still tinged with Hippy meanings; yet it is only 100 years since beards were the norm; and the height of establishment fashion. Thus it has taken 100 years for the meaning of the beard to be reversed from establishment to antiestablishment symbol (Robinson 1976). Recently the 'Italian' look, a carefully trimmed two day stubble, has become the 'in' macho look in some film and student circles (e.g. DonJohnson in 'Miami Vice') another example of opposite ideologies opposite hair. The so-called 'Yasser Arafat' look appears similar, but is motivated by religious not aesthetic considerations; (and in the orthodox Jewish community it may symbolize mourning). The same bodily phenomenon (stubble) therefore may symbolize quite different values. Women are about evenly divided on the attractiveness or unattractiveness of beards, according to two small surveys (Montreal Gazette 10.3.83; Glamour August 1983); but children find beards 'scary' (Hirsch 1981: 84). Students, on the other hand, favoured beards: the more hair a man had the more he was judged to be masculine, mature, good-looking, self-confident, dominant, courageous, liberal, non-conformist, and industrious (Pellagrini 1973) . This confirms earlier research which found that, for students, 'beards make men more appealing to women and perhaps help love to blossom. They give men more status in the eyes of other men' (Freedman 1969, but cf. Wood 1986). Beards have rarely been regarded simply as beards (Reynolds 1950) . Similarly baldness is rarely regarded simply as baldness. Physiologically baldness, like the beard, is a male gender sign; and logically one might expect that the bearded, bald male, with two gender signs visible, would be perceived as doubly masculine, doubly virile, and totally opposite to feminine. Physiological logic and cultural logic, however, do not coincide. Indeed baldness seems to be regarded primarily as an age-sign and therefore a death symbol, rather than as a gender sign and a virility symbol. A recent survey found that 79 per cent of women found baldness unattractive, leading one commentator to remark that 'a man without hair is like a ring without a diamond' (Montreal Gazette 10.3.83).l5

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

402Men respond to this evaluation in various ways. Some reject their

baldness and have an expensive and painful hair transplant operations (e.g. Frank Sinatra) or use toupees or hairpieces. Others compensate and grow beards or moustaches to counterbalance or offset baldness (Fix 1981; Lieberman 1982). Still others accept their baldness; a 'Bald is Beautiful' movement has started in the USA, whose 'sole purpose is to try to eliminate the fear over loss of hair and to instill pride in a bald head'. A recent book entitled Bald is Beautiful (Taylor 1983) features Telly Savalas, Sean Connery and the bald author on the cover. The necessity for such a movement and such a book, however, merely confirms the fact that most men fear baldness and most women find it unattractive. These negative attitudes to baldness make the monk's tonsure (and perhaps the shaven heads of the Buddhist and Hindu holy men) more intelligible, for the shaven heads effect what they symbolize. They symbolize rejection of the world and its values, but also perhaps inspire a reciprocal rejection. This may explain why baldness has never been chosen as a political symbol in the west, although beards and long hair and cropped hair have been; and why it has been chosen as a religious symbol both in the west and in the east.l6 Baldness has been imposed, however, as a political symbol on collaborators during the German occupation of France, and by the I.R.A. on Catholic women who dated Protestant men or British soldiers in Ulster. The hairless head may therefore symbolize society's rejection of the individual (e.g. collaborators) or the individual's rejection of society (e.g. monks). The prime symbolic meaning of baldness is therefore surely death, but in three aspects: physical death with baldness as an age symbol; spiritual death with the shaven head of monks and contemplatives as a religious symbol; and social deatll for collaborators with baldness as a political symbol. Furthermore, the voluntary baldness of contemplatives and the involuntary baldness of branded deviants express physically and visibly the dictum: 'Opposite ideologies have opposite hair'. This fear of, and distaste for, baldness give the shaven heads of such men as Isaac Hayes, the late Yul Brynner, and Telly Savalas a shock value that mere baldness cannot evoke. For they reject an extremely powerful and popular symbol of life and youth and elect a baldness which is an equally powerful symbol of age and death. Perhaps this choice expresses a transcendence of conventional views of masculinity and life and thus these individuals become symbolically more alive and more virile; perhaps it expresses a detachment, comparable in secular vein to that of the contemplatives, from the world of other mortals; perhaps it is only an expression of Hollywood show business narcissism. None the less, these men and their imitators may have done more to change attitudes to baldness than the Bald is Beautiful movement.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

403

However, as in so much else that we have seen in hair, women are different. Firstly, women do not voluntarily choose baldness, like the Hayes-Brynner-Savalas trio. While many male imitators can be seen in any large city, very few women (in my experience) can be found; and there are none who have the international status of this trio. Secondly, while female 'collaborators' may be shaven, male collaborators are not they may be shot or knee-capped. Thirdly, where contemplative monks are shaven in a Gaelic fringe, and priests and brothers have a largely symbolic tonsure, nuns have, or used to have, their hair cut short; but the principal symbolism was not the cutting (equivalent to the tonsure) but 'taking the veil', i.e. hiding the hair. For both groups the hair is no longer a source of personal pride or temptation to others it is no longer a sex symbol; but each gender symbolizes the same reality in different ways. Furthermore, just as the religious of both genders have different hair rules, so do the laiety. Traditionally, in conformity with St. Paul's instructions, men uncover their heads on entering a church, and women cover them (I Cor. 1 1: 316, cf. Derrett 1973). In each of these four examples, therefore, the opposite sexes have different norms.

Beards, baldness, shaving and veiling have various symbolic meanings; but some of the most powerful and intimate symbolism is expressed in body hair. The male norm is not to cut body hair; but transvestites, for instance, are likely to shave their legs, arms and axillary hair. Homosexuals who have the feminine role in relationships (sometimes known as 'queens') may also shave their body hair. Thus men who wish to 'become' female in dress or behaviour, follow female norms for hair and thereby 'become' female in their bodies. Body-builders and weight-lifters are a different type of example. They shave their body hair to emphasize muscle definition, especially in competition. All four groups deviate from traditional male norms,

but while the practice of transvestism or homosexuality may be taken to imply a critique of traditional male roles, (and therefore an ideological opposition), the practice of body-building with the machomystique of muscles, strength and power is ironically exactly the opposite: the re-assertion of traditional definitions of masculinity. The same ritual, shaving body hair, may therefore symbolize oppositions: anti-'masculinity' and super-masculinity. To conclude: conventional male norms for the three hair zones may seem, to a stranger, rather odd. Body hair is left alone, and not cut; scalp hair is given a moderate cut; but facial hair is completely shaven. However, just as women have different norms from men, so also deviant men may have deviant, i.e. exceptional, hair. Deviance or ideological opposition may be expressed in scalp hair by extreme length (Hippies), extremely short hair (Skins), extreme styles (DAs, Punks, Rockabilly, Beatnik), dyed hair (Punks), shaven heads (trendsetters), shaven crowns (monks), veiled hair (nuns) and androgynous

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

404

Anthony Synnott

looks (David Bowie most recently) or gender-bending hair (Boy George, Lennox). Deviance may be involuntarily 'imposed' (collaborators) or involuntarily expressed (the matted hair of derelicts). On the face, where the norm is to be clean-shaven, deviance may be expressed in the beards and moustaches of hippies, some of the liberal occupations, and sometimes gays. Finally, the uncut body hair rule is broken by athletic deviants like body-builders and weight-lifters, and sexual deviants like transvestites and some 'queens'. Hair therefore may define the self on a religious, political, economic, social and sexual spectrum. Equally, of course, it may camouflage the self by changing hair, (and probably dress), anyone may appear to be a monk or a Punk, a bum or an executive. Symbols can be manipulated to express or to conceal; but the importance of the body in general and hair in particular as a symbol of identity can hardly be overestimated.

9. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Hair is hair is hair? Not exactly. It is also a powerful symbol of the self. Nelson, dying on board H.M.S. Victory, requested: 'Pray let my dear Lady Hamilton have my hair, and all other things belonging to me' (Howarth 1972: 191). Hair not only symbolizes the self but, in a very real sense, it is the self since it grows from and is part of the physical human body; furthermore, it is 'immortal' since it survives death.l7 It is this personal and biological origin of hair which gives it such richness and power. Corporate executives and adolescents, crew-cut marines and Rockabillies, Teddies, Hippies, Mods, Skins, and Punks . . . all express their identities and ideologies in their hair; so do monks and nuns, Hollywood trendsetters and Rastafarians, feminists and film stars, transvestites and 'queens', weight-lifters and body-builders, conventional men and women, and deviants and rebels. The mad use their hair unwittingly; and collaborators have their hair used unwillingly. Furthermore, all the variations of hair in all the zones of the body are or may be symbolic, i.e. they have values and meanings imputed to them. These values may change over time but, at any given time, they are important. Long hair or short, blonde, brunette or red, cleanshaven or bearded, the luxuriance of male chest hair or a woman's scalp hair (or their scantiness), the presence or absence of axillary hair or pubic hair, even the thinness or thickness of eyebrows, baldness versus hairiness, curls or straight hair, transplants and toupees . . . all these aspects of hair which might be thought of as primarily biological, are in fact phenomena of enormous personal significance, and invested with deep gender and ideological meanings.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

405

Hair is significant, however, not only as part of the ethnography of

popular culture, but also for its immense theoretical significance in more general theories of the body and theories of symbolism. With respect to the sociology of the body first, the sociology of hair calls attention to the close relation between the physical body and the social body in the two aspects of gender and ideology. Gender and ideology are 'made flesh' in the hair as people conform to, or deviate from, the norms, and even deviate from deviant norms; they thereby symbolize their identities with respect to a wide range of phenomena: religious, political, sexual, social, occupational and other. Although anthropologists, from the very beginning, had reported in detail on various aspects of the body, including hair-styles, tattooing, dress, gestures, diet, body-painting, and so on, Marcel Mauss was the

first to call for a systematic sociology of the body, in his essay 'Les Techniques du Corps' (1936). His essay had slight impact, and was not even translated into English until 1973, but his anecdotes are fascinating and his observations are acute. He was particularly interested in the variations in physical activities from culture to culture and the apparent absence of what he called a 'natural way' of even such actions as walking, running, and swimming. His interest was also pragmatic (some methods of physical activities are more eflicient than others, e.g. new swimming techniques), and spiritual: he

believed that western breathing techniques were not as well attuned as others, notably in Hinduism, to facilitate 'communication with God' (1973: 87).

Margaret Mead, in a chapter entitled 'Ways of the Body' in Male and Female ( 1949) developed some of Mauss' ideas, although she does not appear to have been aware of his work. Her principle interest was

to describe 'the way in which our bodies have learned, throughout their lives, how to be male, how to be female' (1949: 5). She also compared the ways of the American body with the ways of the people in the South Seas and, citing 'the impaired sensuousness of American women', the deficiencies of American birthing procedures, the rejection by most mothers of their own bodies as a source of food for their children, the devaluation of the role of mother, the contradictions

between physical needs and sexual ethics in the USA . . . she

concluded that the ways of the Americans were far more problematic.

Despite the work of Mauss and Mead, mainstream sociologists and anthropologists until very recently, have largely ignored the sociology

of the body. Berger and Luckman, after observing that 'such intrinsically biological functions as orgasm and digestion are socially

structured' went on to ignore the topic, saying that 'the possibility of a sociology of the body that this raises need not concern us here' (1967: 202-3).

Mary Douglas did raise the question in Natural Symbols, and suggested that 'The social body constrains the way the physical body

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

406

Anthony Synnott

is perceived. The physical experience of the body . . . sustains a particular view of society' (1973: 93). How she works out these ideas in detail is beyond the scope of this paper; suffice it to mention that

she briefly contrasts smooth and shaggy hair (1973: 102) Shaggy hair, as a form of protest against resented forms of social control, is a current symbol in our own day.... Take the general run of stockbrokers or academics, stratify the professional sample by age; be careful to distinguish length of hair from unkempt hair; relate the incidence of shagginess in hair to sartorial indiscipline. Make an assessment under the division smooth/shaggy of other choices, preferred beverages, preferred meeting-places and so on. The prediction is that where the choices for the shaggy option cluster there is least commitment to the norms of the profession.

Hair protest now takes many more forms than simple shagginess, which surely, in any case, may symbolize individualism or a lone wolf

identity (in contrast to a team identity) rather than a lack of professional commitment. None the less, Douglas was the first to

attempt a systematic, theoretical analysis of the relation between the two bodies, and to formulate tentative hypotheses. Furthermore, the

rules for hair, the clarification of hair zones, and the modalities of change, the specifications of styles as both patterns and processes, and finally the discussion of the importance of the contexts of hair (dress,

music, drinks, values, etc.) . . . all these support, I think, Douglas' insights on how the physical body is used either to consolidate or to challenge the social body in terms of sex roles and ideology. The second matter of theoretical significance is the nature of

symbols. Both Leach (1958) and Hallpike (1969), as we discussed

above, have suggested one-on-one equations of symbols and meanings,

although they disagreed about the meanings. Thus Leach's equation was that 'cut = sexual restraint', but Hallpike's equation was that 'cut = social control', and he gave the examples of soldiers, monks and men as opposed to Hippies, artists and women. While these brief summaries do not do full justice to their arguments, they do indicate the direction of their insights. None the less, developments over the

last 10 years require, I think, a conceptual framework rather more complex than the simple dualism of cut/uncut, short/long, and rather

more subtle than one meaning per style. Hair symbolism is clearly more complex and subtle now than it was before Skins, Punks,

feminism, androgyny, and gender-bending. Thus I have suggested that it is no longer sufficient to consider the head hair only, it is also necessary to evaluate the symbolism of facial hair and body hair. Furthermore, in analyzing any or all of these three zones, it is no longer sufficient to consider only length: we also have to consider colours, styles, the use of false hair, the combination of long and short (among Punks, for instance), and the combinations of all

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

. Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

407

these at once: different lengths, colours and styles, and both wigs and natural hair in the same creation. Given this framework, the message of the medium can be clarified.

Thus rather than attributing opposing meanings to polarized hairstyles: cut/uncut, short/long, it may be more useful to analyze

deviations from the norm, and different types of deviations with respect to the three zones and the four modalities of hair change. Hence what becomes significant for a theory of symbolism is not the 'intrinsic meaning' of, say, short hair on the head for there is none; there are various meanings in different contexts. What is significant is the process by which opposition to social norms is developed and symbolically expressed in the body.

Turner (1967) for instance has pointed out the 'multi-vocality' of symbols; and Firth ( 1973) has referred to the 'umbrella of meanings' that may attach to a symbol. Blonde hair on a woman, for instance, carries a vast and complex range of associations, some of them contradictory, and some stronger than others; as we have seen, they appear to be somewhat different for a man. Similarly a Skinhead and a marine may have identical hair-cuts: extremely short; but they symbolize entirely different realities and express totally different, indeed opposite, values. The one rejects, often violently, precisely the society which the marines support, even more violently on occasion. Thus the same hair may mean different 'things'. Conversely different hair-styles may symbolize similar values; this applies not only to eccentrics, the exceptions to the rule, who may flaunt the norms without disagreeing on values: like the male corporation president in Toronto who wears a pony-tail with his business suit. It applies also partly because in a heterogeneous society people may disagree about the appropriateness of symbols, as feminists may disagree about body hair. Furthermore Skins and Punks, who tend to agree closely in their analysis of society, have entirely different hair-styles. They may differ in musical taste, as the styles show, but they agree in their political opposition to the status quo, as the styles also show. Hair therefore has many symbolic tunctlons.

Controversy and debate are bound to surround these symbols, not only because they may imply deviant values but because interpretation is complex and meanings change and vary. Shaving the head may symbolize celibacy in many societies (Leach 1958), or social control (Hallpike 1969), or contemplation (Hershman 1974). But the Skinheads and artistic 'egoists' of the Hayes-Brynner-Savalas school, who publicly choose the baldness most men fear, are neither celibate (so far as one knows), nor under rigid social control nor contemplatives. Indeed today the shaven male head now usually symbolizes the same reality that Hallpike (1969) suggested was then symbolized by long hair, namely, 'being in some ways outside society.'

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

408

Anthony Synnott

None the less, some common equations do consistently appear in many cultures, notably the matted hair of the ascetics, as Leach has observed. The equation, however, is by no means absolute in our society; indeed it may not hold at all. In North America and in the UK, most ascetics do not have matted hair, in my experience; and those with matted hair are usually 'derelicts' rather than ascetics. History may or may not be dialectical, but the concept of the dialectic is most useful in understanding the symbolism of hair, for it is the process of change, not the styles themselves, which are significant. The evolution from crew-cuts to DAs or flat-tops, from Beatniks, Rockabilly, Teddy Boys, Mods or Rockers, each with their own style, to Hippies, to Skins, to Punks, to gender-bending, androgyny and other styles, including baldness . . . all these multiple changes and options, with their attendant meanings, have occurred in under 40 years. And for women the rise of feminism has caused a reevaluation of hair-styles and body hair and even, on occasion, facial hair. Two examples from minority communities may serve to clinch the argument. In the Black community during the 1920s, 1930s and even later, many prominent Blacks (including Malcolm X) had a Conk a process of hair straightening. In the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights and Black Power movements the Conk was re-defined as shameful, and many Blacks gloried in the Afro or the natural, a symbol of'Black is Beautiful'. Both Malcolm X (1966: 53-4) and Angela Davis (1974: 96-7, 150) described the immense psychological importance of this change of style. In due course Afro's became fashionable rather than political, and after Cicely Tyson in 'Sounder' (and Bo Derek in '10'), Blacks began to adopt, or re-adopt, the oldstyle of corn-rows and braids, decorated with chevrons, beads, mirrors, and so on. Hair-styles now, however, at least for women, are often highly individualistic and sometimes based on sketches and photographs of African styles. The 'wet-look', popularized by Michael Jackson and Prince, is particularly popular. The 'dreadlocks' of the Rastafarians, washed but not combed, symbolize their religious and ideological opposition to the styles of 'Babylon' and to, in Bob Marley's phrase, 'them crazy baldheads'. Women must keep their locks covered. Some Blacks, however, prefer the Punk look. The sequence of change has been very rapid; and each change symbolizes changing values and social realities, and oppositions: the oppositions of Afro to Conk, dreadlocks to wet-look, Punk to braids. Hair also plays an important part in Jewish symbolism. In ancient times, because of the Biblical proscriptions against shaving (Lev. 19: 27; Deut. 14: 1), all male adultJews wore beards; and this tradition persisted, with rare exceptions, even into the twentieth century. However, with the mass settlement of Jews in the west, where most men were clean-shaven, few Jews but the Orthodox wore beards.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair

409

Orthodox Jewish men are distinguished from Conservative and Reform Jews not only by their beards, but also their payess or sidelocks, which are never cut, and by their covering of their heads either by a hat or a yarmulke (skullcap). This is a symbol of the presence of God and perhaps derives from the custom prescribed for the priests in the Temple (Ex. 28: 30). The Orthodox keep their heads covered all the time; Conservative Jews cover their head when the name of God is pronounced: in synagogue, praying, reciting a blessing, etc.; while the ReformJews may go bareheaded even in the synagogue (Trepp 1980: 38; Cohen 1965: 136). Thus the Orthodox are distinguished from Conservatives and Reform Jews by hair; but men and women also have opposite hair-styles; for Orthodox women have their hair cropped when they marry (as do many orders of Catholic nuns when the nuns take vows), and then they usually wear a sheitel or wig. The reason? Thefaithful woman does not show her hair, for a woman's hair is described by the Rabbis as 'nakedness', and can only be seen by her husband. Only a shameful woman would show her hair and would have her hair uncovered (Num. 5: 18; Trepp 1980: 281). (This is similar to the custom that prevails among the Rastafarians, and prevailed until recently among Christians in church) .

Mourning, as an 'opposite state' to the norm, is also symbolized in hair. In the Israelite tradition, when Jews were bearded, then mourning was symbolized by shaving the beard (Jer. 41: 51; Ezek. 5: 1); today, among the Conservatives, mourning is symbolized among men by not shaving, and among women by not cutting the hair (Trepp 1980: 333-5). Dedication to God was also, in ancient times, symbolized by not cutting the hair; Samson is the most well-known example of this (cf. Derrett 1973) . Thus exceptional states and status are symbolically expressed in the body, particularly the hair. Hair is thus not only highly symbolic, but it is also extremely subtle in its expression of political shades. How long the Hippies hair, how spiky or bright the Punks', how wide the Afro, how hairy or smooth the legs, how tightly curled and long the dreads, how shaggy the beard, how hairy the manly chest, and how clean the shave all these incremental variations can indicate the duration and/or the degree of commitment to various ideologies and self-concepts. The search for intrinsic meanings and a 'natural' symbolism of the body therefore seems to be in vain. There is no one-to-one correlation of particular phenomena with particular meanings, nor of meanings with phenomena. This is in part no doubt because of the complexity of society and societies: what is shame in one culture is glory in another. But it is also because of the rapidity of social change in western cultures: last year's glory is this year's shame. Traditional societies, as many anthropologists (cited earlier) have shown, have symbolized status differentials by hair differentials, and

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Anthony Synnott

410 institutionalized hair rituals in rites of passage. But these forms are static. In the west, however, as we have seen, changes in hair are

rapid and ubiquitous and express not only status change, but also ideological differences and changes in many spheres of social life. They cannot be understood as a fixed pattern but as a fluid process, as

styles change in opposition and contrast to earlier styles. Hair is not only gender and ideology determined, it is also fashion. It is precisely this complexity which distinguishes North American and European hair symbolism from the symbolism in traditional societies. To conclude: hair is a physiological phenomenon, but it is also a social one: a symbol of the self and of group identity, and an important mode of self-expression and communication. Despite the plethora of hair-styles, colours, lengths, and the use of false and colourings, however, hair display and concealment can be understood both as pattern and as process, I suggest, in terms of the three polar oppositions of gender (male-female), ideology (centre-deviant), and physique (head-body). Thus hair enables social distinctions to be symbolized, and changes to be symbolized. Indeed the major divisions in our society are symbolized in hair, as are our specific individual identities. Hair, and by extension the body, is not only individual hence Nelson's bequest but also social. The body physical and the body social are symbolically one.

Anthony Synnott

Department of Sociology and Anthropology Concordia University

NOTES

* Special thanks to John-Jasper Synnott, Joseph Smucker, and Michael Sullivan.

expeditions, with prizes being given for longest, bushiest, best effort, and so on. 4. Nor do all women, of course, but

1. This gentleman, the head of a

women, unlike many balding men, can

monastery in India, was apparently

change their hair styles and, unlike men,

afflicted with Plica caudiformis. The record

are indeed often encouraged to do so.

now is almost 9l/2 feet. (McWhirter 1985:

18-19). 2. Western norms do not necessarily apply in other societies, of course. Firth

5. The punks and the skins are some of the obvious exceptions to the male norm, but their case exemplifies the third

proposition and is discussed below.

points out that among the Tikopia, hair

6. Margaret Thatcher, who is a dyed

styles used to be 'the exact reverse' of

blonde, may be an exception to Molloy's

western styles (1973: 272); and the situ-

rule.

ation is similar among the Sambaru of Kenya (Cole 1979). 3. Competitions for beards were commonly held in the Navy and on Polar

7. This colour symbolism is exactly reversed in some other cultures (Firth

1973: 68). 8. This is not true for ideological

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

411

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair rebels, as a recent press report indicates: 'Doidge, 21, whose hair was mauve at last week's court hearing, said his hair

had been black at the time he was accused of being the blond-haired driver of a yellow Austin Mini. ' (Punch 25.4.84) . 9. For data, and an excellent history of false hair, see Woodforde, 1971. 10. An interesting example can be found in Dashiell Hammett's The Thin Man (1972: 27) where an admiring policeman described a tough lady as 'a woman with hair on her chest,' i.e. she is manly. The book was first published in 1933. 11. Greer's argument is not entirely convincing, I think. Men do not cultivate all their hair (= bestiality = aggressive sexuality). They mostly shave their facial hair and cut their head hair short. If shaving the legs or axillary hair is 'infantile' then surely so is shaving the face. Furthermore, women do not suppress all their hair (= vigour = libido); indeed they 'cultivate' their head hair in many different ways, and with even more attention than men 'cultivate' their hairy chests or legs. While feminists have opposed depilation of the legs and under the arms, they have not opposed depilation of'unwanted facial hair', nor have they described this as 'infantile'; which seems illogical. A moustache could also be a symbol of feminism. Finally it is unclear why male hair is a mark of the beast, whereas female hair is a sign of vigour.

rebelled against the self-same Puritan

ethic. The same ideological conflict continued under different names, with the same hair symbols. 14. Just as Hippies opposed the estab-

lishment, so the establishment opposed them; and Firth has offered a number of examples (1973: 276-83) . The examples in the press today, however, are of opposition to Punk or Skinhead styles, a recent example being the firing of Peter Mortiboy from his job with Rolls Royce because his four-inch spikes 'represented a safety hazard.' (The Times 12.10.83). The establishment also opposes feminist styles: Judith Quirst was fired from her job as a waitress because a customer objected to her unshaven legs (Levine and Lyons 1980: 206).

15. Ovid said something similar: 'A head without hair-is like a field without grass' (Firth 1973: 287).

16. Shaving the head is found in many faiths and cultures as a symbol of dedication to God; these include ancientJudaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the Yoruba (Leach 1958; Derrett 1973; Hershman 1974; Houlberg 1979) .

17. Teeth also survive death, and some people keep their children's baby teeth. But they are not such a popular symbol of the self, perhaps because smashing out the beloved's teeth after death is not so congenial a pastime as snipping a lock of hair. Nelson did not bequeath his teeth. Bones, too, survive

12. The same logic applied, or applies, to long-haired Hippies, to Afros ('the bigger the badder') and to Dreadlocks. 13. The Hippy revolt against the shorthaired establishment is reminiscent of the Puritan revolt against the longhaired Cavalier aristocracy. Indeed 300

death; but their utility as a symbol of the self is marred by the decay of the flesh which must happen first, and also by the possibility that the bones may be more reminiscent of death than of the deceased;

years after the Civil War, the Hippies

the hair of the beloved.

furthermore we never see the bones in life, but we do see, and touch and smell,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandy, Way. 1981. Styling Your Face. New York: Random House. Banner, Lois W. 1983. American Beauty. New York: Knopf.

Brownmiller, Susan. 1984. Femininity.

New York: Linden Press, Simon and Schuster.

Cohen, Harry A. 1965. A Basic Jewish Encyclopedia. Hartford: Hartford House. Cole, Herbert M. 1979. 'Living Art

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

412

Anthony Synnott

Among the Sambaru'. Justine M.

October: 116.

Cordwell and Ronald A. Schwarz (eds)

Houlbert, Marilyn Hammersley. 1979.

The Fabrics of Culture. The Hague:

'Social Hair: Tradition and Change in

Mouton Press.

Yoruba Hairstyles in Southwestern

Cooper, Wendy. 1971. Ilair: Sex, Society

Nigeria'. Justine M. Cordwell and Ronald

and Symbolism. New York: Stein and Day.

A. Schwarz (eds) The Fabrics of Culture.

Davis, Angela. 1974. Angela Davis: An

The Hague: Mouton Press.

Autobiography. New York: Random House.

Howarth,David. 1972. TheNelson Touch.

de Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The Second

London: Collins/Fontana.

Sex. New York: Knopf.

Kampling, Jo (ed . ) . 1981. Images of

Derrett, Duncan M. 1973. 'Religious

Ourselves Women with Disabilities.

Hair' . Man 8 (n.s . ) March: 100- 103.

Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Douglas, Mary. 1973. Natural Symbols.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and

Pelican Books.

Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic

Fast, Julius. 1978. The Body Language of

Books.

Sex, Power and Aggression. New York: Jove

Knight, Nick. 1982. Skinhead. London:

Books.

Omnibus Press.

Firth, Raymond. 1936. We, The Tikopia.

Leach, E.A. 1958. 'Magical Hair'. Journal

London: Allen and Unwin.

of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.

Firth, Raymond. 1973. Symbols: Public

88, Pt. II.July-December: 147-64.

and Private. London: Allen and Unwin.

Levine, Suzanne, and Harriet Lyons.

Fix, Charles. 1981. Looking Good: A

1980. The Decade of Women. New York:

Guide for Men. New York: Hawthorne

Putnam's Paragon Books.

press.

Lieberman, Barbara Melsner. 1982.

Fraser, Kennedy. 1981. The Fashionable

'Growth Patterns: Reshaping Facial

Mind. New York: Knopf.

Angles with Beards and Moustaches'.

Frazer, Sir James. 1935. The Golden

Gentlemen's Quarterly, July.

Bough. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan.

Lyons, Harriet, and Rebecca Rosen-

Freedman, Daniel G. 1969. 'The

blatt. 1972. 'Body Hair: The Last

Survival Value of the Beard'. Psychology

Frontier'. Ms. Vol. 1, No. l,July.

Today. October: 36-39.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts

Freedman, Rita. 1986. Beauty Bound.

of the Western Paci>. London: Routledge.

Lexington: D.C. Heath.

Mauss, Marcel. 1973. 'Techniques of

Glamour. April 1983; August 1983.

the Body'. Economy and Society, Vol. 2: 70-

Graham, Virginia. 1967. Don't Blame the

88.

Mirror. New York: Meredith.

McWhirter, Norris. 1985. The Guinness

Greer, Germaine. 1971. The Female

Book of World Records. 32nd Edition, 1986.

Eunuch. London: Paladin Books.

Guinness Books.

Griaule, Marcel. 1970. Conversations with

Mead, Margaret. 1977 (1949). Male and

Ogotemmeli. London: Paladin Books.

Female. New York: Morrow Quill.

Hallpike, C.R. 1969. 'Social Hair' . Man

Molloy, John T. 1976. Dress for Success.

9 (n.s.): 256-64.

New York: Warner Books.

Hammett, Dashiell. 1972 (1933) . The

Molloy,JohnT. 1978. The Women'sDress

Thin Man. New York: Vintage Books.

for Success Book. New York: Warner

Hemmingway, Patricia Drake. 1979.

Books.

The Well Dressed Woman. New York: New

Montreal Gazette. 10.3.83; 26.7.83; 25.9.84.

American Library/Sight Books.

Montreal Star. 20.2.79.

Henig, Robin Marautz. 1985. How a

Morgan, Marable. 1975. The Total

Woman Ages. New York: Ballantine Books.

Woman. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hershman, Paul. 1974. 'Hair, Sex and

New York Times. 17.4.80; 18.9.83; 18.4.84;

Dirt'. Man 9 (n.s.): 274-98.

7.1.85; 2.8.86; 18.10.86.

Hirsch, Brenda. 1981. 'Hair 'em, Scare

Ovid. 1974. The Art of Loving. Blooming-

'em'. Psychology Today, September: 84.

ton: Indiana University Press.

Horn, Jack C. 1979. 'Is it true Blonds

Pellegrini, R.J. 1973. 'Impressions of

seem less dumb?' Psychology Today,

the Male Personality as a Function of

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

413

Shame and glory: a sociology of hair Beardedness'. Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1. Perutz, Kathrin. 1970. Beyond the Looking Glass: America's Beauty Culture. New York:

Trepp, Leo. 1980. The Complete Book of Jewish Observance. New York: Simon and

William Morrow.

Pesman, Curtis. 1984. How a Man Ages. New York: Ballantine Books.

Turner, Terence S. 1969. 'Tchikrin: A Central Brazilian Tribe and its symbolic language of body adornment'. Natural

Punch. 25.4.84.

Ilistory, Vol. 78: 50-70.

Reynolds, R. 1950. Beards. London: George Allen and Unwin. Robinson, Dwight E. 1976. 'Fashions in shaving and trimming the beard: the men of the Illustrated London News, 1842- 1972'. American Journal of Sociology,

Turner, Victor W. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca:

81(5): 1133-9.

Press.

Williamson, Margaret Holmes. 1979. 'Powhaten Hair' . Man 14 (3): 392-413. Woodforde, John. 1971. The Strange Story of False Ilair. London: Routledge

Stevenson, Ray. 1982. Sex Pistols File. Haverhill: Panda Press. Taylor, Peter. 1983. Bald is Beautiful. Toronto: Key Porter Books. The Times. 12.10.83; 23.1.85; 11.3.86.

X, Malcolm. 1965. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove Press. York, Peter. 1983. Style Wars. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.

Steele, Valerie. 1985. Fashion and Eroticism. New York: Oxford University

Schuster.

Cornell University Press.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1934. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: The Modern Library.

and Kegan Paul.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms