new thread
Why did short hair becomes so puritanical from the turn of the 19th century to the 1950s. I know the wars had something to do with it but that doesn't explain why most the civilian males went along with it too.
Perhaps hollywood had an influence?
As you know the 19th century was pretty liberal as far as personal style went.
I have asked myself that for quite a long time now. I need to know this.
I read somewhere that the Romans used to cut their hair very short to avoid getting caught by their hair in their invasions and fights.
Also, as a way to identify themselves from the Barbarians.
Throughout the history, having long hair was a sign of wealth and power. Also, when they caught a slave they used to shave the head off as a sign of submission (in fact, Franciscan priests wear their head shaved as a sign of submission to God).
Later on, during the 16 th century long hair in men went fashionable again (look at photos of the different kings in France, for example).
Women used to wear high wigs as well . The more hair you had, the richer you were.
Afterwards, with World Wars I and II short hair was ON again (this time, to avoid diseases, infections caused by the conditions the soldiers were battling).
I haven't gone into it in a big way, but long hair on men (women too) was in fashion up to the French Revolution - either in the form of natural hair or wigs. Of course, wigs were very expensive and were a symbol of gentlemen and the aristocracy.
Two influences led to short hair: the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. There was a reaction from the flamboyant style of the 18th century. However, men continued to wear their moustaches and sideburns, with or without a beard. Long hair continued, but it was out of fashion.
In the 19th century, more and more people were got off the land and put to work in factories and made to live in squalid conditions. When social reforms began in the late 19th century and the time leading up to World War I, something had to be done against lice and disease. That was made worse by World War I and the buzz (crew) cut or short back 'n' sides was here to stay.
There is also the ancient symbolism in the shearing of the vanquished. The workers' heads were shorn and they lost something of their humanity - like modern office workers in corporations. A man who grows his hair asserts his humanity and his independence. I was aware of this symbol as a child, even though it wasn't taught in school history.
Someone needs to do a study of social classes and hair over the same period. I have learned a lot of things from the articles in the links section of this forum.
I hope this contributes something.
Anthony
* * *
My blog
I have just thought of something extremely significant in the symbolism of long hair. In British law courts, the Judge still wears a long wig. The wigs of barristers and solicitors are shorter and more symbolic. The Judge's long hair in the form of a wig is a symbol of his authority.
IMHO short hair prevailed for several reasons:
1. The Wars. Lice, etc. The military wanted to crush
invidiuality. They wanted obedient cogs to fit into the machinery of war, obiedienntly took orders and questioned nothing, Your military unit was to function as one cohesive
unit who did what they were told and questioned nothing.
2. Our society wanted to crush individuality. Society wanted parents and schools to produce male worker bees who were ready to obediently go to work each day and look the same (i.e. short
hair, no facial hair, looking neat with a shirt and tie.)
3. These worker bees should be happy with the lousy working conditions, lousy pay, and tyranical bosses. After all these workers were there to perform menial tasks for lousy pay. And they shouldn't care if the job they were doing was dangeous,
the building a fire trap, or if they got black lung,
mesothelioma, or some other disease that would kill them
in later years.
4. It also should be noted that in the US of A the nature of
citizens shifted. In the 1700s the average citizen was his
own boss, he owned and ran his own farm/general store/blacksmith shop/etc. It wasn't until years later that the work force shifted to industrialization. Once the work force shifted to industrialization the industrialization bosses insisted on worker bees who had short hair, no facial hair, and all dressed the same. They wanted obedient workers who shed invididuality and concentrated on as much production as possible for as little pay as possible.
5. When you attend school starting in the early years you're
being trained to learn what you need to learn, arrive at school
on time, stay the entire day, do as you are told, wear your hair
the way they want you to wear it, and to not question
authority. One of the main jobs of schools was to crush
individuality.
So what are your thoughts on this theory?
4.1 The former working drones became role models and everyone shaved his face and cutted their hair to look like the big bosses.
-Christian
Some very valid points. All of which I was planning to cover, but it looks like you beat me to it.
I believe such regulations came to play during WWI - the outbreak of the Spanish Flu, sickness - and overall poor health just made it difficult, but the biggest one is probably due to WWI itself, which sort of regulated that sort of short buzz cut. Sadly, most people believe anything different is 'bad', and thus the attitude towards men with long hair has, sadly, remained the same. Even as a girl who likes long hair on guys, I still get quite a bit of flack for it. And it can all be traced back to the attitudes they had towards it back during WWI-1950s'.
I would agree on some of your social triggers, but not necessarily on all your reasons. The military did have a large part of the short hair trend, and you are right that they want everyone to be "uniform," but discouraging individuality is only a part of it. Having served in the military myself, I know the importance of having the ability to put a gas mask on in less than 15 seconds. It's nearly impossible to do with long hair, and definitely impossible to do with facial hair (with the exception of a modest mustache). World War I saw the introduction of chemical and biological weapons, which made gas masks necessary. The industrial age also triggered a need for short hair as a matter of safety. As machines began to replace manpower and horses, people began getting their long hair caught in machinery, causing catastrophic injury or death. People began cutting their hair to prevent being scalped. With organizations such as OSHA bringing about changes, machines are now much safer, but the danger is always there. I don't know how much weight necessity has when compared to social pressure, but I think they both play a part.
Many service customs found their way into civilian life because so many were accustomed to accepting a particular order of things and military style discipline. It too until the 1960s/70s and objections to the draft to change that.
The story goes back way beyond those years, and it ain't pretty:
The short version is that in primitive times, when a village was overrun, the women were raped and the men were shorn. A man's missing hair was taken as a sign that he did not own himself, but rather that he was owned by another. Cutting off hair was "marking territory". Dogs piss on fire hydrants for the same reason. This "rape or cut hair" urge appears to be embedded in the human psyche.
The long version is here:
Dogs and wolves (and many other species) have a procedure where one member of the community establishes himself as the "alpha male". Those subjected to him lose their drive to fight him for dominance. This avoids constant fights and assures the survival of the social group. Constant fights would lead to an increase in injury and death rates among the group, so natural selection engrained this procedure. It is thus likely that shorn men are psychologically changed to not challenge authority, and this comes down as an inherited trait. The fear that men who see themselves as "authority figures" feel toward longhairs is thus based on facts that are sensed as very real in the subconscious mind.
Women and old men are not challenged so often about long hair, because they are not seen as a physical threat.
As human societies in recent centuries became more complex, the application of these feelings about long hair has often been scrambled to some degree. One way this has happened is that men who see themselves as "authority figures" cut their own hair in deference to each other or to "the system".
It was common for hippies in the 1960s and 1970s to say that a man who had cut his hair had "sold out to the system". He was submitting to authority. He no longer owned himself.
It is said that the crime of rape is more often about power than about sex. Similarly, forcing hair cutting on men is more often about power than about fashion. This makes sense, because to the primitive human brain, which lives in us all, the two are the same act, except that one is perpetrated against women and the other against men.
Yes, to the subconscious human mind, forced hair cutting is male rape. And as I said above, the story ain't pretty.
Bill
You're too fast........(letting my head hang down)... I would have posted the same link.
-Christian
... and considering that the link was to a page on Bill's own site, it logically follows that he'd be the quickest on the draw :)
Cheers,
Val
Agree, I noticed it too late, sometimes I am realy blind.
A massive explosion in front of my window...... two hourslater... whow, look out of my window, why is everything gone..... and where is everyone....strange.
I had an exam that day.
-Christian
Don't forget about the invention of the clippers.
Before, short hair meant constant maintenance due to trips to the barber... which cost money.
With the advent of clippers, buzzcuts became something that could be done at home for (almost) free... which made short hair a lot more accessible.
I've thought about this a good bit over the years and done some reading myself. Christian has about the best explanation. It was probably a side effect of industrialization, standardization and more organized militarization.
One dark societal secret is a early 19th century adaptation my American schools of a German-Prussian educational philosophy which was designed to create a more submissive and mass consumption oriented society. Sadly, it was a considerable success. I suspect short hair on males went along with that to some extent.
It was, unfortunately, a colossal success, to the detriment of not only American society, but the entire world. My wife and I chose to homeschool our children in an attempt to at least partly counter the effects of the McEducation of our populace. Gotta light those candles, right?
"In absentia luci, tenebrae vincunt." (In the absence of light, darkness prevails.)
Regards,
Val
There is light, unfortunately I forgot where but I have read a couple of months ago that the industrie starts to admit they made a mistake because there is no innovation anymore ((biological) machines can't think creatively) and slowly they want to change it.
-Christian
That's an interesting point. I chose to home school one of my sons for other issues, but now that you mention it, I do notice quite a difference in the way I teach and the socialized way public schools do it. I'm tempted to bring my other son into home school as well, but I hesitate because it's so much work with just the one. On a separate note, since he's been home schooled, he has grown his hair long. It makes me wonder if the absence of peer or administrative pressure made the difference.
The most common argument against home schooling has to do with socialization. In fact, my children are FAR more comfortable with and capable of socializing with a broad range of people, than are most other kids their age (who attend traditional schools). I believe attending school usually does more to hamper kids' ability to truly socialize than it does to help it. At best, most of these children learn to interact with others their own age, give or take a year or so, but have little-to-no ability to capably interact with people outside of their comfort zone (i.e., younger children, adults, elders, etc.). Worse still is the fact that, more and more, even their interactions with each other aren't really WITH each other, but with an electronic device. In my opinion, home schooling--done properly--beats sending your kids to a traditional school in every way, from academically, to socially, to physically... even nutritionally!
I understand how you might feel overwhelmed at the thought of home schooling your other son, though I doubt you will regret doing so in the long run. Have you explored the option of home-based charter schools, if they are available in your state? Our children are enrolled in one, which is technically a public school run by the state, but works like this:
At the beginning of the school year, we are allotted a budget for each child's curriculum (approximately $1,100 each). There are requirements that ensure our kids receive schooling in certain core subjects (Math, Science, Language, etc.), in addition to the Arts, Wellness, etc., but we are free to design their actual curricula based on their own particular strengths and interests. For example, my 13-year-old son is a big fan of Doctor Who and Star Wars; next school year, we will be tying these interests into his studies of science (physics and astronomy), art (prop and costume building), and history (The Doctor is a time traveler, after all!). We shop around and provide the charter school with a list of books and materials we would like to use (including things like art supplies and educational kits), and they use the money allotted to each child to purchase them. We pick up the materials from the school, and provide the education at home. Once the kids are done with them, any books or reusable items become a part of the charter school's lending library, and can be used by any other participating family. The curriculum money can also be used to pay for such things as music lessons, athletic team fees, and the like. The school also provides each family with a laptop computer. Four times per year, we meet with the school principal to show examples of the kids' work, tests, etc., and every three years the kids participate in the state's standardized testing. We have found both the financial and technical/educational support to be extremely helpful, and well worth the small hassle of having to jump through a few of the state's hoops.
I don't doubt that being home schooled has, at the very least, certainly lessened the pressure your son might otherwise feel to keep his hair short. Good luck in finding the best path for your kids' education. Feel free to contact me with any other questions regarding home schooling... I'd be happy to share whatever I can!
Cheers,
Val
Thanks for the info. I will look into the home charter schools. I have struggled to find decent resources for my son's lessons, so that may be a good direction to investigate.
I agree fully with your statement that home schooling is better than public school "if done right." My step-sister tried doing it with her kids and failed miserably. For that reason alone, I originally hesitated to do it myself. But my experience has taught me it was a good choice. It's a lot of work if done right.
Had my parents tried to home school me, it would have been a disaster. My father was never home, and my mother was very abusive. Rough-around-the-edges as my dealing with school was, it was an island of sanity in my childhood years.
The problem I see with home schooling is that no one really checks to see whether such is in the best interests of the child. This is not something one can take the parents' word on.
Bill
Bill,
I agree that the freedom afforded by home schooling is abused by some, which is tragic. The accountability you mentioned is one of the benefits of participating in the charter school system in which our kids are enrolled. It is a Wisconsin State Public School system, with a physical location, a full resource library, a principal, tutors if needed, and teachers (for the optional, once-weekly "enrichment day," offering art, physical education, and music classes). Our kids participate in the same standardized (though in my opinion, largely worthless) testing mandated by the State, the same as all public school students.
I can't cite any statistics at the moment, but anecdotally at least, in my experience, practically all of the home schooled kids I've known have VASTLY outperformed the average traditionally schooled child, academically, socially, and even athletically. In the traditional school sector, "No Child Left Behind" has held back countless children of good and above-average ability, by lowering the standard for expected performance to satisfy the lowest common denominator, and this, too, is tragic.
--Val
I have alot of distrust of the charter school system. In New York
city that use alot of the school facilities for free, (denying those facilities to the public sschools), have the best fascilities
(computes, libraries, etc.), while they choose the best students,
leaving the poor,minority, special needs kids to the resource starved public schools. Also alot of charter schools have been
shut down for not providing an adequate education.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's not the case at all here. Ours is called a "center for independent learning," and is specifically designed to help facilitate home-based education. There is a mechanism in place to ensure that all state-mandated educational requirements are met, but the families have the freedom to build their children's curricula around their own particular strengths and interests, and to focus in on the areas that are most in need of improvement. Enrollment is provided on a first-come, first-served basis, with the only exception being that if a child has a sibling already enrolled, they cannot be denied enrollment, allowing families to ensure that all of their children are enrolled in the same school system.
--Val
You are really selling me on the charter home school idea. I hope I can find one here in Michigan and that will be affordable.
In Wisconsin, there is no out-of-pocket cost, as this is just another form of public school. I hope there's something similar in Michigan, and that you can find something that works for you and your family!
--Val
P.S.--What part of Michigan do you live in? I was born in the UP (Ontonagon), and currently live about a half-hour from the border.
I am currently in Essexville, down by Bay City, but I graduated from Cedarville High School in the UP. I would love to move back up north, but there's not much in the way of job opportunities up there to make it possible.
I have also speculated on my blog about "American" conservatism from the point of view the European I am (British origin, but living in France and other European countries since 1982). I have to be careful not to seem insulting, and I have had to explain things very carefully on my blog.
Going back to World War II, many US servicemen sacrificed their lives in a war that wasn't theirs, and we owe our freedom to those brave men. That being said, Europe suffered much more acutely from political ideologies that enslaved and reduced men and women to mindless conformity. I speak of Nazism and Fascism, and of some similar minority opinions resurfacing now and again. Europe risks a lot in the general reaction away from Socialism and unfettered capitalism.
World War II exorcised some demons that underpinned European culture for a very long time. Some of the same mindsets remain in respectable society in America. I have been to the US four times, and I am quite surprised how conservative mentalities can be compared with England and the European Continent where people are much more liberal or "uncaring".
Of course, generalisations and blanket statements can be both insulting and dangerous, so please forgive me for floundering on uncertain terrain!
That being said, there seems to be a new urban conservatism entering English society, from what I read. Same in France and many other countries. I have opted for living in the country, where things go that much slower, and therefore are quite comprehensible and can be followed.
I look at men's heads much more in town (Paris and Rouen) since I decided to stop cutting my hair. There is a great diversity of urban hairstyles, but they are nearly all with a "fade to nothing" at the back and sides. There are a few longhairs, but they have to tie it back carefully to keep in with the shorthairs, making it look smooth and "clean". Out here in the country, my future long hair will be noticed, but I think people just won't care and will keep quiet.
We need to keep an eye on young fashions and also at political trends. If Europe goes right-wing over the next year or so, it could just be a swing of the pendulum, or something much more sinister.
Sorry to discuss politics, but I think ideologies do bear on the question of individual freedom, hair and dress. We just have to stay tuned and keep our heads down - but the hair growin' and flowin'.
Anthony
* * *
My blog
#######
Sadly I noticed the same, as a German it is not so pleasant to see some countries around are slowely drifting to the nationalistic side.
The one and only mechanism which can stop some undesirable problems is discussion.
Nobody has to feel insulted by someones opinion and a good discussion keeps your brain working. I have friend who is political "on the other side", we discuss very often but still are friends, it's fun to discuss at least.
Thus wasn't my intention to insult anyone as well, and sorry for staying off topic.
-Christian
I think the existence of the Internet both helps purvey political extremism and helps moderate it. The Internet has for the first time allowed people to form strong community bonds across all national borders. While there's a lot of both good and bad going on, it's not so easy for a people in a single country to feel isolated anymore.
Cheers!
-Christian
The Internet is the despot's greatest nightmare. The reason many of us today speak the languages we speak and practice the religions we have, is that way back, despots pushed our ancestors into using a certain language and practicing a certain religion to keep us from getting to know people on the other side of the border. Heaven forbid, if we all started talking to each other, we might become friends with one another.
In the 1940s, our nation was bombing cities in Germany. Today, like many Americans, I have a close friend in Germany. I would really be pissed if Obama were to bomb his house.
You're right - extremism has also been made easier by the Internet as well as has the making of more moderate bonds. This has particularly been a problem in Islamic lands, because those lands have until recently been the most isolated. As we get to know more Islamic people and they get to know more people who aren't, though, I feel the extremism will fade along with the isolation they've felt. Adjusting to being "citizens of the world" has been tough on us all, but it has been toughest for the most isolated.
The world has become too populated for anyone to be able to run off to an uninhabited place so they can be with people who are "just like us". We have to learn to live with one another, and that means accepting that others may be different from us. Acceptance means you can't foist your beliefs on them, but it also means they can't foist their beliefs on you.
This does work. Here in San Francisco, about a million of the most diverse people on the planet live in a city that is just seven miles square. Sure, there are occasional problems of intolerance, but it isn't pervasive. You can be whatever color you are, speak whatever language you want, marry whoever you want, go to any church that you want, and grow your hair as long as you want, and just about everyone will be cool with that. What's uncool is hating others for any of those reasons.
Is all of America like that? Not so much, but it's better than a lot of other places. There was a story a few years ago about several Iranian young people who came to America for a vacation and planned to go home to write about all the hatred they would encounter in America. Much to their initial disappointment and later delight, they encountered none. Everyone they met was extremely friendly, and they had a great time!
America, though, has been a very mobile and communicative place for a few centuries. Adjusting to the world having become like that is understandably tougher for societies without that much time to adjust. There was no Internet at all until about twenty years ago. Now 1/7 of the world's population has a Facebook account. Through more isolated societies, this has sent shock waves. The bigger the waves, the more "extremism" will be found among them. As time passes and the waves die down, we should expect extremism to subside. We can all do our part to help that by getting to know as many people who are not "just like us" that we can.
Bill
You represent your country as its very best, in its democracy and level of tolerance for cultural diversity of people from all parts of the world.
I have had some very enjoyable moments in the US, once in Maryland, once in Florida and twice in Tennessee. Just going to a supermarket and truly being served is an experience for a European. France, where I live is one place where faces can be drawn and you can feel blamed for existing!
Indeed, we should be thankful for the Internet and the support we give each other. There are some very bigoted people in America, but also over here too. They just need to see how happy and healthy tolerant people can be - and pleasing to God.
Thank you for you reflections. Much appreciated.
Anthony
My blog
BUT THAT'S JUST IT! There almost WEREN'T any civilan males left. Universal conscription. From, if I'm not mistaken, 18 to 45 in the United States during World War I and II. It was even worse during the Civil War and across the Atlantic in Europe.
I think to answer this question, you have to put in the greater context of the rise of the modern nation-state, the rise of nationalism and national identity, of strong central governments, of large corporations, of universal education and so forth.
I think you also have to put some blame on the deterministic Cartesian / Newtonian worldview that encouraged division into clear distinct unambiguous categories. No quantum uncertainty. Male or female. If X then Y. That sort of thinking encouraged rigidifying social customs and uniformity.
Hollywood only cemented the gender differences that were already in place. The short hair for male pattern was already established by the time Hollywood was a significant cultural force. Oh, interestingly, Hollywood, like every other institution, became factory-like during the first half of the 20th century. In fact, it's called the Hollywood factory system in textbooks. Movies were made in a manner akin to an automobile assembly line or canned food. A long-haired male character simply wouldn't be among the raw materials supplied into the factory.
