Shame and Glory. A Sociology of Hair

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: 28/10/2014 14:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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 support@jstor.org.
Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 69.58.106.26 on Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:04:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AnthonySynnott
Shameandglory:a sociologyof hair*
Doth not natureitself teachyou, 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 oppositesex. Indeed the debate
over hair symbolismis both ancient and complex, and applies not
only to gender but also to politics, as Hippies, Skins and Punks,
among others, have recentlydemonstrated.
Hair is perhapsour most powerfulsymbolof individualand group
identity powerful first because it is physical and therefore
extremelypersonal,and second because,althoughpersonal,it is also
public rather than private. Furthermore,hair symbolismis usually
voluntaryratherthan imposedor 'given'.Finally,hairis malleable,in
various ways, and therefore singularly apt to symbolize both
differentiationsbetween, and changes in, individual and group
identities. The immense social significanceof hair is indicated by
economics:the hair industryis worth $2.5 billion in the USA (New
YorkTimes,7.1.85).
Hairsymbolismhas beenextensivelyresearchedby anthropologists,
particularlyin initiation, marriage and mourning rituals, and in
magic on a parsprototobasis (Frazer 1935; Malinoswki1922; Firth
1936). Leach (1958) introduced a comparativeperspectiveto the
discussionin an effortto effect a synthesis between anthropological
and psychologicalinsights;after reviewingevidencefrom Hinduism
in India and Buddhismin Ceylon, now Sri Lanka,Leach concluded
that
long hair = unrestrainedsexuality
short hair'
or partiallyshaved head > - restrictedsexuality
or tightly bound hair,
close shaven head = celibacy
Hallpike (1969), using examples from the Bible and from con-
temporarysociety, suggestedan alternativeequation:
ThcBntishJournalof Sociology VolumcXXXVIII Number3

382 AnthonySynnott
cutting the hair = social control
long hair = beingoutsidesociety
Other anthropologistshave
(Houlberg1979), Kenya (Cole 1979),studied hair symbolism in Nigeria
Brazil (Turner 1969), Mali Sri Lanka(Obeyesekere
(Griaule 1970), among Hindu 1981)
(Hershman 1974), among the Powhaten Punjabis
(Williamson 1979) and among early Indians of early Virginia
Unfortunately,however,with the exception Christians (Derrett 1973).
Firth(1973), neither of an excellentchapterby
anthropologistsnor sociologistshave paid
attentionto hair in British or North much
study is now 14 years old. Americansociety;and Firth's
Since then much has happened
symbolismand style for both Blacksand to
Romantics,braids, the wet look, and Whites:Punks,Skins,New
the emergenceof dreadlocks.
Furthermore, feminismhas transformedmeanings
bothwith respectto certainhair of hairforwomen,
1971;Lyons and Rosenblatt1972). styles, and also to body hair (Greer
This paper on the
sociology/anthropologyof hair is, first, an
attemptto describe developments
in
America and Britainover the last forty hair symbolism in North
Firth(1973); second, in the light years, and particularlysince
theory of these fresh data, to offera new
of hair symbolismmodifying
forward by Leach (1958) and and complementing those put
Hallpike
opposites will, hopefully,explainboththe (1969). This theory of
patterns and symbolsin popularculture,rangeof contemporaryhair
Finally the implicationsof this theory and the changesover time.
of
general theoriesof symbolismand the bodyhair symbolismfor more
The theoryof hair to be are discussed.
developedhere can be called the theory
opposites, since currentsymbolicpracticecan of
* a
proposltlons
be summarizedin three
* oppositesexes have opposite
* head hair and body hair are hair.
* oppositeideologieshave opposite.
oppositehair.
Thispattern of triple
oppositions
of hair symbolism;and this indicates the complexity and
subtlety
distinct
reasons.First,althoughhairgrows complexityis possiblefor two
of
bodysymbolismthere are only all overthe body,in terms
headhair (the scalp); facial hair three zones of social significance:
eyelashes, (beards, moustaches,eyebrows,
sideburns);and body hair (chest hair,
hair,
leg, arm, back, and pubic hair). arm-pitor axillary
and ideologicalsignificance. Each of these zones has both
gender
four Second,hair can be modifiedin
principalways. Lengthcan be changed
from
the zero of bald or shavenheads and may thereforerange
Colours to the worldrecordof 26 feet.'
and styles can also be changed,
can
bechangedwith the use of false and even the quantityof
or artificialhair. It is these hair
multi-

* * .
ofhair
Shameandglory:a sociology 383
zonal and multi-modalaspectsof 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
normsfor men and women are opposite.
In discussingthesepropositions,we will considersuccessively,head
hair, including length, colour, styles and false hair; facial hair and
body hair;and finallythe politicsof hairforwomenand formen. Hair
symbolismin the BlackAmericanandJewish populationswill also be
considered.Two points must be emphasized,however.First, reasons
of spacedemandthe exclusionof the history,psychology,anthropology
and economicsof hair, althoughsome referenceswill be foundin the
endnotes.Second, this discussionof conventionalhair normsapplies
principallyto the UK, the USA, and Canada;rules are differentin
much of Europeand South and CentralAmerica,particularlywith
respectto facial hair for men and body hair for women, apparently.
1. HEAD HAIR
The firstpropositionstates that the oppositesexes haveoppositehair,

and this is particularlyclear for head hair. First there is the genetic
factor. Most men eventually show signs of baldness, due to the
hormonetestosterone: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 womanwho had lost
her hair followingradiationtreatmentsfor cancer said: 'When you
lose your hair you feel like you have nothing to live for' (New York
Times18.9.83).An advisoron dress for women seemedto agree with
this point.
'In writing this book, I had many discussionswith my editors
whetheror not hair shouldbe included.My thinkingwas that a girl
just isn'ta girl withoutherhair' (Hemingway 1979: 143. Emphasis
added).
The belief that 'a girl isn't a girl withouther hair' may seem, and
may even be, extreme;but surelyit could not be said for men. Their
genderidentity is usually not that tangledup with head hair, but it
may be stronglydependenton facial hair (beardsand moustaches)
and chest hair as symbols of masculinity.Thus head hair and body
hair are opposite for men, and they are the converseof norms for
women forwhom facialhairand chest hairare usually'unwanted',
while head hair, as we have seen, is part of the culturaldefinitionof
temlnlnlty.

384 AnthonySynnott
This briefsummaryof the first two propositionswill 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
differentbehaviourfor men and women. There are exceptions of
course,as thereare alwaysrebelsagainstthe conventionalnorms;but
these rebels tend to exemplify the third proposition: opposite
ideologieshave oppositehair.
To beginwith length:perhapsthe mostobviousdifferencebetween
the hairof men and womentodayis that, conventionally,men tend to
have shorter(and less stylized)hair thanwomen.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
centuriesbeen both a gendersign and a sex symbolin our society.St.
Paul was probablynot the first to describea woman'slong hair as a
'glory' and contemporaryreferences in advertizing, poetry and
fashion magazinesto the 'crowningglory' are legion. Men say they
preferlong hair becauseit is 'sexier' (Cooper 1971). And there was
even a 'Longand Lovely'competitionin Englandrecently(TheTimes
11.3.86). (One cannotimaginesuch a competitionfor men exceptfor
beards or as an ideological satire).3 Indeed so powerful is the
symbolismthat a secretaryin New York,whoselong hairwas shaved
offcompletelyby a jealous wife, was awarded$117,500in compensa-
tion (MontrealGazette25.9.84).
Furthermorethe appeal of long hair goes far back into western
mythology,to the storiesof Mary Magdalene,Rapunzel,Lorelei,and
LadyGodiva.Miltonreinforcedit in ParadiseLostwhenhe described
Eve's hair
She, as a veil down to the slenderwaist,
Her adornedgolden tresseswore
Dishevelled,but in wanton ringletswaved,
As the vine curls her tendrils. . .
The feminist Susan Brownmillerbrings the issue of length up to
date (1984:55)
I harbora deep desire to wear my hair long becauselike all the
women I know, I grew up believingthat long hair is irrefutably
feminine.I couldcertainlyuse the advantagethat long hairconfers,
but I happen to look terriblewhen 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 middlinglengthand fret
about its daily betrayal.
Long hair may be 'irrefutablyfeminine',but it is also, observed
Veblen (1934: 171) a status symbol. Like the long skirtof his times,
long hair 'is expensiveand it hampersthe wearerat every turn and
incapacitatesher for all useful exertion'.It is thereforeevidenceof

ofhair
andglory:a sociology
SAlame 385
wealth and leisure. However, the oppositeof'long', 'feminine'hair,

Brownmillerpoints out, is precisely the short 'mannish' (opposite
gender)and 'dyky' (oppositeideology)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, frizzedor permed;
and flowers,Deads,ribbons, bows, veils or hats can all be added or
subtractedas accessories.Yet traditionallywomenare morelikely to
use morestyles, and changethem moreoften, than men. The fashion
booksand magazinesfor womenconstantlyemphasizethe numberof
'styles' and 'looks' one may create from a given cut. They not only
make the same personlook different,but the styles may be chosen to
project different images of the self as glamorous, exotic, mature,
competent,etc. (Bandy 1981).Despitesome emerginginterestin hair
styles and aesthetics for men (Molloy 1976; Fix 1981; Robertson
1985), men are not usually so interestedin unique hair styles or in
how many 'looks'can be developedfromone cut. Men do not change
their hair-stylefor a dinnerdate.4Indeed, conventionally,normsfor
malestend to emphasizeuniformityand mutualidentity.Not only are
male styles generally similar to one another, but they have hardly
changedsince the 1930sand '40s. One studyof a corporationpointed
out the importanceof the conformityand stability of hair styles for
men (Kanter 1977:47)
An inappropriateappearancecould be groundsfor complaint to
highermanagement.A new field supervisorwas visited by his boss
for a 'chat' about setting a good example for the guys after his
longish hair, curling the slightestway down the nape of his neck,
caused comment. 'Appearance makes a big difference in the
responseyou get aroundthis company,'the boss insisted.Another
executivewas upset becausea staffexperthe frequentlycalledupon
for help seemed to change his appearanceor hairstylewith each
fashionwind. 'What are you trying to do now?'he once asked the
stafferexasperatedly.'We get used to you one way, then you have
to change. Why must you always be changing?'
Change is thereforethe essence of fashionableand conventional
femininityas definedby Vogue, Bandy(1981)and others;non-change,
stability and uniformityare requiredfor men. Norms for women
emphasizemultiplestyles per cut and the possibilityand advantages
of constantlylookinga differentperson differentfromearlier;and a
unique person differentfrom other women. Everyyear there is a
'new look'.5Thus King GeorgeVI's orJohn F. Kennedy'shair style
would be quite acceptablein oflices over 40 and 20 years later; but
JackieKennedy'swouldbe 20 yearsout of date and only acceptableat
a nostalgiaparty. The conventionalnormsthereforeare oppositefor

Synnott
Anthony
386 are
and style. They
sexes, at least with respectto length
opposite
the for colour.
thoughless totally,
opposed,
also
2.COLOUR in many
so for colour. The two gendersdiffer of
As for and style,acceptabilityof dyeing hair, the frequency
length
the
in the social also differin
respects:
motivation, and the coloursused. They the hair colourof
the
dyeing, opposite sex and hence in
they like in the
colour
sex symbols.
their is with aesthetic preferences.In a small
with
Alogicalplace to startcent of womensaid theypreferredmen the
in the USA, 75 per cent likedblondes,and redheadswere
survey
or blackhair, 13 perTwenty-eightper cent did not care about
brown
for only 2 per cent. August
ideal 72 per cent did care (Glamour distinct
colour but, conversely,
hair both showed
of male preferenceswere roughly evenly
278). Two surveys
1983: In one, men
differencesfrom female taste. brunettes(3 per cent), blondes (29
divided betweenthose who liked not care (32 per cent) (Glamour
April
who did to 29 per
cent), and those per cent preferredblondescompared dyed
per
1983).In the other,35 But 45 per cent said they
disliked
who preferred brunettes. and women did care
cent 18.10.86). Thus most men times
(NewYorkTimes
hair is important; but men were two to three likely to
about hair colour:it while women were twice as
likely to prefer blonde,
more
prefer brownor black hair.differencesbetween the two genders in
Just as there are clear clear differences betweenthem in their
ideals, thee are also USA, males
aesthetic
colour. According to a surveyin the type, no-
about hair executive
beliefs
redheaded females as 'the activeblondes as 'beautiful,
described unattractive',
nonsense and physicallyrather and dark-hairedwomen as 'good,
feminine', hand,
richand extremely (? friendly). Females, on the otherweak',
and familiar' timid and
intelligent
male redheads as 'good, but effeminate,
and dark-hairedmen
described successful and happy', hair colour
blondes as 'attractive,
(Horn 1979: 116). Beliefs about and quite
wereseen as 'average' gender-specific,rather
than general,
therefore seem to be
hair.
different for dark hair and red about hair colour referto blondes,
The most popularstereotypes to have more
are alleged to prefer,who are believed blonde may not
whomgentlemen The stereotypeof the dumb,fun morelikely
funand to be dumb. not entirelypositive,but womenarecolour.Two
beaccurate,and it is their hair blonde than any other
to dye, tint, or streak dramaticpsychological
dyed their hair blonde reported television
women who
Virginia Graham, an AmericanI becamea
and social changes. that 'my whole life changedwhen
personality,exclaimed

Shameandglory:a sociologyof hair 387
blond.'She told her father:'My hair made me feel drab. It pulledme

down. Now I feel like a bird about to fly.' She explained that
becomingblond made her feel like a woman (1967: 77-9)
After seven hours I emergedwith white blond hair. White, like
SnowWhite. But I got rid of the biggestproblemof my life that day
and probablysaved myselffroman analyst'scouch.... I didn'tlike
being a brunette.I didn't like my type. I didn't like what I was. I
didn'tfeel girl-like.And I didn'tlike the boys'attitudestowardme.
But now, suddenlyjit was all changed.
Similarchangeswere reportedby anotherAmericanbeautyexpert
when she became a platinumblonde (Perutz 1970:85-6)
Truckdriverswhistled,men triedto pickme up and at partiesboys
encircledme . . . taxi driversofferedme steak, Scotch and even
more, a police car rushed me to the theatre with sirens wailing
when I was unableto finda cab and little mementoesfromshy men
were left outsidemy door. A Jaguaror Thunderbirdcarriedme off
to lunch between classes and boys followedme out of Columbia
library.
No doubt not everyonewho dyed their hair blonde experienced
such dramaticchanges,or would welcomethem, but these examples
do clarifyboth the psychologyand symbolismof colour. Indeed the
'blonding'processappearsto be acceleratingas Clairolreporteda 25
per cent increase in sales of blonding products in one year. One
womanexplained:'Blondewas morethanjust a haircolourforme, it
was a personwho is sexy and happy'(NewYorkTimes18.10.86).These
associations may help to explain the disproportionatenumber of
blondesin the entertainmentworld:disproportionatenot only to the
numberof blondefemalesin the population,but also to the numberof
blondemale stars and sex symbols.This list of blondesex symbolsis
not exhaustive,but it must includeJean Harlow,Jayne Mansfield,
Lana Turner, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe (who
once said, 'I like to feel blondeall over'), BrigitteBardot,Doris Day,
GoldieHawn, GraceKelly, UrsulaAndress,Bo Derek,Dolly Parton,
and Madonna.ModelshaveincludedCherylTiegs, ChristieBrinkley,
and Twiggy; television actresses include Farrah Faweett, Loni
Anderson,SuzanneSomers,Linda Evans, MorganFairchild,Cybill
Shepherd,Heather Locklear,and Cheryl Ladd. In Playboy's 1987
PlaymateCalendar,six of the twelveplaymatesare blonde.This is 10
times the proportionof blondes in the population,for although a
quarterof Americanwomenare blondeas 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-hairedsex symbolstoo but not, it seems,in
proportion.

388 AnthonySynnott
Male sex symbolson the other hand have tended to be 'tall, dark,
and handsome':ClarkGable,ErrollFlynn,CaryGrant,ElvisPresley,
Paul Newman, MarcelloMastroianniand WarrenBeatty;and more
recently Burt Reynolds, Alan Alda, Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck,
RichardGere,Tom Cruiseand top malemodelJeffAquilon.The only
blondesex symbolsthat springto mind are RobertRedfordand Don
Johnson, and perhapsRod Stewartand Sting.
Blonde, perhaps,is seen as an essentiallyfemalecolour,like pink;
with darkhair as primarilya male colour.In these threedimensions
of colour, therefore,aesthetictaste, stereotypesand sex symbols,the
oppositesexes seem to identifywith oppositecolours.This is entirely
congruentwith the advice of a well-knownfashion consultantwho
advises that dark hair is a 'powercolour',whereasblonde hair is a
'funcolour',quiteunsuitablefor business.This, he believes,is truefor
both men and women (Molloy 1976: 121; 1978:86). If dark hair =
power, and blonde hair = fun, as Molloy asserts, then perhapsthe
stereotypes are widely believed and have become self-fulfilling
prophecies.6
Blonde and dark hair are polarizedas socially opposite,fun and
power,and they evokestartlinglydifferentaestheticand stereotypical
reactions. Indeed they are the symbolic equivalent of the gender
coloursof pink and blue. Furthermore,they are not only opposedas
colours,as gendersymbols,and as values, but also in termsof their
symbolicmeaningsrooteddeep in the Englishlanguage,and in their
culturalassociationsin western civilizations,as the OxfordEnglish
Dictionarymakesclear.7
Grey hair is often the first physical and public manifestationof
mortality, so the first grey hairs are often removed;and if more
appear, then both men and women may considerdyeing the hair.
Womenhave oftencomplainedthat greyhairon men is regardedas a
markof distinction,whereason womenit is perceivedas a sign of age.
The double standardis invoked, but so is Clairol. When the U.S.
Food and Drug Administrationannounced some years ago that
dyeing the hair may cause cancer,one womanallegedlyimpliedthat
she would ratherdie than be grey (Banner1983:274). Hair colouris
not only entangledwith conceptsof femininityand beauty, but also
with intimationsof mortalityin a youth-orientedsociety.
For men, however, motivationfor dyeing the hair may be quite
different.Molloyadvisesmen to takeout the grey 'if lookingyounger
is a businessnecessity.Usually it is the opposite.'Indeed he advises
youngmen in powerpositionsto 'lookmoredistinguishedby slightly,
very slightly greying their sideburns' ( 1976: l 21-2) . For some
women,death may be preferableto grey;but greyfor men may mean
preferment.
The oppositesexes are thereforepolarizedwith respectto colourin
a numberof ways. First,theiraestheticidealsdiffer:men are farmore

likely to preferblondes, and women to like dark hair. Second, their

stereotypesof hair colour differ:the same colours symbolize quite
different meanings to the opposite sexes. Third, the female sex
symbols for the last two generationshave been disproportionately
blonde,while the men have usuallybeendark.Fourth,womenare far
more likely to dye their hair than men. The proportionof women in
the USA who colourtheirhair risesfrom 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). Figuresfor the U.K. are
not available.Thirty-fivemillionAmericanwomencolourtheir hair,
it is said, comparedto only one millionmen the vast majorityof the
men do so only to hide the grey (NewYorkTimes18.10.86). Fifth,when
womendo colour their hair they are likely to colourit blonde not
just to remove the grey but also, as our examplesdemonstrated,to
changetheir identity. Men, too, are likely to dye to removethe grey,
but they may also dye the grey in; they are most unlikelyto change
theirhaircolour,least of all to platinumblonde.8Taste, meaning,and
hence perhaps sex symbols, frequency, motivation, and preferred
colourare thereforeall different.
3. HAIR ADDITIONS
The fourth mode of hair change, the use of hair additions,can be

consideredswiftly. Women may, and often do, wear wigs, switches,
falls and extensionbraidsor plaits;and men may wear hairpiecesor
toupees. None the less, despite these apparentsimilarities,the two
sexes have strikinglydifferentnormswith respectto false hair. First,
far morewomenuse false hair in one formor anotherthan men;9and
second, they wear it for differentreasons. Women may put on the
aptly named conveniencewigs if they are in a hurry,or for fun, for
fashionor for the image (Dolly Partonand Loni Anderson);andjust
for a change they may wear falls or extensionbraids. Men, on the
other hand, may sometimeswear hairpiecesor toupees;this is rarely
for fun and still less for a temporarychangeof identitybut to conceal
baldness,and thereforeto appearyounger.Giventhese differencesin
frequencyand motivation,a third follows:that women can and do
whip their hair additionson and off to please themselves,while men
'have'to keep theirson permanently,at least in public.Consequently
attitudes to hairpiecesvary: women tend to regard their wigs, it
seems, as no more or less interesting than hats or other hair
accessories unless,of course,they havelost theirhair,in whichcase
theirattitudesare likely to be different;men, on the otherhand, tend
to be ratherembarrassedor even ashamedof wearingtoupees.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 showersor

390 AnthonySynnott
pools; interlinkedwigs, 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 manin questioncouldalwaysremovehis
false hair, but if he did not feel extremelysensitiveabouthis baldness
he would not be wearingit in the first place).
These five relatedfactors,therefore,frequency,motivation,degree
of permanence,attitudes and functionscontributeto quite distinct
norms about false hair. Convenience hair for women is quite
inconvenientfor men. And the false crowningglory of one genderis
regardedwith shameby the oppositesex. Evenin falsehair,therefore,
oppositesexes have oppositehair.
4. FACIAL HAIR
The secondhairregionis the face,whichincludesbeards,moustaches,

sideburns, eyebrows and eyelashes; also nasal hair and ear hair,
which both sexes minimize. Physiologically,the male beard distin-
guishesthe two sexesin facialhair,just as male baldnessdistinguishes
them in scalp hair.
At firstthis male hairinessis likelyto be emphasizedas youngmen
proudly try to grow moustaches as a symbol of manhood and
adulthood:a visible and bodily symbol of a double opposition:to
womenand to children.Conversely,womenapplyvarioustreatments
to removewhat the advertisementsreferto as 'unwantedfacialhair'.
IndeedJane Brody observedthat unwantedbody hair, particularly
facial hair, can result in extreme self-consciousnessand social
isolation(NewYorkTimes18.4.84).What is beautifulforone genderis
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
businessmenand professionals,lawyers,doctorsand bankers,to T.V.
announcersand servicemen.Appearancesare important,particularly
in jobs which requireworkingwith othersor with the public;and so
also are beards.John Molloyis firmon the importanceof beingclean-
shaven, and advises lawyers:'If you have a client with a beardor a
moustache,no matterwho is on the jury or who the judge is, make
him cut it off' (1976: 191). And the Yale sociologistRosabethKanter
has noted the rarityof beardsin big business(1977:47)
Managersat Indscohad to lookthe part.They werenot exactlycut
out of the same mold like paper dolls, but the similaritiesin
appearance were striking. Even this relatively trivial matter
revealedthe extent of conformitypressureson managers.... The

norms were unmistakable,after a visitor saw enough managers,

invariablywhiteand male,with a certainshiny,clean-cutlook.The
only beards,even afterbeardsbecamemerelyratherdaringrather
than radical, were the results of vacation-timeexperimentson
campingtrips, except (it was said), for a few in R & D 'but we
knowthatscientistsdo strangethings,'a sales managercommented.
In the hairlessface, therefore,men are similarto women;but this is
the only one of the three hair regionswhere the oppositesexes have
similar norms. This does not mean that faces will be confusedfor,
despite the similarityof facial hair norms, faces are presentedquite
differently.Make-up,with which women 'put on' the desiredface, is
the most obviousdifference;but a secondis accessorieslike ear-rings,
pendants, chains, necklaces, and scarves. Third, women are more
likelyto use eyelashthickenersor curlersor a rangeof falseeyelashes.
Furthermore,womenare morelikelyto pluckor shavetheireyebrows,
to use liners and even to dye them to match their dyed head hair.
Eyebrows have their fashions too. The Mona Lisa and Marlene
Dietrichremovedtheireyebrows.Now, thanksto Brook Shieldsand
MarielHemingway,eyebrowsare beingwornthickerand heavier.So
last year'spluckeris this year'sliner.Finally,the two sexes also differ
in the frameof the face, whichis the head hair. In these five methods,
therefore,men and womencan and do presenttheirfacesas different,
even though not totally opposite. Beards, as we shall see, are more
usefultodayas symbolsof politicaloppositionto the malenormrather
than as symbolsof genderdifference.
5. BODY HAIR
The second propositionstates that head hair and body hair are
opposite. The two sexes have slightly different patterns of hair
distributiondue to hormonaldifferences,particularlyon the face and
chest; and there are considerablevariationsby ethnic groups. But
these minor physiologicaldifferencesof degree become majorsocial
distinctionsof kind as the oppositesexes symbolicallymaximizetheir
differences.Men, for instance,conventionallyminimize theirhead hair
and facehair they shavetheirfacesand (comparedto women)keep
their scalp hair relativelyshort, unstyled, undyed, and free of false
hair. But they maximize theirbody hair:they neithercut nor shavethe
hairon theirlegs, arms,undertheirarmsor anywhereelse. Thus head
hair and body hair are opposite.
But, as we have seen, the oppositesexes have oppositehair. Thus,
womenmaximizetheir head hair but they minimizetheir body hair:
they often removeleg hair and axillaryhair and trim or removethe
pubic hair. There is a certainirony, as well as a contrast,in this for
both sexes. Women may go to a great deal of time and expense to

392 AnthonySynnott
cultivate
their head hair, with visits to hairdressersfor shampoos,
rinses, sets, perms,styling, layering,tinting, cutting and so on. And
they go to almost as much time and expenseto remove theirunwanted
bodyhair by waxing, shaving, plucking, bleaching, electrolysisor
depilatories.Beauty conscious and fashion conscious women may
then glory in the style and profusionof the hair above, and the
absenceof 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
symbolicallyopposedas 'opposite'sexes, but also, of course,a way in
whichthey are symbolicallyidentified.Deviationsfromthe normsare
thereforeextremelypowerful.
Europeanwomenmay be less worriedabout body hair than North
American;none the less even thoughbeautymagazineslike Vogue may
suggest lesbianism or onanism, they never show hairy legs. This
attitudegoes backa long way. Ovid advisedwomento shavetheirlegs
in about 2 B.C. (Book 3 line 194; 1974: 159). The European-born
American-raisedbeauty expert, Perutz, insists that 'A hairy leg in
Americameans a man's leg'. And she describesthe 'mortification'
and 'embarrassment'she sufferedwhen local beautynormswere not
followed(1970: 75-6)
My motherhas nevershavedher underarms(thoughparadoxically,
she removed hair from her legs) and I suffered mortification
throughthis quirkof hers. I saw the horroron my girlfriends'faces
when they firstnoticedand, betweenloyaltyand embarrassment,I
could only nod mutely. Now, even afteryears of living abroad, I
can't bring myself to wear a sleevelessdress without first making
my underarmssmooth and hairless.
The men are opposite:gloryingin the smoothnessof the shave and
the trimnessof a cut, and the tangled hairinessof the chest below.
Chest hair is oftenregardedas a sign of virilityand a sex symbol;and
a man withoutchest hair can be very 'ashamed',as witnessthis Dear
Abby letter (Montreal Star20.2.79)
DEARABBY:I've neverseen a problemlike mine in your column.
I'm a 33-year-oldnormalman exceptthat I have absolutelyno hair
on my chest, armsor legs. And that is whereI wanthairthe most. I
have plenty of hair on my head and a thick growth in my pubic
hair, so I know I can growhair, but I'm so ashamedof my hairless
body I avoid going to the beach.
Is theresome kindof treatmentI can taketo promotethe growth
of hair whereI want it? I am miserablein my hairlessstate. I want
to be like the other guys.
HAIRLESSIN HILO
Indeed, in discussing the new vocabulary generated by the

SXhame
ofhair 393
Women's Movement in the 1970s, Gloria Steinem refers to the

'machismofactorand the hairy-chested syndrome'whichare identified
as 'a dangerousattractionto aggressionand violenceon the part of
policymakerswho seemed to feel the need of proving"masculinity"'
(Levineand Lyons 1980: 19). Hairlessin Hilo was thereforeright to
be worried,if hairychests = masculinity.l°Hairis notjust hair,it is a
sex symbol;and voluminouschest hair is thereforethe equivalentof
long, glossy, wavy head hair on a woman. Hence the availabilityof
paste-onchest hair. Womenseem to feel the same as men aboutmale
body hair. A survey in the women's magazine Glamour (1983: 281)
foundthat 61 per cent of the womensurveyedlike body hair on men,
especiallyon the chest (44 per cent) and everywhere( 11 per cent); 23
per cent say they are indifferentand only 16 per cent do not like body
hair on men. Conversely,both men and women are extremelyupset
by chest hairon women;again,the gloryof one genderis the shameof
the oppositesex.
In sum, men and womenhave oppositenormsfromeachother,and
oppositenormsfor the head and the body. In termsof equivalences,
therefore,the male head and the female body are equivalent
relativelyhairless,shavenor short;and the femalehead and the male
body are equivalent hairy. Only faces are presentedin the same
way with respectto hair, but they are quite distinctwhen the context
is considered.However,these trendsonly apply to men and women
who subscribeto the conventionalsocial norms. Not everyonedoes;
and the exceptionswill be discussednext. However,the traditional
equationof hair practiceis presentedbelow in Table I.
TABLE I: Thetraditional
equation
of hairpractice
Male Female
Head Cut and short;not usually Often longerhair, oftendyed
dyed or styled;falsehairrare. and/orstyled;use of falsehair.
Sex symbol.
Face Clean-shavenusually. Eye- Facial hair removed;eye
browsand eyelashesleft browsand eyelashesmodified.
naturalk
Body Hairy. Chest hair a sex Often hairless:axillaryand
symbol. leg hair removed.
This typologyshould not be interpretedas implyingthat all men

are on one side and all womenare on the other;it is merelyintended
to highlight the norms, the trends, and the tendencies.There is, in
practice,a fair latitude and range, and eccentricitiesare permitted.

Synnott
Anthony
394
Howeverthe principaldeviationsfrom these norms are significant,

term.
may be describedas ideological,in the broadestsenseof the
and
6.OPPOSITE IDEOLOGIES: FEMALE
Opposite ideologieshave oppositehair. Hair is not only a sex symbol,

sex roles,
itis also an ideologicalsymbol.Oppositionto conventional
conventional
toconventional definitions of femininity and to the to
normsfor women is therefore often expressed in opposition the body
of,
conventionalhair norms. Opposition to, and support
politicare expressedin the body physical. the
Feminists like Simone de Beauvoir (1953) have rejected
in particular,
traditionalbeauty ethic in general and hair norms Pageant
whichshe describedas 'narcissistic'.At the Miss America eyelashes,
protestin 1968,feministsthrewhair-associatedcurlers, false
brasand
andwigs into the FreedomTrashCan, tojoin the girdlesandGermaine
othersymbols of servitude(Levine and Lyons 1980: 27).
and the
Greerforcefully rejected the traditional role of women, terms of the
stereotypical ideal of women,and she expressedherself in
symbolof oppression:hair (1971:61)
youth . . .
I'm sickof the masquerade.I'm sickof pretendingeternal so
I'm sick of peering at the world through false eyelashes, sickof
everythingI see is mixedwith a shadowof boughthairs;I'm my neck
weightingmy head with a dead mane, unable to move
wind, of dancing too vigorously in case I
freely,terrifiedof rain, of
sweat into my lacqueredcurls. I'm sick of the PowderRoom.
with
Not only did feministsattackconventionalnormsforheadhair, for body
norms
thefalseeyelashes,wigs and lacquer,they also attacked as 'The last
hair. An article in Ms Magazine describedbody hair
but intimate
frontier'and lookedforwardto the day when this 'small with the
tyrannywill be resisted'and 'the hirsute will live happily
hairless'. Hair became ideological. Lily Tomlin was photographed
said:'it
baringher axillaryhair;a womanstrokingthe hairon herlegs 'I got
may seem ugly, but it's me'; and another woman explained:
disgusting
insultedthat my natural body processeswere considered me-
anything that isn't
by society',and a fourthdecided'not to add 1972: 64,
not to removeanythingthat is me' (Lyons and Rosenblatt
Another feminist described her
131; Levine and Lyons 1980: 208).
progressiveliberationin physical, almost geographic terms: 'I saw
and then, rapidly, very liberated.I
myselfas quite liberatedat first bras'
stopped pluckingmy eyebrows, shaving my legs . . . wearing
(Kampling 1981:29). Ideology is symbolized in the body.
a
Thus hairy legs, unpluckedeyebrowsand axillaryhair becameof
symbol
symbol of feminism and egalitarian ideology, and a

o * @
Shame ofhair
andglory:a sociology 395
oppositionto traditionaland stereotypicalroles. The same physio-

logical 'item' may thereforesymbolize quite differentthings: long
axillaryhair symbolizedboth gender (male) and ideology(feminist),
dependingon the context.
The only hair zone that was not discussedas a potentialsymbol,
and the only zone aboutwhichtraditionalistsand feministsagree,was
facial hair. Facial hair, unlike leg and axillary hair, is always
'unwanted' by women but not, of course,by men. An interesting
exceptionoccurredrecentlyin Seattle,wherea femaleemployeeof the
Y.M.C.A. was firedfor refusingto remove'excessivehair growth',in
the phrasingof her workevaluationsheet, fromher chin. 'IfGod gave
it to me, why shouldI 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 particularcase is interestingnot so much because
refusalto conformto the normis penalized,as becausethis particular
norm (removing female facial hair) is so universallyobserved by
women.Refusalto shave leg hair or axillaryhair wouldprobablynot
havebeenso threateningto conventionalvaluesaboutgoodgrooming;
(whichindicatesthat the face is a much morepowerfulsocial symbol
than the leg). None the less, a moustachecouldbe an effectivesymbol
ot temlnlsm.
GermaineGreer(1971:38) opposedbodydepilationin the strongest
terms, but never questionedfacial depilation
The rationaleof depilationis crude . . . In the popularimagination
hairinessis like furriness,an index of bestiality, and as such an
indicationof aggressivesexuality.Men cultivateit, just as they are
encouragedto developcompetitiveand aggressiveinstincts,women
suppressit, just as they suppressall the aspectsof theirvigourand
libido. If they do not feel sufficientrevulsionfor their body hair
themselves, others will direct them to depilate themselves. In
extremecases, womenshaveor pluckthe pubicareas,so as to seem
even more sexless and infantile.ll
Even pubic hair is now definedas political.Pubic hair is the least
visible and public of all the hair regions and thereforemight be
expectedto have the least symbolicutility. While this may be so for
the general public, perhaps for that very reason it may have the
greatestsymbolicimpactamongintimates.To controlthe pubichair,
is to controlthe person,(and such controlis even morepowerfulthan
the militarycontrolover men's head hair, preciselybecauseit is so
intimate).Men generallydo not cut, dye, style or do anythingelse to
theirpubic hair they leave it 'natural'.Somewomen,or in Greer's
term,stereotypicalwomen,in contrast,oftenshave, wax or pluckthe
'bikini-line'.Mary Quant went furtherand predictedthat
pubic hair . . . will become a fashion emphasis, although not

396 AnthonySynnott
necessarilyblatant. I think it is a very pretty part of the female

anatomy;my husbandonce cut mine into a heartshape;pubichair
is almost aestheticallybeautifulanyway (Cooper1971: 116).
It is relevantto observethat she said nothingaboutcuttinghispubic
hair; thus it seems that he controlledhers without reciprocity.The
symbolismof pubic hair is thereforemost instructive,for not only do
men and women,conventionally,haveoppositestyles:not cuttingand
cutting respectively;but also traditionalwomen and feministshave
oppositestyles:cutting and not cutting respectively;thus traditional
male and feministstyles are similar.
However,just as not all womenagreeabout body symbols,nor do
all feministsagree. The anti-feministMarabel Morgan offeredthis
adviceon how a womenshouldgreet her husbandon his returnfrom
work(the assumptionbeingthat she does not workoutsidethe house)
Greet him at the door with your hair shining, your beautifully
made-upface radiant,youroutfitsharpand snappy.... Takea few
momentsfor that bubble-bath.... Removeall pricklyhairsand be
squeaky-clean from head to toe. Be touchable and kissable
(Morgan 1975: 114- 15).
And the AmericanfeministFlo Kennedystatesforcefully:'Nail polish
or false eyelashes isn't politics' (Levine and Lyons 1980:208). But
this raisesthe question,wheredo you drawthe line?If falseeyelashes
are not political,is a wig?Are 5 wigs and depilation?The border-line
betweenaestheticsand politics,betweenlookinggoodand narcissism,
seems very controversial.Indeed there is considerabledispute now
about the apparent opposition between 'feminism'and 'feminist',
although one fashion critic has argued that 'feminismshould not
preclude femininity' (Fraser 1981: 122). The issue is particularly
significantfor women in business.
Molloy has rejectedthe traditionalfeminineappealsof long hair,
highly styled hair and blonde hair as totally inappropriatefor the
boardroom.For powerand authoritywomenhave to avoidthe Scylla
of looking too feminine and the Charybdisof not lookingfeminine
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 longerthanshoulderlength.
. . . Womenwith veryshorthairand withverylong haircan 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. Emphasisadded).
The stereotypicalfemininelook has been defined by feministsas
narcissistic, politically oppressive, expensive and ultimately self-
destructive; but it is also described by Molloy as inefficient in

of hair
Shameandglory:a sociology 397
business.A case in pointoccurredin Wisconsinrecently,whena bank

tellerwas demotedfromthe teller'swindowto the basementbecause
the bank manager objected to her braids and beads coiffure;the
managersaid it was not the image the banktriedto project(NewYork
Times17.4.80). The teller's image was feminine,whereasthe image
the managerwas trying to projectwas masculine.
The struggleoverimagesand haircontinues;but ironicallyin so far
as the feministlook is opposite to the femininelook in all zones and
modes, as we have seen, so it approachesthe masculine look. The
feminist ideal includes, or used to include, medium to short hair
lengths, easy to manage, without expensivestyles and sets; no wigs,
false eyelashesor curlers;no make-up;and axillaryand leg hair not
only unshaven,but even proudlydisplayed.Indeedthe hairierthe legs
and the longer the axillaryhair, it seemed, the greaterthe commit-
ment to feminism;for the longerthe hair, the longerthe durationof
the commitmentand the greaterthe shock to conventionalvalues.l2
The feminineshame became the feminists'glory. Hair itself was,
and is, a visible politicalstatement.The body, therefore,is not only a
politicalsymbol, it is itself political.
7. HIPPIES, SKINHEADS AND PUNKS
Males also expresstheir ideologiesand status in their hair. Chrono-

logically the first use of hair symbolismis often the moustacheof a
young man, which expresseshis new status as an adult and the dual
oppositionsof adult to child and male to female.
In the 1950s the cleanshavenface and short head hair were the
acceptedstyles for men in NorthAmericaand the UK; crewcutswere
particularlypopularin the USA. Styles had changedlittle since the
1920s when moustacheswent out of fashion, although they revived
duringthe war with variousstyles for the variousservices.The 1950s,
however, brought economic growth and prosperity,and with them
camea new freedomof individualself expression,and new hair-styles.
Duck-tailsor more colloquially,DAs, becamefashionable,pioneered
by Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis; then the beatnik look of James
Dean and MarlonBrandoarrived,speakinga languageof toughness
and motorcyclegangs. Teddy Boys in Britain sported Edwardian
dress and long hair. Finally the Beatles introducedthe beatle-cutin
the late 1950s.Eachstyle identifiedits wearerswith particularstarsor
singers, and with particularideologiesand peer-groups.Hair was a
symbolof musical taste and of values; both a badge and a language
distinct not only from the conventionalmajoritybut also from each
other.
The Hippies, however,createda social movement.The movement
was initially a middle-classprotest in many dimensionsat various

398 AnthonySynnott
levels: a protest against the Protestantwork ethic and the Puritan

sexual ethic. Studentprotests,civil rightsprotests,anti-warprotests,
and the campaign for nuclear disarmamentwere all part of this
politicalmovement.Societyitself was definedas exploitative,fascist,
racist, bureaucratic, militaristic, inhuman and 'unnatural'. The
symbols of protest were legion: beads and jeans and sandals as
againstsuits;peace signs as opposedto regimentalor club ties;flower
powerratherthan 'green'power;and the weed ratherthan alcohol.
But the most powerfuland evocativesymbolof protestwas 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 grewtheirhairlong the oppositeof theirfathers;they
also grewbeardsand moustaches,whichmadethemnot onlyopposite
to their fathersand the conventionalnorm, but also oppositeto the
opposite sex. Thus men and women demonstratedin their bodies
their (ideological) opposition to the majority and their (gender)
oppositionfrom each other. Indeed 'Hair' was the title of a rock-
musical celebratingthe movement.And the longer the hair, either
male or female, the greaterthe commitmentsymbolized because
the commitmenthad lastedlonger.l3The Hippystylewas enormously
popular in the young middle class and their values had enduring
political impact; but within 10 years a counter-trendemerged:the
Skinheads.The Skinheads,like the Hippies, opposedthe Establish-
ment, but not for the same reasons, and they hated the Hippies,
especiallymale Hippies, as effeminateand effete:lookinglike women
with their long hair, floweredclothes, beads and sandals,presenting
daffodilsto the police and the NationalGuard,spaced-outon drugs,
middle class, pacifist,freaky,lazy and weak. The values considered
positive by the young middle class were considerednegativeby the
youngworkingclass. With long hairand regularhairpre-empted,the
Skinheadsor Skinsfor short, symbolizedtheir oppositionby cutting
their hair very short, exceptsometimesfor sideburns.The Skinheads
differed from the Hippies in class origins, and opposed them in
musicaltaste, dress,attitudesto violence,amusementsand aesthetics.
Thus theirhair (and theirstyle) symbolizedtheirdual oppositionsto
both the establishmentand the Hippies (Knight 1982).
As the recessiondeepenedin the late 1970sand early 1980s,so the
alienation of youth also deepened; and within a few years of the
Skinheads,Britainand then NorthAmericawitnessedthe emergence
of the New Wave or PunkRockers:Punksfor short.This movement,
like its predecessors,expresseditself in hair. Even the name Punkis
evocative since it is slang for hoodlum or vandal. Originally a
derogatoryterm, Punk is now asserted with pride as the chosen
identity;PunkRockersthereforecapsizeestablishmentvalues. What
is vice to society is virtue to Punk;hence the safetypins throughthe
ears and the cheeks, chains, dog-collars and leads, bondage,

Shame ofhair
andglory:a sociology 399
swastikas,crosses, torn clothes, on-stage vomit and obscene lyrics.

Whatever will scandalize, shock or horrify 'the enemy' or 'sir' is
laudableand expressesthe rebelliousbeautyof Punk.Punksglory in
preciselywhat is shamefulto the Establishment.Regularhair, long
hair, and cropped hair had by now been adopted by others. And
Johnny Rotten was emphatic:'I hate long hair' (Stevenson 1982).
Punks thereforehad to make a creativeleap if they wanted to look
differentandthereforeto be different.So theyleapedinto technicolour,
and into new styles shockingcolour and shockingstyles: pinks,
bright greens, purples, blues and dayglow orange. Even more
dramaticthan one colour,however,is two. In termsof social impact
and visibility, two colours is more than twice one. And still more
dramaticis to mix these colourswith an uniquecut: long here, short
there,bald here, or a stripdown the middle (the Mohawk),or spikes
and wings. Both colour and styles are unique and the PunkRockers
have therebycreateda powerfulsymbolicstatementin their hair.
From the perspectiveof popularculture,however,punks are also
interestingin that both malesand femaleswearsimilarhaircreations.
The oppositesexes do not have oppositehair.This is most unusualfor
any society. Perhaps it can best be understood as ideological
oppositionsymbolicallyover-ridinggenderopposition.
Thus all four groups persist among both men and women, each
mutuallyopposedideologicallyto all the others,and eachsymbolizing
their identities and ideologies in hair. However, after 10 years of
Punk,which is usuallydated fromthe formationof the Sex Pistolsin
1976,Punkis now becomingchic. It can be seen in fashionmagazines
and universities;and, in modifiedform, it has been co-optedby the
ad-agencies. As one symbol of protest becomes institutionalized,
however,others develop.
Two recentdevelopmentsareremarkable.One is the fragmentation
of style that is emerging as various rock groups try to develop a
distinctiveimage which audiencescan firstidentifyand then imitate.
Indeed one observer has suggested that there are 'somethinglike
thirty'distinctand observablestyleson the Londonscene (York1983:
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 includeindividual
'statements'or 'creations'like two I saw recently:a young man who
had shavedhis head into typicalmale patternbaldness,and a young
womanwithjet black hair and a copperwig.
The most recent and dramaticdevelopmentin hair has been the
gender-bending,cross-dressing,and transvestitelooksof Boy George
of CultureClub and Annie Lennoxof the Eurythmics,both of whom
were seen as 'opposite'in the GrammyAwardsof 1984. Indeed Boy
GeorgecongratulatedAmerica:'You knowa great drag queen when
you see one.' David Bowie was perhapsthe pioneerof androgynyin

400 AnthonySynnott
his incarnationas ZiggyStardust;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 maintainedthe expressionverysuccessfully,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
establishmentnormsto Hippies to Skinsto Punksto a wide rangeof
styles, and culminates now in androgyny (David Bowie, Michael
Jackson,Prince)and gender-bending (BoyGeorgeand AnnieLennox).
Hair is, of course,only a part of the total presentationof the self
dress,bearing,and languageare also significant;but hairpersistsas a
focal point and prime symbolof new identitiesand new ideologies.
To conclude: the oppositionsdiscussed here, between male and
female, and central and deviant roles and ideologies(deviantbeing
used in a nonjudgmental sense), should not be over-emphasized.
Between the extremes of symbolic expressionlie a wide range of
intermediateoptions and variations in a spectrum ranging from
individualismto non-conformity.Among men, for instance, longish
hairis comingbackas a fashion,not as a protestbut as a modeof self-
expression. Furthermorehair colouring, make-up and scents are
emergingas a part of the new male presentationof the self. Indeed
male grooming and fragrance products are now a £100 million
industryin Britain,with fragrancesales growingat 10 per cent per
annum (TheTimes23.1.85). In these respects,and for as yet only a
minority, the two sexes are not so much opposed as symbolically
converging.
If men are somewhatdividedon these matters,so too are women.
Some do not use make-up;and thereis a trend to shorterand more
manageable head hair; but the marketing of inexpensive and
temporarycolouringmousseshas led to haircolourbecominganother
fashionaccessory,changeableovernight,ratherthan a permanentor
semi-permanentidentity change. Mousses have become a $200
million industry within three years in the USA (New YorkTimes
2.8.86). Colour is not what it used to be, neitherin terms of price,
permanencenor meaning. And the experimentationwith hair as a
symbolof the self continues.
8. BEARDS, BALDNESS AND BODY HAIR
Hair stylesmay be carefullychosenfortheirsymbolicsignificancebut

equally, meaningsmay be imposedby others. Such is the case with
beards. Molloy, for instance, insists that 'Any man who wears
shoulder-lengthhairor beadsor braceletsis anti-establishment'.
And

ofhair
Shame
401
he states that 'Most men shouldnot wearfacialhairof any kind.The
response to facial hair is almost always negative in corporate
situations'(1976:193, 122).Kanter's(1977)researchconfirmsthis, as
we have seen. Long hair and facial hair are thereforerecognizedas
symbolicof ideologicalopvositionto the establishment,even if they
are not intendedas such.l
Julius Fast, an experton body language,is less emphatic,however,
and suggeststhat the effectof a bearddependson the circumstances:
it dependson the type of beard,'on thejudge, on the imageyou want
to projectin court, on the case you're involvedin and on your age.
Does it say wisdom (1978:12).The languageofthe
or does it say hippy?'
beardmay thereforebe difficultto interpret,sinceit is still tingedwith
Hippy meanings;yet it is only 100years since beardswere the norm;
and the heightof establishment fashion.Thus it has taken 100yearsfor
the meaningof the beard to be reversedfromestablishmentto anti-
establishmentsymbol (Robinson1976). Recentlythe 'Italian'look, a
carefullytrimmedtwo day stubble,has becomethe 'in' macholookin
some film and studentcircles (e.g. DonJohnson in 'MiamiVice')
anotherexample of opposite ideologiesopposite hair. The so-called
'YasserArafat'look appearssimilar,but is motivatedby religiousnot
aestheticconsiderations;(and in the orthodoxJewish communityit
may symbolize mourning).The samebodily phenomenon(stubble)
thereforemay symbolizequite different values.
Womenareaboutevenlydividedon the attractiveness or unattractive-
ness of beards, according to two small surveys (MontrealGazette
10.3.83; GlamourAugust 1983); but children find beards 'scary'
(Hirsch 1981:84). Students,on the other hand, favouredbeards: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 researchwhich found that, for students, 'beards make men
more appealingto women and perhapshelp love to blossom. They
give men morestatus in the eyes of other men' (Freedman1969,but
cf. Wood 1986).
Beards have rarely been regarded simply as beards (Reynolds
1950). Similarly baldness is rarely regarded simply as baldness.
Physiologicallybaldness, like the beard, is a male gender sign; and
logically one might expect that the bearded, bald male, with two
gendersigns visible,would be perceivedas doublymasculine,doubly
virile, and totally opposite to feminine. Physiological logic and
culturallogic, however,do not coincide.Indeedbaldnessseems to be
regardedprimarilyas an age-sign and thereforea death symbol,
ratherthan as a gender sign and a virility symbol. A recent survey
foundthat 79 per cent of womenfoundbaldnessunattractive,leading
one commentatorto remarkthat 'a man without hair is like a ring
withouta diamond' (Montreal Gazette10.3.83).l5

AnthonySynnott
402
Men respondto this evaluationin variousways. Some rejecttheir
baldnessand have an expensiveand painfulhair transplantoperations
(e.g. FrankSinatra)or use toupeesor hairpieces.Otherscompensate
and grow beardsor moustachesto counterbalanceor offsetbaldness
(Fix 1981;Lieberman1982).Still othersaccepttheirbaldness;a 'Bald
is Beautiful'movementhas startedin the USA, whose'solepurposeis
to try to eliminatethe fear over loss of hair and to instill pride in a
bald head'. A recent book entitled Bald is Beautiful(Taylor 1983)
featuresTelly Savalas, Sean Connery and the bald author on the
cover.The necessityfor such a movementand such a book,however,
merely confirms the fact that most men fear baldness and most
womenfind it unattractive.
These negativeattitudesto baldnessmakethe monk'stonsure(and
perhapsthe shavenheadsof the Buddhistand Hinduholy men) more
intelligible,for the shaven heads effectwhat they symbolize.They
symbolize rejectionof the world and its values, but also perhaps
inspire a reciprocalrejection.This may explain why baldness has
neverbeen chosen as a politicalsymbolin the west, althoughbeards
and long hairand croppedhairhave been;and why it has beenchosen
as a religioussymbol both in the west and in the east.l6 Baldnesshas
been imposed, however,as a politicalsymbolon collaboratorsduring
the German occupationof France, and by the I.R.A. on Catholic
women who dated Protestantmen or Britishsoldiersin Ulster. The
hairless head may therefore symbolize society's rejection of the
individual(e.g. collaborators)or the individual'srejectionof society
(e.g. monks). The prime symbolicmeaningof baldnessis therefore
surelydeath, but in threeaspects:physicaldeath with baldnessas an
age symbol; spiritual death with the shaven head of monks and
contemplatives as a religioussymbol;and socialdeatllforcollaborators
with baldness as a political symbol. Furthermore,the voluntary
baldnessof contemplativesand the involuntarybaldnessof branded
deviants express physically and visibly the dictum: 'Opposite
ideologieshave oppositehair'.
This fearof, and distastefor, baldnessgive the shavenheadsof such
men as Isaac Hayes, the late Yul Brynner,and Telly Savalasa shock
value that mere baldnesscannot evoke. For they rejectan extremely
powerfuland popularsymbol of life and youth and elect a baldness
which is an equally powerfulsymbolof age and death. Perhapsthis
choiceexpressesa transcendenceof conventionalviewsof masculinity
and life and thus these individualsbecome symbolicallymore alive
and more virile; perhapsit expressesa detachment,comparablein
secularvein to that of the contemplatives,from the world of other
mortals;perhapsit is only an expressionof Hollywoodshow business
narcissism.None the less, these men and their imitatorsmay have
done more to changeattitudesto baldnessthan the Bald is Beautiful
movement.

However,as in so much else that we have seen in hair, womenare

different.Firstly,women do not voluntarilychoose baldness,like the
Hayes-Brynner-Savalas trio. While many male imitatorscan be seen
in any large city, very few women (in my experience)can be found;
and there are none who have the internationalstatus of this trio.
Secondly,while female'collaborators'may be shaven,male collabor-
ators are not they may be shot or knee-capped.Thirdly, where
contemplativemonks are shaven in a Gaelic fringe,and priests and
brothershave a largelysymbolictonsure,nuns have, or used to have,
their hair cut short;but the principalsymbolismwas not the cutting
(equivalentto the tonsure)but 'takingthe veil', i.e. hiding the hair.
For both groups the hair is no longer a source of personalpride or
temptationto others it is no longera sex symbol;but each gender
symbolizesthe same realityin differentways. Furthermore, just as the
religiousof both genders have differenthair rules, so do the laiety.
Traditionally,in conformitywith St. Paul'sinstructions,men uncover
theirheadson enteringa church,and womencover them (I Cor. 11:3-
16, cf. Derrett 1973). In each of these four examples,therefore,the
oppositesexes have differentnorms.
Beards, baldness, shaving and veiling have various symbolic
meanings;but some of the most powerfuland intimatesymbolismis
expressedin body hair. The male norm is not to cut body hair;but
transvestites,for instance, are likely to shave their legs, arms and
axillaryhair. Homosexualswho have the femininerole in relationships
(sometimesknownas 'queens')may also shave theirbody hair. Thus
men who wish to 'become'femalein dressor behaviour,followfemale
normsfor hair and thereby'become'femalein their bodies.
Body-buildersand weight-liftersare a differenttype of example.
They shave theirbody hair to emphasizemuscledefinition,especially
in competition.All four groupsdeviatefromtraditionalmale norms,
but while the practiceof transvestismor homosexualitymay be taken
to imply a critique of traditional male roles, (and thereforean
ideologicalopposition),the practiceof body-buildingwith the macho-
mystique of muscles, strength and power is ironically exactly the
opposite:the re-assertionof traditionaldefinitionsof masculinity.The
same ritual,shavingbody hair, may thereforesymbolizeoppositions:
anti-'masculinity'and super-masculinity.
To conclude:conventionalmale normsfor the threehairzones may
seem, to a stranger,ratherodd. 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 differentnormsfrom men, so
also deviantmen may have deviant,i.e. exceptional,hair.Devianceor
ideological opposition may be expressedin scalp hair by extreme
length (Hippies), extremelyshort hair (Skins), extremestyles (DAs,
Punks,Rockabilly,Beatnik),dyed hair (Punks),shavenheads (trend-
setters),shavencrowns(monks),veiled hair (nuns) and androgynous

404 AnthonySynnott
looks(DavidBowiemostrecently)or gender-bending hair(BoyGeorge,

Lennox).Deviancemay be involuntarily'imposed'(collaborators)or
involuntarilyexpressed (the matted hair of derelicts).On the face,
wherethe norm is to be clean-shaven,deviancemay be expressedin
the beardsand moustachesof hippies,someof the liberaloccupations,
and sometimesgays. Finally, the uncut body hair rule is brokenby
athletic deviants like body-buildersand weight-lifters,and sexual
deviantslike transvestitesand some 'queens'.
Hair therefore may define the self on a religious, political,
economic, social and sexual spectrum. Equally, of course, it may
camouflagethe self by changinghair, (andprobablydress),anyone
may appearto be a monkor a Punk,a bum or an executive.Symbols
can be manipulatedto expressor to conceal;but the importanceof the
body in general and hair in particularas a symbol of identity can
hardlybe overestimated.
9. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
Hair is hair is hair?Not exactly. It is also a powerfulsymbolof the

self. Nelson, dying on boardH.M.S. Victory,requested:'Praylet my
dear Lady Hamiltonhave my hair, and all other things belongingto
me' (Howarth1972:191). Hair not only symbolizesthe self but, in a
very real sense, it is the self since it grows from and is part of the
physicalhuman body; furthermore,it is 'immortal'since it survives
death.l7It is this personaland biologicaloriginof hairwhichgives it
such richnessand power.
Corporate executives and adolescents, crew-cut marines and
Rockabillies,Teddies, Hippies, Mods, Skins, and Punks . . . all
expresstheir identitiesand ideologiesin their hair;so do monksand
nuns, Hollywood trendsettersand Rastafarians,feministsand film
stars, transvestitesand 'queens', weight-liftersand body-builders,
conventionalmen and women,and deviantsand rebels.The mad use
their hair unwittingly; and collaborators have their hair used
unwillingly.
Furthermore,all the variationsof hair in all the zones of the body
are or may be symbolic,i.e. they have values and meaningsimputed
to them. These values may changeover time but, at any given time,
they are important.Longhairor short,blonde,brunetteor red,clean-
shaven or bearded,the luxurianceof male chest hair or a woman's
scalp hair (or their scantiness),the presenceor absenceof axillary
hair or pubic hair, even the thinness or thickness of eyebrows,
baldness versus hairiness, curls or straight hair, transplantsand
toupees . . . all these aspects of hair which might be thoughtof as
primarilybiological, are in fact phenomenaof enormouspersonal
significance,and investedwith deep genderand ideologicalmeanings.

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

popularculture, but also for its immense theoreticalsignificancein
more general theoriesof the body and theoriesof symbolism.With
respect to the sociologyof the body first, the sociologyof hair calls
attentionto the close relationbetweenthe physicalbody and the social
body in the two aspectsof genderand ideology.Genderand ideology
are 'madeflesh'in the hair as peopleconformto, or deviatefrom,the
norms,and even deviatefromdeviantnorms;they therebysymbolize
theiridentitieswith respectto a wide rangeof phenomena:religious,
political,sexual, social, occupationaland other.
Althoughanthropologists,fromthe very beginning,had reportedin
detail on variousaspectsof the body, includinghair-styles,tattooing,
dress,gestures,diet, body-painting,and so on, MarcelMausswas the
first to call for a systematicsociologyof the body, in his essay 'Les
Techniquesdu Corps' (1936). His essay had slight impact, and was
not even translatedinto 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
cultureand the apparentabsenceof what he calleda 'naturalway' of
even such actions as walking,running,and swimming.His interest
was also pragmatic (some methods of physical activities are more
eflicientthanothers,e.g. new swimmingtechniques),and spiritual:he
believedthat westernbreathingtechniqueswere not as well attuned
as others, notably in Hinduism, to facilitate 'communicationwith
God' (1973:87).
MargaretMead, in a chapterentitled 'Waysof the Body' in Male
andFemale( 1949)developedsome of Mauss'ideas, althoughshe does
not appearto have been awareof his work.Her principleinterestwas
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
comparedthe ways of the Americanbodywith the ways of the people
in the South Seas and, citing 'the impairedsensuousnessof American
women', the deficiencies of American birthing procedures, the
rejectionby most mothersof their own bodies as a sourceof food for
theirchildren,the devaluationof the roleof mother,the contradictions
between physical needs and sexual ethics in the USA . . . she
concludedthat the ways of the Americanswerefar moreproblematic.
Despitethe workof Maussand Mead, mainstreamsociologistsand
anthropologistsuntil very recently,have largelyignoredthe sociology
of the body. Berger and Luckman, after observing that 'such
intrinsicallybiologicalfunctionsas orgasmand digestionare socially
structured'went on to ignorethe topic,sayingthat 'thepossibilityof a
sociologyof the body that this raisesneed not concernus here' (1967:
202-3).
Mary Douglas did raise the question in NaturalSymbols,and
suggestedthat 'The social body constrainsthe way the physicalbody

AnthonySynnott
406
a
is perceived.The physical experienceof the body . . . sustains ideas
particularview of society' (1973:93). How she worksout these that
in detail is beyond the scope of this paper; suffice it to mention
she brieflycontrastssmoothand shaggy hair (1973: 102)
social
Shaggy hair, as a form of protestagainst resentedformsofgeneral
control,is a currentsymbolin our own day.... Take the
run of stockbrokersor academics,stratifythe professionalsample hair;
by age; be carefulto distinguishlengthof hair fromunkempt
relate the incidenceof shagginessin hair to sartorial indiscipline.
other
Make an assessment under the division smooth/shaggyofso on.
choices, preferredbeverages,preferred meeting-places and
option
The predictionis that where the choices for the shaggy
clusterthere is least commitmentto the norms of the profession.
Hair protestnow takes many more formsthan simple shagginess, wolf
whichsurely,in any case, may symbolizeindividualismor aalone lack of
identity (in contrast to a team identity) rather than first to
professionalcommitment.None the less, Douglas was the the
attempta systematic,theoreticalanalysisof the relationbetweenthe
two bodies, and to formulatetentativehypotheses.Furthermore, of
rules for hair, the clarificationof hair zones, and the modalities and
change,the specificationsof stylesas bothpatternsand processes, (dress,
finally the discussionof the importanceof the contexts of hair Douglas'
music, drinks,values, etc.) . . . all these support,I think, or to
insightson how the physicalbody is used eitherto consolidate
challengethe social body in termsof sex roles and ideology. of
The second matter of theoretical significanceis the nature
discussed
symbols. Both Leach (1958) and Hallpike (1969), as we meanings,
above,havesuggestedone-on-oneequationsof symbolsand equation
althoughthey disagreedabout the meanings.Thus Leach'swas that
was that 'cut = sexual restraint',but Hallpike'sequation monks
'cut = social control',and he gave the examplesof soldiers, brief
and men as opposedto Hippies,artistsand women.Whilethese indicate
summariesdo not do fulljustice to their arguments,they over the do
the directionof their insights. None the less, developments more
last 10 years require,I think, a conceptualframeworkrather rather
complexthan the simpledualismof cut/uncut,short/long,and is clearly
more subtle than one meaningper style. Hair symbolism Punks,
more complex and subtle now than it was before Skins,
feminism,androgyny,and gender-bending. the
Thus I have suggestedthat it is no longersufficientto consider of facial
head hair only, it is also necessaryto evaluate the symbolism
hairand bodyhair.Furthermore,in analyzingany or all ofalso thesethree
only length: we haveto
zones,it is no longersufficientto consider of long
considercolours,styles, the use of false hair, the combination
instance), and the combinations of all
and short (among Punks,for

.
these at once: different

lengths,coloursand styles, and both wigs and
naturalhair in the same creation.Giventhis framework,the message
of the mediumcan be clarified.
Thus ratherthan attributingopposingmeaningsto polarizedhair-
styles: cut/uncut, short/long, it may be more useful to analyze
deviationsfromthe norm,and differenttypes of deviationswith respect
to the threezones and the fourmodalitiesof hair change.Hencewhat
becomes significantfor a theory of symbolismis not the 'intrinsic
meaning'of, say, shorthairon the head forthereis none;thereare
various meanings in differentcontexts. What is significantis the
process by which opposition to social norms is developed and
symbolicallyexpressedin the body.
Turner (1967) for instance has pointed out the 'multi-vocality'of
symbols;and Firth ( 1973) has referredto the 'umbrellaof meanings'
that may attach to a symbol. Blondehair on a woman, for instance,
carries a vast and complex range of associations, some of them
contradictory,and some strongerthan others;as we have seen, they
appearto be somewhatdifferentfor a man. Similarlya Skinheadand
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,preciselythe
society which the marinessupport,even moreviolentlyon occasion.
Thus the same hair may mean different'things'.
Converselydifferenthair-stylesmay symbolizesimilarvalues;this
applies not only to eccentrics,the exceptionsto the rule, who may
flaunt the norms without disagreeing on values: like the male
corporationpresident in Toronto who wears a pony-tail with his
businesssuit. It appliesalso partlybecausein a heterogeneoussociety
people may disagree about the appropriatenessof symbols, as
feminists may disagree about body hair. FurthermoreSkins and
Punks, who tend to agree closely in their analysis of society, have
entirelydifferenthair-styles.They may differin musicaltaste, as the
styles show, but they agree in their politicaloppositionto the status
quo, as the styles also show. Hair thereforehas many symbolic
tunctlons.
Controversyand debate are bound to surroundthese symbols,not
only becausethey may implydeviantvaluesbut becauseinterpretation
is complex and meaningschange and vary. Shaving the head may
symbolizecelibacyin many societies (Leach 1958), or social control
(Hallpike 1969), or contemplation (Hershman 1974). But the
Skinheadsand artistic'egoists'of the Hayes-Brynner-Savalas school,
who publiclychoose the baldnessmost men fear,are neithercelibate
(so faras one knows),nor underrigidsocialcontrolnorcontemplatives.
Indeedtoday the shaven male head now usuallysymbolizesthe same
reality that Hallpike (1969) suggestedwas then symbolizedby long
hair, namely, 'being in some ways outside society.'

408 AnthonySynnott
None the less, some commonequationsdo consistentlyappearin

many cultures,notablythe mattedhair 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 Americaand in the
UK, most ascetics do not have matted hair, in my experience;and
those with matted hair are usually 'derelicts'ratherthan ascetics.
History may or may not be dialectical, but the concept of the
dialecticis most usefulin understandingthe symbolismof hair, for it
is the process of change, not the styles themselves, which are
significant.The evolution from crew-cutsto 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,
androgynyand other styles, includingbaldness. . . all these multiple
changesand options, with their attendantmeanings,have occurredin
under40 years. And for women the rise of feminismhas causeda re-
evaluationof hair-stylesand body hair and even, on occasion,facial
hair.
Two examplesfromminoritycommunitiesmay serveto clinch the
argument.In the Blackcommunityduringthe 1920s, 1930sand even
later, many prominentBlacks(includingMalcolmX) had a Conk
a process of hair straightening.In the 1950s and 1960s during the
Civil Rightsand BlackPowermovementsthe Conkwas re-definedas
shameful, and many Blacks gloried in the Afro or the natural, a
symbol of'Black is Beautiful'.Both Malcolm X (1966: 53-4) and
AngelaDavis (1974:96-7, 150) describedthe immensepsychological
importanceof this change of style. In due course Afro's became
fashionableratherthan political,and afterCicelyTyson in 'Sounder'
(and Bo Derekin '10'), Blacksbegan to adopt, or re-adopt,the old-
style of corn-rows and braids, decorated with chevrons, beads,
mirrors,and so on. Hair-stylesnow, however,at least forwomen,are
often highly individualisticand sometimes based on sketches and
photographsof Africanstyles.The 'wet-look',popularizedby Michael
Jackson and Prince,is particularlypopular.The 'dreadlocks'of the
Rastafarians,washed but not combed,symbolizetheir religiousand
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
sequenceof changehas been very rapid;and each changesymbolizes
changingvalues and social realities,and oppositions:the oppositions
of Afro to Conk, dreadlocksto wet-look,Punk to braids.
Hair also plays an importantpart in Jewish symbolism.In ancient
times, becauseof the Biblicalproscriptionsagainstshaving (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 settlementof Jews in the west, where most
men were clean-shaven,few Jews but the Orthodox wore beards.

Orthodox Jewish men are distinguished from Conservative and

ReformJews not only by their beards, but also their payessor
sidelocks,which are never cut, and by their coveringof their heads
either by a hat or a yarmulke(skullcap). This is a symbol of the
presenceof God and perhapsderivesfromthe customprescribedfor
the priestsin the Temple (Ex. 28: 30). The Orthodoxkeeptheirheads
coveredall the time; ConservativeJews cover their head when the
name of God is pronounced:in synagogue, praying, reciting a
blessing,etc.; while the ReformJewsmay go bareheadedeven in the
synagogue(Trepp 1980: 38; Cohen 1965: 136). Thus the Orthodox
are distinguishedfrom Conservativesand ReformJews by hair; but
men and women also have oppositehair-styles;for Orthodoxwomen
have their hair cropped when they marry (as do many orders of
Catholicnuns when the nuns takevows), and then they usuallywear
a sheitelor wig. The reason?Thefaithful woman does not show her
hair, for a woman's hair is describedby the Rabbis as 'nakedness',
and can only be seen by her husband.Only a shamefulwomanwould
showher hairand wouldhave her hairuncovered(Num. 5: 18;Trepp
1980: 281). (This is similar to the custom that prevailsamong the
Rastafarians, and prevailed until recently among Christians in
church).
Mourning,as an 'oppositestate' to the norm,is also symbolizedin
hair. In the Israelite tradition, when Jews were bearded, then
mourningwas symbolizedby shavingthe beard(Jer. 41: 51; Ezek.5:
1); today, among the Conservatives,mourningis symbolizedamong
men by not shaving, and among women by not cutting the hair
(Trepp 1980:333-5). Dedicationto God was also, in ancient times,
symbolizedby not cutting the hair; Samsonis the most well-known
exampleof this (cf. Derrett1973). Thus exceptionalstates and status
are symbolicallyexpressedin the body, particularlythe hair.
Hair is thus not only highlysymbolic,but it is also extremelysubtle
in its expressionof politicalshades. How long the Hippies hair, how
spiky or brightthe 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 incrementalvariations can indicate the duration and/or the
degree of commitmentto various ideologiesand self-concepts.The
searchfor intrinsicmeaningsand a 'natural'symbolismof the body
thereforeseems to be in vain. There is no one-to-onecorrelationof
particularphenomena with particularmeanings, nor of meanings
with phenomena.This is in partno doubtbecauseof the complexityof
societyand societies:what is shamein one cultureis gloryin another.
But it is also because of the rapidity of social change in western
cultures:last year's glory is this year's shame.
Traditionalsocieties, as many anthropologists(cited earlier)have
shown, have symbolizedstatus differentialsby hair differentials,and

AnthonySynnott
410
institutionalizedhair rituals in rites of passage. But these formsare
static. In the west, however,as we have seen, changes in hair are
rapid and ubiquitousand express not only status change, but also
ideologicaldifferencesand changes in many spheres of social life.
They cannotbe understoodas a fixedpatternbut as a fluidprocess, as
styles change in oppositionand contrastto earlierstyles. Hair is not
only genderand ideologydetermined,it is alsofashion.It is precisely
this complexitywhich distinguishesNorth Americanand European
hair symbolismfrom the symbolismin traditionalsocieties.
To conclude:hair is a physiologicalphenomenon,but it is also a
social one: a symbol of the self and of group identity, and an
importantmode of self-expressionand communication.Despite the
plethora of hair-styles, colours, lengths, and the use of false and
colourings,however,hairdisplayand concealmentcan be understood
both as patternand as process,I suggest,in termsof the threepolar
oppositionsof gender (male-female),ideology (centre-deviant),and
physique (head-body).Thus hair enables social distinctionsto be
symbolized, and changes to be symbolized. Indeed the major
divisions in our society are symbolizedin hair, as are our specific
individualidentities. Hair, and by extension the body, is not only
individual hence Nelson's bequest but also social. The body
physicaland the body social are symbolicallyone.
Anthony Synnott
Department
of Sociology
and
Anthropology
Concordia
University
NOTES
* Special thanks to John-Jasper expeditions, with prizes being given for

Synnott, Joseph Smucker, and Michael longest, bushiest, best effort, and so on.
Sullivan. 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 Plicacaudiformis.
The record are indeed often encouraged to do so.
now is almost 9l/2 feet. (McWhirter 1985: 5. The punks and the skins are some
18-19). of the obvious exceptions to the male
2. Western norms do not necessarily norm, but their case exemplifies the third
apply in other societies, of course. Firth 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 7. This colour symbolism is exactly
Kenya (Cole 1979). reversed in some other cultures (Firth
3. Competitions for beards were com- 1973: 68).
monly held in the Navy and on Polar 8. This is not true for ideological

rebels,as a recentpressreportindicates: rebelled against the self-same Puritan

'Doidge, 21, whose hair was mauve at ethic. The same ideologicalconflictcon-
last week's court hearing,said his hair tinued under differentnames, with the
had been black at the time he was same hair symbols.
accusedof being the blond-haireddriver 14. Just as Hippiesopposedthe estab-
of a yellowAustinMini.' (Punch25.4.84). lishment,so the establishmentopposed
9. For data, and an excellenthistory them;and Firthhas offereda numberof
of false hair, see Woodforde,1971. examples(1973:276-83). The examples
10. An interesting example can be in the press today, however, are of
found in Dashiell Hammett's The Thin oppositionto Punkor Skinheadstyles, a
Man(1972:27) wherean admiringpolice- recentexamplebeing the firingof Peter
mandescribeda toughladyas 'a woman Mortiboyfromhis job with Rolls Royce
with hairon her chest,'i.e. she is manly. becausehis four-inchspikes'represented
The bookwas firstpublishedin 1933. a safety hazard.' (The Times12.10.83).
11. Greer'sargumentis not entirely The establishmentalso opposesfeminist
convincing,I think.Mendo not cultivate styles:Judith Quirst was firedfrom her
all their hair (= bestiality= aggressive job as a waitress because a customer
sexuality).They mostlyshavetheirfacial objected to her unshaven legs (Levine
hair and cut their head hair short. If and Lyons 1980:206).
shaving the legs or axillary hair is 15. Ovid said something similar: 'A
'infantile'then surely so is shaving the head withouthair-islike a field without
face. Furthermore,women do not sup- grass' (Firth 1973:287).
pressall their hair (= vigour = libido); 16. Shavingthe headis foundin many
indeedthey 'cultivate'theirhead hair in faithsand culturesas a symbolof dedica-
manydifferentways,andwithevenmore tionto God;theseincludeancientJudaism,
attentionthanmen 'cultivate'theirhairy Buddhism,Hinduism, and the Yoruba
chests or legs. While feminists have (Leach 1958; Derrett 1973; Hershman
opposeddepilationof the legs and under 1974;Houlberg1979).
the arms,they have not opposeddepila- 17. Teeth also survive death, and
tion of'unwanted facial hair', nor have some people keep their children'sbaby
they describedthis as 'infantile';which teeth. But they are not such a popular
seems illogical.A moustachecould also symbol of the self, perhaps because
be a symbol of feminism.Finally it is smashing out the beloved's teeth after
unclearwhy male hair is a markof the death is not so congeniala pastime as
beast, whereasfemale hair is a sign of snippinga lock of hair. Nelson did not
vigour. bequeathhis teeth. Bones, too, survive
12. The samelogicapplied,or applies, death;but theirutilityas a symbolof the
to long-hairedHippies, to Afros ('the self is marredby the decay of the flesh
biggerthe badder')and to Dreadlocks. whichmust happenfirst,and also by the
13. The Hippyrevoltagainstthe short- possibilitythat the bones may be more
haired establishmentis reminiscentof reminiscentofdeaththanof thedeceased;
the Puritan revolt against the long- furthermorewe never see the bones in
hairedCavalieraristocracy.Indeed 300 life, but we do see, and touchand smell,
years after the Civil War, the Hippies the hair of the beloved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bandy, Way. 1981. StylingYourFace. New York: Linden Press, Simon and
New York: Random House. Schuster.
Beauty. Cohen, Harry A. 1965. A BasicJewish
Banner, Lois W. 1983. American
New York: Knopf. Hartford:HartfordHouse.
Encyclopedia.
Brownmiller, Susan. 1984. Femininity.Cole, Herbert M. 1979. 'Living Art

412 Anthony
Synnott
Among the Sambaru'. Justine M. October:116.
Cordwelland RonaldA. Schwarz(eds) Houlbert, Marilyn Hammersley. 1979.
The Fabrics of Culture.The Hague: 'Social Hair: Traditionand Change in
MoutonPress. Yoruba Hairstyles in Southwestern
Cooper, Wendy. 1971.Ilair: Sex,Society Nigeria'.JustineM. Cordwelland Ronald
andSymbolism. New York:Steinand Day. A. Schwarz(eds) TheFabricsofCulture.
Davis, Angela. 1974. AngelaDavis:An The Hague:MoutonPress.
Autobiography.New York:RandomHouse. Howarth,David. 1972.TheNelson Touch.
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. TheSecond London:Collins/Fontana.
Sex.New York:Knopf. Kampling, Jo (ed.). 1981. Imagesof
Derrett, Duncan M. 1973. 'Religious Ourselves Womenwith Disabilities.
Hair'. Man8 (n.s.) March:100- 103. Boston:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Douglas, Mary. 1973. NaturalSymbols. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977.Menand
PelicanBooks. Women oftheCorporation.New York:Basic
Fast, Julius. 1978. TheBodyLanguage of Books.
Sex,PowerandAggression. New York:Jove Knight, Nick. 1982. Skinhead. London:
Books. OmnibusPress.
Firth, Raymond. 1936. We,TheTikopia. Leach, E.A. 1958.'MagicalHair'.Journal
London:Allen and Unwin. oftheRoyalAnthropological Institute.Vol.
Firth, Raymond. 1973. Symbols:Public 88, Pt. II.July-December: 147-64.
andPrivate.London:Allen and Unwin. Levine, Suzanne, and Harriet Lyons.
Fix, Charles. 1981. LookingGood:A 1980. TheDecadeofWomen. New York:
Guidefor Men. New York: Hawthorne Putnam'sParagonBooks.
press. Lieberman, Barbara Melsner. 1982.
Fraser, Kennedy. 1981. TheFashionable '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
SurvivalValue of the Beard'.Psychology Frontier'.Ms. Vol. 1, No. l,July.
Today.October:36-39. Malinowski,Bronislaw. 1922.Argonauts
Freedman, Rita. 1986. BeautyBound. of theWestern Paci>. London:Routledge.
Lexington:D.C. Heath. Mauss, Marcel. 1973. 'Techniquesof
Glamour. April 1983;August 1983. the Body'.Economy andSociety,
Vol. 2: 70-
Graham,Virginia. 1967.Don'tBlamethe 88.
Mirror.New York:Meredith. McWhirter,Norris. 1985. TheGuinness
Greer, Germaine. 1971. The Female Bookof World Records.32ndEdition,1986.
Eunuch. London:PaladinBooks. GuinnessBooks.
Griaule, Marcel. 1970.Conversationswith Mead, Margaret. 1977(1949). Maleand
Ogotemmeli. London:PaladinBooks. Female.New York:MorrowQuill.
Hallpike, C.R. 1969.'SocialHair'. Man Molloy, John T. 1976.Dressfor Success.
9 (n.s.): 256-64. New York:WarnerBooks.
Hammett, Dashiell. 1972 (1933). The Molloy,JohnT. 1978.TheWomen'sDress
ThinMan.New York:Vintage Books. for SuccessBook. New York: Warner
Hemmingway, Patricia Drake. 1979. Books.
TheWellDressedWoman. New York:New Montreal Gazette.10.3.83;26.7.83;25.9.84.
AmericanLibrary/SightBooks. MontrealStar.20.2.79.
Henig, Robin Marautz. 1985. How a Morgan, Marable. 1975. The Total
Woman Ages.New York:BallantineBooks. Woman. New York:Simonand Schuster.
Hershman, Paul. 1974. 'Hair, Sex and NewYorkTimes.17.4.80;18.9.83;18.4.84;
Dirt'. Man9 (n.s.): 274-98. 7.1.85;2.8.86; 18.10.86.
Hirsch, Brenda. 1981.'Hair'em, Scare Ovid. 1974. TheArtof Loving.Blooming-
'em'. PsychologyToday,September:84. ton: IndianaUniversityPress.
Horn, Jack C. 1979. 'Is it true Blonds Pellegrini, R.J. 1973. 'Impressionsof
seem less dumb?' PsychologyToday, the Male Personalityas a Function of

Vol. 10, No. 1.

Beardedness'.Psychology, Bookof
Trepp, Leo. 1980. TheComplete
New York:Simonand
theLooking JewishObservance.
Perutz, Kathrin. 1970. Beyond
Glass:America's New York: Schuster.
BeautyCulture.
WilliamMorrow. Turner, Terence S. 1969. 'Tchikrin:A
Pesman, Curtis. 1984. How a ManAges. CentralBrazilianTribe and its symbolic
New York:BallantineBooks. language of body adornment'.Natural
Punch.25.4.84. Ilistory,Vol. 78: 50-70.
Reynolds, R. 1950. Beards.London: Turner, Victor W. 1967. TheForestof
GeorgeAllen and Unwin. Symbols: Aspectsof NdembuRitual.Ithaca:
Robinson, Dwight E. 1976. 'Fashionsin CornellUniversityPress.
shaving and trimming the beard: the Veblen, Thorstein. 1934. TheTheory of
men of the Illustrated London News, theLeisureClass.New York:The Modern
Journalof Sociology, Library.
1842- 1972'. American
81(5): 1133-9. Williamson, Margaret Holmes. 1979.
Steele, Valerie. 1985. Fashion and 'PowhatenHair'. Man 14 (3): 392-413.
New York:OxfordUniversity Woodforde, John. 1971. The Strange
Eroticism.
Press. Storyof False Ilair. London: Routledge
Stevenson, Ray. 1982. Sex PistolsFile. and Kegan Paul.
Haverhill:Panda Press. X, Malcolm. 1965. TheAutobiography of
Taylor, Peter. 1983. Bald is Beautiful. Malcolm X. New York:GrovePress.
Toronto:Key PorterBooks. York, Peter. 1983. StyleWars.London:
TheTimes.12.10.83; 23.1.85; 11.3.86. SidgwickandJackson.


Shame and Glory. A Sociology of Hair

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shame and Glory. A Sociology of Hair

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shame and Glory. A Sociology of Hair

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shame and Glory: A Sociology of Hair

Author(s): Anthony Synnott

This content downloaded from 69.58.106.26 on Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:04:16 PM