Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA09673 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 26 May 2000 02:11:32 +0100 Message-ID: <392D8871.293A940F@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:09:21 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Shaving References: <LNBBJFJFCJFOIJDOGJMAGEJEEPAA.havelock@tig.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
havelock wrote:
> more on the hair....
>
> >
> > > >In medieval europe the beards of
> > > >vassals were grasped by lords as a sign of domination...not pacifism.
> > >
> > > Pacifism is often an acceptance of domination, at least for the moment.
> >
> > Pacifists, however, must live in a society where they are in the minority.
> > During WWII they were considered cowardly. A beard is a a
> > statement which said
> > "Don't think I am cowardly" - and hence, a "correction" if you will of the
> > peception that they are cowardly by projecting an image of power.
>
> It's probably a little more complex that that. I don't think the beard was
> worn to make a 'I'm not a coward statement' it was probably to seperate them
> from the social herd. It would have acted as a passive symbol of
> differentiation. Also wearing a beard in an non-hirsute society would have
> moved the individual closer to being percieved as 'western', therefore
> suspect ( quite courageous)
Passive symbol? I think a lot of hair is always associated with
hypermasculinity, whether it be Sampson in the bible or the rough outdoorsman.
Separate them from the herd? Well, if no one else is doing it, of course it
separates them, but why use the beard? Why not use a sign like "I love
pacifists" or, better, if the want to advertise their passiveness, why not dress
in more feminine clothes? Intuitively that doesn't work, and I think it's
because they would have wanted to appear more aggressive to compensate,
especially during WWII when everyone went off to kill the enemy.
>
>
> I would like to think that pacificts are not a minority in any society.
Letting your preferences for what you would like color you observations of
people happens much to often in the social sciences and makes for some very
fuzzy thinking.
> Sure the herd will follow the leader in any culture. As a species while we
> have a capacity for war we are 'generally' benign.
> Wars are started by individuals not peoples that is the nature of a
> hierachical society.
It isn't at all that simple. Remember that there were many people in London who
had fond memories of WWII because status differences temporarily vanished in the
name of the common effort. People often have a love/hate relationship with war
-- like they do with a lot of things in life.
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 26 2000 - 02:12:04 BST