The goal of this blog is to post examples of public figures - celebrities, politicians, newsmakers and newspeople - who I feel have personalities or behaviors that might be affected by their hair part.
The main thing to remember about this kind of analysis is that the hair part is a "bias" - its just one factor in many that determine what someone is like or what they might do, but my belief is that it can be an important, and previously unacknowledged factor. It is like saying that someones race or gender is important factors, but we all know that those are just partial factors, and of course they are accepted and acknowledged factors. The fact that hair parts are not considered is, to me, a huge missing factor, and that often we are picking our leaders and newsmakers based on subconscious choices - which may not be particularly valid.
The main thing to remember about this kind of analysis is that the hair part is a "bias" - its just one factor in many that determine what someone is like or what they might do, but my belief is that it can be an important, and previously unacknowledged factor. It is like saying that someones race or gender is important factors, but we all know that those are just partial factors, and of course they are accepted and acknowledged factors. The fact that hair parts are not considered is, to me, a huge missing factor, and that often we are picking our leaders and newsmakers based on subconscious choices - which may not be particularly valid.
For instance, in the current Presidential race, there are quite a few men with right hair parts - Edwards, Huckabee, McCain - all are considered outside of the mainstream, but they appeal to our emotional and eccentric sides, our desire to get someone in the presidential spot that is coming from somewhere other than the archetypal patriarchal model (such as Romney or Guiliani). But while the softer, more feminine and receptive side of a candidate may be good for our emotional side, what happens when they get into office and can not govern the basically male dominated world of politics? This happened to Jimmy Carter - a classic right parter - his soft spoken, heart felt world hit a wall even with his own party's Congress. Note how Jimmy Carter has appeared since 1979, when he switched his hair part to the left (this actually was after I wrote him a letter suggesting he do so!)
So through the last few presidential cycles, the right parting maverick candidates have made a strong showing, and yet no one is saying that they might be disasters in governing! Al Gore (right parter) may have upheld the core values of our American system much better than George Bush (left parter), but who can say what other kind of mess we may have been in after his term as President?
There are clear exceptions to this rule of the right parter being able to govern - so its not a hard and fast rule - its just something that should be taken into consideration, and not allowed to hoodwink the electorate with someone who appeals to one side of us and misses out the other.
The strong asymmetry of a hair part and its effect is essentially the biggest flaw of all - its not that the feminine or masculine side is bad, its just that its out of balance if it is always there - a defined hair part affects every single encounter at some level. As it turns out, there is only one candidate that has no part - Barack Obama. When he gave his speech at the convention a few years ago, we saw what that kind of balance can produce - a sense of symmetry between the conflicting sides - towards a goal of "we are one" vs more and more disharmony.
So through the last few presidential cycles, the right parting maverick candidates have made a strong showing, and yet no one is saying that they might be disasters in governing! Al Gore (right parter) may have upheld the core values of our American system much better than George Bush (left parter), but who can say what other kind of mess we may have been in after his term as President?
There are clear exceptions to this rule of the right parter being able to govern - so its not a hard and fast rule - its just something that should be taken into consideration, and not allowed to hoodwink the electorate with someone who appeals to one side of us and misses out the other.
The strong asymmetry of a hair part and its effect is essentially the biggest flaw of all - its not that the feminine or masculine side is bad, its just that its out of balance if it is always there - a defined hair part affects every single encounter at some level. As it turns out, there is only one candidate that has no part - Barack Obama. When he gave his speech at the convention a few years ago, we saw what that kind of balance can produce - a sense of symmetry between the conflicting sides - towards a goal of "we are one" vs more and more disharmony.
1 comment:
test
Post a Comment