16th November 2005, 11:11 PM
Absolutely Snipey. Wondering if the standard historical account of pecking orders was`nt written to maintain the status quo....
I suppose one could argue that the need to belong is one driver. Another of course would be that sexual display is paramount to survival.What fascinates me....tiz not just the appearence itself that people attempt to read but, they seem to apply all sorts of tags.Thick, ugly,lazy, lower/upper"class", inferior/superior...
Even babies a few months old seem to understand and indeed mimic the facial expressions of those in their world. This I can grasp with no problem. As a species, if we can "read" people through facial expression-what the hell does it matter if the target is wearing a bin-liner/nappie/Savill-Row suit or has dreadlocks intertwined with their pubic folicles? It goes without saying that someone with a degree in marketing/communication would argue that appearence is everything.But then again-they have an agenda-selling products and ideologies to an unsuspecting audience through slight of hand and the manipulation of painfully simple behavioural concepts. Transparently contrived.Before you horrible lot assume that I wear bin liners, have facial tattoos and have platted my pubic hair, I don`t.But if I chose to express myself in those ways.I would.We all wear uniforms of one sort of another in the same way that we adopt certain musical tastes that provide us with "theme tunes" we feel confident that reflect who we are/wish to be seen. Barristers and senior judges seem to feel the need to wear the folicles of long dead horses on their heads.Heads of state feel the need to wear strange metal rings on their heads.People around the world wear what and/or whom they believe themselves to be.It`s called freedom of choice."Culture" if you like. It does seem to be us Brits that have the monopoly upon an apparent ability to judge by appearence in further terms.....
I suppose one could argue that the need to belong is one driver. Another of course would be that sexual display is paramount to survival.What fascinates me....tiz not just the appearence itself that people attempt to read but, they seem to apply all sorts of tags.Thick, ugly,lazy, lower/upper"class", inferior/superior...
Even babies a few months old seem to understand and indeed mimic the facial expressions of those in their world. This I can grasp with no problem. As a species, if we can "read" people through facial expression-what the hell does it matter if the target is wearing a bin-liner/nappie/Savill-Row suit or has dreadlocks intertwined with their pubic folicles? It goes without saying that someone with a degree in marketing/communication would argue that appearence is everything.But then again-they have an agenda-selling products and ideologies to an unsuspecting audience through slight of hand and the manipulation of painfully simple behavioural concepts. Transparently contrived.Before you horrible lot assume that I wear bin liners, have facial tattoos and have platted my pubic hair, I don`t.But if I chose to express myself in those ways.I would.We all wear uniforms of one sort of another in the same way that we adopt certain musical tastes that provide us with "theme tunes" we feel confident that reflect who we are/wish to be seen. Barristers and senior judges seem to feel the need to wear the folicles of long dead horses on their heads.Heads of state feel the need to wear strange metal rings on their heads.People around the world wear what and/or whom they believe themselves to be.It`s called freedom of choice."Culture" if you like. It does seem to be us Brits that have the monopoly upon an apparent ability to judge by appearence in further terms.....