ハゲはどこからハゲなのか。ハゲってなにさ。

ハゲについて真面目に考えてみた(※わたしは禿げていない)

最終更新日:2017年10月20日

禿(ハゲ)

はげ【禿】
(1)毛髪がぬけ落ちた状態。また、その部分。
(2)禿頭(はげあたま)。また、その人。
(3)山などに樹木のないこと。禿山。
広辞苑 第六版 (C)2008 株式会社岩波書店

男性に生まれたからには誰もが覚悟する現象。
私はアラフォーですが、現状のところハゲもハゲの兆候もない。
元々髪が細いので、10代のころ短髪にしてジェルやワックスで髪を立てたりすると、地肌がみえていた。
当時から、「自分はいつかハゲる」と覚悟をしていた。
幸いなことに、現在までハゲる兆候はないが、時間の問題であろうと覚悟はしている。
生命が尽きるのが先か、毛根の生命が尽き始めていくのが先か。

思うに、ハゲは運である
「たまたま天才に生まれた」「たまたまお金持ちの家に生まれた」「たまたま超絶イケメンに生まれた」
同じように「たまたま生涯フッサフサに生まれた」というのは運であって、イケメンでも金持ちでも変えられない。

男性がライフステージのどこかで直面し悩む「ハゲ」。
ハゲとはいったいなんであるのか。
どこからがハゲなのか。
わたしはもうハゲなのか。

ハゲと進化

「若はげ」は別として、少なくても男性の壮年性ハゲと進化は直接には関係していない。
なぜなら、ハゲとは、子を産み育てるのが終了した後の段階で、訪れるものであるから(少なくても人類が進化した時代において)。
進化とは自然淘汰である。
子を産む前、あるいは、子育て中に起きる現象であれば、進化になんらかの影響を与えてもおかしくない。
例えば、
「上空の猛禽類からみると、ハゲはピカッと光り発見しやすく、攻撃されやすい」
とか
「ハゲが気になって子育てがおろそかになる」
とかいう現象があれば、ハゲた男性よりもハゲない男性のほうが子孫を残しやすく、結果としてハゲは淘汰されるかもしれない。

そうであっても、家族や氏族などのコミュニティにおいて壮年男性の役割が重要であり、ハゲていない男性群のコミュニティよりも、ハゲている男性群のコミュニティのほうが生存に有利である、というような事実が人類史上あったのであれば、自然淘汰の対象となりえる。

しかしながら現状を見てみると、多くの男性はハゲる。
寿命をまっとうした場合に、ハゲるかハゲないか、でいえば、ハゲのほうが多数派であり、
ハゲは進化に影響を与えない」or「ハゲのほうが進化において有利であった」と言える。

類人猿からホモ・サピエンスへの進化の過程をみてみると、全身の毛はあきらかに少なくなっている。
頭髪や局部だけに豊富な毛が生えているホモ・サピエンスは進化の途中の段階であり、ハゲはむしろより進化した新人類の萌芽であるのかもしれない*。

*「進化」に方向性はなく、「進化の段階」を後からみた場合に、あたかも「目的」や「方向性」「意味」を感じるだけである。
 今まで毛が少なくなる方向に進化をしたからと言って、今後の進化もその方法を踏襲するわけではない。

 つまり、ここで言っている「ハゲが新人類である」という言明は、誤りである。
 環境や状況により、あたかも「退化」したかのように見える進化も、通常の進化である。

ハゲの社会的評価(ハゲなジェンダー?)

医学的な性別・性差(sex)ではなく、社会的な性別・性差のことをジェンダー(gender)という。
ジェンダーはア・プリオリなものではなく、社会が作り上げるものである。

同じように、「ハゲのジェンダー」があるのではなかろうか。
少なくても日本において、ハゲは喜ぶべき現象ではなく、恥ずかしいもの、かっこよくないもの、と一般的にされている。
これはもちろん社会的なものであり、ハゲのジェンダーと呼んでもいいものであろう。

男性の多くは寿命を迎える前にハゲる。
禿のほうがマジェリティーであるのに、ハゲというだけで迫害を受ける。
これはどういった現象であろうか。

ひとつには、老年と若年で言えば、若いほうが素晴らしい。若いとは、それだけで素晴らしいことである、という価値観があるように思う。

主に壮年から老年にかけて生じる現象であるハゲは、「老い」の象徴であるとも言える。
「老いた人」を嘲笑するような風潮が社会にあるのではないか。

もうひとつ考察を加えると、ファッション誌や映画に出てくるモデルや俳優の多くは、ハゲていない。
おじさんが活躍するハリウッドのアクション映画は別(※)であるが、「カッコいい」とされる人の多くはハゲていない。
ダンディーなおじさんとして浮かんでくるおじさん像は、やっぱりハゲていない。

※彼らはハゲてもそれを補って余りあるほどの美貌を持っている。

ハゲていないほうが若くてカッコいい、という評価から
→ 俳優やモデルはハゲていないほうがいい → ハゲていない俳優を起用 → やっぱりハゲていないほうがかっこいい
と連鎖していったのではないか。

ハゲの歴史は知らないし調べていないが、各時代や文化において、「ハゲ」がどのように評価されていたのか、興味深い。

少しだけ考えると、人間の寿命がここまで延びたのはごく最近のことである。
かつて、あるいは現在でも一部の地域では、壮年性ハゲが発症するくらいの年齢までしか生きることが出来なかった。
つまりハゲは極めて少ないマイノリティであってとも言える。
一部のエスキモーには、年老いた親を殺す、と言う文化もあった。
共同体の成員が生き残っていくために、役立たずとなった老人を切り捨てるのは、とくに珍しい文化ではない。
「老人はだいたいハゲている」→「老人は役立たず」→「ハゲは役立たず」という認識があったのかもしれない。

全国アホ・バカ分布考―はるかなる言葉の旅路 (新潮文庫)』のように、ハゲの由来も誰か調べてあるのかしら。

さらにもうひとつ。

このハゲー!」が流行語になりそうな勢いであるが、「バカ・アホ」と同じように侮辱語として「ハゲ」を使っている。

身体的な特徴を表現した侮辱語はたくさんある。
「出っ歯」「つり目」「アゴ」「デブ」「ガリ」「チビ」「ノッポ」など
これらの身体的特徴が望ましくない・美しくない、と思われる社会だからこそ、侮辱語として成立するといえる。
日本で「小顔」と言えば褒め言葉であるが、国によっては侮辱語になるらしい。
つまり日本では「ハゲ」は美しくない、望ましくない身体的特徴である、と考えられている。

美学」の観点からも、ハゲが美しくない、とされているとみることができる。
美学とは、人間が美しいと感じるものやその理由を探求する学問である。
有名な例では「黄金律」。
人間が美しいと感じる比率がある。
モナリザやオードリー・ヘプバーンは、世界中の多くの人間が美しいと感じる。
ビジュアル的なもののほかにも、美しい音色・旋律などの音。
美しい公式など数学、素数が美しいと感じるように、数字にも美はある。
私はプログラマーとして活動することもあるが、美しいプログラム・コードは確かにある。

それら「美しい」の共通点を探ってみると、「秩序」であるように思う。
ある一定の法則・秩序があり、その秩序に完璧に従っているものは美しい。
逆に、秩序がないと美しくない・醜いと感じる。

ハゲは「禿げ散らかす」という言葉があるように、無秩序なハゲだと美しくないように思うのではないか。
ハゲ単体ではなく、顔全体や全身単位でみたときに、禿げ頭と顔や身体が調和していれば、それほど見た目を損なうものではないように思う。
ハリウッド俳優はそういう例であろう。
つまり秩序だった禿げは美しく、時にその人の魅力を増加させることもある。

ハゲの段階

いったいどこからハゲなのか。
生まれつき額が広い人は、子どもの頃から「ハゲ」(あるいはデコ)と呼ばれたりする。
ベジータはハゲなのだろうか。
それにしてはハゲが進行しているようには見えない。
同じサイヤ人のナッパはハゲており、サイヤ人でもハゲは進行するはずである。
となると、ベジータはハゲではなく、もともとM字ハゲ風の生え際なのかもしれない。

フランスの科学哲学者ジョルジュ・カンギレムの著作「『正常と病理』(法政大学出版局, 1987年) 」は、哲学の範囲を超え様々な学問に大きな影響を与えた名著である。
正常とはなにか?
病気とはなにか?
多数が正常であるとするのであれば、虫歯がある人のほうが多数はであり、虫歯が正常になってしまう。
肥満率の高いアメリカでは、肥満が正常であるということになってしまう。
これより、禿のほうが少数だから(あるいは多数だから)異常であるということにはならない。

生まれつきの状態が正常であるとするのであれば、髪や爪を切るのは異常なのであろうか。
筋トレをしたり、スポーツを習熟したり、知識を身につけ脳細胞の構造を変えることは、異常なのであろうか。
もちろんこれらも異常ではない。

つまり、ハゲはそれ自体異常ではないし、どこからハゲなのか、といった問いも、確実な答えはないのかもしれない。
おそらく、10代半ばくらいの生え際・毛量から、ネガティブなほうに継続的な変化が始まったら、ハゲなのであろう。
そうであっても、それは本人にしか(あるいは本人にも)わからない。

街行く人を「あ、ハゲだ」と思うのは、やはり社会的なものであり、その個人の経験によるのであろう。

つまり、ハゲは社会が作るのである。

同一人物の写真をPhotoShopで「ハゲの諸段階」に加工して、アンケート調査をしてみたい。
もう誰かやってそうだけれど。


※本記事では、「はげ頭」という意味の「ハゲ」と、「はげた人」という意味の「ハゲ」を区別せず使っています。
※本記事は真面目な考察ではなくただの雑文です。

※サムネイル画像は「www.photo-ac.com」

コメント(2)

1 XRumerTest

Hello. And Bye.

2 Danielassuh

Why are Americans so worked up about health care reform? Statements such as "don't touch my Medicare" or "everyone should have access to state of the art health care irrespective of cost" are in my opinion uninformed and visceral responses that indicate a poor understanding of our health care system's history, its current and future resources and the funding challenges that America faces going forward. While we all wonder how the health care system has reached what some refer to as a crisis stage. Let's try to take some of the emotion out of the debate by briefly examining how health care in this country emerged and how that has formed our thinking and culture about health care. With that as a foundation let's look at the pros and cons of the Obama administration health care reform proposals and let's look at the concepts put forth by the Republicans?

Access to state of the art health care services is something we can all agree would be a good thing for this country. Experiencing a serious illness is one of life's major challenges and to face it without the means to pay for it is positively frightening. But as we shall see, once we know the facts, we will find that achieving this goal will not be easy without our individual contribution.

These are the themes I will touch on to try to make some sense out of what is happening to American health care and the steps we can personally take to make things better.


A recent history of American health care - what has driven the costs so high?

Key elements of the Obama health care plan

The Republican view of health care - free market competition

Universal access to state of the art health care - a worthy goal but not easy to achieve

what can we do?


First, let's get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?

To begin, let's turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

Let's skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; "nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.

What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.

I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the "perfect storm" for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.

At this point, let's turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?

The Obama health care plan is complex for sure - I have never seen a health care plan that isn't. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.


Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.


To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don't comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.


To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.


The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.


The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.

As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.

Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don't generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as "big government control" of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.

A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to "go to the doctor" when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn't any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.

OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience's attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don't necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.

I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens - health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don't need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.

Let's go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don't exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don't eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can't do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don't take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because "health care is there" and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.

It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.

There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, "Google" "preventive health care strategies", look up your local hospital's web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America's health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then - take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

  • ※コメント確認画面はありません。
  • ※コメント投稿後は再読み込みをしてください。
CLOSE ×