PZ Myers. 2005 Jun 18. Planet of the Hats. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/planet_of_the_hats/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Saturday, June 18, 2005
Planet of the Hats
I know you will not believe me, but I swear it's true: I'm not of this earth. I fled here years ago because my home planet was driving me crazy. Let me explain.
My home world is very much like this one. It's populated by billions of bipedal primates, who are just like people here: sometimes foolish, sometimes wise, sometimes hateful, sometimes generous. They are grouped into cities and nations, and sometimes they have wars, and sometimes they cooperate. You really would have a hard time telling our two planets apart, except for one thing.
The hats.
My people are obsessed with hats. Almost everyone wears them, and a lot of their identity is wrapped up in their particular style. Some people always wear cowboy hats, for instance, and others wear bowlers, and each think the other is exceedingly funny-looking, and would never consider switching. They have elaborate ceremonies for their children in which they confer the hats, and kids often go to special schools once a week where they learn about the history and significance of their hats. Everyone has the importance of hats drilled into them from birth to death.
The particular type of hat was critical. Individuals only rarely changed hat styles, and when they did, it was considered grounds for sorrow by those who wore the abandoned style, and cause for rejoicing by those wearing the newly adopted style. Sometimes people would invent new kinds of hats, which were typically regarded as bizarre when one person was wearing it, but once a sufficient number switched to the new style, they were respected automatically. It meant that streets of our more cosmopolitan cities were filled with strange and comical hats bobbing along, but no one laughed. Laughing at a hat was considered a heinous crime.
It sounds very silly, I know. A minority on my planet also find it pointless, myself among them, and didn't bother with wearing a hat. This is tolerated in the more civilized nations, although there are places where wearing no hat, or a strange hat, can get you killed. And honestly, many people in my country only bothered to wear their hat once a week, although the rest of the time they would keep them on ornate hatstands in their home, and attached much significance to their presence.
Now why should mere excesses of fashion compel someone to flee many light years to escape? There was something more. There was a near-universal notion of remarkable absurdity: most people believed that an important portion of their minds actually resided in their hats. The locus of their ethical sense was not believed to be in their brains, but somehow intertwined in the fabric of their hats. This led to strange customs: witnesses in trials were required to wear their hats to give testimony; soldiers were thought to be cowards without their hats; politicians vied to see who could wear the most ostentatious versions of their hats; sex was considered a filthy practice because people would take off their hats to do it. There was no scientific evidence for any of this, and the evidence actually contradicted the belief, but since it was hallowed by tradition, it persisted.
Hatters, milliners, and haberdashers were highly regarded professionals, and every town would have numerous hatshops. Their numbers proliferated, because obviously you could not have the person who crafted miters also making berets, or vice versa, but still they prospered because, not only were the majority sinking a significant proportion of their income into the purchase and care of their hats, but the occupation was considered too dignified to be taxed. Huge sums of money were poured into hatteries, and the people considered this to be a virtuous act that made them more noble and right. The president of my country listened very closely to his council of hatters, and no television punditry was complete without a haberdasher to use his vast hat-based wisdom to pontificate on domestic and foreign policy. They were all talking out of their hats, which was considered a very good thing.
I couldn't help noticing, though, that the very idea that ethical thought was localized to a hat was a ridiculous notion, and that hatless people could be just as good and kind and wise as those with the most ornate hat (and that hatless people could also be wretched and cruel, of course, as could the hatted.) Our president had a rhinestone-covered 20 gallon cowboy hat with an airhorn and flashing strobe, and he seemed far less virtuous than my neighbor, with her simple and unostentatious cap. Hats obviously had nothing to do with morality, except perhaps in an inverse way: those who spent the most effort polishing the geegaws and flash on their hats usually put the least effort into honing their minds.
I could see the writing on the wall. Being hatless myself meant my chances for promotion were limited, but even more worrisome was that the height of one's hat was becoming the sole measure of nobility of purpose, and the genuine leaders were being replaced with loud poseurs who knew how to stretch a crown and use a Be-Dazzler. When the People of the Easter Bonnet started encouraging war with the Chador Wearers, citing deep philosophical differences, I bundled my family into our rocketship and flew away.
We stayed briefly at the Planet of Shoes, but found the same problems there, so now we've settled here on Earth where, clearly, the situation is completely different.
-
Brilliant! Apparently the sun has not baked your brain, in spite of your hatless condition.
#: Posted by decrepitoldfool on 06/18 at 11:19 AM
-
I wonder if this is related to http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/061705.html
<- this piece of phrenological hogwash?#: Posted by on 06/18 at 11:42 AM -
This reminds me of the Sneetches and their dilemma; those with plain bellies versus those with stars upon thars. Except it is easier to talk out of your hat than your belly button and requires fewer technological advances, of course.
#: Posted by GrrlScientist on 06/18 at 11:56 AM
-
But we are the best Sneetches on the beaches!
My association was "Fiddler on the Roof", when Tevye says:"Perhaps that is why we always wear our hats." -
Hats off to PZ
#: Posted by Duane Smith on 06/18 at 12:18 PM
-
Yes, ha. ha. ha. Now what would the Unitarian-hatteries be like?
#: Posted by Constantine on 06/18 at 12:28 PM -
"sex was considered a filthy practice because people would take off their hats to do it."
Really? So your home planet didn't have their own version of Randy Newman?
(I think that on balance, that's probably a good thing, by the way.)#: Posted by on 06/18 at 01:04 PM -
I imagine a Unitarian-hatter would stock as many different styles as he could, and his customers would wear whatever style suited the weather and the occasion. This might make them a little more comfortable than those who pointedly insist on going hatless through the rain and the sun.
Perhaps we should consider how this analogy extends from hats and shoes to books. That might fit our world a little better. Does this analogy, then, hold a lesson for our world? Only if we accept that no book could ever hold any wisdom, or extend the mind.#: Posted by on 06/18 at 01:07 PM - My Hat, PZ, this was masterful, brilliant, and fun.
-
Nice analogy. It's obvious that hats are intelligently designed to be the holders of wisdom :- they are absolutely brimming with it. NB I think the phrase "talking through your hat" may be more common in the UK and works even better with the analogy, everything (in either direction) being filtered through the hat distortion of reality.
#: Posted by on 06/18 at 01:31 PM
- Genius. Absolute genius. In a comment on my own blog a few weeks ago, I had said "Most religions teach object lessons with narrative. I think atheism could do the same thing. A series of stories that depict the harmful aspects of religion and the liberation of atheism, arranged into an atheist 'scripture' could do the trick. People can apply what they learn reading symbolic or allegorical stories about others to their own lives without feeling like they are being attacked." This is PRECISELY what I was talking about. Well done.
-
So Dr. Seuss was channelling one of the inhabitants when he was inspired to write "The Cat in the Hat"?
#: Posted by on 06/18 at 04:06 PM
-
That is brilliant. I love it and am sending the link to friends.
The Unitarians would also make room for those who don't want to wear hats, and because all of the Unitarians would not want to exclude those who didn't want to wear hats, to show their solidarity with them and to present themselves as an open and generous group who was tolearant and loving of all, no matter whether hatted or hatless, all Unitarians would wear their hair in a way carefully designed to conceal the presence or absence of a hat.
Trouble is, those with big, ostentatious hats have the best music (or at least the music closest in taste to the mainstream popular music played on the radio), so the Unitarians are few in number and negligible in political and moral influence.#: Posted by on 06/18 at 04:30 PM -
Well, I'm disappointed. I thought this was going to be an article about Lidsville.
It's funny, because I came from a planet similar to PZ's. On my planet though, the non-hat wearers, or "free-heads", as we called them, had considerable sway. Hats were still common among the more rural people -- and in those areas the situation was suprisingly similar to the one PZ described -- but in urban centers and among the intelligencia, hats had become a symbol of ignorance and low-breeding.
On my planet, you see, phrenology had advanced to impressive levels, thanks to the ancient discovery that by rubbing your own skull, you can gain useful and reliable information about people in general. Through phrenology we could discover how the average person would respond to any particular situation. Politicians relied on phrenology to guide policy, corporations used it to develop new products and market them to the public. Ordinary citizens rutinely consulted prenologists on important matters.
Phrenology, of course, required that the practioner be hatless. Milliners opposed it from the start. They had claimed for centuries that removing your hat, even briefly, would have disastrous effects. What would people think if they saw phrenologists removing their hats, and not turning into raving lunatics? Eventually, though, the phrenologists prevailed. Phrenology became essential to modern society, and phrenologists were respected, even by those who viewed their bareheadedness with suspicion.
Still, there were tensions on both sides. Some free-heads claimed that hat-wearing was the cause of all the problems of humanity, and a few even argued that wearing a hat was a sign of insanity. They riduculed the idea that hats might provide warmth in the winter or shade in the summer, insisting it was all in your head. Hat wearers were upset by what they saw as the free heads' mockery and contempt. Militant helmet wearers fed their fears and warned them that the free-heads planned to ban hats altogether. One group even proclaimed a new form of phrenology in which hats were worn during the procedure and demanded that their results be given equal weight with those of traditional phrenology. Since they were helmet wearers, their results were absolute nonsense, but helmet-makers proclaimed them to be deeply meaningful, and even many soft hat wearers were intruiged by the idea of a phrenology that respected their millinery ideals.
Things really came to a head when phrenologists announced their findings that wearing a hat during childbirth created unnecessary stress and discomfort for the mother. Helmet wearers were outraged. Wearing a hat on this occassion had long been considered a sacred duty. Without it, the child would lack an important part of his/her mind. Even some liberal hat wearers were shocked. It wasn't that they believed the superstitions, exactly; it was just that the idea of a bareheaded woman giving birth seemed somehow obscene. Passions flared on both sides. Hat wearers insisted the new practice was perverse and akin to infanticide. Free-heads insisted it was a civil rights issue. Society became more polarized around the whole issue of hats. Among hat wearers, helmets were seen more and more frequently, while sunbonnets and fedoras were despised by both sides.
I left the day that civil war broke out. I could not bear to see my once great and tolerant nation tear itself apart. I came here looking for a planet where people are less foolish. At first, I thought I'd found a hat-optional paridise, but recently I've been starting to have some doubts.#: Posted by on 06/18 at 05:10 PM - Remember the hat at Hogwarths school - the one that decides which house each kids will belong to....
-
coturnix beat me to it. "What of the Sorting Hat?"
#: Posted by Linkmeister on 06/18 at 05:18 PM
-
The Sorting Hat might have been the hat god/demon/device which caused all the trouble - by giving different people different polarised versions of which hat they were supposed to wear, instead of recognising that people can wear many different hats at different times or for different circumstances.
#: Posted by on 06/18 at 05:42 PM
-
<i>"Most religions teach object lessons with narrative. I think atheism could do the same thing. A series of stories that depict the harmful aspects of religion and the liberation of atheism, arranged into an atheist 'scripture' could do the trick."</i>
You see, though, at the end of the day, hats are quite good at keeping your head warm and dry. Now, granted, there are plenty of people that find those needs fulfilled with an umbrella, a hood, or a toque. There are still others that will tell you how great it is to have your head be wet and/or cold. But it makes to sense to start running around claiming that hats have no purpose or aren't excellent forms of head protection.#: Posted by Constantine on 06/18 at 05:52 PM -
Look up! Whoooooosh!
You see, I've got no objection to claiming a hat keeps your head warm or is pretty. It's the nutjobs who think it is their moral center and act accordingly that I find irritating. -
This gives new meaning to the expression "throwing one's hat in the ring."
Hmm... I recall the pied piper of Hamlin wore a hat. I wonder if that was more significant than I realized. -
Entertaining as this post was, even back in the 5th century, there wasn't much love for religion-as-clothing allegories. Vartan Mamigonian observed that, "Our religion is not like a garment that we might change according to the circumstances."
#: Posted by Constantine on 06/18 at 06:44 PM
-
Constantine, On the other hand from Ephesians 6:
The Armor of God
13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
-
Out of honest curiosity: if hats are religions, what is "head protection" in general?
#: Posted by on 06/18 at 07:15 PM
-
PZ: We stayed briefly at the Planet of Shoes, but found the same problems there...
Plus, we all know what happens to shoe obsessed cultures#: Posted by David Winter on 06/18 at 08:17 PM - But what if making hats makes you sick? Mercury used in the production of hats used to make old hatters quite crazy, hence the "Mad Hatter" character from Alice. Is this a matter of trade-off? You keep your hair dry, but your brain turns to mush.
- I tried to think of a head shop joke but failed.
- amazing, deep and yet catching
-
A hat, insists a commenter above, can be a good thing. A hat can be a comfort on a chilly day, or a soothing familiarity much like a stuffed toy or clutch blanket.
So why do so many of the hats I notice seem so tight as to cut off all blood to the head, or so loose as to completely obscure the vision of the wearer?
Could it be that in this modern day the hats' pressings are still fixed with Hg in the medieval way, and the offgassing has addled the once-sensible wearers?
Or is it merely in fashion these days to look as if one just doesn't care that one's hat marks one immediately as completely unconcerned with the value of rational thought? (I have noticed quite a few hat aficionados who seem even to glory in projecting this impression, sporting ridiculous clownish hats that are so unwieldy they present a hazard to their small children.)
No, I'm convinced it's that many Americans insist on wearing hats that are simply poor copies of hundred- or even thousand-year-old hats, for no other reason than their parents or friends wear similar hats. Or because they care more about what people will think, than the need to think, and it's important to them to display their team colors. Or even because they are simply too lazy to think much about where their hat came from, and where it has been, and this just happens to be the hat they have laying around, smelly and dysfunctional as it is.
I humbly propose that the discriminating defender of hattery design her own style of hat personally (preferably taking the old one off first). Might I suggest a completely new kind of hat, original, modern, lightweight, yet functional -- one which is compatible with both walking and thinking, leaving the eyes clear and the brain with access to oxygen. I haven't seen many hats such as this in our country, but I'm convinced it would be a good thing for the world if the US took the lead on R&D in this area.
Let's please agree to see if the free market can handle the job unassisted though. President Bush's incessant harping on the need for subsidies for his friends and contributors in the hat industry already make me quite uncomfortable.#: Posted by on 06/18 at 11:18 PM -
Mandatory Monty Python trivialization:
I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
From The Meaning of Life#: Posted by on 06/19 at 02:22 AM -
Didn't Swift do something very similar to this based on which end of the boiled egg was broken first at breakfast?
#: Posted by on 06/19 at 06:20 AM
-
I have never been in the least bothered by your atheism, PZ, but I do wish you had had the decency to disclose your ahatheism from the start. The question which god or gods, if any, to believe in is a purely private affair. Hats, by contrast, are a different matter altogether. In the bleak light of your hatlessness, Pharyngula takes on a very sinister aspect indeed.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 06/19 at 06:57 AM
-
No, hang on a minute -- I am sure I have seen a picture of you in a pirate's hat. As is well known, there are no ahatheists on quarter-decks.
Was this a version of Pascal's Wager, I wonder? 'If I do not wear the pirate's hat, the worst that can happen is that my hair will be wind-swept. If I do wear it, on the other hand, I shall be entitled to dance about on any treasure chests I find, and say "Arrrr!"'#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 06/19 at 07:01 AM -
Once upon a time, I did wear a hat. It was a worn denim cap with a leather brim and an American flag stitched on top -- very butch. But one day about 20 years ago, I wore it to a lecture by Harlan Ellison, and when I left, I forgot it on the seat next to me. When I noticed, I rushed back to the auditorium, but I was too late. It was gone. I have been hatless ever since.
I blame Harlan. -
The hat thing also "explains" why other animals aren't considered to have morals/souls - and why it's so outrageous to put chimps in bowlers for tea adverts. It does raise the issue of whether head lice get a special dispensation into heaven though ...
... and what about Paddington's marmalade sandwich.
PS Donkeys traditionally wear hats.#: Posted by on 06/19 at 07:14 AM -
Re: Hats as protection
On PZ's planet, there was neither rain nor blazing sun. Rather, a thick ozone layer provided protection from the sun and a nightly dew watered the earth. As such, folks like PZ felt no need to wear hats for protection against nonexistent threats. But they still realized that the hat-wearers, who believed in the mythical threats of sun and rain, found comfort in the protection of a hat. Likewise, folks like PZ recognized that artistry and beauty could be shown forth in creative hat designs, much as the 23rd Psalm or the Sistine Chapel are recognized as art today.#: Posted by on 06/19 at 10:42 AM -
You must miss the poor dear Archbishop of Haberdashery though. And that nice fella in the Hatican who tells people not to wear hats on any part of their anatomy except their heads even though penis hats can prevent the transmission of a fatal disease that is ravaging entire sections of the Hat planet - what a lovely man he is to be sure. And those kind hat-brushers who torture children and nuns to death in the belief that they are 'possessed' by The Bald One.
It's hard to imagine why you didn't like it there.#: Posted by Ophelia Benson on 06/19 at 02:20 PM -
Pfft, I bet you are one of those crazy unpatriotic loonies trying to keep hats out of courts and classrooms, despite the founding fathers clearly all favouring a good stiff top hat or sturdy, sombre fez on every judge and teacher.
Very apt and amusing. Made me think of Back of the Bible.
-Schmitt.#: Posted by on 06/19 at 08:22 PM -
This would have made a good classic Trek episode. The crew encounters the Hat Planet and, after getting mixed up in planetary hat politics in total violation of the prime directive, withdraws to orbit to watch in dismay as different hat factions destroy one another.
"Sigh... warp factor one, Mr. Sulu. Let's get out of here."#: Posted by decrepitoldfool on 06/19 at 08:29 PM -
Swift would indeed be proud. Well done.
#: Posted by on 06/19 at 10:37 PM
-
My hat is off to you, PZ. (not for long, though) What about the National Anthem, the Pledge, the entry of the Queen, etc., can there be anything more sacred than wearing a hat? And what of those undergoing chemo who are in such pain they can't wear a hat, and now can't even have a toke? Oh, the depth of depravity of those
godlesshatless creatures!#: Posted by on 06/22 at 07:56 PM - Don't forget about the scandals when some of the milliners were found to be fondling the beanies and ball caps of the younger hat-wearers...