Why do people get so precious about random objects and desire them to exit forever?

Or in other words, I’m going to write about two seemingly totally separate cases but which have the common theme of not wanting to get rid of something that has been around for a number of years. So long in fact that they can’t imagine a time without the object.

Pony Tail

In one case the object is a pony tail. In the other a tree. In both cases people are up in arms about their destruction.

In the case of the pony tail, a young boy who has just started at a school has been told that his pony tail is against the rules of the school. His father has made a big case out of it claiming that his son’s human rights are being violated.

In the case of the pony tail, the young lad had worn it since the age of 4. Other than saying a looks a bit weird there is nothing wrong for a kid to like a particular hair style.

But when the boy goes to school, a school chosen by his parents who knew of the rules and regulations set out by the school, he should follow those rules. If they didn’t like the rule about the hair style, they should have chosen a different school. If no other school could be chosen, then tough – life is not fair and learn that lesson early. It’s not like the school changed the rules half way through they year where he might have a case, a very slight case and nothing to do with human rights, and even then the boy would still end up having to conform to the school rules.

Kids always have weird desires, though usually they grow out of them pretty quickly. That’s the point, kids change their minds often. One day they want to be a nurse, the next day a vet, then an astronaut. So it’s surprising that the boy wore his pony tail for so long, but if he cut it off would it be the end of the world. Not really. Even though at the moment he probably can’t think of his life without it, within weeks of losing it he probably won’t think twice about it. If he is so committed to the pony tail he can still grow it back after leaving school.

I used to have a beard for 15 years. My wife didn’t like it so I shaved it off. Am I a different person because of it. Has it changed my personality. Has it made me a weakling like Samson. None of the above. All it means is that I have to shave every day rather than trim once a week.

Tree

The second case is that of a large tree. The tree is next to a property, seen here in this Google StreetView, and overshadows it and it’s roots are pretty close the foundations to a garage and could affect the property’s drains. So the property owners put in an application to the council to have it chopped down. The council initially disagreed with them and placed a Tree Preservation Order on it after a number of villagers petitioned to have it kept. But after expert advice, and possibly after being told that the council might be liable to pay compensation if the tree actually caused damage to the property, the council changed their mind and allowed it to be cut down.

The villagers put in more petitions and took the council to court a number of times to try and stop the tree from being chopped down. The repeat visits to court have cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds as they defended their position. The fact that the council was taken to court a number of times indicates that each time the villagers lost their court case. But still they fight to save the tree.

This tree was so special to the villagers that a man has climbed into it and refused to come down until the council promise not to cut it down.

But why is it so special. Does it have some historic meaning. Is it photogenic and therefore does it attract visitors to the village. Is it a special species which is very rare. Does it support a population of special insects. Should all trees be kept no matter what. Nope, none of the above. Its just a tree that has been in the village for a few generations so everyone alive has known it to exist and can’t think of it not being around. But within months of the tree being chopped down, most villagers will probably not have another thought about it.

The claim is that once the tree is chopped down it will be gone forever. Well trees die of old age. What happens then? It will still be gone forever. But new trees can be planted. And such trees will grow and over time will become huge specimens again. Not exactly the same tree, but still a tree. A bit like Trigger’s brush in Only Fools and Horses. The shaft and brush were changed a number of times but it was still Trigger’s brush. The same with a tree. A new tree can be planted, and within a decade or two it will be seen as a tree that has always been there and a time when it didn’t exist would be hard to remember.

Attachment theory

So why were these people so tied to their pony tails and trees? I suspect it was because in these rapidly changing times they are wanting something that is constant – something familiar to use as a safe haven, and separation from such objects causes distress and upset. The pony tail and tree aren’t the real issue, it’s the environment the people are in.

With the pony tail, the boy had just changed schools and keeping something familiar would probably allow the boy to settle in to the new school. So the school could have understood this and allowed a bit of leeway. Not in allowing the boy to keep it as such exceptions would cause problems with the other children at the school who have followed the rules, but in being a bit less draconian. Maybe getting him to trim it an inch each week till it’s gone or put it under a hat.

With the tree, the villagers had known the tree all their life and the owners of the property it was affecting were new entrants so it probably was seen as “townies” who don’t understand the ways of the rural world charging around forcing the villagers to change to their ways rather than vice versa. This new situation was upsetting and so latching on to an object which they had known for a long time but which they new entrants would destroy was a natural thing to do and it had to be kept at all costs because if they lost then the whole village would be destroyed. So in this case maybe crown reduction of the tree would be a half way solution for both sides. And then in a few years time, another application to cut down the now smaller tree could be sent in.

Conclusion

The world is continually changing, but how much of the past should we keep and how much should we “throw away”. Should ancient buildings be kept or should they be allowed to evolve over the years as they did in the past. Should traditions be kept even though the original reason for its existence is no longer remembered or valid. Should old languages be allowed to wither away

SBML

OMG, Please, Not Dolly
Again. October 6, 2011 at 22:19

Question. Why on earth did the local planning committee grant planning
permission for the bungalow to be built here in the first place? Shouldn’t
they have realised that the close proximity of a beech tree – which will grow
a lot bigger, that’s what beech trees do – would cause problems?

Seems to me like negligence on their part.

Andrew Duffin
October 5, 2011 at 09:59

I am somewhat with the villagers on the tree issue, because experience
suggests that it will not be replaced. People have insanely restrictive views
on trees these days, they won’t allow them within 100 yards of any building
really, and with modern housing density that means anywhere at all in the
village, probably.

And have you noticed how all hedges are now machine-smashed back to short
back-and-sides every September (usually just before the brambles ripen, and
often before the birds have finished nesting), so no trees will grow up in the
hedgerows either.

So if this tree goes, there will never be another one like it.

Elena ‘andcart
October 4, 2011 at 21:15

I grew up in this horrible terraced house with no bathroom and an outside
lavatory, and a breeding ground for silver fish under what passed for a
kitchen sink.
It is now part of Neasden Village Conservation Area, and
Aylesbury Street is a tree lined Avenue. Who’d have thought it? There weren’t
any trees in my day.

And leave the poor boy’s hair alone. It’s probably tidier anyway.

Engineer October 4, 2011 at 20:36

Thinking about SBML’s ‘Conclusion’; of course, there isn’t a ‘right’
answer. However, we do get a strong sense of who we are from our heritage,
both the built environment and artifacts, and from culture such as language,
literature, music and mythology. It gives a sense of belonging, of rootedness,
and of responsibility to steward it properly and hand it on to the next
generation. It isn’t right to pickle everything or preserve it in aspic, but
those who know nothing of the past have no future.

Michael October 4, 2011 at 19:25

I had very long hair between the ages of 13 and 31 -ish. It was tied back
and platted. Over the years it has cost me two job offers, but never caused me
any problems when I went to school.

I’m with the young lad on this one. Schools are there to educate kids, not
to brainwash them into social “norms”. It’s frankly none of their business
what his hair looks like.

David C October 4, 2011 at 20:10

Agreed. There isn’t enough school choice available to make the ‘just
chose a school with different rules’ argument a valid one. If we all had a
choice of half a dozen decent schools it might just make sense. Where I
live, the choice is ‘that or nothing’, and ‘that’ is in special measures.
And I doubt it’s because there are too many schoolboys with ponytails.

Zaphod October 4, 2011 at 21:40

All through my teens, I fought the school rules about hair length.
Nobody won. I quit school instead of completing sixth form.

They thought it was worth the sacrifice, and so did I.

I was a stupid teenager, maybe. But what’s their excuse?

“Rules are rules?” “Because I say so?” The most important thing to
learn is blind obedience?

There was no choice of other schools. There was no choice about
attending.

Anyone who thinks it doesn’t matter, is wrong. I am proof.

Woodsy42 October
4, 2011 at 18:53

On the basis of the picture I have to firmly take the side of the tree.
It’s a public asset that enhances the environment, appearance and character of
the village so it has a value to many people. Trees can be replaced but mature
ones take a generation and an alternative site there looks difficult to
find.
In fact it’s not that close to the house, rather it is close to a
garage and garden wall which are very clearly newer than the tree, so the tree
existed long before the house, garage or wall were built. In which case the
builder/owner of the house wall and garage made their choice to accept it and
now should put up with it and take the consequences, maybe positioning the
garage in a more suitable position or considering a hedge rather than a wall
would have avoided any problems.
I support the pony tail too. Dress code
and behaviour codes are school issues, hair length on the other hand cannot be
changed quickly or stuck back after school and the school have absolutely no
right to dictate it.

Denny October 4, 2011 at 18:52

The world and everything in it changes ,… deal with it !!

Tree-hugger October 4, 2011 at 18:08

Interesting take on the tree.

I don’t live in Irton but have read most of the information available
online, including the local authority docs relating to the case.

Not sure it’s correct to suggest the residents who wanted to save the tree
were the instigators of the expensive legal battle – my understanding is that
the legal wrangling was between the local authority and the householders of
the property next to the tree who wanted it removed. Apparently fearful of
their drains/wall being damaged. (Though many other concerns re the tree are
cited in earlier documents – it’s clear they just found it inconvenient to be
living next to a large street tree.)

The tree had been maintained, crown thinned, etc.

The sadness/anger isn’t just because of an attachment, it’s clear that for
many people it’s because of a sense of injustice that a perfectly healthy tree
is being felled, against the wishes of the majority of people in the village.
If we cut down all town and village street trees because they’re near a drain
or wall that they might possibly damage, we’d have very few trees left.

fake October 4, 2011 at 16:04

My take on it is simple.

You want the tree, you pay for any damage caused by the tree.

Joe Public
October 4, 2011 at 18:30

The equal-and-opposite argument is: You want to build next to that tree,
then (you or your successors) suffer the consequences.

Mjolinir October 4, 2011 at 15:26

Some years ago, what had been the ‘Squire’s mansion’ in a nearby village
was bought up & turned into a Nursing Home. Two very ancient large cedar
trees graced the ground adjacent to the road, and the new owners asked for
expert advice as to their safety. The report (backed up by Local council,
county Council several ‘nature conserving’ bodies and almost everyone else who
might conceivably have the knowledge needed to make decisions) said that they
were diseased, dying, rotten and dangerous, and might fall into the road. An
ad hoc group of ‘concerned residents’ (mainly incomers whose interest in the
area was confined to the size of their gardens and proximity to the A3)
decided to object. They did object. Lots. Including Court action (the trees
had ‘preservation orders’) – right up to the day that one tree fell over. Not,
as it happens, into the road – but the other way – narrowly missing the
village church (Listed building)

ivan October 4, 2011 at 15:06

I can remember the fuss that happened when in the sixth form at school – in
the 50s – I started with a beard, it was that or have a raw face caused by
shaving. The school let me keep the beard on advice from the doctor and I
still have it today because of the same problem. Hair is a different
proposition though – I don’t think this child, or his father, could get a
medical dispensation over it.

As for trees, they grow and may not be in the best place. We have one in
the village square here, it’s trimmed every two years and has had its roots
cut back before they damaged the sewer. In another square in the village the
two trees were cut down because they were in the way – reducing the road so
much the garbage truck and cars were hard to get past them – no one complained
and their removal allowed more light into nearby houses.

In the case of ‘the tree’, why not cut it down and plant a new in one in a
better place?

nonomad October 4, 2011 at 15:03

Thers an awful lot of nonsense talked in the defense of tree preservation
as i found out in the course of designing and building gardens mainly in
N.London ,councils nearly all have differing policies depending on who the
senior tree officer is at any given time.
This leads to situations where
truly “dodgy” trees ,healthwise are deemed fit to stay and the total reverse
,although in nearly all cases of sick trees being eventually felled ,the
process to get to that point in some cases was the classic case of dealing
with a jobsworth who genuinally didn’t know what he was talking even when
confronted with areport from a qualified tree surgeon as to its perilous
state,i had a wonderfull example of this with aproperty whose boundaries
consisted of on two road sides lombardy poplars,as anybody whose had these
they suffer from crown rot and although they were pollarded on a regular basis
several were reported by the tree surgeon as being in a poor state and
potentially dangerous,we then went through the process of applying for removal
this was initially refused despite the report and council site visit another
application was made and another independant report,in the meantime one of the
trees apparently moved slightly in a high wind i looked at it with one of my
staff who tried jokingly to push it back ,it fell over it was completely
hollow and could all 12ft of it be lifted by one person ,the others were
similiar but more dangerous as they were not as hollow at a lot weightier and
being alongside the pavement could really have killed someone.
Trees are
finite in their life ,in every case where possible a “suitable” replacement
tree would be planted ,many of the original trees were unsuitable and should
never have been planted in the positions they were in ,in the first place,its
the lack of common sense that creates these problems even recently ,before
retirement, i was asked to look at a developers planting scheme that mainly
consisted of common laurel hedging being planted as a front hedge only a metre
plus from the properties ,this had council approval,nothing was more
unsuitable.
With trees there is an awful lot of attachment ,and although in
many cases it’s understandable ,in many others it’s the “well it’s always been
there” syndrome although in many scenarios you’d wonder why.

Gewyne October 4, 2011 at 14:23

The tree looks really old, the house quite new. So I think the tree has the
right to life here. The homes occupants could move, use common sense and not
buy a property with a large tree undermining it’s foundations (shock).

If the council spent hundreds of thousands defending the case, keep the
tree and spend the money on preventing the root system effecting the
house.

JuliaM October
4, 2011 at 14:54

Ah, but really, both these cases hinge on defiance. Defiance of rules,
defiance of elected officials.

Defiance is fun.

Longrider October 4, 2011 at 15:28

Defiance is good. We need more of it.

Paleo October 4, 2011 at 13:46

The thing to do is back size the changes. For example I have reverted to an
old mobile (it is all relative of course) from a touchscreen 3g fangled item;
once I realised that I probably make ten calls and two texts in an average
week ( and don’t play silly games)

Engineer October 4, 2011 at 13:40

We live in a time of very rapid change. Some of the fundamental skills I
learned as a youngster are now redundant, even though they were regarded as
fundamental and lasting at the time – the use of a slide-rule, for example.
New technologies have arisen to bamboozle us – I still can’t use a
smart-phone. The built environment around most of us changes with bewildering
rapidity, as do many of the staples of life – try finding a decent fishmonger
in many small towns, these days.

Consequently, we crave continuity. Perhaps through special possessions,
perhaps through the desire to preserve as much of our local environment as we
can. Things that last have become rare and precious.

Ian Thorpe October 4, 2011 at 20:17

Re: smartphones. I have revamped Oscar Wilde’s epigram …

A gentleman is somebody who can use a smartyphone but doesn’t. And when
my 8 year old mobile is switched off, as I am always telling my family I am
not just physically out I am metaphorically out too.

I will be very reluctant to get rid of my old phone when the time comes,
not because of a Gollum like attachment but because I hate technology that
tries to think for me.

Anna
Raccoon October 4, 2011 at 13:17

Kindly take that photograph of your esteemed landlady down this instant –
do you hear me!
It is important to preserve the myth.

Westerlyman October 4, 2011 at 13:15

Completely agree. I am a person, who given a choice, would live a spartan
life with few possessions and nothing around me that I did not regularly use.
My darling wife, on the other hand, is a person who is unable to throw
anything away. When I dispose of some stuff without her telling her she does
not notice. (I am not a cruel person and I was not being sarcastic when I
wrote ‘darling’ but if I did not clear things out we would need a house the
size of Dorset by now.)

Just one thing though, I do not think that gender based rules are helpful.
I bet the girls at this school can wear ponytails.