The Problem with Capitalism in the Trichological Sciences

Abstract

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels exposed a pattern of societal conduct they chose to name capitalistic bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie created a common language of communication through collaboration, gathered in circles such as free academies, scientific academies, literary circles, and the media, that provided forums for the emerging bourgeoisie to conceive of new social orders. One aspect of bourgeoisie culture is conspicuous consumption, central to which, is a culture of prestige through material consumption. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership and the operation for profit. Characteristic features of capitalism include competitive market, commercialism, property rights recognition, capital accumulation, material consumption, culture of prestige, sycophancy, and coterie. Critiques of capitalism allege that it is exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and inefficient. In turn, critical theory inspired philosophers such as Michel Foucault to conceptualize how we form identities through social interaction. When the patient’s body entered the field of medicine, it also entered the field of power where the patient can be manipulated by professional authority. Without forcibly being a proponent of political theory, as an academic, one is inevitably confronted with Marxism in terms of philosophy. As a discipline at the interface of medicine, lifestyle, and cosmetics, trichology is particularly susceptible to the primary aims of profit, consumption, and prestige that characterize the capitalistic bourgeoisie. The trichological sciences, particularly trichoscopy, have discovered a profitable market for itself. The practice of trichology is not immune to malpractice. It has created an industry that dwells on the autistic thinking of patients and doctors, and because it is prosperous, makes propaganda among lay people and doctors that necessarily leads to abuses.