Everyday is Dress-Down Day (See also Men in Suits and Fashionably Patriarchal.)
What sort of clothing do we consider as formal wear, or clothing that is suitably dignified? How much of this is determined by our associations of such clothing with the leisured classes or the wealthy, or from associations made by those who have come before us and have been passed down as tradition or custom? Do the tastes of the elites set the standard for everyone else? (Have they been replaced in modern times by fashion designers?)
Certain societies (for example, imperial China) have sumptuary laws that prevent other classes from imitating the elites in what they wear and so on. Much of this is based on the value of the material used or the value of what was produced (which was related to how much work was required in making the article of clothing, along with the cost of the materials and so on).
What is the difference between business casual and business formal? Just the absence of a tie and the coat or jacket? Casual business wear is often not tailored (with the exception of the slacks, perhaps). A rumpled suit or one that is off-the-rack and ill-fitting or poorly-tailored give the same impression, that the wearer is showing a lack of respect to others by not taking care of his appearance, or that his authority is not to be taken seriously. What if he doesn't know how to dress properly, or he can't afford a tailored suit?
Tailors were well-employed by those with money, but their services were not limited only to the wealthy. The traditional elites gradually lost their property and status, though they may have some sort of nominal rank that has no bearing on their function within society. Their influence on fashion has been replaced mostly by the more affluent of the bourgeoisie. (And the designers they patronize.) It may be that very few of the modest home economies produced their own formal and semi-formal wear. But by producing everything else, money could be saved to purchase clothing? How skewed is our present view of clothing and fashion standards, when the costs of the political economy are hidden to us?
If just the shirt and pants were tailored would we still think that the outfit is "casual"? Do we need extra layers of clothing in order to convey importance? Is there an intrinsic connection between the number of layers and the ability to "radiate power and prestige"? What makes for human male plumage? Do we instead rely upon quality of the fabric and the extras as a marker of social status and wealth? What if we live in a hotter climate?
In my opinion, if business formal is reduced to a shirt and tie (a relic of the cravat) because it is too hot, one should probably not be wearing a tie either -- clothing customs should not be transplanted from colder climates to warmer climates. More climate-appropriate clothing should be developed. (Some traditionalists believe priests should wear a cassock everywhere, even in missionary territories in Africa or some other tropical region.) The modern Western suit is derived from court fashion in Northern Europe and elsewhere; it was worn regardless of the temperature outside. This was not a source of discomfort during colder times, but to wear a jacket when it is hot and humid? This does not seem to be very rational--a case of duty and appearance over comfort? Or it may be that we prefer what is familiar to us; we may try to replicate in a new environment what we have left behind. But why can't one have noble appearance and comfort? Is the "tyranny of unthinking custom" holding us back? Rather than wear something more sensible, we instead consume a lot of electricity for air conditioning.
Our received forms of clothing may be a custom unto itself. But what prevents innovation? Does it have to be gradual in order to be legitimate? What of the transformation of the jacket, which might be characterized as a gradual reduction in length and elimination of other parts (an excessive number of buttons, for example)? The waistcoat/vest has fallen into disuse, for the most part. (Except as a part of formal wear.) Who should be introducing change? Our so-called fashion designers? And why should one bourgeois standard apply to all? Americans like to think of themselves as egalitarians -- perhaps that is the biggest obstacle preventing different trades and classes from having their specific standards for clothing.
Now, it may be that the elites nonetheless continue wearing a tie and expect this from those who are subordinate to them. Should they have this much power over a society? Wage slaves may not have a choice; if they wish to have a job they will have to adhere to the company dress code.
I'm starting to enjoy wearing dress shirts more, but the ones that are off-the-rack are, as one might expect, ill-fitting.
Edit. (1/28/10) See this post at The Spearhead: Outside Observations
Edit. (2/13/02) Rod Dreher on piercings and other forms of body mutilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment