stdavidshead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2021
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 79
In connection with my annual spring cleaning, I have been thinking a lot about authenticity – what is “authentic” on whom? Since this place has been so level-headed recently, I figured I’d share some thoughts.
I think there are three types of inauthenticity:
Type 1: Stolen valor. The wearing of insignia of some association (regimental, masonic, philanthropic, etc.) which one does not have the “right” to wear, as determined by that association. Alternatively, consciously purchasing "fakes".
Type 2: “Appropriation”, either across cultures or classes. Some examples: creative class members dressing like lumberjacks (I appreciate this reference is dated by roughly a decade), wearing an Astrakhan despite not being Central Asian.
Type 3: Clothing or accessories that suggest a hobby/activity in which one does not actually participate. Some examples might be wearing a double rider when one does not ride a motorcycle, or a dive watch when one does not dive.
I doubt anyone would seriously defend Type 1 as authentic behavior. Conversely, I doubt Type 3 is actually inauthentic. My examples are not purposely anodyne. Reasonable people don’t see a Rolex Submariner on the bloated wrist of a pear-shaped banker and assume that he is (or is trying to pass as) a Jacques Cousteau type. That leaves Type 2 as the only controversial category.
I’d argue that Type 2 is actually a subspecies of Type 3. At worst it is boring (like the aforementioned Sub), but sometimes it produces something interesting – dare I say beautiful. Further it’s been going on forever, and it is essentially impossible to delineate what belongs to whom.
It is no exaggeration to say that Type 2 has been going on since the beginning of History. Thucydides noted that the Spartan elite were the first to copy the “modest” style of the commoner’s clothing, which the Athenian elite subsequently copied. (It is amusing to think of Spartan peasant duds as a sort of 5th century Engineered Garments).
Unlike a masonic ring or a Purple Heart, it is also essentially impossible to assign many design elements/materials to a single provenance. For example, who owns Madras sack jackets– yachting-while-drunk WASPs or the inhabitants of Chennai? If these things don’t belong to a single group (again, contrast with Masons, U.S. military personnel killed or wounded while serving), don’t they belong to everyone?
What am I missing?
I think there are three types of inauthenticity:
Type 1: Stolen valor. The wearing of insignia of some association (regimental, masonic, philanthropic, etc.) which one does not have the “right” to wear, as determined by that association. Alternatively, consciously purchasing "fakes".
Type 2: “Appropriation”, either across cultures or classes. Some examples: creative class members dressing like lumberjacks (I appreciate this reference is dated by roughly a decade), wearing an Astrakhan despite not being Central Asian.
Type 3: Clothing or accessories that suggest a hobby/activity in which one does not actually participate. Some examples might be wearing a double rider when one does not ride a motorcycle, or a dive watch when one does not dive.
I doubt anyone would seriously defend Type 1 as authentic behavior. Conversely, I doubt Type 3 is actually inauthentic. My examples are not purposely anodyne. Reasonable people don’t see a Rolex Submariner on the bloated wrist of a pear-shaped banker and assume that he is (or is trying to pass as) a Jacques Cousteau type. That leaves Type 2 as the only controversial category.
I’d argue that Type 2 is actually a subspecies of Type 3. At worst it is boring (like the aforementioned Sub), but sometimes it produces something interesting – dare I say beautiful. Further it’s been going on forever, and it is essentially impossible to delineate what belongs to whom.
It is no exaggeration to say that Type 2 has been going on since the beginning of History. Thucydides noted that the Spartan elite were the first to copy the “modest” style of the commoner’s clothing, which the Athenian elite subsequently copied. (It is amusing to think of Spartan peasant duds as a sort of 5th century Engineered Garments).
Unlike a masonic ring or a Purple Heart, it is also essentially impossible to assign many design elements/materials to a single provenance. For example, who owns Madras sack jackets– yachting-while-drunk WASPs or the inhabitants of Chennai? If these things don’t belong to a single group (again, contrast with Masons, U.S. military personnel killed or wounded while serving), don’t they belong to everyone?
What am I missing?