On being ‘appropriate’

[JJ Katz]

Some time ago, I began a thread on the topic of ‘overdressing’ which generated an extended discussion, not just on overdressing but also on the related issue of ‘proper’ dress. A couple of more recent threads (“Are neckties going to go the way of bowties?”, etc.) have also delved into the issue of what constitutes dressing ‘appropriately’ for an occasion.

This thread is NOT to discuss where formality in dress is headed or whether we like it or not. It is purely an examination of the concept of appropriate clothing and how one might define it.

In years back, I subscribed to the Esquire archive and spent a fair amount of time leafing through the 1930s issues. Marvellous illustrations, quality articles., etc. One thing that really struck me, though, was the high percentage of adverts which stressed that their product was ‘correct’. It projected a real sense of insecurity and/or social conformism. “Sure, this is a good product at a good price, etc. but above all else no one will eb able to criticise you for it. It’s correct!”

US (generally ‘Western’) society has come to advocate a great deal more individual autonomy, since then, but evidently this consideration remains an issue to some degree. Indeed, it is my impression that recent years have seen a less liberal attitude towards personal choice, in many spheres.

I will start with three definitions of ‘appropriate’ dress that I think are implicit in some comments posted on Styleforum but with which I disagree.

(1) Appropriate dress is clothing which matches quite closely (exactly) what ‘everyone’ else is wearing at a given time/place. Certainly, it is clothing that will not occasion remark.

(2) Appropriate dress is clothing that will not elicit a negative impression or response in anyone present.

(3) Appropriate dress is clothing that conforms to the prescriptive, comprehensive rules that were very broadly shared well into the mid to late 20th C.

The first and greatest issue I have with any of these definitions is that they misuse the term ‘inappropriate’; they are exaggerated. If you are not dressed appropriately, you have committed a minor but very real faux pas. You are being borderline rude. There are modes of dress which may not be low-profile, or politically astute or signal group membership or elite status or down-at-heel status but are not as bad as ‘inappropriate.’

Addressing specific definitions, I think that (1) is very anti-individualist / conformist / illiberal. It seems to me absurd that in a society where much more profound personal choices are sacralised, dressing just like everyone else should be in any way considered necessary or proper. I don’t disagree that there may be personal disadvantages to standing out from the crowd (in this and any other manner) but that isn’t the same thing as saying it is not appropriate. Expediency and correctness are not synonymous, in a liberal ontology.

The problem with (2) is that it requires substantial qualification. Some people will take offence at non-conformist clothing (1), or clothing that they arbitrarily conflate with a negative ‘identity’, or clothing that they simply have an aesthetic distaste for. I think (2) is a definition that leaves nearly any clothing choice open to criticism.

Definition (3) seems to me anachronistic and, from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, also clearly illiberal.

So, what does constitute appropriate/inappropriate clothing? Building on the terms I used in the overdressing post, I would say that one is dressed inappropriately for an occasion if:

(a) clothes are soiled / noxious / in tatters, when not engaging in physically ‘dirty’ labour.

(b) clothes prevent participation in the core activity.

(c) clothes do not conform to a clear dress code been specified by the hosts.

(d) clothes formality / elegance in very sharp contrast to what one might reasonably expect to experience in that context.

(e) clothes so flamboyant or anachronistic to be a distraction, when in a particularly sombre context

What should be immediately apparent is that these rules would suggest that a relatively broad range of clothing is ‘appropriate’, with the exception of rather specific situations.

Thoughts? Specific settings / situations you have in mind?

 

[stdavidshead]

I think this has the potential to be a really interesting conversation. Thank you for starting it.

I'm having a little trouble understanding the difference between some of the definitions you agree and disagree with. For example, what is the difference between the two definitions below? For example, is it "inappropriate" to wear a dark suit to a black tie optional event where the hosts clearly expect most guests to wear black tie? If we dispense with definition (1) but not (d), it seems to me that we get conflicting answers.

(1) Appropriate dress is clothing which matches quite closely (exactly) what ‘everyone’ else is wearing at a given time/place. Certainly, it is clothing that will not occasion remark.

(c) clothes do not conform to a clear dress code been specified by the hosts.

Indeed, given the lettered definitions, I don't see the problem with (1) at all. What sometimes gets lost in conversations about individuality and clothing is that dress isn't just a matter of personal expression for most people. It also helps us associate with a group of people. One could call this illiberal or anti-individual, but it strikes me as communal in a fairly positive way.

Said differently: wearing the similar clothes to other people in a given time/place is a relatively easy and low-risk way to "belong" to a group, as it doesn't require us to change anything about ourselves. I'm the same person in my "midtown uniform" as I am in my tuxedo, so it doesn't seem like a concession of individuality or liberty to dress in a similar mode to others in a social context.

 

[JJ Katz]

For example, is it "inappropriate" to wear a dark suit to a black tie optional event where the hosts clearly expect most guests to wear black tie? If we dispense with definition (1) but not (d), it seems to me that we get conflicting answers.

Good example! I think that there is clearly a difference between writing "black tie", which to mean would mean anything other than black tie (and, possibly, white tie) would be at least somewhat inappropriate and "black tie optional",]. the title says it all; I would think anyone in a decently dark suit and necktie is perfectly alright at a black tie optional event.

So, a man in a dark blue/charcoal suit, white shirt and serious tie is not, I think we can say objectively, in sharp contrast to people in varying degrees of tux. What I had in mind with (d) is someone who goes to a reasonably smart (even if not out-and-out 'formal') wedding in jeans and a polo or, vice versa, someone who goes to a backyard cookout in the US in a suit. Both would be sharply different from most (all) people there and that is arguably inappropriate. But someone in a fairly "day" suit at a formal wedding or someone with loafers, chinos and an OCBD at that cookout would not, in my opinion, be actually "inappropriate", just somewhat diferent.

I don't see the problem with (1) at all. What sometimes gets lost in conversations about individuality and clothing is that dress isn't just a matter of personal expression for most people. It also helps us associate with a group of people.

Said differently: wearing the similar clothes to other people in a given time/place is a relatively easy and low-risk way to "belong" to a group, as it doesn't require us to change anything about ourselves. I'm the same person in my "midtown uniform" as I am in my tuxedo, so it doesn't seem like a concession of individuality or liberty to dress in a similar mode to others in a social context.

I completely agree that it might make sense to try to fit in more and that it has, often, a value. I'm just disagreeing that it is "inappropriate" or "wrong" or impolite to diverge from the norm/mode, except than in the more extreme forms I have outlined.

Hope that is clearer.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Good discussion.

Another issue is that a lot of those who try to define appropriate dress limit their discussion to their region and look down on all others.
for example,”The CCC” (California Caj Crew) wants everyone dressed in sports coats, off trousers, a button down and derbies or loafers with a bright puffy loud attention seeking pocket square.

while That look might be cool if your goal is the lower end of classic menswear, as in their region if they wear a tie they feel uncomfortable, that doesn’t make it the only outfit. Some people still have lifestyles or live in locations where they don’t need to dumb down their outfits by overdoing the Caj side of CM. Some people don’t want (or have to) to look like Cal Caj Drones or adhere to the Biz Caj+ Uniform

yet “The CCC” push this “Cal Caj” (or “Biz Caj+”) look like it’s gospel.

unfortunately The CCC has a lot of pull here due to their numbers and voluminous postings so we just have to deal with them, like mosquitoes during a New England summer evening.

 

[jack webb]

Interesting discussion. I am open to persuasion but my first cut at the problem would define appropriate as what a 'reasonable' person within the given milieu would not take offense at. So (for example) two guests at two separate weddings, one in a very affluent community and the other in a deeply impoverished one, could both be dressed very appropriately, yet very differently.

Of course this all depends on what is meant by 'reasonable.' Maybe you have to sneak up on it by citing what it is not. To take an example from a poster above, anybody who expects everybody within a certain region to adopt a certain style of dress I would not take to be reasonable.

 

[TheChihuahua]

To take an example from a poster above, anybody who expects everybody within a certain region to adopt a certain style of dress I would not take to be reasonable.

So you would agree that we don’t all need to dress like this? There is more to dressing well in 2021 than Biz Caj+ or Cal Caj?

 

[JJ Katz]

…define appropriate as what a 'reasonable' person within the given milieu would not take offense at.
…anybody who expects everybody within a certain region to adopt a certain style of dress I would not take to be reasonable.

I can live with your definition since it would only be reasonable to take offence at a really egregious departure from the norm/practically/decency. It matches my concept that there is a broad range that is appropriate (as opposed to, say, stylish or tasteful).