Opinions on Bruce Boyer's article "Dressed Up" - thoughtfulness, thoughtlessness, class, etc...

[oulipien]

Tailored clothing isn't just all gray flannel suits with white shirts. There can be incredible nuance in material, color, pattern, etc.

Sure, there can be. But there doesn't have to be, and the point about "the man in the gray flannel suit" and "the blue serge and gray flannel and pinstripe international" isn't that back then no one thought about dress, but that the existence of a strong norm and strong rules is that it enables you to do so. You just go with the flow, follow the rules. Yeah, you can be an enthusiast, too, but you can be an enthusiast about denim, and the details you think about will likely be completely invisible to a lot of people.

I think it's just a fact about norms—in general, not just about clothing—is that one of the things they do is enable strategic thoughtlessness in things where what matters or is perceived to matter is that there's an answer, but almost any answer would be acceptable.

 

[FrankCowperwood]

A hundred years ago, the average person would have had to think more about their clothes because they held more social meaning. There were social consequences to breaking norms, which just aren't as serious anymore.

I won't argue that there were perhaps consequences for breaking norms, for instance in dress, in the past that don't exist now. Whether that's a good thing or not, is another thing.

But did dressing in the past really require more thought for the average person or simply more effort? I'd think that the average man in a suit in the past may well not have been particularly attuned to the intricacies of meaning in Apparel Arts. He would likely have known, if I shop at this store, I'll come away with something that's considered acceptable. But that would be more intuition than thoughtfulness. The same intuition would be applied today through a basic understanding of brands that are acceptable within whatever social circles you move (as G Transistor is saying I believe).

But returning to the man of the past, I doubt he was thinking more about what he was wearing. But he certainly had to put more effort into what he was wearing, putting on a suit, tie, hat, etc. for situations that simply don't require that level of effort today. So if we magically return to that style of dress, some few men will be aware of all the very detailed rules, but most will go to Men's Warehouse and buy the suit that's essentially labeled as minimally socially acceptable. In fact, for those who find a need for a suit today, that's probably what happens most of the time. And what was the benefit to the average man of putting in that effort?

 

[LA Guy]

`

But that just demonstrates how little clothes matter now and how easy it can be to be thoughtless. A hundred years ago, you could have the same standard for subjectivity, but the person would have to also ask for the communitarian norm. That requires a bit of thoughtfulness and awareness. You don't have that anymore.

I'm a bit confused now, because you essentially stated a few posts ago that the communitarian norm today (which spurred my random tangent) is tees and cargo shorts. That it's hard to deviate from that level of dress suggests that people have the same social awareness as existed previously.

The issue with wearing a suit to your casual job today is precisely that you've broken the rules of dress. However, the consequences are just not as dire as they might have been previously. You'll just have to take **** from your co-workers, which really isn't that bad, even if you are the most sensitive of flowers. I'd argue that this is a benefit if you believe in an egalitarian society, or a meritocracy of any sort.

 

[dieworkwear]

What I'm saying is that even if there is less thoughtfulness in clothing, is it a bad thing?

Yea, I don't know if it's a bad thing. It's certainly ugly, and ugliness is bad. But the break down of dress codes, as I wrote a few pages back, comes hand in hand with other socially liberal developments. And it's hard for me to imagine how the two can be separated. If we don't have strict codes of behavior for anything else -- gender, sexuality, class, race, etc -- we probably feel the same about things like dress codes (partly because those things were initially tied to those categories). On a whole, I think liberalism is good, even if I have communitarian sympathies.

I do think, for all the critiques that communitarians have against liberals, the same could be said about clothes. It would probably be easier to feel a sense of group identity if we shared the same dress codes. And there are real losses to society when there isn't a shared sense of group identity -- even if you're a die hard liberal. Civic service, community policing, voter participation, etc.

Sure, there can be. But there doesn't have to be, and the point about "the man in the gray flannel suit" and "the blue serge and gray flannel and pinstripe international" isn't that back then no one thought about dress, but that the existence of a strong norm and strong rules is that it enables you to do so. You just go with the flow, follow the rules. Yeah, you can be an enthusiast, too, but you can be an enthusiast about denim, and the details you think about will likely be completely invisible to a lot of people.

Not sure what you're arguing. Earlier, I was saying this isn't about how niche communities can put as much thought into their dress as people in the early 20th century. Yes, choosing sneakers can be as thoughtful as choosing a tie. But community norms existed 100 years ago in the way they don't exist now -- and consequences aren't as serious. You can perfectly get by with just jeans and a t-shirt, and most people do.

You live in the Bay Area right? I mean, when you go outside, do you really think men put that much thought into their clothes? On average? Some guys downtown might wear the whole raw denim with a button down thing cause they care about their appearance, but they tend to be in their 20s or whatever. Most guy older than 35 are just wearing whatever.

I won't argue that there were perhaps consequences for breaking norms, for instance in dress, in the past that don't exist now. Whether that's a good thing or not, is another thing.

But did dressing in the past really require more thought for the average person or simply more effort? I'd think that the average man in a suit in the past may well not have been particularly attuned to the intricacies of meaning in Apparel Arts. He would likely have known, if I shop at this store, I'll come away with something that's considered acceptable. But that would be more intuition than thoughtfulness. The same intuition would be applied today through a basic understanding of brands that are acceptable within whatever social circles you move (as G Transistor is saying I believe).

But returning to the man of the past, I doubt he was thinking more about what he was wearing. But he certainly had to put more effort into what he was wearing, putting on a suit, tie, hat, etc. for situations that simply don't require that level of effort today. So if we magically return to that style of dress, some few men will be aware of all the very detailed rules, but most will go to Men's Warehouse and buy the suit that's essentially labeled as minimally socially acceptable. In fact, for those who find a need for a suit today, that's probably what happens most of the time. And what was the benefit to the average man of putting in that effort?

The average guy on the street in 1930 probably was unaware of Apparel Arts, but clothes were deeply tied into norms around politeness. See how people treated accessories such as gloves and hats. There were a lot of social codes around things like that, which were considered just "polite society" -- even for poor people.

I don't buy that brands matter that much to the average guy over the age of 35. Clothes matter a lot to young people, true, but that holds true a hundred years ago. For the working guy today, over the age of 35, you can get by perfectly fine with the generic stuff you find at Gap. Nobody cares. It's literally jeans or chinos + t-shirt or button up. That suits 100% of every occasion. Even G-Transistor above talks about how people are wearing chinos and polos to funerals because it's their version of dressing up. Which is ... basically what they use for every activity besides mowing a lawn.

 

[g transistor]

If you take dress norms as totally subjective, even within the same social group, then do they really mean anything at all? If most of us agree that a funeral requires a coat and tie (and I think that's a reasonable standard for most groups), and someone shows up to the event in khakis and polos -- yes, he won't be thrown out. And yes, it might be "dressed up" to him. But that just demonstrates how little clothes matter now and how easy it can be to be thoughtless. A hundred years ago, you could have the same standard for subjectivity, but the person would have to also ask for the communitarian norm. That requires a bit of thoughtfulness and awareness. You don't have that anymore.

Not that dress norms are totally subjective, bứt thật norms change depending on community and time. it depends on the funeral, just like it depends on the wedding. My point with that is that the person is still generally being thoughtful with his dress within his own community, and that seems to not be good enough for Boyer.

I think what is getting lost in this discussion is what we consider the "level of thoughtfulness," which I don't think has changed, and @FrankCowperwood gets to. Because I think that people still have to look to their communities for proper dress, it's just that there is a lot more diversity in what is considered acceptable. There is still awareness and thoughtfulness; it just doesn't always default to menswear anymore.

 

[LA Guy]

But did dressing in the past really require more thought for the average person or simply more effort? I'd think that the average man in a suit in the past may well not have been particularly attuned to the intricacies of meaning in Apparel Arts. He would likely have known, if I shop at this store, I'll come away with something that's considered acceptable. But that would be more intuition than thoughtfulness. The same intuition would be applied today through a basic understanding of brands that are acceptable within whatever social circles you move (as G Transistor is saying I believe).

But returning to the man of the past, I doubt he was thinking more about what he was wearing. But he certainly had to put more effort into what he was wearing, putting on a suit, tie, hat, etc. for situations that simply don't require that level of effort today. So if we magically return to that style of dress, some few men will be aware of all the very detailed rules, but most will go to Men's Warehouse and buy the suit that's essentially labeled as minimally socially acceptable. In fact, for those who find a need for a suit today, that's probably what happens most of the time. And what was the benefit to the average man of putting in that effort?

The bolded part makes me think of this:

from http://dieworkwear.com/post/75601219981/1930s-esquire-and-apparel-arts-illustrations

I do think that the man of the past did think more about what he was wearing, but because he was forced to, because the social penalties for getting something wrong would have been more socially costly. Not sure that that is a good thing.

 

[dieworkwear]

`
I'm a bit confused now, because you essentially stated a few posts ago that the communitarian norm today (which spurred my random tangent) is tees and cargo shorts. That it's hard to deviate from that level of dress suggests that people have the same social awareness as existed previously.

The issue with wearing a suit to your casual job today is precisely that you've broken the rules of dress. However, the consequences are just not as dire as they might have been previously. You'll just have to take **** from your co-workers, which really isn't that bad, even if you are the most sensitive of flowers. I'd argue that this is a benefit if you believe in an egalitarian society, or a meritocracy of any sort.

Communitarianism and liberalism here aren't synonymous with community and individual. Liberalism is the old 18th century European idea that the individual exists outside of the community - a true self, which should be protected from "the tyranny of the masses." Very roughly speaking, communitarianism is the idea that the individual self is defined by the community, or at least needs the community to survive, so community interests should often take precedent over individual interests.

In popular politics, this could manifest itself in all sorts of ways. Maybe we identify ourselves as a Judeo Christian nation, and we think homosexuality is wrong. We also think homosexual behavior harms the overall group -- it has social consequences (accepting depravity, harming of children, etc). If, there are people in our group who are homosexual, a strict communitarian view is that they should just conform to the group, otherwise we not only see a breakdown of the community, but (as important for a communitarian) a breakdown of our group identity. We put group interests ahead of the individual. In a liberal view, there's basically "live and let live" so long as you're not physically harming someone else. We aren't beholden to the group and don't have to accept group identity.

So yes, today, we have community norms around dress, but they're not communitarian norms. You have to wear clothes outside, you can't just walk around naked, but you can basically wear whatever you want. As liberalism has developed, we've broken formal codes for almost everything -- behaviors around race, gender, sexuality, and clothing. If I put on a cowboy hat today, I'm not harming anyone, so let me be. There's no reason for you to take offense or socially shame me (two communitarian weapons). Just let me wear what I want.

Boyer puts forward a few ideas. One is that the overall thoughtfulness is lower; people dress sloppier; and he's posing the old suit and tie look against the cargo shorts and tees combo you see everywhere today. Individual comfort usually overrides any other standard or social code. He thinks people should take a bit more self pride in how they present themselves. I assume he also feels that the communitarian standard also exemplified a sort of thoughtfulness for other people (a level of respect for their experiences), which goes hand in hand with his concern for other populist issues (I don't think it's so much as noblesse oblige, as it is just a general concern).

I view the breakdown of dress codes as a consequence of liberalism -- a kind of ironing out of liberal ideology since the French Revolution, which for clothes, went into hyperdrive after WWII. No coincidence that the first major break from tailored clothing was toward "prole" staples -- jeans, chambrays, motorcycle jackets, work boots, chinos, military jackets, etc. Not even reinvented for civilian use, but straight taken from the work fields. That seems very democratic in sensibility to me.

To the degree this can be posed as communitarian influences vs. individualism, Bruce thinks that men are too afraid of deviating from groups today. He thinks they should assert some individuality and break from the lowered dress standards. Which is how this communitarian/ liberalism and community/ individual paradigm maybe got fuzzy.

Some people argued above that people are just as thoughtful with their dress today as they were 100 years ago. That's probably true for some people, but I don't think it's true on average. Clothes just don't matter as much anymore, so aside from some people who care about vain appearances, most get by just fine in whatever fits. The average guy today over 40 probably can't even name ten clothing brands (let alone care enough to stick to them).

 

[FrankCowperwood]

Duly noted. Will switch out my conservative business dress 3-piece for my RO drop crotch shorts for the Cubs game tonight.

Meant to reply to this. Yes, acceptable as long as you are wearing a "We Did Not Suck" tee with those shorts.

 

[LA Guy]

Communitarianism and liberalism here aren't synonymous with community and individual. Liberalism is the old 18th century European idea that the individual exists outside of the community - a true self, which should be protected from "the tyranny of the masses." Very roughly speaking, communitarianism is the idea that the individual self is defined by the community, or at least needs the community to survive, so community interests should often take precedent over individual interests.

In popular politics, this could manifest itself in all sorts of ways. Maybe we identify ourselves as a Judeo Christian nation, and we think homosexuality is wrong. We also think homosexual behavior harms the overall group -- it has social consequences (accepting depravity, harming of children, etc). If, there are people in our group who are homosexual, a strict communitarian view is that they should just conform to the group, otherwise we not only see a breakdown of the community, but (as important for a communitarian) a breakdown of our group identity. We put group interests ahead of the individual. In a liberal view, there's basically "live and let live" so long as you're not physically harming someone else. We aren't beholden to the group and don't have to accept group identity.

So yes, today, we have community norms around dress, but they're not communitarian norms. You have to wear clothes outside, you can't just walk around naked, but you can basically wear whatever you want. As liberalism has developed, we've broken formal codes for almost everything -- behaviors around race, gender, sexuality, and clothing. If I put on a cowboy hat today, I'm not harming anyone, so let me be. There's no reason for you to take offense or socially shame me (two communitarian weapons). Just let me wear what I want.

Boyer puts forward a few ideas. One is that the overall thoughtfulness is lower; people dress sloppier; and he's posing the old suit and tie look against the cargo shorts and tees combo you see everywhere today. Individual comfort usually overrides any other standard or social code. He thinks people should take a bit more self pride in how they present themselves. I assume he also feels that the communitarian standard also exemplified a sort of thoughtfulness for other people (a level of respect for their experiences), which goes hand in hand with his concern for other populist issues (I don't think it's so much as noblesse oblige, as it is just a general concern).

I view the breakdown of dress codes as a consequence of liberalism -- a kind of ironing out of liberal ideology since the French Revolution, which for clothes, went into hyperdrive after WWII. No coincidence that the first major break from tailored clothing was toward "prole" staples -- jeans, chambrays, motorcycle jackets, work boots, chinos, military jackets, etc. Not even reinvented for civilian use, but straight taken from the work fields. That seems very democratic in sensibility to me.

To the degree this can be posed as communitarian influences vs. individualism, Bruce thinks that men are too afraid of deviating from groups today. He thinks they should assert some individuality and break from the lowered dress standards. Which is how this communitarian/ liberalism and community/ individual paradigm maybe got fuzzy.

Some people argued above that people are just as thoughtful with their dress today as they were 100 years ago. That's probably true for some people, but I don't think it's true on average. Clothes just don't matter as much anymore, so aside from some people who care about vain appearances, most get by just fine in whatever fits. The average guy today over 40 probably can't even name ten clothing brands (let alone care enough to stick to them).

I'm not really THAT confused - though my rhetorical flourishes apparently need some help.

I understand's Bruce's point, which seems to be a confused one. At the same time as decrying the breakdown of standards, he thinks that more men should break from the current standard? Doesn't make that much sense, right? I like Bruce, but unfortunately have to agree that his essay is not particularly well considered.

Social norms are subjective. The suit and tie is casual and frankly, very easy, compared to what came before for "polite society", and the labyrinth rules were implicitly or explicitly meant to exclude pretenders or identify outsiders. The introduction of Pierre in War and Peace, an explicit description of his awkwardness and strangeness in Russian polite society, is at least in part revealed through his dress as well as his posture and bearing. The rules of dress previous to the adoption of the business suit required both more money and more knowledge of nuanced, archaic rules. Post WWII - the adoption of the "lounge suit" as the universal uniform of business, combined with the industrialization of clothing manufacture, was a democratizing force, as every man could now adopt the uniform.

I think that the "casualization" of modern dress is just another step in the same direction. Rules are even easier to understand (you have to be an actual moron to not know how to put on a polo and a pair of khakis) and the potency of Communitarian "weapons" are even more degraded.

Those weapons still exist though - they are the reason that you are not going to wear your three piece to work - unless you don't care that your work friends are going to give you crap and call you "GQ" or whatever are the remaining Communitarian weapons about dress exist. Bruce isn't calling so much for a return to old standards as he is reacting to current standards. He doesn't want to wear khakis and polos!

Incidentally, @oulipien , Durkheim's understanding of fashion cycles was, at best, rudimentary. Emulation of another class has never been only "poor people aspiring to look like rich people". The adoption by members of the upper strata of societies of the trappings of poorer people and/or subcultures is nothing new, and there has always been a keen interest in wealthy people in the perceived closeness of poor people to simpler, more primitive, pleasures. The interaction between classes, imo, always seem overly simplified by Mid 19th century thinkers. I suppose that that is not surprising, seeing that we are looking at their work with a 150+ year head start.

 

[happyriverz]

Meant to reply to this. Yes, acceptable as long as you are wearing a "We Did Not Suck" tee with those shorts.

Persobally I think the break down of strict dress norms is great. It's liberating to know that no one gives a **** what you are wearing. I could be wearing a tee that looks like a dress with my RO drop crotch shorts to the Cubs game where everyone else is in team gear and no one gives a ****.

 

[noob in 89]

Tailored clothing isn't just all gray flannel suits with white shirts. There can be incredible nuance...one cuff button is sporty; three slightly spaced apart a bit Ivy; four formal, etc.

God, this sounds like the tired old movie joke about the buttoned-up killjoy who puts on a blue tie every now and then and feels like a WILD MAN!.

 

[Patrick R]

I think there are plenty of people that really do care about what you wear. Some act offended when you aren't in their uniform of cargo shorts, a polo or t-shirt, and flip flops. In a work environment, I've seen plenty of guys ridiculed for being a "tie guy" when everyone else is business casual. The closer to the norm you are, the less you draw comments, positive and negative. I imagine that's always been true. Today, the norm is just more casual.

 

[kashmir]

I love tailoring, but I do think the matching suit and tie look, with whatever social baggage people attach to it nowadays, is on its last legs.
But sport coats (the craft of coatmaking) and its variations (see SWD blazers thread!) shall remain. Look at what Eidos, EG, Yohji, or maybe Boglioli is/ has been doing.. I hope the future of tailoring is heading that way.

 

[Greycheck]

Would like to see the series. I'm not yet up to WWII in the books. Haven't picked them up in a while but may now. They are striking for how intimate they feel and for Powell's interest in the visual arts, painting in particular (and so I guess the title of the cycle). For a writer he is very attuned to the visual. In contrast say to using music as the cultural reference point.

Worth mentioning in this forum - one of the recurring themes, Widmerpool's otherness, is demonstrated by his badly chosen, ill-fitting, or otherwise odd clothing, starting with the infamous overcoat.

 

[mensimageconsultant]

This answer is being given in a hurry and might not be as good as the subject deserves. Nevertheless...
While people might not make as much effort as they used to, they should. For society is not as close-knit as it once was, yet the human need to find belonging is. People cannot count on being known by most individuals they encounter nor having much in common (in tastes, values, experiences, and more). They need to say how they are visually. Furthermore, since thinking about that regularly is tiring, it is best they figure how to develop personal style through fit, color palette, formality range, amount of variety, brands, etc., in accordance with personality traits, life situation, etc. On top of that, it's best to do so subtly (e.g., dress somewhat like others), to still get along on a basic level with a wide range of people. There's also reason to look reasonably physically attractive through clothing, because rightly or wrongly that's one reason people want to know, or likely more so minimize interaction with, others in the first place.

If many people cannot look at you and somewhat accurately and not negatively assess you and your life, more thought probably is needed as to how you dress.