Responding to "the suit died for good reasons"

[dieworkwear]

Let me see if I can re-state some points in a different way.
I'll write what (I think) you think. And, if you feel like it, you can correct the bit about what you think until it reflects your belief but with a prayer, on my part, fro conciseness:

You perceive a clear progressive trend in history from obscurantist prejudice, oppression and exclusion towards ever greater enlightenment, freedom and unity.

You similarly perceive a constant trend in attire from the renaissance splendour/gaudiness to modern athleisure wear.

You conflate or twin these two shining paths and so think that ever more succinct, unstructured, convenient, unadorned clothing is an inevitable result of ever greater liberalism and indeed reinforces it (maybe is even necessary to it?).

You see instinctive, spontaneous, untutored behaviour, art and taste as authentic, democratic and admirable.

You say that we live in a golden age of aesthetics, if only one accepts that Las Vegas, Crocs, Lululemon, reality TV, Escalades, Taylor Swift and Jeff Koons are not inherently inferior to Baroque Rome, brogues, suits, Channel 4, 1930s cars, Mozart and Caravaggio.

I mean, yes, but without all the strange phrases about "untutored behavior" (what does that even mean, except for disguised classism?).

I'm saying there was a world before liberalism and it was awful. The best way to understand that world is to read the original Counter Enlightenment thinkers who fought against liberals. They wanted irrational societies based on church and throne, with extreme violence and excessive hierachy, denying people of their freedom because it was thought that man is bad.

Then liberals came along and, while they weren't united on many things, they broadly agreed that man was, if not good, at least not bad. And there was a possibility of a rational society based on science, Enlightenment values, and individual freedom. That eventually lead to the many things we all care about (even if we care about different things). Most people value some of the protections and rights liberalism has given them.

At its heart, liberalism is a celebration of the common man -- the idea that everyone is born with an inherent dignity and the intelligence to understand their own best interest. And that celebration of the common man, at different eras, has pushed fashion towards the more and more "common." At first it was about British leaders giving up the more orate and otherwordly forms of dress, so they could look more modest, puritan, and democratic. Then it meant gentlemen gave up frock coats for working man clothes/ casualwear (what you now seem to worship as proper gentlemen's dress was, again, once beachwear). Then that was considered Establishment when the US put up guys like Marlon Brando in t-shirts, jeans, and leather jackets -- again, the cowboy look of a different era. The rebel look is a celebration of the individual and common man. And it caught out for the very reasons why dress always moved in the same direction. Because we generally cheer for the common man, the underdog.

Think of every great American film about class. Here's a scene from The Outsiders, where working-class Greasers Ponyboy and Johnny stab one of the preppy-clad Socs. Most people cheer, if not at least sympathize, with the Greasers. Not because they're getting beat-up in this scene, but because of how most people feel about underdogs in general.



Now reverse that scene so that the preppy Socs are getting beat up by Greasers, and one of the preps stabs Johnny. Would it have read differently? Of course, because the scene (and film in general) isn't just about who beats up who -- it's about class. And our sentiment about the film is tied to our feelings about class.

That sentiment reaches all the way back to a 17th century philosophy that, even if you haven't read it, is deeply intuitive in all of us. And it's also the sentiment that has driven the broadening and flattening of dress codes, as well as ever-more "common" sense of dress.

One of your earlier posts said something about Ivy Style, so I assume you like classic American dress. How does someone who appreciates a more American aesthetic argue against casualization? The suit as day-wear, the two-piece suit, seersucker and madras, button down collars, penny loafers, tassel loafers, Shetland sweaters, critter pants, Bean boots, mountain parkas, chinos, oxford cloth, three-roll-two instead of hard two, hook vents, soft shoulders, etc. Even in your very narrowly defined aesthetic, all these things were once considered the lazy, casual, messy alternative to a more buttoned-up, proper, and formal look. Your position lacks an appreciation of history.

Again, why stop at Ivy Style? Why not dress like this guy? He'd prob look at you and think you're a dirty untutored and vulgar commoner.

 

[emptym]

Wait, wait, wait. DWW, how did Hillary Clinton kill the suit?

 

[dieworkwear]

Wait, wait, wait. DWW, how did Hillary Clinton kill the suit?

Hillary deleted proper and elegant dress along with her 33,000 emails.

 

[dieworkwear]

You say that we live in a golden age of aesthetics, if only one accepts that Las Vegas, Crocs, Lululemon, reality TV, Escalades, Taylor Swift and Jeff Koons are not inherently inferior to Baroque Rome, brogues, suits, Channel 4, 1930s cars, Mozart and Caravaggio.

Allow me to blow your mind ...

 

[emptym]

Hillary deleted proper and elegant dress along with her 33,000 emails.

Ah, I thought it was by wearing one.

 

[emptym]

...
I'm saying there was a world before liberalism and it was awful. The best way to understand that world is to read the original Counter Enlightenment thinkers who fought against liberals. They wanted irrational societies based on church and throne, with extreme violence and excessive hierachy, denying people of their freedom because it was thought that man is bad.
...
At its heart, liberalism is a celebration of the common man -- the idea that everyone is born with an inherent dignity and the intelligence to understand their own best interest...

Yeah, it was a case of people going from one extreme to another -- from the Reformers' virtual demonization of human nature (conflating nature and sin) to the secular modern virtual idolatry of it (getting rid of sin, or praising it).

But "the celebration of the common man -- the idea that everyone is born with an inherent dignity and the intelligence to understand their own best interest" can be traced back to religion.

Nietzsche famously lamented the Jewish and Christian celebration of common people, which is traced back to Jesus's disruptive love for those least loved and the Genesis claim that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. The respect for individual self-determination is traced back to the fact that God grants us freedom (and thus responsibility). It's so strong in Catholicism that Thomas Aquinas argued that if one's conscience disagrees w/ the church or other forms of human authority, one should go with one's conscience.

 

[classicalthunde]

Overall @dieworkwear I agree with your defense and, particularly the relativistic counter point to @JJ Katz's response. However, I think it is interesting to note the accelerating pace of casualness across the spectrum of classes within the western world from people running errands in sweatpants, to the ascent of business casual, to acceptance of hoodies and t-shirts in the board room of some of the worlds largest and most powerful companies all within the past 30 years. Aside from large scale, culture re-orienting events like Cromwell's commonwealth or the Terror in France, I don't know (probably because I am not particularly versed in fashion history, just European history) if I can come up with an example such drastic, wide spread fashion change in such a short amount of time.

Also, I think one can lament the passing of culture (particularly if you have a fondness for it) for passing out of the mainstream. The problem comes in when you look at the successor as being inherently "less than" because it doesn't meet an arbitrary set of standards set by its predecessors or the previous generation. An easy example is music - which although there is a technical side to it, the definition of "good" music isn't simply encapsulated by how sophisticated it is (As far as musicians go, The Beatles have had an emotional/musical/artistic impact on far more people than Mozart has).

 

[dieworkwear]

Overall @dieworkwear I agree with your defense and, particularly the relativistic counter point to @JJ Katz's response. However, I think it is interesting to note the accelerating pace of casualness across the spectrum of classes within the western world from people running errands in sweatpants, to the ascent of business casual, to acceptance of hoodies and t-shirts in the board room of some of the worlds largest and most powerful companies all within the past 30 years. Aside from large scale, culture re-orienting events like Cromwell's commonwealth or the Terror in France, I don't know (probably because I am not particularly versed in fashion history, just European history) if I can come up with an example such drastic, wide spread fashion change in such a short amount of time.

Also, I think one can lament the passing of culture (particularly if you have a fondness for it) for passing out of the mainstream. The problem comes in when you look at the successor as being inherently "less than" because it doesn't meet an arbitrary set of standards set by its predecessors or the previous generation. An easy example is music - which although there is a technical side to it, the definition of "good" music isn't simply encapsulated by how sophisticated it is (As far as musicians go, The Beatles have had an emotional/musical/artistic impact on far more people than Mozart has).

I agree, the rate of change has exploded.

I think part of that is, when you break down traditional forms of dress in the 1950s, you make it possible to wear different things. So the aesthetic space has exploded. Pre-war, fashion wasn't so liberated as it is today.

The marketplace has also become such that there are so many options for everything, people can pick and choose what's important to them. And isn't that great?

I find hobbyists always think their hobby is the most important. If only these philistines and knaves weren't so bamboozled by corporations!

But they rarely consider how they're not interested in other people's hobbies. How many of us care to invest $1000 in a pair of audiophiile approved headphones? Or buy Porches? Or shoot photos with a Leica instead of an iPhone? Frankly, it's not that I'm bamboozled, I just don't care. I also have limited resources, so I have to pick and choose where I spend my money. Much of it goes to fashion.

Again, my guess is that the percentage of the general population today interested in fashion is greater than it was 50 years ago. And 100 years ago. The fashion landscape is richer and more interesting, so long as you have an open mind, just as music today has a richer landscape than it did during Mozart's era. And that allows more people to plug in and find things they identify with.

But it also means those who wish to opt out of a niche can. And we do that ourselves, we just don't recognize it because it's hard to be passionate about indifference. I don't care about cameras, so I don't get worked up about not owning a Leica. I assume some camera enthusiast would think I'm a moron for it.

That's the beauty of liberalism, you can choose for yourself.

 

[dieworkwear]

You say that we live in a golden age of aesthetics, if only one accepts that Las Vegas, Crocs, Lululemon, reality TV, Escalades, Taylor Swift and Jeff Koons are not inherently inferior to Baroque Rome, brogues, suits, Channel 4, 1930s cars, Mozart and Caravaggio.

Regarding Golden Age of aesthetics, something came to mind.

If you were based in California in the 1950s, your options -- even just in classic clothing -- were mostly limited to RTW Italian and trad.

Today, you can still get those looks. Mercer will make you original 1960s style Brooks Button downs. Rancourt makes replicas of Bass Weejuns. Chipp has patchwork madras and tweed jackets. Brooks still has great suits. O'Connell's beautiful Shetlands. And so forth.

In fact, you can recreate almost any look from any era, so long as you're committed.

But, if you don't want those things, you can also order almost anything that would have been previously unavailable to Californians in the 1950s. There are three firms that visit here who can make drape-cut English suits. All the major West End shoemakers visit, whereas before it was mostly just Lobb and Peal. In Los Angeles, you can order a bespoke suit from Rubinacci. London and Hong Kong shirtmakers come here. And if you have an internet connection, you can order something called Austro Hungarian shoes, which I don't think anyone in California would have even been familiar with in the 1950s.

For just classic style alone, the world is a richer and more interesting place. So long as you're OK with letting others be, you get to enjoy more things.

 

[emptym]

What if you like suits but you also don't like sticking out or being labeled conservative because of your dress? Not really an option in CA anymore, except perhaps in very small circles, like Styleforum meetups.

Don't get me wrong. I love diversity. But if you can wear whatever you want at any time and place, then everywhere is the same. The stripmall-ization of the US and then the world.

 

[dieworkwear]

What if you like suits but you also don't like sticking out or being labeled conservative because of your dress? Not really an option in CA anymore, except perhaps in very small circles, like Styleforum meetups.

Don't get me wrong. I love diversity. But if you can wear whatever you want at any time and place, then everywhere is the same. The stripmall-ization of the US and then the world.

I agree. In place of hard dress codes, we now just have soft dress norms. But the upside is that you can break those norms with reasonably little punishment. I think people often overestimate the consequences of sticking out a little. You'll look a little odd at first, but the good thing is that most people in the end will judge you on your character, not your clothes.

In fact, the places with freer dress norms tend to be places that are even ore liberal, not less. So California, New York, Washington, etc.

 

[WhyUEarly]

Personally I love discussions like these. It's rare for me to find friends in real life where I can have these sorts of fairly intellectual conversations. Overall, I'm heavily in agreement with Derek, which is also why I love his writing in DieWorkWear in general.

Before I add my 2 cents, I will note that I am not as well-grounded in philosophy as Derek and OP and my view is perhaps more colored by a geopolitical and historical perspective from my own educational background. For anyone interested in this post and topic, I highly recommend Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he talks about the particular characteristics of democracy and why it works in the United States. A related book would be "Terror and Liberalism" by Paul Berman.

My biggest issue with OP's statements is the use of the word "inevitable". Derek lays a good argument for the forces that motivate and favor the decline in the suit, but Derek never claims it's inevitable. Nothing is inevitable. Maybe next season, it'll be #menswear2.0 and we will all be wearing suits in 10 years. Secondly, I feel like OP's arguments rest upon his view of the relationship between liberalism and power(hard or soft) which I hope to address a bit in this post.

Like Derek said, America reveres the common man. In post-war era, the U.S. become culturally dominant and the stereotypically American ideal of the upstart. Of course, the U.S. merely picked up the baton from Britain, which was the most politically egalitarian power in Europe and the dominant world power in the 19th century (not to diminish German liberalism). Thus, many adopted American style dress. How we dress is rife with symbolism whether we like it or not.

Moving onto the main issue of the decline of suits in the post-war era, like Derek argued, the Culture Wars are an example of liberalism at work. It become en vogue to question and ponder the purpose/propriety of the country's action? These actions included WW2, Korean War, civil rights movement, democracy/communism and Vietnam War. Of course, military uniforms go hand in hand with war. So rejection of conformity in dress was part of this rebellion. Similarly, the diversity in dress in democratic U.S.A. can be contrasted with the ubiquitous Mao suit in Communist Asia. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, American soft power was at a nadir in the 90s. Freedom to dress is merely one of many freedoms in liberal democracy as contrasted with official Communism.

In the next part of the timeline, I will raise a small counterpoint to Derek's point that liberalism is leading to the decline of the suit. With the backdrop of the fall of Communism, in the 90s, as tech companies and the Internet came of age, there was a new group of well-to-do cohort of professionals, particularly out on the West Coast. Also, do not forget the demographic trend of increasing population in the Southeast, Southwest, and West Coast (Hawaii too) of the U.S. at the expense of the Midwest and Northeast. Of course, in the warmer climates of the Cali, the traditional English suit is perhaps not the climate-appropriate dress, hence less popular. It was the increasing American population in warm climates, coupled with the increased cultural influence of traditionally back-office tech professionals, that dampened enthusiasm for the suit. I don't think it's a coincidence that the recent renewed interest in suits comes in the form of southern Italian soft tailoring which is more appropriate for warmer weather.

Overall Derek's post touches upon a deeper more troublesome issue of, "what is tradition, what is proper?" What many of us consider traditional is merely customs and habits that are maybe 50-100 years old? My favorite example is "Italian" tradition. Besides the fact that Italy, as a nation-state, is very young, how "Italian" are things we consider stereotypically Italian? Spaghetti was adopted from noodles from China. Tomatoes were brought over from the New World. The lounge suit is British. Similarly, what are Japanese interpretations of Americana? Is it still authentic? Is the basis of authenticity the location of the maker, the ethnicity of the maker, the training of the maker, the origin of the machines/tools?

Or even more problematic, do each of us, the subjective self, have the right(or proper perspective, whatever that means) to evaluate or judge propriety and authenticity? Because somewhere in history, there were people or an individual who made a decision to adopt a way of dress that eventually become custom.

 

[Andy57]

What if you like suits but you also don't like sticking out or being labeled conservative because of your dress? Not really an option in CA anymore, except perhaps in very small circles, like Styleforum meetups.

I wear a suit several times a week. My co-workers would faint if I showed up in jeans. Recently, I went to a outdoor picnic for the larger team of which I'm a part and started getting texts from people who weren't even there because I was wearing "sneakers". So it's an option in California and not just in StyFo meetups. Actually, a week or so ago I went to a meetup in San Francisco with some esteemed StyFo members. I was the only one in a suit. What does all this mean? I have no idea, except Derek is right that people overestimate the consequences of sticking out a little or even a lot. I realize that my case is not representative. But so what?

I also think that Derek's thesis regarding the centuries-long trend from highly stylized dress or highly ostentatious dress towards more casual forms of dress to be convincing. I also don't believe that in reality, dress is any longer how wealthy people set themselves apart from us hoi-polloi. They do it in much more effective ways, by using their resources to physically separate themselves from us by living in gated communities or penthouses, and by separating themselves in most other activities, social ones or not. The wealthy do not distinguish themselves by dressing differently. Indeed, taste is one thing money cannot buy.

Don't get me wrong. I love diversity. But if you can wear whatever you want at any time and place, then everywhere is the same.

I simply disagree with this statement.

 

[dieworkwear]

In the next part of the timeline, I will raise a small counterpoint to Derek's point that liberalism is leading to the decline of the suit. With the backdrop of the fall of Communism, in the 90s, as tech companies and the Internet came of age, there was a new group of well-to-do cohort of professionals, particularly out on the West Coast. Also, do not forget the demographic trend of increasing population in the Southeast, Southwest, and West Coast (Hawaii too) of the U.S. at the expense of the Midwest and Northeast. Of course, in the warmer climates of the Cali, the traditional English suit is perhaps not the climate-appropriate dress, hence less popular. It was the increasing American population in warm climates, coupled with the increased cultural influence of traditionally back-office tech professionals, that dampened enthusiasm for the suit. I don't think it's a coincidence that the recent renewed interest in suits comes in the form of southern Italian soft tailoring which is more appropriate for warmer weather.

Just to clarify, I do think the decline of the suit was inevitable. I don't think you could have sustained it given how liberalism naturally plays out. Liberalism started with some basic precepts -- distilled, that all men are born equal and free -- and over time, those precepts were ironed out to include women, ethnic minorities, gay people, immigrants, etc. There's a lot I don't like about today's world (like OP, I think it's too individualistic), but I don't think you could have stopped the development of liberalism halfway through. And as those wrinkles were ironed out, I think dress codes naturally become broader, flatter, and more "common."

I agree California has played a big part in shaping today's casualwear culture. I just think that the development of California is very much a story about liberalism.

Central the story of California's tech culture, for example, is the relationship between universities, private businesses, and venture capital. And how else to tell the story of California universities than the liberal culture of constantly questioning authority? Illiberal education systems, such as the ones in China, often don't have the same disruptive power in terms of knowledge creation. The sort of breakthrough research that's done here is very much about liberal education systems and attitudes.

And how to talk about the talent in private businesses here without talking about our liberal attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities? So much of the talent in the tech industry comes from Asian immigrants.

Or the venture capital system, which was a result of the free market that sprung out of liberalism?

That explosion of the marketplace, the options that sprang out of it, our accepting of people from other cultures, and our ever-questioning of authority -- all those things came out of liberalism. And, going back to my original point, also set up the conditions where it would be very difficult to maintain a suit culture.

I also don't believe that in reality, dress is any longer how wealthy people set themselves apart from us hoi-polloi. They do it in much more effective ways, by using their resources to physically separate themselves from us by living in gated communities or penthouses, and by separating themselves in most other activities, social ones or not. The wealthy do not distinguish themselves by dressing differently.

Very much agree.

 

[emptym]

I wear a suit several times a week. My co-workers would faint if I showed up in jeans. Recently, I went to a outdoor picnic for the larger team of which I'm a part and started getting texts from people who weren't even there because I was wearing "sneakers". So it's an option in California and not just in StyFo meetups. Actually, a week or so ago I went to a meetup in San Francisco with some esteemed StyFo members. I was the only one in a suit. What does all this mean? I have no idea, except Derek is right that people overestimate the consequences of sticking out a little or even a lot. I realize that my case is not representative. But so what?

Yeah, it's definitely an option, if you don't mind standing out, which you don't, and that's great. I noticed too that you were the only one wearing a suit and tie last week. A couple of us wore sport coats, but I think you were also the only one wearing a tie. A few years ago, probably all of us would have been wearing a coat and tie, half in suits. But the decline may not just be cultural: I'd probably have worn a tie if it wasn't summer (break). As would have Urbancomp if he hadn't recently taken up motorcycling, Sugarbutch if he hadn't switched jobs, and Gus if he wasn't already in a NM state of mind. I don't know what imatlas and brillopad's excuses were.

I also think that Derek's thesis regarding the centuries-long trend from highly stylized dress or highly ostentatious dress towards more casual forms of dress to be convincing. I also don't believe that in reality, dress is any longer how wealthy people set themselves apart from us hoi-polloi. They do it in much more effective ways, by using their resources to physically separate themselves from us by living in gated communities or penthouses, and by separating themselves in most other activities, social ones or not. The wealthy do not distinguish themselves by dressing differently. Indeed, taste is one thing money cannot buy.

I agree with Derek's main thesis too. I just think there are also disadvantages to the current state. And I agree that money cannot buy taste, but I do think dress is still one way people set themselves apart, though the boundaries certainly are less clear and rigid.

I simply disagree with this statement.

How come?