The Official Dieworkwear Appreciation Thread

[dieworkwear]

but also black dandies, have claimed space to use classic menswear as a mode for complex expression--of autonomy, belonging, expression, differentiation, and perhaps of oppression, all bound up together.

Have you read Monica Miller's Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of the Black Diasporic Identity? She touches on some of these issues (was struck by your example of black dandies, as I've been reading her book and that example is very particular). Her book lays out a case for how black dandies have used clothes for both liberation and conformity at the same time.

One of the examples that struck me is the Pinkster and Negro Election Day parades, where slaves would dress to the nines in clothes that were traditionally reserved for their so-called social and racial betters. This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

 

[FLW]

Have you read Monica Miller's Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of the Black Diasporic Identity? She touches on some of these issues (was struck by your example of black dandies, as I've been reading her book and that example is very particular). Her book lays out a case for how black dandies have used clothes for both liberation and conformity at the same time.

One of the examples that struck me is the Pinkster and Negro Election Day parades, where slaves would dress to the nines in clothes that were traditionally reserved for their so-called social and racial betters. This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

The DWW reading list is a thing to behold, damn.

LMK if you ever drop boxes of your books at the Goodwill

 

[WayneLyndon]

Have you read Monica Miller's Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of the Black Diasporic Identity? She touches on some of these issues (was struck by your example of black dandies, as I've been reading her book and that example is very particular). Her book lays out a case for how black dandies have used clothes for both liberation and conformity at the same time.

One of the examples that struck me is the Pinkster and Negro Election Day parades, where slaves would dress to the nines in clothes that were traditionally reserved for their so-called social and racial betters. This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

@dieworkwear isn't this postmodern thinking if anything?

These kind of line of thoughts are not universal and cannot be stretched to outside US, as in the culture bases vary. Basically this is just imagination and attaching meanings where wanted to regardless the meanings are provable or not. This is the main characteristic of the same postmodern you pointed earlier my thinking was, is it not?

I understand that whenever one writes an article about something, he or she has to use two things in it: 1) references of social scientists and their studies and 2) few statistical numbers (like "it is estimated...")

'Science' wants to find something concrete about the world, laws of nature, where you can estimate something happening. Theory is something where you have the math calculations first, then you prove it to be true. For example gravity waves few years ago. Theory is not something people use vaguely "I have a theory" - that is actually just an opinion.

Social sciences can't find anything that sort of - they're just opinions of wise men, sort of mansplaining if you will. Political theories are not theories as they don't hold up at all, not least because times and circumstances of the world changes. That's why we have different 'schools of thought' - no one is right. Think about economics and schools of thought there. Not one has been 'right' ever but failed in many times and many places. Some schools of thought have been right for a little while, until they were not anymore. Usually because actual 'testing' of the theories don't exist.

Social studies are worthless since they are just interpretation of the world, which is fancier word for imaginary. Make a study of "how Donald Trump used Instagram in 2016 election" and it becomes useless in the next election, because all the circumstances has changed in the whole world. Remember studies of MySpace? Feel relevant today?

Social studies have rules, of course. That means it's like rules of a sport, like a hockey game: I can watch game of hockey with a set of friends from Canada and Switzerland and we all understand the setting. The rules are within the studies, not within the reality.

Often times I feel the amount of social studies we have is just that we have a lot of people that needs something to do. It still doens't make it 'true' or factual. Even the old bastard Chomsky himself admitted this in one interview - there is no 'work'. I think it would be hard admitting your lifework is basically worthless. I wouldn't read old political stuff for any other reason than entertaining. 2020s are not 1970s and 2060s will not be same as 2020s. Or who knows? No one.

I tend to use as an example this:

If an alien from outer space would land here on our planet and it was looking at humans, would it think we're crazy in our actions? Everything happens in our heads. We imagine difficulties which are not there, we put thoughts into other peoples minds. Imagine all sorts of stuff that isn't actually there, but exists only in our minds.

" @dieworkwear :
This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.
This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

If this isn't postmodern imaginary I don't know what is.

Writing in the quotation sounds meaningful, sounds like a discovery of something very interesting, but are you really sure it is actually there? If somebody at some point of history actually dressed like that, does it actually mean something? Same time lots of people of said 'social groups' (which again, are not there, those 'groups') didn't go into that dressing mode -which group is more true? If I put on a black tie, dye my hair yellow, travel to the top of Mt. Everest and play there with my ukulele, does it make it... a sign of something? A seed of a theory? A meaning of something? Are we moving towards something? Would the sign be in our imagination or would it be something provable? Does it matter if millions of people who also dyed their hair yellow didn't play the ukulele? Or did, but didn't climb to Mt. Everest? Can you think of any contra-arguments for that social science above?

An alien from outer space surely wouldn't read those meanings in the quotation to the situation. That is in our heads only.

 

[dieworkwear]

@dieworkwear isn't this postmodern thinking if anything?

These kind of line of thoughts are not universal and cannot be stretched to outside US, as in the culture bases vary. Basically this is just imagination and attaching meanings where wanted to regardless the meanings are provable or not. This is the main characteristic of the same postmodern you pointed earlier my thinking was, is it not?

I understand that whenever one writes an article about something, he or she has to use two things in it: 1) references of social scientists and their studies and 2) few statistical numbers (like "it is estimated...")

'Science' wants to find something concrete about the world, laws of nature, where you can estimate something happening. Theory is something where you have the math calculations first, then you prove it to be true. For example gravity waves few years ago. Theory is not something people use vaguely "I have a theory" - that is actually just an opinion.

Social sciences can't find anything that sort of - they're just opinions of wise men, sort of mansplaining if you will. Political theories are not theories as they don't hold up at all, not least because times and circumstances of the world changes. That's why we have different 'schools of thought' - no one is right. Think about economics and schools of thought there. Not one has been 'right' ever but failed in many times and many places. Some schools of thought have been right for a little while, until they were not anymore. Usually because actual 'testing' of the theories don't exist.

Social studies are worthless since they are just interpretation of the world, which is fancier word for imaginary. Make a study of "how Donald Trump used Instagram in 2016 election" and it becomes useless in the next election, because all the circumstances has changed in the whole world. Remember studies of MySpace? Feel relevant today?

Social studies have rules, of course. That means it's like rules of a sport, like a hockey game: I can watch game of hockey with a set of friends from Canada and Switzerland and we all understand the setting. The rules are within the studies, not within the reality.

Often times I feel the amount of social studies we have is just that we have a lot of people that needs something to do. It still doens't make it 'true' or factual. Even the old bastard Chomsky himself admitted this in one interview - there is no 'work'. I think it would be hard admitting your lifework is basically worthless. I wouldn't read old political stuff for any other reason than entertaining. 2020s are not 1970s and 2060s will not be same as 2020s. Or who knows? No one.

I tend to use as an example this:

If an alien from outer space would land here on our planet and it was looking at humans, would it think we're crazy in our actions? Everything happens in our heads. We imagine difficulties which are not there, we put thoughts into other peoples minds. Imagine all sorts of stuff that isn't actually there, but exists only in our minds.

" @dieworkwear :
This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.
This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

If this isn't postmodern imaginary I don't know what is.

Writing in the quotation sounds meaningful, sounds like a discovery of something very interesting, but are you really sure it is actually there? If somebody at some point of history actually dressed like that, does it actually mean something? Same time lots of people of said 'social groups' (which again, are not there, those 'groups') didn't go into that dressing mode -which group is more true? If I put on a black tie, dye my hair to yellow, travel to the top of Mt. Everest and play there with my ukulele, does it make it... a sign of something? A theory? A meaning of something? Are we moving towards something? Would the sign be in our imagination or would be something provable? Can you think of any contra-arguments for that social science above?

Not sure how that's postmodern? Maybe I don't understand how you're using the term.

In the specific passage I talked about, Miller goes into how slaves made satirical songs during these parades about white masters. They wore certain clothes and kind of danced around, mocking them.

I think your characterization of the social sciences is a bit sweeping. Maybe a bit too much to go into here.

Miller isn't in the social sciences, by the way. She's in the humanities and the book is about history.

 

[WayneLyndon]

Reading meanings into situations that aren't necessarily there.

I don't regard the term postmodern highly, since many phenomenas considered postmodern did exist earlier.

Think about an alien (from space) sitting in a bus full of people. What it sees is just people sitting still.

But in their heads the people go through numerous conversations and battles with their spouses, friends, parents, bosses etc.

None of those are true, since they happen in their heads. The opponent of their arguments are not there to actually give a response. It's in their imagination only.

The sentences in the quotation are just that, no matter how fancy one formulates them. Some wanker just put them in a book and now people think that's actually.. what? Valid?

"In the specific passage I talked about, Miller goes into how slaves made satirical songs during these parades about white masters. They wore certain clothes and kind of danced around, mocking them."

I don't question this, I question the interpretation of this and what will be made out of it. Whatever you make of it, it's usually not true. A bit like arguing with someone in your head just to realize when meeting the very same person that "oh, it wasn't like that".

If the meaning of this kind of conversation is purely artistic by nature, sort of leaning into aestetics, that's fine.

History as a field of study has the same problem; one always misses something, leaves stuff out, interprets, constructs, makes assumptions and whatnot, not least depending of the decade he or she lives in. Even history studies has trends and seasons.

PS: also of course you could read the terms 'signaling', 'identity' and such into the category of postmodern.

 

[dieworkwear]

Reading meanings into situations that aren't necessarily there.

I don't regard the term postmodern highly, since many phenomenas considered postmodern did exist earlier.

Think about an alien (from space) sitting in a bus full of people. What it sees is just people sitting still.

But in their heads the people go through numerous conversations and battles with their spouses, friends, parents, bosses etc.

None of those are true, since they happen in their heads. The opponent of their arguments are not there to actually give a response. It's in their imagination only.

The sentences in the quotation are just that, no matter how fancy one formulates them. Some wanker just put them in a book and now people think that's actually.. what? Valid?

History as a field of study has the same problem; one always misses something, leaves stuff out, interprets, constructs, makes assumptions and whatnot, not least depending of the decade he or she lives in.

I don't think that's what postmodern means? Post-modern is a critique of modernism. It's a skepticism of modern institutions, grand narratives, traditions, etc.

Regarding your earlier post about Chomsky, he's also not a social scientist. He's a linguist.

 

[WayneLyndon]

Yes it is - deconstruction the grand narratives and so on... with the few terms I associated it with. Finding new meanings that weren't thought of before etc. The haydenwhites etc. I don't mean what came earlier was more meaningful or truthful, I'm suggesting what came after is also just an interpretation and imagination of the reality, nothing more.

Chomsky yes of course, but he's also written books about politics and been active in that field too. Linguistics I appreciate.

Edit. when I wrote "many of phenomenas associated with postmodernism existed earlier" I meant that - those terms you described above. Postmodern is a bit hollow term, a weapon for silly arguments and could be discarded.

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes it is - deconstruction the grand narratives and so on... with the few terms I associated it with. Finding new meanings that weren't thought of before etc.

Chomsky yes of course, but he's also written books about politics and been active in that field too. Linguistics I appreciate.

Writing about politics doesn't make you a social scientist though. Donald Trump Jr. writes about politics, but he's not a social scientist. I can write about linguistics right now, but it wouldn't make me a linguist.

Anyway, this feels a bit too particular for it to be of interest to the majority of people on this thread. On the subject of clothing, I found Miller's book about black dandies to be interesting. I think it's reasonable to say that, if someone is making satirical songs about white maters, and they're dressed like a fancy white person, and they're dancing around, they're probably mocking them.

 

[WayneLyndon]

Yes, I would say NOTHING makes you a social 'scientist', not how many books you have written or how long have you studied something.

So what has this to do with CLOTHES?

In the way how you in your blogpost formulated the problem with consumer culture regarding shopping of clothes and how it could be altered.

But perhaps at this point it's old news anyhow.

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes, I would say NOTHING makes you a social 'scientist', not how many books you have written or how long have you studied something.

Social science is an academic field. I would say being in the academic field makes you a social scientist. It's a field with particular areas of study and specific ways of studying those things. The issues that plague social science -- and there are many -- are also present in fields like medicine. They are often inherent in trying to understand causality.

One's ability to understand causality depends on the question they're asking. Some questions are easier to answer than others. But every field, including those in the hard sciences, wrestle with causality. A friend of mine is a biophysicist and deals with the same causality issues that would plague anyone studying politics, economics, sociology, etc.

Chomsky and Miller are not in the social sciences nor do they deal with social science theories.

 

[WayneLyndon]

Social science is an academic field. I would say being in the academic field makes you a social scientist. It's a field with particular areas of study and specific ways of studying those things. The issues that plague social science -- and there are many -- are also present in fields like medicine. They are often inherent in trying to understand causality.

One's ability to understand causality depends on the question they're asking. Some questions are easier to ask than others. But every field, including those in the hard sciences, wrestle with causality. A friend of mine is a biophysicist and deals with the same causality issues that would plague anyone studying politics, economics, sociology, etc.

Exactly this, thank you. I have a serious language barrier here and I hate my stupid broken english. Yes, the causality issue is also present in the field of medicine and all those other fields you described. I just think it seriously means something...

Whenever I'm writing in english, my line of thinking starts to follow my abilities in english language.

Regarding 'hard' sciences, I always wonder what that 'hard' part of it means: 'hard men' working? Hard meaning 'tough competition'? Sciences hard to do? Opposide of the sweet and cuddly 'soft sciences'? Is the term sovinistic somehow? Why are social sciences 'soft'? I think there are science and no science. The hard part always makes me laugh out loud and I've asked in my times a few professors and teatchers about it -always got a surprised expression.

If in the field of physics some fellas made calculations, went to the jungle at certain point of time and estimated by their calculations that gravity will bend light and they got it right there, that's nice. I have no ability in 'hard' sciences whatsoever, but that's the one example I always use. That is indeed some solid hard science.

You just did a good summary of my longish point, thank you. A good (and useless) bit of wrestling there.

 

[am55]

Purity

xkcd.com

 

[WayneLyndon]

One more question for @dieworkwear regarding your blogpost:

If your point didn't have anything meaningful to do with actual consumer culture and it was more to do with finding new lighthearted 'reasons' to buy crap, do you think people actually need to find reasons to keep buying?

I mean, do you have reason with yourself, find a good excuse to buy something? Isn't that fooling yourself? Does one really have to create false reasoning to keep buying and buying? After all, we came into conclusion, there's no problem with actual systems we live in, it's a problem with individuals, communities and so on, kind of moral issue. But in that sense I could say I'm actually better person than anyone else and can justify anything I wan't without any considerations of anything and definitely don't need any sob-story attached.

If there is no problem with anything actually, why can't we just keep buying because I liked that product? Do I need a ridiculous reason to buy this and that? Should I make a story of it how this clock belonged to someones grandmother and now it's mine and I will take care of it to the day I die? I would feel I've become sort of idiotic person and think my wife would find it strange too.

Whenever I read something like your post, I think there lies a problem somewhere, otherwise the article wouldn't been there in the first place. A problem is the underlying motive to write and discuss about anything, no?

It's sounds like you (the people, not you diwworkwear as a person) need some new ideology supporting consumerism so you can surpass some evil thoughts "maybe everything is not okay..."

am55: yes those cartoons are funny and meant to somehow show how ridiculous and old this line of thinking is. Well done. Is the joke actually that it is true or where is it? Could someone actually point otherwise?

 

[am55]

.

 

[heldentenor]

Have you read Monica Miller's Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of the Black Diasporic Identity? She touches on some of these issues (was struck by your example of black dandies, as I've been reading her book and that example is very particular). Her book lays out a case for how black dandies have used clothes for both liberation and conformity at the same time.

One of the examples that struck me is the Pinkster and Negro Election Day parades, where slaves would dress to the nines in clothes that were traditionally reserved for their so-called social and racial betters. This performative and social ***********ing was a way for slaves to challenge the idea of who could be a gentleman.

I'm only halfway through the book, but this "social ***********ing" seems to have been all sorts of things -- a way to mock and co-opt certain class signals, a way to rebel and conform, a way to signal both group and individual identity, etc.

I haven’t, but I will. Thanks for the recommendation. Shane White has a recent book on the history of black performance, Stylin’, that’s also on my “to read” list. It sounds like Miller’s conclusions are pretty similar to some of White’s earlier work on the culture of Black freedom in New York.