Harvey Spector and peasants wearing suits: fashion development and wealthy setting the charge (Berger, 35-37)
Harvey looks at Mike with a sneer asking why he didn’t buy a suit. Mike responds that he is wearing one. Harvey asks how much he spent and Mike says five hundred. To which Harvey inquires for how many suits and Mike answers five. Harvey then pulls out a business card of his tailor and tells Mike to go and buy a new suit. Mike shocked listens to Harvey and changes. They were both wearing the same attire but one was more expensive. One was better fabric and better layered. At times it is how the suit fits but for Harvey it is his own knowledge. Even if others didn’t realise he would and that would be demoting. Harvey’s flare for suits is regulatory for his staff but not everyone else.
Suits aren’t in style today. Many wear suits to work but it is job specific. There is a sense of professionalism and tradition that is upheld but that slowly faded away over the years. Wearing a tuxedo or even a suit at a wedding is becoming foreign. A bride still wears a white dress but the groom is quite generous with his attire. Many people still wear dress pants and a button down shirt to look professional but the shirt may have stripes or shortsleeves. The uniform has become a foreign concept in many respects. Shedding authoritarian rules for more flexibility. A sense of individuality and mobility. There is less desire for formal wear. The introduction of more casual clothing but still regarded as nice like khakis and polos grew more common. Why this change is centred in America, it has made waves abroad as well. Casual dress became more acceptable. Some still hold to the suit as the measure of professionalism but that has dwindled in many aspects of society. What once was expected is now at times not even recommended.
Hats are the most notorious. The hat business died out. While there are a few old fellas and young enthusiasts, most of society has rejected them. Wearing a cap was a part of everyday society. It was parcel of the formal dress code. The expansion of automobiles meant that people no longer needed hats for protections. Cars had roofs so people weren’t walking to their destinations and even with public transport, cars were private and informal. Pushing off putting on a cap till work pushed itself off a cliff. WWII was also so bloody that it was a horrid reminder of wearing a helmet during the devastation. Alongside iconic influence from the likes of Elvis, JFK and the Beatles made hatless life more appealing. Fawning their bare head to be the spotlight. Hats are still around. Baseball caps, religious caps and female caps. It is still functional against the sunlight or covering a bald spot. It will always be necessary but its appeal to the masses seems to have lost its edge. People do not wear hats for social reasons (with the exception of a baseball game) as they did in the previous century and more for protection from the sun.
America’s cultural shift was profound. Much of the changes were due to technological advancements. Office life was coordinated in the 1930s away from factories and sluggish work. To sit long hours in an office demonstrated some flexibility. Formality was still at its height but slowly removing one’s jacket for fresh air imploded to not bringing a jacket to the office. As technology advanced intertwined with the countercultural revolution in the seventies all furthered breaking taboos. Old norms of formal wear were long gone. Formal dress was suffocating and inefficient. It did not mesh with the growing office life in the late eighties. Casual has reached the t shirt and jeans maybe even sweatpants in certain regards. It depends where. The look for durability and efficiency is prioritised over some accepted custom. The goal isn’t to look a certain way but to produce a certain way. The youth have continuously pushed these norms. Seeing little meaning in upholding the discomfort of polos and khakis. If CEO Mark Zuckerberg is going to be overtly casual why shouldn’t other teenagers take this as a sign. It is a symbol of priorities and production.
This inverted response by the youth is counter to the peasant response a century ago. Looking like the rich was hope. Wearing unfitting unmodified suits that didn’t fit well and wear quite long. They tried to dress the part even if it wasn’t up to par. They themselves wished to look rich even if the onlooker could tell they were poor. The peasants wished to feel rich. To feel part of the upper class. Mass production enabled suits to everyone. The wealthy found some nuance in tailoring theirs for better quality didn’t take away from the endorsement of suit wearing for the downtrodden. The downtrodden could look like the wealthy. The peasants could be kings. Yet in the same way, there is an interest in gold chains in black culture. Charles and King wore suits but the rise of hip hop demonstrated to their fans that they made money by showing off their bling. It has become a fashion statement but also may display one’s confidence in their monetary collection. Italians do it as well. A recent NBA game showed a drip cam, who had the most big jewellery. In many regards, people buy something to fit into a certain crowd or follow a trend. Lab grown diamonds look very much like a real one but cost much less. For someone who cannot afford or doesn’t care but wishes to partake in the apparent obligation will buy the less expensive but the same item.
Unlike the peasant suits, lab grown could like nicer. One could purchase a bigger fake diamond than a smaller real diamond. It all comes down to the bride’s desire. Her self esteem or her friends’ reactions. There is a stigma surrounding it. That is always with new trends especially one that is about buying a fake for cheaper. Only peasants would by the fake one. The wealthy can afford and will purchase the huge real diamonds for a fortune because they can. Since they are considered to be so important, they are perceived as high esteem. Their rarity shoots up their price but it is their beauty that captures the hearts of man. Yet at the same time rarity is only part of the equation. Supply must also have a demand. Collectibles may not go for much even if there aren’t much of them. It is the public’s interest. Heading to secret island filled with gemstones is a lot of money for the visitor but not for the natives. The interest isn’t there because there is an abundance. Yet buddhists or other ascetics may see gemstones as worthless desirable pieces. Even if there aren’t many gemstones their lack of interest to ascetic practitioners makes their value worthless.
Casual appearance is normative but it may not be for long. The current generation has followed in previous footsteps of recoiling from nicer clothing. Whether it is a social perception or not, even people who wear khakis believe suits are nicer. They may not care to wear dress pants but they are aware. Wearing a tie with a suit enhances its formality, whether or not one chooses to wear one. Since suits are accompanied by formalism and event attire the perception even if ignored still exists. Suits are not a dying breed nor are gemstones. Aesthetics for better or worse are baked into the social fabric. Even if a strong conservative push seeks to overturn the current liberal age, the elder formalist leanings will only be revived.
No comments:
Post a Comment