During a discussion about a recent article on dress etiquette, I spent some time chatting with an old friend, Bruce Boyer. (Not that we’re both old, just that I’ve known him for years.)
As expected, Bruce was eloquent and knowledgeable with his thoughts, and rather than including them in the article, I thought I’d briefly share some of them here as a bit of a coda to what I discussed in last week’s article.
–
Hello Simon,
For me, sartorial etiquette and manners are historically surrounded by class distinctions, sumptuary laws, and economics.
Historically, when the late medieval world transitioned into the Renaissance in the 14th and 15th centuries, men shifted from feudal warrior knights to court subjects in polite courtly society, and we began to see the ‘civilizing process’ as a guide to how subjects should present themselves in this new world.
There we receive our first study and instruction in manners. I think it’s from Baldesare Castiglione. book of the court This book is not the first book of its time, but it is the best.
It was because of the fluidity and porosity of classes that later more and more books on manners appeared. The 19th and 20th centuries abound, and what they show is the tension between what is considered. elite And what is considered popular culture.
Sumptuary laws, whether written or not, tell us what is prescribed and what is prohibited.
The whole guide could be said to be about the virtues of the middle class in bourgeois society. All of this happens as individuals move up the ladder more freely between what Chris Breward calls “the controlled exercise of self-control and the abandonment of conspicuous consumption.” Think of Donald Trump. The most mocking thing some of his critics say about him is that he is vulgar and vulgar. That is his great sin against upper class Republicans.
To be more specific. The old rule was that we had to. To fit your situation, audience, and purpose: You don’t wear ripped jeans to a fancy dress prom. I never wear a business suit and shirt without a tie. Of course, formal attire followed strict rules.
Today the whole idea of propriety seems ridiculous, and I think that in the future the history of clothing will be seen as a democratic movement towards homogenization. Logically, this would eradicate most rules about class, sexual orientation and ethnic concerns, and we could all focus on sustainability.
Special rules from childhood:
1. Shiny shoes. We’ve been told that it’s a sign of ‘character’ and that HR managers always immediately look into a prospective employee’s shoes.
2. Always carry a clean handkerchief with you.
3. Men’s jewelry should be more than a watch, wedding ring, cuff links, collar bar, and stylish tie clip.
4. I never wore a hat indoors.
5. Men were expected to wear tailored clothes and bundles in places of worship, festive events such as dances and parties, weddings, funerals and anywhere where respect was required.
6. If you were with a woman, you would first take off her outer garment and then your own.
7. Never leave shoes on furniture, whether worn or not.
I don’t think that matters these days. Many women resent them for patronizing them; nostalgia for mud They took over everything they could see. Class is increasingly determined solely by economic status, which makes class even more porous.
