https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1835286707169873957
Let’s talk about how the political positions I support, such as greater freedom for all, multiculturalism, and respect for different ways of living, have, in fact, improved fashion. https://t.co/CQqCxwGq4L
There’s a certain kind of mindset, which we’ll call “declinism,” that asserts things are always getting worse. Remarkably, declinists always point to some period in history they believe was the ideal, but was, in fact, a period of decline for some other declinist.
History is full of declinists: Henry Adams, Oswald Spengler, and Arnold Toynbee among them. In the 19th century, Arthur de Gobineau believed the Aryan race would one day be tragically "contaminated" through its contact with the Latins, the Gauls, and other “lower orders.”
The thing that unites these people is a hatred for modern society, no matter the era they lived. For declinists, modernism erodes community life and personal virtue, it levels high-culture and elevates the profane. The past is always the ideal. Fareed Zakaria sums it up well:
I can’t address all the issues raised by declinists. But since I am a menswear writer, and Carl asserts that my political values have worsened the thing I love most, let’s address that question. Has liberalism made people dress worse?
To answer this, we must first dispel with our modern notion of what the suit means. Today, many see the suit as a symbol of sophistication, civility, and respect. But there was a period when the suit was considered the cargo shorts of its day.
In the late 19th century, men in high positions, such as finance, law, and government, wore the frock coat. Those a few rungs lower on the social and professional ladder, such as working-class clerks and administrators, wore the fustian lounge suit (a progenitor to the business suit)
It’s no surprise that declinists of the time hated the suit. Proper “gentlemen” wore frock coats, which were considered more sophisicated and respectable. Samuel Pearson, who wrote about etiquette, lamented the appearance and manners of working-class Englishmen in 1882:
And here’s Bond Street tailor H. Dennis Bradley, who expressed contempt for the suit in 1912.
Then, as now, declinists hated the suit simply because they hated modernity. And, I would add, their fellow human beings. They were grouches and assholes.
It took a great transformation in society for the suit to take on an elevated status, eventually eclipsing the frock coat. The suit was worn by the bourgeoisie, and as that class saw their fortunes rise with industrial capitalism, their attire took on new meaning.
The development of industrial capitalism brought another important shift. In the early 19th century, most people had clothes made at home or, if they could afford one, by a tailor. Ready-to-wear was mostly limited to cheap workwear made for miners, sailors, and slaves.
Industrial capitalism changed this in the same way it changed all modes of production. The combination of labor specialization, technology, and profit-motive transformed homespun clothing into its ready-made opposite. Now we have clothing factories!
This transformed the role of the tailor into three parts: the designer, the pattern maker, and the sewer. Now we have someone who specializes in just designing. This put the fuel into creativity.
This organizational development was concurrent with another important development. Namely, marginalized groups in the 20th century rallying for greater freedom: the civil rights movement, feminist movement, gay rights movement, etc.
The biggest theme of 20th cent. fashion is how fashion influence shifted from just those with financial capital to those with cultural capital. And how various subcultural groups formed their own fashion, rather than just trying to copy a rich WASP or a king. https://t.co/n6iQitmdMa
We’ve reached an age where there’s a full kaleidoscope of possibilities in terms of appearance, and the ascendancy of one look doesn’t necessarily displace another. Many looks can exist alongside each other.
For some, this fracturing of a social consensus has made the world uglier, but there’s another side of the coin. Greater flexibility in dress, coupled with a vibrant (often online) marketplace, has made it possible to wear almost anything you want.
Today is the best time in fashion because you can wear anything that’s popular today plus whatever came before it. You can literally wear a frock coat if you want. Twitter trads lament the decline of traditional tailoring, but those store still exist (I know bc I shop there).
By giving people more freedom, we’ve allowed for the development of a wider range of subcultures, which have created their own aesthetics. In turn, this widens and deepens the pool of inspiration from which designers and consumers can draw from.
A lot of my style inspiration nowadays comes from women who wear masculine, unisex, or working-class styles. Also men who wear feminine or unisex styles. I’m happy to see the whole range of human expression, as then I get to see more cool stuff.
There’s a downside to this new world. If you’re not part of a group that has cultural capital (e.g., punks, skaters, etc) and you’re not very knowledgable about aesthetics, it can be very confusing to know how to dress. Combos can be ugly, incoherent, and without language.
However, I constantly see stylish people in my city. IMO, it helps to appreciate that there are different fashion languages, each rooted in culture. Just as you can speak multiple languages, you can learn diff aesthetics. Or if you only speak one, allow others to speak theirs.
To me, the current fashion system is great because all of these looks can exist alongside each other. And this has been made possible by allowing for freer, more multicultural societies, respecting others, and not being dictatorial about how others should live.
To end, here is a thread by one of my favorite accounts, Paul Fairie. He regularly does these threads about how people have been complaining about the same things for over a hundred years. Here’s one about how no one dresses well anymore