https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1825265616590414000
People who don’t know much about clothes always reduce the topic to trends and status signaling. But clothing can illuminate almost any topic about society.
How did French leaders go from the lavish garb of Louis XIV to the monochromatic sobriety of Macron? You can’t tell this story without talking about the rise of the Second British Empire.
Similarly, how did the suit, once the uniform of lowly clerks and shopkeepers, eclipse the more formal frock coat (preferred by the ruling class)? Again, you can’t tell this story without talking about the emergence of modern bourgeois life.
Similarly, you can’t talk about the first two waves of feminism without talking about how women took up more comfy clothing, such as union suits, the progenitor of t-shirts. And how it became more acceptable for women to wear pants, esp as they took jobs traditionally held by men
The story of mid-century cultural change can also be neatly viewed from lens of clothing. During the post-war years, US culture wars were coded in terms of Marlon Brando striking a rebel pose against The Man in the Grey Flannel suit (which represented The Establishment)
The idea that the suit represented The Establishment, when it was, at one point, worn by non-elites, helps explain how we got the proliferation of casualwear in the post-war period, especially after the civil rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war protests, and Watergate.
Leaders of the Civil Rights movement also understood the power of clothing. Many wore their “Sunday’s Best” when protesting, but when they tried to make inroads in rural communities, they ditched their blazers and khakis in favor of denim to help bridge the class divide
And how can one talk about late-20th century youth subculture: ”punk, skate, hip hop, raves” without talking about the uniforms these youths adopted? Clothing was central to these identities
Ultimately, clothing is a way for us to signal our belonging to a group, as well as our individuality within a group. Even men who pretend to not care about clothing know this. If given a choice between pink and blue jeans, most will have a preference.
A short skirt might be more comfortable on a hot day, but many men won’t wear one because of what they think the choice signals about their gender, sexuality, and other dimensions of identity. (Also, to wear one well, you have to know how to style it, which is about culture)
Our clothes reflect the zeitgeist and express our different modes of identity. They are shaped by sociological, political, and economic changes. The shift from homespun clothing to ready-made industry went hand-in-hand with development of capitalism.
I can’t find the exact tweet at the moment, but I agree with @CoraCHarrington when she said that fashion can be used to look at almost any dimension of society: gender, sexuality, race, class, trade wars, labor rights, material science, and the economy.
I still strongly believe that fashion is uniquely disrespected because it has historically been coded as frivolous and feminine. Similar areas of culture that are coded as “masculine,” such as architecture, do not endure this sort of derision.
When men so vocally express they don’t care about fashion, I feel they just want everyone to pat them on the back for being so much smarter and more substantive than everyone else. But even their wardrobes are shaped by what they think their choices signal.