Style - a phenomenological approach

[Costi]

“Style is what we say about ourselves without being aware we are saying it. In what we put across it is equally significant how we put ourselves across.”
Alexandru Dragomir

(A doctoral student of Heidegger and a great mind, he never bothered to write a single book, as he didn’t think it was essential to him; understanding was. Some of his personal notes were published posthumously by close friends and fellow philosophers in an attempt to recover some of his valuable contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Dragomir)

Under this light, it becomes clear why we cannot MAKE our style, because we ARE our style. We are not fooling anyone. As a corollary of this, we may dress as we please, our style will show through anyway, no matter what manner of dressing we adopt.
There is nothing we can do to make our style speak, it speaks for itself (and about us), whether we want it or not. We cannot silence it, either…
We can, however, cultivate those sides of ourselves that have a shaping effect on our style. It is all inner work, however. There is no access to direct action over our own style. Style is an odour – if it stinks, masking it will only make matters worse, you need to work on its source. Fill your life with beauty, goodness and truth and your style will mirror that. Fill it with worries, sterile thoughts and futile occupations and your style will promptly reflect it.
So don’t agonize about it. Another word of wisdom from this philosopher who wrote as much as Socrates: “Angst is the tailcoat of boredom”. Be glad you were born alive. The choice to “dress” or to “be” is yours.

[Gruto]

I must say that I don't find "phenomenological" to be the adequate word here. To me phenomenology is about intentionality, the body and how we experience (erleben) the outer world, not about how we transmit our spirit to the outside, which seems to be your topic. That said, I agree that we cannot control all the signs that we produce.

[Costi]

It is my understanding that phenomenology is in essence an objective study of the subjective: emotions, perceptions. The "experience" phenomenology dwells on is not that of the body, but that of the consciousness. Intentionality (i.e. what we are conscious of) may well be directed upon ourselves, we can be the object of our own consciousness, thus experiencing our selves (as the quotation proves). Consciousness needn't necessarily be turned to the outside (or physical) world.
Perhaps I could also have entitled this "Style - a phenomenologist's approach". That is what its author was, by formation (Heidegger) and by method. But it is not just a phenomenologist's (non-phenomenlogical) approach, this philosopher makes an empirical observation. There is no reasoning or conjecture that leads to that conclusion. Eminently phenomenological, I should say.
There is an even deeper level of beauty in it, as it is a conscious observation of an unconscious phenomenon

If you accept it is a phenomenological observation, you may take it is a philosophical text. Here is what its author recommends elsewhere:

"About a philosophical text, you need to understand:
1. What it says;
2. Why it says what it says;
3. Out of "why it says", why it says it the way it does;
4. What are the implications of what it says;
5. What it does not say, but lies buried in what it says;
6. What it does not say and does not lie buried in what it says;
After that, you can return and re-read the text at leisure, so you may understand it."