Dress Rules, Custom and Social Sanctions

[storeynicholas]

I have done this article because I feel that there is a lot of misunderstanding around this subject and a good deal of noticeable (but needless) resentment:

http://thenakedapegetsdressed.blogspot.com/

NJS

[Costi]

Perhaps the reason of such resentment is a lack of understanding of the spirit and sense of the rules. In my experience, this lack of a deeper understanding is paradoxically shared by the most arduous sustainers and opponents of the rules. Those who have grasped the spirit of the rules know how to follow them without being a slave to them, as well as how to break the rules gracefully. Ostentation both in obeying the rules to the letter and in stubbornly rejecting them is always unstylish - being pedantic is just as tiresome as being an anarchist. Style is relaxed, not obsessive, demonstrative or defiant.

[storeynicholas]

Fair enough but the essential point that I am making is that what people have started calling (and disparaging) as 'rules' are, except in relation to certain institutions, very far from being anything of the kind and they are just customs and breach of them these days attracts little more than a humorous rebuff and, even then, from a dwindling band of brothers but I think that it is splendid that there is this band of brothers, to whom those who are simply obsessed with 'rule' denotation and breaking will forever be alien; because these rule-breakers and opponents of custom are saying to the world: "My choices are better than those that other members of my group normally abide by." Of course (and importantly) if you don't belong to such a group in the first place, you are not troubled by custom at all. Maybe that is actually where the resentment comes in.
NJS

[Costi]

In terms of groups, I think 60 years ago the resentment was rebelious: "me and my group" vs "the rest of you". Today it has the derisive character of safety in numbers: "you and your group" vs "the rest of us". The way to overcome this is to shift the focus from rules (or even customs) to taste and style, which is the original underlying principle of rules, too. Tastes evolve with society, so perhaps some rules or customs would benefit from an update if they are not to become obsolete. There is also a difference between "I don't know how" (with sub-branches "I don't care" and "I'd like to know more") and "I don't want to" (even if I know how to).

[storeynicholas]

Not to forget "I can't be bothered". However, I still do not really understand the objections to certain customs, which still leave room for an expression of personal taste. For example, I read somewhere about certain American lawyers who refuse to wear a Tuxedo to a black tie 'do'; presumably, on a point of principle: I just don't see what that principle is. The same thing goes for Gordon Brown (remember him still?) and his first speech at the Guildhall. Everyone else was in full evening dress and Gordon pitched up in a lounge suit. Mind you, he buckled under eventually: presumably someone told him that it was a foolish and empty gesture.

We don't seem to have as many laughs around here as we used to but I don't suppose that the topic is going to bring out the laughing box.

[alden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&v=nU_23Vu5-RE

NJS

Just teasing…but that is the way the "band of brothers" is made to appear in today's world.

I think you have used the correct word in the title of your new book, Etiquette. Most of us understand the meaning of this word as being those special ceremonies, places and events where protocol requires that we put our individual Style in our back pockets for an evening and let it shine through the elegant embodiment of a precise and codified form.

Look at a picture of Coward, Niven, Astaire or Gable in full evening dress and compare those to contemporaries wearing the same kit. They stand out from the rest of the celebrities by their inherent and dominant sense of Style, by their personal charisma and charm that could not be contained within the boundaries of form. Wearing clothes that are virtually identical to the others, they succeed in surpassing them. In a world that has become informal, where the balance between form and substance has supposedly moved to the later in favor of the former, we can still attempt to distinguish ourselves in Style. And that is a bit of old fashioned gallantry from the brotherly band that interests me, form that is the embodiment of substance.

Etiquette and its requirement of precise forms is something very different from what most people call sartorial rules these days, the research into and quibbling about micro details that have no impact whatsoever on radiating Style.

Cheers

Michael

[storeynicholas]

Well said Michael; this puts the point very clearly and also shows that 'band of brothers' is probably as unfortuante as my ever having touched on the subject of handkerchiefs!

The trouble is that there is overspill from tweaking the minutiae of dress into the area of messing around with well established dress codes for formal events. As you say, if you dress properly, in one of these 'uniforms' (a well made one, of course), your personality should still shine through; indeed, it might even be said that shining through a uniform in the company of others is a true test of individual style.

The title of Book III (against my wishes) contains the word 'etiquette' and, although there is something in there about it; including a fuller sketch of my earlier thoughts in here on rus in urbe, it is more about the sporting life.

[marcelo]

Nice video that one on London clubs. But Orson Welles suggests: "... and what is even worse - an actor", forgetting that the Garrick was named after an actor and that it had Noel Coward and Laurence Olivier among its member.

[alden]

But Orson Welles suggests: "... and what is even worse - an actor", forgetting that the Garrick was named after an actor and that it had Noel Coward and Laurence Olivier among its member.

He said the combination of "American" and "actor" ruled out his entry.

Michael

[marcelo]

Yes, you are right. But then it occurs to me now that the creator of Winnie the Pooh used to be the one of its members too. I can’t remember the details of the story, but Disney – of all American brands – practically saved the Garrick thanks to the earnings reversed the club.

[storeynicholas]

A A Milne (although not a frequent visitor to the club) left certain book rights to the Garrick and royalties flowed in when Disney made the Winnie The Pooh animations.
NJS