First, leaving aside for a moment any attempt at defining style, I have to agree with Costi that focusing in this congruence between what one is and what one appears to be puts us on the right track of what we are looking for. To follow his lead, I could attest that just a couple of decades ago I could not easily pull off wearing things such as –amongst others- a seersucker or off-white linen suit, a Panama hat or a Fedora, spectators, an onyx ring, even a velvet smoking jacket and slippers at home. These are superficial examples but I can assure you that aging has played the trick. It´s not for me to say that age has graced me with real character but at least it has lead me to the congruence that passes for a manifestation of style.Costi wrote: The experience of style boils down, in my view, to the congruence between what one is and what one appears to be (=has and displays). We often write about "pulling it off" to wear this jacket or that ensemble: one man seems to able to "fill the clothes", while another is perceived to fail (with the same clothes).
Second, just objective congruence does not cut it for me. There has to be also some positive value to it in order to be called style. As in the example of the Massai warrior offered by Michael, behind that congruence we can find the positive values of their culture, good taste, and virtues. I resist the notion of congruence as style in a simpleton (or worse), just because he is what he appears to be.