The Principle of Appropriateness

[jscherrer]

"An indispensable principle of style is the principle of appropriateness. Quite simply, appropriateness means you are dressed in the style most fitting for the environment in which you find yourself.

There are four essential elements of appropriateness: culture, season, event, and personality. Ideally, all four work together in harmony to achieve appropriateness."

http://tailoredandstyled.com/how-to-dre ... -elements/

[rodes]

I agree completely with season and personality, mostly with event and culture. As a society our sense of occasion seems to have deteriorated to such an extent that the norms of modern culture often do not respect the event. As I lamented last summer, I attended a formal wedding, a christening and a funeral. Of the men present, half wore a coat and tie to the wedding, a quarter to the christening, and none save me to the funeral. Was I appropriately dressed? I trust so, yet the majority were dressed in conformance with the norms of modern "culture".

[Frederic Leighton]

Rodes, your notes reminded me of late-Victorian comments about the disappearance of top hat and frock coat. I remember reading in quite a few etiquette manuals the reports of the author standing in Pall Mall, Charing Cross and other parts of central London for one hour, counting the number of passers-by with a top hat and adding notes about how different things used to be just a few years earlier. We might be assisting to a similar change today, who knows.

Although I am one of those considering a tie informal wear (actually, I was expelled once from a pub in central London for refusing to remove my solid-black tie), I must admit a touch of nuisance every time I read about appropriateness. The whole operation also reminds me a bit of last night when I was trying to explain to my girlfriend the unusual, breathtaking colours of the sky above London (here) by text message.

[Luca]

I would like to respond to a couple of points raised by Rodes and F. L.

Rodes points out the well-established fact that “As a society our sense of occasion seems to have deteriorated to such an extent that the norms of modern culture often do not respect the event.” And then goes on to point out that ‘dressing for the occasion’ is outside the modern norm. In the anthropological sense of the word ‘culture’ which, perforce, is entirely relativistic, I think you are glaringly correct. However, if we substitute that word ‘culture’ with a capital “C” Culture or, if you prefer, ‘Civilisation’ the observation changes. Effectively, at least where attire is concerned, most modern people are reverting to barbarism, on their way to savagery, no doubt. I admit there is an element of ahistoricism in the criticism, as your point about top hats and frock coats suggests. I don’t think it is an entirely subjective criticism, however. The change in costume from, say, 19th century frills to Victorian frocks to Edwardian leisure suits implied a change in form but not the abandonment of well-cut, elegant clothes while dropping the suit for sweatpants does.

To F. L, I would say: that if “[you] must admit a touch of nuisance every time [you] read about appropriateness” perhaps it would be useful to again do a simple word trick: change appropriateness for ‘sense of occasion’ or ‘respect through elegance’.

[jscherrer]

"Respect through elegance" is a much more "appropriate" way of expressing the intent of the original post.

The phrase captures the essence of what has been forgotten or lost in today's Culture.

[hectorm]

perhaps it would be useful to again do a simple word trick: change appropriateness for ‘sense of occasion’ or ‘respect through elegance’.

Wouldn´t this imply that an inelegant dressed person is disrespecting the occasion? I believe this would be too harsh a judgement. I still think that you can be appropriately dressed without being elegant, and you could be elegantly dressed (if there is some objective measure) but totally out of context.

[Luca]

perhaps it would be useful to again do a simple word trick: change appropriateness for ‘sense of occasion’ or ‘respect through elegance’.

Wouldn´t this imply that an inelegant dressed person is disrespecting the occasion? I believe this would be too harsh a judgement. I still think that you can be appropriately dressed without being elegant, and you could be elegantly dressed (if there is some objective measure) but totally out of context.

Such a good question, HectorM. My comment was succinct but imprecise.

Let me start by being clearer as to what I meant by 'elegant' in the context of discussing ‘appropriateness’, I would define elegant attire as clothing that in degree of formality, quality and prioritisation of appearance over convenience/ comfort stands apart from what even a dress-conscious person might wear to go to the supermarket or walk the dog. I did not intend ‘elegant’ in the more rarefied sartorial sense in which cognoscenti on this site might discuss details of jacket jetting, say.

By ‘occasion’ I meant a situation or event that we would consider outside of the mundane daily grind of commute, shopping, back-office work, watching TV, etc. It could be a wedding but also just a nice dinner party or a visit to a fine country home.

Given those premises, it is my belief that for each such situation there is a range of standard of dress that constitutes showing a sense of occasion and an attitude of respect. The standard is clearly not as ferociously narrowly defined as in Edwardian England, say, but it exists nonetheless, regardless of the fact that most people no longer follow it. There is naturally a little subjectivity and a great deal of historical context in all this but, a always with aesthetics, not so much as some might argue. In stating this, I am drawing a distinction between the present norm and the more universal (Platonic, if you will) concept. The ‘norm’ is what typically obtains (though, as standards increasingly are ignored and everyone improvises, the very concept of norm evaporates). The concept of elegance (or, if you prefer, appropriateness or formality) is closer to absolute than relative.

So, yes, I do think that attending a wedding (in Britain) dressed in the same way you go to the office and less well than you would dress in court, is bad form, disrespectful, a poor show, tacky, indicative of an unwillingness to make any effort, boring.

What about ‘overdressing’? If by appropriate we mean dressing in a way that underscores the importance and sense of delight you attach to the occasion, then it is almost impossible to think such a thing as overdressing even exists. If by appropriateness we mean doing what everyone else is doing (with the caveat that these days everyone might do something different) then overdressing is as bad as underdressing.

In real life, I would say that if one is dressed so elegantly / formally / expensively as to clearly show up your hosts, they are overstepping the mark. I was once invited to a wedding where the groom, a pretty good friend, explained he would not be wearing a tie. I asked him if he minded if I wore one but, obviously, I wasn’t going to show up wearing morning dress.

As in so many things, I think our forefathers had understood how people work better than we pretend to. They set rather rigid rules that on the one hand seem stultifying but in fact positively helped the clueless and uninterested while the fops and dandies did what they wanted anyway.

The usual caveat: dressing poorly, lazily, tackily is at worst a venial sin. Some of my best friends are aesthetic disasters.

[jscherrer]

The incentive to comply with a norm may indeed by disintegrating, but the norm is still there because it is not based on whim or fashion, rather on enduring principles such as respect, occasion, and appropriateness.

[rodes]

Gentleman,
I am all for the tasteful evolution of dress. As a philosopher in full agreement with Plato, man inherently strives for beauty and dress is but one of its manifestations. Yet what I see today in many camps,"Civilisation" as Luca fittingly terms it, seems to violate this ideal. Today Civilisation borders on disrespect and society is the worse for it. True, I would have lamented the passing of the frock coat and top hat. True, I would be like Mrs. Crowley of Downton Abbey who remarked, "You look like you are going to a barbeque", when her son came to dinner in black tie rather than white. However, the wearing of cut off jeans to a funeral is something else. Here we have not the refinement of aesthetic form, but the careless supplanting of it. There are occasions in life that are special and deserving of special presentation.

[jscherrer]

Hear, hear!

[Ben]

This past Sunday morning I observed some girls entering a McDonalds' outlet in their pyjamas. Plato is of no help to us here; we would be better to found and dedicate ourselves to some kind of Nietzschean commune.

Abandon all hope, for the ship is sunk.

[jscherrer]

I'm glad I'm able to swim! Let's make it to shore and work to rebuild a civilization of style.

[Frederic Leighton]

You are mistaken, my dear Lucilius, if you think that luxury, neglect of good manners, and other vices of which each man accuses the age in which he lives, are especially characteristic of our own epoch; no, they are the vices of mankind and not of the times. No era in history has ever been free from blame.

[vancehn]

You are mistaken, my dear Lucilius, if you think that luxury, neglect of good manners, and other vices of which each man accuses the age in which he lives, are especially characteristic of our own epoch; no, they are the vices of mankind and not of the times. No era in history has ever been free from blame.

It is reassuring to see Seneca quoted so appropriately.

[pur_sang]

FL, thank you for the wisdom. I have never read Seneca, but I love quotes like this, which shows the world around us change, but human nature do not change. I deeply believe in this.

On this topic, I will try to be succinct. As I was reading this post, a thought came to my head. In this age where men can wear cargo pants and t-shirt to just about anywhere, including weddings, funerals etc. The question to me is how did it get to this, and is it right or wrong?

I think the way men (or women for that matter) dress is dictated by 1) how the successful, rich and powerful dress and 2) practicality, these two things might not be in order, and there are probably other less influential driving factors.

If we think how a very rich powerful successful man dress in Renaissance Italy, how will that man see the suit that we know today? Probably ridiculously casual. Wasn't the shirt that we know today initially considered as almost undergarment compared to what they wore at the time in France? So when the King started going 'casual', or more practical, it became accepted. Now this practicality trend never really stopped, that's why tracksuits with loads of pockets are often justified by men for its practicality.

Now the Kings of today, or people the general public look up to are not Prince Charles anymore, even if you ask the general man who loves his suits, he is probably looking more to how David Beckham dress as oppose to Prince Charles or Prince Michael. So when the majority of celebrities dress quite casually most of the time, and mostly badly for the other times, it became very much accepted or the norm for the general public to follow suit. (no pun intended)

Sorry, that was not succinct at all.