The New Look–Clothes and the Class Conscious
Whether man originally clothed his body as a means to protect it from the cold and the rain or to ornament himself is a matter for speculation. There are varying views on the subject. In his book, “Man—an autobiography,” Mr. G. K. Stewart suggests that the idea of clothing may have arisen from another cause, the need to protect tender parts of the body from injury. He thinks that man, in a primitive, nude, condition must have exposed to the scratching and knocking of every branch and bush, those tender parts which in other animals are kept protected under the body. The skins of animals and the bark of trees were used to afford this protection. This, he suggests, may have later produced the idea of modesty.
Whatever purpose the first clothes may have served, it is certain that men soon found that dress could be used as an ornament and as a symbol. In earliest times, when the means of life were communally owned, ornamental dress could serve no other purpose than to conform to current ideas of good taste and modesty, and perhaps, to symbolically denote the particular task on which the wearer was engaged, or his abilities and prowess in some given direction. With the rise of private property and the consequent division of society into classes, clothing was used to denote class status.
Amongst the ancient Egyptians the privileged class indulged in elaborate head-dress and embroidered gowns. The slaves wore only a small apron suspended from a belt.
In ancient Greece at the time of Solon and in Rome during the third, second and first centuries B.C. the manner of dress was governed by law. The Romans allowed only certain textures and colours to be used by the peasantry.
In England, during the reign of Edward the Third, elaborate Sumptuary Laws were passed. These were laws against luxury spending and were aimed to prevent those who aspired to rise in the social scale from adopting the symbols of dress associated with persons of a higher rank. Only the wives of knights might wear jewellery. The wives of men who owned land valued at £200 were permitted to decorate their clothes with miniver but not with ermine. Royalty and nobles with £1,000 a year incomes might wear ermine and pearls. Mediaeval society in different parts of the world produced a number of such laws restricting the peasants and early merchant capitalists in their form of dress.
Amongst those who commanded sufficient wealth to enable them to be free from the necessity to work, style of dress was one of the means used to denote that privilege. To such a class, in all parts of the world, industrial or agricultural work, in fact, any work connected with obtaining a livelihood, was considered degrading. Their clothing not only denoted their superiority in this direction, it often denoted that they were incapable of engaging in such work.
“… the lace collars and ruffles of the seventeenth century cavalier . . . Inconvenient to wear, no doubt, but very convenient as indicating that the proud owner did not earn his living by heavy manual work, ergo, that he belonged to a superior social level. So, too. the trailing skirts of the Victorian lady signified that she did not belong to the walking classes.” (“The Art of English Costume,” by C. Willett Cunnington, page 12.)
In another part of the world we find this:
“In Senegambi, rich negresses wear slippers which are so small that the feet do not fit into them, with the result that these ladies are distinguished by a very awkward gait. This awkward gait, however, is considered extremely attractive.
“How did this come about?
“In order to understand this we must first note that the poor working Negresses do not wear the above mentioned slippers, and have a normal gait. They cannot walk like the rich coquettes do, because it would consume too much time. And it is only on account of this distinction that the awkward gait of the rich women is so attractive; time is not valuable to them, for they do not have to work. In itself the gait has no value ; it becomes significant only by contrast with the gait of the women who work.” (G. V. Plekhanov in “Materialism and the Arts.”)
In yet other parts of the world similar fashions have been carried to peculiar extremes. In China, the cultivation of fantastically long finger nails and the binding of the women’s feet advertised the inability of the individual to engage in heavy physical activity.
With the rise of capitalism, and its insistence on the virtues of thrift, hard work and industriousness, men’s fashions took on a violent change. Hence the extremes in dress of the period of the Puritan Revolution. the large be-feathered hats, colourful and voluminous cloaks and slothful looking boots of the landed aristocracy, supporting the royalist cause, contrasted strangely with the austerity in dress adopted by the struggling early capitalists organised for their revolution under Cromwell. But with political power gained the wealthier sections of the capitalist class dropped their condemnations of the luxuries and extravagances of the idle rich.
Many of them were only too anxious to show their wealth and importance by following the fashions of those whom they regarded as their social betters. In 1660 the upper rung of the middle class was caught up in the orgy of extravagance and luxury that followed the return of the monarchy. (Henry Hamilton in “History of the Homeland,” page 98).
The Industrial Revolution completed the establishment of capitalism and the new privileged class adopted the ideas of its predecessors in the matter of displaying its class status. Many of the men were not completely free from the need to engage in commerce, even though they may have had no need to perform industrial work. But they could, and did, portray their class position by dressing the womenfolk à la mode.
It is one of the contradictions of capitalism that, whilst it insists on hard work and thrift as virtues in the workers, the pinnacle of achievement under the system is to be able to command sufficient wealth to enable the individual to spend his life in leisure and luxury if he so desires. And to show the degree of his success m this direction he indulges, amongst other things, in styles of clothing which display his position of social privilege.
The minds of non-class-conscious workers reflect the ideas of their masters. The marks of toil and industry that show on their clothing are removed or hidden. The shiny shoe is cultivated, but the shine on the seat of the pants or on the elbow of the jacket is removed or disguised. That is a mark of industry and is not a thing to be proud of.
In some trades and industries the workers are obliged to wear a kind of occupational dress or a uniform The attitude of workers to this type of clothing is well expressed by Henry Hamilton in a book previously mentioned, “History of the Homeland, (page 112).
“The wearing of uniform curtails freedom or individual taste. Personality tends to disappear in the formal relationship of subordinate and superior, of employer and employed. Hence the general desire during the leisure hours to wear plus-fours, flannel trousers or sports jackets, or anything indeed which will be an escape from the formal clothes of work . . . Girls in factories may be sensibly dressed in overalls and dust-caps, but when they go home they at once assume garments which no longer symbolise occupation or class.”
Capitalist development during the last few generations has had a moderating effect on the fashions in clothes, particularly in relation to women. The two world wars, by drawing women into the factories and offices, have done much to stimulate this moderation of fashion.
“… the hobble skirts, the tight lacing, the lack of exercise which had for long kept the female sex subject to ‘vapours,’ fainting and apparent incapacity for connected effort or connected thought disappeared not to return.” (G. D. H. Cola and R. Postgate. referring to the 1914-18 war in “The Common People,” page 520.) ,
The first world war saw the passing of long hair for women. Long hair with elaborate hair dressing styles had long been one of the hall marks of a woman’s freedom from industrial work. Long hair is a menace in a modern factory. It endangers the wearer by affording prospect of entanglement in a machine. The first tendency was to stuff it into a mob cap, but it was soon found to be more expedient to cut it shorter. Now, long hair is a rarity. The same cause made for alterations in women’s dress designs. Voluminous skirts and restrictive clothing are a hindrance to anyone who must expend physical effort. So skirts became shorter and less cumbersome and other clothing was adapted to the needs of the time. A more practical style of women s dress developed. The more recent war saw an impetus given to the wearing of slacks by women, for exactly the same reason.
Members of the capitalist class cannot effectively preach patriotism to the workers in war time without themselves making some display of sentiment in this direction. Hence, in war time, they are to be found engaging in a variety of tasks that at all other times they would shun like the plague. Their fashions also become modified to suit the requirements of the time. The style of dress of workers and masters becomes increasingly similar. There is little to distinguish the leisured class from the working class.
A year or more ago an attempt was made to remedy this Paris dress designers re-introduced designs calculated to put the women of the master class back on then old footing. Corsets, padded hips, narrow waists and longer skirts became the mode. The fashion magazines gave these designs a boost. The new fashion was heralded as “The New Look.”
Edna Chase who has edited the fashion magazine. Vogue, since 1914 is reported as saying:
“We reflect the way of life of people with wealth, taste and position.” (The Guardian [Australian paper], 12/9/47.)
The “way of life” of such people is a leisured way. Their clothes will reflect that leisure. And many working class women and girls, who hardly know what real leisure is, will endeavour to emulate “their betters” The “New Look,” after initial controversy, has caught on irrespective of its attractiveness or otherwise, it will have its day, until the leisured ones seek a new reflection.
“… A new style comes into vogue and remains in favour for a season, and, at least so long as it is a novelty, people very generally find the new style attractive. The prevailing fashion is felt to be beautiful. This is due partly to the relief it affords in being different from what went before it, and partly to its being reputable . . . That the alleged beauty or ‘ Loveliness’ of the styles in vogue at any given time is transient and spurious only is attested by the fact that none of the many shifting fashions will bear the test of time. When seen in the light of half-a-dozen years or more the best of our fashions strike us as grotesque if not unsightly.” (Thorstein Veblen, “Theory of the Leisure Class.”)
H. G. Wells once imagined a world where, together with transcontinental underground railways, moving pavements and glass-roofed cities, all people dressed according to their fancy. Roman togas went side by side with pantaloons, sandals and shorts walked beside flowing gowns. We may not subscribe to such Utopian imaginings, but we can anticipate that, in a society where the means of wealth production are commonly owned and no classes exist, dress will be determined by new standards. There will be no urge to ornament the body in order to impress others with a display of class status. Any tendency to create an impression will more likely be in the direction of portraying the individual’s social usefulness, certainly not his parasitism.
Will there tend to be a uniformity in dress in a Socialist society? We fail to see why there should be. With every individual free to indulge his or her particular tastes we see no reason to anticipate a uniformity of taste. Rather we would say that capitalism, with its more and more frequent wars, will tend to clothe us in a drab camouflage coloured uniform, till, not only shall we fail to distinguish an individual’s class, we shall have difficulty in recognising one another.
W. WATERS