Conspicuous Consumption

 

Two Kindle books that I've been reading: 

• Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History by Richard Thompson Ford, published 2022. 
• The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, first published 1899. 

Ford's book contains a marvelous number of specific examples about the way that modern fashion for both men and women emerged in around the 18th century, how it has evolved over the centuries, and how a variety of written and unwritten dress codes have tried to control clothing and fashion. Veblen's book, is lastingly famous and often cited; specifically, Ford often quotes Veblen's theories of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste.

Ford's detailed descriptions of how fashion has been used at various times is very interesting. There are some illustrations -- I would have liked to see more. Modern fashion, Ford shows, simultaneously developed from the modern idea of individualism:

"The idea that we are, above all else, individuals, with personalities that transcend our social status, occupation, and family heritage, is relatively new. Individualism emerged in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance—alongside fashion." (Ford, p. 41).

Eventually, as Ford shows, people's use of sumptuous clothing to display social superiority, wealth, and inherited position no longer could be enforced by legal means -- so a different way to signal status emerged:

"Hence the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the birth of a new sumptuary code that inverted the ancient values of the older ones: if the law could not deny luxury to upstarts and the nouveaux riches, then luxury alone would no longer be a sign of high status. From then on—and up to the present moment—a new reverse snobbery declared that too much opulence was a sign of poor taste and low breeding." (Ford, p. 102).  

When I was reading Veblen, I often thought of how his observations applied to the specific historic points made in Ford's book. For example, Veblen says:

"Throughout the entire evolution of conspicuous expenditure, whether of goods or of services or human life, runs the obvious implication that in order to effectually mend the consumer’s good fame it must be an expenditure of superfluities. In order to be reputable it must be wasteful. No merit would accrue from the consumption of the bare necessaries of life, except by comparison with the abjectly poor..." (Veblen, p. 32).  

Early in the 19th century, Ford explains, men gave up elaborate and highly decorative clothing along with wigs and many other accessories, which had been worn both by men and by women. Men alone adopted a more and more uniform way of dressing: specifically, the business suit and very strictly defined formal dress clothing. However, the ostentatious show of wealth through clothing, jewelry, hair dressing, etc. did not disappear, but "men only abandoned the cumbersome and increasingly obsolete symbolism of conspicuous ornamentation to women." (Ford, p. 109). 

Both Ford and Veblen describe how men's clothing created greater freedom of movement in the 19th century, while women's clothing developed in the opposite direction. Veblen, writing while women still wore skirts almost exclusively, wrote: "The substantial reason for our tenacious attachment to the skirt is just this: it is expensive and it hampers the wearer at every turn and incapacitates her for all useful exertion." (p. 56). 

The origins of fashion in the 19th century are very interesting, but even more so is Ford's description of the many uses of fashion in the 20th century, particularly in the defining of political and social change groups in the 1960s and more recently. For example, he describes the 1960s Radical Chic and Black Power movements: 

"Black Power challenged the unstated norms and practices that benefited whites at the expense of Blacks. Black Power sought self-sufficient Black-controlled institutions organized around ideals and values developed by, and suitable for, Black people. Fashion and aesthetics were an important part of the Black Power agenda, a priority reflected in the slogan 'Black is Beautiful.' ... For this younger generation of activists, pride—or lack thereof—in one’s appearance was far from trivial; it was among the most profound political issues facing the Black community." (pp. 182-184).

Ford also points out that "dress and dress codes have been a surprisingly important part of the struggle for racial justice," and talks about the choice of the early civil rights demonstrators to wear their best and most conformist clothing when participating in marches or sit-ins. Through this choice, they commanded the respect of the witnesses to their struggle and their demands for fair treatment. (p. 211).

In the author's own very recent experience, conforming to expectations at interviews for jobs or college can be an important way that non-traditional students can make a good impression -- he writes:

"Even when an interviewer has the best of inclusive and egalitarian motivations, small transgressions of style can affect an all-important impression. What are my obligations as an educator and mentor to these students? ... Most of our students at Stanford grew up surrounded by professionals—they don’t need instruction on professional norms. But we leave the few who might need it—those from 'underprivileged backgrounds' and 'underrepresented groups' who we congratulate ourselves for recruiting and admitting—to work out a lifetime’s worth of knowledge on their own." (Ford, pp. 210-211).

Dress Codes contains a very large collection of wonderful historic and contemporary examples of groups and individuals who have created their own dress styles, and who have influenced the changes in fashion over time -- or not. For example, he explores the societal meaning of the red-soled shoes that by law can be produced only by one high-priced manufacturer. In contrast, his discussion of the politics of style in regard to Islamic women's headscarf decisions is a deep study of how clothing becomes fraught with many and maybe not consistent meanings: "Its significance was a matter of context and perspective: it could be a defiant stance against Islamophobia or a symptom of a religious fundamentalism; an escape from sexual objectification or a moral fetish for religious misogynists; a matter of free individual choice or of overwhelming social pressure." (Ford, p. 284). 

Very high-status tech workers and similar successful men, Ford points out, can violate otherwise mostly observed norms while less privileged people can't. He observes that "a Black man in a hoodie and jeans is more likely to be treated like Trayvon Martin than like Mark Zuckerberg." (p. 326). Ford also discusses the ambiguity of the term "cultural appropriation," as applied to clothing and other fashion choices, in a very insightful way.

Ford's book is so rich in detail that I really can't do it justice. Let me quote the last sentence: "Even by renouncing clothing, one can’t escape the defining power of dress codes." (p. 374). 

Veblen's lasting classic work is full of very memorable statements about consumption, waste, and human economic attitudes and behavior -- in many areas, not limited to clothing and fashion. Here's one Veblen observation that seems to have become even more true after 12 decades: "The thief or swindler who has gained great wealth by his delinquency has a better chance than the small thief of escaping the rigorous penalty of the law; and some good repute accrues to him from his increased wealth and from his spending the irregularly acquired possessions in a seemly manner. A well-bred expenditure of his booty especially appeals with great effect to persons of a cultivated sense of the proprieties, and goes far to mitigate the sense of moral turpitude with which his dereliction is viewed by them." (p. 38).

I enjoyed reading these two books, and I enjoyed the way that they reinforce each other through many insights that they both offer.

Blog pos © 2022 mae sander for mae food dot blog spot dot com.