Everyone talks about class in this country they just don’t realize it. In the MB community, everyone has a comment about associations for clothes or people wearing them. Class is a hierarchical structure. I’m teaching myself constantly that clothes give off powerful messages and very different ones. The circle I grew up in might love a jacket of mine and people in a different location might laugh me off my feet. Although, i have to admit, in the USA, the concept of beautiful clothes has spread to a wider range of folks even if they don’t wear it themselves and there is strangely a deeper appreciation.

If you read Manton’s book you will find it replete with class associations both upper and lower, both good and bad. This from someone who constantly chased me around calling me a snob on AAAC (I don’t want this one being expanded by anyone, thanks). But it’s clear that though Americans may not like a snob, and may not like an American snob even more because they think they haven’t the right to it, deep down they themselves yearn to be a snob. So it isn’t that you can’t talk about class in the USA, it’s that you cannot make anyone feel you might be from one above them.

It’s interesting that when I’ve tried to wear the most conservative, plainest things people have still marked me for someone who loves clothes. And that one day when I slip and wear a fancy shirt, that’s it, I’m a clothes horse for sure. It doesn’t take much even in midtown Manhattan to get this label.

People who don’t seem to care about clothes seem to remember mine long after I’ve forgotten. It fascinates me as much as it seems to stick in their memories.

So, to sum up, clothes give messages, strong ones. However the messages change from observer to observer and due to modifiers like time, place and manner. It is unwise to pretend that you know all the associations without being positive, the results can be potentially socially or monetarily lethal. To make subjective assumptions that articles of clothing will have on the viewer is likewise a bad idea. I mean if you absolutely don’t care, then go for it. But those circumstances when you do care and think you are going to elicit a positive reaction and are headed for anything but illustrates the point. Is John T. Molloy still around?

So, if I wear a navy 2 button SB suit with a white shirt and a navy tie with white dots and black shoes, to some I’m a pillar of virtue, to others I am an instrument of oppression and to still others I am old fashioned.

Brummell’s overused quip in our community about not being well dressed if people turn to look is probably insincerity on his part or taken out of context. Whatever the case may be, it does not apply anymore. Just like there was a time when being pale and unblemished was the sign of leisure and then being deeply tanned and now being pretty, the rules have now changed for being well dressed. Being well dressed means people notice you and in city endroits which are frequently crowded with people fighting for personal space, rights and respect, your clothes send that message for you, if chosen properly. This is probably why black is returning as a suit color both in solids and as a base color. It tells people to back the blank off. Alternatively it makes you invisible, like one of those Elvin cloaks from LOTRs.

Last edited by Coolidge (2006-06-28 09:23:49)

Don't read it Ted, it's all about 'topless' women who live in the city.
Tell me more about your Athletic club.
M.

"Peyton Place" was certainly oppressive about the aspirational elements of the WASP class system then at its zenith. The clothing objects were fixed as objects of status desire.

Back in the early '60s there was an African-American street gang that operated on the streets of Chicago's South Side. Their name was the "Ivies" but they were not college-bound. Their clothes were all purchased at Brooks and included gray flannels, blue BD supima shirts, tennis sweaters, and cordovan shoes. Their rivals, the Gousters, had similar backgrounds but wore Continental clothes (Italian knits - think "Rat Pack"). The point is that Brooks doors were open to all, not just Choate preppies, and it cost $8.50 to buy a blue Supima shirt. The clothes themselves say less about the wearer than what we imagine.

There's some classic tom, in here.

manton's basic problem was a confusion about personal identity. I assume he was the child of immigrants. Nothing wrong with that. I am too. all of us are. But he seems to have so gone off on the accountraments of anglo-american style that he concluded: adopting that style was the key to acceptance in anglo-american society.
    The truth is that world hardly exists anymore. And it isn't that hard to join. clothes won't get you there, though they will give you a slight boost. But the green light is always in the distance. The world Manton wanted hardly exists anymore. The kids and grand kids are nothing like the tiny preWWII generation. The world Manton longs for is already gone.
     I have a very, very waspy friend, who when she is irritated with me tells me I'm a social climber. I tell her that mountain has sunk.
     Sol Steinberg owned the Rockefeller Apartment until he lost a somewhat dubious fortune. Now that guy who threw the horrible party and used to be Pete Peterson's partner in Blackstone, i think moved in. Maybe the address isn't that great. Maybe you don't really want to know these people. They couldn't sell the apartments when the building was built. Pete Peterson I would like to meet. Not the other guy. Manton chases after a rainbow that will only lead to another Manton.