Formality, Dandification, and how the suit destroyed men’s fashion
May 2016
“Oh, Jeeves,' I said; 'about that check suit.'
“Yes, sir?”
“Is it really a frost?”
“A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.”
“But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.”
“Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.”
“He's supposed to be one of the best men in London.”
“I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.”
-P.G. Wodehouse, Jeeves Takes Charge
In his novelettes of the young British fancy boy and his manservant, P.G. Wodehouse epitomized the last remaining semblance of men’s fashion - the relationship and dichotomy of formality and dandy-ism. Bertie Wooster, in his white suit jackets and straw caps, is the quintessential dandy of the 1920s, and Jeeves, with all his traditional propriety, is formality personified. Throughout the pair's adventures, narrowly avoided engagements, and awkward brunches with Great Aunts, there is hardly a story in which Bertie’s enthusiasm for an extravagant garment doesn’t clash with Jeeves’s “stern sense of propriety”. While these two characters appear to be the exact opposite of each other, the importance of dress in the series brings to light something about men’s fashion. The master and the valet rely on each other, just as do the style of their dress. Formality, “obeisance to established modes of propriety”, when working hand-in-hand with dandification, “panache or strikingness combined with rarity”, creates an elegantly, well dressed gentleman.
Whereas a hundred years ago, well dressed gentleman were plentiful, dandies set the tone for style, and formality was abundant, something has happened since that glorious time to do away with the tradition of men’s fashion. Even fifty years ago, a man would wear a suit and tie to work, and a college student might wear a tweed coat and Brooks Brother button down to lecture. Today, however, “masculine” style has all but disappeared. Most men abhor dressing up and are only willing to do so for a special occasion or if necessity, or a woman, demands it of them. More so than avoiding stylish garments, opting instead for jeans and a t-shirt, it has become taboo for a man to even show any interest in fashion. Nicholas Antongiavanni, author of The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style, says “...a great many men have been convinced that they should not care how they dress, while among the remainder who do care some are enamored of vulgarity, others are plagued by circumstance, and still others do not know how to guard themselves against error; so that equally ill dressed are those who care and those who do not” (Antongiavanni 176). Moreover, many men of today have made the vulgar assumption that “concern for clothing is the province only of hairdressers, choreographers, interior decorators, and the like” and that showing such an affection for clothing might lead others to make assumptions about their masculinity, believing that showing a care in dress would make them appear effeminate (176).
Such assumptions are unreasonable, but nevertheless present. Since all human beings, in decent society, wear clothes, and have worn clothes for quite some time, why is it now considered a solely feminine attraction? And why, when men’s fashion has enjoyed so much variety and panache in the past, is men’s fashion now so mundane and repetitive? In short, whatever happened to men’s fashion?
As with any number of cultural changes, there are a myriad of socio, economic, and political, which have manifested in personal-psychological, reasons behind this change. Many of these changes can be brought back to one main cause, though, which is democracy. Yes, as equalizing as democracy is, it has destroyed men’s fashion. The egalitarianism brought around because of the revolutions, both militarily and industrially, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the subsequent dissolution of the class system, may have destroyed the antiquated traditions and laws of the aristocracy and landed gentry, but it also did away with the traditions that set standards for dress.
The first seeds of this change were planted in the courts of the King Louises. Louis XIV set very specific laws for the court dress of his aristocrats. The sun king transformed Versailles from a dilapidated hunting lodge to a grand palace for showcasing the best of French culture and industry. The French king was very aware that “images had the power to shape perception” and so he set a uniform of luxury and grandioseness for those who represented his reign, his courtiers, which thus influenced the perception of his power (Chrisman-Campbell). In 1668 Louis even passed a law that required his courtiers to follow strict guidelines of luxury, which included wearing three layers of handmade lace from Lyon, square-toed, high-heeled shoes, and powdered white wigs.
By the time Louis XIV’s grandson was on the throne, with his highly fashionable Austrian wife, these traditions of court dress were firmly in place. Based on what a person was wearing, they knew exactly where they stood, socially, economically, and politically. As political turmoil began to grow and the lower classes began to revolt against the inequality of the classes, the members of the revolting parties began to represent their new, egalitarian, ideals by a new manner of dress. These “sans-culottes” needed to stand out as different from their aristocratic adversaries and so wore the English style of dress – full length, straight trousers. Clothing didn’t just symbolize social status, it symbolized allegiance and became “a matter of life or death; riots and murders could be caused simply because someone was not wearing a tricolor rosette and people wearing extravagant gowns or suits were accused of being aristocrats” (History of European fashion). Once the revolution was over and the Bourbon rule broken, the standard of dress began to change and men of all statuses adopted the styles of the “sans-culottes”– heaven forbid they ever be associated with the ancient regime.
This style continued well into the 19th century and by the time the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, so was industrial dress. Men’s fashion became rapidly standardized and by the mid 1840’s dark suits became the primary fashion, as it has remained until today. The Industrial Revolution not only made the fashionable styles much more accessible with inventions like the sewing machine by Elias Howe in 1846, but it also saw the birth of a new middle class. It was now possible for a person to be born to poverty and, through hard work, enter into high society. The class system was broken. Anyone could potentiall dress like they belonged to any class and that meant there wasn’t a need for a standard of dress for the different classes, and if there was one no one felt compelled to follow it. A poor man dressed relatively the same as a rich man, just in less expensive fabrics. According to Antongiavianni this meant that there was no longer a reason to abide to customs and traditions of dress. Whereas in the past, if someone were to come into a bit of money and tried to dress like the great, “these [the great] would rebuke his insolence while his peers would ostracize him out of envy” (Antongiavianni 179). With the introduction of Democracy and the opportunities awarded through industrialization and capitalism, the deference of the people was eroded and they no longer feared offending the great. They would wear whatever the wanted and so the great lost their power, both politically and in the dress market. Without the need for competition, men began to lose the zest for style and were content to wear a plain three-piece suit.
Thus far we can see the reasoning behind the monotony of men’s dress, but Democracy and industrialization cannot be to blame for the decline in Men’s taste. Egalitarianism can very well be blamed for introducing the mundane three-piece suit and the lack of variety in men’s fashion, but it does not explain why men lost the desire to dress up at all and why fashion became a women’s game. In the 19th century and up through the first part of the 20th century there were, of course, a group of gentlemen who still showed a love of style, the dandies. These, too, are now all but extinct.
The dandies of the 19th century were men who paid particular attention to their physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies. Beau Brummel, Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron, and Charles Baudelaire were all part of this particular class of men. According to Baudelaire, the slogan of the dandy was “to live and die before a mirror”. A dandy was not a slave to fashion, but rather an “avatar of style”, because “style changes but slowly while fashion is ever in motion” (Antongiavianni 176). They were the most stylish in dress and in lifestyle, devoted to a “cult of self”.
As we entered the 20th century the prominence of the dandy diminished. The likes of Wodehouse and Fred Astair took over the role of “modern” dandyism, creating a more diluted version that was less about the “cult of self” and more about being a bit more stylish than the other gentlemen at the club. Where as Beau Brummel may have gone so far as to wear a men’s corset to achieve the ideal “wasp” shape, Fred Astair wore an unbuttoned Brooks Brothers shirt with his suits and that was considered the height of dandification.
As with the changes caused by the revolutions, French and Industrial, this change also has a direct political connection. The decline of dandyism, or rather the rise in men’s sartorial distaste, directly correlates to the rise of women’s rights. As with in the past fashion dictating the position of the classes, when there were specific rules about dress it also dictated the roles of the genders. Towards the end of the 19th century and especially in the beginning of the 20th century, more and more women began to challenge these rules and the societal norms. Beginning with introduction of bloomers in 1851 and progressing to trousers, and even in rare occasions full suits, more women began to wear masculine styles – although it certainly was not the mainstream fashion it is today.
In a print from 1901 titled “The New Woman – Wash Day” a woman is seen wearing bloomers and smoking a cigarette while standing with her leg on a chair, in a very masculine pose. Her husband is next to her, not only doing “women’s work”, laundry, but also wearing, what appears to be, an apron over a dress. This role reversal was a popular theme for stereographs in the turn of the century. While it may have seemed an innocent play on gender roles, it hinted at the greater assumptions, and to some dangers, about the logical progression started by the changes in fashion and the emancipation of women. Images like this might poke fun at the changes in fashion, but in reality these new styles shocked society and suggested an impending upheaval in the cultural status quo. If women began to dress in more masculine styles, this meant that they desired more masculine roles, and rights. Wearing masculine clothes was synonymous with masculine characteristics.
There were even women who went so far as to not only wear pants, but completely assume the identity of men through their dress. Billy Tipton, born in 1914 as Dorothy Lucille Tipton, was a famous American jazz musician. At first Billy only presented as a male professionally, since Jazz was a “man’s world”, but over time, whether “simply as a matter of sexual choice or to get work in jazz, Tipton lived the life of a man”, cutting her hair short and wearing suits and ties (Smith, NY Times). Billy Tipton was able to completely change her identity, starting with a change in clothing, which truly speaks to the power of dress.
As the trend for more masculine styles on women increased, and as women began to gain more rights, the same associations began to be made with men wearing feminine styles. Should a man wear a more feminine garment, or show more feminine attraction towards clothes, he would be associated with feminine characteristics. For those who enjoyed the separation of the genders, this was a great threat and so it became incredibly taboo for men to pay attention to dress – it came to inherit the weak, frivolous, materialistic associations it has now. Perhaps, as traditional gender roles began to slip away and women began to have more rights, and began to dress more “masculine”, the majority of men felt the need to assert their masculinity by creating a stigma of femininity around fashion. Or maybe because women dressing as men meant they had some of the same rights, men felt threatened by dressing as women because it meant a reversal of roles. Whether it is one of these reasons or, more likely, a mix of both, it is evident that fashion has a strong power over a person’s identity and the assumptions society makes about him, or her.
The erosion of the class system and the changes in gender roles gave rise to generations of men who no longer desire style. They are content to wear the mundane and fade into a cloud of conformity. Were Jeeves and Bertie Wooster to be around today, both would be shocked at the complete lack of sartorial affairs. Neither formality nor dandification exist in the closet of an average 21st century male. Without the competition of the classes and with the constant looming fear that “affection for clothing might be a sign of something latent”, men’s fashion has eroded into a uniform of docility. This is the unfortunate side effect of the great advances society has made in the past couple of centuries. It is a small price to pay for freedom and equality, but it is a price nevertheless.
Works Cited
Antongiavanni, Nicholas. The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men's Style. New York: Collins, 2006. Print.
Chrisman-Campbell, Kimberly. "The King of Couture." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 May 2016.
Diamond, Jason. "The Literary World’s Most Fascinating Dandies, Past and Present." Flavorwire. N.p., 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 May 2016.
"Fashion During The Industrial Revolution." Old and Sold. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.
Morris, Jacob J. "Feminine Clothing for Men: A Good Look at 18 Seductive Styles." Bellatory. N.p., 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 04 May 2016.
Smith, Dinitia. "One False Note in a Musician's Life; Billy Tipton Is Remembered With Love, Even by Those Who Were Deceived." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 June 1998. Web. 12 May 2016.
“Yes, sir?”
“Is it really a frost?”
“A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.”
“But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.”
“Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.”
“He's supposed to be one of the best men in London.”
“I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.”
-P.G. Wodehouse, Jeeves Takes Charge
In his novelettes of the young British fancy boy and his manservant, P.G. Wodehouse epitomized the last remaining semblance of men’s fashion - the relationship and dichotomy of formality and dandy-ism. Bertie Wooster, in his white suit jackets and straw caps, is the quintessential dandy of the 1920s, and Jeeves, with all his traditional propriety, is formality personified. Throughout the pair's adventures, narrowly avoided engagements, and awkward brunches with Great Aunts, there is hardly a story in which Bertie’s enthusiasm for an extravagant garment doesn’t clash with Jeeves’s “stern sense of propriety”. While these two characters appear to be the exact opposite of each other, the importance of dress in the series brings to light something about men’s fashion. The master and the valet rely on each other, just as do the style of their dress. Formality, “obeisance to established modes of propriety”, when working hand-in-hand with dandification, “panache or strikingness combined with rarity”, creates an elegantly, well dressed gentleman.
Whereas a hundred years ago, well dressed gentleman were plentiful, dandies set the tone for style, and formality was abundant, something has happened since that glorious time to do away with the tradition of men’s fashion. Even fifty years ago, a man would wear a suit and tie to work, and a college student might wear a tweed coat and Brooks Brother button down to lecture. Today, however, “masculine” style has all but disappeared. Most men abhor dressing up and are only willing to do so for a special occasion or if necessity, or a woman, demands it of them. More so than avoiding stylish garments, opting instead for jeans and a t-shirt, it has become taboo for a man to even show any interest in fashion. Nicholas Antongiavanni, author of The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style, says “...a great many men have been convinced that they should not care how they dress, while among the remainder who do care some are enamored of vulgarity, others are plagued by circumstance, and still others do not know how to guard themselves against error; so that equally ill dressed are those who care and those who do not” (Antongiavanni 176). Moreover, many men of today have made the vulgar assumption that “concern for clothing is the province only of hairdressers, choreographers, interior decorators, and the like” and that showing such an affection for clothing might lead others to make assumptions about their masculinity, believing that showing a care in dress would make them appear effeminate (176).
Such assumptions are unreasonable, but nevertheless present. Since all human beings, in decent society, wear clothes, and have worn clothes for quite some time, why is it now considered a solely feminine attraction? And why, when men’s fashion has enjoyed so much variety and panache in the past, is men’s fashion now so mundane and repetitive? In short, whatever happened to men’s fashion?
As with any number of cultural changes, there are a myriad of socio, economic, and political, which have manifested in personal-psychological, reasons behind this change. Many of these changes can be brought back to one main cause, though, which is democracy. Yes, as equalizing as democracy is, it has destroyed men’s fashion. The egalitarianism brought around because of the revolutions, both militarily and industrially, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the subsequent dissolution of the class system, may have destroyed the antiquated traditions and laws of the aristocracy and landed gentry, but it also did away with the traditions that set standards for dress.
The first seeds of this change were planted in the courts of the King Louises. Louis XIV set very specific laws for the court dress of his aristocrats. The sun king transformed Versailles from a dilapidated hunting lodge to a grand palace for showcasing the best of French culture and industry. The French king was very aware that “images had the power to shape perception” and so he set a uniform of luxury and grandioseness for those who represented his reign, his courtiers, which thus influenced the perception of his power (Chrisman-Campbell). In 1668 Louis even passed a law that required his courtiers to follow strict guidelines of luxury, which included wearing three layers of handmade lace from Lyon, square-toed, high-heeled shoes, and powdered white wigs.
By the time Louis XIV’s grandson was on the throne, with his highly fashionable Austrian wife, these traditions of court dress were firmly in place. Based on what a person was wearing, they knew exactly where they stood, socially, economically, and politically. As political turmoil began to grow and the lower classes began to revolt against the inequality of the classes, the members of the revolting parties began to represent their new, egalitarian, ideals by a new manner of dress. These “sans-culottes” needed to stand out as different from their aristocratic adversaries and so wore the English style of dress – full length, straight trousers. Clothing didn’t just symbolize social status, it symbolized allegiance and became “a matter of life or death; riots and murders could be caused simply because someone was not wearing a tricolor rosette and people wearing extravagant gowns or suits were accused of being aristocrats” (History of European fashion). Once the revolution was over and the Bourbon rule broken, the standard of dress began to change and men of all statuses adopted the styles of the “sans-culottes”– heaven forbid they ever be associated with the ancient regime.
This style continued well into the 19th century and by the time the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, so was industrial dress. Men’s fashion became rapidly standardized and by the mid 1840’s dark suits became the primary fashion, as it has remained until today. The Industrial Revolution not only made the fashionable styles much more accessible with inventions like the sewing machine by Elias Howe in 1846, but it also saw the birth of a new middle class. It was now possible for a person to be born to poverty and, through hard work, enter into high society. The class system was broken. Anyone could potentiall dress like they belonged to any class and that meant there wasn’t a need for a standard of dress for the different classes, and if there was one no one felt compelled to follow it. A poor man dressed relatively the same as a rich man, just in less expensive fabrics. According to Antongiavianni this meant that there was no longer a reason to abide to customs and traditions of dress. Whereas in the past, if someone were to come into a bit of money and tried to dress like the great, “these [the great] would rebuke his insolence while his peers would ostracize him out of envy” (Antongiavianni 179). With the introduction of Democracy and the opportunities awarded through industrialization and capitalism, the deference of the people was eroded and they no longer feared offending the great. They would wear whatever the wanted and so the great lost their power, both politically and in the dress market. Without the need for competition, men began to lose the zest for style and were content to wear a plain three-piece suit.
Thus far we can see the reasoning behind the monotony of men’s dress, but Democracy and industrialization cannot be to blame for the decline in Men’s taste. Egalitarianism can very well be blamed for introducing the mundane three-piece suit and the lack of variety in men’s fashion, but it does not explain why men lost the desire to dress up at all and why fashion became a women’s game. In the 19th century and up through the first part of the 20th century there were, of course, a group of gentlemen who still showed a love of style, the dandies. These, too, are now all but extinct.
The dandies of the 19th century were men who paid particular attention to their physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies. Beau Brummel, Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron, and Charles Baudelaire were all part of this particular class of men. According to Baudelaire, the slogan of the dandy was “to live and die before a mirror”. A dandy was not a slave to fashion, but rather an “avatar of style”, because “style changes but slowly while fashion is ever in motion” (Antongiavianni 176). They were the most stylish in dress and in lifestyle, devoted to a “cult of self”.
As we entered the 20th century the prominence of the dandy diminished. The likes of Wodehouse and Fred Astair took over the role of “modern” dandyism, creating a more diluted version that was less about the “cult of self” and more about being a bit more stylish than the other gentlemen at the club. Where as Beau Brummel may have gone so far as to wear a men’s corset to achieve the ideal “wasp” shape, Fred Astair wore an unbuttoned Brooks Brothers shirt with his suits and that was considered the height of dandification.
As with the changes caused by the revolutions, French and Industrial, this change also has a direct political connection. The decline of dandyism, or rather the rise in men’s sartorial distaste, directly correlates to the rise of women’s rights. As with in the past fashion dictating the position of the classes, when there were specific rules about dress it also dictated the roles of the genders. Towards the end of the 19th century and especially in the beginning of the 20th century, more and more women began to challenge these rules and the societal norms. Beginning with introduction of bloomers in 1851 and progressing to trousers, and even in rare occasions full suits, more women began to wear masculine styles – although it certainly was not the mainstream fashion it is today.
In a print from 1901 titled “The New Woman – Wash Day” a woman is seen wearing bloomers and smoking a cigarette while standing with her leg on a chair, in a very masculine pose. Her husband is next to her, not only doing “women’s work”, laundry, but also wearing, what appears to be, an apron over a dress. This role reversal was a popular theme for stereographs in the turn of the century. While it may have seemed an innocent play on gender roles, it hinted at the greater assumptions, and to some dangers, about the logical progression started by the changes in fashion and the emancipation of women. Images like this might poke fun at the changes in fashion, but in reality these new styles shocked society and suggested an impending upheaval in the cultural status quo. If women began to dress in more masculine styles, this meant that they desired more masculine roles, and rights. Wearing masculine clothes was synonymous with masculine characteristics.
There were even women who went so far as to not only wear pants, but completely assume the identity of men through their dress. Billy Tipton, born in 1914 as Dorothy Lucille Tipton, was a famous American jazz musician. At first Billy only presented as a male professionally, since Jazz was a “man’s world”, but over time, whether “simply as a matter of sexual choice or to get work in jazz, Tipton lived the life of a man”, cutting her hair short and wearing suits and ties (Smith, NY Times). Billy Tipton was able to completely change her identity, starting with a change in clothing, which truly speaks to the power of dress.
As the trend for more masculine styles on women increased, and as women began to gain more rights, the same associations began to be made with men wearing feminine styles. Should a man wear a more feminine garment, or show more feminine attraction towards clothes, he would be associated with feminine characteristics. For those who enjoyed the separation of the genders, this was a great threat and so it became incredibly taboo for men to pay attention to dress – it came to inherit the weak, frivolous, materialistic associations it has now. Perhaps, as traditional gender roles began to slip away and women began to have more rights, and began to dress more “masculine”, the majority of men felt the need to assert their masculinity by creating a stigma of femininity around fashion. Or maybe because women dressing as men meant they had some of the same rights, men felt threatened by dressing as women because it meant a reversal of roles. Whether it is one of these reasons or, more likely, a mix of both, it is evident that fashion has a strong power over a person’s identity and the assumptions society makes about him, or her.
The erosion of the class system and the changes in gender roles gave rise to generations of men who no longer desire style. They are content to wear the mundane and fade into a cloud of conformity. Were Jeeves and Bertie Wooster to be around today, both would be shocked at the complete lack of sartorial affairs. Neither formality nor dandification exist in the closet of an average 21st century male. Without the competition of the classes and with the constant looming fear that “affection for clothing might be a sign of something latent”, men’s fashion has eroded into a uniform of docility. This is the unfortunate side effect of the great advances society has made in the past couple of centuries. It is a small price to pay for freedom and equality, but it is a price nevertheless.
Works Cited
Antongiavanni, Nicholas. The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men's Style. New York: Collins, 2006. Print.
Chrisman-Campbell, Kimberly. "The King of Couture." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 May 2016.
Diamond, Jason. "The Literary World’s Most Fascinating Dandies, Past and Present." Flavorwire. N.p., 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 May 2016.
"Fashion During The Industrial Revolution." Old and Sold. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.
Morris, Jacob J. "Feminine Clothing for Men: A Good Look at 18 Seductive Styles." Bellatory. N.p., 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 04 May 2016.
Smith, Dinitia. "One False Note in a Musician's Life; Billy Tipton Is Remembered With Love, Even by Those Who Were Deceived." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 June 1998. Web. 12 May 2016.