THE SUIT- DISPLAYING CLASS AND MASCULINITIES DISCUSS WITH REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, HOW FASHION AND APPEARANCE ARE CENTRAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITIES. ‘Everyone knows that clothes are social phenomena; changes in dress are social changes. It is furthermore said that political and social changes are mirrored in dress’ (Hollander, 1994, p.4). Fashion is capable of reflecting our social status, demonstrating age, class, sexuality and ethnicity. But this can also be played with via such methods as subcultural style and bricolage. During 19th Century England it was believed men gave up the right to elaborate dress for the more sombre suit in order to display social status. Since this time the suit has been used as part of many subcultures and it could be argued that the meaning of this item of clothing has changed as a result. This essay seeks to find whether or not the use of the suit in the 19th century actually denotes the end of fashion for men and whether the suit is still used today to demonstrate class and social status. The concept of The Great Masculine Renunciation came from the work of psychologist J.C. Flugel in 1930. ‘At about that time (end of the eighteenth century) there occurred one of the most remarkable events in the whole history of dress, one under the influence of which we are still living, one, moreover, which has attracted far less attention than it deserves: men gave up the right to all the brighter, gayer, more elaborate, and more varied forms of ornamentation, leaving these entirely to the use of women... Sartorially, this event surely has the right to be considered “The Great Masculine Renunciation”. Man abandoned his claim to be considered beautiful. He henceforth aimed at being only useful’ (Flugel, 1930, p.111). The quote above shows how Flugel unmistakably believed that men had given up all rights to fashionable attire and placed that responsibility solely upon women. Images featuring early 17th century clothing for men show that it was extremely ornate; it included materials such as lace with garters and heeled shoes resembling modern day women’s footwear whereas images showing 19th century dress show men in suits in muted colours without embellishments of any kind. Comparing images such as figures 1.1 and 1.2 demonstrate just how dramatic the change between 17th century and 19th century fashions really was. During this period men started to dress for work and respectability whilst women were to look beautiful and display the family wealth. According to Christopher Breward separate spheres relating to gender and fashionability formed following the Industrial Revolution. “Any supposed male renunciation of the pleasures or responsibilities of fashionable consumption must be linked to that historical development which apparently removed middle-class women from the sphere of ‘industrial’ production” (Breward, 1999, p.6). Influence was taken from the formation of the new middle classes otherwise named the bourgeoisie where a new professional male identity was forged, these males rejected elaborate dress favoured by previous generations. These separate spheres make a clear distinction between male and female fashionable codes and gender identities, men were to dress for work and to look reputable whilst women were to look beautiful, to tend to the home and most definitely not like they worked (see figure 1.3). It is clear that the dress of men Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
changed dramatically at this time and that social identities were displayed via the use of the suit but it has been argued by many whether or not this actually demonstrated men turning their backs on fashionable dress. Anne Hollander was one art historian that rejected Flugel’s ideas of the Great Masculine Renunciation. Hollander believes the suit to be ‘a radical modern leap in fashion (which) proposes an idea of self-perpetuating order’ and is also ‘universally flattering... flexible and almost infinitely variable’ (Hollander, 1994, pp.7-9). In Sex and Suits, Anne Hollander directly challenges Flugel’s ideas, she suggests that taking a hasty look at male and female fashions since 1800 could easily cause someone to come to the assumption that men had simply given up on fashion but this could been seen as false, ‘The truth is that men have never abandoned fashion at all, but have simply participated in a different scheme. Men’s tailored clothes have always been amazingly variable and expressive since 1800, fully as fluid and imaginative as women’s modes; but they have consistently appeared in opposition to the female method, which has effectively put them in the shade’ (Hollander, 1994, p. 22). Hollander then goes on to discuss the style variations to the tailored suit up until modern day, ‘All the components of male tailored clothing have varied in shape and texture, scope and behaviour... Styles in men’s clothes have merged, separated and rejoined, constantly creating new ideas of what looks right... Modern male fashion has in fact been an impressive achievement in modern visual design’ and ‘like other aspects of modern design, it has been an important illustration of modern views and feelings, as fashion is agreed to be, and not retreat from them’ (Hollander, 1994, pp. 22-23). Christopher Breward agrees with this idea of men having a huge range of styles and adaptations available to them and demonstrates this in his book The Hidden Consumer with a number of fashion plates. Hollander suggests that the suit ‘really started in the later 17th century... but their easy look was overborne by the look of extreme contrivance on the head and feet’ (Hollander, 1994, p.63-64) (See fig 1.4). This quote suggests that rather than man turning his back on the idea of fashion the suit was in fact a progression of fashionable items that eventually lead to a comfortable set of garments that would envelope a man’s body but not restrict any movement. The idea that the suit was a fashionable garment can also be seen in its use in subcultural styles. The suit has been a fundamental part of many British subcultures and it could be argued that this has caused the messages of class it displays to be distorted. Suits were first seen to alter class distinctions via the use of the Zoot suit. Zoot suits were worn by immigrants coming into Britain following the Second World War and would go on to influence the use of the suit in the Teddy Boy subculture. Zoot suits were considered to be a luxury item in America due to the amount of material used; it was thought that this material should go into the war effort. The Zoot suit also became synonymous with Italian/American gangsters, again contradicting the suggestion of class that the suit originally displayed. The Zoot suit consisted of long length drape jackets with wide lapels and padded shoulders and wide, tight cuffed, peg legged trousers (See figure 1.5). The influence of the Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
Zoot suit can be clearly seen in the clothing choices of Teddy Boys, despite the regular conflicts between the immigrants and the Teds. ‘Teddy Boys date back to the late forties when, following the war, a generation of youngsters with money to burn appropriated Edwardian (Teddy) clothing style currently in fashion on Savile Row and cranked it up a notch. In the beginning there were drapes and drainpipe trousers. Then that look was customised; the drapes with collar, cuff and pocket trimmings, even narrower trousers, crepe soled shoes or beetle crushers and hairstyle heavily greased into a quiff...’ (http://www.punk77.co.uk/punkhistory/tedsandpunks.htm). Teddy Boys were recognised via their use of the Edwardian Drape Jacket which would have taken influence from the aforementioned Zoot suit (see figure 1.6). Teddy boys used their style as a resistance to the norm to differentiate themselves from traditional working class men in the 1950’s. They placed great importance upon looking good; unlike other working class males in the 1950’s the Teddy boys spent a lot of money on clothing, ‘Teddy Boy clothes were not cheap to buy and when custom tailored, usually cost up to £100 for one outfit. An ordinary mass produced drape coat would cost approximately £20 and shoes £3. So sporting a new suit indicated to peers how well an individual was doing money wise. At this time a Teddy Boy would have earned between £5 and £12 a week’ (Weston Thomas, http://www.fashion-era.com/1950s/1950s_4_teenagers_teddy_boys.htm). This information on the costs of the Teddy Boy look has been very hard to come across and so the credibility of this information is uncertain, one thing that is certain though is that Teddy Boys would have saved up for a number of weeks to purchase a suit; this was something that angered other working class males it was not the norm to spend so much money on clothing and appearance, it was thought that this was effeminate but the Teddy Boys soon gained a reputation for violence and racism. The Teddy Boys were the first youth subculture to gain notoriety due to violence and intimidation. The Teds challenged class distinctions and social status with the use of the suit and their use of violence helped them to cause controversy amongst those in high status. Teddy Boys were seen to be detrimental to British society but all the while intimidating or mocking the look of Edwardian High classes. ‘This “proletarianisation” of an upper-class style of dress was no mere stylistic flourish: it expressed Jefferson argues, both the reality and the aspirations of the group (Jefferson, 1993, p.81). ‘... the teddy boy’s theft and transformation of the Edwardian style revived in the early 1950’s by Savile Row for wealthy young men about town can be construed as an act of bricolage’ (Hebdige, 1979, p.104). It is clear to see that the Teddy Boys used the suit to display altered class distinctions, they were displaying what they were aiming for, they knew they were part of the lower classes of society and yet used the suit to show their resistance to this class system. Here the suit has shown social identity in relation to class but not as we would expect it, this is something that could also be expected of modern day tailoring. Since entering a new century we have seen developments in the fashionability of the suit, it is now used for a huge number of social events and can even be seen on the catwalk. The suit can be found Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
in a large range of high street stores in a growing range of styles. The most recent trend inspired suit style is the skinny fit heavily influenced by Pete Doherty (see figure 1.7). Pete can be regularly seen wearing suits in his own particular style that is emulated by many. Pete is well known for the accessories he wears alongside his suits including hats and skinny ties. Pete is renowned for his scruffy look and his personal behaviour and lifestyle choices have gone along way into further adapting the meaning of class displayed. Pete does not use the suit to show is social status in relation to class but does use it to show his social status as band member and carefree bachelor. Topman is one of the leading men’s fashion lead high street stores and they have a huge range of suits available featuring suits in all shapes and colours with even bright shades such as pink and aqua blue (see figure 1.8). Savile Row tailors are now aiming their custom products at ‘young, style-savvy clientele’ (The Sunday Times, 2010) and even Doctor Who wears a suit jacket and bow tie (Evening News, 2010) (See image 1.9). It can be argued that now the suit has new meaning, it is no longer just used for the office and formal events but also for nights out and fashionable daytime dress, the suit is now open to all classes and available in all price ranges (see image 2.0) which has therefore altered the idea of class that it previously expressed. This essay has looked at the use of the suit between the 17th century and the modern day in order to see if the cultural references to class that it is renowned for, still applies today. The suit has been used in large variety of situations including subcultural style having trickled down from the higher classes during the 19th century. There have been a number of theoretical approaches to menswear including that of Flugel and Hollander who directly challenge one-another’s ideas. Flugel thought that men had given up on fashion all together when they started to wear the suit in the 19th century but Hollander argues that the suit actually originated in the 17th century following a trend for a style of coat. The suit has also been a key part of subcultural style and has in turn changed the meaning that it displays; the suit was used as part of the Teddy Boy subculture to act as a resistance towards the class systems of the 50’s. The suit is also widely available now and due to high street ranges is now open to people of all classes due to new lower price points. It is clear that the suit is used in a number of ways to show social status of gender, masculinities and even ethnicities but no longer displays typical ideas of class.
Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
I. APPENDIX Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.3
Amy-Louise Chapman
Figure 1.4
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8
Figure 1.9 Figure 2.0
Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
II. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Barnard, M. (1996) Fashion as communication, 2nd edition, London: Routledge 2. Breward, C. (2003) Fashion, Oxford: Oxford University Press 3. Church Gibson, P. ‘Analysing Fashion’ in Jackson, T and Shaw, D. (2006) The Fashion Handbook, London: Routledge 4. Craik, J. (1994) ‘Fashioning masculinity’ in Craik, J. The Face of Fashion, London: Routledge 5. Edwards, T. (2006) ‘What are you looking at? Masculinity, Performativity and Fashion’ in Cultures of Masculinity, London: Routlegde 6. Entwistle, J. (2000) The Fashioned Body: Fashion, dress and modern social theory, Cambridge: Polity Press 7. Flugel, J.C. (1930) The psychology of clothes, London: Hogarth Press 8. Fyvel, T.R. (1961) The insecure offenders: Rebellious youth in the welfare state, London: Chatto and Windus 9. Gibson, J. (2010) ‘Doctor Who sets a trend in bow ties’ Evening News (Edinburgh) 20 April:16 [Online] Available at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21 _T9407191269&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T940719 1224&cisb=22_T9407191223&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165414&docNo=3 10. Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The meaning of style, London: Routledge 11. Hollander, A. (1994) Sex and Suits, New York: Kodansha International 12. Jefferson, T. ‘Cultural Responses of the Teds’ in Hall, S and Jefferson, T. (1993) Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in post-war Britain, London: Routledge 13. Luckett, M. ‘Performing Masculinities Dandyism and male fashion in 1960s-70s British cinema’ in Bruzzi, S and Church Gibson, P. (2000) Fashion Cultures: Theories, explorations and analysis, London: Routledge 14. Parker, H.J. (1974) View from the boys, London: Newton Abbot 15. Stubbs, T. (2010) ‘Cutting a dash; Bespoke tailoring is Attracting a younger, style-savvy clientele’ The Sunday Times (London) 21 March:16-17 [Online] Available at : http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21
Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010
_T9407170654&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T940717 0649&cisb=22_T9407170648&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=332263&docNo=15 16. Wilson, E. (1985) Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and modernity, London: I.B.Tauris 17. ‘Francois Clouet, Le Duc d’Alencon, French, 1575’ Taken from: Hollander. A, (1994) Sex and Suits, pg. 49 (See figure 1.1) 18. ‘SUIT-19TH-CENTURY-thumb.jpg’ *Online Image+ Available at: http://www3.fitnyc.edu/museum/TailorsArt/images/SUIT-19TH-CENTURY-thumb.jpg (Accessed 22 February 2010) (See figure 1.2) 19. ‘Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, French fashion print, c.1778’ Taken from: Hollander. A, (1994) Sex and Suits pg.73 (see figure 1.3) 20. ‘Jean de St-Jean, Habit d’epee, French fashion print, 1685’ Taken from: Hollander. A, (1994) Sex and Suits pg.69 (See Figure 1.4) 21. ‘Zoot Suit’ *Online Image+ Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_suit (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See figure 1.5) 22. ‘Teddy Boys’ *Online Image+ Available at: http://files.myopera.com/debplatt/comments/TeddyBoys.jpg (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See figure 1.6) 23. ‘Pete Doherty’ *online image+ Available at: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01592/peter-dohertystor_1592949f.jpg (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See figure 1.7) 24. ‘Topman suits’ *Online Image+ Available at http://www.topman.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?beginIndex=0&catal ogId=17551&storeId=12555&categoryId=55967&parent_category_rn=38990&langId=1&top=Y (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See figure 1.8) 25. ‘Dr Who’ [Online Image] Available at: http://johnniecraig.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/article-1200883-05c6e1b8000005dc445_468x698.jpg (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See Figure 1.9) 26. ‘Asda Suits’ *Online Image+ Available at: http://direct.asda.com/george/men-sclothing/suits/0408,default,sc.html (Accessed 24 May 2010) (See figure 2.0)
Amy-Louise Chapman
CHA09271929
FDA FMP Online ICHS Essay 24/05/2010